LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

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!

Think about downtown LA 10 years ago before the residential explosion. How many outdoor cafes can you think of back then?

Today? The Standard, Pete's Cafe, Perch, Urbano Pizza, Pitfire Pizza, Coffee Bean, Panini cafe, Starbucks, Angelique cafe, Corkbar, etc...

It's a change. Again, comparing Manhattan to just downtown LA makes no sense. There could be more outdoor dining in LA primarily just along our coastline.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

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!

Think about downtown LA 10 years ago with outdoor cafes. How many outdoor cafes were there then?

Today? Pete's cafe, Perch, Angelique cafe, Lazy Ox, Pitfire Pizza, Urbano Pizza, Panini cafe, Coffee Bean, Starbucks, LA cafe, Coffee Bar, Syrup, all restaurants at LA Live!, etc...

If you looked at all the outdoor dining along our coastline, it would surely beat any east coast city.

What I do agree that we're missing is the outdoor dining at parks..........that I don't see much of in LA compared to other cities worldwide. I would love to sit down at a nice cafe at an urban park.

[citywatch]

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 was focusing on restaurants & lounges on rooftops, which are exposed to more of the elements than places on the ground----there tends to be more wind towards the top of bldgs.

I was wondering how a business that's very dependent on decent weather will pencil out during all the wks or months when there is rain, cold, much less snow.

Out of curiosity, I did a google search & came up with something in nyc like this....



230-fifth.com


230-fifth.com

230 Fifth is different!

Created and controlled by the former owner of New York's famous Roxy and Palladium nightclubs, 230 FIFTH opened on May 4, 2006 and in just one year of existence has received worldwide recognition as New York's # 1 Rooftop Garden and Fully Enclosed Penthouse Lounge / Bar!

230 Fifth is New York's largest (partially heated for winter) outdoor Rooftop Garden and fully enclosed Penthouse Lounge.

230 FIFTH is open every day, 365 days of the year from 4:00PM - 4:00AM. We have a fully enclosed Penthouse Lounge and partially heated Rooftop Garden for cooler days. Our Rooftop Garden also has very large, oversize umbrellas for rainy days, or for very hot sunny days (to shield you from too much sun).

230 Fifth is open 365 days a year, and no matter what the weather is like, you can still enjoy our rooftop bar. NYC is, after all, as beautiful in the winter as it is the summer. There's no reason to give up this incredible view just because it turns a little cold. Our Rooftop Garden Bar is partially heated and you can even use our cozy fleece hooded red robes or oversized blankets if you need a little extra warmth.

there's the saying that "if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere". the owners of 230 fifth look like they've gotta do alot of seasonal prep work to make their rooftop area more user friendly, with things like bringing out those palms.

after learning about 230, I have to say the owners of the perch don't have the right to ever complain about choosing a setting that's too vulnerable to the weather. However, the place in nyc does look like they use their open rooftop area less extensively than the Perch, where 230 only serves drinks outdoors or nothing that requires full sized tables.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

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!

if the average person isn't going to make a distinction about the difference between their backyard & the vibe & views found in places like a rooftop restaurant, or the difference between a walled off backyard & active, public sidewalk settings, than they're sure not going to care about whether a proj like the metropolis does or doesn't meet the design qualifications of urbanists, planning experts or tastemakers.

however, I will say that if the devlpr of the metropolis does choose something as cheap looking as stucco, they deserve to be publicly flogged. But based on the article linked by bobcat, it appears the devlpr is taking a wait & see approach right now. It sounds like he or potential tenants aren't going to commit til they see how the nearby new target & remodeled 7th/Fig shopping ctr is treated by new stores & shoppers. that suggests the metropolis is going to remain on a slow track schedule, which they've been on for 20 yrs.

[sopas ej]

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

I actually remember this, and have seen another rendering of it as a scale model. The LA Times did an article on this proposed development back then, interviewing Michael Graves, who also designed the Portland Building in Portland; I've never been to Portland but had seen pictures of the Portland building and thought that you could tell that it was designed by the same architect (isn't it funny how some architects' stuff all have the same look, even though they're designing for different areas/cities? Like Santiago Calatrava; people rave about his stuff but I think all his stuff from the last several years looks the same, like Mike Brady's in the "The Brady Bunch Movie"). Michael Graves was really big on Postmodernism during that period. But even back then, I thought it would somehow look out of place in LA. And I remember at the time, noticing the round top on the one tower, thinking, 'Is that going to be a theme of LA skyscrapers?', being that the Library Tower and Sanwa Bank Building (now called rather unimaginatively, Figueroa at Wilshire) had just been completed. I wasn't keen on the design, but at the time, I remember thinking 'well, downtown will have another high rise development.'

