LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

Now, with the possible exception of the Koreans, we have almost nothing to look forward to in major construction, even at a time when construction materials are at their cheapest. I know the economy is severely lacking now, but other areas aren't waiting around ......... why are we? Now, we have a supreme compromise on a plot of land that cost about 50 million dollars years ago; a plot that sat empty for years ... waiting ... and we're about to get that project that we will regret. The kind of project that we know we will complain about. A companion piece to Staples Center and LA LIVE that will hang around for decades. And, judging by the design of it, it will age poorly. Isn't it ironic- that a Los Angeles firm hires a Miami design house, Collarmele, when Miami's Brickell Citicentre will be 4+ million square feet?. Do you hear laughter, Villaraigosa? Time to wake up.

Wall Street torpedoed the economy, not the mayor. And I'm not sure what you're proposing here...it doesn't matter how cheap materials are if the financing for major projects just isn't there.

[pesto]

There is no such thing as a "lack of funds", only a lack of projects that make sense. Actually there is 100's of billions of investable funds looking for projects. The problem is that investors are viewing projects with skepticism and holding back on their cash and credit facilities until they believe the economy is really going to recover.

Currently few highrise projects are attracting funding. It is the Mayor's (plus City Council) job to look at the long-term benefit to the city and withhold permits from projects that may be good for the short term, but eliminate the possibilty of projects that will be better in the long term. It IS his job to block this project if highrise would serve that area better.

[Kingofthehill]

First, a few photos from the newly-opened Pattern Bar, of which is amazing! A real joy in an otherwise uninteresting part of DTLA (Main/9th)



Cali-grown, Cali-brewed





The Chester Williams Building, on Broadway/5th, is still under renovation





Good-looking building on Spring, near 7th. If renovated properly, I am sure this building could be a true gem!



Sex and The City - Los Angeles St. edition



Despite its shabby appearance, I think (segments of) Los Angeles St. is one of the more intact streets in DTLA. I believe the street will have a good future, especially when gentrification fully hits it; its small retail spaces (compared to large/grandiose ones on 7th St., for instance, will prove attactive to small upstarts).



Más Malo





The Santee Lofts' public alley



Target progress




Didn't quite make it to the Civic Center area, but I hope you guys were able to enjoy these photos!

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

Over time there has been a sense of "settling" for less and being satisfied with that prospect in Los Angeles. There has been the sense that civic planners, over time, have failed at providing a well considered master plan for downtown. Or the city as a whole for that matter, where one can find the kinds of construction that makes one wince. The expanded footprints, the compromise of stucco.

.

And we have settled for it.

.

Well, I was boppin' around downtown and Century City taking pictures when most of you were quite young, if existant at all! I saw in a few short years' time an emergence of a skyline where there was none before. Most will complain of the boxy attitude of those structures but the Fire Department is "solely" in charge of that. Regardless, these developments were exciting to see.

.

Now, with the possible exception of the Koreans, we have almost nothing to look forward to in major construction, even at a time when construction materials are at their cheapest.

I know the economy is severely lacking now, but other areas aren't waiting around ......... why are we?

.

Now, we have a supreme compromise on a plot of land that cost about 50 million dollars years ago; a plot that sat empty for years ... waiting ... and we're about to get that project that we will regret. The kind of project that we know we will complain about. A companion piece to Staples Center and LA LIVE that will hang around for decades. And, judging by the design of it, it will age poorly.

.

Isn't it ironic- that a Los Angeles firm hires a Miami design house, Collarmele, when Miami's Brickell Citicentre will be 4+ million square feet?

.

Do you hear laughter, Villaraigosa? Time to wake up.

I don't get some of the ugly sad faces in this forum, lamenting over Metropolis' lack of height and "poor design." The fact that this project will be from 4 to 12 to 16 stories in staggered height is nothing to sneer at, like I said before. Just because it's not 30 stories tall across the board doesn't make this project a failure.

What will be important to most people is whether or not there will be great businesses to shop at. Not how "pretty" this building will look. In fact, this building looks modern and blends into the area fine. It reminds me somewhat of the South Group towers (Elleven and Luma) bunched up together.

Also, I am more concerned about how Metropolis meets the street/sidewalks than what it'll look like from the 10 freeway as part of the skyline.

