PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

LosAngelesBeauty
Oct 26, 2010, 7:50 PM
If you read the preliminary analysis I posted for the Crenshaw - Wilshire LRT plan, you'd notice that Metro is already planning to go underground north of Exposition on the Crenshaw Line. The only place where at-grade could work north of Exposition is the San Vicente Pico blvd to Wilshire blvd segment. Also, Metro noted that West Hollywood deserves "underground light rail transit". Metro did not say they are going on surface.

If Metro were to go north on Fairfax or La Brea (which I seriously doubt, I think the San Vicente - La Cienega route will be the winner), it would be fully underground. Otherwise, with San Vicente - La Cienega expect it to be underground starting south of Wilshire blvd all the way to Hollywood/Highland.

It should then follow the original Pink Line route down Santa Monica Blvd.

Sodha
Oct 26, 2010, 11:00 PM
It should then follow the original Pink Line route down Santa Monica Blvd.

It most likely will. With a connection to the Purple Line at either Fairfax or La Cienega. The good thing with the elimination of the Pink Line from further consideration for the westside subway extension, is that the La Cienega station will now be built between La Cienega and San Vicente. Previously, it was going to be west of La Cienega for a connection structure, however, that's further away from the businesses clustered at La Cienega.

Personally, I would rather see this train go north on Fairfax to connect with Museum Row, CBS, Melrose, and West Hollywood. Then, divert east via Santa Monica boulevard (a station at La Brea/Santa Monica) and connect with Hollywood/Highland. If we go to La Cienega, we connect with the Beverly Center and Ceders Sinai. Either Fairfax or La Cienega makes sense. La Brea will be a cheap cop-out for the westside.

LosAngelesBeauty
Oct 27, 2010, 8:59 AM
It most likely will. With a connection to the Purple Line at either Fairfax or La Cienega. The good thing with the elimination of the Pink Line from further consideration for the westside subway extension, is that the La Cienega station will now be built between La Cienega and San Vicente. Previously, it was going to be west of La Cienega for a connection structure, however, that's further away from the businesses clustered at La Cienega.

Personally, I would rather see this train go north on Fairfax to connect with Museum Row, CBS, Melrose, and West Hollywood. Then, divert east via Santa Monica boulevard (a station at La Brea/Santa Monica) and connect with Hollywood/Highland. If we go to La Cienega, we connect with the Beverly Center and Ceders Sinai. Either Fairfax or La Cienega makes sense. La Brea will be a cheap cop-out for the westside.

Yeah I really like the idea of the Crenshaw Line going up Fairfax because of the Farmers' Market/The Grove/CBS, and Melrose.

However, I feel like so much of West Hollywood would not be served where the bulk of activity happens on Santa Monica Blvd. between Robertson and La Cienega (even a bit east of La Cienega actually to Crescent Heights).

Ideally, I'd like both served, but I'm currently leaning toward Cedars/Beverly Center route up La Cienega...

LosAngelesBeauty
Nov 8, 2010, 9:29 PM
I shot this video in Manhattan last week and thought it might be something we could discuss since there is such a lack of good urban parks in LA, and especially the recent interest from the community to revitalize Pershing Square in DTLA.

I think the fundamental concepts seen here could be applied to just about anywhere:


lRAiUqyXxlo

pesto
Nov 9, 2010, 6:34 PM
The problem with Pershing Sq. is not the park: it has tables, sitting areas, grass, open space, statues, art work.

The problem is the people. What it does not have is shoppers, business people having lunch, strollers, people walking through. They don't go there because the park is full of homeless people who make their "right" to be there evident to anyone passing through. Oh, and there are the security guards, who look like they are afraid of the derelicts.

Don't know why, but in NY the homeless don't hang-out in mid-town, SoHo and other trendy areas. Anyone know why?

Steve2726
Nov 9, 2010, 8:09 PM
Don't know why, but in NY the homeless don't hang-out in mid-town, SoHo and other trendy areas. Anyone know why?

Because (unlike downtown LA) those neighborhoods don't have an entrenched, pro-homeless "support" system that relies on a steady stream of down and out people for maintaining their jobs. If you remove the homeless agencies, they go elsewhere.

/Flame suit on.

Sodha
Nov 9, 2010, 8:31 PM
The problem with Pershing Sq. is not the park: it has tables, sitting areas, grass, open space, statues, art work.

The problem is the people. What it does not have is shoppers, business people having lunch, strollers, people walking through. They don't go there because the park is full of homeless people who make their "right" to be there evident to anyone passing through. Oh, and there are the security guards, who look like they are afraid of the derelicts.

Don't know why, but in NY the homeless don't hang-out in mid-town, SoHo and other trendy areas. Anyone know why?

Because it's not freezing temperatures at night?

LA has the largest homeless population in the US..and that won't change. Watch the South Park episode about homelessness and you'll know why (short story: we have better weather and you can actually live on the streets here without dying from extreme humidity or extreme coldness).

The problem is not the people. There's homeless people in Santa Monica parks, but you don't see people running away. The problem is the park itself. It's full of cement. Put some grass and people will bring their dogs/kids to play and have fun. It will create a social vibe. Look at the LAPD park or the Grand Hope park. We need more grass at Pershing Square.

pesto
Nov 10, 2010, 9:25 PM
Steve: correct. Pass the flame suit; I'll need it too.

Sodha: part credit. But you don't explain why they are in DT and not in, say, BH, Glendale, or 50 other plaes with equally good weather. Also, NY has a much larger homeless community; they just aren't in the neighborhoods I mentioned. They are other places.

In any event, there is grass in Pershing Sq. Unfortunately it is covered with homeless people with an attitude of "we belong here and you're not welcome".

Muji
Nov 10, 2010, 10:01 PM
Although Pershing Square does have a decent amount of grass, it's pretty awkwardly placed in a way that doesn't quite encourage lounging about, since it's in the center of the park and feels somehow too exposed.

Also I'm not so sure if homeless people feel welcome in Pershing Square - their presence there is definitely exaggerated here. I've witnessed homeless people being forced out of the park on a few occasions.

LosAngelesBeauty
Nov 10, 2010, 11:15 PM
I think it's pretty clear that the issue with Pershing Square is twofold:

1) The area directly surrounding the park sucks big time ass (it's the EXACT opposite of what surrounds Union Square in SF, meaning: SF Union Square = :) and LA Pershing Square = :yuck: )

2) The park is so poorly designed, it wouldn't work even if it was thriving and wonderful all around it. If you watch my video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRAiUqyXxlo) about what makes a park successful, part of the reason I think makes it work is when people can traverse through the park easily and conveniently in a normal pedestrian-oriented environment, meaning access into the park must be increased, take down those walls, reconfigure those underground parking entrances/exits, and get rid of the grotesque LA Lakers purple and yellow bullshit color theme! Then, out of the many who are just traversing through casually, some may STOP in casually/non-chalantly to take in some sun and respite, etc. Watch my video and you'll see what I mean.

Urban maturity entails effortless functionality. If the area works, it'll work. Currently, the area surrounding Pershing Square doesn't work (can we relocate the damn Jewelry District south of 7th Street yet?).

In conclusion, Pershing Square sucks because the area around it sucks and the park itself sucks, period.

