LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[bobcat]

The Curbed story just says that it *could* be 80 stories, which is just a reiteration of what was said in the previous Downtown News story.

[colemonkee]

Yeah, this isn't new information to us, nor is it really "news" until we see more details.

[BrandonJXN]

Take this for what it's worth. This is regarding the Minnesota Vikings (one of the teams in talks for relocation) but it affects LA too.

We may be entering into a series of events that are spiraling out of control, and all we can do is sit back and watch it all unfold.

Vikings owner Zygi Wilf is in Los Angeles, meeting with L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. This after Roger Goodell had already met with the mayor.

Gee, I wonder about what?

Tomorrow's meeting with Goodell and Governor Dayton is no longer a status update meeting. It's a 'shit or get off the pot' meeting. Goodell has been to L.A., one can presume, to see how long it will take to have a new stadium built in Los Angeles, and what kind of support there will be for one.

I'm pretty sure that timeline will be relayed to the Governor, and they're going to tell him 'get it done by the end of this legislative session, or deuces'.

So, there you have it. Barring something unforeseen and miraculous, shit just got real, yo.

Two weeks, or they're gone. And the NFL ain't coming back.

Discuss.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2012/4/19/2...to-los-angeles-minnesota-vikings-stadium

[colemonkee]

The Vikings are actually one of the teams I wouldn't want to come to LA. Not because I don't want that team in LA, but because I'm a traditionalist, and I think the Vikings should stay in Minnesota for tradition's sake. They've been around since 1960, which is a long time for the NFL.

[ChelseaFC]

If the Vikings move to LA, they will leave the name in Minnesota and rebrand. Also highly doubtful that Wilf retains a majority ownership stake if they move to LA.

[Hubris]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

The Vikings are actually one of the teams I wouldn't want to come to LA. Not because I don't want that team in LA, but because I'm a traditionalist, and I think the Vikings should stay in Minnesota for tradition's sake. They've been around since 1960, which is a long time for the NFL.

According to the following Daily News article, the team could move, yet the name would remain: http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_20437500/vincent-bonsignore-nfl-vikings-ship-sailing-l

I found the Daily News link on Curbed.

Things just got exciting.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

The Vikings are actually one of the teams I wouldn't want to come to LA. Not because I don't want that team in LA, but because I'm a traditionalist, and I think the Vikings should stay in Minnesota for tradition's sake. They've been around since 1960, which is a long time for the NFL.

Not to sound cynical, but the smart money says that this is Wilf and Goodell playing the "LA Card" so as to give the Minn. legislature cover for giving huge pots of taxpayer money to billionaires. Been done by teams in SD, SF. Oakland, St. Louis, etc., etc.

But someday some team will actually move to LA, so why not get at least a little excited?

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Which area of downtown will be the next hot area to see development? I think it's time for developers to start looking at Little Tokyo. Both Little Tokyo and the Arts District both can be truly great neighborhoods. I wonder why no one has really looked that direction?

Personally, apart from the obvious (Broadway), I am hoping that development can somehow manage to cross Los Angeles St (to the east), or 7th St. (to the south). Those areas, in addition to the Jewelery District, have lots of underused or outright abandoned buildings that are ripe for retail, creative commercial spaces, loft residences, and condominiums. We'll see.

[OneMetropolis]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

The Vikings are actually one of the teams I wouldn't want to come to LA. Not because I don't want that team in LA, but because I'm a traditionalist, and I think the Vikings should stay in Minnesota for tradition's sake. They've been around since 1960, which is a long time for the NFL.

IMHO I say who the hell cares. So what if they had history there, the Dodgers supposedly were more legendary in Brooklyn, but look where that leads to now. It's business baby.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by OneMetropolis

IMHO I say who the hell cares. So what if they had history there, the Dodgers supposedly were more legendary in Brooklyn, but look where that leads to now. It's business baby.

I agree to an extent. If a team like the Green Bay Packers were to move and change their identity, then I would be more upset. I'm not the world's biggest fan of football but I respect history.

The Vikings have their history but they are in bad shape right now. The same could be said with the Chargers, Rams, and Raiders. It should be said that those 3 teams at least have ties to Los Angeles so I would be happier to see either of those teams than the Vikings.

But I'd love to see the Rams back. I remember when I was a kid, my mother took me to a Rams game in Anaheim and I thought it was the coolest thing ever. So she bought me this little stuffed ram with a jersey and a football helmet. She gave it to me...and it scared the shit out of me. I was terrified of it. It looked so scary. Still loved the team though.

Plus they had cool uniforms. I want to see blue and yellow back.


http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-serve...ams-children-s-t-shirt-royal-blue-79.png

[ziggy331]

All images from the Farmers Field Environmental Impact Report

[pesto]

Originally Posted by OneMetropolis

IMHO I say who the hell cares. So what if they had history there, the Dodgers supposedly were more legendary in Brooklyn, but look where that leads to now. It's business baby.

Remind me never to get into your power.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Personally, apart from the obvious (Broadway), I am hoping that development can somehow manage to cross Los Angeles St (to the east), or 7th St. (to the south). Those areas, in addition to the Jewelery District, have lots of underused or outright abandoned buildings that are ripe for retail, creative commercial spaces, loft residences, and condominiums. We'll see.

I agree that this would make a lot more sense for a "French Quarter" area. A French Quarter owned by a single corporate developer makes no sense, at lesat as that is understood in New Orleans.