Metropolis will be a game-changing project for Downtown LA because of its retail component that LA Live lacks. This inevitably will attract other retailers to the area and start filling up empty spaces or taking over crappy stores/restaurants. The chance that Trader Joes MIGHT take the space in 845 S Fig is amazing enough.

And like I said before, there are PLENTY of parking lots throughout downtown that could use a few more skyscrapers. Plenty. Metropolis taking up an empty parcel actually increases the chance of something else taller going up nearby. But to reiterate, as a pedestrian on the street, 12 to 16 stories will definitely be a nice height.

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

And like I said before, there are PLENTY of parking lots throughout downtown that could use a few more skyscrapers. Plenty. Metropolis taking up an empty parcel actually increases the chance of something else taller going up nearby. But to reiterate, as a pedestrian on the street, 12 to 16 stories will definitely be a nice height.

Tell 'em. The most desirable nabes in NYC are low-slung (in comparison to skyscraper-filled Midtown and Downtown) - places like the Greenwich Village, West Village, SoHo, Dumbo, Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, et al. Same for European cities; London, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Prague, et al, tend to be characterized by 4-6-story buildings. Take a peek at this Vienna thread....it should make clear that skyscrapers are not needed for a fully-functioning, vibrant neighborhood.

Also, as this photo illustrates, there is enough room for everybody:

[pesto]

Hate to see comments like "it's better than a parking lot" or "better than nothing" when you're talking about 1 block off Fig.

I agree that skyscrapers (like football stadiums) do not make for a great livable neighborhood; great cities (NY, SF, London, Paris, etc.) put skyscrapers in the CBD's and stadiums in outer districts.

But this IS the CBD! This is not Little Tokyo or the Fashion Dist. or even Bway. It's just off 8th and Fig. Seems awfully stubby and "Montclair" like to me for a supposed commercial and tourism center in the heart of DT.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by pesto

Hate to see comments like "it's better than a parking lot" or "better than nothing" when you're talking about 1 block off Fig.

I agree that skyscrapers (like football stadiums) do not make for a great livable neighborhood; great cities (NY, SF, London, Paris, etc.) put skyscrapers in the CBD's and stadiums in outer districts.

But this IS the CBD! This is not Little Tokyo or the Fashion Dist. or even Bway. It's just off 8th and Fig. Seems awfully stubby and "Montclair" like to me for a supposed commercial and tourism center in the heart of DT.

It's freakin 12 to 16 floors, what do you guys want?

We're already getting a supertall up the street (Wilshire Grand) at 750 and 1200 feet in the heart of the Financial District at Wilshire/Figueroa. And we're getting another 22 story hotel building (Marriotts) just a block from Metropolis by LA Live. There's still at least a half dozen empty lots SURROUNDING the Metropolis site as well, please don't forget that.

If Metropolis doesn't use its height cap, then it can eventually sell off its air rights to another developer who can build those skyscrapers nearby.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Tell 'em. The most desirable nabes in NYC are low-slung (in comparison to skyscraper-filled Midtown and Downtown) - places like the Greenwich Village, West Village, SoHo, Dumbo, Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, et al. Same for European cities; London, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Prague, et al, tend to be characterized by 4-6-story buildings. Take a peek at this Vienna thread....it should make clear that skyscrapers are not needed for a fully-functioning, vibrant neighborhood.

Also, as this photo illustrates, there is enough room for everybody:

Yes, I agree the most attractive neighborhoods in Manhattan are lower slung areas (not to say I don't like Midtown or Downtown Manhattan). At 12 to 16 floors, the Metropolis is not bad at all. No one is going to f-ing care how tall these buildings are when the sidewalks are teeming with life.

[LAofAnaheim]

Boy.......if people here really hate 12 to 16 story buildings, then they must hate London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc.....

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

You guys were talking about a downtown Fresh and Easy...

Looks like theyre experimenting with extra small format stores.




http://freshneasybuzz.blogspot.com/

I wonder, and hope, this is a walk-up store with no parking allowed. If they see success here, then maybe we'll get some Fresh 'n Easy Express in downtown LA.

