LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Angel's Flight is back up and running =]

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8234729

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/07/do...d_tower_site_for_sale_for_17_million.php

That Libskind tower near Staples Center? Not going to happen. The lot is for sale at around 17 million.

Honestly the project wasn't right for the location. How much demand is there really for luxury condos across from the convention center? That plot of land should be used primarily for hotel/entertainment purposes. The convention center still needs several thousand more hotel rooms within walking distance in order to be competitive with other cities.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

You seem to be all doom and gloom because Broadway doesn't look like Third Street promenade right this very moment.

I've noticed a variety of ppl, going back yrs, including in the media, who have commented that broadway was unique & bustling in its own way, & therefore didn't have to be like a location in Samo. When some of those ppl also mentioned----or implied----they were well acquainted with broadway, I was lulled into a sense that the street perhaps wasn't as bad as it really is.

by contrast, I've never heard anyone, particularly in the press, ever slam broadway for having a large number of bldgs & stores that actually are so shabby, they border on the contemptible. Some of this is due to ppl wanting to sidestep that type of criticism cuz they want to project an image of being tolerant, egalitarian, hip & avante garde.

But I don't think most of the owners of bldgs on the street that are as poorly maintained as they are deserve any sympathy. As far as I'm concerned, those ppl are slumlords. they're shameless and have no respect for the city. If they had even a sliver of pride in LA, they'd look in the mirror and probably spit at themselves. the businesses they rent to don't appear to be much better. And the customers who form the 3rd point between the landlord---or slumlord----and the shopkeeper complete the circle. They can be called a trio of "we don't give a friggin damn!"

I read not too long ago that city inspectors were citing the owners of Clifton's for violating code cuz of a sign painted on the front window of their cafeteria since the 1960s. I'm not sure if that type of cracking down is a good thing, meaning the city finally is becoming resentful about the trashy parts of broadway. or if it's a bad thing, cuz it may show that city depts are clueless about the portions of the street that they are fussing over clifton's while ignoring other properties on the street that are so far beyond a violation of code, & are so flat out disgusting, they deserve to get more than a warning & citation.

the ultimate in irony: even with the economic problems of today, there appears to be enough ppl willing to own & operate a divey business, that such businesses continue to fill up most of the spaces along broadway. And whether the economy in general has been good or bad, the street has remained mostly a big dive for over 40 yrs. So would it take a huge depression to force a change in the status quo of the street? Or would a huge depression, since the rest of the city would be collapsing in on itself, actually make the street seem like it was matching the rest of DT & LA overall?

I kind of know the answer to those questions. That's why I'm forced to be patient about broadway's future.

[Kingofthehill]

definitely impressed at the sheer number of people at syrup..on a wednesday night. crowded, packed interior (upper and lower level, line out the door, etc) buzzing with a nice, young vibe. the clientele was surprisingly diverse, too - always a plus.

[LAofAnaheim]

As I was walking around the Convention Center and Staples Center yesterday evening, I noticed how the former car dealership at 12th/Figueroa has 4 retail/entertainment/dining spots - Hooters, Medieval restaurant, Ticket office and ICON club/lounge. That's pretty impressive. And then you see this ridiculously large open space of parking lots. It looks hideous. I'm taking a wild guess and thinking the reason this old building will house 4 spots (Hooters, Medieval and Icon all opening in 2011) is because when the owners put in their applications for operations I bet the parking was a non-issue (i.e. didn't have to build any parking as there was plenty in the area). Unlike if a new restaurant/retail has to open up in LA, parking is required due to our surburban like zoning laws....hence, which prevent good infill development.

So......can anybody name a restaurant/retail/entertainment option that opened recently that was pure infill (new construction, not an existing bldg) and not a residential or office building? I think this is what we are missing in LA; true infill restaurant/retail/entertainment options because the people who run these ventures cannot afford to build the high parking requirements attached. Hence, why we only get retail/retail within existing buildings (Spring street, 7th street) or new large scale buildings (Market Lofts, Elleven, Evo).

Imagine if the area around the future Hooters, medieval restaurant and ICON had pure infill retail spots without new parking requirement....that will be cool. But instead, we are getting a re-used car dealership just because it's probably there...

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I've noticed a variety of ppl, going back yrs, including in the media, who have commented that broadway was unique & bustling in its own way, & therefore didn't have to be like a location in Samo. When some of those ppl also mentioned----or implied----they were well acquainted with broadway, I was lulled into a sense that the street perhaps wasn't as bad as it really is.

by contrast, I've never heard anyone, particularly in the press, ever slam broadway for having a large number of bldgs & stores that actually are so shabby, they border on the contemptible. Some of this is due to ppl wanting to sidestep that type of criticism cuz they want to project an image of being tolerant, egalitarian, hip & avante garde.

