LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[BrandonJXN]

Out of all the buildings that were proposed from 2005-2007, I was most excited for Zen (and the Park Tower. Any news on that btw?). I really loved the idea of a thin residential tower with a minimalistic asian theme as the design called for. I hope it isn't dead.

[JDRCRASH]

I have a feeling that Zen, Park Tower, and the majority of major proposed projects downtown for that matter, are waiting for financing...

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I have a feeling that Zen, Park Tower, and the majority of major proposed projects downtown for that matter, are waiting for financing...

my guess is that maybe 2 of the 20+ major proposed buildings for downtown ever get built in the next 10 years.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by pesto

I don't think I really disagree much, just pointing out that high-rises do not make a more livable city. Usually, the best 'hoods are low-rise with some medium-rise mixed in. Downtown's 12 stories is about the limit for keeping a human scale. There really are very few buildings taller than that in any part of NY that you would care to live in.

Not that it matters, but check out 51st St., between 1st and 3rd. This is fairly typical of the east 40's and 50's. Plenty of medium and high rise, but the majority of buildings are under 6. Several appear to be 3 or 4 story. And this is mid-town East. Clinton (Hell's Kitchen to us oldsters) is of course less high-rise as are the "livable" neighborhoods where most of the nightlife occurs.

If the demand for high-rise exists in LA, then build them. But I don't see the point (or economics) of building high-rise pretty much anywhere in Westlake, Universtiy Park, E. Hollywood, etc., other than a couple of blocks around Wilshire. Plunking a 40 story at Alvarado and 3rd helps the neighborhood how? On the other hand, 6 or 8 6-story buildings would do the 'hood a ton of good.

I really don't think the issue can be limited to height. But, once you have a street wall, you can start doing things. Look at Spring Street and 7th Street. These are two great examples of streets that do just that. It's the gaps and setbacks that hurt the most and that remove the invitation from the pedestrian. There's no way I can leave Broadway out of this conversation. But, Broadway needs work as well and I can't deny a lot of improvements have already been made there.

I don't think finding gaps on Broadway and filling them in with 40 story apartment rentals will hurt the neighborhood. From my experience witnessing these things, similar developments have been really positive on Market and Mission streets in San Francisco and on 6th and 8th Aves in Manhattan.

I know it takes time to get used to new buildings that break the mold that the old ones set, but that is what modernity is about and it can be well received by the neighbors when tastefully done.

Downtown L.A. isn't suffering from having too many residential high rises. Rather, dtLA is suffering from the economic crisis and the fact that this crisis has at least temporarily killed off some of the great residential developments that DTLA has ever planned. Page one of this forum thread really tells 90% of the story. We're going through tough times economically and none of us here can wait for that picture to turn positive for good!

[pesto]

Originally Posted by tommaso

I really don't think the issue can be limited to height. But, once you have a street wall, you can start doing things. Look at Spring Street and 7th Street. These are two great examples of streets that do just that. It's the gaps and setbacks that hurt the most and that remove the invitation from the pedestrian. There's no way I can leave Broadway out of this conversation. But, Broadway needs work as well and I can't deny a lot of improvements have already been made there.

I don't think finding gaps on Broadway and filling them in with 40 story apartment rentals will hurt the neighborhood. From my experience witnessing these things, similar developments have been really positive on Market and Mission streets in San Francisco and on 6th and 8th Aves in Manhattan.

I know it takes time to get used to new buildings that break the mold that the old ones set, but that is what modernity is about and it can be well received by the neighbors when tastefully done.

Downtown L.A. isn't suffering from having too many residential high rises. Rather, dtLA is suffering from the economic crisis and the fact that this crisis has at least temporarily killed off some of the great residential developments that DTLA has ever planned. Page one of this forum thread really tells 90% of the story. We're going through tough times economically and none of us here can wait for that picture to turn positive for good!

Can't agree. You think that King or Berry are nice examples of street-life? Sterile high-rises with basically no style and warmth, full of commuters who hop in their BMW's in undeground parking and drive to Palo Alto or Santa Clara? And these in an area where demand is immense. Same is true wherever you find high-rises going up in SoMa, as opposed to medium and low-rise development.

