LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

not sure where you now live, although for some reason I think of you as being in portland or seattle. maybe SF.

In terms of whether the grass is greener on the side of the hill----& sometimes it is-----there was a person who several wks ago posted pics of the civic ctr of SF. Lots of beaux arts or neo classical bldgs, which really impressed me. I thought "WOW"! & was so taken by it, I went to google street view to get a better, closer look. although I've been in sf before, I never looked really closely at that part of sf & what was in those pics.

the scale of everything also seemed kind of small townish. that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it just seemed kind of oddly rinky dink. I was wondering if that was just due to some strange aspect of google streetview---or that maybe I was looking at things in a jaded way----so I then switched to google's shots of parts of dtla around 1st & grand, towards LA sts. The scale was exactly as I've always known it to be, more fitting for a major city. iow, such a difference doesn't have to be considered better---or worse---but it's one difference that's noticeable in one, not so noticeable in the other.

I live in Seattle. And I moved to Seattle not just for the reason I cited in my post. It was one of several reasons, some of which were personal. Plus, I missed the rain..........I know.....that's sounds bizarre but its the truth. In addition, I tend to be attracted more to eastern cities........narrower streets, more use of brick and darker building materials, older structures, lots of shade trees, etc. However, I prefer living on the West coast. So Seattle fit the bill.

another thing: boutique cities may be friendlier, cozier, nicer & without as much of the fugliness as LA, which it does have too much of. But that doesn't mean those boutique type of cities are more interesting or multi layered.

Boutique city sounds a bit pretentious. Seattle has its rougher, edgier parts and its DT is definitely a working DT. There are research parks to the north of DT, and the port and an industrial/warehouse district to the south of DT.

However, its definitely much smaller than DTLA and as Brigham pointed out a while back does not have the energy or activity of LA. Things move much faster in LA. Change is everywhere. Seattle changes but at a slower pace.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

Recognizing that L.A. Live is a tacky artificial suburban development awkwardly pegged into an urban environment, I accept we need developments like this to bring revenue and attention to downtown, but does that mean it needs to functionally act like CityWalk? I don't know how you can 'really like' LA Live when most of Chick Hearn Ct. is walled off amid metal panels and giant billboards, when there's barely any windows fronting Figueroa eliminating synergy between interior/exterior of the buildings, when the goofy looking light towers in the main plaza already look outdated. Since the opportunity and financing were there, couldn't the developers have done a better job? Again, are we or are we not a world class city that is innovative? I'm not saying lets bulldoze the structure, and I recognize it's done good. I'm just saying maybe if we recognize LA has nothing more than an oversized Tulsa Oklahoma by the sea, then maybe our middling standards would be justified. All I'm saying L.A. Live was golden opportunity to be better than it is and there are too many instances of wasted opportunities in this city.

That is ridiculous to compare LA Live to City Walk where the former is part of an organic growth within an urban context and the latter a truly 100% contrived outdoor shopping center on top of a hill within a theme park. Where LA Live will eventually be surrounded by other urban mixed-use developments, City Walk will never actually be anything more than an extension of Universal Studios.

And regarding the design, LA Live isn't the Medici for goodness sake. Or god forbid, the Watermarke parking structure, which is truly an eyesore 10 times worse than the lowest quality from LA Live!

LA Live is here to stay and I believe it will also evolve overtime along with the rest of Downtown LA. Buildings large and small, and even large shopping centers, are constantly revamped and remodeled to fit within the context of its time. Perhaps a decade from now, when other projects have been completed in South Park, creating enough density, and there is truly a mature urban environment able to sustain continuous pedestrian activity, then we can revisit LA Live and see if we can alter the plaza, or tweak the pylons, etc. The way you guys make it sound like is LA Live is done and that's the way it's going to be forever. No. It's just an important piece of the puzzle completed right now which does FUNCTION well for what we need, which is to get bodies downtown. We need to show that money can be made downtown and ROI is viable. That translates into investments, which is starting to happen with restaurants and finally now retail. Ralphs and LA Live together have really helped convince other businesses that it is "safe" to do business downtown. A revolutionary idea for our time.

