LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Possibly even cheaper than that, since the $70 million estimate was for a station at 6th street rather than in between 1st and 4th, which would require a pretty big remodel of the maintenance yard.

The only thing they'd really need to do is build a pedestrian bridge from One Santa Fe and install a PA system/TAP machines/etc.



Basically, convert the El Monte Busway to rail? I think that was the original idea when they built the Harbor Transitway. Link the two, make one contiguous grade separated busway and convert to light rail if the ridership justified it.

The original plans for the Eastside Red Line were to follow Whittier Blvd, like so:

El Monte Busway is basically freeway adjacent so extending the Red Line down that route would do little to benefit the community in terms of improving density, being convenient to things in each neighborhood, or even creating walkable environments. I'd rather the Red Line follow something more along the lines of Mission.

[blackcat23]

There's an article in this week's Downtown News about the trend of 6-7 story buildings and the comparative lack of high rise construction.

http://issuu.com/ladtn/docs/issuu_dtn_07...nnews.com/app/issuu/basicGrey/layout.xml

Tucked away in the article is the news that Barry Shy is planning two additional residential high rises besides his 40 story proposal at 6th/Main. One building at 9th and Hill, the other at Olympic and Broadway. No specifics on either proposal, though.

Also, another rendering of Sonny Astani's project at 12th and Grand.



Photo from Astani Enterprises

[Illithid Dude]

I still have no faith that Barry Shy can make a nice anything but... we'll see. At least both high rises will do wonders in making those intersections more vibrant.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

There's an article in this week's Downtown News about the trend of 6-7 story buildings and the comparative lack of high rise construction.

thanks for that link. it goes to an article that is perfect for ppl who are always wondering why a new proj isn't taller, or complaining that a new bldg is too short. however, it doesn't mention that dt has tons & tons & tons of land that still are waiting for new devlpt, and that can easily be the locations of new highrises in the future.

I always get a sense that ppl who are the most unhappy about a new proj in dt not being taller are rarely or never in that part of LA. That's cuz when I'm there, I'm always struck by how many areas still desperately need to be fixed up & filled in. dtla isn't like tokyo or some grand old city in europe, where every square inch of space is filled with something nice or substantial, so when some property does see new construction, that's a once in a lifetime opportunity....& can easily turn into a major missed opportunity too.

In Los Angeles, buildings that exceed 75 feet are required to implement type-one construction, which relies on sturdier steel and concrete engineering to withstand earthquakes. So, developers are mostly designing projects to stay under the plateau, resulting in six- and seven-floor structures.

The higher cost of type one construction means that steel-framed residential buildings don't pencil out financially unless they're allowed to go tall. According to several developers, type-one structures start to be cost effective in today's market at about 20 stories.

Type-three low-rises cost about $200 per rentable square foot to build. Steel-frame high-rises, depending on the size and design, cost anywhere from $80 to $300 more per square foot, according to multiple developers with experience in both construction types. That means a 150,000-square-foot wood-frame complex would cost $30 million to build. The same building made with steel would cost up to $75 million.

Shomof, who is moving forward on a 22-story tower at Fourth Street and Broadway with about 400 units, is scratching his head at all the mid-rise construction. He believes type-one not only pencils out today, but that it promises better returns.

"High-rises can get more units and the numbers work out better if they go higher and taller," Shomof said. "I'm just surprised, wondering what is the catch? What am I missing?"

^ I hope shomof is correct to ask that question & isn't guilty of cheap talk. The proof that he isn't full of hype will be if his proj does break ground before everyone is old & gray. but I do wonder if he isn't like the person who was planning the glass tower proj across from the eleven condo tower several yrs ago. He kept saying groundbreaking would occur shortly, but nothing would ever happen. So that proj in reality must not have penciled out.

[alki]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

There's an article in this week's Downtown News about the trend of 6-7 story buildings and the comparative lack of high rise construction.

Its the economics, stupid! It costs a lot more to build hi rises and consequently, the rents have to be significantly higher. While there is demand for luxury hi rise rentals DT, its does not seem to be as elastic as the rest of market demand. That's true in every market and seems to be particularly true in the DTLA market. I don't have the inside numbers on DT rentals, but didn't the luxury rental bldgs built in the last 5 years DT have a long rent up period? That suggests the luxury portion of the market is not as strong as the rest of the market which makes developers skittish.

Having said that, I don't see what the big deal is. Every building that's built whether its 7 stories or 20 stories adds to the overall density of the DT area.........and that's what DT badly needs. Its need on a lot of new feet on the ground.........shopping and buying.........to support all the new retail coming in.

And its important to remember.........Manhattan didn't become all hi rise in 5-10 years.........it took a 100 years. I think its time to enjoy the process and watch all the changes happening in DTLA.........an incredibly exciting time for DT...............rather than worrying about how many supertalls are under construction.

Thanks for pointing out the article.

