HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4541  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 8:28 PM
Mojeda101's Avatar
Mojeda101 Mojeda101 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,474
6th?! How dare you!

lol
     
     
  #4542  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 9:26 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTLAdenizen View Post
I also agree 100% ^

We are 15 years (optimistically) from being at CURRENT DTSF level livability. Triple that for NYC. It doesn't make sense to pay top dollar to live in whats at best the 6th nicest Downtown in the nation.

assuming NYC, Chicago, SF, Seattle, Boston are the five ahead of us? cant argue any of those
     
     
  #4543  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 9:49 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,791
Tom Gilmore plans to build a major contemporary art museum in the Historic Core. With MOCA, Broad, the Schimmel arts complex and now this museum DTLA will become one of the top places to see contemporary art anywhere.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/06/ol...become_an_incredible_art_museum.php#more
     
     
  #4544  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 10:42 PM
Muji's Avatar
Muji Muji is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,190
Here are some renderings from the Curbed story about the Old Bank District Museum proposal.

Photo credit: The Architect's Newspaper via Curbed LA




I won't dispute the merits of having an art museum in the Historic Core, but the proposed design leaves me completely unimpressed. This is a big opportunity to do something with that awful garage, easily one of the neighborhood's ugliest buildings, and yet it's going to go practically untouched. It's as if the museum is literally trying to elevate itself above the public realm while making no attempt to improve or interact with it. They can do so much better than that.
     
     
  #4545  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 10:45 PM
brudy's Avatar
brudy brudy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat View Post
Tom Gilmore plans to build a major contemporary art museum in the Historic Core. With MOCA, Broad, the Schimmel arts complex and now this museum DTLA will become one of the top places to see contemporary art anywhere.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/06/ol...become_an_incredible_art_museum.php#more
Freaking awesome. Downtown will the epicenter for contemporary art. And given that it's Gilmore, it seems likely to happen.
     
     
  #4546  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 10:53 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 761
It's pretty dilusional to think that downtown LA does not deserve to be in the same price point as the other cities mentioned. People WANT to be in LA due to weather, amenities and culture. That's why the prices are skyrocketing.

Ava, Avant, etc... will command those prices because people are willing to pay and there is a large customer base ready to soak it in. If there wasn't, then the prices would fall.

Simple economics
     
     
  #4547  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 11:00 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,420
Also consider that the buildings that have been there for awhile are not cheap and are doing well. Buildings like Savoy, Sakura, Market Lofts, etc. People are willing to pay top dollar to live in DTLA
     
     
  #4548  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 11:10 PM
alki alki is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
This would be huge win for California and i have been keeping an eye on it. I imagine that the State will offer up land in the Inland Empire or another impoverished area to jump start their economy but if they come to the Downtown area, it would be welcome news for everyone.
Well DTLA makes good sense..........plenty of transportation for moving goods.......trains and trucks, and lots of mass transit to get workers to work. Just don't know if there is land or plant space available for such a big operation.
     
     
  #4549  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 11:13 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,791
DTLA rents are still below those of SF and Santa Monica, so it's not quite entirely out of whack at this point.

But as others have said if the market can't support them then the rents will drop, or else landlords will offer incentives like free rent. High rental prices are of less concern to me than high condo prices, which can sometimes signal a real estate bubble.
     
     
  #4550  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 1:23 AM
brudy's Avatar
brudy brudy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim View Post
It's pretty dilusional to think that downtown LA does not deserve to be in the same price point as the other cities mentioned. People WANT to be in LA due to weather, amenities and culture. That's why the prices are skyrocketing.

Ava, Avant, etc... will command those prices because people are willing to pay and there is a large customer base ready to soak it in. If there wasn't, then the prices would fall.

Simple economics
I'm not talking citywide, just DTLA. You can easily make an argument for higher rents in SM. I don't think the quality of life is quite here yet in DTLA to be charging these rents for the size. On the flip side, renters are getting new or newish units.

Looking at rents for Sakura Crossing, you can get a ton of stuff for under 2k, and not just studios. These new buildings are dreaming I think, and it will be interesting to see if they lower prices or just wait it out.
     
     
  #4551  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 7:32 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,845
I mean, I'm not saying that DTLA cant command the high rents, it can easily. What I'm saying is developers need to spread it out a bit instead of focusing on the luxury market, how about constructing some medium market unites. I know a lot of people who would love to live DT, but I know few willing to pay $2500 for a studio the size of a broom closet. I thought developers were building the wood frame buildings because its cheaper and they can cram more units into the floor plans yet why are some of the prices on par with its high rise counter parts?
     
