LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by alki

Good article. I worry that DT will have trouble competing with Playa Vista for tech:

There, companies such as Google Inc.'s GOOG -0.19% YouTube division and advertising company 72andSunny inhabit the low-slung former headquarters of Hughes Aircraft Co.—founded by aviator Howard Hughes—and relax at picnic tables outside their offices, flanked by barbecue pits installed by landlord Ratkovich Co.

For now, many of the tech and media tenants Mr. Friedrich plans to target have been expanding elsewhere in the city, particularly at Playa Vista, an area just north of the airport where a series of landlords have transformed industrial buildings into hip offices for tech companies.

Carl Muhlstein, a veteran Los Angeles broker at Jones Lang LaSalle who handles leasing for a large development in Playa Vista, said once the adapted, former industrial buildings in Playa Vista fill up, tech companies will need to look elsewhere, and downtown is a likely candidate given the growth of hotels and apartments.

From what I've read, Playa Vista's office buildings aren't doing very well (yet).

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2013/j...ding-may-score-video-game-maker/?page=1&

Back in June, LA Business Journal had their current vacancy rate at 58%. Although this was within an article noting that Riot Games and Red Bull were potentially taking 300,000 sq foot and 80,000 sq foot leases respectively.

Anyway, I was happy to see this today:


Source

Figa7th is filling out pretty nicely. Hopefully that bodes well for the Macy's Plaza re-do.

[brudy]

I can't remember if we've complained about this one yet at Olympic and Olive?

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2013/08/yet-another-mixed-user-heading-to.html

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by brudy

I can't remember if we've complained about this one yet at Olympic and Olive?

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2013/08/yet-another-mixed-user-heading-to.html

Ugh. Honestly? Choose another damn part of the city to build this crap
I don't mind these every now and then, but that link shows you just how numerous these boxes are coming to the city center.
Please, apply for that in City west.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Ugh. Honestly? Choose another damn part of the city to build this crap
I don't mind these every now and then, but that link shows you just how numerous these boxes are coming to the city center.
Please, apply for that in City west.

As the Palmer discussion on the previous page demonstrates, people will complain of bad/small/inappropriate buildings even in DTLA-adjacent areas.

The way I see it, there's a ton of room in DTLA. Anyone who thinks that we'll run out of open lots any time soon is either delusional or way too optimistic. Or both. 7 story low rise > one story stucco dump > parking lot > Angels Knoll homeless encampment.

[edkao]

I heard after Zara, H&M is opening at 7th&Fig. Can anyone confirm?

Originally Posted by blackcat23

From what I've read, Playa Vista's office buildings aren't doing very well (yet).

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2013/j...ding-may-score-video-game-maker/?page=1&

Back in June, LA Business Journal had their current vacancy rate at 58%. Although this was within an article noting that Riot Games and Red Bull were potentially taking 300,000 sq foot and 80,000 sq foot leases respectively.

Anyway, I was happy to see this today:


Source

Figa7th is filling out pretty nicely. Hopefully that bodes well for the Macy's Plaza re-do.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by alki

Good article. I worry that DT will have trouble competing with Playa Vista for tech:

There, companies such as Google Inc.'s GOOG -0.19% YouTube division and advertising company 72andSunny inhabit the low-slung former headquarters of Hughes Aircraft Co.—founded by aviator Howard Hughes—and relax at picnic tables outside their offices, flanked by barbecue pits installed by landlord Ratkovich Co.

For now, many of the tech and media tenants Mr. Friedrich plans to target have been expanding elsewhere in the city, particularly at Playa Vista, an area just north of the airport where a series of landlords have transformed industrial buildings into hip offices for tech companies.

Carl Muhlstein, a veteran Los Angeles broker at Jones Lang LaSalle who handles leasing for a large development in Playa Vista, said once the adapted, former industrial buildings in Playa Vista fill up, tech companies will need to look elsewhere, and downtown is a likely candidate given the growth of hotels and apartments.

