LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[alki]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Grand Avenue Project update.

Source: http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/b...vNIw&postId=569028558231722804&type=POST

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

Not clear if this is the final design, but the renderings are labeled "RAMSA"

Love it........best project so far this cycle.

And designed by R. Stern??? Say its not so.

[alki]

Originally Posted by eclipse

Yeah, I don't understand why they can't build both towers simultaneously. Would really like for the whole thing to be completed by 2017. I don't care so much about the height of the buildings as I do just replacing that fugly parking lot with something attractive.

Because they are not sure what the market will be after the first tower is built.........so they are doing in phases. That's very common in the building industry.

I don't want to join the negativity chorus on this forum but these complaints that things aren't moving fast enough while ignoring the fact that economics play a very key role is getting old.

Let's try to remember that these bldgs are built because the economics allow them to be built and not because it pleases posters on this forum.

[alki]

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.

Because its an essential component of all new construction. It insures that the project will be successful. Car is still king in the US.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I can live with the timeline. I've waited since 2008 for construction to start up again downtown, I can wait a few more to get a quality product.

I would much prefer you throw a tantrum. [sarcasm]

[alki]

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.

The recession in Canada was much, much less severe than in the US or Europe. In fact, the Canadian economy grew through much of the recession. Canadian banks didn't play the games that US and Euro banks played.

[ConstructDTLA]

Originally Posted by alki

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

I hope for them to change. Though I am probably 1 of the few people on this forum who doesnt expect them to. That doesn't stop me from being disappointed by most new projects timelines/designs.

Originally Posted by 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.

No, it's not ignorant. LA's homes beat the rest of the US, thats a given as I stated before. But buildings, anyone who's traveled to the 10 biggest cities in the US would agree their architecture beats LA's hands down. Historic & construction going up currently.

LA has the beaches, and the moderate weather year around that those cities don't. Thats nothing to be ashamed of.

[Illithid Dude]

I also feel that Los Angeles has been getting better architecture of late. So many of the new proposals for Hollywood look fantastic, and downtown is starting to feel the architecture love with all the stuff being built and planned around Grand Avenue and The Wilshire Grand. Moreover, there's a ton of incredible stuff going up in Santa Monica, and a bunch of LOHA apartment buildings under construction throughout the city. And I passed by the Annenberg performing arts center in Beverly Hills today, which also looks fantastic. Unlike so many of the people on this forum, I feel incredibly optimistic about the city. When I'm old enough to stat looking for my own apartment, its gonna feel like a completely different, far better place.

[Quixote]

^ The incessant complaints about the use of stucco really need to stop, though. You and colemonkee keep beating up on a horse that's long been dead. I'm in agreement that Glo and the new complex at Wilshire/La Brea are terrible, but just because a building is clad in stucco doesn't automatically render it absolute crap. And let's not forget that LA's architectural vernacular, Spanish Revival, uses stucco as its primary material. There's a place for it.

Do we think the new Southwestern Law School housing looks bad? I don't.


http://www.mattconstruction.com/images/projects/_medium/AIA+CA-West_3Qtr_wBrick_Apts-2246-2pks.jpg

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by HunterK

anyone who's traveled to the 10 biggest cities in the US would agree their architecture beats LA's hands down. Historic & construction going up currently.

hunterK, since you do live in dt....& have to deal with it, both good & bad, 24/7....& have taken some great, informative pics of it in past months, I'll always give forumers like you the benefit of the doubt. But I do think you're being overly harsh on LA, & in turn, treating other cities like the proverbial grass that's greener on the other side of the hill.

while I don't totally disagree with you or others who are unhappy about new devlpt for a variety of reasons....for example, the new jia apt bldg in chinatown does look fairly cheap as seen from the side facing Hill St....I do believe the average person.....again, the average, typical person, & not an urbanist with hipster tastes or SSPers into idealism instead of reality.....has far more problems not with newer devlpt in dt, or other parts of LA, but areas like this.....several blocks north of LAX & which I got somewhat lost in last wk after picking up friends from the airport.....



maps.google.com


the ppl I met at LAX are a couple from Minneapolis &, believe me, I wouldn't have felt embarrassed for LA when driving them by any of the newer projs, including the ones that some very picky sspers feel about, compared with sections like the one shown in the pic.

I'm quite sure that most ppl....again, MOST ppl....write off LA not cuz new projs in dt are too short, or have parking podiums, or lack retail on the first floor, or aren't better positioned towards the sidewalk, but cuz of all the blight & ticky tackiness in, if anything, older sections of LA, including the swap meets on broadway.

I bet if the newer parts of LA, including the new apt projs either underway or planned for the future in dt, like the tower designed by Stern for grand ave....which I'm not even the biggest fan of....were the rule instead of the exception, the average person....again, the typical, average person....would have a vastly different POV of LA.

btw, that photo posted by quioxte of the new southwestern Law school's apt bldg makes the bldg look so bright & pristine looking, I'd swear it was photoshopped.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by alki

Because they are not sure what the market will be after the first tower is built.........so they are doing in phases. That's very common in the building industry.

