LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LAofAnaheim]

A 252 parking garage for 247 units with 11,000 square feet of ground level retail space? Wow, now that sounds a HECK of a lot better than when I hear 350 unit buildings with 20,500 square feet of retail space and 1,000 parking spots built. Avant must have gotten some parking variance because with 252 - 247 ratio with retail..there will either be 1) no dedicated parking for retail/restaurants or 2) some units will have no parking.

Nice to hear there was some reduced parking. Not everybody needs a car. Driving should be a choice, just like taking transit or biking. Just providing parking, is encouraging driving. If people want to park a car, they can buy a monthly pass next door. This is why there is cheaper rent in other cities when the developer doesn't need to build ridicoulous parking garages. Cut down the parking requirements and you'll see more affordable development in LA.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

That isn't it, though. LA is so large, disjointed, and fractured, that people will think of not only the Westside, but the SFV, SGV, South Bay, the OC, IE, Ventura County, etc. Very few other cities LA's size and caliber have this wide of a well-established nodal variety to compete with. Unless something drastic happens (i.e, a huge, unprecedented, multi-generational shift and transformation), it is going to take more than a few light-rail lines, loft conversions, pocket parks, and restaurants - hell, even skyscrapers - to shake this kind of thinking, despite how much we would like for it to happen. Until that does happen, DTLA will merely continue to exist as but one of the many nodes and activity centers in Los Angeles, but never the preeminent one.

Yes, I agree with some of what you say. Where I disagree with you is about the competition. The real competition is the Westside. I see SFV, the South Bay, Glendale, Pasadena etc as bit players. The OC, the IE and Ventura County as other worlds that want little to do with anything called LA.

Its the Westside where LA's power brokers do business. Its the Westside that has the most prestigious companies, biggest users and the most expensive office space. And its the latter reason that makes it the most vulnerable. Paying top rents is no problem for CBS or Fox or MGM but it is a problem for architects, insurance agents, accountants,the small companies that do the back up work the big studios, etc. Those could be easy pickings for DTLA.

If DTLA could start actively drawing those companies who want cheaper space as well as a more urban environment than it might be able to weaken the gravitational pull of the Sun aka the Westside. And don't underestimate the draw of the urban experience. At least three companies in the Chicago area are moving downtown because their workers......esp the younger ones........want to live and work in the city.

I am not foolish enough to think DTLA could outdraw the Westside say in the next 20 years.........but I do believe it could it give a run for its money if the right people are doing the right things for DTLA.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by alki

Yes, I agree with some of what you say. Where I disagree with you is about the competition. The real competition is the Westside. I see SFV, the South Bay, Glendale, Pasadena etc as bit players. The OC, the IE and Ventura County as other worlds that want little to do with anything called LA.

Its the Westside where LA's power brokers do business. Its the Westside that has the most prestigious companies, biggest users and the most expensive office space. And its the latter reason that makes it the most vulnerable. Paying top rents is no problem for CBS or Fox or MGM but it is a problem for architects, insurance agents, accountants,the small companies that do the back up work the big studios, etc. Those could be easy pickings for DTLA.

If DTLA could start actively drawing those companies who want cheaper space as well as a more urban environment than it might be able to weaken the gravitational pull of the Sun aka the Westside. And don't underestimate the draw of the urban experience. At least three companies in the Chicago area are moving downtown because their workers......esp the younger ones........want to live and work in the city.

I am not foolish enough to think DTLA could outdraw the Westside say in the next 20 years.........but I do believe it could it give a run for its money if the right people are doing the right things for DTLA.

Am I the only one that actually likes the westside here? I mean, I know I'm a little biased (as I live there) but it really isn't so bad. In some cases, it's rather nice! For the most part, it's very urban, and dense, and has some great architecture. Sure, it can be improved, but does it have to be hated all the time on this forum? I believe that not only should the Westiside and Downtown coexist, but they will coexist, because, frankly, Downtown will never take over the Westside in terms of importance. I mean, has DT ever really been more important then the Westside? Even in the 30s, there was still Miracle Mile, and Hollywood, and Koreatown and Westlake. You can't bring back what was never there. I'm totally happy with the way DT is going right now. I don't mind it being mostly residential based. Vancouver is that way, and no one has ever argued that Vancouver has a bad DT. And, if some office towers go up as well (as they will) then all the better! If we feel like DT has to compete with something then it should be the fringes of L.A; the valley, the southlands. Pretty much, everything that sprung up post-war. It's like gardening, in a way. When you deal with roses, you prune some, but leave most as it is. What L.A. needs is a little pruning around the edges. A little nip/tuck.

