LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0 - Page 32

scania · #**621** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 1:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Ultimately that's what really matters. Not how many cranes are going up, nor even how quickly parking spaces are disappearing.

What's really important is: How will this new development contribute to an improved, more walkable, more human scale, more humane, more green, more livable Los Angeles of 2035? Contrary to most of the people here, I am not impressed by development for development's sake. LA has been here MANY times before and not much can be said for it today. It has done the 70's version of the 2010s. Wash rinse repeat, etc.

just my $0.20

Actually, it does matter. These new towers going up are bringing revenue to DTLA. From Corporate America, restaurants, retail, etc. also brings excitement, things to do, a destination for people to come. So despite what trivial opinion you have on what's walkable and what's not, when looking at the big picture, the foreseeable future for DTLA is looking amazing.

Mojeda101 · #**622** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 1:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikemike

The question is, in the end, which is the higher? The roof of bank tower, or the roof of WG? If you answer my comparison of equivalents, then I'll address your comparison of non-equivalents.

Let's just stop. We have 10 posts talking about this. Could the mods delete our debate so it doesn't switch to the next page so quickly please? Got a little carried away there

Bikemike · #**623** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 1:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scania

Actually, it does matter. These new towers going up are bringing revenue to DTLA. From Corporate America, restaurants, retail, etc. also brings excitement, things to do, a destination for people to come. So despite what trivial opinion you have on what's walkable and what's not, when looking at the big picture, the foreseeable future for DTLA is looking amazing.

It should take an Angeleno who splits his time in Atlanta to consider walkability a "trivial" thing LOL

Of course DTLA stands to benefit from investment. I would never deny that Miami is likewise benefitting from it's much more dramatic transformation into a skyscraper suburbia as well. Money is generally positive when it comes to the pathetic state of DTLA just prior to the boom. China's "doing great" relative to the 1980s as well. Understandable.

But it's all relative. You are talking from the lowest common denominator: "yes money" vs. "no money". Well, Republican superPACs = "yes money". But is it good money? We are somewhat fortunate that DTLA's at the point where we can even have a discussion about what choosing the kind of money comes into DTLA: eg. Walkable money vs. Auto-oriented money. Obviously you, scania, aren't at a level of valuing or even perceiving the benefits of quality urbanism being that you're from LA/Atlanta - two horribly suburbanized and auto-oriented cities. But we do need more of the kinds of people who care in leadership positions, though. Density + cars = hell and things can only get worse once the superficial short-term stuff (your observation that "DTLA is looking amazing") becomes real-life, long-term stuff (ridiculous congestion, lack of public spaces/spontaneous human interaction)

Just-In-Cali · #**624** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikemike

It should take an Angeleno who splits his time in Atlanta to consider walkability a "trivial" thing LOL

Of course DTLA stands to benefit from investment. I would never deny that Miami is likewise benefitting from it's much more dramatic transformation into a skyscraper suburbia as well. Money is generally positive when it comes to the pathetic state of DTLA just prior to the boom. China's "doing great" relative to the 1980s as well. Understandable.

But it's all relative. You are talking from the lowest common denominator: Yes money vs. no money. Well, Republican superPACs = yes money. But is it good money? We are somewhat fortunate that DTLA's at the point where we can even have a discussion about what choosing the kind of money comes into DTLA: eg. Walkable money vs. Auto-oriented money. Obviously you, scania, aren't at a level of valuing or even perceiving the benefits of quality urbanism being that you're from LA/Atlanta - two horribly suburbanized cities. But we do need more of the kinds of people who care in leadership positions, though.

Really??? Mods?

This really...really has to stop...

Bikemike · #**625** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Really??? Mods?

This really...really has to stop...

scania said it himself, in our REAL discussion about downtown development, did he not? Attempts (like yours) to censor my perfectly on-topic discussion simply because you disagree drives the thread off topic. Either contribute or don't.

As I've said, walkability matters to downtown LA development, and development in DTLA is horribly suburban with its focus on cars. Especially with South Park developments like Circa or Oceanwide. Huge, oppressive podiums for parking garages is NOT a good thing for the neighborhood. Nevermind the skyline. Basically, every new development in South Park is transforming the neighorhood into a miniature version of the Miami boom. I'll even say it. DTLA's boom is a miniature Miami boom. Honestly, I would rather see the boom dollars being poured into DTLA cut in half if it meant we were funneling that diminished money into a more considerate, more progressive zoning framework such as that being implemented in Toronto. Quality over quantity ANY day.

I know it doesn't apply to skyscrapers in the heart of downtown, but if anyone is actually interested in urbanism here (LOL) take a look at midrise study. Their zoning is much more intelligent and considerate about creating a human scale street-scape. I know urban planning is quite sophisticated and LA planners assuredly know about the more progressive ideas out there, so I have to conclude from the complete lack of translation into actionable policy that it's LA's notoriously discordant bureaucracy and the lack of valuing the higher functions of the planning department that hurt LA's streetscape and allows crappy developers/developments to rule the roost here. The city planning department is a shell, a stripped down bureaucratic department kept alive mainly for the purpose of issuing permits, like the DMV.

I don't know that Re/code is going to change much of our auto-oriented stance. Much of its original basis was to consolidate and thin-out the outdated 1940s era zoning book, rather than drastically update the zoning to move us into a greener, more modern, and more transit dependent LA. Housekeeping, mainly. It's also why Silverstein and La Mirada were so successful.

NativeOrange · #**626** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 2:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikemike

The question is, in the end, which is the higher? The roof of bank tower, or the roof of WG? If you answer my comparison of equivalents, then I'll address your comparison of non-equivalents.

Nice pictures, btw!

