LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by tommaso

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.

I feel that location is a poor choice for a condo development and the only reason it was ever proposed was because of easy money flowing from the banks. Logically that plot should be reserved for a hotel or some other tourism related development. Flower and Hope Streets are much better suited to residential development.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by tommaso

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.

I'm really disgusted by the way far too many properties on broadway have been treated through the yrs. I knew the street was faded & downscale, but I didnt realize just how bad it was.

I was caught off guard when visiting it directly several months ago, & then, yes, got a hard dose of reality when using google street view to get a better look at things. I admit to having never walked around the street, so that contributed to my original sense that it was more funky than trashy.

When ppl----at ssp or elsewhere---sounded like they were applying the standards of gentrifiers to broadway, I thought they were being overly dismissive of (or a bit snobby about) the current nature of the street. But the bldgs & storefronts are so miserable, they don't deserve any sympathy or patience. And the ppl who have been enablers to the slumlords also don't deserve respect at all.

The irony is that while I hope for the return of ppl who started abandoning broadway & heading to the burbs over 50 yrs ago, I also hope that many of the ppl who currently are keeping the swapmeets on broadway in business----& are among the enablers---will do just the opposite.

When you mention stores like bloomingdales & ppl like eli broad in the same breath with talk about broadway, I do admit to thinking that sounds like one of those naive "elitists" who ppl will roll their eyes at. btw, I don't think the hood----or certainly broadway----will ever have the ability to support such big money type of retail trade, at least not for a long, long time. But that doesn't offset my disgust for the absentee property owners on broadway. They should be ashamed of themselves & run out of town.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

845 S Figueroa Getting Major Renovation:



brighamyen.com


Renderings:

http://bit.ly/o1xYLQ

[Illithid Dude]

Some renders from your website, Brigham.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Some renders from your website, Brigham.

Put aside the fact that DTLA has plenty of empty plots of land from which to develop. I must question the motives of renovating a 6 story structure on Figueroa, when under the stewardship of any other deep pocketed developer/investor, that building would have been demolished to make room for a 30 to 60 story tower. When you can't make money by selling your asset (property), what do you do? You renovate and hope to generate more income in that way.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by tommaso

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.

For those who may have misread my quote, I shall clarify that I suggested the development of a Nordstrom or Bloomingdale's in DTLA. Although I have not suggested any specific metes and bounds, I will suggest that Macy's plaza undergo a substantial renovation which should then be one of several locations under consideration as the future site of a Bloomingdale's. Given that Bloomingdale's is a subsidiary of Macy's, Inc., converting the current Macy's into a Bloomingdale's would be a simple formality.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by tommaso

Put aside the fact that DTLA has plenty of empty plots of land from which to develop. I must question the motives of renovating a 6 story structure on Figueroa, when under the stewardship of any other deep pocketed developer/investor, that building would have been demolished to make room for a 30 to 60 story tower. When you can't make money by selling your asset (property), what do you do? You renovate and hope to generate more income in that way.

Let's see. 20 to 60 story tower: $150 Million to One Billion. Renovation? Fifty to a hundred million. Which would you do in an economic slump? Anyways, I'd rather them build on undeveloped land rather then build on already active land with undeveloped land sitting nearby.

[JDRCRASH]

But remember Illithid. Some developers may not own that many properties downtown.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

But remember Illithid. Some developers may not own that many properties downtown.

I wasn't really referring to that developer in particular. Just generally, any developer.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Let's see. 20 to 60 story tower: $150 Million to One Billion. Renovation? Fifty to a hundred million. Which would you do in an economic slump? Anyways, I'd rather them build on undeveloped land rather then build on already active land with undeveloped land sitting nearby.

I agree. The area that this building is on is pretty empty. However, I believe that those parking lots will increase in value and with renovating buildings like 845 Figueroa, it'll make those lots even more attractive.

[mdiederi]

What exactly is the renovation at 845 S Figueroa? I don't see any difference between the existing building and the new renders except that the awning is painted red and they put some big letters on the side. Maybe it's all internal? Is there a link to a description of the renovation plans?

Edit: I found info that the north and west facades are now blank and will be turned into glass.

[alki]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

It would be great if the additional funds amassed by the BID as new businesses open up downtown could be used to cover the costs of maintaining flower baskets like this. It really does make a huge difference, both in beautifying the neighborhood and in providing a unifying design element to let visitors know "This is Downtown."

