I have to agree. Broadway with a bunch of dance clubs would be the absolute worst. And what would these clubs be during the day? I like what Clifton's is going to do with live jazz on the second floor. But a bunch of dance clubs with teeny bobbers all over the place is not a good thing for Broadway.
The plans for all the theaters HunterK fears will be turned into clubs also include separate bars and restaurants. The clubs would just be in the 'theater' part of the building.
So I just walked by the Clark. I'm not sure what this means, but they're actually sanding those bars, not removing them.
I have confidence that the new owners of the former UA theater bldg, soon to be ace hotel, are doing a very thorough job of restoring the exterior of their building. a full, large amt of scaffolding & sheeting indicate as much. The fact the owners of the Clark hotel have not, or will not, follow a similar strategy is worrisome. if someone takes a pic of the clark at this moment & posts it here that would be welcome & give everyone a better sense of what's going on.
The concern about old movie theaters becoming nightclubs would make sense to me if those bldgs had been nicely used over the past several yrs, & most importantly, if the street they were on were in great shape.
as for the post from blackcat, I think you should direct your comment to the matter of why a notorious forumer, not to mention his enablers, is never red penned. to me that is the very definition of violating TOS rules, versus something like, for example, simple chatter about dtla being placed in the context of other cities.
I have confidence that the new owners of the former UA theater bldg, soon to be ace hotel, are doing a very thorough job of restoring the exterior of their building. a full, large amt of scaffolding & sheeting indicate as much. The fact the owners of the Clark hotel have not, or will not, follow a similar strategy is worrisome. if someone takes a pic of the clark at this moment & posts it here that would be welcome & give everyone a better sense of what's going on.
The concern about old movie theaters becoming nightclubs would make sense to me if those bldgs had been nicely used over the past several yrs, & most importantly, if the street they were on were in great shape.
as for the post from blackcat, I think you should direct your comment to the matter of why a notorious forumer, not to mention his enablers, is never red penned. to me that is the very definition of violating TOS rules, versus something like, for example, simple chatter about dtla being placed in the context of other cities.
Well, I think the UA/Ace Hotel building required a lot more work than the Clark (at least on the exterior, no idea about inside). But work on the Clark has been fast in the last two months and without the usual scaffolding and such. They've repaired and painted the facade (although it still looks a little beat in the details), added some actually nice decorative lighting to the second and top story that light up the facade, but the ground level is still a mess. You can kind of see inside and the spaces are drywalled, not all are painted, some fancy lighting has been hung, flooring looks incomplete, no other decor is in place. I just have no idea what they're doing with the bars.
Okay........I thought I read somewhere recently that W. LA's vacancy was down to 13% while DTLA's vacancy had grown. I thought it was for the 4th quarter of 2012 and I think it was posted by Citywatch.........or I saw it in LA Curbed.
In any case, DTLA isn't quite as bad as I thought but its still worse than most of the other regional markets. Let me tell you why.
First, in terms of offices, nothing new of consequence has been built in DTLA for 20 years. In fact, vacant office space has been converted to apts........and still the rate hovers around 20%.
Secondly, new space has been coming on line in the other markets during the past ten years, In addition, there have been conversions of industrial space to offices in those markets.. And even with that new space, vacany rates have been consistently lower for those markets when compared to DTLA.
Thirdly, I don't believe anyone is truly 'selling' DTLA. Why? Because I believe that after all these years of mass transit construction and DT plans, there is not a true commitment for DT to be the center of metro LA.........to be the metro's urban core. I think a lot of LA's movers and shakers are standing with their hands in their pockets 'waiting to see if the trends in DT are real'.
And that worries me. I would love to see the lease terms of an Acne. Exactly how committed are they to a DT location........for how many years did they sign. In the past, I have seen LA turn on a dime and go in a different direction.
In other words, I don't think DT is over the hump yet.
The 20% vacancy rate your reading is for mostly class A and B office buildings. Buildings that are marketing their space as office space. The buildings being convereted to lofts and apartments were never included in the vacancy rates because they were either class C offices or the space was never in the market to begin with. Take Broadway. There is by some accounts more that 1 million sq ft. of vacant space that is not being used, or marketed. its just there. If that was included then the vacancy rate would jump to between 30 and 35%. And thats just Broadway. Imagine if you include Spring, Main, Los Angeles, and the various vacant buildings in South Park.
I have to agree. Broadway with a bunch of dance clubs would be the absolute worst. And what would these clubs be during the day? I like what Clifton's is going to do with live jazz on the second floor. But a bunch of dance clubs with teeny bobbers all over the place is not a good thing for Broadway.
