LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

And holy shit at those renderings! I like it better then the Gherry ones. Wow. Woooow.

What happened to "mcmansion on steroids?"

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Why so much parking for these buildings? LA really is bipolar. It is investing billions of dollars in rail transit, the downtown streetcar, encouraging bike lanes, and has great plans for Union Station and then it requires nearly one parking space for each unit for a building that is near a metro station. Allowing so much parking limits the affordability of the housing and directly undermines transit ridership.

Exactly!

This is what's preventing affordable housing in downtown LA. Not those nasty "greedy developers".....our ridiculous high parking minimums.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

2020? Some of you sound away too excited about a 2020 completion date for a pair of towers that were proposed back in 2006. This is more sad than anything else. I'd rather them turn that parking structure into a park now than wait forever for towers that might never come. Kills me that we promote WDCH as "world famous" but allow it to sit across the street from the metro's cheapest-looking parking structure.

Hmmm....2008 economic crises? That kind of killed a lot of projects not just in Los Angeles, but the entire world. That wasn't a Related problem, it was a worldwide disaster, unfortunately. Can't blame them for not breaking ground when the crises was getting into full swing in '08, unfortunately.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Hmmm....2008 economic crises? That kind of killed a lot of projects not just in Los Angeles, but the entire world.

It affected the whole world in some ways, but it didn't kill the building boom the way it did in US cities. If you want to see what a city looks like that was booming in 2008 and is still booming today without missing a beat, visit Toronto.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

It affected the whole world in some ways, but it didn't kill the building boom the way it did in US cities. If you want to see what a city looks like that was booming in 2008 and is still booming today without missing a beat, visit Toronto.

As well as Metro Manila.. A skyscraper is proposed like every month, its nuts.. Went from no skyline in the 90's to one bigger than most American cities

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by bjornson

I don't have a planning background but I do have an architectural one. Don't get me wrong, I get upset and it's a large part why I moved out of L.A. over a year ago. But the changes taking place especially downtown I wouldn't have even imagined a year ago.

I'm not sure if your POV combined with that of the POV of ppl who I often talk with, or ppl who share my perceptions, mean that LA must be a really, really horrible place. iow, between ppl feeling unhappy cuz some new proj isn't fabulous enough, or has too much parking, or doesn't have stores on the first floor, or isn't taller, combined with all the ppl who dislike LA cuz of its rundown, decrepit hoods & streets....abundant with fugly parking lots & gritty auto repair shops...means we're getting shot at from both sides.

the fact that your choice of tagline uses a quote from one of this forum's most notorious, LA hating trolls doesn't sit well with me. That makes me think LA actually is better...much better....than you make it out to be....or that ironically if the average person does share your antipathy towards LA, it's for totally different reasons.

Originally Posted by The Illusive Man

Seriously, it's ridiculous. These folks need to enjoy their lives a little more. Getting mad over a building not being a certain way isn't healthy. You have a right to vent, but damn. At some point you either accept it or move on.

I find it interesting that some ppl who are in the laser beam of your comment are also the very same ones who become so resentful whenever I've pointed out the truly aspects of dtla, which I bet far more ppl notice & dislike than what the "fanboys" & "fangirls" of ssp think is most objectionable about LA.

I bet far more ppl have problems not with new devlpt cuz it's too short, or has too much parking, or won't win a Pritzker prize, or doesn't conform to jane jacobs concepts, than the fact that too much of the hood still is shabby & barren.....rumpled in a semi bankrupt sort of way.....for instance, all the swap meets that still are a very visible part of broadway, or all the lifeless parking lots & gritty warehouses throughout dt.

in a way we should be so lucky that the biggest weakness of LA....of dt....is that its new projs aren't bigger & more beautiful, or has too much parking, or too much stucco, or too much this, too much that.

btw, ppl who go about parking space in new devlpt must be male & rather young, cuz if you're older, have kids & plenty of errands & other chores to tend to....& concern about personal safety.....being idealistic about the existence of cars & enclosed parking starts to lose some of its punch. however, I'm not referring to the impact of parking requirements that force up the price of a proj, make it harder to pencil out, & make it more likely to be a dud.

I've spoken with more than a few ppl who've raved about transit in other cities, esp in europe, then turn around & bad mouth their experience with transit in LA. And not just cuz our system still is in its comparative infancy, but cuz.....sorry, but this is just the truth.....transit in LA still is used mainly by lower income ppl & the stigma remains in lala land that we who are dependent on transit are more likely to be leading lives of quiet desperation....& run a slightly great risk of being a victim of crime or some type of gameplaying by rowdy teens.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Phase 1A: 48-story/485 foot tall tower, designed by Robert A. M. Stern Architects. 380 rental units, 31,000 sq feet of commercial space, 400 parking spots. Price tag: $160 million

Groundbreaking scheduled for March 2015, completion in Sep. 2017

Phase 1B: 250 key hotel tower/option for 50 condominiums above. 141,000 sq feet of commercial space, including a supermarket. Diagram shows a 41 story/453' tall building. Without the condos, that drops to 24 floors/283 feet. Price looks to be approx. $490 million.

Groundbreaking scheduled for Sep 2017, completion in June 2020.

the amt of work done by the Stern architects surprises me cuz I thought they were selected very recently to take over the Grand Ave proj. But I'm assuming they're not able to whip up rather elaborate designs in just a few days.

personally, I thought the designs from frank gehry were more interesting, esp his wavy highrise, which would have visually riffed off the design of his disney hall. oh well, I'll take any new devlpt asap from either Stern or gehry, just as long as that parking structure along Grand ave is finally torn down, once & for all.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Quixote

What happened to "mcmansion on steroids?"

