LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0 - Page 121

alki · #**2401** Posted **Oct 23, 2011, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

How could every city and developer be so confused as to think that parking was vital to getting people to these places?

Seriously. You think developers and cities really know what's best for cities? I have to take exception to that notion. How can you ignore the notable project failures in just Metro LA alone, instigated by developers or cities or cities and developers working in concert. Projects like Paseo Pasadena, or the Fig shopping mall in DTLA or the one near city hall to name just three Billions were spent on Hollywood over nearly 2 decades and nothing happened. Too often cities and developers rely on unsuccessful formulas, not vision, when putting together plans for new projects.

Forgetting current parking requirements, if DTLA continues on its current development curve, eventually land costs will become too prohibitive to put in much parking in future developments. New square footage will have to be reserved for more higher revenue producing uses such as offices, retail and residences in order to make a project pencil. However, that shouldn't pose a very big problem. As DTLA becomes more attractive and a more self sustaining neighborhood, there will be less demand for parking as people make alternative choices to live DT......like having one car per couple or family instead of two.....or to work in DTLA, taking mass transit instead of a car.

And its important to note that this transition won't happen overnite. NY, Chicago, SF, Paris, London et al didn't become mass transit cities in a year or even ten. They came to that point over many decades of intense development. Hopefully, people in 2050 won't see DTLA through the same eyes we see it now.

Illithid Dude · #**2402** Posted **Oct 23, 2011, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alki

to name just three Billions were spent on Hollywood over nearly 2 decades and nothing happened.

You don't think Hollywood has changed for the better?

LosAngelesDreamin · #**2403** Posted **Oct 23, 2011, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dachacon

I doubt it. The east side of Downtown is pretty much industrial and as far as i know industrial zoned and fully leased. Why get rid of the one sector of real estate that is doing very well? besides the areas east, and north are better suited for mid rise development.

On a side note if the rezoning of the entire city is indeed on the agenda then i hope the plan calls for Allowing high-rise and high density in Neighborhoods such as Downtown, Koreatown, Pico Union, and Hollywood along with the entire central city area. These neighborhoods have 40ft height limits, with major thoroughfares having a 400ft limit i believe. raising the height limit to 150 ft like the old bank district had in the early days allows for 12 storey buildings through out the central area, and raising the major street height to 500ft allows built up areas such as century city and the wilshire corridor to expand to meet growing demand for office and residential needs. added bodies will further compel the need for a subway down wilshire and add numbers to the Expo line and Crenshaw line.

That would be nice =D LA can be like NY... Downtown isn't the only place for skyscrapers.. but all over the city and subways connecting the areas together

Los Angeles: Downtown, MidCity, Westside, South Central

New York: Downtown, Midtown, Uptown

Yea??? Do you love it??

LosAngelesDreamin · #**2404** Posted **Oct 23, 2011, 11:23 PM**

Why are people afraid of height here??? How about the city put a 500ft height limit in the area east of Main street. That's the way it is in Downtown San Diego and its seen as not too short and not too tall... sort of a "Goldilocks Limit" ITS JUUUUUSST RIGHT. So the area will have varied bldg heights. a win win for those who like tall bldgs and those who don't.

If any of you ever walked in SD the bldgs are tall but they're not tall you know?? i just think putting ONLY 7 story bldgs in downtown is just a waste of the space above it.. like how the space above the convention center is a waste, i believe they have the zoning rights to build taller on that spot, but its not being used. maybe in the outlying areas like in Silverlake, Lincoln Heights, Boyle Heights and USC area.. but not in all of downtown.

JDRCRASH · #**2405** Posted **Oct 24, 2011, 1:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

Why are people afraid of height here??? How about the city put a 500ft height limit in the area east of Main street. That's the way it is in Downtown San Diego and its seen as not too short and not too tall... sort of a "Goldilocks Limit" ITS JUUUUUSST RIGHT. So the area will have varied bldg heights. a win win for those who like tall bldgs and those who don't.

I definitely understand what you're trying to say. The truth is that a few certain Downtown LA forumers here (whom I won't name) are paranoid that if that where to happen to downtown, newcomers to the area would immediately think of that certain city on the east coast.

And my response to that is... WHO CARES??? Who cares if people think of Manhattan when they come to Downtown? (it's not like it would be with height limits that I suggested, anyway - the term "manhattanization" is poorly used).

Moreover... who cares what a certain troll (who shall also go unnamed) here in the LA forums thinks?

