LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[RST500]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Wrong. Santa Monica is actually filled with Fred, and sort-of Prada (Louis Vuitton, Burberry, Bloomingdales) and Beverly Center actually has a real deal Prada. Every one of the major districts in L.A. (Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica) has their own major shopping street. For Santa Monica, there is 3rd Street. Beverly Hills has Rodeo. Hollywood has the strip. Downtown has no major shopping street. Yes, some people would say that Broadway is that street, but I mean a street that people would want to buy something on. And by people, I mean the people who live on the Westside. The surest sign that an area has reached an agreeable point in the gentrification process is when an upper-middle class person from the Westside comes over, looks around, and say, "Hey, look at that, this area is actually pretty nice). DTLA is getting there, but right now all I think that my hypothetical westsider would think is, "Hey, look at that, this are COULD be pretty nice". Granted, I am an upper-middle class Westsider, and I like downtown a lot, but I am a strange fish when it comes to those things.

Anyways, I am getting really off track from what I came over to say.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/03/but_whats_coming_big_lot_near_staples_in_contract.php

One of the largest deadzones this side of the future L.A. Central development has been sold!



I know not what is going to go there, but I hope it is something tall and not faux-Mediterranean(Palmer, I'm looking at you). The sellers were the South Group, the people who did the (IMO) very nice collection of buildings next to the AT&T Center (Evo, Elleven, and Luma). They won't say who bought the plot of land, or what is was sold for, but it was listed at 30 mil.



This is what was originally going in that plot of land during the Boom Days. I personally liked the old design, and hope that we will get something similar.

Oh, and does comparing DT with Beverly Hills count as City vs. City?

What is the status of LA Central?

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by edluva

i don't think a completely revitalized downtown is a panacea like you describe here.

la just needs a mass transit network focused on the areas mentioned - downtown to samo including weho, hollywood, and bev hills. shopping districts will come or go as they please, but this time, channelled toward ped-oriented growth. yes, connectivity is key.

whether or not downtown la fulfills your vain ideals for it could matter less. as long as it's tied into the rest of these destinations, it will improve. we could talk about individual projects until we're blue in the face, still nothing will change until the way in which the average angeleno travels has.

It may not be a panacea, but it definitely is critical. DTLA is representative of the City of LA. And if we want Angelenos to be proud of "Los Angeles," we cannot leave the City of LA out of that equation (where the name is derived). All the satellite cities in the region that are viewed favorably by the masses, such as SM, BH, Weho, Pasadena, all have attractive downtowns respective to their own little fiefdoms, but none of them are actually called "Los Angeles," so it is not surprising that the LA name has been rejected by many when the satellite cities offer more than DTLA when this region is called Los Angeles, not Pasadena or Beverly Hills. Pride in a name can be as strong as connectivity.

There is plenty of pride in the Pasadena area for "Pasadena." As a result, the area residents often refer to Huntington Library and JPL as being in "Pasadena," even though they aren't in city proper. Same thing with New Jersey residents claiming to be New Yorkers. They are proud of the name "New York" and what it entails. It's like joining a club that you're proud to associate with. It's psychological connectivity which doesn't take too much once you have a designated area representing a city that people find appealing. Most people only think of Old Pasadena, which is only a tiny part of Pasadena. They don't think of NW Pasadena, which is much less attractive because it is dirty and run down (like many areas of LA proper). Or the gross car dealerships, strip malls, and ugly motels that line most of Colorado Blvd once you go east of Lake Avenue.

If you aren't proud of Los Angeles, you won't want to associate with it. And with these satellite cities, they can have a legitimate reason to reject that moniker by relying on their own city boundaries.

This process of revitalizing DTLA and adding more transit connectivity throughout the region is happening concurrently right now, so I think there's a good chance that one day we will all be proud to unify as Angelenos.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

They don't think of NW Pasadena, which is much less attractive because it is dirty and run down (like many areas of LA proper).

actually, lab, the part of pasadena you refer to isn't as looking as even some high profile parts of dtla. One of the major NS streets in NW pasadena is fair oaks, north of old town pasadena. based on google streetview, a good portion of it isn't much worse than this...



but if ppl are going to the convention ctr or staples, they can easily run into this part of the hood, the corner of flower st & venice...



The word "connectivity" is so vague I don't know what it really means. does it refer to connecting deadzones with other deadzones? connecting slums with slums? connecting nice hoods with nice hoods?

Does it mean connecting one part of town with another part through new rail systems? OK, that's a good thing, if only cuz ppl then won't be forced into traffic jams & long commuting times. But will that guarantee the salvation of DTLA? Not too sure about that. As I mentioned before, even when LA had one of the best transit systems in the world----the big red cars----ppl still ended up abandoning bunker hill & then DT in general.

