HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1621  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2011, 5:46 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,790
Article on DTLA retail:

http://retailtrafficmag.com/markets/southwest/los_angeles_08012011/

The part that caught my eye was a paragraph on the Metropolis project and a small rendering of it that I don't recall seeing before.


Quote:
IDS has received approvals for the project and is targeting 2012 for ground breaking and an opening in 2014. “The hotel has become critical because of AEG’s plan for the convention center, which would have a huge impact on tourism and hospitality demand,” Spillane says. In particular, IDS is looking to integrate larger box formats into its project, adding that Metropolis could accommodate six to eight big boxes ranging from 15,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet.
Article also discusses Target, Wilshire Grand, and the new stadium/convention center proposal.
     
     
  #1622  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2011, 6:04 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat View Post
Article on DTLA retail:

http://retailtrafficmag.com/markets/southwest/los_angeles_08012011/

The part that caught my eye was a paragraph on the Metropolis project and a small rendering of it that I don't recall seeing before.




Article also discusses Target, Wilshire Grand, and the new stadium/convention center proposal.
It's nice that they are planning to break ground, but that looks terrible. I don't want big box stores in my downtown. Downtown is developing great the way it is, with smaller, hipper, independent stores a la Melrose or something. It seems that the developers want to turn it into Times Square, when the residents and public want it to be a So Ho.
     
     
  #1623  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2011, 6:25 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
I think we may have been a bit naive about AEG. They want a football stadium, convention center and big boxes to bail-out their failing condo investments and LA Live tenants. Creating a mega-shopping and entertainment district is their solution for DT. They have no interest in small businesses, boutiques and street vibe. Actually, they vigorously oppose it; like other developers they want to control an area as completely as possible.

Times Sq. or Melrose? You can argue for either, but they are not the same thing.

Last edited by pesto; Jul 28, 2011 at 6:52 PM.
     
     
  #1624  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2011, 6:56 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
I think we may have been a bit naive about AEG. They want a football stadium, convention center and big boxes to bail-out their failing condo investments and LA Live tenants. Creating a mega-shopping and entertainment district is their solution for DT. They have no interest in small businesses, boutiques and street vibe. Actually, they vigorously oppose it; like other developers they want to control an area as completely as possible.

