LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown) - Page 243

Flavius Josephus · #**4841** Posted **Oct 13, 2014, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RST500

That's pathetic. This is what Santa Monica should look like.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-H3IwLG87Dnw/TlEnPnZ4a-I/AAAAAAAAAm4/2GcWVSGu0p4/s1600/PowellStreet.jpg

Completely agree. Let's hope that, as transit options in Santa Monica become more like SF, planning policies follow. Not too optimistic, though.

LAsam · #**4842** Posted **Oct 13, 2014, 7:00 PM**

Why should Santa Monica (suburban LA) look like downtown San Francisco?

Wally West · #**4843** Posted **Oct 13, 2014, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAsam

Why should Santa Monica (suburban LA) look like downtown San Francisco?

Should Santa Monica really be considered as suburban LA? It's quite the urban hub. I view areas like Downey and Santa Clarita as suburban LA, though.

LAsam · #**4844** Posted **Oct 13, 2014, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally West

Should Santa Monica really be considered as suburban LA? It's quite the urban hub. I view areas like Downey and Santa Clarita as suburban LA, though.

I think so... it's not even City of LA. Maybe you could say it's akin to the Marina, Richmond, or Sunset neighborhoods in SF but those neighborhoods have nowhere near the same density as Downtown SF.

Valyrian Steel · #**4845** Posted **Oct 13, 2014, 9:36 PM**

Santa Monica will never become a dense high rise city.

brudy · #**4846** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackcat23

The two Expo-adjacent hotels in Downtown Santa Monica. OTO Development and designed by Gwynne Pugh Urban Studios:

Those are phenomenally lame in so many ways. At least DTLA now has some competition in the race to the bottom with these things.

StethJeff · #**4847** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 1:05 AM**

Goldilocks. The currently planned shitboxes are lame and not very dense, meanwhile DTSF (or even DTLA) is terribly unrealistic. Something akin to Hollywood/Vine levels of density would make sense for SaMo though.

RaymondChandlerLives · #**4848** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 1:18 AM**

I personally wish Redondo Beach looked more like The Loop. But that's just me.

Seriously though, Santa Monica is a good 16 miles from DTLA. Expecting it to look like the most urban part of San Francisco is unrealistic. Put it another way, nowhere outside of NYC and maybe Chicago will you find anything as urbane and bustling as Santa Monica 16 miles from the CBD. It's fine.

Quixote · #**4849** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 2:17 AM**

Well, I happen to think that 4-6 stories is ideal for Santa Monica... and really any urban residential neighborhood, for that matter. The most desirable parts of Manhattan are the areas that have a more human scale.

http://content.related.com/SiteCollectio...20(A)/565x458/3.1_Sky-Bridge_565x458.jpg

http://www.contemporist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/pi_150914_02-630x446.jpg

http://medialibrarycdn.propertysolutions.com/media_library/2752/51dde941b208f506.jpg

http://medialibrarycdn.propertysolutions.com/media_library/2752/518810bd85565549.jpg

Illithid Dude · #**4850** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 2:41 AM**

Yeah, I've always thought that, for the most part, Santa Monica is going in exactly the right direction. Not everywhere needs to be fucking downtown San Francisco.

edluva · #**4851** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 4:42 AM**

yeah, santa monica doesn't need to imitate the CBD of SF. santa monica needs to look at amsterdam, or copenhagen, or the mission. it needs to stop with those giant ugly shit-boxes. the work that has come out of gwynne pugh proves that scarpa was the talented half of pugh+scarpa. it's such a shame how much perfectly good money has gone towards such visual trash in santa monica and throughout the rest of LA.

it's amazing how ugly LA's block apartments are in comparison to its counterparts in SF and Seattle. like i said, there's something in the water. this city prizes garish color and form in architecture and fashion. LA does not look smart, and santa monica is no exception.

and for all of santa monica's purported civic progressivism it's got some pretty backwards urbanism. zoning is still absurdly auto-oriented, as seen by the sheer amount of subterranean excavating and driveway paving going under new developments near the planned expo line. incessant setback requirements, a lack of innovative human-scale small-lot developments, regressive affordable housing and renters rights policies, NIMBYism that's more rampant than pretty much anywhere else in the state, and local government has been hijacked by anti-development party SMRR for decades all ensure even sensible, ped-oriented, human-scale increases in commercial and residential density get blocked for the forseeable future. basically, santa monica is in the process if building a lower-rise version of west-LA. just as auto-dependent and brutal only on a smaller scale.

angelenos in particular have the poorest understanding of urbanism of any group of liberal urbanites i've encountered. there is absolutely no appreciation for distinctions between good, pedestrian oriented density and the bad density which increases automobile congestion. there is only an autonomic assumption that density, regardless of the quality of such density, equates to automobile congestion. this lack of discernment is responsible for the rampant knee-jerk suburban mindset that keeps santa monica and the rest of LA from substantive change.

compared with LA, santa monica is an urban paradise. that speaks less to how great santa monica is and more to how far behind LA has fallen. and neither place is very impressive.

ChelseaFC · #**4852** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 5:04 AM**

Honestly thought the poster was trolling about the SF thing. Would be very strange if that was an actual sentiment.

