LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by bobcat

But the only reason the roof was needed in the first place was because a football stadium would otherwise host only a dozen events per year, and an events center would enable the project to pencil out financially. A baseball stadium can pencil out without a roof because it's guaranteed over 80 events per year.

No, that's not correct. The primary purpose of the roof was so that the stadium could be used as convention space, thus not taking any square footage away from the convention center. There is no way that the City Council is letting anyone put a baseball stadium on that site. They want an event center for conventions/concerts/major sporting events. That's it.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

No, that's not correct. The primary purpose of the roof was so that the stadium could be used as convention space, thus not taking any square footage away from the convention center. There is no way that the City Council is letting anyone put a baseball stadium on that site. They want an event center for conventions/concerts/major sporting events. That's it.

Yes, it is correct. The stadium was never going to take square footage away from the convention center, it was to provide a space for expansion. The City never asked AEG to create an events center. AEG had to do it because a football stadium would not be financially viable otherwise.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Yes, it is correct. The stadium was never going to take square footage away from the convention center, it was to provide a space for expansion. The City never asked AEG to create an events center. AEG had to do it because a football stadium would not be financially viable otherwise.

No, but they did tell AEG that the only way they would consider it is if the stadium/center helped attract more conventions. A baseball park is not what they had in mind.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

No, but they did tell AEG that the only way they would consider it is if the stadium/center helped attract more conventions. A baseball park is not what they had in mind.

Of course, because they don't want some big hunking facility taking up space for only a dozen events a year. OTOH a facility that would be in constant use like a baseball stadium would help further revitalize the area much like Staples Center did. Obviously you don't want to reduce space at the convention center, so as long as a baseball stadium proposal would at least maintain the current size of the convention center while still allowing for some future expansion then it should be ok.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Of course, because they don't want some big hunking facility taking up space for only a dozen events a year. OTOH a facility that would be in constant use like a baseball stadium would help further revitalize the area much like Staples Center did. Obviously you don't want to reduce space at the convention center, so as long as a baseball stadium proposal would at least maintain the current size of the convention center while still allowing for some future expansion then it should be ok.

But they will be. A baseball stadium cannot be built while keeping the current square footage the exact same. The new hall they are building will be about 25% smaller than the current West Hall. Whereas, with a football stadium, the floor space garnered by the new hall and the stadium together would be about 50% larger than the West Hall.

Football stadium = net gain of convention space
Baseball stadium = net loss of convention space

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

The new hall they are building will be about 25% smaller than the current West Hall.

Where are you getting these numbers from? The new West Hall is scheduled to be completed before the football stadium is ever built. Thus at minimum it needs to maintain the convention center's current size in order to accommodate already booked conventions.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Where are you getting these numbers from?

Just look at a map, it's pretty clear that the West Hall will not fit on the proposed site for the new hall. Thus, the physical limitations of the space will lower the square footage of total available convention space unless a football stadium is built.

But, let's just say for the sake of argument, they were somehow able to fit the entire size of the current West Hall onto the new site. That still wouldn't give the city enough of an incentive to finance the $350 million in bonds just to simply to have a renovated West Hall moved 60 yards to the south. They are interested in an EXPANSION. They are way behind places like Las Vegas and San Diego, and it is critical that they INCREASE their convention space. They will not approve a new development on that property unless it gives them such an expansion.

The new West Hall is scheduled to be completed before the football stadium is ever built. Thus at minimum it needs to maintain the convention center's current size in order to accommodate already booked conventions.

AEG was quoted as saying that even under the most efficient construction schedules, they may still have to shut down part of the convention center for some period of time. So they are currently booking future conventions with the knowledge that 100% of their current space may not be available the entire time.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

They are interested in an EXPANSION. They are way behind places like Las Vegas and San Diego, and it is critical that they INCREASE their convention space.

LA will NEVER compete with Las Vegas for convention space, and LA Convention Center is already larger than SD's.

AEG was quoted as saying that even under the most efficient construction schedules, they may still have to shut down part of the convention center for some period of time.

Source?

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by bobcat

LA will NEVER compete with Las Vegas for convention space, and LA Convention Center is already larger than SD's.

I don't believe this is correct, and no, I'm not counting LA's underground basement that doubles as a parking garage. They want more square footage. A renovation of the West Hall will not fly.

Source?

I believe it was LA Business Journal. I was actually just as surprised when I first read it as you are, hearing it now.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

I don't believe this is correct, and no, I'm not counting LA's underground basement that doubles as a parking garage.