Kingofthehill
Nov 11, 2010, 12:30 AM
came across this mega-LAUSD school in a super sketchy part of south la (hoover/60th):

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5165600382_2e21a1fdc7_b.jpg

SD_Phil
Nov 11, 2010, 1:50 AM
^Never heard of it. Any other information on it? Looks, as you say, HUGE.

Kingofthehill
Nov 11, 2010, 2:23 AM
Hmm, looks like a good four city blocks were demolished to make way for its construction (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Los+Angeles,+California&ll=33.987224,-118.287579&spn=0.002962,0.006539&t=h&z=18). Kind of sad, as rather surprisingly, South LA is LA's Craftsman homeland; intact block after block of beautiful Craftsman houses, that could all use a bit of TLC. Also, here's a render (http://www.brainspaces.com/PRES/lausd-sohs3_graphics-web.pdf). Lastly, a bit of information (http://archrecord.construction.com/schools/0701_CH1_southLA.asp) on how it was designed, and how it will alleviate nearby high schools. Can't say that I'll know when I'll be in the area again for "updates," but I hope that helped answer some of your questions!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1205/5160849757_40d69d5993_b.jpg

SD_Phil
Nov 11, 2010, 2:35 AM
Thanks for the info. The only odd thing is that all the renders in the pdf you supplied are for clusters of buildings all four storeys tall or less. The pic above looks to have more floors than that?

dktshb
Nov 11, 2010, 3:18 AM
Why is there so much talk of Pershing Square in the Los Angeles Metro Non- Downtown thread?

circuitfiend
Nov 11, 2010, 7:47 PM
Cladding is going up on the Red Building at the PDC, Woo-Hoo! :tup:

Steve2726
Nov 11, 2010, 8:51 PM
came across this mega-LAUSD school in a super sketchy part of south la (hoover/60th):


I believe this is it-

http://www.laschools.org/project-status/one-project?project_number=55.98047

http://www.laschools.org/project-status/show-proj-image?project_number=55.98047

More info from the architects here-

http://www.csdarchitects.com/prj_edu_lahs3_nf.html

Sodha
Nov 11, 2010, 8:51 PM
Steve: correct. Pass the flame suit; I'll need it too.

Sodha: part credit. But you don't explain why they are in DT and not in, say, BH, Glendale, or 50 other plaes with equally good weather. Also, NY has a much larger homeless community; they just aren't in the neighborhoods I mentioned. They are other places.

In any event, there is grass in Pershing Sq. Unfortunately it is covered with homeless people with an attitude of "we belong here and you're not welcome".

During the Great White Flight of post WW-II, the suburbs didn't want to house homeless shelters and LA was being abandoned by the thrones. So, all those nice buildings around the old Pacific Electric stations in today's Skid Row bounded by Los Angeles Alameda 7th and 3rd were given new use as abandoned shelters. Cities like Glendale, Pasadena, Diamond Bar, etc.. instead of setting up homeless shelters as required by the County; would give the money to the city of LA. LA, since it had little residents and was getting hogwashed in cash for homeless shelters, used the existing urban buildings as Skid Row. Hence, we have the largest homeless concentration in the US. Now, we have tons of mental services and homeless providers in LA. For every development in LA county, the cities had the option of either creating homeless shelter with x% of the development funds or send it to LA. What do you think they preferred to do?

Recently, the County is now fighing back this law and will be requiring the other LA cities to set up their own homeless shelters thus relieving pressure from downtown LA.

pesto
Nov 12, 2010, 5:16 PM
sodha: all more or less true; we are moving forward. So what are the implications?

1. We should turn downtown Glendale, BH, Century City, etc., into mini-versions of DT LA?

2. We should move all services for the homeless to parts of town that are not as desirable as DT now is? Say, former industrial areas around Vernon.

3. We should cut back on state and county services and stop encouraging the homeless to move to SoCal? (As is, we have a swap going on with Texas: we send them our businesses and professionals and they send their unemployable.)

4. Other ideas?

Sodha
Nov 12, 2010, 5:29 PM
sodha: all more or less true; we are moving forward. So what are the implications?

1. We should turn downtown Glendale, BH, Century City, etc., into mini-versions of DT LA?

2. We should move all services for the homeless to parts of town that are not as desirable as DT now is? Say, former industrial areas around Vernon.

3. We should cut back on state and county services and stop encouraging the homeless to move to SoCal? (As is, we have a swap going on with Texas: we send them our businesses and professionals and they send their unemployable.)

4. Other ideas?

I don't understand why we're even talking about this. Fact is: LA's weather is awesome and homeless people can live here without worrying about extreme conditions. Fact: there are more homeless shelters in world-class urban areas (Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, London, Paris, etc...) than in second tier cities (Glendale, Scottsdale, AZ, Austin, TX, Orlando, FL)...so I don't see why you keep comparing LA to 2nd tier cities. Have you ever been to European cities? There's tons of homeless people..usually bumming around the main train stations to get the tourists. This is not a LA thing........it's a human thing around the world.

A's to your Q's

1. Each suburb should set up their own homeless shelters. Yes. LA's will still be the biggest just due to sheer population and density factors. That won't go away.

2. What if Vernon becomes the next "loft explosion" like downtown LA? No. These things like homeless shelters should be in the central city. It's normal to be in the downtown area so that people can have relatively easy access. Just as same as other world-class cities like NY, Chicago, SF, etc...

3. I don't know how you stop encouraging homeless to move to LA. We have probably the best facilities nationwide (you may dispute this but you don't know the truth about other facilities and neither do I...but having the largest homeless population center means something), nice weather, and in a central area. Nothing will stop. Do you want to push to ban on homeless services? Talk to your elected representatives.

4. (see first paragraph)

pesto
Nov 17, 2010, 6:29 PM
Nowhere in Europe or the US has homeless in the concentration that DT LA has. NY probably has more in total but much more scattered.

So why did SoHo go from full of derelicts to zero derelicts? The answer is support services and some "encouragement" from authorities. When an area is in high demand, there is no reason to keep govt. subsidized services there (e.g., welfare hotels on Main and Spring; missions on San Pedro, 4th, etc.). They should move to truly low demand abandoned areas. The specific location is not critical; but any of dozens of abandoned warehouse areas would make sense economically. btw, much of Vernon and adjacent LA is NOT going to have a gentrification boom soon.

It would also be a good time to introduce the new accountability and "permanent supportive services" that the administration is pushing. Save money, improve care and free up DT for businesses and families near where they work.

LAsam
Nov 17, 2010, 6:38 PM
Nowhere in Europe or the US has homeless in the concentration that DT LA has.

Apparently you've never visited downtown Cleveland. Usually tough to defend an absolute statement like the one you just made.

BrandonJXN
Nov 17, 2010, 9:47 PM
I thought this project was dead but I'm so happy that it's going ahead.

From Curbed:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2155/2100708141_94f1c7cd25_o.jpg

Barring any lawsuits, New York-based Clarett Group is looking to break ground on its Blvd6200 project this January, Benjamin Reznik, lobbyist for the developer said yesterday following a city hearing regarding the apartment and retail complex. Clarett recently filed building permits with the city for its six-story, Van Tilburg, Banvard & Soderbergh-designed project, which will bring 1,014 new apartment units, and 175,000 square feet of commercial-retail space, to both sides of Hollywood Boulevard, between Argyle and El Centro Avenues. But is there a wrinkle to this Hollywood story? Naturally. The filing of building permits--the building was approved by the city years ago and has been delayed due to the economy --kicked up an appeal by homeowner Margarita Allen. Represented by well-known land use attorney Robert Silverstein, Allen's appeal questions the haul route of the construction trucks.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Nov 17, 2010, 11:21 PM
ya very unexpected good news! i was just in Hollywood the other night and the Vine, Cahuenga, Hollywood, Sunset area is just so vastly improved over the last 5 years. this project will make a big impact by removing so much blight and surface parking.

