LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[bobcat]

I don't understand why people worry about parking. There's plenty of parking downtown, albeit not in contiguous, Vegas-sized lots.

In any case nothing will ever be as bad as parking at the Hollywood Bowl, which literally does not have enough parking for its patrons. Yet people still somehow manage to get there.

[jamesinclair]

Originally Posted by alki

What about an expansion team for LA? Its inevitable the NFL will expand in the next few years; after all, there are number of cities big enough to host a team.

LA
Las Vegas
Mexico City
Salt Lake City

There are certainly enough markets to support expansion.

[travanx]

I was mentioning a small concert that had to add extra cars to the subway. I don't see how a small concert equals an NFL game in the amount of people.

Art Walk is supposedly bringing in close to 30,000 people and that is between 9 blocks. That isn't even half of what this stadium is supposed to bring, and this will be going into a much smaller area.

I am a new resident down here and looking to probably stay at least another year. I just don't see how some of the future building is going to work. I am seeing vacant project sites removing their project billboard from the corner of the property and going back up for sale.

And true there is plenty of parking if you are willing to walk pretty far and pay $20-45. Does that really make people want to drive down here for events?

Originally Posted by DowntownCharlieBrown

You know you provided the solution in your rant. If you focus more on greening the planet and less on where everybody will park, you too will see the answer.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 213

Different regions have different socio-economic variables, so are impacted by trends in different ways. As downtown L.A. has traditionally had a high concentration of services, many non-local indigents were drawn here (or were "dumped") as services attenuated elsewhere.

The late-'00s decline in homeless numbers is largely attributed to the Safer City Initiative, conceived by William Bratton as a downtown "clean-up" effort and introduced in 2006. His thinking was that higher-level violent and drug-related crimes could be forestalled by stepped-up enforcement of such "gateway" offenses as loitering and public urination. The net result was less a reduction in homelessness than an increase in jailed indigents.

Where pre-1980 numbers are concerned I am interested in your source, even if experiential/anecdotal. My best web-scrounging has turned up little from that era apart from observations that most numeric estimates were vague, unscientific and inconclusive. There is, however, a fair wealth of material addressing a dramatic and unprecedented increase in the demand for homeless assistance after 1980.

The last couple of comments on the causes of homelessness are actually reasonable discussions; they may be right or wrong, but they at least have the potential to be right. As someone notes, they are "nuanced" and seek out possible explanations rather than proposing a two word answer which is obviously absurd when given the slightest thought.

My source for pre-1980 is based on a number of comments in newspapers, articles, etc. They were presumably based on what passed for good methodology at the time but I wouldn't argue they would pass muster by today's standards. In any event, I worked downtown at the time (on Flower and on Broadway) and it was obvous even in the middle of the day that from Pershing Sq. east the homeless were the great majority (except on Bway itself, which, of course, was working class Hispanic). Some days there were a hundred just in Pershing Sq. Even Flower and Fig were no-man's-land after dark. My employer had guards escorting employees to their cars after dark.

[pesto]

NFL stadium: I am not a big fan of a downtown stadium, but I don't think parking is an issue. As bobcat says, there are plenty of parking structures in the area that are largely available on weekends. Unfortunately, I think $50 will be about what they ask for decent places.

Traffic, however, will be more of a problem. Even on Sundays, 110 intersections tend to jam up. My recollection is that the estimates are that only about 15-20 percent will take transit or walk.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by travanx

And true there is plenty of parking if you are willing to walk pretty far and pay $20-45. Does that really make people want to drive down here for events?

Parking lots charge only what customers are willing to pay as charging unreasonable amounts for parking will only lose them money in the end. Since there is plenty of parking downtown the rates will adjust to balance with the demand.

The only problem is where the parking is completely insufficient as is the case with the Hollywood Bowl. But even then people will adapt and find other alternatives.

[Virtual Urban Vision]

Originally Posted by pesto

The last couple of comments on the causes of homelessness are actually reasonable discussions; they may be right or wrong, but they at least have the potential to be right. As someone notes, they are "nuanced" and seek out possible explanations rather than proposing a two word answer which is obviously absurd when given the slightest thought.

So this is your idea of "nuanced."

Originally Posted by pesto

To put in kindly, the officers had no idea what they were talking about. Sounds more like a standard govt. employees' union flyer for why taxes shold be increased. They ought to consider leaving economic theory to others and focusing on crime prevention and detection.

Why don't YOU consider leaving economic theory to others and focus on not making inflammatory remarks. The statement above doesn't dignify an explanation because it is ignorant. The only thing absurd is you projecting your socio-economic assertions in a forum dedicated Downtown Projects and development. I would be happy to discuss this further in a forum dedicated to specifically this topic. But I do take issue with you second guessing a public servant who's responsible for the welfare of all those whom live in it's district. I personally help run a retail business and we cooperate regularly with law enforcement to not only discourage trespassing and destruction of property, but also to advocate housing placement and public assistance. It goes without saying that Prop 13 impeded the states ability to generate revenue. So I don't question that the states ability to care for the needy was impaired after it's passage.

