LOS ANGELES | Central City Project Rundown 5.0

[alki]

Originally Posted by caligrad

My assumption..... AEG said that they weren't building a downtown stadium anymore....but they didn't necessarily rule out building a stadium somewhere else.... My guess is they are blocking the other 2 proposals, stalling so that they make a deal somewhere to build there's.

My happily ever after moment.....If the city rezones a lot of the warehouses that currently line the LA river in the south/east corner of downtown, where the 10 meets the river, Build a stadium over there. Will spur development against the river and we will have developers racing to build against a hopefully revamped river/park...

Warehouses downtown aren't needed anymore, especially with industrial facilities/warehouses spread out all over the county and enough vacancies to pick up the exodus of industrial zones of downtown. Whats the point of revitalizing the river if its going to be lined with rail and warehouses. The rail can easily be capped/ covered with developments/ parks.


Sorry. I sometimes forget this isn't sim city still possible though with the right leaders and investors..... Maybe??

LASportsFan is right..........warehouse vacancies are low in LA. However, I suspect there are a number of possible locations.........ones with mostly vacant land........like a site similar to this one near Cornfield Park.....that require minimal demolition:



Of course, it needs to be near a light rail station too so that parking requirements are minimized.

Originally Posted by retina

Have we not heard the last from AEG? Garcetti says still could happen....

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/los-angeles-mayor-downtown-nfl-stadium-happen-29761326

Yeah, I can't imagine DTLA and Garcetti taking a pass if it looks like the NFL is coming back to LA.

[citywatch]

this is interesting mainly in terms of the issue of parking & how much or little of that is needed in dt, & at what cost. I'm sure ppl like gloria molina....living in a bubble & trapped in the past....must be smirking & saying 'I told ya so, I told ya so'.





the owner of acme reminds me of the owner of that large blue jean pants store on broadway, the one near ross. In an interview, he said although it was unfortunate his business no longer was viable in dt, he was happy to see the hood around him being revived.

[sportbiker]

^It's a cultural thing. In this town, free parking is assumed to be in the preamble to the Constitution, so any cost is "exorbitant." However, someone from SF or NYC or other major urban metro would likely scoff at how low our parking rates are.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Sounds great except industrial vacancy in central LA is less than 3%

OH I didn't mean it like that. Yeah Downtown vacancies are low, Which is to be expected with proximity to all the major rails and etc. what I was saying is
If the LA river revitalization plan is as grand as we all hope and wish for and we get lucky enough to cap the rails with parks/ development. The big push east for downtown expanding isn't being blocked by skid row, but its being blocked by the fact that nearly, if not more, 1/3 of the downtown loop ( everything within the 10/110/101/5), is warehouses...

That was fine and dandy before but with downtown heating up and becoming more of a residential, commerce, tourist center than the warehouse issue needs to be addressed. Google maps, satellite view over downtown, The streets on the east are randomly laid, The blocks are massive and need to be cut up. If the city ever rezoned everything in the south east corner of downtown corner, The other industrial centers of the county can handle the extra demand i'm sure. Vacancies by the port and in Vernon and commerce or as low as downtown. Putting a NFL stadium by the river would do wonders for that area with development.

[ConstructDTLA]

I guess since everyones out with the weekend masses I'll post the 40-story pipe dream tower at 525 S Spring St;



One of the commenters on Facebook said it best, "looks like a cost-engineered Aqua."

[Easy]

Originally Posted by sportbiker

^It's a cultural thing. In this town, free parking is assumed to be in the preamble to the Constitution, so any cost is "exorbitant." However, someone from SF or NYC or other major urban metro would likely scoff at how low our parking rates are.

Huh? You think that these parking garages will be offering free parking? And who are these people in LA that assume that parking will be free? Not in the city I don't think.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by DTLAdenizen

One of the commenters on Facebook said it best, "looks like a cost-engineered Aqua."

There's no question that Aqua served as the main design inspiration, but it's still incredibly gorgeous. No complaints here.

[BOYCOTT 90210]

The rendering is missing the balcony rails. Lol

[jamesinclair]

Originally Posted by ThomJames

I really don't think that there are many developers that are willing to skimp on parking. They would be taking a major risk. For most tenants/ purchasers, parking is the first question out of there mouths.

You keep making these statements.

"a lot of people"
"most tenants"

I'm sorry, but do you have any FACTS to back up these meaningless terms?

As Brudy pointed out, in Manhattan the car ownership rate is under 20%. Most of us wouldnt say that's "a lot"

You also fail to understand the induced demand principal. You build a parking space and make someone pay for it as part of their rent, they might as well fill it with a car. You dont, and guess what, the people who move in wont bring cars with them.

Originally Posted by ThomJames

H
Most new high rises I have seen in NY have quite a bit of parking.

Uh, [citation needed]


Also, not in Los Angeles, but in the East Coast I was part of a parking study in an urban area. We looked at garage utilization of 4 major garages for residential buildings.

None of them ever went past 50% utilization. We're talking 4,000 spaces, and yet 2,000 ALWAYS sat empty, even when local events drew more people than normal.

Oh, but that didnt stop the local hospital from starting construction on a new 600 stall garage.

Problem is, everybody is territorial. The condo building with the 300 spot garage and 50% utilization is not going to rent extra spots to the hospital, ever. It's "residents only", and those residents are paying for something they dont want or need.

And the hospital is not going to lease 500 spots that sit empty in the municipal garage because they want to have their own. It's because of stupid budgeting crap: they have a capital budget they can spend (Millions for a garage!) but they dont want to / can't take on a monthly rental expense which will save the money in the end because the budget isnt set up for that.

It's idiotic, and we as a country as pouring billions down the drain for this crap.