Of course, low-rise can be botched as well (Mission Bay) but that comes from having to compete with the suburbs, who offer corporate clients what they really want: control of their campuses. If you are looking for great neighborhoods in SF, you don't look for "canyons"; you look for the Marina, Castro, North Beach, the valleys along Mission, etc. Not the Financial District. Same for NY. Sixth is at best mediocre; mostly below average and tacky (below 40th) or corporate (40th to the park). Plenty of people, but very little charm or neighborhood feeling. Commuters and tourists.

In general, adding breathing space to "canyon walls" is the best way of making them livable. NY and SF figured this out long ago. Park (NY) and California may not be charming but the set backs and plazas make them more tolerable than the side streets without them.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by pesto

Can't agree. You think that King or Berry are nice examples of street-life? Sterile high-rises with basically no style and warmth, full of commuters who hop in their BMW's in undeground parking and drive to Palo Alto or Santa Clara? And these in an area where demand is immense. Same is true wherever you find high-rises going up in SoMa, as opposed to medium and low-rise development.

Of course, low-rise can be botched as well (Mission Bay) but that comes from having to compete with the suburbs, who offer corporate clients what they really want: control of their campuses. If you are looking for great neighborhoods in SF, you don't look for "canyons"; you look for the Marina, Castro, North Beach, the valleys along Mission, etc. Not the Financial District. Same for NY. Sixth is at best mediocre; mostly below average and tacky (below 40th) or corporate (40th to the park). Plenty of people, but very little charm or neighborhood feeling. Commuters and tourists.

In general, adding breathing space to "canyon walls" is the best way of making them livable. NY and SF figured this out long ago. Park (NY) and California may not be charming but the set backs and plazas make them more tolerable than the side streets without them.

Obviously, a street lined with high-rises is daunting, but that is not what this is. This is a street with sporadic highs rises mixed in with the low rises. Tokyo does this best, with high rises dotting the medium and low rise landscape. And Tokyo still manages to have some of the most active street life in the world.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Obviously, a street lined with high-rises is daunting, but that is not what this is. This is a street with sporadic highs rises mixed in with the low rises. Tokyo does this best, with high rises dotting the medium and low rise landscape. And Tokyo still manages to have some of the most active street life in the world.

Chicago also does this really well. Lowrise, lowrise, midrise, highrise, lowrise, etc...

[tommaso]

Who's the pedestrian? We're talking like these stalled projects on page one have already been built. We haven't even seen what Figueroa's Target is gonna look like. We don't know what type of retail or street presence any of these stalled projects would have. We can't predetermine what retail is gonna be there because we don't even work for the leasing companies that are pre-leasing that commercial space. So, we shouldn't comment on what the pedestrian experience of any of these stalled high rise projects is because we haven't seen what that is. You can't comment on a building you haven't walked past because it hasn't even been built. I don't know of a tall building that has commercial or residential tenants that hasn't had an impact on the activity level of that neighborhood where that building has been built. That's why all these environmental impact and traffic reports have to happen. There's a tall building, there's more activity, that's why these reports need to be done.

There's no question, once some of these buildings are built, we're gonna need options. We're gonna need places to eat, places to sit down and rest for a moment, places to buy groceries and clothes and all of these things. And, that's where this pedestrian experience comes into play. Who are these retail occupants gonna be? Is it going to be another Carl's Junior or is it going to be another Subway sandwich shop? I'm not sure. I know we need a real mall downtown and that Macy's under that Sheraton is not doing it. So, we're gonna have to build a Nordstrom and then a Whole Foods. Where do you think these retail stores are gonna be built? Well, given the type of commercial spaces that these stores are gonna need, the ideal place to put a new Nordstrom and Whole Foods downtown will be in a new high rise and that would most likely be a residential high rise. Note: this isn't my personal preference. The day a Nordstrom or a Whole Foods will break into the DTLA market, the employee working for these companies who is responsible for managing their commercial leases will be looking for a new space, preferably one that they can negotiate the exact dimensions of with the architect and developer of that new building.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Beaux arts is all over downtown because it was built during the time where cities all over the US was building that style of building. Fast forward 80 years later to a time where no one builds like that and propose 2 buildings that are not even good beaux arts designs to begin with be built in an area of downtown not far from LA Live and all of that. If they were maybe 30 stories and built in Beverly Hills then that would be perfect. BH loves that kind of tacky shit.

