LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[alki]

Originally Posted by bobcat

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

When is it not acceptable to use examples of actions taken in other areas; other cities.....when making a point about DTLA? I think no American city has the luxury of being provincial. Adopting what works in other neighborhoods; other cities is what will help DTLA become more successful IMO.

[alki]

Interesting architectural review of Farmer's Field [dang, I hate that name] in case you miss it in the Times.

Critic's Notebook: AEG's designs on downtown L.A. stadium

The Farmers Field stadium project has the potential to transform downtown into L.A.'s true center. Is a dose of architectural vision on AEG's part asking too much?

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-stadium-notebook-20110817,0,4623314.story

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Seattle doesn't have the greatest transit in the world, yet they have abolished their parking requirements.

That's not a fair comparison. There is a committment to mass transit in Seattle that I didn't see when I lived in LA and apparently it isn't true today. Yes, Seattle relies heavily on its buses. However, you have to know those buses are always clean, rarely break down and tend to run on time. That's not my experience of LA buses. Has that changed in the 10+ years I have been out of LA?

Some other points...........Seattle people still rely heavily on cars when going out at nite. Use of mass transit for Mariner's and Hawk's games is on a dramatic upswing now that LRT stops at the stadiums. Seattle still has to fight rich jerks who oppose mass transit.

I think Farmer's Field will be an excellent opportunity for LA to convert people who normally are turned off by mass transit. I hope LA takes full advantage of that opportunity.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by alki

When is it not acceptable to use examples of actions taken in other areas; other cities.....when making a point about DTLA? I think no American city has the luxury of being provincial. Adopting what works in other neighborhoods; other cities is what will help DTLA become more successful IMO.

We weren't discussing urban planning or architectural designs. We were talking about the economic viability of the various types of development in different submarkets. Just because a project is viable in one neighborhood does not make it equally viable in another one. (And for the record I don't think the Hollywood project is ever gonna happen in its present form.)

[alki]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

I'd also point out that almost nearly city outside the USA follows this same pattern of the most investment and wealthiest residents living at the center, with progressively less investment and less wealth as you move outwards.

Yes, but that attitude led to the Muslim riots in the suburbs of Paris two years ago and most of the recent riots in London were in peripheral parts of that city.

I agree with Brigham............cities must give strong support to their cores........but at the same time, they can not ignore the neighborhoods that surround the core. With American cities like LA, they need to focus on DT but they also need to make sure investment is going into neighborhods like S. Central and Crenshaw. I lived through the LA uprising of 1992. No one benefits when such an event occurs.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by alki

That's not a fair comparison. There is a committment to mass transit in Seattle that I didn't see when I lived in LA and apparently it isn't true today. Yes, Seattle relies heavily on its buses. However, you have to know those buses are always clean, rarely break down and tend to run on time. That's not my experience of LA buses. Has that changed in the 10+ years I have been out of LA?

Actually, it has. In the past ten years, almost all the buses have been replaced by newer, clean-air buses. They seem generally clean the few times I have ridden them, and appear on time. Granted, I don't ride the buses very often, but they seem nice when I do.

[alki]

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!!!!

I agree with you........and let me take it one step further..........people have to be willing to use mass transit regularly once the system is established. That's something Angelenos have been reluctant to do in the past.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Actually, it has. In the past ten years, almost all the buses have been replaced by newer, clean-air buses. They seem generally clean the few times I have ridden them, and appear on time. Granted, I don't ride the buses very often, but they seem nice when I do.

Good to hear. Now Angelenos have to be willing to ride them.

[alki]

Originally Posted by bobcat

We weren't discussing urban planning or architectural designs. We were talking about the economic viability of the various types of development in different submarkets. Just because a project is viable in one neighborhood does not make it equally viable in another one. (And for the record I don't think the Hollywood project is ever gonna happen in its present form.)

I don't know. We're not talking two very different cities..........just two different commercial nodes within the same city.

But I think to what I was reacting was the way you handled the discussion. I don't agree with everything said on this blog but when I do disagree and feel strongly about it, I try to give the other poster the courtesy of an explanation as to why I disagree. You, on the hand, in this sitch reacted like your tag. You sounded ready to slit his throat and demanded the poster not continue in that vein. That may be effective when you're on the hunt [see bobcats] but it isn't particularly productive on a blog IMO.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by alki

I agree with you........and let me take it one step further..........people have to be willing to use mass transit regularly once the system is established. That's something Angelenos have been reluctant to do in the past.

