LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

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. I wouldn't trust a word Kotkin says. He dislikes big, liberal cities as 202_Cyclist stated, and he has made a career out of trying to prove that everyone else feels the same way.

He claims that the majority of Americans prefer to live in the suburbs, but if you look at his methodology, he is basically labeling everything that's not part of a central business district as 'suburbs'.

[202_Cyclist]

Joel Kotkin also goes out of his way to be a contrarian and he's been saying the same thing about LA and other cities he dislikes for more than a decade, despite pretty different circumstances of LA in 2000 vs. 2011.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

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.

Yeah. Plus the Metropolis site (parking lot) is quite large. And I wouldn't be surprised if the other lots around that area get absorbed as well. Kind of like how Vegas has City Center but right next door is Cosmopolitan.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

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.

With a couple of provisos, I can buy this. First, 10 years minimum for anything up-market. Second, you are not going to attract suburbanites for a very long; more likely never. Local residents and tourists. Third, it sounds like Metropolis is not really talking "big boxes"; more like 50k-200k sq. ft.

[202_Cyclist]

Regarding the Kotkin article, I've just finished reading it and you can't make crap like this up and still be credible.

"His biggest priority is to build the so-called subway to the sea, a $40 billion train line to connect downtown with the Pacific. "

Nobody is arguing the subway to Santa Monica is going to be cheap but the amounts I've seen are $5B - $8B, not $40B. Who needs facts when you have ideology?

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by pesto

With a couple of provisos, I can buy this. First, 10 years minimum for anything up-market. Second, you are not going to attract suburbanites for a very long; more likely never. Local residents and tourists. Third, it sounds like Metropolis is not really talking "big boxes"; more like 50k-200k sq. ft.

Big boxes are a generic term to describe retailers generally thought of as suburban in ultra large formats. However, the ones that are going to be in Downtown LA will likely be a smaller format as we are seeing with CityTarget, which would still be considered a "big box" to some people.

Manhattan is a great place to see what big boxes are willing to do and how much they can shrink to accommodate urban shoppers. Currently, I'm aware of a few big box stores in Manhattan such as Home Depot, Best Buy, and Target. I'm sure there are more.

Anyway, I think there are plenty of surface lots and future mixed-use projects that can built-to-suit these big box stores in South Park. Even IKEA has smaller urban stores. I've been to the one in Taipei, which is definitely not your suburban megastore like the one in Burbank.

I would like to see something like this in Downtown LA:


IKEA - Taipei

Svante

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I would like to see something like this in Downtown LA

meanwhile, I like seeing something like the following in dt, one of the newest restaurants & lounges. it's on the rooftop of a bldg at the NE corner of 5th & Hill Sts.......


guzzleandnosh.com, flickr


guzzleandnosh.com, flickr


guzzleandnosh.com, flickr


guzzleandnosh.com, flickr


guzzleandnosh.com, flickr

this is the first pic I've ever seen of the sign of the old hotel clark bldg finally cleaned up. the last pic I remember seeing of it online still showed it in a rundown & rusted shape....


guzzleandnosh.com, flickr


guzzleandnosh.com, flickr


guzzleandnosh.com, flickr


guzzleandnosh.com, flickr

now if only the parkfifth proj were under construction across the street, that really would mean it was time to

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by citywatch

now if only the parkfifth proj were under construction across the street, that really would mean it was time to

And if they did something about that abysmal Pershing Square...

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Thinking about New York, Times Square manages to sit in the middle of a vibrant, lively, distinct area. L.A. Live is fine. Though ugly and monolothic,...

When thinking about New York, Times Square is ugly and monolithic too.

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

I agree with Joel Kotkin.

.

.

.

.

collarmelepartners.com

COLLARMELEPARTNERS

LOUSY, LOUSY ... and LOUSY!

[Illithid Dude]

Architectural throw-up. I hope that is not the real thing, but it looks like it is. Still, absolutely terrible. BLEH. But, with all these renders released, why is there no publicity?

[LA/OCman]

Both the Pattern Bar on 9th and Perch (Hill and 5th) opened Downtown last week. I had an opportunity to visit both and was blown away. The Pattern Bar is across the street from Wood Spoon (popular Brazilian restaurant) on a corner near Spring St. and brings this part of DTLA to life. Huge windows, historic space, great bar and Argentinean Tapas...surprisingly the food is excellent. This place will change people's perception of the Fashion District at night.

The article Citywatch posted above on Perch does not really show the place at night when it really shines. Wow, this space is huge and has a very foreign feel to it. When you are up there on the rooftop it seems like you could touch the Title Guarantee Building...which is an amazing architectural gem. Even though it is on the rooftop, I noticed how many people were walking down 5th from the historic core. It is bringing nightlife to this area and connecting the dots from previous dead zones. It is a gem.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

And if they did something about that abysmal Pershing Square...

