LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

Having Palmer erect his Medici-style apartments on those two lots in the center of DTLA would be devastating to the pedestrian connections and just be visually disappointing. This is not good people...

assuming he will follow the same formula he has used since 2000, then one can conclude his proj on the south end of broadway will be a carbon copied version of the faux euro style that dates back to his original medici proj. however, I wouldn't call that section of the hood to be the 'center' of dt, since to me that would be anything farther north, around 7th st. In comparison, the proj next to the brockman bldg does come closer to the idea of being in the center of dt.

I don't know if it will necessarily be so, as you say, devastating, but it will be visually plop plop architecture....a bit of vegasy type devlpt on broadway. But that street right now is so full of shabbiness....which really stood out to me last wk....& in past visits too....that it sort of took my breath away, & not in a good way.

I was so stunned at how disappointed & I felt after my most recent visit to dt, that I'm not as confident in the reliability of responses of ppl....or at least me....unless a person lives there, or spends lots of time there. Or I should say that if ppl deal with dt as more of a broad, generalized thing....something out of an urban studies class at a local school....they may be so much into the bigger picture that they downplay all the finer points.

I will give credit to Palmer's apt projs for including alot of the little flourishes that more ppl than not do appreciate. His bldgs contain lots of landscaping & bric a brac...including fountains or other features that add to the cost of devlpt & maintenance.

Some ppl have said LA shouldn't try to be like other cities, & in certain ways I do agree & understand that POV. So if one can find something like this in LA...but esp in dtla...but not in most other traditional cities....then I say so be it.



thelorenzo.com

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Some ppl have said LA shouldn't try to be like other cities, & in certain ways I do agree & understand that POV. So if one can find something like this in LA...but esp in dtla...but not in most other traditional cities....then I say so be it.

Why am I not shocked that Citywatch would prefer a Palmer faux tuscan to an empty parking lot?

[SD_Phil]

Gun to my head, I think I would too.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by citywatch

assuming he will follow the same formula he has used since 2000, then one can conclude his proj on the south end of broadway will be a carbon copied version of the faux euro style that dates back to his original medici proj. however, I wouldn't call that section of the hood to be the 'center' of dt, since to me that would be anything farther north, around 7th st. In comparison, the proj next to the brockman bldg does come closer to the idea of being in the center of dt.

I don't know if it will necessarily be so, as you say, devastating, but it will be visually plop plop architecture....a bit of vegasy type devlpt on broadway. But that street right now is so full of shabbiness....which really stood out to me last wk....& in past visits too....that it sort of took my breath away, & not in a good way.

I was so stunned at how disappointed & I felt after my most recent visit to dt, that I'm not as confident in the reliability of responses of ppl....or at least me....unless a person lives there, or spends lots of time there. Or I should say that if ppl deal with dt as more of a broad, generalized thing....something out of an urban studies class at a local school....they may be so much into the bigger picture that they downplay all the finer points.

I will give credit to Palmer's apt projs for including alot of the little flourishes that more ppl than not do appreciate. His bldgs contain lots of landscaping & bric a brac...including fountains or other features that add to the cost of devlpt & maintenance.

Some ppl have said LA shouldn't try to be like other cities, & in certain ways I do agree & understand that POV. So if one can find something like this in LA...but esp in dtla...but not in most other traditional cities....then I say so be it.



thelorenzo.com

i believe Palmer would have to adhere to the Broadway historic guidelines so i dont think he would be allowed to build his crap on those lots

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

i believe Palmer would have to adhere to the Broadway historic guidelines so i dont think he would be allowed to build his crap on those lots

That's what I was thinking. He has to jump through a lot more hoops to build something on Broadway then he does to building something in a neglected area of City West. I'm taking the 'wait and see' approach.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

The Broadway specific plans ends at Olympic Blvd. So one side may have stricter design standards, but one may not. Either way, the community should be pressing the Planning Department to be especially strict on Palmer given his record. Instead of being excited about a development, it's saddening to think what could go there.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by RST500

Besides the crappy design. Its way to short for the area. People seem to tolerate it now but in the future the demand is going to be stronger for highrises and there will be no space left downtown.

