LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

I'm not sure why you're evaluating a project that hasn't been built or has a definite design/architect, hell it doesn't even have a definite developer really. Related has been fumbling this one but they already paid for the park so who knows.

I can't evaluate the architectural designs but Related has provided enough details regarding how it intends to use the space (hotel, apartments, retail, etc.). And based on that my opinion is that their proposal is not enough to make it stand out among developments in DTLA, never mind the other projects going on all around the region.

[The Illusive Man]

Originally Posted by bobcat

I can't evaluate the architectural designs but Related has provided enough details regarding how it intends to use the space (hotel, apartments, retail, etc.). And based on that my opinion is that their proposal is not enough to make it stand out among developments in DTLA, never mind the other projects going on all around the region.

You may or may not be right. What, in your opinion would be the best use of the land?

[inSaeculaSaeculorum]

obviously the best use of that land is to preserve the tinker toy parking structure on it, declare it a Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument and name the monument after citywatch for their tireless dedication to surface parking lot awareness.

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

obviously the best use of that land is to preserve the tinker toy parking structure on it, declare it a Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument and name the monument after citywatch for their tireless dedication to surface parking lot awareness.

Amen

[The Illusive Man]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

obviously the best use of that land is to preserve the tinker toy parking structure on it, declare it a Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument and name the monument after citywatch for their tireless dedication to surface parking lot awareness.

People want to be critical but they don't want to draw up plans on how to make it better. If people don't have a solution, then stop whining.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by The Illusive Man

You may or may not be right. What, in your opinion would be the best use of the land?

The first thing that started alarm bells ringing for me is the downsizing of everything. Now, I'm a practical person and can sympathize with companies dealing with the economic realities but what businesses from outside LA don't realize is that in order to make a splash in LA you often have to be big, bold, and flashy. The Getty Center, the Grove, WDCH, and LA Live didn't get to be successful by blending in with their surroundings. Among upcoming projects the Wilshire Grand will be the tallest building on the West Coast when completed and boast decorative led lighting visible from miles away.

As for the project details, one of the things I don't like is how Related dropped the events facility from the original plans. Being across from the music center this would be a natural location to add yet another performance space. The similar Time Warner Center in NYC has the 1200 seat Jazz at Lincoln Center. One particular advantage of such an events space would be the additional dinner patrons it would provide for the proposed high end restaurants.

Similarly I think it's a mistake to downsize the hotel. If anything they should be thinking of adding more hotel rooms given the improved outlook for downtown's hotel industry. And again, more hotel rooms means more potential restaurant customers.

In fact, it may be best to focus on making the project the area's premiere dining destination as it now appears luxury retailers are beginning to form a critical mass down in South Park. Grand Ave could make a name for itself by bringing together many of the nation's top chefs under one roof, but would probably not be able to draw enough luxury retailers to form a critical mass given its reduced size.

They also plan a supermarket for the project but with Whole Foods now off the table it's not clear who could fill that spot. Upscale markets like Sprouts or Bristol Farms would probably not be as big a draw as Whole Foods would have been. Would a flagship Trader Joe's work in that location assuming that it isn't already elsewhere in downtown at that time? The problem with that is that TJs are typically much smaller than the average supermarket.

Those are my initial thoughts, but in essence Related needs to come up with a compelling project that will draw visitors from all over the region. Simply putting up a few restaurants and apartments isn't going to enable them to charge the rents they are expecting for such a high profile location.

[RuFFy]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

obviously the best use of that land is to preserve the tinker toy parking structure on it, declare it a Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument and name the monument after citywatch for their tireless dedication to surface parking lot awareness.

Lol.

[bobbyv]

Just a thought, when the new development thread is made we should probably name It "Central Los Angeles" so it includes city west, ktown, Boyle Heights, USC etc. I know development in these areas are already included.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

obviously the best use of that land is to preserve the tinker toy parking structure on it, declare it a Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument and name the monument after citywatch for their tireless dedication to surface parking lot awareness.

My favorite post of the year.

