LOS ANGELES | Central City Project Rundown 5.0

[alki]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

http://urbanize.la/post/mid-rise-apartment-complex-breaks-ground-broadway

Parking lot at 928 Broadway is torn up. Palmer's 10-story development is underway.

I hope that project looks okay when its built...........its massive and takes up two blocks.

[Muji]

Originally Posted by Wally West

Curbed just posted a rendering of the Grand Central Market Tower that blackcat posted yesterday.


Curbed's article

Well that is surely to be a game-changer for that little corner of downtown. It's about time the Historic Core got something nice and shiny. Hopefully their choice of architects doesn't make the forum explode

[brudy]

Originally Posted by alki

I hope that project looks okay when its built...........its massive and takes up two blocks.

It's probably not going to look ok. It's going to be his usual crap just with fake brick instead of stucco, and a whole of fake brick, at that. And given Palmer's history of zero interest in street retail, I almost wish this one were still a parking lot. He can't even be bothered to make the whole thing 10 storeys, just the Broadway side because it's required. What a turd.

On the plus side, a giant hell yeah to the 4th and Hill project.

[BrandonJXN]

It's chunky but I like it. Don't alter the design. Build it as is.

[colemonkee]

Ha! Muji, you hit that nail on the head, and know us all too well. Curbed is reporting that the architecture firm for the GCM-adjacent tower as none other than TCA, normally the bane of this forum's existence. If true, this would be somewhat of a redemption for TCA, as this design - at least from the first render - and gives me a shred of hope for their design next to the La Cienega stop of the Expo Line. Overall I like the massing, and how the building floats above the subway portal, and the tower design seems passable enough. The layout of the balconies is a bit tired, but I understand why they did that (likely to provide afternoon light, which would be a big selling point). And I would like to see more detailed renders of the mid-rise and the base, as the midrise appears to be an above ground parking garage with pretty wide open slats (which makes sense because putting parking below isn't possible given the subway). I'd like to see some detailed renders of that part specifically. But overall, this makes me optimistic.

[brudy]

So are they just building over the metrostop? I can still see the existing portapotty in the rendering.

And since it's TCA, they have plenty of time to make it worse.

[sportbiker]

I'd like to know the plan for garage entry/exit.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by sportbiker

I'd like to know the plan for garage entry/exit.

Good point. I think there's an alley behind what will be the building, perhaps they're planning on using that.

[BrandonJXN]

Would this qualify as a transit-oriented development?

[Beverly Hills Nimby]

Looks nice but do I really count a 7-level parking podium? Above a subway stop?

[alki]

Originally Posted by brudy

It's probably not going to look ok. It's going to be his usual crap just with fake brick instead of stucco, and a whole of fake brick, at that. And given Palmer's history of zero interest in street retail, I almost wish this one were still a parking lot. He can't even be bothered to make the whole thing 10 storeys, just the Broadway side because it's required. What a turd.

On the plus side, a giant hell yeah to the 4th and Hill project.

The good news is that its filling up a large dead space. Hopefully, it looks passable when its built.

[Beverly Hills Nimby]

Originally Posted by retina

I really wish there was a mid-range apartment complex coming on-line, much of the vibrant young community cannot pay upwards of 2300/month for a 1 bedroom. We need dense complexes with a price point of 1500-2500 for a 1 to 2 bedroom. Hopefully, some of these new 7 story buildings will come down to earth and welcome a whole group of people waiting to live downtown. Only then can we expect a wider range of food/retail options, until then it's Danny's Tacos or Faith and Flower with little else in between.

Glad to see someone has some good sense. Not many people can afford to live in these glass towers we all love. That's why its great to have some options (for young people like me) who can afford the Hanover Pacific 7-story TCA shit boxes but not the Onni 33-story towers.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by Beverly Hills Nimby

Glad to see someone has some good sense. Not many people can afford to live in these glass towers we all love. That's why its great to have some options (for young people like me) who can afford the Hanover Pacific 7-story TCA shit boxes but not the Onni 33-story towers.