Well thats what makes it even better, nobody builds like that anymore. And of course its not the same beaux arts style.. This is a new beaux arts. It doesn't matter if it's built near LA Live, you have old architecture like that in times square which is full of a mix of architectural styles. Even here in San Diego there is a art deco/beaux arts/modern residential skyscraper that is surrounded by glass office towers... It doesn't look out of place at all.. It should be better for the city to have different architectural styles all over rather than have all glass and modern buildings in this district, all art deco and beaux arts here, and all low rise and stucco there... That's boring. Diversity in style and height distinguishes the beauty of the buildings and is exciting

But since this project is dead I'm not gonna blabber bout it nomore. I like St. Vibiana lofts... That's an example of what I'm talking about.

[pesto]

Mixing in high rise on Broadway or adjacent streets is a fine idea (and quite consistent with the plan). There are gems there but there are also dogs that could become something nicer. Whether there is demand is another issue.

This would be organic and is inherent in mid-town NY. First there was nothing; then low-rise, then some of them replaced by medium or high-rise. This is organic and much more likely to create reasonable streetlife than massive projects. But still not as good as areas where high-rise is very limited (LES, the Village, etc.).

btw, like NY, the Broadway plan will require set-backs at various levels so as to guarantee access to sunlight. As far as I know, no city is pushing "canyons" any more.

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by pesto

Mixing in high rise on Broadway or adjacent streets is a fine idea (and quite consistent with the plan). There are gems there but there are also dogs that could become something nicer. Whether there is demand is another issue.

This would be organic and is inherent in mid-town NY. First there was nothing; then low-rise, then some of them replaced by medium or high-rise. This is organic and much more likely to create reasonable streetlife than massive projects. But still not as good as areas where high-rise is very limited (LES, the Village, etc.).

btw, like NY, the Broadway plan will require set-backs at various levels so as to guarantee access to sunlight. As far as I know, no city is pushing "canyons" any more.

I love setbacks when done the New York way! Multiple setbacks and they are so elegant, handsome and pretty! Chicago used to do setbacks well over 50 years ago. It seems there was so much space to operate with there that it really no longer remained a necessity. I love the multiple setbacks and I believe DTChicago would be far prettier with more of these buildings. Multiple setbacks in DTLA, that idea won't come from an L.A. architect, I can guarantee you that. The idea would have to be imported from New York. There's so much space to operate with here and the laws are different. Really, the reason why NY has all of those setbacks is because form followed the parameters of the law.

[colemonkee]

The Los Angeles Business Journal is reporting that an architect has been chosen to design the replacement for the Convention Center West Hall. I don't have a subscription to view the article, but here's what I received in my email:

Populous to Design Convention Center’s West Hall Replacement
Date: June 29th, 2011
Kansas City architectural firm Populous, a specialist in convention and sports facilities, has been selected to design the proposed replacement building for the Los Angeles Convention Center’s West Hall.


Taking a look at their web site, Populous has designed their fair share of convention facilities. Nothing particularly ground-breaking, but some pretty solid work. You can see more here:

http://portfolio.populous.com/projects/convention/index.html

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by pesto

As far as I know, no city is pushing "canyons" any more.

Cities were never really pushing canyons. It was just something that happened organically when there was sufficient density and demand.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Anyways, so these are on hold right now?

yes & no. the tallest of the 2 towers, & the one that is shown in this illustration....


archpaper.com

will not be part of the original construction. The devlpr has indicated they will not begin work on the 2nd bldg til there is enough demand for its office space. that won't be a problem if the amt of unused space in the hood starts to fill up in the next few yrs. But if the situation for almost the past 20 yrs remains true 20 yrs into the future, the corner of Wilshire & fig may have a big gap well after groundbreaking in 2012. If so....

so the question becomes how will that vacant space on the corner be treated after the first tower is constructed? A temporary plaza or park? a parking lot?