     
  #4552  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 7:50 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
I mean, I'm not saying that DTLA cant command the high rents, it can easily. What I'm saying is developers need to spread it out a bit instead of focusing on the luxury market, how about constructing some medium market unites. I know a lot of people who would love to live DT, but I know few willing to pay $2500 for a studio the size of a broom closet. I thought developers were building the wood frame buildings because its cheaper and they can cram more units into the floor plans yet why are some of the prices on par with its high rise counter parts?
Because there is a large market this is underserved and waiting for these units to come online.

Downtown LA has a significant housing shortage is over 2,000 applied for 44 units that went on sale in Barket Block just 2 months ago. Our leased up rates are above 90% (I even heard 99%), meaning that vacancy is nil. Hence, the price point will keep skyrocketing.

Not all units built are luxury. Ava, Avant, etc... probably have a common area with a pool, theater, jacuzzi, gym and recreation room. Those are not 'luxury' compared to Watermarke or 717 Olympic with valet services. Those have become standard downtown amenities.

Developers are going to game the market for money, just like any reasonable business person. It's a tough market, and downtown is still going through the roof in terms of popularity and demand.
     
     
  #4553  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 8:31 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,450
Parking Requirements and Housing Development: Regulation and Reform in Los Angeles

Of possible interest. Access magazine is published bi-annually by the University of California Transportation Center. It is an excellent source of information relating to transportation and land-use issues in CA.

Parking Requirements and Housing Development: Regulation and Reform in Los Angeles

By Michael Manville
Spring 2014
Access magazine

"When cities require off-street parking with all new residential construction, they shift what should be a cost of driving—the cost of parking a car—into the cost of housing. A price drivers should pay at the end of their trips becomes a cost developers must bear at the start of their projects. Faced with these minimum parking requirements, developers may build less housing, and the housing they do build may be more likely to include parking. Parking requirements could therefore reduce both the amount and variety of housing in a city.

Will parking requirements always have this impact? No. In low-density areas where parking is cheap and most people want it, developers might build lots of parking even if it isn’t required. In downtowns and inner cities, however, parking requirements could profoundly alter the housing stock. Downtown land is expensive, its parcels are often small and irregular, and its buildings frequently cover their entire lots. In these situations, any on-site parking must be subterranean or structured, which is always expensive and sometimes physically impossible.

When parking is difficult to provide, laws that require it on-site with housing are laws that constrain the housing market. Minimum parking requirements can make it difficult to build housing for certain people, on certain parcels, in certain buildings, or in certain neighborhoods. When cities require on-site parking with every unit, developers cannot build housing explicitly for people without cars (who are often low-income), or for people who own cars but are willing to park off-site. The law also makes it difficult to construct housing on small parcels. Nor can developers easily convert old buildings into housing. Central cities have many architecturally and historically significant buildings that predate widespread vehicle ownership and thus lack parking or the space to add it. These old buildings should be a competitive advantage for cities; they are a pleasing amenity most suburbs lack. If parking requirements keep these buildings vacant, however, they become albatrosses rather than assets. And if old buildings and small parcels dominate a neighborhood, as they do in many inner cities, then parking requirements can stifle an entire neighborhood’s growth. Parking requirements could, in sum, obstruct infill development, affordable development, and neighborhood redevelopment..."

http://www.uctc.net/access/44/access44_parking-requirements.shtml
     
     
  #4554  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 8:48 PM
brudy's Avatar
brudy brudy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
Of possible interest. Access magazine is published bi-annually by the University of California Transportation Center. It is an excellent source of information relating to transportation and land-use issues in CA.

Parking Requirements and Housing Development: Regulation and Reform in Los Angeles

By Michael Manville
Spring 2014
Access magazine

"When cities require off-street parking with all new residential construction, they shift what should be a cost of driving—the cost of parking a car—into the cost of housing. A price drivers should pay at the end of their trips becomes a cost developers must bear at the start of their projects. Faced with these minimum parking requirements, developers may build less housing, and the housing they do build may be more likely to include parking. Parking requirements could therefore reduce both the amount and variety of housing in a city.

Will parking requirements always have this impact? No. In low-density areas where parking is cheap and most people want it, developers might build lots of parking even if it isn’t required. In downtowns and inner cities, however, parking requirements could profoundly alter the housing stock. Downtown land is expensive, its parcels are often small and irregular, and its buildings frequently cover their entire lots. In these situations, any on-site parking must be subterranean or structured, which is always expensive and sometimes physically impossible.

