LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I always thought that 'Paris Of' thing was funny. Beirut is the Paris of the Middle East. Buenos Aires is the Paris of South America (and I am finally visiting there next Christmas, thank god. Should be quite a contrast to the Costa Rica I am writing this from). I never heard the San Francisco thing, though. What is Parisian about it?

Damn! You live in Costa Rica? You're Costa Rican? Awesome country.

Buenos Aires is a cool city.....on my list to visit. And I agree with you about SF........SF ain't no Paris. Its great in its own right. I think the closest we have to Paris is DC. In fact, L'enfant was a Parisian born architect who helped design the District.

Most Parisian comparisons are mid rise cities like their alter ego, Paris. Another example was Warsaw [before WW II] which was consider the Paris of eastern Europe. After WW II, the Soviets built a lot of hi rises and changed that image to the ugly city [IMO] it is today.

[alki]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

The one difference I see between the two is Portland's longtime commitment to good planning and urban design. In LA it seems like developers get whatever they want, even if what they have planned isn't a good fit for the neighborhood. We have community plans and urban design guidelines, but it seems like these plans have to teeth, and the exceptions are the rule. I really hope this changes...LA residents deserve better.

Well said. That was one of my frustrations of doing rehabs in LA. I had to fight like hell to get the city to approve covering up the seismic plates on two of my buildings in order to improve their aesthetics. BTW my buildings were the first to do so.

Had to go thru additional engineering expense to get them approved. And to speed up other approvals kick backs were required which I refused to do.......probably to my folly.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by alki

Damn! You live in Costa Rica? You're Costa Rican? Awesome country.

Nah, I am just vacationing there. I live in L.A. (Well, Santa Monica technically).

By the way, what building did you do in L.A.?

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Nah, I am just vacationing there. I live in L.A. (Well, Santa Monica technically).

By the way, what building did you do in L.A.?

Most of the major buildings I did was for a company for which I worked......the buildings were outside LA....in other states. The stuff I did on my own was mostly smaller stuff...........houses and small apt buildings. Some were landmarks like the Tustin House in Highland Park:



The roof leaked like a sieve and the front porch was totally enclosed. In fact, the place was ready to fall down......hadn't been painted in 20 years. It was a disaster.

In addition, I did two major bldgs......for me.....but not in the grand perspective. I did a six story, mixed use project on Hollywood Blvd. The bldg required seismic upgrades. The city wanted the front facade of ceramic tile covered with seismic plates. I got an engineer to come up with a different approach........where the holes were drilled in the grout, not the tile, and slanted behind the tile, and required only small capping plates that could be buried in the grout and not visible to the naked eye. The retail stores had been mostly vacant for years but were reoccupied after I finished the rehab. Unfortunately, the building had to come down during the 1994 quake.

The second building was in Hollywood.......a 4 story residential bldg. The front facade on the building was smooth stucco with a fleur de lys pattern. The seismic upgrade had resulted in over a hundred plates on the front facade. I proposed to the city that the plates be buried in the stucco. After getting the councilmember at the time on board, the city finally agreed. The building became a popular place to live for those working in the Industry.......this was just before the hipsters rediscovered Hollywood.

Neither building was an architectural gem.....in fact both were rather unremarkable but they had some details that made them interesting......at least to me. They were pretty typical of the era........1920-30s. They were the buildings the bigger developers pretty much ignored. I figured that would be my niche but then the quake, the riots and a partnership breakup put an end to that goal.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Have you spent time in the Arts District?

Not in a while (and maybe that's why), but I somehow I can't shake the feeling that the amount of existing buildings that can reused as lofts are overrated.

I mean, these kinds of buildings, to me, have obvious potential:

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.042623,-11...T3CmDPiOQqg&cbp=12,306.03,,0,-10.68&z=19

But, how on earth do you turn ugly buildings like this (that are short, yet take up a HUGE footprint on a city block) into condos?:

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.038245,-11...G0XuEWAD_WHA&cbp=12,310.61,,0,-2.34&z=18

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by alki

I figured that would be my niche but then the quake, the riots and a partnership breakup put an end to that goal.

Too bad, you could have waited it out, then rode the current Hollywood wave all the way to the bank. By the way, the craftsman house turned out really really great. If only all other developers thought like you did, concerning aesthetics and such...

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Not in a while (and maybe that's why), but I somehow I can't shake the feeling that the amount of existing buildings that can reused as lofts are overrated.

I mean, these kinds of buildings, to me, have obvious potential:

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.042623,-11...T3CmDPiOQqg&cbp=12,306.03,,0,-10.68&z=19

But, how on earth do you turn ugly buildings like this (that are short, yet take up a HUGE footprint on a city block) into condos?:

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.038245,-11...G0XuEWAD_WHA&cbp=12,310.61,,0,-2.34&z=18

The second building clearly is a business.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

I know we are veering off topic but I'm starting to see a logic to this extension. The IE and SGV are only going to continue to grow into some form of urbanity. In one way or another, those two areas are going to connect to LA and the 210 just won't cut it.

