LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

I was hoping to see the new renderings by the LA Times, but unfortunately, they put up the old one.

I will let you guys know as soon as this breaks ground since i stare at it form my window.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by citywatch

regrettably no, lasf. I went by there late this afternoon & actually was shocked at how shabby the exterior of the bldg still is. even more so since the owners some time ago built a rooftop pool deck & possibly have done quite a bit of work on the interior.

there's something wrong with them when their time lines are so strange or eccentric. if they're possibly so undercapitalized they haven't been able to do even modest work on the front of the hotel bldg, other than restoring its sign, then I'm worried they could easily mismanage any business once it's up & running. I hope not.

I breezed through dt today on the way back from attending the grad party of a friend's daughter who lives around sawtelle, so I glimpsed only a few things. the work on the new apt bldg on fig across from the convention ctr is visible, but if a person didn't know about that proj, they'd easily not notice what's going on there.

the thing that stood out to me early this evening is how much space in the southern section of dt still is very, very underutilized & The fact there are plenty of parking lots around there is obvious when I saw a variety of attendants waving flags at passer bys in cars to get them to use their lots. Between that & all the tatty bldgs, I really can't help but think that when ppl complain about some new devlpt not being taller, or not fitting their idea of great architecture, they must be rarely or never in the hood. Or if they do spend much time there or definitely live there, then they must walk around with huge, long blinders on. iow, the sense that things in the hood still desperately need lots more improvement really stood out to me.

So the last thing that bothered me was the thought of a new devlpt being 8 floors instead of 20 or 30, or it having a parking podium instead of shops on level 1, or it not being designed with the sidewalk fully in mind.

another peculiarity of LA is that the samo fwy going eastbound was very crowded even on a sunday afternoon. that must be due in part to all the ppl I saw when taking our friend & her kids to a restaurant near Venice. Coastal LA is packed with ppl, from venice northward. but one could leave such busy hoods, get on the crowded fwy, & then end up in dtla, where one would think LA must have a population of thousands & not millions. DT seemed quiet by comparison to the beach areas. But the overcrowded coastal hoods & the crowded fwy show there remains a big imbalance between where ppl want to hang out, where they have to drive to in order to reach where they hang out, & everything between those 2 points.

You have to balance. If you accept anything that is proposed you don't get quality OR rapid development. You get an undesirable area and permanent mediocrity.

More generally and without reference to this project, neither large buildings nor good transit creates desirable cities. They are needed only because some demand exists already; the buildings and transit allow you to handle the problems raised by the demand to live in the area more efficiently.

If there is a reason to go to DT, then developers willl eagerly want to build 20 stories and up. When you see 7 stories instead, it's a sign of little demand. That's why I express regret when I see projects fit for Glendale or Burbank getting built in DT. Much taller buildings were going up almost 100 years ago.

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Cigywatch, don't get do worked up about the Clark Hotel not looking pretty right now. Normally, from what I've seen, when it comes to adaptive reuses, exteriors are always last. I remember the exterior for both The Jeffries and Unami Burger coming together in the last month or so. I imagine the same thing will happen with the ClarkHotel

As someone who has personally bid out facade restoration on a similar Beaux Arts building downtown - and walked by the Clark yesterday - I can say with roughly 99.7% confidence that the facade project on the Clark is, if done correctly, at least a 2-3 month, $500K - $1 Million project. There is pretty serious damage and degradation to the facade along Hill Street that will have to be molded, cast, removed, and replaced, then repainted. The thing working for them is that they really only have two sides of the building that have decorative facades, which take the most time and money. But this is not something that is turned around in a month. The permit process with the City takes a month by itself.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

As someone who has personally bid out facade restoration on a similar Beaux Arts building downtown - and walked by the Clark yesterday - I can say with roughly 99.7% confidence that the facade project on the Clark is, if done correctly, at least a 2-3 month, $500K - $1 Million project. There is pretty serious damage and degradation to the facade along Hill Street that will have to be molded, cast, removed, and replaced, then repainted. The thing working for them is that they really only have two sides of the building that have decorative facades, which take the most time and money. But this is not something that is turned around in a month. The permit process with the City takes a month by itself.

I was being a little hyperbolic when I said that they would do the facade in last month. My point was that facades are always last, and the building is under construction, so don't worry.

