PDA

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 90

all of the trash
Aug 15, 2011, 7:35 PM
Now THAT is exactly the kind of building material I'd like to see in downtown and Hollywood. Not stuff like the Jefferson or medallion or glo (or whatever it's called now) which look like piles of puke

LosAngelesSportsFan
Aug 15, 2011, 8:46 PM
exactly! beautiful! wood glass and metal.

Illithid Dude
Aug 15, 2011, 9:06 PM
I agree, it's a lovely structure. I do wish, though, that they didn't make the bottom story of the part on the back of the courtyard stucco. It just is all the more jarring when the rest of the building is of such high quality. I do love the little design that spans the courtyard, though. Overall, it's a really nice building.

citywatch
Aug 15, 2011, 11:49 PM
Work is also expected to begin soon on Blvd 6200, a 1,000-unit apartment and retail complex on Hollywood Boulevard between Argyle and El Centro avenues, close to the Pantages Theatre.


it's about time!! that part of hollywood has been a major embarrassment for yrs & yrs. One of the worse deadzones in the entire hood, in all of LA....

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn89/Viewpark/holly.jpg
maps.google.com

^ part of the proj is supposed to fill in this huge parking lot next to the w hotel in the hollywood/vine devlpt. A second part is supposed to fill in this big gap on the north side of the blvd....

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn89/Viewpark/holly3.jpg
maps.google.com

A 3rd part will fill in the deadzone west of the above site, on the small piece of land east of the pantages theater....

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn89/Viewpark/holly2.jpg
maps.google.com


http://www.blvd6200.com/Renderings/Rendering1.jpg
blvd6200.com

http://www.blvd6200.com/Renderings/Rendering1-3.jpg
blvd6200.com

the proj website shows the blvd6200 apt bldgs as a grouping of mainly 8 u shaped structures south & north of hollywood blvd. All of them will be east of argyle, & 4 of the bldgs will be on the south side of the blvd, west of el centro. the other 4 bldgs will be on the north side of the blvd, a bit west & east of where el centro intersects with hollywood blvd. One of those bldgs will sit next to a pep boys store.

if the devlpr can't break ground shortly, they should at least clear out all the land. Those rusty light poles & auto repair bldgs have gotta go, go, go!!!

http://www.blvd6200.com/Renderings/map.jpg
blvd6200.com

that such high profile areas are just a few hundred yds from hollywood & vine is a major reason ppl visit hollywood & think: You must be kidding! this is supposed to be a town of showbiz glamor??!!

I'm assuming the plans for the blvd6200 proj haven't changed much, or at all, since the drawings for it were first released a few yrs ago. But the fact it has always been a relatively lower cost, low rise, wood framed proj makes all the delays in getting it started & finished even more ridiculous.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Aug 16, 2011, 12:54 AM
ive been waiting for this project for a long time. its a HUGE piece in the revitalization of Hollywood. The latest problem was the BS lawsuit by a neighbor.

Illithid Dude
Aug 16, 2011, 5:54 AM
Okay. This is crazy. This is stupid and crazy and stupid. Also crazy. According to Curbed Los Angeles (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/08/ad_nauseum_sign_unit_edition.php) and Daily News (http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_18682290) L.A. is going to form a billboard comity to try and figure out what to do with all the billboards in Los Angeles. Sounds good, right? Well, the issue is, this billboard commission is not going to be funded by the city. In fact, the commission specifically turned down $500,000 in funding from the city. Instead, the commission will be funded by, wait for this, PRIVATE COMPANIES. Namely, BILLBOARD COMPANIES. It's hilarious, in that incredibly terrible way. Of course, when asked about this new development, Billboard Companies have said that they are "very interested". I goddamned bet they are. Moreover, the council has said that they are looking into making at least 12 signage districts. 12! At least! That's enough to cover the whole goddamned city! Suffice to say, this is terrible news.

photoLith
Aug 16, 2011, 3:18 PM
^
Why are you so outraged, maybe Im out of the loop, but they are just billboards.

Illithid Dude
Aug 16, 2011, 4:09 PM
^
Why are you so outraged, maybe Im out of the loop, but they are just billboards.

If they were just billboards, I wouldn't be so upset. These 'signage districts' they talk about are pretty much Time Squares. Imagine 12 Time Squares spread across your city. Not so good, eh? Also, the idea that a commission about dealing with billboards is run by the billboard companies is crazy.

LAofAnaheim
Aug 16, 2011, 6:35 PM
If they were just billboards, I wouldn't be so upset. These 'signage districts' they talk about are pretty much Time Squares. Imagine 12 Time Squares spread across your city. Not so good, eh? Also, the idea that a commission about dealing with billboards is run by the billboard companies is crazy.

Chill bro. It would still have to pass multiple councils. Some areas are deserving of signage districts and others are not. Keep in mind how difficult it was for Wilshire Grand to get signage on their hotel. Don't think something passes it is going to happen. Otherwise, today, I'd be sitting in the Purple Line to Fairfax, even though it was funded in the 1980s..but things change. Chill.

Plus, 12 Times Square...what is that? 12 more blocks? That's doable.

Muji
Aug 19, 2011, 2:39 AM
Looks like a nice renovation has started in Wilshire Center on the old Hotel Normandie at 6th and Normandie. Apparently, the new owners have just begun a full rehab of the building. In the bottom left of the second photo, you can see that they've started to uncover the original ground floor facade hidden by a later renovation.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/bruab/859b6f75.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/bruab/809f2b58.jpg

Lastly, here's a picture of the hotel in better days, courtesy of LAPL (http://photos.lapl.org/carlweb/jsp/photosearch_pageADV.jsp). I would love to see its 6th St. storefronts restored to this.

http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics15/00007395.jpg

JDRCRASH
Aug 19, 2011, 12:10 PM
Chill bro. It would still have to pass multiple councils. Some areas are deserving of signage districts and others are not. Keep in mind how difficult it was for Wilshire Grand to get signage on their hotel. Don't think something passes it is going to happen. Otherwise, today, I'd be sitting in the Purple Line to Fairfax, even though it was funded in the 1980s..but things change. Chill.

Plus, 12 Times Square...what is that? 12 more blocks? That's doable.

Yes 12 "districts" is very misleading. It can actually mean single properties, not whole blocks. Another reason we need billboard regulation reform in LA.....

Curbed LA does TERRIBLE (perhaps even biased) reporting when it comes to the discussion of billboards, especially when it feeds a certain troll there - and you know who i'm talking about.

Seriously though, keep these sign districts on Hollywood Blvd and in South Park.

pesto
Aug 19, 2011, 3:49 PM
Looks like a nice renovation has started in Wilshire Center on the old Hotel Normandie at 6th and Normandie. Apparently, the new owners have just begun a full rehab of the building. In the bottom left of the second photo, you can see that they've started to uncover the original ground floor facade hidden by a later renovation.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/bruab/859b6f75.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/bruab/809f2b58.jpg

Lastly, here's a picture of the hotel in better days, courtesy of LAPL (http://photos.lapl.org/carlweb/jsp/photosearch_pageADV.jsp). I would love to see its 6th St. storefronts restored to this.

http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics15/00007395.jpg

That ornate brickwork is one of the major indigenous styles in Ktown and Westlake. Great to see them restored. Gives a sense of solidity and that it was built by people who cared.

Is it going to be used as a hotel? There seem to be a lot of smaller hotels becoming more active in Ktown. I am staying here now and I notice that hotel rates are up from the last couple of years.

DistrictDirt
Aug 19, 2011, 6:23 PM
That ornate brickwork is one of the major indigenous styles in Ktown and Westlake. Great to see them restored. Gives a sense of solidity and that it was built by people who cared.

Is it going to be used as a hotel? There seem to be a lot of smaller hotels becoming more active in Ktown. I am staying here now and I notice that hotel rates are up from the last couple of years.