Quote:

If any of you ever walked in SD the bldgs are tall but they're not tall you know?? i just think putting ONLY 7 story bldgs in downtown is just a waste of the space above it.. like how the space above the convention center is a waste, i believe they have the zoning rights to build taller on that spot, but its not being used. maybe in the outlying areas like in Silverlake, Lincoln Heights, Boyle Heights and USC area.. but not in all of downtown.

Have you seen that scale model of future San Diego in Horton Plaza? 20-40 story towers all over the place. East Village and Gaslamp are pretty much built up with buildings that tall.

Baronvonellis · #**2406** Posted **Oct 24, 2011, 4:50 PM**

I hope I'm in the right thread for this. I'm going on a 5 day trip to LA this week, and I'm looking for some great architecture to see there. I'm really interested in seeing the Hollyhock house and Carroll ave Victorian homes. Are there any other cool buildings to see in LA or nearby? I'd be up for a tour if it's a particularly significant or historic building. Are there any famous mid-century modern homes that you can tour or at least drive by?

Any good historic sites to see in LA or nearby?

travanx · #**2407** Posted **Oct 24, 2011, 6:13 PM**

In Downtown basically take a street at 1st, work your way down to Olympic and keep winding back up and down the different streets. Maybe even starting at Staples Center/LA Live and work your way up Figueroa. Walk Spring St from Olympic to 1st and come back down Main St. Repeat again on Broadway, etc. You will see some very beautiful buildings.

You can drive or walk this. I would walk this and have at least 4-5 hours set out during the morning, after 9am for this. Downtown has a real nice feel when walking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

I hope I'm in the right thread for this. I'm going on a 5 day trip to LA this week, and I'm looking for some great architecture to see there. I'm really interested in seeing the Hollyhock house and Carroll ave Victorian homes. Are there any other cool buildings to see in LA or nearby? I'd be up for a tour if it's a particularly significant or historic building. Are there any famous mid-century modern homes that you can tour or at least drive by?

Any good historic sites to see in LA or nearby?

BrandonJXN · #**2408** Posted **Oct 24, 2011, 10:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

My apologies. One thing you should know about me is that I'm psychotic about my sports teams. If you badmouth my sports teams, be prepared to hear a mouthful and then some.

Well..then no one should talk about sports. Ever. Not even if it's lawn bowling or jai ali.

Back to DTLA development.

I have a question: Does anyone know what might replace Lost Souls (Harlem Place Cafe)? I'm still pissed that closed down. Best cafe downtown by far.

LosAngelesDreamin · #**2409** Posted **Oct 24, 2011, 11:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Have you seen that scale model of future San Diego in Horton Plaza? 20-40 story towers all over the place. East Village and Gaslamp are pretty much built up with buildings that tall.

Not really Gaslamp, that area is filled with 1-3 story victorian style buildings... maybe closer to the convention center with the hard rock and omni hotels.

There's a few other projects im excited about in SD but this forum is about LA so lets stick to that. I just wish some people on here didn't have a NIMBY-ish attitude towards building heights. A lot of San Diegans wish we could build taller but due to the airports proximity we can't =/ So lucky you.... LA should really take advantage of their ability to build taller.. and im not trying to say put a bunch of 1,000 footers in the area. at least 400ft-800ft in south park, financial, civic center, Jewelry, Chinatown, Little Tokyo districts... and no more than 500ft in the old bank, fashion, toy, arts and warehouse district.

With the exception of Wilshire grand tower and who knows.. maybe another tallest skyscraper... would be cool if there was a supertall outside of downtown, but I doubt that any other neighborhood in LA would want that though

colemonkee · #**2410** Posted **Oct 24, 2011, 11:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

I have a question: Does anyone know what might replace Lost Souls (Harlem Place Cafe)? I'm still pissed that closed down. Best cafe downtown by far.

It's rumored to be replaced by a wine bar at some point. I'm still recovering from that loss as well. That was my go-to breakfast spot on the weekends.

BrandonJXN · #**2411** Posted **Oct 25, 2011, 12:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemonkee

It's rumored to be replaced by a wine bar at some point. I'm still recovering from that loss as well. That was my go-to breakfast spot on the weekends.

They had the best crepes.

My Saturday morning breakfast: Warm granola and peach cereal, a bbq/swiss chicken crepe, and a warm chai tea. Oh yes lord. I miss that.

colemonkee · #**2412** Posted **Oct 25, 2011, 4:55 AM**

RonPalmer, welcome to the forum.

For the rest of you, I take a two day vacation and you fight like little 5-year-olds. I deleted a LOT of very off-topic posts regarding sports.

Just a reminder, for what feels like the 7,000th time: this is a thread for Downtown Los Angeles projects and developments. Keep it on topic, and keep it civil.

The next time I have to spend 30 minutes combing through off-topic nonsense, I'm going to make it worth my while and suspend a few of you.