I don't think the Hanover building is much cheaper than say 8th and Hope really. Onni is on a totally different level, but 8th and Hope, Hanover, Related tower (The Emerson) - they're all very pricey (per sq ft) especially compared to just a few years ago when everything in downtown was significantly lower. Even at AVA a 1-bdr 771 sq ft is >$2600. That's pretty insane to me. And I'm by no means poor.

Personally, I'd trade all the amenities for more space.

[ThomJames]

Crane up at Broadway Palace phase 1. Huzzah!!

[alki]

Originally Posted by Beverly Hills Nimby

Glad to see someone has some good sense. Not many people can afford to live in these glass towers we all love. That's why its great to have some options (for young people like me) who can afford the Hanover Pacific 7-story TCA shit boxes but not the Onni 33-story towers.

Why does good design have to be expensive? Some of the designs on these affordable housing projects are well done:

http://architizer.com/blog/affordable-housing/

http://www.citylab.com/design/2011/10/affordable-housing-doesnt-scream-affordable/326/

[elcoronel]

Originally Posted by brudy

Personally, I'd trade all the amenities for more space.

Exactly. All of these buildings are being built with a ridiculous amount of amenities that absolutely no-one needs and only serve to designate the development as a sort of 'luxury' development and therefore drive up the prices.
I wish that developers would build developments downtown with no extra amenities, no sense of 'luxury, offering just apartments that people actually need and can afford, similar to what can be found in certain converted buildings.

[alki]

Originally Posted by brudy

I don't think the Hanover building is much cheaper than say 8th and Hope really. Onni is on a totally different level, but 8th and Hope, Hanover, Related tower (The Emerson) - they're all very pricey (per sq ft) especially compared to just a few years ago when everything in downtown was significantly lower. Even at AVA a 1-bdr 771 sq ft is >$2600. That's pretty insane to me. And I'm by no means poor.

Personally, I'd trade all the amenities for more space.

I think its not just the cost of the amenities. There has been a major jump in downtown land costs in cities like LA, Portland and Seattle. I think developers are having trouble keeping the lid on rental prices. Cutting amenities would help but a developer can't get around the steep rise in land prices. The Historic Core will probably be the resource for more affordable rents going forward.

[Docjalby]

One bedrooms are all over the place for $1,800 to $2,500. One Sante Fe, Hanover, any of the Barry Shy properties.

The average person in DTLA is making $100k a year. That means they should be spending $30 to 35k per year on housing, meaning ~$2,800 a month in rent. A whole lot of these apartments are actually building with that price point in mind or cheaper.

I really just don't get people seeing a glass tower going up and then complaining that they can't afford to live there. I'd love to live on the beach in Malibu on a mansion, but it is not the fault of the mansion builder that I can't.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

One bedrooms are all over the place for $1,800 to $2,500. One Sante Fe, Hanover, any of the Barry Shy properties.

The average person in DTLA is making $100k a year. That means they should be spending $30 to 35k per year on housing, meaning ~$2,800 a month in rent. A whole lot of these apartments are actually building with that price point in mind or cheaper.

I really just don't get people seeing a glass tower going up and then complaining that they can't afford to live there. I'd love to live on the beach in Malibu on a mansion, but it is not the fault of the mansion builder that I can't.

Yeah, but if you're making over 100k you're probably not going to want to live in a barry shy building. It's about price per sq ft. You're not getting much space at all and yet you walk outside and you're still seeing people crap on your doorstep. I'm not always sure downtown is a great value proposition. People will put up with a lot more when the $/sq ft is in their favor (as it was a few years ago), but shelling out $2600 for 700 sq ft may not make sense when the neighborhood (outside of south park) is still very questionable. This is why South Park rents are a lot higher, because it's a better area.

My building has a constant stream of people who leave after only a year or two - they often can't take the neighborhood (core). They either move to SP or leave downtown altogether. I'd love to know the average length of tenure here.

And as for the downtown bid survey, the 2013 results had about ~3700 people respondents who were downtown residents. Is that enough to extrapolate? I'm sure the old and the poor are undercounted given that it's a web survey.

[bobcat]

There's so much additional housing coming onto the market in the next few years that I have to think it'll start putting downward pressure on rents. The reason why Onni is making Level DTLA into corporate housing is because they don't want to have to compete with all the other projects.