However, with all that said, I do hate the valley (excluding Studio City and North Hollywood, which aren't so bad) with a passion, and would be more then happy if a lot of the companies in the valley moved to Downtown. I think, with the Westside being developed largely before WWII, it has stronger urban fabric then the valley, being developed largely post-war, and because of that, the Westside should be viewed as a closer equal to DT then the valley should. Yes, I realize I may have just completely contradicted myself. But whatever. It's late and I'm tired. So there.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

I really believe that sprawl dissipates the strength of an urban area......sucking out its vitality. And I don't think developing an extensive transit system alone will do the trick. Dallas has one of the most extensive LR systems in the country and its not making the metro area more urban and dense nor is it attracting riders.

What has to happen is for Angelenos to stop thinking Westside and start thinking DT.

I think if what's occurring today had been in effect over 30 yrs ago, the sprawl you speak of-----or ppl abandoning dt for other parts of the city----would not have reached such a high level.

A few wks ago I posted a pic of the hood back in the early 1900s, & even then, before burbanization had occurred, dt still looked mostly & . that was true even with the existence of one of the largest transit systems in the US----or even world----at that time....the pacific electric red car line.

that's why I think ppl who believe a better transit system will be the magic wand for the city are overstating the importance of that one improvement. the fact the completion of the red, blue, gold lines still hasn't been enough to lure more businesses to dt, & many bldgs still have lots of empty space----as of 2012-----is a hint of that.

the main problem is it has taken too long to turn things around is cuz it has taken so long to go from this...


lafdhs

to something closer to this....


aeg

that first pic is from 1991, & if there are too many gaps & deadzones today, just think of how things were back then. And THAT is the main reason it was so easy for ppl to abandon the hood & run away to the west side or other areas even farther away.

But finally-----FINALLY!-----dt is really coming into its own in 2012, & I think the current improvements & changes planned for the immediate future----& not 25 yrs from today----are worth giving a big sigh of relief to. Add up all the big & small projs now under way or soon to be under way (fingers crossed), & things are getting exciting.

one of those long overdue improvements is filling in big gaps like where the large angelena apt proj is supposed to be built. replacing the huge parking lot north of 8th st between grand & olive is one of the many requirements before the hood stops making many ppl go "HUH??!" & uncomfortable or underwhelmed.

these are images from a vid taken by a person who has around 90 minutes on youtube that show him driving through dt. It's similar to the same route I've been on in the past, going south on Hill st, then west on 8th St, past newer places like the revamped golden gopher & neighboring bristol hotel, & a very highly rated italian restaurant called colori. Then you reach 8th & olive & confront one of the many sections that the hood has long been stuck with....


volny/youtube


volny/youtube


volny/youtube

^ when new projs like what the same devlpr of the concerto tower is supposed to build on that lot occurs, another major gap will have been filled. but the astani website still shows the earlier original plans for 8th & grand, when funding was easier to come by. So some of the planned improvements as of today remain a waiting game.

[Valyrian Steel]

^ I'm pretty sure everyone here is aware of downtown's surface lots and dead zones, it's not a big secret...

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Pink Floyd

^ I'm pretty sure everyone here is aware of downtown's surface lots and dead zones, it's not a big secret...

Let citywatch think that he's peeling back some closely guarded secret that DTLA is full of parking lots and deadzones. That's his lot in life. :\

It's like finding out that all of a sudden there are tall black guys in the NBA.

citywatch: We know.

[pesto]

A couple of comments re the Tokyo and Chicago boom:

Doesn't it make some sense to spread population out into livable areas with local offices mixed in with local housing and shopping? I haven't spoken with Japanese on this but many Koreans just hate the same thing in Seoul and are very happy to be in LA.

I'm also a bit doubtful about the use of "boom" for describing Tokyo or Chicago. Chicago is losing population to its suburbs and its suburbanites are moving to Texas whenever a buyer for their houses can be found.

