LOS ANGELES | Central City Project Rundown 5.0

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by alki

Ironically, the page you linked to shows one rental apt bldg proposed for DT. Its parking parking/unit ratio will be .84 per unit.......not quite the .9 I cited but considerably higher than the .5/.6 you cited.

But that's not what's at issue here. You seem incapable of understanding that we don't agree on most issues. Therefore, in the future, I will no longer respond to any of your posts. If you continue to follow me to other forums like you have today, I will PM SSP administration to see if there is anything they can do.

Alki: Seattle's parking ratios are much lower than LA's and is light years ahead of LA in relinquishing this requirement. Currently LA zoning code requires parking minimums in every single square mile of LA. By contrast, since 2012 ten square miles of Seattle's city center and surrounding areas have been TOTALLY EXEMPT from parking minimums for new development. This renders parking a solely economic CHOICE of the developer (and ultimately the tenant). A Further 5 square miles of Seattle outside of downtown but near transit has parking minimums reduced by 50%. Has decoupled parking led to the end of the world in Seattle? Far from it. Seattle is a crane-forest and yet can't get enough condo's built fast enough for downtown.

To date LA has made few changes to its archaic zoning code for parking, and it faces a lot of pushback from NIMBYs who want to keep these requirements. The mere concept that parking minimums contribute to stifling development and raising housing costs does not even resonate among LA's politicians. There is a huge cultural and educational gap between Seattle's and LA's policymakers where it comes to urbanism.

It appears everybody is learning from LA's mistakes, except LA.

[jamesinclair]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

For those who follow the other forums or are out of town a lot, what other cities have approximately the same level of activity as LA right now? I always hear about Seattle and Miami being busy but have no first-hand knowledge. Hunter's excellent and exhaustive update is sorta overwhelming, in a good way obviously.

NYC, but they always have like 50 towers rising at any one moment. Theres like 5 supertalls going up right now. The problem is that walking around, you barely notice it. Even a 1,000 foot building barely stands out in Manhattan.

For its size, Boston is really booming right now. Maybe 5 major skyscrapers, which again, for their size is a big deal. Along with a whole lot of infill.

Theyre getting a Four Seasons that will be one of the tallest in the city. I find new towers to be so much more exciting than in NYC because they really stand out.




Photo source (and a few more): https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/201...azZAsPaM/picture.html?p1=Article_Gallery

People here hate on the 7 story buildings, but what they do is they allow the major towers to really stand out and shine. Also, unike Mnahttan, you dont feel like youre a rat in a tube. Sun is good guys.

I also think LA is more exciting because most of these new towers are filling up empty lots, rather than Boston and NYC where they tend to replace smaller, older buildings.

Miami does have a hole lo tgoing up, but IMO they — because theyre all giant podium buildings. As a pedestrian, it's garbage.

The last thing you want to do is emulate Miami.



Incidentally, I was in Mexico City recently, and stopped by a new (3 years old) museum.

It reminded me of the discussion about the Broad. Like the Broad, it was built by some rich dude to show off his collection, and admission is free.

It would also sort of fall in next to the Disney thing with no effort.


(Online stock image)

[brudy]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

I can post links to articles too:
http://www.newsweek.com/why-cities-hold-more-pull-millennials-cloud-317735

And mine suggests millenials are the driving force behind urbanization. How many baby boomers do you live amongst in downtown? I've been living in downtown LA for a few years now and I can hardly find a single baby boomer among the many new residents that increasingly call this neighborhood home (And it's super easy to tell newcomers from SRO occupants, trust me)

But my original post was directed at Docjalby. Who is he to think he speaks for all the people moving downtown? I do agree with some posters here that it may be difficult to completely give up the car in LA at least for longer distance trips, or groceries. But like others here, I was making the point that parking should be de-coupled and turned into a purely economic decision by the developer. Let the market decide. The cost of development, the housing shortage, and the NIMBY problem all stem from parking requirements which in-turn stem directly from lack of efficient transit options. LA probably can't go car-free, but at least it should go car-lite.

The housing market is so tight that even without the luxury of indulgent parking ratios, new units will have no problem finding buyers on their own. Zoning need not be involved in mandating and inducing artificial demand for cars. This is what Docjalby does not understand. He is being as regressive as a NIMBY.

That article is largely around the technology industry and the idea that larger cities have more innovation, with the implication that millennials are mostly working in technology.

My building has a fair amount of people who are older than say 50 and lots between 35-50. The older people have been the longer tenants here. Honestly, the people who come and stay one year then leave tend to be millennials, especially the last few years.

