LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[alki]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

LOL. Nobody here is talking about "100 story bldgs". We're not even talking about buildings HALF that height. I doubt we'll see buildings that tall for quite a while, and even then, it will probably only a few.

I will say this though... to simply plop yet even more 2-5 story stucco mediterranean crap is not going to "enhance" Union Station.

Given it will be adjacent to one of the nation's busiest main railway terminals, the project is basically gonna be a TOD on steroids, and therefore i think it's safe to say the land is EASILY suitable for some high-rises.

I think anything over 15-20 stories will overwhelm Union Station. Even though the approach to Union Station is not a particularly urban one, its uniquely LA and I would hate to see them plop hi rises on Union Station's front lawn. Put the hi rises in the back behind the tracks.

If I had control, hi rises would be confined to the urban core.....centered around Bunker Hill and Pershing Square. Keep the rest the way it is.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Exactly. You guys (besides a very few) are incredibly pessimistic to a point that borders on irrationality. It's like you guys want downtown to fail. You even refute hard, cold facts about the current income level! Yes, I know, downtown is no Beverly Hills, but it isn't Boyle Heights either.

Seriously? Its not about wanting DTLA to fail. Its about focusing on reality. Nordstrom's, Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdales et al don't invest mega millions based on the fact that hi end restaurants are opening up on street. It takes a lot more than that for them to plunk down the green stuff. Hi end restaurants are closer to the beginning of a neighborhood's revival; hi end department stores closer to the completion of that revival.

I am pushing it by hoping for a Nordstrom's Rack. And I am pushing only because LA is known for bending the rules at times.

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

but didn't you say last yr that after visiting bunker hill you were letdown cuz the design or layout of its newer devlpt wasn't urban or ppl friendly enough, or something like that? I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, but some ppl could say your criticism also was a form of being very pessimistic.

btw, when I've been around bunker hill & noticed few ppl on its sidewalks or plazas, it does have a disappointing ghost town feeling about it. but I'd say that's a problem due just as much to the history of the hood than due to the design of its newer devlpt. iow, too little new construction, resulting in too few ppl----in condos, apts, hotels & offices----going back too many yrs.

I recall also being somewhat annoyed at your focal point, not necessarily cuz it was incorrect, but cuz you at the same time didn't get about all the horrible deadzone parking lots throughout bunker hill. I think a lack of very thorough criticisms of the gaps & fugliness of the hood going back to the beginning of time have oddly enough made it easier for ppl to lose sight of just how inexcusably bad things have been for over 50 or maybe even 90 yrs.

which brings us to broadway: I don't recall hearing anyone say just how embarrassingly bad that street was & is, so I actually was lulled into a sense that it wasn't as pathetic as it really is. if anything, I recall some ppl saying the street was "authentic" or "real"----that it was humble & humane----or something like that, & how elitist it was for anyone to slam it.

in the meantime, SF has a glistening big new dept store....


www.dipity.com

while nyc has long been home to a very established big old dept store....


glassdoor.com

or an even larger, somewhat less $$ type of store....



^ when I see things like that, I become even more disgusted & impatient about things like this.....


maps.google.com


believe me, I hope you & districtdirt are correct. In fact, I hope westsidelife loses his bet . but if you read all the comments I posted yesterday from the many ppl who've visited the ONLY dept store in all of dtla, then you'll realize there is a major problem with the area's economy. I can almost guarantee you that if there had been yrs & yrs of lots of money to be made by macys, their store at 7th & hope wouldn't be such a . And 7th & hope isn't off the beaten path as broadway still is. Macy's plaza is closer to more of the ppl with $$, esp those who work in the financial district or stay at some of the better hotels.

so if macys struggles to do well at 7th, flower & hope sts, how will a large new dept store do well at 8th & broadway? I think it will be tough even for a kohls or sears to survive there, much less a kmart (ugh) or a supersized 99 cents store . But I'll be very happy if I'm wrong.

let me end on a positive note: I also still say that dt today is in better shape than it has been in over 30 yrs, or in other ways, in over 50 yrs, or in a certain way, since when horses or model Ts were running through the streets of LA. so just cuz it's not realistic to expect a big $$ dept store to be moving into the hood anytime soon, that doesn't mean there aren't alot of other positive things now taking place or soon to take place.

