LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0 - Page 139

RST500 · #**2761** Posted **Dec 5, 2011, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Downtown Los Angeles Rundown 4.0

The old thread surpassed 10,000 posts.

To make things easier, i'm making this one similar to the previous thread designed by Colemonkee, which means:

Projects are listed in order of tallest to shortest (to the best of our knowledge), and grouped into the following categories: Under Construction, Approved, Proposed, On Hold, Cancelled, and Recently Completed. Heights are listed only where they have been confirmed.

Could some please update these projects.

OneMetropolis · #**2762** Posted **Dec 5, 2011, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej

You're not reading it correctly.

2000 Census: 3,694,820

2010 Census: 3,792,621

I assume you were looking at the 2005 estimate.

Granted, it was in the news when the 2010 census figures finally came out that LA didn't gain as many people as was originally thought, and that this is the slowest growth that LA has had in many decades. It's a fact that LA has always gained more people with every census since 1850, when it became an American city. LA has yet to officially lose population with an official census.

Oh I see ha silly me.

JDRCRASH · #**2763** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 12:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RST500

Could some please update these projects.

Not much to update. If you've got anything for the downtown area, give it to me!

Illithid Dude · #**2764** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 2:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RST500

Could some please update these projects.

Really? Quoting the entire front Page? Would it have been that hard to say, "Can someone please update the projects on the front page?" Someone delete this post, it's spam, through and through.

Oh, and by the bye, the projects ARE updated constantly. Everything you see on the front page is the latest iteration/construction.

mello · #**2765** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 3:16 AM**

What has the reaction been in the LA media to the sale of the Jacksonville Jaguars for 756 mill? To me this would make them the clear frontrunner to be playing in the Coliseum next year or in 2013.

Quixote · #**2766** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 4:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello

What has the reaction been in the LA media to the sale of the Jacksonville Jaguars for 756 mill? To me this would make them the clear frontrunner to be playing in the Coliseum next year or in 2013.

Nope. Their lease makes it virtually impossible for them to leave and the new owner has said that he's not moving the team.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_jacksonville_jaguars_new_owner_los_angeles_112911

mello · #**2767** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 5:08 AM**

First of all of course he is going to say that he isn't planning on moving the team. The Jags are still playing games this year, no need to create a lame duck situation. Leases are always able to be broken, AEG can get that done with their high paid lawyers. It would be worth the fight to get out of that market don't you think Westside? JAX is a sinking ship going nowhere, it was a huge mistake by the NFL to put a team in that market in the first place. An expansion franchise should have been placed in San Antonio with nearby Austin being a large population base to draw from. Texas is a much more prosperous state then Florida and could easily handle three NFL teams.

ChelseaFC · #**2768** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 8:20 AM**

I don't disagree with what you are saying about the Jaguars as a franchise, but that does NOT mean they are moving to Los Angeles. We believe the order of most likely teams are 1) Chargers, 2) Rams, 3) Vikings. Raiders and Jaguars are possible but highly unlikely. Emphasis on the "highly."

Quixote · #**2769** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 8:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello

First of all of course he is going to say that he isn't planning on moving the team. The Jags are still playing games this year, no need to create a lame duck situation. Leases are always able to be broken, AEG can get that done with their high paid lawyers. It would be worth the fight to get out of that market don't you think Westside? JAX is a sinking ship going nowhere, it was a huge mistake by the NFL to put a team in that market in the first place. An expansion franchise should have been placed in San Antonio with nearby Austin being a large population base to draw from. Texas is a much more prosperous state then Florida and could easily handle three NFL teams.

Did you read the article? It would take a minimum of four years to complete the move. AEG must secure a team before it can break ground. That means a team should be here by 2013. If the Jags do end up moving here, they'd be the second team to do so.

Of course, you're just saying this because you don't want the Chargers to move (I don't either)...

mello · #**2770** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 6:03 PM**

Why would it take four years? He can show the books for the previous owner. Plus since he paid the least amount for an NFL franchise (Forbes had JAX valued as the lowest of all 32 teams) it gives him and AEG more wiggle room for a legal battle. If he had paid the average 1 billion (according to Forbes) then spending 200 million getting out of the lease would be prohibitive but he didn't spend a huge amount up front.

Chelsea FC: Why would the Raiders be "highly unlikely" to move to LA? What is the benefit of staying up in Oakland in that dump of a stadium and half the Bay Area market or sharing a "Niners Themed" red seated stadium with the Bay's other team when it is clearly "their house" and you would just be the stepchild sharing the field? Moving to have the LA market all to yourself is a much smarter move don't you think...

pesto · #**2771** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 6:35 PM**

As long as the subject came up:

The Jags are a possibility; they can probably get out of the lease with minimal cost; certainly far less than they would gain by moving. There is no written commitment to stay in Jax, but there is nothing specific that says they are considering moving either.

btw, attendance at last night's game was poor to start and the place was 2/3 empty by half-time.