But I don't think most of the owners of bldgs on the street that are as poorly maintained as they are deserve any sympathy. As far as I'm concerned, those ppl are slumlords. they're shameless and have no respect for the city. If they had even a sliver of pride in LA, they'd look in the mirror and probably spit at themselves. the businesses they rent to don't appear to be much better. And the customers who form the 3rd point between the landlord---or slumlord----and the shopkeeper complete the circle. They can be called a trio of "we don't give a friggin damn!"

I read not too long ago that city inspectors were citing the owners of Clifton's for violating code cuz of a sign painted on the front window of their cafeteria since the 1960s. I'm not sure if that type of cracking down is a good thing, meaning the city finally is becoming resentful about the trashy parts of broadway. or if it's a bad thing, cuz it may show that city depts are clueless about the portions of the street that they are fussing over clifton's while ignoring other properties on the street that are so far beyond a violation of code, & are so flat out disgusting, they deserve to get more than a warning & citation.

the ultimate in irony: even with the economic problems of today, there appears to be enough ppl willing to own & operate a divey business, that such businesses continue to fill up most of the spaces along broadway. And whether the economy in general has been good or bad, the street has remained mostly a big dive for over 40 yrs. So would it take a huge depression to force a change in the status quo of the street? Or would a huge depression, since the rest of the city would be collapsing in on itself, actually make the street seem like it was matching the rest of DT & LA overall?

I kind of know the answer to those questions. That's why I'm forced to be patient about broadway's future.

hmmm i don't think there is anything hip and avant garde about today's broadway. I mean yes the trashy and slum looking shops on broadway is different than the normal storefronts you see on like 3rd street promenade, but avant garde is suppose to be weird, out of place yet beautiful and unique at the same time. for example Lady Gaga versus Ke$ha... they're different.

It's like New York City(Lady Gaga) is seen as classy, beautiful, sophisticated, raw and avant garde..while Los Angeles(Ke$ha) is beautiful as well but dirty/polluted, slow, don't give a F*$k, wild, immature and blah blah blah.

haha just an idea, don't get it twisted though you all know im in deep love with Los Angeles... thats just how some people see it.. just thought i'd use those two since gaga is from NYC and kesha is from LA and their attitudes and fashion sense are totally opposite.

[BrandonJXN]

Lady Gaga is beautiful and classy? Since when? If you were to compare her to a city, it would probably be Vegas: stealing everything from everyone else and putting tacky shit on it. And don't get me started on that dirty whore Kesha. Anyway, I think LA as a whole is slowly maturing. I think during the 80's and 90's when LA was THE place to be, it was all about shopping and Rodeo Drive and Sunset Blvd. But now, LA is trying to transform itself into more than that. It's truly interesting to see where it goes from here.

[RuFFy]

I certainly agree that the Region as a whole has matured significantly and unlike decades past where LA has had to be gimmicky to define itself, the region has found definitive boundaries that are helping create a solid identity for the region. I also wanted to comment on a post a few pages back about Americans wanting to live in walkable neighborhoods with more of an urban feel. I got the impression that some forumers felt that translated into more people moving into the central core of their cities. It's my opinion that most Americans are not in the business of diminishing their property values and urban, walkable neighborhoods are not exclusive to cbd's. If anything, I'm inclined to believe Americans are both moving to central districts and creating walkable, more urban and pedestrian centers in their own neighborhoods, which ultimately leads to greater property values (except during this downturn of course). I thought that possibility should be considered also.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

I certainly agree that the Region as a whole has matured significantly and unlike decades past where LA has had to be gimmicky to define itself, the region has found definitive boundaries that are helping create a solid identity for the region. I also wanted to comment on a post a few pages back about Americans wanting to live in walkable neighborhoods with more of an urban feel. I got the impression that some forumers felt that translated into more people moving into the central core of their cities. It's my opinion that most Americans are not in the business of diminishing their property values and urban, walkable neighborhoods are not exclusive to cbd's. If anything, I'm inclined to believe Americans are both moving to central districts and creating walkable, more urban and pedestrian centers in their own neighborhoods, which ultimately leads to greater property values (except during this downturn of course). I thought that possibility should be considered also.

Funny you should say that...

Today we posted a recent Richard Florida article from the Atlantic where he made a similar point to yours:

"Watching the Reset unfold, it's been fascinating to see how quickly the once great divide between our cities and suburbs has been shrinking. The most desirable neighborhoods look increasingly similar, no matter where they are. The best urban neighborhoods are safe and have good schools; they are becoming strollervilles and toddler-towns, filled with families as well as singles. The best suburban neighborhoods have great commercial districts with restaurants, movie theaters, and all manner of amenities.

