LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

See, you say we aren't going to be seeing any of those types of megaprojects, and logically we shouldn't, but for some reason we are. Off the top of my head, I can think of three right now, including the Wilshire Grand redevelopment. I think there is a chance that megaprojects are here to stay.

But only the hotel portion. The office portion is still a long ways off. And don't forget that project also received tax rebates and was granted a special signage district. Aside from projects receiving special treatment I just don't think projects of that scale are economically viable.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by bobcat

But only the hotel portion. The office portion is still a long ways off. And don't forget that project also received tax rebates and was granted a special signage district. Aside from projects receiving special treatment I just don't think projects of that scale are economically viable.

I wonder if special signage districts (single buildings, actually) would even be sought if the parking space requirements were reduced, making a project more viable?

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by bobcat

But only the hotel portion. The office portion is still a long ways off. And don't forget that project also received tax rebates and was granted a special signage district. Aside from projects receiving special treatment I just don't think projects of that scale are economically viable.

Both the Century Plaza towers and the proposed Hollywood towers next to the Capital Records towers don't have any special benefits. It seems that projects of that scale are, in fact, economically viable.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Both the Century Plaza towers and the proposed Hollywood towers next to the Capital Records towers don't have any special benefits. It seems that projects of that scale are, in fact, economically viable.

I thought we were talking about downtown. This is the downtown thread, right?

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by bobcat

I thought we were talking about downtown. This is the downtown thread, right?

Of course. I'm just saying that just because one developer took advantage of various things doesn't mean that mega projects aren't viable. I was using examples.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Of course. I'm just saying that just because one developer took advantage of various things doesn't mean that mega projects aren't viable. I was using examples.

Once again, it should have been obvious I was talking about DTLA in the Downtown LA thread. Every real estate submarket is going to run by its own rules.

Speaking of viability, even the developer of the Courtyard/Residence Inn across from LA Live has said they may need tax breaks or subsidies, and folks here think that project is ghetto.

[all of the trash]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Of course. I'm just saying that just because one developer took advantage of various things doesn't mean that mega projects aren't viable. I was using examples.

you have to consider how far behind downtown is compared to a market like the westside in terms of wealth/economic viability. downtown is still dirty, disconnected and plagued with ugly surface parking lots. thats a huge hurdle for investors. now that i think about it i can't really think of areas with massive surface parking lots on the westside. while a megaproject could be built on the westside the issue there is political will and NIMBYism, it wouldn't happen for those reasons. remember, LA will never see the growth it had in the 50s and again in the 80s. we talk a lot about "when the economy recovers" as if thats a guaranteed scenario. I don't see anything on the horizon thats going to reestablish southern california as an attractive economic power.

i don't see why we have to have 'mega projects' in DTLA. angelenos have to get over 'compensating' for our city's mistakes with big unnecessary towers.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

you have to consider how far behind downtown is compared to a market like the westside in terms of wealth/economic viability. downtown is still dirty, disconnected and plagued with ugly surface parking lots. thats a huge hurdle for investors. now that i think about it i can't really think of areas with massive surface parking lots on the westside. while a megaproject could be built on the westside the issue there is political will and NIMBYism, it wouldn't happen for those reasons. remember, LA will never see the growth it had in the 50s and again in the 80s. we talk a lot about "when the economy recovers" as if thats a guaranteed scenario. I don't see anything on the horizon thats going to reestablish southern california as an attractive economic power.

i don't see why we have to have 'mega projects' in DTLA. angelenos have to get over 'compensating' for our city's mistakes with big unnecessary towers.

Do you really think that downtown is that much more worse off the Hollywood?

[LAofAnaheim]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. LA cannot have decent/reasonable infill projects without a serious parking reform. We mandate suburban parking rituals for all developments, hence a development has to be "mega-huge" for it to be economically viable. There are some exceptions, but you have to be smart to find them and go through all these timeliness hurdles.

Does a restaurant opening on 7th street really need parking? They'll still be successful without the parking; or they can choose to provide valet parking at their own cost. The City shouldn't mandate parking; especially in a downtown district.

Until we unbundle parking from developments; developers need additional incentives to build. So be it; if it's a special sign district or tax breaks. It's the parking!!!!!

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Do you really think that downtown is that much more worse off the Hollywood?

I'd say that Hollywood is considerably further along the gentrification path than DTLA is. Remember that even at its lowest point Hollywood has always been a densely populated neighborhood and a major tourist destination. And as such they've always had stores, restaurants, hotels, along with other basic goods and service providers even if they were more downscale compared to what's there now.

In contrast, DTLA has until recently been pretty barren. I mean, Ralph's didn't even open until July 2007, and we're still anxiously waiting for Target.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by bobcat

I'd say that Hollywood is considerably further along the gentrification path than DTLA is. Remember that even at its lowest point Hollywood has always been a densely populated neighborhood and a major tourist destination. And as such they've always had stores, restaurants, hotels, along with other basic goods and service providers even if they were more downscale compared to what's there now.

