LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[plinko]

Originally Posted by edluva

I can see LA looking like Detroit or Philly's pre-war skyline if LA had no height restrictions owing to the fact that as stated above demand for the central city was already dropping (already sprawling) by the 1940s due to the car, and LA was similar in population to Philly/Detroit through the 1930s-40s.

As I was reading through this line of the conversation, I was having the exact same thought. Detroit or Philly, but a little more spread out.

*Imagining the Atlantic-Richfield Building 500ft tall!*

Then again, San Francisco only had 3 or 4 distinctively tall buildings over 300ft before WWII so maybe not.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by edluva

I can see LA looking like Detroit or Philly's pre-war skyline if LA had no height restrictions owing to the fact that as stated above demand for the central city was already dropping (already sprawling) by the 1940s due to the car, and LA was similar in population to Philly/Detroit through the 1930s-40s.

It wouldn't be correct to look at the 30s and 40s- the Great Depression was still halting development. Look at what cities were like in the 20s- that's when the real building happened.

[edluva]

ok well i should have included the 20s but my point still stands. population-wise LA was already in the league of philly/detroit during the time skyscrapers went up in their skylines, and yet height restrictions kept those from being a possibility here. it's also worth mentioning philly/detroit did put up a few skyscrapers during the depression era including, yes, a 400 footer

@plinko - yes when i visit ny or philly its those historic skyscrapers that look so foreign to me being limited to seeing 14 story buildings built in the same era here. a 50 story atlantic richfield would have been really neat, and set off a skyline boom into the currently vertically challenged historic district.

but one can only imagine

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

believe me, if that were the only instance where ppl seem quite & about the city, I wouldn't take it seriously. but I've seen other opinion polls through the yrs that aren't much better. I still think such a reaction is way more negative than it should be, but apparently many other ppl out there wouldn't agree with me or don't feel the way I do.

You keep picking at this issue...........and I think you have a point......although at times I think you overdo it. Interestingly enough, I think LA comes off much like some actors........they are good looking and may even have some talent but they don't have any substance. That's the image LA presents. Its got a great setting and beautiful weather but its a bit of an amorphous blob that sprawls throughout S. CA. Its hard for the average American to identify with it. Phoenix and Dallas are similar......and I suspect those cities probably never make the top ten list of cities Americans love as well.

You keep harping on bad design.......and there is lots of it to go around........but then every city has bad design as you so aptly pointed out in your post about Seattle. And some times LA tries too hard........for an example, the concept of the Civic Park is a good one and its design is decent but what's with the pink or purple chairs..........I mean pink or purple in a park? Why couldn't they have gone with the traditional black or green. Sometimes LA just tries too hard to be cool.....to be different. Having said that, I don't think either issue is LA's Achilles heel.

Frankly, I think the culprit for the lack of LA love has to do with its heart........DTLA......the fact that DTLA has been on life support for most of the decades since WW II. Great cities have great downtowns. People love great cities because they can meet at its center and walk around and view the sights. People expect to see well designed bldgs as well as ugly bldgs as well as parking lots. I hardly think the bad things are deal killers. However, LA is the second largest city in the nation and yet it has the DT....its heart.....of a much, much smaller city. That comes as a real shocker to people when they make their first visit to LA. And the fact that its heart exists in the midst of this sprawling mass and that its heart looks fairly shabby begs the question.......why should outsiders care when the locals don't?

And regarding the comments over the lack of hi rises in DTLA prior to the 1960s.........my understanding when I lived there is that it had little to do with the views or the sunlight or any other aesthetic reason. LA is earthquake country and prior to the 1960s, skyscrapers were considered very risky during a quake. Yes, quake cities like SF and Tokyo still built them but LA chose not to follow suit. It was only when earthquake technology came up with the concept of buildings on 'rollers' did LA's height restrictions get relaxed and skyscrapers get built.

As for the notion, that had skyscrapers been allowed sooner, DTLA would be much larger......that's a lot of bull. In fact, DT would have been smaller because skyscrapers provide much more space on a much smaller footprint. If you want a bigger DT, then you have to get more jobs located there; more people wanting to live there. DTs grow because of demand and not because you build a lot of bldgs and they somehow fill up magically. That is Econ 101.

And if you want more jobs and people living DT you need to stop the latest plan by the crazy LA Planning Dept. From I what I see of it, they have come up with a revised nodal village concept that's on steroids. Fifty story bldgs in Hollywood? Seriously? An article on the subject I think is very much worth reading even though I think the author, Joel Kotkin, is a horse's arse and some of what he writes is nonsense. An excerpt:

Demographics also make a mockery of the densification argument. With the exception of downtown, most of the central parts of Los Angeles have either stagnated or lost population over the last 20 years. Hollywood, for example, shrank from 213,000 residents in 1990 to 198,000 today. Within the last decade, Los Angeles County’s growth slowed to barely 3 percent—roughly one-fifth the rate that it enjoyed during the go-go 1980s, a period of extraordinary prosperity in the region. Yet Garcetti, Villaraigosa, and their allies continue to base their grands projets, as the French would call them, on outmoded assumptions of exploding economic and population growth. Particularly revealing is the experience of the Residences at W Hollywood, a luxury-condo project located a stone’s throw from the proposed new high-rise towers in Hollywood. According to recent reports, only 29 out of 143 units have sold since the project opened in May 2010, despite prices that have been slashed by more than half. The market, in short, is unwilling to embrace density here, “elegant” or otherwise.