I think the point here is that Broadway - like most of the other streets in DTLA - should be a dynamic street. That includes residents, stores, restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. With the resources that are available and history of this particular street, being an entertainment destination will and should always be a part of Broadway. Besides, Broadway won't ONLY be clubs/bars with teeny boppers. It's already becoming a street with hotels, major national retail chains, international boutiques, etc.
Just because there are new residents nearby shouldn't change that. 10 years of gentrification doesn't mean that we ignore 80 years of architecture, infrastructure, and history. Don't live in the densest part of the metro. This isn't Covina Blvd, it's f****** Broadway.
Sears, United Airlines, and Sarah Lee all have announced in the past two years that they are leaving their suburban locations for DT Chicago; ditto for Nike taking space in DT Portland instead of its Beaverton campus, ditto for Microsoft moving some offices from Redmond to DT Bellevue, ditto for Amazon moving its offices from a quasi suburban location to DT Seattle; ditto for Quicken loans and Blue Cross moving from suburban locations to DT Detroit, ditto for a bank and an insurance company moving from Stamford, CT to Manhattan; Google is opening up offices in DTs all across the country etc.
So then...........why is so far fetched that the studios might do the same in LA?
I don't know the details of the operations of the companies in these industries, but studios seem to have a few major differences. Picking up and moving 400 cubicles is probably no sweat. But when you figure that studios need large sound stages and backlots, my guess is that you need large swaths of land and very specific types of spaces that a DTLA office tower wouldn't be able to provide.
Just because there are new residents nearby shouldn't change that. 10 years of gentrification doesn't mean that we ignore 80 years of architecture, infrastructure, and history. Don't live in the densest part of the metro. This isn't Covina Blvd, it's f****** Broadway.
Club districts are generally in industrial/fringe areas for a reason. People don't live there. Boston has been closing down clubs in downtown crossing because of issues. In the Giuliani years, there were anti-dancing provisions as sections of Manhattan gentrified, with the meatpacking being one of the last bastions on clubs in Manhattan. There are smaller, cliquier places still there, but the giant dance club places are largely gone. In Philly, the clubs are largely along the river (where nobody lives) or just north of the downtown area which is still a patchwork mess. People don't want to live with the noise and issues that go along with large clubs. There are frequent violent incidents at some of the clubs in dtla like the Mayan. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any, just not too many.
Also, cities that live on their history stagnate. Vibrant cities are cities that develop and grow and foster smart change. There's a reason Paris is a living museum and Berlin is where all the action is at.
Club districts are generally in industrial/fringe areas for a reason. People don't live there. Boston has been closing down clubs in downtown crossing because of issues. In the Giuliani years, there were anti-dancing provisions as sections of Manhattan gentrified, with the meatpacking being one of the last bastions on clubs in Manhattan. There are smaller, cliquier places still there, but the giant dance club places are largely gone. In Philly, the clubs are largely along the river (where nobody lives) or just north of the downtown area which is still a patchwork mess. People don't want to live with the noise and issues that go along with large clubs. There are frequent violent incidents at some of the clubs in dtla like the Mayan. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any, just not too many.
Also, cities that live on their history stagnate. Vibrant cities are cities that develop and grow and foster smart change. There's a reason Paris is a living museum and Berlin is where all the action is at.
In Hollywood someone was critically injured outside the Empire Night Club on Cahuenga a few months ago. There was a shooting on Halloween that injured three people this year near the Egyptian Theater.
The clubs and their attendees are definitely the worst part about living in Hollywood, I can see why downtown residents would be hesitant to have a concentration of them nearby.
One Santa Fe's made a little progress since the last time I checked in. It definitely looks to me like they've narrowed Santa Fe Ave a little bit, which is a nice touch. Also, you can see that a continental crosswalk is about to go in at the 3rd St. intersection. The picture is from earlier today.
The plans for all the theaters HunterK fears will be turned into clubs also include separate bars and restaurants. The clubs would just be in the 'theater' part of the building.
I hope that this does not sound too corney, but what about uses such as supper clubs with live entertainment? Also, live theater or comedy club uses. And, I know that the internal features of the theaters are dated (part of the charm), but they can be updated while respecting their historic features. Anything, but a bunch of teenage and young adult sots.
Club districts are generally in industrial/fringe areas for a reason. People don't live there. Boston has been closing down clubs in downtown crossing because of issues. In the Giuliani years, there were anti-dancing provisions as sections of Manhattan gentrified, with the meatpacking being one of the last bastions on clubs in Manhattan. There are smaller, cliquier places still there, but the giant dance club places are largely gone. In Philly, the clubs are largely along the river (where nobody lives) or just north of the downtown area which is still a patchwork mess. People don't want to live with the noise and issues that go along with large clubs. There are frequent violent incidents at some of the clubs in dtla like the Mayan. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any, just not too many.
Also, cities that live on their history stagnate. Vibrant cities are cities that develop and grow and foster smart change. There's a reason Paris is a living museum and Berlin is where all the action is at.
