LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

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.

hmmm interesting =]

San Francisco being the Paris of the West..... Los Angeles being the Tokyo of the West would be awesome... i can see it happening... since LA has not just one specific area for billboards and bright lights... LA has multiple areas: Downtown(South Park and Broadway), Hollywood, Koreatown, Some parts of West Hollywood and Beverly Hills... Tokyo: Ginza, Roppongi, Shibuya, Shinjuku etc....whereas New York is strictly in Times Square and London Piccadilly Circus

Whos doesn't love Tokyo??

[Illithid Dude]

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.

A couple things on this list:

Concerning The Broad, frankly, if they couldn't make the garage as big as they wanted, then great. It would have been smaller, anyways. I'd chalk up giving a couple million to make a building more conducive to cars a colossal waste of money. Sadly, it seems like the garage is pretty much done, and they should be moving on to building the actual museum very soon.

I never really liked the current plan for the downtown streetcar, and couldn't care less if it happens or not. In its current form, it is nothing more then a slower people mover. It is good only for tourists, and not the community that it should serve. If they made it double-tracked, then my opinion would change, but otherwise, bleh.

One Santa Fe I am worried about. I always liked the building, and even more the new Metro stop for the Arts District (!). However, they money has already been given. I feel like, since the deed has already been done, One Santa Fe is safe. I hope.

Originally Posted by 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.

Eh. I never really got this extension. Yes, I understand you like it, as you will be served by it, but you are on of the few that will be. How did a project like this, one that should have, at most, a ridership of 13,000 a day, get more priority then the Westside Extension, which would get upwards of around 150,000 people riding it a day? So, really, I don't care so much about this extension. I suppose it would be nice to have, but I wouldn't mind at all if it was delayed a year or more. Wouldn't affect me, or the most of L.A. a bit. In my opinion, the low-density suburb should be happy they are getting a rail extension at all.

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

hmmm interesting =]

San Francisco being the Paris of the West..... Los Angeles being the Tokyo of the West would be awesome... i can see it happening... since LA has not just one specific area for billboards and bright lights... LA has multiple areas: Downtown(South Park and Broadway), Hollywood, Koreatown, Some parts of West Hollywood and Beverly Hills... Tokyo: Ginza, Roppongi, Shibuya, Shinjuku etc....whereas New York is strictly in Times Square and London Piccadilly Circus

Whos doesn't love Tokyo??

I always thought that 'Paris Of' thing was funny. Beirut is the Paris of the Middle East. Buenos Aires is the Paris of South America (and I am finally visiting there next Christmas, thank god. Should be quite a contrast to the Costa Rica I am writing this from). I never heard the San Francisco thing, though. What is Parisian about it?

But anyways, I always equated L.A. to Tokyo because of the consistent, high density throughout the city, and, most importantly, the polycentric nature of the place. The billboards are more an aesthetic comparison, which, while true, doesn't IMO contain much weight in the whole comparison argument. I always thought that if a city should be compared to another city, it should be for something that is inherently true to both cities. Like, for example (and I say this as a generalization, not something that both L.A. and Tokyo have in common), both cities are major banking centers, and both are in a tropical environment. I don't think it would be so correct to say that City A is the City B of the West because both have a high number of blue buildings.

But yeah, Tokyo is the best. I might be going over spring (!) with a friend, which would be the greatest thing in the world. Amazing food, amazing density, amazing architecture, amazing transportation, and amazing culture. There is literally nothing not to like.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

A couple things on this list:

Concerning The Broad, frankly, if they couldn't make the garage as big as
Eh. I never really got this extension. Yes, I understand you like it, as you will be served by it, but you are on of the few that will be. How did a project like this, one that should have, at most, a ridership of 13,000 a day, get more priority then the Westside Extension, which would get upwards of around 150,000 people riding it a day? So, really, I don't care so much about this extension. I suppose it would be nice to have, but I wouldn't mind at all if it was delayed a year or more. Wouldn't affect me, or the most of L.A. a bit. In my opinion, the low-density suburb should be happy they are getting a rail extension at all.

