LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by alki

Height has little to do with a city's vibrancy. The most exciting cities in the world have height restrictions.

Other than historical European cities (London, Paris, etc), name one large vibrant city on the planet that doesn't have a skyline.

And nobody is arguing completely against height restrictions.

In fact, height can hurt a city's vitality.....not help it.

That is a stretch. Other then special cases like Dubai (LA will never be in such a situation because of the sheer height change Dubai has gone through in the last two decades), it is hard to make this a case.

[alki]

Originally Posted by pesto

I see that my prior post got bumped; I must have had a sports comment in it.

Serves you right.

Parking does not create the attraction or guarantee success; I have made this point repeatedly. It facilitates people getting there when they want to get there. Union Station, the Music Center, the major hotels, LA Live, etc.

I agree that over time LA becomes denser and gets more subways and it won't happen overnight. A few parking structures (say 6 levels over retail) on otherwise empty lots doesn't strike me as disastrous in the 20-40 years it takes for this to happen.

I understand what you are saying but when do you start the weaning process? Ten years from now? 20? 30? Given the economics of oil and gas and the issue of Peak Oil, isn't it more advisable to start the weaning process now? It would give DTLA a greater competitive edge when gas gets to be $5 or $6 in the not to distant future.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by alki

I would not think it inappropriate to see infill projects of comparable mid rise size get built east of Broadway and south of 7th, and leave hi rise development to the west of broadway and north of 7th.

I guess once low rise infill has taken up most of downtown's remaining parking lots, then you can talk about 20-40 story development.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Other than historical European cities (London, Paris, etc), name one large vibrant city on the planet that doesn't have a skyline.

L.A. But,for realz, there are many cities in the U.S. that don't have the biggest skyline yet still remain vibrant. Portland, for example, or D.C.!

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

You don't think Hollywood has changed for the better?

Definitely........but I don't think it was the Hollywood Redevelopment Project that made it happen. It was economics that pushed people out of Weho and Melrose.....looking for cheaper digs to open a new restaurant, shop or club. IMO........much less could have been spent on Hollywood by the city and it still would have happened.

If cities want a neighborhood to turn, and there is a reasonable expectation that a turn is possible, they should simply improve the infrastructure......repave bad streets, fix the bad sidewalks, put in attractive lite fixtures, plant trees, etc and then let nature take its course.

[alki]

Originally Posted by travanx

With taller structures. Who is opposing these projects? Is anyone opposing these projects? I would take a better guess that the tall buildings aren't happening because no one wants to invest in a massive structure in the super depression climate. Does anyone here's work involve signing off on massive real-estate loans?

Some hi rise development is starting to happen in other cities........residential in Seattle, NY and Chicago; offices in Pittsburgh, Columbus, NY and Houston.......to name a few. The office and residential overhang has to be eaten up before new development can start. A lender won't look at you if vacancies are over 10%.

[alki]

Originally Posted by pesto

Any thoughts on the routing of the trolley? Fig, 7th, Hill, 1st and down Broadway seems to be the leading candidate. Sounds good to me.

Some are saying that going to Union Station is unnecessary since the Connector will go there. But for tourists, the trolley would seem to be a preferred way of getting from South Park to Olvera, Union Station and Chinatown.

When you say trolley, is that the same as a streetcar?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

L.A. But,for realz, there are many cities in the U.S. that don't have the biggest skyline yet still remain vibrant. Portland, for example, or D.C.!

I'm not talking about having the biggest skyline, though. That isn't even possible, and I know that.

But let's be honest: the majority of their buildings aren't stucco-fied messes.

Originally Posted by alki

Some hi rise development is starting to happen in other cities........residential in Seattle, NY and Chicago; offices in Pittsburgh, Columbus, NY and Houston.......to name a few. The office and residential overhang has to be eaten up before new development can start. A lender won't look at you if vacancies are over 10%.

With LA, though, you probably have to break it down into smaller sections to gain a more accurate picture of vacancies in "West Central".

Also, Houston, a sprawling city, can build high-rises, but LA can't?

[alki]

{Quote:}
Originally Posted by alki

Height has little to do with a city's vibrancy. The most exciting cities in the world have height restrictions.

Other than historical European cities (London, Paris, etc), name one large vibrant city on the planet that doesn't have a skyline.[/QUOTE}

Washington, DC; Buenos Aires [it has some hi rises but most of the city is mid rise}to name two offhand;........and why do you discount all the major cities of Europe.......they are the most vibrant in the world and the vast majority are mid rise.

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Other than historical European cities (London, Paris, etc), name one large vibrant city on the planet that doesn't have a skyline.