[brudy]

Citywatch - it's not always about height, but the discussion can be about quality of design and build. It doesn't always need to be about 7 vs 40 stories, there's a lot of room in between. I know these buildings need to 'pencil out' for developers, but there has to be a way to design a building externally that isn't cookie cutter and doesn't have sky high rents. Not every unit needs Thermador appliances for example. The high end finishes in some of these places could maybe take a break. I know that's just a tiny example, but there has to be a way to design a good building that doesn't come out of a jello mold without breaking the bank. Most of these shorter buildings are more appropriate for Studio City or the valley than in downtown LA.

I live here and see the vacant lots everyday. It stinks. What also stinks is taking the urban core and dropping future tear downs on them. At some point the discussion needs to be more about long term smart development than short term profits.

[LA/OCman]

For me, the lots are slowly being developed, especially south and in the historic core. What bothers me even more are the countless buildings sitting there empty waiting to be developed (8th Street, 7th Street, 9th Street, Broadway, Spring). Some are owned by that NY developer who is supposedly opening the Hotel Clark. And as we see all the development activity on South Broadway, when is the old Herald Examiner building going to come back to life? Nothing worse than to be amongst so much activity and yet you still pass abandoned buildings. Either sell them or develop them.

Also, that DT News article refers to Barry Shy developing something at 9th and Hill. I guess that is the parking lot in back of the Eastern Columbia. I know that was bought by the owners of the Chapman Flats along with the Eastern Columbia garage and retail spaces. Has Barry Shy bought that lot?

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Also, another rendering of Sonny Astani's project at 12th and Grand.



Photo from Astani Enterprises

This new rendering is somewhat encouraging, as the darker gray area in the design looks to be some sort of metal paneling, not stucco, based on it's reflectivity in the rendering. Something other than stucco in these mid-rise Type III projects would be refreshing. Though Vero - also built by Sonny Astani - used a very smooth version of stucco (or some similar application) and it looks much, much better than, say, 1111 Wilshire, which will age very fast.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by brudy

I live here and see the vacant lots everyday. It stinks. What also stinks is taking the urban core and dropping future tear downs on them. At some point the discussion needs to be more about long term smart development than short term profits.

brudy, I defer to ppl who do live in dt, who are there round the clock. so when someone like you speaks, I do listen.

And even if you didn't live in the hood, I'd totally understand your priorities if LA were attracting huge numbers of new businesses....to fill all the empty office space.... & zillions of new ppl with good incomes, who would be prime customers for large new housing projs...or revamped old bldgs like the ones that LA/ocman points out. But, so far, I just don't see that happening.

the main reason why I created this map was to remind everyone that in spite of all the new devlpt now underway, there still remains lots, & lots, & lots, & lots of space that needs to be fixed up or filled in. So unless LA begins drawing millions of new businesses or millions of new ppl...who have good incomes....I don't see the projs you described as 'future tear downs' being actual tear downs....or a need for that....unless you or I live well past the year 2080.




When the last spurt of new housing was completed in dt around 2 yrs ago, the vacancy rate went up high enough that some investors might have grown nervous, as hinted at by alki. Right now, there's more space than ever before being added to the hood, mainly for apts. It will start pouring into the mkt starting around 2015, & although I hope demand for it will keep up with the pace, I'm not totally sure about that. That's in spite of those projs currently being smaller instead of larger, or shorter instead of taller. but only time will tell.

[alki]

Originally Posted by brudy

Citywatch - it's not always about height, but the discussion can be about quality of design and build. It doesn't always need to be about 7 vs 40 stories, there's a lot of room in between. I know these buildings need to 'pencil out' for developers, but there has to be a way to design a building externally that isn't cookie cutter and doesn't have sky high rents. Not every unit needs Thermador appliances for example. The high end finishes in some of these places could maybe take a break.

The high end finishes are not what run up construction costs significantly. Its the earthquake requirements and other specifications that kick in when a bldg reaches a particular height. The high end finishes are provided in order to encourage people to pay the rents that result from these additional requirements and specs.

[Mojeda101]

Cladding hit the 20th floor on the Courtyard today. Should be completely covered in a few days

[LA/OCman]

Citywatch, you wrote:

And even if you didn't live in the hood, I'd totally understand your priorities if LA were attracting huge numbers of new businesses....to fill all the empty office space.... & zillions of new ppl with good incomes, who would be prime customers for large new housing projs...or revamped old bldgs like the ones that LA/ocman points out. But, so far, I just don't see that happening.

I am referring to mixed use projects..housing or hotels and retail space. Not office space. You may have also read that ESPN Zone closed to make room for 3 more studios and undisclosed ground floor changes. ESPN expanding DTLA is a good thing. Personally I think the office space DT will not be your typical law firm or accounting firm in the future. It is all about adapting. I see more hotels, lofts, traditional apartments and condos going into these vacant buildings in the near future. I just want to see it happen quickly.