When parking is difficult to provide, laws that require it on-site with housing are laws that constrain the housing market. Minimum parking requirements can make it difficult to build housing for certain people, on certain parcels, in certain buildings, or in certain neighborhoods. When cities require on-site parking with every unit, developers cannot build housing explicitly for people without cars (who are often low-income), or for people who own cars but are willing to park off-site. The law also makes it difficult to construct housing on small parcels. Nor can developers easily convert old buildings into housing. Central cities have many architecturally and historically significant buildings that predate widespread vehicle ownership and thus lack parking or the space to add it. These old buildings should be a competitive advantage for cities; they are a pleasing amenity most suburbs lack. If parking requirements keep these buildings vacant, however, they become albatrosses rather than assets. And if old buildings and small parcels dominate a neighborhood, as they do in many inner cities, then parking requirements can stifle an entire neighborhood’s growth. Parking requirements could, in sum, obstruct infill development, affordable development, and neighborhood redevelopment..."

http://www.uctc.net/access/44/access44_parking-requirements.shtml
What was the original logic behind parking minimums? It seems like a solution without a problem and makes no sense to me.
     
     
  #4555  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 8:52 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by brudy View Post
What was the original logic behind parking minimums? It seems like a solution without a problem and makes no sense to me.
Correction-- the article I posted is essential reading.

Cirrus, who posts on other threads on this site, can answer the question better than I can but the reason behind parking minimums-- these are often based in zoning codes written in the 1950s and 1960s-- was to build cities around the movement of automobiles. These automobiles needed to place to be stored or parked during the day. Parking minimums were urban planner's positivist/rationalist approach to this in a different era when expediting movement of vehicles from the suburbs to the central business district was the main goal.

I encourage people on this thread to read some of the literature by Donald Shoup, who is a professor at UCLA and perhaps the most prominent scholar of parking.
     
     
  #4556  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 10:05 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by brudy View Post
What was the original logic behind parking minimums? It seems like a solution without a problem and makes no sense to me.
I think parking minimums can make some sense in suburban neighborhoods with high rates of car ownership. For instance, some of the Trader Joe's I've been to do not have adequate onsite parking. So what do their customers do? They either park in next door business's lots or park on the streets in neighboring residential areas, taking away parking spots from the area residents.
     
     
  #4557  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 11:11 PM
brudy's Avatar
brudy brudy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat View Post
I think parking minimums can make some sense in suburban neighborhoods with high rates of car ownership. For instance, some of the Trader Joe's I've been to do not have adequate onsite parking. So what do their customers do? They either park in next door business's lots or park on the streets in neighboring residential areas, taking away parking spots from the area residents.
Yeah, that's true (especially the one in Silverlake). So maybe it makes sense in a suburban, commercial setting. But it feels a lot harder to justify parking minimums in a residential, mixed use urban context.
     
     
  #4558  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 11:58 PM
ConstructDTLA's Avatar
ConstructDTLA ConstructDTLA is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim View Post
Because there is a large market this is underserved and waiting for these units to come online.

Downtown LA has a significant housing shortage is over 2,000 applied for 44 units that went on sale in Barket Block just 2 months ago. Our leased up rates are above 90% (I even heard 99%), meaning that vacancy is nil. Hence, the price point will keep skyrocketing.

Not all units built are luxury. Ava, Avant, etc... probably have a common area with a pool, theater, jacuzzi, gym and recreation room. Those are not 'luxury' compared to Watermarke or 717 Olympic with valet services. Those have become standard downtown amenities.

Developers are going to game the market for money, just like any reasonable business person. It's a tough market, and downtown is still going through the roof in terms of popularity and demand.
Your DTLA optimism never ceases to amaze me. Its almost as if you spend no time in the neighborhood (certainly none in Historic Core).

A simple, non-rhetorical question for you:

If there is a significant housing shortage with a large amount of people 'waiting for these units to come online', then why is there so much vacancy in Apex, Watermarke, 717? These new buildings will be at the same price points, and will unfortunately have just as much vacancy. At least until DTLA becomes decent (2017 onward).
     
     
  #4559  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2014, 12:01 AM
Mojeda101's Avatar
Mojeda101 Mojeda101 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,474
2017? Let's not get too ahead of ourselves Denizen.
     
     
  #4560  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2014, 12:03 AM
DistrictDirt's Avatar
DistrictDirt DistrictDirt is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTLAdenizen View Post
Your DTLA optimism never ceases to amaze me. Its almost as if you spend no time in the neighborhood (certainly none in Historic Core).

A simple, non-rhetorical question for you:

If there is a significant housing shortage with a large amount of people 'waiting for these units to come online', then why is there so much vacancy in Apex, Watermarke, 717? These new buildings will be at the same price points, and will unfortunately have just as much vacancy. At least until DTLA becomes decent (2017 onward).
How much vacancy do those buildings have? And are they condos or apartments?
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:46 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.