Plus, the Gold Line will spur development along it's route. Even though the Westside subway should be priority number one, any way to improve LA transit should be welcomed.

You want a pokey LRT for 50 miles to the IE? It's over an hour as is from Ontario to Union Station. Some form or RAPID transit, yes; snail trains, no.

And basically none of the stops (except Pasadena, which is already connected to DT) are in centers of development or regional shopping or administrative areas. Buses are more than adequate for people going to them.

I'm highly skeptical of TOD around outer suburb lines. Blue and Green have not shown me much (contrast this to Red, Purple and the inner parts of Gold, where development is quite common).

This is the classic problem with CRA's: the money goes where political pressure or donations/bribes come from, not where there is need.

[202_Cyclist]

Los Angeles magazine has an article this month about implementing performance parking (charging based on demand at a specific point in time) in downtown LA.

Between the Lines

http://www.lamag.com/features/Story.aspx?ID=1568281

[citywatch]

to not get too OT in this thread on dtla, with talk about transit in the SGV or rehabs in highland pk (although that house was nicely redone, alki!), I watch vids like this & recall a time when the area around 5th & hill was desolate at night, & not too much better during the day. And the searchlights seen in the distance located where LA live is, or a part of dt which also once was desolate & pretty much abandoned at night not too long ago.

• Video Link

btw, I dislike the look of the small square steel plates described by alki that show up on the outerwalls of bldgs that have been reinforced for quakes. they're so fugly, & the fact you had to struggle with the city to conceal them makes me go...

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by pesto

I'm highly skeptical of TOD around outer suburb lines. Blue and Green have not shown me much (contrast this to Red, Purple and the inner parts of Gold, where development is quite common).

Not sure about the Blue line, but the main reason the Green line stations have not attracted TOD is because of their location along the median of the 105. This is the exactly the alignment you don't want if you ever want transit oriented development some time in the future.

Even DC- the poster child for TOD hasn't seen success in this regard when metro lines run down highway medians. Case in point: The Orange line, which heads of out of the District into Arlington County, VA and then crosses into Fairfax County, VA. Arlington, known for their progressive planning policies, insisted that the Orange line run underneath Wilson Blvd, through the derelict towns of Rosslyn, Courthouse, Clarendon, and Ballston. The result 30 years later, is that the strip malls and garages of Arlington have given way to dense nodes of development around each station, and walkable communities where many people choose to to live without cars. When you hear about the benefits of TOD, this is it. Arlington set the gold standard. It looks like this:


Source: Wikipedia

Fairfax County took a different approach to the Orange line. They saw it primarily as a means for commuters to get in and out of DC, not as a tool for breathing life into dead towns or creating walkable communities. So after the Orange line crosses from Arlington into Fairfax, it immediately joins I-66 heading down the median, just as the Green line does with the 105. The result, this:


NERail Photo Archive

Stations are flanked by huge parking lots and structures, and there is little development within walking distance. Now that TOD is all the rage and Fairfax is trying to play catch-up, they have an uphill battle since the I-66 right-of-way and the parking structures make it difficult to build anything adjacent to the stations. For the newest line in Fairfax - the Silver line (still under construction) they avoided making the same mistake twice by having the new line diverge from the I-267 median to go throw the heart Tysons Corner- a growing edge city.

[202_Cyclist]

District Dirt:

For the newest line in Fairfax - the Silver line (still under construction) they avoided making the same mistake twice by having the new line diverge from the I-267 median to go throw the heart Tysons Corner- a growing edge city.

Correct but once the Silver line leaves Tysons, the rest of the line to Dulles airport will go in the median of the Dulles Toll Road/Rte 267, repeating the same mistake.

Regarding the Gold line Foothill extension, providing a good rail link to Ontario airport will help regionalize air passenger traffic throughout Southern California. This is good, as Southern California's airports have artificial capacity constraints (SNA, LGB) or opposition from neighbors to more expansion (LAX). There was also an article in the news a few weeks ago that Palm Springs wants to study, along with Caltrans, increasing the frequency of the Amtrak service to the Cochella Valley to daily service (or several times per day). Linking daily Amtrak service with the Gold Line foothill extension could greatly improve commutes for people living in San Bernardino and other inland communities.

[pesto]

May be a new project on the horizon: Steve Cohen, who is bidding on the Dodgers has retained Populous to suggest remodeling plans for Dodger Stadium. Given that Steve is worth 8B or so and has the backing of Broad, Geffen and others, he seems to have some hope of winning the auction and getting things done in LA.

