LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LA21st]

Downtown LA should have many 30-40 high rises sprinkled within the historic core. NYC, SF and Chicago do it well. Why can't LA?

It's odd to me people treat the historic core like there's a pretend height restriction. Enough of LA is low rise as it is.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by LA21st

It's odd to me people treat the historic core like there's a pretend height restriction. Enough of LA is low rise as it is.

I think they just don't know better. Its native Angelenos that haven't travelled, or transplants that came from smaller towns and don't realize that the old large cities are a patchwork of old and new buildings.

Even DC which actually has a height limit, and is the closest thing we have to a museum city- has no qualms about allowing super modern buildings to be constructed in neighborhoods filled with 150 year old buildings.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Idk why ppl didnt see it before, it makes sense to build taller in DTLA because the neighborhood is more acceptable to skyscrapers.. Building stumpy 7 stories in the core is just falling short.. Yes it does bring ppl and there are many empty spaces.... But look how many stumpy bldgs are getting built.. You keep up with the "oh we have plenty of spaces" sooner or later we'll run out and we'll go "oh well f***...." What now? Building taller now prepares us for the future, instead of just building short for today's market.. That's my belief.

And this whole thing about breaking the height limit in the historic core. Those who oppose it are no different from nimbys IMO.. Afraid of change. Like what another poster said NYC, SF, Chicago and EVEN SAN DIEGO(east village)has built taller in neighborhoods that were once known to be short or nothing but warehouses. And only world class cities can pull off building something glassy and modern next to a historic old building... I think the proposed historic skyscraper is a perfect start, the design could be more interesting though.

[RuFFy]

I don't know that it matters if there are a bunch of 7 story buildings taking up empty parking lots. It'll increase the need for taller as space becomes less available and as that peaks I can easily see a bunch of 7 story buildings going the way of Wilshire Grand... demolished and redeveloped. As far as height in the Historic Core I'm completely for a mix.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

I think they just don't know better. Its native Angelenos that haven't travelled, or transplants that came from smaller towns and don't realize that the old large cities are a patchwork of old and new buildings.

That's what I think as well. There can be a closed-minded colloquialness to the thinking of natives here around cities and development. That's a broad brush to be sure, but it feels like there's some truth to it.

Is it coincidence that the most height-aspirations are international or at least out of state? The Wilshire Grand is Korean and this Spring St tower is Australian, Barry Shy is Israeli. Onni is Canadian. Millennium Partners isn't local (east coast it looks like). It seems like old habits and thinking die hard here, and it makes what the previous Mayor achieved seem more remarkable.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by brudy

Is it coincidence that the most height-aspirations are international or at least out of state? The Wilshire Grand is Korean and this Spring St tower is Australian, Barry Shy is Israeli. Onni is Canadian. Millennium Partners isn't local (east coast it looks like). It seems like old habits and thinking die hard here, and it makes what the previous Mayor achieved seem more remarkable.

That's interesting- I hadn't considered that. Also you have Millennium Partners with the twin tower proposal for Hollywood. They're not from another country, but they are from the original skyscraper capital of the world.

EDIT: D'oh...I need better reading comprehension- you already mentioned Millennium Partners.

[blackcat23]

Ava Little Tokyo

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2013/09/ava-little-tokyo-coming-together.html

[BrandonJXN]

I quite like that actually.

[DistrictDirt]

Realizing how similar Ava is to Blvd 6200. People aren't going to know whether they're in DTLA or Hollywood

[Muji]

It'll depend a lot on the materials and what the colors actually look like, but so far Ava looks promising. I especially like the small plaza surrounded by shops, a very nice contribution to the intersection.

[inSaeculaSaeculorum]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Realizing how similar Ava is to Blvd 6200. People aren't going to know whether they're in DTLA or Hollywood

This is my biggest criticism of this style of architecture. Yes some of these buildings are horrible and some of these buildings are pretty decent, but I really do like my neighborhoods distinguishable and when I'm in DTLA I want to feel like i've arrived in another world (like I feel whenever I travel into the urban cores of other great cities). You really want to feel the quality of a neighborhood when you arrive there. Ava is nice for that neighborhood though dont get me wrong.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by Muji

It'll depend a lot on the materials and what the colors actually look like, but so far Ava looks promising. I especially like the small plaza surrounded by shops, a very nice contribution to the intersection.