I think all you folks need to listen to what citywatch has to say. Worry less about if LA Live, which is far, far from being egregiously bad, lives up to your design standards, and worry more about how many, many more surface parking lots are destroying the urban environment, which is TRULY the culprit from keeping Downtown LA from becoming a great city.

[LAofAnaheim]

Gosh the way people here complain about LA Live! makes me think New Yorkers complain about Times Square............................guess what!!! New Yorkers HATE Times Square as well! LA Live! and Times Square attracts thousands of people a day.

It's like, I want Metro rail everywhere, but we have a freeway running through downtown LA which totally obliterates the urban environment (does Manhattan have a freeway? what about the Chicago Loop?) Now we can continue harping on the fact we have a darn freeway in the middle of downtown or something people accepted a long time ago. It is what it is, and we have to live with it. Just don't think the locals in New York love Times Square or locals in London love Trafalgar.........because they don't. Just let it go.....

And, as Bingham said, this is NOT Universal City development, where I have to drive UP A SECLUDED HILL in order to get to entertainment. I can walk, bike or take Metro rail to LA Live! (yes, there is a Metro Red Line station in Universal City...but you try walking up the HILL without using a tram).

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^Exactly, the biggest difference between LA Live and City Walk is that LA Live is right in the city and City Walk is sooo far removed from everything. LA Live has exterior facing restaurants (ESPN Zone, New Zealand Ice Cream, Lawrys, Beverly Hills Farm, Rosa Mexicano, Yardhouse, etc.), and City Walk is completely internalized and has no possibility of connecting into the urban grid because there is none around it.

All those parking lots around LA Live, when they get built up with mixed-use projects with street facing retail spaces, will connect LA Live/Staples Center/LACC to the rest of Downtown LA.

[milquetoast]

Geez, I completely forgot about the former glory of LA Central!

The rate at which these surrender monkeys at the City are going LA Central will end up being a hybrid two story Home Depot with an LA Fitness center on top.

.

The difference between LA LIVE and these other, smaller, "organic" meeting places is that LA LIVE was built exclusively for the entertainment world. Try holding American Idol or The Grammys at Washington Square Park or wherever... LA LIVE is meant for shownight only, unless I'm misunderstanding its intent.

.

The current half assed incarnation of Metropolis should be shelved by a leadership that doesn't settle.

.

Also, I almost too scared to open my eyes on the refined sketches of this Farmers Field project which, like Disney Hall, is a little on the small side!

.

And, on outdoor congregation projects like Pershing Square and the new crap over at the County property:

Isn't it, again, ironic that the east coast cities concentrate on grass and shade trees for its inhabitants while this City, (which grows anything in superior weather) is designing and building more with concrete?

[pesto]

Originally Posted by UrbanJungle

Well, that goes back to the point I was making - high-rise does not pencil today, so a City should allow a major piece of dirt sit fallow for years until such time as it may make sense to develop the density people think it should have? If you want to see high rises and 10 stories of affordable housing, who pays for that? No developer can finance that. Only a city or Redevelopment Agency that's not defunct or stripped of its cash by Jerry Brown can make that work. So guess I'm confused as to what you really want - to bemoan a project that you don't think is dense enough that can actually get built, or let land sit fallow with dreams or high rise erections dancing in your head.

To be kind, your "long-term" view seems awfully short. And are you implying that cities can't mandate affordable housing? It seems to be rather a staple of construction in many cities (SaMo, WeHo, among many others). When a city grants a right to build it is granting a very valuable right in perpetuity and it should negotiate for whatever it thinks it can get with a view to what the city will look like in 20 or 30 years. That's why zoning exists.

Several decades ago, the city zoned this area for high-rise, just as it zones other areas for "single family residential", "light industrial", etc. Just as I would reject a 60 story building or aluminum processing plant in, say, Westwood or Beverly Center, I would need a strong showing of benefit to the city core before accepting a mostly 4 and 12 story building in the CBD. The retail space is a plus (assuming they get tenants other than indoor swapmeets and t-shirt vendors); the hotel and housing is a plus; but the potential for high-rise is probably gone forever. Nothing to get excited about in my view.