The Raiders are getting more likely, since the 49ers got funding for a stadium without having to get them involved. This probably means the Niners will toughen up their negotiations with the Raiders, which could encourage them to look at Industry more closely (AEG seems to have little interest in them for DT). Oakland seems to be a dead issue, given it's economic issues and continuing political in-fighting.

But how knows?

RST500 · #**2772** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 7:14 PM**

Whats the status on LA Central?

mello · #**2773** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 7:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

Oakland seems to be a dead issue, given it's economic issues and continuing political in-fighting.

But how knows?

If only one stadium is going to be built in the LA what makes you think that the Bay Area would ever get two built? The only option for the Raiders is sharing the "Niners House" with them or staying in their piece of donkey poo they currently play in.

JDRCRASH · #**2774** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RST500

Whats the status on LA Central?

It's approved, but like most projects, it's either dead or has no financing.

ChelseaFC · #**2775** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello

Why would it take four years? He can show the books for the previous owner. Plus since he paid the least amount for an NFL franchise (Forbes had JAX valued as the lowest of all 32 teams) it gives him and AEG more wiggle room for a legal battle. If he had paid the average 1 billion (according to Forbes) then spending 200 million getting out of the lease would be prohibitive but he didn't spend a huge amount up front.

There is no way they will spend all that money and trouble for a franchise like the Jaguars, when the Chargers and Rams leases are much easier moves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello

Chelsea FC: Why would the Raiders be "highly unlikely" to move to LA?

Because someone has to actually WANT them.

Chargers in 2012, Rams in 2014.

Quixote · #**2776** Posted **Dec 6, 2011, 11:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello

Why would it take four years? He can show the books for the previous owner. Plus since he paid the least amount for an NFL franchise (Forbes had JAX valued as the lowest of all 32 teams) it gives him and AEG more wiggle room for a legal battle. If he had paid the average 1 billion (according to Forbes) then spending 200 million getting out of the lease would be prohibitive but he didn't spend a huge amount up front.

...

Like I said, if they do move, it won't be in the immediate future. In other words, the sale has no relevance as far as precluding the Chargers from moving. In other words, you (and I) better hope that the Chargers are able to get a stadium ballot measure passed next year.

ChelseaFC · #**2777** Posted **Dec 7, 2011, 1:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Like I said, if they do move, it won't be in the immediate future. In other words, the sale has no relevance as far as precluding the Chargers from moving. In other words, you (and I) better hope that the Chargers are able to get a stadium ballot measure passed next year.

Oh come on, the Chargers wouldn't be that bad. I mean, I won't be interested in them, but without Norv Turner they might at least be a tad more relevant. I'm just anxiously waiting to see who wins the NFC LA sweepstakes.

yeah215 · #**2778** Posted **Dec 7, 2011, 6:09 AM**

The problem with the Chargers (or Raiders for that matter) is that they are California teams. At which point, we are redistributing wealth withing state. I would rather have a new team come to LA. That way, all benefits would be new.

JDRCRASH · #**2779** Posted **Dec 7, 2011, 1:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeah215

The problem with the Chargers (or Raiders for that matter) is that they are California teams. At which point, we are redistributing wealth withing state. I would rather have a new team come to LA. That way, all benefits would be new.

Yea but if your team is getting low attendance, then how much wealth is really being "redistributed"?

The fact is the Chargers and/or Raiders might be leaving whether LA gets them or not. So why not go for it?

alki · #**2780** Posted **Dec 8, 2011, 6:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by citywatch

alki, I don't disagree with the points you raise about the best way new projs should be designed, or how it's better to have top class architecture instead of sunbelt junk. but I think the average person doesn't give good marks or bad marks to hoods, or cities overall, based on whether almost every bldg or devlpt deserves to win a prize from critics at the AIA or urban planners. I think far more ppl go

not cuz a new apt bldg lacks retail on the 1st floor, or cuz it has stucco walls. I think far more ppl go

when they run into things like the deadzone parking lot across from the new artisan house....

You keep pointing out parking lots as dead spaces but bldgs can be dead spaces as well. I never once walked Figueroa from 7th to the Boniventure even as I would walk 7th from Fig to Broadway all the time. Why? Because almost all the bldgs on that stretch of Fig act like dead spaces. In fact, the Boniventure is like a black hole. An office building set back from the street with an inactive plaza can be just as much of as dead space as a parking lot.

If DTLA's only problem were parking lots, it would be much more active than it is. However, it has too many bldgs that act as dead spaces as well which only further deaden pedestrian traffic.

DT Seattle has the same problem. There is an area near some of your photos that is almost exclusively office bldgs with little first floor retail. Its where pedestian traffic dies........the sidewalks are only active twice per day: 8 AM and 5 PM. Almost everywhere else in DT Seattle is active except for those few blocks.

It seems in too many American cities, the development of office skyscrapers and hotels automatically preclude first floor retail. Until we get over that cutural perogative, there will not be just dead spaces in American downtowns but dead areas that cover blocks of a DT area.