Thats a reason why i think taller buildings should be built now rather than short stubby 7 story buildings... it might not be completely filled now but in the future it will be. Now we're stuck with a 7 story "tower" with wasted space above it that could've been used.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

[QUOTE=citywatch;5832717]


maps.google.com


I don't like how they closed that one street in between what made a double "flat iron" block.. is that permanent or will they open it up again?? It looks really cool in historic pics and in the video game LA Noire =]

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

Thats a reason why i think taller buildings should be built now rather than short stubby 7 story buildings... it might not be completely filled now but in the future it will be. Now we're stuck with a 7 story "tower" with wasted space above it that could've been used.

Who is going to invest in a high rise condo project that will sit mostly empty for years? I'd love to see a ton of residential skyscrapers spring up in downtown, but that's not realistic given what current market conditions are. Over 40% of the Ritz Carlton residences are still unoccupied. We've still got years before residential mega projects (i.e. something like Park Fifth) are financially viable.

The silver lining is that those mid rise "towers," draw more and more people into the neighborhood, which will eventually provide sufficient density to warrant more high rise development.



And just to reiterate what others have already said: there is no place where this belongs in downtown Los Angeles. It looks like the kind of apartment buildings I see in the valley.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Who is going to invest in a high rise condo project that will sit mostly empty for years? I'd love to see a ton of residential skyscrapers spring up in downtown, but that's not realistic given what current market conditions are. Over 40% of the Ritz Carlton residences are still unoccupied. We've still got years before residential mega projects (i.e. something like Park Fifth) are financially viable.

Well, the reason the Ritz is still partially vacant is because it is an ultra-luxury project, with prices that stretch into the multi-millions. All of the other high rises in DT, which are mostly apartments (though expensive apartments) are at or almost capacity. Downtown can easily support an apartment high rise. In fact, a few are supposed to break ground before the end of the year.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

Thats a reason why i think taller buildings should be built now rather than short stubby 7 story buildings... it might not be completely filled now but in the future it will be. Now we're stuck with a 7 story "tower" with wasted space above it that could've been used.

Many people on this forum (including me) agree that in certain areas of DTLA, midrises are the way to go. Skyscrapers are nice but if you were to put apartment/condo complexes on the parking lots in South Park that range from the 7-15 story range, that would create a more dense downtown than erecting nothing but skyscrapers.

And again: Palmer needs to realize that even though his Tuscans are successful, their designs are not. DTLA needs more of this:


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/220/481539773_bb0700f3b2_b.jpg

And this:


Not another Palmer shit thing.

[alki]

A French video from the 1960s talking about how LA was the city of the future:

Anatomy of Los Angeles (1969) French TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7-R1b2Tz9fY#!

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Why am I not shocked that Citywatch would prefer a Palmer faux tuscan to an empty parking lot?

yes, guilty as charged. some of that is due to an explanation I made here. some of it is a variation of the reasoning found here & here.

I think much of it is cuz of the response I had when visiting dt 2 fridays ago. the rundown condition of too much of the hood, where there was a sense of LA being surprisingly poor...meaning poor poor....really was overwhelming.

however, I do defer to ppl like losangelessportsfan & brigham yen cuz they either live in dt or spend much time there, so they know fully what things are like in the hood, with feet planted firmly on the ground, & eyes wide open.

But the one reaction that does make me go........regardless is when ppl complain about a new proj not being taller. for one thing, that ignores the fact that large portions of some of the best cities in the world are made up NOT of skyscrapers or fairly large towers, but bldgs around 5 to 7 stories high. however, the bigger reason why I feel........about such complaints is that dtla has tons & tons & tons....& tons....of locations still waiting to be cleaned up & built upon. Desperately in need of cleaning up, improvement or replacement. It's easy to overlook that unless one is actually in the hood, peering into all the nooks & crannies throughout dt.

I also don't have the age span of Methuselah, so my patience is more worn out that it otherwise would be.....plus, I realize more than before that dt should never have gotten so to begin with. But since that is exactly what happened....& has yet to fully recover from.....it represents one of the great tragedies of the city's history.

