LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[Blesha13]

It should have some sort of floodlights on top . Can't wait to watch these rise!

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Eh, I think it needs more density and architectural variation. Most of the skyline-altering projects have multiple towers with similar designs.

That being said, the growth of the skyline is projected to happen at a much more rapid rate than I could've imagined even earlier this year.

Well that's definitely true about the new towers. But if most of the proposals go up, it's gonna look quite dense in the South park area, extending the skyline nicely in that direction. Hopefully we start seeing better designs and stand alone buildings.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by Quixote

In the case of Metropolis, Oceanwide, and now Olympia, it's the enormous size of the lots that's responsible for the Vegas-like scale of the projects. The monotony of the designs doesn't help, either.

It's the zoning. Big lots by themselves don't require vegas style land-use. Auto-oriented zoning does.

Downtown flat-out kinda sucks. It's feeling more and more like vegas, with virtually every building having a massive podium underneath. You could have proposals for 200% more projects and it wouldn't impress me in the least as long as it's making downtown resemble vegas or miami that much more. Dozens of tacky, oversized LED signs won't conceal ugly and car-scaled architecture.

The shallowness of forumers here, counting cranes and debating vanity-shots of downtown's skyline is fittingly superficial. It's kind of pathetic getting excited about flashy-infill that will look like utter crap in 15-20 years. Why don't some of you travel to a walkable city (aka REAL city) and figure out how we can get that kind of fine-grained of urbanism here for a change, instead of celebrating distant skyline photos that promise more urbanism than actually exists? This is why LA gets such a bad rap - it's full of people who don't care to dig deeper.

As for me, I'd rather have London's (or even Toronto's) urbanism with no skyline, than a skyline twice the size of DTLA's with the class-leading sh!ttiness of our urbanism.

[scania]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

It's the zoning. Big lots by themselves don't require vegas style land-use. Auto-oriented zoning does.

Downtown flat-out kinda sucks. It's feeling more and more like vegas, with virtually every building having a massive podium underneath. You could have proposals for 200% more projects and it wouldn't impress me in the least as long as it's making downtown resemble vegas or miami that much more. Dozens of tacky, oversized LED signs won't conceal ugly and car-scaled architecture.

The shallowness of forumers here, counting cranes and debating vanity-shots of downtown's skyline is fittingly superficial. It's kind of pathetic getting excited about flashy-infill that will look like utter crap in 15-20 years. Why don't some of you travel to a walkable city (aka REAL city) and figure out how we can get that kind of fine-grained of urbanism here for a change, instead of celebrating distant skyline photos that promise more urbanism than actually exists? This is why LA gets such a bad rap - it's full of people who don't care to dig deeper.

As for me, I'd rather have London's (or even Toronto's) urbanism with no skyline, than a skyline twice the size of DTLA's with the class-leading sh!ttiness of our urbanism.

Why are you so upset? Just move if you hate it so much. The first part of your statement is comical to me. Atlanta is full of forumers who typically are broke, claiming to be the most knowledgeable people on what true urbanism should be for the city. (Keep in mind, this at the end of the day is a Skyscraper Forum) I've never come across so may people that have passports to traveled all over the world, with no car to drive here in the sates. #Please stop the bs!!!

As far as LA getting a bad rap...clearly you haven't been watching TV, reading the newspaper, magazines, etc. DTLA is becoming on e of the most sought districts. You read it in fashion magazine, FOX Sports to ESPN. Analyst and talk show hosts raving about DTLA (not even talking about the rest of LA) DTLA no matter how you look at it, is walkable. Is it as ped-friendly as San Fran...maybe not, but let's keep things in perspective. As one who whose traveled across the world, these other cities aren't technically all ped-friendly either. SF, NYC, etc. all have spots that aren't as ped-friendly as we would like.
Your tone, reveals there are some deeper issues going on...but that's none of our business.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by scania

Why are you so upset? Just move if you hate it so much. The first part of your statement is comical to me. Atlanta is full of forumers who typically are broke, claiming to be the most knowledgeable people on what true urbanism should be for the city. (Keep in mind, this at the end of the day is a Skyscraper Forum) I've never come across so may people that have passports to traveled all over the world, with no car to drive here in the sates. #Please stop the bs!!!

