LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[dax_gray]

My only complaint about the USC village is that it looks like a fortress. Wish there was varying heights, shorter near the streets, taller on the inside. Otherwise, like all USC buildings post 2005, it looks great.

[jgacis]

Originally Posted by dax_gray

My only complaint about the USC village is that it looks like a fortress. Wish there was varying heights, shorter near the streets, taller on the inside. Otherwise, like all USC buildings post 2005, it looks great.

In my opinion it only looks like a fortress because everything else around it are low-density infrastructure that hasn't been redeveloped yet (except parts of the southside across the street). The street wall is fine; it gives an urban environment of walkability and provides eyes on the street.

[DenseCityPlease]

Originally Posted by dax_gray

Otherwise, like all USC buildings post 2005, it looks great.

Lol. As a graduate of the USC School of Architecture, I hold the exact opposite opinion about the recent buildings.

I can assure you that nearly every gathering of Architecture alumni or faculty is all but dominated by mutual groaning, embarrassment, and eye rolling about the pathetic faux-19th Century collegiate theming of a once great campus.

Precast imitation archways, brick veneer, gaudy light fixtures, stained glass, and wannabe clock towers do not give off the impression of a bold, credible university blazing courageously into the 21st century. It sends a message that university leadsherip is scared shitless of the modern world, incapable of embracing new ideas, and dominated by a retrograde conservative leadership rooted in the faux-Tuscan Orange County exurbs. Disneyland-upon-Figueroa.

Urbanistically the new Village checks all the right boxes and gets it right, but it should have been designed by someone with the balls to take a stand for a vision of the modern era.

[scania]

IMO, I really wish USC Village was in another forum.

[user2468]

Spent nearly two hours walking around downtown to present this batch of fresh construction photo updates.
732 S. Spring Street #1 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

732 S. Spring Street #2 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

751 S. Spring Street #2 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

938 S. Broadway (Broadway Palace Phase II) #1 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

938 S. Broadway (Broadway Palace Phase II) #2 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

938 S. Broadway (Broadway Palace Phase II) #3 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

820 S. Olive Street #1 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

820 S. Olive Street #2 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

820 S. Olive Street #3 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

888 S. Hope Street #1 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

888 S. Hope Street #3 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

900 S. Figueroa Street (Apex II) #1 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

900 S. Figueroa Street (Apex II) #2 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

Metropolis #3 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

1101 S. Flower Street (Oceanwide Plaza) & 1200 S. Figueroa Street (Circa) #1 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

1101 S. Flower Street (Oceanwide Plaza) & 1200 S. Figueroa Street (Circa) #2 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

1101 S. Flower Street (Oceanwide Plaza) #6 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

1101 S. Flower Street (Oceanwide Plaza) #8 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

1200 S. Figueroa Street (Circa) #1 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

1200 S. Figueroa Street (Circa) #2 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

1400 S. Figueroa Street - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

1212 S. Flower Street - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

1120 S. Grand Avenue #1 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

1120 S. Grand Avenue #2 - 4/6/2017 by Juan Gomez, on Flickr

[black_crow]

Measure S was supposed to repair streets. Now the Senate voted to raise gas prices to improve highways.
Since I am from Germany.. can somebody explain that to me? I know Measure M was for Los Angeles, but... we raise all of our taxes, nearly every ballot.

Is that a normal thing here in California?

Nice pictures by the way.

[scania]

Great PICS!!!

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by black_crow

Measure S was supposed to repair streets. Now the Senate voted to raise gas prices to improve highways.
Since I am from Germany.. can somebody explain that to me? I know Measure M was for Los Angeles, but... we raise all of our taxes, nearly every ballot.

Is that a normal thing here in California?

Measure M is a sales tax that raises money for just LA County, mostly centered on improving and operating mass transit, but also with some road projects and "local return" which is money cities can spend on transportation as they wish (can be roads or transit or alternatives mobility like expanding bike lanes, etc.).

Measure S actually had nothing to do with roads or transit.

This new state bill is for the whole state, and almost entirely for roads, though that may change. But it is NOT a sales tax. Its a gas tax only. Also there are parts of it that increase car registration fees. Basically it is saying those who use the roads, pay for the roads.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by user2468

Spent nearly two hours walking around downtown to present this batch of fresh construction photo updates.

Your pics & similar ones often make me sorry that it has taken LA --- its devlprs, landowners, residents & tourists --- such a long time to finally bring signs of life to dtla.

too bad what's going on right now couldn't have gotten underway at least 5 to 10 yrs earlier. Or it's too bad that what occurred in 1990, couldn't have happened in 1980. Or what started in 2015, couldn't have started in 2005. Or what began in 2006, couldn't have begun in 1996.

But......

[cesar90]

• Video Link

Thank you LAsam, That was the only pattern that I got to see last night for a while, probably yes just for testing, it didn't seem like it was as strong illuminated as the previous pictures posted.

[LAsam]

^ Thanks Cesar! Your videos are the next best thing to visiting downtown. Do you think that's just a test pattern on the WG?