And the fixation with two blocks pressed between a freeway and LA Live, in a city with development potential over 1000's of blocks is just ludicrous.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by pesto

I agree that this would make a lot more sense for a "French Quarter" area. A French Quarter owned by a single corporate developer makes no sense, at lesat as that is understood in New Orleans.

I doubt this will be owned by AEG, that's too much property to purchase. Hopefully there will be a good mixture of ideas on AofA.

And the fixation with two blocks pressed between a freeway and LA Live, in a city with development potential over 1000's of blocks is just ludicrous.

AEG is operating in their corner of South Park, other developers need to step up elsewhere.

[JDRCRASH]

I'm hoping the area southeast of the AT&T building is next. Pico/Maple is just beautiful.

Originally Posted by OneMetropolis

LA is on a role this year. hopefully everything can actually get built.

Just wait: Next year is gonna be INSANE.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I'm hoping the area southeast of the AT&T building is next. Pico/Maple is just beautiful.

This makes sense. One of the 10,000 blocks available where a dozen different developers could very well put money into hotels, bars, clubs, low to moderate priced housing, etc., that don't come out looking like CityWalk or LA Live.

I hate so say it, but a good example is Caruso: the Grove is plastic, but it is surrounded by the Farmer's market, small retail, existing and potential development across 3rd St., and Beverly Center has been forced to rethink itself.

Or Americana (also overly cutesy) which flows easily into Brand, where small retail has been for stagnant for 50 years but which is seeing renovation and increased business for almost a mile to the 310, under a multitude of small entrepreneurs.

[alki]

Originally Posted by bobcat

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

Fair enough. Then I haven't seen his trollish posts

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

other than the really bad air pollution, that one pic of pittsburgh doesn't make me think of a sad type of place. I'd say the same thing about old pics of broadway or spring st in dtla. I think the difference is they show larger bldgs that took some $$ to put together.

Oh common, citywatch......Pittsburgh looks like hell on earth in that photo. Why are you so willing to overlook Pittsburgh's sins but not LA's?

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.....


digitallibrary.usc.edu

What I see is a photo taken from a less dense part of DTLA that is a mix of residential and commercial looking at a more dense part of the DT area. There are no parking lots which you consistently complain about but there are telephone/electric poles........of course those were visible in the Pittsburgh photo as well. So what is there are about the bldgs in this photo you don't like.....beyond simply saying "yuck"?

^ I think that is the MAIN reason the hood was so vulnerable to going downhill from the beginning. Or was vulnerable whether fwys had been built or not, or whether we had good transit or not. maybe that's why I tend to go like this when some ppl believe that transit is the magic bullet that will cure what ails LA. I wish it were as simple as that.

there does seem to be a discrepancy between the population figures from the dt group & the 2010 census. I like to think the stats you're referring to are more correct, but I'm also not sure if they're more likely to be puffed up since they do come from a group that lobbies in behalf of dtla. but I'm also not sure if the US census figures don't include all the new residential devlpt west of the harbor fwy, including all the faux euro apt bldgs that represent a big portion of new housing.

Since SF has far more office space in their dt, I'd be surprised if they have fewer ppl working in that hood during the day. But i'm also not sure how the figures for SF & LA are affected by the ppl who work in all the govt bldgs in dtla compared with SF. I've read that dtla has the largest concentration of that type of space outside of DC. Regardless, if dtla actually draws more ppl who work in the hood, I won't argue with that.

The US census says that the hood in 2010 had 39,000 residents, with non-Hispanic white residents at 26%, Asians at 23%, Latinos at 25% & African Americans at 22%. I did a very rough readjustment of that 39,000 based on an assumption that the breakdown includes ppl living in low income housing throughout dt. Or ppl who tend to be different in where & how they spend their money. But again, if the figures from the dtla improvement group are more correct, I won't argue with them.

I am not sure those statistics are correct but I find it interesting how quickly you are willing to debunk them. Something to think about.

[alki]

Originally Posted by alki

Fair enough. Then I haven't seen his trollish posts

Sorry. This is a repeat.

[alki]

Originally Posted by pesto

For sure there are plenty of upscale restaurants. And I'm always glad to hear that new retail is coming in. But, like citywatch says, this is still a very small part of DT.

Patience. DTLA has been struggling for decades. Its not going to become a full throttle DT overnite. New restaurants and artists are at the beginning of the renaissance process; not the end.

The SF comparisons are interesting. SF has been turning more and more service oriented (hotels, restaurants, tourism, nightlife, government) over the years as large HQ's move to cheaper areas. In fact only a small percentage of the HQ's in the Bay Area are in SF, with Silicon Valley claiming the lion's share. I wouldn't be surprised if DT LA had more employees but I imagine they are comparable and it depends on how you draw the lines.

Even if DT SF and DT LA are comparable, SF currently has the edge. In one of the my posts, I showed a significant new office skyscraper recently proposed for DT SF. The reason there is a new office bldg ready to go into construction during the next year is because DT SF has net absorption. DTLA does not. In the past, DT SF may have lost headquarters to the suburbs but there are new headquarters like Facebook, Google, and Twitter taking their place and actively absorbing large chunks of office space DT.

That's why I keep harping on economics so much. DTLA's economics have to improve in order to have the kind of dynamic DT people on this thread want.