LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[JDRCRASH]

If Anschutz does in fact buy the Dodgers, why couldn't simply take over the renovation plans that were envisioned a year or two ago?

To make the stadium more accessible, build a gondola system from the Chinatown Gold Line station to Chavez Ravine.

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

There is no room for a baseball stadium downtown. The reason a roofed football stadium works is because it can double as convention space. The only place to put a baseball stadium semi-close to downtown is in the warehouse district north of Union Station/Chinatown.

Or on top of the massive railyard east of Union Station across the river, near the San Antonio Winery.

[jamesinclair]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

So, it's fast times at Downtown high, or something like that. Anyways, there are things ahappening downtown right now. The first major project post-recession has really started, The Broad. And look, steal beams are being delivered!



This is from Curbed LA, by the way. So, yes, very exciting. Finally, we have a project to follow! And, hopefully soon, when Wilshire Grand starts up, we'll have two.

I waited there for 20 minutes for a friend (bus stops there)

Is it just me, or is the pedestrian railing frightening low? A small push could send you flying to your pitful doom.

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

^ Don't see how Tampa Bay is "hands down, the worst", when the parking lot is smaller than Dodger Stadium or Anaheim; looks like I could ride my bike to the stadium without facing a ridiculous uphill climb (I can ride my bike or take Metrolink to Anaheim). There appears to be a hotel walking distance from the stadium...any walkable hotels near Dodger Stadium?.

Um, when people talk about quality of stadium....theyre not talking about the parking lots.

Tamps stadium has support beams, which balls hit during play. Not the best for baseball.

The Jays also have an indoor baseball stadium.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

You seem to be unfairly labeling all post-Camden Yards stadiums as "cookie cutter." Certainly there are similarities among the stadiums built in a certain era. The same way that there are plenty of similarities between Kauffman, Dodgers, and the old Milwaukee County Stadium. So I'm not sure where all this supposed character Dodger Stadium has is coming from. With that said, all this talk about cookie cutter stadiums makes me wonder what cookie cutter was used to build this??

Wow, I guess it's a matter of opinion. I've been to most of them, including Camden. It's a great case in point because it's quirkiness made it famous for a couple of years and then it faded into "one trick pony" status. Dodger Stadium is still an absolute pinnacle of its style and iconic. And I'm not even a fan of the style, but I recognized when a classic has been designed.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

Um, when people talk about quality of stadium....theyre not talking about the parking lots.

Tamps stadium has support beams, which balls hit during play. Not the best for baseball.

The Jays also have an indoor baseball stadium.

Again, I'm not disputing the legendary, iconic, or emotional status of Dodger Stadium. I'm just talking about reality..........Dodger Stadium is THE WORST accessible stadium in the United States. Again, name any other stadium located on a hill with NO BUS AND/OR RAIL TRANSIT (I'm not talking about a funded Dodger Express shuttle) and no reasonable capability to walk or bike...REASONABLE CAPABILITY.

Arlington has no bus transit, but at least you can bike or walk to it.....Dodger Stadium......huff and puff...and good luck!

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Agreed. I couldn't have said it better myself. I'll take shitty classic Dodger Stadium over a venue that resembles the manufactured theme parks that have been built over the last 15 years. The new Yankee Stadium is the only new ballpark that impresses me, but they poured billions into that thing.

They spent all that money and yet it has bad sightlines.


http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2008/09/20080916_yankeeseats_560x375.jpg

Not pictured: right field.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Again, I'm not disputing the legendary, iconic, or emotional status of Dodger Stadium. I'm just talking about reality..........Dodger Stadium is THE WORST accessible stadium in the United States. Again, name any other stadium located on a hill with NO BUS AND/OR RAIL TRANSIT (I'm not talking about a funded Dodger Express shuttle) and no reasonable capability to walk or bike...REASONABLE CAPABILITY.

Arlington has no bus transit, but at least you can bike or walk to it.....Dodger Stadium......huff and puff...and good luck!

