LOS ANGELES | Central City Project Rundown 5.0 - Page 436

Beverly Hills Nimby · #**8701** Posted **Mar 24, 2015, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobcat

Looks like another megaproject for downtown.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...ses-l-a-development-site-for-130-million

What on earth is SunCal doing buying a site in DTLA? They build large master-planned communities in the suburbs like the Inland Empire or in Northern Virginia.... SunCal used to own 10,000 Santa Monica Blvd and got it entitled for the building under construction now by Crescent Heights before they lost it in the Lehman bankruptcy.

brudy · #**8702** Posted **Mar 24, 2015, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beverly Hills Nimby

What on earth is SunCal doing buying a site in DTLA? They build large master-planned communities in the suburbs like the Inland Empire or in Northern Virginia.... SunCal used to own 10,000 Santa Monica Blvd and got it entitled for the building under construction now by Crescent Heights before they lost it in the Lehman bankruptcy.

This could be a terrible turn of events. That's a HUGE amount of urban land. Honestly, nothing good can from one developer building on that much land in a city, especially one with their track record. Newhall-on-Alameda anyone?

Quixote · #**8703** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 12:25 AM**

Wow, huge news. We now have three major developments proposed south of 6th Street. Exciting stuff!

That site is adjacent to the LOHA-designed "Industrial" project and a stone's throw away from the HansonLA-designed 1800 E. 7th Street. Both should set the architectural standard for this project.

RuFFy · #**8704** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 1:32 AM**

That's not the only thing coming to the arts district. Via the latimes:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hyperloop-20150325-story.html

ThomJames · #**8705** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brudy

This could be a terrible turn of events. That's a HUGE amount of urban land. Honestly, nothing good can from one developer building on that much land in a city, especially one with their track record. Newhall-on-Alameda anyone?

Jeez, I think it's a bit early to pull up in the negative wagon. We don't even know what their plans are yet. The City Market project at 11th and San Pedro is also a large plot of land, and the developers seem to be putting a lot of thought into that project.

timpdx · #**8706** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 3:20 AM**

Soon to be changing skyline shot tonight from Elysian Park, WG, Fig Central and Metropolis will be filling and/or dominating the right hand side of the pic soon enough.

caligrad · #**8707** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 3:28 AM**

^^^ Not bad. 2020-2030 and that picture will look like a different world.

caligrad · #**8708** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 3:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobcat

Looks like another megaproject for downtown.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...ses-l-a-development-site-for-130-million

So I guess I'm not the only one seeing the opportunity with buying some of those warehouse sites downtown. They really shouldn't be downtown anymore. But that being said, and like others have stated, one developer getting that much land especially in LA is never a good situation. " An opportunity for a planned community".....that never works out in the long run.

That translates to = we see lots of money for us but you guys will be getting stuck with a shit load of poor planning for a couple of decades.....I see a seven story mega development in our future. With that much land they might as well ask AEG to partner up with them for the DA** stadium.

But on the bright side....whatever happens...this will spur development towards the river... my grand master plan is working.

Metro considering 2 new redline stations in that area is just icing on the cake.

BOYCOTT 90210 · #**8709** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 4:10 AM**

delete

DJM19 · #**8710** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 4:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caligrad

So I guess I'm not the only one seeing the opportunity with buying some of those warehouse sites downtown. They really shouldn't be downtown anymore. But that being said, and like others have stated, one developer getting that much land especially in LA is never a good situation. " An opportunity for a planned community".....that never works out in the long run.

That translates to = we see lots of money for us but you guys will be getting stuck with a shit load of poor planning for a couple of decades.....I see a seven story mega development in our future. With that much land they might as well ask AEG to partner up with them for the DA** stadium.

But on the bright side....whatever happens...this will spur development towards the river... my grand master plan is working.

Metro considering 2 new redline stations in that area is just icing on the cake.

Im also weary of the huge plots of land. They are fine for industrial uses, but if they intent to put residential, please break up into smaller blocks! This should be the rule downtown.

citywatch · #**8711** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 5:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brudy

That's a HUGE amount of urban land. Honestly, nothing good can from one developer building on that much land in a city, especially one with their track record. Newhall-on-Alameda anyone?

this is what's there right now...

maps.google.com

^ that's the view of alameda st around 6th looking east. much of that side of dtla in general isn't vastly different from that.

Such a setting does call to mind...

...minus the tropical greenery, of course.

caligrad · #**8712** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 6:14 AM**

My biggest concern is that we end up getting Playa Vista type developments times 10......... Residential blocks that mimic office parks. all uniform, looking identical to one another, no originality, set back from the streets, nothing on the ground floor.

Best example of my fear......Picture One Santa Fe on steroids.... with no ground floor retail (only some needed, not saying that the whole ground floor needs retail)... and with MORE parking... one Santa Fe is already pretty massive, this will be even bigger.

That's just a fear though since obviously nothing has been presented. nothing has been submitted, nothing has been rendered. Just speculations of what may be. Looking at the worse possibility. We could all be pleasantly surprised with a mix of different buildings.... But prepared for this to take at least 10 years to get even partially completed.

brudy · #**8713** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by citywatch

this is what's there right now...

...minus the tropical greenery, of course.

