LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Now it looks like, uh, this. All cluttered and shit.

Photo credit, Floyd B. Bariscale

That photo doesn't really do the roof justice. PE Lofts has the nicest rooftop in DTLA. People pay to live in that building just for the roof. It has all these alcoves you can take over with your friends, has a massive grill, pool, jacuzzi, and even a dog run. We almost moved into PE Lofts, but wound up choosing SB Tower instead because the units are nicer. And while you're not going to use the rooftop every day, but you do use your apartment every day.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

It's like, I want Metro rail everywhere, but we have a freeway running through downtown LA which totally obliterates the urban environment (does Manhattan have a freeway? what about the Chicago Loop?) Now we can continue harping on the fact we have a darn freeway in the middle of downtown or something people accepted a long time ago. It is what it is, and we have to live with it. Just don't think the locals in New York love Times Square or locals in London love Trafalgar.........because they don't. Just let it go.....

Luckily, capping the 101 and 110 would go a long way in terms of alleviating the fractioning effect that these freeways have on DTLA. Connecting the burgeoning neighborhood in City West and Chinatown/Pueblo to DTLA with parkland wouldn't just add an amazing network of open parkland in the heart of our metro, it basically ties it all together and gives DTLA a grander footprint. No doubt this would encourage a spillover effect that would encourage growth in these newly connected (or 're-connected' in the case old Chinatown/Pueblo) neighborhoods. Add those freeway caps and all of a sudden the Northern and Western boundaries of DTLA are no longer defined by the freeways.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I agree bobcat. So I guess the Elleven (13 stories) and Luma (19 stories) towers in South Park are nothing more, collectively, than the strip mall in Tarzana.

Although I agree with pesto and milquetoast that it makes more sense to put a highrise on a prime plot of land that happens to also be big, height isn't my biggest concern with the newest incarnation of metropolis. The shabbiness of the design is what irritates me. It's certainly got height, another useful hotel, and much-needed retail that people in DTLA actually need, but it stops right there. Doesn't change the fact that it still looks like crap.

It South Group were to fill that parcel with 13-19 story condo towers, I doubt many people would be that opposed to it. Even though the height isn't there, the quality of the construction is certainly there. Whatever gets built there is likely gonna be there a long time. Who wouldn't be irritated to see a shitty strip mall of epic proportions there for 50 years right next to some of DTLA's newest jewels (LA Live, Staples, South Group, etc.)??

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Although I agree with pesto and milquetoast that it makes more sense to put a highrise on a prime plot of land that happens to also be big, height isn't my biggest concern with the newest incarnation of metropolis. The shabbiness of the design is what irritates me. It's certainly got height, another useful hotel, and much-needed retail that people in DTLA actually need, but it stops right there. Doesn't change the fact that it still looks like crap.

It South Group were to fill that parcel with 13-19 story condo towers, I doubt many people would be that opposed to it. Even though the height isn't there, the quality of the construction is certainly there. Whatever gets built there is likely gonna be there a long time. Who wouldn't be irritated to see a shitty strip mall of epic proportions there for 50 years right next to some of DTLA's newest jewels (LA Live, Staples, South Group, etc.)??

If South Group was to fill that parcel with a bunch of towers I would be more then happy. Their little complex is the classiest new construction built during the boom, IMO. Well, tied with Met, maybe. I love me some lighty-up red squares...

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by pesto

Actually NY, SF and other cities have quite a bit of outdoor dining, even in quite chilly conditions. In SF it is usually accompanied by space heaters, sometimes quite a few. The locals in these towns seem to be more willing to accept the mediocre weather than Angelenos.

i'm very curious about the specifics of what you're describing, for I do believe that human nature means that ppl do learn to adapt. But it also seems to go beyond the boundaries of what's realistic to expect ppl to be so different from ppl in LA that, unlike here, they'll sit at overly soggy dining tables or lounge around really cold rooftop terraces.

However, I know that the customers of the new rooftop restaurant at 5th & Hill st, if they're locals who've long since grown soft by experiencing rarely wet & truly cold days, will be more likely than their counterparts in other cities to avoid visiting a place like the Perch when it's even slightly wet, even slightly cold.

pesto, if you can find a web site or pics of a restaurant or lounge in a cold weather city that goes against what laofanaheim is describing, it would be very interesting to me if you posted a link to it here. I'm not being argumentative, as I'd really be fascinated to read about a food service business that's dependent on good weather surviving in climates where alot more rain & cold, & certainly snow, exists on far more days each yr compared with LA....