As far as LA getting a bad rap...clearly you haven't been watching TV, reading the newspaper, magazines, etc. DTLA is becoming on e of the most sought districts. You read it in fashion magazine, FOX Sports to ESPN. Analyst and talk show hosts raving about DTLA (not even talking about the rest of LA) DTLA no matter how you look at it, is walkable. Is it as ped-friendly as San Fran...maybe not, but let's keep things in perspective. As one who whose traveled across the world, these other cities aren't technically all ped-friendly either. SF, NYC, etc. all have spots that aren't as ped-friendly as we would like.
Your tone, reveals there are some deeper issues going on...but that's none of our business.

In your reply, you offered absolutely no credible response to my points about DTLA's disappointing zoning and walkability, and you based almost all of your "defense" of DTLA's flaws not on addressing my comments directly, but rather on addressing (or at least trying to) my character. Whether or not I move or have "deeper issues" does not absolve you of addressing the weakness of your points.

Regarding your weak points, what cities "across the world" worth mentioning "aren't technically all ped-friendly either"? What "spots" in "SF, NYC, etc" aren't as ped-friendly as we would like? Surely you can't be equating walkability of DTLA with that of SF or NYC by merely pointing out that "spots" of crappy auto-oriented urbanism that is *typical* of DTLA also exists in extremely limited scope in SF/NY now can you? And it's pretty obvious to anyone with a pulse that LA gets way more flak than average, from people all over the world. Why do you (and some others here) pretend this isn't so? Does ESPN and Fox Sports coverage of DTLA suddenly render the obviously common and above average disdain for LA non-existent?

[NYC2ATX]

I saw that rendering/announcement on Urbanize before I saw it on here and my first reaction was HOLY WHAT THE F*CK. I can't deal with the pipeline that's basically exploded at this point and spilled out all these incredible proposals.

AND THEY'RE GETTING BUILT TOO.

In response to the question of LA's urban form, well, I would counter all those that complain of the Vegas-ness of all these proposals around LA Live and basically say...look at the urbanism of all the infill projects being built mere blocks to the east, all over South Park. And for comparison, Times Square is walkable, yes, but it's also overwhelmingly shitty once you walk down any side street. These projects look way nicer than that because they're building on the proverbial clean slate of a flat lot, as opposed to fitting more tourist-geared garbage in every remaining crevice.

What I love about Los Angeles (disclaimer: as an admirer from afar who has yet to visit), is that it's so weird and it's not really ever pretending it's not. It's a little walkable sometimes, it's car-oriented a lot, it's very natural, but also very urban, basically a clusterfuck in many ways, but it's hella unique for that.

AND, we should probably continue to look to LA over the course of the 21st Century, because their urban problems are really the majority of urban America's problems yet to be solved, especially in the sunbelt cities. They are beginning to set a model for us all to follow.

to Olympia

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

.In response to the question of LA's urban form, well, I would counter all those that complain of the Vegas-ness of all these proposals around LA Live and basically say...look at the urbanism of all the infill projects being built mere blocks to the east, all over South Park. And for comparison, Times Square is walkable, yes, but it's also overwhelmingly shitty once you walk down any side street.

No. The vicinity of Times Square is inherently walkable. Buildings lack setbacks, mostly pre-war, minimal curb cuts, virtually zero podiums. While there are parking structures, but they are not under virtually EVERY new building as with DTLA. I think you're confusing "touristy" with auto-oriented urbanism, both of which exist in large amounts in Vegas. Here, "Vegas" is used to reference the latter (crappy auto-scaled urbanism seen sprouting everywhere in LA)

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

AND, we should probably continue to look to LA over the course of the 21st Century, because their urban problems are really the majority of urban America's problems yet to be solved, especially in the sunbelt cities.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

They are beginning to set a model for us all to follow.

Disagree strongly.

The rest of sunbelt America should start looking at Toronto first, and increasingly Seattle, NOT LA, for how to solve its urban problems. LA is the example of what NOT to do once you've grown as dense and large as LA.

[JerellO]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

It's the zoning. Big lots by themselves don't require vegas style land-use. Auto-oriented zoning does.

Downtown flat-out kinda sucks. It's feeling more and more like vegas, with virtually every building having a massive podium underneath. You could have proposals for 200% more projects and it wouldn't impress me in the least as long as it's making downtown resemble vegas or miami that much more. Dozens of tacky, oversized LED signs won't conceal ugly and car-scaled architecture.

