HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1881  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2011, 12:27 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
A couple of comments.

I suggested above that the new study from MTA could be used as a double edged sword, but I had no idea how quickly it would be used. Curbed is already reporting comments like the new study will effect all future subways, high-rise and other projects on the westside; that new zoning and regulations are needed; and that there is now proof of faults extending through Century City and BH almost to Sunset and all along SM Blvd. A loaded gun handed to every NIMBY in west LA.

I am a huge supporter of Purple. My point has always been that MTA is making a disastrous strategic decision, not that I don't want a subway. But, in all honesty, a number of other posters seem to be much more interested in dumping on BH (often in obscene ways) than in getting Purple to the sea.

A basic rule of closing complex deals: focus on what is essential and let the rest go (especially personal grudges). You never get everything; make sure you get what is essential. What is essential for MTA is to get a subway built to the sea. What is not essential is which stop in BH to go to. This is somewhere between irrelevant and mildly important. But you don't risk the essentail for the non-essential.

For whatever reason, MTA decided to bring in experts to support their location as the only one possible. Does anyone think this made the completion of the Purple more likely than if a year ago they had said that either station in BH was acceptable? After all, MTA was already committed to the BHHS station (it was their second best choice after years of review) so it sounds strange that it is too unsafe to build.

Once again, I have minimal interest in which station is chosen. But this is truly a study in mis-handling. Let's hope it doesn't slow Purple or anything else.
Pesto, its very important which station is picked because ridership is key to this line, future lines and development. Also, were not talking about a station in BH , were talking about a station in Century City. thats whats so infuriating. The line will be 80 feet BELOW BH, yet they are making up lies and trying to stop it for no good reason. ALL credible experts have said that the station should be on Constellation and not next to a damn golf course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1882  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2011, 1:29 AM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 761
Agreed with LASF

Pesto, maybe it was a typo, but I think you mean Century City station and not BHHS station.

Beverly Hills is in FULL support of both the Wilshire/La Cienega and Wilshire/Rodeo stations to be placed in their city. They even had a resolution to officially support these stations after some crazy Rodeo merchants were pulling the "NIMBY" card. So those stations are a moot point as Los Angeles and Beverly Hills is fully supporting those stations. It's the direction of the subway that has Beverly Hills on the offensive. Everybody is agreeing to a Century City station (even BH acknowledges that Century City needs a station), its just the placement of the station.

And, Metro has to listen to people outside of just Beverly Hills to support the project. All of Los Angeles is asking for Constellation versus Beverly Hills wanting SM boulevard. But Beverly Hills is using the pity arguement and saying "those big bad developers are pushing Constellation on the little people", which is an absolute false rheoteric they are using to give BHHS sympathy. That's what is riling the rest of us to pile bad language on BHHS. It's the false emotions that upset us. So far, the LA Weekly has bought their arguement, but luckily, nobody else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1883  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2011, 4:04 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim View Post
Agreed with LASF

Pesto, maybe it was a typo, but I think you mean Century City station and not BHHS station.

Beverly Hills is in FULL support of both the Wilshire/La Cienega and Wilshire/Rodeo stations to be placed in their city. They even had a resolution to officially support these stations after some crazy Rodeo merchants were pulling the "NIMBY" card. So those stations are a moot point as Los Angeles and Beverly Hills is fully supporting those stations. It's the direction of the subway that has Beverly Hills on the offensive. Everybody is agreeing to a Century City station (even BH acknowledges that Century City needs a station), its just the placement of the station.

And, Metro has to listen to people outside of just Beverly Hills to support the project. All of Los Angeles is asking for Constellation versus Beverly Hills wanting SM boulevard. But Beverly Hills is using the pity arguement and saying "those big bad developers are pushing Constellation on the little people", which is an absolute false rheoteric they are using to give BHHS sympathy. That's what is riling the rest of us to pile bad language on BHHS. It's the false emotions that upset us. So far, the LA Weekly has bought their arguement, but luckily, nobody else.
As far as I can tell no one is pushing hard for one stop or the other in CC other than MTA and BH. The estimates just weren't all that different from each other. If I'm negotiating this deal for a private company I have given BH what they want long ago, have popped the champagne, and am setting up the game-plan for impressing the hell out of the BH people so that SM and WLA will be begging for me to build them a subway.

Instead, we're worrying about whether the Expo II's opponents have new grounds for a safety lawsuit; whether there can EVER be a subway along SM Blvd.; and whether new high-rises in CC, BH or Westwood are now doomed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1884  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2011, 4:07 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeHundred View Post
So that apartment on Wilshire and La Brea is now finally under construction.


http://curbednetwork.com/cache/galle...783e91f7_o.jpg
Here's to 200 hundred more just like it. Or taller, along Wilshire and La Brea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1885  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2011, 5:43 PM
Steve2726's Avatar
Steve2726 Steve2726 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: L.A.
Posts: 482
BLVD 6200 developer stating they will start construction on the North side of Hollywood Blvd (Phase 1) before the end of the year-

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/acc...-add-big-star/

Subscribers only, sorry.

www.blvd6200.com

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1886  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2011, 6:16 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
As far as I can tell no one is pushing hard for one stop or the other in CC other than MTA and BH. The estimates just weren't all that different from each other. If I'm negotiating this deal for a private company I have given BH what they want long ago, have popped the champagne, and am setting up the game-plan for impressing the hell out of the BH people so that SM and WLA will be begging for me to build them a subway.