In contrast, DTLA has until recently been pretty barren. I mean, Ralph's didn't even open until July 2007, and we're still anxiously waiting for Target.

I sort of feel like we're playing a cats game here. I still think that megaprojects are not as dead an entity as you think, but I don't think that there is any point in arguing over it any more.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. LA cannot have decent/reasonable infill projects without a serious parking reform.

No, LA cannot have decent infill without serious transit improvements

Does a restaurant opening on 7th street really need parking?

yes. extensive parking will always be required in some shape or form until transit becomes a substantively viable alternative to the car.

Until we unbundle parking from developments; developers need additional incentives to build. So be it; if it's a special sign district or tax breaks. It's the parking!!!!!

Wrong. It's the transit.

until we have a functionally transit-accessible city, absurd parking ratios will be required, and therefore, developers will need additional incentives. It's the transit!!!!

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by edluva

until we have a functionally transit-accessible city, absurd parking ratios will be required, and therefore, developers will need additional incentives. It's the transit!!!!

Seattle doesn't have the greatest transit in the world, yet they have abolished their parking requirements. There are many other ways that people can get to a restaurant that isn't driving/taking a train. They can walk/bike/ or even take a (gasp) bus! Having a half-assed rail system doesn't, to me, seem to be the biggest detriment in the world to having no parking requirements.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by edluva

No, LA cannot have decent infill without serious transit improvements



yes. extensive parking will always be required in some shape or form until transit becomes a substantively viable alternative to the car.



Wrong. It's the transit.

until we have a functionally transit-accessible city, absurd parking ratios will be required, and therefore, developers will need additional incentives. It's the transit!!!!

Downtown LA had more parking lots in the 90s....and yet it was not as "hip, exciting 24/7" as it is today. It's not the parking that brings people into downtown LA...it's the venues.

If parking was the reason people went to places, then the most hopping spot in Los Angeles would be Santa Clarita with its miles and miles of asphault parking. Wrong. It's Venice, Santa Monica and Hollywood, those with more limited lots than downtown LA. People will pay $20 to park if they want to go to a venue.

How much more transit in downtown LA do you need for it to be suitable to you? We got trains now to Culver City (early 2012), Pasadena, Long Beach, South LA, East LA, Hollywood, Koreatown, Valley, etc... every 10 minutes from 6 am to 11 pm. How much more is needed until we can say we have "enough"? One person's definition of "enough" is not anothers.

Because we have so much parking and freeways that cut THROUGH downtown (any other major city have a freeway IN their downtown?)...the car will be convenient. In other cities, the car is not a reasonable alternative. In LA..........the car IS a reasonable alternative. But if we keep giving into high parking ratios, we're just giving transit a disadvantage.

By the way, Perch, Soi 7, Wokcano, Urbano Pizza, Dublins, Big Wangs, Syrup Desserts, Hooters, iCON Lounge, etc... all opened up within the last couple of years and added NO PARKING, but yet, they're packed restaurants!!!! They may offer valet service, but there was NO ADDED PARKING. So, to say people don't become because there is "no parking" is an absolute false.

[edluva]

just because a train goes to point A doesn't automatically make point A accessible to everyone.

for instance, getting to wilshire and western isn't much easier for me, a person living in glendale or mar vista, simply because the purple line stops there. I need to get to the purple line first, which is a tremendous mental challenge to begin with.

so your simplistic take on transit, who's quality i gather from your rhetorical question of 'how much more does it take for downtown to be suitable', ignores the fundamental problem with "LA" as a whole (as opposed to your myopic concern with downtown in isolation)

You and illith would be happy with a downtown LA serving as another version of old town pasadena - a glorified outdoor mall people drive to on friday evenings to walk down a street where every other space is a cordoned off dining area fronting a themed restaurant - and pretend they're in an organic city, before paying their $5 parking fee and heading back to montebello. you're a teaspoon more "raw" than caruso.

I'm thinking bigger than that, lest i remind you this isn't san diego.

perhaps you should consider the possibility that those restaurants you listed owe their successes the the glut of parking lots and structures already in existence long before their arrival, and that this is an unsustainable model for downtown growth if we're hoping to see dtla become anything more than a novelty restaurant theme-park a-la gaslamp.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by edluva

You and illith would be happy with a downtown LA serving as another version of old town pasadena - a glorified outdoor mall people drive to on friday evenings to walk down a street where every other space is a cordoned off dining area fronting a themed restaurant - and pretend they're in an organic city, before paying their $5 parking fee and heading back to montebello. you're a teaspoon more "raw" than caruso.