Its going to be a 420-friendly hotel (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/19/local/la-me-pot-hotel-20100420). I tell ya folks, only in LA :haha:

Muji
Aug 19, 2011, 7:16 PM
Its going to be a 420-friendly hotel (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/19/local/la-me-pot-hotel-20100420). I tell ya folks, only in LA :haha:

Yikes! I really hope things have changed since last year...that was surely one of the most laughable news stories I've read in a while. In any case, whoever is doing the current renovation has been maintaining a facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hotel-Normandie-Los-Angeles/136749563079948) since the beginning of the month with plenty of updates. Without a single reference to weed, so I'll keep my hopes up.

Muji
Aug 21, 2011, 6:51 PM
Photos taken yesterday during a trip down 7th St's new bike lanes. The exterior is shaping up on the MacArthur Park TOD. Unfortunately it already looks about 20 years outdated :yuck:

http://urbandiachrony.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/westlaketodaug2.jpg

http://urbandiachrony.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/westlaketodaug.jpg

An affordable housing development called Coronado Plaza, on 7th a bit west of the park.

http://urbandiachrony.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/coronado-plaza.jpg

Lastly, here's a shot of the westbound bike lane along MacArthur Park, which comes with a very spacious buffer. This seems to be the only section with a buffered lane, but it's good to see that LADOT is at least experimenting with the idea.

http://urbandiachrony.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/7thstbikelanes.jpg

colemonkee
Aug 22, 2011, 1:41 AM
Coronado Plaza reminds me a bit of the New Carver Apartments downtown. Was this also designed by Michael Maltzan?

Steve2726
Aug 30, 2011, 2:08 PM
Santa Monica has a big project in the design phase planned for the old Papermate site, across the street from the upcoming Bergamot Expo line station. Renders are intriguing, not sure who the architect is tho-

http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2011/August-2011/08_17_2011_Hines_Project_Shrinks_in_Response_to_Criticism.html

http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/images/images-lookout/2011/IL-08-2011/08_17_2011_Site_at_Night.jpg

http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/images/images-lookout/2011/IL-08-2011/08_17_2011_daytime_view.jpg



http://www.smmirror.com/?ajax#mode=single&view=32690

http://cdn.smmirror.com/media/550/131430148436026.jpg

Illithid Dude
Aug 30, 2011, 2:23 PM
Santa Monica has a big project in the design phase for across the street from the upcoming Bergamot Expo line station. Renders are intriguing-


That looks really nice. I'm glad that this type of high-quality development exists in Los Angeles, especially in a time of recession.

pesto
Aug 30, 2011, 4:06 PM
Not bad looking, but a deterioration from the first ideas.

A few years ago this started out taller and much denser. Now its starting to look like a suburban office park (larger open areas and removal of "canyons" (5 story canyons? puh-leeeze). Activists also wanted higher ceilings on the first floors; as I recall because some seniors thought normal ceilings looked cramped. Since there were height limits, this effectively cut the number of floors and units, which was probably the real goal to begin with.

This is a consistent pattern in SM. I am a great believer in mid-rise, but this doesn't even qualify as mid-rise. Same issue on Wilshire, which is why the Purple is not getting built.

DistrictDirt
Aug 30, 2011, 11:02 PM
Not bad looking, but a deterioration from the first ideas.

A few years ago this started out taller and much denser. Now its starting to look like a suburban office park (larger open areas and removal of "canyons" (5 story canyons? puh-leeeze). Activists also wanted higher ceilings on the first floors; as I recall because some seniors thought normal ceilings looked cramped. Since there were height limits, this effectively cut the number of floors and units, which was probably the real goal to begin with.

This is a consistent pattern in SM. I am a great believer in mid-rise, but this doesn't even qualify as mid-rise. Same issue on Wilshire, which is why the Purple is not getting built.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it looks like a suburban office park. Its not that tall but its definitely urban. It would be quite at home in a European city. I love the plaza.

Illithid Dude
Aug 30, 2011, 11:11 PM
Not bad looking, but a deterioration from the first ideas.

A few years ago this started out taller and much denser. Now its starting to look like a suburban office park (larger open areas and removal of "canyons" (5 story canyons? puh-leeeze). Activists also wanted higher ceilings on the first floors; as I recall because some seniors thought normal ceilings looked cramped. Since there were height limits, this effectively cut the number of floors and units, which was probably the real goal to begin with.

This is a consistent pattern in SM. I am a great believer in mid-rise, but this doesn't even qualify as mid-rise. Same issue on Wilshire, which is why the Purple is not getting built.

It's still dense. Not as dense, but certainly dense enough. And I wouldn't say it looks like an office park, it has connectivity to the street through ground floor retail and such. Lastly, the reason the Purple Line was not built down Wilshire to Santa Monica was because A) there was no money and B) they were already building a second line to Santa Monica. Plus, you make it sound like the Purple Line extension in Santa Monica will never be built. It will be, just not in the next ten years.

pesto
Aug 31, 2011, 5:03 PM
I don't exactly disagree with either DD or ID. This is OK but way short of what should be going on in SM generally. As you drive along Wilshire it's easy to see when you get to SM: you go from 20 story buildings to 2 story. On adjacent streets you go from 3-5 story apartments to older sfh's (in general). The demand is there, but SM won't allow it.

Remember that Bergamot is at a transit center and is as tall and as dense as SM is going to get in the foreseeable future. This is the area where the planners can "go urban". But they went much less urban than LA or Culver City are proposing for transit areas.

btw, "improving the pedestrian experience" seems to be more a euphemism for larger plazas, wide roads, more setback and less floor space than it is for anything that will actually improve the experience.

Quixote
Sep 1, 2011, 4:58 PM
These all sound like positive changes to me. We're not trying to go for something that feels medieval in scale.

The only disappointing change is the sharp reduction in retail space. But this is a great project that will provide synergy between the rail station and the dense neighborhood to the north, hopefully leading to the densification of Santa Monica Blvd.

...

A new park and street, open spaces, pedestrian walkways and varied building heights and facades account for much of the difference between these plans and those rejected by the City Council last March.

Critics at that meeting called the project corporate and monolithic and said that it did not live up to the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) vision of an organic village.

They complained of a “canyon effect” between the buildings, which the developer says has been addressed by reconfiguring the buildings and by moving one street and adding another through the site, and by making the streets curved.

They've also added a “direct crossing” to the planned Expo station across Olympic Boulevard near 26th Street.

To address complaints that the “pedestrian experience” needs to be improved, the developer has added a neighborhood park facing Nebraska Avenue, “pocket parks” and a winding pedestrian pathway, and has widened and added sidewalks.

Retail frontage has been moved closer to the streets at 26th Street and Olympic Boulevard, and ground floor heights have been increased to 18 and 20 feet.

...

http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2011/August-2011/08_17_2011_Hines_Project_Shrinks_in_Response_to_Criticism.html

San Frangelino
Sep 19, 2011, 3:18 PM
Has anyone else noticed that the building on the southwest corner of Yucca St and Argyle in Hollywood has been completely demolished? I walked by it yesterday and the site has been all cleared out. The building was a white warehouse adjacent to Capitol Records.

kolchak
Sep 19, 2011, 6:35 PM
I walked by Vine and Hollywood the other day and noticed they are finally moving forward with completion of the parking structure located on Vine. It seemed like this site had been inactive for some time but they have started going up again. Good thing because its been a real eyesore:
http://i55.tinypic.com/20zzjp3.jpg

Illithid Dude
Sep 19, 2011, 11:51 PM
Oh boy, a parking garage. How exciting.

colemonkee
Sep 20, 2011, 12:09 AM
^ Ha! At least it'll have some ground floor retail.

On another note, I drove by the big Kaiser complex on Sunset near the intersection of Vermont, and they've cleared a pretty big lot on the north side of Sunset and set up what looks to be construction fencing. Anyone know what's planned in that area? I'm assuming another medical building?

LAsam
Sep 20, 2011, 4:42 PM
Oh boy, a parking garage. How exciting.