As I recall, I thought this original version of Metropolis was supposed to be all, if not mostly, office space, even though by the late 1980s, there was already a huge glut of office space downtown. And then the recession of the early 1990s hit, and many projects didn't get built.

[202_Cyclist]

I haven't been following this thread about the rooftop decks and patios, but in cities, where the amount of space is limited, I don't know why every building doesn't either have a rooftop deck, solar panels, or a rooftop garden. This is perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars of unused space readily available.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

As I recall, I thought this original version of Metropolis was supposed to be all, if not mostly, office space, even though by the late 1980s, there was already a huge glut of office space downtown. And then the recession of the early 1990s hit, and many projects didn't get built.

This company is just too slow to react to current market conditions and seizing opportunities when they become available. In the 80s they proposed an office development after the market was already glutted, and then they did the same thing in the 2000s with condos. Their best chance now is to just quit pussy footing around and build that hotel. Even if no football team ever comes they will still be in a good position due to its proximity to the convention center.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I was focusing on restaurants & lounges on rooftops, which are exposed to more of the elements than places on the ground----there tends to be more wind towards the top of bldgs.

I was wondering how a business that's very dependent on decent weather will pencil out during all the wks or months when there is rain, cold, much less snow.

Out of curiosity, I did a google search & came up with something in nyc like this....



230-fifth.com


230-fifth.com



there's the saying that "if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere". the owners of 230 fifth look like they've gotta do alot of seasonal prep work to make their rooftop area more user friendly, with things like bringing out those palms.

after learning about 230, I have to say the owners of the perch don't have the right to ever complain about choosing a setting that's too vulnerable to the weather. However, the place in nyc does look like they use their open rooftop area less extensively than the Perch, where 230 only serves drinks outdoors or nothing that requires full sized tables.

My experience is that there are many rooftop bars that have outside lounges or patios in NY. But I can't say that they are necessarily open or well attended when the weather is bad.

In some way, NY and other east coast cities have better weather for outdoors dining (Europe as well) since temperatures have less variation from high to low on a given day. I have had dinner DT at Pinot at the Library and in Jtown where the dinner started pleasant but people wanted to move in as time went by. On the westside you can count on it being chilly for dinner.

[sopas ej]

I've always had an aversion to eating al fresco at restaurants; I prefer air-conditioning. I hate eating out in the sun (I usually try to avoid being out in the sun too long-- bad for your skin, hehe), I often get hot too easily; on the occasions that I did opt to eat outside, there would have to be shade or umbrellas, or it'd have to be at night. And even at night when it was still a nice temperature outside, a lot of LA restaurants would have their fucking heat lamps on, and I'd be sweating.

Smokers were always an issue too. That's often what would keep my partner and me from eating outside, we're both very sensitive to cigarette smoke. It would be a gamble for us when we'd go to a restaurant and the host would say that there's only available seating outside--more often than not, unless we were in a hurry, we were willing to wait until indoor seating became available. A few years ago, South Pasadena, where we live, passed an ordinance that prohibits smoking within 20 feet of all businesses, including restaurants, with which we rejoiced; there's a Thai restaurant in our town that we really like, and they would often leave their patio door open and sometimes cigarette smoke would waft in, but now that's no longer the case. And to top it off, South Pasadena last year also passed a law that prohibits smoking outside of multiple-unit dwellings-- and we live in an apartment building. Woo hoo!

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by bobcat

This company is just too slow to react to current market conditions and seizing opportunities when they become available. In the 80s they proposed an office development after the market was already glutted, and then they did the same thing in the 2000s with condos. Their best chance now is to just quit pussy footing around and build that hotel. Even if no football team ever comes they will still be in a good position due to its proximity to the convention center.

There have been TWO companies involved with this Metropolis site. IDS is just the most recent of the two.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

There have been TWO companies involved with this Metropolis site. IDS is just the most recent of the two.

