LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

last time i saw the sign, the rendering had been removed and the site is up for sale. im willing to bet that the glass tower never gets built as the glass tower. also, that 11th and olive building needs to never happen. horrible

[colemonkee]

That 11th and Olive tower was proposed back in 2006. It's been dead in the water for a few years. I'm sure something will be built there eventually, but I seriously doubt we'll see that exact plan.

[OneMetropolis]

What I don't get is how do places like, New York, Brazil, Chicago, Tokyo, Vancouver, etc, all have have miles upon miles of skyscrapers and hi-rises, and LA has problems building a measly hi-rise? Is LA doing something wrong? Why can't LA just build miles of skyscrapers? Someone please enlighten me.

[BrandonJXN]

^ Because we don't need miles and miles skyscrapers. We already have a stockpile of perfectly fine early 20th century buildings. Building 'miles and miles of skyscrapers' and neglecting these buildings are a poor business move.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by OneMetropolis

What I don't get is how do places like, New York, Brazil, Chicago, Tokyo, Vancouver, etc, all have have miles upon miles of skyscrapers and hi-rises, and LA has problems building a measly hi-rise? Is LA doing something wrong? Why can't LA just build miles of skyscrapers? Someone please enlighten me.

Well, in terms of New York, Brazil (Sao Paulo, I assume), Tokyo, and Vancouver, those cities are either in a very small area, crazy dense, or both. L.A., while dense, still has a ways to go before building skyscrapers is a necessity. Moreover, L.A. obviously is in a very large area, making things much more spread out then, say, Vancouver. Chicago is interesting. Yes, they have a modern, booming, and high-rise laden downtown core. However, the areas around downtown, and far into the suburbs, are declining. I don't think that is a situation I would like to see for L.A. Also, obviously, Chicago has one CBD. L.A. has many. Fun fact: L.A. has more office space then Chicago, it's just spread out farther apart.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by OneMetropolis

What I don't get is how do places like, New York, Brazil, Chicago, Tokyo, Vancouver, etc, all have have miles upon miles of skyscrapers and hi-rises, and LA has problems building a measly hi-rise? Is LA doing something wrong? Why can't LA just build miles of skyscrapers? Someone please enlighten me.

High parking requirements. Thing about how much building a massive parking garage costs for each development. Other cities have maximums in their central core, LA has a minimum. It's a huge cost. This is why when we do get development in downtown LA it's large scale developments with hundreds of units + hundreds of parking spaces. In other cities, you get those, AND urban infill high rises with handful of parking spots for up to dozens of units.

That's the key problem.

[OneMetropolis]

all the above

Ah ok makes a bit more sense now.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

Your mentality strikes me as possibly racist but definitely privileged, and I see similar attitudes across the LA forum a lot.

not sure if you even want ppl to respond to your posts since you did name yourself "all of the trash". beyond that, the word "racist" has become so overused & hyper politicized that it has lost most of its original meaning. as for my being 'privileged', if you instead take the side of the owners of the many disgusting rundown bldgs along broadway, does that mean I should call you a slumlord, or say that you have the tude of a slumlord?

All this grime and gaps and surface lots you love to complain about are the symptoms of bad planning, not the cancer.

why are what slumlords do & the ppl they rent to----in most instances, trashy swapmeets-----a case of bad planning? your argument would hold water if an owner of a bldg on broadway fixed it up, & then, cuz it wasn't retrofitted strongly enough, it collapsed in a big quake. now THAT would be a case of bad planning.

Or if an owner cleaned up his bldg & made it look nice, but then got hit with endless rounds of tagging & other forms of vandalism cuz he didn't provide enough security. And so no owner of a nice store would want to rent space in that bldg. THAT would be another example of bad planning.

in other news....


tripadvisor.com

^ in 2012, a major change will not involve new construction----& certainly not start of work on the glass tower proj -----but the teardown of an existing bldg. The wilshire grand hotel at 7th & Fig is now closed & will be demolished over the next yr.

I originally was bothered that it was going to be razed instead of a totally new bldg being created nearby, esp on the parking lot at the NE corner of 8th & fig. but after seeing some pics of the interiors of the bldg, & always thinking the wilshire grand look typical of devlpt during the 1950s, I say "heave ho!!!!"....

:


tripadvisor.com

:


tripadvisor.com

:


tripadvisor.com

:


tripadvisor.com

:


tripadvisor.com

^ to be honest, the hotel rms, with their motley assortment of furniture, don't look much better to me than a motel 6. the room shown in the 2nd pic from the top looks like it's straight out of an episode of 'I love lucy'.

any hesitation I had originally about the bldg being torn down has changed. I now just wish that instead of it being demolished slowly, piece by piece, it would be brought down quickly, like this......


loyalkng.com

[BrandonJXN]

You are aware that a faultline runs right under downtown right? Blowing up a building would be too much of a risk.

[all of the trash]

The red line runs underneath it as well

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

^ Because we don't need miles and miles skyscrapers. We already have a stockpile of perfectly fine early 20th century buildings. Building 'miles and miles of skyscrapers' and neglecting these buildings are a poor business move.

We seriously need the Broadway streetcar...