Would you rather have garages with ground floor retail or surface lots?

Illithid Dude
Sep 20, 2011, 11:23 PM
Would you rather have garages with ground floor retail or surface lots?

Surface lots that can be developed into something nicer later.

LosAngelesBeauty
Sep 23, 2011, 8:59 AM
Surface lots that can be developed into something nicer later.

There are PLENTY of surface lots to develop into nicer somethings later. Nice looking or at least decent parking structures can still enhance the built environment in LA because it does still add bulk and density to a very diluted urban experience. Retail on the ground floor is the big key here.

LAofAnaheim
Sep 23, 2011, 6:04 PM
There are PLENTY of surface lots to develop into nicer somethings later. Nice looking or at least decent parking structures can still enhance the built environment in LA because it does still add bulk and density to a very diluted urban experience. Retail on the ground floor is the big key here.

As long as the parking here is allowed for nearby businesses to open up without the added expense of building their own parking structures/lots and pushing those expenses to consumers.

The problem in LA is that we have a very high parking minimum requirement for a city. I'm not a fan of any off-site parking because it generally just increases the convenience of driving. Increased driving ---> auto-based policies --> street widenings --> reduced sidewalks --> more left turn lanes --> increased traffic

It all starts from the parking, in my opinion. If people can park conveniently, why would they drive? And then the arguement that "well, nobody will come if there is no parking". FALSE. People STILL come to Hollywood, Venice, Santa Monica, Downtown LA, Pasadena, even though there is less parking available here than in those areas with significant parking.

The addition of this parking structure makes me fearful that some people who use the Metro Red Line to Hollywood/Vine would now consider driving.

But, to be clear, I clearly SUPPORT on-street parking. I find on-street parking is GREAT for the urban experience. Those areas with on-street parking are the most vibrant corridors in LA. And......it provides that safety buffer between the pedestrian and the automobile. And on-street parking slows down traffic because auto drivers have to be mindful for parking spots and people going in/out. When you remove the on-street parking, you basically are creating highways. So, let's increase the on-street parking and decrease the off-street parking!

kolchak
Sep 23, 2011, 7:57 PM
Surface lots that can be developed into something nicer later.

I agree 100%. But in this case the parking structure had been started years ago and never finished. It was getting to be a graffitti covered mess - so I'm still glad they have finally gotten around to finishing it. :tup:

colemonkee
Sep 24, 2011, 2:42 AM
I drove by 8500 Burton last night, and they've completed the first floor and columns are starting to go up on the second floor already. No pictures because I was driving, but just in passing you can already tell that this will have a significant effect (positive, IMO) on views down La Cienega and San Vicente.

Illithid Dude
Sep 24, 2011, 4:25 AM
I drove by 8500 Burton last night, and they've completed the first floor and columns are starting to go up on the second floor already. No pictures because I was driving, but just in passing you can already tell that this will have a significant effect (positive, IMO) on views down La Cienega and San Vicente.

Plus, it's a high-density very attractive projects. With a Traders Joes no less! What's not to like?

all of the trash
Sep 25, 2011, 4:37 AM
I don't think anything can save that god forsaken intersection. lets just kill it and build a park on it, screw cars

BrandonJXN
Sep 25, 2011, 6:56 PM
I drove by 8500 Burton last night, and they've completed the first floor and columns are starting to go up on the second floor already. No pictures because I was driving, but just in passing you can already tell that this will have a significant effect (positive, IMO) on views down La Cienega and San Vicente.

That's still the worst intersection in LA however. Pretty views or otherwise.

Quixote
Sep 27, 2011, 8:11 AM
Story at Curbed LA (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/09/7_stories_of_mixeduse_proposed_just_north_of_the_bev_center.php#more).

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2011.09_320lacienega-thumb.jpg

...

Perfect scale. My dream of the Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center area becoming a major urban node is slowly being realized. I can't wait to see that area evolve into the true anchor and hub of Mid-City West.

RST500
Sep 27, 2011, 6:52 PM
Looks good but that area needs to start building 20-40 story highrises. I have long envisioned the area as becomming LA's "Time Square."

dachacon
Sep 27, 2011, 7:52 PM
^^
we already got a times square Hollywood.

LAofAnaheim
Sep 27, 2011, 8:19 PM
Story at Curbed LA (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/09/7_stories_of_mixeduse_proposed_just_north_of_the_bev_center.php#more).

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2011.09_320lacienega-thumb.jpg

...

Perfect scale. My dream of the Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center area becoming a major urban node is slowly being realized. I can't wait to see that area evolve into the true anchor and hub of Mid-City West.


45 units, two levels of commercial space and 129 parking spaces. Is that good development? 129 parking spaces? Are people still going to drive once gas prices stablize to $6/gallon? (note: we were at $2/gallon at 2000 and now $4/gallon at 2011).

Illithid Dude
Sep 27, 2011, 11:33 PM
Looks good but that area needs to start building 20-40 story highrises. I have long envisioned the area as becomming LA's "Time Square."

Luckily for you (though not really anybody else) it seems that soon EVERY urban area in L.A. is going to become 'Times Square'.

JDRCRASH
Sep 29, 2011, 3:53 AM
Luckily for you (though not really anybody else) it seems that soon EVERY urban area in L.A. is going to become 'Times Square'.

There should really, like I keep on saying, be only 2 areas (Hollywood Blvd and South Park) where billboards should be, and banned everywhere else.

pesto
Sep 30, 2011, 4:54 PM
20-40 along La Cienega would be nice, especially with a subway actually running through there. But I think both WeHo and BH would have issues. 5-10 along there wouldn't bother me at all.

I notice that NY is trying to turn Times Sq. sleek and comfortable and close off all traffic. This would be interesting for that area, again especially when transit gets there.

La Cienega/San Vicente is never going to be a walker's paradise, but big cities have big, busy intersections. People need the larger streets to access work and entertainment there, then hang on the smaller side streets in WeHo plus the Grove, 3rd St., etc.

JDRCRASH
Oct 1, 2011, 3:44 AM
^ What about where much of the rail lines converge, like downtown and the surrounding area (such as Pico-Union)?

Illithid Dude
Oct 1, 2011, 6:08 AM
This would be interesting for that area, again especially when transit gets there.


The transit IS there. What more could you want then the existing subway system?

all of the trash
Oct 1, 2011, 8:31 PM
^ What about where much of the rail lines converge, like downtown and the surrounding area (such as Pico-Union)?

Those are economically depressed areas though. I think its been brought up before how cool it would be if the area around the Beverly Center were developed as a kind of ginza district. The wealth and upscale presence is already there. The only issue would be political will and many westsiders, like they always do, think they live in 1955 and will combat any big density projects.

all of the trash
Oct 1, 2011, 8:31 PM
The transit IS there. What more could you want then the existing subway system?

I think he's talking about the area around La Cienega/San Vicente, not times sq.

pesto
Oct 2, 2011, 6:38 PM
Yeah; I mean Beverly Center. Times Sq. of course has subways in spades. We can think about removing traffic (ala TS) if and when the Crenshaw/Pink gets underway. But making it just like TS seems unnecessary given Hollywood and LA Live. Maybe Greenwich Village and SoHo are better models for WeHo, eastern BH, Beverly Center?

sopas ej
Oct 4, 2011, 12:53 AM
From the Pasadena Star-News:

On its 10-year anniversary, upgrade for Paseo Colorado could be in the works
By Janette Williams, Staff Writer
Posted: 10/02/2011 10:05:34 PM PDT

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site206/2011/1002/20111002_114946_SX02-PASEO_500.jpg
The Paseo Colorado, which replaced the failing and much-hated Plaza Pasadena about a decade ago, is in line for an multi million dollar facelift. Discussions are in the preliminary stages that might also include a hotel to the Civic Center site that could attract visitors to the Convention Center Wednesday, September 28, 2011. (SGVN/Staff Photo by Walt Mancini

PASADENA - Ten years ago, almost to the day, the Paseo Colorado opened with a shower of confetti, Cirque du Soleil-style acrobats and a booming Andrea Boccelli soundtrack.
Now, changes for the Paseo, which could bring a hotel and a new focus on high-end retailers, appear to be in the works.