[alki]

Originally Posted by pesto

Exactly correct: cut the subsidized mega-projects out and make the city functional and attractive. When that happens, the private developers will beat down your doors to get in.

I am all for it......I am tired of seeing cities squander millions of dollars on fake trolleys, casinos, stadiums and yes, even convention centers. Do you that convention attendance has dropped consistently each year since 1995 and yet, cities are still building new conventions centers. Its crazy.

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

that's an interesting bit of news, which I wasn't aware of. I know alot of entertainment business has fled LA to cities like vancouver over the past many yrs, so trends similar to that & a city in canada being kind of bland but not as rundown as LA made me think it would be in much better shape. I know LA has been trapped with one of the highest unemployment rates of any major city in the US, & we do attract alot more struggling ppl instead of mainly wealthy immigrants from places like hong kong.

Vancouver is a beautiful city. Seattle is called the Emerald City but its Vancouver that really should get the title. Its skyline is one of the best in the world.....slender green grey towers stretching into the sky.....surrounded by unmatched natural beauty. And it has one of the best urban parks in North America.........Stanley Park. In fact, it was a run thru Stanley Park that convinced me to move to the NW. And yet, after six months, my German friends figured out why I picked Seattle over Vancouver.

Unfortunately Vancouver has an ugly secret........its not producing many good jobs. Sure there is more filming in Vancouver than in the past but the studios are still in LA and the most labor intensive part of the film making process is still based in LA. Vancouver is resting on its laurels relying on Chinese money to keep it prosperous.

the cities that will do well in the long run have to attract talented, bright, skilled ppl, & ultimately lots of such ppl won't be too comfortable spending much of their life in hoods that are too & , which LA has its fair share of.

Vancouver attracts the talent but they can't produce jobs that are commensurate with their abilities.

[alki]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

As someone who has personally bid out facade restoration on a similar Beaux Arts building downtown - and walked by the Clark yesterday - I can say with roughly 99.7% confidence that the facade project on the Clark is, if done correctly, at least a 2-3 month, $500K - $1 Million project. There is pretty serious damage and degradation to the facade along Hill Street that will have to be molded, cast, removed, and replaced, then repainted. The thing working for them is that they really only have two sides of the building that have decorative facades, which take the most time and money. But this is not something that is turned around in a month. The permit process with the City takes a month by itself.

But citywatch does have a point........why are these people dawdling with the rehab? Don't have a construction loan? Is completing work dependent on cash flow? They do have a strange way of doing business.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

Another huge parking lot will be developed soon...they say within two months!

that's big news & very unexpected! I wonder how solid the estimated start up schedule is? I know the seller has had ups & downs, most recently with the former concerto tower. So I was skeptical that he'd be able to get the devlpt underway as early as originally mentioned....or around the 3rd qtr of this yr. But with a new owner/devlpr....& hoping they have deep pockets.....maybe a start up date by no later than around Sept or early Oct isn't too optimistic?

A long-vacant site in the heart of downtown Los Angeles has been sold to investors who are expected to start work within two months on one of the largest new apartment buildings to be built in the region since the economic downturn.

The seller was Beverly Hills developer Sonny Astani, who secured city approval to build a 700-unit, steel and glass apartment building with a rooftop pool on nearly a full city block. It would include enough ground floor retail space for a grocery store and almost an acre of open space.

The development would cost $300 million to build and house about 1,000 residents on what is now a three-acre parking lot on 8th Street flanked by Grand Avenue and Olive Street. The existing buildings on the block are early 20th-century office structures, facing 7th Street, including the Brockman Lofts.

the fact this proj doesn't have much or any publicity on its revised design does make me wonder if the actual planning on it still is more tentative than it otherwise would be. I notice media reports still are relying on outdated pics from when the proj hadn't been downsized.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by pesto

If there is a reason to go to DT, then developers willl eagerly want to build 20 stories and up. When you see 7 stories instead, it's a sign of little demand. That's why I express regret when I see projects fit for Glendale or Burbank getting built in DT. Much taller buildings were going up almost 100 years ago.

pesto, I don't know if you visit dt alot----& I don't believe you're one of the handful of LA forumers who lives there----but even if you do, you still might have similar reactions & priorities. In my case, I realize I tend to forget just how & it can be unless I'm actually there, live & on location, looking at things directly & closely.

