LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[jgacis]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Well to put it in this perspective. The Skyline is the added bonus. The density is the main goal.

8th and grand is so massive that it sits on land large enough to hold 5 towers easily.

Meaning.

if you were to stand it up on its 8th street side, it would be a modest 30-40 story building, with the same amount of units if not more, with room for more towers on the land it currently squats on. That lands density potential has easily been slashed for the next 50-100 years.

Everyone is whining about density and street level activity but are willing to accept a 7 story building that has double the parking of towers (sometimes), takes up the foot print of multiple potential buildings (lost density) and somehow manages to charge the same amount for rent as towers do (thought the whole point of wood frame buildings were to be built cheaper for cheaper rents?). If you were to stand up all of those wood framed buildings on their small footprint sides you would see how much land has been lost from an aerial point of view.

Example. Vibiana lofts. 238 units. Easily sits on land for 2 towers. Stand her up and that's easily 2 buildings with 238 units EACH.

11th and hill, being built behind the Herald Examiner building with 177 units, ITS SO FREAKING LONG. Stand it up and you could easily have 2-3 towers where it squats. 177 + units EACH.

The thing about doing this is, yes, the amount of ground floor retail wouldn't increase, it would stay the same, but with the added density, the businesses will do way better.

Just a different perspective but I get what you're saying.

Some good points there and those extra towers would have obviously altered the skyline. It's really a game of zoning trade-offs and municipal codes that eventually determine the L.A. skyline as well. For example, look back at some of Metropolis' original renderings based on what the land was entitled for. Many of those building have similar heights. Now look at Metropolis with Greenland's four distinct cascading towers. Their heights were deliberately altered as to reflect downtown's centrality starting with the shorter 18-story hotel and tapering up towards the 56-story as it moves up north towards the Financial district. To do this, they had to juggle with a transfer of air rights among its buildings - as shown in DLANC's report. Yes, the pedestrian street experience counts, but as for the example I have shown, it's also a distinction of the developer's signature mark within a dense urban environment - something that often lacks among the 7-story stumpies out there.

[jgacis]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

If your argument is that a certain building isn't using land efficiently, then fine. I have no problems with that whatsoever.

But if the tradeoff is more height/less pedestrian friendly but the same density per land use, then I'm not going to side with that.

For example, Pudong may look nice in Beijing but I would take Tokyo's uninspiring skyline but superb pedestrian experience over it any day. One looks great on a post card, the other is actually great to live and work in.

Ok, fair enough but I do think that your second statement isn't necessarily a trade-off. Why make it an axiom that taller means less pedestrian friendly? It's really about the design of it all and how that design meets the developer's budget and compliance with mandatory regulatory requirements.

I agree with you on Pudong. When I was in Shanghai (2007) the Bund District was where the street life was. I'm sure things there are still changing, especially across the river (Pudong district). And true, the Pearl Oriental Tower does look good on a postcard. Haven't yet been to Tokyo though…

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Makes you wonder huh. Podiums, if done properly and to a lesser extent, can work. I would say our current podiums are massive failures though. Carmel partners for example. Beautiful tower, sitting on a literal and obvious concrete parking garage. Onnis "The Level", although have masked theirs a little better, it still sucks because its clearly sitting on a podium, The Vermont twins, Glass Tower "ten 50" all failed with their podiums plus others.

LAs best "potential" podiums haven't even broken ground yet. 4th and Hill, 4th and Broadway, SB Omega (SCREW YOU BARRY SHY ! I HOPE YOU READ THIS!). Best meaning, parking reduced just so that the podium can be covered and wrapped with residential studios/one bedrooms with these units being rented/sold for a cheaper price. For the untrained eye, most wont even notice behind the residential units is a parking garage.

Level's podium is the standard all others should be held to. And Ten50 hasn't finished their podium yet. I'll wait until I see it to judge it.

[King Kill 'em]

I found out in Seattle there's plans for a tower with 244 units and just 69 spaces. Good for them but it's just crazy to me that in a downtown with worse transit connections than ours, a development can be built with such a low space:unit ratio but can't be here. The best we ever get is slightly over 1:1. Fuck parking requirements! https://twitter.com/rightlegpegged/s...47168157650945

[hughfb3]

In Person, The glass on Carmel's 8th and Olive is stunning. By far, the best glass in downtown. Between this tower and the 10000 Santa Monica blvd tower in Century city, I'm so impressed. I don't know why, but that century city building amazes me every time I see it and 8th/olive is a close 2nd

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

If your argument is that a certain building isn't using land efficiently, then fine. I have no problems with that whatsoever.