The shallowness of forumers here, counting cranes and debating vanity-shots of downtown's skyline is fittingly superficial. It's kind of pathetic getting excited about flashy-infill that will look like utter crap in 15-20 years. Why don't some of you travel to a walkable city (aka REAL city) and figure out how we can get that kind of fine-grained of urbanism here for a change, instead of celebrating distant skyline photos that promise more urbanism than actually exists? This is why LA gets such a bad rap - it's full of people who don't care to dig deeper.

As for me, I'd rather have London's (or even Toronto's) urbanism with no skyline, than a skyline twice the size of DTLA's with the class-leading sh!ttiness of our urbanism.

San Diego builds a lot of their condos on podiums and it doesn't feel shitty at all.. this isn't the east coast or somewhere north where the weather sucks.. another reason why towers are built on podiums is to allow spacing for sunlight to hit the streets... similar to how Art Deco tends to taper at the top to allow sunlight penetration... that's an advantage Southern California embraces.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by JerellO

San Diego builds a lot of their condos on podiums and it doesn't feel shitty at all.. this isn't the east coast or somewhere north where the weather sucks.. another reason why towers are built on podiums is to allow spacing for sunlight to hit the streets... similar to how Art Deco tends to taper at the top to allow sunlight penetration... that's an advantage Southern California embraces.

While there are positive side-effects to podiums (you mentioned sunlight penetration) you say that as though podiums and the curb-cuts that they entail exist to provide sunlight to streets, which is false. See Vancouver or Montreal for an example of podium-free sunlight penetration done right. Aformentioned cities also require fewer spaces per unit than SD or LA, reducing the cost of under-grounding parking and promoting walkable *lifestyles* (as opposed to "lip-service" walkability common to SoCal cities). Additionally, aside from a couple, and in my opinion, "derived" pedestrian streets, much of SD's condo-forest is similarly too auto-scaled should also be avoided. SD gets away with it because that kind of development is neither as dense, congested, nor as large as DTLA and the smaller scale of individual developments somewhat mitigates the poor land-use rules that SD shares with LA.

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

No. The vicinity of Times Square is inherently walkable. Buildings lack setbacks, mostly pre-war, minimal curb cuts, virtually zero podiums. While there are parking structures, but they are not under virtually EVERY new building as with DTLA. I think you're confusing "touristy" with auto-oriented urbanism, both of which exist in large amounts in Vegas. Here, "Vegas" is used to reference the latter (crappy auto-scaled urbanism seen sprouting everywhere in LA)

I'm not saying that Times Square is not walkable. In fact, in my post I stated that exactly. I'm saying that walkability is not the be-all end-all answer to what makes a city work right. It's an important component, but not the only one. And New York is dysfunctional for the opposite reason, because we are still a nation that drives, and to drive to, within or around Manhattan, as many visitors from the outer parts of the metropolitan area do, is an utter nightmare. In my opinion a city should strive for balance. New York is pre-war urbanism though, so the solution to its problems is to continue to improve on how easy it is to get around by other means. LA is in an interesting position though because it can become more walkable and is, while still accomodating the majority of the residents that choose to drive. Balance.

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Disagree strongly.

The rest of sunbelt America should start looking at Toronto first, and increasingly Seattle, NOT LA, for how to solve its urban problems. LA is the example of what NOT to do once you've grown as dense and large as LA.

Sunbelt America cannot look to Northern cities for the answers to their problems because they are not Northern cities, and never will be. Even Seattle feels like comparing apples to oranges. What the sunbelt metros have to do is experiment, and borrow the most successful ideas from one another as positive results appear. I find the Metro rail expansion in LA a good example of a successful idea that can be adapted to other cities (not the idea of rail, but how to plan and finance it in a car-dependent metropolis).

[JerellO]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Disagree strongly.

The rest of sunbelt America should start looking at Toronto first, and increasingly Seattle, NOT LA, for how to solve its urban problems.

I disagree. Before LA, cities were built in the traditional east coast way, Los Angeles happened to be THE original model, blueprint design of the "new American metropolis".. this is why cities like San Diego, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Atlanta, even Chicago look similar to LA.. which is a downtown and sprawl extending out from it. These cities should look at what LA is doing since this is the city they copied in the first place, not what traditionally built cities are doing.. they're built in different ways and don't have the transit, yet, to support a design like Toronto or NYC.. you'd have to completely start over. You can go from a transit oriented design to a car oriented one easily... LA and Chicago are perfect examples as they have traditionally built downtowns but an extensive freeways system that destroyed communities and a popular suburban population surrounding it, but it's hard to go from a car oriented design to a transit oriented one due to NIMBYs and the separation caused by freeways..