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

You are aware that a faultline runs right under downtown right? Blowing up a building would be too much of a risk.

gotta admit tho... those types of demolitions are pretty neat =D

check out hotel san diego demolition FUN FUN FUN!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BLShkhqcL4

[dachacon]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Well, in terms of New York, Brazil (Sao Paulo, I assume), Tokyo, and Vancouver, those cities are either in a very small area, crazy dense, or both. L.A., while dense, still has a ways to go before building skyscrapers is a necessity. Moreover, L.A. obviously is in a very large area, making things much more spread out then, say, Vancouver. Chicago is interesting. Yes, they have a modern, booming, and high-rise laden downtown core. However, the areas around downtown, and far into the suburbs, are declining. I don't think that is a situation I would like to see for L.A. Also, obviously, Chicago has one CBD. L.A. has many. Fun fact: L.A. has more office space then Chicago, it's just spread out farther apart.

Not true. Chicago has over 237 million square feet in the city. Which is topped by New York having over 365 million in Manhattan alone!! LA has only 190 million square feet in the county and around 120 million within the city limits.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by OneMetropolis

What I don't get is how do places like, New York, Brazil, Chicago, Tokyo, Vancouver, etc, all have have miles upon miles of skyscrapers and hi-rises, and LA has problems building a measly hi-rise? Is LA doing something wrong? Why can't LA just build miles of skyscrapers? Someone please enlighten me.

Illthid covered it pretty well, but to add to what he said:

Skyscrapers are extremely expensive to build. The cost per floor rises the higher you go because you have to worry more about elevators, wind dampening, the load-bearing capacity of materials, etc. Being that the costs are so high, a developer is only going to build a skyscraper if they know that:

1. There is enough demand in the local real estate market that they can lease most of the space in the building upon completion of the project
2. That they can charge enough rent for the space that the project "pencils out" (i.e. they can turn a profit.)

Some of the cities you named have very strict boundaries, limiting the availability of space. For example, Manhattan is an island...its not getting any bigger. Vancouver has a strict urban growth boundary, with much of the city reserved as parkland. Boundaries like these drive up rents by limiting supply of available space. Under these conditions, developers know they can build higher, lease everything, and make more $.

LA is different. It covers a huge geographical area and doesn't have the same kinds of limitations on space. So it often makes more sense from a financial perspective to build out rather than build up. So I don't think we're going to see the kind of rapid proliferation of skyscrapers that the cities you named have seen until all the available space in LA is gone.

This isn't to say we won't see any. If there's enough demand in a specific part of the city (e.g. Downtown, Hollywood, etc.), we'll see more highrises go up. But I don't expect the whole of LA to start looking like Hong Kong or Sao Paulo until all those parking lots and strip malls have given way to midrises. For this reason, I <3 infill projects. They may not seem as exciting as a new 50-story tower, but each one replaces previously empty space, and gets us closer to a point where developers have no choice but to build very tall buildings.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

So I don't think we're going to see the kind of rapid proliferation of skyscrapers that the cities you named have seen until all the available space in LA is gone.

Though luckily, that is happening. We have just gotten to the point that building 8, 9, or 10 story buildings if financially feasible. For that reason, we are seeing a bunch of those starting go up. Another five years, it will be 15 story buildings, and after that, well... Everything takes time, and it will take time for L.A. to become something like the Tokyo of the West that everyone seems to want it to be. But, take solace in this: for the first time in a very long while, it seems that L.A is doing more things right then wrong. I find that, more then any tall building, is a reason to celebrate.

[Illithid Dude]

And in other, more important news, the California Supreme Court has effectively destroyed CRAs.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/12/ca...to_kill_local_redevelopment_agencies.php

I wonder what this means for California...

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

And in other, more important news, the California Supreme Court has effectively destroyed CRAs.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/12/ca...to_kill_local_redevelopment_agencies.php

I wonder what this means for California...

I keep hearing both sides: That CRA/LA has done a lot of good for LA, and that the CRA/LA is good for nothing but lining the pockets of select developers. I don't know enough about the organization to form an opinion one way or the other. Can anyone shed some light on what effect (if any) this decision will have on LA in terms of the things we SSP'ers care about?

[colemonkee]

^ Well, for one it could put a damper on development of at least three projects we care/talk about here:

1. The Broad Museum - which may have funding for the parking garage prematurely cut off, provided it is not 100% in place already.

2. The Downtown Streetcar - I know the CRA was earmarking funds for that as well. Those funds would have to be picked up by State, Federal, Local, or private dollars.

3. One Santa Fe - I know the CRA granted them a loan or grant in the neighborhood of $8-9 million to start construction. If that hasn't been fully funded and dispersed, that could delay a Q1 start.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

^ Well, for one it could put a damper on development of at least three projects we care/talk about here:

1. The Broad Museum - which may have funding for the parking garage prematurely cut off, provided it is not 100% in place already.

2. The Downtown Streetcar - I know the CRA was earmarking funds for that as well. Those funds would have to be picked up by State, Federal, Local, or private dollars.

3. One Santa Fe - I know the CRA granted them a loan or grant in the neighborhood of $8-9 million to start construction. If that hasn't been fully funded and dispersed, that could delay a Q1 start.

Bummer.

[JDRCRASH]

^ And that doesn't include the Monrovia RDA's sale of a property the to the Gold Line Construction Authority as the site for a rail maintenance facility, which is vital to the construction of the Foothill extension.