Tokyo has been flat economically for 20 years and most of the highrises you see are worthless (debt exceeds market value). Only through govt. changes to accounting and bank laws does any of this hold up. Public debt in Japan is about 3 times GNP, which I believe is the highest in the world for a comparable country. It's only by using the war mentality ("you must work harder and expect less to save your homeland") that the whole place doesn't collapse while they work their way back to solvency and (hopefully) future growth.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

That isn't it, though. LA is so large, disjointed, and fractured, that people will think of not only the Westside, but the SFV, SGV, South Bay, the OC, IE, Ventura County, etc. Very few other cities LA's size and caliber have this wide of a well-established nodal variety to compete with. Unless something drastic happens (i.e, a huge, unprecedented, multi-generational shift and transformation), it is going to take more than a few light-rail lines, loft conversions, pocket parks, and restaurants - hell, even skyscrapers - to shake this kind of thinking, despite how much we would like for it to happen. Until that does happen, DTLA will merely continue to exist as but one of the many nodes and activity centers in Los Angeles, but never the preeminent one.

This sums it up. DT LA narrowly defined will never be anything like NY or Chicago. Given the enormous size of LA, it may eventually be comparable to DT SF or Boston or other cities.

The REAL downtown LA goes from the LA River to the beach in SM (just like "downtown" NY goes from, say, 110th to the Battery). This entire area contains the amenities that make a large city; it wouldn't make sense to ram them into one tiny congested area. And even the "downtown" area does not include the highrises, stadiums, concert facilities, etc., popping up all over Brooklyn, Queens, Newark, Jersey City, LI, etc.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by alki

Yes, I agree with some of what you say. Where I disagree with you is about the competition. The real competition is the Westside. I see SFV, the South Bay, Glendale, Pasadena etc as bit players. The OC, the IE and Ventura County as other worlds that want little to do with anything called LA.

Its the Westside where LA's power brokers do business. Its the Westside that has the most prestigious companies, biggest users and the most expensive office space. And its the latter reason that makes it the most vulnerable. Paying top rents is no problem for CBS or Fox or MGM but it is a problem for architects, insurance agents, accountants,the small companies that do the back up work the big studios, etc. Those could be easy pickings for DTLA.

If DTLA could start actively drawing those companies who want cheaper space as well as a more urban environment than it might be able to weaken the gravitational pull of the Sun aka the Westside. And don't underestimate the draw of the urban experience. At least three companies in the Chicago area are moving downtown because their workers......esp the younger ones........want to live and work in the city.

I am not foolish enough to think DTLA could outdraw the Westside say in the next 20 years.........but I do believe it could it give a run for its money if the right people are doing the right things for DTLA.

It's hard to see how LA improves if the city fathers spend big money to get someone to move from the westside to DT. Likewise, why would moving some company from the OC or IE be a benefit to LA as a whole?

If you mean that DT should put itself in a position where any company on should strongly consider it when it's time for expansion, then I could get on board. But "picking off" businesses from nearby towns is a terrible way to fool yourself into thinking you're making the LA area more desirable.

[Kingofthehill]

Future Ace Hotel:

[RuFFy]

Originally Posted by pesto

This sums it up. DT LA narrowly defined will never be anything like NY or Chicago. Given the enormous size of LA, it may eventually be comparable to DT SF or Boston or other cities.

The REAL downtown LA goes from the LA River to the beach in SM (just like "downtown" NY goes from, say, 110th to the Battery). This entire area contains the amenities that make a large city; it wouldn't make sense to ram them into one tiny congested area. And even the "downtown" area does not include the highrises, stadiums, concert facilities, etc., popping up all over Brooklyn, Queens, Newark, Jersey City, LI, etc.

This argument is always interesting. Downtown Manhattan is roughly the southern tip of Manhattan. When comparing one downtown to the other for some reason Manhattan amounts to downtown and downtown LA amounts to downtown. The argument never sounds like this. Downtown Manhattan is like downtown LA. And midtown is similar to Century City, which by coincidence, or not, is also home to the more affluent crowd. But you'll never hear New Yorkers talking about that. And ultimately I don't get this LA will never be like New York story because quite frankly, it already is. The biggest difference, if you ask me, is really just the type of housing people have and how they move. In NYC, roughly 70% of the populace takes public transit and that same percentage rents their living quarters. In LA, roughly 70% of the populace owns their home, and only about 10% use public transit as its primary mode of transit.