LosAngelesBeauty
Nov 18, 2010, 1:00 AM
I think BLVD6200 will be the final missing piece of the puzzle that makes Hollywood a mature urban center.

Although new projects that will come online will only make Hollywood better, BLVD6200 is absolutely necessary because it will expand the walkable areas next to the Hollywood/Vine station so that people can walk to the east instead of having to walk always to the west of Hollywood Blvd.

Plus, this project will finally make that theater at Hollywood/Gower relevant again. What was once "invisible" will be another great addition to a maturing urban LA.

Oh, and there was another tower proposed at the corner of Hollywood/Gower a few years ago (right next to the theater), which will probably have a better chance getting financed if BLVD6200 is built.

Up next:

Please start taking out the ugly car dealerships east of Gower along Hollywood Blvd please!

Kingofthehill
Nov 18, 2010, 2:27 AM
Hollywood east of Vine (and, really, anywhere south of Sunset; dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, and utterly underwhelming both in terms of amenities and development) needs serious help. With all of its car dealerships and small-scale Armenian businesses, the difference between it and the W Hotel/Condos - which looms over it - is striking. That area is perfect for infill, given existing transit connections and easy access to the "rest" of Hollywood (and, in fact, there have been several good-sized 4-6 story residential buildings that have recently gone up).

LosAngelesSportsFan
Nov 18, 2010, 3:23 AM
I think its only a matter of time before the area between Vine and Western is developed. I think the development will be faster on Sunset in that stretch but i definitely think its goona happen. Weve seen many proposals for those blocks.

colemonkee
Nov 18, 2010, 4:27 AM
Renders of the Cedars-Sinai Advanced Health Sciences Pavilion, now under construction across the street from the Beverly Center. This fills in the previous parking lot west of San Vicente and south of Gracie Allen Drive.

This project is under full construction and above ground at the moment. Alas, I don't have pictures, but have driven by recently.

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1221/photo1007.jpg

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2074/photo1003.jpg

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/8606/photo1004k.jpg

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/6497/photo1005.jpg

All Images Courtesy DiscoveringForLife.org (http://www.discoveringforlife.org/page.aspx?pid=644)

Muji
Nov 18, 2010, 4:33 AM
Some small new developments in Koreatown. A shopping center called the Galleria Market is shaping up at 5th and Vermont and replacing a Chevy dealership.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/bruab/c6cb4259.jpg

Signs also went up a few days ago for a Staples on the first floor of The Summit condominiums at 6th and New Hampshire. Not really a big deal, but it'll add a little more activity to 6th Street and nearby Vermont Avenue.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/bruab/8b7e4a24.jpg

(sorry if the pictures are enormous. Photobucket can be slow to resize things)

pesto
Nov 18, 2010, 6:09 PM
hard to tell Cedars from the Ritz: it must be a 5-star hospital.

Blvd6200 is important. The club and bar scene is cyclical, but residential and retail are more stable. btw, isn't there room for plain old live music (blues, rock) bars with low or no cover, maybe on Selma? I see them in SF, SJ, Oakland. Are rents too high?

Ktown is improving and spreading. There are Korean signs south of the 10 on Western and adjacent streets. When I started charting this (informally) 15 years ago, Pico was about the limit. I'm guessing South Park, USC and West Lake are foregone conclusions.

colemonkee
Nov 18, 2010, 7:58 PM
Some disappointing, but not necessarily unexpected, news from Curbed LA (http://la.curbed.com):

HOLLYWOOD: No spaghetti special for you. Following news that a notice of default was filed earlier this year on the Sunset and Gordon corner in Hollywood, site of a planned Gerding Edlen project, the lender has taken back the parcel, according to a well-placed tipster. A rep for Seattle-based Washington Holdings didn't return a phone call, so we can only guess what will happen to this corner, which once held an Old Spaghetti Factory restaurant. [Curbed Staff]

Kingofthehill
Nov 19, 2010, 6:50 AM
West LA infill:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4129/5188587621_33543ba91a_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1037/5189190054_df7484d3f7_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1265/5188586027_279c15c0ea_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1009/5189192856_757ae9f4d3_b.jpg

unfortunate..is this a dingbat update, though?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/5188590453_719c521475_b.jpg

pesto
Nov 19, 2010, 6:32 PM
The last picture is so bad it almost looks like a cutting-edge architectural school project. Or a self-build in a poor African suburb.

I can never decide whether the mash-up of styles in LA is a good thing or bad. I guess where there is no predominant historical style in the neighborhood, it's best to go with new trends and what is in demand.

Kingofthehill
Nov 19, 2010, 6:53 PM
LA's Mid-Century Modern, Art-Deco, California Craftsman, 1920's Colonial Revival Styles (i.e, Spanish, Mission, Mediterranean, Country English, Neo-Tutor, et al) and increasingly, Contemporary architecture, are all, for the most part, good. The city is big enough where different neighborhoods can take on a unique architectural identities. IMO, it is a good thing, and is one of our strengths. Also, I feel that LA's low-slung bungalow and dingbat/MCM aesthetic will become increasingly coveted, and will eventually be romanticized by the rest of America.

West LA, on the other hand, since there was never any real historic architecture (unless one counts post-WW2 tract/ranch homes and GI housing) to begin with...

LAsam
Nov 19, 2010, 9:18 PM
West LA, on the other hand, since there was never any real historic architecture (unless one counts post-WW2 tract/ranch homes and GI housing) to begin with...

Hey now... Uni High ain't half bad.

Kingofthehill
Nov 19, 2010, 9:30 PM
No, not at all (neither is Venice's - I love Art-Deco High Schools, with Anaheim's being a personal favorite); it's just that such buildings are all too much of a rarity in that part of town. West LA does, however, have the best Dingbats!

pesto
Nov 20, 2010, 7:15 PM
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/11/wilshire_gayley_likely_a_hotel_looks_to_break.php

Looks like the Gayley hotel is back on. Nice looks and a great location, literally at the Westwood Purple Line stop if the Gayley location is chosen (1 block otherwise). The half-done extended stay hotel is about 2 blocks away at Lindbrook. I would think this MTA stop and the VA stop are going to be huge.

Aqua and Purple to the sea and 405 upgrading are getting more and more needed.

BrandonJXN
Nov 21, 2010, 1:40 AM
I'm liking this trend of projects coming back from the dead.

JDRCRASH
Nov 21, 2010, 5:19 AM
I'm liking this trend of projects coming back from the dead.

The real cool thing about it is that these projects can still go through the approval process, so that when the economy DOES recover, they'll be much more ready to break ground.

sopas ej
Nov 21, 2010, 8:22 PM
hard to tell Cedars from the Ritz: it must be a 5-star hospital.

Oh it is. I spent some time in their ER. Very upscale and classy.

StethJeff
Nov 22, 2010, 7:54 AM
I'm liking this trend of projects coming back from the dead.