Though, if you have seen the newest ridership figures, it doesn't seem like they are so hesitant now. Red Line is getting 170,000 per day, the Blue Line is getting 90,000 per day, and both are still growing. Ridership doesn't seem to be the issue anymore.

[alki]

Originally Posted by edluva

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.

I see several problems with your perspective.

First, LA did have some mass transit in the early part of the 20th century and developed accordingly, but then become one of the first cities to openly endorse the car. Unlike other cities, red car ridership started dropping well before WW II and the first freeway opened in LA in 1940. That means some of LA's most dynamic growth [sprawl] occurred when it prayed at the altar of the automobile. Its going to take decades more to realign the development that happened during the time the car was king and make it more suitable for mass transit.

Secondly, even in Paris or NYC, you often have to go through a central clearing area to get to another area. For an example, on fixed rail, you can't get from Yonkers to Brooklyn without going through Manhattan. Buses are more flexible but even then demand has to be great enough to warrant a bus that goes from Yonkers to Brooklyn. So then, I don't think there will ever be an easy way to get from Glendale to Western and Wilshire by fixed rail.......esp. with the mts in the way......without going through DTLA.

Thirdly, there is a key LA paradigm that has caused LA to be a late bloomer when it comes to mass transit. Angelenos have a hard time getting through the notion that mass transit won't pick them up at their front door. The idea that they may have to walk to a stop and then get on a bus only to transfer to another vehicle that may require further walking is enough to cause an Angeleno a serious panic attack.

I know this because I was appointed to the oversight committee for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project in the early 90s and we had to sit in on the hearings for the Red Line. When people were not complaining about the walking, they were freaking out over the fact the Red Line was to go underground. Their argument was that people come to LA to see the sun and they would never ride a subway and lose sight of the sun. Never is going to happen. That argument was repeated over and over again..........even while the Red Line was under construction.........and usually led to the criticism that City Hall was trying to turn LA into NYC which, for some people, was their worst version of a nightmare. I am not joking.....these were serious issues raised during the planning and construction of the Red Line.

This mindset.......which I know is changing albeit slowly......has to be put to bed finally before mass transit will be well utilized in LA. No other city in the US is willing to endure the kind of traffic congestion LA people suffer daily.......that's how strong the committment to one's car is. IMO that lock has to be broken......that's why I suggest Farmer's Field might really help in that regard.

[alki]

Originally Posted by 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?).

During the 90s, I lived for a year in SF and I have to disagree with you. Yes, BART is more a commuter line for suburbanites but their streetcar system was fairly extensive. When going downtown for work, I took either a bus or a streetcar depending on where I was going. And the cable cars in DTSF were used both by tourists and residents.

The only time I drove was at nite when I was going from one neighborhood in the city to another. When it comes to transit, I would never call SF comparable to LA. And let me tell you, driving your car in SF really sucks because street parking is so hard to find.

[alki]

Originally Posted by alki

Interesting architectural review of Farmer's Field [dang, I hate that name] in case you miss it in the Times.

Critic's Notebook: AEG's designs on downtown L.A. stadium

The Farmers Field stadium project has the potential to transform downtown into L.A.'s true center. Is a dose of architectural vision on AEG's part asking too much?

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-stadium-notebook-20110817,0,4623314.story

Sorry for the repeat.....should have read the other posts before posting.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by edluva

LA on the other hand, is, yes, a third world city...

Can we give this crap a rest please? As someone who's been staying in Colombo, Sri Lanka (an actual third-world city) for the past week, I can't even tell you how silly your statement sounds. If you think having a large immigrant population and a few too many potholes qualifies LA as "third world", you truly need to get out of your bubble more often.

[OneMetropolis]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Can we give this crap a rest please? As someone who's been staying in Columbo, Sri Lanka (an actual third-world city) for the past week, I can't even tell you how silly your statement sounds. If you think having a large immigrant population and a few too many potholes qualifies LA as "third world", you truly need to get out of your bubble more often.

Thank you. The ignorance. XD

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Though, if you have seen the newest ridership figures, it doesn't seem like they are so hesitant now. Red Line is getting 170,000 per day, the Blue Line is getting 90,000 per day, and both are still growing. Ridership doesn't seem to be the issue anymore.