Parking requirements are what kills good projects more than anything else. Remove the parking minimums, and maybe we'll get back to a boom again. Let the developer decide parking, not "socialist" parking requirements.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I don't get some of the ugly sad faces in this forum, lamenting over Metropolis' lack of height and "poor design." The fact that this project will be from 4 to 12 to 16 stories in staggered height is nothing to sneer at, like I said before. Just because it's not 30 stories tall across the board doesn't make this project a failure.

What will be important to most people is whether or not there will be great businesses to shop at. Not how "pretty" this building will look. In fact, this building looks modern and blends into the area fine. It reminds me somewhat of the South Group towers (Elleven and Luma) bunched up together.

Also, I am more concerned about how Metropolis meets the street/sidewalks than what it'll look like from the 10 freeway as part of the skyline.

Metropolis will be a game-changing project for Downtown LA because of its retail component that LA Live lacks. This inevitably will attract other retailers to the area and start filling up empty spaces or taking over crappy stores/restaurants. The chance that Trader Joes MIGHT take the space in 845 S Fig is amazing enough.

And like I said before, there are PLENTY of parking lots throughout downtown that could use a few more skyscrapers. Plenty. Metropolis taking up an empty parcel actually increases the chance of something else taller going up nearby. But to reiterate, as a pedestrian on the street, 12 to 16 stories will definitely be a nice height.

Exactly! i dont see why this is so hard to understand.

[UrbanJungle]

Originally Posted by pesto

There is no such thing as a "lack of funds", only a lack of projects that make sense. Actually there is 100's of billions of investable funds looking for projects. The problem is that investors are viewing projects with skepticism and holding back on their cash and credit facilities until they believe the economy is really going to recover.

Currently few highrise projects are attracting funding. It is the Mayor's (plus City Council) job to look at the long-term benefit to the city and withhold permits from projects that may be good for the short term, but eliminate the possibilty of projects that will be better in the long term. It IS his job to block this project if highrise would serve that area better.

What I find so funny about this whole discussion is the attitude of willing skyscrapers into being. The error of Pesto's logic is that projects (especially high-rise) are not attracting funding is because they do not make economic sense. When it costs more to construct and finance a building than it is either worth or for what it can be sold, you lose money. In our "free market" system (such as that term is loosely in effect these days), people don't build buildings for the sake of creating a pretty skyline. They do it to MAKE MONEY. (or ego, which takes money, but that's another story.)

Just as AEG wants to build a stadium, its not just 'cuz they love football and are sorry LA doesn't have a team. They want to MAKE MONEY. AEG built a 52 story hotel and condo tower. Not necessarily to make tons of money, but as the major "community benefit" exacted by the City of LA in order to get their LA Live complex approved. So today the hotels are kicking ass, but they've sold only 32 out of 221 or so multi-million-dollar condos. That's a huge drag on the project, and they're losing tons of money. So we've got a great 52 story building which looks awesome on our skyline, but that's a financial mess. Only reason it hasn't gone back to the banks is AEG's sponsorship and financing the shortfalls.

What about LA's other new highrises?

- Concerto - went back to the bank and the developer lost $60+ million of his own equity, not to mention what Uncle Sam via the FDIC incurs as a loss from the loan principal. To be reborn as the 'Apex" is will emerge as either a rental or stay condo.
- Watermarke - while successful as a rental today, the project was sold out of bankruptcy for less than the cost to build - with both the developer (Meruelo-Maddux) losing its equity and the construction lender (Canyon Funds) losing some of their loan principal (and this despite the building selling for $550,000 a UNIT!!!)
- 717 Olympic - while 95% leased today, this project was originally supposed to rent for over $4 a foot. They've been doing deals around $2.65 a foot factoring in concessions on average, but the developer lost their equity when they sold their interest. Not considered a financial success.
- Evo - still trying to sell the last of its units, almost three years after opening the weekend Lehman Bros collapsed and we had a near financial melt-down. Developer lost equity and mezz lender has been running the show, trying to minimize the loss of their principal. Construction lender (Corus) did get paid off in full - so that's something.
- Elleven / Luma - both built and sold during the finance bubble, so the developers made off with a bundle (far more than their losses on Evo).

Did I miss any DTLA high-rises in my rundown?