Well the good news is that Playa Vista is SMALL compared to downtown, and because of the environmental actions taken, it likely won't expand much more, if at all. There's a finite supply of office conversions available.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

As the Palmer discussion on the previous page demonstrates, people will complain of bad/small/inappropriate buildings even in DTLA-adjacent areas.

The way I see it, there's a ton of room in DTLA. Anyone who thinks that we'll run out of open lots any time soon is either delusional or way too optimistic. Or both. 7 story low rise > one story stucco dump > parking lot > Angels Knoll homeless encampment.

Vying for a job on the city planning commission?

That's a seriously short-term view. Just because there are other opportunities doesn't mean the city should allow this low-rise garbage. This could be a once in a few generations opportunity to build things that will make an impact and last and contribute to the city in a lasting way. Now you have a corner where three of buildings are 7 story stucco crap with others popping up around it. This is defining the neighborhood for decades to come. Just because some other lot may or may not get something of note isn't an excuse for these to go forward. It's not a zero sum game.

[Munchitup]

Originally Posted by brudy

Vying for a job on the city planning commission?

That's a seriously short-term view. Just because there are other opportunities doesn't mean the city should allow this low-rise garbage. This could be a once in a few generations opportunity to build things that will make an impact and last and contribute to the city in a lasting way. Now you have a corner where three of buildings are 7 story stucco crap with others popping up around it. This is defining the neighborhood for decades to come. Just because some other lot may or may not get something of note isn't an excuse for these to go forward. It's not a zero sum game.

Here's a question I have been wondering as you guys go back and forth about these boxes -

What happens if the planning commission puts a firm foot down and requires more expensive steel frame construction / greater design standards and developers just say, "Eh... never mind we'll go build elsewhere in the city".

I'm not saying this will happen, and perhaps DTLA is big enough of a draw that the extra costs won't matter to developers. But I worry that these well-intentioned requirements will end up being a negative impact on the rate of the area's development. Developers may see DTLA as a place full of hurdles to build, and will want to capitalize on other growth areas of the city like Hollywood, Koreatown, Westside. Though one thing DTLA definitely has going for it over other areas of the city is the lack of NIMBYs / local opposition to projects. I dunno, maybe I'm just being paranoid

I understand the frustration with these squat boxes and the desire to get DTLA to grow taller (though personally I don't mind them and am in the "better than a parking lot" crowd). I also agree with the crowd that thinks these could be a little more attractive, because they do seem to be coming out of the same, fairly-ugly cookie cutter.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by brudy

Vying for a job on the city planning commission?

That's a seriously short-term view. Just because there are other opportunities doesn't mean the city should allow this low-rise garbage. This could be a once in a few generations opportunity to build things that will make an impact and last and contribute to the city in a lasting way. Now you have a corner where three of buildings are 7 story stucco crap with others popping up around it. This is defining the neighborhood for decades to come. Just because some other lot may or may not get something of note isn't an excuse for these to go forward. It's not a zero sum game.

While I don't agree that the wave of 7 story buildings going up in DTLA are the worst things on earth, I do agree with you. There are proper ways to design a 7 story building. I happen to be a fan of buildings in the 7-15 story range because I feel that they add more density to a neighborhood than a single 40 story skyscraper. DTLA's stucco fetish should end. Or at least improve.

On the bright side, these will bring more people downtown which should account for a lot.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by Munchitup

Here's a question I have been wondering as you guys go back and forth about these boxes -

What happens if the planning commission puts a firm foot down and requires more expensive steel frame construction / greater design standards and developers just say, "Eh... never mind we'll go build elsewhere in the city".