[alki]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Who is going to invest in a high rise condo project that will sit mostly empty for years? I'd love to see a ton of residential skyscrapers spring up in downtown, but that's not realistic given what current market conditions are. Over 40% of the Ritz Carlton residences are still unoccupied. We've still got years before residential mega projects (i.e. something like Park Fifth) are financially viable.

Plain and simple.........all the vacant land in DTLA does not warrant hi rises economically. There has to be more in-fill and more demand. That's why I keep harping on getting more jobs DT.

Frankly, I think hi rises are overrated.......I much prefer to see shoes on the streets rather than a 70 story bldg. Besides, with economic vitality, DTLA will get taller bldgs.

And just to reiterate what others have already said: there is no place where this belongs in downtown Los Angeles. It looks like the kind of apartment buildings I see in the valley.

Can we stop showing this image? Its eye cancer.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

I don't see "kiddie cartoon" in any of those renderings. Are you referring to #3?

Parsons is nice, but like StethJeff said, it doesn't have much going on outside of the stretch crossing the LA River. It's definitely more "futuristic" looking, but it doesn't have HNTB's transformative drama.

The perspective most people see of the HTNB design is angled. So it looks very stylish but if you are facing it dead on from the side like some of the Curbed LA images show it, it looks like a cartoon bridge.......something out of Disney......and not in a good way.

I guess I am the only one who feels that way but I think the Parsons bridge is the most exciting......with one complaint.........the design doesn't follow across the entire span like the NTNB design does.

[alki]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

Thats a reason why i think taller buildings should be built now rather than short stubby 7 story buildings... it might not be completely filled now but in the future it will be. Now we're stuck with a 7 story "tower" with wasted space above it that could've been used.

LADreamin......DTLA has at least a square mile of vacant land. If they built only hi rises right now, buildout would take a century. For now I think mid rises may be the way to go......giving DT some needed infill. When DT becomes more popular and we start to see corps relocate to DT, then hi rises may be more appropriate.

[alki]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

The Broadway specific plans ends at Olympic Blvd. So one side may have stricter design standards, but one may not. Either way, the community should be pressing the Planning Department to be especially strict on Palmer given his record. Instead of being excited about a development, it's saddening to think what could go there.

Brigham, I have to believe DT's constituency is substantive enough now that should the guy decide to build one of his 'Tuscan' wonders, they will be able to stop it.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Well, the reason the Ritz is still partially vacant is because it is an ultra-luxury project, with prices that stretch into the multi-millions. All of the other high rises in DT, which are mostly apartments (though expensive apartments) are at or almost capacity. Downtown can easily support an apartment high rise. In fact, a few are supposed to break ground before the end of the year.

Oh definitely. I know there are a few 20-40 story rental high rises coming up. I'm just saying that it's going to be a while before we start seeing high rise condo projects. The housing market is improving, but it has a ways to go.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Many people on this forum (including me) agree that in certain areas of DTLA, midrises are the way to go. Skyscrapers are nice but if you were to put apartment/condo complexes on the parking lots in South Park that range from the 7-15 story range, that would create a more dense downtown than erecting nothing but skyscrapers.

Agree about Palmer, but maybe not about South Park. I would think that with the entertainment district that is trying to be created and the existing/planned transit, that would be the area most conducive to high rise living in all of downtown. That area, plus the financial district and the immediate adjacent. Not necessarily exclusively high rise, but majority. It's the rest of downtown that should be mostly mid-rise as that would best fit with the existing structure.

I would hope that most residential construction from the 110 fwy to Grand from Pico to 1st would be >15 stories. The rest can be mostly mid-rise with high rises mixed in.

[RuFFy]

I'm casting my vote for HTNB. While I agree the Parsons design is dramatic too, it highlights a bridge going over a river and basically doing the same thing the current bridge does... One of those things happens to be effectively moving cars over an area that disconnects the east side from downtown. The HTNB design compliments LA's angelic image and connects to everything beneath the bridge and more readily integrates into a future redevelopment of the River and the communities along the way under the bridge. Though surely more expensive, I appreciate being able to descend the bridge at various points through the route. Lastly, HTNB's design isn't only about an iconic bridge.. It's about an iconic everything from every point above and beneath the length of the bridge. I place high value on that because of the opportunity for continued development.