LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[Niftybox]

But still I wonder, why LA? Many other city centers that are car-centric are pretty big compared to their populations. Is it the primary victim of So Cal suburban lifestyle?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Niftybox

For being a major city (second largest in the U.S.) barely being an exception among far lesser cities isn't much to boast about. All things considered, it's kind of remarkable how small DTLA is.

Despite being intentionally built out over the decades as a low-rise, lower-density alternative to older US cities like New York, LA still managed to build out a large downtown with a good skyline and is one of the only major US cities to have built its tallest skyscraper in the last few years.

Goes to show how much vast sprawl and suburban zoning along with a car culture can make an impact on a major city center.

That was the whole idea behind LA--lower densities, lower-rise, cars, houses, yards, multiple centers. You may not like it, but that is LA's DNA. Personally, that's why I chose to move here this summer instead of some other, different kind of place. One of the biggest surprises I've had since moving here is coming back on the forum and seeing how negative so many people are about this place. Life is short, and I don't understand why people live someplace they don't like instead of some other place that they like more.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Related also developed the Time Warner Center. The retail approach doesn't surprise me one bit.

And regarding how the project turned out, it looks exactly like the renderings (for better or worse).

They also had that wonderful idea of "The Vessel" in NYC. The structure suicidal people keep jumping off of. I don't think they've ever had a great design.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by Niftybox

But still I wonder, why LA? Many other city centers that are car-centric are pretty big compared to their populations. Is it the primary victim of So Cal suburban lifestyle?

LA was not developed centrally with residential areas then fanning out from a single core business district. Many smaller city centers in LA developed independently, which is why you'll find many skylines in these various cities across the LA metro area.

[LAisthePlace]

Which was famously described by Rem Koolhaus of OMA as a "prototype of the future of cities" that being multi-nodal vs. a single city center.

We need to continue investing in our transit and density around transit to get there though, but I feel we're on the right path.

https://www.archpaper.com/2018/07/rem-koolhaas-los-angeles-prototype-future/

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

LA was not developed centrally with residential areas then fanning out from a single core business district. Many smaller city centers in LA developed independently, which is why you'll find many skylines in these various cities across the LA metro area.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by craigs

That was the whole idea behind LA--lower densities, lower-rise, cars, houses, yards, multiple centers. You may not like it, but that is LA's DNA. Personally, that's why I chose to move here this summer instead of some other, different kind of place. One of the biggest surprises I've had since moving here is coming back on the forum and seeing how negative so many people are about this place. Life is short, and I don't understand why people live someplace they don't like instead of some other place that they like more.

After seeing vids of London, I'm even less into the notion that a highrise format somehow makes a great city...whether a NYC, chicago or dubai. I don't see many towers or super talls in these scenes....I instead see a generally clean, attractive, very active city.

This is like an organically created, very large version of the grove in mid wilshire, 2nd st promenade-samo place, the americana in glendale or dt disneyland in anaheim.

Urbanists tend to poke fun at those manufactured urban experiences in LA, not without some reason. But they prove that ppl....as in the case with the crowds in london....are drawn to generally clean, tidy, attractive places.


• Video Link


^ Again, I don't see a lot of highrises or certainly super talls in london. I also don't see too many swapmeets or graffiti. NYC right now is full of both graffiti & vacant storefronts. It too has a lot of street life, of course, but to me it's less impressive than what I see in London.

The popularity of that city makes me think of the way the faux tuscan apts complexes of Geoff Palmer, which are now cloned parodies of one another, with all their burban type landscaping & fake European features have booked up relatively quickly.

dtla needs to have more renovated tower theaters, herald examiner bldgs and fewer swapmeets & parking lots...fewer vagrants & less vandalism too.

DT not having enough skyscrapers or a lack of any super talls is the least of its problems.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

LA was not developed centrally with residential areas then fanning out from a single core business district. Many smaller city centers in LA developed independently, which is why you'll find many skylines in these various cities across the LA metro area.

That's just the way it is....I don't have problems with that....some observers have said the multi nodal layout of LA gives it its own vibe.

I think of NYC, which tends to not have as many interesting places outside of manhattan, & that to me is claustrophobic.

The main thing that the entire LA area, inc dtla, should be focused upon is making an area look nice....density & transportation are but just one part of that entire equation.

Yep, the arts district has evolved from the really gritty east side of dt, so looks aren't everything. But an environment like london isn't going to be as hard to sell to as many ppl as parts of LA are.