LA's larger convention center was one of the reasons cited for a possible move of SD Comic Con to LA. This website lists LACC at 720,000 sf of exhibit space compared to SDCC's 700,000 sf.
http://www.californiatravelnews.com/california-convention-centers.html

I believe it was LA Business Journal. I was actually just as surprised when I first read it as you are, hearing it now.

Until you can produce the quote I'm going to have call shenanigans.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by bobcat

LA's larger convention center was one of the reasons cited for a possible move of SD Comic Con to LA. This website lists LACC at 720,000 sf of exhibit space compared to SDCC's 700,000 sf.
http://www.californiatravelnews.com/california-convention-centers.html

The idea that Comic Con considered moving from San Diego to LA because of 20,000 extra square feet is absurd. Wonder why they didn't? Maybe because they found out a good chunk of LA's supposed "exhibition space" was contained in an underground parking garage.

Until you can produce the quote I'm going to have call shenanigans.

I'm really not interested in conducting some major search to appease some person on a message board. Maybe if I have some free time, I'll comb through my e-mails and see if I can find it. I know it was Michael Roth, the AEG spokesman for the project. But okay whatever, I'm a liar. Good grief. Frankly I don't care that much. There will be no baseball stadium built in downtown LA.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

The idea that Comic Con considered moving from San Diego to LA because of 20,000 extra square feet is absurd.

I said it was only one reason. The facilities at LA Live would have been able to provide additional space.

There will be no baseball stadium built in downtown LA.

Maybe. Maybe not.

ETA: Just FYI, according to their websites, the SDCC has 615,000 sf of exhibit space + 204,000 sf of meeting space, while the LACC has 720,000 sf of exhibit space + 147,000 sf of meeting space.

[RuFFy]

I'm pretty sure ChelseaSC's statements are correct. The "events center" was supposed to add convention space. Also, the new west hall over pico would fall short of the current west hall's convention space. A major drawback between LA's convention space and San Diego's is that 300k + feet of convention space in LA is in the south hall and another 250 are in the west hall. By comparison, San Diego has continuous linear convention space at it's faucility.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

They spent all that money and yet it has bad sightlines.


http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2008/09/20080916_yankeeseats_560x375.jpg

Not pictured: right field.

LOL, yeah that is just horrifying. it doesn't even have correct-shaped outfield.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

I'm pretty sure ChelseaSC's statements are correct. The "events center" was supposed to add convention space. Also, the new west hall over pico would fall short of the current west hall's convention space.

Right, the events center would add new space on top of the new West Hall, but I have not found anything to indicate the new West Hall would be smaller than the old one.

The only official numbers I could find are from AEG's official proposal:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...ntributor_Web_Content/LACITYP_013728.pdf

Top of p2, they say the new West Hall would be "comparably sized" to the old West Hall.

In addition, the Event Center would provide 165,000 sf of exhibition space and 120,000 sf of meeting space.

[bmfarley]

Dodger Stadium is good for one thing, keeping the rif-raff away from downtown. other than that, it is a terrible terrible place. Very inhospitable. Only way to get there is by car. And the parking lot is not friendly at all.

If a baseball stadium was proposed for downtown... That would be /(;@$ huge win for the city and fans. Examples of fantastic implementation of a downtown stadium are as close as San Francisco and San Diego. Those stadiums TRANSFORMED the immediate area around them. Residential opportunities and nightlife exploded!

A football stadium... Is closer to introducing a dead zone.

In an ideal world, A baseball stadium would be great downtown. If it needed to be coverable for conventions.... Look no further than Seattle's Safeco Field for something to model. And, construct a super bowl type stadium at Chavez Ravine.... But add multi-use development around it and run a subway to it.

[JDRCRASH]

Or..... just renovate Dodger stadium and build a gondola!

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Or..... just renovate Dodger stadium and build a gondola!

Come on!? Serious? A gondola would not have the capacity to serve game attendees. I am glad that you MUST be joking.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

Come on!? Serious? A gondola would not have the capacity to serve game attendees. I am glad that you MUST be joking.

Well i am KIND OF joking. A certain clueless blogger on Curbed LA really wants to see everything gondolafied as a large-scale solution to LA's traffic problem.

LOL, now obviously that's an idiotic idea. However, keep in mind that a gondola can do things that buses and even trains can't: it can climb over hills and mountains for a more direct route... likely at a much cheaper price.

Keep in mind that a gondola/tram was in fact considered not that long ago:

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2008/01/considering_dod.php

[alki]

Safeco in Seattle has a retractable roof: