LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

How can the city with the 3rd-largest economy in the world, one larger than London, be like Cleveland or Flint? Seriously, citywatch?! Enough with the hyperbole already.

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

No. There is no rhyme or reason why you should compare LA to St. Louis or Cleveland.

I was focusing on dtla & not the city in general. however, the unemployment rate for the entire city & county is quite high, & job formation, not just in dt but in other hoods too, has been rather low for the past few yrs. I also was thinking of the entertainment industry in particular.

When the movie for best picture won an Oscar this yr, it was interesting that the announcer thought it unusual enough to mention that it was the only nominated movie to have been filmed in LA, or entirely in LA.

There has been talk for yrs & yrs about the auto industry in michigan being torn apart by the success of auto makers in Asia, & plants moving to the south. In all that time, the situation there never has gotten any better. There's been talk for yrs & yrs about LA losing large parts of the movie & TV business. The situation here not only hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.

dtla may not be as bad as dt cleveland or detroit, but in some ways it may be weaker than a dt indianapolis. I was surprised to learn not too long ago that dt indianapolis awhile back at least was able to get a nordstroms. That store has since closed, but I don't think nordstroms would give 2 seconds of time to considering opening a branch in dtla. Maybe in 10 to 20 yrs that won't be true? but from that standpoint, & as of now, dtla actually performs below the level of even dt indianapolis. I don't want to even try comparing dtla with cities in the US & abroad that have always had thriving centers.

this thread is starting to veer away from its purpose, so I'll try to make this post less OT. I originally thought the site of the new marriott was directly across from LA live, esp around where the windows in the yard house restaurant look out to. I now realize the hotel will rise on the land to the west of the parking lot, or the lot on the left of the 2 lots shown in this pic.....


maps.google.com

^ the hood looks like it would be helped more right now if the smaller parking lot with the fugly low pink concrete wall actually was the one to be removed. but almost everything north of olympic needs to be cleaned up & given an extreme makeover.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by citywatch

When the movie for best picture won an Oscar this yr, it was interesting that the announcer thought it unusual enough to mention that it was the only nominated movie to have been filmed in LA, or entirely in LA.

There has been talk for yrs & yrs about the auto industry in michigan being torn apart by the success of auto makers in Asia, & plants moving to the south. In all that time, the situation there never has gotten any better. There's been talk for yrs & yrs about LA losing large parts of the movie & TV business. The situation here not only hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.

First of all, it's unfair to say that the film industry in L.A. is suffering because The Artist was the only best picture nominee to be filmed in L.A. Every other best picture movie took place in a different city, and strangely enough, said film was filmed in the city it took place in. For example, The Descendants was filmed and took place in Hawaii, The Help filmed in the South, War Horse in rural England, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in NY, etc.

Now, let it be said, in no way whatsoever is the film industry struggling. Yes,some films are often shot outside of L.A. This has always been the case, and will always be the case. And despite that, film executives are based in L.A., producers base their companies in L.A., all the agencies are based in L.A., studios are based in L.A., etc. etc. In fact, it could be said that film studios are doing better then ever, and raking in more profits then ever before. Film in L.A. is not hurting whatsoever, and has no signs of hurting.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

First of all, it's unfair to say that the film industry in L.A. is suffering because The Artist was the only best picture nominee to be filmed in L.A. Every other best picture movie took place in a different city, and strangely enough, said film was filmed in the city it took place in. For example, The Descendants was filmed and took place in Hawaii, The Help filmed in the South, War Horse in rural England, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in NY, etc.

Now, let it be said, in no way whatsoever is the film industry struggling. Yes,some films are often shot outside of L.A. This has always been the case, and will always be the case. And despite that, film executives are based in L.A., producers base their companies in L.A., all the agencies are based in L.A., studios are based in L.A., etc. etc. In fact, it could be said that film studios are doing better then ever, and raking in more profits then ever before. Film in L.A. is not hurting whatsoever, and has no signs of hurting.

Exactly! Citywatch, don't know if you live in dtla or not, but as a resident, there are shootings on a DAILY basis (average 3, I heard). No other city in the world has that type of filming. Tons of s***/decent movies get filmed in LA, but yes, some of the bigger larger budget films do get the luxury of filming outside of LA to get the real background. Whereas, LA has to fill in for many more movies than any other city. That's the difference.

