LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

So this is how AEG plans to extort $300 million in tax dollars? By throwing in a few bills at a streetcar project?

I somewhat agree with you on this one. It would be highly hypocritical for Jan Perry or Villiagarosa to come out publicly and say that the Streetcar has to be publicly funded due to the City's $350 million budget shortfall, then turn around and throw $300 million worth of public bonds AEG's way to fund the stadium. I'm in support of the stadium, but I'd rather see any public money go to the Streetcar.

[DJM19]

On the Fig project idea: I love the "Best" option! Do it! Make a statement!

On Related and grand ave: I don't mind if they scale the project down as long as they use good design principle. Don't waste space just to use all of it. Use part of it and leave some for future development. I don't think one 20 story building should use the same footprint of 2 proposed 30 story buildings. It will look hulking.

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I somewhat agree with you on this one. It would be highly hypocritical for Jan Perry or Villiagarosa to come out publicly and say that the Streetcar has to be publicly funded due to the City's $350 million budget shortfall, then turn around and throw $300 million worth of public bonds AEG's way to fund the stadium. I'm in support of the stadium, but I'd rather see any public money go to the Streetcar.

The CRA just threw an extra $10 million into a parking structure for the Broad Museum. (http://blogdowntown.com/2010/07/5495-cra-to-put-105-million-into-parking-garage) for 90 extra car spots. Less people will now consider taking the Red or Purple Line to the Broad because "plentiful and abundant parking" exists at the Broad. Bar none ridiculous. It's these parking regulations that are killing the urban fabric.


I fully support the bond to re-build the West Hall. This would actually be a City expense, not AEG's, so why are they responsible?

Also, anybody critical to this investment needs to remember what downtown LA was like before AEG came in with Staples Center. 717 Olympic, Watermarke, Market Lofts, Evo, Luma, Elleven, Concerto, Panini cafe, Ralphs, El Cholo, Bottle Rock, Corkbar, Starbucks, Salon Elleven, Riordan's Tavern, Flower street lofts, etc... and that's just South Park! Yes, AEG did get some nice tax breaks on LA Live! (reduction of bed and parking tax), but look at what downtown gained in return! We actually have restaurants, housing, people WALKING the street. AEG was a huge contributor in our downtown of today. The first new residential high-rise in 20 years was Elleven in 2004....Staples opened in 1999. Coincidence? Sometimes you have to give a great developer some tax or bond breaks in order to get more in return. We back this $300 million bond, maybe we'll finally break ground on the Hard Rock Hotel (the big rumor across from JW Marriott), and a few more hotels in the area. I'd rather see this development here. This is downtown LA, not the freakin' bedroom communities like Industry.

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I somewhat agree with you on this one. It would be highly hypocritical for Jan Perry or Villiagarosa to come out publicly and say that the Streetcar has to be publicly funded due to the City's $350 million budget shortfall, then turn around and throw $300 million worth of public bonds AEG's way to fund the stadium. I'm in support of the stadium, but I'd rather see any public money go to the Streetcar.

The bond is for the West Hall (a City expense)..not for the stadium.

http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/5a330587c6384b5b9235daa0a34fdbc9/US--NFL-Los_Angeles/

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by Sodha

The CRA just threw an extra $10 million into a parking structure for the Broad Museum. (http://blogdowntown.com/2010/07/5495-cra-to-put-105-million-into-parking-garage) for 90 extra car spots. Less people will now consider taking the Red or Purple Line to the Broad because "plentiful and abundant parking" exists at the Broad. Bar none ridiculous. It's these parking regulations that are killing the urban fabric. .

I hafta kinda disagree with that. Unlike the south end of DTLA where there are endless swaths of parking lots dotting the landscape, Bunker Hill adjacent, where this museum is going to be located, actually is quite the opposite. There is definatly parking, but the only surface lot is the one where the museum is to be built. I have parked there numerous times because its the only easily accessed "lot" in the area. Not to mention the fact that since this museum will be a "destination" attraction, many people will drive from far and wide, so the trains wouldnt come into play anyhow ( i know we have the metro and such, but we must play to the audience we have until the audience we want shows up). So parking on site is very important, even if it goes against our "urban" sensebilities. At least its underground parking, like EVERY other city has under their developments.