Thanks for the correction! For some reason I thought the two companies merged. Maybe it was because of all the talk of "waiting for 20 years" for the project to come online, but now I see that the current owners have only been in possession of the parcel for 6-7 years.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

And, on outdoor congregation projects like Pershing Square and the new crap over at the County property:Isn't it, again, ironic that the east coast cities concentrate on grass and shade trees for its inhabitants while this City, (which grows anything in superior weather) is designing and building more with concrete?

I've been going through the my city photos page & saw 3 different threads on SF. one of them highlights the union sq area.......



geomorph

as with pershing sq, union sq in sf also is built above an underground parking lot. Although its redesign of a few yrs ago is quite lacking in shade & greenery, it nonetheless appears to be well used by a variety of ppl. I'm not that impressed with its design, since it looks hard edged & too non traditional compared with the old world design of its centerpiece, the statue on the tall column. there is no lack of concrete or hard paved surfaces in it. But ppl in sf have voted with their feet & they appear willing to hang out in union sq.

this is another reason why I believe some ppl over emphasize design---good or bad----as the answer to what ails pershing sq or dtla in general, or the reason why things don't add up right. I don't totally disagree with that POV, it's just that I think it doesn't answer all the questions when it's not placed in full context.

the main reason why I think Pershing sq & the hood overall doesn't connect the way it should, or isn't bustling the way it could? LA lost too much $$ a loong time ago, inc ppl who ran to the burbs. DT never had enough ppl & businesses with $$ to begin with, so when it fell apart over 50 yrs ago, it really fell apart.

Then too many slumlords or owners desperate to make a fast buck----& the type of ppl they feed off of----became the mainstay of DT.

I notice in pics of SF there are many old beaux arts bldgs that are in great shape, even sparkling clean & almost like new. I'm amazed at how few, or almost none of them (at least in pics) are decrepit & filthy the way so many old bldgs still are in LA, esp around broadway.

So I'm not gonna gripe about devlprs of new projs like the metropolis when it's really the ppl who own battered old bldgs in dt----& aren't doing a damn thing to improve their part of the hood----that deserve everyone's .

as for whether parks all by themselves really are such a magic bullet, & since you refer to the new park (or "civic space") between the music ctr & city hall.....

brigham has said on many occasions that the new civic ctr park will remain at a disadvantage as long as it's surrounded by govt bldgs. While I understand where he's coming from, I also have to point out.....

the existence of a very nice, very green, & fairly large park near his part of town: the park on Fair Oaks blvd at Del Mar in pasadena. Unlike Pershing or Union sq, that park is mostly lawn with trees, surrounded by a generally nice hood, a few blocks south of old town pasadena. It's totally visible from the streets that surround it on 4 sides.

I have a friend who lives in that area, & as we drove by the park on Fair Oaks on Thursday, she mentioned that it wasn't as popular as one would think it would be. She told me that there are many times throughout the day when she'll pass by & see very few to almost no one in the park.

so, again, design is only ONE factor that has to be considered when trying to figure out why something is successful or not. Or the existence of friendly open spaces---meaning parks or publics squares---may not be as crucial to a hood as other things are or as some believe they are.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Maybe it was because of all the talk of "waiting for 20 years" for the project to come online, but now I see that the current owners have only been in possession of the parcel for 6-7 years.

my bad. When I mentioned "20 yrs" I actually was thinking of the site itself, not the ownership, since I have a vague awareness of the property being owned by different ppl over the past several yrs.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by pesto

In some way, NY and other east coast cities have better weather for outdoors dining (Europe as well) since temperatures have less variation from high to low on a given day. I have had dinner DT at Pinot at the Library and in Jtown where the dinner started pleasant but people wanted to move in as time went by. On the westside you can count on it being chilly for dinner.

your & sopas' comments would be good responses to those urbanists who through the yrs have questioned why more hoods in LA don't have sidewalk dining, or more of such things. Your comments also would be surprising to any person----esp outsiders living hundreds of miles away----who assume certain things about the way that climate helps or doesn't help LA.

from a business standpoint, I still suspect that operating a rooftop restaurant like the Perch in a much wetter, colder climate just about guarantees lots of red ink for the owner. That's even truer if your POV on outdoor vs indoor businesses in LA, no less, are shared by more than a few ppl.