Time Sq. or Melrose? You can argue for either, but they are not the same thing.
Thinking about it a little more, the most perfect solution would be to keep them separated. Thinking about New York, Times Square manages to sit in the middle of a vibrant, lively, distinct area. Because it keeps to itself, it doesn't affect anything around it, and manages not to be too big of a detriment to the rest of Midtown. Moreover, there are Big Box Stores right near SoHo. I remember AMC Theaters and Best Buys with large, garish signs just blocks away from the vibrant, non-corporate SoHo. The trick is to keep them distinct, to separate them. L.A. Live is fine. Though ugly and monolothic, it was built where there was once nothing, which by proxy makes it a betterment for Los Angeles. Moreover, it sparked development all across downtown and South Park, something we can all agree is great. The issue I have is that L.A. doesn't know when to stop, or when to say no, and my perfect solution of keeping the two types of development separated will not really end up happening. Developers, naturally, want to make money. They see the success of something like L.A. live, and they want to recreate it across downtown L.A. It is City Councils job to know when to say 'no'. The problem is, they really have no idea when it is time to stop developers advances. Instant gratification and a quick influx of money isn't everything. When something like Wilshire Grand gets approves with extra signage galore, it makes me worry. Wilshire Grand sits in a part of L.A. that is already developing into something decidedly non South Park, and something decidedly great. To try and turn that around is bad for, not only the existing business, but the city itself. Wilshire Grand is like sticking Times Square in the middle of SoHo, or the Meatpacking District. It would end up overwhelming and destroying the neighborhood it invades. The more this happens, the more this destroys downtown. People don't want a sign blaring through their windows when before there was nothing more then an attractive historic facade. They don't want logos staring down on them when before there was just tress. They start to leave. The very thing that made downtown into what it is today starts to leave, and because of this, downtown starts to revert back into what it once was. City Council is following their own footsteps. In the sixties, the historic integrity of downtown was nearly destroyed for what was the zeitgeist of that time. Cars. Plazas. 'Modernizing' historic buildings by replacing everything that made those same buildings unique. The only thing that really stopped this from happening was the fact that the public didn't really desire downtown. There wasn't that much demand. Areas of downtown stayed vacant for years, simply because no one wanted them. Now, those very areas, the areas that remained unchanged from when they were the center of L.A., are the areas of downtown that are the most desirable, and the areas that were made 'modern' in the years before are the areas that are the least. The issue now is that downtown is desirable again. Developers see that, and plan to capitalize on the desire to build things greater then what was ever built before. Wilshire Grand has shown that City Council has no mind for what is right for the community. They only really care about that first influx of money. Wilshire Grand was proposed in the middle of a non-sign district. Because it was big and would bring money into the city, they turned that area into a sign district. Will that be the case for the rest of downtown? If a developer wants to put signs on his building on Spring, will City Council make Spring a sign district? The answer is probably yes, even though that would destroy what makes Spring great. People don't like these sing-covered buildings. People don't want to live in them. This can be shown by things like the new Ritz Carlton having very low sales even when the other areas of DTLA have almost ignored the recession with constant sales of condos. The same goes for Hollywood, with the W having low condo sales while all the areas around it have higher sales. Developers don't care, though, that they create giant gaps in the urban fabric. The sings will literally pay for the entire project, and continue to pay. They are more lucrative then condos could ever be. It's the perfect solution, in the developers eye. It doesn't matter if anybody wants to live in their building, or set up office in their building. They don't have to worry about vacancy rates anymore. The signs will just print all the money the developer could want or need. And so, the buildings will be built, and they will continue to eat away at DTLA. The worst part is, it feels like there really isn't anything we can do about it. We can only sit and watch it happen.


Okay, rant over. I sort of ended up switching gears through the rant, as I got more and more angry and my writing made me think about the problem even more deeply.
     
     
  #1625  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2011, 7:06 PM
OneMetropolis's Avatar
OneMetropolis OneMetropolis is offline
99.9%-Urban .1%-Me
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 339
wow, it appears that 2012 is the start of a new era for DT LA. All that's planned to happen, Wilshire Grand demo work, Possible NFL team, Metropolis project. Just great i think. Isn't this exactly what DT L.A. needs? Major development to spur smaller ones?
__________________
Where you wished you were "SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA"

FINAL FANTASY XIII-2 "Don't play with Lightning"
     