And, yes, it is better than a parking lot. But so is Taco Bell.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

Why is your 'counterpoint' to every complaint about building design is to show a google streets pic of an adjacent surface parking lot?

because of the idea that context is important. Cuz dtla still is dominated by parking lots----or certainly the area around LA live & the proposed metropolis proj is. Context also is important when it comes to the fact the hood has struggled to get major investment beyond token or sporadic amounts here & there for yrs & yrs & yrs.

I don't wanna put too much energy into thinking about the design of the metropolis proj cuz I'm not sure it will even be built----which I guess wouldn't be such a bad thing to those who don't like it. I'm also not sure whether the renderings of it are even finalized, or really accurate, or how they might change if the devlpr can't get big box retailers to sign onto the proj, which I have a hunch is very possible.

Originally Posted by alki

Citywatch, come on.....one size does not fit all. Your focus on parking lots is beginning to sound fanatical. I appreciate that you do not like parking lots..........most of us don't. However, to suggest they are the reason why PS or NP are not successful as people draws is really stretching it.

at the same time, alki, I can say that your believing good design---or just design per se----is the answer to what hurts some proj or area also is fanatical. And I don't even disagree with the notion that design is an important part of the whole. but it's only ONE part.

My pointing out all the parking lots also was to emphasize that the hood still doesn't have as much good housing as it could, or as it needs. I wasn't even focusing on those lots being a turn off to ppl who walk around or next to them & therefore won't be as enthusiastic about strolling around the hood in general.

there also are a few public areas in dt that are better designed & more inviting than Pershing Sq, but they aren't necessarily any more popular with ppl. Some have cited the small public space west of the entrance to the Central Library as an example of a nicely arranged space, which it is. But other than customers using the adjoining restaurant, I don't know if lots of ppl have been any more likely to gather----or hang out----around there than elsewhere. I won't point to the friendly looking grand hope park directly west of the Fashion Institute cuz urbanists can say that space isn't heavily used due to it being surrounded by a gate.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

Plus, I missed the rain..........I know.....that's sounds bizarre but its the truth.

actually, I too like rain, or at least wish LA weren't so arid. And sometimes the climate is warmer than I want it to be. then again, the weather along the coastline of LA----from malibu south to Laguna----is among the most comfortable in the world.

However, I was thinking about the new restaurant & lounge that opened recently on top of a bldg next to Pershing Sq. I was wondering how common or unique that particular type of setup is in other cities, esp where there are alot of highrises.

I was thinking how the owner will have a tough time being in the black during all the wks or months when it's wet or too cold. it then suddenly occurred to me that LA doesn't even have a fraction as many days of rain & really cold weather---much less snow---as cities like NY or chicago do. Even SF has enough fog & chilliness to make the idea of an outdoor rooftop restaurant & lounge not an easy sell, or ideal for profitability. So would the concept of the Perch restaurant do well in places that have weather similar to that of Seattle? Possibly. But if making enough $$ will go downward for the owner during times of rain & cold in LA, then it will be even tougher for businesses in cities without a Mediterranean type climate.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by citywatch

actually, I too like rain, or at least wish LA weren't so arid. And sometimes the climate is warmer than I want it to be. then again, the weather along the coastline of LA----from malibu south to Laguna----is among the most comfortable in the world.

However, I was thinking about the new restaurant & lounge that opened recently on top of a bldg next to Pershing Sq. I was wondering how common or unique that particular type of setup is in other cities, esp where there are alot of highrises.

I was thinking how the owner will have a tough time being in the black during all the wks or months when it's wet or too cold. it then suddenly occurred to me that LA doesn't even have a fraction as many days of rain & really cold weather---much less snow---as cities like NY or chicago do. Even SF has enough fog & chilliness to make the idea of an outdoor rooftop restaurant & lounge not an easy sell, or ideal for profitability. So would the concept of the Perch restaurant do well in places that have weather similar to that of Seattle? Possibly. But if making enough $$ will go downward for the owner during times of rain & cold in LA, then it will be even tougher for businesses in cities without a Mediterranean type climate.