Agreed. This is at the core of the argument for no football stadium in Chavez Ravine: traffic would be even worse than for baseball games.

btw, Candlestick, which was used for both baseball and football, had worse access. Two narrow roads, one through an urban area with cross-traffic and signals. Even when the Giants had 5000 attendance traffic was bad. No rail at all.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by pesto

Contrast this with the big government approach: let's put a monster, blockbuster project here and destroy any hope for a real neighborhood.

pesto, I've seen various ppl through the yrs express a POV similar to yours. I'm puzzled by that take on things mainly cuz it's an either/or approach. IOW, ppl say it's good to do one thing, but it's bad to do the other.

I went through the noirish LA thread in the "found city photos" tab of ssp, & this pic was posted by gsjansen from USC digital archieve....



^ that shows a hood way before the large city sponsored projs of the civic ctr & what's now on bunker Hill. Before the govt promoted projs of the music ctr, before disney hall, before moca & colburn music school, before highrises like the Wells Fargo ctr & the Library Tower. Before the current reconstruction of the civic ctr mall that westsidelife posted a link to.

I've mentioned a few months ago that I believe one major reason DT fell apart & was so non competitive with other areas, inc the burbs, was cuz it wasn't nice enough to begin with. So it wasn't so much the creation of fwys & the rising popularity of cars that was the first death blow to DT. It was that lots of ppl didn't want to hang around there in the first place.

When I see old shots of the hood----& you strip away overly romanticized nostalgia----I'm not surprised ppl wanted to abandon the town, or found it way too easy to walk away from it.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

They spent all that money and yet it has bad sightlines.

it's also an exercise in futility to even talk about tearing down dodgers stadium & building it next to staples. first of all, it would be a waste of time, $$ & energy, esp in this age of green earth preservation.

It's gonna be tough enough getting any sports proj built on the site of the original convention ctr, much less doing a complicated swap & trade with a baseball team & the NFL.

the stadiums in SF or Baltimore reflect the popularity during the 1990s of the themey retro overlay, which attempt to duplicate something from the early 1900s. They're ok but also kind of gimmicky.

[Easy]

Building a baseball stadium downtown makes a lot of sense for AEG. The Lakers regular season starts in late October and lasts until April and they usually play until May or June depending on playoff success. Baseball kicks off in April just as the NBA playoffs start and ends in September-October depending on playoff success. Essentially a baseball stadium guarantees AEG that their area will be busy with activity throughout the year. A much better fit than football which overlaps basketball season for half the season. It also should help with their hotels because many baseball fans do plan vacations so that they can take in a game. Much more so than football imo.

So how could AEG work it financially? I really doubt that they would want to own a football and baseball team and pay to build both a stadium. They would want to look for partners or sell Chavez Ravine to someone that wanted to build a football stadium, of which there would be no guarantees.

Oh and the downside for downtown LA residents and workers would be perpetual traffic. An additional 90 or so Dodgers games downtown along with the Lakers, Kings, and Clippers will make downtown appear to be a much busier place. And yes, many can and will take mass transit, but many others will not. There will be lots more traffic. And unlike football which is usually played on the lightest traffic day of the week, baseball games start at the end of rush hour throughout the week.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by Easy

Building a baseball stadium downtown makes a lot of sense for AEG.

There's no place to put a baseball stadium downtown.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

There's no place to put a baseball stadium downtown.

Yes, there is. It would go right where the football stadium is supposed to.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Yes, there is. It would go right where the football stadium is supposed to.

And where would you put the convention center?

[RuFFy]

I'm interested in knowing why Ed roski wouldn't be interested in building his football stadium at Chavez revine instead of his Industry site. It seems like it'd be a win for AEG, a win for Roski, and most importantly, a win for the city of LA to have an NFL team in the city limits. A downtown baseball stadium would be great too, my only concern is how it would affect the convention center.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

And where would you put the convention center?

Under the current plan the main hall of the convention center would remain untouched while the old West Hall would be demolished and replaced by a new West Hall over Pico. Under the new baseball stadium scenario this part of the plan would remain the same.

The only concern would be regarding the convention center's future expansion possibilities. There might be a little extra space available but if they want to substantially increase floor area they would probably have to leapfrog over another street like Figueroa.

