LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by citywatch

otoh, this pic of dt from the 1930s shows alot of what I'd consider as type devlpt. And even if it were in color, I don't think it would make most ppl think it was a fantastic looking hood.....

Really? If L.A. looked like that, I would be one happy camper. That looked amazing! If that is bad development to you, then I don't know what is good development.

Originally Posted by citywatch

but they still represent only a small portion of the total number of spaces throughout the hood where stores exist or can be created.

Well, yeah, of course it is only a small portion of the available store space right now, but new stores open up every week. You have to start somewhere, right? And besides, you make it out that there are no nice stores downtown, which is clearly not the case.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by citywatch

digitallibrary.usc.edu

imagine if downtown didn't have that stupid height limit back in the day =] i think downtown development would've occupied spaces farther out since buildings would have been bigger taking more space on a block. we probably would have built a spire also, the richfield or columbia towers would have probably been the right towers for em.

[ChelseaFC]

AEG's plans for a French Quarter-esque "Avenue of Angels" in South Park

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/plans_for_las_french_quarter_between_south_park_and_fidi.php

[Illithid Dude]

Another picture of the development. Looks pretty icky. I'd much rather something less...sign-y. It seems this sign district keeps expanding and expanding. Soon enough, it will end up hitting the historic core, and that won't be good at all.

Also, why does L.A. keep trying to emulate other cities? They're calling this L.A.'s 'Gaslamp' or 'French Quarter'. Cant this just be L.A.? And does L.A. really want a Gaslamp or French Quarter? Wasn't Times Square enough?

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

[/IMG]

Another picture of the development. Looks pretty icky. I'd much rather something less...sign-y. It seems this sign district keeps expanding and expanding. Soon enough, it will end up hitting the historic core, and that won't be good at all.

The sign district has always gone from Wilshire Grand to South Park. There would be no expansion on that with this project. Also the Historic Core is much further east, which AEG seems to have no intent on going near.

Also, why does L.A. keep trying to emulate other cities? They're calling this L.A.'s 'Gaslamp' or 'French Quarter'. Cant this just be L.A.? And does L.A. really want a Gaslamp or French Quarter? Wasn't Times Square enough?

If they were truly emulating the Gaslamp or French Quarter, that would mean using historic architecture, which I agree would seem fake. In terms of "feel", though, perhaps a better comparison for this would be the new Linq project on the Vegas Strip. But the kind of development they are aiming for (retail, dining, entertainment) should be the wish of any city. There is nothing wrong with emulating that part of it.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Also, why does L.A. keep trying to emulate other cities? They're calling this L.A.'s 'Gaslamp' or 'French Quarter'. Cant this just be L.A.? And does L.A. really want a Gaslamp or French Quarter? Wasn't Times Square enough?

I don't think it's emulating as much as it it comparing to something that's already there to give the public an idea as to what this could feel like.

[Steve2726]

Wow, what a terrible name. Also, the Metropolis people own much of the property along the route. They seem incapable of building anything so I wouldn't get too excited.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by Steve2726

Wow, what a terrible name.

I dunno. Seems appropriate.

Also, the Metropolis people own much of the property along the route. They seem incapable of building anything so I wouldn't get too excited.

I don't know too much about it, but why exactly hasn't Metropolis been built?

[BrandonJXN]

[QUOTE=ChelseaFC;5669927

I don't know too much about it, but why exactly hasn't Metropolis been built?[/QUOTE]

It's been proposed for about 25 years so who knows at this point.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

It's been proposed for about 25 years so who knows at this point.

I've learned not to be pessimistic about anything AEG decides to put their mind to. I don't know why Metropolis hasn't been developed, but I wouldn't put it past AEG to actually buy the site outright. It's a massive parcel, which would be initially expensive, but potentially very lucrative as well.

[bobcat]

The current owners of the Metropolis site purchased it from the previous owners a few years back so whatever problems there were in the past may not have any bearing on the site's future prospects.

[Mojeda101]

The Courtyard is on Francisco street. They didn't buy the whole thing =P

Although give these guys credit, with all the fans coming in from long drives and flights to see a football game, they need a place to stay! I saw several towers, that would do good for this city. Give life to the area. This could be the sign of a boom if it's approved.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Steve2726

Wow, what a terrible name. Also, the Metropolis people own much of the property along the route. They seem incapable of building anything so I wouldn't get too excited.

