LOS ANGELES | Central City Project Rundown 5.0

[ConstructDTLA]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Great article in the newest issue of Los Angeles Magazine about new development in Los Angeles, with some information and more detailed renders of the Grand Avenue Project. Looks like they are gonna break it in to phases, with Phase 1 being a 27 story pyramid that will break ground at the end of 2016.

Wow could they push back any further? It's like they're trying to see how far they can push the city before being kicked off the project.


Mini-update until an enormous one at the end of this week:

Wilshire Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

Wilshire Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

Wilshire Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

Wilshire Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

Wilshire Grand by Hunter, on Flickr


We can shift our uber-disappointment with The Broad to 8th & Grand

8th & Grand from 7th & Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

8th & Grand from 7th & Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

8th & Grand from 7th & Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by saybanana

Wow I didnt know the courthouse had a corrugated glass design. I thought it was going to be a flat smooth glass cube design with alternating light/dark vertical stripes.

Thanks for pointing that out, similarly never noticed that til now. That has the potential to look amazing. So sad that the Broad isn't the most interesting new building in that part of town.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by DTLAdenizen

We can shift our uber-disappointment with The Broad to 8th & Grand

8th & Grand from 7th & Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

8th & Grand from 7th & Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

8th & Grand from 7th & Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

Seriously. And who the hell decided that stapling a Tron light cycle path on the side of a building makes an interesting design element? Throw that into the same dumpster where those stupid Ava-style stapled on bookshelves should go.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Seriously. And who the hell decided that stapling a Tron light cycle path on the side of a building makes an interesting design element? Throw that into the same dumpster where those stupid Ava-style stapled on bookshelves should go.

I'm pretty sure that blue line just hasn't been cladded yet, and won't end up being blue in the finished design.

[Docjalby]

Originally Posted by DTLAdenizen

Agreed!

We need more towers with smaller footprints, and less dumb ideas like the 7-story parking garage + CVS going up against the side of this project.

Must we again???

I was reading the convention center expansion white paper and it talked about how it will make more money because the parking spaces they own will be more valuable because all the surface lots around it are being destroyed. The convention center redo will actually have more parking because of how valuable it is becoming. I just wish it was a 10 story parking garage.

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

Must we again???

I was reading the convention center expansion white paper and it talked about how it will make more money because the parking spaces they own will be more valuable because all the surface lots around it are being destroyed. The convention center redo will actually have more parking because of how valuable it is becoming. I just wish it was a 10 story parking garage.

LA just needs to double the size of their subway. Not that it would help this issue..but the parking situation in general.

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by fimiak

LA just needs to double the size of their subway. Not that it would help this issue..but the parking situation in general.

And let's get that done before 2024. It's unbelievable to think we won't get the purple line to Santa Monica until we have flying cars for the average middle-class person.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

Must we again???

I was reading the convention center expansion white paper and it talked about how it will make more money because the parking spaces they own will be more valuable because all the surface lots around it are being destroyed. The convention center redo will actually have more parking because of how valuable it is becoming. I just wish it was a 10 story parking garage.

If you have less parking, maybe people will ride transit instead. Abundant, cheap, parking completely undermines the several billion dollar investment LA Co. is making in its regional rail system. Parking garages create huge dead-zones in neighborhoods and consume land that could be used for much-needed housing.

Spend a half hour and read, "People, Parking, and Cities," by Donald Shoup to learn about the negative impacts abundant parking has had on DTLA: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/People,Parking,Cities.pdf .

[Docjalby]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

If you have less parking, maybe people will ride transit instead. Abundant, cheap, parking completely undermines the several billion dollar investment LA Co. is making in its regional rail system. Parking garages create huge dead-zones in neighborhoods and consume land that could be used for much-needed housing.

Spend a half hour and read, "People, Parking, and Cities," by Donald Shoup to learn about the negative impacts abundant parking has had on DTLA: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/People,Parking,Cities.pdf .

There is nothing I like more than out of town people telling us/me what is going on in DTLA.

1. This article was written in 2004, when DTLA had a population of 30,000, with a good part of that in skid row. The population is now 60,000 with all of the growth coming outside of skid row. The urban it wanted has been achieved.

2. Comparing San Fran and NYC to LA in regards to cars?? Are they serious?? Car ownership amoung the higher earners in both San Fran and NYC below 30% because the richest people live in dense places. Where do our rich people who go to Disney Hall live?? In the Mountains and Hancock park. Trying to say Disney could have gotten by without parking is hilarious.