So let's see - out of seven (7) high-rises built during the bubble, only TWO (2) made money (and even then, all of their current condo owners are underwater, so it's a net loss all around). Not a very compelling story on DTLA's "great" skyline. And folks wonder why high-rises in LA are not "attracting funding"?!? There's your track record, folks.

As for Pesto's comment about not approving projects "not good for the long term," all I can say is, "have you looked at an aerial photo of downtown lately?" We have blocks and blocks of surface parking lots and underutilized land in great locations. There is no shortage of development opportunity. I say we need to support projects that bring new jobs, provide more housing, provide retail services, and link the pockets of development throughout downtown into one cohesive whole. And that's saying a lot, and that requires a lot of new development. I think we should be focusing on that, and not whining about some project that will be 12 or 16 stories vs. 40.

[LA/OCman]

Great photos King of the Hill! The food is a awesome as the design of the Pattern Bar. One thing that Downtown has going for it is the amount of space available for growth. South of Downtown and East of Downtown has so much potential. Lots of single story buildings and parking lots.

I think Metropolis needs quality stores and a huge water feature like the Music Center. Paris, Rome, NY, SF, London are all either a river or bay...We need fountains and water features to create a nice atmosphere to sit outside and have a meal or coffee...especially in South Park. I think AEG should have installed a water feature at LA Live.

[bobcat]

Splashy megaprojects make nice headlines and all, but at the end of the day you need a viable project. IDS has been trying for 20 years to get something off the ground in one form or another but that plot of land is still a parking lot.

IMO this latest Metropolis iteration has by far the best chance of actually getting built of all their proposals because it actually meets the needs of the community in the form of new retail space and hotel rooms. Hopefully they can sign some nice anchor tenants and receive financing soon.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Boy.......if people here really hate 12 to 16 story buildings, then they must hate London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc.....

On this surface, this seems like a good comparison, given those cities' livability and all.

But really, when you delve closer to what makes up the skylines of London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc..., this is where the differences between them and LA begin to be noticeable. For instance; ALL of those cities have architecture 10 times as old and beautiful as LA...

In other words, places like Sao Paulo or Tokyo may be livable as well, but their architecture is nowhere near as beautiful. I don't know about you guys, but in terms of quality of architecture, I DO NOT want LA turning into one of those cities...

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

think AEG should have installed a water feature at LA Live.

Nokia Plaza could really use one. As it is right now, the plaza is a wasted opportunity.

On the LA Live website it says this about Nokia Plaza:

"Since the beginning of civilization, great gathering places have been the heart and soul of a community."

Then, you visit and see this:

Flickr: dnl2ba

If you actually watch how people interact with the plaza, you see that its far from a gathering place. People enter, look around at the video screens, maybe snap a few photos at the spectacle of it, and keep walking. There's hardly anywhere to sit given how large the plaza is, and no focal point besides the video screens. There's nothing about the place that communicates "Sit for a spell and relax!"

Contrast that with New York's great gathering places:


Washington Square Park - Flickr: Scoboco

DC's great gathering places:


Dupont Circle - Flickr: BAR Photography

And Portland's great gathering places:

Jamison Square - Flickr: dolanh

A water feature does seem to be a common theme here. That along with more seating and less video bombardment. I'd love to see Nokia Plaza transformed at some point in the future to a gathering place that's worth caring about.

[LAofAnaheim]

Don't we have a water feature at Pershing Square? How's that doing?

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Don't we have a water feature at Pershing Square? How's that doing?

You mean this?


Wikipedia

I don't think that counts.

[bobcat]

The Civic Park will have a newly refurbished Arthur J Will Memorial Fountain.

[LA/OCman]

The fountain at the civic park is great...but it is a good distance from South Park. Think about it...on Bunker Hill you have the Music Center fountain, Calif Plaza fountain, DWP building fountain, Mrs. Disney's fountain in back of Disney Hall, Water features near MOCA, the Arthur J. Will Fountain, Cathedral Plaza fountains....then you have the Maguire Gardens fountain below. Head South, what do we have? A small fountain at Grand/Hope park. We need something big like District Dirt posted from DC and NYC. How about a fountain like the Mulholland Fountain in Los Feliz? It would really be a gathering point for locals and tourists if done correctly.