Pershing sq, with all its palm trees around the edge of it, when viewed from the standpoint of someone driving or walking by actually doesn't look so bad or bring down the hood the way the huge deadzone across the street does. That big parking lot stretches from 5th & olive all the way over the Hill St & is visible from every angle.

the worse aspect of pershing is its large parking ramps that block most of the sidewalk access from the side of Olive & Hill sts. As for the inside of the square itself? I'd say much of its bad reputation is not just its design but cuz many of the ppl who traditionally have used it are the homeless & drifters. that scares or turns off lots of other ppl.

A major reason so many homeless ppl have dominated the Pershing Sq area? A lack of enough other types of ppl who work & LIVE in the surrounding area. that's why I think the area greatly needs a huge new proj like parkfifth, to give it a shot in the arm.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

LOUSY, LOUSY ... and LOUSY!

thanks for providing that link. however, after trying to open the page, I had to google the name & found out it's collarMELE.com, not collarmeler.

the last pic you show does make the proj look really bad & cheap. the scale looks off too, with each floor of the bldg looking strangely way too tall.

not sure if it's worth making a fuss over the proposal since who knows whether it actually will be built or not. however, its rather modest size means the devlpr may have less trouble getting funding for it. But it's a letdown from an earlier proposal that would have involved taller bldgs.

part of the problem with the location is that it's wedged between major properties that front Fig on one side & the fwy on the other. this pic shows the way the site is sort of hidden in the back of the general area.



bing.com

The image also is a good reminder of just how barren the hood was only a few yrs ago, before the ralphs proj, LA live, concerto, the apt bldg at Fig & Olympic & the condo/apt tower at 9th & flower were built. iow, deadzones all over the place.

today is definitely better than the past. so the writer you mention who says LA has lost its "mojo"? He's rewriting history, if only cuz the city wasn't in such great shape yrs ago, or when it supposedly was better off. iow, considering what a big black hole dtla was in the recent past----& dating back yrs & yrs & yrs before that----it never had alot of mojo in the first place. But LA definitely lost its mojo during the 1990s, when the riots & earthquakes occurred, & even 2 of its major sports teams left town.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

BLEH. But, with all these renders released, why is there no publicity?

after looking through collarmele's website more closely, some of the illustrations don't make the proj look as bad as the one at the end of milquetoast's post. Talk about big box stores made me think the proj would be like a burban shopping ctr, with surface parking lots. that's what I immediately was reminded of when I first saw this diagram of the proj.....




I said you gotta be kidding! that looks like a proj that would be built in the valley or OC! feh!

then I realized it shows only the first level of the proj. iow, it appears the devlpr is planning a bigger version of the market lofts proj on 9th st, which contains ralphs & was built a few yrs ago. But there also would be a hotel on the upper levels of the metropolis, not just apts...


collarmelepartners.com


collarmelepartners.com


collarmelepartners.com


collarmelepartners.com

Not the most exciting type of proj, but it's the most anyone can hope for at this time & probably for yrs into the future. And it would replace one of the biggest deadzones in all of DT, visible to millions of ppl who drive by on the fwy each yr.

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

Both the Pattern Bar on 9th and Perch (Hill and 5th) opened Downtown last week. I had an opportunity to visit both and was blown away.

thanks for the first hand account. Descriptions from ppl who actually are in the hood help keep this thread from becoming a bit too dry, or OT, or too theoretical or generalized.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Not the most exciting type of proj, but it's the most anyone can hope for at this time & probably for yrs into the future.

I hate this kind of thinking. This building will be around long after the recession ends. I would rather wait and have actually good proposals be built that I can look on for years ahead and be happy about then have a proposal be built that years from now I look upon and think is a blot on the city. And things like Wilshire Grand show that if you are building something large in an attractive part of the city, it is entirely possible to obtain funding. Metropolis already had to survive one recession with minimal change (it was first proposed in the early 90s) I think it can survive another with the same.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Don't let architectural style, which is subjective, distract you away from how the building will function within the context of South Park and the Financial District. Will this activate the street is a more important question. Will it provide more amenities to DTLA's residents and visitors that will help improve DTLA's reputation? Judging by the renderings, I am confident it will generate substantial pedestrian activity, and a powerful crossflow between LA Live and FIGat7th. That's the key.

The new version of Metropolis will be a valuable addition to the neighborhood. Fretting over the height is ridiculous in this case because the project more than makes up for its "lack of height" with plenty of retail space, which is more important in this unique context that needs the sidewalks activated.