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

I went to one rooftop bar in NYC, but there was only a patio area that was in the open, where most of the bar, music, dance floor were all inside. Unlike the Standard or Perch which is all basically outdoors with furniture, dance floor and DJ's

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

People find downtown LA to be fun now...compared to just 6 years ago when it was an easy choice to avoid downtown LA and go to Hollywood, Santa Monica, Pasadena or Venice. Things are changing....and I love being part of it!

I've mentioned in the past that I believe dt, at least in some crucial ways, is better today than it's been in over 60 yrs. In other ways, it may be better today that is has ever been in its history.

To your list of new things of importance planned for the future, I'd add the new Broad art museum going up next to disney hall. btw, cultural life is one way that I believe dt in particular, & LA in general, is better now---even much better----than it is has ever been. But that's also in the context of the city's culture in previous yrs being dissed for----as the saying goes----punching below its weight class.

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

As you all might know i'm a San Diegan who is in deep love with LA, like its not even love its like crazy obsessed stalker love haha...I search downtown la EVERYDAY over the internet, i love learning about her history. what I just started thinkin about is how alive LA will turn out to be once Fig@7th, Metropolis, Civic Park, Regional Connector and Streetcar get built out.

Maybe Los Angeles can learn from San Diego, which was really dead 20 years ago... today it is a city that completely revitalized its downtown area.

since I'm a native of LA, it's hard for me to know how I'd view the city if I had instead been born & raised 200, or 1000, or 2000, or 5000 thousand miles away. I know that my interest in city matters starts to drop quite quickly the further removed some proj, devlpt or issue is from dt.

It's not that I couldn't care less about what's happening in samo, or bev hills, or silver lake, or hollywood, pasadena, or some part of OC or sfv. It's just that my interest level isn't as great for things going on there compared with dt.

maybe in a former life, ppl like you & me were born & raised in the center of LA, perhaps back in the early 1900s? so it's like a distant calling----a faint memory----from a person's previous existence.

as for your hometown, it rates quite well in surveys done by tourism or travel publications. In fact, I've seen ratings where SD gets more positive marks than LA.

When bobcat mentioned awhile back that the average person who ultimately determines the success or failure of places & devlpt will----to paraphrase---stifle a yawn over the urbanist chatter here or elsewhere, I think he was referring to what a wide cross section of the public likes or doesn't like, based on where they visit, spend their $$, & what kind of feedback they give. A lot of them apparently have greater regard for SD than LA. I don't agree with that POV, but that's just plain reality. It's why I think the average person won't give a flying squat about whether some new devlpt has super wonderful or super sophisticated qualities or not.

EX: all the faux Euro apt bldgs built in dtla by GH Palmer. Almost everyone sneers at them, but of all the new housing built in DT over the past 10 yrs, I believe those huge cookie cutter bldgs have been the most popular. of course, there also is the saying of "there's no accounting for taste". But palmer apparently has been laughing all the way to the bank.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by bobcat

But as Brig and I pointed out it doesn't really matter in the long run because any unused air rights will just get bought up by other developers to make their projects bigger. In the end it'll be a wash.

I'm pretty much over Metropolis at this point, but "it will save building capacity for the future" is an argument from desperation. It will serve to justify the implementation of a lot of bad ideas.

The point is that some of the arguments for the new Metropolis are "better than a parking lot", "better than nothing", "saves air rights for later buildings" are perfectly true. But very light. And "connects areas" or "creates streetlife" is just wrong (it's an indoor mall on multiple off-street levels).

And is it really better than a Taco Bell? The TB would at least be easy to tear down when a legitimate downtown building proposal comes along.

But as citywatch notes, I am curious to see what sort of retailer they can lure into that location. Hopefully something good for DT.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by citywatch

i'm very curious about the specifics of what you're describing, for I do believe that human nature means that ppl do learn to adapt. But it also seems to go beyond the boundaries of what's realistic to expect ppl to be so different from ppl in LA that, unlike here, they'll sit at overly soggy dining tables or lounge around really cold rooftop terraces.

However, I know that the customers of the new rooftop restaurant at 5th & Hill st, if they're locals who've long since grown soft by experiencing rarely wet & truly cold days, will be more likely than their counterparts in other cities to avoid visiting a place like the Perch when it's even slightly wet, even slightly cold.

pesto, if you can find a web site or pics of a restaurant or lounge in a cold weather city that goes against what laofanaheim is describing, it would be very interesting to me if you posted a link to it here. I'm not being argumentative, as I'd really be fascinated to read about a food service business that's dependent on good weather surviving in climates where alot more rain & cold, & certainly snow, exists on far more days each yr compared with LA....

I'm much too lazy to look for pictures and I don't really care about this argument either way, but NY if full of outdoor restaurants with people in direct beating sunshine in the summer and on frigid days in the fall. I witnessed this in spades on 1st and 2nd Ave. on the lower east side a couple of weeks ago.