I'm not saying this will happen, and perhaps DTLA is big enough of a draw that the extra costs won't matter to developers. But I worry that these well-intentioned requirements will end up being a negative impact on the rate of the area's development. Developers may see DTLA as a place full of hurdles to build, and will want to capitalize on other growth areas of the city like Hollywood, Koreatown, Westside. Though one thing DTLA definitely has going for it over other areas of the city is the lack of NIMBYs / local opposition to projects. I dunno, maybe I'm just being paranoid

I understand the frustration with these squat boxes and the desire to get DTLA to grow taller (though personally I don't mind them and am in the "better than a parking lot" crowd). I also agree with the crowd that thinks these could be a little more attractive, because they do seem to be coming out of the same, fairly-ugly cookie cutter.

That's a fair question, and I've thought about that. But we're seeing way more interesting 7 stories (and shorter) in other parts of the city. So they're making them work there. Why is downtown getting this garbage? It seems like pure profiteering to me. Make it as cheap as possible and charge as much as possible, without giving a crap about the long term or the neighborhood. These are the architectural equivalent of a Happy Meal, and the city should stop it. They should also de-incentivize these things and highly incentivize denser and more interesting design and better construction. It's the cities' fault this is happening, and the idea that downtown doesn't deserve better is sad.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

While I don't agree that the wave of 7 story buildings going up in DTLA are the worst things on earth, I do agree with you. There are proper ways to design a 7 story building. I happen to be a fan of buildings in the 7-15 story range because I feel that they add more density to a neighborhood than a single 40 story skyscraper. DTLA's stucco fetish should end. Or at least improve.

On the bright side, these will bring more people downtown which should account for a lot.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you. If these were well designed buildings, it would be easier to stomach. I would also be happy with buildings in the 7-15 range.

The only positive is that it will bring more residents to downtown, which we sorely need.

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

While I don't agree that the wave of 7 story buildings going up in DTLA are the worst things on earth, I do agree with you. There are proper ways to design a 7 story building. I happen to be a fan of buildings in the 7-15 story range because I feel that they add more density to a neighborhood than a single 40 story skyscraper. DTLA's stucco fetish should end. Or at least improve.

On the bright side, these will bring more people downtown which should account for a lot.

Agreed. I wouldn't mind buildings of this height if they at least had a decent design.

I also wouldn't mind seeing more buildings in the 7-15 story range, but it looks like the only stuff that's built nowadays is either a 7-story stucco clad box or a 20+ story tower with nothing in between.

[Wilcal]

Originally Posted by brudy

That's a fair question, and I've thought about that. But we're seeing way more interesting 7 stories (and shorter) in other parts of the city. So they're making them work there. Why is downtown getting this garbage? It seems like pure profiteering to me. Make it as cheap as possible and charge as much as possible, without giving a crap about the long term or the neighborhood. These are the architectural equivalent of a Happy Meal, and the city should stop it. They should also de-incentivize these things and highly incentivize denser and more interesting design and better construction. It's the cities' fault this is happening, and the idea that downtown doesn't deserve better is sad.

Brudy, I agree with what you have to say. I also believe that low standards beget low (if not lower) standards. It's as if this attitude represents the personification of downtown's "self-esteem." My sense is that if you require certain high standards within reason, and incetivize the development to make it profitable to the developer, it will be readily embraced. If successful, the outcome will not just be better design, but also a re-integration and rebuilding of an urban community (e.g. Southpark). I think the best example of this effort can be seen with the Williams/ Dame & Assoc. development on 11th and Grand avenue. I think that it is a very good attempt to bring to downtown certain high design standards. It's well designed (I'm not fond of Evo--actually I think is quite ugly and corporate looking), but the other two structures (Luma and Elleven) are good, and at a minimum has a good and workable density for downtown. I don't think that the project overall met the developer's financial expectations, but the recession hurt the outcome, and remember early on that the project was (and still is to a certain degree) an island in a "shit-assed" part of Southpark (think of how successful it would have been had it occupied the block of 8th and Grand). The company was essentially a pioneer in downtown Los Angeles' new residential development. I remember reading an article which stated that the company planners and architects had to essentially argue with the Los Angeles city planning department to understand the true value of this standard of design and development.
Granted, this can be a slow incremental process which requires skillful and creative negotiation to reach that balance, but it can be done, it takes having the will and having the vision. I believe the fact that downtown is pretty much void of NIMBY"S is a huge asset. If this path is followed, perhaps five years from now downtown can reach what I would call a "critical mass" of quality standards (think: downtown San Francisco, or San Diego). Los Angeles city planning can say to a developer "these are our standards, this is what we require, this is our vision--take it or leave it." I can guarantee you that nine out of ten will "take it." And the one who doesn't will be the one who loses.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by Wilcal

