LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[pesto]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

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.

Don't get involved in a cult of personality. Read everything as if you were being paid to find holes in the logic.

The comment I was criticizing was his implication that Davies Hall in SF did not have underground parking. In fact, there are 3 other enormous lots in the Civic Center. Thousands of underground parking places (and thousands of FREE on-street parking places in the evenings). And then he attacks LA because the DT LA lot was not doing well BEFORE the Disney was completed. Duh. No mention of how it is doing AFTER the Disney opened.

That's what I mean by making no effort to get an argument right. Unfortunately fairly typical of polemicists and people with books to sell.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by dachacon

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.

Is this more than a theoretical change? Right now, there doesn't seem to be much demand to put up buildings even approaching 40 or 400ft. in most of these areas. But for sure something more than 40 is needed throughtout Westlake and adjacent.

I would love to see the specific proposals.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

Don't get involved in a cult of personality. Read everything as if you were being paid to find holes in the logic.

The comment I was criticizing was his implication that Davies Hall in SF did not have underground parking. In fact, there are 3 other enormous lots in the Civic Center. Thousands of underground parking places (and thousands of FREE on-street parking places in the evenings). And then he attacks LA because the DT LA lot was not doing well BEFORE the Disney was completed. Duh. No mention of how it is doing AFTER the Disney opened.

That's what I mean by making no effort to get an argument right. Unfortunately fairly typical of polemicists and people with books to sell.

As much as you imagine there being this great area of parking around the Davies Hall, which you know more than me, it still doesn't disuade the FACT there is literally more land %age taken for parking in LA (81%) compared to the < 40% in NY and SF alone. Even though, I swear earlier you said there was a ton of parking in NY and SF.

I've driven in SF before and spent 45 minutes looking for a parking spot......including garages. In LA, I have NEVER spent 45 minutes looking for a spot, because garages have plenty of parking. It's that people are continuously seeking free parking in LA, whereas in SF/NY, they are looking for ANY parking. That was confirmed by my dad who was there last month and had to pay $20 (a good deal) in Manhattan at a Hertz rental agency for a spot. In LA, I can find an outdoor lot for $3/day. Beat that, NY/SF!

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

And the lot outside of the Rowan...formerly a surface lot...is being ripped apart for a park. Invest in the Streetcar which will disperse parking all over Downtown.

And.......there will still be THOUSANDS of people coming to Broadway for daytime shopping and 40,000 + for the Monthly Artwalk. This will have ZERO affect on attendance. Losing a parking lot for a park is a huge plus for downtown LA!

[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.

"Libertarian"? That's a good one. Is that what you call everyone to the right of Trotsky? I guess in the pirate den, a pickpocket looks like a saint.

In fact, I disagree with libertarians on antitrust, immigration policy, eminent domain, marriage, drug legalization, use of public property, various contract issues, etc.; more issues than I can name. In any event, it would be an odd libertarian that supported free or government subsidized parking.

[RonPalmer]

Hi all, I'm new to the forum, but I just got back from a 5 day trip to LA, and made the smart decision of staying downtown!

Its amazing the progress that has been made, I've seen pictures from just 5 years ago and it looks totally different. Transportation was also so easy, I took the red line to Universal City, and the Metro Rapid to Santa Monica.

My only problem with downtown was the large and aggressive homeless population. I've traveled in San Francisco so I wasn't expecting anything of it, but I could really see how it is hampering Downtown's growth.

My idea would be, since there is so much vacant and underutilized industrial space further south (slauson, avalon area), why don't they move the services and shelters to that area? I can imagine, once the eastern Downtown neighborhoods are freed up, the old hotels could be turned into efficiency units and hostels for European backpackers and other budget travelers. There's so many great buildings there, it just seems like they're going to waste.

Well that's my two cents, I look forward to visiting again soon!

[travanx]

The way that works is that when it does happen to rain in Southern California, the rain is intense. So much that yes those 3 or 4 times a year are very important to build for. My business does drainage plans, so I have to explain some of the drainage issues to clients all the time. Remember the flooding that happened last rainy season, and the year before that and the year before that? The drainage design is based on either a 25 or 50 year storm, which I think we got the 100 year storm multiple years in a row.