     
  #1626  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2011, 7:32 PM
DistrictDirt's Avatar
DistrictDirt DistrictDirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
Thinking about it a little more, the most perfect solution would be to keep them separated. Thinking about New York, Times Square manages to sit in the middle of a vibrant, lively, distinct area. Because it keeps to itself, it doesn't affect anything around it, and manages not to be too big of a detriment to the rest of Midtown. Moreover, there are Big Box Stores right near SoHo. I remember AMC Theaters and Best Buys with large, garish signs just blocks away from the vibrant, non-corporate SoHo. The trick is to keep them distinct, to separate them. L.A. Live is fine. Though ugly and monolothic, it was built where there was once nothing, which by proxy makes it a betterment for Los Angeles. Moreover, it sparked development all across downtown and South Park, something we can all agree is great. The issue I have is that L.A. doesn't know when to stop, or when to say no, and my perfect solution of keeping the two types of development separated will not really end up happening. Developers, naturally, want to make money. They see the success of something like L.A. live, and they want to recreate it across downtown L.A. It is City Councils job to know when to say 'no'. The problem is, they really have no idea when it is time to stop developers advances. Instant gratification and a quick influx of money isn't everything. When something like Wilshire Grand gets approves with extra signage galore, it makes me worry. Wilshire Grand sits in a part of L.A. that is already developing into something decidedly non South Park, and something decidedly great. To try and turn that around is bad for, not only the existing business, but the city itself. Wilshire Grand is like sticking Times Square in the middle of SoHo, or the Meatpacking District. It would end up overwhelming and destroying the neighborhood it invades. The more this happens, the more this destroys downtown. People don't want a sign blaring through their windows when before there was nothing more then an attractive historic facade. They don't want logos staring down on them when before there was just tress. They start to leave. The very thing that made downtown into what it is today starts to leave, and because of this, downtown starts to revert back into what it once was. City Council is following their own footsteps. In the sixties, the historic integrity of downtown was nearly destroyed for what was the zeitgeist of that time. Cars. Plazas. 'Modernizing' historic buildings by replacing everything that made those same buildings unique. The only thing that really stopped this from happening was the fact that the public didn't really desire downtown. There wasn't that much demand. Areas of downtown stayed vacant for years, simply because no one wanted them. Now, those very areas, the areas that remained unchanged from when they were the center of L.A., are the areas of downtown that are the most desirable, and the areas that were made 'modern' in the years before are the areas that are the least. The issue now is that downtown is desirable again. Developers see that, and plan to capitalize on the desire to build things greater then what was ever built before. Wilshire Grand has shown that City Council has no mind for what is right for the community. They only really care about that first influx of money. Wilshire Grand was proposed in the middle of a non-sign district. Because it was big and would bring money into the city, they turned that area into a sign district. Will that be the case for the rest of downtown? If a developer wants to put signs on his building on Spring, will City Council make Spring a sign district? The answer is probably yes, even though that would destroy what makes Spring great. People don't like these sing-covered buildings. People don't want to live in them. This can be shown by things like the new Ritz Carlton having very low sales even when the other areas of DTLA have almost ignored the recession with constant sales of condos. The same goes for Hollywood, with the W having low condo sales while all the areas around it have higher sales. Developers don't care, though, that they create giant gaps in the urban fabric. The sings will literally pay for the entire project, and continue to pay. They are more lucrative then condos could ever be. It's the perfect solution, in the developers eye. It doesn't matter if anybody wants to live in their building, or set up office in their building. They don't have to worry about vacancy rates anymore. The signs will just print all the money the developer could want or need. And so, the buildings will be built, and they will continue to eat away at DTLA. The worst part is, it feels like there really isn't anything we can do about it. We can only sit and watch it happen.


Okay, rant over. I sort of ended up switching gears through the rant, as I got more and more angry and my writing made me think about the problem even more deeply.
Paragraphs dude, paragraphs.

I agree with you on keeping the corporate big-box AEG stuff separate. As long as its kept near South Park, I'm happy to see more of it. Its only helping bring more $ into Downtown.

Now if they try to build a Walmart on Spring Street, you will see a riot.
__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram
     
     
  #1627  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2011, 11:13 PM
LosAngelesDreamin LosAngelesDreamin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictDirt View Post
Paragraphs dude, paragraphs.

I agree with you on keeping the corporate big-box AEG stuff separate. As long as its kept near South Park, I'm happy to see more of it. Its only helping bring more $ into Downtown.

Now if they try to build a Walmart on Spring Street, you will see a riot.
Yea i don't see a problem with big box development in this area since its in close proximity to L.A. Live... i think the renderings look great =]
     