Yeah, it will be in the actual finishing details, although these are definitely not the worst we've seen. There will be significant amount of retail space in these three buildings, I hope they're able to fill it. I'm optimistic because it basically extends Little Tokyo westward seamlessly, which is already a great walkable area.

I know I gripe about shorter buildings, but I'm fairly excited about these as an actual place to move once they're done. It could be a great place to live - central to almost all of downtown without the nuttiness of the historic core area or feeling exiled to South Park. Lots of resources, quieter area, less homeless.

[citywatch]

blackcat, thanks for those pics.

this thread does tend to get a bit dry....such as my post right here ....when the details of new projs & new construction...& pics that go with them....are surrounded by other posts with lots of text, lots of general chatter.

that formerly huge parking lot in little tokyo has long been a big sore thumb to me. So to see the entire area finally....finally....under the process of being replaced by new devlpt is greatly welcomed & isn't occurring a second too soon.

Originally Posted by brudy

Is it coincidence that the most height-aspirations are international or at least out of state? The Wilshire Grand is Korean and this Spring St tower is Australian, Barry Shy is Israeli. Onni is Canadian. Millennium Partners isn't local (east coast it looks like). It seems like old habits and thinking die hard here, and it makes what the previous Mayor achieved seem more remarkable.

brudy, not sure how much effect villarigosa actually or specifically had on highrise construction, since he wasn't a devlpr but a politician. however he was a supporter of what was labeled by him as "elegant density", so being at least a cheerleader for highrise instead of siding with nimbys or homeowner associations is an achievement in LA. So I guess such ppl in city govt do deserve some acknowledgement.

Originally Posted by brudy

I know I gripe about shorter buildings, but I'm fairly excited about these as an actual place to move once they're done. It could be a great place to live - central to almost all of downtown without the nuttiness of the historic core area or feeling exiled to South Park. Lots of resources, quieter area, less homeless.

I'm guessing that if Ava were a high rise proj with lots of concrete & steel, the cost to live in it would be greater. So for those who like tall bldgs, there is a hidden price for that type of devlpt. that's one reason why I'm even more that there aren't enough businesses in dt to fill some of that space....which is one reason why I suspect the grand wilshire tower won't be taller or couldn't be built taller.

I was surprised when you started criticizing new projs for being too short since, unlike various LA forumers, you actually do live in dt & are far less likely to idealize or romanticize the place. What really caught me off guard was cuz you've also been critical in previous posts of the overly shabby look & still desolate nature of important sections of the hood.

I say I'm surprised about such a diverging POV cuz as an outsider, I find myself starting to lose a real sense of what dt is truly like....after observing it from a distance for months, & starting to deal with it in purely theoretical ways....& then actually visiting the hood & all too frequently coming away with a feeling of uneasiness & disappointment, with plenty of impatience.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I'm guessing that if Ava were a high rise proj with lots of concrete & steel, the cost to live in it would be greater. So for those who like tall bldgs, there is a hidden price for that type of devlpt. that's one reason why I'm even more that there aren't enough businesses in dt to fill some of that space....which is one reason why I suspect the grand wilshire tower won't be taller or couldn't be built taller.

I was surprised when you started criticizing new projs for being too short since, unlike various LA forumers, you actually do live in dt & are far less likely to idealize or romanticize the place. What really caught me off guard was cuz you've also been critical in previous posts of the overly shabby look & still desolate nature of important sections of the hood.

I say I'm surprised about such a diverging POV cuz as an outsider, I find myself starting to lose a real sense of what dt is truly like....after observing it from a distance for months, & starting to deal with it in purely theoretical ways....& then actually visiting the hood & all too frequently coming away with a feeling of uneasiness & disappointment, with plenty of impatience.

My thinking used to be just to get as many people here as fast as they can, because that will be what changes the actual feel of downtown. That's still true, but the longer I live here, the more I want the architectural legacy of this time to be one of lasting transformation, one of architectural distinction. Many of these shorter buildings are boring and throwaway. The Ava looks pretty good, so we'll see. Like I wrote earlier, I'm open to lower heights and density, but only if the architecture is worth it.