I know we are veering off topic but I'm starting to see a logic to this extension. The IE and SGV are only going to continue to grow into some form of urbanity. In one way or another, those two areas are going to connect to LA and the 210 just won't cut it.

Plus, the Gold Line will spur development along it's route. Even though the Westside subway should be priority number one, any way to improve LA transit should be welcomed.

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

But anyways, I always equated L.A. to Tokyo because of the consistent, high density throughout the city, and, most importantly, the polycentric nature of the place.

Really? Most of LA is comprised of 1920's Revival-style homes and duplexes, and Mid-Century apartment buildings. LA's density is downright suburban, and even bucolic, compared to a number of larger, more urban cities. Our commercial streets, of which, are entirely autocentric in nature (fast food, car dealerships, auto-body shops, parking lots, grocery stores, strip malls, blah blah, etc) are no better. That said, I hope that through the passage of time, these things will begin to correct themselves and will change.

I will be extremely disappointed if One Santa Fe doesn't get built, btw!

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

I will be extremely disappointed if One Santa Fe doesn't get built, btw!

I'm more concerned about the possible Arts District subway extension.

[BrandonJXN]

Speaking of the Arts District, does anyone else feel as though it's the last untouched area of DTLA? Out of all the places in DTLA, I honestly think that it has THE MOST potential out of all of DTLA. It could very easily be the best neighborhood not only in DTLA but in the US. It feels totally different than any other area in DTLA (probably because it's so isolated) and the interesting thing about it is that it connects with Little Tokyo. Itself an area with loads of potential.

[LA/OCman]

If you read the last sentence, it looks like the CRA funds won't be affected.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/cra-b...4b49494-9317-5040-b575-c7be844409e2.html

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Really? Most of LA is comprised of 1920's Revival-style homes and duplexes, and Mid-Century apartment buildings. LA's density is downright suburban, and even bucolic, compared to a number of larger, more urban cities. Our commercial streets, of which, are entirely autocentric in nature (fast food, car dealerships, auto-body shops, parking lots, grocery stores, strip malls, blah blah, etc) are no better. That said, I hope that through the passage of time, these things will begin to correct themselves and will change.
(

Despite appearances, L.A. City is actually one of the densest cities in the country. I believe the number is either four or five, after New York, San Francisco, Philidelphia, and maybe Honolulu(?). And the actual country is the third densest, after New York and San Francisco. Don't forget, much of those mud century apartment are two and three stories, and packed with apartments. The time those were built, L.A. was booming like a third world country. They had to pack as many people in as possible. It's amazing how high-density an even distribution of two and three story buildings can be. Moreover, L.A. had extremely dense nodes, as you know, scattered throughout the city. Wilshire, DT Santa Monica, Venice, Century City, and the like. Yes, L.A. is suburban in appearance. But it is a quite high-density suburbia.

[ChelseaFC]

Los Angeles looks and feels nothing like Tokyo.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

Los Angeles looks and feels nothing like Tokyo.

It looks and feels like Los Angeles and will always do so. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the macro similarities in structure would in anyway translate to a similar look and feel, but I don't think that it's a very good comparison either, if that's what you mean. But it's good enough in that I know what people are getting at when they make it.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Speaking of the Arts District, does anyone else feel as though it's the last untouched area of DTLA? Out of all the places in DTLA, I honestly think that it has THE MOST potential out of all of DTLA. It could very easily be the best neighborhood not only in DTLA but in the US. It feels totally different than any other area in DTLA (probably because it's so isolated) and the interesting thing about it is that it connects with Little Tokyo. Itself an area with loads of potential.

