LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by ByTheBay

I know some people will probably be against this idea but I think a vertical mall would go great in the Metropolis site. There have been so many new proposals for condos, hotels, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, museums and now even a football stadium but one key component for thriving urban activity has mostly been ignored and thats retail. Condos and hotels aren't a good fit for this site because it sits against the freeway and faces parking structures and a freeway on ramp on all other sides so it's not exactly pedestrian friendly.

In the event of the stadium being a go and Ave of Angels going into effect, I'd imagine AEG would try and buy the site for one of their tower proposals. With Ave of Angels going up, there'd be dozens of nightclubs along the ave. You can walk from LA Live, to Figat7th in just 10-15 minutes, and if you're walking from the metropolis site, it cuts the walk in half. No need for another mall when there's one being built within walking distance. =]

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Let's pool our money and buy it! With our penchant for urbanism and good design, what could possibly go wrong?

Seriously, though, this may be a blessing in disguise. If you look at many of the projects moving forward, a fair number of them are previous proposals at distressed - but entitled - properties picked up by deeper-pocketed, more experienced developers with easier access to financing or construction capital. If someone big (cough!AEGcough!) were to come along and buy it, they may have a better chance of launching that first phase, which realistically would be a hotel/apartment or hotel/condo development.

I agree, we should become developers and make lotsa moola.

Regarding Metropolis: there is another developer besides AEG looking at buying it from what I hear.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Seriously, though, this may be a blessing in disguise. If you look at many of the projects moving forward, a fair number of them are previous proposals at distressed - but entitled - properties picked up by deeper-pocketed, more experienced developers with easier access to financing or construction capital. If someone big (cough!AEGcough!) were to come along and buy it, they may have a better chance of launching that first phase, which realistically would be a hotel/apartment or hotel/condo development.

I'm not even sure that the blessing is in disguise. I hated the mid rise mall/hotel/condo fortress they had most recently slotted for the site. As much as I'd love to see that lot developed quickly, I'd much rather see it done well.

[ByTheBay]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

In the event of the stadium being a go and Ave of Angels going into effect, I'd imagine AEG would try and buy the site for one of their tower proposals. With Ave of Angels going up, there'd be dozens of nightclubs along the ave. You can walk from LA Live, to Figat7th in just 10-15 minutes, and if you're walking from the metropolis site, it cuts the walk in half. No need for another mall when there's one being built within walking distance. =]

I don't consider Figat7th necessarily to be a new mall, it's just replacing an old one, besides it's quite small at about only 40 stores and with Target taking a chunk of that space, seems mainly to be a neighborhood serving shopping center as opposed to leisurely shopping. I think a good example of two shopping centers working successfully in tandem would be the new Santa Monica Place and Third Street Promenade. One serves a midlevel clientele while the other serves a high end clientele. Considering all the potential foot traffic in downtown LA with all the transit options, events, and attractions it would be a missed opportunity to just place some more towers on that large site. Towers can fit in any small footprint but a shopping center can't.

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by ByTheBay

I don't consider Figat7th necessarily to be a new mall, it's just replacing an old one, besides it's quite small at about only 40 stores and with Target taking a chunk of that space, seems mainly to be a neighborhood serving shopping center as opposed to leisurely shopping. I think a good example of two shopping centers working successfully in tandem would be the new Santa Monica Place and Third Street Promenade. One serves a midlevel clientele while the other serves a high end clientele. Considering all the potential foot traffic in downtown LA with all the transit options, events, and attractions it would be a missed opportunity to just place some more towers on that large site. Towers can fit in any small footprint but a shopping center can't.