But if the tradeoff is more height/less pedestrian friendly but the same density per land use, then I'm not going to side with that.

For example, Pudong may look nice in Beijing but I would take Tokyo's uninspiring skyline but superb pedestrian experience over it any day. One looks great on a post card, the other is actually great to live and work in.

So what you're saying is

"More height = less pedestrian friendly activity"

But how exactly ? If that is the case, you're going to have to explain NYC, Chicago, SF and Seattle where arguably their heaviest pedestrian activity is where their buildings reach the sky.



You cant take Bunker Hill and similar things like it (Pudong, Miami, Dubai, etc.) and say "Well that proves that tall buildings kill street level activity". That's not the case. Each one is a result of horrible urban OVER planning and is the result when you give developers free range. Not surprisingly, it seems like all cities are working to fix this 80s-90s era problem. Including our own Bunker Hill but at a snails pace as always.

[Valyrian Steel]

Metro Station update by Sterling Davis.


Metro 2nd Pl/Hope St Station by Sterling Davis, on Flickr

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

Level's podium is the standard all others should be held to. And Ten50 hasn't finished their podium yet. I'll wait until I see it to judge it.

I agree. I will also have to say that Levels podium is the lowest in standards that podiums should be held to.

My beef with podiums is that I wish we didn't see them at all. Having them hidden with residential units, even if it means losing a few parking spaces, is always the way to go.

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by caligrad

I agree. I will also have to say that Levels podium is the lowest in standards that podiums should be held to.

My beef with podiums is that I wish we didn't see them at all. Having them hidden with residential units, even if it means losing a few parking spaces, is always the way to go.

Podiums wouldn't be a problem if they covered them completely in glass and had retail around the entire streetside. I'm all for covering them in residential units like 4th & Broadway but the alternative i'd be ok with is glass.

[blackcat23]

http://urbanize.la/post/second-apex-...und-south-park

Holland Partner Group has made it official, construction starting today!

[King Kill 'em]

The metro station is farther along than I thought.

[Steve8263]

Hate to bring it back up, but here's the original design for the podium that was planned for the Watermarke tower. That block would have been really be great with the new Apex II starting instead of the complete eyesore that exists now.

[ConstructDTLA]

Originally Posted by Steve8263

Hate to bring it back up, but here's the original design for the podium that was planned for the Watermarke tower. That block would have been really be great with the new Apex II starting instead of the complete eyesore that exists now.

And heres my image of it today (well Jan 26th 2015)

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

a small investment to improve the building and further justify the $4.50 a sq they charge for rent wouldnt kill them. Come on damn it!

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by caligrad

So what you're saying is

"More height = less pedestrian friendly activity"

No, go back and re-read my post.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

a small investment to improve the building and further justify the $4.50 a sq they charge for rent wouldnt kill them. Come on damn it!

Agreed. It's always looked incomplete without some kind of cladding.

[SimonLA]

Originally Posted by LAsam

Agreed. It's always looked incomplete without some kind of cladding.

If they're as cheap as we expect, couldn't they just plant some vines or greenery (maybe that's more expensive with upkeep??)

[Eightball]

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/07/1...st-full-month/

We’ve been getting a lot of requests for Expo Line ridership numbers since the extension from Culver City to Santa Monica opened on May 20. The gist of it: average weekday boardings increased from 29,047 in April to 45,876 in June, the first full month of service between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica. See the above chart.

...

[headcheckjj]

8th & Spring Tower (755 S. Spring) -- July 9th -- The Pour

Was able to watch and record a bit of the pour on Saturday.

• Video Link

• Video Link

[Quixote]

I'm sorry, but I still can't get over what we could've had at 9th/Flower instead. Apex II will definitely class up the block and help distract from the ugliness that is the Watermarke, but it still hurts. This isn't a 7-story wood-framed shitbox we're talking about; those are far easier to knock down.