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by Sodha

I fully support the bond to re-build the West Hall. This would actually be a City expense, not AEG's, so why are they responsible?

Also, anybody critical to this investment needs to remember what downtown LA was like before AEG came in with Staples Center. 717 Olympic, Watermarke, Market Lofts, Evo, Luma, Elleven, Concerto, Panini cafe, Ralphs, El Cholo, Bottle Rock, Corkbar, Starbucks, Salon Elleven, Riordan's Tavern, Flower street lofts, etc... and that's just South Park! Yes, AEG did get some nice tax breaks on LA Live! (reduction of bed and parking tax), but look at what downtown gained in return! We actually have restaurants, housing, people WALKING the street. AEG was a huge contributor in our downtown of today. The first new residential high-rise in 20 years was Elleven in 2004....Staples opened in 1999. Coincidence? Sometimes you have to give a great developer some tax or bond breaks in order to get more in return. We back this $300 million bond, maybe we'll finally break ground on the Hard Rock Hotel (the big rumor across from JW Marriott), and a few more hotels in the area. I'd rather see this development here. This is downtown LA, not the freakin' bedroom communities like Industry.

I was at SC in 1995, and frequented downtown for sports bars and the like. I also moved downtown and have lived downtown since 2005, before everything you listed, save for Flower Street Lofts, opened up. So I'm very familiar with the effect that Staples Center and LA Live have had on downtown, and they have been very positive. I agree with you on that.

However, Staples and LA Live are different than a football stadium, programatically. Staples has events on average of 210 days out of the year, and LA Live is open year round save for a couple of holidays. Farmers Field, in an aggressive - and I mean aggressive estimate, might have 20-30 days of programming per year. While the positive effect of those days will be significant, the site will still be dark over 90% of the year - at the high end of my estimate. So the amount of permanent investment directly related to the building of the stadium (hotels, retail, residential development nearby) will be much more limited to, say a Streetcar, which will operate year-round.

Now, you make the argument that the rebuilding of the West Hall - which would be funded by $350 million in public bonds - is a City expense, and you are correct. It is. But that expense is necessary only to make room for the stadium. Without a stadium, there is no expense. The stadium is the reason for the expense. As it's currently proposed, the debt would be paid off by ticket taxes, and AEG would pick up any shortfalls. That's not a terrible, but it's not a good one. If the ticket tax revenue will be that great, why not have AEG take out the loan, and get an exemption on ticket taxes for the period necessary to pay off the debt? This scenario would have a net effect for the City and AEG financially, save for fact that the City's credit rating doesn't take a hit from taking on $350 million in new debt when it has a single year budget deficit of $300-$400 million. The stadium gets built, the new West Hall gets built, the City gets all the tax revenue from activity around the stadium. This scenario is a much better deal for the City, and essentially a wash for AEG.

These are the kinds of deals the City should be fighting for. Like I said before, I'm in favor of the stadium, just not as it's currently configured. I think there are ways that benefit both parties without saddling the City with additional debt that it can't afford in the short term.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

I hafta kinda disagree with that. Unlike the south end of DTLA where there are endless swaths of parking lots dotting the landscape, Bunker Hill adjacent, where this museum is going to be located, actually is quite the opposite. There is definatly parking, but the only surface lot is the one where the museum is to be built. I have parked there numerous times because its the only easily accessed "lot" in the area. Not to mention the fact that since this museum will be a "destination" attraction, many people will drive from far and wide, so the trains wouldnt come into play anyhow ( i know we have the metro and such, but we must play to the audience we have until the audience we want shows up). So parking on site is very important, even if it goes against our "urban" sensebilities. At least its underground parking, like EVERY other city has under their developments.