So what? Who cares what's there right now? Just because something new is coming doesn't mean that the city shouldn't be looking further than the next two years. Just because it's turning over doesn't mean we're maximizing what should be done with the land. I feel like a broken record but we'll be stuck with what's being built now for decades. Why shortchange downtown for the next century just to tear down some warehouses faster? I don't understand that short term thinking at all. Better in 2020 does not equal better in 2025.

And the city seriously needs to figure out a way to incentivize breaking up these huge lots. They're bad in every way for the future - homogenized design, single owner controlling what type of retail (or if there's retail at all), lack of type and price of the leasing...Nothing good comes from a single developer for these huge wide plots. And people thought One Santa Fe was big. Hell, I think 8th and Grand is too big.

If the proposal turns out to be crap, show me where to sign up for NIMBY group...

alki · #**8714** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 5:25 PM**

The warehouse district grew jobs in the aught years while DT's office towers were 20% vacant. Probably some of the people working in that district live DT. I would not be in such a hurry to redevelop that area when there are still so many empty blocks in the urban core ripe for development.

Docjalby · #**8715** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alki

The warehouse district grew jobs in the aught years while DT's office towers were 20% vacant. Probably some of the people working in that district live DT. I would not be in such a hurry to redevelop that area when there are still so many empty blocks in the urban core ripe for development.

The vacancy right now in DTLA is 19.2%. Just happen to have that book sitting in front of me when I read this.

StethJeff · #**8716** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 5:32 PM**

I can't believe that people ar worrying this much about a site that is clearly industrial and clearly far from central DTLA. I think we all share the same concerns about the direction, density, purpose, etc. of DTLA but this just seems like such a low priority to get worked up about. The enormous amoeba that is the "Arts District" isn't gonna become some sort of 300,000 person chic converted industrial yuppie village overnight. Projects like this are probably gonna become part of DTLA's evolution, along with the supertalls, historic redevelopments, 7-story wooden TCA shart-boxes, Smart&Finals with parking, . . . If this, along with all of the other activity helps DTLA become more of a central district for the metro, fosters increased rail, increases the housing stock, etc then I don't see this as necessarily the worst thing in the world. DTLA has much bigger fish to fry.

ConstructDTLA · #**8717** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 6:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StethJeff

I can't believe that people ar worrying this much about a site that is clearly industrial and clearly far from central DTLA. I think we all share the same concerns about the direction, density, purpose, etc. of DTLA but this just seems like such a low priority to get worked up about. The enormous amoeba that is the "Arts District" isn't gonna become some sort of 300,000 person chic converted industrial yuppie village overnight. Projects like this are probably gonna become part of DTLA's evolution, along with the supertalls, historic redevelopments, 7-story wooden TCA shart-boxes, Smart&Finals with parking, . . . If this, along with all of the other activity helps DTLA become more of a central district for the metro, fosters increased rail, increases the housing stock, etc then I don't see this as necessarily the worst thing in the world. DTLA has much bigger fish to fry.

Agree completely. Real Downtown should be the priority, not some far-off block that will never be walkable to the core.

In my opinion anything in this no-mans land region is a good thing.

brudy · #**8718** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 6:41 PM**

There's a TON of activity north of 6th - all kinds of things are getting built and converted. Maybe I'm the only one but we go over there all the time, walking mostly, but sometimes Lyft, depending on where we're going. It's contiguous with dtla by walking up 2nd or even 3rd at the end and we often stop in Little Tokyo either to or from the AD. If it weren't for Skid Row, you could walk there from the core down 5th or 6th in 15-20 minutes which is nothing in urban terms, it's a little further since you have to go around right now. Thinking about the AD as far flung belies how close it really is. It just feels far right now.

ConstructDTLA · #**8719** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brudy

There's a TON of activity north of 6th - all kinds of things are getting built and converted. Maybe I'm the only one but we go over there all the time, walking mostly, but sometimes Lyft, depending on where we're going. It's contiguous with dtla by walking up 2nd or even 3rd at the end and we often stop in Little Tokyo either to or from the AD. If it weren't for Skid Row, you could walk there from the core down 5th or 6th in 15-20 minutes which is nothing in urban terms, it's a little further since you have to go around right now. Thinking about the AD as far flung belies how close it really is. It just feels far right now.

Precisely. Skid Row isn't going away in our lifetimes, and 5th-7th are just too sketchy for normal folk to walk down.

LosAngelesSportsFan · #**8720** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caligrad

My biggest concern is that we end up getting Playa Vista type developments times 10......... Residential blocks that mimic office parks. all uniform, looking identical to one another, no originality, set back from the streets, nothing on the ground floor.

Best example of my fear......Picture One Santa Fe on steroids.... with no ground floor retail (only some needed, not saying that the whole ground floor needs retail)... and with MORE parking... one Santa Fe is already pretty massive, this will be even bigger.

That's just a fear though since obviously nothing has been presented. nothing has been submitted, nothing has been rendered. Just speculations of what may be. Looking at the worse possibility. We could all be pleasantly surprised with a mix of different buildings.... But prepared for this to take at least 10 years to get even partially completed.

exactly my fear as well.

This needs to be broken up into many smaller lots, have multiple types of quality materials used, as well as have many height variations and usages. I dont have high hopes that a super suburban company can pull this off.