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 88 89

dktshb
Dec 19, 2010, 9:36 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
Well that is just disheartening. I guess it won't be an improvement then.

Troubadour
Dec 20, 2010, 6:57 PM
I'm discovering why they call it Century City - because it takes a century for anything to change.

yeah215
Dec 21, 2010, 4:30 PM
This isn't quite about skyscrapers, but more urban planning.

Has anybody been following the issue of the Costco in Warner Center. The Woodland Hills Neighborhood Council seems to be pushing back against the proposal really hard, and rightfully so.

We need to support them. Please write to Council Member Dennis Zine (http://cd3.lacity.org/contact.htm) and Mayor Villaraigosa (http://mayor.lacity.org/MeettheMayor/AsktheMayor/index.htm) and urge them to oppose the current Westfield-Costco plan.

Here are videos from the PLUM Committee meeting of the Woodland Hills Neighborhood Council. Check out more on the blog Hills of Woodland (http://www.hillsofwoodland.com/).

Video 1 on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lQfy4VGrCI&feature=player_embedded) (I couldn't figure out how to embed them properly)

Video 2 on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lQfy4VGrCI&feature=player_embedded)

DJM19
Dec 21, 2010, 8:18 PM
^ I don't understand whats wrong with this development. I would wager the majority of people in woodland hills would probably like a costco, and its not as if Woodland hills has no similar sized buildings, and there is a sea of parking around this area. I mean, its a big box, in a mall. There is nothing sustainable about the whole development, and the vast majority of people will just be driving there anyway. Why put up a facade that THIS is what made the neighborhood lose its character?

sopas ej
Dec 22, 2010, 3:48 AM
Well yeah, and it's Woodland fucking Hills. I'm sure the majority of people who move there move there because it's on the extreme edge of LA-- read, suburban, big single-family homes on generous lots with backyard swimming pools. I spent a lot of time in Woodland Hills growing up, being that we had family friends who lived there (their daughters all went to Louisville High School on Mulholland). Yeah, it felt like we were driving to butt-fucking Egypt when we went there, but I think people live there for a reason, and it's not for an urban lifestyle.

mdiederi
Dec 22, 2010, 4:58 AM
The site is in Warner Center which has quite a few large multi-family four and five story complexes abutting it. They want to make it feel urban in that immediate area. But yeah, every time I've been there I haven't seen many people walking about, so you can't say they've been too successful in making it urban. It really feels more like a business park to me, the way it's laid out.

pesto
Dec 22, 2010, 8:43 PM
Very disappointing attitute expressed above. You could have written off NoHo, Pasadena, DT LA, Century City, Venice or SM as hopelessly low-density and plopped a Costco with acres of parking in them also.

Warner Center has been planned as mixed-use, town-homes and high-rises for 30 years, way before it was trendy. Now, the local councilman and Villaraigosa are jettisoning that approach to play lapdog. I would be curious to see the details of their campaign contributions.

There are a hundred places in the valley to put a costco and parking and they chose the only part of the West Valley that has density and a plan to add more. This is Costco exploiting the density and high-rises without wanting to play by the same rules.

edluva
Dec 22, 2010, 8:46 PM
i just love how a la metro project rundown thread has devolved into a discussion about who's getting a chik fil a and a costco. la is a world class city

sopas ej
Dec 23, 2010, 1:02 AM
:previous:
If by your definition a world-class city doesn't have fast food places or discount warehouse shopping, then uh, OK, whatever tickles your pickle.

edluva
Dec 23, 2010, 9:32 AM
no but by my definition, world class cities have enough relevant projects going on that debating over which fast food chains will arrive to revive neighborhoods doesn't occur

mdiederi
Dec 23, 2010, 2:31 PM
no but by my definition, world class cities have enough relevant projects going on that debating over which fast food chains will arrive to revive neighborhoods doesn't occur

Paris Dispatch: Tasting a Fast Food Foie Gras Burger on the Champs-Elysees (http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/paris-dispatch-the-fast-food-foie-gras-burger-on-champs-elysees/24087)

News London: Popeye’s swings into action (http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/12/13/16537821.html)

LosAngelesBeauty
Dec 23, 2010, 7:12 PM
no but by my definition, world class cities have enough relevant projects going on that debating over which fast food chains will arrive to revive neighborhoods doesn't occur


No, your definition of a world class city is HOW the city functions. It's obvious that globalization has made fast food chains a common staple in even your most well regarded cities like New York or London. (I always eat fast food in NY after clubbing or going to the bars, etc. and there are NO LACK of McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc. in Manhattan on almost every corner.)

Anyway, your gripe about LA has to do more with our built environment being dysfuctional as a suburban mess and the mass transit missing from that picture, not the kind of businesses that choose to open up.

Sodha
Dec 23, 2010, 9:25 PM
No, your definition of a world class city is HOW the city functions. It's obvious that globalization has made fast food chains a common staple in even your most well regarded cities like New York or London. (I always eat fast food in NY after clubbing or going to the bars, etc. and there are NO LACK of McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc. in Manhattan on almost every corner.)

Anyway, your gripe about LA has to do more with our built environment being dysfuctional as a suburban mess and the mass transit missing from that picture, not the kind of businesses that choose to open up.


This reminds me of when I visited Sydney, Australia, the official tourist map of the city showed where a McDonalds was located throughout the city center. It was hard to find the points of interest behind the significant number of McDonalds arches on the maps. It was very ridiculous. Something I'm glad LA doesn't have on its own official tourist maps.

Kingofthehill
Dec 23, 2010, 9:57 PM
Not a fast food guy (except for, like any true Angeleno, In-N-Out) but I love Chick-fil-A!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1385/5116569757_90697738e8_b.jpg

pesto
Dec 23, 2010, 10:25 PM
Do pho or ramen or souvlaki/shawarma or taco stands count as fast food?

I guess we are only talking about chains here. Of them I admit to loving the Yoshinoya beef bowl with lots of ginger. There's only 1 in the SJ area so I hit it whenever I'm in LA.

sopas ej
Dec 24, 2010, 5:10 AM
Do pho or ramen or souvlaki/shawarma or taco stands count as fast food?

I guess we are only talking about chains here. Of them I admit to loving the Yoshinoya beef bowl with lots of ginger. There's only 1 in the SJ area so I hit it whenever I'm in LA.

I would count those as fast food. And I also would include tapas and mezze as fast food-- at least in their respective cultures/countries. Though I've had excellent tapas here in LA, they tend to be pricey and they're not served as fast as I'd like it to be. ;)

No offense, but I don't like Yoshinoya-- I've only had it 3 times in my life, and all of those times, I found it to be too salty.

To go briefly off topic, since we're talking about fast food, has anyone else tried Five Guys burgers? I had it for the very first time a few months ago. I thought it was good, but somewhat pricey, and I can't put my finger on it, but something about the burger was missing. It needed a signature sauce, or something, like In-N-Out-- speaking of which, I think In-N-Out has nothing to worry about when it comes to Five Guys.

edluva
Dec 24, 2010, 11:50 AM
Anyway, your gripe about LA has to do more with our built environment being dysfuctional as a suburban mess and the mass transit missing from that picture, not the kind of businesses that choose to open up.

no my gripe has to do with the fact that our state of affairs is so pathetic that we get so excited about which fast food chains are setting up shop because that really is like, big news here. 18 million in our metro and that's really, no exaggerating, the kind of thing that's considered big news. the arrival of target to our CBD. wow. la is happenin man. it's like, practically there. world class.

mdiederi - thanks for the links. what are you trying to prove? that other cities are capable of celebrating the arrival of fast food as well? the difference is other cities are swamped by much more interesting news, unique to those cities. the arrival to downtown of a chicken sandwich outlet headquartered in georgia would seriously be a hot topic to us.

and for the record, this isn't a knock on chikfila - which i love.

edluva
Dec 24, 2010, 11:58 AM
This reminds me of when I visited Sydney, Australia, the official tourist map of the city showed where a McDonalds was located throughout the city center. It was hard to find the points of interest behind the significant number of McDonalds arches on the maps. It was very ridiculous. Something I'm glad LA doesn't have on its own official tourist maps.

maybe it was sponsored by mcdonalds?