There's already a 10 floor underground structure at Walt Disney Concert Hall, 2,000 spaces at California Plaza, 2,000 spaces at Wells Fargo. These garages are empty at night. Even the initial 290 spot was very high for something near 4 lines when opened (Red, Purple - Civic Center, Gold, Expo - Bunker Hill). That is plenty of parking already. Does it really need 380 spots?

You know what's funny...LA complains that everybody drives and nobody takes Metro. Yet, when we build trains we talk about how it will increase ridership, blah blah blah. But yet, when we build parking, roads, doesn't the same happen (increase road usage)? Think about it.

No, not every city builds parking underneath buildings. There's hardly parking in many museums in DC, Chicago or SF. LA just thinks that without parking nobody will come. Well..places like Venice, downtown LA, Hollywood, etc.. prove them wrong. If people are gung-ho for more parking garages...head to Santa Clarita.

Streetsblog proof about high parking ALREADY: http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/01/27/geh...iew-of-parking-on-the-figeuroa-corridor/

[colemonkee]

^ I agree. 290 spots is sufficient for a museum of that size. And Sodha, yes, I agree that the CRA money allocated to increase the parking garage would be far better utilized with the Streetcar.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Farmers Field, in an aggressive - and I mean aggressive estimate, might have 20-30 days of programming per year.

That sounds like a gross underestimation to me if they are able to use the facility for large conventions and trade shows which are typically multi-day affairs. For instance the current American Heart Association convention at the LACC lasts for 4 days. The LA Art show a couple of weeks ago lasted 5 days. The big Microsoft conference coming this summer will also be 5 days. The LA Auto Show is 10 days.

I won't venture a guess as to how many actual days of activity there would be, but AEG is shooting for around 50 events per year. Depending on how many of them are multi-day tradeshows and conventions we could be looking at quite a few days of activity.

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

There's already a 10 floor underground structure at Walt Disney Concert Hall, 2,000 spaces at California Plaza, 2,000 spaces at Wells Fargo. These garages are empty at night. Even the initial 290 spot was very high for something near 4 lines when opened (Red, Purple - Civic Center, Gold, Expo - Bunker Hill). That is plenty of parking already. Does it really need 380 spots?

You know what's funny...LA complains that everybody drives and nobody takes Metro. Yet, when we build trains we talk about how it will increase ridership, blah blah blah. But yet, when we build parking, roads, doesn't the same happen (increase road usage)? Think about it.

No, not every city builds parking underneath buildings. There's hardly parking in many museums in DC, Chicago or SF. LA just thinks that without parking nobody will come. Well..places like Venice, downtown LA, Hollywood, etc.. prove them wrong. If people are gung-ho for more parking garages...head to Santa Clarita.

Streetsblog proof about high parking ALREADY: http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/01/27/geh...iew-of-parking-on-the-figeuroa-corridor/

Whoa...simmer down there sparky,

First..I have passed DOZENS of big ugly parking structures in SanFran, DC has lots of underground parking, and Chicago has towering parking structures in its core, NEXT to attractions. But that wasnt my point. My point is, as much as we would love to believe the "if you build it, they will come" mentality, the fact is, 17 some million people are spread across thousands of square miles without an extensive public transport to reach them, hence, they will drive. I know how my friends from the burbs are. They dont wanna go through a huge "search and seek" everytime they go somewhere, so having dedicated parking at the facility is not a bad thing. How many spaces do they need? Thats for them to decide, but Im not gonna freak out, spit nails, write angry blogs posts everytime someone ads several dozen parking spaces to an, as not yet built, project. As for the thousands of open parking spaces open at night? Yeah, I always plan my museum trips from 9 PM to midnight. Not gonna start an arguement, but Im trying to be slightly practical. Again...IT CAN BE CHANGED.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Whoa...simmer down there sparky,