3. I highly recommend you out of towners to look at this map and see how many fully utilized parking lots are disappearing. Next, look at all of the hundreds of single family homes across LA that is not in downtown. Then try to figure out how those people are supposed to get here without a car. Have fun.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=z1caQAJj-ESI.kH-zzyoJaAeI

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

There is nothing I like more than out of town people telling us/me what is going on in DTLA.

1. This article was written in 2004, when DTLA had a population of 30,000, with a good part of that in skid row. The population is now 60,000 with all of the growth coming outside of skid row. The urban it wanted has been achieved.

2. Comparing San Fran and NYC to LA in regards to cars?? Are they serious?? Car ownership amoung the higher earners in both San Fran and NYC below 30% because the richest people live in dense places. Where do our rich people who go to Disney Hall live?? In the Mountains and Hancock park. Trying to say Disney could have gotten by without parking is hilarious.

3. I highly recommend you out of towners to look at this map and see how many fully utilized parking lots are disappearing. Next, look at all of the hundreds of single family homes across LA that is not in downtown. Then try to figure out how those people are supposed to get here without a car. Have fun.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=z1caQAJj-ESI.kH-zzyoJaAeI

Yes, the article is over a decade old but how many more miles of commuter, light rail, and subways does LA have now vs. a decade ago? Also, how were Über, Lyft, and these other mobility options a decade ago.

Houston has plenty of parking-- surface lots, garages, parking everywhere. New York City, on the other hand, scarcely has a single surface lot. Which city has a more vibrant, bustling, and interesting downtown?

Also, since these 'fully utilized parking lots' are being replaced by housing, this gives more people the opportunity to either forego or at least reduce the number of vehicles they own, since they can walk or take transit to work, retail, etc.... This reduces the need for parking. Increased connectivity and increased amenities reduces the need for driving, which reduces the need for parking.

[Docjalby]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Yes, the article is over a decade old but how many more miles of commuter, light rail, and subways does LA have now vs. a decade ago? Also, how were Über, Lyft, and these other mobility options a decade ago.

Houston has plenty of parking-- surface lots, garages, parking everywhere. New York City, on the other hand, scarcely has a single surface lot. Which city has a more vibrant, bustling, and interesting downtown?

Since 2004?? Los Angeles has added a total of 15 miles of rail.

You are seriously comparing old dense cities to the single family home city of Los Angeles and think it is a valid comparison?? Why not compare Shanghai to Palm Springs?? PS has more parking in downtown, and that is why it is less bustling.

[Docjalby]

Ahhhh... You edited in a paragraph.

The people using this fully utilized parking lots are not going to be the exact same people who move into the new buildings. It doesn't work that way.

[Docjalby]

Here are the exact words from teh Convention Center White Paper regarding parking:

Moreover, the LACC has a unique opportunity to see its existing 5,481 parking spaces become an even greater source of revenue (Currently budgeted at $8.5 million for FY 2014-15). Both LA LIVE and the LACC are currently bordered by large surface parking lots. With the current building boom in South Park, most lots will be developed for commercial and residential uses in 3-5 years. The LACC's existing parking will become much more profitable, perhaps to the extent that the LACC might consider building more parking to become an even greater revenue generator.

[blackcat23]

urbanize.la/post/usc-construction-zone

Update on some USC projects

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

Here are the exact words from teh Convention Center White Paper regarding parking:

Moreover, the LACC has a unique opportunity to see its existing 5,481 parking spaces become an even greater source of revenue (Currently budgeted at $8.5 million for FY 2014-15). Both LA LIVE and the LACC are currently bordered by large surface parking lots. With the current building boom in South Park, most lots will be developed for commercial and residential uses in 3-5 years. The LACC's existing parking will become much more profitable, perhaps to the extent that the LACC might consider building more parking to become an even greater revenue generator.

That would be an optimum solution, actually. Give non-downtowners a singular place to park on the periphery of downtown. That way, the worst of the negative side effects of over-building structured parking on every block are removed from the equation. This is essentially the strategy Santa Monica has taken: Build a few shared, city-owned parking lots so new projects are spared from building structured parking...or at least building so much of it.

I would echo 202's comment that you should read People, Parking, and Cities when you get the chance. There is nothing particular out of date in it, nor is it particularly specific to LA. These are generalized lessons about parking that can be applied anywhere. Donald Should is world's pre-eminent authority on parking theory, and the research he's done on induced demand has changed parking policies around the world.

