LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I understand plenty how long it takes neighborhoods to take around. But I've also watched as downtown L.A. goes against all that normally happens as a neighborhood gentrifies. Downtown Los Angeles has a bigger population then most of the other downtowns in the United States, many of which are actually the wealthy centers of their respective cities. Downtown L.A. bucked all the trends; it has the people to sustain higher-end retail, but doesn't have the high end retail. Normally, the retail comes in as the people come in, and normally, that process happens at a much slower pace then what is happening in DLTA. I think that DTLA is such an outlier in the world of gentrifying areas that, really, anything can happen.

I'm sure we'd all love for that to be true, but part of the reason it takes 20+ years for a turnaround is that a lot of it is psychological. It's only very recently that a new generation of hipsters have begun to think of DTLA as more than a place to go for jury duty, whereas the previous generation only thought of it as a place to avoid at all cost. I mean, even after all this time you'd think DTLA could support a Trader Joe's, but apparently it's still not in the plans. Is it really because the neighborhood couldn't support one or is it still considered too "risky" in the minds of corporate?

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by bobcat

I'm sure we'd all love for that to be true, but part of the reason it takes 20+ years for a turnaround is that a lot of it is psychological. It's only very recently that a new generation of hipsters have begun to think of DTLA as more than a place to go for jury duty, whereas the previous generation only thought of it as a place to avoid at all cost. I mean, even after all this time you'd think DTLA could support a Trader Joe's, but apparently it's still not in the plans. Is it really because the neighborhood couldn't support one or is it still considered too "risky" in the minds of corporate?

If anything ,it's better that major corporations don't see downtown as viable (even though it is). It allows for independent stores to flourish, which is always a good thing in my eyes. And I think that the psychological aspect of the gentrification is over. Most people I know accept that downtown is a safe, livable neighborhood like any other. The turnaround you see as so far off is not as far off as it may seem to you. Like you said, you are much older then me. Because of this, you have seen many a downtown area become revitalized over a long, long period of time. You are used to it taking a while for an area to have a turnaround, and because of that, logically, you think that DTLA to follow suit. I haven't had the opportunity to witness many urban areas gentrify, with the exception of DLTA. DTLA is all I have seen go threw the gentrification movement, and because of that, I judge it on its own terms, not the terms of other cities before it.

[edluva]

i understand that this is a downtown LA forum, above all things, but we really have to stop seeing downtown as some gauge of LA's overall urban health.

downtown LA is a tiny neighborhood within a huge city. it's the equivalent of lower manhattan's financial district - just a single neighborhood within manhattan, which its itself, just a borough of new york proper (and also not all that interesting when taken alone)

LA's issues are regional, and won't be solved by having an island of a downtown that is vibrant because of the number of people who drive into and out of it. putting all our eggs in that basket is the wrong approach.

we need to understand our city in its entirety, especially if we're to call ourselves urbanists. some of us remember that it's about tying all our major neighborhoods together - downtown, hollywood, wilshire corridor, bev hills, south la, west hollywood, santa monica, etc. with mass transit, and giving the place a singular identity. a sense of place.

if you wanted los angeles to come into its own, to have an interesting, vibrant, and cosmopolitan urban core, that's what you'd be focusing on. Not whether downtown gets another coffee bean. it's great to root for downtown. but it's not the solution some of us keep portraying it to be.

that being said, the only thing that could turn downtown into a high end shopping destination is some billion dollar mall by westfield. that's what it would take to overcome the inertia against bringing a critical mass of patrons into the nabe. a pre-packaged collection of retailers plopped into place in one fell swoop. but downtown LA doesn't need to be such a place. it will never win against the westside, and it shouldn't try to.

LA has long had an answer to union square and midtown manhattan - bev hills/weho. our goal should be to play up our strengths by tying them together.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by citywatch

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



^ 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.

Macy's Herald Square NEEDS renovation. Some of it is decades out of style, cramped, oddly configured, etc. This is fairly typical of even the nicest dept. stores that are in buildings that old.