     
  #1628  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2011, 11:16 PM
LosAngelesDreamin LosAngelesDreamin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
Thinking about it a little more, the most perfect solution would be to keep them separated. Thinking about New York, Times Square manages to sit in the middle of a vibrant, lively, distinct area. Because it keeps to itself, it doesn't affect anything around it, and manages not to be too big of a detriment to the rest of Midtown. Moreover, there are Big Box Stores right near SoHo. I remember AMC Theaters and Best Buys with large, garish signs just blocks away from the vibrant, non-corporate SoHo. The trick is to keep them distinct, to separate them. L.A. Live is fine. Though ugly and monolothic, it was built where there was once nothing, which by proxy makes it a betterment for Los Angeles. Moreover, it sparked development all across downtown and South Park, something we can all agree is great. The issue I have is that L.A. doesn't know when to stop, or when to say no, and my perfect solution of keeping the two types of development separated will not really end up happening. Developers, naturally, want to make money. They see the success of something like L.A. live, and they want to recreate it across downtown L.A. It is City Councils job to know when to say 'no'. The problem is, they really have no idea when it is time to stop developers advances. Instant gratification and a quick influx of money isn't everything. When something like Wilshire Grand gets approves with extra signage galore, it makes me worry. Wilshire Grand sits in a part of L.A. that is already developing into something decidedly non South Park, and something decidedly great. To try and turn that around is bad for, not only the existing business, but the city itself. Wilshire Grand is like sticking Times Square in the middle of SoHo, or the Meatpacking District. It would end up overwhelming and destroying the neighborhood it invades. The more this happens, the more this destroys downtown. People don't want a sign blaring through their windows when before there was nothing more then an attractive historic facade. They don't want logos staring down on them when before there was just tress. They start to leave. The very thing that made downtown into what it is today starts to leave, and because of this, downtown starts to revert back into what it once was. City Council is following their own footsteps. In the sixties, the historic integrity of downtown was nearly destroyed for what was the zeitgeist of that time. Cars. Plazas. 'Modernizing' historic buildings by replacing everything that made those same buildings unique. The only thing that really stopped this from happening was the fact that the public didn't really desire downtown. There wasn't that much demand. Areas of downtown stayed vacant for years, simply because no one wanted them. Now, those very areas, the areas that remained unchanged from when they were the center of L.A., are the areas of downtown that are the most desirable, and the areas that were made 'modern' in the years before are the areas that are the least. The issue now is that downtown is desirable again. Developers see that, and plan to capitalize on the desire to build things greater then what was ever built before. Wilshire Grand has shown that City Council has no mind for what is right for the community. They only really care about that first influx of money. Wilshire Grand was proposed in the middle of a non-sign district. Because it was big and would bring money into the city, they turned that area into a sign district. Will that be the case for the rest of downtown? If a developer wants to put signs on his building on Spring, will City Council make Spring a sign district? The answer is probably yes, even though that would destroy what makes Spring great. People don't like these sing-covered buildings. People don't want to live in them. This can be shown by things like the new Ritz Carlton having very low sales even when the other areas of DTLA have almost ignored the recession with constant sales of condos. The same goes for Hollywood, with the W having low condo sales while all the areas around it have higher sales. Developers don't care, though, that they create giant gaps in the urban fabric. The sings will literally pay for the entire project, and continue to pay. They are more lucrative then condos could ever be. It's the perfect solution, in the developers eye. It doesn't matter if anybody wants to live in their building, or set up office in their building. They don't have to worry about vacancy rates anymore. The signs will just print all the money the developer could want or need. And so, the buildings will be built, and they will continue to eat away at DTLA. The worst part is, it feels like there really isn't anything we can do about it. We can only sit and watch it happen.


Okay, rant over. I sort of ended up switching gears through the rant, as I got more and more angry and my writing made me think about the problem even more deeply.
there's nothing wrong with Times Square... that place is a major draw. And i think you're exaggerating when you said the city would say yes if a man on spring wants LED signs on his building... i don't think the city is THAT dumb to allow it all over dtla... especially say in the the arts district and/or around union station. Broadway, and South Park are the official sign and light districts of dt.

I can kinda see why you talked about the wilshire grand though, how everything in that immediate area today is normal and once the towers go up all of a sudden you got lights and DigiArt here and there... but im pretty sure that place won't go dead.
     