StethJeff
Dec 24, 2010, 7:10 PM
Paris Dispatch: Tasting a Fast Food Foie Gras Burger on the Champs-Elysees (http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/paris-dispatch-the-fast-food-foie-gras-burger-on-champs-elysees/24087)

News London: Popeye’s swings into action (http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/12/13/16537821.html)

about freaking time. finally something good to eat in london.

sopas ej
Dec 24, 2010, 10:42 PM
no my gripe has to do with the fact that our state of affairs is so pathetic that we get so excited about which fast food chains are setting up shop because that really is like, big news here. 18 million in our metro and that's really, no exaggerating, the kind of thing that's considered big news. the arrival of target to our CBD. wow. la is happenin man. it's like, practically there. world class.

Wait, nobody was getting excited about a new fast food chain setting up shop, someone had just commented that the Carl's Jr. on Sunset was becoming a Chick-Fil-A. I don't think anyone was making that out to be big news. However, if you look at it from the standpoint that it'll be only the 2nd Chick-Fil-A opening up within LA city limits, that might be news to some.

And, if you follow the news, you would know that it actually was made a big deal by several news organizations talking about how Target and Walmart are now trying to set up shop in urban areas-- LA, Chicago, New York included. So, maybe you don't think that's big news, but others around the US do think so.

LosAngelesBeauty
Jan 4, 2011, 12:21 AM
edluva just has a love hate relationship with LA like how so many of us do. He obviously loves it and is just OCD about it and wants LA to be like the way other walking cities across the world are including New York, Tokyo, etc.

I feel that way too and many times as I know LA must have the transit in place before density can really be embraced and then the walking lifestyle becomes mainstay in West Central LA. All that is coming, though, fortunately, with the Purple Line extension, Downtown Connector, Expo Line to Santa Monica, Crenshaw Line up to Weho connecting LAX, Green Line to South Bay, Gold Line to Monclair and Whittier, and streetcars, dedicated bus lanes, etc. etc.

NIMBYs have prevented LA from densifying as they file lawsuits every chance they get to stop or scale back projects (as seen in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Westwood, Santa Monica, etc.).

If there is any blame here, it is the "neighborhood associations" that finance the attorneys who then challenge developers in court, delaying projects, and preventing LA from becoming the kind of city we all want: sustainable, pedestrian and transit oriented, energetic, amazing, a city to be proud of, etc. etc.

Beverly Hills is a "great" example of that as they try to do everything in their power to dilute our transit system by selfishly lobbying for a Santa Monica Blvd. station as opposed to Constellation, which would reduce ridership numbers (unless the LA Country Club were developed in the future (http://www.lasubwayblog.com/2010/10/two-scenarios-for-century-city-in-2040.html) as dense as Century City, which would then put the station in the "center" again).

pesto
Jan 4, 2011, 8:32 PM
LAB: generally agree, but the BH comments are incomplete. They are talking about moving the station one block. But I don't want to go through that discussion again.

And BH has significant medium rise density and a central core ("the Golden Triangle") that is very pedestrian friendly and frequently used. If there is a Union Sq. equivalent in LA, it is Rodeo and the surrounding streets (upscale shopping, cafes, hotels, world-class restaurants and it will be getting a subway stop as well).

More generally, while I agree that areas like Hollywood are needlessly slowed by local groups, I don't want developers to plunk 20 story towers into sfh neighborhoods either. The system has to work more quickly but it shouldn't be scrapped.

DistrictDirt
Jan 4, 2011, 8:42 PM
To go briefly off topic, since we're talking about fast food, has anyone else tried Five Guys burgers? I had it for the very first time a few months ago. I thought it was good, but somewhat pricey, and I can't put my finger on it, but something about the burger was missing. It needed a signature sauce, or something, like In-N-Out-- speaking of which, I think In-N-Out has nothing to worry about when it comes to Five Guys.

I've eaten my fair share of Five Guys. Its originally from Arlington, VA, across the river from DC. They're going for basically the same thing as In-N-Out- burgers made from fresh ingredients without the preservatives and chemical crap that lower-end fast food like McDonalds use. For my money, In-N-Out burgers are better, but the Five Guys fries absolutely kill In-N-Outs, which I find to be not greasy enough and well, too healthy (If I'm eating at a fast food spot, clearly I'm not worried about my diet that day. Make my fries greasy and salty! :) )

The comparison of the respective business strategies of these two chains is interesting. Five Guys has undergone extremely rapid growth over the past 5 years, growing from a local DC chain to a coast-to-coast juggernaut. In-N-Out on the other hand, seems intent on keeping down the number of locations, and sticking to the West Coast. Perhaps to maintain their cult status?

Anyway, I can't help but think In-N-Out blew a big opportunity for expansion. Both chains are going after the same market, and Five Guys is just gobbling up In-N-Out's possible customers, coast to coast. If they decide to expand the way Five Guys has now, their going up against the thousands of Five Guys locations, already in place and with a base of loyal customers.

Food for thought. Pun intended.

LosAngelesBeauty
Jan 4, 2011, 9:19 PM
LAB: generally agree, but the BH comments are incomplete. They are talking about moving the station one block. But I don't want to go through that discussion again.

And BH has significant medium rise density and a central core ("the Golden Triangle") that is very pedestrian friendly and frequently used. If there is a Union Sq. equivalent in LA, it is Rodeo and the surrounding streets (upscale shopping, cafes, hotels, world-class restaurants and it will be getting a subway stop as well).

More generally, while I agree that areas like Hollywood are needlessly slowed by local groups, I don't want developers to plunk 20 story towers into sfh neighborhoods either. The system has to work more quickly but it shouldn't be scrapped.


The only "problem" with that kind of thinking is MANY, MANY parts of LA ARE made up of SFRs so that ubiquitous presence of lower density prevents "20-story towers" from being built anywhere. Which keeps LA choked with traffic and dysfunctional, all so people can live in their houses and drive everywhere on congested streets, bitching and moaning, flipping people off and succumbing to road rage. What a greeeeeeeeeat city!


The fact that a proposed 5-story building on La Cienega brings out the pitch forks from neighborhood associations because it "encroaches" into the SFR's territory is absolutely ridiculous and embarrassing.
http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2010.11.mangylacienega.jpg
Luxe @ 375 project (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/11/will_luxe_375_chase_out_the_nudie_bar_crowd.php) via Curbed LA


I really don't care about the areas OUTSIDE of West Central remaining suburban (at this point) because they are essentially the "suburbs" anyway, but INSIDE the heart of West Central (like La Cienega and Westmount where Luxe @ 375 is), there should not be the kind of knee-jerk resistance from NIMBYs that perpetuate the miserable existence of LA drivers, and preventing any substantial portion of all this sprawling mess to make urban coherent sense.

Kingofthehill
Jan 5, 2011, 2:41 AM
Infill in Hollywood and West Hollywood, all taken today:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5042/5325878862_70d3dd640a_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5127/5325266727_5a70b9b416_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/5325880960_257ba36ca5_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5246/5325882404_e816341875_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5128/5325883744_a64042b3bf_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5008/5325277855_2f64087f65_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5325886490_cc7fa8dfaf_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5325281859_d6805a8c42_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5325890558_dfae0a9150_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5325891774_17bd394b48_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5325895786_46e95318ca_b.jpg

SD_Phil
Jan 5, 2011, 2:54 AM
For being boxes a lot of these are actually quite nice. Maybe they won't be in 10 years but right now these are all quite livable even the crazy Nickelodean orange one. #4 is the plainest here but the one with the solar panels on display is quite neat as is the (apparently) aluminum one.