EDIT: Speak of the devil, Streetsblog LA just ran an interview with Shoup. He actually talks quite a bit about Downtown LA, and its well worth reading:

I think that’s why – in cities that don’t have off-street parking requirements like New York and Seattle – parking lots and small parking garages are just asking to be redeveloped, if the land values are high.

In Downtown L.A. you can’t do it. It’s very hard to redevelop a parking lot or a parking garage – because the first thing the city planner is going to say: “where’s the required parking?”

The parking lots are often small so you can’t get a good building and the required parking on the same site. So the small surface lots that pockmark the city are pretty much frozen in place. Until we remove the parking requirements.

But when we get rid of the parking requirements there’ll be great dollar signs for development on every parking lot.

The proof of the redevelopment potential is what happened as a result of Los Angeles’ Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.

Spring Street, Main Street, and Broadway have the largest collection of intact office buildings from the early 20th century in the country, maybe the world. They were great buildings in terrible condition because urban renewal on Bunker Hill sucked all the life out of Spring Street, which used to be called the Wall Street of the West. These great financial buildings lost their office tenants and couldn’t find any other tenants. Most of them were empty above the ground floor for decades. Some of them were used for sweatshops.

Then, in 1999, the City Council passed the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, allowing conversion of historic office buildings into housing with no new parking. That is the key thing: no new parking. You had to keep whatever parking a building had, but that was sometimes none at all.

Critics said, “it’ll be a disaster” and “no lender would lend for conversion of an office building into housing” and “why would anybody want to buy an apartment in a converted building without parking” and “no bank would give you a mortgage on an apartment without parking” and “no developer would be interested in this.”

Why that would be a disaster I don’t know. It just means nothing happens. Anyway, there was a lot of criticism.

In the next eight years, 57 of these historic buildings were converted to housing. Something like seven thousand new units.

Just think of all the plumbers and electricians and architects and drywallers and all kinds of people who got employed in the conversion. And all the new housing.

At a debate, I made this point about the 57 buildings and I just tossed in the fact that it led to the historic preservation of a lot of beautiful buildings. A guy behind me said that it also led to the preservation of an entire historic district. It turns out the guy behind me was the head of the L.A. Department of City Planning. I thought, well, why didn’t I say that first?

I think that the ARO – aside from leading to great historic preservation, a lot of employment, and a lot of great housing – also revealed what the parking requirements were preventing. You normally can’t see what doesn’t happen. What wasn’t happening was a lot of new housing the restoration of great office buildings.

I think many of the small parking lots in downtown aren’t developed for the same reason that these historic office buildings hadn’t been converted to housing – because of the parking requirements.

Most of the downtowns that people want to visit – like in San Francisco, New York, Vancouver, Seattle or Chicago – don’t have any off-street parking requirements. If L.A. follows these cities, our downtown will begin to look less like Phoenix, Houston, or Detroit, which do require off-street parking int their downtowns.

Downtown L.A. has more parking spaces per square mile than any other city on earth, yet many people think it’s not enough. But if we, or when we, remove the off-street parking requirements downtown, I think you’ll see a building boom that will make the current one look small.

There’s so much land that’s surface parking. Just look from Google Earth. I’ve used Google Earth to compare downtown L.A. and downtown San Francisco; there’s nothing similar between them.

We have a few icons with gigantic parking garages. Disney Hall has six levels of underground parking; you take the escalator cascade into the lobby and never set foot on a sidewalk.

The equivalent hall in San Francisco, Louise Davies Hall, has no parking. After a concert people swarm out onto the sidewalk. Bars are open. Flower shops are open. Bookstores are open. And you have to walk to your car if you drove. There’s plenty of parking around it.

Every new building in L.A., like Disney Hall or the Broad Museum – whose parking structure cost $80,000 a space, paid for by the city – must have its own parking. L.A. zoning would not allow the Broad Museum without any parking. I think that San Francisco would have no problem with a new museum downtown without a single parking space.

[caligrad]

Heres the thing with Downtown LA.

People keep saying "well I live downtown so I know how it is and nobody should tell me how Downtown should be" that statement is WRONG on soooo many levels. it doesn't take a rocket scientist or civil engineer to visit downtown one day and see within that day that something is WRONG. Any average joe can tell just by a day trip that something isn't adding up.

Downtown is the only place in Southern California, with San Diego and Long beach following behind, that can literally get rid of all parking requirements and be totally fine and fully functional.

