LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[pesto]

"Thus, it's key to note that the increase/need for parking is absolutely false to make a vibrant center. Parking is our # 1 urban killer in Los Angeles. The reason Pasadena, Santa Monica, Venice, Hollywood, Spring Street, 7th street, etc... are vibrant are due to late night restaurants, bars, etc.. You can put all the parking in the world (i.e. Santa Clarita and the Valley), but if you are lacking the restaurants, bars, clubs..prime destinations, it's just a deadzone. Forget spending money on parking, like they want to spend $52 million to tear down more buildings for parking for Broadway, which is totally irrational, use it to build a new station portal for the new 2nd/Broadway station on the Downtown Regional Connector. Spend money on people, no more on the private automobile. Hasn't our downtown been destroyed enough?"

You make half of a good argument. Just like transit, parking does not in itself attract visitors where there is no other reason to visit. But it does make it easier to visit once there are reasons to go there. How would SM or Pasadena (or Beverly Center or Disneyland) be doing if there were no parking available or if it cost $50? How could every city and developer be so confused as to think that parking was vital to getting people to these places?

You seem to believe that "late night" clubbing equates to vibrancy and popularity. Late night activity usually implies young people, especially locals. These people are willing to take it to go home or can just walk. This is not true of the average person going to entertainment other than movies, to nicer restaurants or to shopping. These people are going to want to use a car and are going to want to know that it is going to be secure and available and cost $3 or $20 or whatever (see Davies, SF Opera, Union Sq., Lincoln Center, etc., for how much parking demand there is). If you are not interested in DT as a true center for shoppers and entertainment, then don't worry about rationalized parking.

[202_Cyclist]

pesto:

A quick glance shows that the author of the article is an idiot or has an absurd agenda in mind.

Donald Shoup has a PhD in Economics form Yale, is a professor at UCLA, has lectured extensively on parking, has written several articles and one 700-page book (http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988) on parking. You might think that we should continue to destroy our cities in order to do everything to accomodate private vehicles and to simultaneously pursue the confilcting goal of investing billions of dollars in passenger rail while making driving even easier, but Donald Shoup is certainly not an idiot.

[pesto]

New forest of towers: a couple of comments.

I doubt that 30-40 story construction would be permitted on Bway or points east. More likely along the Fig Corridor or in Ktown?

I'm not sure that a new 7-story building aimed at welfare housing for streetpeople is going to attract a lot of high-rise investors to the Main St. area. Where builders build is not a random process. They have to be convinced that someone is going to want to pay to live there.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

pesto:


Donald Shoup has a PhD in Economics form Yale, is a professor at UCLA, has lectured extensively on parking, has written several articles and one 700-page book (http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988) on parking. You might think that we should continue to destroy our cities in order to do everything to accomodate private vehicles and to simultaneously pursue the confilcting goal of investing billions of dollars in passenger rail while making driving even easier, but Donald Shoup is certainly not an idiot.

Idiot is as idiot does. His comments are a combination of inaccurate and intentionally deceptive. The worse kind of hack writing: apparently an attempt to confuse and deceive. Unfortunately, people often start with a desire to improve the world and end up as fixated on a single issue until they can't even think rationally about it.

[202_Cyclist]

Have you read "Cruising for Parking" (http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Cruising.pdf), "People, Parking, and Cities," or "The High Cost of Free Parking"? If not, to paraphrase Rep. DeFazio (D-OR) the other day, you have nothing to add here. There is extensive literature from Donald Shoup, Robert Cervero, and others about how cheap (or free) and abundant parking makes housing more expensive, undermines transit ridership, distorts the built form of cities, leads to sprawl, and leads to greater vehicle congestion. I understand your libertarian theology but some times theology buts up against real life.

[JDRCRASH]

The more and more I read posts like what Threehundred wrote, the more I feel I should add an Adaptive Reuse section to Page 1.

Originally Posted by pesto

New forest of towers: a couple of comments.

I doubt that 30-40 story construction would be permitted on Bway or points east. More likely along the Fig Corridor or in Ktown?

I read on Curbed a few months ago that the City Council soon (maybe meaning within the next few years) is gonna start going back to re-zoning the whole city.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Have you read "Cruising for Parking" (http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Cruising.pdf), "People, Parking, and Cities," or "The High Cost of Free Parking"? If not, to paraphrase Rep. DeFazio (D-OR) the other day, you have nothing to add here. There is extensive literature from Donald Shoup, Robert Cervero, and others about how cheap (or free) and abundant parking makes housing more expensive, undermines transit ridership, distorts the built form of cities, leads to sprawl, and leads to greater vehicle congestion. I understand your libertarian theology but some times theology buts up against real life.