Santa Monica's urban scale is already excellent. But a cap over the 10 would make it even better.

edluva · #**4853** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

Santa Monica's urban scale is already excellent.

santa monica is ok, relative to more consistently urban places in europe, SF, NY, and east asia.

that or you have extremely low standards for excellence.

btw, santa monica encompasses far more than the areas surrounding 3rd street. it stretches in all the way to centinela, in case some of us here didn't know

SimonLA · #**4854** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 6:21 AM**

Jeez, relax people, this was a Midas before on one of these blocks. It's an improvement and change is slow. Santa Monica is filled with old people that do hinder development, but EdLuva can trash the city's policies as much as he wants--for someone who absolutely despises L.A. and environs, he sure keeps up with what's happening here (maybe detach yourself? just a suggestion)--but they are moving the needle forward. Just because it's not as fast as you want it to swing doesn't mean it isn't happening. Been to Tongva Park lately? It used to be a surface parking lot.

ByTheBay · #**4855** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 9:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RST500

That's pathetic. This is what Santa Monica should look like.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-H3IwLG87Dnw/TlEnPnZ4a-I/AAAAAAAAAm4/2GcWVSGu0p4/s1600/PowellStreet.jpg

That is NOT what downtown Santa Monica should look like. That is what Broadway in DTLA should look like If you're comparing apples to apples, which would be LA's comparable street to that street in the pic of Downtown SF. Santa Monica and Venice Beach on the other hand is LA's version of Fisherman's Wharf and North Beach in SF, and in that regard, toe to toe comparisons are much more favorable to Santa Monica hands down IMO.

Flavius Josephus · #**4856** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 12:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByTheBay

That is NOT what downtown Santa Monica should look like. That is what Broadway in DTLA should look like If you're comparing apples to apples, which would be LA's comparable street to that street in the pic of Downtown SF. Santa Monica and Venice Beach on the other hand is LA's version of Fisherman's Wharf and North Beach in SF, and in that regard, toe to toe comparisons are much more favorable to Santa Monica hands down IMO.

LA is a large urban area with multiple downtowns. The comparison should be to downtown Manhattan and midtown Manhattan (though I think those levels of density are too high for a city not on an island). Compared to Century City, it has far more potential to be a true downtown with clustered housing, offices, and entertainment. If it gets the transportation infrastructure to handle it, DTSM would be a great place for more density, at least on the 10-15 story level. SM traffic is because SM has jobs but doesn't build nearly enough housing.

blackcat23 · #**4857** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 1:16 PM**

As mentioned briefly mentioned last week, a new 12-story hotel is planned at 1523 Wilcox Avenue in Hollywood. This is just south of the Dream Hollywood, and west of another boutique hotel planned on Cahuenga.

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/another-mid-rise-hotel-planned-for.html

brudy · #**4858** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SimonLA

Jeez, relax people, this was a Midas before on one of these blocks. It's an improvement and change is slow. Santa Monica is filled with old people that do hinder development, but EdLuva can trash the city's policies as much as he wants--for someone who absolutely despises L.A. and environs, he sure keeps up with what's happening here (maybe detach yourself? just a suggestion)--but they are moving the needle forward. Just because it's not as fast as you want it to swing doesn't mean it isn't happening. Been to Tongva Park lately? It used to be a surface parking lot.

Like many things, it's one step forward, two back sometimes. Just because Tongva Park is great, doesn't mean we shouldn't demand more of architects in terms of design.

brudy · #**4859** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavius Josephus

LA is a large urban area with multiple downtowns. The comparison should be to downtown Manhattan and midtown Manhattan (though I think those levels of density are too high for a city not on an island). Compared to Century City, it has far more potential to be a true downtown with clustered housing, offices, and entertainment. If it gets the transportation infrastructure to handle it, DTSM would be a great place for more density, at least on the 10-15 story level. SM traffic is because SM has jobs but doesn't build nearly enough housing.

This. SM has a strong job market and a lack of housing. Traffic isn't going to get any better when people have to drive in to work. The NIMBYS don't get this, but they do get their inflated home values due to the lack of housing in the immediate area.

caligrad · #**4860** Posted **Oct 14, 2014, 4:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

Honestly thought the poster was trolling about the SF thing. Would be very strange if that was an actual sentiment.

Santa Monica's urban scale is already excellent. But a cap over the 10 would make it even better.

Yeah.....I think everybody missed the sarcasm mark with the guys statement. And everybody foolishly took the bait to be able to thrown in their 2 cents lol.
The statement was obviously sarcastic, poking fun at all the crazies

down here who think every inch and corner of LA county needs to look like SF or NY. Even SF and NY don't look like the way people make them out to look on the LA forums. Santa Monica doesn't need to be a major hub city center, Santa Monica was built for the tourism industry, let it remain for the tourists, it doesn't need towering high-rises. Westwood and Century City are close enough to handle all that drama. People complain about downtown not getting enough high-rises but under the same breath they want to see high-rises in every other part of the county.... PICK A STRUGGLE ! but I will say that SM needs more dense housing. But most of the traffic comes from the tourists, not the locals.

And to the poster who posted that comment.....If you truly believe that. You must not have ever stepped foot in Santa Monica.