"We've been told there's going to be some major renovation," said Michael Ross, the Pasadena Convention Center Operating Co.'s chief executive officer.

"At this point we have not been involved, but we have heard a lot of talk about what some of the changes might be," Ross said. "We're excited to see what the plans might be. A right-sized hotel would be wonderful."

The $220million Paseo replaced the fortress-like 1970s Plaza Pasadena mall - long dubbed the "Corpse on Colorado" - which was demolished in 1999.

The Paseo's "urban village" of stores, restaurants, offices and apartments covers three city blocks on Colorado Boulevard and got plaudits for reopening Pasadena's civic hub to the Civic Auditorium and Convention Center across the way on Green Street.

In 2009, the Convention Center completed a $145million expansion and renovation.

Michael I. de Leon, the Paseo's general manager and representative on the PCOC, did not respond to several requests for comment. The mall, originally developed by TrizecHahn, is now owned and operated by Ohio-based DDR Corp.
However, Ross said, the PCOC has been told plans for Paseo Colorado are coming in the "near future."

"We have a very close relationship, because they're such a big part of what we do," Ross said. "Obviously, the more people that come to the Pasadena Convention Center, the more people go to Paseo Colorado to park, shop and eat."

Mayor Bill Bogaard said a hotel within the mall's existing footprint would be an "interesting addition," and upgrades would add vitality to the civic center, plus a likely increase in tax revenues and jobs.

...

Read the rest by clicking on this (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_19027578?source=rss_viewed).

Illithid Dude
Oct 4, 2011, 6:29 AM
http://cdn.smmirror.com/media/550/131740016266931.jpg
(smmirror)

Speaking of parking structures... New rendering for a parking structure in Downtown Santa Monica. For a parking structure, it looks pretty nice.

sopas ej
Oct 6, 2011, 2:46 AM
From the Los Angeles Times:

Academy has long sought to build prominent film museum in L.A.
The pact between the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and LACMA to create a museum at the former May Co. site reflects the desire of L.A. cultural leaders to showcase the city's signature field.

By Nicole Sperling and John Horn, Los Angeles Times
October 6, 2011

Los Angeles boasts world-class museums dedicated to art, cars and even tar pits. It may soon have an equally prominent showplace for the city's signature industry — motion pictures.

In partnership with the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences says it intends to open a sprawling movie museum in as soon as three years. The long-delayed project would be housed in an abandoned Miracle Mile department store near LACMA, the Petersen Automotive Museum and the George C. Page Museum.

After abandoning plans for a $400-million fundraising drive to build the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures from the ground up on a Hollywood lot, the presenter of the Oscars now says it will lease the 1939 building at Fairfax Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard that formerly housed the May Co. and is now owned by LACMA. The new museum, which could potentially cover 300,000 square feet, may feature exhibits tracing the history of movies, galleries focused on specific filmmaking crafts and a theater.

"Los Angeles is very hungry to build and send a message to the world that we are a center of culture," Michael Govan, LACMA's chief executive, said Wednesday.

The academy's quest to create a motion picture museum dates to the 1960s; its most recent push came in 2005, when it purchased 3.5 acres for about $50 million near the intersection of Vine Street and Fountain Avenue. Academy officials hired French architect Christian de Portzamparc to design a museum on the Hollywood property, but said the economic downturn forced them to dump the endeavor.

Academy President Tom Sherak said Wednesday that the partners will need to raise about half of what the earlier museum was budgeted to cost. Given estimates of the previous plan, that would total about $200 million. While the partners said they hoped the museum could open its doors as early as 2014, the precise timeline will be determined by the success — or failure — of the fundraising efforts.

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2011-10/65234754.jpg
...

Read the rest by clicking here (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-academy-museum-20111006,0,4488748.story).

bobcat
Oct 6, 2011, 9:16 AM
From the Los Angeles Times:

Academy has long sought to build prominent film museum in L.A.
The pact between the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and LACMA to create a museum at the former May Co. site reflects the desire of L.A. cultural leaders to showcase the city's signature field.


This is a great partnership and a huge step towards getting more Hollywood folks involved with LA's cultural institutions. Neighboring museums should also receive an attendance boost as millions of tourists arriving by tour bus and subway are drawn to the new museum.

pesto
Oct 6, 2011, 3:37 PM
This is a great partnership and a huge step towards getting more Hollywood folks involved with LA's cultural institutions. Neighboring museums should also receive an attendance boost as millions of tourists arriving by tour bus and subway are drawn to the new museum.

Sounds like good news once the subway gets there. Not just LACMA but the Grove, Farmer's Mkt., etc., in the hood. Get those shuttles running up Fairfax at least to Canter's and Melrose.

Unfortunate for Hollywood, however; what's going to happen with the old proposed site? Probably nothing for some time.

LAsam
Oct 6, 2011, 6:45 PM
That is AWESOME news! A great reuse for the old May building, and further strengthening of museum row. Between the Page, LACMA, Petersen, and now this... that stretch will pack quite a punch! Plus, it has the added benefit of being on the future subway line.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Oct 7, 2011, 12:21 AM
Excellent news regarding Blvd6200! The owners have bought out the old lady that was holding up the project. They should break ground by January as there is nothing else holding this up! Very important project for Hollywood, since those 5 or 6 lots are just massive eyesores and vastly underused.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/10/huge_pantagesadjacent_mixeduse_blvd6200_buys_out_neighbor_work_could_start_in_january.php

Illithid Dude
Oct 7, 2011, 2:13 AM
Excellent news regarding Blvd6200! The owners have bought out the old lady that was holding up the project. They should break ground by January as there is nothing else holding this up! Very important project for Hollywood, since those 5 or 6 lots are just massive eyesores and vastly underused.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/10/huge_pantagesadjacent_mixeduse_blvd6200_buys_out_neighbor_work_could_start_in_january.php

It's about damn time. This will be a huge boon for the area.

SD_Phil
Oct 7, 2011, 2:34 AM
Phase 1 = 535 apartments. That's not too shabby. I'm not really familiar with the project though. Will those apartments be in one building? Even if split between two buildings those will probably be quite imposing.

Illithid Dude
Oct 7, 2011, 2:53 AM
Phase 1 = 535 apartments. That's not too shabby. I'm not really familiar with the project though. Will those apartments be in one building? Even if split between two buildings those will probably be quite imposing.

It's split between multiple buildings. Sadly, Phase 1 also contains 1500 parking spaces. ):

Chef Boyardee
Oct 7, 2011, 4:29 AM
From the Los Angeles Times:

Academy has long sought to build prominent film museum in L.A.
The pact between the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and LACMA to create a museum at the former May Co. site reflects the desire of L.A. cultural leaders to showcase the city's signature field.

By Nicole Sperling and John Horn, Los Angeles Times
October 6, 2011

Los Angeles boasts world-class museums dedicated to art, cars and even tar pits. It may soon have an equally prominent showplace for the city's signature industry — motion pictures.

In partnership with the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences says it intends to open a sprawling movie museum in as soon as three years. The long-delayed project would be housed in an abandoned Miracle Mile department store near LACMA, the Petersen Automotive Museum and the George C. Page Museum.

After abandoning plans for a $400-million fundraising drive to build the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures from the ground up on a Hollywood lot, the presenter of the Oscars now says it will lease the 1939 building at Fairfax Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard that formerly housed the May Co. and is now owned by LACMA. The new museum, which could potentially cover 300,000 square feet, may feature exhibits tracing the history of movies, galleries focused on specific filmmaking crafts and a theater.