Illithid Dude
Jan 5, 2011, 3:39 AM
I like the orange one the best as it is the only one with no stucco. And I hate stucco.

sopas ej
Jan 5, 2011, 3:40 AM
I've eaten my fair share of Five Guys. Its originally from Arlington, VA, across the river from DC. They're going for basically the same thing as In-N-Out- burgers made from fresh ingredients without the preservatives and chemical crap that lower-end fast food like McDonalds use. For my money, In-N-Out burgers are better, but the Five Guys fries absolutely kill In-N-Outs, which I find to be not greasy enough and well, too healthy (If I'm eating at a fast food spot, clearly I'm not worried about my diet that day. Make my fries greasy and salty! :) )

The comparison of the respective business strategies of these two chains is interesting. Five Guys has undergone extremely rapid growth over the past 5 years, growing from a local DC chain to a coast-to-coast juggernaut. In-N-Out on the other hand, seems intent on keeping down the number of locations, and sticking to the West Coast. Perhaps to maintain their cult status?

Anyway, I can't help but think In-N-Out blew a big opportunity for expansion. Both chains are going after the same market, and Five Guys is just gobbling up In-N-Out's possible customers, coast to coast. If they decide to expand the way Five Guys has now, their going up against the thousands of Five Guys locations, already in place and with a base of loyal customers.

Food for thought. Pun intended.

I like In-N-Out's fries, they remind me of homemade fries, at least the way I've made them/had them at home.

My understanding was that In-N-Out is still a family-run chain with no desire to trade publicly or franchise any of its locations. I think that's why they're only on the west coast? They used to be located only in southern California, not even up north. I think if they expanded, their quality would go down.

At this point, it seems (to me, anyway) that Five Guys has a ways to go in saturating the SoCal market. To me, Five Guys is just as high-profile as Sonic Drive-In, a burger chain that has thousands of locations, I've heard, throughout the US, but only about a handful in the Los Angeles area.

StethJeff
Jan 5, 2011, 4:37 AM
Another interesting addition to Exposition Park. Along with the Expo station, sports arena makeover, eventual upgrades to the Coliseum, gald to see some attention is being given to this part of LA. So much potential in that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

$13-million gift boosts Natural History Museum's footprint

The donation to the Los Angeles County's Natural History Museum, the largest from the Otis Booth Foundation, will go toward an expansive glass entrance pavilion that will have as its centerpiece a 63-foot-long fin whale.


By Mike Boehm, Los Angeles Times

January 5, 2011

A 63-foot-long fin whale, one of the biggest skeletons owned by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, will become its public greeter, the museum announced Tuesday, in a new brightly lit glass entrance pavilion made possible by a $13-million gift.

"It's a major statement. It's beckoning and saying, 'Come in and see who we are,'" said Jane Pisano, the museum's president.

The Otis Booth Pavilion, named for the successful investor and former Los Angeles Times executive who was one of the museum's most influential funders and board members before his death in 2008, will replace what Pisano described as an "ugly, dark, barricading" array of steps and walls that had faced Exposition Boulevard. In their place, in time for the museum's 2013 centennial, will rise an architectural signpost that museum leaders say will figure prominently in their bid to boost annual attendance from about 600,000 at the site to more than 1 million, and to spur the $51 million in additional donations needed to fully fund the museum's six-year makeover. The design is by CO Architects, the same L.A. firm that has handled the rest of the renovation project.

Museum leaders have known for decades that the building — actually a series of connected structures that have been added piecemeal to the original graceful domed building that opened in 1913 — needed a commanding entrance, said Paul Haaga Jr., who has been on the board since 1993 and is now its chairman. But in planning the makeover, which began in 2007 and bore its first fruit last summer with the reopening of the restored 1913 building and the popular new Age of Mammals exhibit, officials had decided that a dramatic entrance would increase the cost beyond what they could reasonably expect to raise.

They put off the new entrance until fundraising was finished for the current $135-million "NHM Next" campaign that also includes a new Dinosaur Hall scheduled to open in July, and new indoor and outdoor exhibits focused on nature in Los Angeles that are expected to be finished by the end of 2012.

But when Franklin Otis Booth Jr. died at 84 from Lou Gehrig's disease, part of the fortune he'd made as a ground-floor investor in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. went toward establishing a new, L.A.-based charitable foundation whose portfolio currently stands at about $190 million.

The $13 million, which will be paid out over three years, becomes the fledgling Otis Booth Foundation's biggest gift, said Palmer Murray, Booth's son-in-law and the foundation's vice president and treasurer.

Murray said that Booth, a great-grandson of Los Angeles Times founder Harrison Gray Otis, left no instructions for the foundation's grant-making. Given Booth's decades of devotion to the Natural History Museum, Murray said, "it became clear to us this is something we have to be involved in." While going over the possibilities with museum leaders, he said, "the fin whale really piqued our interest," because it would give the building "the physical identity it had lacked" along its only major street frontage, creating both a physical and symbolic bridge to the world outside the museum by beckoning with an impressive example of the sights and knowledge to be had within.

In fact, there will be an actual bridge between the world and the entrance pavilion. Its pilings are already starting to rise from the fenced-in expanse of dirt that is currently the museum's front yard. As the 60-foot-high pavilion goes up, 3.5 acres of park-like "urban wilderness," intended to serve as a "living laboratory" of L.A.'s plants, insects, birds and small animals, will take shape directly outside, along with a landscaped amphitheater.

Except for the four years when the 1913 building was being renovated, the fin whale has been on continuous display since 1944. That's when curators finished studying and preparing the creature acquired from a Humboldt County whaling concern in 1926. It currently hangs as the sole occupant of a long, dramatically-lit gallery that's been dubbed the "fin whale passage," leading from the museum's central indoor plaza to the rotunda. When the whale assumes its new position as the museum's frontispiece, the "passage" will become a gallery devoted to Los Angeles history and nature.

The benefits of having a well-known identifying symbol or trademark attraction are well known to leaders of the Natural History Museum. While the main museum in Exposition Park draws 73% of its attendance from within Los Angeles County — many of them schoolchildren — its sister institution, the much smaller and narrowly focused Page Museum at the La Brea Tar Pits, nearly reverses that equation, drawing 63% of its visitors from outside the county. That can be partly explained by the fact that the tar pits are internationally renowned as the world's most bountiful source of fossilized bones from the Ice Age. Pisano hopes that with new mammal and dinosaur halls, striking new natural grounds and a whale-under-glass, the Exposition Park flagship building will join visitors' list of must-see attractions.

The Otis Booth Foundation's gift doesn't directly advance the museum's "NHM Next" fundraising campaign, which still has $51 million to go to reach its $135-million goal. But Haaga, the museum board's chairman, sees the entry pavilion's creation as "really impactful and helpful in every way." The association with a respected Los Angeles figure such as Booth, and the foundation he created, could have an "endorsement effect" that will attract other philanthropists, Haaga said, and the rollout of the structure itself will give the museum one more accomplishment to celebrate and use as a rallying point for further fundraising.

On the other hand, the Booth Foundation gift is support from inside the museum's existing family of backers, rather than an expansion of its reach via the recruitment of a major new benefactor.

Museum officials say attendance has increased 35% during the six months since the Age of Mammals exhibit opened. Haaga said its success confirms the wisdom of the calculated risk that museum leaders took in deciding to gradually open the new attractions one at a time, knowing that if the first one underwhelmed the public, it could make it harder to raise money for the work that remained.

"Success breeds success," he said. "People want to give to visibly successful plans."