It was mentioned in the article that AEG would partner with the developers/owners of nearby parcels to help build.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

It was mentioned in the article that AEG would partner with the developers/owners of nearby parcels to help build.

Absolutely. With that much land, it would be impossible for a single company to purchase all the parcels needed to make the entire project work and flow seamlessly from LA Live to Wilshire Grand. This is going to have to be a joint project in which AEG acts as the manager or overseer to bring the whole vision together. It's sort of what Huizar wants to do with Broadway, but on a much smaller scale.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

Absolutely. With that much land, it would be impossible for a single company to purchase all the parcels needed to make the entire project work and flow seamlessly from LA Live to Wilshire Grand. This is going to have to be a joint project in which AEG acts as the manager or overseer to bring the whole vision together. It's sort of what Huizar wants to do with Broadway, but on a much smaller scale.

So the Avenue of the Angels could almost be compared to City Center in Vegas: buildings and towers while not all relating to each other, is a small portion of a much larger project.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

So the Avenue of the Angels could almost be compared to City Center in Vegas: buildings and towers while not all relating to each other, is a small portion of a much larger project.

Well to the best of my knowledge, CityCenter is all owned by MGM. For AofA, AEG would be the developer, but not the owner.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Really? If L.A. looked like that, I would be one happy camper. That looked amazing! If that is bad development to you, then I don't know what is good development.

If you're referring to the classic, beautiful richfield oil bldg, the federal reserve bldg, the title guarantee bldg & what I think is now called the petroleum bldg----all visible in that old pic & 3 of them still existing today----then, yes, I'd agree with you. but if you're referring to the various short brick bldgs with flat asphalt shingle roofs & the wood framed houses, then I strongly disagree.

I think many other ppl must have felt the same way too, at least since I've never read glowing reviews of dt, even when it was in its original prime condition. Or ppl getting all excited about & praising it. Even before they starting running off to LA's original burbs, or what today would be considered urban & not burban.

That old pic makes me think the hood in some major ways is better today than it was back when it still was pretty much the only dt in all of LA. So while the hood in 2012 isn't as prominent as it used to----cuz it has to compete with so many other parts of town----in other ways it's better than it was back when it was THE center of the city.

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

imagine if downtown didn't have that stupid height limit back in the day =] i think downtown development would've occupied spaces farther out since buildings would have been bigger taking more space on a block. we probably would have built a spire also, the richfield or columbia towers would have probably been the right towers for em.

I'm not sure if the height limit necessarily compromised dt anymore than the way that fwys or transit (or lack of such) did. I'd say what really didn't help the hood was a lack of enough $$ to spread evenly & nicely over all the land throughout dt. When LA was in its first phase of major devlpt, so much of the wealth in america was elsewhere, east of the mississippi & north of santa barbara.

[citywatch]

good news! this bldg, which has been mostly empty for yrs & yrs & yrs, finally---FINALLY!!----is going to see some life within its walls, above the first floor!!

New owners turning Brockman Building into apartments


The Brockman Lofts in downtown Los Angeles. (Simpson Housing)

By Roger Vincent
April 16, 2012

A historic downtown Los Angeles office and retail complex that was being converted to condominiums before the last recession has been purchased out of bankruptcy and will be turned into luxury apartments.

The upper floors of the Brockman have been vacant for years. It barely escaped the wrecking ball during the office-building boom of the 1980s when a Japanese developer bought the property with the intention of razing it and other buildings to make way for a new office and hotel complex. Brooks Brothers, a tenant in the Brockman for 50 years, moved its downtown clothing store to a new location in 1989, leaving the building empty.

Bottega Louie restaurant opened in the former Brooks Brothers space in 2009 and has been a popular part of an emerging bar and restaurant scene on Seventh Street.

Simpson Housing is finishing work on 80 units and will begin leasing at the end of the month, company spokeswoman Adrienne Hill said. Rents at the Brockman Lofts, as it will be known, will start at $2,200 a month and reach $10,000 for a penthouse.

The building was built in 1912 and a shorter annex was added in 1917. Hot and cold plunge pools have been added on the roof of the annex along with a fitness center, lounge and outdoor kitchen. The Brockman Lofts will have a concierge and valet parking.

[alki]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Of course not. Those were the ones that weren't deleted by the moderators.

Fair enough. You all know him better than I.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by citywatch

good news! this bldg, which has been mostly empty for yrs & yrs & yrs, finally---FINALLY!!----is going to see some life within its walls, above the first floor!!

I posted about this last month but no one seemed to notice.....