[colemonkee]

Great shots, user2468! The amount of construction we're witnessing right now is truly unprecedented. I'm more than a little disappointed with the first bit of cladding on 820 S. Olive, but will hold out further judgement until we see the cladding on the tower portion. That's more than made up for by the cladding on 888 S. Hope, which is turning out far, far better than I expected.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Great shots, user2468! The amount of construction we're witnessing right now is truly unprecedented. I'm more than a little disappointed with the first bit of cladding on 820 S. Olive, but will hold out further judgement until we see the cladding on the tower portion. That's more than made up for by the cladding on 888 S. Hope, which is turning out far, far better than I expected.

Im assuming 820 will end up looking a lot like Level next door so im not too worried

[Wilcal]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Great shots, user2468! The amount of construction we're witnessing right now is truly unprecedented. I'm more than a little disappointed with the first bit of cladding on 820 S. Olive, but will hold out further judgement until we see the cladding on the tower portion. That's more than made up for by the cladding on 888 S. Hope, which is turning out far, far better than I expected.

It is barely noticeable and deserves a bit more time. What I find to be most curious about the project is that the developer chose to keep the tenement building which they own next door and not use that to expand the footprint of the project which could have added many more units.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Measure M is a sales tax that raises money for just LA County, mostly centered on improving and operating mass transit, but also with some road projects and "local return" which is money cities can spend on transportation as they wish (can be roads or transit or alternatives mobility like expanding bike lanes, etc.).

Measure S actually had nothing to do with roads or transit.

This new state bill is for the whole state, and almost entirely for roads, though that may change. But it is NOT a sales tax. Its a gas tax only. Also there are parts of it that increase car registration fees. Basically it is saying those who use the roads, pay for the roads.

LA Times has an excellent analysis with easy to understand graphs

The short take: some funding ($8.7 billion out of estimated $52 billion it will raise over 10 years) will go towards transit based on current expenditure patterns.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-p...ortation-plan/

But remember, the actual spending is decided annually in the budget process so in any given year, the Governor and the legislature could decide to increase (or decrease) transit funding. The bill just raises the taxes on fuel and vehicle registration. It really doesn't say anything about how the money will be spent. The money raised will go into State's transportation fund. What we use that money for get decided in the annual budget.

[SoCalKid]

Delete

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by black_crow

Measure S was supposed to repair streets. Now the Senate voted to raise gas prices to improve highways.
Since I am from Germany.. can somebody explain that to me? I know Measure M was for Los Angeles, but... we raise all of our taxes, nearly every ballot.

Is that a normal thing here in California?

Nice pictures by the way.

The amount of money the state collects from the gas tax has been eroded over the years by inflation and increases in fuel efficiency, so it definitely needed to be raised.

The biggest issue with state revenue is our low property taxes, which forces the state to resort to more volatile and distortionary taxation methods like income and capital gains taxes. It also makes cities hesitant to permit new housing, since it can be difficult for them recoup the tax revenue needed to increase city services to those residents. This in turn hurts our ability to maintain our infrastructure since its much more affordable on a per capita basis to build and maintain infrastructure in higher density communities.

[jgacis]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Basically it is saying those who use the roads, pay for the roads.

That's not true. Bzcat is correct. There is NOTHING that guarantees on what it will actually be spent on. Let's say someone never uses the roads...he/she has never owned or driven a car (only walked their entirely lives). If that person walks to the local Trader Joe's to buy organic apples, someone had to transport those apples there for the consumer. And if a diesel truck drove them from central California to the local distribution center, guess who pays for the 20-cent spike on diesel fuel? The employed truck driver?

This tax isn't just for those who use the roads, it's going to hit everybody...

[jgacis]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

The amount of money the state collects from the gas tax has been eroded over the years by inflation and increases in fuel efficiency, so it definitely needed to be raised.

You seem to be ignoring Sacramento's spending spree in other areas that could have been appropriated in maintaining our infrastructure in the past. We are taxed enough already. It's a spending problem and not just a revenue problem.

The biggest issue with state revenue is our low property taxes, which forces the state to resort to more volatile and distortionary taxation methods like income and capital gains taxes. It also makes cities hesitant to permit new housing, since it can be difficult for them recoup the tax revenue needed to increase city services to those residents. This in turn hurts our ability to maintain our infrastructure since its much more affordable on a per capita basis to build and maintain infrastructure in higher density communities.

You seem to forget why Prop 13 was implemented in the first place. Imagine the government raising property taxes without the constraints today. It's like giving a blank check to the government without no guarantee on where it will be spent.

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by jgacis

That's not true. Bzcat is correct. There is NOTHING that guarantees on what it will actually be spent on. Let's say someone never uses the roads...he/she has never owned or driven a car (only walked their entirely lives). If that person walks to the local Trader Joe's to buy organic apples, someone had to transport those apples there for the consumer. And if a diesel truck drove them from central California to the local distribution center, guess who pays for the 20-cent spike on diesel fuel? The employed truck driver?

This tax isn't just for those who use the roads, it's going to hit everybody...

Yes, consumers pay for the convenience of food shipped to their local stores with the cost passed down to the products. That seems reasonable. I would consider that having benefited from the road.