That first store is bloomingdales in SF? When did SF get a bloomingdales? Pretty impressive.

[alki]

Originally Posted by pesto

I agree that the numbers are old; but it really would be a miracle if the median family income went from 17k to 83k in 10 years.

You shouldn't confuse realism with pessimism. The improvements in DT have been amazing; but I think everyone would agree that it is not as good as some of the best US downtowns.

Just for curiosity: does anyone know of a stand-alone Nordstrom's anywhere in California? The only ones I have ever seen are in malls. I would welcome one but in all honesty don't expect one.

There's a stand alone in Seattle but Nordstrom's started here.

[alki]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Whoa.

BlogDowntown is reporting that Gensler has unveiled a completely new "light and airy" design for the Farmer's Field.


Image: Blogdowntown


Image: Blogdowntown

Apparently it has a "deployable" roof as opposed to a "retractable" roof. So the default would be no roof, but they could assemble a roof for events/weather that calls for it.

So? Opinions?

Definitely airy. Looks like its ready to go into flight. I want to like it but I don't think I will in the end.

[alki]

Originally Posted by edluva

Why am I not surprised it's getting a warm reception from angelenos. It looks like it was designed by an architect from china.

La is going down the toilet

You know........I happen to agree with you. Its not great architecture. It looks like Gensler took the original stadium design and sprinkled it with fairy dust...er wings in order to make it interesting architecture. Kind of a senseless act given that its a football stadium. Stadiums essentially are round buildings [elongated circles when it comes to football] that have their entire focus centered inward with their 'backs' to the street. Not a platform that typically leads to great architecture. Some stadiums are better looking than others but I can't think of one that is great architecture.

And then there is LA and its tendency to overreach in an effort to create exciting architecture. Late 20th/early 21st century LA doesn't seem to get that great architecture doesn't have to be strikingly different or unique to endure the testimony of time and be considered a classic or even iconic.

But enough about the stadium.......let's get back to you. Why can't you state your criticism and substantiate it instead of trashing the city and its inhabitants? Do you honestly believe its a positive contribution to this board? The short answer......its isn't.....and only leads to your isolation. If you've got something constructive to say, say it. Otherwise, all you end up doing is spewing a lot of snark that most people ignore and that gets lost in the ether.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by alki

You know........I happen to agree with you. Its not great architecture. It looks like Gensler took the original stadium design and sprinkled it with fairy dust...er wings in order to make it interesting architecture. Kind of a senseless act given that its a football stadium. Stadiums essentially are round buildings [elongated circles when it comes to football] that have their entire focus centered inward with their 'backs' to the street. Not a platform that typically leads to great architecture. Some stadiums are better looking than others but I can't think of one that is great architecture.

And then there is LA and its tendency to overreach in an effort to create exciting architecture. Late 20th/early 21st century LA doesn't seem to get that great architecture doesn't have to be strikingly different or unique to endure the testimony of time and be considered a classic or even iconic.

Wow to all the naysayers here. I guarantee you, if this rendering was shown of a new football stadium being built in DC, New York, SF, Chicago, all y'all will be like "why can't LA build a great urban stadium like that in its core". I guarantee it. Being anti-LA, just because it's LA is so tiring.

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

but you also have to keep things in their full, proper context. we're not starting off from a high level & moving to an even higher one. this is the current condition of the location of the new apt bldg....


maps.google.com

^ before this was parking lots, it was a jumble of old, grungy 1 to 2 story tall bldgs, right across from the convention ctr. I used to go when I thought of all the visitors who'd attend events at the ctr, esp if they were from out of town, look at the hood & think: WHAT A DUMP! LA is a joke!!