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

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?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by dachacon

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.

The LA Metro has plenty of Industrial and Manufacturing jobs (largest center in US I believe).

http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-West/Los-Angeles-Economy.html

Besides, I'm mostly talking about the Arts District and Fashion District. The height restrictions in much of the Warehouse District (roughly south of 7th street and east of Central) I think should stay virtually the same, with short low-rises up to 7 stories and adaptive-reuses. This area is where the warehouse of some major companies like Coca-Cola and Forever 21 are located.

Also, this opens up the opportunity for a nice LA River waterfront in the coming decades.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by RonPalmer

Hi all, I'm new to the forum, but I just got back from a 5 day trip to LA, and made the smart decision of staying downtown!

Its amazing the progress that has been made, I've seen pictures from just 5 years ago and it looks totally different. Transportation was also so easy, I took the red line to Universal City, and the Metro Rapid to Santa Monica.

My only problem with downtown was the large and aggressive homeless population. I've traveled in San Francisco so I wasn't expecting anything of it, but I could really see how it is hampering Downtown's growth.

My idea would be, since there is so much vacant and underutilized industrial space further south (slauson, avalon area), why don't they move the services and shelters to that area? I can imagine, once the eastern Downtown neighborhoods are freed up, the old hotels could be turned into efficiency units and hostels for European backpackers and other budget travelers. There's so many great buildings there, it just seems like they're going to waste.

Well that's my two cents, I look forward to visiting again soon!

Welcome! I've always found it weird that people care so much about the homeless population. It never seemed that big of a deal for me. I mean, Downtown Santa Monica isn't affected by its large homeless population. Why would downtown Los Angeles be any different?

[travanx]

Because the homeless population in Downtown is different than other cities. They are more willing to get up in your face for money. If you say no, sometimes they will follow you and continue to ask for money, or talk back like it's their right to take your money. Others will spit or act violent. I have never seen this before, as the homeless I have seen everywhere else throughout LA seem to keep to themselves.

Read the yelp reviews for a particular new restaurant that purposely opened in Skid Row to try to cater to the locals that are used to this. http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-escondite-los-angeles

There are certain issues that are stopping people with money from building down here. Imagine the huge risk someone has to take to build anything down here. Even though financing is slowly coming back, everyone involved is taking monetary risks. Would you rather build somewhere that is unknown like Downtown? Or build somewhere that tries to keep the streets clean?

Now the issues is starting to head towards the Occupy LA Camp at City Hall.

I am very much more building. And love the feeling of the Historic Core. I really hope that the City continues to build. Of course there are other issues, but the homeless thing just sticks out so much. Walk to Ralphs almost any time of the day to see what I mean.

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Welcome! I've always found it weird that people care so much about the homeless population. It never seemed that big of a deal for me. I mean, Downtown Santa Monica isn't affected by its large homeless population. Why would downtown Los Angeles be any different?

[travanx]

Where did you end up staying? Did you take any pictures of the buildings? Would be cool to see what stuck out to you down here.

Originally Posted by RonPalmer

Hi all, I'm new to the forum, but I just got back from a 5 day trip to LA, and made the smart decision of staying downtown!

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by travanx

There are certain issues that are stopping people with money from building down here. Imagine the huge risk someone has to take to build anything down here. Even though financing is slowly coming back, everyone involved is taking monetary risks. Would you rather build somewhere that is unknown like Downtown? Or build somewhere that tries to keep the streets clean?

I really don't think there is a risk to building downtown. Downtown has grown more in the past decade then any other part of Los Angeles. The median income of downtown is the highest of any other place in Los Angeles ($83,000). The restaurants that open downtown do very, very well (Lazy Ox, Bottega Louie, Rivera). If anything, there is less risk in building downtown then in many other places in L.A. county. The fact that there is a homeless population is not as big a detriment as everybody thinks. I, for one, have never been accosted, and I frequent downtown.

[213]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The fact that there is a homeless population is not as big a detriment as everybody thinks.

When downtown can survive without DCBID, this statement will be true.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by RonPalmer

Hi all, I'm new to the forum, but I just got back from a 5 day trip to LA, and made the smart decision of staying downtown!