     
  #1629  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2011, 11:54 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,199
I actually said Times Square was an example of how to do a sign district right. It is compact and doesn't affect the surrounding areas. What L.A. is doing is not like this. You said that if a developer wanted to add signs to his building on Spring City Council would not agree. I too agree, but what if he wanted to build a billion dollar mixed use project on an empty lot over there and that project would only be viable with signage? Would City Council not have that happen?

And concerning Big Box stores, I don't think that DTLA would let a Walmart go anywhere, especially when DTLA is comprised almost wholly on independent business. Walmart would be a literal wrecking ball through said business', as it is everywhere else in the world. It doesn't matter if it isn't on Spring. Do you think that there being a dozen block difference really maters to the people who buy? It isn't terribly hard to walk from Spring to L.A. Live, and even less hard to drive or take transit.
     
     
  #1630  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 12:31 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,099
Restrict billboards to Hollywood Blvd (between La Brea and Gower), and in South Park (in an area bounded by 9th, Flower, Venice, and Cherry). Then tax the billboard districts and use the funds for arts and education programs. These billboard districts already exist, but encompass a larger area; they just need to be smaller. Then ban billboards everywhere else and fine the billboard companies after a certain amount of time when the ban is enacted, for each billboard they fail to take down that is outside the signage districts. In turn, well over 90% of the city would be ad-free. There's NO excuse why this can't be done without lawsuits. NONE. It has already been achieved in many cities. London, Toronto, New York, Sao Paulo, Dallas, etc.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #1631  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 12:33 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,099
Oh great... from the looks of that rendering, Metropolis has gotten a MAJOR hair cut.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #1632  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 12:52 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Oh great... from the looks of that rendering, Metropolis has gotten a MAJOR hair cut.
I don't think so. I think that is just a rendering of Phase 1. They still are planning over 1000 hotel rooms and condos. You can only really do that with tall buildings. Even a fifty story condo tower only really has about 300 condos.
     
     
  #1633  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 2:20 AM
LosAngelesDreamin LosAngelesDreamin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Oh great... from the looks of that rendering, Metropolis has gotten a MAJOR hair cut.
i hope thats just a render and they actually build it taller =/

i kinda looks like to me that its taken up that whole lot already
     
     
  #1634  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 5:57 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
Downtown LA absolutely needs big boxes to stay relevant and attract those critical tax dollars back to the City of LA. Downtown LA is so large, there is no freakin' way it would ever fill up on just "mom and pop" stores. No way.

South Park around LA Live and Staples is the absolute perfect place for big boxes to go into. Stores like Best Buy, Ikea, Target, Nordstrom Rack, Bed Bath and Beyond, etc. are perfect for that area of South Park. Get those suburbanites BACK INTO the city.

The historic core is where it should remain indie. In fact, streets like Spring Street and Main should be exclusively if not mostly local, indie businesses a la Abbot Kinney in Venice or Melrose East (not west).

Broadway and Hill could become a place for larger national and international chains like Uniqlo, Top Shop, Banana Republic and Club Monaco (and of course mixed in with other local businesses). This could be our SoHo, which is a mix between international designers and some local indie shops and galleries. Perhaps in a decade or more, even higher end stores like Barney's New York or Neiman Marcus could replace those jewelry stores on Hill Street and surround a newly remodeled Pershing Square, attracting tourists and visitors from across the region, country, and world. That would also give new life to the Grand Central Market, which could use a little cleaning up a la Farmers Market post-Grove.

Then with more infill, our Fashion District will finally connect SEAMLESSLY without parking lots interrupting the urban experience. This will undoubtedly spawn new interest from designers, buyers, etc., which could boost our local fashion scene finally giving LA a firm #2 standing in the US after New York.

Then all this could then tip the scales, which could prompt the community to overwhelmingly support the freeway cap parks on the 101 and 110 freeways that will finally connect Downtown LA to the Chinatown/Union Station/El Pueblo and City West.