[colemonkee]

New Genesis Apartments on Main from earlier this morning. Two more floors to go. Apologies for the pixelated quality. Took it with my iPhone.


Image by me.

[LA/OCman]

I think in LA in has to do with the quality of the space. At the Lazy Ox, the indoor space is so much more inviting than the outdoor space. I asked the owner about the lack of greenery and he indicated the homeless people would destroy it. The opposite is true at Cafe Pinot overlooking the Maguire Gardens. The outdoor space is as beautiful as it gets. Some of it also depends on the weather...it is tough to eat out in Pasadena during August but Downtown is generally perfect.

I wrote the owners of the Coffee Bar and asked them about creating more of a garden in their outdoor space. Unfortunately nobody seemed to care to get back with me.

Also, Church and State has a beautiful indoor space and outdoor space. Urth Caffe has a great patio. El Cholo has a nice patio on Flower as does Chaya and Casa. The Palm just added a nice patio...but we need more. I love the Cat the Fiddle patio in Hollywood...nice outdoor pub space..I wish Casey's was more like that but it is below the street and lacks sun.

[Muji]

When it comes to outdoor dining, the weather is certainly in DTLA's favor, but there are a number of issues that I think are holding it back from its full potential. Generally speaking, the city's sidewalks are too narrow to support outdoor dining areas that don't feel a little cramped, and "overly exposed." This is made worse by heavy/fast traffic and frequent buses, which also contribute to DT's poor air quality. There's a good reason why 7th St's 'restaurant row' doesn't sport much alfresco dining.

On the bright side, the influx of restaurants (and more residents) downtown will hopefully build the needed impetus and demand for streetscape improvements.

[Illithid Dude]

So, I shlepped off to downtown today for a little lunch at Aburiya Toranoko. Yes, I ate outside. At Aburiya Toranoko, my family was the only one to eat outside, though at Lazy Ox a bunch of people were eating outside. I noticed that both restaurants had mirrored windows, which I found strange and detrimental to the streetscape. After eating, I got my haircut at that salon on Spring. While I was waiting, I walked around to see how the outdoor seating was working along that street. Most of the restaurants had something outdoors set up with people eating outside. Later, on 7th, I checked out that building that is being renovated. It looks like they are using stucco (bad), but the expensive, smooth kind that looks sort of like concrete (good). I have mixed feelings on that, and since I have no idea about what the completed building will look like I can only wait to see how the stucco will turn out.

[LA/OCman]

As a native Angeleno, I am puzzled by the admonishment of the use of stucco. Yes, I understand the negativity toward that cheap stucco, taco bell finish but the use of smooth stucco is very popular is Italy, Greece, France and Spain. It goes back to the Renaissance days. Have you been to Venice? Sure, limestone is great but very expensive. Smooth stucco can give you some amazing and colorful buildings. I own a Spanish fourplex in Hollywood built in 1922 and my building looks great with a smooth stucco finish. The 717 Olympic Tower used it. What is the big deal? I think the architecture of the building is more important. It is cost effective and adapts well to our warm climate.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

As a native Angeleno, I am puzzled by the admonishment of the use of stucco. Yes, I understand the negativity toward that cheap stucco, taco bell finish but the use of smooth stucco is very popular is Italy, Greece, France and Spain. It goes back to the Renaissance days. Have you been to Venice? Sure, limestone is great but very expensive. Smooth stucco can give you some amazing and colorful buildings. I own a Spanish fourplex in Hollywood built in 1922 and my building looks great with a smooth stucco finish. The 717 Olympic Tower used it. What is the big deal? I think the architecture of the building is more important. It is cost effective and adapts well to our warm climate.

Smooth stucco is nice when used A) for architectural reasons or B) because the architecture historically uses stucco. For example, a Spanish house. There isn't any other way to build a Spanish house except with smooth stucco. I've also seen some historic buildings that use stucco for architectural reasons. The issue is when stucco is used on anything modern, it looks bad. It looks cheap, and it often looks worse then if the building was built using something other then stucco. Lastly, stucco doesn't last very well. I've seen buildings that have sagging, water-damaged stucco, or stucco so chipped that the chicken-wire base is showing. If the building was built with something other then stucco (say, brick or wood) then these damage-based issues wouldn't be a problem.