[travanx]

Met up with Brigham earlier today. Very cool to meet someone who is very knowledgeable about what's going on in The City. Can't wait to share more information back and forth.

I should mention while driving down Spring this morning I saw the excavation of that new park. So why are they excavating the ground at least 10' for a park?

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

Originally Posted by travanx

I was mentioning a small concert that had to add extra cars to the subway. I don't see how a small concert equals an NFL game in the amount of people.

In this case, size doesn't matter. The solution is still the same - add more subway cars, add more trains, add more rail lines.

[213]

Traffic, however, will be more of a problem. Even on Sundays, 110 intersections tend to jam up. My recollection is that the estimates are that only about 15-20 percent will take transit or walk.

Traffic seems to be The Issue that Shall Not Be Mentioned, lest one appear to harbor ill faith in the transit amenability of NFL fans or, worse, damp enthusiasm for a downtown stadium.

As a downtown resident familiar with downtown traffic patterns, I don't see how game/event traffic would not be a significant problem. Speculation that fans will simply default to Metro, or adopt it over time, seems more hopeful that studied. Initial talk of AEG's support for "infrastructural enhancements" (whatever that means) has gradually gone quiet.

If we're serious about doing the stadium "right" and fulfilling the business/cultural synergies that boosters purport it will offer, traffic impact and mitigation need to be better addressed.

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by travanx

Met up with Brigham earlier today. Very cool to meet someone who is very knowledgeable about what's going on in The City. Can't wait to share more information back and forth.

I should mention while driving down Spring this morning I saw the excavation of that new park. So why are they excavating the ground at least 10' for a park?

Not sure it needs to be 10 feet deep or not, but they are putting in some sort of system that filters street water runoff through the park.

[Der Blut]

The reason they're digging so deep on the Spring Street park is because there was a building there some time ago and after demolishing it they dumped all the concrete and such into the basement rather than hauling it away and filling everything with dirt.

[LAofAnaheim]

Artwalk grew up from 800 people to near 40,000 crowds. No new public parking structure was built near the historic core. Parking is NOT an issue, but people love to make it an issue. If parking is limited, people will seek and find alternatives. It's not like people will say "ah screw it, I'm not going". They didn't come to downtown LA before 2007 after 5 pm when there was 500,000 empty parking spots. It's ATTRACTIONS that bring people, NOT parking. That's a moot point.

Hence the reason I am still baffled the "Bringing Back Broadway" Group wants to tear down a building at/near 7th/Broadway because there is "no parking" otherwise the theaters will sit dormant. An absolute false statement. There IS parking easily proven by the success of Artwalk; and not to mention all those new bars/clubs (i.e. Edison, Exchange, Spring Street Bar, The Falls, etc..). None of these places added parking.........so how are they patronizing the area? Again, parking is NOT an issue. Hint: people will FIND ways to attend.

If people seeked parking, then downtown LA, Hollywood, Venice, Santa Monica, etc..would have little to no nightlife as "no parking" appears to always be an issue in those neighborhoods. Maybe the parking fans should hang out in the Valley, Santa Clarita, etc.. They can get their love of asphalt all over........and you can see how "hopping" those areas are compared to the LA basin with "no parking".

[travanx]

Originally Posted by Der Blut

The reason they're digging so deep on the Spring Street park is because there was a building there some time ago and after demolishing it they dumped all the concrete and such into the basement rather than hauling it away and filling everything with dirt.

Is this true or a joke?

I had to take my fiance to work at 6pm during Art Walk and drove up Main to get to 1st. At this time, the street was the parking lot.

My point is Art Walk is many blocks large and you are walking most of it. NFL Stadium is right next to Staples and Nokia and you just go from one point to another not to mention twice the amount of people comparing Art Walk to the Stadium.

This issue is like adding more cars to the subway. You really can't just keep adding cars forever to fix the issue. There is a point where the subway can't handle a certain amount of cars. But I guess all of these issues were dealt with in the EIR.

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

Originally Posted by travanx

This issue is like adding more cars to the subway. You really can't just keep adding cars forever to fix the issue. There is a point where the subway can't handle a certain amount of cars. But I guess all of these issues were dealt with in the EIR.

One could also say, you can't keep adding parking to fix the issue. The parking DT has now causes dead space, and dead space is not what you find in a healthy, thriving DT. Also, it's been mentioned before, there is something like 65,000 parking spaces within walking distance from the new stadium and they are all unused on game day.