LosAngelesBeauty
Jan 5, 2011, 5:53 AM
Just beautiful! I'm so happy to see our city slowly but surely maturing, making the front entrance truly the front entrance as opposed to back entrances acting as the true front entrance because of parking garages. Now with TWO light rail stations, the museum will finally have a substantial portion of their attendees coming from the front for the first time in recent history! That is symbolic in itself saying a lot about LA as a whole maturing into a true urban city.


http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/6923/losangelesnaturalhistor.jpg (http://img831.imageshack.us/i/losangelesnaturalhistor.jpg/)
nhm.org

JDRCRASH
Jan 5, 2011, 6:24 AM
And I hate stucco.

Agreed. It's definitely gotten old, especially in Downtown.

pesto
Jan 8, 2011, 6:52 PM
LAB: the whole 'hood is a real success story in the making. With the upgrades on campus, the revitalized Univ. Village, museums and other construction this could become a thriving and desirable part of town.

Could be one of the most heavily used stations, with students on the weekdays and Coliseum and museums on the weekends.

San Frangelino
Jan 11, 2011, 10:02 PM
Found this image at the Perkins+Will (http://www.perkinswill.com/work/sunset-boulevard-urban-design-plan.html) website:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5007/5346846689_32d1b6c106_b.jpg

LA21st
Jan 11, 2011, 10:32 PM
Wow! I realize its probably just a vision, but that would be amazing.

LosAngelesBeauty
Jan 11, 2011, 10:45 PM
In the rendering, there is a much larger tower where the 1540 N Vine Camden project was supposed to be (the one that was going to have the Whole Foods on the ground floor). Hopefully P+W knows something we don't? :)

colemonkee
Jan 12, 2011, 12:24 AM
Two words: "pipe" and "dream".

Though it would be cool.

JDRCRASH
Jan 12, 2011, 1:25 AM
^ I sure hope you're wrong colemonkee. That looks insane! The density appears to be concentrated on Santa Monica Blvd (or sunset, maybe?). If that's indeed the case, if the Silver Line and Crenshaw Corridor happen, this could as well.

Maybe this involves the revamping of the city's zoning laws that City Hall is planning?

mdiederi
Jan 12, 2011, 2:34 AM
It shows the long range economic development potential of the "Hollywood Redevelopment Project" being implemented by the Department of City Planning. The 1,107-acre project is bounded by Franklin Avenue on the north, Serrano Avenue on the east, Santa Monica Boulevard and Fountain Avenue on the south and La Brea Avenue on the west. The first priorities in the project are housing for low-income and homeless seniors and housing with supportive services for the chronically homeless, addressing the loss of affordable housing caused by condo conversions, developing a motion picture museum and transit oriented mixed-use projects adjacent to Red Line metro stations, and producing an urban design plan for Sunset Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard adjacent areas. Hopefully high-rises will follow.
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/

StethJeff
Jan 12, 2011, 3:14 AM
Perkins+Will are a-holes for teasing us with a vision we'll never see : (
That would be amazing. Though I'd much rather see that level of density along Wilshire first.

202_Cyclist
Jan 12, 2011, 3:26 AM
I would like to see this but wouldn't the the elimination of the various redevelopment agencies proposed in Jerry Brown's budget make these large-scale redevelopment projects much more difficult?

Jerry Brown's proposed budget would eliminate redevelopment agencies
LA Times
1/10/2011

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/01/jerry-brown-budget-would-eliminate-redevelopment-agencies.html

liat91
Jan 12, 2011, 3:30 AM
Found this image at the Perkins+Will (http://www.perkinswill.com/work/sunset-boulevard-urban-design-plan.html) website:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5007/5346846689_32d1b6c106_b.jpg

Chance of this happening: 50% imo

Damn, this along with developing MacCarthur /Westlake, and continuing infill for mid-wilshire as well as the downtown projects would push LA to striking distance of obtaining the title of second city from Chicago.

Complete Expo-line, airport expansion and transit connection, purple line, crenshaw line and red line extension down Sunset/Beverly Center/connecting to puple line. Second City Status Complete

P.S. : Heavy rail spur off Westwood purble line up into vally and west to Calabasas, commuter rail extension a few stations west to Ventura, extension to Palm Desert, street car line from Santa Monica to Malibu and finally a air tram spur from the Santa Ana Metra to John Wayne Airport onto to Costa Mesa. I can only dream and hope of course....

Quixote
Jan 12, 2011, 3:49 AM
Perkins+Will are a-holes for teasing us with a vision we'll never see : (
That would be amazing. Though I'd much rather see that level of density along Wilshire first.

I wouldn't say that. It only looks unrealistic because all of it is attractive glassy skyscraper (that part isn't realistic).

Much of what is depicted is/has been proposed -- KTLA Studios, Sunset and Gordon (Spaghetti Factory), Columbia Square, the aforementioned Camden project, etc.

With ambitious projects like the Hollywood Freeway Central Park and Santa Monica Blvd. subway transforming the neighborhood's quality of life, such large-scale growth/development is conceivable.

bmfarley
Jan 12, 2011, 4:15 AM
Chance of this happening: 50% imo

Damn, this along with developing MacCarthur /Westlake, and continuing infill for mid-wilshire as well as the downtown projects would push LA to striking distance of obtaining the title of second city from Chicago.

Complete Expo-line, airport expansion and transit connection, purple line, crenshaw line and red line extension down Sunset/Beverly Center/connecting to puple line. Second City Status Complete

P.S. : Heavy rail spur off Westwood purble line up into vally and west to Calabasas, commuter rail extension a few stations west to Ventura, extension to Palm Desert, street car line from Santa Monica to Malibu and finally a air tram spur from the Santa Ana Metra to John Wayne Airport onto to Costa Mesa. I can only dream and hope of course....
Second City? I already thought it was New York and Los Angeles, and then the rest.

Illithid Dude
Jan 12, 2011, 4:23 AM
Second City? I already thought it was New York and Los Angeles, and then the rest.

He was talking about the amount of high-rises. I don't think we will ever get near Chicago, but Miami could possibly fall to the next Los Angeles building boom. Chicago, for those who (shockingly) don't know, has hundreds of 500+ foot tall skyscraper. Then comes Miami, with 27 and six more under construction. Then comes Houston, with 30 500+ and nothing under construction. Then is Los Angeles in fourth place.

DistrictDirt
Jan 12, 2011, 5:08 AM
He was talking about the amount of high-rises. I don't think we will ever get near Chicago, but Miami could possibly fall to the next Los Angeles building boom. Chicago, for those who (shockingly) don't know, has hundreds of 500+ foot tall skyscraper. Then comes Miami, with 27 and six more under construction. Then comes Houston, with 30 500+ and nothing under construction. Then is Los Angeles in fourth place.

If its NY, Chicago, Miami, Houston, then LA...doesn't that mean LA is 5th?

Illithid Dude
Jan 12, 2011, 5:40 AM
If its NY, Chicago, Miami, Houston, then LA...doesn't that mean LA is 5th?

Oops. Yeah. L.A. is the fifth.

JDRCRASH
Jan 12, 2011, 7:00 AM
LOL, guys, Miami and Houston are NOT ahead of LA. LA is #3 in high-rises. I don't have actual numbers at the moment, but I don't need them to tell me that it's not even close.

Chance of this happening: 50% imo

Damn, this along with developing MacCarthur /Westlake, and continuing infill for mid-wilshire as well as the downtown projects would push LA to striking distance of obtaining the title of second city from Chicago.

This thing of Chicago being the "second city" is an old title from the early 20th century.

Illithid Dude
Jan 12, 2011, 7:32 AM
LOL, guys, Miami and Houston are NOT ahead of LA. LA is #3 in high-rises. I don't have actual numbers at the moment, but I don't need them to tell me that it's not even close.



