LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[colemonkee]

Thanks, ziggy, and that's not a tangent. It's what this thread should be about. That's potentially great news, because that is a prime site, and an odd-shaped site, which should give us an interesting tower design, if done right.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

Even though there is a growing family population here...it is nowhere near where it needs to be. I have friends who are moving from DT to Silverlake and Los Feliz because they have outgrown their lofts. That is OK...eveything is evolving.

la/ocman, if that never changes in the future, then I'm not sure if dtla will ever really advance to the next level. Ppl who get married & start having kids are an important piece of the puzzle. if they never find their needs being taken care of in dtla, then the hood will remain below a city like nyc. Or at least areas in manhattan like the hoods around Central Pk where there are enough advantages to make ppl with kids feel they can survive, even thrive. Yes, as a mom I can't afford to be too idealistic about a hood that still shows the effect of going downhill, dating back to a time before most of us were born. the centers of major cities like ny, chicago or sf, or the smaller ones like seattle or boston never got as as much as dtla did. Ppl have to remember that when comparing LA with other places, & wanting to romanticize the aspects of dtla.

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

You say that downtown can get shit because at least shit is going downtown. Downtown, you say, is lucky it's getting anything at all, let alone shit. This is because of.... parking lots?

if you're referring to things like this...


maps.google.com

than, yes, we're reaching the level of "shit". but if you want to include things like the medallion or newer devlpt similar to that, then you need to keep this is mind.....

Voltaire quote: The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I believe Voltaire's original point about "perfection", specifically, rather than simply "better", is that to attain a perfect thing, whatever that is, becomes infinitely more difficult as you near it. So, at some point, you have to cut your losses, and simply say -- "Good enough". This is not a justification for shoddy workmanship or laziness, for that certainly would not be, per se, "Good enough". The point is more to know when to realize that any additional effort toward improvement would result in a negligible improvement, especially in comparison to the effort required.

So, downtown doesn't deserve good architecture because it has some cheap stores and empty lots. This is illogical beyond belief. So, by your logic, is a place doesn't have ultra-high end stores and is wall-to-wall buildings, then it doesn't matter what goes up in that area.

you're stretching my point beyond recognition, illithid. Just cuz I don't believe every proj in the hood has to be some award winning piece of design doesn't mean I believe dt doesn't deserve great architecture. By the same token, since you have said you don't mind all the deadzone parking lots & slumlord bldgs----which I assume includes all the old warehouse type bldgs in south pk------then why does it matter if some devlpt isn't going to get a Pritzker prize?

I remember reading some critic in a newspaper yrs ago complaining that most bldgs in NYC were very bad or forgettable. That was at a time when dtla really was super sad & mostly . I recall thinking that if that were the biggest complaint about a city, then we in LA with its mostly broken down dt should be so lucky.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by citywatch

la/ocman, if that never changes in the future, then I'm not sure if dtla will ever really advance to the next level. Ppl who get married & start having kids are an important piece of the puzzle. if they never find their needs being taken care of in dtla, then the hood will remain below a city like nyc. Or at least areas in manhattan like the hoods around Central Pk where there are enough advantages to make ppl with kids feel they can survive, even thrive. Yes, as a mom I can't afford to be too idealistic about a hood that still shows the effect of going downhill, dating back to a time before most of us were born. the centers of major cities like ny, chicago or sf, or the smaller ones like seattle or boston never got as as much as dtla did. Ppl have to remember that when comparing LA with other places, & wanting to romanticize the aspects of dtla.


if you're referring to things like this...


maps.google.com

than, yes, we're reaching the level of "shit". but if you want to include things like the medallion or newer devlpt similar to that, then you need to keep this is mind.....






you're stretching my point beyond recognition, illithid. Just cuz I don't believe every proj in the hood has to be some award winning piece of design doesn't mean I believe dt doesn't deserve great architecture. By the same token, since you have said you don't mind all the deadzone parking lots & slumlord bldgs----which I assume includes all the old warehouse type bldgs in south pk------then why does it matter if some devlpt isn't going to get a Pritzker prize?