Plus, to say nothing about TV shows? How many of those are filmed outside of LA? You can probably count that on one hand. The entertainment industry does dominate LA, even though, there may be one-off specials filmed here and there....LA is still the "entertainment capital of the world". (India's Bollywood may be # 2 due to its sheer popularity in all of Asia)

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by dachacon

Horrible Idea, that is the main reason that midwestern towns and cities fell into ecomomic slumps. Focus on one or two industries, then when another city offers a better place than you, your pretty much screwed.
All major world class cities, offer hubs for multiple industries. such as Media Finance, Entertainment, Tourism Etc. A nice of mix of 5 or 6 Industries helps a city diversify. When one side starts failing the others can pick up the slack. Basic common sense, don't put all your eggs in one basket.



Fantastic Idea, The northern part of the city in the SFV, has as much office space as in Downtown. If we can move those tenants to Downtown it will help make a definitive central core "over the hill". Can't say much about what LA can do with other cities such as Glendale or Pasadena. We cant tell them to give up their major employers. All LA can do i guess is provide incentives to move to to the Central Regions of Downtown, Hollywood, or Koreatown.

I definitely agree with you on the first part. LA has always gone big in various industries (Agriculture, Oil, Aerospace, Film). But they invariable start to dwindle. When the cold war ended, and defense budgets were cut, the loss for aerospace was terrible for LA. LA was basically the Detroit of aerospace. Fortunate for LA its also big in other industries, and should remain that way.

For your second point, there is no way LA will try to get companies to leave other parts of its own city for the denser areas. First of all, the city council will never agree to such poaching of each others districts. Secondly, maybe those jobs like their more suburban setting with a lot of single family homes nearby (and all parts of the city have apartment homes). The city would rather focus its efforts on getting companies from outside the city (more important they should try and land cities from outside the region or state, and land international companies).

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I'm pretty sure until there are close to zero parking lots left and all the poles have been put underground, citywatch will never cease to be satisfied with the urban landscape! I'll be satisfied with just most of DTLA free of parking lots as it is the face of Los Angeles.

[Allnatural85]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Exactly! Citywatch, don't know if you live in dtla or not, but as a resident, there are shootings on a DAILY basis (average 3, I heard). No other city in the world has that type of filming. Tons of s***/decent movies get filmed in LA, but yes, some of the bigger larger budget films do get the luxury of filming outside of LA to get the real background. Whereas, LA has to fill in for many more movies than any other city. That's the difference.

Plus, to say nothing about TV shows? How many of those are filmed outside of LA? You can probably count that on one hand. The entertainment industry does dominate LA, even though, there may be one-off specials filmed here and there....LA is still the "entertainment capital of the world". (India's Bollywood may be # 2 due to its sheer popularity in all of Asia)

Agreed. Production in LA is actually up. I work in the indusrty myself and can tell you that TV production as well as commercial and print production has increased since the beginning iof the recession in 2008.

[alki]

Originally Posted by dachacon

Horrible Idea, that is the main reason that midwestern towns and cities fell into ecomomic slumps. Focus on one or two industries, then when another city offers a better place than you, your pretty much screwed.

All major world class cities, offer hubs for multiple industries. such as Media Finance, Entertainment, Tourism Etc. A nice of mix of 5 or 6 Industries helps a city diversify. When one side starts failing the others can pick up the slack. Basic common sense, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

I think you misunderstood. You focus on two additional industries where you have a weak presence but have the potential to increase their size. You don't foresake the industries where LA is currently strong......but rather add new industries to the mix to make up for the loss of aerospace and manu.

Fantastic Idea, The northern part of the city in the SFV, has as much office space as in Downtown. If we can move those tenants to Downtown it will help make a definitive central core "over the hill". Can't say much about what LA can do with other cities such as Glendale or Pasadena. We cant tell them to give up their major employers. All LA can do i guess is provide incentives to move to to the Central Regions of Downtown, Hollywood, or Koreatown.

You can't force companies to move to DTLA........rather you cap office development in the nodes so that DT becomes the primary location once again. Because you can expect an upcry from leaders who represent the nodes as well as developers, you offer them a carrot.........tax breaks on residential development, for an example.

[alki]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Alki, I would love to see the majority of all future office and commercial growth focused in and around downtown, and hopefully that at least SOMEWHAT happens.

However... i think what will improve the multi-nodal concept of city development in LA is connecting them by rail, which we are doing.