Even though the blue line, the red line, green line & gold line have been up & running for several yrs, & fixed transit in LA is better today than it has been in over 50 yrs, alot of ppl with $$ & businesses still prefer to be anywhere but dt.

some have said we should accept LA for what it is. That it's dumb to be hoping that nice stores & ppl with $$ start becoming a bigger part of DT. okay, if that's the case, then we should also accept the reality that LA is a car crazed city, in love with all its fwys. We definitely have to accept that it won't contain a really decent transit system for another 60 yrs, or before we're all old & gray, or maybe in our graves.

so what do we do in the meantime?

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

We definitely have to accept that it won't contain a really decent transit system for another 60 yrs, or before we're all old & gray, or maybe in our graves.

Uh, 60 years?

I give it 10 years to achieve a level of decency in terms of connecting major regional destinations. I give it 20-30 years to achieve a level of comprehensiveness that will actually enable Angelenos to live car-free.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by RST500

What is the status of LA Central?

Not very good. No news for a while. I'm sure, eventually it will get built, but today is not that day.

[Illithid Dude]

Double post, I know.

Originally Posted by pesto

illithit: My comment really was that the westside shopping streets (other than BH and WeHo) are not filled with Prada and Fred and the like, which is certainly true. There's considerable difference between BH and the shopping streets in SM, Beverly Center, Westwood, Brentwood, etc. These cater to upper-middle shoppers, not the wealthy.

Shopping MALLS (SM Place, Century City, Beverly Center) have the only significant very upscale shopping outside of BH. And even those are very small and downmarket compared to Wilshire and Rodeo in BH (Neiman, Barney's, Saks; 50 designer boutiques on Rodeo Drive and adjacent). But, the key point is that these are not streets; they are malls and therefore not comparable to 7th St. or Bway.

If Barney's and Fred want to come downtown, so much the better. Perhaps one of the long-awaited highrise/shopping developments along Fig would be able to concentrate enough tourists and locals to support a mall such as those found in the Trump or Columbus Circle in NY or many LV hotels. I could be wrong but concentration of that amount of people with money on Bway or Pershing Sq. seems to be a few years away.

You are forgetting one thing: Hancock Park. Very wealthy community, and only a few minutes drive away from downtown. Actually, I think downtown is closer to them then BH. There's a consumer base right there. Also, tourists would be another major draw, and if there is one thing I see a lot of in downtown, it is tourists.

Oh, and Brentwood is pretty darn high end right now. I could think of about a dozen stores that cater to the high-end market. Santa Monica is getting there. Every community goes through a progression, where it starts small, and steadily gets richer until you have millionaires walking the streets. Downtown is going through that now.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Double post, I know.



You are forgetting one thing: Hancock Park. Very wealthy community, and only a few minutes drive away from downtown. Actually, I think downtown is closer to them then BH. There's a consumer base right there. Also, tourists would be another major draw, and if there is one thing I see a lot of in downtown, it is tourists.

Oh, and Brentwood is pretty darn high end right now. I could think of about a dozen stores that cater to the high-end market. Santa Monica is getting there. Every community goes through a progression, where it starts small, and steadily gets richer until you have millionaires walking the streets. Downtown is going through that now.

Don't forget about the San Gabriel Valley. Arcadia, South Pasadena, San Marino, etc. all have wealthy residents (many of them Chinese/Taiwanese) that could add to the buying power of the area to support higher end retail in DTLA if it is revitalized.

[pesto]

I agree that there is a considerable SGV Asian contingency coming DT for the clubs; but I find it harder to picture their parents and grandparents making the same trek when Pasadena is right there, clean and very walkable.

And not to get petty, but Hancock Park is small in population and (I know I'll get heat on this) not for the Neiman, Hermes, etc., crowd (homes are large but much cheaper than Brentwood, BH, Bel-Air; not that many over $1.5M). In any event, why go DT when Beverly Center and the Grove are close and parking is easy?

I'm not trying to be a downer here, just realistic about DT as a shopping area. Like I said, I'll be happy when Ann Taylor, Anthropologie and Forever 21 (or something more eclectic like 3rd St (in LA), Westwood or Montana Ave. show up on the streets.

Hotels may have LV, Hermes, etc., boutiques for the tourists, but again, are the up-scale tourists coming DT? Not for a while, I'm afraid.

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

This thread has been filled with too much nonsensical garbage over the past few weeks and I hope it improves. I'm also sick and tired of someone's obsession with power cables. In any case, I agree with Edluva in that all the communities of Los Angeles need to be connected. I also like his sharp responses that cause other forumers to think outside the box. As far as upscale shopping downtown I believe Los Angeles Beauty once mentioned Pershing Square would be a good location and for the most part, I agree.