This thing of Chicago being the "second city" is an old title from the early 20th century.

Have you seen Miami in the past few years? It is like the Dubai of America. Go check out the last two pages of the Miami thread, it's pretty ridiculous. Houston is barely edging us out, another few high-rises and we will beat them. This is referring only to buildings over five hundred feet, by the way.

mdiederi
Jan 12, 2011, 2:32 PM
Miami has 295 existing high-rise buildings.
Los Angeles has 509 existing high-rise buildings.

Illithid Dude
Jan 12, 2011, 3:55 PM
Miami has 295 existing high-rise buildings.
Los Angeles has 509 existing high-rise buildings.


One again, it is really only the five hundread+'buildings that ount in the end.

pesto
Jan 12, 2011, 7:06 PM
2 ways to make sure that Hollywood doesn't develop:

1. Getting the city overly involved (mandating one thing or another, trying to manage the market). The demand should be there for commercial and mid-range residential to the west and lower price housing filling-in east of 101. Let the market decide; let the city stick to roads, sidewalks and streetscape.

2. Push too many high-rises. This will generate community opposition. Better to have plenty of 3-5 story buildings, creating pleasant neighborhoods, complemented by 10-20 on the main streets and up to 30 on parts of Sunset, Cahuenga, etc. Let's not mess this up by looking for high-rises where they don't belong.

pesto
Jan 12, 2011, 7:12 PM
btw, if you want high-rise, don't forget that Wilshire, 6th and 7th are down there south of the picture; there is also DT and CC for serious high-rise and many other places for 20-30 stories.

mdiederi
Jan 13, 2011, 4:31 AM
One again, it is really only the five hundread+'buildings that ount in the end.
Ah, okay, 500 ft tall existing buildings:

Houston 31
Miami 27
Los Angeles 22

JDRCRASH
Jan 13, 2011, 4:55 AM
2. Push too many high-rises. This will generate community opposition. Better to have plenty of 3-5 story buildings, creating pleasant neighborhoods, complemented by 10-20 on the main streets and up to 30 on parts of Sunset, Cahuenga, etc. Let's not mess this up by looking for high-rises where they don't belong.

C'mon, 3-5 stories is just an exaggeration. 10-15 story towers are very feasible in large numbers in this town.

Illithid Dude
Jan 13, 2011, 6:12 AM
Ah, okay, 500 ft tall existing buildings:

Houston 31
Miami 27
Los Angeles 22

And, crazily enough, Miami has six more under construction.

robhut
Jan 13, 2011, 8:30 AM
Miami, like L.A doesn't have only one skyline, Miami metro has Sunny Isles and Aventura, which are impressive by themselves.

pesto
Jan 13, 2011, 6:36 PM
C'mon, 3-5 stories is just an exaggeration. 10-15 story towers are very feasible in large numbers in this town.

true, but why? The nicest neighborhoods in SF, NY, London, Paris, Berlin, etc., are not 10-20 stories. They are 3-5 or so.

Another problem is that, in general, demand is highest on the westside, which is also where many of the best established sfh neighborhoods are. Proposals for 10-15 next to them will get shot down immediately.

Conversely, in Hollywood or Westlake, along some larger streets 10-15 is fine, assuming 3-5 story in the side streets. But I'm not sure if there is sufficient demand to convert huge areas this way.

JDRCRASH
Jan 14, 2011, 6:01 AM
true, but why? The nicest neighborhoods in SF, NY, London, Paris, Berlin, etc., are not 10-20 stories. They are 3-5 or so.

A alot of those "nice" neighborhoods are so largely because they're very old.

Proposals for 10-15 next to them will get shot down immediately.

Perhaps in today's era of NIMBYism (but even then, i'm not seeing a lot of opposition in the news for density lately as I used to), but 10 years from now, I assure you, it will be MUCH different.

pesto
Jan 14, 2011, 6:00 PM
A alot of those "nice" neighborhoods are so largely because they're very old.



Perhaps in today's era of NIMBYism (but even then, i'm not seeing a lot of opposition in the news for density lately as I used to), but 10 years from now, I assure you, it will be MUCH different.

I'm not so sure. Broadly speaking, I think it will be very similar 10 years from now.

Some things never change. People are not going to spend 500k and up for a house and then let someone destroy the neighborhood without a fight. I look for Carthay, Hancock Park, Westwood, BH, most of SM and Weho, pretty much anything in the hills and many other neighborhoods to be essentially unchanged. Even 20 years from now.

Why mess with the areas of LA that have actual functioning neighborhoods when so many areas are decayed, mixed apartment and dilapidated housing, mixed industrial and slum housing, dying small commercial, and parking lots? More likely for changes: Hollywood, E. Hollywood, Westlake, Ktown, the Marina, Venice, areas around Beverly Center and others.

The reason that neighborhoods are nice is not because they are old; there are plenty of old neighborhoods that are not nice and plenty of new neighborhoods that are nice. The reasons they are desirable are varied, but they turn on nearness to amenities, consistency of the neighborhood, quality of construction, and others. They DO NOT turn on being high-rise. Although there are expensive high rise neighborhoods, they don’t tend to be the ones with the best street life.

Sodha
Jan 14, 2011, 8:23 PM
Can LA build reasonable 3 - 5 story mixed use buildings with it's ridiculous high parking minimums? Maybe that's why we get expansive huge 20 story building proposals, just so the project can pencil out financially. Those parking structures cost a lot. Build a 50 unit building, with 30 spaces; not every single person needs a parking spot. If they want parking, they should pay for the spot in a nearby lot and pay a fair price. Then we get some nice infill and dense housing in the central core.

pesto
Jan 15, 2011, 6:18 PM
By pushing parking out of the buildings, what you are in effect arguing for is less underground parking and more street and surface lot parking or parking structures.

But in any event, I doubt that parking mandates drive the construction of low-rise housing to any great extent. Builders go where demand exists, and if you want to make a neighborhood desirable you look for good schools, low crime, shopping, parks, etc. These are the real drivers of value and demand.

Although I don't believe parking is a leading driver, I have never heard anyone say they are looking for a neighborhood with less parking. On the other hand, I can't tell you how many times I hear people from NY or SF say they like living (or would like living) in the city, but the parking sucks.

yakumoto
Jan 21, 2011, 3:34 AM
Sorry pesto, cities like New York or San Francisco physically could not exist with parking requirements like LA. I'm not saying that all parking requirements are bad thing, but having a parking minimum for beds in a downtown homeless shelter says something about how ridiculous LA's requirements are.

LAsam
Jan 21, 2011, 7:47 PM
having a parking minimum for beds in a downtown homeless shelter says something about how ridiculous LA's requirements are.

Hard to argue with that. What's the news source for that statement? Sounds almost to crazy to be true... almost.

yakumoto
Jan 22, 2011, 3:28 AM
Hard to argue with that. What's the news source for that statement? Sounds almost to crazy to be true... almost.

Um, not from any news source. Look in the LA zoning code.

LosAngelesBeauty
Jan 28, 2011, 6:47 AM
Wow! Potential new double high-rise apartment complex in Koreatown by Wilshire/Vermont station.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-01/59069303.jpg
Developer Jerry Snyder’s new plan for the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Vermont Avenue calls for a $150-million, 464-unit apartment complex in two towers of 25 and 30 stories. (Jerde Partnership / January 28, 2011)


"Builder Jerry Snyder plans to break ground this summer on a 464-unit complex at Wilshire Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, where he had previously announced his intention to build a vertical retail mall.

Snyder and his J.H. Snyder Co., with partner Michael Wise, are finishing plans for an apartment complex called the Vermont that would put residences in two towers of 25 and 30 stories. The ground level on Wilshire and Vermont would house restaurants and shops."