I remember reading some critic in a newspaper yrs ago complaining that most bldgs in NYC were very bad or forgettable. That was at a time when dtla really was super sad & mostly . I recall thinking that if that were the biggest complaint about a city, then we in LA with its mostly broken down dt should be so lucky.

This is all very reasonable and accurate. Most buildings in most cities are not very good. But the idea of someone putting up an architectural masterpiece on skid row just strains credulity. Different issue in BH, WeHo, or even Fig and Flower.

For better news, it looks like the infamous car wash lot at Fig and Olympic may be for sale. It seems probable that a 15-30 story hotel will go there (I've never heard any other suggestions, at any rate).

The owner indicates that the after-tax gain is now such that he is better off selling that continuing to get lease payments. This is an interesting example of how capital gains tax slows development. In countries with no capital gains tax this lot would have been a high-rise long ago.

[alki]

QUOTE=LAofAnaheim;5592172]That's a misconception. Makes me wonder why Paris, London, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Rome, Beijing, Sydney, Chicago, etc.. has soooooo many shoppers in thier downtown districts. Hmmmmmmmmmm.....

Parking DOES NOT bring in business. That's a misconception. If that was the truth, tell me why Venice and Hollywood attract people willing to pay $20 to park, whereas the Valley or OC does not?[/QUOTE]

You're right........one way is to make it pretty or appealing or intriguing:











Check out more at the link:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/a_gallery_of_walkability_part.html

[colemonkee]

The girl on the left side of that second photo is all three of those words to me.

[ziggy331]

Does anyone know anything about this project? I was surfing online and saw these renderings (I think it's dated from 2008?) that I've never seen before. It's for 1'st & Alameda in Little Tokyo/Arts District.

I personally like how pedestrian oriented this project is (if it's real). It would be nice to see this zone (currently a big parking lot) come to life to add to an already active street scene in Little Tokyo.







Pictures from http://www.rsala.com

[LosAngelesBeauty]

That is the Mangrove project if I'm not mistaken. I don't think it has any legs right now.

http://blog.littletokyounplugged.org/2008/07/more-on-mangrove.html

[pesto]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Did you notice the middle class in downtown LA (Old Bank District) don't have high parking requirements? Thus, you can build more affordable housing. Same situation in SF, New York, Chicago, etc.. It's the buildings with more parking that are for high class individuals and those with less parking for more middle class. That's what LA has to turn into in order to attract middle class. If people want convenient and safe parking in downtown LA, either pay the high price or move to the suburbs. LA has been socially engineered enough in the 1940s with the rise of the automobile; it's time to move back into a scaled city with less atrosion of the automobile. If they miss the cars that much, move to the suburbs. It's a choice.

Affordable housing without parking is what downtown already has in spades. If this is the goal, them mission accomplished. If you want the middle class (families, children, spare cash, consumers) you had better offer more than what is now there. This includes a reason to go there and comfortable living when you get there. Fortunately, downtown is developing these.

This idea that SF has no parking is very odd. Everyone I know in SF (dozens of people) has private parking spots and access to additional ones at a price. Sure, the poor or those who don't need a car to get to their jobs in Silicon Valley, may live without one. Not everyone can afford a car. But the middle class can, and they want one. Check the congestion (in and out) of SF every morning and evening.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by pesto

Affordable housing without parking is what downtown already has in spades. If this is the goal, them mission accomplished. If you want the middle class (families, children, spare cash, consumers) you had better offer more than what is now there. This includes a reason to go there and comfortable living when you get there. Fortunately, downtown is developing these.

This idea that SF has no parking is very odd. Everyone I know in SF (dozens of people) has private parking spots and access to additional ones at a price. Sure, the poor or those who don't need a car to get to their jobs in Silicon Valley, may live without one. Not everyone can afford a car. But the middle class can, and they want one. Check the congestion (in and out) of SF every morning and evening.

