LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

To them, it is more about the cohesive whole.

illithid, I'm not sure if it's the details or the whole, but when the town is rated not much better than detroit & oakland something is very wrong.

one of the comments at that website sums up what I bet makes most ppl have a impression of the city....

Los Angeles the city part is ugly.

....I definitely don't think the city deserves such a reaction, but for some reason that seems to be how many ppl feel. That in some ways is even more cuz LA also gets more press & publicity-----which most ppl would consider as -----than other cities cuz of the entertainment industry.

Originally Posted by RuFFy

It might be noteworthy to mention that if LA were to hold the Olympics again, it'd likely be in almost all new venues that have been built since 1984. There are very few cities on the planet that hold that distinction. And the record profits were held by only one city, twice.

the city, esp dt, really wasn't ready for prime time over 25 yrs ago....so it's a miracle that what you describe did occur. I've seen an old vid of the opening of the 84 olympics & it shows a shot of the dt skyline at that time. It will make many ppl go when they realize just how much less developed & really in need of was the hood in the 1980s.

with all the very hot weather in LA right now, one thing that stands out----& it was mentioned by someone on a blog that I was reading yesterday----is how much cleaner & clearer the air is.

I was reading an old article that mentioned how a visitor from europe who was visiting the olympics in 1984 was puzzled cuz the view of the san gabriel mountains suddenly became visible towards the late afternoon....I guess the inversion layer had lifted so all the smog wasn't so heavy at that time of the day. nowadays we take it for granted that the mts can be seen throughout the day, almost every day.

[RuFFy]

So if my LA pulse meter is working, TPG intends to get a 5th/Flower regional connector stop by twisting Metro's arm.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/busin...dc1-11e1-a4e6-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm

[colemonkee]

^ That seems to be the prevailing assumption with what they're trying to do, and would certainly make their adjacent properties more marketable. Though I don't think Metro is going to bite on this, because the money just doesn't exist to build that station. Unless Thomas can convince Metro's lawyers that they have an open and shut $250 million case against them. Then it might be in Metro's best interest to "find" the money somewhere.

[RuFFy]

So what do you think, should we have that station?

I think even though it's really close to the 7th Metro Center, 5th/Flower is a very important intersection downtown. Not just that, 7th Metro Center will be the only station other than Union Station that would be a one seat ride on all lines except the Green & Crenshaw Lines so it's bound to need relief. The ascend/descend could be reduced by moving the 2nd/Hope Station 1 block east to 2nd/Grand, better serving that area and possibly (more likely than not) appealing to Eli Broad and/or Related. Now, I'm not an expert by any means and of course "I" havent conducted any studies... But it just seems like those changes would suit the properties surrounding the stations better as well as the pedestrian traffic patterns in those areas. These stops are also more "destinations" than the others. 5th/Flower is the heart of the financial district and Grand Ave is Grand Ave. Imagine how much more potential the Frank Gehry parcel of Grand Ave would have? and that's an important property that needs a kick start to get that part of town moving. Like I said, I'm no expert, but if it were up to me that's how I'd do it.

[colemonkee]

^ I'm torn on this, and had the same discussion with some of my neighbors last night. I think the stop would be great for the financial district, and increase ridership of the entire system amongst employees and hotel guests within the general vicinity. However, adding another stop two blocks away from an existing stop slows the commute time down from someone passing through downtown, and for a line like Expo - which already has 3 stops within one mile (Jefferson, Exposition Park, and Vermont) that would make a difference. However, it would be underground, so the delay would only be 90 seconds or so. Not too much in the grand scheme of things. If adding the station doesn't result in value engineering the station designs of the entire line, or jeopardize other parts of the transit network altogether, I'm all for it.

[Lovetowers]

I think LA would look pretty cool in terms of having a "Vegas" look with all the unique styled hotels and resorts, with water fountain shows and flowering trees like Brazil or somewhere. just saying lol thats what attracts me to a city at first, how festive it is.

[OneMetropolis]

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

http://thesource.metro.net/2012/08/03/ul...ing-a-union-station-district/#more-44554

The Source posted this yesterday.