Yes all cities were originally transit oriented, but they dismantle all the transit in favor of the automobile and therefore became car oriented.. San Diego, Houston, etc. whereas, NYC, SF, Chicago embraced their transit even while building suburbs, they still somewhat stayed true to urbanism. Idk if I'm making any sense lol just my opinion.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

And New York is dysfunctional for the opposite reason, because we are still a nation that drives, and to drive to, within or around Manhattan, as many visitors from the outer parts of the metropolitan area do, is an utter nightmare. In my opinion a city should strive for balance. New York is pre-war urbanism though, so the solution to its problems is to continue to improve on how easy it is to get around by other means. LA is in an interesting position though because it can become more walkable and is, while still accomodating the majority of the residents that choose to drive. Balance.

I don't know what you mean by "balance". Balance the number of cars with the number of people driving them? LOL

And I also don't know where you get your "facts", but 67% of NYers commute without a car. This is compared with Los Angeles, where 89% commute by car. Again, logical fallacy of false equivalence -NY has some traffic, so it's no better than LA?

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

Sunbelt America cannot look to Northern cities for the answers to their problems because they are not Northern cities, and never will be. Even Seattle feels like comparing apples to oranges. What the sunbelt metros have to do is experiment, and borrow the most successful ideas from one another as positive results appear. I find the Metro rail expansion in LA a good example of a successful idea that can be adapted to other cities (not the idea of rail, but how to plan and finance it in a car-dependent metropolis).

You can't generalize "Northern cities" together because they include cities that are obviously extremely walkable and unicentric (NYC, Boston, Chicago) as well as cities built very similar to LA (Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, Vancouver, Toronto), and this is why your comment above is completely wrong.

Seattle and LA are an apples to apples comparison as far as similarities of urban typologies go. Both to present date are largely single-family/multi-family mixes, both are overwhelmingly auto-oriented in mode-share and built environment, and both have extensively sprawled land-use. The difference is that Seattle chooses to adopt more sensible, forward-looking policies to channel future growth (zoning higher density land use near transit, reducing or eliminating parking minimums, studying VMT equivalent planning metrics, aggressively installing bike infrastructure) whereas LA continues to treat such forward-looking policies as "controversies" while maintaining policies that channel current and future growth in the same direction that got it in the mess to begin with.

The mere fact that LA is building rail doesn't warrant a cookie.

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

I don't know what you mean by "balance". Balance the number of cars with the number of people driving them? LOL

And I also don't know where you get your "facts", but 67% of NYers commute without a car. This is compared with Los Angeles, where 89% commute by car. Again, logical fallacy of false equivalence -NY has some traffic, so it's no better than LA?

In this case, I'm not citing facts, but anecdotal evidence. I grew up in and spent much of my life in Staten Island...and let me tell you, for the remaining 33% of New Yorkers, getting to work is hell. I'm also not simply talking about commuting, but going out on weekends, visiting friends, etc. Many of my friends live in Manhattan and Queens, and there's really no easy way to get to them from where I am, by any means.

In any case, I'm talking about a balance of uses. That is, a balance of various transit options working in unison with a balance of different building types. If you want another example, we can consider the small lot variance bonus for new construction. In LA, getting more people on transit, walking, and biking to work will clear some cars off the freeways for those that STILL really can't get where they need to without a car or just prefer it. You're making very broad generalizations about how the millions of different people in each city live their lives.

Originally Posted by Bikemike

You can't generalize "Northern cities" together because they include cities that are obviously extremely walkable and unicentric (NYC, Boston, Chicago) as well as cities built very similar to LA (Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, Vancouver, Toronto), and this is why your comment above is completely wrong.

Seattle and LA are an apples to apples comparison as far as similarities of urban typologies go. Both to present date are largely single-family/multi-family mixes, both are overwhelmingly auto-oriented in mode-share and built environment, and both have extensively sprawled land-use. The difference is that Seattle chooses to adopt more sensible, forward-looking policies to channel future growth (zoning higher density land use near transit, reducing or eliminating parking minimums, studying VMT equivalent planning metrics, aggressively installing bike infrastructure) whereas LA continues to treat such forward-looking policies as "controversies" while maintaining policies that channel current and future growth in the same direction that got it in the mess to begin with.