That's why I think many of the ppl who deal very theoretically with the hood, by focusing on things like the height of bldgs, or minor design issues----like the posts debating about the new floor in the broadway arcade bldg-----or on the details of transit & ped friendliness, may not realize just how the hood can be. Or they, like me, tend to forget just how it is because such things aren't staring them straight in the face.

That was what struck me yesterday, made more glaring cuz of the hustle bustle of beachside hoods like venice compared with how quiet or even lifeless dt was, cuz the 10 fwy was crowded, while dtla wasn't, & things like.....

Originally Posted by colemonkee

There is pretty serious damage and degradation to the facade along Hill Street that will have to be molded, cast, removed, and replaced, then repainted.

What you describe was why when I went by the clark hotel yesterday, I was stunned by how shabby it still is. I was prepared & hoping to see it, if not completely renovated, at least not as rundown as it still is. That was one of reasons I came away from the hood on sunday in a mood.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

Vancouver attracts the talent but they can't produce jobs that are commensurate with their abilities.

which shows that a person has to have a crystal ball to really know which direction a city will take or how much potential it does or doesn't have.

I know if I were the age I am today, but were pushed back in time to the 1980s, I'd have predicted that dtla would be in a slump forever & ever. to me it would have been an act of futility to believe some of the changes for the better that have occurred more recently would have been possible.

then again, I also can go to the hood today & still be very disappointed that certain things about it have yet to get better.....I originally believed that all the office space that continues to be vacant would have been filled up well before now. still, I would have been too skeptical overall given the circumstances 20 yrs ago.

[Illithid Dude]

The fact that every news source is showing the original designs for 8th and Grand interests me. Perhaps they have decided to go through with the original design? It's a different developer, after all, and DT real estate has really picked up since Astani began to get entitlements for a shortened 8th and Grand. I guess we will see soon...

[pesto]

Originally Posted by alki

I am all for it......I am tired of seeing cities squander millions of dollars on fake trolleys, casinos, stadiums and yes, even convention centers. Do you that convention attendance has dropped consistently each year since 1995 and yet, cities are still building new conventions centers. Its crazy.

Don't get me started on convention centers: a dying industry that no one will put their own money into but are happy to manage for you (especially if you waive the hotel taxes).

btw, AEG has proposed that Oakland do the same thing: put up a "world-class" convention facility next to the Coliseum and Oracle Arena that will draw conventions away from SF, LV, Disneyland, etc. I'm sure someone will propose it for the new 49er stadium in Santa Clara as well, which already has the Santa Clara convention facilities next door.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by citywatch

pesto, I don't know if you visit dt alot----& I don't believe you're one of the handful of LA forumers who lives there----but even if you do, you still might have similar reactions & priorities. In my case, I realize I tend to forget just how & it can be unless I'm actually there, live & on location, looking at things directly & closely.

That's why I think many of the ppl who deal very theoretically with the hood, by focusing on things like the height of bldgs, or minor design issues----like the posts debating about the new floor in the broadway arcade bldg-----or on the details of transit & ped friendliness, may not realize just how the hood can be. Or they, like me, tend to forget just how it is because such things aren't staring them straight in the face.

That was what struck me yesterday, made more glaring cuz of the hustle bustle of beachside hoods like venice compared with how quiet or even lifeless dt was, cuz the 10 fwy was crowded, while dtla wasn't, & things like.....



What you describe was why when I went by the clark hotel yesterday, I was stunned by how shabby it still is. I was prepared & hoping to see it, if not completely renovated, at least not as rundown as it still is. That was one of reasons I came away from the hood on sunday in a mood.

Sympathetic with your position. But I have the opposite reaction: whenever I go DT I'm amazed by how much better it looked than it used to. To really see the trend wait 20-30 years. Or if you don't believe it's going to happen change the zoning and come up with a new plan.