I don't want to join the negativity chorus on this forum but these complaints that things aren't moving fast enough while ignoring the fact that economics play a very key role is getting old.

Let's try to remember that these bldgs are built because the economics allow them to be built and not because it pleases posters on this forum.

Exactly. If the market justified building the entire project in one phase, Related would do just that. They even said as much when presenting their revised plans a few months back. If the economy starts turning around sooner rather than later, they could move ahead with the hotel/condo tower earlier than 2017.

Because its an essential component of all new construction. It insures that the project will be successful. Car is still king in the US.

To further this point, Related is CHOOSING to build more parking than required by code, since they don't think the retail space can attract tenants without it. So this has nothing to city-mandated parking requirements.

Don't get me wrong: I am in favor of eliminating parking minimums. But we can't pretend that parking is completely unnecessary in Los Angeles at this point in time.

I will also say this again: the 48-story residential tower includes 400 spaces for 380 apartments. Basically a 1:1 ratio, which is very progressive for LA. I've seen plans for a few small mixed-use projects with 1:1 ratios, but never a high-rise. So we are moving away from auto dependency, but it's going to be a slow process over many years.

[LA/OCman]

Originally Posted by HunterK

I hope for them to change. Though I am probably 1 of the few people on this forum who doesnt expect them to. That doesn't stop me from being disappointed by most new projects timelines/designs.




No, it's not ignorant. LA's homes beat the rest of the US, thats a given as I stated before. But buildings, anyone who's traveled to the 10 biggest cities in the US would agree their architecture beats LA's hands down. Historic & construction going up currently.

LA has the beaches, and the moderate weather year around that those cities don't. Thats nothing to be ashamed of.

Really?

New York, New York (pop 8,213,839)
2. Los Angeles, California (pop 3,794,640)
3. Chicago, Illinois (pop 2,824,584)
4. Houston, Texas (pop 2,076,189)
5. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (pop 1,517,628)
6. Phoenix, Arizona (pop 1,476,331)
7. San Diego, California (pop 1,284,347)
8. San Antonio, Texas (pop 1,258,733)
9. Dallas, Texas (pop 1,246,185)
10. Detroit, Michigan (pop 921,147)
11. San Jose, California (pop 908,870)


Read more: http://www.city-data.com/top1.html#ixzz2gIGK0InA

[bjornson]

The update on the Grand Ave project is promising in that it won't look cheap but certainly lacks ambition design-wise. It has that zZZZzzzZZZZ-look that certain towers have here on the westside of Manhattan. Quality materials and construction but also has the potential to be forgettable. It's not meant to compete against the other architecture but it doesn't necessarily complement it either.

It's something to definitely consider but what are we here for if we're not going to be a little critical.

Originally Posted by StethJeff

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

I'm not going to lie when I say that you're extremely ignorant of construction techniques. This project isn't meant to emulate the entirety of structural capsules the way Zaha Hadid's work does. This was also designed/constructed in a specific era in which technology has since evolved removing certain impossibilities. What are you expecting it to look like?

Originally Posted by HunterK

I hope for them to change. Though I am probably 1 of the few people on this forum who doesnt expect them to. That doesn't stop me from being disappointed by most new projects timelines/designs.

No, it's not ignorant. LA's homes beat the rest of the US, thats a given as I stated before. But buildings, anyone who's traveled to the 10 biggest cities in the US would agree their architecture beats LA's hands down. Historic & construction going up currently.

LA has the beaches, and the moderate weather year around that those cities don't. Thats nothing to be ashamed of.

I. just. can't.

The problem is that you're looking at physical construction versus. If that were the case downtown would be a losing battle because of the quality of construction/proposals going up right now is not very good.

But what's even more disappointing is the fact that there are ambitious proposals that fall through or just get drastically changed. We can't ultimately control all aspects of the process if at all.

However, you should look at the knowledge exported and the influence of opinion leaders within the industry (Frank Gehry, Thom Mayne, etc) to the emerging set (Neil Denari, EOM) to even have a grasp on why architecture has changed so much within the last decades.

Originally Posted by citywatch

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...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.

Well, there's a reason I stick around this forum from time to time. L.A. receives a lot of flack even with people I encounter in Brooklyn. Downtown is definitely an interesting place. I didn't live there because I lived on the westside for education purposes.


For me L.A. is a lot more interesting and enjoyable as a place to live if that answers your lingering questions about me.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

Does StethJeff live in a blimp or something

Nope. But the fantasy ended when I got to see the amazing view from my buddy's office in the Bank of America building. From above, WDCH reminds me a lot of the Wild West facades at Universal Studios, basically looks incomplete.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by bjornson

Well, there's a reason I stick around this forum from time to time. L.A. receives a lot of flack even with people I encounter in Brooklyn. Downtown is definitely an interesting place.

bjornson, thanks for clearing up your overall pov about LA, but I still think that what bothers you the most about the city....esp dtla....is not what bothers most other ppl, including those who live in places like brooklyn, or london, or SF, or Minneapolis, or seattle, or Paris, or san diego.

