LOS ANGELES | Central City Project Rundown 5.0

[Docjalby]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

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

What about the first sentence??? This motion applies to one building in DTLA, not all of them.

And no one who is advocating a complete removal of all parking requirements for developments???

People who point out the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance an an example of supplying housing without parking, including the supposed expert. Do you know why the adaptive reuse worked great without having parking requirements??? Because you took a bunch of buildings that were surrounded by parking lots. What happens when you remove those parking lots and replace them with buildings with no parking spots at all?? You actually make it so the example of not having parking for the units no long work.


I'm waiting for the: "but it works in Manhattan!!!" ot the "I once took the blue line to a Lakers game" comments.

[DistrictDirt]

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

Whoa...that's effing excellent!

[Docjalby]

Not a single person is reading the actual words in the bill and just taking one paragraph out of context.

If a building is within half a mile of a subway station and is requesting a density bonus because they are providing workforce and low income housing, the parking requirement should be waived.

This would only apply to the building at 4th and hill. It is the only one that has asked for the density bonus. This does not apply to all new buildings

[retina]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

What about the first sentence??? This motion applies to one building in DTLA, not all of them.

And no one who is advocating a complete removal of all parking requirements for developments???

People who point out the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance an an example of supplying housing without parking, including the supposed expert. Do you know why the adaptive reuse worked great without having parking requirements??? Because you took a bunch of buildings that were surrounded by parking lots. What happens when you remove those parking lots and replace them with buildings with no parking spots at all?? You actually make it so the example of not having parking for the units no long work.


I'm waiting for the: "but it works in Manhattan!!!" ot the "I once took the blue line to a Lakers game" comments.

I really don't understand your comments. Most reused lofts have parking but you have to pay for it separately and it may be off-site requiring valet or a brief walk. There is no doubt that enough multi-level parking is being built to counteract the removal of surface lots. Sometimes, I wonder which side you are advocating for.

[kelbeen]

5/27/2015 Taken by me

8th/Grand


Macy's Plaza


7th St


WGT






Indigo


Metropolis


I don't know


Onni

[Docjalby]

Originally Posted by retina

I really don't understand your comments. Most reused lofts have parking but you have to pay for it separately and it may be off-site requiring valet or a brief walk. There is no doubt that enough multi-level parking is being built to counteract the removal of surface lots. Sometimes, I wonder which side you are advocating for.

I advocate for sensible stuff. All surface parking lots should be turned into something. Some surface lots should be turned into multistory parking lots. All new apartments should have about 1 spot per apartment. DTLA is requires to have 1.25 spots per apartment which can be lowered to 0.9 if you have bike parking. The legislation you refer to actually would only apply to one singular condo/apartment in DTLA, not all of them as about 5 different people on here have posted.

But most of all, I hate it when people who don't live here and understand the problems we have think they know what they are talking about.

[Docjalby]

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.

This is exactly what I am referring to as completely wrong. The ARO allowed former office buildings to be repurposed as housing with no new parking requirements. This actually worked great because there are a lot of parking lots on Spring Street, Main, and Skid row. It worked because there was easy close by walking parking spots.

People are trying to use the logic that the ARO is an example that all new buildings in DTLA shouldn't have parking. The problem with that argument is the buildings are being built in a DTLA ON THE SAME LOTS THAT ALLOWED PEOPLE NOT TO HAVE PARKING. So the people who lived in the ARO buildings just lost their parking and what made it so the ARO could have no parking requirements.

What was an example of what worked 15 years ago in DTLA does not apply to what DTLA is RIGHT NOW or the future.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by kelbeen

5/27/2015 Taken by me

8th/Grand


Macy's Plaza


7th St

Great update. Crazy to see how fast Metropolis is coming along. This photo in particular points out a couple of things to me. 1) WG in its current skeleton form already makes a huge impact to the skyline. 2) The Warner is dying to become something better than a — jewelry mart. Just look at that building, it's corner location, and where it sits within DTLA. All of these hi-rises and bike lanes are great and all it but DTLAs resurgence will be incomplete as long these neglected historic gems get some attention.

[blackcat23]

Why not just remove the parking requirement entirely? If a developer sees a need for parking - and most will for the foreseeable future - then they can build what they feel is necessary for their project to pencil out.

BTW, great to see you're alive Kelbeen! Great photo update, as always.

[bunkerhill23]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Great update. Crazy to see how fast Metropolis is coming along. This photo in particular points out a couple of things to me. 1) WG in its current skeleton form already makes a huge impact to the skyline. 2) The Warner is dying to become something better than a — jewelry mart. Just look at that building, it's corner location, and where it sits within DTLA. All of these hi-rises and bike lanes are great and all it but DTLAs resurgence will be incomplete as long these neglected historic gems get some attention.

I totally agree about the Warner Bros. Theater.

I got chased out of there for taking pictures last year. They called me an ambulance chaser when I started asking questions about the building and how long they had owned it. The family that runs things there is VERY strange. I've NEVER seen anyone buy anything from one of these jewelry marts.

[Mojeda101]

Speaking of 7th street, expect this to it come 2016

Photo provided by Josh Albrektson on the DTLA page on FB. Protected bike lanes but no extended sidewalk. It'll just be blue flex spaces for parklets and bike shares.

