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

OneMetropolis
Mar 21, 2012, 9:35 PM
Whats the status on that Blvd 6200, project? I am curious to see that get built.

Kingofthehill
Mar 21, 2012, 11:38 PM
Man, there needs to be some way to reform the building construction/input/entitlement process, so that the self-absorbed, whiny NIMBY's are not able to wield as much influence or be able to spout their selfish, inane rhetoric.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Mar 22, 2012, 12:24 AM
Man, there needs to be some way to reform the building construction/input/entitlement process, so that the self-absorbed, whiny NIMBY's are not able to wield as much influence or be able to spout their selfish, inane rhetoric.

agreed. this is the single biggest impediment to smart, infill development in LA. every worthwhile project is delayed by 6 - 12 months at least because some idiot sues that his view is blocked

Chef Boyardee
Mar 22, 2012, 1:59 AM
Excellent news. what ridiculous arguments by the nimby. when is this supposed to break ground?


In another article i read it said "site preparation work" (whatever that entails) has already begun.

dachacon
Mar 22, 2012, 4:55 AM
In another article i read it said "site preparation work" (whatever that entails) has already begun.

Site Preparation means that clearing of debris in the work site, and grading, along with shoring the neighboring properties is there is below grade levels. Like Foundation work, its boring and a non event process.

StethJeff
Mar 23, 2012, 1:43 AM
A park over the Hollywood Freeway one step closer to reality

The seemingly wild dream of a park on top of the Hollywood Freeway took a baby step toward reality Tuesday.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for the first time met with local officials about the proposed 44-acre Hollywood Central Park, which would create a street-level expanse of green over the capped freeway between Hollywood and Santa Monica Boulevards.

Rep. Adam Schiff, who was in the Washington D.C. meeting along with representatives from Friends of the Hollywood Central Park, said LaHood was interested in the project and offered to have his staff work to help plan next steps.

Schiff said the meeting was "a very positive development."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a dream come true it'd be if this ever got completed. Of all the projects that have popped up over the last 5 years or so in the Southland, this one seemed the most like science fiction.

JDRCRASH
Mar 23, 2012, 5:02 AM
^totally agree. And according to someone that commented today as a guest on the curbed article posted today... Glendale is apparently jumping in in the freeway cap park bonanza...

a9l8e7n
Mar 25, 2012, 5:46 PM
The Wilshire/Vermont project has been listed as under construction for the past month or two and I have still yet to see any proof of it. A project of this scale would have for sure announced its ground breaking ceremony.
:shrug:

Illithid Dude
Mar 26, 2012, 6:21 AM
http://www.kfarchitects.com/images/dynamiimages/projects/988.jpg

http://www.kfarchitects.com/images/dynamiimages/projects/989.jpg

This project is expected to start this year. It is on Selma and Highland. 200 apartments. 80 million dollars. It was mentioned in the LA Times article JDR posted a little back.

colemonkee
Mar 26, 2012, 6:28 AM
^ That's actually not bad looking. I like the use of wood paneling on the facade. Is this on the north or south side of Selma? There are buildings on both sides that would need to be knocked down for this, but this would be an improvement on what's there on either side.

Illithid Dude
Mar 26, 2012, 7:08 AM
^ That's actually not bad looking. I like the use of wood paneling on the facade. Is this on the north or south side of Selma? There are buildings on both sides that would need to be knocked down for this, but this would be an improvement on what's there on either side.

North side.

Steve2726
Mar 27, 2012, 10:29 PM
:previous:
The parking lot on the Northeast corner still has a CBRE for sale sign on it. :shrug:

202_Cyclist
Mar 29, 2012, 5:25 PM
Facelift Project for Hollywood Stirs Divisions

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: March 28, 2012
NY Times

"LOS ANGELES — Hollywood, once a sketchy neighborhood in a spiral of petty crime and decay, has been well on its way over the past 10 years to becoming a bustling tourist destination and nightlife district. But now it is on the verge of another transformation: to a decidedly un-Californian urban enclave pierced by skyscrapers, clustered around public transportation and animated pedestrian street life.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/03/29/us/HOLLYWOOD-1/HOLLYWOOD-1-popup.jpg
A zoning change would allow skyscrapers to loom over Capitol Records Tower, a 13-story landmark just off Hollywood and Vine. (Monica Almeida/The New York Times)