Brudy, I agree with what you have to say. I also believe that low standards beget low (if not lower) standards. It's as if this attitude represents the personification of downtown's "self-esteem." My sense is that if you require certain high standards within reason, and incetivize the development to make it profitable to the developer, it will be readily embraced. If successful, the outcome will not just be better design, but also a re-integration and rebuilding of an urban community (e.g. Southpark). I think the best example of this effort can be seen with the William Dame development on 11th and Grand avenue. I think that it is a very good attempt to bring to downtown certain high design standards. It's well designed (I'm not fond of Evo--actually I think is quite ugly and corporate looking), but the other two structures (Luma and Elleven) are good, and at a minimum has a good and workable density for downtown. I don't think that the project overall met the developer's financial expectations, but the recession hurt the outcome, and remember early on that the project was (and still is to a certain degree) an island in a "shit-assed" part of Southpark (think of how successful it would have been had it occupied the block of 8th and Grand). The company was essentially a pioneer in downtown Los Angeles' new residential development. I remember reading an article which stated that the company planners and architects had to essentially argue with the Los Angeles city planning department to understand the true value of this standard of design and development.
Granted, this can be a slow incremental process which requires skillful and creative negotiation to reach that balance, but it can be done, it takes having the will and having the vision. I believe the fact that downtown is pretty much void of NIMBY"S is a huge asset. If this path is followed, perhaps five years from now downtown can reach what I would call a "critical mass" of quality standards (think: downtown San Francisco, or San Diego). Los Angeles city planning can say to a developer "these are our standards, this is what we require, this is our vision--take it or leave it." I can guarantee you that nine out of ten will "take it." And the one who doesn't will be the one who loses.

Very well said. I agree about downtown's "self-esteem", particularly in the eyes of old-timers, where anything other than a parking lot or a one-story taco stand is an improvement and from the outside where the perception is that it is so crappy now they should be happy with anything. We should be courting development that's comparable to other great cities, not what's already here.

And the irony on the nimby situation is that in other parts of town development gets fought tooth and nail, but better projects are getting proposed, where as downtown wants more density and better architecture and we get crap. It all just says to me that developers are profiteering over downtown's hotness without giving a crap. It's a blank slate for developers here and all they can draw are dollar signs.

[alki]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

From what I've read, Playa Vista's office buildings aren't doing very well (yet).

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2013/j...ding-may-score-video-game-maker/?page=1&

Back in June, LA Business Journal had their current vacancy rate at 58%. Although this was within an article noting that Riot Games and Red Bull were potentially taking 300,000 sq foot and 80,000 sq foot leases respectively.

DTLA needs to nail a tech company like Riot Games [which btw I didn't know was based in LA]. I wonder if anyone DT is pushing for tech. I wonder if tech would consider a DT location........or are they too enamored with the Beach area.

[ConstructDTLA]

Originally Posted by alki

DTLA needs to nail a tech company like Riot Games [which btw I didn't know was based in LA]. I wonder if anyone DT is pushing for tech. I wonder if tech would consider a DT location........or are they too enamored with the Beach area.

I agree COMPLETELY.