Not only that, but it seems that it's some of the better projects that are going through this rebirth. Terrific news.

pesto
Nov 22, 2010, 6:51 PM
Oh it is. I spent some time in their ER. Very upscale and classy.

Oddly, so have I. Woman I was with tore ligaments dancing at a dive bar. Great place to go at 2:00 on Sunday; absolutely deserted and the staff is classy.

LosAngelesBeauty
Nov 23, 2010, 12:55 AM
Great to see that the Cedars project will fill in such a void in back of the Beverly Center on San Vicente.

What will help out EVEN MORE is the Caruso (or was it Casden?) Trader Joes project on that island between the SLS Hotel and Loehmanns.

Hopefully once these projects are completed, City of LA will have the leadership to put some green space along La Cienega, which is currently a freakin' highway in the middle of the city without any human scale to it.

sopas ej
Nov 23, 2010, 2:14 AM
Oddly, so have I. Woman I was with tore ligaments dancing at a dive bar. Great place to go at 2:00 on Sunday; absolutely deserted and the staff is classy.

I'll message you privately as to why I was there. ;)

And funny, I was also there on a Sunday past 2am.

pesto
Nov 23, 2010, 6:18 PM
Great to see that the Cedars project will fill in such a void in back of the Beverly Center on San Vicente.

What will help out EVEN MORE is the Caruso (or was it Casden?) Trader Joes project on that island between the SLS Hotel and Loehmanns.

Hopefully once these projects are completed, City of LA will have the leadership to put some green space along La Cienega, which is currently a freakin' highway in the middle of the city without any human scale to it.

I had forgotten about that project. Is it still alive?

Traffic is so bad in that part of town that I hate to see it slowed on San Vicente or La Cienega. But you are certainly right that that area could someday be not just walkable but part of an extended and beautiful urban zone, and to get there requires some moderation of traffic on those streets.

One of the many reasons I was a strong supporter of the "Pink" Line.

Sodha
Nov 23, 2010, 8:21 PM
I had forgotten about that project. Is it still alive?

Traffic is so bad in that part of town that I hate to see it slowed on San Vicente or La Cienega. But you are certainly right that that area could someday be not just walkable but part of an extended and beautiful urban zone, and to get there requires some moderation of traffic on those streets.

One of the many reasons I was a strong supporter of the "Pink" Line.

What do you think the Pink Line would even do to traffic? Nothing. It provides an alternative transit method and allows for increased development. Thus, this is a great development/urban/walkable project we need to fill in the gap.

pesto
Nov 23, 2010, 11:15 PM
Transit makes traffic better. Somehow we have lost sight of this. It doesn't make it better in that place than iti is today, perhaps, but better than it would be if development continues without transit.

Bad as London, NY, etc., are, they would be worse without subways. And the development that coudn't go there due to congestion would go somewhere else and makes traffic worse there.

The key is to pick the places where it is truly needed (supports the relief of current congestion or mitigates expected congestion where it is likely to happen). Pink would do both.

And practically speaking, I doubt if you could get buy-in from WeHo, BH and LA residents to slow traffic on those streets without a quid pro quo.

Sodha
Nov 24, 2010, 12:39 AM
Bad as London, NY, etc., are, they would be worse without subways. And the development that coudn't go there due to congestion would go somewhere else and makes traffic worse there.

The key is to pick the places where it is truly needed (supports the relief of current congestion or mitigates expected congestion where it is likely to happen). Pink would do both.

And practically speaking, I doubt if you could get buy-in from WeHo, BH and LA residents to slow traffic on those streets without a quid pro quo.

London, New York, Paris, etc... would not have the development it has without the subways. It would be built like............Los Angeles. High parking requirements would make a lot of their dense, infill projects impossible.

I want development...and more development. Building places where people can walk to makes more safer neighborhoods (more eyes on the street, cars move slower, etc...).

pesto
Nov 24, 2010, 6:33 PM
London and NY were very dense before subways were built. I'll agree that the subway makes greater density possible but I suspect the demand for building them came from a desire to relieve existing congestion not to increase demand for more development. The demand for development was already there and you need to add subways just as you need to add sewers, power, schools, etc.

But in any event, WeHo and Beverly Center have plenty of demand and there is always going to be the issue of moving surface traffic without disrupting urban life. Currently San Vicente is mostly not a shopping street (hospitals, parks, institutions) so there is relatively less damage from cars. Parts of La Cienega (restaurant row) are not particularly walkable and the rest is probably just going to become like 42nd or other NY streets where pedestrian traffic and vehicles create a lot of congestion.

BrandonJXN
Nov 28, 2010, 3:13 AM
What do you guys think of this?

L.A. Sports Arena Releases Draft Environmental Impact Report
Paresh Dave | November 19, 2010
Executive Producer
Neon Tommy

The Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena could be demolished, yielding to either an amphitheater or a soccer stadium under draft plans released earlier this week to reinvigorate the publicly managed, cash-strapped and deteriorating entertainment venue that has been short on programming.

In an under-the-radar fashion recently typical of the the body that oversees the 15-acre Sports Arena campus near Exposition Park, the L.A. Memorial Coliseum Commission released a 347-page draft environmental impact report for the dueling project options on Monday. It's unclear how the demolition and redevelopment would be funded.

The soccer stadium option is the third vision for a new sports facility in Los Angeles County, following Ed Roski's plan for an NFL stadium in the City of Industry and an AEG proposal also released this week for a $725 million stadium that would be designed to house an NFL team and the World Cup.

The Sports Arena has come under scrutiny during recent weeks because its financial woes may have forced the Coliseum Commission to suprisingly rescind a ban on electronic music festivals, more commonly known as raves, at the facility. The festivals have been one of the few steady streams of revenue for the aging facility, likely bringing in a few hundred thousand dollars annually. The release of the draft environmental impact report officially brings the commission to a crossroads.

As early as January, the nine people who sit on the panel will have to decide to do one of three things: go forward with the soccer stadium idea and mount a challenge to proposals of Roski and AEG; construct an amphitheater and hope people make good use of it; or launch a smaller renovation of the existing facility while watching it sink into a deeper operating deficit.

The amphitheater option would feature an 800-square-foot stage backed by an open half-dome shell and a large grass field flanked by flag poles. Not included in the plans are any fixed seats, video boards or fencing. Concession stands and restrooms "may be provided," the report says. Events that could be held here include Farmer's Markets, rallies, festivals, exercise groups, concerts, neighborhood carnivals and special ceremonies.

A very preliminary concept drawing of what the soccer stadium may look like.The other option envisions a 22,000-seat Major League Soccer stadium, offering some competition to the Home Depot Center in Carson. The stadium plan calls for MLS games, exhibition games and USC soccer games to be played there. At the varsity level, USC only has a women's team. Local teams would be allowed to practice there as well.

The plan mentions no outisde retail or dining components--items that may ultimately be needed for financial viability.

The stadium, which would be oriented the same way as the arena is right now, would also hold concerts and rallies. If USC's team moves into this new stadium, it's current field near Hoover Street and 30th Street would likely become available for USC to develop on.

The seven-story Sports Arena opened 51 years ago amid a nationwide boom in arena construction, providing the region its first new sports venue in about 25 years.

Most of the arena's highlights came in its first few years of existence, hosting boxing, basketball, hockey, the 1960 Democratic National Convention and the 1961 Freedom Rally at which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke.

But professional sports franchises such as the Lakers and Kings quickly moved to other location such as The Forum and Pauley Pavilion. Only the Clippers would come play at the arena from 1984 to 1999.