Not surprising that the convention ctr has a long reputation of never attracting many events.

when you mentioned seattle, I thought I'd do a quick google street view of that town, & without too much searching I came across this....


maps.google.com

there is a tendency for all of us to sometimes think the grass is greener on the other side of the hill. at the same time, if many ppl really do think LA is worse than places like seattle---& not just the really big time cities----then we really are a joke!

You are right.....ugly buildings get built in other cities including Seattle. I have watched this monstrosity go up near where I live......it was a blding that was under construction just as the recession hit. The developer went belly up and the building sat there for two years with windows in place but with no real facade. About a year ago, the site got bought and the developer has put on corrugated metal.....like you find on warehouses and factories.....for the building's skin. The result is nothing short of disturbingly ugly. The bldg is mixed use.....retail on the first floor; residential on the upper floors. I have to ride by this horrendous mistake every time I go to the gym. I will try to take a pic and upload it to this forum.

Having said that, Illithid Dude has a point. The Seattle building you show is far from typical.......its a cheaply built building in a so so part of town. It looks pretty old to me.......more than ten years......and its design is very atypical. That's not to say that every bldg that goes up in Seattle is great architecture......far from it. However, in general, the architecture here is better than the stuff built in LA.

And I am not sure why. Part of it has to do with with Seattle people.......they are not as flashy as their LA counterparts so there isn't the attempt to overreach architecturally. They are less likely to experiment; more likely to stick closer to what is considered classical. They play it safe.

Beyond that......I am at loss as to why LA puts up so much crap. I have said it before.......with the mts and the ocean and the weather you would think it would inspire greatness. For some reason, it doesn't. I would love to hear what others think on the subject. Its something that always mystified me when I lived in LA.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Wow to all the naysayers here. I guarantee you, if this rendering was shown of a new football stadium being built in DC, New York, SF, Chicago, all y'all will be like "why can't LA build a great urban stadium like that in its core". I guarantee it. Being anti-LA, just because it's LA is so tiring.

the only reason you believe there are double standards between LA vs other cities is that you're unable to distinguish between respectable architecture and crap architecture. so due to your inability to distinguish between the two (and a possible hometown bias), you attribute any sort of criticism of LA proposals to elitism and double standards.

to me, and probably some others here, it's very simple. this stadium looks offensively retarded. it's stupid looking. and this proposal would not fly in any other city. this tampon stadium just wouldn't be proposed in new york, seattle, or sf - it would render the developer/politicians laughing stocks within their respective communities.

people in those cities - citizens, business leaders, and government alike, they're sharper. they're more sophisticated than their angeleno counterparts at every level. that's why there's so much trash here. we're less sophisticated, and more angeleno's are likely to see this as "good" or "cutting edge" architecture. this forum proves that.

angelenos are just more phillistine.

but it kind of makes sense doesn't it? the "urban" (more eastern) parts of LA are extremely poor and lack influence. the moneyed parts are suburban (yes, this includes much of the westside). Urban LA is being built through the lense of rich suburbanites who don't care about urban culture or architecture, and governed by politicians who receive donations from those very suburbanites. it's no wonder LA looks the way it does.

Cities like NY, SF, Chicago, etc, have moneyed and educated urbanites, who take ownership of their neighborhoods (who doesn't?) and maintain an influential discourse on their architectural heritage, identity, etc that eventually filters into the highest levels of government. That's what LA lacks. An urban economy, and society.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by alki

But enough about the stadium.......let's get back to you. Why can't you state your criticism and substantiate it instead of trashing the city and its inhabitants? ....