JDRCRASH · #**2413** Posted **Oct 25, 2011, 5:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

With the exception of Wilshire grand tower and who knows.. maybe another tallest skyscraper... would be cool if there was a supertall outside of downtown, but I doubt that any other neighborhood in LA would want that though

Agreed. The next supertall would almost certainly have to be in downtown.

Steve2726 · #**2414** Posted **Oct 25, 2011, 2:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alki

The problem with LA is that it shouldn't be as ugly as it is. It has the weather, the mts, the ocean.......and its glamorized on teevee and on film. And yet, there are parts of the city that are as ugly as sin. Its a city where trees are cut into lollipop shapes. Its a city where I first heard the term..... dirty trees. Its a city where cheap stucco is over used.

Its all of those factors and more that jar dramatically with the beautiful parts of city, making the ugly more ugly. Most cities tend to be one way or the other......LA is both. When its beautiful, its very beautiful........and when its ugly, its very ugly. Fortunately, I think the trend is to be more attractive. I think that's why the revitalization of DT is growing in popularity.

This is a great post with excellent observations. It's too bad the city is broke and doesn't care about cleaning up large swaths of different neighborhoods. There's so much potential that could be realized thru simple means like fixing sidewalks, changing zoning, etc.

BrandonJXN · #**2415** Posted **Oct 26, 2011, 2:56 PM**

Suddenly, I have an urge to buy Moncler jackets and Ugg boots.

pesto · #**2416** Posted **Oct 26, 2011, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Suddenly, I have an urge to buy Moncler jackets and Ugg boots.

Well, as they say: The actual planting associated with seed products is actually an essential function, as well as prior to seed products could be sown having a prospective client of the popping upward correctly, the actual planning from the dirt, time from the 12 months, as well as the actual time, should be taken into account.

pesto · #**2417** Posted **Oct 26, 2011, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alki

Seriously. You think developers and cities really know what's best for cities? I have to take exception to that notion. How can you ignore the notable project failures in just Metro LA alone, instigated by developers or cities or cities and developers working in concert. Projects like Paseo Pasadena, or the Fig shopping mall in DTLA or the one near city hall to name just three Billions were spent on Hollywood over nearly 2 decades and nothing happened. Too often cities and developers rely on unsuccessful formulas, not vision, when putting together plans for new projects.

Forgetting current parking requirements, if DTLA continues on its current development curve, eventually land costs will become too prohibitive to put in much parking in future developments. New square footage will have to be reserved for more higher revenue producing uses such as offices, retail and residences in order to make a project pencil. However, that shouldn't pose a very big problem. As DTLA becomes more attractive and a more self sustaining neighborhood, there will be less demand for parking as people make alternative choices to live DT......like having one car per couple or family instead of two.....or to work in DTLA, taking mass transit instead of a car.

And its important to note that this transition won't happen overnite. NY, Chicago, SF, Paris, London et al didn't become mass transit cities in a year or even ten. They came to that point over many decades of intense development. Hopefully, people in 2050 won't see DTLA through the same eyes we see it now.

I see that my prior post got bumped; I must have had a sports comment in it.

Parking does not create the attraction or guarantee success; I have made this point repeatedly. It facilitates people getting there when they want to get there. Union Station, the Music Center, the major hotels, LA Live, etc.

I agree that over time LA becomes denser and gets more subways and it won't happen overnight. A few parking structures (say 6 levels over retail) on otherwise empty lots doesn't strike me as disastrous in the 20-40 years it takes for this to happen.

travanx · #**2418** Posted **Oct 27, 2011, 12:15 AM**

With taller structures. Who is opposing these projects? Is anyone opposing these projects? I would take a better guess that the tall buildings aren't happening because no one wants to invest in a massive structure in the super depression climate. Does anyone here's work involve signing off on massive real-estate loans?

Also, I drove past that new little park on Spring St. today. It looks as though they backfilled that excavated area. They could have possibly excavated that deep, to put infiltration pits under most of the park to control the storm water during the 50-year storms.

LosAngelesDreamin · #**2419** Posted **Oct 28, 2011, 6:44 AM**

hey wasn't the rendering for the Union Station master plan suppose to be released this month?? or is it in november??

pesto · #**2420** Posted **Oct 28, 2011, 4:21 PM**

Any thoughts on the routing of the trolley? Fig, 7th, Hill, 1st and down Broadway seems to be the leading candidate. Sounds good to me.

Some are saying that going to Union Station is unnecessary since the Connector will go there. But for tourists, the trolley would seem to be a preferred way of getting from South Park to Olvera, Union Station and Chinatown.