I agree that it has tons of potential. The comparison I always make is Portland's Pearl District. Like the Arts District, the Pearl was once an industrial neighborhood. Now all those warehouses have been converted to lofts, shops, cafes, and microbreweries. Because there is so much adaptive reuse, the neighborhood has a really authentic feel, despite its newness. I'm hoping that the Arts District develops the same way.

The one difference I see between the two is Portland's longtime commitment to good planning and urban design. In LA it seems like developers get whatever they want, even if what they have planned isn't a good fit for the neighborhood. We have community plans and urban design guidelines, but it seems like these plans have to teeth, and the exceptions are the rule. I really hope this changes...LA residents deserve better.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I never heard the San Francisco thing, though. What is Parisian about it?

Really?? yea theres a lot of argument about wether San Francisco or Detroit is the paris of the west

I'm pretty sure you've heard that SF is the most European of all American cities...SF's architecture is very similar to Paris'... and it's small and has a cute charm. There also used to be more French in San Francisco than any other american city outside of New Orleans in the past. Also more restaurants than any other city in the world other than Paris.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

Really?? yea theres a lot of argument about wether San Francisco or Detroit is the paris of the west

I'm pretty sure you've heard that SF is the most European of all American cities...SF's architecture is very similar to Paris'... and it's small and has a cute charm. There also used to be more French in San Francisco than any other american city outside of New Orleans in the past. Also more restaurants than any other city in the world other than Paris.

Tokyo has the most restaurants of any city in the world.... But I don't really get this comparisons. They make no sense. Detroit is like Paris? What? Anyways, we should probably stop this conversation before it gets too... distracting.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Tokyo has the most restaurants of any city in the world.... But I don't really get this comparisons. They make no sense. Detroit is like Paris? What? Anyways, we should probably stop this conversation before it gets too... distracting.

It was just based on architecture... not the way the city functioned. geez calm down -__-''

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Concerning The Broad, frankly, if they couldn't make the garage as big as they wanted, then great. It would have been smaller, anyways. I'd chalk up giving a couple million to make a building more conducive to cars a colossal waste of money. Sadly, it seems like the garage is pretty much done, and they should be moving on to building the actual museum very soon.

when you're older, illithid, & have kids tagging along with you...as some $$ families in cities like NYC do, esp around the upper east side, where cars & taxis (& not subways) are still relied upon to travel to midtown manhattan....you may change your tune. Or you'll be less bothered by whether there is or isn't too much parking in new devlpt.

however, I do agree that building parking spaces is a bad thing if its forces projs to be more expensive than they'd otherwise be. I also definitely dislike surface parking lots.

I notice whenever I'm actually in a place----& not just talking about it theoretically or looking at it from a distance----my idea of what makes it good or bad changes. so when I visited LA live a few wks ago, I'd be the first to admit I liked the convenience of the large parking garage under all the restaurants, theaters & hotel of LA live.

For ppl who think new parking garages or enclosed parking space in general is the reason that ppl are less likely to walk around the hood? In my case, it's still all the gaps, deadzones & rundown bldgs that discourage me from wanting to walk around there, & not cuz there are parking garages or parking podiums.

like it or not, LA still is a city where most ppl use & rely upon the car, & many ppl still live far away from DT.... & public transit still doesn't reach enough places. So when the contempo art museum on Grand Ave has had a hard time attracting lots of visitors, & when the broad museum probably will have the same problem, they can't afford to take convenience of access for granted.

another thing: when i'm in various sections of LA, my response of whether I like them or not is never based on what other cities are like. iow, even if paris, SF, NYC or tokyo also had lots of gaps & deadzones & things like the blight of broadway, I'd still have a problem with DTLA. so I couldn't care less what other cities are like, as much as I sense that lots of improvements to the hood still need to be made.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

I agree that it has tons of potential. The comparison I always make is Portland's Pearl District. Like the Arts District, the Pearl was once an industrial neighborhood. Now all those warehouses have been converted to lofts, shops, cafes, and microbreweries. Because there is so much adaptive reuse, the neighborhood has a really authentic feel, despite its newness. I'm hoping that the Arts District develops the same way.