And if the Figueora St plans goes through successfully, you have another strong connection with USC, which is another large economic force in the region.

All in all, I think Downtown LA has a very bright future if we can get these things in order.
__________________
DTLA Rising
     
     
  #1635  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 8:08 AM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrighamYen View Post
Downtown LA absolutely needs big boxes to stay relevant and attract those critical tax dollars back to the City of LA. Downtown LA is so large, there is no freakin' way it would ever fill up on just "mom and pop" stores. No way.

South Park around LA Live and Staples is the absolute perfect place for big boxes to go into. Stores like Best Buy, Ikea, Target, Nordstrom Rack, Bed Bath and Beyond, etc. are perfect for that area of South Park. Get those suburbanites BACK INTO the city.
Well said. Let's not forget that DTLA is still lacking when it comes to basic goods and services. It's a real neighborhood with real residents who need these types of stores that cater to their basic needs. Big box retailers have been setting up specialized urban stores all over the country and these would work well in DTLA as well.
     
     
  #1636  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 11:24 AM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,430
Quote:
Well said. Let's not forget that DTLA is still lacking when it comes to basic goods and services. It's a real neighborhood with real residents who need these types of stores that cater to their basic needs. Big box retailers have been setting up specialized urban stores all over the country and these would work well in DTLA as well.
Perhaps District Dirt would care to weigh in but a Target and Best Buy opened in Columbia Heights, directly across from a metro station, in DC about 5 years ago and that has dramatically helped attract other development to the area.

These big-box stores provide jobs, even if they are service sector jobs paying $10 per hour and the construction of these stores will create other jobs at a time when new jobs are desperately needed. Here in DC, many residents shopped at the big box stores, but they'd drive out to the suburbs to do so, giving tax money to other jurisdictions instead of keeping it in the District.

Finally, as with anything, the details matter. Wal-Mart has proposed stores in DC (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/8277/will-wal-mart-be-urban-part-3-new-jersey-avenue/) and Tysons Corner, VA (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/5715740399/) that are mixed-use and embrace smart growth. If a national big-box retailer proposes developing an area that would otherwise remain vacant for a long while or remain low-density or a surface parking lot, it should at least be considered.

I was previously opposed to the Wal-Marts opening in DC but if the big-box retailers are willing to embrace urban design and if the local officials are able to secure a package of agreements such as requiring the building to have renewable energy or electric vehicle charging stations, or provide a bike-sharing station (if LA decides to do this), or other agreements regarding labor or wages, then I'm at least neutral on this issue.
     
     
  #1637  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 11:27 AM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,430
Another thing to consider is that as much as everyone likes mom & pop local stores, they often have a very tenuous economic existence and high failure rate and turnover. A major tenant like Wal-Mart or Target can provide the stability an area needs to attract additional residential development.

We also have to be realistic. It is 2011, when a significant portion of retail commerce is done over the internet, which although provides the consumer a high level of convenience and a lot of options, is probably almost a complete economic drain for downtown LA. Having big-box retailers in downtown might capture some of these sales that would otherwise be done over the internet, especially with the young, educated demographic growth with disposable income that you're trying to attract to the area.
     
     
  #1638  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 2:04 PM
Steve2726's Avatar
Steve2726 Steve2726 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: L.A.
Posts: 482
Not sure if this belongs in this forum, sorry if not. I rarely agree with Joel Kotkin, but I thought this was one of his better pieces- (subscription required, click link for entire article)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303365804576434391802284886.html

Exceprts-

How Los Angeles Lost Its Mojo
The city's misguided political leaders could turn this economic dynamo into an Athens by the Pacific.


By JOEL KOTKIN

Los Angeles today is a city in secular decline. Its current political leadership seems determined to turn the sprawling capitalist dynamo into a faux New York. But they are more likely to leave behind a dense, government-dominated, bankrupt, dysfunctional, Athens by the Pacific.