Actually NY, SF and other cities have quite a bit of outdoor dining, even in quite chilly conditions. In SF it is usually accompanied by space heaters, sometimes quite a few. The locals in these towns seem to be more willing to accept the mediocre weather than Angelenos.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

Geez, I completely forgot about the former glory of LA Central!

The rate at which these surrender monkeys at the City are going LA Central will end up being a hybrid two story Home Depot with an LA Fitness center on top.

.

The difference between LA LIVE and these other, smaller, "organic" meeting places is that LA LIVE was built exclusively for the entertainment world. Try holding American Idol or The Grammys at Washington Square Park or wherever... LA LIVE is meant for shownight only, unless I'm misunderstanding its intent.

.

The current half assed incarnation of Metropolis should be shelved by a leadership that doesn't settle.

.

Also, I almost too scared to open my eyes on the refined sketches of this Farmers Field project which, like Disney Hall, is a little on the small side!

.

And, on outdoor congregation projects like Pershing Square and the new crap over at the County property:

Isn't it, again, ironic that the east coast cities concentrate on grass and shade trees for its inhabitants while this City, (which grows anything in superior weather) is designing and building more with concrete?

Would you rather have Metropolis look like this?

(circa 1990)


http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/08/awkward_1990_metropolis_rendering_see_las_future_at_ad.php

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by pesto

the hotel and housing is a plus; but the potential for high-rise is probably gone forever.

But as Brig and I pointed out it doesn't really matter in the long run because any unused air rights will just get bought up by other developers to make their projects bigger. In the end it'll be a wash.

[OneMetropolis]

So yeah I goggled street viewed Pershing square, thinking that it wouldn't be as bad as you guys made it out to be, and boy was i wrong. I couldn't tell if i was looking at a park or some kind of walled fortress. I must tell you, that park really sucks. What really sucks is that Park fifth is also dead. Speaking of which, is it truly dead, or does it have a chance of returning? Cause it will really help this park. If not, will another developer get the lot and create some other type of project, or will it be the same design from the initial project with the added bonus of getting the park fixed up? I really liked that building too. P.S. The yellow and purple colors, that seem to be the park's main coloring scheme, comes off as gaudy and tacky, quite hideous.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

Actually NY, SF and other cities have quite a bit of outdoor dining, even in quite chilly conditions. In SF it is usually accompanied by space heaters, sometimes quite a few. The locals in these towns seem to be more willing to accept the mediocre weather than Angelenos.

Are you talking about open air rooftop settings or outdoor street patios?

Lot of outdoor street patio dining is starting to happen in downtown LA. I just saw Coffee Bean now has outdoor dining at 7th/Flower. Also more new outdoor dining opened up at Urbano Pizza at 6th/Hope.

I went to one rooftop bar in NYC, but there was only a patio area that was in the open, where most of the bar, music, dance floor were all inside. Unlike the Standard or Perch which is all basically outdoors with furniture, dance floor and DJ's

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by alki

However, its definitely much smaller than DTLA and as Brigham pointed out a while back does not have the energy or activity of LA. Things move much faster in LA. Change is everywhere. Seattle changes but at a slower pace.

That's why I chose to live in downtown LA. If I wanted a well built-out city with a fantastic urban area, yeah, I would leave LA. But I wanted to be where change was happening. There's nothing more fun for a rail enthusiast and urban hopeful than to see an area experience a culture change.

I moved to downtown LA in 2007. At that time, there was no reasonable restaurant to get a meal in South Park/Financial District outside of Denny's, IHOP or the Pantry. I love seeing how even the smallest opening has made a tremendous change in downtown.

Today, we have a downtown that is full of pedestrians on a Saturday night walking along Spring street or 7th street. We have the LA Live! complex that brings thousands of people from across the southland. All of a sudden, downtown LA is "hip and cool". I can never recall my generation that excited about "hanging out in downtown LA" prior to 2005.