Yet the city keeps planning big, as though hordes of the well-heeled were eager to move to L.A. It has offered massive subsidies, accounting for nearly $640 million in tax breaks, to three hotel projects. Public bonds are also underwriting expansion of L.A.’s convention center and a new football stadium, which received unheard-of exemptions from state and local environmental laws even though the city currently has no football team. “Everything we are doing, like the mass build-out of transit and density, provides an excuse for creating things people don’t want,” says Cary Brazeman, founder and president of L.A. Neighbors, a citywide alliance of neighborhoods, and a candidate for city controller in 2013. “To build this city back, you have to approach things in ways that enhance the gloriousness of L.A. Sunshine, it’s transcendental. You take away the sun, hell, I’m leaving my condo.”

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002996-let-la-be-la

[LAofAnaheim]

I shot this video on Friday night during the Dance Downtown, which has now moved to the Grand Park. Look at how beautiful the fountain is at night!! One of the best fountains you have seen, worldwide. Look at the energy of the crowd and the multi ages enjoying the Dancing and fountain. Now, this is what LA needs more of! Personally, I can now say, downtown has made IT as THE cultural destination of Los Angeles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5urIsCL7zg

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

My biggest issue with Union Station is simply that I would prefer recourses to be focused on improving already built neighborhoods (Historic Core, FiDi, South Park) instead of creating something entirely new. For every high rise built behind Union Station, I'll just wish it was built on a parking lot next to L.A. Live, or in the Historic Core.

Some thoughts:

I think you make a valid point and one that MTA is smart enough to focus on: the primary purpose of the plan is not to create a new 'hood, but to improve connectivity between DT and the rest of LA and the west coast. If developers see opportunites for local development of supporting retail, hotels, etc., it will happen. This ties back to the idea that development around destinations should be in response to demand on its own and not be dependent on the assumed benefits of some other destination.

To me, this means specifically connecting US to Chinatown; Civic Center, Bunker Hill, South Park (and the rest of DT); Dodger Stadium, Glendale and Boyle Heights; the rest of metro LA and LAX.

FlyAway bus (plus the Expo and Crenshaw) seems like about it for LAX. Light rail to Glendale should be looked at; they should coordinate with Dodger Stadium, whether just for gamedays or for larger-scale development; at least a study of how to improve service to Boyle Heights and east of Alameda.

The Bway trolley is now getting cut off short of Bunker Hill, much less getting to US. This makes little sense since tourism is presumably going to be a main user of the trolley and Union Station and El Pueblo are main tourist destinations. The trolley would give a more enjoyable single ride solution for getting to civic center, Jtown, Bway, etc. A few bucks could be spared for this.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

dont want to jump any guns here, but there are 3 large trash bins at the 9th and olive parking lot. they were put there yesterday. not sure if it means anything in regards to construction (or destruction) but when i contacted the development company last month, they did say that they are on schedule to break ground in mid August

[RuFFy]

I def agree that future phases of the street car should be made to Chinatown and El Pueblo. I think there are plans for a BRT, LRT or Metrolink Connection from Union Station to LAX on a ROW that parallels Santa Fe before turning west on Slauson and meeting up with the Crenshaw Line tracks. I don't think it's on the long term plan but has been discussed.

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

dont want to jump any guns here, but there are 3 large trash bins at the 9th and olive parking lot. they were put there yesterday. not sure if it means anything in regards to construction (or destruction) but when i contacted the development company last month, they did say that they are on schedule to break ground in mid August

I hope they do start soon. This is one of the areas I'd like to see some highrise development, especially around the AT&T Center so it doesn't look so lonely.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

actually, i just noticed a new lot for sale. its the parking lot adjacent to the Stillwell hotel. its a 10,000 square foot lot. could be a great location for a 15 - 25 storey building.

The block from 8th to 9th, between Olive and Grand has about 12 lots... 2 are developed (south park lofts and Stillwell.) LOADS of potential here and with the 4 major projects within a block, this is the area that will take off shortly.

[Mojeda101]

9th & Olive is still in the proposed section. It's been approved already right?

[JDRCRASH]

it might be mojeda. I hope so, that area needs some more activity. im on a little vacation rite now so I might not be able to update it until this weekend. if I can do it before, though, I will.

[202_Cyclist]

The California High Speed Rail blog has a post today about improving passenger rail at Union Station and redeveloping the area around it.

Getting Union Station Ready for High Speed Rail
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/08/getting-union-station-ready-for-high-speed-rail/

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

The California High Speed Rail blog has a post today about improving passenger rail at Union Station and redeveloping the area around it.

Getting Union Station Ready for High Speed Rail
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/08/getting-union-station-ready-for-high-speed-rail/

Certainly, the tracks, platform and communications are early focuses, while the "Garden City" aspect is back-burner. The decisions are really big picture at this point: researching the needs of neighborhing districts and the interests of the local stakeholders.