The youtuber from NYC....under the account name of actionkid... who has done sidewalks scenes of dtla and other parts of LA mentioned how ppl he has spoken with in LA say that don't go to dtla or try to avoid it. If dtla looked as relatively clean and attractive as london is, that attitude wouldn't be as common. Again, London isn't famous for skyscrapers or super talls.

[Niftybox]

People are praising the lack of high-rises and density of LA as a forward thinking, multi-nodal masterpiece, and highly developed downtown cores as 'outdated' and 'claustrophobic', just remember, this is Skyscraper Page. Also, not trying to be your teacher but, vertical integration is a natural evolution of a city and population density, at least it's the most sensible thing to do instead of sprawling further outward. It's also forced our public transit system into an impossible situation, too many stations required, for an unreasonable amount of nodes. Being spread so thin also increases co2 emissions for obvious reasons, and increases demand on the grid for electric vehicles.

I feel like all of the 'good' people made LA out to be was in fact not good when there were better alternatives at the time. It's kind of too late to change any of that, but in the future, increasing density and renewably driven public transit as a kind of symbiosis will help reduce further co2 emissions and a byproduct of that will be taller buildings! No more suburban 'cities' would be a good start, also turning warehouses and parking lots into parks and recreation would force existing buildings to densify along with decreasing the urban heat island etc. Arts District, I'm looking at you buddy. Over time, maybe in the not too distant future LA will fill its oversized shoes.

I love LA very much, it's very unique and novel requirements will bring innovative solutions, but many of these solutions are already known. Let's apply them.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Niftybox

vertical integration is a natural evolution of a city and population density, at least it's the most sensible thing to do instead of sprawling further outward. It's also forced our public transit system into an impossible situation, too many stations required, for an unreasonable amount of nodes. Being spread so thin also increases co2 emissions for obvious reasons, and increases demand on the grid for electric vehicles.

London predates NYC by a few centuries & reached a certain level of density & devlpt generations ago. I believe many of the georgian era bldgs in the vids above were created over 90-150 yrs ago. Although it has a larger population than ever before, its older areas haven't necessarily seen a lot of infill. Or where older bldgs are torn down & replaced by bigger bldgs....super talls or otherwise.

Regardless, they're all around 5-9 stories tall....no skyscrapers or high, nyc-type density are evident. But they're all fairly nice looking....London almost comes off like an older, but charming version of a master planned community built in the OC or north of the SF Valley. Or it's old town Pasadena on steroids with disney park type crowds. Or it looks like a real life movie backlot.

Some ppl may prefer the highrise format of manhattan, but personally this impresses me less than London does....


• Video Link

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Niftybox

But still I wonder, why LA? Many other city centers that are car-centric are pretty big compared to their populations. Is it the primary victim of So Cal suburban lifestyle?

Not just the suburban lifestyle but also the beautiful natural setting. The hills and beaches have been drawing people and energy away from the core for over a hundred years. It's a permanent headwind for downtown.

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by Niftybox

People are praising the lack of high-rises and density of LA as a forward thinking, multi-nodal masterpiece, and highly developed downtown cores as 'outdated' and 'claustrophobic', just remember, this is Skyscraper Page

This statement is a strawman, no one is saying that. But you asked the question why LA doesn't look like a lot of other cities, so people explained why it developed the way it did.

LA has a long way to go in terms of developing its urban core, although slow progress is happening. So, for people that absolutely need to be surrounded by a sea of skyscrapers and the urban lifestyle, LA may not be where you should live and where you will find ultimate fulfillment.

[LAisthePlace]

I think people are underrating/under-representing just how far Downtown Los Angeles has come. This is focusing just on population when DTLA is also a very substantial jobs center as well.

According to the 2020 census DTLA is now at ~75K population (+42% growth from 2010 census) which is bigger than:
Miami - 58K
Seattle - 50K
Boston - 47K
Atlanta (Midtown + Downtown) - 43K
Minneapolis - 41K
San Diego - 39K
Dallas - 36K
Washington DC - 30K
Houston (Midtown + Downtown) - 27K
Indianapolis - 27K
Detroit (Midtown + Downtown) - 23K
Salt Lake City - 17K
Charlotte - 16K
Denver - 15K
Cleveland - 13K
Phoenix - 13K
Portland - 12K
Austin - 11K
New Orleans - 8K
Cincinnati - 6K
Pittsburgh - 5K
Orlando - 5K
Buffalo - 2K

Yes, Los Angeles is a bigger city/metro area than all of them, but the relative absolute size of DTLA is bigger than it can get credit for given how large LA is as a whole. Luckily DTLA was planned with a *ton* of land so still plenty more room to densify.

