LOS ANGELES | Central City Project Rundown 5.0

[alki]

Originally Posted by brudy

I know - I'm tempted to go pour one out for it but I'd probably get a hobo trying to catch it in his hat.

LOL.......too funny!

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Just the one has a "spire," and it looks tacked on...

It does look like it was just placed there for the hell of it. The more I look at the overall design, the more I think it looks too gimmicky. Come on Gensler, you can do better.

[Mojeda101]

The ordinance was only JUST applied, and these are designs that have probably been in the planning stages for over a year. I'm certain we will see more incorporated spires in the coming years. By 2025 DTLA will have a quite a number of them.

[timpdx]

edit post to LA metro

[MultiK]

You guys are conflating the existence of a spire with the lack of a helipad. Go back and look at the slanted roofs (Metropolis), and the 'capped' terraces going up. Those are the real outcomes of removing the helipad requirement.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

The ordinance was only JUST applied, and these are designs that have probably been in the planning stages for over a year. I'm certain we will see more incorporated spires in the coming years. By 2025 DTLA will have a quite a number of them.

That sounds a tad ambitious. Not sure we need/want that many spires. In fact even the one on WG seems forced and not worth the effort.

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

That sounds a tad ambitious. Not sure we need/want that many spires. In fact even the one on WG seems forced and not worth the effort.

I'd imagine they were thrown in after they heard they could. Though with time i'd imagine future projects will definitely work towards making them a vital part of the building. Still, let's get an idea of how many we are getting thus far. Am I missing any?

Wilshire Grand
Marriott
Mack Urban

Personally i'm all for the addition. It'll finally give variety to a skyline that is in dire need of it. Though it will be awhile before we see towers as beautiful as these:

[StethJeff]

If LA gets a new supertall, sure, incorporate a spire and make it unique and flow into the overall design. That always works. But throwing a tetherball pole onto the side of a structure that doesn't look like it needs one (WG imo) or onto otherwise unremarkable 19-story vancondos and you lose me.

[Yackemflaber69]

They could always change the new Marriott and Mack Urban designs.

[losangelesnative]

Nordstromrack.com among other tenants have leased space in the BLOC"s office tower

[ThomJames]

Walked by the former Big Lots space at 7th and Broadway and there was signage for the Burlington Coat Factory. Fall 2015. So it looks as if that project is still on.

[retina]

Originally Posted by brudy

This is it exactly. Can I sign up for your newsletter? That Shoup piece is held in very high regard and worth reading.

Hopefully re:code LA allows greater flexibility in the parking requirements downtown. Abolishing parking minumums must be on the top of the list. Some developers will still incorporate podium structures while others will forgo parking entirely allowing contruction costs to be lower and ultimately reduce housing costs. ARO has already proven this model to be viable even Los Angeles.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by retina

Hopefully re:code LA allows greater flexibility in the parking requirements downtown. Abolishing parking minumums must be on the top of the list. Some developers will still incorporate podium structures while others will forgo parking entirely allowing contruction costs to be lower and ultimately reduce housing costs. ARO has already proven this model to be viable even Los Angeles.

Yep, let developers build parking if they want, but don't require it. Incentivize building less or no parking. I do think this a mind shift for people who don't live in downtown - look at all the damn valets everywhere taking up valuable spots. People here just don't want to walk at all to where they're going.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by retina

Hopefully re:code LA allows greater flexibility in the parking requirements downtown. Abolishing parking minumums must be on the top of the list. Some developers will still incorporate podium structures while others will forgo parking entirely allowing contruction costs to be lower and ultimately reduce housing costs. ARO has already proven this model to be viable even Los Angeles.

For me, this is the key takeaway. No need for hypothetical, guesswork, or comparisons to other cities when trying to predict what would happen if developers built DTLA projects with relaxed parking requirements -or no parking at all. We already did it, through the adaptive reuse ordinance. Most of the loft conversion buildings down little or no parking. And what happened? Near 100% occupancy.

[retina]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

For me, this is the key takeaway. No need for hypothetical, guesswork, or comparisons to other cities when trying to predict what would happen if developers built DTLA projects with relaxed parking requirements -or no parking at all. We already did it, through the adaptive reuse ordinance. Most of the loft conversion buildings down little or no parking. And what happened? Near 100% occupancy.

AB744 by Asm. Ed Chau passed Appropriations committee today.

This bill would additionally prohibit, at the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county from imposing a minimum onsite parking requirement on a development that is located within
one-half mile of a major transit stop, is a senior housing development, or is a special needs housing development, as those terms are defined. The bill would specify that a city, county, or
city and county may impose a maximum onsite parking requirement for a development.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB744/2015

[colemonkee]

^ That is amazing. Game changing.

[Docjalby]

So I'm just curious. Outside of the one person who I told the number to, does anybody here know what the current parking requirement is in DTLA??

And just FYI, all of the planned buildings in the historic core actually are building more parking than required. SB Omega has an extra floor and the Stationer tower has three extra compared to what is required.

[Docjalby]

Originally Posted by retina

AB744 by Asm. Ed Chau passed Appropriations committee today.

This bill would additionally prohibit, at the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county from imposing a minimum onsite parking requirement on a development that is located within
one-half mile of a major transit stop, is a senior housing development, or is a special needs housing development, as those terms are defined. The bill would specify that a city, county, or
city and county may impose a maximum onsite parking requirement for a development.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB744/2015

That bill would eliminate parking requirements for any building that incorporates a certain percentage of workforce and super low earning housing in order to get a higher density. I think this is a great idea, but to date would only apply to one building that is planned in DTLA.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

So I'm just curious. Outside of the one person who I told the number to, does anybody here know what the current parking requirement is in DTLA??

And just FYI, all of the planned buildings in the historic core actually are building more parking than required. SB Omega has an extra floor and the Stationer tower has three extra compared to what is required.

The garages for both SB Omega and the Stationer's Building are supposed to serve multiple buildings.

If I'm reading the summary of AB744 correct, it's essetially saying "let the market decide." Works for me.

[bzcat]

Arrest made in the Da Vinci arson

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-arrest-da-vinci-arson-20150527-story.html