The comment re the proper location for placing the "entitlements" is interesting. The area is already mostly surrounded by industrial, freeways, jails (and supporing businesses) and public housing, so getting any or all of these moved or hidden will be critical.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

You keep harping on bad design.......and there is lots of it to go around........but then every city has bad design as you so aptly pointed out in your post about Seattle. And some times LA tries too hard........for an example, the concept of the Civic Park is a good one and its design is decent but what's with the pink or purple chairs..........I mean pink or purple in a park? Why couldn't they have gone with the traditional black or green. Sometimes LA just tries too hard to be cool.....to be different. Having said that, I don't think either issue is LA's Achilles heel.

alki, I think you make the issue more complicated than it really is. it's not bad design per se.....which implies matters of refined taste & lofty architectural skill....that is the achilles heel of LA. It's more an issue of too many areas looking not much better than this.....



maps.google.com

^ that's why I kind of when the conversation turns to our bldgs being too short, or new devlpt not being taller, or new projs having parking podiums, or their having no stores on the 1st floor, or even their walls being stucco instead of granite. or the color of the benches in the new park being pink instead of green. it's not that those issues aren't worthwhile, it's just that to the average person, all of that gets lost in the far worse mish mosh of LA.

I think ppl feeling about our bldgs or newer projs not being larger or taller is even more when the city where the olympics just ended isn't exactly a mecca of skyscrapers. but who cares!!!? So much of a city like that is so attractive, that everything else is of secondary important. actually, everything else falls by the wayside. That's why we in LA are like ppl driving around in a car with 4 bald tires that are all about ready to go flat. But we start focusing on & worrying about whether the upholstery should be leather instead of velour, & whether the steering wheel is a dark or light color.

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

dont want to jump any guns here, but there are 3 large trash bins at the 9th and olive parking lot. they were put there yesterday. not sure if it means anything in regards to construction (or destruction) but when i contacted the development company last month, they did say that they are on schedule to break ground in mid August

I sure hope that's an early sign that they're going to stick with their time schedule. The only reason why I'm a tiny bit less anxious to see groundbreaking on that proj is cuz the location of the proposed bldg isn't as noticeably as some of the other areas in south pk. of the various pieces of land around there, I've often gone by this one & not been as troubled by it. That's cuz of the amt of landscaping around it & the lot at least being bordered by a small gate....


maps.google.com

I still hope the proj at 9th & olive is underway asap, but the positive change from that will be a bit less dramatic & noticeable than the cleaning up of the nearby big parking lot where the angelena apt proj is supposed to be built. I'll feel like a if the taller & more $$ bldg.....cuz it uses steel or concrete instead of wood....& which I thought would be less likely to break ground in the current economy, is underway shortly, while the less $$ wood framed Angelena proj ends up being the one that's delayed.

[Virtual Urban Vision]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

thesource.metro.net

I like the idea of capping the 101 freeway with retail/buildings instead of green space. Yeah, a park would cover the freeway, but then I'm sure it would still be a dead zone. Retail would create better pedestrian connectivity between Union Station/El Pueblo and the Civic Center. Plus, buildings used to stand where the freeway is now anyway, so it'd be like an ode to the past---or they could create an ode to the past.

I agree and also like that they recommend moving the jail, the foundry, and redeveloping the LA Mall. It is a sound report and If we followed what was suggested including greening the LA river the area could be a real asset to the city.

[JDRCRASH]

Alight people, looks like were gonna have to stop voicing our opinions on whether a new building being built on parking lots and other dead zones isnt tall enough, cause apparently some here think it is so funny that they would include that in half of their posts.

And there will be no comparing a city that is over a thousand years old like london to los angeles, the majority of which was urbanized only in the last 75 years). there's a reason why the former city favors low-rises more than the latter... the old architecture in london is some of the most beautiful on the planet, putting that of 90% of los angeles' to shame.

And even then, london in fact did go through a little boom of its own in the years leading up to the olympics, even giving birth to what is now the tallest skyscraper in Europe.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I still hope the proj at 9th & olive is underway asap, but the positive change from that will be a bit less dramatic & noticeable than the cleaning up of the nearby big parking lot where the angelena apt proj is supposed to be built. I'll feel like a if the taller & more $$ bldg.....cuz it uses steel or concrete instead of wood....& which I thought would be less likely to break ground in the current economy, is underway shortly, while the less $$ wood framed Angelena proj ends up being the one that's delayed.

Quick correction: Angelena is not wood framed, despite being eight stories. Astani has gone out of his way to say that the building will be built, and I quote, of 'glass and steal', and be very high quality.

[colemonkee]

^ Per building code, anything over 6 or 7 stories has to be steel-reinforced concrete or steel construction anyway. Type III buildings can only have 5 stories of wood structure over 1-2 stories of concrete. Then you move into Type I or II.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

^ Per building code, anything over 6 or 7 stories has to be steel-reinforced concrete or steel construction anyway. Type III buildings can only have 5 stories of wood structure over 1-2 stories of concrete. Then you move into Type I or II.

Well... fantastic!