We are also relatively close to places many think of as very urban cities
San Francisco - 134K
Philadelphia - 91K

With still a ways to get to the biggest true urban cities in the country:
New York (Manhattan): 1.7K
Chicago (Loop + Near North Side): 150K
New York (Financial District/Lower Manhattan only): 148K

Pulled from the really great thread from "Yuriandrade" here - https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241939

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

This statement is a strawman, no one is saying that. But you asked the question why LA doesn't look like a lot of other cities, so people explained why it developed the way it did.

LA has a long way to go in terms of developing its urban core, although slow progress is happening. So, for people that absolutely need to be surrounded by a sea of skyscrapers and the urban lifestyle, LA may not be where you should live and where you will find ultimate fulfillment.

[citywatch]

I don't want to exaggerate how making a place look nice is the cure all & end all for creating a great community. Culver City, the main stop on the expo line between dtla and samo, has also been fixed up over the past 20 yrs. Same thing with glendale. But unlike London, they're often missing the main ingredient of a lot of ppl out & about.

The arts dist in dtla is still full of sketchy parts, & no one will confuse it as being as nice looking as culver city or burban glendale or pasadena are. But it has become more energized over the past 10 yrs in a way I wouldn't have predicted in the past.

The formula for creating a great city or place is dependent on many things...but london seems to have the formula down a bit better than NYC or LA does. Then again, that city is centuries old....I believe parts of it back back to the roman empire.


• Video Link

• Video Link

[citywatch]

Ppl are the spice of life. I've noticed that when I've been in dtla & it has a lot of ppl wandering about, the exact same spot that seemed less attractive 2 months or 2 yrs ago suddenly takes on a new appeal.

Similarly, nice places that don't have a lot of ppl out & about seem not as impressive or appealing.

The best of all worlds is for a city or hood to look nice & be popular with a lot of residents, day trippers, tourists & business ppl. So the grove without a lot of visitors isn't necessarily as appealing as a semi sketchy section of dtla...parts of Broadway, Spring, the arts dist....that has a lot of ppl walking around. But all things being equal, dtla does need to clean up, fix up & shine as many of its blocks as possible.

Parking lots have got to go, gritty sidewalks need to be cleaned, rundown bldgs never of value even when brand new over 70 yrs ago need to be replaced & vandalism & street ppl have to be kept to a minimum.


• Video Link

[scania]

Originally Posted by craigs

One of the biggest surprises I've had since moving here is coming back on the forum and seeing how negative so many people are about this place. Life is short, and I don't understand why people live someplace they don't like instead of some other place that they like more.

Exactly!!! When I call someone out on always being negative, I become the unpopular one. Lol
I love my place and love my view. Life is great, and the drinks are perfect on a daily basis. There’s so much to explore and experience in this city. To complain about trivial things is so bizarre.

[citywatch]

Whoa, look at the bldg at 5:10....sorry, but classic, lower rise, old european cities IMO are more impressive to me than a highrise, super tall town like NYC is.

The history of discouraging highrise devlpt in Europe, partly due to economics too, also doesn't sound way different from that of LA's....there used to be even an ordinance banning new bldgs taller than LA city hall.

All these cities in Europe are dominated by lowrise bldgs, around 5 to 7 stories tall. But because they're so architecturally pleasant to the eye, who cares?

Regrettably, too much old devlpt in LA wasn't quite as attractive, so the city's limitations on bldg height & size didn't make as much sense. But as with Europe, even that was heavily influenced by economics....by a lack of enough demand.

I've seen forumers regularly complain that a new proj in dtla isn't taller or bigger. But when I see what cities like London are all about, I'd say those ppl in LA who believe it suffers because it's too stubby know the price (or height) of everything, but the value of nothing. Even more so when they complain about a new bldg being 40 floors instead of 70 floors, while saying nothing about parking lots, vacant warehouses, swapmeets and very cheap, shabby old properties built over 70 yrs ago.