For the convention center and other touristy spots downtown to add parking......fine so be it... add some parking since that's to be expected because...uuuuuummmmmmmm its the convention center and honestly will need the parking. But to make an argument that all new residential buildings in downtown need tons of parking and etc. is actually kinda sad.

Every new rail line planned and even ones planned from surrounding counties are all geared and pointed towards downtown LA. Why force Downtown to have ridiculous amounts of parking when it wont be necessary in 10-20 years? that may sound like a long time away but time flies and new rail projects and proposals come quick these days and everyone is on board for more transit.

And before I hear a garbage rebuttal. I actually lived downtown as well. I had one car for long trips only. My building offered parking for tenant but literally 1/4 of it went unused so the building used it as visitor parking. which also sat empty.

[UserName01010]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

urbanize.la/post/usc-construction-zone

Update on some USC projects

Much cranes

[Docjalby]

Here is my garbage response:
People keep saying how San Francisco and New York do things and if we eliminate parking that would be amazing because we would be just like them.

You are comparing the first and second densely populated cities with Los Angeles which was intentionally built as a low density city. Google Prop U. San Francisco has 17,000 people per square mile and is the size of DTLA as a whole. New York has 27,000 per square mile. Los Angeles has a density of 8,200 people per square mile with a much worse public transportation system than either of these two cities.

So is Disney Hall really comparable to Louis Davis Hall in San Francisco?? That's one of the most hilarious things I have ever heard. Louis Davis Hall has about 300-400,000 people within walking distance. Disney has about 40,000 in walking distance. And when it was built that number was about 20,000 in walking distance.

As I keep linking, look at the development map and see how many fully used surface lots are being turned into residential projects. Even the ones that don't have a project planned are up for sale, including the ones the this Shoup says will never be developed.

You can't tell me that this multistory parking lot, which I look at from my window, will not be used.

But hey, maybe if we don't build it, the 500,000 people who commute into DTLA each day will magically all move down here and solve all problems.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

Here is my garbage response:
People keep saying how San Francisco and New York do things and if we eliminate parking that would be amazing because we would be just like them.

You are comparing the first and second densely populated cities with Los Angeles which was intentionally built as a low density city. Google Prop U. San Francisco has 17,000 people per square mile and is the size of DTLA as a whole. New York has 27,000 per square mile. Los Angeles has a density of 8,200 people per square mile with a much worse public transportation system than either of these two cities.

So is Disney Hall really comparable to Louis Davis Hall in San Francisco?? That's one of the most hilarious things I have ever heard. Louis Davis Hall has about 300-400,000 people within walking distance. Disney has about 40,000 in walking distance. And when it was built that number was about 20,000 in walking distance.

As I keep linking, look at the development map and see how many fully used surface lots are being turned into residential projects. Even the ones that don't have a project planned are up for sale, including the ones the this Shoup says will never be developed.

You can't tell me that this multistory parking lot, which I look at from my window, will not be used.

But hey, maybe if we don't build it, the 500,000 people who commute into DTLA each day will magically all move down here and solve all problems.

Your thinking is so outdated it hurts to read you comments. It doesn't matter how much parking you build, because as long as streets aren't widened, you'll end up shooting yourself in the foot. You can build 75,000 more parking spaces but try filling all the streets in DTLA with 75,000 more cars trying to get to all that parking.

Don't you see that there is a law of diminishing return when it comes to auto-centric planning? This isn't rocket science. Focusing too intently on car-centric mobility automatically limits how vibrant a city can be. At this point, more and more people are recognizing the obvious. LA has just about reached capacity as far as how auto-centrically it can build. There's no more space to widen roads, and there's no room for more cars without sacrificing land use intensity and vibrancy. The only way to densify more sensibly is to build alternatives to the car in the form of transit, which LA is doing.

Take the advice of DistrictDirt and 202 and do yourself a favor and educate yourself on People, Parking, and Cities by Donald Shoup. You aren't breaking any new ground here.

[RyanD]

Here are some Wilshire / Grand photos from my visit this weekend!

05/25/2015:


2015-05-25_WilshireGrand - 10 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


2015-05-25_WilshireGrand - 09 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


2015-05-25_WilshireGrand - 08 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


2015-05-25_WilshireGrand - 07 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


2015-05-25_WilshireGrand - 06 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


2015-05-25_WilshireGrand - 05 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


2015-05-25_WilshireGrand - 04 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


2015-05-25_WilshireGrand - 03 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


2015-05-25_WilshireGrand - 02 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


2015-05-25_WilshireGrand - 01 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr