LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0 - Page 79

LosAngelesBeauty · #**1561** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 7:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by all of the trash

I would rather the westside urbanize than trying to turn DTLA into the westside. I'm perfectly okay with DTLA's growth as a mid-level hipster hood of urban pioneers, and the catalyst for LA's transit infrastructure. There's no need to make it BH. I think we do a disservice to LAs potential charms by aiming too high or too misguidedly. But thats just me

I disagree. I think it's important to provide executive level housing, which provides an added incentive for corporate high-level executives to move their companies to Downtown LA because it gives them options for housing as well. It's a KNOWN FACT that many companies that are based on the Westside or Orange County are there because their CEOs live in the proximity and want to get to work faster. But they don't realize that most of their employees don't have access to those hard-to-reach areas because there's no transit options.

Downtown LA absolutely needs some more higher end condos like The Century or Californian or Carlyle to attract not only wealthier buyers, but also attract more investments both regionally, nationally, and even internationally. Having it reserved exclusively for "mid-level hipsters" won't do it any good in the long term. Downtown LA has the MOST transit options ANYWHERE on the West Coast (not even SF has MORE lines funneling into their financial district than DTLA if I'm not mistaken). It would behoove DTLA to have a wide variety of housing options from affordable to luxury high end. The infrastructure is there and expanding, it's generating/creating the demand to make that infrastructure relevant.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**1562** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 7:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobcat

Aiming too high? How about aiming for a level commensurate with the 2nd largest city in the wealthiest country in the world? And for the record, BH is not LA, even if some people think it is. The key point being that LA loses out on a lot of tax revenue that it could have if DTLA were able to compete with areas like BH or SM.

THANK YOU bobcat! You get it!

Yes and you are right that BH is not LA and we could benefit to have many of the same higher-end businesses that BH has in LA proper (preferably in DTLA), paying LA taxes, funding LA services.

Illithid Dude · #**1563** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 8:15 AM**

Concerning the Ritz sales: I don't get it. Why would anyone think it was going to sell? Even in a good economy, there is nothing around L.A. Live that would make me want to move there. They have super-graphics and some higher-end chain restaurants. That's about it. If the Ritz was on, say, 7th Street, then I am sure that it would be selling briskly. Even rich people want to live somewhere with nice, walkable, options.

Oh, and Metro is working on a bike sharing program, says the Mayor. Just throwing that out there.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**1564** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 8:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Concerning the Ritz sales: I don't get it. Why would anyone think it was going to sell? Even in a good economy, there is nothing around L.A. Live that would make me want to move there. They have super-graphics and some higher-end chain restaurants. That's about it. If the Ritz was on, say, 7th Street, then I am sure that it would be selling briskly. Even rich people want to live somewhere with nice, walkable, options.

Oh, and Metro is working on a bike sharing program, says the Mayor. Just throwing that out there.

I agree, that is exactly why I stated in my previous post (a few posts back):

"I would prefer to see high end condos like The Century, Carlyle, and the Californian kinds, which are not tied to any hotel or "entertainment district."

Illithid Dude · #**1565** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 9:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I agree, that is exactly why I stated in my previous post (a few posts back):

"I would prefer to see high end condos like The Century, Carlyle, and the Californian kinds, which are not tied to any hotel or "entertainment district."

The only bummer about this (and it is quite a bummer) is that banks will look at this as an example of condos not selling, and withhold financing, when in reality these condos were barely even designed to sell in the first place. Oh, and Brigham, as you have ears in the development business, do you know what is happening with Barry Shy's new condo tower?

DistrictDirt · #**1566** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Oh, and Metro is working on a bike sharing program, says the Mayor. Just throwing that out there.

I saw that in the interview too. I'm a little worried that LA won't throw enough resources at it to pull it off. In my experience, bike sharing is something that works great when there is a sufficient density of stations that there is likely to be one near your origin and destination, wherever they may be.

I watched DC screw this up once, and get it right the second time. The first time, they tried a pilot project as part of a bus shelter advertising deal with ClearChannel, for 10 stations with a total of 120 bikes. Even for a smallish city like DC, this was far less stations that what would have been necessary to make the system useful. Their logic was "when people start using it, we'll have money for phase 2". That never happened, and the project was abandoned.

