LOS ANGELES | Central City Project Rundown 5.0

[ConstructDTLA]

Some Wilshire Grand Tower pics from today:

Wilshire Grand by HunterKerhart.com, on Flickr

Wilshire Grand by HunterKerhart.com, on Flickr

Wilshire Grand by HunterKerhart.com, on Flickr


Edit:

Hotel conversion starts May 1st:

Foreman & Clark Building (1929, Claud Beelman) by HunterKerhart.com, on Flickr

[LAsam]

Thanks Hunter. Love that first photo. Don't get to see that perspective very often.

[brudy]

Great news about that hotel conversion! If Hill St flips over, it will really help connect both halves of downtown.

[Mojeda101]

Such a beautiful Hill St building. I pray to god that they completely clean that building up and make it a beacon for the rest of Hill St. Hopefully the old Warner across the street gets similar treatment.

[alki]

Originally Posted by ThomJames

I think the blame rests on the developers too. If I have a client that wants to spend $2 sq ft on a hard wood floor I try my best. If someone can spend $10-$20 obviously things get much more amazing. This doesn't only apply to exterior finishes. Avant garde designs also many times use more materials/ have dead spaces, which can significantly increase construction costs.

I think The projects on Olympic Blvd are really a case of monkey see, monkey do. Those developers saw other TCA projects and decided they could save money with off the shelf plans, and decided the product was 'good enough'. From a business perspective they are probably right, since already opened TCA buildings have leased up fast.

And I agree with your take on the architects too. I personally know quite a few architects and business was just horrible during those years. When you have to stay afloat, you pretty much have to take which ever projects you can get, and just be thankful you are able to pay your staff.

Yeah, I have friends who are architects and they end up putting up designs they don't like in order to keep food on the table. That's why I hate criticizing TCA but I can't help myself when I see how mediocre some of their designs are.

I came into development.....mostly rehab.........from the property mgmt side. So I know that tenants notice the little things that make a place different from other bldgs. So I would spend things on details that others might not. I felt it paid off in the long run but then I kept and managed the bldgs I did.

Some developers build a project, fill it and then flip it.......and then move on to the next project. They are are much more cost conscious in that kind of scenario. And lets face it.....its not that easy to be a developer. You risk a lot when you build these projects and if the market turns during construction, you are screwed big time.

[blackcat23]

http://urbanize.la/post/arts-district-subway-extension-still-alive

Metro still kicking around plans for new infill stations at 1st and 6th Streets in the Arts District.

[alki]

Originally Posted by brudy

That's very true and a great way to say it, although I'm not going to absolve them of responsibility. My brother in a law is an architect and I know how it tough it was during the recession. Still, some of TCA's designs are just so awful (with the worst being that huge one Wilshire).

I agree. I don't think they should be absolved but I also believe developers need to step up their game. You would think with all the bldg going on now they would push for better designs.

[alki]

Originally Posted by DTLAdenizen

Looks the same to me as it has for years. Maybe he ran out of money?

Singer Building Restoration 8th + Broadway by HunterKerhart.com, on Flickr

That's an awesome bldg. I hope the developer finds some money soon.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by alki

As for eliminating parking requirements, I don't think that's going to fly. Some cities already have no parking requirements and developers are still building projects with parking. Why? Americans want parking for their cars. The car is not going the way of the dodo bird........ at least not yet.

Low and zero parking ratios work just fine in not only San Francisco but Seattle and even Portland (which has a transit commute percentage similar to LA if I recall). San Francisco has the least of all of course, compared to a given rent level especially. All three routinely do buildings with far fewer spaces than units. I don't know about Portland, but the other two even routinely do buildings with zero parking.

I bet DTLA would do well with units maybe 15% cheaper due to no parking. Obviously the percentage discount, and the general allure, gets higher than that with the really small units. Pretty soon it's not just yuppies and empty nesters in the new buildings.

Edit: ThomJames, residential buildings frequently (usually?) don't want to rent their parking spaces to non-residents. Security issue.

[citywatch]

mainly one new proj highlighted here, the tallest one in the hood now rising....but at 2:02 another one, the current unfinished apt proj in little tokyo, also is glimpsed on vid....


• Video Link


not too comprehensive or satisfying in regards to the youtuber's travel route....or the way he edited his piece....but his vid does give a sense of work now underway on the connector line, & current glimpses of areas like all the projs going up at 9th & olive, & the foreman & clark bldg captured on film by dtladenizen. The end is another reminder of how the big gap at 5th & olive really needs to be filled in asap...


• Video Link

[blackcat23]

http://urbanize.la/post/shiny-new-renderings-4th-and-hill

More renderings and information on the 4th/Hill Tower. 33 stories/405 feet tall. 10 floors of parking, 2 underground and 2 above ground, providing one parking space per residential unit.

Most of the podium is wrapped with apartments. Of the 428 apartments, 22 will be very low income housing and 86 will be "workforce" housing.

[Kingofthehill]

Looks good! The pixelated façade is reminscent of alot of new towers in Toronto and Miami.

[brudy]

What does 'workforce' housing mean? A middle-class means-tested kind of thing?

[Docjalby]

Originally Posted by brudy

What does 'workforce' housing mean? A middle-class means-tested kind of thing?

Workforce means that they have to make + or - 20% of the average income of the surrounding area. so between $40k to $100k for a family of four.

[caldor120la]

Foreman and Clark building first mentioned 165 residential unit conversion will this mean a hotel or apartments? Whatever, wonderful addition.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

Workforce means that they have to make + or - 20% of the average income of the surrounding area. so between $40k to $100k for a family of four.

Workforce housing was a term developed to avoid the stigma and political opposition that affordable housing generates. Workforce housing is reduced rent housing (but more expensive than affordable or Section 8 housing) that is targeted at people such as teachers, firefighters, etc...

[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

Low and zero parking ratios work just fine in not only San Francisco but Seattle and even Portland (which has a transit commute percentage similar to LA if I recall). San Francisco has the least of all of course, compared to a given rent level especially. All three routinely do buildings with far fewer spaces than units. I don't know about Portland, but the other two even routinely do buildings with zero parking.

I bet DTLA would do well with units maybe 15% cheaper due to no parking. Obviously the percentage discount, and the general allure, gets higher than that with the really small units. Pretty soon it's not just yuppies and empty nesters in the new buildings.

Edit: ThomJames, residential buildings frequently (usually?) don't want to rent their parking spaces to non-residents. Security issue.

Insignia in DT Seattle will have 643 units and 1063 parking spaces when completed:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=452738

As for low-mid rise bldgs going up in neighborhoods, you and I have had this discussion in the past. Yes, developers are putting in less parking spaces in the new bldgs but the result is that people are parking on adjoining streets instead of their bldg. I don't consider that 'working fine'. And this is in a city [Seattle] where only 31% of DT workers get to work in a single occupancy auto.

Even the strongest advocates of mass transit usually have a car. In most American cities, its very difficult to get around simply on mass transit with maybe the exception of NYC. And even in Europe, my friends there tend to have at least one car per family.

I hate cars but I don't see them going away any time soon........and while they continue to be part of our lives, we need to have a place to park them.

[alki]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

http://urbanize.la/post/shiny-new-renderings-4th-and-hill

More renderings and information on the 4th/Hill Tower. 33 stories/405 feet tall. 10 floors of parking, 2 underground and 2 above ground, providing one parking space per residential unit.

Most of the podium is wrapped with apartments. Of the 428 apartments, 22 will be very low income housing and 86 will be "workforce" housing.

Wow. Am I wrong or has that bldg changed a lot from its earlier renderings? Is it the proposed bldg kitty corner to the Biltmore?

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by alki

Insignia in DT Seattle will have 643 units and 1063 parking spaces when completed:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=452738

As for low-mid rise bldgs going up in neighborhoods, you and I have had this discussion in the past. Yes, developers are putting in less parking spaces in the new bldgs but the result is that people are parking on adjoining streets instead of their bldg. I don't consider that 'working fine'. And this is in a city [Seattle] where only 31% of DT workers get to work in a single occupancy auto.

Even the strongest advocates of mass transit usually have a car. In most American cities, its very difficult to get around simply on mass transit with maybe the exception of NYC. And even in Europe, my friends there tend to have at least one car per family.

I hate cars but I don't see them going away any time soon........and while they continue to be part of our lives, we need to have a place to park them.

This is not true. In DC, several new buildings have been developed without any parking on-site. 35% of households in Washington don't have a car. Our building charges $300-$400 per month for parking and we sold our car as a result of this and have been car-free for a year and a half.

If you design cities around vehicles, especially with ridiculous minimum parking requirements, yes, then more people are going to have cars. This is a choice that planners make.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by alki

Wow. Am I wrong or has that bldg changed a lot from its earlier renderings? Is it the bldg kitty corner to the Biltmore?

It's kitty corner to the old Subway Terminal Building, now the Metro 417 Apartments.