During the past five years, an event has been held there, on average, only once every six days. Nearly all of the events attracted less than 10,000 people. In comparison, the Staples Center held about four times as many events, according to the website of its owner, AEG.

Most of the environmental impacts mentioned in the report are routine ones that one would expect from a major construction project. Lighting and noise may anger residents living along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. But because the Sports Arena is built in a big ditch, the stadium and amphitheater would also maintain low profiles.

The parking and traffic situation would also change very little because even if the Coliseum and Sports Arena held concurrent events, overall capacity would be limited to about the same level as right now. About 20,000 parking spaces exist throughout Exposition Park and USC, and no additional ones would have to be added.

The report states the Sports Arena needs $8.2 million in upgrades--from new seats to new plumbing and heating systems--within the next five years to keep operating. Each of the past five fiscal years, however, has brought operating losses totaling nearly $4 million. Because the commission doesn't receive any taxpayer subsidies, it doesn't have the cash to pay for those fixes. The document notes that even if improvements were made, the Sports Arena would not be any more competitive with venues such as the 19,000-seat Staples Center.

The arena's present configuration allows it hold about 15,000 people for hockey, boxing and basketball events.

L.A. Coliseum Commission general manager Pat Lynch has not responded to several voicemails left by Neon Tommy during the past two weeks. Members of the Coliseum Commission, including L.A. County supervisors Mark Ridley-Thomas and Zev Yaroslavsky, L.A. City Councilman Bernard Parks and real estate developer Rick Caruso, could not be reached for comment.

The 45-day public comment period on the draft report runs until Dec. 30. It seems wise for public agencies, including the L.A. City Council and the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, to ask for an extension of that comment period since it runs right through two major holiday periods.

Either way, comments should be directed to Coliseum general manager Pat Lynch at 3939 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90037. The report is available online, at the previous address and at the Exposition Park Library. The online PDF is also "secured," so text from the document can't be copied and pasted.

Under a joint agreement between the state, city and county, the Coliseum Commission maintains and operates the Coliseum and Sports Arena. That agreement runs through 2054.

Los Angeles voters thrice rejected measures to publicly finance the construction of a Downtown sports arena. Urged on by County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, the state Legislature eventually jumped in, authorizing in 1958 the sale of $7 million in bonds to build the present arena. Before the Exposition Park project was settled on, there were three competing visions of "world-class" arenas across Los Angeles.

The Coliseum has stood since 1923. The commission has existed since 1945.

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2010/11/la-sports-arena-releases-environmental-impact-report-redevelopment-project

http://www.neontommy.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Screen%20shot%202010-11-19%20at%203.02.32%20AM.png
http://www.neontommy.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Screen%20shot%202010-11-19%20at%202.54.50%20AM.png

I like how the only source of income the Sports Arena generates is whenever it throws a rave. Which would make sense to turn the site into a amphitheater. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a soccer stadium there.

JDRCRASH
Nov 28, 2010, 4:26 AM
Raves might not be around much longer.

DJM19
Nov 28, 2010, 6:13 AM
Raves might not be around much longer.

doubtful. If anything they are more popular than ever.

BrandonJXN
Nov 28, 2010, 5:04 PM
Raves might not be around much longer.

NEGATIVE. I've been going to raves since I was 14. If anything, they are bigger than ever and only are going to get bigger with electronic music becoming more and more mainstream.

I went to Hard Haunted Mansion at the Shrine on Halloween. 24,000 people showed up over the span of 2 days. Both inside of the Shrine and the parking lot right outside.

I even have vids.

My friends and I waiting in line (I'm the negro).
-QQy86teb8Q

Inside of the Shrine...
rhJhDkqZZgU

Walking into Harder stage outside
XifG1pg3UR4

Few hours later....
tkkCe60a9Og

**Bonus**
This crackhead we filmed at the library.
KkYxMVmcvwg

And my friends and I playing with the lights at MetLofts.
dtWwMsygec4

From a personal standpoint, I would choose the amphitheater option for the simple fact that electronic music festivals are huge.

Detroit has DEMF (Detroit Electronic Music Festival).
EClbW7ec2Yg

Miami has the WMC (Winter Music Confrence) which turns the entire city into a giant party.
-ok6GYGhe0A

And all sorts of parties in Europe (Creamfields, Ibiza, Sensation White/Black, Awakenings) which routinely draw hundreds of thousands of people. If a huge music festival like that were to be held in Los Angeles, it would solidify itself as one of the premier music cities. I mean it is already but it'll raise it a few bars. I know that some people would say that 'well raves are a hot bed of drugs and all things untoward' which quite frankly, is nonsense. I mean it's true that people take drugs at these types of events but that's expected. Is it right? No. If you really loved music, you wouldn't have to roll your balls off (taking an extacy pills for those not familiar with the terminology) in order to feel good.

pesto
Nov 29, 2010, 6:06 PM
There are already lots of theaters DT, from the Bway palaces to the Shrine, Patriotic Hall, Nokia, USC, and others in Hollywood as well. What would an amphiteater do for raves that the Coliseum can't? A greater and greater number of specialty stadiums, arenas, etc., doesn't strike me as a good use of money.

SD_Phil
Nov 29, 2010, 6:22 PM
^I'm assuming that the Coliseum is a much larger venue and so would only be able to get really large events? In any case I didn't really like either plan (another stadium wouldn't do much for the area and while I like the idea of an amphitheater I could see it being overrun by homeless and not being as big a revenue generator). The Coliseum Commission really is in a tough spot on this one.

Illithid Dude
Nov 29, 2010, 10:47 PM
Does anybody know what is happening to the two towers in Century City that would go with the hotel? It seemed like the developer had his act together, but I haven't heard anything about them since the revised renders came out.

JDRCRASH
Nov 29, 2010, 11:43 PM
Does anybody know what is happening to the two towers in Century City that would go with the hotel? It seemed like the developer had his act together, but I haven't heard anything about them since the revised renders came out.

You mean the Century Plaza Hotel Twin Towers? I'm not sure where in the approval process it is as of now, but I do know that it has gained more support when the developer recently cut the height of the towers and moved them behind the Century Plaza Hotel rather than tearing it down. It's probably searching for financing.

Illithid Dude
Nov 30, 2010, 12:03 AM
You mean the Century Plaza Hotel Twin Towers? I'm not sure where in the approval process it is as of now, but I do know that it has gained more support when the developer recently cut the height of the towers and moved them behind the Century Plaza Hotel rather than tearing it down. It's probably searching for financing.

They cut the height? Bummer. I knew that they had moved them behind the hotel, but I never thought that the height was an issue for the people of Century City. They do live, after all, in Century City.

StethJeff
Nov 30, 2010, 6:54 AM
What do you guys think of this?


Looks like prime real estate for a space shuttle!

Steve2726
Nov 30, 2010, 2:50 PM
Does anybody know what is happening to the two towers in Century City that would go with the hotel? It seemed like the developer had his act together, but I haven't heard anything about them since the revised renders came out.

In L.A. these things take a very long time- EIR's can last 18 months, lawsuits, etc often stall projects to death. I believe this is the most recent plan-

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/08/revised_century_plaza_plan_see_two_tall_towers_rise.php

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2010.08.towerscentury.jpg

JDRCRASH
Nov 30, 2010, 10:52 PM
^ Another reason why the 12-2 plan (now dead) should've happened.