[blackcat23]

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-property-report-20131003,0,162281.story

High-rise apartment enclave planned for downtown L.A.



by Roger Vincent

Six real estate parcels, now mostly parking lots in the shadow of AT&T Center, have been purchased in what may be the largest downtown land acquisition since the recession. And a $750-million residential complex there is on the drawing boards.

Sleek high-rise apartment towers, shops and restaurants are to rise along a path of real estate development spreading east from Staples that is transforming a former asphalt-covered dead zone in South Park into a more pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.

"We are delivering what Gen Y wants — comfortable homes well laid out with all the bells and whistles," said President Matthew Burton of developer Mack Urban. "We believe we can do it at an affordable price point with top-of-the-line amenities and views."

The units would be smaller than most downtown, Burton said. Rents, however, would start at about $2,200 a month, below what is common for other new buildings there, he said.

The project is the first for Mack Urban, which was formed in August to build multifamily housing in Southern California and the Pacific Northwest....

Plans are in early stages and must wend their way through the city's approval process. The company's goal is to build about 1,500 apartments in a yet-to-be-named community dotted with small parks and linked by public walkways and alleys. The complex might also eventually include a hotel.

Unlike most new high-rise residential developments that are characterized by their owners as "luxury," Mack Urban plans to go after a wider swath of renters, including young people priced out of other new buildings.

Part of the challenge of making the units attractive lies in tying the properties together and transforming the area's big, unwelcoming blocks into a neighborhood with its own character, said architect David Martin of AC Martin Partners.

"Towns with smaller blocks are more charming and more interesting," Martin said. "So how do we make streets more pedestrian-scale?"

His proposed solution is to surround the development's apartment towers, stores and restaurants with public spaces worth strolling. There would be narrow alleys lined by townhouses, walkways meandering through the blocks and what Martin calls vest-pocket parks....

If Mack Urban's design gets the go-ahead from city officials, construction on that project would begin in late 2014 and continue in phases over the following decade.

[bobcat]

^See, I like that the developer is focused on building housing and because of that the result will make an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 1500 apartments is a helluva lot of units and you're going to see things like restaurants, convenience stores, and dry cleaners popping up everywhere.

Going back to Grand Ave, it seems like Related doesn't really have a vision for the area. Contrast with AEG who had a very definite vision for LA Live as a premiere dining and entertainment destination. Virtually no shops at all. If Related wants Grand Ave to be a luxury retail destination then make it a real destination with 500,000sf of space and a flagship dept store. If they want it to be a dining and entertainment mecca then add a performance venue, an arthouse cinema (or even something like an Arclight) and Michelin rated restaurants. If they want to focus on housing then build 2000 units and a supermarket/TJs. As it is now there's a little bit of this and a little bit of that and I'm afraid it's simply going to turn into an island of mediocrity while the real action is going on in the rest of downtown.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-property-report-20131003,0,162281.story

High-rise apartment enclave planned for downtown L.A.



by Roger Vincent

Wow, that's huge. I hope there's a lot of architectural diversity in materials and scale and design. Otherwise we get our Park La Brea.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by bobcat

All of that already exists and parcel q is still a parking lot. There's nothing special about Related's project that no other half decent developer couldn't do. If we were to have another design competition today I can guarantee you someone else could come up with a better project than this one.

I'm agreeing with you, but just saying why it's important to get it right.

[inSaeculaSaeculorum]

Originally Posted by brudy

Wow, that's huge. I hope there's a lot of architectural diversity in materials and scale and design. Otherwise we get our Park La Brea.

This is the first thing that popped into my mind reading that one developer was going to build on six mostly adjacent blocks. I hope we get a variety of heights and styles.

But this is the first time I heard a developer talk about building alleys. I've always wonder why mega developments did not separate parcels by individual buildings instead of having one massive low slung block (think 8th&grand). Or if developers do have multiple buildings on one block, they put them on top of a monolithic podium. How about cutting devlopments up using paseos and alleyways? As a daily pedestrian in L.A., I've always resented the huge blocks in our city in addition to all the poor streetscaping.