[C.Lan]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

I'm interested in knowing why Ed roski wouldn't be interested in building his football stadium at Chavez revine instead of his Industry site. It seems like it'd be a win for AEG, a win for Roski, and most importantly, a win for the city of LA to have an NFL team in the city limits. A downtown baseball stadium would be great too, my only concern is how it would affect the convention center.

I think Roski's making his decisions these days based on payoff. He's putting all of his money into this: so far he's not gotten any payoff other than hypotheticals, so I think right now he's making his choices specifically on his own terms, not necessarily based on "what people want," but "will there be payoff." I hate to go all the way back in time, but here's an article from 2007 from the ex-Dodgers Peter O'Malley on why placing a stadium in chavez ravine wasn't considered a wise idea (long article, so quoting from midway through):

Peter O'Malley isn't sure about NFL at stadium
Ex-Dodgers owner says L.A. has changed since he backed football plan at Chavez Ravine 10 years ago.
December 04, 2007|Bill Shaikin | Times Staff Writer


.............

O'Malley, speaking on a conference call after the election of his late father, Walter, to the Hall of Fame, declined to say whether his family would still own the Dodgers had city leaders blessed an NFL stadium in Chavez Ravine.

"That's hypothetical," O'Malley said. "I said at the press conference when we sold the team it was a factor. It certainly was. I hope the city gets an NFL franchise soon. I hope the team can play in a state-of-the-art, outstanding facility. That's what the fans deserve.

"It's a tough puzzle to solve."

Since the Raiders and Rams left Southern California after the 1994 season, the league has explored many options for returning. Stadium concepts have emerged, folded and re-emerged over the years, with backers each time claiming they had the plan to finally reunite America's No. 1 sports league and No. 2 TV market.

So far, it hasn't worked out. Most recently, the league informed Coliseum officials that their plan is not economically feasible. And it appears Anaheim is moving forward with a retail development -- and not a football stadium -- in the parking lot of Angel Stadium.

Meanwhile, billionaire developer Ed Roski is working on a proposal for an NFL stadium on land he owns in Industry, and league executives met with him last month during a West Coast swing.

A major sticking point for the league: Unlike in other areas, where a public contribution helps offset the enormous cost of building a stadium, there's been no offer in Southern California to spend taxpayer money to subsidize a sports venue.

"We remain interested in having a team in the Los Angeles area, provided we can identify the right economic solution, including developing suitable stadium facilities," league spokesman Brian McCarthy said. "It would have to be a solution that made sense for both the NFL and the community."

Los Angeles Councilman Ed Reyes, whose district includes Dodger Stadium, said he respects Villaraigosa and his comments but would not consider withdrawing his support for the Coliseum until he meets with fellow Councilman Bernard Parks, whose district includes the Coliseum.

Reyes said the Dodgers have not discussed an NFL stadium proposal with him recently and said he would meet with neighborhood groups about any such concept before meeting with Frank and Jamie McCourt.

"What is real critical to me is the community's concern," Reyes said. "There is an absolute need to have that as the highest priority. Then I would speak to the McCourts."

If the Coliseum is off the table, Reyes said he hopes to learn more about the costs and benefits of an NFL stadium, whether at Dodger Stadium or elsewhere in the city.

"I don't want my district or the city to be used as an ATM," he said.

Christine Peters, president of the Citizens' Committee to Save Elysian Park who serves on the Dodgers' neighborhood advisory council, said the Dodgers have not brought up the NFL stadium idea since the McCourt plan surfaced two years ago. She said neighborhood groups expressed their opposition to the construction of a new stadium in Chavez Ravine at that time and would do so again if necessary.

"It was shot down by the community," she said. "It would continue to be shot down by the community."