A major gutting would be needed to make it look like the better stores in, say, Newport, Costa Mesa or other large malls around the country. Not putting them down; I would guess it will be quite nice after the work.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by edluva

i understand that this is a downtown LA forum, above all things, but we really have to stop seeing downtown as some gauge of LA's overall urban health.

downtown LA is a tiny neighborhood within a huge city. it's the equivalent of lower manhattan's financial district - just a single neighborhood within manhattan, which its itself, just a borough of new york proper (and also not all that interesting when taken alone)

LA's issues are regional, and won't be solved by having an island of a downtown that is vibrant because of the number of people who drive into and out of it. putting all our eggs in that basket is the wrong approach.

we need to understand our city in its entirety, especially if we're to call ourselves urbanists. some of us remember that it's about tying all our major neighborhoods together - downtown, hollywood, wilshire corridor, bev hills, south la, west hollywood, santa monica, etc. with mass transit, and giving the place a singular identity. a sense of place.

if you wanted los angeles to come into its own, to have an interesting, vibrant, and cosmopolitan urban core, that's what you'd be focusing on. Not whether downtown gets another coffee bean. it's great to root for downtown. but it's not the solution some of us keep portraying it to be.

that being said, the only thing that could turn downtown into a high end shopping destination is some billion dollar mall by westfield. that's what it would take to overcome the inertia against bringing a critical mass of patrons into the nabe. a pre-packaged collection of retailers plopped into place in one fell swoop. but downtown LA doesn't need to be such a place. it will never win against the westside, and it shouldn't try to.

LA has long had an answer to union square and midtown manhattan - bev hills/weho. our goal should be to play up our strengths by tying them together.

OMG, OMG, OMG. Agree with every word.

Look at DT to SaMo/Venice as a whole and connect them. Don't cram everything in a small area like little bitty cities pretending to be of world significance. That's not the way that London, NY, Paris, etc., are.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by bobcat

The biggest problem with LA isn't lack of tall buildings or too much stucco

I certainly agree with that. I'm reminded of the various ppl who were complaining that the tower designed by Daniel Libeskind was instead going to be a low rise wood framed apt bldg. There disappointment was understandable, but in the context of LA?! in the context of a lot across from the convention ctr?! It was like the parent of a child with severe downs syndrome suddenly becoming unhappy that her kid couldn't score 700 on the SAT.

that replacement proj will be near another newer apt bldg in that area, built around 8 yrs ago, which is shown to the left.....


maps.google.com

^ As with the proposed apt bldg that's supposed to start going up early next yr just a bit farther south on Fig, the bldg at Fig & Pico won't win any design awards, but it's much better than what has otherwise been there for over 80 or more yrs. I notice too that is has fairly good landscaping, with lots of trees & bushes sitting right up against the bldg. I'm pretty certain that almost everyone who is in that part of dt won't be unhappy that such bldgs aren't tall enough, while most ppl will be about all the grit & deadzones, or like what's shown in the next pic....

it's the decaying infrastructure and stifling bureaucracy. If we were to fix our transportation system, roads, schools, and get rid of all the bureaucratic red tape we'd be 90% of the way there.

you're partly correct, although we're already spending big $$ on transit & the many new school bldgs throughout LA. So it's just that your suggestions don't go far enough. iow, how does the city deal with lazy owners of properties on broadway, all over south pk, around dt in general?


maps.google.com

^ there are so many gaps like that, that to get rid of them before everyone is old & gray----or before everyone has kids in high school----what do we have to do? invite the army to LA to use parts of it for bombing practice?

[all of the trash]

Originally Posted by citywatch

when I see forumers debating about some proposed new bldg not being tall enough, or whether towers should be in south pk or around union station, they make me think of ppl talking very seriously about how they'll spend their money after winning the $300 million lotto. iow, they're setting themselves up for disappointment, or they're gonna have to wait a very, very long before anything happens.

This is 95% of your posts. Whether or not a project is going to happen or whether it just exists in fantasy land, people still want to talk about the design aspect of it because hey this is a skyscraper forum. It's about buildings too and we like to talk about design. Yes we know these aren't going to built, that's beside the point and it's getting tiring reading your posts everyday condescending to the fact everyone is already aware of.