I guess you can eliminate some of the hassle but I think its better to mostly focus transit/bus on one central point like DTLA. I think that will lead to a
DT renaissance even bigger than the one that is happening now.

One factoid I just learned about LA.......metro LA is the densest metro in the country.

[213]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Now, let it be said, in no way whatsoever is the film industry struggling.

...apart from that very few films are actually produced here anymore. Most feature projects are shot in other regions of the country, having for several years been lured away by state incentive programs.

While this has little bearing on the earnings of major studios, major agencies and above-the-line talent, these entities are but a slice of "the industry" as L.A. knows it. A far larger portion is represented by below-the-line employees and the myriad support businesses (and their employees) that serve Hollywood. For them the financial impact of runaway production has been significant. And unlike many producers, investors and A-list actors, costumers and electricians spend the bulk of their incomes locally.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by 213

...apart from that very few films are actually produced here anymore. Most feature projects are shot in other regions of the country, having for several years been lured away by state incentive programs.

Many films may not be filmed in L.A., but it is not 'most'. For an unofficial test, just look at your TV. Count how many commercials are filmed in L.A. Hell, just count the commercials filmed in Downtown L.A. It's over half. That alone is a good indicator that L.A. is used as a backdrop for filming far more then any other city.

Either way, why are we even arguing about this? I say drop the subject, as it makes no difference to downtown development either way.

[213]

Many films may not be filmed in L.A., but it is not 'most'.

I see the IATSE breakdowns.

Where downtown is concerned, production remains (fairly) busy -- but the economic benefits of a commercial and a 9-figure feature are obviously quite different.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by 213

I see the IATSE breakdowns.

Where downtown is concerned, production remains (fairly) busy -- but the economic benefits of a commercial and a 9-figure feature are obviously quite different.

As Illuthdude said, this is a moot point. Doesn't relate to downtown construction. You can point to the those large big budget films and say "oh, its not as much as it was", or you can take a look at the sheer number of mid-range / low-budget movies and you can see, LA dominates. If a movie has a significant large budget, in today's environment, they won't use LA as a back drop for another time era or city, they'll use the actual city/region. But that doesn't mean LA is suffereing, it just means studious have more money to spend.

Era has changed, but LA still remains "the entertainment capital of the world". That is undisputed. Just like London/New York are your financial capitals, LA is still the king of entertainment.

Next topic please.

[Dale]

LA may remain the entertainment capital of the world. But every movie is filmed in Vancouver.

[colemonkee]

This development will have more potential impact on downtown projects than the last three pages of thread comments here combined. From Curbed LA:

Speedier Development Approvals Coming Up

The Planning and Land Use Management committee of the LA City Council approved the Multiple Approvals Ordinance yesterday--it's a new ordinance intended to consolidate the approval process for development projects and lengthen the windows for entitlements and approvals (so that, for instance, projects approved pre-recession still have time to get financing together and build). The ordinance will now go to the full Council as a consent item (which means it is likely to pass quickly and quietly). PLUM Chair Ed Reyes asked the Planning Department to report back in six months with metrics for the financial impact of the new ordinance.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by alki

I guess you can eliminate some of the hassle but I think its better to mostly focus transit/bus on one central point like DTLA. I think that will lead to a
DT renaissance even bigger than the one that is happening now.

One factoid I just learned about LA.......metro LA is the densest metro in the country.

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/how-paris-is-like-los-angeles.html

Someone posted this on that curbed site about how Los Angeles is more like Paris with multiple nodes rather than like New York with its central core.... maybe Los Angeles doesn't need a central hub like SF, Chicago and NY...

We'll actually benefit MORE by developing urban density in Hollywood, Koreatown, Santa Monica, Westwood, DTLA, Pasadena etc with low-rise and suburbs in the middle of all of it...connected by transit going ALL DIRECTIONS instead of the system that NY is using that funnels all transit to Manhattan.

[BrandonJXN]

LA doesn't need a 'downtown' as much as other cities do in terms of it's size. Citywatch was going on about Indianapolis but take away Lucas Oil Stadium and the Indy 500 and what else is there to do in Indy? I'm sure there is loads to do but you see my point.

But DTLA needs to improve and that's no secret.

**Edit**

From Curbed:

Marriott ands it various development partners held a parking lot party this morning to announce to the world that it's ready to break ground on its 23 story joint Courtyard by Marriott and Marriott Residence Inn in South Park (just across Olympic from its JW Marriott/Ritz-Carlton tower). Prep work is expected to start in April, with construction beginning sometime in the spring. The new building will bring 174 Courtyard rooms ("a no-frills-style Marriott," according to the LA Times) and 218 Residence Inn rooms ("intended for extended stays, [it] has larger units and kitchens").

