LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[blackcat23]

Weingart Center

[caligrad]

^^^ So its a vertical/towering shit box haha. But seeing how its mostly affordable housing. I guess we cant complain. But seeing how it is affordable housing....should parking really be included? Not saying that people of lower incomes don't have cars but....isn't parking considered a luxury in LAs current state?

[black_crow]

Originally Posted by caligrad

But seeing how it is affordable housing....should parking really be included? Not saying that people of lower incomes don't have cars but....isn't parking considered a luxury in LAs current state?

For real?

Low-income people need those parking spots more than others. They want to provide those homes in Downtown, fine with me, but parking is more than logical in that case.

It's not considered a luxury. There are parking standards.

State law provides parking standards that may be requested by a developer of a density
bonus project and that the City must grant if requested. These standards apply not only to the
restricted affordable units (the set-aside units) but also to the entire project. These standards are
inclusive of handicapped and guest parking and are as follows:

• 0 – 1 bedrooms: one onsite parking space
• 2 – 3 bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces
• 4 or more bedrooms: 2½ parking spaces

https://cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Housing/DRAFTUPDATEDAffordHousingGuide.pdf

[caligrad]

^^^ Right, State law PROVIDES parking standards. Standards that we've seen tweaked time and time again for certain developments by the city because they aren't necessarily set in stone. There are loopholes for everything. People here like to salivate over other cities in the states and around the world but give LA excuses for the way things are done. Its considered a luxury in many major cities, including the Bay area. Come down to Long Beach and there is a very high chance your apartment will not include parking, especially near downtown. Yet the vacancy rate is low.

If this project didn't include parking and rent was cheaper, it would fill up even quicker. I moved to my new place back in March. It comes with a 2 car garage. I can honestly with a straight face say I haven't used it yet. in my building of 7 units, only 3 use their garage. I don't use mine, 2 other units bike to work regularly and the other just parks on the street and use it for storage as I've started to do. A parking spot/Garage is an added convenience/luxury.

[black_crow]

Originally Posted by caligrad

^^^ Right, State law PROVIDES parking standards. Standards that we've seen tweaked time and time again for certain developments by the city because they aren't necessarily set in stone. There are loopholes for everything. People here like to salivate over other cities in the states and around the world but give LA excuses for the way things are done. Its considered a luxury in many major cities, including the Bay area. Come down to Long Beach and there is a very high chance your apartment will not include parking, especially near downtown. Yet the vacancy rate is low.

If this project didn't include parking and rent was cheaper, it would fill up even quicker. I moved to my new place back in March. It comes with a 2 car garage. I can honestly with a straight face say I haven't used it yet. in my building of 7 units, only 3 use their garage. I don't use mine, 2 other units bike to work regularly and the other just parks on the street and use it for storage as I've started to do. A parking spot/Garage is an added convenience/luxury.

Sorry, but the rules are pretty clear.

Keywords: STATE LAW, MUST BE GRANTED IF REQUESTED

Parking spots are absolutely common for those projects.
Yes, there are a few special plan exemptions like for the Atwater Village, but they are for sure not the norm and nearly impossible to get.

I don't consider parking a luxury at all, but those parking spots come with a price tag and developers shouldn't be forced to build them.

PS:

I, on the other hand, would never pay for parking that I don't use. I have one car and one free parking spot.

[ozone]

State law doesn’t mandiate parking requirements for municipalities. What it does is allows a developer of very specific types of housing - namely low income or very affordable and senior housing close to transit to build less parking than required by a city’s zoning regulations. The city has to allow it unless it can demonstrate that more parking is necessary.

Not sure those conditions apply here but like most US cities LA’s current parking requirements fail to recognize that historically the most successful *urban* environments work best when they support a lifestyle not dependent on cars. Density and transit are key however because essential neighborhood services have to be easily accessible on foot and by transit. Living in LA without a car is still a pretty radical concept. Maybe in 20 years the city will have evolved enough, become denser and better serviced by public transit, that it won’t be so. But until then we need to stay calm and carry on.

[JerellO]

Macfarlane might look dated but if the glass is that tan color, it’s better than the blue and greenish glass being put on South Park towers... last thing we want is downtown being a sea of just blue glass. It would just all look uniformed and uninspired. So a wee bit dated looking building but modern and darker glass might not be a bad thing.. it will also give Downtown an older look versus everything being built look shiny and new.

I like the UCLA tower too but the Phoenix Arizona desert colored cube is just ugly.. if it was all glass like the tower it would’ve been my pick too, maybe fix the top so it’s. It flat but slanted. Also if it was all glass they could’ve still done a gradient effect with darker glass on the bottom becoming more light and transparent up top

[Doctorboffin]

I really like the cube, it reminds me of a lot of SHoPs proposals in NYC which to me are the pinnacle of modern architecture.