Read edluva's most recent post in this thread. There's already wealth, great department stores and places free of 'grit and grunge' in LA. It's in the westside. Build transit over there. Trying to bring everyone to urban DTLA is a hurdle. But bringing urbanity to everyone else may be feasible.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

Yes we know these aren't going to built

oh, really? that's hard to believe when a person is surprised & unhappy that some big fancy tower isn't going to have a groundbreaking, & then----most importantly of all----getting so that a smaller bldg instead will be built in its place.

btw, anyone who cites one of the biggest trolls on ssp loses credibility in my eyes.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by alki

Most train stations are located in the heart of the downtown.....or very close to the heart.....much closer than Union Station is to the heart of DTLA. And Brigham, you should know well enough that everything doesn't have to be cookie cutter.......leave some room for each city developing its own uniqueness.

If we didn't leave room for innovation and experimentation, its likely NY wouldn't have built a park on an elevated, abandoned road; Seattle a monorail, or San Antonio its river walk. None of these innovations impress me but they make their respective cities different from other cities.

The approach to Union Station is nothing if not iconic. It says LA......just like the control tower at LAX. Not everything in LA has to look like NY or SF. I think its important to leave some room for LA to have its own identity.

we never said we wanted cookie cutter stuff at union station... all we were saying is that union station needs more density and high rises would be nice in the area... and of course we want LA to have it's own identity.. but that doesn't meet we have to put limits, that would actually hold everything back. even if LA copied SF or NY.. it'll still be very different therefore making it unique to LA...we will have a revitalized la river, a more developed union station, a streetcar etc.. those will make LA...LA in the future. Just because I think we should be open to high rises in Union Station doesn't mean i want cookie cutter stuff and that i don't want LA to be unique.... this city has a long history of fucking up and still somewhat continues to.. i think its time we look at what NY, Portland, SF and maybe even what SD have been doing. learn from them.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Even for you, this is an unusually pessimistic statement...

Let's see, so why do you even visit this thread when you feel that the majority of developments on page 1 aren't going to happen before I am "old & gray"??? BTW, i'm only 22. Illithid Dude is 18, I believe. And that really young kid (Threehundred joked and called him my "little brother") that showed up late in the 3.0 thread whose comments made little sense was 14, I think. Forgot his name.

Seriously, if ANYONE needs to connect the dots, it's YOU. You completely ignore significant changes that have already happened, are currently happening, and are going to ESPECIALLY happen this decade and the next, all of which point to greater high-rise growth downtown.

One of them - that I appreciate now more than I used to - is the bike lane expansion.



EDIT: Here's something to consider: Even if the housing market does in fact take 20 years (from now) to recover, I'll still only be 42. Not young, but definitely not "old & gray".

Just to give you an idea of how ridiculously inane your statement was.

I know you - and anybody else - will probably not respond to this comment, but still...

im 21 .. it's our future.. i think we should decide what we want in this city lol

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by bobcat

I'm sure we'd all love for that to be true, but part of the reason it takes 20+ years for a turnaround is that a lot of it is psychological. It's only very recently that a new generation of hipsters have begun to think of DTLA as more than a place to go for jury duty, whereas the previous generation only thought of it as a place to avoid at all cost. I mean, even after all this time you'd think DTLA could support a Trader Joe's, but apparently it's still not in the plans. Is it really because the neighborhood couldn't support one or is it still considered too "risky" in the minds of corporate?

so true.. the younger generation have a very big fascination of moving back to the city.. they are more attracted to it than MOST older adults living in the suburbs. And then you have the adults who've came to their senses or have always lived in the city. like my parents, aunts and uncles have this perception that dt and mass transit is for the poor.. and that its polluted and dirty, while suburbs to them is a symbol of wealth and sophistication lol i tell em i wanna move downtown and they give me a disgusting look and say it's not convenient because theres nowhere to park, its hard to drive around and you have to walk......HAHAHA... wow.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by edluva

i understand that this is a downtown LA forum, above all things, but we really have to stop seeing downtown as some gauge of LA's overall urban health.

downtown LA is a tiny neighborhood within a huge city. it's the equivalent of lower manhattan's financial district - just a single neighborhood within manhattan, which its itself, just a borough of new york proper (and also not all that interesting when taken alone)

LA's issues are regional, and won't be solved by having an island of a downtown that is vibrant because of the number of people who drive into and out of it. putting all our eggs in that basket is the wrong approach.

