LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[Calicool]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

It wasn't that LA was "THE original" auto-oriented city that others "copied". Auto-oriented development happened haphazardly after the explosion of car-ownership after WWII. A much greater share of LA's built form derives from growth that occurred during the car-era vs say, Chicago, where much of the city had matured prior to the automobile-age.

So you are correct that different metro areas have different ratios of traditional transit/pedestrian-oriented vs car-oriented urbanism, and this is simply due to the share of a metro area's growth that occurred before or after WWII.

But your LA:Chicago comparison is incorrect and the two cities are far less equivalent than you suggest. Despite sprawling extensively after WWII, Chicago continued to maintain a much more robust traditional core than LA, and although its population is far below its peak, Chicago's traditional core continues to dominate it's metro area for commercial and residential land-use intensity. As a result Chicago never dismantled its rail network and, unlike LA, does not have nearly as much "catching up" to do w/ regards to rebuilding a credible mass transit system and more broadly a walkable city.

Also, LA forumers always seem ready to point out that LA has the "largest" rail network in the world in some distant past. What you won't readily get them to admit (or even understand?) is that while it was the "largest" by measure of route mileage alone, LA's "rail system" was almost entirely a single-car network for red-cars. Essentially street-running trolley-cars with a fraction of the capacity of a single L-train in Chicago's system. In other words, LA's rail network was not definitive the way Chicago's was in the development of its urban typology because, even in its time it wasn't formative for the bulk of LA's growth, identity, and way of life the way Chicago's network was.

It's not the cars themselves but the rail infrastructure. It's much easier to upgrade a system than to start from scratch which is what Los Angeles is doing now with its rail system.

[chris08876]

5771 × 2886 rendering of Olympia Towers: https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7691899/OlympiaTowers.jpg

[chris08876]

Good for LA. A 700+ footer. Damn, LA is booming!

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Not to wade in to this argument, but Vancouver is all podiums. Honestly, Olympia, probably isn't a great example of new urbanism, and Jane Jacobs would probably not approve, but for a lot next to the freeway and effectively cut off from the rest of downtown, I'm happy with what we got.

Yeah a few years before she died she sent a letter to Mayor Bloomberg asking him to stop residential highrises in Long Island City.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by chris08876

5771 × 2886 rendering of Olympia Towers: https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7691899/OlympiaTowers.jpg

Interesting that US Bank Tower is blocked by Wilshire Grand from that angle.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by chris08876

5771 × 2886 rendering of Olympia Towers: https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7691899/OlympiaTowers.jpg

OH! It's called Olympia because it's on Olympic. Why didn't I pick up on that sooner?

[chris08876]

I'm kinda a fan of these towers propping up on the fringes of the downtown area. Like it kinda expands it and is making it wider from a skyline perspective versus just clumped up in a center mass. Things like 6th & Alameda. Downtown that is, I know LA has numerous skylines.

I must admit, I don't follow LA like I should be. But you guys have some amazing developments in the pipeline. I'm a fan of those projects with 600-1200+ units in the cities pipeline. That's what I like to see.


Credit: http://www.6amartsdistrict.com/news-upda...e-biggest-arts-district-development-yet/

I think the city needs more of that. Those towers popping up in areas that are not normally areas for high rises.

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm kinda a fan of these towers propping up on the fringes of the downtown area. Like it kinda expands it and is making it wider from a skyline perspective versus just clumped up in a center mass. Things like 6th & Alameda. Downtown that is, I know LA has numerous skylines.

I must admit, I don't follow LA like I should be. But you guys have some amazing developments in the pipeline. I'm a fan of those projects with 600-1200+ units in the cities pipeline. That's what I like to see.


Credit: http://www.6amartsdistrict.com/news-upda...e-biggest-arts-district-development-yet/

I think the city needs more of that. Those towers popping up in areas that are not normally areas for high rises.

I think part of the reason they justified such tall towers all the way in the AD was that it would create a new "highrise district". I think it's awesome too and I'm glad the developer/architect was bold enough to set a precedent for that area, as more will likely follow. You gotta start somewhere.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

And I also don't know where you get your "facts", but 67% of NYers commute without a car. This is compared with Los Angeles, where 89% commute by car. Again, logical fallacy of false equivalence -NY has some traffic, so it's no better than LA?

New York has horrendous traffic because the metropolitan area it's surrounded by is overwhelming car-centric. You do know that NYC and LA don't exist in a bubble, yes?

For all the flak LA gets over its traffic, you could argue that New York City, with its miserable bottlenecks, has it worse. It does have wonderful transit options though (IF you live in Manhattan, or choice areas in BK, Queens, or the Bronx), but to think that its aging infrastructure is flawless in its design is just laughable.

[LA21st]

http://urbanize.la/post/29-story-apartment-tower-rise-olive-street

Another Tower for South Park.
The lower rise extension is unique for LA.

[scania]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Broad generalizations? What part of the numbers 89% and 67% didn't resonate with you?

You are insane!!! This is why I don't comment too much.But every once in a while, I have to speak some sense. Some of you are so simple-minded to where you don't understand the big picture. Then you don't realize how ridiculous and uneducated you reveal about yourself.

But as far as resonate....NYC has over 8 million, LA has over 3 million. Now please do some simple calculations. Hopefully this will resonate with you. LOL

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by NativeOrange

I think part of the reason they justified such tall towers all the way in the AD was that it would create a new "highrise district". I think it's awesome too and I'm glad the developer/architect was bold enough to set a precedent for that area, as more will likely follow. You gotta start somewhere.