Instead, we're worrying about whether the Expo II's opponents have new grounds for a safety lawsuit; whether there can EVER be a subway along SM Blvd.; and whether new high-rises in CC, BH or Westwood are now doomed.
No one is pushing hard for CC other than MTA and BH? Constellation has been endorsed by nearly homeowner association in Century City, West LA and Westwood. Constellation has been endorsed by the Century City Chambers of Commerce. If you go to any public forum outside of Roxbury Park, we're all shouting for Constellation. Constellation has more overwhelming majority support than SM Boulevard. To say there is nobody pushing for CC than MTA and BH is being ignorant. Read the news articles, attend meetings outside of Roxbury Park, go to the Metro meetings....Constellation has more overwhelming support. The problem is that Beverly Hills is a significantly loud minority.

Again, if Metro chooses to go with SM Boulevard than they are ignoring the 4 million people in Los Angeles. This is a COUNTY project, not a city project. If you are only reading the BH newspaper and LA Weekly, than you are wrong that nobody else has a vested interested in CC than just MTA and BH. Metro has a duty to listen to everybody, not just Beverly Hills. Heck, if Metro didn't listen to Beverly Hills, then maybe there would be no stations at Wilshire/La Cienega and Wilshire/Rodeo? How's that for listening?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1887  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2011, 11:11 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve2726 View Post
BLVD 6200 developer stating they will start construction on the North side of Hollywood Blvd (Phase 1) before the end of the year-

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/acc...-add-big-star/

Subscribers only, sorry.

www.blvd6200.com

AMEN. long time coming

Pesto, why should metro just give in to BH's irrational requests and set a precedent? its not like it would speed up the construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1888  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2011, 1:28 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Here's to 200 hundred more just like it. Or taller, along Wilshire and La Brea.
And Vermont, Western, Fairfax, La Cienega, Sunset, Santa Monica, Melrose, Beverly, Olympic, Pico, Venice, Crenshaw, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1889  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2011, 3:57 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim View Post
No one is pushing hard for CC other than MTA and BH? Constellation has been endorsed by nearly homeowner association in Century City, West LA and Westwood. Constellation has been endorsed by the Century City Chambers of Commerce. If you go to any public forum outside of Roxbury Park, we're all shouting for Constellation. Constellation has more overwhelming majority support than SM Boulevard. To say there is nobody pushing for CC than MTA and BH is being ignorant. Read the news articles, attend meetings outside of Roxbury Park, go to the Metro meetings....Constellation has more overwhelming support. The problem is that Beverly Hills is a significantly loud minority.

Again, if Metro chooses to go with SM Boulevard than they are ignoring the 4 million people in Los Angeles. This is a COUNTY project, not a city project. If you are only reading the BH newspaper and LA Weekly, than you are wrong that nobody else has a vested interested in CC than just MTA and BH. Metro has a duty to listen to everybody, not just Beverly Hills. Heck, if Metro didn't listen to Beverly Hills, then maybe there would be no stations at Wilshire/La Cienega and Wilshire/Rodeo? How's that for listening?
You're making a mountain out of mole hill; the alternative stops are about 1 block apart. Pretty much all the proposed Purple Stations had alternatives that had their plusses and minuses. Does it REALLY matter if Westwood or Gayley is chosen? Maybe a little to some people (I had my preference). But not essential to anybody and not even worth arguing for most.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1890  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2011, 4:14 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
AMEN. long time coming

Pesto, why should metro just give in to BH's irrational requests and set a precedent? its not like it would speed up the construction.
Because (as I noted) when you are doing a deal, you focus on the essential. Focusing on "total victory of your humiliated opponent at all costs" is just juvenlie. You don't route it in some way that destroys what is essential (moving people quickly from DT to the sea). But the last set of station recommendations has multiple choices at every location, each of which had plusses and minuses. None was critical. In fact, they were put there to elicit community reaction.

Happens every day in the real world. Mr. Rich wants to sell his company for 1B but wants you to continue funding his pet charity: homes for lost Chihuahuas (20k per year). You decide the company is worth 2B and you tell him "yes, sir, Mr. Rich we will fund the 20k and put in another 20k of our own money and a plaque commemorating your generosity to stray animals". Mr. Rich is now your buddy, and other sellers know that you are the kind of guy that does right by them. And you have closed the deal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1891  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2011, 6:10 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,018
Nonsense. You don't negotiate with irrational people, you just dismiss them. Metro doesn't need bhusd's approval. If you wanted to build a fence in your backyard and your neighbo across the street said may me 1 million, would you negotiate with them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1892  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2011, 8:02 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
You're making a mountain out of mole hill; the alternative stops are about 1 block apart. Pretty much all the proposed Purple Stations had alternatives that had their plusses and minuses. Does it REALLY matter if Westwood or Gayley is chosen? Maybe a little to some people (I had my preference). But not essential to anybody and not even worth arguing for most.
In 50 years, when the Purple Line is completed and people are looking back and wondering "why the heck is the Century City station on the edge of Century City and not the center.............darn Metro". Metro will get 100% of the blame and everybody will forget Beverly Hills. It's the same thing that's happening with Aviation station and the Green Line. Nobody thinks about the FTA regulations that prevented a Green Line to LAX, the taxi lobbyists or the parking operaters. Nope. It's 100% Metro's fault. Only Metro and that's it.