we need to understand our city in its entirety, especially if we're to call ourselves urbanists. some of us remember that it's about tying all our major neighborhoods together - downtown, hollywood, wilshire corridor, bev hills, south la, west hollywood, santa monica, etc. with mass transit, and giving the place a singular identity. a sense of place.

if you wanted los angeles to come into its own, to have an interesting, vibrant, and cosmopolitan urban core, that's what you'd be focusing on. Not whether downtown gets another coffee bean. it's great to root for downtown. but it's not the solution some of us keep portraying it to be.

that being said, the only thing that could turn downtown into a high end shopping destination is some billion dollar mall by westfield. that's what it would take to overcome the inertia against bringing a critical mass of patrons into the nabe. a pre-packaged collection of retailers plopped into place in one fell swoop. but downtown LA doesn't need to be such a place. it will never win against the westside, and it shouldn't try to.

LA has long had an answer to union square and midtown manhattan - bev hills/weho. our goal should be to play up our strengths by tying them together.

I LOVE YOU..... i completely agree with this.

[alki]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

we never said we wanted cookie cutter stuff at union station... all we were saying is that union station needs more density and high rises would be nice in the area... and of course we want LA to have it's own identity.. but that doesn't meet we have to put limits, that would actually hold everything back. even if LA copied SF or NY.. it'll still be very different therefore making it unique to LA...we will have a revitalized la river, a more developed union station, a streetcar etc.. those will make LA...LA in the future. Just because I think we should be open to high rises in Union Station doesn't mean i want cookie cutter stuff and that i don't want LA to be unique.... this city has a long history of fucking up and still somewhat continues to.. i think its time we look at what NY, Portland, SF and maybe even what SD have been doing. learn from them.

Density doesn't happen because you say it should. When its forced, it doesn't work..........and it ends up sucking the life out of the surrounding neighborhood.

So then, you're 21, smart and proud. You tell me the economic reason for density and why skyscrapers were first invented in the US. Go for it!

[alki]

Originally Posted by edluva

that being said, the only thing that could turn downtown into a high end shopping destination is some billion dollar mall by westfield. that's what it would take to overcome the inertia against bringing a critical mass of patrons into the nabe. a pre-packaged collection of retailers plopped into place in one fell swoop. but downtown LA doesn't need to be such a place. it will never win against the westside, and it shouldn't try to.

That's why getting a Nordstrom's or a Neiman Marcus DT shouldn't matter at this point. Who wants another shopping mall DT? DTLA has the potential to be a unique retail center primarily because it developed earlier than most regional centers in S. CA. I am more excited by the restaurants and retail stores opening on 7th and on Spring than 7th @Fig. IMO more of the same won't attract nearly as many people as different and unique will.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by alki

That's why getting a Nordstrom's or a Neiman Marcus DT shouldn't matter at this point. Who wants another shopping mall DT? DTLA has the potential to be a unique retail center primarily because it developed earlier than most regional centers in S. CA. I am more excited by the restaurants and retail stores opening on 7th and on Spring than 7th @Fig. IMO more of the same won't attract nearly as many people as different and unique will.

It all comes down to the developers and investors in conjunction with the Banks. What will they do? We're starting to find out what they're doing. We're getting a Target in downtown and it will be an attractive one. That's one example. There is already a Macy's in downtown. There's another example. Now, there are thousands of people in L.A. who want another large retail option in downtown. Let's see what the real estate developers, investors and banks do moving forward. We can believe in change. We will grow and evolve. What we will become is stronger, more attractive, more diverse and more powerful. That is the future of L.A. and its downtown!

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I understand plenty how long it takes neighborhoods to take around. But I've also watched as downtown L.A. goes against all that normally happens as a neighborhood gentrifies. Downtown Los Angeles has a bigger population then most of the other downtowns in the United States, many of which are actually the wealthy centers of their respective cities. Downtown L.A. bucked all the trends; it has the people to sustain higher-end retail, but doesn't have the high end retail. Normally, the retail comes in as the people come in, and normally, that process happens at a much slower pace then what is happening in DLTA. I think that DTLA is such an outlier in the world of gentrifying areas that, really, anything can happen.

DTLA isn't bucking any trends. In fact, its one of the last of the big city DTs to come back to life. Its a little ahead of Dallas and Houston and about on par with Salt Lake and Kansas City.