Interesting that you bring up Cervero because the last article of his I read he was arguing that there should be no parking at commuter train stations and that there isn't any in Europe. This was completely false: even the smallest Dutch stations for commuter lines going into Amsterdam or Rotterdam have parking lots and some have acres and acres of them. He just makes this stuff up.

Please read these people critically. University professors are used to being able to say or write whatever absurdity they want, since tenure keeps them from being held responsible. Don't end up parroting what they say. Think about it. There may be some truth, but there may be some nonsense as well.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

The more and more I read posts like what Threehundred wrote, the more I feel I should add an Adaptive Reuse section to Page 1.



I read on Curbed a few months ago that the City Council soon (maybe meaning within the next few years) is gonna start going back to re-zoning the whole city.

I remember that as well. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it. Could the east side of DT become a high-rise area? I'm not sure how the residents of low and medium rise would feel about that. You can go from pioneer to NIMBY in a hurry.

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by pesto

I doubt that 30-40 story construction would be permitted on Bway or points east. More likely along the Fig Corridor or in Ktown?

Prior to the housing burst there were two active and one quasi-active proposal for 30-story towers east of Broadway: Vibiana Tower on Main Street (35 floors), 8th and Spring (32 floors, from the developer of The Chapman), and Barry Shy's 30ish tower near 8th and Spring. While I don't expect any of these plans to be built as originally proposed, I wouldn't count out high rise development east of Broadway in the long-term. Obviously prices or rents would have to correct enough to make a high-rise financially feasible, but developers have certainly considered it very recently and I would expect it to come up again in the future, though not in the near term (1-2 years at least).

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by pesto

Idiot is as idiot does. His comments are a combination of inaccurate and intentionally deceptive. The worse kind of hack writing: apparently an attempt to confuse and deceive. Unfortunately, people often start with a desire to improve the world and end up as fixated on a single issue until they can't even think rationally about it.

Donald Shoup is a 'hack'? That's rich. The guy has only gotten thousands of cities around the world to start thinking strategically about their parking in a way that:

• Doesn't undermine transit
• Brings in new revenue for neighborhood improvements
• Makes more street spaces available so drivers spend less time hunting for spots
• Prices parking according to its real market value rather than externalizing that cost the city

The man is quite literally, the world's foremost expert on parking. The High Cost of Free Parking is practically required reading in urban planning schools (It was literally required reading in mine.)

Performance parking, the concept he pioneered, is in place in Pasadena, Downtown LA (soon), Ventura, Redwood City, not to mention the whole of San Francisco with their new SF Park system.

Which part of his arguments do you find "intentionally deceptive"? They seem refreshingly lucid to me.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by pesto

I remember that as well. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it. Could the east side of DT become a high-rise area? I'm not sure how the residents of low and medium rise would feel about that. You can go from pioneer to NIMBY in a hurry.

There aren't ANY mid-rises in east downtown. In fact, the tallest buildings in downtown east of San Pedro Ave are only 7 stories tall.

Mid-rises are likely somewhere between 15-40 stories.

And isn't the practice of having mid-rises separated by low-rises common in other cities, like Vancouver?

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

There aren't ANY mid-rises in east downtown. In fact, the tallest buildings in downtown east of San Pedro Ave are only 7 stories tall.

Mid-rises are likely somewhere between the 15-40 stories.

And isn't the practice of having mid-rises separated by low-rises common in other cities, like Vancouver?

This forum defines a "highrise" as a structure rising above 200 feet--well below 40 stories.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by bobcat

This forum defines a "highrise" as a structure rising above 200 feet--well below 40 stories.

Oh okay (Though there isn't a definition of a "midrise").

I was just referring to the idea of buildings 40 stories and below, sparsely scattered throughout east downtown... randomly separated by low-rises as tall as, say, Biscuit Lofts.

I hope everyone understands at least somewhat of what i'm trying to say.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

There's already a 2,000 spot parking garage underneath Pershing Square that has destroyed the character of the park. There's a knock-out panel for a pedestrian entrance on 6th/Hill, which is a block from Broadway.

Again, no reason to build more parking in Los Angeles. There IS a sufficient supply of parking. The Historic Core went from a deserted area after 5 pm in the 2000 - 2005 era and is now BOOMING with people...........and NOT a single public parking garage/lot was built or opened. Hence, parking is NOT the answer.