I have owned in DT for 7 years and never had a problem renting out a loft. When all the new housing arrives, that is a great thing for the overall health of the market. The rental market has been going very well despite the economy and as we add all these markets, theaters, museums, rail, retail and streetcars, Downtown will become more desirable. Most of the people I know who live DT commute out of Downtown to work!

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

This new rendering is somewhat encouraging, as the darker gray area in the design looks to be some sort of metal paneling, not stucco, based on it's reflectivity in the rendering. Something other than stucco in these mid-rise Type III projects would be refreshing. Though Vero - also built by Sonny Astani - used a very smooth version of stucco (or some similar application) and it looks much, much better than, say, 1111 Wilshire, which will age very fast.

This is what the Olympic/Hill project should look like.

And the scale is perfect for "starting" a new neighborhood.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Map needs updating to include this:

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

has anyone else noticed that there are trailers and equipment on the site of the federal courthouse? i first noticed this last week. are they starting work?

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

I just want to see it happen quickly.

I do too, & I'd be confident of that happening if big companies in cities like NYC or chicago were, for some reason, required to relocate to LA, & if ppl in places like silicon valley suddenly became desirous of moving to dtla. Then I could easily understand why forumers might be bothered that new projs in the hood weren't bigger & taller. I'd feel the same way too.

Or if the condos in the Ritz carlton tower at LA live had filled up very quickly, & were sold out well before today, & if the Evo tower had no need to still publicize available unsold condos....whose ads I ran across not too long ago....I'd be confident that devlprs would have a good reason to up the size of their projs. Unfortunately, I have to accept the current reality, & that a huge supply of new devlpt....whatever it may be....isn't guaranteed to be met by equally huge demand. that's one reason I'm more accepting of new projs that may not fit my ideals. I guess I'm also therefore both more patient but also less patient about the pace of change.

Originally Posted by Quixote

Map needs updating to include this:

you're correct! that newest proj popped up unexpectedly, & so I have to list it as #12, after other projs even though it probably will actually break ground before the other ones do. The apt bldg is described as being for entry level renters, & so each unit will be rather small. The footprint of the proj therefore won't take up too much land, but one less parking lot is one less parking lot.





btw, if losanglessportsfan is correct about the meaning of equipment visible on the site of the new federal courthouse, that's another early alert he can be credited for.

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

has anyone else noticed that there are trailers and equipment on the site of the federal courthouse? i first noticed this last week. are they starting work?

I noticed the trailers there yesterday too, on the corner of 2nd and Hill, and couldn't figure out for the life of me if they had been there before or if they're new. The equipment - a small backhoe and small earth mover - have been on the site for a few weeks now, and have been moving dirt around/removing brush on the south/2nd Street side of the lot in very small increments.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I noticed the trailers there yesterday too, on the corner of 2nd and Hill, and couldn't figure out for the life of me if they had been there before or if they're new. The equipment - a small backhoe and small earth mover - have been on the site for a few weeks now, and have been moving dirt around/removing brush on the south/2nd Street side of the lot in very small increments.

I was going to post this as well. They were pushing some dirt around near the entrance along 2nd last week and then these trailers showed up a few days ago. Very exciting! Or at least it will be.

[StethJeff]

Here's my proposal to Hanjin/Korean Air: let's make a trade. We'll give you Pershing Square and you give us the Wilshire Grand site.

They get a bigger chunk of land (I think). They also get a piece of land where their building sticks out more in the skyline. They'll have the opportunity to remake an entire neighborhood as opposed to just squeezing into a fully developed financial district. Ok fine, not much else.

We'd get an amazing location for a public square or park. That location is perfect. The towers on all sides makes a spectacular setting. Plus we'd get to start from scratch and actually get place that people would want to go to. It also has proximity to arguably our rail system's most important station and Fig7th/Macy's/LA Live.

Anyway, I just want to see Pershing Square get bulldozed. Don't really care how.

[inSaeculaSaeculorum]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Here's my proposal to Hanjin/Korean Air: let's make a trade. We'll give you Pershing Square and you give us the Wilshire Grand site.

They get a bigger chunk of land (I think). They also get a piece of land where their building sticks out more in the skyline. They'll have the opportunity to remake an entire neighborhood as opposed to just squeezing into a fully developed financial district. Ok fine, not much else.

We'd get an amazing location for a public square or park. That location is perfect. The towers on all sides makes a spectacular setting. Plus we'd get to start from scratch and actually get place that people would want to go to. It also has proximity to arguably our rail system's most important station and Fig7th/Macy's/LA Live.

Anyway, I just want to see Pershing Square get bulldozed. Don't really care how.

I would leave Pershing Square there and have a common sense landscape architect restore the square to a green space instead of a severly outdated concrete plaza and just wait for that area to redevelop and pray that Park Fifth gets revived. That location has the potential to be DTLA's Union Square.

And while we're playing fantasy planner, I'd leave the new Wilshire Grand as planned and for the 110 to be capped between 6th and 7th streets, making it an open green space bounded by that wall of modern skyscrapers of the financial district including the new Wilshire Grand