On the metropolis site though? A mall at that size would be better along Figueroa right across the street from the Staple Center, I say this because it's virtually a block away from decent entertainment, a way to kill time before conventions, games, etc.., and just the convenience. It offers the ideal amount of space. I don't know what it is, but the idea of a mall so close to a stadium just makes me happy. Right after the football game or the closing hours of a convention, they can go for their weekend shopping. Seeing the flood of people wearing jerseys or in costumes of their favorite characters in a mall makes me laugh. Although that's assuming they could buy out LA Central's lot. I feel the Metropolis site would be better suited with AEG to not cause problems with Ave. of Angels.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

On the metropolis site though? A mall at that size would be better along Figueroa right across the street from the Staple Center, I say this because it's virtually a block away from decent entertainment, a way to kill time before conventions, games, etc.., and just the convenience. It offers the ideal amount of space. I don't know what it is, but the idea of a mall so close to a stadium just makes me happy. Right after the football game or the closing hours of a convention, they can go for their weekend shopping. Seeing the flood of people wearing jerseys or in costumes of their favorite characters in a mall makes me laugh. Although that's assuming they could buy out LA Central's lot. I feel the Metropolis site would be better suited with AEG to not cause problems with Ave. of Angels.

I don't think Moinian is anxious to sell the LA Central lot back to AEG, especially after the legal/financial troubles they've endured in the name of holding onto the property. My assumption is that they're waiting to see if the football stadium pans out before making a move.

[ByTheBay]

Yeah, I think the LA Central lot would make a better spot for a shopping center, but it's smaller than the Metropolis lot. However, if you pair it up with the lot across the street where the Hooters building is, that would make for a good sized mall making those few blocks a true one stop shop for anything leisure and entertainment.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by ByTheBay

Yeah, I think the LA Central lot would make a better spot for a shopping center, but it's smaller than the Metropolis lot. However, if you pair it up with the lot across the street where the Hooters building is, that would make for a good sized mall making those few blocks a true one stop shop for anything leisure and entertainment.

L.A. Central was, after all, originally billed as the retail component to L.A. Live's gastronomical medley, so perhaps a mall isn't so far off...

[colemonkee]

Both the LA Central and Metropolis lots are huge and a 3-story vertical mall, if it covered most or all of the lot area, would be equivalent to or larger than the Beverly Center. I just don't think there's demand for that much retail downtown. Yet. The idea of a 4 or 5 story Asian-style vertical mall on these sites won't make sense for another 20-30 years, if ever.

That being said, ground floor retail along street frontage, or a second story with some big box retail thrown in might be feasible in 3-5 years, given population growth downtown and the potential of the NFL stadium, if that comes to fruition. In any case, retail would have to be combined with a rather dense mix of residential (rental and/or condo), hotel, and possibly office to be viable long-term. A large influx of retail won't be sustainable without adding some serious residential density.

On the subject of 7+Fig, in it's prior configuration, it largely served the office buildings in the area, not the neighborhood at large, save for Gold's Gym. The newer configuration is also directed heavily at the office users in the area, but tips its hat more towards the growing downtown residential population with the addition of the City Target and dining options that will have hours likely to extend beyond the M-F work week. But to call it "neighborhood serving" without counting the office population as a large portion of that neighborhood would be disingenuous at best.

[Illithid Dude]

Remember how I said that there would be an issue with Shy Barrys 40 story tower? That everything he touches somehow turns to shit? Well, I found the issue. Curbed is reporting that his 40 story SB Omega (though really 35 stories with 5 stories of parking) has NO RETAIL. That's right, not one square foot of retail on a 40 story monolith. Now, I ask you, is that really any better then a parking lot? At least a parking lot can be developed. 40 story towers are generally pretty much permanent. So, what we are getting, is a four-hundred foot tall blank wall. Disgusting. Revolting. Jaw-droppingly short-sighted. And it's not like retail is doing poorly downtown- almost every space, if not every space, is rented out from 4th to 9th. Is there a way this can be stopped? Doesn't this go against the newly passed Downtown Development Guidelines? If built as currently proposed, this tower will be a permanent scar for the immediate neighborhood and an enormous setback to revitalizing downtown into a bustling, vibrant, urban community. This simply can't happen.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/09/barry_shys_40story_dtla_tower_could_start_work_in_april.php

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by ByTheBay

There are many examples for successful urban malls that didnt harm streerlife such as San Francisco Centre, a handful of malls along Michigan Ave. in Chicago, practically any big city in Asia, even Hollywood's revitalization was jump started by a mall (and a subway) as much as people hate it. And now Salt Lake city is opening up one called City Creek Center. I admit there are a lot of urban malls that have failed usually due to terrible design and lack of street connectivity but if designed well, I think it would be a great fit.