[alki]

The point I was making about parking and parking requirements is that even when there are no minimums, developers still build parking. Why? Americans continue to love cars and the death of the car is still way into the future. If you hadn't noticed, much to my unhappiness, SUVs are back in a big way on the freeways. And last year, the media was touting how mass transit ridership increased despite lower gas prices. However, if you burrowed deeper into the supporting stats, it turns out the increase was due to higher subway ridership in NYC. Take out the higher subway ridership, and mass transit usage pretty much flat lined in the US in 2014:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004895-transit-ridership-increases-no-escape-new-york

As for the Millennials, its true they have more of an urban focus than prior generations. However, its only a small portion of Millennials..........its estimated 30%......are actually moving to DTs or inner city neighborhoods. The vast majority are locating to the edges of cities and their suburbs. Nonetheless, because the Millennial generation is so big, 30% is making a huge impact on DT development.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by alki

The point I was making about parking and parking requirements is that even when there are no minimums, developers still build parking. Why? Americans continue to love cars and the death of the car is still way into the future. If you hadn't noticed, much to my unhappiness, SUVs are back in a big way on the freeways. And last year, the media was touting how mass transit ridership increased despite lower gas prices. However, if you burrowed deeper into the supporting stats, it turns out the increase was due to higher subway ridership in NYC. Take out the higher subway ridership, and mass transit usage pretty much flat lined in the US in 2014:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004895-transit-ridership-increases-no-escape-new-york

As for the Millennials, its true they have more of an urban focus than prior generations. However, its only a small portion of Millennials..........its estimated 30%......are actually moving to DTs or inner city neighborhoods. The vast majority are locating to the edges of cities and their suburbs. Nonetheless, because the Millennial generation is so big, 30% is making a huge impact on DT development.

Any large group moving back to the city is good news, really. It's a reversal of a long trend of urban flight. We don't need studies to show that downtowns and urban cores across the country are being repopulated and turned over. LA is at the end of that trend, sadly.

As for public transportation and cars, I think it comes down to cost of ownership, hassle of ownership + decent public transportation. I lived in Boston for almost 5 years and it's a huge cost and hassle to drive and park around town, it's just not worth it. Combined with a decent (if completely aged and in dire need of upgrades) subway system, it's easier, cheaper, faster to take public transpo. We kept one car (sold the other) but it would sit for months at a time, especially during winter. LA isn't there yet - it's easy to get around, it's huge, it's cheap, there's a lot more to do in a wider geographic area, it's a lot easier to both need and justify a car here. I still don't think developers should be required to build parking though.

Anecdotally, most of the people I know who are car-lite or car less in downtown come from other cities and places where this is the norm. I think local attitudes have a long way to go.

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by DTLAdenizen

Just now

Metropolis 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

Wilshire Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

Fig @ 7th & The Bloc by Hunter, on Flickr

The Bloc by Hunter, on Flickr

8th & Grand / Whole Foods by Hunter, on Flickr

8th & Grand / Whole Foods by Hunter, on Flickr

LEVEL LA from 8th & Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

Commercial Exchange / Freehand Hostel by Hunter, on Flickr

8th & Grand / Whole Foods by Hunter, on Flickr

8th & Olive Tower by Hunter, on Flickr

May Company / Broadway Trade Center by Hunter, on Flickr

LEVEL LA / Onni 9th & Olive by Hunter, on Flickr

LEVEL LA / Onni 9th & Olive by Hunter, on Flickr

LEVEL LA / Onni 9th & Olive by Hunter, on Flickr

LEVEL LA / Onni 9th & Olive by Hunter, on Flickr

LEVEL LA / Onni 9th & Olive by Hunter, on Flickr

LEVEL LA / Onni 9th & Olive by Hunter, on Flickr

LEVEL LA / Onni 9th & Olive by Hunter, on Flickr

8th & Olive from 9th & olive by Hunter, on Flickr

Trinity / Embassy Hotel / Wilshire Grand by Hunter, on Flickr

Awesome shots dude! I wonder what's the hold up on that 33 story hope building.

[retina]

Originally Posted by brudy

Anecdotally, most of the people I know who are car-lite or car less in downtown come from other cities and places where this is the norm. I think local attitudes have a long way to go.

I think this is key. The native Angeleno still longs for the single family home and promixity to the beach (which I have always felt to be overrated in LA). To live downtown is shocking because they haven't been there in 10+ years apart from a show or game at LA Live and the thought of giving up a yard and taking a train is outrageous. As long as the rest of LA has a highly-vocal NIMBY mentality flush with cash and confidence, downtown will be the only place for developers to invest their money and make a return in a reasonable timeframe. Huizar and company needs to step up their game in luring companies from Santa Monica, Culver City, and Venice, which is congested and overpriced. Why can't DTLA be like SF?

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by DTLAdenizen

LEVEL LA / Onni 9th & Olive by Hunter, on Flickr

Nice photos, Hunter.