As many of our cities and older inner-ring suburbs are being renovated and revitalized, the great challenge of our time -- far bigger than urban renewal was in decades past -- is to remake our many shoddily-built, far-off exurbs into denser, more- connected, more livable communities. Some of them -- the ones that were built as much to keep the building boom going as because people needed to live in them -- might be fated to shrink back into small towns or disappear altogether."

I kind of agree. I love cities and I always want to be right in the center of things. And I'm not a huge fan of the suburbs. But i recognize that the future of the USA isn't going to look like everyone moving to city centers, but rather an increased population in city centers as well as a densification and maturation of the suburbs. There's really no other way. We can't just go and toss out the trillions we've invested in the 'burbs over the last half century. Those places aren't going anywhere. At least the ones that are a reasonable distance from city centers. The furthest-flung exurbs? I could see a few becoming ghost towns I suppose.

[JDRCRASH]

Yeah Palmdale and Lancaster (and Victorville for that matter) probably will densify and become really their own metro(s) someday.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Yeah Palmdale and Lancaster (and Victorville for that matter) probably will densify and become really their own metro(s) someday.

You know what would make that happen a few decades earlier? HSR.

[RuFFy]

^^^ High speed rail and inland ports.

[202_Cyclist]

District Dirt:

I kind of agree. I love cities and I always want to be right in the center of things. And I'm not a huge fan of the suburbs. But i recognize that the future of the USA isn't going to look like everyone moving to city centers, but rather an increased population in city centers as well as a densification and maturation of the suburbs. There's really no other way. We can't just go and toss out the trillions we've invested in the 'burbs over the last half century. Those places aren't going anywhere. At least the ones that are a reasonable distance from city centers. The furthest-flung exurbs? I could see a few becoming ghost towns I suppose.

People are undoubtedly moving to and staying in cities but I think that the future of America is suburbs such as Arlington, VA, or Bethesda in the DC region or Santa Monica or Pasadena in Southern California, all connected by transit and with a range of housing choices. People may not want to live in single family detached homes at the end of a cul-de-sac but not everyone wants to live in Hong Kong either. We could do a lot worse than having the future of suburbs be Santa Monica or Pasadena.

Hopefully the suburbs will be as sustainable as possible, connected by transit to central cities and other regional nodes and with the people who continue to drive using either hybrid or electric cars. Hopefully more homes will have rooftop solar as well as the price comes down for this energy source.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

You know what would make that happen a few decades earlier? HSR.

Well it might not be that simple. The CHSR authority recently resurrected the I-5 adjacent Grapevine route from Bakersfield to SFV.

[bobcat]

Except for the small area that is DTLA, LA's central core will not likely see a huge population increase in the near future. What instead may happen is that we see a demographic shift from what has up till now been an area of predominantly lower income families with larger household sizes to one of higher incomes and smaller household sizes. So while this would result in a greater amount of business investment in the area it wouldn't necessarily be reflected in census numbers.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Except for the small area that is DTLA, LA's central core will not likely see a huge population increase in the near future. What instead may happen is that we see a demographic shift from what has up till now been an area of predominantly lower income families with larger household sizes to one of higher incomes and smaller household sizes. So while this would result in a greater amount of business investment in the area it wouldn't necessarily be reflected in census numbers.

If you are talking about Koreatown and City West, that has already happened to an extent. That is an ongoing process. L.A. developers are never hesitant to put up a 6 story housing block and I fully expect that to happen on an ongoing basis. Mexican businesses in Mexican dominant areas will never disappear. That is fact. Look at MacArthur Park. Well, simply put, the issue is not whether the businesses belong to or cater to one ethnic group or another. The issue arises when groups of local residents notice that their material needs are under-served or unmet locally. So, these residents now find themselves having to travel long distances to meet their basic needs.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

District Dirt:


People are undoubtedly moving to and staying in cities but I think that the future of America is suburbs such as Arlington, VA, or Bethesda in the DC region or Santa Monica or Pasadena in Southern California, all connected by transit and with a range of housing choices. People may not want to live in single family detached homes at the end of a cul-de-sac but not everyone wants to live in Hong Kong either. We could do a lot worse than having the future of suburbs be Santa Monica or Pasadena.

Hopefully the suburbs will be as sustainable as possible, connected by transit to central cities and other regional nodes and with the people who continue to drive using either hybrid or electric cars. Hopefully more homes will have rooftop solar as well as the price comes down for this energy source.