THANK YOU!!!! I hate when there are no major project stories to talk about, as the thread devolves into a snippy drivel filled soapbox about everything BUT downtown.
LOVE the comment on the endless power cable fixation...since LA is the ONLY city with power cables (rolls eyes)...I suppose we should devote vast spaces of thread to pictures of them (grins)

And even as I tend to but heads with him, edluva, when the mood strikes, can make valid points, (sans the so called "sharp responses") not the least of which is this fetish we seem to "Manhattanize" DTLA. Manhattan is a unique place, geography dictated its design. Same goes for DTLA.
Comprehensive Transportation will set Los Angeles free, simple as that, and downtown as a result, will prosper. It will never be a NY or Chi-town style DT, its not built that way, but can be a vibrant lead-in for places like Houston, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas and other similar cities.

As far as this news on the selling of the large lot south of LA Central's location, its kinda a big fat "Meh" to me until we see what their going to do.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

I give it 10 years to achieve a level of decency in terms of connecting major regional destinations. I give it 20-30 years to achieve a level of comprehensiveness that will actually enable Angelenos to live car-free.

westsidelife, I'm talking about a system that is like a super version of the red line. iow, a subway that allows a person to go way beyond just wilshire from dt to samo. A subway that also will take passengers to the valley, the south bay & other parts of town.

As for light rail, in cases like the gold line it may not meet expectations & potential. that's cuz it's aboveground, intersects with surface traffic, & due to limits forced on it by neighbors opposed to noise & too much speed, runs too slowly. not sure if the new expo line will encounter some of these same problems.

as things stand, the cost of extending the red line just to westwood, much less farther west, is gonna take all that we've got. There just isn't enough $$ to create a truly good fixed rail system in LA before most of us are old & gray. maybe before we're even 6 ft under.

so if ppl think the city's future is dependent on rail transit, they better be prepared for alot of disappointment.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

westsidelife, I'm talking about a system that is like a super version of the red line. iow, a subway that allows a person to go way beyond just wilshire from dt to samo. A subway that also will take passengers to the valley, the south bay & other parts of town.

As for light rail, in cases like the gold line it may not meet expectations & potential. that's cuz it's aboveground, intersects with surface traffic, & due to limits forced on it by neighbors opposed to noise & too much speed, runs too slowly. not sure if the new expo line will encounter some of these same problems.

as things stand, the cost of extending the red line just to westwood, much less farther west, is gonna take all that we've got. There just isn't enough $$ to create a truly good fixed rail system in LA before most of us are old & gray. maybe before we're even 6 ft under.

so if ppl think the city's future is dependent on rail transit, they better be prepared for alot of disappointment.

Are you for real? This is even dumber than your annoying fixation with the power lines.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Comprehensive Transportation will set Los Angeles free, simple as that, and downtown as a result, will prosper.

How & why? And is the assumption that transportation will be LA's savior not a fixation or obsession?

the big red cars operated by henry huntington back in the early 1900s didn't prevent LA from sprawling & didn't prevent DT from going downhill, dating back to when ppl with $$ first started to abandon bunker hill. DT lost even more of its edge around the 1940s, before most fwys had been built in LA. That was when ppl still were using the red car trains, including the part that was a subway started & ending in the old subway terminal bldg near 5th & Hill St.

Moving forward to today, the improvements to the rail system over the past 20 yrs haven't necessarily reversed trends that favor hoods like samo----or venice, which is where google will be relocating its LA offices to----but not dtla.

this pic is just for you, just-in-cali. It's the view I had----& alot of other ppl too who are visiting the hood----when I was eating at one of the restaurants at LA Live late last yr. A lack of transit isn't the major reason----or even any of the reasons at all----that it's as as it is. And a lot of new transit doesn't guarantee that it will be way better in the future.....

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Are you for real? This is even dumber than your annoying fixation with the power lines.

sorry, westsidelife, but are you too dumb to understand this?....

Damien Goodmon
22 mins for 6 miles is 16 traveled mph, which is about half the speed of what is typically considered “rapid” transit (28-32 traveled mph), and only 1-2 mph faster than Rapid bus.

For a city that weren’t as dispersed as ours 16 traveled mph would be considered a major disappointment. In L.A. it is a miserable failure. The road to increasing transit share begins with station proximity and ends with speed.
November 9, 2009 at 4:21 pm

LAofAnaheim
Just to add to that…the Union Station to Little Tokyo is unbearably slow. Too slow that the people driving in the 101 will realize why driving is still better than taking Metro..unfortunately. This section needs serious speed.
November 9, 2009 at 4:33 pm

btw, I haven't said anything about "cables." I've only posted pics of sections of LA that many ppl encounter on any given day. If you or others are somehow defining those pics as being only about cables, that's in your eyes (or mind), not mine.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by citywatch

as things stand, the cost of extending the red line just to westwood, much less farther west, is gonna take all that we've got. There just isn't enough $$ to create a truly good fixed rail system in LA before most of us are old & gray. maybe before we're even 6 ft under.