I have eaten outside many times in the Embarcadero, Union Sq., the Marina and other parts of SF in fog and cold, with space heaters blazing.

In NY the Boston guys take pride in eating outside with temperature in the 40's ("I can't believe you guys are such wimps; this isn't even cold!").

Rain is a different issue; I don't know anyone who eats outside in the rain by choice.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by citywatch

To your list of new things of importance planned for the future, I'd add the new Broad art museum going up next to disney hall. btw, cultural life is one way that I believe dt in particular, & LA in general, is better now---even much better----than it is has ever been.

The arts, entertainment, sports, shopping, dining. To me these elements are just as important to DTLA's revival as all the bricks and mortar developments.

It's why I think the average person won't give a flying squat about whether some new devlpt has super wonderful or super sophisticated qualities or not.

I did a search on Tripadvisor to see what people were saying about LA Live! and found these two recent reviews:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Re...ews-L_A_Live-Los_Angeles_California.html

From a visitor from Ohio:
"“What a pleasant surprise!”
...we couldn't get near the Staples Center because of the circus going on at the time, but we still loved being in the area and ate at the ESPN Zone (good food, great atmosphere for sports lovers.) Also they were setting up for the X Games which just added to the whole LA sports atmosphere. We'd go again.

From a visitor from Dallas:
“LA Live has transformed downtown Los Angeles!”
Pasadena was a charming, sleepy town full of history and beauty. Most of the time though, we spent our days and nights in West Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles which has been transformed with the addition of LA LiVE and the Staples Center. LA LIVE has something for everyone and even had a small ice rink for children to go ice skating on during the holidays. From ESPN Zone to Starbucks Coffee and my favorite Rosa Mexicana restaurant (try the sangria and table side guacamole), you will not go hungry. After dinner, have a cocktail at the JW Marriott or Ritz Carlton and then go watch Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers at the Staples Center if you really want the LA experience.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by pesto

I'm pretty much over Metropolis at this point, but "it will save building capacity for the future" is an argument from desperation. It will serve to justify the implementation of a lot of bad ideas.

I don't see how this is an argument in desperation. This is what the developer deems feasible at this time. Should they propose another pie-in-the-sky office project that will never get built?

Some people here are so used to bubble economies that they've lost touch with reality. The proposed Metropolis project is not a small project by any means and looks like it will provide much needed services to the area. That's how you grow cities organically, not by putting up projects that the market can't support.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

I'm much too lazy to look for pictures and I don't really care about this argument either way, but NY if full of outdoor restaurants with people in direct beating sunshine in the summer and on frigid days in the fall. I witnessed this in spades on 1st and 2nd Ave. on the lower east side a couple of weeks ago.

I have eaten outside many times in the Embarcadero, Union Sq., the Marina and other parts of SF in fog and cold, with space heaters blazing.

In NY the Boston guys take pride in eating outside with temperature in the 40's ("I can't believe you guys are such wimps; this isn't even cold!").

Rain is a different issue; I don't know anyone who eats outside in the rain by choice.

Right, NY and SF have outdoor dining............just like our Melrose, Santa Monica, Culver City, Venice, Bevelry Hills, etc... It's only picking up in downtown, Hollywood and others. You cannot just compare downtown LA to New York City; LA is made up of many different districts (just like Manhattan), but more sprawled out. There's plenty of outdoor dining in all the other districts in LA, but downtown LA is just getting there. It was pretty hard when you have the largest homeless encampment butting up against you all these years. SF and NY don't have to deal with a Skid Row area............

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by bobcat

From a visitor from Ohio:
"“What a pleasant surprise!”
...we couldn't get near the Staples Center because of the circus going on at the time, but we still loved being in the area and ate at the ESPN Zone (good food, great atmosphere for sports lovers.) Also they were setting up for the X Games which just added to the whole LA sports atmosphere. We'd go again.

From a visitor from Dallas:
“LA Live has transformed downtown Los Angeles!”
Pasadena was a charming, sleepy town full of history and beauty. Most of the time though, we spent our days and nights in West Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles which has been transformed with the addition of LA LiVE and the Staples Center. LA LIVE has something for everyone and even had a small ice rink for children to go ice skating on during the holidays. From ESPN Zone to Starbucks Coffee and my favorite Rosa Mexicana restaurant (try the sangria and table side guacamole), you will not go hungry. After dinner, have a cocktail at the JW Marriott or Ritz Carlton and then go watch Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers at the Staples Center if you really want the LA experience.