Glendale seriously questioned a similar project because they were looking for taller as well, even in Glendale.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by pesto

whenever I go DT I'm amazed by how much better it looked than it used to.

it certainly is better today than it was in the past, so in general it can be taken more seriously than it was when burbanization still was at its peak in LA. I think back to the way it was over 10 yrs ago, definitely 20 yrs ago, or even 5 yrs ago, & that's when I become almost shocked at just how disappointing it has been through the yrs. it takes the improvements of today & the recent past, & then visiting dt right now, to startle me, & to realize it shouldn't have gotten so to begin with. iow, no less will do.

that's why the news yesterday of the large new apt proj south of the brockman bldg finding a new owner & possibly breaking ground sooner rather than later was something I took in stride. It's like being told that a 40 yr old is finally learning how to do multiplication tables, ride a bike, or, more tragically, how to boil water.

when I think of so many ppl being towards the hood, I'm suddenly forced to admit they, if anything, were being too easy on it.

I also went by the intersection of fig & chavez blvd on sunday & recall when that area had nothing but either empty weedy lots or small rundown bldgs & houses on it. It really was reminiscent of something you'd see in a divey border town. now it's made up of something like this....


thelorenzo.com

I know most urbanists despise that type of stuff, but to be honest, after my quick run through dt on the weekend, I was so disturbed by how shabby & too much of it still is, that even vegasy or disneyfied junk didn't seem so . Still, it's oddly lazy how the devlpr doesn't try to make his many apt projs look more than slightly different from one location to the next.

that pic is from the website of the new apt bldg going up not far from USC, which will be a clone of the owner's other projs. The proj looks like it will be fully geared to students, with all the apts arranged to have more than one renter.

[LA21st]

Some of you guys really need to get off this "Hollywood is leaving LA" stuff. Movies are filmed elsewhere, but all the talent that's needed to make a film are in LA. Writers, actors, directors, producers etc. And that's not even including all the casting and literary agents/managers/entertainment lawyers.

They all want to be around the studios. When Paramount, Universal, Sony, Disney pack up and leave for NYC, Toronto and Vancouver, then you can talk about it. Until then, it's nothing to worry about.

Hell, Lionsgate started in Vancouver and left for Santa Monica.

[IconRPCV]

Originally Posted by citywatch

it certainly is better today than it was in the past, so in general it can be taken more seriously than it was when burbanization still was at its peak in LA. I think back to the way it was over 10 yrs ago, definitely 20 yrs ago, or even 5 yrs ago, & that's when I become almost shocked at just how disappointing it has been through the yrs. it takes the improvements of today & the recent past, & then visiting dt right now, to startle me, & to realize it shouldn't have gotten so to begin with. iow, no less will do.

that's why the news yesterday of the large new apt proj south of the brockman bldg finding a new owner & possibly breaking ground sooner rather than later was something I took in stride. It's like being told that a 40 yr old is finally learning how to do multiplication tables, ride a bike, or, more tragically, how to boil water.

when I think of so many ppl being towards the hood, I'm suddenly forced to admit they, if anything, were being too easy on it.

I also went by the intersection of fig & chavez blvd on sunday & recall when that area had nothing but either empty weedy lots or small rundown bldgs & houses on it. It really was reminiscent of something you'd see in a divey border town. now it's made up of something like this....


thelorenzo.com

I know most urbanists despise that type of stuff, but to be honest, after my quick run through dt on the weekend, I was so disturbed by how shabby & too much of it still is, that even vegasy or disneyfied junk didn't seem so . Still, it's oddly lazy how the devlpr doesn't try to make his many apt projs look more than slightly different from one location to the next.

that pic is from the website of the new apt bldg going up not far from USC, which will be a clone of the owner's other projs. The proj looks like it will be fully geared to students, with all the apts arranged to have more than one renter.

I am sorry but i would have shabby and run down and REAL than this fake Las Vegasish crap.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by IconRPCV

I am sorry but i would have shabby and run down and REAL than this fake Las Vegasish crap.

Is it time for another session of "everyone hates Geoff Palmer's buildings"? Because I'm ready for that for that game anytime.

