LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0 - Page 454

Easy · #**9061** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 12:32 AM**

If it breaks ground next year and assuming something "iconic", what a year 2014 will be! Metropolis, the Korean Air tower, and (hopefully) LA Central all under construction simultaneously. Those are in addition to the dozen plus smaller (but very large!) projects that will be under construction around downtown.

brudy · #**9062** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 1:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

I generally trust any information you have, as your tips are almost always reliable. But I find this hard to believe. Didn't the original plan call for 732 condos? The market simply can't support a condo building that tall and big right now. Maybe they're looking to shift towards more hotel and rental?

I hope you're right though! That would be huge. A true game-changer for Downtown.

Downtown desperately needs condos. The market is a mess - there's very little for sale and not that much to begin with really. Prices are all over the place and buyers with cash are taking a lot of what's out there. And I don't mean luxury units either.

StethJeff · #**9063** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brudy

Downtown desperately needs condos. The market is a mess - there's very little for sale and not that much to begin with really. Prices are all over the place and buyers with cash are taking a lot of what's out there. And I don't mean luxury units either.

No kidding. Some of us renters who love DTLA and want to continue living here don't want to rent forever.

Mojeda101 · #**9064** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 5:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy

If it breaks ground next year and assuming something "iconic", what a year 2014 will be! Metropolis, the Korean Air tower, and (hopefully) LA Central all under construction simultaneously. Those are in addition to the dozen plus smaller (but very large!) projects that will be under construction around downtown.

Park Fifth and Park Tower both deserve mentioning from recent events. 2014 could be our boom year that beats all the previous

I hope I can keep up with the bigger updates

StethJeff · #**9065** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 7:09 AM**

Exciting times. Tons of potential and ongoing projects to get excited about. Here's how I rank 'em:

LA River restoration
Purple Line to Santa Monica
Crenshaw/Green/Harbor Subdivision access to LAX
DTLA Streetcar
Wilshire Grand Tower
Regional Connector
Metropolis
LA Central
LAX People Mover
Hollywood Millenium Towers
Hollywood Palladium Towers
Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center
Pershing Square overhaul
LACMA Zumthor building
Park Fifth
The Broad
Federal Courthouse
9th/Hope
Broad rental tower
8th/Hope
Civic Center Park
Vermont Towers
Anaheim Streetcar
Emerson College
Santa Monica Gehry tower
Expo Line Phase II to Santa Monica
USC University Village redo
8th/Grand
Gold Line to Azusa
Convention Center expansion
Ava
Blossom Plaza
One Santa Fe
Jia

How about you guys?

Lalaland · #**9066** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 9:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

I hope I can keep up with the bigger updates

That's a problem we all want you to have

Illithid Dude · #**9067** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 9:44 AM**

Why you hating on One Santa Fe?

ConstructDTLA · #**9068** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 3:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Why you hating on One Santa Fe?

Could be because its in the Arts District (separated this century from real Downtown).

Wilcal · #**9069** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy

That article also states that they paid $1 billion for the lot instead of it being a $1 billion total investment.

Interestingly, both sources (Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal), which are both very credible in the business world, give the same ambiguous statement about the sale. But simple math tells us that a purchase of1 billion dollars for 6.33 acres (entitled or not) comes out to $157,977,883/acre. Or $ 3,626 per square foot. Impossible. Especially considering the fact that the sellers where hoping for $180,000,000, or $28,436,018 per acre ($652.80/sq. ft.). What is even stranger is that the story was not covered by the Los Angeles Times or Downtown News. I'm wondering about this now. The idea of a $1B investment vs. outright sale makes sense. In the meantime, I'm recanting my emotion-laden enthusiasm for now. Sorry.

blackcat23 · #**9070** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 4:25 PM**

Bloomberg and the WSJ seemed to just be regurgitating info from a press release. As others have already pointed out, $1 billion for that land is ridiculous. Perhaps it's the result of a translation error?

The Downtown News is only published weekly, so it takes a little while for them to get the story together. They'll definitely have something about Metropolis, though. What reason would they have to exist if not to cover this exact kind of story?

I'd expect Roger Vincent to write something about this in the Times pretty soon as well. Takes a while to do the research, and it might be difficult getting in touch with a Chinese company for additional info. If I recall correctly, the Times didn't have a story about the Fig/LA Central sale until close to a week after the news first broke.

Wilcal · #**9071** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 4:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Bloomberg and the WSJ seemed to just be regurgitating info from a press release. As others have already pointed out, $1 billion for that land is ridiculous. Perhaps it's the result of a translation error?

The Downtown News is only published weekly, so it takes a little while for them to get the story together. They'll definitely have something about Metropolis, though. What reason would they have to exist if not to cover this exact kind of story?

I'd expect Roger Vincent to write something about this in the Times pretty soon as well. Takes a while to do the research, and it might be difficult getting in touch with a Chinese company for additional info. If I recall correctly, the Times didn't have a story about the Fig/LA Central sale until close to a week after the news first broke.

Blackcat you are absolutely correct in your statement. There may have been a misconstruing of initial information. Either way, if this is indeed an investment in the property rather than an outright sale, it still represents an impetus for the project to get it out of the doldrums. What will be interesting will be the designing of the project as it relates to not only the property but to the creation of Avenue of the Angels. One forumer commented about certain boundaries that where in need of work and reconfiguring. I think that the blocks north of Olympic/Franscisco/Georgia up to Metropolis are in need of reconfiguration and improved design. It will be difficult to create a seamless path along Francisco because of a misalignment at James Wood, plus the presence of a heavily used freeway off ramp. Many underutilized and non-conforming properties will also have to be removed. And one of the most nettlesome of drawbacks to the concept of the "Angels Ave, is what can be done with the numerous parking structures which line the street? Will they create "dead space"? If so, how can good design improve this. To make matters worse, the loss of the city's CRA means the there is no longer a very potent governmental facilitator.

