LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

well, i appreciate your opinion and statement, but i respectfully disagree. The current space is being used tremendously, both by spontaneous users and programmed events ( i have been there many times and live in the area)

The way the county buildings are currently set up, they block visual access to the park and restrict its usage. Im thinking long term and how tremendous it will be when the grand avenue project and its 1000+ residential units and hotel rooms spill over into the park and the connection to the museums and Disney hall

[JDRCRASH]

An update on the status of Park 101:

City Getting Serious About Cap Park Over the 101 Downtown

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

by Neal Broverman



The city is making some attempts at improving the pedestrian connections between Union Station and the Civic Center, but nothing would bridge that gap like the proposed Park 101, which would cap portions of the Hollywood Freeway in Downtown with a giant awesome park. The City Council took a big step toward making Park 101 a reality on Friday when they unanimously voting to partner with a nonprofit group to seek funding for the venture, CBS LA reports. The city will join hands with Friends of Park 101 to try to raise private, federal, and state money for the park. As it's currently envisioned, Park 101 would connect the Civic Center with Olvera Street, Chinatown, and Union Station; it would likely open in five phases, the first would be a small segment near Olvera Street and the last would be near the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.

Source: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/09/city_getting_serious_about_cap_park_over_the_101_downtown.php

Here's a link to a bigger picture: http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2013_09_cappark.jpeg

[112597jorge]

Are the 2 Iconic Gateway towers still planned, wasnt one a supertall, approx. 1,300 feet or more

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by 112597jorge

Are the 2 Iconic Gateway towers still planned, wasnt one a supertall, approx. 1,300 feet or more

This must be some long-dead proposal or fantasy I've never heard of.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by eclipse

This must be some long-dead proposal or fantasy I've never heard of.

"Fantasy," is the operative word.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/04/do...ead_could_it_dwarf_the_library_tower.php

While we don't know what designs are currently on the table, interns at EDAW AECOM created plans for the project in 2008 that called for a half-mile cap with "an iconic gateway and overlook at Grand Avenue" that would include the tallest structure on the west coast.

[blackcat23]

Delete

[alki]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

I suspect I'll be in the minority in staking out this position, but I'd really hate to see the county buildings surrounding Grand Park be demolished. Their massing goes a long way toward spatially defining the perimeter of the park and helps to create an 'outdoor living room' with a pleasing human scale and intimacy in a part of downtown otherwise filled with monumental buildings and expansive parking lots. What's more, the symmetrical horizontality of the two buildings reinforces the visual axis running from City Hall all the way through the music center to the DWP headquarters on the opposite end. This axis is, I think, one of the more compelling urban attributes in the city and destined to become a nationally recognized symbol of both the civic center and Los Angeles in general. To demolish these buildings in order to add green space would be to confuse grandness with size, and leave the site feeling over-scaled and aimlessly expansive in a city that is already criticized for embodying those same qualities.

How about we renovate and restore the county buildings to their former glory instead, and in doing so save a bit of public funds and preserve some of our mid-century architectural heritage? With a bit of creativity, the county buildings could even be re-imagined with programmed rooftops overlooking the park and a compelling nighttime lighting scheme (I'm thinking of the recent addition of the glowing glass cube on top of the Transamerica building, for example).

Grand Park is a refreshingly cozy space in a city that's often not, and I'd hate to see it needlessly made larger when we've yet to see crowds on significant basis that fill and activate it's existing perimeter.

I agree with you..........well said.

[Muji]

Thanks for posting the Onyx renderings. The building in the first rendering reminds me quite a bit of Killefer Flammang's New Genesis Apartments, from the color scheme to the yellow awning thing above the storefronts.

Picture by Killefer Flammang


The project can't get started soon enough, and it's about time that some development took place around Pico Station. Once the buildings are done, those two blocks of Pico actually have the potential to be very pleasant after some rehabs on the older structures across the street.

[Mojeda101]

See, now that i'm ok with. As long as they aren't in the immediate Downtown area like 8th and Grand

[colemonkee]

^ I'm not okay with this, and not just because it's another TCA design (albeit better than some of their previous designs). This development is a 1/2 block from a transit stop with access to two lines (north/south and east/west). This should be built to a higher density. It doesn't have to be a 30-story tower, but it should be more than the 419 units planned. By comparison, The Vermont, another TOD, has 464 units and is built on a piece of land roughly the same size as the larger lot for this project. This project has two lots, and should be built to around 600-700 units, given the amount of land and the proximity to mass transit (and 2 lines, no less). 5, 4, or even 3 blocks away, I'm okay with a development this size. But not right on top of that stop. This is a missed opportunity from a planning perspective, and something that should be addressed in planning changes.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

^ I'm not okay with this, and not just because it's another TCA design (albeit better than some of their previous designs). This development is a 1/2 block from a transit stop with access to two lines (north/south and east/west). This should be built to a higher density. It doesn't have to be a 30-story tower, but it should be more than the 419 units planned.

Exactly. With a location this close to rail, it should have much higher density. The city should block this.