[Lovetowers]

Ok seeing as how I am unable, at the moment, to go around LA and take pictures of all current projects going on, I, as well as probably a good couple of hands full of people, would greatly love it if we could get MORE visual updates on all new projects currently under construction . . . and if no one can/will then as soon as I'm able I'll just do it myself lol

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Am I the only one that actually likes the westside here? I mean, I know I'm a little biased (as I live there) but it really isn't so bad. In some cases, it's rather nice! For the most part, it's very urban, and dense, and has some great architecture. Sure, it can be improved, but does it have to be hated all the time on this forum? I believe that not only should the Westiside and Downtown coexist, but they will coexist, because, frankly, Downtown will never take over the Westside in terms of importance. I mean, has DT ever really been more important then the Westside? Even in the 30s, there was still Miracle Mile, and Hollywood, and Koreatown and Westlake. You can't bring back what was never there. I'm totally happy with the way DT is going right now. I don't mind it being mostly residential based. Vancouver is that way, and no one has ever argued that Vancouver has a bad DT. And, if some office towers go up as well (as they will) then all the better! If we feel like DT has to compete with something then it should be the fringes of L.A; the valley, the southlands. Pretty much, everything that sprung up post-war. It's like gardening, in a way. When you deal with roses, you prune some, but leave most as it is. What L.A. needs is a little pruning around the edges. A little nip/tuck.

.

The Westside is a post WW II phenomenon.........before the war, DT was the center of the metro area. Yes, there was the Miracle Mile and Hollywood but they were only subcenters to DT.

As for the Westside I don't hate it but its an amorphous blob that is more suburban than urban and doesn't have much concentrated vitality. Its the weakest form of city. As for DTLA never matching the Westside in importance........never is a very long time. I wouldn't be so sure.

But if Angelenos want a Vancouver which is becoming one of the most vapid cities in Canada, then that's your choice. I just would be careful what you wish for.

However, with all that said, I do hate the valley (excluding Studio City and North Hollywood, which aren't so bad) with a passion, and would be more then happy if a lot of the companies in the valley moved to Downtown. I think, with the Westside being developed largely before WWII, it has stronger urban fabric then the valley, being developed largely post-war, and because of that, the Westside should be viewed as a closer equal to DT then the valley should. Yes, I realize I may have just completely contradicted myself. But whatever. It's late and I'm tired. So there.
.

The residential areas of the Westside were developed before WW II. Most of the commercial development occurred after WW II. That's when the Westside took away DT's crown.

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

the biggest improvement will be the removal of the parking lot that used to be directly across the street from city hall. I've long that deadzone, esp since it was such a fugly foreground to one of the most well known bldgs in LA. as for the mall area farther west, I guess if one looks closely at the pic taken a few decades ago & the one shot recently, some of the walkways are a slight bit narrower, & there appears to be a bit more green space. Of course, even that was better than what used to sit there over 45 yrs ago....a big parking lot, & before that----from before the 1950s-----a lot of slummy bummy bldgs.

The problem with LA is that it always has to make the grand statement......like it has with those broad stairs in the Civic Park. There is no need for stairs that big. If they want to do a Las Rambla, then don't call it a park.

They did the same thing with Pershing Square. They got a famous architect from Mexico who has to be flamboyant as all hell and you see the result. I was really disappointed when I saw the design. All I wanted was a simple park with trees, grass and benches like the one I saw in Brigham's clip......I think it was Bryant Park in NYC.

But in LA it has to be oversized stairs, a big fountain and lots of cement......with great emphasis on design, design, design.

[alki]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

this LA will never be like New York story because quite frankly, it already is. The biggest difference, if you ask me, is really just the type of housing people have and how they move. In NYC, roughly 70% of the populace takes public transit and that same percentage rents their living quarters. In LA, roughly 70% of the populace owns their home, and only about 10% use public transit as its primary mode of transit.

Except that's a big difference.....a very big difference. More people take mass transit in NY because the distances are more compact and because mass transit was an important part of NYC's planning and development. And the distance from DTLA to Santa Monica is much larger than the distance between lower Manhattan to Midtown. I have walked it. I would never try to walk from DT to SM.

In fact, the entire island of Manhattan is 13 miles long......with midtown in the lower middle of the island......so about 6 miles or less from downtown. The distance from DTLA to SM is more than 16 miles.......longer than the entire island of Manhattan.

Frankly, I don't see the comparison.

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I think if what's occurring today had been in effect over 30 yrs ago, the sprawl you speak of-----or ppl abandoning dt for other parts of the city----would not have reached such a high level.

I agree. Unfortunately, 30 years ago, LA was growing very fast and newer was always better so that the people who opposed what was happening were ignored. When I got to LA, I was surprised at how indifferent Angelenos were to places like DTLA, Echo Park, Silverlake etc and how much they favored the Westside.

But finally-----FINALLY!-----dt is really coming into its own in 2012, & I think the current improvements & changes planned for the immediate future----& not 25 yrs from today----are worth giving a big sigh of relief to. Add up all the big & small projs now under way or soon to be under way (fingers crossed), & things are getting exciting..

