LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[inSaeculaSaeculorum]

Originally Posted by BOYCOTT 90210

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

There is criticism on this forum that is accompanied with analysis and suggestions that make for constructive discussion which a lot of people here engage in and its a good thing.

Then there is criticism that basically amounts to "this is bad because *I* don't like it" or "this neighborhood sucks because *I* don't like it" or "there's too many of a certain type of people in this neighborhood and *I* don't like them" and nothing else, ad nauseum, by which certain posters who shall go unnamed seem to engage in a continual and constant basis and it IS tiring.

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

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

I think those are referred to as "asshats".

And I agree with this sentiment. I don't see the big deal about this design, especially since other decent or average looking projects are trashed as being hideous.

Perhaps I feel this way 'cause I'm not an architecture nerd.

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by BOYCOTT 90210

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

He's planning on moving to Chicago

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

There is criticism on this forum that is accompanied with analysis and suggestions that make for constructive discussion which a lot of people here engage in and its a good thing.

Then there is criticism that basically amounts to "this is bad because *I* don't like it" or "this neighborhood sucks because *I* don't like it" or "there's too many of a certain type of people in this neighborhood and *I* don't like them" and nothing else, ad nauseum, by which certain posters who shall go unnamed seem to engage in a continual and constant basis and it IS tiring.

Personally, I find google street view shots and long winded diatribes about and dead zones to be infinitely more annoying.

[Trojan]

Hey ya'll, get ready for this... a picture!



8th and Hope starting to break through the skyline. As seen from LAAC.

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Personally, I find google street view shots and long winded diatribes about and dead zones to be infinitely more annoying.

I find both of these things equally annoying, and I don't see much difference in the two. Endlessly whining about parking lots and unattractive streets vs endlessly whining about architecture in the city, working class people waiting at a bus stop, etc.

[Trojan]

Originally Posted by eclipse

I find both of these things equally annoying, and I don't see much difference in the two. Endlessly whining about parking lots and unattractive streets vs endlessly whining about architecture in the city, working class people waiting at a bus stop, etc.

Yeah man, and when it gets to the point that the convo starts talking about other cities, we don't care anymore.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by eclipse

I find both of these things equally annoying, and I don't see much difference in the two. Endlessly whining about parking lots and unattractive streets vs endlessly whining about architecture in the city, working class people waiting at a bus stop, etc.

Well the mods don't seem to care and allow it to go on pretty much unchecked.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Personally, I find google street view shots and long winded diatribes about and dead zones to be infinitely more annoying.

Would you rather we instead complain about LAX & how it is....how horrible you've made it sound to be in some of your posts I've run across previously....as I've noticed you doing in another thread?

btw, kind of nervy of you to be complaining about how this forum is not moderated to your liking when I vaguely recall your giving a pat on the back awhile back to one of the biggest anti LA trolls in ssp....who to me has epitomized TOS violations by going out of his way to set up flame baits over & over again....whose name shall go unmentioned.

but this is a good time to ask you whether you even realize that your contempt for LAX can be applied to the city in general. That your disdain for LAX's domestic terminals....& even the new international terminal, which you say still comes up short (but I guess it's at least just a bit better than the roof of disney hall).....is similar to all the tired, older parts & ragged things of LA.

Did it ever occur to you that your reaction towards the airport is similar to the reaction of many ppl, who both live in LA or are visiting it, towards the things you say you're nonetheless bothered seeing mentioned here by me?

speaking of parking lots, notice how that particular thing regrettably stands out quite clearly in the view taken from this restaurant.....which is a very positive addition to the hood, sort of the type of thing that another forumer recently alluded to when he mentioned that good changes were occurring in dtla that he not long ago couldn't have imagined happening...


• Video Link


I'll say it again: when certain sspers moan & groan about some new proj not being good enough to earn a Pritzker prize or a seal of approval from the AIA...or violating some concept taught in an Urban planning 101 class....I bet that represents the concern & unhappiness of far, far fewer ppl in the public, compared with their reaction towards the type of things that I point out.

[Valyrian Steel]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure those people lost their lunch (or dinner) when they saw the parking lot underneath them. Do you realize most people who visit downtown are from suburbs where there are parking lots galore and are a completely normal part of life?

[citywatch]

ok, eclipse, you're right. that means there's nothing really negative to say about dt. It's all milk & honey.

We'll leave the negative comments up to ppl like this....

Grand Avenue project at turning point

After rejection of Grand Avenue project conceptual plan, deadline looms to renew developer's agreement with L.A. city-county authority.

By Seema Mehta and David Zahniser
September 29, 2013

The push to transform downtown's Grand Avenue into a Champs-Elysees for Los Angeles has faced years of delays and obstacles. The ambitious plan to create a tony cultural destination around the landmark Walt Disney Concert Hall has already been scaled back because of the recession. Now, with a key deadline set for Monday, the centerpiece of the Grand Avenue project — two towers offering luxury condos, a hotel, and high-end shops and restaurants — is facing another critical test.

In a little-noticed meeting last week, county Supervisor Gloria Molina and other officials unanimously rejected the conceptual plan for the $650-million project, with Molina criticizing the design and saying developer Related Cos. had failed to create an enticing public space that went beyond expensive shops and restaurants.