A far-reaching rezoning plan that would turn parts of Hollywood into a mini-city — with residential and commercial towers rising on streets like Vine, Hollywood and Sunset — has won the support of key Los Angeles officials. And it has set off a storm of opposition from residents fearful that it would destroy the rakish small-town charm of their community with soaring anodyne buildings that block views of the Hollywood Hills (and its iconic sign) and overwhelm streets with traffic.

“More is not better, bigger is not better,” Sarajane Schwartz, the president of the Hollywoodland Homeowners Association, told City Council members and planners at a lively three-hour hearing on Tuesday. “Hollywood needs limits, protections and preservations, not structuring and high density. Please save Hollywood. Once it’s lost it will be gone forever..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/us/far-reaching-rezoning-plan-for-hollywood-gains-key-support.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

photoLith
Mar 29, 2012, 5:38 PM
Small town charm of their community? Surely these people are delusion windbags. You don't live in L freakin A for a small town charm feel, freaking NIMBY scum.

DJM19
Mar 29, 2012, 5:39 PM
Why does "California" always have to entail lower density and setbacks? Is San Francisco not California? Is downtown LA not California? Its not like all of New York State looks like New York City, but it makes sense to have density in NYC, just as it does in Hollywood.

202_Cyclist
Mar 29, 2012, 6:09 PM
photoLith:
Small town charm of their community? Surely these people are delusion windbags. You don't live in L freakin A for a small town charm feel, freaking NIMBY scum.


I couldn't have said it better myself. It's not like Hollywood Blvd is some backwater corner of California. Similarly, if LA is going to continue to invest billions of dollars in transit, as it has done with the Red Line, you should get at least moderately-dense development next to the stations.

DJM19
Mar 29, 2012, 6:33 PM
I think these people have yet to hear the recent news that LA is the most dense urban area in the nation. And Hollywood is among the most dense parts of LA.

LosAngelesDreamin
Mar 29, 2012, 7:23 PM
Facelift Project for Hollywood Stirs Divisions

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: March 28, 2012
NY Times

"LOS ANGELES — Hollywood, once a sketchy neighborhood in a spiral of petty crime and decay, has been well on its way over the past 10 years to becoming a bustling tourist destination and nightlife district. But now it is on the verge of another transformation: to a decidedly un-Californian urban enclave pierced by skyscrapers, clustered around public transportation and animated pedestrian street life.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/03/29/us/HOLLYWOOD-1/HOLLYWOOD-1-popup.jpg
A zoning change would allow skyscrapers to loom over Capitol Records Tower, a 13-story landmark just off Hollywood and Vine. (Monica Almeida/The New York Times)

A far-reaching rezoning plan that would turn parts of Hollywood into a mini-city — with residential and commercial towers rising on streets like Vine, Hollywood and Sunset — has won the support of key Los Angeles officials. And it has set off a storm of opposition from residents fearful that it would destroy the rakish small-town charm of their community with soaring anodyne buildings that block views of the Hollywood Hills (and its iconic sign) and overwhelm streets with traffic.

“More is not better, bigger is not better,” Sarajane Schwartz, the president of the Hollywoodland Homeowners Association, told City Council members and planners at a lively three-hour hearing on Tuesday. “Hollywood needs limits, protections and preservations, not structuring and high density. Please save Hollywood. Once it’s lost it will be gone forever..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/us/far-reaching-rezoning-plan-for-hollywood-gains-key-support.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

WOWW =D that photo of vine st looks awesome.. imagine that tall 40 story tower behind the capitol records tower :yes: LOVE IT... vine st is close to having that skycraper canyone look and feel... LOVE IT..

someone commented on that NY times article that something like "LA has earthquakes.. the city should refrain from building tall buildings at all cost.. yada yada yada"... really??? nobody is worried about that bullshit anymore lol TOKYO and SAN FRANCISCO are in major shit too right??? thats why they keep building UP??? what a douche.