ULI report presents a strategy for developing a Union Station District

by Gayle Anderson



The report is an interesting read if you feel so inclined. Definitely a lot of underutilized space around that area ripe for development.

thesource.metro.net

I like the idea of capping the 101 freeway with retail/buildings instead of green space. Yeah, a park would cover the freeway, but then I'm sure it would still be a dead zone. Retail would create better pedestrian connectivity between Union Station/El Pueblo and the Civic Center. Plus, buildings used to stand where the freeway is now anyway, so it'd be like an ode to the past---or they could create an ode to the past.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by citywatch

illithid, I'm not sure if it's the details or the whole, but when the town is rated not much better than detroit & oakland something is very wrong.

I'm not sure how much credence you should be giving to an internet poll. And if you care to do so, I think it is safe to say that L.A. is not ranked low specifically because of downtown, or even because of aesthetics in general. From what all my non-Angelino friends tell me, it isn't an excess of stucco that causes people not to like L.A., but an idea that people from L.A. are vain, shallow, and snobby. Now, regardless of any truth or lack thereof, character traits are not something that can be solved with higher quality architecture, or a lack of vacant lots downtown. Unfortunately, only a select sliver of the population truly, really cares about how architecture affects a city. Just look at how many people live in ex-burbs for proof.

[alki]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

Would be nice to see upper part of broadway or all of broadway and few surrounding areas to be the new retail center... just as it was before. who knows where though

I think upper Broadway too. The way I see it you have retail on Fig with the new Target opening. Then if you have retail on upper Broadway, 7th Street can be the 'spine' that connects the two......people can either walk it or jump onto the streetcar. In fact, I would like to see the Broadway close down their 7th St store and open a new one on Broadway.

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by citywatch

illithid, I'm not sure if it's the details or the whole, but when the town is rated not much better than detroit & oakland something is very wrong.

Lol, I had to facepalm at this...

...the poll took a survey of 900 American voters, asking what they think about 21 states across the nation....

The survey did not ask participants why they dislike or like any city...

The same organization released a poll earlier this year that found California was considered the least popular state in the union.

I can't see how a survey like this can bring you to the concusion that "there's something very wrong" with LA. Especially when there's no reasons given for their dislike or even an indication as to how many of these people surveyed have actually lived in or visited LA.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

thesource.metro.net

I like the idea of capping the 101 freeway with retail/buildings instead of green space. Yeah, a park would cover the freeway, but then I'm sure it would still be a dead zone. Retail would create better pedestrian connectivity between Union Station/El Pueblo and the Civic Center. Plus, buildings used to stand where the freeway is now anyway, so it'd be like an ode to the past---or they could create an ode to the past.

A few comments, mostly critical. But I'm not sure my ideas are any better.

I don't see where the demand for housing comes from. I can understand living in South Park, Hollywood, Glendale, Silver Lake, around Dodger Stadium, but not in an industrial area around a central train station. To develop demand for housing you would need to put the tracks underground, develop employment in the area, clear out the jail, etc. I'm just very skeptical that the area north and east of US would make for much of anything unless a truly major project were put there (e.g., football or baseball stadium, developed parkland).

I doubt that retail will be successful on the cap park. I would assume that a few cafes and such would be adequate unless there is some indication that large numbers of people are moving to the area. Tourists do not support retail other than food.

Just off the top of my head, I would focus on expansion, connection and support of the existing attractions (El Pueblo, Chinatown, Dodger Stadium, Jtown, Civic Center). Small amounts of affordable housing would be reasonable, with room for expansion if it proves successful.

[202_Cyclist]

pesto:

I don't see where the demand for housing comes from. I can understand living in South Park, Hollywood, Glendale, Silver Lake, around Dodger Stadium, but not in an industrial area around a central train station. To develop demand for housing you would need to put the tracks underground, develop employment in the area, clear out the jail, etc. I'm just very skeptical that the area north and east of US would make for much of anything unless a truly major project were put there (e.g., football or baseball stadium, developed parkland).

I'm not going to get in another debate about high speed rail but you could easily imagine someone wanting to live next to Union Station if they were a consultant and traveled to San Diego a couple times per month and perhaps flew from Burbank a couple times a month as well. I don't know how many such people there are but that convenience would be very attractive.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

pesto:



I'm not going to get in another debate about high speed rail but you could easily imagine someone wanting to live next to Union Station if they were a consultant and traveled to San Diego a couple times per month and perhaps flew from Burbank a couple times a month as well. I don't know how many such people there are but that convenience would be very attractive.