LAsam
Dec 8, 2010, 9:40 PM
Good news regarding the proposed flatiron style skyscraper at Wilshire & Gayley... it now has city council's blessing.

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2009.06.westwoodtower.jpg

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/12/city_oks_new_wilshire_blvd_tower.php

Illithid Dude
Dec 8, 2010, 10:15 PM
Good news regarding the proposed flatiron style skyscraper at Wilshire & Gayley... it now has city council's blessing.

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2009.06.westwoodtower.jpg

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/12/city_oks_new_wilshire_blvd_tower.php

Hell yeahs. I sort of love this building. This is great.

JDRCRASH
Dec 8, 2010, 11:24 PM
That's one of my favorites in this thread. Good to see it's rolling right along. Although something seems to be missing...maybe a better crown?

BrandonJXN
Dec 9, 2010, 12:00 AM
Lol. What? You want a pastry on it? Or how about a funnel cake?

pesto
Dec 9, 2010, 7:14 PM
No complaints allowed on this one. Nice design, good height, famous architect, at transit, fits neighborhood. It even blocks view of lesser buildings. Traffic is already so bad that I don't even count the slight additional traffic around it as a negative.

RAlossi
Dec 9, 2010, 11:55 PM
Lol. What? You want a pastry on it? Or how about a funnel cake?

Or red neon up the sides. wah wahhhhh. :D

pesto
Dec 10, 2010, 12:24 AM
Maybe a powder blue graphic "UCLA" signature that gradually signs itself.

Or a sign for the Valleyites and South Bay residents on the 405: If you lived here, you would be home.

pesto
Dec 10, 2010, 12:41 AM
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/12/despite_design_concerns_crenshaw_fresh_easy_is_approved.php

Curbed also reported that the city has bought off on a large surface parking lot for Fresh and Easy at Crenshaw and 52nd. Apparently the community was OK with the parking lot except for one small group (who I actually sympathize with, but apparently did not have local popular or political support).

My main point is that Crenshaw is low density, almost entirely single story, and I see no trend away from that. That's why I can't support spending money on the Crenshaw Line.

Crenshaw at Exposition, near the Expo Line, will have roof parking on the Target (last I heard) because that area (and all along the Expo Line, more or less) does support multi-level, transit-oriented use.

BrandonJXN
Dec 10, 2010, 12:50 AM
Or red neon up the sides. wah wahhhhh. :D

My neon stripes kick ass. :hell:

Illithid Dude
Dec 10, 2010, 12:58 AM
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/12/despite_design_concerns_crenshaw_fresh_easy_is_approved.php

Curbed also reported that the city has bought off on a large surface parking lot for Fresh and Easy at Crenshaw and 52nd. Apparently the community was OK with the parking lot except for one small group (who I actually sympathize with, but apparently did not have local popular or political support).

My main point is that Crenshaw is low density, almost entirely single story, and I see no trend away from that. That's why I can't support spending money on the Crenshaw Line.

Crenshaw at Exposition, near the Expo Line, will have roof parking on the Target (last I heard) because that area (and all along the Expo Line, more or less) does support multi-level, transit-oriented use.

I was slightly sickened by that rendering. Everything about that place is exactly what we should be moving away from right now; one story, huge parking, single use, stucco, ugly. Oh, well. I suppose if that place is currently a surface parking lot, having one building is a better option, but still. Ick.

pesto
Dec 10, 2010, 2:34 AM
It did seem a bit 1950's even if 52nd/Crenshaw is suburban in its overall constructed look (wide street, sfh, low-rise). But, it's the locals who should be deciding what they want in their neighborhood, generally speaking.

Illithid Dude
Dec 10, 2010, 3:10 AM
It did seem a bit 1950's even if 52nd/Crenshaw is suburban in its overall constructed look (wide street, sfh, low-rise). But, it's the locals who should be deciding what they want in their neighborhood, generally speaking.

The problem is, the locals are often idiots. For example, all that fuss about the Purple Line going through Beverly Hills. I mean, come on, just get over yourselves and build the damn thing!

JDRCRASH
Dec 10, 2010, 7:02 AM
Lol. What? You want a pastry on it? Or how about a funnel cake?

Some sort of glass crown, maybe? I just think it abruptly stopping with a flat roof, rather than gradually shrinking like The Century tower, is less attractive. I don't know. But that's just me.

DistrictDirt
Dec 10, 2010, 5:22 PM
Some sort of glass crown, maybe? I just think it abruptly stopping with a flat roof, rather than gradually shrinking like The Century tower, is less attractive. I don't know. But that's just me.

Count me in the anti-crown crowd for this one. I love spires and crowns normally, but I don't think this one needs it. Its disctinctiveness comes from its narrow triangular profile, like the flatiron building. It speaks for itself without any additional adornments. Just one pundit's opinion though :)

Illithid Dude
Dec 10, 2010, 5:25 PM
Count me in the anti-crown crowd for this one. I love spires and crowns normally, but I don't think this one needs it. Its disctinctiveness comes from its narrow triangular profile, like the flatiron building. It speaks for itself without any additional adornments. Just one pundit's opinion though :)

A copper peaked roof would be nice. When copper turns green, it looks really pretty, and very nice on a traditional building like this one.

dktshb
Dec 12, 2010, 5:47 PM
It seems like it has taken forever but it looks like Cirque du Soleil's "Iris" is finally coming to the Kodak Theater this coming Summer:

COMING SUMMER 2011

Movies in a whole new light This new production from Cirque du Soleil is a lyrical, fanciful, kinetic foray into the seventh art. Bringing together dance, acrobatics, live video, filmed sequences and animation, the show takes spectators on a fantastic voyage through the history of cinema and its genres, taking them into the heart of the movie-making process. From illustration to...

http://www.kodaktheatre.com/events.htm

dktshb
Dec 12, 2010, 6:02 PM
I am pretty sure the new Rolling Stone Restaurant/Bar has opened or is opening real soom. I suppose I will reluctantly check it out at some point... maybe I will be pleasantly surprised:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/dktshb/RollingStoneRestaurant.jpg

Whoa, here it comes. The behemoth that encompasses Rolling Stone restaurant and lounge at Hollywood & Highland (aka RS/LA), the first-ever licensing of the Rolling Stone name for an American restaurant. While the soft opening isn't scheduled until next month with the official launch happening over Grammy weekend, RS/LA held a pre-soft launch on November 21, hosting the VIP afterparty for the American Music Awards. Up above, a glimpse into the colorful multi-floored space designed by Gavin Brodin of Brodin Design Build (Crown Bar, The Abbey), as one might expect it's chock full of rocker photography that has characterized the musical magazine for decades.

http://la.eater.com/archives/2010/12/08/two_floors_of_fun_at_rolling_stone_restaurant_and_lounge.php#rolling-stone-5

Kingofthehill
Dec 14, 2010, 5:41 PM
Speaking of Westwood, here is some infill I photographed there this past Sunday:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5261364016_52e6558a56_b.jpg

pesto
Dec 14, 2010, 8:53 PM
Rolling Stone should get a boost from the Cirque crowd right next door.

Cirque is almost too much good news for Hollywood to stand. With that and new clubs, bars, etc., that area is going to die from overcrowding on weekends. They have to push the idea of using Red Line from NoHo or from DT; maybe add more trains.