The second time they tried it, they used a different system- Montreal's 'Bixi', and they got it right. They spend $8 million right out of the gate (thanks to a $6 million grant from USDOT), and rolled out 100 stations and 1,000 bikes. The system is now wildly popular, and has succeeded in making bike commuting ubiquitous in that city. They've already gone through a couple of rounds of expansions in the first year.

So 100 stations and 1000 bikes to build a useful system in a dense, compact city like DC. How many will it take to build a useful system in a large, spread out city like LA? My guess is 1,000 stations and 10,000 bikes, which we can assume would cost around $80 million.

Is $80 million a commitment that the city is willing to make? Or would they do it half-assed, sacrificing utility and membership, and inviting the critics to come out and say "See? I told you bike sharing would never work in LA!"

citywatch · #**1567** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Concerning the Ritz sales: I don't get it. Why would anyone think it was going to sell?

I was thrown off guard cuz of earlier reports, mainly this one from a little more than 5 months ago....

Quote:

The long-awaited condos at L.A. Live are finally going live: The first escrow is set to close Tuesday in the high-rise luxury condominium complex at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in downtown Los Angeles, nearly a year after the inn opened its doors.

About 60% of the Ritz-Carlton's 224 condos, which start at $850,000 and hit $9.3 million for a penthouse, have been secured with nonrefundable deposits, AEG said.

I don't want to be too much of a downer, so I'll post 2 pics of projs that at least are now underway. So there is some life in the hood. but I also admit that this type of devlpt is closer to a burban style than something big city, or definitely a big highrise proj like parkfifth. however, this may be the most anyone can hope for over the next several yrs....

this will be a woodframed apt bldg at wilshire & bixel. the bldg to the left shows the huge parking podium that makes up much of the lower part of an office bldg that was built several yrs ago but never occupied. it sat vacant for a long time. Then it was sold by the original owner & later converted to condos....

maps.google.com

this will be an apt bldg at 6th & bixel, a few blocks away from the proj above. it will look like a clone of the faux euro style bldg across the street from it & all the other ones built by GH palmer.....

maps.google.com

DistrictDirt · #**1568** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 6:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by citywatch

maps.google.com

This image is a bit outdated. The exterior of the project is complete.

Kingofthehill · #**1569** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Is $80 million a commitment that the city is willing to make? Or would they do it half-assed, sacrificing utility and membership, and inviting the critics to come out and say "See? I told you bike sharing would never work in LA!"

As a regular cyclist who sees just how $%^&ed (more nonexistent than f'ed up, lol) our cycling infrastructure is, I have my doubts. We don't even have mean-separated bike lanes, let alone bicycle boulevards and the like. Based on that, what makes LA likely to go all out and pour a ton of money into a half-decent, working bike share project? Even if one does somehow come to fruition, most of the city lacks the density and short distances to make cycling an actual mode of commuting. Now, Long Beach, on the other hand? They know what they're doing!

Interestingly enough, the areas closest to Downtown (i.e, the poorest and least hipster/yuppie/trendy) with the density and existing cycling demographics in place - like Westlake, Ktown, Pico-Union, Boyle Heights, East Hollywood, etc - can probably support a full-fledged bike share system. Cycling is a very real mode commute in those neighborhoods, and isn't a trend or fad, like it is in areas with higher disposable incomes.

Kingofthehill · #**1570** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by all of the trash

I would rather the westside urbanize than trying to turn DTLA into the westside. I'm perfectly okay with DTLA's growth as a mid-level hipster hood of urban pioneers, and the catalyst for LA's transit infrastructure. There's no need to make it BH. I think we do a disservice to LAs potential charms by aiming too high or too misguidedly. But thats just me

The Westside actually has been urbanizing. Especially the area bounded by Sawtelle, Olympic, Bundy, and Wilshire. Lots of new, four-story condominiums, including some mixed-use ones on the main boulevards. Here are a few examples:

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.044632,-11...2fUrlZJkwhpOBMltFQQ&cbp=12,25.15,,0,1.53

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.04532,-118...aKsIlLyqDY_F2-KROw&cbp=12,90.42,,0,-9.87

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.044872,-11...cIGZCfRrcVMtq82Q&cbp=12,113.99,,0,-12.61

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.024814,-11...Pqwdiok5yUsbE81Grw&cbp=12,110.58,,0,-5.3

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.00283,-118...jIBLEgEAPhtMBC4FQ&cbp=12,303.24,,0,-5.57