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

The City House and Olympic are pretty much dead. Not that they had much chance of ever being built anyway. And thankfully for that too. They were really very ugly and not right for downtown. They would be perfect in Beverly Hills or someplace near there.

I long suspected the plans for that proj were too good (or, in your case, too bad) to be true. I myself can't get too unhappy about their admittedly kitschy euro classical design when the hood they were going to go up in has been dead for so long. we're talking about a part of dt that otherwise has been nothing but parking lots & hole in the wall bldgs from one end to the other since the early 1900s. so to me it's like a person who's been lost in death valley for several days finally being discovered by a search party but getting picky cuz the water he's been offered doesn't have ice cubes or a twist of lime in it. dtla has been lost in death valley for over 50 yrs.

but I definitely will say the loss of the parkfifth proj at 5th St & Olive represents a bigger slap to the hood. that's cuz that site & the Grand Ave proj are sorely needed to bridge the gap between the newer western side of dt & the older hoods to the east.

[citywatch]

this thread is greatly in need of a photo update right about now. pwright1 has a post in the my city photos page & some of the best shots of dt that I've seen in quite awhile.

these are among my favorites cuz they show ppl interacting with businesses at the street level & the addition of some new stores to areas that were formerly vacant & lifeless.


pwright1



pwright1



pwright1



pwright1



pwright1



pwright1



pwright1



pwright1



pwright1

[Quixote]

The amount of pedestrian activity on Spring Street is quite amazing.

I absolutely love what they've done to the ground floor of the SB Tower. It's very cool that you can live in a unit literally right off the sidewalk.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by citywatch

= But if the situation for almost the past 20 yrs remains true 20 yrs into the future, the corner of Wilshire & fig may have a big gap well after groundbreaking in 2012. If so....

so the question becomes how will that vacant space on the corner be treated after the first tower is constructed? A temporary plaza or park? a parking lot?

Well, in the last 20 years downtown was a dump. Now it is not. I would think that the office vacancy rate would go down due to that singular fact. And concerning the pictures CityWatch posted: I don't like them too much. I mean, they are good indicators of the positive direction DT is going, but the best pictures of Downtown in a while? Hell naw. KotH has that covered much better.

[RAlossi]

BTW, Buzz Wine shop has opened up (the photo above reminded me). Huge selection, mostly mid-range and higher. Nice place!

Also, the Last Bookstore is open in the northwest corner space at 5th and Spring. Urbano at 6th and Hope now open. Chipotle open and always busy as hell. Green Hut Cafe open and seems to be doing good lunch business.

Perch (new incarnation of the Must) opens in July. I haven't seen anyone inside Industriel at 6th and Grand lately (formerly Carl's Jr.), but I wouldn't be surprised if they were near to opening. Cabbage Patch now open for dinner, but nobody knows about that yet so they don't seem to have too many customers at night.

I e-mailed the owners of CoffeeBar to ask what was up with their closing at 3pm or 6pm depending on the day... they said that they aren't doing too well and need to focus on the portion of their business that doesn't bleed money. It's strange, because you see so many people out there all day. On the other hand, people will sit there for hours and order a $4.00 cup of coffee. They must not be doing the volume they need to be doing, especially after an expensive build-out on the space. I'd recommend you support that business if you want to see it stay open.

The retail space at the northwest corner of 6th and Olive is leased, and I heard it's going to be retail. The former Famima space at 8th and Figueroa is under construction... looks to be a restaurant. Construction at the Main Mercantile Lofts (6th/Main) retail space, but I'm not sure if that's to redo the retail space to make it more attractive or if it's been leased. That was one of the ugliest street-level facades in Downtown for a while.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by RAlossi

The former Famima space at 8th and Figueroa is under construction... looks to be a restaurant.

It will be a French restaurant

http://brighamyen.com/2011/04/29/planeta...own-la-first-location-outside-of-france/