Would they consider DTLA...Maybe, but probably not. I think the key to DTLA's future is bringing in some seriously heavy hitters in the tech world. Anyone who's been to Seattle can see how Amazon has (and still is) completely changed the place for the better.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by HunterK

I agree COMPLETELY.

Would they consider DTLA...Maybe, but probably not. I think the key to DTLA's future is bringing in some seriously heavy hitters in the tech world. Anyone who's been to Seattle can see how Amazon has (and still is) completely changed the place for the better.

First, L.A. needs a major tech company. DT does seem to be becoming the center of the L.A. fashion world, though, so that's good.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by brudy

That's the most interesting view of the Jia that you'll see. The view from the Hill St side is monolithic and kinda awful. Broadway isn't as bad, but up close the materials don't look as good as in Mojeda's fine pictures.

oops! I actually meant the side of the jia proj as seen from Hill st, or as seen from the western, back side. for some reason I always confuse broadway with hill st, & visa versa, when in the area around chinatown.

I know I originally thought the jia bldg was rising on the huge parking lot that still exists on Hill st, & which is like a twin to the former parking lot on broadway, where jia actually now is being built.

Originally Posted by Muji

a recent shot of the Star Apartments:

I wonder if the architect of the Star apt proj put his design through a computerized stress test, to see how it will do in an earthquake? There's something about all those open corners, free of columns, that makes me nervous. Although I would guess at least totally new devlpt will be no less sturdy in a quake than the old unreinforced masonry bldgs found throughout dt.

However, even quite a few of the old bldgs in chistchurch, new zealand that were retrofitted still collapsed or suffered major damage during that city's big EQ in 2011.

....which leads to the question of why so many new bldgs in dt are shorter instead of taller. As said many times before, new bldgs in LA above 7 floors require sturdier....& therefore more $$...construction methods. I'm guessing various devlprs are hesitant to go above that limit cuz the cost of their proj will then go up & they're worried it will be too hard to recoup the added expense by raising prospective tenants rent.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by brudy

Very well said. I agree about downtown's "self-esteem", particularly in the eyes of old-timers, where anything other than a parking lot or a one-story taco stand is an improvement and from the outside where the perception is that it is so crappy now they should be happy with anything. We should be courting development that's comparable to other great cities, not what's already here.

brudy, since you live in dt, I defer to forumers like you, or anyone else who spends lots of time there. But I'm not so sure about other ppl, including me, who view dtla from a distance, who think of it in overly theoretical terms, & act like armchair urbanists about what the hood needs or doesn't need.

I notice that when I haven't been in dt for quite awhile, I find myself becoming rather forgiving of its weaknesses....of its qualities....& start to romanticize its good points. But then I'll drop by the hood for a direct visit &.... KERPLUNK!....I'll suddenly feel like someone has just bopped me on the head.....meaning the amt of blight & grit & areas in sore need of new devlpt becomes overwhelmingly obvious all over again.

That's why certainly in my case I say that a person has to really be in the hood on a frequent basis....if not 24/7 or full time than at least on more than a few occasions each yr....to get the full effect....the stereo surround sound....of what is good....or bad....about dt.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Munchitup

Here's a question I have been wondering as you guys go back and forth about these boxes -

What happens if the planning commission puts a firm foot down and requires more expensive steel frame construction / greater design standards and developers just say, "Eh... never mind we'll go build elsewhere in the city".

It comes down to what the economy will bear....meaning the amt of demand for new apts & condos in dt.

the most recent example of a high rise....& a rather expensive one for residential use....being completed & open for business in dt was the Apex...formerly concerto. The owner started leasing a bit less than a yr ago. I bet if they had fully booked up almost overnight....instead of today still sitting with about 20% of their apts unleased....other devlprs would have noticed....& swooned....& gotten excited by what they could do in their part of dt.

btw, I still see ads...here at ssp.com....for totally new condos in the Evo condo bldg....& how long ago was it when that bldg was completed & open for sales?