Yea i agree... but IF they do decide that they do wanna build more parking... i don't want surface parking lots =/.. either underground or a very attractive and beautifully designed garage with some retail would do.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Simple: The Historic Core. There is a slew of old buildings that are still either underused and/or totally empty. It wouldn't make much sense in building all these brand new apartment/condo towers when we already have a stockpile of fine and dandy early 20th century buildings.

I would think that new construction has a market of its own.

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Prior to the housing burst there were two active and one quasi-active proposal for 30-story towers east of Broadway: Vibiana Tower on Main Street (35 floors), 8th and Spring (32 floors, from the developer of The Chapman), and Barry Shy's 30ish tower near 8th and Spring. While I don't expect any of these plans to be built as originally proposed, I wouldn't count out high rise development east of Broadway in the long-term. Obviously prices or rents would have to correct enough to make a high-rise financially feasible, but developers have certainly considered it very recently and I would expect it to come up again in the future, though not in the near term (1-2 years at least).

The Barry Shy proposal was for a 40 story building, and is still active. So active, in fact, that he included it on the paining of his newest building, one that opened only just last year. This means that, at least as of last year, the building is still going forward.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Perfect density. I'd much rather fill in Downtown with mid-rise buildings like that than encourage height for the sake of having an enlarged skyline. The height should only come when there is an actual need for it.

Skyline's are very important though. It's become sort of a city's fingerprint since no skyline is the same as another. It's also become a symbol of a city's economic prosperity, due to most tall skyscrapers being businesses and headquarters for international companies and such. Huge skylines like, New York, Chicago, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Seoul can somewhat convince or make people want to relocate to that city due to its awe inspiring cityscape. when you look at a shorter skyline.. nobody pays attention.. and there is no interest. But ones as tall as NY and LA.. will make people stop and look, and gaze upon the towering buildings... FOR ME... a huge and expanding skyline inspires me in art, my future, dancing and the reason why i wanna move to LA is because of its tall skyline.. So thank LA's tall and ever expanding skyline for convincing me to wanna move there.. if it makes me feel that way, imagine other people with my same reaction when they see it, when the economy recovers, i hope they build more... at least 400ft-800ft i don't want too many 1,000+ft. Skylines do more than just make a city look pretty. I like 7-12 story buildings too..BUT i dont want 90% of it being that short.

When I or other people see Los Angeles' skyline and say "wow LA is gorgeous".. i wanna be proud and be able to say "I'm from there" and when i say there i mean the downtown skyline. Cause the skyline is what they are callin gorgeous. and what's the skyline??? Downtown. San Jose is the 3rd largest city in CA and very important and famous for being Silicone Valley and all that... but its unrecognizable because there is no skyline.. no way of identifying The City of San Jose. Same with Anaheim. SF, LA, and SD are awesome.

THATS JUST ME, YOU CAN TOTALLY DISAGREE I DON'T MIND. I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT OUT THERE

Yes i know Paris doesn't have anything tall... But look what they are doing now.... La Defense i think its called?? They have built a skyline. Same with London.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I would think that new construction has a market of its own.

The Barry Shy proposal was for a 40 story building, and is still active. So active, in fact, that he included it on the paining of his newest building, one that opened only just last year. This means that, at least as of last year, the building is still going forward.

Do you mean the mural in the lobby of SB Tower? I never noticed the extra building before. I'll take a look when I get home tonight.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Do you mean the mural in the lobby of SB Tower? I never noticed the extra building before. I'll take a look when I get home tonight.

It's not a fully painted building. On the mural, they have painted a lion for every Shy Barry building, including the not yet built tower.

[all of the trash]

del

[dachacon]

Originally Posted by pesto

I remember that as well. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it. Could the east side of DT become a high-rise area? I'm not sure how the residents of low and medium rise would feel about that. You can go from pioneer to NIMBY in a hurry.

I doubt it. The east side of Downtown is pretty much industrial and as far as i know industrial zoned and fully leased. Why get rid of the one sector of real estate that is doing very well? besides the areas east, and north are better suited for mid rise development.

On a side note if the rezoning of the entire city is indeed on the agenda then i hope the plan calls for Allowing high-rise and high density in Neighborhoods such as Downtown, Koreatown, Pico Union, and Hollywood along with the entire central city area. These neighborhoods have 40ft height limits, with major thoroughfares having a 400ft limit i believe. raising the height limit to 150 ft like the old bank district had in the early days allows for 12 storey buildings through out the central area, and raising the major street height to 500ft allows built up areas such as century city and the wilshire corridor to expand to meet growing demand for office and residential needs. added bodies will further compel the need for a subway down wilshire and add numbers to the Expo line and Crenshaw line.