Gentrification is a complicated process with a lot of factors that come into play.....stuff you probably are just figuring out.

And trust me, I am not dissing you because you're 16. I first got into cities and architecture when I was 12-13. I drove everyone crazy with my questions and was ignored by most adults. By 14, I had saved up enough money to fly to two different cities and check out their DTs......without my mother knowing about it.

So I get your passion and intensity.......and I think its good. However, getting a building built takes a lot of hard work and major coin. Reviving an entire neighborhood is ten times harder and fraught with difficulty.

I give you this............LA moves faster than most other cities. Reviving DTLA may not take nearly as long as reviving say DT St Louis......but it ain't going to happen overnite. Trust.

[alki]

Originally Posted by tommaso

It all comes down to the developers and investors in conjunction with the Banks. What will they do? We're starting to find out what they're doing. We're getting a Target in downtown and it will be an attractive one. That's one example. There is already a Macy's in downtown. There's another example. Now, there are thousands of people in L.A. who want another large retail option in downtown. Let's see what the real estate developers, investors and banks do moving forward. We can believe in change. We will grow and evolve. What we will become is stronger, more attractive, more diverse and more powerful. That is the future of L.A. and its downtown!

Let me say this.......when you see Macy's DT do a major upgrade so that its like other Macys; when you see Macy Plaza punch some holes in its exterior walls so that its part of the streetscape on 7th rather than turning its 'back' on the street; then and only then will you hear talk about a major dept store coming to DTLA.

DTLA has to walk before it can run. Instead of fighting that premise, why not enjoy the ride. This is an exciting time for DTLA.......there is a lot happening and a lot to do without worrying about when Nordstrom's will be staking out a presence. It will come when its time for it to happen.

[alki]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

im 21 .. it's our future.. i think we should decide what we want in this city lol

Yeah, dude, but the olds have all the money.......and money still talks in these disunited states.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by alki

Let me say this.......when you see Macy's DT do a major upgrade so that its like other Macys; when you see Macy Plaza punch some holes in its exterior walls so that its part of the streetscape on 7th rather than turning its 'back' on the street; then and only then will you hear talk about a major dept store coming to DTLA.

DTLA has to walk before it can run. Instead of fighting that premise, why not enjoy the ride. This is an exciting time for DTLA.......there is a lot happening and a lot to do without worrying about when Nordstrom's will be staking out a presence. It will come when its time for it to happen.

Eli Broad is carving out his own reality in DTLA. There are hundreds of other brokers like this man, some power brokers, some lower level. These men and women create the physical landscape of the DTLA that we know. We want change here. We want it now. And the moneyed elite are investing here and they walk, talk and spend money here. It's only a matter of time. You just wait and watch. They are as aggressive as ever and they will change our city for better once and for all. We want their money and we want them to spend it without restriction or reservation. We will build and we will build tall and strong. Be ready to tackle the power moves because they are in the works behind closed doors and this city will never be the same again. It's time and we're finally going someplace in L.A., especially in downtown.

[LA/OCman]

First of all, props to Illithid Dude for your comments and participation. At 16 years of age, I am very impressed.

Also, Citywatch....let's talk about Broadway. I bought here 5 years ago and although it is a "deadzone" at night, changes are really starting since Spring Street is now the epicenter of the historic core. It is happening organically, but with the encouragement of Councilman Huizar and Bringing Back Broadway. To review some improvements: The Eastern Columbia, Blackstone, Orpheum Theatre, Orpheum Lofts, The Chapman, The Palace, Cliftons, the Los Angeles (partially remodeled), the Junipero Serra bldg, the Million Dollar, Two Bits Pizza, Umami, the entire four corners of 5th and Broadway, Loft Seven, Figaro Cafe (under construction), the Broadway Bar, the Pan American Lofts. The Hamburger/May Co buildings are finally rumored to be included in the improvements. Yes, we have a long way to go but those of us who have lived here a while are excited for the future of Broadway.

Oh, also need to mention the vibrant Grand Central Market. I now buy all my fruits and veggies there and the MF Gourmet looks great for fresh bread and pastries. Also, the Bradbury Building is iconic and stunning.

The best shopping Downtown is in Little Tokyo. Target will help in livability. Macy's should be upgraded but the small, individual retails stores are the keys for the future in retail for now.