LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[alki]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Not sure about the Blue line, but the main reason the Green line stations have not attracted TOD is because of their location along the median of the 105. This is the exactly the alignment you don't want if you ever want transit oriented development some time in the future.

Even DC- the poster child for TOD hasn't seen success in this regard when metro lines run down highway medians. Case in point: The Orange line, which heads of out of the District into Arlington County, VA and then crosses into Fairfax County, VA. Arlington, known for their progressive planning policies, insisted that the Orange line run underneath Wilson Blvd, through the derelict towns of Rosslyn, Courthouse, Clarendon, and Ballston. The result 30 years later, is that the strip malls and garages of Arlington have given way to dense nodes of development around each station, and walkable communities where many people choose to to live without cars. When you hear about the benefits of TOD, this is it. Arlington set the gold standard. It looks like this:

That's the problem with running LTR along freeway right of ways..........ridership tends to be lower and there is less TOD. But cities fall for that 'trap' every time because initial construction and land costs are much cheaper. Its how they sell it to the public. As an example, much of Dallas's light rail system was built along freeways and its one of the least utilized systems in the country with very little development around the stations.

[alki]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

That article should be required reading for everyone on this forum before we get into our next debate about parking requirements. My favorite bit:

Donald Shoup, a Yale-trained economist and former chair of UCLA’s Department of Urban Planning, loves telling this story. Gehry’s auditorium may be wonderful, says Shoup, but it is also a fine example of poor planning. The garage—designed to serve the public good—instantly made the Metro immaterial to concertgoers, placed several thousand cars on the road every week, and pumped a few hundred tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. Like any parking lot entrance, the one on Bunker Hill sucked air from street life. “L.A.,” says Shoup, “required 50 times more parking under Disney Hall than San Francisco would allow at their own hall.” Downtown already had an oversupply of garages and lots where music fans could leave their cars. “After a concert in San Francisco,” says Shoup, “the streets are full of people walking to their cars, eating in restaurants, stopping into bars and bookstores. In L.A.? The bar next door at Patina is a ghost town.” Receipts that should have gone to the philharmonic’s endowment instead are funding enough parking for nearly every ticket holder to park a car every night downtown.

I don't necessarily agree with this guy's conclusion. Had the garage not been built, it could have gone the other way.......a drop off in attendance. You have to remember its LA, not SF. There is a whole different paradigm in LA when it comes to cars and parking. Its a learned behavior just like in SF, its a learned behavior to take BART to the opera instead of one's car. And that learned behavior won't change over nite.

Hell, I got talked into renting midnite in Paris last weekend. If you watch the film, you see parking spaces squeezed into every possible free space in that city. And that's Paris.......a city famous for one of the best metros in the world and where people walk everywhere.

Therefore, I think its unfair to expect a city like LA which has had a love affair with cars for decades to suddenly become SF overnite or expect what works for SF to work in LA. Major paradigm changes take time.....decades...not years.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

The building was recently purchased by Andrew Meieran, who owns the Edison, and he has plans to restore and reprogram the entire building with some very cool stuff, some of which I'm not supposed to mention until it's officially announced.

Great to hear that! and thanks for the photos, koth. I think the one you took of one of the former locations of a clinton's, the one on 7th st----which originally was a jewelry store---is the first time I've seen that bldg since it was reactivated, with the ground floor restored & lights on in the upper windows.

Also good to see an update pic on the shape of the original cliftons, but I'm sorry the owner has yet to fully strip off that hideous steel mesh. but colemonkee's hint of what's being planned gives me much hope.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

Therefore, I think its unfair to expect a city like LA which has had a love affair with cars for decades to suddenly become SF overnite or expect what works for SF to work in LA. Major paradigm changes take time.....decades...not years.

I posted a reply a few months ago to that article written by a person who compared LA's concert hall unfavorably with the one in SF. out of curiosity I did a google street view of the bldg in SF, & was surprised to see something as bad as this....


maps.google.com

^ that's directly around the corner from the main front entrance of davies hall, which is the home of the SF symphony.