"Los Angeles is very hungry to build and send a message to the world that we are a center of culture," Michael Govan, LACMA's chief executive, said Wednesday.

The academy's quest to create a motion picture museum dates to the 1960s; its most recent push came in 2005, when it purchased 3.5 acres for about $50 million near the intersection of Vine Street and Fountain Avenue. Academy officials hired French architect Christian de Portzamparc to design a museum on the Hollywood property, but said the economic downturn forced them to dump the endeavor.

Academy President Tom Sherak said Wednesday that the partners will need to raise about half of what the earlier museum was budgeted to cost. Given estimates of the previous plan, that would total about $200 million. While the partners said they hoped the museum could open its doors as early as 2014, the precise timeline will be determined by the success — or failure — of the fundraising efforts.

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2011-10/65234754.jpg
...

Read the rest by clicking here (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-academy-museum-20111006,0,4488748.story).


Abandoned? I thought lacma used it for something. It looks great for an abandoned building. One of my favourite buildings in LA. Hope they don't alter it on the outside.

pesto
Oct 8, 2011, 4:06 PM
Abandoned? I thought lacma used it for something. It looks great for an abandoned building. One of my favourite buildings in LA. Hope they don't alter it on the outside.

I guarantee that someone will propose putting a giant Oscar facing that intersection. IMO, a fabulous sight when you come out of the Purple station there. btw, that station will have to be one of the best decorated in the whole system: everything from LACMA to Farmer's Mkt. to Canter's to Oscar will be in the 'hood.

bobcat
Oct 8, 2011, 5:22 PM
I think Lacma West is currently used for offices, storage, and temporary exhibition space so it's definitely not "abandoned," although I believe not all of the floors have been renovated.

The more I think of AMPAS moving into that space the more I like it. As already stated it's in decent condition as is and probably won't require all that much money to bring it up to snuff. When you consider that Eli Broad's downtown museum is supposed to cost $120 million just imagine what could be done to Lacma West with a similar amount of money.

And the great thing about refurbing an existing building is that the project can be completed in phases as funding comes in. For a entirely new museum they'd need to have almost all the funds committed before they could break ground.

pesto
Oct 9, 2011, 4:46 PM
The building already has a Hollywood Golden Age look about it, which could certainly be elaborated. Let's do some glamour.

And don't forget a memorial for Biggy Smalls across the street. A little violent history always grabs the crowds.

dktshb
Oct 10, 2011, 7:31 PM
Monarch Group must be going forward with their mixed use development on LA Brea and Fountain. The Jons cleared out about a month ago and now I think they're getting ready to tear down the building.

pesto
Oct 11, 2011, 6:23 PM
Monarch Group must be going forward with their mixed use development on LA Brea and Fountain. The Jons cleared out about a month ago and now I think they're getting ready to tear down the building.

Yeah, I think curbed mentioned that a few weeks ago. Glad to hear it's actually happening.

DistrictDirt
Oct 20, 2011, 9:36 PM
I'm shocked that this happened 24 hours ago, and no one's posted it here yet:

Rest In Peace: Santa Monica Blvd. Subway Station (http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/10/19/rest-in-peace-santa-monica-blvd-subway-station/)


by Damien Newton on October 19, 2011

LA Streetsblog (http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/10/19/rest-in-peace-santa-monica-blvd-subway-station/)

http://la.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/source-westside-fault-lines.jpg
Streetsblog (http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/10/19/rest-in-peace-santa-monica-blvd-subway-station/) (via the Source (http://thesource.metro.net/2011/10/19/experts-speak-to-metro-board-about-westside-subway-extension-seismic-issues-in-century-city-a-constellation-station-is-recommended))

Earlier this afternoon, the Metro Board of Directors Planning Committee held a wake for the Westside Subway Station at Santa Monica Boulevard. The Station had been on life support for some time now, but the testimony of two teams of geologists finally put the beleaguered proposal to rest.

Testifying that a station anywhere along Santa Monica Boulevard would be dangerous because it would lie in an active fault zone, Dr. James Dolan of USC, Dr. Lucy Jones of the U.S. Geological Survey and the California Institute of Technology, Dr. Harvey Parker, an engineer and former President of the International Tunneling Association, and Dr. Paul C. Jennings, a Professor of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Emeritus, at the California Institute of Technology all agreed that it would be irresponsible for Metro to build a station along Santa Monica Boulevard. Their studies also showed that a station at Constellation Avenue and Avenue of the Stars would fall outside active fault zones.

According to these experts, the best route for the Subway is underneath the south wing of Building B of the Beverly Hills High School. The experts all agreed that there is no reason to believe that the deep trench tunnel, running 70 feet underground, will endanger students or any planned development for the high school including an underground parking garage.

Despite the well funded organizations that have longed pushed for a subway stop on Santa Monica Boulevard (remember the “Century City Subway” website?), this should mark the end of the campaign for a Santa Monica Station. After all, even if the team hired by Beverly Hills Unified School District comes up with different conclusions than the pair of teams hired by Metro, it is wildly unlikely that Metro would every build a station at a location deemed unsafe by teams contracted for by Metro.

Thus, the political battle shifts from comparing the two station proposals to a focus on the process that has led to today’s findings and whether or not the Constellation Avenue Station and route underneath Beverly Hills High School is appropriate and safe. The battle over process began immediately after the geologists presentation was completed.

Metro staff gave no advance information on today’s presentation to anyone, Metro Board included, leaving Supervisor Mike Antonovich annoyed that he wasn’t prepared for a robust question and answer session with the presenters. He compared the process to a “professional wrestling match” with a predetermined outcome and called the process “flawed from the beginning.”

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who’s district includes Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica City Council Woman Pam O’Connor both defended the process noting today was just an oral presentation and no decisions would be made by the Board until there was much deeper review, more public hearings, and a formal presentation to the Planning Committee and Full Metro Board of Directors.

Which is probably a good thing. Despite being the Board Member most prepared to quiz the presenters, Yaroslavsky stumbled at times reminding the presenters that he, and most of the people in the room, were laymen on earthquakes and geology. Later, he had trouble remembering what some of the lines on the geological maps meant. This isn’t to pick on Yaroslavsky, just to point out that while the presenters, especially Dolan and Jones, did an admirable job translating science to English, the presentation was still technical and dense. It’s going to be sometime before the Board can get in to all the details.

Also questioning the politics and methodology of today’s announcement was the Beverly Hills Unified School District which released a scathing statement wondering why Metro hasn’t released all of the data for the project as it became available and demanding their experts have a chance to review everything:

With its seismic data presentation, Metro has opened a veritable Pandora’s Box that potentially impacts many dozens of existing buildings and future projects in the region, including Beverly Hills High School, future station locations for the Westside Subway Extension as well as currently entitled development projects. It is unfathomable that Metro has had this important seismic data available for such a long time without providing it to the BHUSD or other interested parties in the purported earthquake zone.

Much of the data presented today has been available for almost a year. The fact that Metro held it for so long poses many questions that Metro cannot answer. If the fault is so dangerous, the information should have been more forthcoming. We urge Metro to fully disclose all of the data as soon as possible. Our independent experts will immediately begin evaluating the findings and will weigh in as this process moves forward.

While the BHUSD readies their rebuttal, it’s hard to picture an outcome where a station is constructed on Santa Monica Boulevard at any time in the near future leaving BHUSD with two options: arguing that the Constellation Avenue Station is also dangerous and Metro needs to go back to the drawing board for a stop for the area or that the Westside Subway should just skip this area and head right from Beverly/Rodeo Drive to Westwood.

Today’s presentation will be available on Metro.net/westsidesubway later today or tomorrow morning.

###

colemonkee
Oct 20, 2011, 9:51 PM
^ Awesome. I love it when reason and science trump irrationality and xenophobia.

DistrictDirt
Oct 20, 2011, 11:39 PM
^ Awesome. I love it when reason and science trump irrationality and xenophobia.