For all the years I lived in DC, I never lived in an apartment that came with a parking space. For a few of those years I had no car, and the rest of the time when I did have a car I just parked it on the street. Its not odd there, its normal. In a city full of rowhouses that were built before automobiles were ubiquitous, its just how it is. No one freaks out about it and you don't see developers there building garages everywhere to compensate nor would they ever be allowed to mar the built environment in that way. When new people move to DC they just adapt. Part of the reason public transit has flourished in that city is precisely because of the lack of parking. Its a pain in the ass to own a car in DC, so there is a higher demand for transit. More demand = more ridership = more farebox revenues = bigger operating budget = better service.

I assumed that since SF is also a city full of rowhouses, it would have a lack of parking similar to DC, but I'm not all that familiar with SF so maybe I'm wrong.

[all of the trash]

What pestos extreme right wing ideology suggests that we don't change the city's DNA which would elevate it among the worlds best cities but rather cater to the old one that's been failing us for years. People will not voluntarily abandon their cars

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

What pestos extreme right wing ideology suggests that we don't change the city's DNA which would elevate it among the worlds best cities but rather cater to the old one that's been failing us for years. People will not voluntarily abandon their cars

They won't, will they...And I suppose you would like to force them to? A perfect example of the opposite ideology; people just love being told what to do. And exactly how would you accomplish this? By making life intolerable and inconvenient for everyone who wants to live downtown but also own a car? Good luck with your "vibrant downtown life" if you do that. Force people to walk the streets of downtown with the homeless, and see how quickly your downtown population dissipates.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

They won't, will they...And I suppose you would like to force them to? A perfect example of the opposite ideology; people just love being told what to do. And exactly how would you accomplish this? By making life intolerable and inconvenient for everyone who wants to live downtown but also own a car? Good luck with your "vibrant downtown life" if you do that. Force people to walk the streets of downtown with the homeless, and see how quickly your downtown population dissipates.

Is this post a joke? Force people to walk? Are you implying that people shouldn't walk around downtown? The whole freaking point of living downtown is to live in a walkable community. I.E. the whole point is to walk. I don't expect people to move away from downtown if they are forced to walk, because walking is exactly what they signed up for.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Is this post a joke? Force people to walk? Are you implying that people shouldn't walk around downtown? The whole freaking point of living downtown is to live in a walkable community. I.E. the whole point is to walk. I don't expect people to move away from downtown if they are forced to walk, because walking is exactly what they signed up for.

The poster seems to want to impose his/her frame of what a city should look like on downtown residents. To make it intentionally difficult for downtown residents to own cars is the kind of thinking that makes people just want to move to the suburbs and be done with it. Not to mention downtown LA is so much newer than Washington DC, to compare the two is just disingenuous. If you want to be like DC or SoHo, just move there. That's not what LA is, and never will be. The main problem for most people with living downtown is the homeless, and you won't have a vibrant, urban downtown unless the streets are cleaner and people feel safer.

[alki]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

The girl on the left side of that second photo is all three of those words to me.

Yup......I understand Bryant Park is very nice in the Spring.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

The poster seems to want to impose his/her frame of what a city should look like on downtown residents. To make it intentionally difficult for downtown residents to own cars is the kind of thinking that makes people just want to move to the suburbs and be done with it. Not to mention downtown LA is so much newer than Washington DC, to compare the two is just disingenuous. If you want to be like DC or SoHo, just move there. That's not what LA is, and never will be. The main problem for most people with living downtown is the homeless, and you won't have a vibrant, urban downtown unless the streets are cleaner and people feel safer.

But, see, the thing about downtown is that it is for people who want to live like they would in 'New York' or 'DC' without having to move out of L.A. It is for people who want the urban experience. Downtown is not for people who want to live a car-based lifestyle. As they say, you can't bake your cake and eat it too (or something like that).

EDIT: And I think that this whole homeless thing is really being blown way out of proportion. For example, I was in DT Santa Monica today, and saw more homeless people then I ever do in DT L.A. And yet, people still flock to DT Santa Monica. Interesting to note, I have never seen anyone who actually lives downtown complain about homeless people on this forum. It is always people who are simply observing the happenings of downtown through this forum that complain. Obviously, it isn't as big a deal as you say it is.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

But, see, the thing about downtown is that it is for people who want to live like they would in 'New York' or 'DC' without having to move out of L.A. It is for people who want the urban experience. Downtown is not for people who want to live a car-based lifestyle. As they say, you can't bake your cake and eat it too (or something like that).