No. The real question is, why are we whining about something like this. First you go on a tirade of how functionality trumps aesthetics with your post to ChargerCarl (which I do halfway agree with), only to complain about something that is entirely aesthetic.

King Kill 'em · #**627** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 3:06 AM**

What's a bigger concern for me with the "Miamization" of LA, is how ridiculously expensive the condos may get.

citywatch · #**628** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 3:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstructDTLA

6th & Main by Hunter, on Flickr

I don't believe any other single person has captured so many images of dt over the past several months from a bird's eye view the way you've done. Historians in the future will be relying on your photos in particular to understand what this period is all about.

The aerial pics show how much has been accomplished....dating as far back as at least the 1970s.....how much is now under construction in 2016 &.....this is important.....how much more infill is still needed to give a sense of completeness to dtla.

^ for instance, the SW corner of 6th & main where barry shy has long been talking about putting up some apt towers.

The clock is ticking, barry!

The various gaps throughout the hood, including the parking lots & rumpled old properties, remain the biggest impediment to giving dt a comfortable walkability. Most ppl don't find it too appealing to be wandering next to zombie zones....often full of parked cars during the day, vacant at night....squalid liquor stores, vacant warehouses or shabby swapmeets.

as much infill as possible is necessary!

There also remains the issue of the type of ppl one will meet when strolling through the hood, indicated by this bit of news from today....

Quote:

The city’s tangled effort to deal with homelessness and possessions on sidewalks took another turn on Wednesday, March 30, when the City Council voted to limit storage of homeless people’s personal belongings on public property to what can fit into a 60-gallon bin.

The policy is an amendment to a law passed last June that also gave law enforcement significant leeway to confiscate belongings with 24 hours’ notice (down from the previous 72 hours). The law requires the city to store confiscated property for up to 90 days before disposing of it. The measure was passed 13-1, with First District Councilman Gil Cedillo the lone holdout. The vote also requires enforcement of a policy that tents be taken off the sidewalk between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. Homelessness activists at Wednesday’s meeting said there continue to be too few storage facilities, and charged that the law is essentially criminalizing homelessness.

there have been so many stories through the yrs of ppl being accosted on the sidewalks of dtla by mentally ill homeless ppl. That will put a damper on the mood of most folks walking through dtla far more than vague urbanist theories not being followed to a T.

scania · #**629** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 3:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikemike

It should take an Angeleno who splits his time in Atlanta to consider walkability a "trivial" thing LOL

FYI, and I won't continue to debate. Though I was born here, I lived most of my life in NYC.

Eightball · #**630** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

What's a bigger concern for me with the "Miamization" of LA, is how ridiculously expensive the condos may get.

Need a massive increase in supply!

and welcome to LA, Scania

scania · #**631** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eightball

need a massive increase in supply!

And welcome to la, scania

thanks

ConstructDTLA · #**632** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 5:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

What's a bigger concern for me with the "Miamization" of LA, is how ridiculously expensive the condos may get.

The condos wont be getting more expensive. Trust me, they're about to take a huge dip.

ConstructDTLA · #**633** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 5:19 AM**

Sorry for the double-post, wanted to get this on the record without having to edit my previous post.

At this moment according to Trulia:

Median sales price: $642,500

Price per sqft: $603

Rent per month: $2,000

http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Downtown-Los_Angeles/7211/

Valyrian Steel · #**634** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 5:46 AM**

Holy shit, someone is obsessed. Mods, please.

Eightball · #**635** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 5:59 AM**

Yeah but in real life I'm getting unsolicited letters from private banking divisions of major real estate brokerages stating there is no supply available. Begging to buy the loft!

The aggressive street behavior is really an issue, tho

Mojeda101 · #**636** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 6:34 AM**

Well according to this link:

http://therealdeal.com/la/2016/03/31/dtla-land-sales-slim-in-2016/

We might be seeing a slowdown in developments and it could potentially mean drops in property value.

To sum it all up, we are building and buying too much which is most likely going to result in a slowdown of development and sales in the coming years. Developers are going to be holding off and seeing how current developments hold out in the market until proceeding with their own projects, so enjoy what we have while it lasts. Hopefully this means more affordable units in the future. To be fair, Hunter DID predict this several times before, so I have to give him credit. Too many units too quickly(estimated to be 8,000-12,000 units in 2017 & 2018) could result in a massive surplus that could sit dormant for years. Didn't think the developments would catch up with the demand.

Quote:

However, a lack of continued heightened activity in 2016 suggests that DTLA could be headed into a downturn.

“Land sales have really slowed down,” said Rob McRitchie, a senior vice president at JLL. “Downtown LA is certainly on the map as a maturing market that ebbs and flows. But large developments? Right now, they are going through an ebb.”

As the second quarter closes, land trades are still reaching a desirable average of $328.51 a square foot. However, it’s far less than February 2015, when the unentitled lots at 1201 and 1229 South Grand Avenue near Staples Center reached a record-setting $578 a square foot in a $26 million deal with Shanghai-based developer, Shenglong Group. The developer plans to raze the site’s 1930s warehouse to make way for two condominium towers.

Shenglong was part of a rush of investors seeking to capture rental dollars from a new wave of residents enamored with an evolving Downtown. But whether all the planned projects will come to life remains to be seen.

“There are tens of thousands of residential units that will be delivered in 2017 and 2018,” McRitchie said. “It’s a ‘wait and see’ as material and labor costs are increasing. There are a lot of variables that are giving pause to developers, and because of that, we are starting to see a plateau in pricing.”

- See more at: http://therealdeal.com/la/2016/03/31/dtla-land-sales-slim-in-2016/#sthash.z6WYFy6r.dpuf