This morning, City Councilmember Jan Perry and LA Live developer AEG's president Tim Leiweke both spoke about Downtown's dearth of hotel rooms and their desire to make LA a top destination for conventions (AEG is developing the Downtown NFL stadium project nearby, which includes a new convention center hall). Marriott Chairman Bill Marriott said that a group of Marriott employees are in town for a meeting right now, but some had to stay with competitors because there aren't enough Marriott rooms in the area.

The $172 million Marriott project will also include 11,754 square feet of meeting space, 5,100 square feet of restaurant space, and a 3,000 square foot digital sign, in case South Park wasn't bright enough for ya. The building was designed by GBD Architects of Portland and will have interior design by Seattle's Degen & Degen. A grand opening is expected for summer 2014.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/how-paris-is-like-los-angeles.html

Someone posted this on that curbed site about how Los Angeles is more like Paris with multiple nodes rather than like New York with its central core.... maybe Los Angeles doesn't need a central hub like SF, Chicago and NY...

We'll actually benefit MORE by developing urban density in Hollywood, Koreatown, Santa Monica, Westwood, DTLA, Pasadena etc with low-rise and suburbs in the middle of all of it...connected by transit going ALL DIRECTIONS instead of the system that NY is using that funnels all transit to Manhattan.

That was me. Chris Loos = DistrictDirt

The point Jarret makes in that blog post I linked to is very interesting. Everyone assumes that having a dense, compact "monocentric" city is the most efficient. And in a lot of ways it is. But in terms of efficient use of transit capacity, its actually not. Excuse me for reposting my Curbed comment, but I don't feel like typing everything out again:

In NYC, the inbound trains in the morning and the outbound trains in the evening are packed with commuters, nuts-to-butts. But the morning outbound trains and the evening inbound trains are relatively empty. All that capacity is wasted. Now, look at the plans for the Purple line here in LA. Westwood to DTLA, with stops all along the Wilshire corridor. You'll have people going both directions all day, with no dominant direction. With trains filled with people BOTH directions, it's a much more efficient use of scarce transit capacity.

Jarret Walker says it better in his Human Transit blog though:

If you want a really balanced and efficient public transit system, nothing is better than multiple high-rise centers all around the edge, with lower-rise density in the middle, because that pattern yields an intense but entirely two-way pattern of demand. If balanced and efficient transit were the main goal in Los Angeles planning, you'd focus your high-rise growth energies on multiple centers such as Westwood, Warner Center, Burbank, Glendale and perhaps new centers in the east and south, while continuing to add density in the middle as opportunities arise. Even from a broader urbanist perspective, I'm not sure it's necessarily better to have a single massive center like Manhattan, which Los Angeles clearly envies, as opposed to the Paris model of multiple highrise centers, which Los Angeles already is.

[colemonkee]

I've ridden the red line trains both into and out of downtown weekday mornings, and the inbound trains are far more crowded than the outbound trains. This may change somewhat when it reaches Century City & Westwood (which are somewhat denser employment centers than Hollywood and North Hollywood), but that change will be gradual, as it will require quite a few people who work in those areas to relocate residence downtown.

[colemonkee]

Some larger renders from the Curbed LA story. I'm cautiously optimistic about this tower. It's designed by GBD Architects, who designed Evo and most of the towers in Portland's South Waterfront development. I'm hoping that they'll use matte metal paneling similar to what they've used on many of their towers (including Evo). Which would be very contextual with LA Live, which is similarly clad. The daytime render almost makes it look like that's what they have planned.


Image Source: Curbed LA



Image Source: Curbed LA

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I'm pretty sure until there are close to zero parking lots left and all the poles have been put underground

One would think that devlprs, planners, architect offices or govt officials in LA at least would want digitalized images of their proj or hood to be as idealized or primped as possible. But even there they seem to somehow miss the details or can't get it quite right

They should have released something closer to this...




btw, I still think that what can be said about the US auto industry & the way it has changed----including the rise of competing asian car makers & states throughout america that fight for assembly plants----& how that change has hit detroit-michigan can be applied to the TV, movie industry & the changes it has seen, & the way those changes are affecting LA.