I understand your sentiment, but I don't see how that relates to the poster's comment that we should force people out of their cars. From a practical standpoint, I'm not even sure what that would look like in action. And it has nothing to do with being a right-winger. If you want to stay in downtown 24/7 that's fine, but for the majority of those who need to get around LA, owning a car is a necessity. New York City (Manhattan in particular), is big enough that you can get to everything you need without sacrificing the "urban experience."

[alki]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

For all the years I lived in DC, I never lived in an apartment that came with a parking space. For a few of those years I had no car, and the rest of the time when I did have a car I just parked it on the street. Its not odd there, its normal. In a city full of rowhouses that were built before automobiles were ubiquitous, its just how it is. No one freaks out about it and you don't see developers there building garages everywhere to compensate nor would they ever be allowed to mar the built environment in that way. When new people move to DC they just adapt. Part of the reason public transit has flourished in that city is precisely because of the lack of parking. Its a pain in the ass to own a car in DC, so there is a higher demand for transit. More demand = more ridership = more farebox revenues = bigger operating budget = better service.

I assumed that since SF is also a city full of rowhouses, it would have a lack of parking similar to DC, but I'm not all that familiar with SF so maybe I'm wrong.

I lived in SF for a year. Whether you owned a car depended on where you lived. People who lived in the inner neighborhoods......Knob Hill, Chinatown, Telegraph Hill, SoMA etc tended not to have a car. I lived in the Upper Haight and did have a car which I parked on the street.

In SF, I think what's more important than whether one has a car is how often one uses it. For me, the car was mostly for getting out of the city. When I was traveling in the city......like going to work, I took Muni or BART. That was true for going to clubs at nite as well. If I did use my car in the city, it was because I knew I could find parking where I was going......like at the supermarket. That meant I went < 5K miles per year in my car. LA? Over 10K per year.

SF is like a mixture of DC and LA. DT SF is more like DT LA.........hi rise whereas the neighborhoods are a mixture of low rise and rowhouses which is more like DC. However, I think its unfair to compare LA to either city. LA is more like NYC........sprawling......yes NYC covers a lot of land area even as its more dense than LA. It would not surprise me if car ownership per capita is higher in NYC than in SF or DC.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

But, see, the thing about downtown is that it is for people who want to live like they would in 'New York' or 'DC' without having to move out of L.A. It is for people who want the urban experience. Downtown is not for people who want to live a car-based lifestyle. As they say, you can't bake your cake and eat it too (or something like that)..

Its 'you can't have your cake and eat it too'.

And having said that, some people will have their cake and eat it too........and so what? What does it matter that every third person walking around in DTLA used a car to get there or has a car parked in his South Park condo building? The urban experience is lots of people walking around DTLA enjoying the diversity of a DT. In my mind, the detailing or nuancing of that experience only takes away the fun out of it.

[alki]

Originally Posted by pesto

The owner indicates that the after-tax gain is now such that he is better off selling that continuing to get lease payments. This is an interesting example of how capital gains tax slows development. In countries with no capital gains tax this lot would have been a high-rise long ago.

But its also an example of how as land becomes more expensive/more valuable its uses become more intense..........the very thing most people on this thread want for DTLA.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by alki

Its 'you can't have your cake and eat it too'.

And having said that, some people will have their cake and eat it too........and so what? What does it matter that every third person walking around in DTLA used a car to get there or has a car parked in his South Park condo building? The urban experience is lots of people walking around DTLA enjoying the diversity of a DT. In my mind, the detailing or nuancing of that experience only takes away the fun out of it.

If only it was every third person who had a car...

However, I do agree that people inevitably need to drive. The beauty of downtown is that alternate forms of transportation can easily replace driving. For those times when driving is necessary, something like ZipCar can replace owning a car. In fact, I wonder why ZipCar hasn't invaded downtown yet....