[JerellO]

Is there any way City Hall can change the law or whatever for the Wilshire Grand to start displaying video content on the LED screens at the base of the tower facing Figueroa?? I know as of now they are only allowed to show static ads, which is sad since I saw a video on Facebook of the video quality the Wilshire Grand is capable of.

[SanDiegoGuy]

Originally Posted by ozone

State law doesn’t mandiate parking requirements for municipalities.

That statement is wrong because it does.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoGuy

That statement is wrong because it does.

What is the law then?

[SanDiegoGuy]

Originally Posted by ozone

What is the law then?

You were probably talking about the AB 744 bill, but there is a California State Density Bonus Law that provides the parking numbers.

Originally Posted by ozone

State law doesn’t mandiate parking requirements for municipalities. What it does is allows a developer of very specific types of housing - namely low income or very affordable and senior housing close to transit to build less parking than required by a city’s zoning regulations.

You wrote it doesn't mandate parking requirements, but it allows to build less parking? True, but it tells you the numbers so it mandates parking.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoGuy

You were probably talking about the AB 744 bill, but there is a California State Density Bonus Law that provides the parking numbers.

You wrote it doesn't mandate parking requirements, but it allows to build less parking? True, but it tells you the numbers so it mandates parking.

"Shit, you got me on a technicality"

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by black_crow

McFarland design from a different angle. Found at "DTLA Development" Facebook Group.

The only thing good about this design is the height. The design looks like something you might see in a 1970s issue of "Architectural Record". If we must go modern, Onni's stacked boxes or even the "UCLA" proposal are better in my opinion. College students always bring activity & vitality.

At the risk of annoying a few, I still say a classy supertall "neo Art Deco" (with 21st century innards) would be terrific and very appropriate for the site. A bridge between the historic district on Broadway and the modernist glass towers to the west. What L.A. might have had long ago if not for the 150 foot height limit that lasted until the late 1950s. Notice I didn't even mention Richfield or Eastern Columbia or Empire State or Chrysler buildings. Those are great old buildings. But I want something even better for this site, something old but new and fun and appropriate for L.A. Why not revisit the Art Deco style, at least in part? Good architecture can pay homage to the past, especially near the historic Broadway district.

[circuitfiend]

This is a rant on the proposals for Angels Landing, to be taken with a grain of salt. My life fortunately doesn't revolve around whether UCLA moves a dept downtown or not.

The Gensler/UCLA proposal has all the charm of a giant tombstone. It's an uninspired, hulking neighbor to Cal Plaza, entirely blocking the view from the east, is a brown dirt color like Wells Fargo Plaza, and highlights our lovely brown dirty air during inversions. Notice no developer has built anything that color in DTLA since the 80's. Gensler took the design of a building near the 110 in city west (I forget it's name, it's been there forever), and stuck the tower in the middle of an ugly Bloc-style podium. This is their idea of an iconic building? Then Gensler presents it to the city with the UCLA sign on their proposal, hoping they can get a pass on this turd because this is what UCLA wants and that DTLA simply must have UCLA at all costs. All the cheerleading in the world is not going to change this dog.

Then there's Onni. Who wants to look at the bottom of cantilevered boxes on bunker hill for the rest of our lives? The design is so simplistic, a child could have done the mock-up. And the concept is now overdone. We have Gehry's boxes, we have Onni's boxes, we have the development next to Onni, also boxes. Then there's the cantilevered jenga tower next to Perch. And BIG's proposal. Enough. Miami also has a cube tower proposed, just announced, very similar, but much more sophisticated and taller. Very similar to Moscow's. And frankly, we don't need a watered down version of their developments.

So there, I had to let it out. I feel better now.

[Doctorboffin]

I think the Gensler one pays the most respect to the area by far by continuing the street wall. The others seem awfully out of place and suburban in a way.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

The only thing good about this design is the height. The design looks like something you might see in a 1970s issue of "Architectural Record". If we must go modern, Onni's stacked boxes or even the "UCLA" proposal are better in my opinion. College students always bring activity & vitality.

At the risk of annoying a few, I still say a classy supertall "neo Art Deco" (with 21st century innards) would be terrific and very appropriate for the site. A bridge between the historic district on Broadway and the modernist glass towers to the west. What L.A. might have had long ago if not for the 150 foot height limit that lasted until the late 1950s. Notice I didn't even mention Richfield or Eastern Columbia or Empire State or Chrysler buildings. Those are great old buildings. But I want something even better for this site, something old but new and fun and appropriate for L.A. Why not revisit the Art Deco style, at least in part? Good architecture can pay homage to the past, especially near the historic Broadway district.