Before 2008, we were predicting only $4 billion to arrive within the next 30 years with Prop A & C, which was only enough for the Expo Line to Santa Monica and some of Crenshaw Corridor. Rest would probably have to be shared with some pedestrian, bike and auto projects (mostly auto projects). However, Measure R changed that in that it injected a significant amount of cash to Metro for capital projects, and 15% set aside for operations. So, now we will get the Purple Line to Westwood (not Red Line, Purple Line, we have 2 subway lines in LA). So who knows, maybe another mayor or politician can get LA some more cash for another rail extension. Maybe another Measure R can happen? Maybe West Hollywood would create their own sales tax to fund the Crenshaw Corridor extension from Wilshire to Hollywood/Highland? Imagine the grim prospects we had prior to 2008.....today, look at the possibilities. It takes a vision for that to happen and as much as people like to s*** on Antonio for gawd knows what (sorry he likes to take photo ops, but he's the mayor of the 2nd largest US city!), he will be known as the guy who got the subway funded to West LA. You will miss having a mayor that would use the words "mass transit" and "Los Angeles" in the same sentence. I can't remember any mayor before him that put so much effort into public transit. I just hope whoever is next (Eric Garcetti!!!!!!) can live up to the same and maybe more!

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

[/b]sorry, westsidelife, but are you too dumb to understand this?....

The street-running portions of the Blue Line are the only parts of the light-rail system that apply. It is slow mostly because there is no signal priority, not because it is at-grade.

Union Station to Little Tokyo is grade-separated. The slow speed derives from the curvature of the viaduct.

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Are you for real? This is even dumber than your annoying fixation with the power lines.

Hold on... the Gold Line is slow going through Highland Park. It is nutty. For an above ground line, WiFi service in that area could be better too.

I have also been on the new extension... slowwwwwww! And, the east side didn't seem to have a lot of riders on it when I saw it.



Did you highlight the wrong statement?

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

The street-running portions of the Blue Line are the only parts of the light-rail system that apply. It is slow mostly because there is no signal priority, not because it is at-grade.

Union Station to Little Tokyo is grade-separated. The slow speed derives from the curvature of the viaduct.

You're right about the viaduct, but it is not completely separated grade. Technically, there are two crossings, one at Temple and one in the station itself. You can see the crossing gates in previously published photo's, or, on Google Maps.

Yes, I agree about our mayor. We are lucky to have him pimp mass transit. He does this because he has learned that it resonates with voters. Hopefully his successors have learned that lesson from him. We will see.

[citywatch]

laofanaheim, the hand wringing of henry waxman over methane gas in the miracle mile part of wilshire, the controversy caused by the MTA as it was finishing the building of the red line, & then ex mayor james hahn having a can't do attitude----compared with villarigosa's tude----slowed down momentum on expanding fixed rail in LA by several yrs. I know zev Yaroslavsky was dismissing the idea of extending the red line right up til ppl in his district started really complaining about traffic reaching unbearable levels.

westsidelife, i also was referring to this....

The Gold Line takes 54 minutes to travel its 19.7 mile length. This means the Gold Line averages 21.9 mph (35 km/h) over its length, making the Gold Line the slowest of all of Metro Rail's lines. In particular, the Gold Line is slow through the Highland Park area, where trains reach speeds of only 20 mph (32 km/h), and through the curves, where trains travel at about 25 mph (40 km/h).

but, again, if ppl believe that transit is somehow going to be the savior of LA, of dt in particular, they're putting the cart before the horse. They're also setting themselves up for major disappointment.

That's cuz the root of the problem hasn't been a lack of enough transit----although that hasn't helped----or "connectiveness". the problem actually stems from when ppl started reacting to the hood like this VIP did over 90 yrs ago. And there weren't too many fwys or cars back then....

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

Hold on... the Gold Line is slow going through Highland Park. It is nutty. For an above ground line, WiFi service in that area could be better too.

That stretch along Marmion Way is less than 1 mile long. The time lost (maybe 2-3 minutes) is made up for by the greater stop spacing through South Pasadena as well as the 210 portion.

I have also been on the new extension... slowwwwwww! And, the east side didn't seem to have a lot of riders on it when I saw it.

That's where the Regional Connector comes into play.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

You're right about the viaduct, but it is not completely separated grade. Technically, there are two crossings, one at Temple and one in the station itself. You can see the crossing gates in previously published photo's, or, on Google Maps.

The Temple Street at-grade crossing is, thankfully, being eliminated under the new plan that calls for a 100% grade-separated Regional Connector. I agree that the current configuration is unacceptable.