I'm a big fan of how the podium camouflage for this one turned out. Given that the material used to create the geometric patterns uses the same concept of variable pore grating that Melendrez proposed for that "Downtown Los Angeles" signage on the 7th St bridge over the 110, I'm holding out hope that the sign could turn out half decent. They just need a more interesting design than that flat block lettering shown in their mockup.

[Beverly Hills Nimby]

Yeah but how are they going to clean the metal with all the car exhaust from the freeway? Sounds messy and ugly long term.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Beverly Hills Nimby

Yeah but how are they going to clean the metal with all the car exhaust from the freeway? Sounds messy and ugly long term.

I don't know, perhaps with scrub brushes and industrial cleaning solution? Seems like a pretty solvable problem and not a reason to not build something.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by brudy

That article is largely around the technology industry and the idea that larger cities have more innovation, with the implication that millennials are mostly working in technology.

My building has a fair amount of people who are older than say 50 and lots between 35-50. The older people have been the longer tenants here. Honestly, the people who come and stay one year then leave tend to be millennials, especially the last few years.

I'd venture to guess the majority in that age range tend towards the lower end. In my experience the clear majority of new downtown residents are in their 20s to 40s, and not in their 60s.

Whether residents stay a year or five is irrelevant. The large stock of singles and lofts ensures a good chunk of downtown will always be transient occupancy. More important is how they stay and move about.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by alki

The point I was making about parking and parking requirements is that even when there are no minimums, developers still build parking. Why? Americans continue to love cars and the death of the car is still way into the future.

You're attempting to conflate LA's regressive "car-heavy" requirements with Seattle's "car-lite" zoning by lumping them together as Americans. Americans continue to love cars, true, but that doesn't stop Manhattan or Seattle from loving them much less than LA or Houston does it?

The point you missed is that removing parking minimums allows developers to determine what's needed, and in Seattle's case that's clearly a LOT less parking per unit fro newer buildings than is required by LA.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

I'd venture to guess the majority in that age range tend towards the lower end. In my experience the clear majority of new downtown residents are in their 20s to 40s, and not in their 60s.

Whether residents stay a year or five is irrelevant. The large stock of singles and lofts ensures a good chunk of downtown will always be transient occupancy. More important is how they stay and move about.

I'm not sure transient occupancy is a good thing in the long term for a neighborhood. People just don't care and aren't invested in the area. You end up living in the political equivalent of a college town. You need people who are engaged to make the area more viable and livable in the long term. This means building more than just lofts, for one, and advocating for things like parks, street improvements, etc. I think downtown's future should be more than a financial parking lot for foreign people and a party destination for the B&T scene and local bros. Especially in the last two years there's been a slide toward the latter.

FWIW, I think people rotate in and then out of downtown after just a few years. People want to buy, or have a kid, or are sick of the homeless situation, etc. I know a few people that have moved around in downtown, but most just seem to leave.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by brudy

I'm not sure transient occupancy is a good thing in the long term for a neighborhood. People just don't care and aren't invested in the area.

I totally agree on this. Unfortunately that's the cynical game developers are playing. But either way it doesn't whoever ends up living in downtown LA, parking needs to be decoupled housing. Parking minimums are unsustainable and backwards

IMO THIS is where our zoning should be focused instead of creating barriers to truly walkable, urban neighborhoods. Creating livable neighborhoods for families rather than singles and foreigners to park their money. What LA needs is established neighborhoods of urban-minded, politically involved, upper middle class families.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

I totally agree on this. Unfortunately that's the cynical game developers are playing. But either way it doesn't whoever ends up living in downtown LA, parking needs to be decoupled housing. Parking minimums are unsustainable and backwards

IMO THIS is where our zoning should be focused instead of creating barriers to truly walkable, urban neighborhoods. Creating livable neighborhoods for families rather than singles and foreigners to park their money. What LA needs is established neighborhoods of urban-minded, politically involved, upper middle class families.

110% agree.

[alki]

Originally Posted by brudy

Any large group moving back to the city is good news, really. It's a reversal of a long trend of urban flight. We don't need studies to show that downtowns and urban cores across the country are being repopulated and turned over. LA is at the end of that trend, sadly.

I don't disagree..........what I was trying to point out is that, sometimes, these trends are not as big as the media would have us believe. For an example, the media makes it sound like every last Millennial is moving DT when in fact its only 30%. Fortunately, that 30% is a lot of people and they are making a huge difference in DT perceptions.

As for public transportation and cars, I think it comes down to cost of ownership, hassle of ownership + decent public transportation. I lived in Boston for almost 5 years and it's a huge cost and hassle to drive and park around town, it's just not worth it. Combined with a decent (if completely aged and in dire need of upgrades) subway system, it's easier, cheaper, faster to take public transpo. We kept one car (sold the other) but it would sit for months at a time, especially during winter. LA isn't there yet - it's easy to get around, it's huge, it's cheap, there's a lot more to do in a wider geographic area, it's a lot easier to both need and justify a car here. I still don't think developers should be required to build parking though.