He is expected to hire Arn Tellem to run the team, so there may be a connection to AEG as well.

I can imagine a considerable opening up of the park, with food and entertainment; lighting and bold statements. But you may have to deal with McCourt, who looks to retain control of the parking lots.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Los Angeles magazine has an article this month about implementing performance parking (charging based on demand at a specific point in time) in downtown LA.

Between the Lines

http://www.lamag.com/features/Story.aspx?ID=1568281

That article should be required reading for everyone on this forum before we get into our next debate about parking requirements. My favorite bit:

He became fascinated by the office parks that proliferate along L.A. and Orange county freeways. “Parking requirements are a primary shaper of these landscapes,” says Willson. “The golden rule for office buildings has been four spaces for every 1,000 square feet. But where did that number come from?” Nobody knew, so Willson plotted a case study to gauge whether parking requirements connected to reality. He chose ten office parks and discovered that their peak occupancy rate was around 56 percent. Twice as many parking lots had been mandated by cities than was actually needed. “I interviewed the planners and the developers,” says Willson. “The planners would say, ‘It’s not our fault—the developers want that much.’ The developers would say, ‘We thought the planners knew what they were doing.’ ”

[202_Cyclist]

Here is another good bit from the article:

"Whereas a skyscraper of a million square feet in New York may be required to have 100 parking spaces, an equal-size structure in L.A., like the U.S. Bank Tower, is compelled by the city to provide closer to 1,300 spaces. The maxim is wrong: L.A. wasn’t built around the car. It was built around the parking lot. And the individuals who knew this best were the original lot men of downtown L.A..."

Now, clearly there are a lot of differences between LA and New York, but as others on this thread have pointed out, when a private developer has to pay the cost of building 1,300 spaces, no wonder it isn't economical to build new skyscrapers in downtown LA.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

District Dirt: Correct but once the Silver line leaves Tysons, the rest of the line to Dulles airport will go in the median of the Dulles Toll Road/Rte 267, repeating the same mistake.

You're right, thanks for clarifying. I'll be curious to see how the Reston section of the line works out. Its sort of a hybrid approach- the line doesn't deviate from the Dulles Toll Road ROW, but they're extending development around Reston Town Center and Weihle Avenue down towards the highway, and adding all kinds of pedestrian improvements. It'll sort of be the ultimate test: "Can TOD succeed when a rail line is built in a highway median?"

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Here is another good bit from the article:

"Whereas a skyscraper of a million square feet in New York may be required to have 100 parking spaces, an equal-size structure in L.A., like the U.S. Bank Tower, is compelled by the city to provide closer to 1,300 spaces. The maxim is wrong: L.A. wasn’t built around the car. It was built around the parking lot. And the individuals who knew this best were the original lot men of downtown L.A..."

Now, clearly there are a lot of differences between LA and New York, but as others on this thread have pointed out, when a private developer has to pay the cost of building 1,300 spaces, no wonder it isn't economical to build new skyscrapers in downtown LA.

A thousand times, THIS. We need to free developers from the shackles of mandated parking. I don't understand the argument that if we removed the parking minimums, developers would somehow build less parking than is needed. Its their money on the line. They're going to do their homework, and determine exactly the amount of spaces that is necessary to successfully lease out the building- no more, no less. This is far better than the one-size-fits-all approach that the city currently takes.

Definitely one of those situations where existing policies are interfering with the market and preventing it from doing its thing.

[travanx]

I agree, even though I like ample parking. I have noticed a lot of projects that I am working on, the developers are putting more parking than is required. But I have worked on other projects where the developers are thinking exactly why they want less parking, for very valid reasons. And the idea is to add more bike parking spots instead.

Its too bad the city feels the need to require something that a developer is most likely doing their due diligence to figure out the optimal amount of parking to build.

BTW I went to the Escondite, walked, last night with some buddies. If anyone is in DTLA, you should check out this awesome hidden burger joint in the middle of skid row. I suggest driving as its not for the faint of heart to walk there. =)

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

A thousand times, THIS. We need to free developers from the shackles of mandated parking. I don't understand the argument that if we removed the parking minimums, developers would somehow build less parking than is needed. Its their money on the line. They're going to do their homework, and determine exactly the amount of spaces that is necessary to successfully lease out the building- no more, no less. This is far better than the one-size-fits-all approach that the city currently takes.

Definitely one of those situations where existing policies are interfering with the market and preventing it from doing its thing.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by travanx

BTW I went to the Escondite, walked, last night with some buddies. If anyone is in DTLA, you should check out this awesome hidden burger joint in the middle of skid row. I suggest driving as its not for the faint of heart to walk there. =)

I love the Escondite, but don't go often because my wife is not a fan of burgers. I think we need to have an SSP field trip there sometime in the near future.

[Kingofthehill]

SSP Field Trip!!!!!!!!!