A couple of months ago, I saw ridership statistics for the entire metro system including buses, LRT and commuter trains and if I remember correctly overall ridership was essentially flat when all modes were considered. Now in all fairness LA has a large and fairly extensive mass transit system which is very reliant on job creation for its growth, and while I don't look at the breakout for Metro LA, I know job creation for the state as a whole has been anemic over the past year so I suspect that's also true for LA.

But again, I think the committment to mass transit here is greater than in LA. And let me narrow that a bit by saying the committment is greater among people here who have choices when they commute and not just the people who must rely on mass transit exclusively. Would you say more and more Angelenos who have choices when they commute are willing to opt for mass transit as opposed to driving?

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by alki

A couple of months ago, I saw ridership statistics for the entire metro system including buses, LRT and commuter trains and if I remember correctly overall ridership was essentially flat when all modes were considered. Now in all fairness LA has a large and fairly extensive mass transit system which is very reliant on job creation for its growth, and while I don't look at the breakout for Metro LA, I know job creation for the state as a whole has been anemic over the past year so I suspect that's also true for LA.

But again, I think the committment to mass transit here is greater than in LA. And let me narrow that a bit by saying the committment is greater among people here who have choices when they commute and not just the people who must rely on mass transit exclusively. Would you say more and more Angelenos who have choices when they commute are willing to opt for mass transit as opposed to driving?

Don't forget @alki..........Metro bus operations was cut by 8% on July 1st. So you cannot say it's "flat" when 8% of bus hours was cut but ridership stayed essentially the same.

By the way, today was the FIRST time the Big Blue Bus 10 could not pick me up at Santa Monica/Cloverfield on the way to downtown LA at night because the bus was ALREADY packed before my stop. Though upsetting...it was great to see so many transit riders on the BBB Rapid 10!! Go Metro! (and Big Blue Bus). Just cannot wait for the Expo Line to open........that's going to be HUGE!

[pesto]

Originally Posted by alki

During the 90s, I lived for a year in SF and I have to disagree with you. Yes, BART is more a commuter line for suburbanites but their streetcar system was fairly extensive. When going downtown for work, I took either a bus or a streetcar depending on where I was going. And the cable cars in DTSF were used both by tourists and residents.

The only time I drove was at nite when I was going from one neighborhood in the city to another. When it comes to transit, I would never call SF comparable to LA. And let me tell you, driving your car in SF really sucks because street parking is so hard to find.

I only mentioned rail service being lacking. Bus service is mixed; fairly extensive but famous for low quality and reliability.

For sure street parking is hard to find. But huge multi-story lots exist all over the commercial and financial districts.

[sopas ej]

I read this last month, from the L.A. Daily News:

Metro's rail transit ridership up sharply

By Christina Villacorte, Staff Writer
Posted: 08/15/2011 09:33:33 PM PDT
Updated: 08/15/2011 09:35:34 PM PDT


Metro's rail lines are carrying more passengers than ever, but ridership on its bus lines stayed flat, according to data released Monday.

Metro's rail ridership in July rose 8.9 percent, with increases on all four lines, according to data released Tuesday.

The Gold Line from Pasadena to East Los Angeles averaged 42,900 weekday riders, about twice as many as in the same period last year.

The Blue and Red/Purple Lines also set new ridership records in July, while the Green Line had its second best month.

However, Metro spokesman Marc Littman clarified that the numbers were based on rolling averages of ticket sales and passenger head counts done not only in July but also in the six months prior to it.

"The rail numbers in July may be reflecting is the impact of gas prices earlier in the year and also more recent events such as improving the frequency of the Gold Line and adding more rail cars in some of the other lines," Littman said.

The San Fernando Valley's Orange Line busway saw an uptick in ridership, from 21,902 weekday boardings in July 2010 to 22,817 last month. That took monthly boards to 591,179, according to Metro.

Other segments of Metro's bus system saw a slight decline, from about 1.1 million to 1.09 million weekday boardings.

Littman said that was still a positive sign.

"On the bus side, it shows that we're starting to at least bounce back from the throes of the recession because, at one point in 2008, bus ridership was down about 10 percent," Littman said.


Click on this for the link.

I liked the news about the Gold Line. Some people have been pooh-poohing the Gold Line, saying it has low ridership, is slow, blah blah blah-- but ridership has been on an upswing. Its extension into East LA has only helped it.

[pesto]

Good to see that the Gold is picking up. I had always assumed Pasadena-DT was a winner line and maybe it's finally catching on. Even if based on more trains or more cars, an increase is an increase.