So, shouldn't Metro focus on the best possible product for the MAJORITY? The majority wants Constellation, not SM boulevard. Also, in terms of safety, we cannot argue with scientists who know way more than us. You cannot marginalize their intelligence. BH will probably hire a cheap scientist with little name recognition and will go with what the PR company will tell them. But those scientists at BH will have no greater credibility than the one's used by Metro who are reknowned very well in the state of California. But, of course, those scientists will be marginalized just like the one's years ago who proved the climate change theory by using "facts", "figures" and "science".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1893  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2011, 4:33 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
Nonsense. You don't negotiate with irrational people, you just dismiss them. Metro doesn't need bhusd's approval. If you wanted to build a fence in your backyard and your neighbo across the street said may me 1 million, would you negotiate with them?
YES, if he had the power to stop the fence or mess up my other projects or relations with my neighbors. But your analogy is totally disproportionate. The MTA vs. BH is more like he requested that I not use redwood on the portion next to his flowers because the chemicals would leach into the soil. A very minor issue to me and critical to him.

But enough of my opinions; let's see how the MTA strategy plays out. Hopefully, no adverse effects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1894  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2011, 3:27 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,927
Pesto, you'd be surprised how little differences can go a long ways to making a station more successful.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1895  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2011, 5:11 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,927
I'm surprised nobody posted this yet...

Quote:
Plans Released For Giant Wyvernwood Redevelopment

Friday, October 28, 2011, by James Brasuell

Florida-based Fifteen Group recently released the long-awaited draft environmental impact report for the redevelopment of the Wyvernwood Garden Apartments Boyle Heights. The LA Conservancy and area City Councilmember Jose Huizar have both come out against the project in the past since it'll take down more than 1,000 Depression-era apartments. The DEIR proposes a $2 billion redevelopment that, when completed, will include 4,400 residential units, including 1,200 rental units and up to 3,200 condo units.

. . . READ MORE

Source:http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/1...evelopment.php
__________________
Revelation 21:4

Last edited by JDRCRASH; Oct 29, 2011 at 5:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1896  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2011, 5:27 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
I'm surprised nobody posted this yet...




Source:http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/1...evelopment.php
I used to live here. Most of the construction is bottom of the barrel slum style boxes without decoration. I remember in the early '50's my mother and aunt complaining about dilapidated conditions. They have only gotten worse. Trash on the ground. Sidewalks and roads are in terrible condition. Tijuana level.

It's always hard to move and the very size of the place sort of makes it into a community: the old ladies sit outside for decades watching generations of children grow up. But it's also hard to imagine this 'hood ever getting better with acres of these low-grade, unlandscaped boxes in the middle of them.

What is proposed is hardly "gentrification"; more like "slum clearance" and replacement with modest housing with at least a few amenities for safety and recreation. I doubt if anyone really opposes it; they're just hoping for a better deal for residents, the neighborhood, etc. A shame if this is killed or seriously delayed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1897  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2011, 12:22 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
A shame if this is killed or seriously delayed.
Doubt it. I think you're seeing Councilman Huizar begin to retract his criticism. And the developer is pretty confident it'll be accepted among the community. As long as these are at least somewhat affordable for low-income residents, it'll happen.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1898  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2011, 4:52 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
This is actually a very gutsy move for the developer. The area is called Boyle Heights, but it's really just an industrial area south of the heights. Anything this upscale (for that area) is a real vote of confidence for people's desire to live within a mile or two of DT with only a few suburban amenities. Hopefully they will run a shuttle to DT.

Without getting too far into the facts, the idea seems to be to let people continue to stay at their old rents as long as they want, but then go market rate when they move out. They seem to get some preference on the new for-purchase units but that wasn't clear to me.

Over time, I suspect this will be a stimulus for the general area, which is largely auto repair, abandoned buildings or very small sfh's. The old Sears warehouse at Soto is the one place for potential "show-time" redevelopment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1899  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2011, 6:19 PM
Chef Boyardee Chef Boyardee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 90
Emerson college building breaking ground early next year?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1900  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2011, 8:26 PM
colemonkee's Avatar
colemonkee colemonkee is offline
Ridin' into the sunset
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,679
^ That's great news! This is a great looking building.
__________________
"Then each time Fleetwood would be not so much overcome by remorse as bedazzled at having been shown the secret backlands of wealth, and how sooner or later it depended on some act of murder, seldom limited to once."

Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:22 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.