Chef Boyardee
Mar 30, 2012, 12:14 AM
1st of all, the time NY Times says anything about LA that actually reflects how the things really are here, will be the first. Whenever i read their articles about LA, positive or negative, i feel like they're writing about some completely different place than the one i live in.

Now as to the nimby protests in Hollywood, here's a similar article from the "boom" years. http://chrisleinberger.com/docs/About_CL/LosAngelesTimes_BuildingBoom_050608.pdf
It never changes.

eclipse
Mar 30, 2012, 6:54 AM
Please save Hollywood. Once it’s lost it will be gone forever..."

Lol. Could this person be more dramatic? Anything to get their way.

LosAngelesDreamin
Mar 30, 2012, 10:50 PM
Lol. Could this person be more dramatic? Anything to get their way.

lol if there was a like button for this i would totally like.... like it!!! lol :haha:

goom
Mar 31, 2012, 6:34 AM
And this guy is one of the many reasons I can't stand New Yorkers

Illithid Dude
Apr 7, 2012, 5:03 AM
Sorry I couldn't find a bigger picture but

http://o3.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/resize/273x203/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/2627a2e787f40d9dca2ae4de3db35182

This hotel looks like it is about to break ground. I passed by the lot where it will be (Sunset and Hammond) and there was a ton of construction equipment prepping the site. I'd expect groundbreaking within the next few weeks.

OneMetropolis
Apr 7, 2012, 6:41 AM
I really liked this building in Hollywood, its cool.


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7273/6905188452_a9c4385963_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62694428@N04/6905188452/)

pesto
Apr 9, 2012, 10:20 PM
Some comments:

NY and SF are full of setbacks. Try walking down any of the newer built areas (Park Ave or the WTC area in NY; Embarcadero and Mission in SF). The high rises have plazas, open areas, etc. The locals demanded them and boast about them; and these are the most urban people in the country.

In any event, Hollywood is far less dense than mid-town NY or DT SF. And believe it or not, just a few blocks above the Boulevard are large, quiet homes with very large lots.

But I agree that the core area should be open to high-rise development IF there is adequate transportation improvement and open areas.

202_Cyclist
Apr 17, 2012, 7:48 PM
Developing Chavez Ravine is likely in play for new Dodgers owner
Real estate experts say the rich price Guggenheim Baseball Management paid for the team probably means it is looking to do more with the land surrounding Dodger Stadium than simply park cars.

By Roger Vincent and Ken Bensinger
Los Angeles Times
April 16, 2012

"It's a developer's dream — nearly 300 empty acres above downtown Los Angeles, close to three major freeways and visited by millions each year.

Could Chavez Ravine be the next big real estate play in town?

The new owner of the Dodgers, Guggenheim Baseball Management, is keeping tight-lipped about its plans for the parking lots and hillsides surrounding Dodger Stadium, which it will own jointly with departing team owner Frank McCourt if the sale closes as expected April 30.

The Dodgers disclosed some details of the McCourt-Guggenheim land partnership in the team's bankruptcy case, but those documents were under seal — and the team quickly withdrew them after The Times asked the bankruptcy judge to release them publicly..."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dodgers-land-20120417,0,6313391,full.story

pesto
Apr 17, 2012, 9:23 PM
Developing Chavez Ravine is likely in play for new Dodgers owner
Real estate experts say the rich price Guggenheim Baseball Management paid for the team probably means it is looking to do more with the land surrounding Dodger Stadium than simply park cars.

By Roger Vincent and Ken Bensinger
Los Angeles Times
April 16, 2012

"It's a developer's dream — nearly 300 empty acres above downtown Los Angeles, close to three major freeways and visited by millions each year.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dodgers-land-20120417,0,6313391,full.story


Very interesting. Unless I am very confused, Magic and friends would never make the disastrous mistake of suggesting tearing down the existing stadium. That would be a quick way to earn equal status with McCourt and would not be successful in any event. A disaser all around.