A few months after posting that image, alki, I also found myself doing some google street viewing of your current stomping grounds of seattle, & was reminded again that my assumptions about certain cities & the actual reality of them don't necessarily always jibe.

that's why I now realize it's an act of futility to spend too much time comparing one city with another. At least in my case, I find that if I do that, I easily get caught thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the hill, & have a harder time knowing exactly whether I'm rating things too high or too low. besides, I recall being in dtla yrs & yrs ago & being unhappy with the state of things, regardless of whether other cities at the time were in better or worse shape.

I think most ppl are like me, in that if something is not very good, they'll sense it & be disappointed, no matter what other towns or hoods are like by comparison.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Updated Renders of the new hotel in AEG Town.



Breaking ground early this year.

I have mixed feelings about the look of that bldg, but I can't nitpick when I consider the parking lot it's gonna finally replace. however, for some reason the design of that tower does make me think of something I'd see in dallas or st louis. maybe it has to do with the use of all those vertical strips of concrete in order to make the bldg look different or trendy.

I read somewhere that demolition of the wilshire grand won't start until several months from today, which is disappointing. So to make up for that, I hope groundbreaking on the new hotel across from LA live begins well before April.

[sopas ej]

I'm not digging that design. It looks like an updated 1960s or 1970s Holiday Inn. But I'm also glad that at least a parking lot is going to be replaced.

[BrandonJXN]

If it means anything, this building was designed by the same people who designed The South Group (Elleven, Luma, and Evo) as well as 717 Olympic. All of which are very good infill.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by alki

BTW I see nothing wrong with smooth stucco as a building form. Its actually fairly expensive to do. Its the textured crap that bothers me. Its cheap looking and too frequently painted pink.

That's always been my opinion too. Stucco can look good when done right and in the right architectural context, like on a Mediterranean-styled building. It's that cheap, textured spray-on stucco crap that looks awful, like the kind of stuff you'd see on a feng-shui-ed medical office building in Monterey Park or a cookie-cutter 1970s tract house.

[colemonkee]

Stucco, whether smooth or textured, weathers pretty poorly, and quickly. I've seen a lot of smooth stucco buildings with sub-par paint jobs look bad after one rainy season.

(and yes, I did use whether and weather in the same sentence. ha!)

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I posted a reply a few months ago to that article written by a person who compared LA's concert hall unfavorably with the one in SF. out of curiosity I did a google street view of the bldg in SF, & was surprised to see something as bad as this....


maps.google.com

^ that's directly around the corner from the main front entrance of davies hall, which is the home of the SF symphony.

A few months after posting that image, alki, I also found myself doing some google street viewing of your current stomping grounds of seattle, & was reminded again that my assumptions about certain cities & the actual reality of them don't necessarily always jibe.

that's why I now realize it's an act of futility to spend too much time comparing one city with another. At least in my case, I find that if I do that, I easily get caught thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the hill, & have a harder time knowing exactly whether I'm rating things too high or too low. besides, I recall being in dtla yrs & yrs ago & being unhappy with the state of things, regardless of whether other cities at the time were in better or worse shape.

I think most ppl are like me, in that if something is not very good, they'll sense it & be disappointed, no matter what other towns or hoods are like by comparison.

Seriously, Citywatch, sometimes you can be a piece of work. You think doing a google search substitutes for a comprehensive analysis of a city and their attitudes about urban living. That's the kind of sleight of hand that is better left to magicians.

I have lived in all three cities you mention above. There are significant differences in attitudes when it comes to driving, urban living, bldg design and parking. Nonetheless, cars rule in all three cities. I don't think anyone has pretended otherwise. And that's true in most European cities as well.

The key here is degree. The car and its devotees are much more prevalent/dominant in LA than they are in SF, Seattle, Paris or Berlin. Much more land is devoted to streets and parking than in SF or Seattle. That's not a sleight of hand..........its a statistical fact, a redundancy done for emphasis.