I highly doubt that DTLA will become the mega club hotspot in LA. At this point were talking about converting 4 theaters into a combination of restaurants/bars/clubs on a street that is going to have a variety of other businesses. I feel like people are worrying about something that probably is never going to happen.
And I'm pretty sure that LA is one of the quintessential examples of a city that has NEVER allowed history to stagnate its growth. Didn't we bulldoze Bunker Hill, destroy Chavez Ravine, tear out all of the streetcars, replace them with freeways that destroyed neighborhoods, destroy significant structures in the civic center, get rid of the Ambassador, etc etc etc.
This is infuriating (speaking of clubs). The Downtown News is reporting Crash Mansion is getting torn down to make way for MORE SURFACE PARKING. The club is next to a parking lot (see image) and across from another one. Please tell me he's tearing it down to open it up to development but doesn't want to say so.
This is infuriating (speaking of clubs). The Downtown News is reporting Crash Mansion is getting torn down to make way for MORE SURFACE PARKING. The club is next to a parking lot (see image) and across from another one. Please tell me he's tearing it down to open it up to development but doesn't want to say so.
Isn't this the site of the rumored Hyatt? I forgot. Anyone?
That's the corner lot on Olympic/Grand, which is right next door. Apparently, the rumor about the hotel turned out to be false
I know that a 500-600 key group/convention oriented hotel was in discussion for a property at that intersection as recent as a few months ago. I don't know if its the site you are talking about, but I assume it is. I don't know if the deal is dead or still active, but last I heard that was the plan. Maybe Hyatt, specifically, was in talks as well, but I heard major brands were underwriting for a proposal there. Guess Hyatt, Hilton, Westin.
__________________
No offense Lindbergh, but get outta here! We got 700 footers to put up!
I know that a 500-600 key group/convention oriented hotel was in discussion for a property at that intersection as recent as a few months ago. I don't know if its the site you are talking about, but I assume it is. I don't know if the deal is dead or still active, but last I heard that was the plan. Maybe Hyatt, specifically, was in talks as well, but I heard major brands were underwriting for a proposal there. Guess Hyatt, Hilton, Westin.
I'm just going by what's on Brigham Yen's blog. Someone from the DTLANC said it's not a hotel, but didn't go into more specifics than that.
Then again, I suppose you can't believe everything you hear on the internet.
Here's my first picture update. Sorry I wasn't able to get to Little Tokyo and Chinatown.
I took all these photos.
They've been working on the front of this building for as long as I can remember. Don't know what they're doing.
Building at Hope and 7th doing some upgrades. Also saw a guy trying to match the paint. I wonder if they're going to try and either repaint or touch up the building as well.
8th and Hope
8th and Grand
9th and Olympic
Building next to Tower theater
Enjoying Angelo:Home's nice build-out and street appeal
Ace Hotel
Olympic and Hill
Crash Mansion building
The apt building by City Lights on Fig (forget the name)
Marriott Hotel
Smart and Final. Looks like they're doing some parking structure work in the back. Says it should open in July
Wilshire Grand
Pac Mutual Building- Notice they have already demolished the area between the shoe repair place and the Domino's. It used to be a deli or something. I don't know if they're trying to make a little patio or something. This is different from the Tender Greens area.
Clark Hotel- What are they doing with those bars?! Looks like they're painting them.
The Smart and Final building looks so much better now than it used to be before. But the Clark Hotel is one amazing mindfuck. Incredibly slow construction, keeping those embarrassing bars, etc.
But has anyone seen Maltzan's Star Apartments in Skid Row? I haven't been in the area for a while so I'm really curious how that thing is shaping up. It's supposed to be done in 2013 so we should have a good idea of how the final product is going to look now.
I don't mind it being at Fig@7th, but i agree i really wish Zara was opening up on Broadway or 7th street.. because Fig@7th is still just a mall =/ and although yes this Zara store will have street access.. i just think its better if it was in its own rather than attached to a complex u know??? Here in Greece, they have a 2 story Zara, next door and across the street is a cafe and flower shop and some gyro shop (greece equivalent to burrito shops in california)... the place is so dynamic here and what gave me an eye opener is that NON of the cities bldgs are taller than 7 stories, yet it feels sooooo urban because the streets are just a continuous flow of shops and no parking lots no matter which direction you go... this is was i want downtown to become and it has made me realize that a bldg doesnt have to be tall
Yeah, I am coming to the same conclusion after seeing a street here transformed to one that is made up of mostly 6-7 story bldgs. The occasional, well designed super tall can be good for the skyline view but I think 6-7 story bldgs are better at creating a city feel.
Prev
i LOVE Zara.... definitely gonna be my new shoppin destination when i go up to the city for sure 
Linear Mode