The machine that now controls Los Angeles by default consists of an alliance between labor and the political leadership of the Latino community, the area's largest ethnic population. But since politicians serve at the whim of labor interests, they seldom speak up for homeowners and small businesses.

Mayor Villaraigosa, a former labor organizer, has little understanding of private-sector economic development beyond well-connected real-estate interests whom he has courted and which have supported him.

Meantime, business-strangling regulations proliferate, often with support from a powerful and well-heeled environmental movement, which Mr. Villaraigosa counts on for political support and media validation. There are draconian moves to control emissions at the port from ships and trucks. Also harmful are the city's efforts to expand the unions' presence from the docks to the entire network of trucks serving the port—essentially forcing out independent carriers, many of them Latino entrepreneurs, in favor of larger firms using Teamster drivers.

Such policies could backfire, says economist John Husing, leading shippers to transfer their business to cheaper and less heavily regulated ports such as Charleston, Houston, Savannah and other growth-oriented southern cities. This is particularly dangerous given the planned 2014 widening of the Panama Canal, which will make Southeastern ports far more competitive for Asia-based trade. Mr. Husing notes that L.A.'s port is the largest generator of blue-collar employment in the region.

Even some liberal Democrats are beginning to realize that the current system isn't sustainable. Writing recently in the Los Angeles Business Journal, Roderick Wright, a Democratic state senator from south Los Angeles, compared the state and local governments with the Mafia. The "vig" that government takes from local businesses, Mr. Wright argued—both in taxes and in the cost of regulation—has undermined job creation, particularly in working-class districts like his.

Who will challenge the machine and its ruinous economic policy? It's not likely to be the city's enervated business sector. But the city's working and middle classes might, says Ron Kaye, former editor of the San Fernando Valley–based Daily News. He points to the city's remaining middle-class homeowners, who are concentrated in the San Fernando Valley but also occupy a number of diverse neighborhoods. "These are the places that reflect the whole idea of L.A., as opposed to the Villaraigosa vision of a city of apartment dwellers," Mr. Kaye says.

It is uncertain if Los Angeles will experience the Sunshine Revolution it so desperately needs. What is certain is that only when the machine and its masters no longer dictate L.A.'s fate can this diverse and dynamic region resume its ascent toward greatness.

Mr. Kotkin is a professor of urban development at Chapman University. This article is adapted from the Summer 2011 issue of City Journal.
     
     
  #1639  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 2:49 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 761
^ I wouldn't post articles like this on SSP, it's too political.

Are we really better off without Villairaigosa? Who's the guy who commissioned the Methane Gas Study in 2005 in order to prove to Henry Waxman that subway drilling in the Westside was possible...and convinced Waxman to OVERTURN a federal ban? Who's the guy who pushed hard for Measure R? Who's the guy who has now made biking a force in LA (you need political support...he's the highest)?

Sure, there's economic problems, but every Republican, Democrat or Independent experiences the same. Same with pensions, etc.... Antonio has instituted a change (and possibly at the FEDERAL level with America Fast Forward!). How many Mayors have CHANGED Washington funding? This could be extraordinarily huge. He can be forever known as the infrastructure guy.

So anybody who just lambastes Antonio because he "is tied with developers", "real estate interests", etc.... is using talking points to insinuate hate and fear in people (aka "Tea Party").
     
     
  #1640  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2011, 3:18 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,430
Quote:
How Los Angeles Lost Its Mojo
The city's misguided political leaders could turn this economic dynamo into an Athens by the Pacific.
There is another thread on the City Discussion forum, "Why is Joel Kotkin extolling the virtues of suburbia." I haven't read this article yet but I think Mr. Kotkin generally dislikes big, liberal, cities. He has written a lot where his ideal cities of the future are places like Boise, Fargo, ND, and Albuquerque.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:44 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.