And Palms is still one of the densest areas anywhere in the city. Palms' density/ppsqm is on par with Hollywood, and Mar Vista's is higher than Silverlake's. There is no shortage of urban form in most of the West side (that being multifamily units interspersed with single family homes pre-war in vintage), instead, there is a lack of mass transit options and a popular urban culture. And too many NIMBYs

LAofAnaheim · #**1571** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

As a regular cyclist who sees just how $%^&ed (more nonexistent than f'ed up, lol) our cycling infrastructure is, I have my doubts. We don't even have mean-separated bike lanes, let alone bicycle boulevards and the like. Based on that, what makes LA likely to go all out and pour a ton of money into a half-decent, working bike share project? Even if one does somehow come to fruition, most of the city lacks the density and short distances to make cycling an actual mode of commuting. Now, Long Beach, on the other hand? They know what they're doing!

Interestingly enough, the areas closest to Downtown (i.e, the poorest and least hipster/yuppie/trendy) with the density and existing cycling demographics in place - like Westlake, Ktown, Pico-Union, Boyle Heights, East Hollywood, etc - can probably support a full-fledged bike share system. Cycling is a very real mode commute in those neighborhoods, and isn't a trend or fad, like it is in areas with higher disposable incomes.

Century City has nice bike lanes on SM boulevard (Century City is LA, right?). There are some good bike lanes on Westwood, streets surrounding USC, Exposition boulevard (a near 4 miles today..will be larger soon), MLK boulevard, and the whole Valley itself with many unincorporated cities, thus governed by LA, has a lot of bike lanes.

Yes, we need more bike lanes in the densest parts. I look to Santa Monica (Broadway), West Hollywood (SM boulevard) and Long Beach (Broadway & 3rd bike streets) as doing it RIGHT.

7th street is going to be re-striped next from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with bike lanes on both side..most likely mirroring the bike lanes on SM boulevard in West Hollywood. That is planned for October. (http://la-bike.org/projects/7th-street-bike-lane)

I'm hearing there may be some bike lane configurations along Main and Spring in downtown LA.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**1572** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

7th street is going to be re-striped next from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with bike lanes on both side..most likely mirroring the bike lanes on SM boulevard in West Hollywood. That is planned for October. (http://la-bike.org/projects/7th-street-bike-lane)

That's exciting! A road diet basically for 7th Street?

DtlaCuriousity · #**1573** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

This was obviously not always the case in Little Tokyo. There was a serious homeless issue with the area even a few years ago. When American Apparel was located at 2nd/Central, a few doors down from where it is today, I was told my the sales associates that homeless people would come into the store and take an entire stack of clothes and run out! Of course you couldn't do anything because the homeless would probably be just thrilled if you sent them to a warm prison cell of the night with some hot food.

But as you can see, as prosperity continues, it doesn't allow that shit to happen as easily. And I have a feeling it'll be what happens to many of the other districts in DTLA as it continues to attract more NORMAL folks.

I don't agree here. Thrilled about a warm prison cell with hot food? Believe me, many homeless do not want to be institutionalized in any manner. There are various methods to getting shelter in and out of that area - you wouldn't have to go to the extreme of committing a crime. This beast needs to be addressed and not just by throwing sheltering on them.

I feel this is a huge problem with DTLA and the vision many people have with it. I have long been interested in this collide. I doubt it will be an easy displacement issue here - the homeless are contained in that area. Part of the revitalization and development plan needs to address the homeless - there is no way around it. I see this as an area that is lacking the attention that is needed.

The other thing about "normalization" - yeah it will work to a degree, people do conform to their environmental norms, but a large percentage of the homeless suffer from the inability to regulate via social norms like that - examples of this would include the mentally ill and substance abusers.

Illithid Dude · #**1574** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 8:55 PM**

Concerning the bike sharing program:

I would expect Metro to roll them out slowly, starting with the already urban areas. And since this is Metro, not LADOT, we will prolly see them in places like Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and other non L.A. County places that are urban and dense.

Concerning 7th Street and the bike lanes:

GREAT NEWS! Now, what type of bike lanes will these be? Shitty, basic white stripes, nicer green painted ones, or luxurious grade-separated ones?