No, I can't imagine that. Renting a home in a shitty neighborhood to save you a 5 minute cab ride from Silver Lake or Glendale or South Park? To take a train that runs you through the IE with multiple stops? You would have to be a complete fool.

I dont' want to beat on poor old HSR, but you notice that ULI suggests disregarding HSR in the planning. And I think that's the best approach for these discussions as well. Most likely HSR's effect is minimal; at most some more people parking in the lots or using MTA to get to US (remember you will be able to board from 10 stations in the LA area so US is not going to be inundated).

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by pesto

No, I can't imagine that. Renting a home in a shitty neighborhood to save you a 5 minute cab ride from Silver Lake or Glendale or South Park? To take a train that runs you through the IE with multiple stops? You would have to be a complete fool.

I dont' want to beat on poor old HSR, but you notice that ULI suggests disregarding HSR in the planning. And I think that's the best approach for these discussions as well. Most likely HSR's effect is minimal; at most some more people parking in the lots or using MTA to get to US (remember you will be able to board from 10 stations in the LA area so US is not going to be inundated).

In fairness, this is something that would take shape over the course of decades. Demographics can change quite a bit in that amount of time. I do see the potential for hotel(s) and maybe a little retail in the area though.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

^ I'm torn on this, and had the same discussion with some of my neighbors last night. I think the stop would be great for the financial district, and increase ridership of the entire system amongst employees and hotel guests within the general vicinity. However, adding another stop two blocks away from an existing stop slows the commute time down from someone passing through downtown, and for a line like Expo - which already has 3 stops within one mile (Jefferson, Exposition Park, and Vermont) that would make a difference. However, it would be underground, so the delay would only be 90 seconds or so. Not too much in the grand scheme of things. If adding the station doesn't result in value engineering the station designs of the entire line, or jeopardize other parts of the transit network altogether, I'm all for it.

Not true. The new Gold Line (East LA - Santa Monica) will not connect with Union Station. 7th Street/Metro Center is the only future station with connections to Gold, Blue, Red and Purple Lines. Union Station will have Blue, Red and Purple.

[RuFFy]

Just to throw it out. There is a big parkland investment planned for around union station and much of Los Angeles, the LA River. Theoretically the LA River and High Speed Rail could be arriving around the same time. There has also been talk of potentially moving the jails. So I don't see why a long term development vision for USPT wouldn't include a potential housing component. If the LA River is a success I wouldn't be surprised if in a few decades the edge of the river is flanked with high rise housing. You never know but early indications are that the entire area is being eyeballed for development.

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Not true. The new Gold Line (East LA - Santa Monica) will not connect with Union Station. 7th Street/Metro Center is the only future station with connections to Gold, Blue, Red and Purple Lines. Union Station will have Blue, Red and Purple.

Where in my statement did I say the Gold Line would connect with Union Station?

[RuFFy]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Not true. The new Gold Line (East LA - Santa Monica) will not connect with Union Station. 7th Street/Metro Center is the only future station with connections to Gold, Blue, Red and Purple Lines. Union Station will have Blue, Red and Purple.

I implied that statement and concede LAofAnaheim is right. I forgot that trains headed from East LA will not stop at Union Station but rather at 1st/Alameda.

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by pesto

I don't see where the demand for housing comes from. I can understand living in South Park, Hollywood, Glendale, Silver Lake, around Dodger Stadium, but not in an industrial area around a central train station.

The exact same thing could be - and was - said about South Park less than 10 years ago. In fact, in 2004, when I started taking the first pictures for this forum of the construction of Eleven - when it was still a hole in the ground - South Park was written off by the vast majority of media pundits, realtors, and commenters on a then-burgeoning site called "Curbed LA." It's that very attitude that we know eventually rings false if enough money and willpower are behind proving it false. In 2002 or 2003, very, very few people could ever imagine living in South Park, and now it's much more desirable. With the right conditions, the area around Union Station could very well be the same story in 2018.