Having said that, that LA attitude is changing. The growth of LA's mass transit system in less than 20 years is nothing short of amazing. In fact, I think sometimes you all are too hard on LA whether it comes to parking issues or even the design of its bldgs. I don't think the Marriot is iconic architecture but as hi rises go, its not horrific either. And LA has some very good looking, more modern buildings.....Libary Square [I don't know what it's called now] and the S. Gas company bldg[again I don't know what its called now]. I think the citi bldg missed only because its corners are squared off......had they been rounded I think the building would have been far more interesting. And let's not forget that LA has some of the most exciting architecture when it comes to the 1930s..........better than Miami.......than other city in this country.

Citywatch, I would suggest rather than taking a defensive posture when it comes to comparisons with other cities......take it as a learning opp........and look for ways to improve LA and make it better. And also understand LA will never be SF or Seattle, or visa versa for no other reason than the fact LA's climate is very different than Seattle's. As an example, its unlikely that Seattle will ever have an open air restaurant/bar on an upper floor like the one overlooking Pershing Square........a concept I find very hot. You all can do things with design that we can't even begin to consider.............again because of weather considerations. Inevitably, that will lead to different build outs and a different style of architecture.

In my mind, the goal on this forum is to observe and comment as LA and esp. DTLA evolves and grows. Its one of the best forums on this site......better than the one for Seattle. That's why I enjoy posting here.

[alki]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

That's always been my opinion too. Stucco can look good when done right and in the right architectural context, like on a Mediterranean-styled building. It's that cheap, textured spray-on stucco crap that looks awful, like the kind of stuff you'd see on a feng-shui-ed medical office building in Monterey Park or a cookie-cutter 1970s tract house.

Yes, I hate that crap........IMO its what's given stucco a bad name. And the reason they spray it on is because its so much cheaper to do it that way.

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Stucco, whether smooth or textured, weathers pretty poorly, and quickly. I've seen a lot of smooth stucco buildings with sub-par paint jobs look bad after one rainy season.

Really depends on the quality and the kind of paint used. If the right paint is used and applied correctly, it will last as long as any other paint job.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Stucco, whether smooth or textured, weathers pretty poorly, and quickly. I've seen a lot of smooth stucco buildings with sub-par paint jobs look bad after one rainy season.

Sub-par paint jobs is the key phrase here. Properly laid stucco covered with properly applied paint is actually quite low-maintenance, with only periodic washings needed.

That being said, I guess stucco isn't the ideal material for a building taller than 3 or 4 stories. A Spanish-style house is one thing, a 23-story hotel is another.

[JDRCRASH]

I updated the Marriot rendering.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

That being said, I guess stucco isn't the ideal material for a building taller than 3 or 4 stories. A Spanish-style house is one thing, a 23-story hotel is another.

Thank you.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I updated the Marriot rendering.

Also, you should move it to 'approved'.

But you've done a great job updating the first page. Most of the other City Compilations haven't been updated since, like, 2007.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Sub-par paint jobs is the key phrase here. Properly laid stucco covered with properly applied paint is actually quite low-maintenance, with only periodic washings needed.

That being said, I guess stucco isn't the ideal material for a building taller than 3 or 4 stories. A Spanish-style house is one thing, a 23-story hotel is another.

One of the glories of deco: it works nicely with both Spanish style stucco/plaster/adobe low rises and with modern highrises.

I would love to city some deco with churrigueresque references in the upgrades and re-do's coming to DT, Westlake, Hollywood and Ktown.

[LA/OCman]

More good news...One Santa Fe breaking ground soon...

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/01/arts_districts_one_santa_fe_to_break_ground_this_month.php

[colemonkee]

Some larger renders to remind everyone of what we'll be getting. It's a Michael Maltzan design, so it will be stucco-tastic, but he tends to design the better stucco buildings around downtown.


Image Source: Curbed LA


Image Source: Curbed LA

[JDRCRASH]

Oh my god... that building looks ten times more beautiful than the Marriot!

And it gets even better with the red line station!

[Illithid Dude]

Probably too early to say this, but by the end of the year, DTLA will be booming like its 2005.

[pesto]

How is the Red Line station going to work?