Full story on LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-snyder-project-20110128,0,7291871.story)

Illithid Dude
Jan 28, 2011, 6:50 AM
Wow! Potential new double high-rise apartment complex in Koreatown by Wilshire/Vermont station.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-01/59069303.jpg
Developer Jerry Snyder’s new plan for the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Vermont Avenue calls for a $150-million, 464-unit apartment complex in two towers of 25 and 30 stories. (Jerde Partnership / January 28, 2011)


Full story on LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-snyder-project-20110128,0,7291871.story)

Holy lawnmower, that out of left field! I I'm not sure I like the mini driveway, but that complex would go a long way to help the blighted Korea Town.

tommaso
Jan 28, 2011, 7:05 AM
Holy lawnmower, that out of left field! I I'm not sure I like the mini driveway, but that complex would go a long way to help the blighted Korea Town.

Korea Town is taking form and L.A. will have another example of how to develop residential real-estate property on a large scale. I applaud this effort because we are short-handed with regard to examples of sustainable real estate development in L.A. proper. Every quality example should be supported and I hope the developer makes a fortune on this property because this is a clear improvement for K-Town residents and Angelenos as a whole.

Steve2726
Jan 28, 2011, 3:02 PM
Looking back at page 1 (still very well organized btw) I wonder was that the site of a former South Group proposal? I like the new plan better-

Old?-

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2007/2106471466_209f2dc20d.jpg


Edit: Curbed says it's already entitled and has financing in place as well. Let's see if they start by summer as they claim.

Muji
Jan 28, 2011, 4:37 PM
As someone who lives a stone's throw from Wilshire/Vermont, I can't wait! That intersection is probably one of the liveliest in Koreatown as it is, despite two of its corners being taken up by a gas station and an enormous vacant lot. Lets hope the potential doesn't stay squandered for much longer.

SD_Phil
Jan 28, 2011, 10:00 PM
464 units is enormous! wow. Thanks for the update.

colemonkee
Jan 28, 2011, 11:13 PM
Not a fan of the blank wall along Vermont whatsoever (or the visible parking podium along Wilshire), but the rest of the project looks pretty damn good. What's exciting about this proposal is not only the projected timeline (they want to start construction this Summer), but the fact that a developer is building a rental apartment tower. If this pencils out, I really hope this means we'll see more of this type of development, especially downtown.

sopas ej
Jan 29, 2011, 1:10 AM
:previous:

I agree. Apartments make sense there; I was never a fan of the "vertical mall" that was proposed for that corner. LA does NOT need another Beverly Center or Korean Galleria.

JDRCRASH
Jan 29, 2011, 3:00 AM
:previous:

I agree. Apartments make sense there; I was never a fan of the "vertical mall" that was proposed for that corner. LA does NOT need another Beverly Center or Korean Galleria.

I disagree. While a vertical mall may not make sense here, one near LA Live across Figueroa on one of the large parking lots would be awesome.

DJM19
Jan 29, 2011, 4:45 AM
If they are going to build it with that ridiculous drive way and cartoon-like green space in front, then just DONT build it.

Build it right or don't build it at all. This is not how buildings should be done in this area of the city, and its not asking to much to just build the density right up to the street wall where all the other buildings are.

Allnatural85
Jan 29, 2011, 4:50 AM
I dunno if this has been answered but does anyone know whats going to be built on the corner of santa monica bl and highland where the del taco use to to be

bmfarley
Jan 29, 2011, 4:49 PM
As someone who lives a stone's throw from Wilshire/Vermont, I can't wait! That intersection is probably one of the liveliest in Koreatown as it is, despite two of its corners being taken up by a gas station and an enormous vacant lot. Lets hope the potential doesn't stay squandered for much longer.

This is a lively place, in large part, because this is where one of the busiest North-South conglomeration of Metro bus lines interface with the Metro Purple Line subway. It is also the current terminus of that line, and there are therefore, lots of transfers from the Purple to East-West bus lines. And, there are a lot of bus to bus N-S to E-W transfers here.

RAlossi
Jan 29, 2011, 7:06 PM
I dunno if this has been answered but does anyone know whats going to be built on the corner of santa monica bl and highland where the del taco use to to be

Chick-fil-A.

Easy
Jan 29, 2011, 7:07 PM
Great news! Not a fan of the blank wall or the enormous number of parking spaces.

Easy
Jan 29, 2011, 7:09 PM
What's the latest on Blvd 6200 that was supposed to break ground this month?

LosAngelesBeauty
Jan 29, 2011, 7:26 PM
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/2875/59069303.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/59069303.jpg/)


One of my biggest complaints about LA urban development is does everything OUTSIDE of DTLA (or many Hollywood) have to be so god damn linear?

The Snyder towers are directed toward Wilshire but not Vermont, which is JUST as if not more busy that Wilshire through that section.

Why can't the developers add retail on BOTH streets?

Does someone know the developers personally and can tell them they are making a bad design choice when it comes to retail space?

citywatch
Jan 29, 2011, 11:14 PM
"Builder Jerry Snyder plans to break ground this summer on a 464-unit complex at Wilshire Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, where he had previously announced his intention to build a vertical retail mall.

http://www.freewebby.com/shocked-smilies/eyerub.gif

that is totally unexpected! I'd have predicted a proj of that size was not possible, in that part of LA, even when the economy was stronger several yrs ago. highrise housing around there has been limited to mainly the conversion of an office bldg across the street & the somewhat smaller solair tower not far away.

so if such a large proj can get started in mid wilshire, does that mean no less is acceptable for dt?!

A devlpr was entitled to put up a highrise apt bldg over 15 yrs ago around where the broad museum is to be located. but I understand that many of those type projs have been left stranded on the drawing board cuz they wouldn't pencil out.

JDRCRASH
Jan 29, 2011, 11:17 PM
^ Let's be honest though...when it comes to groundbreaking, he'll probably stretch it out until next summer. As in 2012.

citywatch
Jan 29, 2011, 11:24 PM
What's the latest on Blvd 6200 that was supposed to break ground this month?

you're right! I googled the following quote from a few months ago:

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.

the location has been one of the biggest deadzones in hollywood.

When the devlpr is about to start construction, I'm sure ppl will be able to easily detect it. at the very least, the parking lots will have been shutdown. Assuming some forumers have seen that part of the hood recently, I'm guessing that since no one has said anything about it, the site still isn't showing signs of life. So I hope a prediction of "january" isn't going to end up another waiting game.

citywatch
Jan 29, 2011, 11:33 PM
^ Let's be honest though...when it comes to groundbreaking, he'll probably stretch it out until next summer. As in 2012.

that's why LAB needs to find someone to not just tell the devlpr about the bad design choice of the blank wall facing vermont, but to also ask how accurate is the announced groundbreaking for summer this yr. That timeline is what really surprised me about news of the proj.

meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a new apt proj----the only totally new one I'm aware of for dt----that was supposed to break ground several months ago on a site across from the kyoto hotel in little tokyo. It's just a smaller 5 or 6 story wood framed type of bldg, but at this time it's the most anyone can hope for.

Easy
Jan 30, 2011, 3:05 AM
^ Let's be honest though...when it comes to groundbreaking, he'll probably stretch it out until next summer. As in 2012.

Maybe, but I'm optimistic. IIRC the fence used to be an old chain link fence but they have a brand new wooden construction fence up now. With viewing holes!

Easy
Jan 30, 2011, 3:07 AM
you're right! I googled the following quote from a few months ago:



the location has been one of the biggest deadzones in hollywood.

When the devlpr is about to start construction, I'm sure ppl will be able to easily detect it. at the very least, the parking lots will have been shutdown. Assuming some forumers have seen that part of the hood recently, I'm guessing that since no one has said anything about it, the site still isn't showing signs of life. So I hope a prediction of "january" isn't going to end up another waiting game.

I was down there today and there was not only no activity, but there were no signs of pending activity.