Expanded food and entertainment and hotels with VIP security seems like a no-brainer. If it really is possible to make major changes to egress to the ravine, then I could support a football stadium on the premises. The multiple tier parking lots would allow extra room for tailgating and part of Elyssian Park could also act as picnic areas.

McCourt's retention of some areas strikes me as neither here nor there, other than as a petty nuisance.

Should be interesting to see what develops.

202_Cyclist
Apr 17, 2012, 9:28 PM
I haven't been to Dodger stadium in years (go Nationals!) but the views from the stadium of the San Gabrial mountains are great. I have good memories of the Dodger games I went to as a kid growing up. I'm sure the stadium could use some work now.

A walkable neighborhood built in place of the vast parking lots surrounding the stadium would be great, however.

Allnatural85
Apr 17, 2012, 9:42 PM
was heading to work today and seems like they tore down a few homes and are about to start construction on something... Ill try and get pictures but anyone know what it might be? I'm guess an apt building... On the Corner of Lexington Ave and Las Palmas ave:)

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

pesto
Apr 18, 2012, 6:07 PM
I haven't been to Dodger stadium in years (go Nationals!) but the views from the stadium of the San Gabrial mountains are great. I have good memories of the Dodger games I went to as a kid growing up. I'm sure the stadium could use some work now.

A walkable neighborhood built in place of the vast parking lots surrounding the stadium would be great, however.

This is actually my ideal as well, but I think it's a long-shot. My best guess is a football stadium, since the fact that McCourt kept so much land around access roads, indicates that he believes some major roadwork will be undertaken. Otherwise, bars, restaurants and hotels seem most likely.

But medium density development (something like SC has planned at the old University shopping center) would be wonderful. With a little transit linkage to DT, a nice place to live.

btw, Istanbul has a subway system that reaches even very hilly areas. You have to go down multiple escalators, but it is very heavily used. There are also multi-car funiculars connecting from subways and running up from the sea to the hills, so it can be done if LA really wants to (no escalators needed). Cost is the real question, I suppose, but with baseball, football and housing up there, it might be worth it.

colemonkee
Apr 19, 2012, 12:10 AM
Anything to get people out of their cars. Driving up to Dodger Stadium is a disaster.

Chef Boyardee
Apr 21, 2012, 6:27 AM
The last phase of Playa Vista to start construction in june.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/05/business/la-fi-playa-vista-20120405

all of the trash
Apr 21, 2012, 7:48 AM
The last phase of Playa Vista to start construction in june.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/05/business/la-fi-playa-vista-20120405

can't wait to visit LA's newest shopping mall

Illithid Dude
Apr 21, 2012, 8:05 AM
can't wait to visit LA's newest shopping mall

Actually, if you think about it, Playa Vista isn't that bad. Sure, it's a planned community, but it isn't sprawl. The whole thing is built on vacant land in the middle of L.A. Plus, the actual development is fairly urban, and dense. Most of the buildings are five stories w/ ground floor retail, and the SFH are tightly packed together, which in turn makes them fairly dense... for SFH at least. I wouldn't personally live there myself, but really, it's not a bad area at all.

pesto
Apr 21, 2012, 6:29 PM
Actually, if you think about it, Playa Vista isn't that bad. Sure, it's a planned community, but it isn't sprawl. The whole thing is built on vacant land in the middle of L.A. Plus, the actual development is fairly urban, and dense. Most of the buildings are five stories w/ ground floor retail, and the SFH are tightly packed together, which in turn makes them fairly dense... for SFH at least. I wouldn't personally live there myself, but really, it's not a bad area at all.

I think this is about right. Plus it's not indoors.

Another reason for the 405 subway or express bus or LRT to get going. The whole LAX to SM corridor is getting denser and denser.

case_architect
Apr 25, 2012, 1:41 AM
anyone know what's going on over on de longpre between vine and ivar? there's a beautiful park going in and the old big lots is getting remodeled.