I guess Expo will help also. It would be nice if a single ticket could get you to Hollywood.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Dec 14, 2010, 10:48 PM
Rolling Stone should get a boost from the Cirque crowd right next door.

Cirque is almost too much good news for Hollywood to stand. With that and new clubs, bars, etc., that area is going to die from overcrowding on weekends. They have to push the idea of using Red Line from NoHo or from DT; maybe add more trains.

I guess Expo will help also. It would be nice if a single ticket could get you to Hollywood.

the problem is the trains stop at 12:20. they need to extend the last train to 3:00 am on thursday - saturday nights.

I would use it and i know plenty of others that would too. ive taken the train to hollywood, but paying for a cab home (about $25 back to downtown) is not financially doable every night.

Quixote
Dec 14, 2010, 11:00 PM
^ Why would you even want to go to Hollywood every night anyway, especially when there are much cooler places to hang out in Downtown?

Honestly, the more I visit Hollywood, the more I dislike the place. It gets old VERY quickly.

LosAngelesBeauty
Dec 15, 2010, 12:25 AM
The "Hollywood scene" is what "gets old" quickly related to the night life. However, that's why I am glad that Hollywood is adding other ingredients that make it not only a place for clubbing or drinking.

Names like Space 15-Twenty, Trader Joes, Cirque, Rolling Stones, 24 Hour Fitness, make the area into a place for residents or visitors in addition to clubbers.

I think it's critical for Hollywood to continue making Sunset Blvd. as active as Hollywood Blvd itself since that is the only way there can be a 3-dimensional urban setting that allows people to walk to more places and not just up and down Hollywood Blvd., which I agree can get old pretty quickly.

Anything gets old quickly if the expectation is to be constantly wowed by novelty. Even Manhattan or Las Vegas can get old.

Quixote
Dec 15, 2010, 1:01 AM
^ Eh, it has to do with the people more than anything. No offense, but the people there gross me out. Maybe it's just that I'm used to the friendly and wholesome confines of Pasadena?

LASF, you should definitely come up to Pasadena more often. Screw Hollyweird. :tup:

DJM19
Dec 15, 2010, 1:31 AM
I think the whole train system should run 24 hours on friday and saturday night.

dktshb
Dec 15, 2010, 3:16 AM
The "Hollywood scene" is what "gets old" quickly related to the night life. However, that's why I am glad that Hollywood is adding other ingredients that make it not only a place for clubbing or drinking.

Names like Space 15-Twenty, Trader Joes, Cirque, Rolling Stones, 24 Hour Fitness, make the area into a place for residents or visitors in addition to clubbers.

I think it's critical for Hollywood to continue making Sunset Blvd. as active as Hollywood Blvd itself since that is the only way there can be a 3-dimensional urban setting that allows people to walk to more places and not just up and down Hollywood Blvd., which I agree can get old pretty quickly.

Anything gets old quickly if the expectation is to be constantly wowed by novelty. Even Manhattan or Las Vegas can get old.


Hollywood doesn't get old for the resident fortunate enough to live here and it is a 3-dimentional community, definitely! There is a very large community of walkers here and being one of them once again I am forever grateful that I moved back here rather than choosing a place Downtown. Everything you could possibly need or want is within walking distance for probably about 100,000 people. Certainly tourists stick to walking on Hollywood Blvd but I am hardly ever on Hollywood Blvd unless I need to go to my pharmacy or catch the subway. I suppose I have been to the Pantages and Kodak Theaters a few times too, but other than that I am walking in all sorts of directions away from Hollywood Blvd and finding all the restaurants, shopping centers, parks, retail outlets, theaters, and bars, a person could need... Not to mention the fact that there is also Runyon Canyon, The Hollywood Bowl, Avalon, Palladium, Egyptian Theatre, and the subway and I can't think of a better place to live.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Dec 15, 2010, 8:31 AM
^ Eh, it has to do with the people more than anything. No offense, but the people there gross me out. Maybe it's just that I'm used to the friendly and wholesome confines of Pasadena?

LASF, you should definitely come up to Pasadena more often. Screw Hollyweird. :tup:

oh im in Pasadena all the time, in fact, i just got home from there.

LosAngelesBeauty
Dec 15, 2010, 8:43 AM
No need to sell me on Pasadena obviously! LOL ;)

...which btw I just posted news about the lake and colorado mixed use project on my blog (http://brighamyen.com). It is finally truly approved and moving forward with construction.

pesto
Dec 17, 2010, 5:30 PM
Hollywood vs. Pasadena is interesting. Pasadena went very much the retail route in its development. Hollywood, quite reasonably, went with entertainment.

Pasadena is really a remarkable success, with new housing, main stream shopping, cutesy specialty and designer shops and mid-scale dining filling in every available spot; a couple of small light-rail stops and a small arts district. They were blessed with nice architecture in the old DT, but have managed to presever and reinvigorate it very well. They will try to beef up entertainment but mostly it will be more of the same.

Hollywood has exactly what Pasadena is missing: entertainment: big name, live stage and music, club, etc. But retail is very thin and housing is much denser and urban. I don't see the local housing attracting the same type as Pasadena, which I picture as older, richer and more subdued than what Hollywood is ever likely to attract. I guess you can just say one is an inner city district revitalized; the other is a very large "Old Town".

DistrictDirt
Dec 17, 2010, 10:35 PM
I think it's critical for Hollywood to continue making Sunset Blvd. as active as Hollywood Blvd itself since that is the only way there can be a 3-dimensional urban setting that allows people to walk to more places and not just up and down Hollywood Blvd., which I agree can get old pretty quickly.

That part of Sunset needs a serious road diet and sidewalk widening. Compared to Hollywood Blvd, it feels like more of a freeway. Despite the throngs of tourists, Hollywood Blvd just feels much better to walk down.

Are there any plans to improve Sunset anytime soon?

LosAngelesBeauty
Dec 17, 2010, 11:58 PM
Hollywood vs. Pasadena is interesting. Pasadena went very much the retail route in its development. Hollywood, quite reasonably, went with entertainment.

Pasadena is really a remarkable success, with new housing, main stream shopping, cutesy specialty and designer shops and mid-scale dining filling in every available spot; a couple of small light-rail stops and a small arts district. They were blessed with nice architecture in the old DT, but have managed to presever and reinvigorate it very well. They will try to beef up entertainment but mostly it will be more of the same.

Hollywood has exactly what Pasadena is missing: entertainment: big name, live stage and music, club, etc. But retail is very thin and housing is much denser and urban. I don't see the local housing attracting the same type as Pasadena, which I picture as older, richer and more subdued than what Hollywood is ever likely to attract. I guess you can just say one is an inner city district revitalized; the other is a very large "Old Town".


Not that I'm denying that Hollywood has definitely more entertainment options when it comes to clubbing/lounges/bars, but I just wanted to add that in terms of other entertainment, in Pasadena it's a bit more in line with a generally more mature crowd as there are 6 renowned venues that offer symphonies, theatre, comedy, etc.

1) Pasadena Symphony at the Ambassador Auditorium (one of the most acoustically superior musical venues in the world apparently)

2) Pasadena Civic Auditorium

3) Pasadena Playhouse

4) Boston Court
http://www.bostoncourt.com/

5) Ice House Comedy Club
http://www.icehousecomedy.com/

6) (Soon to open near Sierra Madre Gold Line station) A Noise Within Theatre http://www.anoisewithin.org/

7) The Pasadena Jazz Institute (they haven't found a permanent home yet)


All of those venues with the exception of the future permanent home of A Noise Within is located in Downtown Pasadena. Pretty impressive!