Illithid Dude
Feb 7, 2011, 4:42 AM
I was looking at that Koreatown proposal, and I think that there may be ground floor retail on the Vermont side. The bottom part of that white wall looks like a very light grey to me, similar to the glass used on the rest of the building. It's hard to tell, so I may be wrong.

Quixote
Feb 7, 2011, 4:41 PM
Nice that a major dead zone will bite the dust, but the design leaves much to be desired. It pretty much reaffirms the notion that while LA is getting denser and orienting new development around transit, its urban design remains hostile to pedestrians. Talk about a huge ass driveway.

tommaso
Feb 8, 2011, 7:47 AM
Nice that a major dead zone will bite the dust, but the design leaves much to be desired. It pretty much reaffirms the notion that while LA is getting denser and orienting new development around transit, its urban design remains hostile to pedestrians. Talk about a huge ass driveway.

Density growth does not happen often enough in L.A. that we can take a new dense development for granted. That being said, aesthetics and pedestrian experience are important and should be taken into consideration by the architect and developer. At this point in time, L.A. is still in its infancy as a world city and given its history as a car capital of the world, we can be pleased when we get density and ground floor retail as I believe this development has. L.A. generally will not build the type of pedestrian friendly urban buildings that cities such as S.F. and N.Y. are accustomed to having. If we are always cutting the curb for cars, then there will be an issue putting the pedestrian first.

L.A. is very slowly addressing the pedestrian in its newer residential mixed use developments. But, it is a very slow process and it may be another 50 or 100 years before the pedestrian becomes important in L.A., important enough to put ahead of the needs of vehicles. Well, S.F. and N.Y. already put the pedestrian 1st to a fair extent. But, N.Y. is 400 years old and S.F. was already very dense over 100 years ago.

At that point in time, the city of L.A. was in its infancy. So, it's not fair to compare the two on that basis. The land in L.A. was vast, so L.A. grew outwards. S.F. could only go up. You can't build a city on the bay, but you can build it on the peninsula. Even in S.F. and N.Y., you will still find empty plots of land available for development. But, those opportunities are far and few between in those cities. Generally, in those two cities, shorter buildings or properties will be demolished and larger ones that fully take advantage of the zoning laws will be erected.

To some extent, demolishing shorter buildings in favor of larger ones is beginning to happen in L.A. However, I'm often disappointed with the architecture in these newer larger developments in L.A. I can understand that real estate developers may want to cut costs. However, I cannot understand why any developer would want to build ugly structures that disrespect man's understanding of aesthetics and worldly beauty. Unfortunately, that disrespect is a constant arsenic in the architecture here in L.A. Lack of thought and lack of quality. Lack of respect for the pedestrian and the list goes on and on.

The city started out very well architecturally. I'll point out the Old Bank District and old Los Angeles. But, that architectural style never caught on or carried over past the late 1920s. That's unfortunate because old L.A. has a lot of respect for the pedestrian, community and aesthetics. There were money hungry developers back then too. Just too much land to develop outside of downtown L.A., whereas Manhattan and S.F. had no choice but to build up.

Maybe we can call the current era we live in a renaissance for L.A. and particularly the central parts, downtown and surrounding areas. Well, at least we now know that our downtown isn't a dump not worth saving and that L.A. can be and become a great city if we really force real estate developers to build aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian functional buildings. Oh, and yes I do remember that part of that equation is building the mass transit that will get Angelenos from point A to point B. :)

JDRCRASH
Feb 8, 2011, 9:13 AM
The city started out very well architecturally. I'll point out the Old Bank District and old Los Angeles. But, that architectural style never caught on or carried over past the late 1920s. That's unfortunate because old L.A. has a lot of respect for the pedestrian, community and aesthetics. There were money hungry developers back then too. Just too much land to develop outside of downtown L.A., whereas Manhattan and S.F. had no choice but to build up.

I see your point. And another reason why LA fell behind in old architecture was because of the zoning and height restrictions.

But why should we stop building early 20th century style skyscrapers just because LA faced unique challenges NY and SF didn't? That just seems so ridiculous and unfair.

Case in point: The City House and Olympic project (on-hold) in downtown. Many LA forumers have complained that that style of architecture doesn't belong in LA. But that's just it: LA NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO LET IT HAPPEN!!!

I think if more of these kinds of projects get built in LA, especially if they're focused on the same areas, it can meld in with the cityscape. What's really cool is that, right now, the city is still pretty much dominated by 1, 2, or 3-story buildings from the 2nd half of the 20th century. So there's still time, IMO, to reestablish old styles of architecture from the 20's era, like Art Deco, New Beaux Arts, and maybe even Gothic Revival, in LA's high-rise development.

But that's just my take on it, and everyone is able to have their opinions.

Illithid Dude
Feb 8, 2011, 3:46 PM
I see your point. And another reason why LA fell behind in old architecture was because of the zoning and height restrictions.

But why should we stop building early 20th century style skyscrapers just because LA faced unique challenges NY and SF didn't? That just seems so ridiculous and unfair.

Case in point: The City House and Olympic project (on-hold) in downtown. Many LA forumers have complained that that style of architecture doesn't belong in LA. But that's just it: LA NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO LET IT HAPPEN!!!

I think if more of these kinds of projects get built in LA, especially if they're focused on the same areas, it can meld in with the cityscape. What's really cool is that, right now, the city is still pretty much dominated by 1, 2, or 3- story buildings from the 2nd half of the 20th century. So there's still
time, IMO, to reestablish old styles of architecture from the 20's era, like Art Deco, New Beaux Arts, and maybe even Gothic Revival, in LA's high-rise development.

But that's just my take on it, and everyone is able to have their opinions.

I'd say those architectural styles have already been revived, in some form. A couple of the building along the Wilshire Cordor look pretty barn Deco to me, and The Century certainly has Beaux Arts influences.

Sodha
Feb 8, 2011, 9:06 PM
Density growth does not happen often enough in L.A. that we can take a new dense development for granted. That being said, aesthetics and pedestrian experience are important and should be taken into consideration by the architect and developer. At this point in time, L.A. is still in its infancy as a world city and given its history as a car capital of the world, we can be pleased when we get density and ground floor retail as I believe this development has. L.A. generally will not build the type of pedestrian friendly urban buildings that cities such as S.F. and N.Y. are accustomed to having. If we are always cutting the curb for cars, then there will be an issue putting the pedestrian first.

L.A. is very slowly addressing the pedestrian in its newer residential mixed use developments. But, it is a very slow process and it may be another 50 or 100 years before the pedestrian becomes important in L.A., important enough to put ahead of the needs of vehicles. Well, S.F. and N.Y. already put the pedestrian 1st to a fair extent. But, N.Y. is 400 years old and S.F. was already very dense over 100 years ago.

At that point in time, the city of L.A. was in its infancy. So, it's not fair to compare the two on that basis. The land in L.A. was vast, so L.A. grew outwards. S.F. could only go up. You can't build a city on the bay, but you can build it on the peninsula. Even in S.F. and N.Y., you will still find empty plots of land available for development. But, those opportunities are far and few between in those cities. Generally, in those two cities, shorter buildings or properties will be demolished and larger ones that fully take advantage of the zoning laws will be erected.

To some extent, demolishing shorter buildings in favor of larger ones is beginning to happen in L.A. However, I'm often disappointed with the architecture in these newer larger developments in L.A. I can understand that real estate developers may want to cut costs. However, I cannot understand why any developer would want to build ugly structures that disrespect man's understanding of aesthetics and worldly beauty. Unfortunately, that disrespect is a constant arsenic in the architecture here in L.A. Lack of thought and lack of quality. Lack of respect for the pedestrian and the list goes on and on.