I agree. IMO the changes that have occurred in DTLA since I left in 1999 is nothing short of startling.

[alki]

Originally Posted by pesto

It's hard to see how LA improves if the city fathers spend big money to get someone to move from the westside to DT. Likewise, why would moving some company from the OC or IE be a benefit to LA as a whole?

If you mean that DT should put itself in a position where any company on should strongly consider it when it's time for expansion, then I could get on board. But "picking off" businesses from nearby towns is a terrible way to fool yourself into thinking you're making the LA area more desirable.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that DT should spend big money to get companies to move DT from the Westside. What I am suggesting is that the city fathers as well as real estate brokers and DT property owners promote DT and highlight its advantages over the Westside. Make a real effort to sell itself and stop acting like its the stepchild that can't sit at the same table as the Westside.

Slowly but surely, DTLA is getting itself into a position where it can finally compete with the Westside......and the Westside's advantages are diminishing. The Westside still has its proximity to the homes of LA power brokers and the beaches, and good retail but its air is no longer significantly better than DT's and its cost of doing business is considerably higher.

In the meantime, DTLA has the advantage of being the focal point for the metro area's mass transit system, concentrated density, a diversity of neighborhoods with lots of historical architecture and the center of gov't.

I think DT can attract new office users to its core and the Westside could stand the competition.

[Illithid Dude]

Anyways.....

http://blogdowntown.com/2012/05/6783-bike-network-open-house-to-update-downtowners

Tomorrow night (Wednesday), from 5-8, there is a presentation on transportation downtown. This includes bike lanes, the streetcar, and the regional connector. They are also showing new renderings of MyFig. I won't be able to make it, but if someone who lives downtown can get down there and see what's up, and perhaps take some pictures, it would be greatly appreciated.

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

This argument is always interesting. Downtown Manhattan is roughly the southern tip of Manhattan. When comparing one downtown to the other for some reason Manhattan amounts to downtown and downtown LA amounts to downtown. The argument never sounds like this. Downtown Manhattan is like downtown LA. And midtown is similar to Century City, which by coincidence, or not, is also home to the more affluent crowd. But you'll never hear New Yorkers talking about that. And ultimately I don't get this LA will never be like New York story because quite frankly, it already is. The biggest difference, if you ask me, is really just the type of housing people have and how they move. In NYC, roughly 70% of the populace takes public transit and that same percentage rents their living quarters. In LA, roughly 70% of the populace owns their home, and only about 10% use public transit as its primary mode of transit.

Where is this stat that 70% owns their home coming from? On a county-wide basis its more like 55% renters. Los Angeles as a city is more like 65% renters. This is a renter city.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by alki

I think you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that DT should spend big money to get companies to move DT from the Westside. What I am suggesting is that the city fathers as well as real estate brokers and DT property owners promote DT and highlight its advantages over the Westside. Make a real effort to sell itself and stop acting like its the stepchild that can't sit at the same table as the Westside.

Slowly but surely, DTLA is getting itself into a position where it can finally compete with the Westside......and the Westside's advantages are diminishing. The Westside still has its proximity to the homes of LA power brokers and the beaches, and good retail but its air is no longer significantly better than DT's and its cost of doing business is considerably higher.

In the meantime, DTLA has the advantage of being the focal point for the metro area's mass transit system, concentrated density, a diversity of neighborhoods with lots of historical architecture and the center of gov't.

I think DT can attract new office users to its core and the Westside could stand the competition.

This is a more acceptable approach. But the competition is always against yourself, not against others. Be the best you can be regardless of whether others are improving or not.

As for the westside, it is a strong competitor and improving at a fast rate. SM, Beverly and 3rd are joining Melrose as streets of pedestrian interest and quality shopping. SaMo and Venice are booming with pedestrian activity. Culver City will get a jolt from Expo. Beverly Center is like a city now with WeHo, Cedars and La Cienega running into each other and Beverly and 3rd connecting to Fairfax, with LACMA, Farmer's Market and the Grove.

But the real shocker to me was BH. I stayed with friends nearby and we had lunch off Rodeo and on Beverly Dr. Both were packed with shoppers, pedestrians and outdoors diners. I had no idea how much it had expanded. It ranks with SaMo and Pasadena for vitality and growth.

But DT is well on its way and with the right steps can compete with any of them. Of course, with the wrong steps, it can remain mediocre as well.