[Illithid Dude]

With this iteration of the Downtown Rundown nearing 500 pages, we should start thinking of the new Downtown Rundown. I think we should take this opportunity to combine the L.A. Metro and Downtown threads into one mega Los Angeles thread.

[ConstructDTLA]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

With this iteration of the Downtown Rundown nearing 500 pages, we should start thinking of the new Downtown Rundown. I think we should take this opportunity to combine the L.A. Metro and Downtown threads into one mega Los Angeles thread.

I agree we should start a new downtown rundown thread. BUT - Downtown deserves its own thread and shouldn't be mixed in with the entire LA region.

[WonderlandPark]

Should be 2 dtla threads

1 discussions of restaurants, parking lots, wood frame bldgs, expensive jeans shops, dining options...

1 discussions and photos of actual progress

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

With this iteration of the Downtown Rundown nearing 500 pages, we should start thinking of the new Downtown Rundown. I think we should take this opportunity to combine the L.A. Metro and Downtown threads into one mega Los Angeles thread.

LA has too much activity to have 1 consolidated thread for all of LA County projects.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by brudy

Many of these shorter buildings are boring and throwaway.

I guess in the context of the really, really bad aspects of dt....such as what's shown in the following pics....boring & throwaway don't seem quite as bad to me as they do to you. boring sounds good compared with this truly horrible type of setting. Both the colors & design of the entrance to the new walmart store in dtla, near chinatown, but also the apt bldg its a part of, which I believe was built back in the 1990s, look deserving of all the criticism that to me is often directed at new devlpt merely due to it not fitting some ppl's idea of AIA award winning design or perfect new urban ideals.



voanews.com


huffingtonpost.com



I don't want to end on a down note, so I'll slot this here.....

The Broad's hard-hat tour -- and why museum admission will be free


Deborah Vankin, Los Angeles Times

By Deborah Vankin
September 17, 2013.

The in-progress museum known as the Broad opened its virtual “doors” Tuesday morning for a hard-hat tour of the Grand Avenue construction site – which, aside from its white honeycomb-like ceiling of skylights, looks basically like a concrete and steel construction site.

The clanking of metal and screeches from buzz saws could be heard throughout the news conference, which included remarks from Eli Broad as well as remarks from Mayor Eric Garcetti, the Broad's founding director Joanne Heyler and principal architect Elizabeth Diller.

The event’s big takeaway was Broad's announcement that admission to the museum will be free. Down the line, the museum will show special exhibitions that come with admission fees. But viewing the Broad’s permanent collection of nearly 2,000 works from the 1950s to the present, with about 250 on display in the museum’s main galleries at any one time, will not cost a cent.

How will this affect MOCA, which charges $12 per visit (except on Thursday nights, when it’s free) and is directly across the street?

“They’re excited about it,” Broad told us in a one-on-one interview after the news conference. “They know that we’re going to be a great attraction, we’re going to spend time and energy and marketing getting attendance -- and they’re gonna be the beneficiary of all that.”

“We want the broadest possible audience,” Broad said. “And we found that museums throughout the world who offer free admission will get twice to three times the attendance you otherwise would. There are very few museums that do it. The Getty does it, we’re doing it. We think it’ll be a benefit not only to us but clearly to MOCA. If we get huge attendance here, they’ll benefit from being right across the street – as will all the other cultural institutions here.”

“The endowment for this museum will be greater than the endowment for MOCA, LACMA and all other museums in this city other than the Getty,” Broad told us. “So we feel good about that. We know we’ll have adequate resources to have continuous programs and not have any fiscal worries.”

[alki]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Downtown LA should have many 30-40 high rises sprinkled within the historic core. NYC, SF and Chicago do it well. Why can't LA?

It's odd to me people treat the historic core like there's a pretend height restriction. Enough of LA is low rise as it is.

I think its a matter of taste. There is a certain symmetry to having bldgs of a similar height that I like. Others want everything to look even more the same.....similar architecture and similar height. Still others prefer a mix of heights and architecture. And that diversity of opinion exists among architects as well.

I know this the skyscraper forum; hence the fascination with tall bldgs, but frankly, I think they are the least important aspect of a DT area. And when they are built I prefer they be grouped together.........I think they look better that way. And no offense to District Dirt or Brudy but its not because I am unsophisticated or have had limited exposure to cities and their bldgs. Its just my preference.