My god tourists are lame. Glad they keep bringing their dollars here though

[LosAngelesDreamin]

I don't see whats wrong with the Metropolis design, why are people complaining.. they don't want stucco.. so they didn't give you stucco... they gave you glass... then you go "EW I DON"T LIKE IT!!"

You sound like a freakin brat.. SO DAMN PICKY

I think Metropolis looks gorgeous, i think its something you would see in Vegas, sayyyyy near the Cosmopolitan?? Or that Fashion Show Mall which has a little resemblance

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

I don't see whats wrong with the Metropolis design, why are people complaining.. they don't want stucco.. so they didn't give you stucco... they gave you glass... then you go "EW I DON"T LIKE IT!!"

You sound like a freakin brat.. SO DAMN PICKY

I think Metropolis looks gorgeous, i think its something you would see in Vegas, sayyyyy near the Cosmopolitan?? Or that Fashion Show Mall which has a little resemblance

I agree. And I only brought up the South Group towers Elleven and Luma because the towers that will be in Metropolis look very similar in design but they are just connected to a larger base where the shopping will be. Almost the entire project is covered in glass and it looks like there will be pedestrian plazas closer to 9th Street/Francisco.

I think the comparisons to Taco Bell are completely uncalled for and just shows how unrealistic expectations are on this board.

[all of the trash]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

I don't see whats wrong with the Metropolis design, why are people complaining.. they don't want stucco.. so they didn't give you stucco... they gave you glass... then you go "EW I DON"T LIKE IT!!"

You sound like a freakin brat.. SO DAMN PICKY

I think Metropolis looks gorgeous, i think its something you would see in Vegas, sayyyyy near the Cosmopolitan?? Or that Fashion Show Mall which has a little resemblance

[all of the trash]

btw the old PE rooftop is gorgeous but the great thing about its current design is that they are using drought resistant landscaping. If only all front lawns in L.A. could look that we'd be the 'greenest' city in the southwest (actually I kinda think we already are?)

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

btw the old PE rooftop is gorgeous but the great thing about its current design is that they are using drought resistant landscaping. If only all front lawns in L.A. could look that we'd be the 'greenest' city in the southwest (actually I kinda think we already are?)

Yeah but some people think xeriscaping looks ugly, so guess we better not support something that would be good for the community (i.e., Metropolis adding much needed retail amenities) because some people think it looks ugly.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

I don't see whats wrong with the Metropolis design, why are people complaining.. they don't want stucco.. so they didn't give you stucco... they gave you glass... then you go "EW I DON"T LIKE IT!!"

You sound like a freakin brat.. SO DAMN PICKY

I think Metropolis looks gorgeous, i think its something you would see in Vegas, sayyyyy near the Cosmopolitan?? Or that Fashion Show Mall which has a little resemblance

Are you kidding? I see a ton of stucco. Everything white on that rendering is stucco. It's stucco central! If there wasn't so much stucco, then I wouldn't mind the design.

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Would you rather have Metropolis look like this? (circa 1990) http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/08/awkward_1990_metropolis_rendering_see_las_future_at_ad.php

No. You got me there!

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Right, NY and SF have outdoor dining............just like our Melrose, Santa Monica, Culver City, Venice, Bevelry Hills, etc... It's only picking up in downtown, Hollywood and others.

My guess is that Angelinos, when they want to eat outside, can do that most of the year in their backyards. When they go out, they may want to be inside for a change. We don't have to eat on our fire escape!

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

I think Metropolis looks gorgeous, i think its something you would see in Vegas, sayyyyy near the Cosmopolitan?? Or that Fashion Show Mall which has a little resemblance

I could see it here in Henderson. That's about it. It wouldn't be needed or accepted near the Fashion Show because it would clash horribly with the Wynn properties across the street- and never near the Cosmopolitan- might look alright in Bellagio's lake

[bobcat]

I can't tell if that's all stucco, but Metropolis' appearance reminds me a little of 717 Olympic, which I think looks nice.

DT News has a story on Metropolis and includes a few new details, including plans for possibly 2 hotels, smaller boutiques retailers, and the fact that it would be built in phases.
http://www.ladowntownnews.com/articles/2011/08/05/news/doc4e3c608dc8380610095826.txt

And for you whiners complaining about the size of the project, I dug up some old city planning documents and found that the previous Metropolis proposal in fact exceeded its zoned density and required an air rights transfer. That part of downtown is zoned at a 6:1 ratio, but the previous Metropolis plan required air rights to bring it up to 10:1. In other words the actual zoned density for that parcel is 40% less than the project which was proposed. I don't know exactly what the floor area is of the new proposal but from the looks of it I doubt it's all that much different from its actual zoned density.