Anecdotally, most of the people I know who are car-lite or car less in downtown come from other cities and places where this is the norm. I think local attitudes have a long way to go.

It doesn't surprise me............the LA attitude is the same as the one in Detroit, the other American city very devoted to cars.

Originally Posted by Bikemike

You're attempting to conflate LA's regressive "car-heavy" requirements with Seattle's "car-lite" zoning by lumping them together as Americans. Americans continue to love cars, true, but that doesn't stop Manhattan or Seattle from loving them much less than LA or Houston does it?

The point you missed is that removing parking minimums allows developers to determine what's needed, and in Seattle's case that's clearly a LOT less parking per unit fro newer buildings than is required by LA.

I wasn't trying to conflate Seattle with any other city. The point I was trying to make was that even when there are no minimums for parking, Seattle developers will provide parking because Seattleites are Americans and Americans haven't given up the car just yet........even Seattleites.

And the other point I was trying to make is every city has its strong points and weak ones. For an example, Seattle may be doing some things right like with zoning but its behind comparable cities when it comes to providing non bus mass transit. In fact, its lite rail and streetcar offerings are considerably behind other cities of comparable size.

Meanwhile, LA may be lagging in updating its zoning but it has the second largest mass transit system in the country that is expected to grow considerably over the next ten years.

Bottom line: American cities need a lot of work and finally we have enough people who care enough to do something about it.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by alki

Meanwhile, LA may be lagging in updating its zoning but it has the second largest mass transit system in the country that is expected to grow considerably over the next ten years.

Bottom line: American cities need a lot of work and finally we have enough people who care enough to do something about it.

Actually that is incorrect. Despite a smaller light rail network, Seattle is already well ahead of LA because it has higher overall rates of transit usage for its size. Almost double LA's transit usage in fact. Metro Seattle also has higher mode-share than Metro LA. That's why downtown Seattle feels much more urban and vibrant than DTLA, despite being the center of a metro less than 1/5th the size of LA.

Your repeated attempts at conflating LA and Seattle by downplaying LA's challenges and trying to find negatives in Seattle's only serves to distract from the fact that LA has much more formidable challenges. It's plainly obvious that the car-culture is far more entrenched in LA than in Seattle or many other non-sunbelt cities and that general awareness of the relationship between car-dependency and walkability is sorely lacking in LA by comparison.

Someone's comment in another thread about how Miami's tremendous building boom isn't really helping much because the city is essentially becoming a vertical suburb that's hostile to street-life also rings true to a slightly lesser extent for LA. Just because LA is booming at the rate of Seattle or SF doesn't mean it's necessarily improving at the same rate. It's always nice to get inner-city investment but we're still essentially building a denser version of the same old suburbia. Without fundamental change, another boom cycle only to be forgotten by the next bust.

Removing parking minimums on the other hand is genuine progress, and a genuine shot in the arm for urbanism. LA doesn't get to claim progress until it changes mobility and land use from the most fundamental level. Transit is improving so that's good. But the braver step of ditching our cars has to be taken for land-use patterns to improve. The true litmus test for LA isn't going to be how many cranes are going up or how many dollars are flowing, but how many people continue to fight reduced parking requirements, or road diets, or bike lanes. By this measure true progress is scant.

[Just-In-Cali]

^^^
Good lord...does anyone have news on a development that we can read so this little city vs city slapfest above can end????!!!!

[mhays]

A building without parking doesn't have to appeal to the average person -- only to x number of tenants that prefer to save often 10-25% on housing. Open up the zoning and I bet a lot of developers jump on it. And I bet there'd be huge demand.

Seattle developers have taken to this opportunity with a vengance. What was considered aggressive in 2005 is now typical. In the current twice-weekly Land Use Information Bulletin (already linked) are projects with ratios of 66/30, 40/0, 130/90, 20/0, 18/0, and 80/39. Also 147/0 for a hotel. In this issue, only the townhouses really have 1/1 ratios. The low ratios also make smaller units far easier to pencil, particularly on smaller sites where parking is tough to geometrically fit.

The developer has a huge incentive to get the ratio correct. If they aim too low, their apartments won't rent well. So they try for a balance.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

^^^
Good lord...does anyone have news on a development that we can read so this little city vs city slapfest above can end????!!!!

This isn't really a slapfest. It's a discussion about the entrenched attitudes that continue to support prohibitive parking requirements in downtown LA at a time when LA should already be re-visiting downzoning parking so that new developments need not pass on the cost of behemoth parking structures. It's about why housing is so expensive in downtown and why our roads and freeways are disproportionately congested for our relatively low densities. It's about why downtown LA isn't more vibrant than it is. It's about the future of development in downtown LA.