That picture really captures how massive and relatively untouched the DTLA freeway loop is. That's good news because, aside from maybe Westlake, it's the only area in Los Angeles that has the street grid necessary to create a dense, walkable environment over a large contiguous area. Its potential is enormous.

[Resident]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

The shallowness of forumers here, counting cranes and debating vanity-shots of downtown's skyline is fittingly superficial. It's kind of pathetic getting excited about flashy-infill that will look like utter — in 15-20 years. Why don't some of you travel to a walkable city (aka REAL city) and figure out how we can get that kind of fine-grained of urbanism here for a change, instead of celebrating distant skyline photos that promise more urbanism than actually exists? This is why LA gets such a bad rap - it's full of people who don't care to dig deeper.

As for me, I'd rather have London's (or even Toronto's) urbanism with no skyline, than a skyline twice the size of DTLA's with the class-leading sh!ttiness of our urbanism.

Can the moderator please kick BikeMike??? This is about the 15th time he has been trashing DTLA and the rest of us. Exactly how many chances should he get to be an — of epic proportions?? I know from experience. You remove the — from a group and everybody enjoys the group much better.

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by Resident

Can the moderator please kick BikeMike??? This is about the 15th time he has been trashing DTLA and the rest of us. Exactly how many chances should he get to be an — of epic proportions?? I know from experience. You remove the — from a group and everybody enjoys the group much better.

I mean, it's acceptable to be an — every once in a while, but when that's all you do - rarely ever post, but show up every ~6 weeks with the exact same garbage - you develop a reputation.

Angelenos are stupid!
LA is a — fake city!
Stop admiring skyline shots in this forum about skyscrapers! Wahh!

[Resident]

Originally Posted by Valyrian Steel

I mean, it's acceptable to be an — every once in a while, but when that's all you do - rarely ever post, but show up every ~6 weeks with the exact same garbage - you develop a reputation.

Angelenos are stupid!
LA is a — fake city!
Stop admiring skyline shots in this forum about skyscrapers! Wahh!

I just realized I think I kicked his facebook profile out of the facebook group.

[112597jorge]

Originally Posted by Resident

I just realized I think I kicked his facebook profile out of the facebook group.

There's an LA facebook group?

[Wilcal]

Today I found this really cute 1953 promotional film about Los Angeles County and its development (mostly about the city). Pay special attention to minute 19:55. Boy, did they start to love their cars. By watching it you get a sense of the times and the progressive (or at least they thought) attitude about changing the urban form for what they thought was for the future and for the better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ix2GiENpXY

[Calicool]

Originally Posted by Resident

Can the moderator please kick BikeMike??? This is about the 15th time he has been trashing DTLA and the rest of us. Exactly how many chances should he get to be an — of epic proportions?? I know from experience. You remove the — from a group and everybody enjoys the group much better.

Originally Posted by Bikemike View Post
The shallowness of forumers here, counting cranes and debating vanity-shots of downtown's skyline is fittingly superficial. It's kind of pathetic getting excited about flashy-infill that will look like utter — in 15-20 years. Why don't some of you travel to a walkable city (aka REAL city) and figure out how we can get that kind of fine-grained of urbanism here for a change, instead of celebrating distant skyline photos that promise more urbanism than actually exists? This is why LA gets such a bad rap - it's full of people who don't care to dig deeper.

As for me, I'd rather have London's (or even Toronto's) urbanism with no skyline, than a skyline twice the size of DTLA's with the class-leading sh!ttiness of our urbanism.



^Wow! That's the post of someone clearly under the influence of the green eyed monter.

[Quixote]

Usually when there's two diametric ends of a "spirited debate," the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. I think the underlying sentiments behind edluva/bikemike's (it was made obvious a long time ago) passionate diatribes have merit. The only way LA's urban fabric can truly evolve forward is through rigorously ambitious policy reform, which of course begins with the will of its citizenry. That more noise isn't being made about updating archaic zoning codes, eliminating parking minimums, prioritizing mass transit, accommodating bicyclists, etc. indicates that not enough people have bought into this idea of a more urban LA. Shocking as it may seem, this little tight-knit community we have here on these forums and relevant sites like Curbed, Streetsblog, Urbanize, etc. still represents a minority faction; we need to get more people onboard with us.

That being said, I do think it's a bit silly (not to mention ironic) to chastise others for discussing skyline growth on a website nominally dedicated to skyscrapers. I also think that the sheer scale of LA, the scope of its issues, and other relevant factors present their own unique challenges. It's not realistic for LA to simply follow in Seattle's footsteps and yield the same desired results. We need practical transportation alternatives first (namely rail) before drastically cutting down on parking can be a realistically saleable proposition. There's a reason why the best biking cities always tend to be mid-size (i.e. Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) rather than large, heavily populated urban centers (NYC, London, Paris, and Tokyo).

[Resident]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Usually when there's two diametric ends of a "spirited debate," the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. I think the underlying sentiments behind edluva/bikemike's (it was made obvious a long time ago) passionate diatribes have merit.

No, they do not. No bigger or better skyscraper is going to be made because of his posts. No change will ever be made to the minimum parking requirements. This is a fan board of people who like new buildings and specifically buildings in Los Angeles, not a place where policy is made. There is no place here for his constant shitting on Los Angeles. One person should not be able to ruin the experience of this board for everybody else.