Seattle is a fantastic city and so is Portland, Chicago, SF, New York, Miami, etc... But, to me, nothing excites me like what is happening in downtown LA. Soon, we're going to have the Hotel Clark at 4th/Hill, Courtyard by Marriot near LA Live!, YWCA at Olympic/Grand, new residential developments at City West (across from 1100 Wilshire and another Palmer product), Civic Center Park, City Target and the opening of the Expo Line light rail. This excites me because each project brings more people and eyes into downtown LA.

People find downtown LA to be fun now...compared to just 6 years ago when it was an easy choice to avoid downtown LA and go to Hollywood, Santa Monica, Pasadena or Venice. Things are changing....and I love being part of it!

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by pesto

To be kind, your "long-term" view seems awfully short. And are you implying that cities can't mandate affordable housing? It seems to be rather a staple of construction in many cities (SaMo, WeHo, among many others). When a city grants a right to build it is granting a very valuable right in perpetuity and it should negotiate for whatever it thinks it can get with a view to what the city will look like in 20 or 30 years. That's why zoning exists.

Several decades ago, the city zoned this area for high-rise, just as it zones other areas for "single family residential", "light industrial", etc. Just as I would reject a 60 story building or aluminum processing plant in, say, Westwood or Beverly Center, I would need a strong showing of benefit to the city core before accepting a mostly 4 and 12 story building in the CBD. The retail space is a plus (assuming they get tenants other than indoor swapmeets and t-shirt vendors); the hotel and housing is a plus; but the potential for high-rise is probably gone forever. Nothing to get excited about in my view.

And, yes, it is better than a parking lot. But so is Taco Bell.

Metropolis isn't taco bell... i guess you can say strip mall.. but not taco bell which is just one restaurant while metropolis includes many more things

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

Metropolis isn't taco bell... i guess you can say strip mall.. but not taco bell which is just one restaurant while metropolis includes many more things

So 10-20 story towers are taco bell/strip mall? Talk about drama queens.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I agree bobcat. So I guess the Elleven (13 stories) and Luma (19 stories) towers in South Park are nothing more, collectively, than the strip mall in Tarzana.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

As you all might know i'm a San Diegan who is in deep love with LA, like its not even love its like crazy obsessed stalker love haha...I search downtown la EVERYDAY over the internet, i love learning about her history. what I just started thinkin about is how alive LA will turn out to be once Fig@7th, Metropolis, Civic Park, Regional Connector and Streetcar get built out.

For example, I work in DTSD and everyday even weekdays the streets are full of pedestrians. People either shopping at Horton Plaza(Fig@7th), hanging around a park(Civic Park), going to the Gaslamp Quarter(South Park), restaurants along 5th Ave(7th St), Game at the PetcoPark(Farmers Field), Something at the convention, people waiting to board the trolley(Streetcar and regional connector) which runs in a downtown loop, or just tourist strolling and taking pictures(Me lol). Maybe Los Angeles can learn from San Diego, which was really dead 20 years ago... today it is a city that completely revitalized its downtown area.

Then again DTSD is way smaller than DTLA.. so maybe thats why it happens so fast. I'm also not trying to start a city vs city thingy, i just wanted to point out that the Los Angeles developments that are planned will have a major effect on the city, you have people who don't think so, but I'm very confident that it'll bring A LOT of people into DTLA. Just like what the SD developments did, which resulted in a big residential high rise boom due to all the projects that came up.

[sopas ej]

I know this is off topic, but this is what the roof of the Pacific Electric Building used to look like, back in 1910, when the Jonathan Club occupied the top floors:


LAPL

A postcard from 1909:

ebay

Now it looks like, uh, this. All cluttered and shit.

Photo credit, Floyd B. Bariscale

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I know this is off topic, but this is what the roof of the Pacific Electric Building used to look like, back in 1910, when the Jonathan Club occupied the top floors:


LAPL

A postcard from 1909:

ebay

Now it looks like, uh, this. All cluttered and shit.

Photo credit, Floyd B. Bariscale

WOW! That looks so gorgeous!! =] damn that would be beautiful if it was still like that today ^.^