The move put the long-awaited project in jeopardy, according to alarmed business leaders and government officials. At midnight Monday, an agreement between the authority and Related will expire.

Carol Schatz, president and chief executive of the downtown-based Central City Assn., said she was "shocked and angry" over the committee's Sept. 23 vote to reject the proposal from Related, which has already committed $120 million to the Grand Avenue effort. "Coming so close to the deadline for the contract's ability to move forward, the vote really cast doubt as to whether the project could proceed at all with Related," Schatz said. "After nine years, that was shocking to hear."

The Los Angeles Grand Avenue Authority — a panel that includes representatives from the city and the county — voted 3 to 0 last week to reject the developer's proposal, a key milestone. Officials at the authority and their spokespeople say the vote was merely a rejection of the proposed plan, not of the developer. But according to a report prepared for the committee ahead of its Sept. 23 meeting, any vote to reject the plan is the same as killing the project outright.

During last week's meeting, Molina and county Chief Executive William T Fujioka made clear their displeasure with Related's proposal. Both said they did not see how it would be a high-caliber project for Grand Avenue, home to the Museum of Contemporary Art, the Frank Gehry-designed Disney Hall and the Broad Museum, which is expected to open in 2014.

Molina, who heads the committee, criticized the proposal's "boxiness" and complained that one entry facing Grand Avenue lacked "any architectural interest whatsoever."

"There's nothing there that lends itself in any aspect to a design that promotes any kind of pedestrian activity," any street activity or anything," she told the panel. "It is still a continuation to me of the fort-like conditions down Grand Avenue."

^ I actually share some of the disappointment of certain committee members about the new plans from related. however, it will be inexcusable if the type of pickiness often evident among certain forumers here towards design issues can't be resolved, & the grand ave proj is delayed for another 5 to 10 yrs, if not outright cancelled.

[Trojan]

Ugh the area around Grand Park is horrible anyway. Other cities, like with SO MUCH better architecture, would welcome such a project. Typical LA!!! Ugh.. I'm MOVING!!!!

[Kingofthehill]

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by citywatch

ok, eclipse, you're right. that means there's nothing really negative to say about dt. It's all milk & honey.

Not sure which part of my comment gave you the impression that I feel that way, but you can go ahead and believe that. I'm done with this discussion.

[WonderlandPark]

Long live the parking lot. Big MEH. So typical for LA, lets here it for a temporary 40 year old parking ramp...here's to a long 40 more years....

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by eclipse

Not sure which part of my comment gave you the impression that I feel that way, but you can go ahead and believe that.

eclipse, I was just giving you a friendly jab in the ribs, so don't take it for more than it is. actually, if you're one of those forumers who resents seeing debbie downer type of posts about dt in this thread, I can fully understand & respect that. In fact, I often feel the same way when comments here are a downer & give a disappointing tone to the subj of dtla. but I also believe that honesty is the best policy.

speaking of policy, I came across a poll last yr from a group called public policy polling.....how do you like that segue? A question that SSPers need to consider is whether they think the following sad reflection on LA is due to the town not having Pritizker quality architecture or whether it's due to the type of things I've pointed out? whatever the case, this indicates something is amiss....very much so....with our fair city.

American cities favorability poll

The Pacific Northwest has a good reputation nationwide--the two most popular of the 21 prominent cities we asked about in our national poll last weekend are Seattle and Portland, OR. 57% of American voters see Seattle favorably and only 14% unfavorably, edging out Portland (52-12) by three points on the margin.

The most unpopular is Detroit, which only 22% see positively and 49% negatively. Americans have net-negative impressions of only two other of these cities, and both are in California: Oakland (21-39) and Los Angeles (33-40). In February, PPP found California to be the least popular state in the union. It does have the 11th most popular city, though: San Francisco (48-29).

publicpolicypolling.com

however, I remain resentful of those ppl who love to bad mouth some new proj in dt cuz to them it's not totally to their liking....due to its design, or size, or urban planning characteristics....and then have the nerve to turn around & say that the negative points I mention....which I think bother way more ppl in the public than what bothers the typical urbanist enrolled in Urban planning 101 or in a course sponsored by the AIA....are somehow wrong or irrelevant or not appropriate for this thread.

[alki]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

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.

And this is not just LA. Other cities have reduced their parking requirements but developers are still building projects with lots of parking. Like you, I am in favor of parking minimums but many people are still dependent on cars in this country.

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.

Yes, that is very progressive for LA. Fifteen years ago, it never would have happened. So progress is being made.

[alki]

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.

Good points. Its hard for developers to come up with the kind of hi rise towers with expensive materials that people want on this forum if the economics are not there. However, that doesn't mean what is built can not be well designed. Truth be told some developers just have bad taste.

[blackcat23]

Well, back to the drawing board on Grand Avenue I guess. Disappointing, but maybe it's a chance to get something better out of it. I've listened to a few of their meetings, and it really seems like Gloria Molina had her heart set on the old Frank Gehry design.

[alki]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

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

No one's calling it outstanding architecture but its definitely an interesting design as its currently shown......I think one of the best if not the best this cycle. Its good to have high expectations but its important to also keep them in perspective. Outstanding architecture doesn't come along every day.