First..I have passed DOZENS of big ugly parking structures in SanFran, DC has lots of underground parking, and Chicago has towering parking structures in its core, NEXT to attractions. But that wasnt my point. My point is, as much as we would love to believe the "if you build it, they will come" mentality, the fact is, 17 some million people are spread across thousands of square miles without an extensive public transport to reach them, hence, they will drive. I know how my friends from the burbs are. They dont wanna go through a huge "search and seek" everytime they go somewhere, so having dedicated parking at the facility is not a bad thing. How many spaces do they need? Thats for them to decide, but Im not gonna freak out, spit nails, write angry blogs posts everytime someone ads several dozen parking spaces to an, as not yet built, project. As for the thousands of open parking spaces open at night? Yeah, I always plan my museum trips from 9 PM to midnight. Not gonna start an arguement, but Im trying to be slightly practical. Again...IT CAN BE CHANGED.

The piece you're missing is that mass transit needs to be (and is) developed hand in hand with reducing parking. You remove parking, making it difficult for people to park at their destination, and at the same time you give them the means to arrive at said destination in ways besides cars.

And no, you can't even begin to compare LA's level of parking with DC's. I lived in the District for 6 years before moving to LA, so I consider myself as good a judge as any. For one, DC is in the process of removing their parking minimums completely. What is the minimum for LA residential buildings? 2? 2.5?

Secondly, there are next to no parking lots, and I could count the number of above-ground parking structures in the entire District on one hand. DC has strict urban design guidelines, and when a building offers structured parking, its always underground, preventing the parking from screwing up the design of the block.

Lest you think DC "is an East Coast city...LA could never be the same way", I disagree. Metro in DC changed everything. Previous to that, DC had the same driving culture as LA. DC might have a dense core, but it also has some of the most sprawling suburbs in the country, far out into MD and VA. As the Metro system was built out, the culture changed. Now, for suburbanites taking a trip into the city, you'll find that they're just as likely to take the Metro in as they are to drive.

There's no reason the same change can't happen here. There's nothing exceptional or different about LA that would prevent the same sea change from occuring. DC just did it 25 years earlier. LA's Metro is still being built out, and it takes a long time to get people's behavior to change. But it will. In the meantime, the longer we keep catering to the status quo (more, bigger, structured parking, everywhere), the more we'll keep getting the car culture we're trying to get rid of. You build for the city you want, not for the city you have. That's proactive, not reactive planning.

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

The piece you're missing is that mass transit needs to be (and is) developed hand in hand with reducing parking. You remove parking, making it difficult for people to park at their destination, and at the same time you give them the means to arrive at said destination in ways besides cars.

And no, you can't even begin to compare LA's level of parking with DC's. I lived in the District for 6 years before moving to LA, so I consider myself as good a judge as any. For one, DC is in the process of removing their parking minimums completely. What is the minimum for LA residential buildings? 2? 2.5?

Secondly, there are next to no parking lots, and I could count the number of above-ground parking structures in the entire District on one hand. DC has strict urban design guidelines, and when a building offers structured parking, its always underground, preventing the parking from screwing up the design of the block.

Lest you think DC "is an East Coast city...LA could never be the same way", I disagree. Metro in DC changed everything. Previous to that, DC had the same driving culture as LA. DC might have a dense core, but it also has some of the most sprawling suburbs in the country, far out into MD and VA. As the Metro system was built out, the culture changed. Now, for suburbanites taking a trip into the city, you'll find that they're just as likely to take the Metro in as they are to drive.

There's no reason the same change can't happen here. There's nothing exceptional or different about LA that would prevent the same sea change from occuring. DC just did it 25 years earlier. LA's Metro is still being built out, and it takes a long time to get people's behavior to change. But it will. In the meantime, the longer we keep catering to the status quo (more, bigger, structured parking, everywhere), the more we'll keep getting the car culture we're trying to get rid of. You build for the city you want, not for the city you have. That's proactive, not reactive planning.