I don't think the average, typical person living in or visiting LA who goes is due to their being unhappy cuz newer devlpt isn't good enough to earn a pritzer prize. I think the average person is unimpressed or feels negative towards the city cuz of things like what's shown in that photo I posted above.

The average person is far more likely to notice how rundown or fugly....in a slum sort of way....a place is far more than they're going to notice whether new projs don't fit what many sspers....or ppl into Urban Planning 101....tend to emphasize & prize above everything else.

btw, when it comes to disney hall as seen from above, it's actually a rather clean looking rooftop. in comparison, the older part of the music center, built in the 1960s, which also was originally made to have a clean rooftop as seen from above, has since been affected by renovations over the past 15 yrs. The fugly clutter of AC equipment & other junk....which should be hidden....has been installed on the roofs of both the mark Taper forum & Ahmanson theater.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

I don't want to join the negativity chorus on this forum but these complaints that things aren't moving fast enough while ignoring the fact that economics play a very key role is getting old.

that's why it's worth noting that the apex apt tower, formerly the concerto tower, still has over 45 apts available for lease. It was a bit over 50 units several wks ago, but the absorption of apts in that bldg seems to be going down slower than it has in the new 1111 wilshire apt bldg....which is a short, wood framed proj.

There also are still unsold units in the Evo tower....much less the ritz carlton tower....which is a very good reason why highrise construction in dt that contains condos instead of apts remains an unrealistic idea.

as another comparison, the dreaded faux tuscan apt projs of GH palmer, which represents a far larger portion of new apts in dt than from any other builder, seemed to have their units snapped up faster. So shorter, wood framed construction is presumably less difficult to pencil out & easier to provide a good return to the devlpr.

[LA/OCman]

Originally Posted by citywatch

that's why it's worth noting that the apex apt tower, formerly the concerto tower, still has over 45 apts available for lease. It was a bit over 50 units several wks ago, but the absorption of apts in that bldg seems to be going down slower than it has in the new 1111 wilshire apt bldg....which is a short, wood framed proj.

There also are still unsold units in the Evo tower....much less the ritz carlton tower....which is a very good reason why highrise construction in dt that contains condos instead of apts remains an unrealistic idea.

as another comparison, the dreaded faux tuscan apt projs of GH palmer, which represents a far larger portion of new apts in dt than from any other builder, seemed to have their units snapped up faster. So shorter, wood framed construction is presumably less difficult to pencil out & easier to provide a good return to the devlpr.

The reasonably priced units Downtown will rent out quickly, the higher priced units take time. It seems like Apex is doing OK. They started rentals a year ago and had 271 units. I am not sure about Evo, but at the Rowan the developer stopped sales on 30 units back during the recession. He rented them out...smart move. He can now sell the units at a much higher price.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ The incessant complaints about the use of stucco really need to stop, though. You and colemonkee keep beating up on a horse that's long been dead. I'm in agreement that Glo and the new complex at Wilshire/La Brea are terrible, but just because a building is clad in stucco doesn't automatically render it absolute crap. And let's not forget that LA's architectural vernacular, Spanish Revival, uses stucco as its primary material. There's a place for it.

Do we think the new Southwestern Law School housing looks bad? I don't.

Where was I talking about stucco?

[ConstructDTLA]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

Really?

New York, New York (pop 8,213,839)
2. Los Angeles, California (pop 3,794,640)
3. Chicago, Illinois (pop 2,824,584)
4. Houston, Texas (pop 2,076,189)
5. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (pop 1,517,628)
6. Phoenix, Arizona (pop 1,476,331)
7. San Diego, California (pop 1,284,347)
8. San Antonio, Texas (pop 1,258,733)
9. Dallas, Texas (pop 1,246,185)
10. Detroit, Michigan (pop 921,147)
11. San Jose, California (pop 908,870)


Read more: http://www.city-data.com/top1.html#ixzz2gIGK0InA

Sorry, I shouldn't of said 10 biggest cities. I should've said 10 most architecturally dense cities. That makes it even MORE sad that LA with a population of nearly 4million pales in comparison (architecturally) to much smaller cities with considerable smaller populations.

[BOYCOTT 90210]

Originally Posted by HunterK

Sorry, I shouldn't of said 10 biggest cities. I should've said 10 most architecturally dense cities. That makes it even MORE sad that LA with a population of nearly 4million pales in comparison (architecturally) to much smaller cities with considerable smaller populations.

Just go move there then so we don't have to hear about it?

[inSaeculaSaeculorum]

Originally Posted by bjornson

The update on the Grand Ave project is promising in that it won't look cheap but certainly lacks ambition design-wise. It has that zZZZzzzZZZZ-look that certain towers have here on the westside of Manhattan. Quality materials and construction but also has the potential to be forgettable. It's not meant to compete against the other architecture but it doesn't necessarily complement it either.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the Grand Ave update on the boring side. Sometimes I think I might be going crazy when people erupt in cheers over a project that just seems very mediocre to me, particularly for that crucial intersection. In fact the Grand Ave update reminds me a of a slightly disjointed version of 717 Olympic, with its podium, boxy look and even the top resembling those "hats" that are prevalent in so many new resedential buildings going up all over Los Angeles