Little details like this go a long way into enhancing the pedestrian experiences but I rarely see developers engage on these details.

I'm glad they're doing something to this area though. I think 11th st. has a lot of potential. It's a narrow street and I love the view at night approaching a lit up Staples/La Live when I'm riding my bike west on this street from Main.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

obviously the best use of that land is to preserve the tinker toy parking structure on it, declare it a Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument and name the monument after citywatch

that's a wonderful idea! it would be so flattering. I'm touched & honored. So I've changed my mind. I hope Related not only cancels plans for grand ave but promises to keep the tinker toy parking structure & even expand it. Lovely.

I'm a bit irked that KCRW didn't bother to broadcast this evening's discussion at disney hall. They instead replayed some yawnfest from a previous broadcast. No wonder I often don't bother tuning in to that station.

blackcat23, you omitted the most telling bit of the article on the mack urban proj.....it involves only around 6 acres, which isn't much at all. When I first saw that article today...& the description of what sounds like a very ambitious housing devlpt, I immediately thought it was going to occupy a large amt of land. So unless the 6 acre figure is wrong, then the owner must be planning more of a piecemeal type of devlpt.

btw, I had to breeze by dt today & the thing that stood out to me is how scruffy the fwys are that lead to & from it. Litter everywhere on the embankments & landscaping all over the place that's dying from lack of water. Not a good sight for ppl whose sense of dt & LA is based on not just a few things, but many things.

I did notice a large piece of drilling type equipment on the section of the GH palmer da vinci proj that sits closest to the pasadena fwy & could see the other section of that apt proj, along temple St, rising but still not much past ground level. His projs, due to many of them being right next to high visibility fwys, are among the most noticeable in dt.

[Mojeda101]

So who else tuned in? I was there and it was interesting seeing the mayor making a surprise apperance! It's a real shame the city is shooting down all their fantastic ideas(paving grand to have a stone floor, hanging lights over the street, wider sidewalks, etc..) but i love how are thinking the best for LA. The REAL bad news is that they won't submit another design for the Grand project until January

[LA21st]

Wow. That sounds like something you would read about downtown Chicago. Central Station or Lake Shore East. Obviously it won't be as big, but still great news for LA.

[alki]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

The Times' architecture critic has an article out this morning about the Grand Avenue Project.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/art...ertainty-20131002,0,4255080.story?page=1

Apparently, Frank Gehry is hinting that his firm might be coming back on board to help design the project.

From the article:

Gehry's work is formally expressive and exuberant, Stern's carefully burnished and historically minded

Translation: Gehry is exciting; Stern is boring.

For me, this is very typical of LA's view of architecture.......what I call always looking for the cutting edge. Good cutting edge is hard to pull off; hence some of the bad architecture LA gets.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by alki

From the article:

Gehry's work is formally expressive and exuberant, Stern's carefully burnished and historically minded

Translation: Gehry is exciting; Stern is boring.

For me, this is very typical of LA's view of architecture.......what I call always looking for the cutting edge. Good cutting edge is hard to pull off; hence some of the bad architecture LA gets.

Examples of attempts at cutting edge architecture that you think failed? Not arguing, just wondering which ones you think failed?

[The North One]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Meh. WDCH is one of Gehry's best works. It is an iconic piece of architecture in a city full of great, world class architecture (whether people here want to believe it or not). I'm a bit of a fan of Gehry's style (though I can admit that his idea of Grand Ave could've been so much better). I would have wanted to see the 'iconic' Grand Ave tower resemble something like his brand new skyscraper in NYC.


http://holdithome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Frank-Gehry_07.jpg

I like Stern's vision. But it's only mediocre. It needs to be so much more.

I don't get why everyone on Skyscraperpage love to *gush* over how much they love this tower, it's nothing special and Aqua already did the whole moving wave façade shtick (and a lot better might I add). All of Gehry's work is the same tin-foil garbage he keeps reprocessing over and over again.