[BrandonJXN]

^ I live right down the street from Piero (or is it Medici/Orsini/Visconti/Lorenzo..the one on 6th Street) and it is really the most depressing building. The base is a huge bunker that does nothing but vent foul smelling hot air out. There really is nothing redeeming about Palmer's Tuscans.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I also went by the intersection of fig & chavez blvd on sunday & recall when that area had nothing but either empty weedy lots or small rundown bldgs & houses on it. It really was reminiscent of something you'd see in a divey border town. now it's made up of something like this....


thelorenzo.com

I know most urbanists despise that type of stuff, but to be honest, after my quick run through dt on the weekend, I was so disturbed by how shabby & too much of it still is, that even vegasy or disneyfied junk didn't seem so . Still, it's oddly lazy how the devlpr doesn't try to make his many apt projs look more than slightly different from one location to the next.

that pic is from the website of the new apt bldg going up not far from USC, which will be a clone of the owner's other projs. The proj looks like it will be fully geared to students, with all the apts arranged to have more than one renter.

I like it... yes a lot of people don't like it now... but imagine far into the future... this will be gorgeous... if this is considered fake, then don't you think that spanish colonial REVIVAL (spanish colonial architecture used when colonizing america) or gothic REVIVAL (styles sought to revive medieval forms) or Romanesque REVIVAL architecture (inspired by 11th and 12th century romanesque architecture) is all considered "FAKE" also because its a supposed copy of trying to be like their originals??? its the same with what some architects are planning now or before.. like this rendering which i think is beautiful... or remember Olympic and City House, which i thought was divine.. which was to be built in what is known as NEW beaux arts??? its basically taking inspiration from beaux arts but not exactly the same.. just a new style inspired by it.... its really what the architects of the 19th century did taking inspiration from earlier centuries... why can't people now do the same?? its not fake.

Just like how we worship the historic core, New York, San Francisco, or Chicago's historic buildings, which basically is a fake of older centuries style... Angelenos of the next century will look at these newer old style inspirations as beautiful as well. But people today, now in the present, like some posters on here want "modern".. look what "modern" did in the 50's.. today it looks plain and boring. I see it as a pattern... old becomes in, while new becomes out and so forth... same with fashion.. skinny jeans, aviator glasses, hoop earings, clashing color clothes, fedoras.. all which were in either 80's or 90's or older has made a comeback.. and kinda getting old again... constant cycle with everything.....

that just how i see it tho... i know some or all of you are gonna disagree... just thought i'd put my thoughts out there.

PLUS.. this is only a picture... i'm sure we all know buildings look FARRRRR more amazing when built and seen in person... San Franciscans didn't like the rendering transamerica pyramid... look at it now.. they worship that building.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

I like it... yes a lot of people don't like it now... but imagine far into the future... this will be gorgeous... if this is considered fake, then don't you think that spanish colonial REVIVAL (spanish colonial architecture used when colonizing america) or gothic REVIVAL (styles sought to revive medieval forms) or Romanesque REVIVAL architecture (inspired by 11th and 12th century romanesque architecture) is all considered "FAKE" also because its a supposed copy of trying to be like their originals??? its the same with what some architects are planning now or before.. like this rendering which i think is beautiful... or remember Olympic and City House, which i thought was divine.. which was to be built in what is known as NEW beaux arts??? its basically taking inspiration from beaux arts but not exactly the same.. just a new style inspired by it.... its really what the architects of the 19th century did taking inspiration from earlier centuries... why can't people now do the same?? its not fake.

Just like how we worship the historic core, New York, San Francisco, or Chicago's historic buildings, which basically is a fake of older centuries style... Angelenos of the next century will look at these newer old style inspirations as beautiful as well. But people today, now in the present, like some posters on here want "modern".. look what "modern" did in the 50's.. today it looks plain and boring. I see it as a pattern... old becomes in, while new becomes out and so forth... same with fashion.. skinny jeans, aviator glasses, hoop earings, clashing color clothes, fedoras.. all which were in either 80's or 90's or older has made a comeback.. and kinda getting old again... constant cycle with everything.....

that just how i see it tho... i know some or all of you are gonna disagree... just thought i'd put my thoughts out there.

PLUS.. this is only a picture... i'm sure we all know buildings look FARRRRR more amazing when built and seen in person... San Franciscans didn't like the rendering transamerica pyramid... look at it now.. they worship that building.

Dude...NO ONE likes Palmer's Tuscans. They are in no way good architecture. Especially how there are about 8 or 9 of these shits all over downtown. There was a protest back in October in Silverlake that I remember walking past that numerous people saying 'Down with Geoff Palmer.'

It wouldn't be so painful if he at least differentiated them but they are all alike.