• Video Link

[craigs]

London is thousands of years old. It was founded by the Romans, and it grew over millennia when people traveled on foot or horseback, then later, by carriages and trains. It has a scale that is both massive and also very fine-grained, and was constantly upgraded as the capital of the greatest empire the world had seen up until the rise of the United States after World War II. It is really not apt to compare London to a young, upstart city born of the automobile age like LA, but do what you like. I just request fewer youtube videos of London, New York, etc. in a thread about Los Angeles. I'd like to focus on LA in the LA threads.

[craigs]

A new, ‘first-class’ high-rise will house homeless people on L.A.’s skid row

Doug Smith
Los Angeles Times
Sept. 28, 2021



Construction kicked off Tuesday on a 19-story homeless housing project designed to reshape a corner of skid row in the image of more well-to-do environs.

The 278-unit Weingart Tower will replace a parking lot at 555 S. Crocker St., around the corner from the Weingart Center, the project’s developer in collaboration with affordable housing developer Chelsea Investment Corp. The building is expected to open in December 2023.

Weingart Tower is the first stage of a project that will eventually comprise 382 units, dwarfing Weingart’s existing facility, in the 11-story former El Rey Hotel, which is already more than twice as tall as any other building around it.

The metal-and-glass high-rise will “improve the neighborhood through architecture,” Weingart Chief Executive Kevin Murray said in announcing the conceptual plan by Joseph Wong Design Associates in a 2017 interview. AXIS/GFA Architecture + Design is the project architect.

“One of the things we asked the architect is we don’t want it to look like a housing project,” Murray, a former state senator, said “We want it to look like one of these other first-class downtown apartments.”

The $160-million first phase will include 228 studio units and 47 one-bedroom units, all coupled to supportive services including case management, medical and mental health treatment services, client plan development, group meetings and a meals program. Three units will be for managers.

The project is receiving $32 million from Proposition HHH, the $1.2-billion bond measure approved by voters in 2016. The Weingart Foundation played a major role in getting HHH passed.

Other funding was obtained from Pacific Western Bank, tax credit equity invested by the Richman Group and funds from several state programs.

Mayor Eric Garcetti, addressing the crowd at a small groundbreaking ceremony, talked about the restaurants, sports arena and other developments that have opened downtown. The Weingart project symbolizes the “city of belonging” that’s accessible to all individuals, Garcetti said.

“We love seeing downtown revitalized over the last two decades,” the mayor said. But he added, “You shouldn’t have to be rich to enjoy it, you shouldn’t have had a lucky life to enjoy that.”

The mayor also suggested the city’s efforts to turn around the homeless crisis will soon pay off. “The next five years, you will see a dip in homelessness because of the work that we have laid out,” Garcetti said.

[38 Geary]

^ Great project. We need about 100 more of these concentrated in LA, SD, SF, Oakland, and SJ.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by Niftybox

People are praising the lack of high-rises and density of LA as a forward thinking, multi-nodal masterpiece, and highly developed downtown cores as 'outdated' and 'claustrophobic', just remember, this is Skyscraper Page. Also, not trying to be your teacher but, vertical integration is a natural evolution of a city and population density, at least it's the most sensible thing to do instead of sprawling further outward. It's also forced our public transit system into an impossible situation, too many stations required, for an unreasonable amount of nodes. Being spread so thin also increases co2 emissions for obvious reasons, and increases demand on the grid for electric vehicles.

Makes me think you haven't traveled much in this country or even abroad to actually be able to critique this subject.

No one is applauding LAs lack of High Rises..... It actually has a lot for a city with its geographical foot print. Decentralized but still counts.

"Not trying to be your teacher" that's good because you're kinda off bud. LA, again with its geographical size, is progressing exactly how it was going to because of all the factors that were thrown at it. As others have had to continuously mention, Height limits/skyscraper ban, destruction of the red car, divisions created by freeways and cheap land that allowed suburbia to sprawl nearly all the way to palmsprings over 100 miles away...... Factors and choice of life.

If the LA skyline upsets you (or the lack of one) most European major cities would also. London, Paris and even Moscow didn't have huge skylines like you would think just 10 years ago.... even now they don't have massive skylines like you would expect. Mexico City has a skyline around the same size of LAs but it has 7 times the population..... on the opposite end, people can argue that The Century City/Westwood skylines are bigger than that of Phoenix, San Antonio, San Jose and even San Diego.... but those cities are some of the largest in the country..... where as Century City/Westwood (despite the name) aren't cities at all...... Factors factors factors.