LosAngelesBeauty
Dec 18, 2010, 12:00 AM
That part of Sunset needs a serious road diet and sidewalk widening. Compared to Hollywood Blvd, it feels like more of a freeway. Despite the throngs of tourists, Hollywood Blvd just feels much better to walk down.

Are there any plans to improve Sunset anytime soon?

I agree, Sunset needs to go on a road diet for sure. And it needs more retail/restaurants.

I think the stretch from along Highland from Hollywood to Sunset also needs A LOT of investment akin to what has happened along Vine to really make Hollywood 3-dimensional.

BrandonJXN
Dec 18, 2010, 1:05 AM
Pasadena and Hollywood both have what the other needs. I'll just leave it at that.

pesto
Dec 18, 2010, 8:20 PM
LAB: agree with you. Pasadena is solid culturally but in a mainstream way.

Sunset and most streets connecting it to Hollywood should get some in-fill. Sidewalk widening and traffic slowing on Sunset would be good. Highland is a bit more of a problem since it is so heavily trafficked. The corner at Hollywood may require pedestrian underpasses some day or maybe it makes some sense to take the road below sidewalk level for a some distance. But more likely, it will just remain congested.

dktshb
Dec 18, 2010, 9:02 PM
I agree, Sunset needs to go on a road diet for sure. And it needs more retail/restaurants.

I think the stretch from along Highland from Hollywood to Sunset also needs A LOT of investment akin to what has happened along Vine to really make Hollywood 3-dimensional.


Hollywood is 3 dimensional and already probably too saturated with restaurants and retail. Plus, Highland south of Sunset is very vibrant with lots of restaurants, and shops all the way to Melrose.

Sunset is busy though. I tend to walk along De Longpre rather than Sunset, which is a nice residential street running parallel with parks and nice neighborhoods. Sunset does have wide sidewalks though and yes it does have some dead spots that could be filled in with some residential and business (no mixing of reatail either...we have enough).

For the most part from Santa Monica Blvd to the south, Fairfax to the west Franklyn to the north and Gower to the East you have a 3-dimensional high density walkable neighborhood with all the streets in between offering retail, restaurants and bars in additiion to the usual suspects. I can see how an outsider might not realize how truly 3-dimentional the neighborhood is. The density of 90028 (my zip is over 21K people per square mile). Even today there are loads of people walking doing their errands in the rain. Yes there are plenty of gaps scattered around the neighborhood but nothing like Downtown and not to a point where I would say it isn't 3 dimensional.

Quixote
Dec 18, 2010, 10:24 PM
That part of Sunset needs a serious road diet and sidewalk widening. Compared to Hollywood Blvd, it feels like more of a freeway. Despite the throngs of tourists, Hollywood Blvd just feels much better to walk down.

Are there any plans to improve Sunset anytime soon?

Sunset Boulevard isn't any wider than Hollywood Boulevard, but it certainly feels that way. The difference is the concentration of density and commercial activity. Not having many businesses means there will not be as many cars parked along the street, making the sidewalk feel less insulated. If the entire stretch of Sunset looked like the area around Vine, the part I walked yesterday, then it would feel less like a highway. The density would be commensurate with the width of the street.

If you want to make Sunset feel less "wide", then there are two options:

1) Insert a landscaped median
2) Build a streetcar

LosAngelesBeauty
Dec 19, 2010, 1:08 AM
Hollywood is 3 dimensional and already probably too saturated with restaurants and retail. Plus, Highland south of Sunset is very vibrant with lots of restaurants, and shops all the way to Melrose.

Sunset is busy though. I tend to walk along De Longpre rather than Sunset, which is a nice residential street running parallel with parks and nice neighborhoods. Sunset does have wide sidewalks though and yes it does have some dead spots that could be filled in with some residential and business (no mixing of reatail either...we have enough).

For the most part from Santa Monica Blvd to the south, Fairfax to the west Franklyn to the north and Gower to the East you have a 3-dimensional high density walkable neighborhood with all the streets in between offering retail, restaurants and bars in additiion to the usual suspects. I can see how an outsider might not realize how truly 3-dimentional the neighborhood is. The density of 90028 (my zip is over 21K people per square mile). Even today there are loads of people walking doing their errands in the rain. Yes there are plenty of gaps scattered around the neighborhood but nothing like Downtown and not to a point where I would say it isn't 3 dimensional.

I understand that people do walk a lot in Hollywood, as I do take my walking tours by there quite often (hopping on the bus at La Brea and Sunset to get to WeHo). While I wait for the bus, I am always pleasantly surprised just how many ppl ARE still walking around even in that section of Hollywood away from the contiguous density of Hollywood Blvd.

However, I look around and I see strip malls, stand alone fast food chains (Wendys, In N Out, Jack in the Box on Sunset), and generally, suburban looking features that dilute the urban experience.

I think it is REALLY important for Hollywood to continue retrofitting and infilling in those strategic INTERSECTIONS like Sunset/Highland, Sunset/La Brea, etc. so that they act as solid anchors for development to start filling in between them.

Ideally, I would like Hollywood to meld in completely with West Hollywood in terms of density and built environment, esp. along La Brea going south and Sunset going west.

dktshb
Dec 19, 2010, 6:05 AM
I understand that people do walk a lot in Hollywood, as I do take my walking tours by there quite often (hopping on the bus at La Brea and Sunset to get to WeHo). While I wait for the bus, I am always pleasantly surprised just how many ppl ARE still walking around even in that section of Hollywood away from the contiguous density of Hollywood Blvd.

However, I look around and I see strip malls, stand alone fast food chains (Wendys, In N Out, Jack in the Box on Sunset), and generally, suburban looking features that dilute the urban experience.

I think it is REALLY important for Hollywood to continue retrofitting and infilling in those strategic INTERSECTIONS like Sunset/Highland, Sunset/La Brea, etc. so that they act as solid anchors for development to start filling in between them.

Ideally, I would like Hollywood to meld in completely with West Hollywood in terms of density and built environment, esp. along La Brea going south and Sunset going west.


I agree, the devestating strip malls and fast food joints destort and dilute the urban look of parts of the neighborhood...Sunset and La Brea is the worst intersection in Hollywood and Sunset and Highland isn't much better but interestingly enough the Carl's Jr. is being demolished for something new and more fitting to go in its place (what yet I don't know). La Brea is transforming with The Avenue opening this summer and the 2 Newman Garrison Partners projects starting this year on La Brea and Fountain and La Brea and Santa Monica. The area isn't perfect and has a few blemishes due to a handful of bad suburban type projects allowed to go up (and buildings allowed to be torn down) in the 70's and 80's . Fortunately Pasadena wasn't decimated like Hollywood... thanks Los Angeles :rolleyes:

colemonkee
Dec 19, 2010, 8:03 PM
I believe the Carl's Jr. is being replaced with a Chick-Fil-A, another stand-alone fast food joint that's closed on Sundays.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/12/art_deco_returns_to_hollywood_thanks_to_chicken_place.php

BrandonJXN
Dec 19, 2010, 9:14 PM
Chick-Fil-A is both very expensive (as fast food places go) and horribly overrated.