Its amazing the progress that has been made, I've seen pictures from just 5 years ago and it looks totally different. Transportation was also so easy, I took the red line to Universal City, and the Metro Rapid to Santa Monica.

My only problem with downtown was the large and aggressive homeless population. I've traveled in San Francisco so I wasn't expecting anything of it, but I could really see how it is hampering Downtown's growth.

My idea would be, since there is so much vacant and underutilized industrial space further south (slauson, avalon area), why don't they move the services and shelters to that area? I can imagine, once the eastern Downtown neighborhoods are freed up, the old hotels could be turned into efficiency units and hostels for European backpackers and other budget travelers. There's so many great buildings there, it just seems like they're going to waste.

Well that's my two cents, I look forward to visiting again soon!

Welcome, as well!

I couldn't have said it better myself, although I have tried many times. If you just let the market work instead of zoning and subsidizing to insist on drug rehabs and flop houses, you get a downtown that is getting more investment and upgrading of classic buildings; and you get a broken down set of empty warehouses revitalized into social services a few miles away.

As you note, there is no shortage of abandoned warehouses and just plain vacant lots stretching off toward the south and east. Put social services and affordable housing there, not where there is a glimmering of hope for serious upgrading.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I really don't think there is a risk to building downtown. Downtown has grown more in the past decade then any other part of Los Angeles. The median income of downtown is the highest of any other place in Los Angeles ($83,000). The restaurants that open downtown do very, very well (Lazy Ox, Bottega Louie, Rivera). If anything, there is less risk in building downtown then in many other places in L.A. county. The fact that there is a homeless population is not as big a detriment as everybody thinks. I, for one, have never been accosted, and I frequent downtown.

I am a big fan of DT, but you have to be reasonably objective. I don't believe I have ever take anyone DT who didn't comment on the numbers of homeless.

And not to get into a useless discussion over income, but DT can't be close to Bel-Air, the Palisades, Brentwood, and many others in median income. I admit I don't have any stats at hand.

[alki]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

I've volunteered to help out at the shelter here in SD before. and found out that some homeless choose to be homeless... why??? because they said it brings them a closer connection to God... i don't mean to bring religion in here but im just saying... In order for them to be saved and have a good after life and a home in paradise.. they forfeit everything they have.. a home, money, food and all that good stuff.. and in return a closer relationship with God. =/ some of them are really nice people i agree, and some over here are military veterans gone mad, which could be scary sometimes cuz they bring a whole thing and act as if they still at war.. kinda sad.

Maybe so but I think they tend to be the exception, not the rule.

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

[/b]When I mentioned "typical local resident" I wasn't thinking of ppl like him, meaning those who---as the saying goes----take a lemon & turn it into lemonade. I meant non artist types. those ppl who are more likely to say that cuz LA is so fugly & cuz that makes them angry, if things don't start turning around more clearly & faster----& definitely by the time they have a spouse, kids & a need for a school to send them to----they're outta here!!! iow, the fugliness of the city & the anger that causes won't drive them to do something creative. it will drive them to another city.

The problem with LA is that it shouldn't be as ugly as it is. It has the weather, the mts, the ocean.......and its glamorized on teevee and on film. And yet, there are parts of the city that are as ugly as sin. Its a city where trees are cut into lollipop shapes. Its a city where I first heard the term..... dirty trees. Its a city where cheap stucco is over used.

Its all of those factors and more that jar dramatically with the beautiful parts of city, making the ugly more ugly. Most cities tend to be one way or the other......LA is both. When its beautiful, its very beautiful........and when its ugly, its very ugly. Fortunately, I think the trend is to be more attractive. I think that's why the revitalization of DT is growing in popularity.

[alki]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

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?

The storm sewer system in LA is not as comprehensive as systems in other cities that receive more rainfall.........hence, with any big rain in LA, the system tends to overflow.

[alki]

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.

Well said.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

What I don't understand is why not just build a 30 something story apartment tower? Apartments are in right now, and so is downtown. Just put two and two together, and there should be a match. All around the country, I have been watching news that new apartments towers are going to start construction. Why is L.A. always so late to the high-rise building party?

Because LA tends to overbuild more than other areas. That means those units have to be absorbed before new structures can be built.