Plus, the project ranges from 4 to 12 to 16 stories in height, which is hardly something to sneer at. Remember, great cities like Madrid, London, or Paris are made up with a majority of buildings in that height range, if not even shorter.

Think of it this way. There are so many parking lots in Downtown LA, there will be PLENTY of opportunities for skyscrapers in the future if the economy can support them and calls for them. Have you counted how many empty lots there are on Olympic Blvd between Fig and Los Angeles St? How many more parking lots are still along Figueroa itself? Exactly.

Metropolis, in this version, is actually plausible, adds much needed retail options to Downtown LA, and fills in one of countless parking lots. There are still plenty more parking lots to infill.

I am very excited about this project and I hope they can achieve their timeline, which is to break ground next year and finish it by 2014. I think it's totally possible to finish this project in 2 years.

[SD_Phil]

Right on Brigham!

This is a big, dense, project on a lot that in some ways doesn't have all that much going for it. Architecturally it's middle of the road, it's not faux tuscan so it could be worse. But, as Brigham says, it could only do good things for the area in terms of encouraging more pedestrian activity.

[BrandonJXN]

Metropolis is going to be VERY important in tying in LA Live with the rest of downtown. Could it be taller? Yes. Does it have to be in order for it to be successful? Not at all. And it's bound to be redesigned and redesigned so hold your bladders people. Everything important doesn't need to be 50 stories tall.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

This project, like SD Phil said, is middle of the road when it comes to design. It's not Medici or even the parking structure at Watermarke, so it's not THAT bad. It's decent, dense infill. The amount of retail this project will have is the key to bridging LA Live with FIGat7th, and like what ThreeHundred said, what connects LA Live to the rest of the Financial District.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

This building will be around long after the recession ends. I would rather wait and have actually good proposals be built that I can look on for years ahead and be happy about then have a proposal be built that years from now I look upon and think is a blot on the city. .

Illithid, I understand where you're coming from in general, but I'm not sure how to read you when it comes to the specifics. iow, since you live in SaMo, which is a lower density, more burban, yet nice part of town, is it therefore unappealing to what you're looking for in a place to call home?

lots of ppl like samo, & notice what's said about your part of town in the snippet I've posted below. So if samo can do well with projs that really are no better or worse than metropolis----& still be a place lots of ppl want to live in & visit----than what's the difference between there & dtla?

I recall your visiting bunker hill a few months ago & saying the newer devlpt wasn't good for urbanism, or something like that. While I don't totally disagree with your POV, I also remember inserting this pic, cuz it puts things in their proper & full context....



Not sure if focusing on newer devlpt not being great or perfect, or as good as one would like, while never or rarely complaining about the really bad aspects of the hood----like the deadzones that still take up a good part of bunker hill----is a matter of saying the glass is half full, or the glass is half empty. Some might say my emphasis on parking lots is a "glass is half empty" pov, & I'll accept that, although I also think it's my trying to keep things in perspective & real.

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

Right on Brigham!

I'll second that. By comparison, I come across things like the following which irritate me to no end. BTW, it mentions where you live, so it fits the thread right now....

So if it's inevitable that the city will need to renovate the convention complex in the next few years, why not do it with the help of AEG? But the logic skips over a more fundamental question: What sort of payback would a new convention center really offer? Boosterism aside, L.A. is not an obvious convention city the way Vegas is - or even San Diego and NY. Nor is it ever likely to be, with or without a gussied-up center (why on earth would out-of-towners prefer staying downtown over Bev Hills or Santa Monica?) The more realistic argument is that a new facility - along with faux-attractions like L.A. Live - will at least keep the city from losing market share to other cities. But this is a complicated and expensive project, with all kinds of financial traps we probably haven't even detected. You have to wonder whether it's worth all the time, effort and political maneuvering for a goal that basically amounts to treading water. Aren't there less risky ways to raise tax revenues? As laid out in an LAT editorial:

But what if Los Angeles, even with a modern Convention Center, simply can't compete with San Diego's waterfront or Las Vegas' gambling or San Francisco's beauty? The council should ask how this set of estimates for the Convention Center is more solid than those it relied on when it built the existing facility, a decision that many of those involved with now regret.

^ this is from a blog hosted by ppl who also don't like the red line being extended to west LA, where they apparently live, & said it would too $$ & wouldn't make sense in an auto dependent city. The kicker is they're politically very typical of ppl in that part of town, meaning they're otherwise very progressive. So it's not politics----of them or the person who said LA has lost its mojo----that affect the way they think. It's other things. iow, they're hix in the stix.