I actually like this idea... I've seen dozens of malls in metro manila with office or condo towers built on top of it. I've always thought since LA is a mall city.. they should build a vertical mall instead of a huge horizontal one.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

I still say it should be called 'Francisco Street' and not 'Avenue of the Angels.'

But really, how many people are gonna think of downtown LA when they hear that?

[colemonkee]

The Downtown News article - which Curbed is merely referencing, they didn't do any actual reporting of their own on this - clearly mentions that the "SB Omega Tower" will likely have to go through some City review where I'm sure a public review period will be and people - and the planning commission - can voice their concerns about the lack of retail. I really don't think this is a done deal by any stretch of the imagination.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

But really, how many people are gonna think of downtown LA when they hear that?

The same people who think of Santa Monica when you say 'Lets go to Third Street.' Things sound much better when they are organic. And I'm not talking about Trader Joes.

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

I actually like this idea... I've seen dozens of malls in metro manila with office or condo towers built on top of it. I've always thought since LA is a mall city.. they should build a vertical mall instead of a huge horizontal one.

DTLA should have retail yes but a mall? No. We already have a crappy one (Macy's Plaza). I'd be 100% on board if Macy's Plaza were to undergo a Santa Monica Place type renovation but I don't want to see malls all over DTLA. If there WERE to be a mall, it should be something like LA Central. Or just build LA Central.

[colemonkee]

The Downtown News has been Tweeting renders of the replacement for the 6th Street Viaduct. Here they are:

HNTB Corp.




AECOM




Parsons Brinckerhoff



All Images Sourced From: LA Downtown News Twitter Feed

[Illithid Dude]

I like this one the best. Simple, sleek, elegant, and with pedestrian amenities. Not bad, not bad.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I like this one the best. Simple, sleek, elegant, and with pedestrian amenities. Not bad, not bad.

I agree. Loving the Brooklyn Bridge style walkway in the middle.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i like the HNTB one a lot. its a bit busy, but its very interesting to look at. I have no problem with the Parsons entry as well

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I'm more worried about having a blank wall that actively deadens the area, making it worse for pedestrians then it was previously. This would make downtown worse, not better, which, it seems to me, would be exactly the kind of thing you are against.

but didn't you say recently that when you visited dt, you asked your friends who came along with you....& who live in samo or the westside....whether they were bothered by all the parking lots &....in so many words....rattiness, and they said they weren't? And yet a blank wall on a totally new, rather tall bldg will somehow bother them more?!

I remember all the posts some time ago (was it even this yr?....seems so long ago right now) about the metropolis proj next to the fwy, with some forumers arguing that it was too short, too burban, too blah...that its design wasn't good or slick enough....that its stores probably would be too generic or what you'd find in the OC. truth be told, it seemed to me like we were arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.....but I at least thought it was deserving of all the attention cuz it was likely to be built.

Then today I read that the metropolis has been cancelled....just another proj that has fallen through the cracks. the kicker in all this is that proj would have been built in a part of dt that really stood out to me a few days ago as even more than I previously felt about it. iow, I had been lulled into not realizing how many sections of the hood still are really depressing & sad.

my patience has been run through the grinder due to my visit last wk, & I'm still trying to recover from that.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by citywatch

but didn't you say recently that when you visited dt, you asked your friends who came along with you....& who live in samo or the westside....whether they were bothered by all the parking lots &....in so many words....rattiness, and they said they weren't? And yet a blank wall on a totally new, rather tall bldg will somehow bother them more?!

Yes, I do think a blank wall would bother them more. A blank wall on a 40 story buildings is imposing, hostile, maybe a little scary. There's no life. Just glass. The parking lots in DT, for what they are, aren't that bad. There's street art, people walking to and from their cars, sunlight. A blank wall stretching 400 feet in the air feels like its forcing you off the sidewalk, like there's no escape. It's threatening, and no one wants to feel threatened.