These 7 stories are a disease. The more they are permitted, the more developers will attempt to cash in without making a lasting impact.

[Wally West]

Originally Posted by brudy

Exactly. With a location this close to rail, it should have much higher density. The city should block this.

These 7 stories are a disease. The more they are permitted, the more developers will attempt to cash in without making a lasting impact.

I agree that the 7 stories aren't the best for DTLA but that area of Pico is in desperate needs of residents for it to start being a decent location for businesses to move to. That part of DTLA is completely dead. Maybe the city should just let this one slide to help jumpstart the area and be strict with the density of the upcoming projets.

[Wilcal]

Originally Posted by brudy

Exactly. With a location this close to rail, it should have much higher density. The city should block this.

These 7 stories are a disease. The more they are permitted, the more developers will attempt to cash in without making a lasting impact.

These are very valid arguments, 225 units per acre is not low density, but it is certainly not the "highest and best use" for the property given its location to transit and strategic location to the convention center. It is yet again the Los Angeles city planning department's infantile approach to good development. If this were in any other big city, this development would be at least three if not four times the density. This city should be looking at its future through the "lens" of say Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, or even San Diego. Yet, it looks through the lens of San Bernardino (which if you have ever been there, it's pretty bad)--"We expect crumbs, we get crumbs, and we (gladly) take crumbs." Very sad.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by Wally West

I agree that the 7 stories aren't the best for DTLA but that area of Pico is in desperate needs of residents for it to start being a decent location for businesses to move to. That part of DTLA is completely dead. Maybe the city should just let this one slide to help jumpstart the area and be strict with the density of the upcoming projets.

But it doesn't end. We've seen almost a landslide of this type of building now for the last year. If we can't get high density at transit stops, where can we? Hollywood, Weho, and other neighborhoods are getting solid designs and higher density. Why not downtown? It's ridiculous. We're an afterthought - a dollar sign in the eyes of greedy developers attempting to capitalize on downtown's hotness while the city planners sits on their asses.

[ThomJames]

Originally Posted by brudy

But it doesn't end. We've seen almost a landslide of this type of building now for the last year. If we can't get high density at transit stops, where can we? Hollywood, Weho, and other neighborhoods are getting solid designs and higher density. Why not downtown? It's ridiculous. We're an afterthought - a dollar sign in the eyes of greedy developers attempting to capitalize on downtown's hotness while the city planners sits on their asses.

I really disagree with these opinions of the "7 story- crap" boxes. Cities such as Tokyo, London or Paris, really have relatively few high-rise residential buildings, yet they are still extremely dense.

As a high-rise fan, of course I would prefer 30-40-50 story residential buildings, but would much rather prefer a mix of lower rise buildings, than all the fugly parking lots we have now, that really disconnect the neighborhoods downtown. Furthermore if all of the residential construction is high-rise, no one will have a view. Unless you live on the 50th floor.

Most of the residential construction done in San Francisco, in the 90's and early 2000's in the SOMA area was buildings like this. As the area has greatly transformed, now most of the construction is high-rise, ultra high rise.

I think we should concentrate on filling up the parking lots first, so that we have connected neighborhoods. I too would like some high-rises included in that mix, but there are already several under construction, including 9th and Olive, of which I watch the construction everyday from my window. Down the road, if downtown real-estate is so valuable, probably some of the crap boxes will be torn down to make way for even more high-rises.

I already know that everyone is going to say that we should just 'do it right' the first time, but at that pace, we may not even be alive to witness or talk about our lack of connected neighborhoods.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by ThomJames

I really disagree with these opinions of the "7 story- crap" boxes. Cities such as Tokyo, London or Paris, really have relatively few high-rise residential buildings, yet they are still extremely dense.

As a high-rise fan, of course I would prefer 30-40-50 story residential buildings, but would much rather prefer a mix of lower rise buildings, than all the fugly parking lots we have now, that really disconnect the neighborhoods downtown. Furthermore if all of the residential construction is high-rise, no one will have a view. Unless you live on the 50th floor.

Most of the residential construction done in San Francisco, in the 90's and early 2000's in the SOMA area was buildings like this. As the area has greatly transformed, now most of the construction is high-rise, ultra high rise.

I think we should concentrate on filling up the parking lots first, so that we have connected neighborhoods. I too would like some high-rises included in that mix, but there are already several under construction, including 9th and Olive, of which I watch the construction everyday from my window. Down the road, if downtown real-estate is so valuable, probably some of the crap boxes will be torn down to make way for even more high-rises.

I already know that everyone is going to say that we should just 'do it right' the first time, but at that pace, we may not even be alive to witness or talk about our lack of connected neighborhoods.

Just to be clear - I don't believe everything needs to be a high-rise at all. That's not realistic for a variety of reasons. For downtown, some would be nice (and we are getting a few), but I think the standard should be in the 9-15 range. I am however against lame design and build quality, and I'm very against not maximizing density in transit locations. We could have attractive, well designed and built 7 story buildings. But that's not what we're getting. These designs are completely generic and disposable, designed only to maximize profits.