Isn't it awesome? Suck it, Beverly Hills.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Oct 21, 2011, 3:26 AM
best new of the month. BHUSD can eat a fat one. i hope they dont sue (unlikely, i know) because they have no grounds what so ever and would only waste time and money

JDRCRASH
Oct 21, 2011, 6:02 AM
^ Which is why, if the courts somehow miraculously allow the suit, Metro should counter-sue for lost labor and added expenses.

LAofAnaheim
Oct 21, 2011, 7:58 PM
best new of the month. BHUSD can eat a fat one. i hope they dont sue (unlikely, i know) because they have no grounds what so ever and would only waste time and money

It's a waste of resources, because the potential magnititude of this lawsuit would be ginormous (sp?). In that, it would affect EVERY TRANSIT AGENCY in the United States. It would set a very dangerous precedent that would hurt CTA, NYMTA, BART, Washington Metro, SEPTA, NJ Transit, PATH, MBTA, etc... So the chances of their court case going anywhere is like .002%. Imagine if you start limiting subway drilling, then every homeowner group would be able to use the Beverly Hills v. Metro as a precedent (if BH were to prevail). So, due to the heightened restriction that would affect each transit agency, this is going to be a non-starter.

pesto
Oct 22, 2011, 4:01 PM
It's a waste of resources, because the potential magnititude of this lawsuit would be ginormous (sp?). In that, it would affect EVERY TRANSIT AGENCY in the United States. It would set a very dangerous precedent that would hurt CTA, NYMTA, BART, Washington Metro, SEPTA, NJ Transit, PATH, MBTA, etc... So the chances of their court case going anywhere is like .002%. Imagine if you start limiting subway drilling, then every homeowner group would be able to use the Beverly Hills v. Metro as a precedent (if BH were to prevail). So, due to the heightened restriction that would affect each transit agency, this is going to be a non-starter.

I hope MTA hasn't already played into BH's hands by creating an "earthquake scare" along the subway. Releasing a map saying that there is a significant earthquake issue a few hundred feet from a proposed station raises issues about the whole line.

And remember that the study was put together by MTA's "hired guns". BH would love to get them on the stand and get their comments about safety of stations in general in an earthquake zone. And finally get ahold of the internal studies that MTA has refused to release. And, of course, they will bring in their own hired guns to say that neither route is safe.

And, best of all the public pays for everything: plaintiff, defendant and the judge. It's win, win, win for the legal profession and lose, lose, lose for the taxpayer.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Oct 23, 2011, 9:05 PM
I hope MTA hasn't already played into BH's hands by creating an "earthquake scare" along the subway. Releasing a map saying that there is a significant earthquake issue a few hundred feet from a proposed station raises issues about the whole line.

And remember that the study was put together by MTA's "hired guns". BH would love to get them on the stand and get their comments about safety of stations in general in an earthquake zone. And finally get ahold of the internal studies that MTA has refused to release. And, of course, they will bring in their own hired guns to say that neither route is safe.

And, best of all the public pays for everything: plaintiff, defendant and the judge. It's win, win, win for the legal profession and lose, lose, lose for the taxpayer.

I dont think you can call the scientists from JPL hired guns. its just truth. the BHUSH can go fuck themselves. im tired of this shit.

LAofAnaheim
Oct 23, 2011, 11:56 PM
I hope MTA hasn't already played into BH's hands by creating an "earthquake scare" along the subway. Releasing a map saying that there is a significant earthquake issue a few hundred feet from a proposed station raises issues about the whole line.

And remember that the study was put together by MTA's "hired guns". BH would love to get them on the stand and get their comments about safety of stations in general in an earthquake zone. And finally get ahold of the internal studies that MTA has refused to release. And, of course, they will bring in their own hired guns to say that neither route is safe.

And, best of all the public pays for everything: plaintiff, defendant and the judge. It's win, win, win for the legal profession and lose, lose, lose for the taxpayer.


Geez pesto, you don't trust anybody do you? First, Donald Shoup and now the best scientific seismologists in California? Do you have any credible say in this arguement? No. We're all just board commentators. Leave it up to science and people with education. We don't have the degrees those people do.

First of all, has everybody forgot that Metro was not legally required to release any documents during an EIR process? Something that Beverly Hills sued and lost? (http://thesource.metro.net/2011/09/16/court-rules-in-favor-of-metro-in-westside-subway-extension-case/). Or has that just been forgotten? That's the law, so don't get all emotional on Beverly Hills favor. Beverly Hills is costing the County money.

So, using your logic of Metro's "hired guns", this is something EVERY TRANSIT AGENCY does, in which they bring in scientists, experts, etc.. to disprove emotional pleas with no rationale substance. Are you saying that EVERY TRANSIT AGENCY in the United States has lied to its people? Are you saying that EVERY TRANSIT AGENCY is propagandizing its own "facts" and ignoring the truths? If you cannot believe the experts that were brought in, than who can you believe? By the way, these people were questioned by Beverly Hills and Mike Antonovich at the meetings, but the scientists disproved their theories. Also, the scientists said that building a subway tunnel perpendicular to a fault is OKAY.

Pesto, you sound very Tea Partyish who just gets annoyed at rationale arguments and people of "reason". No wonder you were banned a couple of months ago on the SSP....... That's not picking on you, but when people come here and discount people with education degrees, experts (people who have done YEARS and YEARS of studying) and think as a commentator you can dispute your facts, well, you're wrong.

202_Cyclist
Oct 24, 2011, 12:45 AM
LAofAnaheim:
Pesto, you sound very Tea Partyish who just gets annoyed at rationale arguments and people of "reason". No wonder you were banned a couple of months ago on the SSP....... That's not picking on you, but when people come here and discount people with education degrees, experts (people who have done YEARS and YEARS of studying) and think as a commentator you can dispute your facts, well, you're wrong.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

And regarding parking from the downtown LA thread, I read a quote today, "No place is worth visiting that doesn’t have a parking problem.”

JDRCRASH
Oct 24, 2011, 1:10 AM
I hope MTA hasn't already played into BH's hands by creating an "earthquake scare" along the subway. Releasing a map saying that there is a significant earthquake issue a few hundred feet from a proposed station raises issues about the whole line.

It shouldn't, since Tokyo and Mexico City are BOTH at greater risk for more powerful earthquakes than Los Angeles, yet they have hundreds of miles of subways.

the BHUSH can go fuck themselves. im tired of this shit.

I think the majority of Angelenos are as well. Let's just hope some biased LA Times writer doesn't actually believe their crap.

pesto
Oct 24, 2011, 4:18 PM
Geez pesto, you don't trust anybody do you? First, Donald Shoup and now the best scientific seismologists in California? Do you have any credible say in this arguement? No. We're all just board commentators. Leave it up to science and people with education. We don't have the degrees those people do.

First of all, has everybody forgot that Metro was not legally required to release any documents during an EIR process? Something that Beverly Hills sued and lost? (http://thesource.metro.net/2011/09/16/court-rules-in-favor-of-metro-in-westside-subway-extension-case/). Or has that just been forgotten? That's the law, so don't get all emotional on Beverly Hills favor. Beverly Hills is costing the County money.

So, using your logic of Metro's "hired guns", this is something EVERY TRANSIT AGENCY does, in which they bring in scientists, experts, etc.. to disprove emotional pleas with no rationale substance. Are you saying that EVERY TRANSIT AGENCY in the United States has lied to its people? Are you saying that EVERY TRANSIT AGENCY is propagandizing its own "facts" and ignoring the truths? If you cannot believe the experts that were brought in, than who can you believe? By the way, these people were questioned by Beverly Hills and Mike Antonovich at the meetings, but the scientists disproved their theories. Also, the scientists said that building a subway tunnel perpendicular to a fault is OKAY.

Pesto, you sound very Tea Partyish who just gets annoyed at rationale arguments and people of "reason". No wonder you were banned a couple of months ago on the SSP....... That's not picking on you, but when people come here and discount people with education degrees, experts (people who have done YEARS and YEARS of studying) and think as a commentator you can dispute your facts, well, you're wrong.