There is nothing more I would hate then DTLA being nothing more then a lunch spot. However, I think you are equating transit with vibrant cities a little too much. Yes, transit is great, and yes, it is very important, but is it vital? I don't think so. San Francisco has a great downtown, but the actual transportation isn't very good. BART is little more then three lines, and MUNI (streetcars, not the buses) only covers the main peninsula. However, San Francisco thrives in spite of all that, and it does so without parking requirements. Tel Aviv is an amazing city, vibrant, dense, and pedestrian-focused, and it has no rail system whatsoever. Or parking requirements. Seattle has one long light rail line, no parking requirements, and a great downtown. Yes, transit is very, very, very important. But it isn't the most important. People can bike. They can walk. They can (gasp!) take a bus. They aren't limited to just driving or taking rail.

[edluva]

illith,

you're comparing apples and oranges. SF is a 7 mile square with a population density over twice that of LA's, an uninterruptedly anti-car urban design throughout, and a commercial urban fabric that to a great degree, serves its own wealthy residents.

LA on the other hand, is, yes, a third world city, trying to design itself as a destination for suburbanite money, because the majority of people living within LA are poor and do not have the money to make LA meet your definition of "vibrant". The urban design and density of the islands of "vibrant" LA are spaced such that transit must travel long distances quickly to achieve for potential yuppies the type of "vibrant" lifestyle you probably admire in cities like seattle or sf.

let's face it, despite its paper density, noone considers westlake a promotable urban counterpart to the majority of the cities you mentioned. If LA was SF, you could bike to hollywood and santa monica. But that's simply not the case, unfortunately. And LA's definitely no London either. LA has too many functional (aka economic) gaps that noone wants to acknowledge.

so until the forgotten hoods of impoverished latino ubiquity are figured into our economic and cultural consciousness, and integrated into our urban fabric/identity, we can champion our little pockets of make-believe urbanism like the grove, or increasingly, downtown la, to yours (and suburban la's) delight.

[omp835]

^^^IMHO the reason LA isn't vibrant has nothing to do with rich or poor. Simply put it has everything to do with density. You can have hundreds of people on any given street but it will never feel vibrant because the streets and sidewalks are too wide. The most vibrant spots I notices are Hollywood Blvd (most vibrant) Venice Beach (second most vibrant). Its hard to people watch anywhere else.

[pesto]

Actually, SF is comparable and has poor rail transit in its downtown, finance and tourist areas. Yet it succeeds (maybe it's the huge number of parking structures?).

Using the theory of some posters here, you could build a subway in the Mojave and it would suddenly become dense. London (and the others) did not grow BECAUSE of the transit; they grew until transit was NEEDED by the density. In any event, DT LA does not need much more transit: there are 5 major lines coming from 6 directions. The problem is that there is just not that much interest in taking it yet (but growing).

We are also getting a bit elitist here. Is there someone who believes that London, Paris, or any of the 3rd world cities have no poverty in their inner metros? I would guess that the area from DT to Santa Monica easily matches the per capita income of any comparable area of 3M people in Europe or the 3rd world in spite of receiving huge numbers of illegals every year. I would expect there to always be rich, poor and moderate pockets throughout the city.

If we do manage to attract people because they want to live in LA, then several things happen without govt. intervention, but simply because the demand exists: the poor will tend to get pushed out in favor of higher income people; transit will get more usage; housing will look better (nicer construction and better maintenance); restaurants and shops will flourish. This is all that gentrification is.

[RuFFy]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Downtown LA had more parking lots in the 90s....and yet it was not as "hip, exciting 24/7" as it is today. It's not the parking that brings people into downtown LA...it's the venues.

Is it any coincidence that the arrival of the venue's from the 90's forward coincide with the arrival of the Blue/Red lines in Downtown Los Angeles? If it's the Venue's that bring people to DT, what brought the Venues? Were the venue's really what set the chain reaction off for DT's revitalization.. or was it something else?

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

In other cities, the car is not a reasonable alternative. In LA..........the car IS a reasonable alternative.

In LA, the car, for the most part, is the only viable mode of transport. To say it's a reasonable alternative implies that driving is an option to another mode of transit primarily used by the general populace. In LA's case, this is not true. That brings an answer to your next statement...

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

How much more transit in downtown LA do you need for it to be suitable to you?

The answer is quite simple. We need the amount necessary to have a complimenting, viable mode of transit, for the Greater Los Angeles Area. We need to solve the problem of getting from Glendale to Palos Verdes in a time comparable to driving, or at least a time that offsets the difference in costs of driving. So, if I can get to Palos Verdes from Glendale for 2 bucks, it more than makes up for an additional 30 minutes of commute time because I don't have to pump more than 2 bucks in gas, I'm not moving my car closer to new tires or an oil change, I'm decreasing the opportunity of an accident, and in the long term, potential keeping my insurance rates down.

I might add one more thing, when I worked in DTLA, a very large amount of my colleagues arrived on Express Bus or Rail. Easily, the reason DT is such a major employment center is because it can draw talent from a much wider area than any other place in the region, be it by car or public transit. Increasing the talent pool can only make DT a more desirable place and increase it's overall exposure to continue to drive a revitalization.