Again..and for the last time...I AM NOT ENDORSING MORE PARKING...Im simply saying that breaking out the pitchforks for every extra parking space seems a bit ridiculous since the museum is going to fill in one of the hated surface lots.
I trust that you have plenty of knowledge of DC, so yes...its the model we should follow. And yes, we should build for our ideal city, not our status quo. But frankly I dont care much about what they add at the museum when we huge amounts of ugly surface parking throughout DT and beyond.
So Im TRULY sorry for even suggesting that parking is in any way a less than horrible thing. Can we move on now?

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Again..and for the last time...I AM NOT ENDORSING MORE PARKING...Im simply saying that breaking out the pitchforks for every extra parking space seems a bit ridiculous since the museum is going to fill in one of the hated surface lots.
I trust that you have plenty of knowledge of DC, so yes...its the model we should follow. And yes, we should build for our ideal city, not our status quo. But frankly I dont care much about what they add at the museum when we huge amounts of ugly surface parking throughout DT and beyond.
So Im TRULY sorry for even suggesting that parking is in any way a less than horrible thing. Can we move on now?

Didn't mean to harp, and sorry if I misinterpreted you. I tend to rail on parking because its clear to day to me that its the #1 issue that is screwing up the city, and locals that haven't been exposed to other cities can't seem to see whats staring them right in the face.

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Didn't mean to harp, and sorry if I misinterpreted you. I tend to rail on parking because its clear to day to me that its the #1 issue that is screwing up the city, and locals that haven't been exposed to other cities can't seem to see whats staring them right in the face.

Great post DistrictDirt! Especially with your knowledge of other cities, that's very helpful! Yes, I find it very funny (well, mostly sad) that people don't realize that adding MORE parking is just creating MORE reason to drive, not less. It's the same as adding a new rail line, you expect higher ridership for the Metro rail system...so wouldn't the same be expected when you add a new roadway? You think traffic will be reduced with a new lane on the I-405? Nope. It gives greater convenience to drive, because of more space available. If driving was as inconvienet as metro rail, less people would drive and more would take Metro. And no, LA would not shut down. It would change, like DC. Cultural attractions in LA just don't disappear. People still want to go to Hollywood, Venice, Santa Monica, Pasadena, downtown LA, Long Beach, etc... They will make their way there. If people think parking is the # 1 thing people look for, I wonder why the Valley and Santa Clarita are not the hippest joints in Los Angeles?

[dktshb]

Definitely a great post by DistrictDirt. Angelenos have to be proactive and utilize the transit options that they have and change their lifestyle in order for policy to change. I know many of us here have made the lifstyle choice of getting around without a car or car light. There needs to be a mindset change of the people.

[jamesinclair]

Originally Posted by Sodha

I fully support the bond to re-build the West Hall. This would actually be a City expense, not AEG's, so why are they responsible?

Also, anybody critical to this investment needs to remember what downtown LA was like before AEG came in with Staples .......

I just wanted to point out that the "A" in AEG is against high speed rail and finances free far-right newspapers (the examiner brand). Of course those newspapers are first in line to rant against "socialism" and "government intervention". Ironic when he turns around and asks for government handouts.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

I just wanted to point out that the "A" in AEG is against high speed rail and finances free far-right newspapers (the examiner brand). Of course those newspapers are first in line to rant against "socialism" and "government intervention". Ironic when he turns around and asks for government handouts.

Mr. CEO can have his own opinions. He can be against high-speed rail all he wants. He can fund outlets for Right-Wing opinions all he wants. Crazy enough, people can have their own opinions, even if they have billions of dollars.

[ladowntowner]

Methinks there might be a Roski troll in our midst...

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by ladowntowner

Methinks there might be a Roski troll in our midst...

I hope you aren't referring to me. My point was, even if his opininons may not necessarily jive with some of the forums members, he still has done a lot a lot more good to downtown then almost anybody else. So hey, cut him some slack. He won't stop the high-speed rail. He won't convert millions of Americans into a far-right wing mindset.

EDIT: I just realized who 'Roski' was, and that you were referring to the other dude. Awkward... (not really).

[colemonkee]

New Genesis Apartments

From today. Apologies for the quality, taken from my phone.