Sorry this is a little dated but the cost to maintain any kind of flower pot installments would be prohibitive........esp. in LA....because in summer they would have to be watered every day most likely by large water trucks. My suggestion is decidedly more low tech........get the building owner or preferably the store owner to adopt a pot [like is done with freeway sections] and maintain them. Give them written instructions...........maintenance is fairly simple.....twice each year you prune the dead plants, replace them and fertilize. The big deal is the watering.......that has to be done pretty much every day during the non winter months. It becomes a part of maintaining the property like washing the windows or sweeping the sidewalk. And pots don't have to be every ten feet.....they can be scattered and still have a positive effect.......so you don't have to get every store owner to agree

With the buildings I rehabbed, where appropriate architecturally, I installed wrought iron arms that could take a pot of plants and when a tenant was willing, put a pot on the arm and let them maintain it. If no tenant was willing, I would leave the arm bare which looked good aesthetically until the next tenant with a green thumb moved in.

If people really are jazzed with downtown's revival, they will be willing to make the extra effort....IMO of course.

[alki]

What's blowing me away is that you are Navy Police and want to be a cop. Its turning my biases upside down and inside out in a way I never expected. Love it!

[alki]

Originally posted by sopas ej:

Most schools in Spain ARE public, supported by the government and free. There are some private schools there but they are also subsidized by the government. The only true private schools in Spain are religious/parochial schools, and they are attended by a small percentage of the Spanish population. Being that Spain has a standardized system of education, I'm willing to bet that all of their schools are equally good, unlike in the US.

One of my biggest disappointments moving to Seattle is finding out that many people in the city send their kids to private school. In spite of the fact that the city's population is growing and is at an all time high, the public school system is not.....in fact, its nearly bankrupt. Some shifting of kids occurred with the recession but not a significant number. Americans continue to have their biases re. city living.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by tommaso

For those who may have misread my quote, I shall clarify that I suggested the development of a Nordstrom or Bloomingdale's in DTLA. Although I have not suggested any specific metes and bounds, I will suggest that Macy's plaza undergo a substantial renovation which should then be one of several locations under consideration as the future site of a Bloomingdale's. Given that Bloomingdale's is a subsidiary of Macy's, Inc., converting the current Macy's into a Bloomingdale's would be a simple formality.

Simple insanity would be closer. How much demand for $300 skirts and $2000 Chanel handbags is there DT?

Slum lords don't cause slums; liquor stores and discounters don't cause slums. They move there because the area is a slum and that is what is demanded there: low prices, which means inferior goods and services. Slum lords would be happy to raise rents and services if their tenants could afford to pay.

The point is demand drives everything (including funding). SoHo did not turn nice BECAUSE Bloomingdale's, etc., moved there. The other way around.

But the signals are very mixed DT. The Broad art gallery, upscale restaurants or cafes attract, as does good transit. But proposed football stadiums and Times Sq. style garish has to panic foreign investors (you can imagine what reaction to proposing a stadium at say, Prince and Lafayette, or a Times Sq. sign district in Tribeca would bring in NY). Not conducive to demand to live there.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by pesto

Simple insanity would be closer. How much demand for $300 skirts and $2000 Chanel handbags is there DT?

Slum lords don't cause slums; liquor stores and discounters don't cause slums. They move there because the area is a slum and that is what is demanded there: low prices, which means inferior goods and services. Slum lords would be happy to raise rents and services if their tenants could afford to pay.

The point is demand drives everything (including funding). SoHo did not turn nice BECAUSE Bloomingdale's, etc., moved there. The other way around.

Exactly; that's what I've always thought, and huge retailers obviously study marketing demands and trends of areas to decide on whether to open (or not to open) a location in those areas.

In 1937, when Saks Fifth Avenue decided to open their very first southern California location, they did NOT choose downtown LA, but Beverly Hills, even though downtown LA at that time was still THE big retail center of LA, but of course by then, the people with money had already started moving westward; Bullocks had already built their new flagship store in 1929 on Wilshire to be closer to the more moneyed residents (though their downtown location still existed too) and to give their customers the convenience of on-site parking at the rear.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by alki

Originally posted by sopas ej:

Most schools in Spain ARE public, supported by the government and free. There are some private schools there but they are also subsidized by the government. The only true private schools in Spain are religious/parochial schools, and they are attended by a small percentage of the Spanish population. Being that Spain has a standardized system of education, I'm willing to bet that all of their schools are equally good, unlike in the US.

One of my biggest disappointments moving to Seattle is finding out that many people in the city send their kids to private school. In spite of the fact that the city's population is growing and is at an all time high, the public school system is not.....in fact, its nearly bankrupt. Some shifting of kids occurred with the recession but not a significant number. Americans continue to have their biases re. city living.