If you've got something constructive to say, say it. Otherwise, all you end up doing is spewing a lot of snark that most people ignore and that gets lost in the ether.

isn't what i said above substantiating enough? i've almost always attributed my criticisms to a cause. and for me it's consistently been the people. the inhabitants - especially those with power and money here. they are artistically shallow. this is a market based economy, is it not? cities only put up what its citizens are willing to patronize - and these kinds of buildings are what los angeles and angelenos have voted for, time and time again, which is really saying a lot.

as far as being constructive goes - i realize i sound pretty negative. basically, you're saying if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it. i get it. but i'm not being ignored. just read the reactions people have to my comments. and contrary to what some here believe, i don't deliberately "stir the pot". i'm just take it or leave it blunt as fuck, and am not here to win popularity contests.

but anyways, it's hard to be "politically correct" or positive here because this forum is a blind praise-fest for anything that breaks ground. for a supposedly cosmopolitan metropolis, it's extremely disappointing to see our collectively low expectations consistently manifest in enormously costly yet ridiculously stupid looking infill. infill that's not even ugly in a good way, and will be proven uglier with time.

i'm trying to wake people up. i feel that there's something constructive in that. some people here won't admit to it, but i've brought a lot of introspection to the LA forum, even to those who despise me. i have seen some forumers gain a more critical eye because of it.

btw, i happen to think it looks like a winged insect.

[ByTheBay]

Originally Posted by edluva

btw, i happen to think it looks like a winged insect.

If that's a winged insect, then this is a hybrid of a porcupine and a centipede!


http://www.artknowledgenews.com/Santiago_Calatrava_Shows_his_WTC_Transportation_Hub.html

[mdiederi]

Possible decision today to demolish 6th street bridge.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-historic-river-bridge-20111118,0,822133.story

Los Angeles City Council to vote on fate of 6th Street Bridge
L.A. leaders could decide Friday to demolish the iconic 6th Street Bridge because its concrete is rupturing. Concerns about the aesthetics of new bridge, and the cost, complicate the decision.

[202_Cyclist]

This is from a report by the Urban Land Institute about urban grocery stores.

"6. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph's grocery store in South Park in downtown Los Angeles, described urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of street life for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph's grocery store, he said he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than L.A. Live or Disney Hall."

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewC...3D{9F55FC6F-6E38-492C-B7CC-930AAC330A19}

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

The Seattle building you show is far from typical.......its a cheaply built building in a so so part of town. It looks pretty old to me.......more than ten years......and its design is very atypical. That's not to say that every bldg that goes up in Seattle is great architecture......far from it. However, in general, the architecture here is better than the stuff built in LA.

alki, if you're corrrect, than a city it's being compared to negatively must be in really bad shape. that's cuz what I would consider a major intersection in seattle, where your city's version of disney Hall is located, doesn't look much better than this....


maps.google.com

^ benaroya concert hall is across the street from this....


maps.google.com

^ that's really tacky, & benaroya makes me wanna say "love me or hate me, just don't bore me!"


to get back to the topic of dtla, this is the most current pic of work on what's taking place across from LA's answer to benaroya hall...



^ you can see we've got seattle type weather right now.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by alki

I think anything over 15-20 stories will overwhelm Union Station. Even though the approach to Union Station is not a particularly urban one, its uniquely LA and I would hate to see them plop hi rises on Union Station's front lawn. Put the hi rises in the back behind the tracks.

If I had control, hi rises would be confined to the urban core.....centered around Bunker Hill and Pershing Square. Keep the rest the way it is.

That is such a nimby perception.... So we should do that because you wanna preserve your view of union station from far away or on other words your car. Pfft fuck that.. If u wanna see it at its true grandeur just visit the place up front and up close. Grand Central Terminal in NYC is doing just fine.. With high rises surrounding it. So will SF's future Transbay Terminal, AND they're getting a super tall.. And your complaining about 15-20 stories??? Jesus fucking Christ dude. I'm not saying we should build super talls also, but IF there are plans for tall high rises then why not?? Even SD has built skyscrapers around their union station.. As a matter of fact, their tallest skyscraper, one America plaza, sits just across the street from it... WITH a light rail station... So do not hold Union Station back on this.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by alki

There's a stand alone in Seattle but Nordstrom's started here.

Haha no it didn't, Nordstroms started in Seattle.

[ElDuderino]

Originally Posted by alki

That first store is bloomingdales in SF? When did SF get a bloomingdales? Pretty impressive.

It's the old Emporium location which closed in 1996. The Bloomingdales opened in 2006 and is the largest one outside NYC.