Well, let's shift the facts. If a private corporation were suing a private corporation over a technical issue, would they hire experts who agreed with their analysis or disagreed? And would the other side hire the guys who disagreed with them or agreed with them? This is just real life. Lawyers keep comprehensive lists of "experts" who are "plaintiff witnesses" or "defense witnesses". Any large, prestige university will have some on either side. Pure science is fairly objective as long as you stick to models; engineering much less so because applying the models to facts is always messy.

Same for public agencies. They are just human beings and they act in their own benefit. Of course, you normally want to do things that make sense, since you may end up in court; that's the beauty of openness and transparency. But there are often are multiple choices all of which are reasonably acceptable.

My suspension on the other site was interesting. Somebody who was a China worshipper said a variety of completely non-sensical things about how great Chinese technology, building methods, organization, etc., were. Someone else cut him to shreds, and the first guy told him if you continue to be argumentative I will have you banned from this site.

I posted a very short note saying ironic that you not only admire Chinese technology but their system for winning arguments. In the US we tend more toward open argumentation and criticism.

I can only assume that he has some connections at the site, because I was then banned for some period of time.

LAofAnaheim
Oct 24, 2011, 9:53 PM
I think the majority of Angelenos are as well. Let's just hope some biased LA Times writer doesn't actually believe their crap.

The LA Times isn't believing their crap.........it's LA Weekly that is.

pesto
Oct 25, 2011, 4:23 PM
A couple of comments.

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

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

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

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

Once again, I have minimal interest in which station is chosen. But this is truly a study in mis-handling. Let's hope it doesn't slow Purple or anything else.

LAofAnaheim
Oct 25, 2011, 7:17 PM
A couple of comments.

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

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

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

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

Once again, I have minimal interest in which station is chosen. But this is truly a study in mis-handling. Let's hope it doesn't slow Purple or anything else.

Keep in mind Pesto, the Constellation station was the CLEAR favorite of Los Angeles residents and yes, developers. But if you attended meetings outside of Roxbury Park, you'd hear from the LA County residents that they want Constellation. The "center of the center" in Century City is Constellation, there's no denying that. Now, if Metro wanted to truly push Constellation over SM boulevard, why did their ridership studies show better boardings at SM boulevard over Constellation? They could have fudged those numbers to prove Constellation (after all, there are more buses that go to Constellation than SM boulevard with CC # 3, BBB # 5, Metro Rapid 728, 28, 316, 16, AV Express and LADOT 534).

The process of Metro is to listen to concerns of ALL RESIDENTS not the minority screaming the loudest (Beverly Hills). So denying Constellation is actually ignoring the residents of Los Angeles. Homeowner groups, developers, business interest AND LA residents SUPPORT IN GREATER NUMBERS Constellation over SM boulevard. Now, to quelch the fears of Beverly Hills, which is primarily the only area supporting SM boulevard, they brought in those independent experts to review the findings. You can discount their years and years of studies, but they know more than all of us.

Metro did the best it could do to prove that SM boulevard is not a good option. Also, Metro only started the Alternative Analysis in 2007 when Mayor Villaraigosa approved $10 million worth of studies (something a lot of politicians in LA were against, but somehow quickly embraced, funny). So to say that SM boulevard was studied before (which BH claims) is false. The original Red Line was to go west to Fairfax ONLY. There is no studies to previously support a SM boulevard. It was just a drawing on a map, nothing more.

P.S. Metro changed their name officially to "Metro" in 2008. MTA no longer exists.

BrandonJXN
Oct 25, 2011, 7:31 PM
So that apartment on Wilshire and La Brea is now finally under construction.

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3080/2536857026_b7783e91f7_o.jpg
http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3080/2536857026_b7783e91f7_o.jpg

LosAngelesSportsFan
Oct 26, 2011, 12:27 AM
A couple of comments.

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

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

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

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

Once again, I have minimal interest in which station is chosen. But this is truly a study in mis-handling. Let's hope it doesn't slow Purple or anything else.

Pesto, its very important which station is picked because ridership is key to this line, future lines and development. Also, were not talking about a station in BH , were talking about a station in Century City. thats whats so infuriating. The line will be 80 feet BELOW BH, yet they are making up lies and trying to stop it for no good reason. ALL credible experts have said that the station should be on Constellation and not next to a damn golf course.

LAofAnaheim
Oct 26, 2011, 1:29 AM
Agreed with LASF

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

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

And, Metro has to listen to people outside of just Beverly Hills to support the project. All of Los Angeles is asking for Constellation versus Beverly Hills wanting SM boulevard. But Beverly Hills is using the pity arguement and saying "those big bad developers are pushing Constellation on the little people", which is an absolute false rheoteric they are using to give BHHS sympathy. That's what is riling the rest of us to pile bad language on BHHS. It's the false emotions that upset us. So far, the LA Weekly has bought their arguement, but luckily, nobody else.

pesto
Oct 26, 2011, 4:04 PM
Agreed with LASF

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

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

And, Metro has to listen to people outside of just Beverly Hills to support the project. All of Los Angeles is asking for Constellation versus Beverly Hills wanting SM boulevard. But Beverly Hills is using the pity arguement and saying "those big bad developers are pushing Constellation on the little people", which is an absolute false rheoteric they are using to give BHHS sympathy. That's what is riling the rest of us to pile bad language on BHHS. It's the false emotions that upset us. So far, the LA Weekly has bought their arguement, but luckily, nobody else.

As far as I can tell no one is pushing hard for one stop or the other in CC other than MTA and BH. The estimates just weren't all that different from each other. If I'm negotiating this deal for a private company I have given BH what they want long ago, have popped the champagne, and am setting up the game-plan for impressing the hell out of the BH people so that SM and WLA will be begging for me to build them a subway.

Instead, we're worrying about whether the Expo II's opponents have new grounds for a safety lawsuit; whether there can EVER be a subway along SM Blvd.; and whether new high-rises in CC, BH or Westwood are now doomed.

pesto
Oct 26, 2011, 4:07 PM
So that apartment on Wilshire and La Brea is now finally under construction.

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3080/2536857026_b7783e91f7_o.jpg
http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3080/2536857026_b7783e91f7_o.jpg

Here's to 200 hundred more just like it. Or taller, along Wilshire and La Brea.

Steve2726
Oct 26, 2011, 5:43 PM
BLVD 6200 developer stating they will start construction on the North side of Hollywood Blvd (Phase 1) before the end of the year-

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/accounts/login/?next=/news/2011/oct/24/hollywood-looks-add-big-star/

Subscribers only, sorry.

www.blvd6200.com

http://www.blvd6200.com/Pictures/HomePagePic.jpg

LAofAnaheim
Oct 26, 2011, 6:16 PM
As far as I can tell no one is pushing hard for one stop or the other in CC other than MTA and BH. The estimates just weren't all that different from each other. If I'm negotiating this deal for a private company I have given BH what they want long ago, have popped the champagne, and am setting up the game-plan for impressing the hell out of the BH people so that SM and WLA will be begging for me to build them a subway.

Instead, we're worrying about whether the Expo II's opponents have new grounds for a safety lawsuit; whether there can EVER be a subway along SM Blvd.; and whether new high-rises in CC, BH or Westwood are now doomed.

No one is pushing hard for CC other than MTA and BH? Constellation has been endorsed by nearly homeowner association in Century City, West LA and Westwood. Constellation has been endorsed by the Century City Chambers of Commerce. If you go to any public forum outside of Roxbury Park, we're all shouting for Constellation. Constellation has more overwhelming majority support than SM Boulevard. To say there is nobody pushing for CC than MTA and BH is being ignorant. Read the news articles, attend meetings outside of Roxbury Park, go to the Metro meetings....Constellation has more overwhelming support. The problem is that Beverly Hills is a significantly loud minority.