And nobody is arguing completely against height restrictions.



That is a stretch. Other then special cases like Dubai (LA will never be in such a situation because of the sheer height change Dubai has gone through in the last two decades), it is hard to make this a case.

Uh......how many hi rise American cities are virtual ghost towns at nite? That was true of DTLA until a few years ago.

[alki]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Also, Houston, a sprawling city, can build high-rises, but LA can't?

It can when the demand is there. There is very little demand for offices in DTLA and apt renters have a big overhang to eat through. LA tends to boom and bust a lot more than other cities.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by alki

Washington, DC; Buenos Aires [it has some hi rises but most of the city is mid rise}to name two offhand;........

Actually Buenos Aires has a lot of high-rises. And a large portion of it is 20 stories or more. LA's portion of 20 stories or more is miniscule to the rest of the city, by comparison.

And those cities also happen to have large rail transportation systems.

and why do you discount all the major cities of Europe.......they are the most vibrant in the world and the vast majority are mid rise.]

I know, but they also have some of the most beautiful historical architecture in the world, and LA isn't known for that.

[quote[Uh......how many hi rise American cities are virtual ghost towns at nite? That was true of DTLA until a few years ago.

High rises didn't kill DTLA, though. The automobile did.

Originally Posted by alki

It can when the demand is there. There is very little demand for offices in DTLA and apt renters have a big overhang to eat through. LA tends to boom and bust a lot more than other cities.

Does parking lots affect demand, though? I mean, downtown Houston has WAY more parking lots than DTLA.

[alki]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

Did you guys see what New York is doing with their space shuttle??? It's GORGEOUS!!!

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2011/11/04/zomg_could_this_be_new_york_citys_space_shuttle_museum.php

And what is Los Angeles doing?? something kinda lame -__-''

If you like this building, you will like these from Santiago Calatrava:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suge...osb&fp=df050c5001851642&biw=1488&bih=681

[JDRCRASH]

Alright, I may steered this topic off course...

Here's something to talk about:

Central Valley Congressman Doesn't Think LA Needs a New Federal Courthouse

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/11/ce...nk_la_needs_a_new_federal_courthouse.php

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by alki

If you like this building, you will like these from Santiago Calatrava:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suge...osb&fp=df050c5001851642&biw=1488&bih=681

God, if only L.A. had a Calatrava.... Though, with L.A.s fascination and lust for Starchitecture, maybe our Space Shuttle building will be one of his. Well, I can wish, at least.

[JDRCRASH]

^ When was the last time Calatrava designed something for LA?

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

^ When was the last time Calatrava designed something for LA?

Never.

[202_Cyclist]

JDRCRASH:

Alright, I may steered this topic off course...

Here's something to talk about:

Central Valley Congressman Doesn't Think LA Needs a New Federal Courthouse

I posted a link for this hearing the other day in this thread. Rep. Jeff Denhem also doesn't think we need high speed rail. The opening statements from the witnesses are posted on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee website.

[JDRCRASH]

^ Sorry.

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Never.

Hmm, I wonder why??? (*sarcasm*)

[dachacon]

Originally Posted by pesto

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.

Apologies for the really really late response. Busy with work and life.

Anyways, the proposals to change the zoning laws seem to be legit. there is a comment form on their website.

Demand for 400ft buildings is not there right now but the point of changing the laws is to allow for building something in the future, planning ahead for the future. If I were on the planning department my vision would be to have the 35 storey buildings along major streets in the central city, such Vermont, Beverly, Sunset, Santa Monica, etc. and the 12 storey buildings as filler between these major though fares. of course a subway or some form of rail transport will be needed along these streets to accommodate the added congestion.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by alki

Serves you right.



I understand what you are saying but when do you start the weaning process? Ten years from now? 20? 30? Given the economics of oil and gas and the issue of Peak Oil, isn't it more advisable to start the weaning process now? It would give DTLA a greater competitive edge when gas gets to be $5 or $6 in the not to distant future.

For sure I wouldn't start tearing down parking structures before there is a real decline in auto use. I can't imagine that if surface parking were banned, we would need to tear down the few new parking structures that might get build around DT for quite a while.

btw, you don't hear much talk about oil for cars at energy meetings any more; everything about its life-span is well understood. It's assumed that cars will all be electric, with natural gas now looking to be cheaper than solar. It's interesting how technology improves when various parties compete against each other. Let's see the wind, solar, natural gas and ethanol firms keep up their efforts.

btw, as the East Coast moves off cheap coal, the port of LA will supposedly be booming from trains of coal being shipped to Asia, where demand for it is high.