I was happily wrong.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Hmmm....2008 economic crises? That kind of killed a lot of projects not just in Los Angeles, but the entire world. That wasn't a Related problem, it was a worldwide disaster, unfortunately. Can't blame them for not breaking ground when the crises was getting into full swing in '08, unfortunately.

Yeah but the recession has been over for a while and we're back into the boom. Look at everything else that's been proposed or that's already been going up at a quick pace. Meanwhile this proposal is revived with significant tweaks, still isn't clear about its height, and has a very distant completion date. As with other relics from that era (ParkFifth, LA Central, etc.) I won't start getting excited about this until I see concrete getting poured.

[blackcat23]

@citywatch

RAMSA was actually commissioned several months ago. It's just that the information wasn't available until more recently.

The Gehry proposal certainly had more pop, but the new plans sought to give deference to the WDCH as the architectural "star," on Grand Avenue.

[Wilcal]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

@citywatch

RAMSA was actually commissioned several months ago. It's just that the information wasn't available until more recently.

The Gehry proposal certainly had more pop, but the new plans sought to give deference to the WDCH as the architectural "star," on Grand Avenue.

And that it does. There is no danger of WDCH being upstaged by the RAMSA designed project. There are many more sites in downtown in which to "wow" those who care. By the way, I like the design of the hotel tower with its "scaly" green (?) glass facade. It has its moments.

[StethJeff]

WDCH is a star no matter what. Just look at the number of foreigners and Midwesterners aiming Nikons at it at 7:00 a.m. Just look at how many of your FB friends take their engagement photos there. Why are people worried that it's going to be upstaged? Broad isn't going to steal attention from WDCH, it's going to complement it. Same would go for amazing architecture on Parcel Q. Wanting structures with less pop in order to defer to the WDCH seems silly to me.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

WDCH is a star no matter what. Just look at the number of foreigners and Midwesterners aiming Nikons at it at 7:00 a.m. Just look at how many of your FB friends take their engagement photos there. Why are people worried that it's going to be upstaged? Broad isn't going to steal attention from WDCH, it's going to complement it. Same would go for amazing architecture on Parcel Q. Wanting structures with less pop in order to defer to the WDCH seems silly to me.

I agree. WDCH is a world class piece of architecture. It's shine isn't going anywhere.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

I agree. WDCH is a world class piece of architecture. It's shine isn't going anywhere.

It's a star but it isn't world class. It looks like shit from above.

[BrandonJXN]

^ Well I guess that's why people prefer to be on their feet when they take pictures of the WDCH and not in any sort of flying contraption.

[inSaeculaSaeculorum]

Does StethJeff live in a blimp or something

[alki]

Originally Posted by bjornson

That's a sort of lazy response. I'm never one to promote scale or context but rather good design which is what downtown has been lacking of late. The expectation is what design-builts Venice, West Hollywood, and even Hollywood have received in the past 10 or so years have been of much higher substantial quality overall. It's a disappointment in the compromises that result after ambitious plans fall through. Can't there just be good design--quality materials, well-thought out circulation, etc?

Does DT command the same rents as Venice and West Hollywood? When I lived in LA, the rents were considerably higher in Venice and WEHO. Is that still true?

[alki]

Originally Posted by HunterK

LA has always had spectacularly low architectural standards. Why spend more now when Angelenos are generally happy with shit quality?

Assuming the above is true, why are you expecting these low standards will change now? Isn't that the definition of insanity?

[inSaeculaSaeculorum]

Saying that LA always had low architectural standards is so completely ignorant it's not worth addressing. There is an abundance of great homes and buildings, from Boyle heights to Venice beach. Los Angeles has some of greatest architectural diversity in the nation as well and anyone who knows cities well agrees.

[alki]

Originally Posted by bjornson

Well it's commonplace knowledge that the best architecture in the city has historically been private residences.

Yup. Some of the best looking private residences in the country. And overall construction has had its moments in LA........some of the best looking art nouveau/art deco bldgs [office and residential] were put up in LA.

Since WW II, I would say LA has gone for the unique and exotic rather than classically good architecture.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it has always had low architectural standard because again that's lazy and very broad thinking. The problem is a subset of people tend to complain yet they don't question WHY things are this way and even worse they offer no new solutions. And when solutions are proposed it's decried as superfluous and unnecessary simply because it's a different idea. Or it's derided as being this normative unchangeable culture that's always been--that's not helping anyone.

It seems to me that the people who control the purse strings in LA, except on rare occasions, don't consider it an important motivation. I think they aspire more towards 'cutting edge' architecture rather than good architecture.
Cutting edge and good don't have to be a contradication in terms but in LA that seems to be the case.

And so the question remains as to why there is no design standard in DTLA or why the process is so slow to get this design-review board started? Questions have been posed by architects and planners (that L.A. Times article). The other cities are irrelevant to be honest.

Has the LA Times replaced the last architectural critic it had?

[QUOTE] I don't have a planning background but I do have an architectural one. Don't get me wrong, I get upset and it's a large part why I moved out of L.A. over a year ago. But the changes taking place especially downtown I wouldn't have even imagined a year ago.QUOTE]

I agree........the changes DT are mind blowing.