Again, if Metro chooses to go with SM Boulevard than they are ignoring the 4 million people in Los Angeles. This is a COUNTY project, not a city project. If you are only reading the BH newspaper and LA Weekly, than you are wrong that nobody else has a vested interested in CC than just MTA and BH. Metro has a duty to listen to everybody, not just Beverly Hills. Heck, if Metro didn't listen to Beverly Hills, then maybe there would be no stations at Wilshire/La Cienega and Wilshire/Rodeo? How's that for listening?

LosAngelesSportsFan
Oct 26, 2011, 11:11 PM
BLVD 6200 developer stating they will start construction on the North side of Hollywood Blvd (Phase 1) before the end of the year-

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/accounts/login/?next=/news/2011/oct/24/hollywood-looks-add-big-star/

Subscribers only, sorry.

www.blvd6200.com

http://www.blvd6200.com/Pictures/HomePagePic.jpg

AMEN. long time coming

Pesto, why should metro just give in to BH's irrational requests and set a precedent? its not like it would speed up the construction.

Quixote
Oct 27, 2011, 1:28 AM
Here's to 200 hundred more just like it. Or taller, along Wilshire and La Brea.

And Vermont, Western, Fairfax, La Cienega, Sunset, Santa Monica, Melrose, Beverly, Olympic, Pico, Venice, Crenshaw, etc. ;)

pesto
Oct 27, 2011, 3:57 PM
No one is pushing hard for CC other than MTA and BH? Constellation has been endorsed by nearly homeowner association in Century City, West LA and Westwood. Constellation has been endorsed by the Century City Chambers of Commerce. If you go to any public forum outside of Roxbury Park, we're all shouting for Constellation. Constellation has more overwhelming majority support than SM Boulevard. To say there is nobody pushing for CC than MTA and BH is being ignorant. Read the news articles, attend meetings outside of Roxbury Park, go to the Metro meetings....Constellation has more overwhelming support. The problem is that Beverly Hills is a significantly loud minority.

Again, if Metro chooses to go with SM Boulevard than they are ignoring the 4 million people in Los Angeles. This is a COUNTY project, not a city project. If you are only reading the BH newspaper and LA Weekly, than you are wrong that nobody else has a vested interested in CC than just MTA and BH. Metro has a duty to listen to everybody, not just Beverly Hills. Heck, if Metro didn't listen to Beverly Hills, then maybe there would be no stations at Wilshire/La Cienega and Wilshire/Rodeo? How's that for listening?

You're making a mountain out of mole hill; the alternative stops are about 1 block apart. Pretty much all the proposed Purple Stations had alternatives that had their plusses and minuses. Does it REALLY matter if Westwood or Gayley is chosen? Maybe a little to some people (I had my preference). But not essential to anybody and not even worth arguing for most.

pesto
Oct 27, 2011, 4:14 PM
AMEN. long time coming

Pesto, why should metro just give in to BH's irrational requests and set a precedent? its not like it would speed up the construction.

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

Happens every day in the real world. Mr. Rich wants to sell his company for 1B but wants you to continue funding his pet charity: homes for lost Chihuahuas (20k per year). You decide the company is worth 2B and you tell him "yes, sir, Mr. Rich we will fund the 20k and put in another 20k of our own money and a plaque commemorating your generosity to stray animals". Mr. Rich is now your buddy, and other sellers know that you are the kind of guy that does right by them. And you have closed the deal.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Oct 27, 2011, 6:10 PM
Nonsense. You don't negotiate with irrational people, you just dismiss them. Metro doesn't need bhusd's approval. If you wanted to build a fence in your backyard and your neighbo across the street said may me 1 million, would you negotiate with them?

LAofAnaheim
Oct 27, 2011, 8:02 PM
You're making a mountain out of mole hill; the alternative stops are about 1 block apart. Pretty much all the proposed Purple Stations had alternatives that had their plusses and minuses. Does it REALLY matter if Westwood or Gayley is chosen? Maybe a little to some people (I had my preference). But not essential to anybody and not even worth arguing for most.

In 50 years, when the Purple Line is completed and people are looking back and wondering "why the heck is the Century City station on the edge of Century City and not the center.............darn Metro". Metro will get 100% of the blame and everybody will forget Beverly Hills. It's the same thing that's happening with Aviation station and the Green Line. Nobody thinks about the FTA regulations that prevented a Green Line to LAX, the taxi lobbyists or the parking operaters. Nope. It's 100% Metro's fault. Only Metro and that's it.

So, shouldn't Metro focus on the best possible product for the MAJORITY? The majority wants Constellation, not SM boulevard. Also, in terms of safety, we cannot argue with scientists who know way more than us. You cannot marginalize their intelligence. BH will probably hire a cheap scientist with little name recognition and will go with what the PR company will tell them. But those scientists at BH will have no greater credibility than the one's used by Metro who are reknowned very well in the state of California. But, of course, those scientists will be marginalized just like the one's years ago who proved the climate change theory by using "facts", "figures" and "science".

pesto
Oct 28, 2011, 4:33 PM
Nonsense. You don't negotiate with irrational people, you just dismiss them. Metro doesn't need bhusd's approval. If you wanted to build a fence in your backyard and your neighbo across the street said may me 1 million, would you negotiate with them?

YES, if he had the power to stop the fence or mess up my other projects or relations with my neighbors. But your analogy is totally disproportionate. The MTA vs. BH is more like he requested that I not use redwood on the portion next to his flowers because the chemicals would leach into the soil. A very minor issue to me and critical to him.

But enough of my opinions; let's see how the MTA strategy plays out. Hopefully, no adverse effects.

JDRCRASH
Oct 29, 2011, 3:27 AM
Pesto, you'd be surprised how little differences can go a long ways to making a station more successful.

JDRCRASH
Oct 29, 2011, 5:11 AM
I'm surprised nobody posted this yet...

Plans Released For Giant Wyvernwood Redevelopment

Friday, October 28, 2011, by James Brasuell

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

. . . READ MORE



Source:http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/10/plans_released_for_giant_wyvernwood_redevelopment.php

pesto
Oct 29, 2011, 5:27 PM
I'm surprised nobody posted this yet...




Source:http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/10/plans_released_for_giant_wyvernwood_redevelopment.php

I used to live here. Most of the construction is bottom of the barrel slum style boxes without decoration. I remember in the early '50's my mother and aunt complaining about dilapidated conditions. They have only gotten worse. Trash on the ground. Sidewalks and roads are in terrible condition. Tijuana level.

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

What is proposed is hardly "gentrification"; more like "slum clearance" and replacement with modest housing with at least a few amenities for safety and recreation. I doubt if anyone really opposes it; they're just hoping for a better deal for residents, the neighborhood, etc. A shame if this is killed or seriously delayed.

JDRCRASH
Oct 30, 2011, 12:22 AM
A shame if this is killed or seriously delayed.

Doubt it. I think you're seeing Councilman Huizar begin to retract his criticism. And the developer is pretty confident it'll be accepted among the community. As long as these are at least somewhat affordable for low-income residents, it'll happen.

pesto
Oct 30, 2011, 4:52 PM
This is actually a very gutsy move for the developer. The area is called Boyle Heights, but it's really just an industrial area south of the heights. Anything this upscale (for that area) is a real vote of confidence for people's desire to live within a mile or two of DT with only a few suburban amenities. Hopefully they will run a shuttle to DT.

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

Over time, I suspect this will be a stimulus for the general area, which is largely auto repair, abandoned buildings or very small sfh's. The old Sears warehouse at Soto is the one place for potential "show-time" redevelopment.

Chef Boyardee
Nov 3, 2011, 6:19 PM
We'll see.

http://bostinnovation.com/2011/11/03/emerson-college-strengthens-its-la-connection-plans-to-build-a-new-academic-center-in-hollywood/

colemonkee
Nov 3, 2011, 8:26 PM
^ That's great news! This is a great looking building.