I see your point about just getting people here and street life going, but at what point should we be demanding higher quality architecture? And why is downtown getting so much junk compared to the rest of the city?

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by brudy

Just to be clear - I don't believe everything needs to be a high-rise at all. That's not realistic for a variety of reasons. For downtown, some would be nice (and we are getting a few), but I think the standard should be in the 9-15 range. I am however against lame design and build quality, and I'm very against not maximizing density in transit locations. We could have attractive, well designed and built 7 story buildings. But that's not what we're getting. These designs are completely generic and disposable, designed only to maximize profits.

I agree completely. But I especially dislike monolithic projects like 8th & Grand and the new development adjacent to the AT&T Center. They're like horizontal skyscrapers with a wood frame. It would be nice if these projects were at least broken up into different buildings with varying designs (and maybe heights), but it shows that developers just want to make as much money as possible with as little effort as they can get away with.

[LAofAnaheim]

Why is everybody here on a "blame the developer" mentality? Maybe you should think about how the City Planning is so out of whack working with a 1946 zoning code. That's where the anger should be, not at the developers. A developer wants to make money, like any sane person. But they have to work within certain regulations, otherwise, they'll be sued for millions. They're not dumb, they're people. If they could build taller buildings and make huge profits, they would. But here are the most prevalent problems that need to be addressed with zoning to make high-rise development more competitive:

1 - There is a big difference in design structures from 7 stories and below compared to 7 stories and above. I think that relates to steel frames needed for earthquake protection. Although safetly is always first, this could be a huge deterrant for expenditures for a developer. Maybe efficiencies in construction can be sought here with new technologies (i.e. how Wilshire Grand will NOT have a helipad due to better elevator technology).

2 - Parking variance. This is absolutely no reason we should continue to have high parking minimums in downtown LA. This is something reserved for non-transit friendly areas. This is a huge cost to the developer, and with everybody's fear of paying for parking, unfortunately, has to provide this to little to no cost to tenants or customers. A humongous sunk cost. Look at the revitalized neighborhood of the Old Bank District. Adaptive Reuse didn't require new parking and you see how that neighborhood gentrified in 10 years? Parking is not a need anymore, it's a desire. And people should pay market price. If they say "nobody will come without parking", well why isn't the Valley and OC more hot commodities than downtown LA?

3 - The density bonus needs to be bolstered. I don't know what it's at right now, but give developers flexibility to add more units/retail space. I think downtown LA's FAR (Floor to Area) ratio is considered low for a big city and needs to become more similar to SF or NY.

4 - No more than 1 parking entrance for a building, so we can maximize retail units at the bottom floors. Hopefully that cuts some cost for developers.

I'm sure there are a lot more things we can think about changing to helping developers build the right projects. But, seriously, it's a problem with City Planning and zoning. Going around and blaming developers for making money, when we ourselves want to make money, is kinda hypocritical.

That's my 3 cents.

[brudy]

While I agree with everything you said, it still comes back to the developer. Related is building a 19 story deal, Onni isn't short, etc. Developers are making it work for them. I think the difference is HUGE profits vs profit. And nothing in the code is making them design completely boring buildings with stucco.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

As far as I can tell, these haven't been posted before. These are renderings for Onyx, the development that's supposed to go on the vacant lots south of Pico Station.

I appreciate your getting the specifics on that proj. I didn't realize onxy's property involved a space split by hope street.....the map I created a few months ago showed only the site west of hope, so if the proj's footprint is larger than I estimated, that's good news to me. But maybe not to those ppl...including certain forumers....who are disappointed that such a new devlpt isn't taller or bigger.

I'd understand that reaction if the area around Pico & hope were reminiscent of a hood in paris, hong kong, NYC or even seattle or san diego. but, sorry, it's not. Whenever I'm in that part of dt, I'm always struck by how rundown & depressing the area looks & feels. It's at those instances that I regrettably understand why so many ppl go or towards dt.

I'm bothered far more by owners of gritty bldgs or other deadzones in dt who are pretty much lazy collectors of land, sitting on a site that hurts the hood & doing nothing to improve what they own for yrs & yrs.

Originally Posted by ThomJames

I think we should concentrate on filling up the parking lots first, so that we have connected neighborhoods. I too would like some high-rises included in that mix, but there are already several under construction, including 9th and Olive, of which I watch the construction everyday from my window. Down the road, if downtown real-estate is so valuable, probably some of the crap boxes will be torn down to make way for even more high-rises.

I already know that everyone is going to say that we should just 'do it right' the first time, but at that pace, we may not even be alive to witness or talk about our lack of connected neighborhoods.

I totally agree. however, I do admit that unlike brudy or colemonkee, I don't live in dt or spend lots of time there.

not sure if a person who actually lives in dt or spends lots of time there will be more unhappy, or less unhappy, about a new proj that in their eyes doesn't fit some ideal

There's a saying that familiarity breeds contempt....but maybe the opposite is true too....so if ppl spend much of their waking hours in dtla, will they end up being more patient, or less patient, about the slowness in improvements occurring, &, most importantly, less bothered or more bothered by how empty & unattractive too much of dt still is?