Steve2726
Apr 25, 2012, 4:35 PM
:previous:
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/12/first_look_at_the_academys_outdoor_screening_space_on_vine.php

Good to hear that project is coming along.

pesto
Apr 29, 2012, 9:17 PM
Seems that the local community doesn’t think much of the Ferris wheel proposed for Venice (comments were that it destroys the views and there’s already one a mile away, among other things). The idea is tabled, and instead a Zipline is being looked at. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not really sure that the city needs to pour development onto the beaches. Venice is pretty much developed as is. I don’t think we’re looking for Coney Island.

Steve2726
May 2, 2012, 2:02 PM
The San Gabriel Valley Tribute recently reported (http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_19601701) that 775 housing permits that were pulled in Los Angeles County in November. 535 of these permits were for a single mixed use development in Hollywood.

Curbed (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/12/kris_jenner_loves_la_oj_blvd6200_permits_pulled_1.php) made the connection that this is the exact number of housing units in phase 1 of the Blvd 6200 project. So there you go. Phase 1 will likely start in January. Finally...one of the most visible dead spots on Hollywood Blvd is going to be filled in! :D



Still a giant parking lot unfortunately, what is the hold up with this one? :koko:

a9l8e7n
May 5, 2012, 7:07 PM
I really have to ask.....Is the Wilshire/Vermont towers really under construction. There has been no sourced articles (nothing at all) regarding ground breaking or any type of work and yet it has been listed in this forum as "under construction" for at least past 3 months. Don't get me wrong I really want this project to go through but I also dont want to have false hope.

:shrug:

Muji
May 5, 2012, 10:05 PM
I really have to ask.....Is the Wilshire/Vermont towers really under construction. There has been no sourced articles (nothing at all) regarding ground breaking or any type of work and yet it has been listed in this forum as "under construction" for at least past 3 months. Don't get me wrong I really want this project to go through but I also dont want to have false hope.

:shrug:

Wilshire/Vermont is definitely not under construction yet. We all got our hopes up when a truck crane showed up a few months ago but it's since disappeared, and there hasn't been any activity on site since then.

a9l8e7n
May 6, 2012, 4:41 AM
Wilshire/Vermont is definitely not under construction yet. We all got our hopes up when a truck crane showed up a few months ago but it's since disappeared, and there hasn't been any activity on site since then.

We should remove it from the "under construction" list then...:(

Illithid Dude
May 6, 2012, 4:50 AM
We should remove it from the "under construction" list then...:(

Yeah. But, on the bright side, it should be starting any day now. Also, Spaghetti Tower and Wilshire/Gayley should start soon.

Kingofthehill
May 6, 2012, 5:46 AM
I would absolutely love to see the Spaghetti Tower break ground! That whole part of Hollywood east of Vine is going to transform.

Steve2726
May 7, 2012, 3:50 PM
This 5 story apartment building appears to be under construction at La Cienega and Westmount-

http://www.nmslacienega.com/

http://medialibrary.propertysolutions.com/media_library/2752/4f75fe8da7fb6617.jpg


http://medialibrary.propertysolutions.com/media_library/2752/4f6a2865082f5433.jpg

http://medialibrary.propertysolutions.com/media_library/2752/4f6a286f9020c245.jpg

Illithid Dude
May 7, 2012, 3:55 PM
Actually, I believe that building is offices.

EDIT: Not entirely. It's mixed use, with apartments and office.

Muji
May 7, 2012, 5:24 PM
Here's another KTown project going forward that I don't think has been mentioned. Construction's been going on for a few months on Southwestern Law School's new student housing building at the northeast corner of 7th St and Shatto Pl. Right now they're close to finishing the underground parking and finally moving above ground. I'll try to get construction photos every so often once that happens. Here's a few renders taken from last year's press release:

Source: Southwestnern Law School (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.edu%2Fnews%2Foverview%2Fnewsr.7h7PqDaNds&ei=PxioT4brJ-KJiALi59zcAg&usg=AFQjCNGZOleGTkiJhhPj5EMzUv8-eaad4A)
http://www.swlaw.edu/news/images/housing/southeast.jpg

http://www.swlaw.edu/news/images/housing/housingaerial.jpg

LosAngelesSportsFan
May 7, 2012, 7:24 PM
i like it, except for the rounded edge facing the street.