One train line that has 1 stop in every L.A. suburb is not sustainable. The problem is systemic. You can't cure the problem by focusing on the suburbs alone. There are no comprehensively reliable transit options in the city. Therefore, a transit rider from a nearby suburb cannot simply rely on his/her suburban train ride into the city to get him/her to his/her destination within a reasonable amount of time. Reliable transit options would also have to be made available from the nearest suburban train stop, that would then take the transit rider to a bus stop near his/her residential dwelling.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

I certainly agree that the Region as a whole has matured significantly and unlike decades past where LA has had to be gimmicky to define itself, the region has found definitive boundaries that are helping create a solid identity for the region. I also wanted to comment on a post a few pages back about Americans wanting to live in walkable neighborhoods with more of an urban feel. I got the impression that some forumers felt that translated into more people moving into the central core of their cities. It's my opinion that most Americans are not in the business of diminishing their property values and urban, walkable neighborhoods are not exclusive to cbd's. If anything, I'm inclined to believe Americans are both moving to central districts and creating walkable, more urban and pedestrian centers in their own neighborhoods, which ultimately leads to greater property values (except during this downturn of course). I thought that possibility should be considered also.

I don't know a single person in the well to do sections of the West Side of L.A. who would even remotely consider the possibility of living in the filth of the urban sections of L.A. that us skyscraper enthusiasts appreciate. I am not advocating that every resident of Brentwood or Pacific Palisades consider uprooting and moving to DTLA or Hollywood. But, there is a clearly defined division in cultural and housing tastes that separates the well to do residents of the affluent areas of the Westside and their well scrubbed cousins in the DTLA/Hollywood urban core. These residents of the Westside and particularly in the communities located North of Wilshire, they do not want to be bothered with urban issues and they would abhor having to deal with the smell and noise that are typically associated with living in an urban landscape.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I've noticed a variety of ppl, going back yrs, including in the media, who have commented that broadway was unique & bustling in its own way, & therefore didn't have to be like a location in Samo. When some of those ppl also mentioned----or implied----they were well acquainted with broadway, I was lulled into a sense that the street perhaps wasn't as bad as it really is.

by contrast, I've never heard anyone, particularly in the press, ever slam broadway for having a large number of bldgs & stores that actually are so shabby, they border on the contemptible. Some of this is due to ppl wanting to sidestep that type of criticism cuz they want to project an image of being tolerant, egalitarian, hip & avante garde.

But I don't think most of the owners of bldgs on the street that are as poorly maintained as they are deserve any sympathy. As far as I'm concerned, those ppl are slumlords. they're shameless and have no respect for the city. If they had even a sliver of pride in LA, they'd look in the mirror and probably spit at themselves. the businesses they rent to don't appear to be much better. And the customers who form the 3rd point between the landlord---or slumlord----and the shopkeeper complete the circle. They can be called a trio of "we don't give a friggin damn!"

I read not too long ago that city inspectors were citing the owners of Clifton's for violating code cuz of a sign painted on the front window of their cafeteria since the 1960s. I'm not sure if that type of cracking down is a good thing, meaning the city finally is becoming resentful about the trashy parts of broadway. or if it's a bad thing, cuz it may show that city depts are clueless about the portions of the street that they are fussing over clifton's while ignoring other properties on the street that are so far beyond a violation of code, & are so flat out disgusting, they deserve to get more than a warning & citation.

the ultimate in irony: even with the economic problems of today, there appears to be enough ppl willing to own & operate a divey business, that such businesses continue to fill up most of the spaces along broadway. And whether the economy in general has been good or bad, the street has remained mostly a big dive for over 40 yrs. So would it take a huge depression to force a change in the status quo of the street? Or would a huge depression, since the rest of the city would be collapsing in on itself, actually make the street seem like it was matching the rest of DT & LA overall?

I kind of know the answer to those questions. That's why I'm forced to be patient about broadway's future.

There is a certain belief that once the street car makes its way to Broadway, the transformation can take on a more comprehensive step towards receiving universal praise from its neighbors to the West, Beverly Hills, and its neighbors to the South, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach. Ultimately, whether we like it or not, it is the Eli Broads who will decide when downtown will officially arrive. I hope that can happen before 2020 and that includes getting a Nordstrom and preferably a Bloomingdale's built in downtown.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Honestly the project wasn't right for the location. How much demand is there really for luxury condos across from the convention center? That plot of land should be used primarily for hotel/entertainment purposes. The convention center still needs several thousand more hotel rooms within walking distance in order to be competitive with other cities.

Demand and location are not the issue, financing is. Get the right developer with the financing and you will see condos adjacent to Staples Center/Convention Center.