Again, the topography of the South vs the North factors in, and was there long before modern zoning codes came into effect. Seattle, Portland and Vancouver each have major geographical and topographical barriers that made those regions incapable of spreading further out after a certain point, and Portland took it a step further by instituting a growth boundary, which largely honors geographic features and protects natural areas.

Even if Seattle started from baseline similarities to LA, say, 30 or 40 years ago, in terms of built environments, the choices in Seattle were: stop growing, build upward, or fill in Puget Sound with more land. Obviously they chose to build upward. In places like Texas, Arizona, and Southern California, land is plentiful and so they went outward and outward. It's a unique model requiring unique approaches.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by JerellO

I disagree. Before LA, cities were built in the traditional east coast way, Los Angeles happened to be THE original model, blueprint design of the "new American metropolis".. this is why cities like San Diego, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Atlanta, even Chicago look similar to LA.. which is a downtown and sprawl extending out from it. These cities should look at what LA is doing since this is the city they copied in the first place, not what traditionally built cities are doing.. they're built in different ways and don't have the transit, yet, to support a design like Toronto or NYC.. you'd have to completely start over. You can go from a transit oriented design to a car oriented one easily... LA and Chicago are perfect examples as they have traditionally built downtowns but an extensive freeways system that destroyed communities and a popular suburban population surrounding it, but it's hard to go from a car oriented design to a transit oriented one due to NIMBYs and the separation caused by freeways..

Yes all cities were originally transit oriented, but they dismantle all the transit in favor of the automobile and therefore became car oriented.. San Diego, Houston, etc. whereas, NYC, SF, Chicago embraced their transit even while building suburbs, they still somewhat stayed true to urbanism. Idk if I'm making any sense lol just my opinion.

It wasn't that LA was "THE original" auto-oriented city that others "copied". Auto-oriented development happened haphazardly after the explosion of car-ownership after WWII. A much greater share of LA's built form derives from growth that occurred during the car-era vs say, Chicago, where much of the city had matured prior to the automobile-age.

So you are correct that different metro areas have different ratios of traditional transit/pedestrian-oriented vs car-oriented urbanism, and this is simply due to the share of a metro area's growth that occurred before or after WWII.

But your LA:Chicago comparison is incorrect and the two cities are far less equivalent than you suggest. Despite sprawling extensively after WWII, Chicago continued to maintain a much more robust traditional core than LA, and although its population is far below its peak, Chicago's traditional core continues to dominate it's metro area for commercial and residential land-use intensity. As a result Chicago never dismantled its rail network and, unlike LA, does not have nearly as much "catching up" to do w/ regards to rebuilding a credible mass transit system and more broadly a walkable city.

Also, LA forumers always seem ready to point out that LA has the "largest" rail network in the world in some distant past. What you won't readily get them to admit (or even understand?) is that while it was the "largest" by measure of route mileage alone, LA's "rail system" was almost entirely a single-car network for red-cars. Essentially street-running trolley-cars with a fraction of the capacity of a single L-train in Chicago's system. In other words, LA's rail network was not definitive the way Chicago's was in the development of its urban typology because, even in its time it wasn't formative for the bulk of LA's growth, identity, and way of life the way Chicago's network was.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

In this case, I'm not citing facts, but anecdotal evidence. I grew up in and spent much of my life in Staten Island...and let me tell you, for the remaining 33% of New Yorkers, getting to work is hell. I'm also not simply talking about commuting, but going out on weekends, visiting friends, etc. Many of my friends live in Manhattan and Queens, and there's really no easy way to get to them from where I am, by any means.

Staten Island is not representative. Again you're cherry-picking. Anecdotal evidence is basically no evidence. The VAST majority of NYers commute without a car. In fact, the percentage of those in NY who walk to work alone is = to the percentage of Angelenos who ride transit/walk/bike put together. You are trying to create a false-equivalency by tying a non-representative experience in NY with a typical and commonplace experience in LA.

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

In LA, getting more people on transit, walking, and biking to work will clear some cars off the freeways for those that STILL really can't get where they need to without a car or just prefer it. You're making very broad generalizations about how the millions of different people in each city live their lives.

Broad generalizations? What part of the numbers 89% and 67% didn't resonate with you?