BrandonJXN
May 7, 2012, 9:26 PM
I like it too. This is the type of developments that needs to happen all over Los Angeles. A mass of 4-7 story buildings would do wonders for the overall landscape of LA.

Illithid Dude
May 8, 2012, 1:48 AM
I like it, except for there is no ground floor retail, which is a real shame.

EDIT: Also, since I guess we are reporting on all the infill going on, here is a five story building going up on Centinela and Pico.

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2012_05_centinelapico-thumb.jpg

Yup. Not bad infill.

StethJeff
May 8, 2012, 3:52 AM
I like it too. This is the type of developments that needs to happen all over Los Angeles. A mass of 4-7 story buildings would do wonders for the overall landscape of LA.

Unfortunately we need several hundreds (thousands?) of these. Oh well, slowly but surely we'll replace the old/dingy low density crap with well designed urbanity.

Illithid Dude
May 8, 2012, 4:13 AM
Unfortunately we need several hundreds (thousands?) of these. Oh well, slowly but surely we'll replace the old/dingy low density crap with well designed urbanity.

Hey, if two of these type of buildings break ground every day, like today, then we will be set!

Kingofthehill
May 10, 2012, 6:13 PM
What's the deal with the Wilshire/La Brea (former Columbia Savings bank) site? I drove by last night, and didn't see anything. BTW, the Caruso project on Burton Way/La Brea has some seriously urban massing. Very refreshing to see.

DistrictDirt
May 10, 2012, 6:15 PM
What's the deal with the Wilshire/La Brea (former Columbia Savings bank) site? I drove by last night, and didn't see anything. BTW, the Caruso project on Burton Way/La Brea has some seriously urban massing. Very refreshing to see.

I saw it yesterday too (my cat's vet is right there at Wilshire/Sycamore) :)

Looks like the foundation/parking structure is well under way. There's a 3-4 story deep pit.

By the way, welcome back!!

Kingofthehill
May 10, 2012, 6:19 PM
Thanks, DD! It feels good to be back :) I am going to ride the Expo Line in about 1/2 an hour. Wonderful weather today, too.

Regarding the Wilshire/La Brea site, I saw some wood framing, but from the car, it looked so insignificant/small, that I assumed it was some sort of leftover scrapping or something :haha: Good to hear that project is U/C, though! One of the most visible things about LA after moving back from the East Coast, is the sheer number of underutilized corners at prime intersections. Among many, many others, the one at Fairfax/Sunset immediately comes to mind.

DistrictDirt
May 10, 2012, 6:28 PM
Thanks, DD! It feels good to be back :) I am going to ride the Expo Line in about 1/2 an hour. Wonderful weather today, too.

Regarding the Wilshire/La Brea site, I saw some wood framing, but from the car, it looked so insignificant/small, that I assumed it was some sort of leftover scrapping or something :haha: Good to hear that project is U/C, though! One of the most visible things about LA after moving back from the East Coast, is the sheer number of underutilized corners at prime intersections. Among many, many others, the one at Fairfax/Sunset immediately comes to mind.

I can see why you'd notice that, after a year in DC. DC has got to have the lowest amount of underutilized space in the country, outside of Manhattan. A strict height limit on a booming city will do that!

colemonkee
May 13, 2012, 12:37 AM
There was a HUGE concrete pour today at Wilshire & La Brea, presumably the foundation pour for that apartment project. No pictures as I was behind the wheel.

And there's activity at the southwest corner of 3rd and La Brea. The lot is fenced off, stripped to dirt, and there's a backhoe on site. Anyone know what's going up there? I can't imagine anything more than a 4 or 5-story apartment building, or possibly a retail development.

edluva
May 15, 2012, 9:03 AM
amazing, southwestern's proposal isn't insultingly tacky. i like it so far.

202_Cyclist
May 15, 2012, 6:57 PM
The LA Times has a good article and interactive graphic with video clips about the revitalization of Atlantic Avenue, strecthing from Alhambra to Long Beach.