Originally Posted by BOYCOTT 90210

The rendering is missing the balcony rails. Lol

I think it's intentional. it's the dead-space parking podium

[ByTheBay]

Originally Posted by BOYCOTT 90210

The rendering is missing the balcony rails. Lol

I see the rails. They look like glass rails so they almost appear invisible.

[bobbyv]

^^^So is that project really just a pipe dream?

[ThomJames]

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

You keep making these statements.

"a lot of people"
"most tenants"

I'm sorry, but do you have any FACTS to back up these meaningless terms?

As Brudy pointed out, in Manhattan the car ownership rate is under 20%. Most of us wouldnt say that's "a lot"

You also fail to understand the induced demand principal. You build a parking space and make someone pay for it as part of their rent, they might as well fill it with a car. You dont, and guess what, the people who move in wont bring cars with them.



Uh, [citation needed]


Also, not in Los Angeles, but in the East Coast I was part of a parking study in an urban area. We looked at garage utilization of 4 major garages for residential buildings.

None of them ever went past 50% utilization. We're talking 4,000 spaces, and yet 2,000 ALWAYS sat empty, even when local events drew more people than normal.

Oh, but that didnt stop the local hospital from starting construction on a new 600 stall garage.

Problem is, everybody is territorial. The condo building with the 300 spot garage and 50% utilization is not going to rent extra spots to the hospital, ever. It's "residents only", and those residents are paying for something they dont want or need.

And the hospital is not going to lease 500 spots that sit empty in the municipal garage because they want to have their own. It's because of stupid budgeting crap: they have a capital budget they can spend (Millions for a garage!) but they dont want to / can't take on a monthly rental expense which will save the money in the end because the budget isnt set up for that.

It's idiotic, and we as a country as pouring billions down the drain for this crap.



I think it's intentional. it's the dead-space parking podium

Well I live across from the Easten Columbia Bldg, and for the last few months they have been leasing the top floor of their parking structure to a valet parking service. Maybe for the Ace Hotel? So if you're mentioning condo buildings, that would depend on the HOA making that decision.

I'm not as familiar with condo buildings in Manhattan, but most in SF offer quite a bit of parking. I think developers should decide for themselves. I definitely would like the city of LA to lower parking requirements, especially in areas with strong public transport, but as someone recently commented, in the past that has just led to a bunch of people parking on the streets. (SF, WeHo being good examples)

I understand the concept of induced car usage/ parking (ex 405 widening), but from most people I know in downtown, parking is an additional charge from rent, not included. My building is like this, as well everyone else I know in Dtwn. Maybe some include the parking?, Dunno? But when parking is an additional charge there definitely is less inducement.

I think a major game changer for LA is the rising popularity of Uber and Lyft. LA's public transport continuously improves, but one major problem has been the 'last mile' of the commute or destination. In a lot of other cities you take transport for the bulk of the trip, and then grab a bus or cab a short distance to your destination. But with the dearth of cabs in LA, in addition to the sometimes challenging geography, that has been difficult in LA until recently. I think these services are making people rethink car ownership, or helping two car households reduce to one car.

[Docjalby]

The last mile thing is one of the biggest reason I'm a huge fan of the streetcar. Once that happens it would be a lot easier to get rid of most of the parking in the historical core.

[Illithid Dude]

I love how the Spring St. Tower blends so seamlessly in with the street wall, something I think most new development in downtown doesn't do. Hope to see this built.

[brudy]

I hope that gets built, despite the architectural incongruity. Reminds of the New Museum in the Bowery in NYC in terms of old + new. I wonder what the odds are of this actually happening...

[Mojeda101]

Don't expect anything in the immediate future.

If plans were to be submitted in 6 months, it will take about 2 years for entitlements, little over a year for design and permitting, and 2.5 - 3 years for construction.

Straight for DLANC.

[alki]

Stan Kroenke’s stadium plan has room for two teams

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/22/stan-kronekes-stadium-plan-has-room-for-two-teams/

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by brudy

I hope that gets built, despite the architectural incongruity. Reminds of the New Museum in the Bowery in NYC in terms of old + new. I wonder what the odds are of this actually happening...

That museums architecture is atrocious.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

That museums architecture is atrocious.

speaking of which, I know there are more than a few ppl....locally & probably nationally too....who have been disappointed by the design of the new museum going up on bunker hill, which opens in about 6 months.

Sort of the counterpart to that museum is another new one also soon to open in a major city on the east coast, the US's largest city, btw.



whitney.org


^ that museum is a bit different from the broad, however, since it's exclusive to art from american artists, was created over 80 yrs ago, & also includes works from earlier periods of time.

I've posted the following image before, which shows the counterpart up north to Disney Hall, located in a town long noted for being supposedly more ideal to urbanist concepts....& to pedestrians....esp when it comes to how parking & cars should be handled....



mapsgoogle.com


^ file that away in the category of 'the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the hill'. So even though a town is highly regarded among most urbanists & their ideas of how devlpt should or shouldn't be handled, that doesn't mean 'oops' will never occur.

as for a location down the hill from the broad & disney, I really want to see the apt tower proposed for 4th & hill, but also at 4th & broadway, & the proj farther away, at 5th & olive, go up ASAP since I want to see the northern sections of dt, closer to the civic ctr, be as well anchored as possible. I want this place to have as friendly a setting as possible, if only to make daytime visitors & tourists....more who will be in the general vicinity in about 6 months....not pause & feel a bit hesitant about whether things like the broad museum & Disney, but dtla in general, are as inviting as they can be.


• Video Link

[Mojeda101]

So 7th Street is getting a facelift, along with Broadway, and Figueroa as well. All of this will compliment the streetcar along it's path but is everyone actually prepared for loss of lanes and slower traffic? The Streetcar will be stuck in the middle of it since it doesn't even have a dedicated lane.