Concerning the Westside and urbanity:

The Westside may not be as dense as L.A., but I can't say it isn't urban. Or at least walkable. I live right off of San Vicente in Santa Monica, and I have a minute walk to Brentwood a huge variety of food options or a five minute bike ride to Montana with even more food and clothing options. Yes, it isn't dense. But isn't having options close enough for a tolerable, walking commute the definition of a walkable, urban city?

JDRCRASH · #**1575** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 11:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by citywatch

the devlpr of that proj might have said the same thing over 25 yrs ago. And I would have agreed with him.

But 25 yrs later, in 2011, add the past 25 yrs of inaction to the number of yrs til anything probably is built on that site, & I can easily see a total of 40 yrs of false starts. I'm also assuming that whatever is built on that corner in the future will be more than a 6 floor woodframed apt bldg, or something like that.

But again, citywatch, you have to understand that in the 80's, auto-centric los angeles was in it's prime, with even the Blue Line still U/C at the time (to think, even I was born in a time when LA still had NO rail-based mass transit).

Not only are we on the verge of fast tracking Measure R's projects, we also are getting ready to bring back streetcars to DTLA, not to mention numerous parks already in the pipeline as well.

It WILL NOT take 40 years for something to get built on the Park Fifth site.

Quote:

when land was first cleared on bunker hill back in the late 1960s----over 40 yrs ago----who would have thought that the large amt of space where the grand ave proj is supposed to be built would still be sitting vacant as of july 2011? I'd have said back then that such a forecast was overly pessimistic.

And who would've thought that Bunker Hill, if not Downtown LA in general, would've changed at all? Back then, virtually NONE of modern downtown even existed, save for the Union Bank Tower. Don't forget, the GAP is technically already under-construction, with the Civic Park set to open in 2012.

LAofAnaheim · #**1576** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Concerning the bike sharing program:

I would expect Metro to roll them out slowly, starting with the already urban areas. And since this is Metro, not LADOT, we will prolly see them in places like Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and other non L.A. County places that are urban and dense.

Concerning 7th Street and the bike lanes:

GREAT NEWS! Now, what type of bike lanes will these be? Shitty, basic white stripes, nicer green painted ones, or luxurious grade-separated ones?

Well, they won't be green, but I wouldn't be as far to call them "shitty". The white ones work just fine when they're painited on the street and is visible. Are you telling me the bike lanes in WeHo or Santa Monica are shitty? What's shitty is when we get a sign saying "bike route" and there is no lane.. now that's the definition of shitty. But when I see a marked up lane, I'm pretty jazzed.

As for the Metro bike sharing........expect them at Metro rail stations (hint: it's a Metro program, they will tie in the rail system to it). I'd say the following stations are the best candidates:

Long Beach Transit Mall
Hollywood/Vine
Del Mar
Wilshire/Western
Wilshire/Vermont
Venice/Robertson

Sorry, I cannot think of a decent station on the Green Line that would make sense

I think those stations have ample room for bike sharing stations. But that's just my guess.

JDRCRASH · #**1577** Posted **Jul 22, 2011, 12:07 AM**

Well the NFL lockout's over; good sign for Farmers Field. Now all City Hall has to do is approve this baby in 7 days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

I think those stations have ample room for bike sharing stations. But that's just my guess.

Is the ROW just south of the 105 still being used for freight? If so, is it possible to build a bike path on the ROW?

Quixote · #**1578** Posted **Jul 22, 2011, 12:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

...

7th street is going to be re-striped next from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with bike lanes on both side..most likely mirroring the bike lanes on SM boulevard in West Hollywood. That is planned for October. (http://la-bike.org/projects/7th-street-bike-lane)

...

Nice! I knew that bike lanes were to be installed, but not at the expense of traffic lanes. What will become of the two sidewalk-adjacent lanes? Will they become exclusive bus-only lanes?

bobcat · #**1579** Posted **Jul 22, 2011, 1:42 AM**

I think bike share stations would do well along the Expo Line, which has its own bike path running along Exposition Blvd and parallels the Figueroa Corridor project which is planned to include protected bike lanes between DTLA and USC. Imagine how popular this would be with USC students.

LAofAnaheim · #**1580** Posted **Jul 22, 2011, 4:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Nice! I knew that bike lanes were to be installed, but not at the expense of traffic lanes. What will become of the two sidewalk-adjacent lanes? Will they become exclusive bus-only lanes?

Sidewalk adjacent lanes will stay as parking lanes. Think of the new 7th street being like Broadway in Santa Monica.