Hey man, enough

[Spantik]

Would you settle for a neo art deco Richfield Tower inspired 7 story shitbox?

[colemonkee]

CaliNative, we're gonna have to report you to PETA for continually beating the neo Art Deco supertall dead horse...

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by ozone

State law doesn’t mandiate parking requirements for municipalities. What it does is allows a developer of very specific types of housing - namely low income or very affordable and senior housing close to transit to build less parking than required by a city’s zoning regulations. The city has to allow it unless it can demonstrate that more parking is necessary.

Not sure those conditions apply here but like most US cities LA’s current parking requirements fail to recognize that historically the most successful *urban* environments work best when they support a lifestyle not dependent on cars. Density and transit are key however because essential neighborhood services have to be easily accessible on foot and by transit. Living in LA without a car is still a pretty radical concept. Maybe in 20 years the city will have evolved enough, become denser and better serviced by public transit, that it won’t be so. But until then we need to stay calm and carry on.

Thank you. That's ALL I was trying to say.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoGuy

You were probably talking about the AB 744 bill, but there is a California State Density Bonus Law that provides the parking numbers.



You wrote it doesn't mandate parking requirements, but it allows to build less parking? True, but it tells you the numbers so it mandates parking.

Also true.

All I'm saying is parking no matter how it is in some way, whether its surface parking or underground or garage adds to the overall price. Which is kinda odd to have attached to "affordable housing". When that housing can be even more affordable without the parking.

Originally Posted by black_crow

Sorry, but the rules are pretty clear.
PS:

I, on the other hand, would never pay for parking that I don't use. I have one car and one free parking spot.

LOL you may think that parking spot is free but its value has already been added into your rent. That's how most of it works in the modern world. Every place I've rented from with units with or without parking, the ones without are always $100-$200 cheaper. The company I rent from has a property directly next door, the two units that doesn't have a parking spot are $150 cheaper than the others that actually do. If I would have known that street parking was so accessible where I'm at, I would have taken one of those cheaper units.

Originally Posted by CaliNative

At the risk of annoying a few, I still say a classy supertall "neo Art Deco" (with 21st century innards) would be terrific and very appropriate for the site. A bridge between the historic district on Broadway and the modernist glass towers to the west. What L.A. might have had long ago if not for the 150 foot height limit that lasted until the late 1950s. Notice I didn't even mention Richfield or Eastern Columbia or Empire State or Chrysler buildings. Those are great old buildings. But I want something even better for this site, something old but new and fun and appropriate for L.A. Why not revisit the Art Deco style, at least in part? Good architecture can pay homage to the past, especially near the historic Broadway district.

LOL I'm actually all for an older looking Art Deco style tower with modern "Innards" in LA. I would also be cool with it being the new tallest as well. I think the reason why a lot of us were in love with the original Olympic-City house plans were just for that reason. They also would have been the first modern towers to get around of LAs helipad rules. But. Never happened.

http://www.robertsonpartners.net/OCH_2.htm

Just looking at them again makes me want to cry especially when looking at what replaced them.

Originally Posted by circuitfiend

This is a rant on the proposals for Angels Landing, to be taken with a grain of salt. My life fortunately doesn't revolve around whether UCLA moves a dept downtown or not.

The Gensler/UCLA proposal has all the charm of a giant tombstone. It's an uninspired, hulking neighbor to Cal Plaza, entirely blocking the view from the east, is a brown dirt color like Wells Fargo Plaza, and highlights our lovely brown dirty air during inversions. Notice no developer has built anything that color in DTLA since the 80's. Gensler took the design of a building near the 110 in city west (I forget it's name, it's been there forever), and stuck the tower in the middle of an ugly Bloc-style podium. This is their idea of an iconic building? Then Gensler presents it to the city with the UCLA sign on their proposal, hoping they can get a pass on this turd because this is what UCLA wants and that DTLA simply must have UCLA at all costs. All the cheerleading in the world is not going to change this dog.

Then there's Onni. Who wants to look at the bottom of cantilevered boxes on bunker hill for the rest of our lives? The design is so simplistic, a child could have done the mock-up. And the concept is now overdone. We have Gehry's boxes, we have Onni's boxes, we have the development next to Onni, also boxes. Then there's the cantilevered jenga tower next to Perch. And BIG's proposal. Enough. Miami also has a cube tower proposed, just announced, very similar, but much more sophisticated and taller. Very similar to Moscow's. And frankly, we don't need a watered down version of their developments.

So there, I had to let it out. I feel better now.

Now tell us how you really feel but I agree completely.