Going back to your point about not being able to add subway cars to fix the situation. First you add more subway cars, when that isn't enough, you add more trains, when that isn't enough, you build more rail lines

[pesto]

Back to parking again.

SM and Pasadena are the most successful DT revializations. They each provide enormouos amounts of parking, as do Glendale and others. Venice is tiny in comparison. Conversely, cities as diverse as Beverly Hills and San Jose found that DT business dropped dramatically when they stopped subsidizing parking.

Per Huizar's office, parking is the biggest issue DT, at the top of the list for residents, landlords, retailers and potential investors and builders. That is, everyone who is actually voting with their time and money. The art walk crowd is hardly the type of person that retailers and restaurants want DT. They are looking for people with money, not a frat party for aging slackers.

I agree that there is available parking downtown. But part of marketing an area for shoppers is to make it easy. One way of doing this is to make sure there is plenty of safe, automated parking at consistent, reasonable rates (specifically in the plans for SM and Pasadena and a no-brainer for any shopping center). This boils down again to do we want DT to be a real center for the city with retail, theaters, bars, clubs, restaurants, etc. (ala Union Sq.) or just to serve local needs (Famima, Walgreens, donuts). People really are not going to take the subway to do their shopping or for dressier occasions.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Not sure it needs to be 10 feet deep or not, but they are putting in some sort of system that filters street water runoff through the park.

I know runoff and combined sewer overflow (CSO) is a huge environmental problem in east coast cities where there is significant precipitation, but why is this an issue in LA? It rained last week for the first time in 6 months. Surely the meager amount of rainfall we get isn't worth bothering with spending money making sure our parks filter runoff. How many days a year will this feature get used? 3? 4?

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Artwalk grew up from 800 people to near 40,000 crowds. No new public parking structure was built near the historic core. Parking is NOT an issue, but people love to make it an issue. If parking is limited, people will seek and find alternatives. It's not like people will say "ah screw it, I'm not going". They didn't come to downtown LA before 2007 after 5 pm when there was 500,000 empty parking spots. It's ATTRACTIONS that bring people, NOT parking. That's a moot point.

Hence the reason I am still baffled the "Bringing Back Broadway" Group wants to tear down a building at/near 7th/Broadway because there is "no parking" otherwise the theaters will sit dormant. An absolute false statement. There IS parking easily proven by the success of Artwalk; and not to mention all those new bars/clubs (i.e. Edison, Exchange, Spring Street Bar, The Falls, etc..). None of these places added parking.........so how are they patronizing the area? Again, parking is NOT an issue. Hint: people will FIND ways to attend.

If people seeked parking, then downtown LA, Hollywood, Venice, Santa Monica, etc..would have little to no nightlife as "no parking" appears to always be an issue in those neighborhoods. Maybe the parking fans should hang out in the Valley, Santa Clarita, etc.. They can get their love of asphalt all over........and you can see how "hopping" those areas are compared to the LA basin with "no parking".

we should let the Bringing Back Broadway people know that. what you said about parking so true. Haven't they learned from their mistakes already?? the city has torn down many historic buildings in favor for more parking, all it has done was made the area dead and an eyesore. Now they wanna do it again on broadway??? idiots.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by pesto

Back to parking again.

SM and Pasadena are the most successful DT revializations. They each provide enormouos amounts of parking, as do Glendale and others. Venice is tiny in comparison. Conversely, cities as diverse as Beverly Hills and San Jose found that DT business dropped dramatically when they stopped subsidizing parking.

Per Huizar's office, parking is the biggest issue DT, at the top of the list for residents, landlords, retailers and potential investors and builders. That is, everyone who is actually voting with their time and money. The art walk crowd is hardly the type of person that retailers and restaurants want DT. They are looking for people with money, not a frat party for aging slackers.

I agree that there is available parking downtown. But part of marketing an area for shoppers is to make it easy. One way of doing this is to make sure there is plenty of safe, automated parking at consistent, reasonable rates (specifically in the plans for SM and Pasadena and a no-brainer for any shopping center). This boils down again to do we want DT to be a real center for the city with retail, theaters, bars, clubs, restaurants, etc. (ala Union Sq.) or just to serve local needs (Famima, Walgreens, donuts). People really are not going to take the subway to do their shopping or for dressier occasions.

if anything, they can build an ATTRACTIVE parking garage for the public. Maybe put restaurants, retail and other businesses on top to make it better.. i know Chicago has this really cool parking tower thingy.. its like curvy almost like a flower shape if you look at it from the top. Its pretty cool

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Hence the reason I am still baffled the "Bringing Back Broadway" Group wants to tear down a building at/near 7th/Broadway because there is "no parking" otherwise the theaters will sit dormant.

They do? Really? What building? And is it historic? If it is, they will never get away with it.