Actually, if you look at historical imagery via google earth, it appears much of the Pearl District is completely new and rebuilt (and remember, the rail yard depot made up a large portion of it back in the day). Not as many residential buildings seem to be converted warehouses as you might think, while a large portion of them seem to be new, rebuilt low-rise construction.

I don't see how converting all of the industrial buildings in the Arts District (especially when it's such a vast area MANY times larger than the Pearl District, and has no transit access other than the Gold Line in the northern part) could simply magically make the Arts Distict "very easily be the best neighborhood not only in DTLA but in the US".

I mean, it almost seems like the most beautiful renovated warehouses have brick exteriors. Here in LA, that's not too common.

I think what would make a HUGE difference is improving the landscape: Adding LOTS of trees, improving sidewalks, and yes, burying power lines, etc.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Looks like it will be a good year for construction. Finally, something to talk about on the forums! And also, we can finally stop fighting each other like so many dogs over table scraps. I mean, god, look at the discussion on the old L.A. Forums, and it's all constructive. Even Edluva had good things to say. Now, it's just bickering and name-calling. Maybe some new construction will put everyone back into good spirits.

I think its okay to disagree over issues and discuss them constructively.......its when its gets to be mostly snark and troll like is when I don't like it.

[alki]

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.

Its called job growth. LA's job growth has been anemic for years. And what office job growth there has been has taken place mostly in office sub centers like SM, Brentwood, Westwood, Sherman Oaks and Century City. And even in those places, growth has been sub par.

Residential is a different story but even there more units were built in DTLA than can be absorbed. Until that overhang is eaten up, new development will be slow to get started.

And just for the record, job growth has been slow in Chicago and Vancouver........very slow in the latter. However, with Chicago, corps are moving from the suburbs into the city esp since Rahm Emanuel took over as mayor. That should lead to more office/skyscraper development in DT Chicago.

Vancouver sucks when it comes to job creation. Two German friends moved to Vancouver last year hoping to get jobs and live in the city for a few years. It got so bad one of them applied for a job selling wine and liquor in a liquor store. The owner of the store said he wasn't taking any more applications. My German friend pointed out he had an MBA. The store owner laughed and said everyone on his application waiting list had a Master's or Ph.D.

The skyscrapers you see going up in Vancouver are mostly residential and they are to accommodate the Chinese who are parking their 'safety' money in Vancouver. Vancouver is not a model to emulate IMO.

The rest.....NY, Brazil, Tokyo......are experiencing real growth at varying rates......hence the need for more office, commericial and residential development. I know I sound like the grinch that stole XMAS but there are economic reasons for new development. Its the point I was trying to make when I asked LA Dreamin' why skyscrapers got built. LA's mayor needs to start kicking ass and getting LA's job growth back on track.

[alki]

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.

I tend to agree with you. The focus should be to get those early 20th century buildings rehabbed and occupied so that DTLA street life becomes intense and vibrant. The rest will follow in due course.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Actually, if you look at historical imagery via google earth, it appears much of the Pearl District is completely new and rebuilt (and remember, the rail yard depot made up a large portion of it back in the day). Not as many residential buildings seem to be converted warehouses as you might think, while a large portion of them seem to be new, rebuilt low-rise construction.

I don't see how converting all of the industrial buildings in the Arts District (especially when it's such a vast area MANY times larger than the Pearl District, and has no transit access other than the Gold Line in the northern part) could simply magically make the Arts Distict "very easily be the best neighborhood not only in DTLA but in the US".

I mean, it almost seems like the most beautiful renovated warehouses have brick exteriors. Here in LA, that's not too common.

I think what would make a HUGE difference is improving the landscape: Adding LOTS of trees, improving sidewalks, and yes, burying power lines, etc.

Have you spent time in the Arts District?