[Docjalby]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Why not just remove the parking requirement entirely? If a developer sees a need for parking - and most will for the foreseeable future - then they can build what they feel is necessary for their project to pencil out.

The developers will do whats best for the developers, not the tenants or what the building will be like in 10 years. That's why you have master planners and stuff like that. To see the big picture rather than the monetary picture.

A developer might build a building and say there are 5 parking lots right around it. Then 5 years down the road, what happens when those parking lots all get built on. For example, this is EXACTLY what is happening to Flower Street Lofts right now.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

Not a single person is reading the actual words in the bill and just taking one paragraph out of context.

If a building is within half a mile of a subway station and is requesting a density bonus because they are providing workforce and low income housing, the parking requirement should be waived.

This would only apply to the building at 4th and hill. It is the only one that has asked for the density bonus. This does not apply to all new buildings

Incorrect. The paragraph regarding removing parking minimums for developments within a half mile of transit is separate from the paragraph about low income housing. That's why it says "additionally, this bill would..."

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Speaking of 7th street, expect this to it come 2016

Photo provided by Josh Albrektson on the DTLA page on FB. Protected bike lanes but no extended sidewalk. It'll just be blue flex spaces for parklets and bike shares.

It is more or less what most (it not all) of us thought was the best option:


http://brighamyen.com/2015/03/14/exciting-7th-street-improvement-project-coming-to-downtown-la/

[Docjalby]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Incorrect. The paragraph regarding removing parking minimums for developments within a half mile of transit is separate from the paragraph about low income housing. That's why it says "additionally, this bill would..."

Try again....... I highly recommend reading the header of the bill.

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

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by Docjalby

The developers will do whats best for the developers, not the tenants or what the building will be like in 10 years. That's why you have master planners and stuff like that. To see the big picture rather than the monetary picture.

You are no more qualified than anybody else to claim to know what's best for the tenants of a neighborhood in 10 years. Your opinion about what's best for tenants in a particular neighborhood now is your own personal value judgement and nothing more.

In 10 years, if any of those tenants feel that having guaranteed parking is a deciding factor for living there, they can leave for a more suburban setting and allow people who don't share their values to move in. Docjalby, you can leave as well. In 10 years, the neighborhood will thrive without people like yourself.

This is the pattern of gentrification currently. Suburban minded people who tend to be older are leaving the city, and urban minded people who tend to be younger are taking over. This isn't really a controversy. It's more that you are becoming a dinosaur. Your lifestyle is being increasingly priced out by pure economics. The decoupling of parking is simply the next step in letting economics take over, and you will eventually have to decide whether you want to stay put as this trend takes hold. No skin off our backs.

[Docjalby]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

You are no more qualified than anybody else to claim to know what's best for the tenants of a neighborhood in 10 years. Your opinion about what's best for tenants in a particular neighborhood now is your own personal value judgement and nothing more.

This is the pattern of gentrification currently. Suburban minded people who tend to be older are leaving the city, and urban minded people who tend to be younger are taking over. This isn't really a controversy. It's more that you are becoming a dinosaur. Your lifestyle is being increasingly priced out by pure economics. The decoupling of parking is simply the next step in letting economics take over, and you will eventually have to decide whether you want to stay put as this trend takes hold. No skin off our backs.

Alright. I give up. I'm totally gonna delete my account so I can just be a lurker and not get sucked down the rabbit hole of arguing with out of towners about what they think is best for the place I actually physically live in. If any of you see me post something else somewhere else, you don't have permission to repost it here (looking at you Mojeda101)

You out of towners have fun arguing about doing stuff that never is gonna happen.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Incorrect. The paragraph regarding removing parking minimums for developments within a half mile of transit is separate from the paragraph about low income housing. That's why it says "additionally, this bill would..."

That's how I interpret it as well. The way its worded, the bill prohibits minimum onsite parking requirements 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

The fact that they used an or between condition #2 and condition #3 means that another or is implicit between condition #1 and condition #2. You can't mix and's and or's in a sentence when you're listing conditions. In PHP or C++ or Javascript maybe but definitely not in English. Therefore, as the bill is currently written, only a single condition needs to be met to trigger the lifting of the parking minimums.

FYI, Streetsblog is interpreting it the same way.

So what does the area in DTLA covered by that look like?



Around 2/3 of DTLA is covered, with only Skid Row, the Fashion District and the Arts District left out. If they ever build those 2 Arts District red line stations, that will cover most of the Arts District as well. Not too bad.

No one even mentioned the part of the bill that allows the city or county to impose parking maximums for projects that are covered by this. This is like Christmas!

[blackcat23]

Some more details on the upcoming Holland Partner tower at 8th/Spring.

http://urbanize.la/post/first-look-upcoming-spring-street-tower

24 stories, 320 apartments (studio, one and two bedroom units), up to 25,000 sq. ft. of ground-level retail. Architect is MVE & Partners, with help from Melendrez. Building would stand 240 feet tall.

Completion expected in 2018.

[colemonkee]

^ Oh man, they were really serious with that design. This is gonna be... interesting.