The city started out very well architecturally. I'll point out the Old Bank District and old Los Angeles. But, that architectural style never caught on or carried over past the late 1920s. That's unfortunate because old L.A. has a lot of respect for the pedestrian, community and aesthetics. There were money hungry developers back then too. Just too much land to develop outside of downtown L.A., whereas Manhattan and S.F. had no choice but to build up.

Maybe we can call the current era we live in a renaissance for L.A. and particularly the central parts, downtown and surrounding areas. Well, at least we now know that our downtown isn't a dump not worth saving and that L.A. can be and become a great city if we really force real estate developers to build aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian functional buildings. Oh, and yes I do remember that part of that equation is building the mass transit that will get Angelenos from point A to point B. :)

I'm confused. You blame the developers in Los Angeles, but yet praise the zoning laws in NY and SF. So, the real question is....is this the fault of developers in Los Angeles or is it he fault of our local zoning laws that encourage minimum parking requirements (NY and SF have maximums, not minimums) and street setbacks (unfortunately, LA requires exemptions from developers so they can make it street fronting). So, who is really the "bad guy" in LA development. Those "money hungry" developers who have to abide by suburban restricted codes and have to fight for exemptions, or the City with it's archaic zoning laws?

Illithid Dude
Feb 8, 2011, 9:50 PM
I'm confused. You blame the developers in Los Angeles, but yet praise the zoning laws in NY and SF. So, the real question is....is this the fault of developers in Los Angeles or is it he fault of our local zoning laws that encourage minimum parking requirements (NY and SF have maximums, not minimums) and street setbacks (unfortunately, LA requires exemptions from developers so they can make it street fronting). So, who is really the "bad guy" in LA development. Those "money hungry" developers who have to abide by suburban restricted codes and have to fight for exemptions, or the City with it's archaic zoning laws?

I didn't know of any street setback rules. Could you explain them?

DistrictDirt
Feb 9, 2011, 11:00 PM
I didn't know of any street setback rules. Could you explain them?

A setback is the distance from the sidewalk to the exterior wall of the building. Many municipalities (mostly the burbs) mandate setbacks. Like many other zoning ordinances, its an artifact of a time when cities were viewed as too dense, dirty, and overpopulated. The solution, planners of the time thought, was a more pastoral landscape. Shorter buildings, further back from the street. More space between buildings. Euclidian separation of uses. Basically, everything that makes the suburbs feel suburban.

If you've ever noticed a useless strip of green in front of a building, often filled with bushes, trees, or mulch, with nary a place to sit...that's a setback.

That's fine for the suburbs, but unfortunately, many of these zoning ordinances were applied indiscriminately to cities as well. In an urban environment, setbacks suck. They prevent things like sidewalk cafes, and make it more difficult to have contiguous rows storefronts, screwing up walkability of neighborhoods.

Sodha is saying that LA mandates setbacks, and that developers must be granted special exceptions to build out to the sidewalk. In other words, suburban by default, urban by exception only. Bleh.

LosAngelesBeauty
Feb 9, 2011, 11:54 PM
A setback is the distance from the sidewalk to the exterior wall of the building. Many municipalities (mostly the burbs) mandate setbacks. Like many other zoning ordinances, its an artifact of a time when cities were viewed as too dense, dirty, and overpopulated. The solution, planners of the time thought, was a more pastoral landscape. Shorter buildings, further back from the street. More space between buildings. Euclidian separation of uses. Basically, everything that makes the suburbs feel suburban.

If you've ever noticed a useless strip of green in front of a building, often filled with bushes, trees, or mulch, with nary a place to sit...that's a setback.

That's fine for the suburbs, but unfortunately, many of these zoning ordinances were applied indiscriminately to cities as well. In an urban environment, setbacks suck. They prevent things like sidewalk cafes, and make it more difficult to have contiguous rows storefronts, screwing up walkability of neighborhoods.

Sodha is saying that LA mandates setbacks, and that developers must be granted special exceptions to build out to the sidewalk. In other words, suburban by default, urban by exception only. Bleh.

Yeah, that's also the mentality in Pasadena too, which always baffles me who stupid some of these people are. They bitch and complain about Downtown Pasadena being "too dense" (far, far from it) and not a peep about the disgusting strip malls and auto dealerships that destroy the built environment just outside of Downtown Pasadena on East Colorado Blvd.

What a damn shame.

Muji
Feb 16, 2011, 4:08 AM
Speaking of pedestrian unfriendly developments in Koreatown, the new Staples store at 6th and New Hampshire is nearing completion. The store occupies the first floor of the Summit condos, which actually has a nice, long storefront and patio on 6th St. Unfortunately, it seems very clear now that Staples will have no pedestrian entrance facing the street.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5094/5449340995_727be13340_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhhsu/5449340995/)
DSC_0267 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhhsu/5449340995/) par brianhhsu (http://www.flickr.com/people/brianhhsu/), sur Flickr

To make things worse, the 6th St facade has been covered with tinted panels, obscuring most of the store. Only an emergency exit door has been built. Any customers arriving on foot will be forced to walk through the adjacent Walgreens parking lot to enter the store by the parking area entrance on the other side of the building.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5449951076_6644b12da8_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhhsu/5449951076/)
DSC_0268 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhhsu/5449951076/) par brianhhsu (http://www.flickr.com/people/brianhhsu/), sur Flickr

I'm not sure if Staples was fully in charge of this design, or if it was imposed by the owners of the Summit. Either way, it's a horribly depressing waste of space. Sorry to rant, but as a nearby resident, I'm highly disappointed.

OneMetropolis
Feb 16, 2011, 9:25 PM
http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2010.12.cropcut.jpg

LosAngelesBeauty
Feb 17, 2011, 12:22 AM
Speaking of pedestrian unfriendly developments in Koreatown, the new Staples store at 6th and New Hampshire is nearing completion. The store occupies the first floor of the Summit condos, which actually has a nice, long storefront and patio on 6th St. Unfortunately, it seems very clear now that Staples will have no pedestrian entrance facing the street.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5094/5449340995_727be13340_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhhsu/5449340995/)
DSC_0267 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhhsu/5449340995/) par brianhhsu (http://www.flickr.com/people/brianhhsu/), sur Flickr

To make things worse, the 6th St facade has been covered with tinted panels, obscuring most of the store. Only an emergency exit door has been built. Any customers arriving on foot will be forced to walk through the adjacent Walgreens parking lot to enter the store by the parking area entrance on the other side of the building.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5449951076_6644b12da8_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhhsu/5449951076/)
DSC_0268 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhhsu/5449951076/) par brianhhsu (http://www.flickr.com/people/brianhhsu/), sur Flickr

I'm not sure if Staples was fully in charge of this design, or if it was imposed by the owners of the Summit. Either way, it's a horribly depressing waste of space. Sorry to rant, but as a nearby resident, I'm highly disappointed.


So sad, it's not the worst thing, but it's pretty bad. Koreatown is surprisingly "quiet" for being one of the most dense areas of the country. Narrow sidewalks, parking lots (like Walgreens), and gas stations like the one at Vermont/Wilshire, etc. make the area pretty darn pedestrian unfriendly too.

LosAngelesBeauty
Feb 17, 2011, 12:23 AM
http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2010.12.cropcut.jpg


Oh! It is now on the 4th "sail". Does anyone know how many "sails" there will be in total?

Illithid Dude
Feb 17, 2011, 12:31 AM
Oh! It is now on the 4th "sail". Does anyone know how many "sails" there will be in total?

Twenty, thirty? What is shown in that picture is a fifth or less of what the whole construction is.

http://www.earthcam.com/clients/lax/?project=cam1&page=pano

The link is a panoramic construction camera of the whole project. As you can see, it's huge.

Fun Fact: At 1.4 billion dollars, the new terminal is the largest public works projects in Los Angeles EVER. Maybe California, too, but I am not sure.