[sopas ej]

I didn't realize the Bloomingdale's in SF is already going on 6 years old. It's a nice space, though I'm not a Bloomie's shopper or fan.

I somehow find it odd/ironic that California has the most Bloomingdale's locations out of all 50 states, more than its state of origin.

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

Haha no it didn't, Nordstroms started in Seattle.

alki lives in Seattle, so when he said "here" he meant where he is located.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

That first store is bloomingdales in SF? When did SF get a bloomingdales? Pretty impressive.

that's nothing compared with what I just came across, released at the start of this month....

NEW YORK (AP) By Anne D'Innocenzio

Macy's iconic flagship store, which is already the world's largest, is about to get even bigger. The department store chain announced Tuesday that it plans to spend about $400 million over the next four years to expand and overhaul its storied flagship location at Herald Square in Manhattan. The makeover will affect every floor and virtually every department from shoes to luxury goods.

The renovations will begin in early spring 2012 and continue in phases through the fall of 2015. It says it will add about 100,000 square feet of selling space for a total of 1.2 million square feet by opening up space currently used for stock and offices. The store currently has a total square footage of 2.2 million square feet.

"The excitement, size and scale of this remodel reinforces our conviction that Macy's Herald Square is and will remain a retail store in a class by itself," Terry J. Lundgren, Macy's chairman, president and chief executive, said in a statement. "It is our company's most productive store, and experience shows that improvements in this location consistently result in higher customer traffic and sales volume."

As part of the renovations, Macy's will be creating the world's largest shoe department, featuring as many as 300,000 pairs of shoes on any one day, and infuse technology into the shopping experience that would range from interactive store directories to a new mobile app to guide customers as they shop. The flagship will have 22 restaurants and foodservice stations throughout the store that will accommodate seating for about 1,000 customers, an increase of 40 percent. The roster includes a new restaurant on the sixth floor that will provide views of the Empire State Building.

Macy's is not alone in its renovations—it's just a bit behind. As recently as last fall, several major stores including Lord & Taylor, Bloomingdale's and Saks Fifth Avenue spent millions on renovation projects. Lord & Taylor's upgrade of its Fifth Avenue flagship, completed last October, cost between $20 million and $25 million and included a lavish unveiling party.

^ and we in LA are still struggling to get dirty, pathetic broadway fixed up?! at the same time, the owners of macys are willing to spend big $$ to fix up----& EXPAND (an already huge store!)----their original store, but haven't spent 10 cents on their store in dtla?! as for the owner of the macys plaza on 7th st, he doesn't want to spend more than 2 bucks to fix up his dumpy mall?

the joke is on us.

[JDRCRASH]

Thanks for the update Citywatch!!

Originally Posted by alki

I think anything over 15-20 stories will overwhelm Union Station. Even though the approach to Union Station is not a particularly urban one, its uniquely LA and I would hate to see them plop hi rises on Union Station's front lawn. Put the hi rises in the back behind the tracks.

Oh come on. Several major railway stations in the US are IMO more beautiful than Union Station (which is considered the youngest of the "great railway stations"), yet are "overwhelmed" by buildings taller than 20 stories.

Besides, other than that pocket of green space on the SW corner of Alameda and Los Angeles st (next to the 101 onramp), the areas right next to the station building is pretty much built up, and the small parking lots right in front of the station probably aren't going anywhere. It's most likely that the high-rises planned will be located North of Cesar Chavez ave, or as you said, "behind the tracks".

If I had control, hi rises would be confined to the urban core.....centered around Bunker Hill and Pershing Square. Keep the rest the way it is.

No offense, but I think it's a good thing you aren't in control. What you seem to want is to see the DTLA kept the way it is. Seeing a skyline spread is natural for a city that grows to a certain point. EVERY city, including LA, has done it.

Visually, DTLA has pretty much been the same for nearly the last 20 years, save for the addition of the Ritz. That has length time for people to like it. How do you know you won't like seeing a Vancouver-like skyline spread out over a larger area 20 years from now?