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

Again, the topography of the South vs the North factors in, and was there long before modern zoning codes came into effect. Seattle, Portland and Vancouver each have major geographical and topographical barriers that made those regions incapable of spreading further out after a certain point, and Portland took it a step further by instituting a growth boundary, which largely honors geographic features and protects natural areas.

Even if Seattle started from baseline similarities to LA, say, 30 or 40 years ago, in terms of built environments, the choices in Seattle were: stop growing, build upward, or fill in Puget Sound with more land. Obviously they chose to build upward. In places like Texas, Arizona, and Southern California, land is plentiful and so they went outward and outward. It's a unique model requiring unique approaches.

Gibberish. You failed to differentiate Seattle/Portland/Vancover from LA because you failed to address the entirely similar urban typologies (largely single-family/multi-family mix with sprawly land use patterns and auto-dependency).

Seattle is no more "built upward" than LA currently is so your analysis is dead on arrival.

[Illithid Dude]

Not to wade in to this argument, but Vancouver is all podiums. Honestly, Olympia, probably isn't a great example of new urbanism, and Jane Jacobs would probably not approve, but for a lot next to the freeway and effectively cut off from the rest of downtown, I'm happy with what we got.

[mhays]

Vancouver's "podiums" are generally housing and commercial uses, not parking. I think "podiums" in this thread is about parking garages.

LA's rail impressed me last time I was there, in April. Just before Santa Monica darn it. But it was already a substantial system and the trains were getting good use.

Agreed about the merits of fine-grained urbanism, which DTLA has in spades in some places and totally lacks in others. But I'm also ok with superblocks in some cases. And yes less car orientation would be good, which should work fine as the "new" neighborhoods urbanize.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

In this case, I'm not citing facts, but anecdotal evidence. I grew up in and spent much of my life in Staten Island...and let me tell you, for the remaining 33% of New Yorkers, getting to work is hell. I'm also not simply talking about commuting, but going out on weekends, visiting friends, etc. Many of my friends live in Manhattan and Queens, and there's really no easy way to get to them from where I am, by any means.

It's hell because staten island doesn't zone for enough density and the MTA is so unbelievably incompetent it can't afford to provide high quality rail service out into the suburbs.

[citywatch]

• Video Link

• Video Link


a lack of quality housing, such as the proj rising across from Pershing Sq at Olive & 5th, is the major reason dt went into such severe decline in the first place. So what's going on more recently, from holiday events at PS to NYE at grand pk, to events around LA live, wasn't possible as recently as 5 to 10 yrs ago.

beyond ppl living 24-7 in dt, the economy fell apart in general due to too many ppl....esp those with good jobs & a decent income....running away from the center of LA.

the importance of adding new apts & condos to dtla cannot be stressed too much.

Long overdue, but what a relief it's finally happening!

[Spantik]

Want to talk about what you think a "REAL CITY" is? Or how about how LA isnt a "REAL CITY" somehow? I dont care about your pretentious, laughably stupid opinion, do it somewhere else.This is the thread for discussion of development related to DTLA, not your confrontational bitching, which is largely just a rehash of complaints that everyone here agrees with at least to some extent, which you topped off with ad hominem and pessimism. Dont like the fact that forumers like watching things get built? Dont insult everyone here, go ride your bike and blow off some steam, youre shitting up the forum. Liking things getting built =\= being 100% super satisfied with everything getting built by the way, so dont go there. This goes beyond discussion of issues like transit, youve come in with an agenda to be rude and no one should discuss anything with you as a result.
We get it, LA doesnt have the most urban core in the country. No one is saying that. Yeah the podiums suck, we've been over it. Over and over and over. There are movements to try and move us away from them. For now we have to just deal with them but perhaps soon this wont be the case. LA isnt Tornto. LA isnt Chicago. Nobody is saying the world should look to LA as an example of how to do public transit and pedestrian oriented design most effectively in the country. Literally no one is saying that at all.
What you seem to fail to grasp, in your anger and bitterness, is that LA is improving and thats what people here come to talk about.The transit is undoubtedly improving. It isnt the best but its getting better. And even though its improving, at this point in its existence it certainly doesnt "flat out suck". Maybe to you it flat out sucks, but to me, and thousands of people moving there, it doesnt. If it sucks that much, go move to Chicago. Maybe there things wont suck so much for you.I cant help but laugh imagining that. If you actually are another forumer who had to make a new account because your old one was banned, maybe you should get a grip on your emotions before posting next time, especially if youre going to post a string of histrionic, confrontational garbage like this.