I have my own opinions about the state and quality of education in the US, and I could go on and on about it, but anyway... I am a product of public schools (with the exception of 2 years of Catholic school). I was fortunate enough to have grown up in a town that was part of an excellent school district; the high school I graduated from consistently ranks high in the state and even nationally (Whitney High School, Cerritos). 13 years ago I moved to South Pasadena (and continue to live here) and discovered that it too has excellent public schools. However, the city to the north, Pasadena, has a different story. Its public schools aren't considered the best, and many Pasadena residents with the money, send their kids to private schools (some of the common ones I hear about are Maranatha, which is an evangelical "Christian" school; Westridge School for Girls; and Polytechnic School, though there are a number of others, including parochial schools). I've looked up those private schools, and many of them don't even rank very high; in fact many well-performing, quality schools are actually public. So, why can't Pasadena, which has a large wealthy population, invest money into its public schools and give all of their kids quality educations, instead of basically allowing its wealthy people to segregate their own children and put them into these private schools that don't even rank well academically, with the addition of putting them in an environment that isn't socio-economically diverse?

I don't have children, but I still support paying taxes to fund public schools; it is, after all, an investment into the community; why should I surround myself with poorly educated youth? I don't resent that people with children get tax breaks, but, in my opinion, it makes more sense to tax people more, who have more children--instead of each child being a tax deduction, shouldn't each child mean more taxes charged? I mean, after all, each child potentially will be a student at a public school, each child means more resources having to be spent, each child means more of a carbon footprint, etc.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by alki

Originally posted by sopas ej:

Most schools in Spain ARE public, supported by the government and free. There are some private schools there but they are also subsidized by the government. The only true private schools in Spain are religious/parochial schools, and they are attended by a small percentage of the Spanish population. Being that Spain has a standardized system of education, I'm willing to bet that all of their schools are equally good, unlike in the US.

One of my biggest disappointments moving to Seattle is finding out that many people in the city send their kids to private school. In spite of the fact that the city's population is growing and is at an all time high, the public school system is not.....in fact, its nearly bankrupt. Some shifting of kids occurred with the recession but not a significant number. Americans continue to have their biases re. city living.

I just got back from a week for job training in Seattle (I work for Redfin now) and it was a nice experience staying and walking to work in Downtown Seattle. One thing that stuck out to me is that even though Downtown Seattle was quite dense and there were a lot of good infills, it didn't feel particularly bustling and many of the shops closed up "early" even though it was bright outside (you guys up there, higher latitude, get an hour extra daylight than us down here in LA). And I guess it wasn't as bustling because it's not a particularly large metro.

If I think about Downtown LA's future potential, it is huge. The fact that 6 rail lines funnel into downtown LA, comparable to chicago, and being part of a region of 18 million, Downtown LA could become a very vibrant center with tons of energy. I am hoping that we can have the same kind of infill like in Belltown and Queen Anne. I didn't get a chance to make it over to Capitol Hill, but I assume it's like our Silver Lake?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by pesto

Simple insanity would be closer. How much demand for $300 skirts and $2000 Chanel handbags is there DT?

Slum lords don't cause slums; liquor stores and discounters don't cause slums. They move there because the area is a slum and that is what is demanded there: low prices, which means inferior goods and services. Slum lords would be happy to raise rents and services if their tenants could afford to pay.

The point is demand drives everything (including funding). SoHo did not turn nice BECAUSE Bloomingdale's, etc., moved there. The other way around.

But the signals are very mixed DT. The Broad art gallery, upscale restaurants or cafes attract, as does good transit. But proposed football stadiums and Times Sq. style garish has to panic foreign investors (you can imagine what reaction to proposing a stadium at say, Prince and Lafayette, or a Times Sq. sign district in Tribeca would bring in NY). Not conducive to demand to live there.

the average income for new downtown residents is about 100,000. plenty of demand and low supply.

Also, you are so off on the event stadium, its not even funny. we have gone over this numerous times on this board, but the event center is on the edge of the downtown periphery and is located next to a freeway and parking lots. its the best location for it and is ALREADY bringing in investments into downtown. it can only be good.

[alki]

Originally posted by 123:

DistrictDirt is right in that the transformation of Broadway will take time, and there's little point in begrudging the pace of it. As with most neighborhoods there are structural factors at work, in this case a tradition of premium rents that are among the highest per square-foot in the city. Current merchants make it work -- some just barely -- by way of no-frills presentation and a density/diversity of inexpensive goods that draws high traffic. Most conventional retailers do not generate sufficient sales per square-foot to make a Broadway location viable.

As someone who once lived in LA, the changes to downtown are nothing less than shocking. Its what I hoped would happen to DTLA. I can understand getting impatient but progress is happening much faster than I would have expected having walked those streets in the '90s.

Second surprise of the day: Citywatch is a woman!