LAofAnaheim · #**9072** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brudy

It's fairly ridiculous, but then it took them over a year to do Spring St Park, which is much smaller. It's a function of not having enough money to do it faster and it will probably be over-designed as usual.

What really kills me are the metro expansion timelines....

Are you comparing apples to apples though on the park development issue?

Spring St park had a surface parking lot, whereas the Civic Center Park has an underground parking structure that needs to be demolished. There must be some complexities at Civic Center Park. We're just armchairing and complaining here, but do we really know how to judge timelines on complex projects?

LA will build it, and it will become a great park.

StethJeff · #**9073** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Why you hating on One Santa Fe?

I figured you'd be more upset about Park Fifth. Like I've said before, I don't quite understand the shared boner here on SSP for One Santa Fe. It's a short building in an industrial zone that will basically impact the people that live there and that's it. Sure, it helps bring more people into DTLA and helps businesses here but then again so does every sizeable residential project. Arts District is great and were all hoping it realizes its potential but its still a far flung neighborhood that doesn't have much cohesion with the rest of DTLA yet. I have to drive there if I ever want to go there.

StethJeff · #**9074** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 6:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Are you comparing apples to apples though on the park development issue?

Spring St park had a surface parking lot, whereas the Civic Center Park has an underground parking structure that needs to be demolished. There must be some complexities at Civic Center Park. We're just armchairing and complaining here, but do we really know how to judge timelines on complex projects?

LA will build it, and it will become a great park.

True, but were still talking about a fucking park here. San Onofre could probably be bulldozed, cleared, and cleaned up into a park in 3 years. It just seems like an absurd amount of time.

ConstructDTLA · #**9075** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 8:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StethJeff

I figured you'd be more upset about Park Fifth. Like I've said before, I don't quite understand the shared boner here on SSP for One Santa Fe. It's a short building in an industrial zone that will basically impact the people that live there and that's it. Sure, it helps bring more people into DTLA and helps businesses here but then again so does every sizeable residential project. Arts District is great and were all hoping it realizes its potential but its still a far flung neighborhood that doesn't have much cohesion with the rest of DTLA yet. I have to drive there if I ever want to go there.

SO true. Imagine how nice the actual core would be if all the $$ thats gone into the Arts District instead came Downtown. Spring could actually be nice, Broadway could be well on its way.

Crews are working on the Rialto marquee right now. So awesome to see Urban moving full steam ahead on their property when many other retailers & restaurants just announce & sit there (looking at you Sparkle Factory, Acne, etc).

Wilcal · #**9076** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 9:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HunterK

SO true. Imagine how nice the actual core would be if all the $$ thats gone into the Arts District instead came Downtown. Spring could actually be nice, Broadway could be well on its way.

Crews are working on the Rialto marquee right now. So awesome to see Urban moving full steam ahead on their property when many other retailers & restaurants just announce & sit there (looking at you Sparkle Factory, Acne, etc).

Maybe the Arts District will never have a complete cohesion to downtown that many would hope for. Not only is it physically separated (though I presume walkable--be sure to return home by dark), it is also so physically different. Their historic functions were also vastly different--one very industrial the other very commercial. I dare say even the current citizens of each district are fairly different in their occupations, tastes, so on. I'm not understanding the opinions of a few in this forum. I would appreciate someone explaining. Actually, it's fascinating to see the opinions from people who inhabit areas of the city that I remember in the early 1980's had no one. On a Saturday one could walk and be very alone on Spring street--windows covered, empty, windswept--and in The Arts district--then just a quiet industrial area.

Muji · #**9077** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 10:52 PM**

Well, the northern end of the Arts District is not nearly as isolated as the southern parts, and it's very quickly become pretty cohesive with Little Tokyo. If the Regional Connector spurs some redevelopment along Alameda between 1st and 3rd, the connection will be nearly seamless.

SimonLA · #**9078** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 12:28 AM**

Went to Spring Street today in the early afternoon and Spring St. Park was locked up with no explanation. Dozens of people walked toward the park and then turned around in disappointment. Several calls to 311 were greeted with, "Huh? We don't know why it's closed."

brudy · #**9079** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 3:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Are you comparing apples to apples though on the park development issue?

Spring St park had a surface parking lot, whereas the Civic Center Park has an underground parking structure that needs to be demolished. There must be some complexities at Civic Center Park. We're just armchairing and complaining here, but do we really know how to judge timelines on complex projects?

LA will build it, and it will become a great park.

Demolition will apparently be done by spring according to an article. So what about the next 2.5 years? It's not a very large space and it's contiguous with Grand Park. Put some grass and trees in and call it a day. I'm sure they will over-design it. Even calling it another name instead of just making it part of Grand Park reeks of overthinking. Not a ton of confidence here that it will get done well...

BrandonJXN · #**9080** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 3:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HunterK

SO true. Imagine how nice the actual core would be if all the $$ thats gone into the Arts District instead came Downtown. Spring could actually be nice, Broadway could be well on its way.

Poppycock. The Arts District is probably the best neighborhood in DTLA. That and what's going on in Little Tokyo will seamlessly transition one area to another. I only see The Arts District is only going to get getting better.