Again, I know things have a changed a LOT since 2011, but other things have not changed. And the issue, again, is payoff. It's likely that Roski has remained aware of this and has so far stuck to his own land on the idea of building the stadium because previous attempts have been "shot down." Moreover, he's the one putting himself out there for this, and he hasn't had anyone else putting up contributions, just criticism. Until he gets a better offer, I don't think he'll be in the mindset these days to bow down to any demands. He'll be looking for better than that.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by Easy

Oh and the downside for downtown LA residents and workers would be perpetual traffic. An additional 90 or so Dodgers games downtown along with the Lakers, Kings, and Clippers will make downtown appear to be a much busier place. And yes, many can and will take mass transit, but many others will not. There will be lots more traffic. And unlike football which is usually played on the lightest traffic day of the week, baseball games start at the end of rush hour throughout the week.

If people in downtown LA don't want "traffic", they should move to Santa Clarita, Lincoln, NE, Fargo, ND, etc....ALL WORLD-CLASS CITIES have traffic. Try driving between NE London to Central London at 6 pm on a weekday......you think LA is bad, wait until you drive in London where no motorways go into the Central City.

Traffic is a good thing, it means you are in an area of economic progress. Places with no traffic, are depressed and not economic engines. So, Los Angeles does NOT have a traffic problem.......it has a lack of a large transit network. That's the real problem, not "traffic". There's plenty of suburban cities people can enjoy if they don't want traffic. But they shouldn't be living in LA, Chicago, SF, New York, Toronto London, Paris, Madrid, Tokyo, Beijing, etc.. and constantly complain about traffic. You live in a DESTINATION, not in the middle of nowhere.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Under the current plan the main hall of the convention center would remain untouched while the old West Hall would be demolished and replaced by a new West Hall over Pico. Under the new baseball stadium scenario this part of the plan would remain the same.

The only concern would be regarding the convention center's future expansion possibilities. There might be a little extra space available but if they want to substantially increase floor area they would probably have to leapfrog over another street like Figueroa.

No. It would not. No one is talking about building a baseball stadium in downtown, and for good reason. The ONLY reason a football stadium is viable in that space is because it will have a roof and can serve as additional convention space. A baseball stadium would not. It would be completely useless for anything other than baseball.

[djlx2]

perhaps someone should turn it instead into a sprawling putt-putt golf course, it might better fit the demographic (i.e. demographic wants, according to statistics)

[djlx2]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

If people in downtown LA don't want "traffic", they should move to Santa Clarita, Lincoln, NE, Fargo, ND, etc....ALL WORLD-CLASS CITIES have traffic. Try driving between NE London to Central London at 6 pm on a weekday......you think LA is bad, wait until you drive in London where no motorways go into the Central City.

Traffic is a good thing, it means you are in an area of economic progress. Places with no traffic, are depressed and not economic engines. So, Los Angeles does NOT have a traffic problem.......it has a lack of a large transit network. That's the real problem, not "traffic". There's plenty of suburban cities people can enjoy if they don't want traffic. But they shouldn't be living in LA, Chicago, SF, New York, Toronto London, Paris, Madrid, Tokyo, Beijing, etc.. and constantly complain about traffic. You live in a DESTINATION, not in the middle of nowhere.

EXACTLY. Really good point. Traffic's great, no one should complain about it. No one should think about it. No one should have to think about it. Cities should be able to neglect traffic concerns and anything related to it to improving their real city cultural life. Somehow in recent years this has been laid by the wayside and everything that now measures a city has been judged based on the non-personal, very cold, non-emotional measure of stastics and transferring of population which seems borne out of necessity and makes the necessity alone feel weird.

Likely this has never been adjusted and perhaps people will complain about the coldness of the stastical reasoning behind it if they have not read the emotional outpouring of city residents who have an actual opinion about it and have attempted to communicate it in a personal way. Hope that doesn't sound angry, or something. I hate when you try to communicate something and get made to just feel like an idiot.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

No. It would not. No one is talking about building a baseball stadium in downtown, and for good reason. The ONLY reason a football stadium is viable in that space is because it will have a roof and can serve as additional convention space. A baseball stadium would not. It would be completely useless for anything other than baseball.

But the only reason the roof was needed in the first place was because a football stadium would otherwise host only a dozen events per year, and an events center would enable the project to pencil out financially. A baseball stadium can pencil out without a roof because it's guaranteed over 80 events per year.