Atlantic on the move
As Los Angeles' boulevards reassert their place in the public realm, the transformation along Atlantic offers glimpses of a new city identity taking shape.

By Christopher Hawthorne
Los Angeles Times
May 13, 2012

“The 5600 block of Atlantic Avenue doesn't look like much at first glance, especially if you're zipping through at 45 mph. A dry cleaner, a pupuseria, a T-shirt shop and a medical marijuana dispensary line the low-rise street in the North Village Annex section of Long Beach. About a third of the storefronts are vacant.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-4fabf9e6/turbine/la-ca-0513-boulevards-atlantic_pictures-016/600
Pedestrians stroll along Atlantic in Bixby Knolls during the latest of the Long Beach neighborhood's monthly "First Fridays" art walks. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

But if you climb out of the car, you'll notice that this classic commercial strip — convenient for drivers, charmless and alienating for everybody else — is in the midst of a remarkable evolution.

A crosswalk cuts across the boulevard at mid-block, complete with a flashing signal for pedestrians. Orange and blue bike racks dot the sidewalks. Silk floss trees, lined up in a neat row along the median, frame a piece of tiled public art…”

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/boulevards/la-ca-atlantic-boulevard-los-angeles-index,0,378106.htmlstory

BrighamYen
May 15, 2012, 7:13 PM
I think Hawthorne could have given more attention to the Atlantic Times Square in Monterey Park given the fact it is probably the largest mixed-use project on Atlantic Blvd. The thing is ugly and huge, but says something about the changing nature of Downtown Monterey Park, which is also prepping construction on another large mixed-use project at Garvey/Garfield.

The problem with many of these mixed-use projects is their lack of synergy with anything else surrounding them. They're expected to be a slice of urbanity, but obviously that's not possible given their limited size and scope, which depends on working synergistically with other mixed-use projects in close/dense proximity.

That's the issue with all of LA's suburban linear commercial blvds. You would literally have to infill the shit out of them and connect the entire length with convenient bus-only lanes or streetcars to make them pedestrian conducive. Otherwise, you get what is there today, which are blvds that lack pedestrian activity.

202_Cyclist
May 15, 2012, 7:27 PM
I think this is a pretty good article. As important as new football stadiums and shiny 60-story hotels are, it the street-level detail that often determines how vibrant an area will be and encourages people to walk/bike and take transit (since most trips begin/end with walking). Improvements like road-diets, landscaping, public art and a good mix of neighborhood-serving retail and restuarant that give people a reason to walk to local destinations can all significantly improve these older Post-WWII suburbs.

The most recent issue of Access magazine has a good article, "Retrofitting the suburbs to increase walking," that looks at ways to make older suburbs in the South Bay more walkable: http://uctc.net/access/39/access39_suburbwalking.shtml . Many of these communities are quite dense and can support a significant amount of local retail--- amenities that can get people out of their cars if the physical environment is appealing.

202_Cyclist
May 15, 2012, 7:31 PM
BrighamYen:
That's the issue with all of LA's suburban linear commercial blvds. You would literally have to infill the shit out of them and connect the entire length with convenient bus-only lanes or streetcars to make them pedestrian conducive. Otherwise, you get what is there today, which are blvds that lack pedestrian activity.


Instead of six lanes, these cities could add curbside parking on each side of the streets. Perhaps bike lanes where there is room for them. Add some trees and plant boxes on the side walk, and sections of the corridor will become more walkable and pedestrian-oriented.

I forget where it was but someone posted time-lapsed images of what LA's corridors could look like if oriented towards pedestrians and not vehicles.

pesto
May 15, 2012, 8:43 PM
I think Hawthorne could have given more attention to the Atlantic Times Square in Monterey Park given the fact it is probably the largest mixed-use project on Atlantic Blvd. The thing is ugly and huge, but says something about the changing nature of Downtown Monterey Park, which is also prepping construction on another large mixed-use project at Garvey/Garfield.

The problem with many of these mixed-use projects is their lack of synergy with anything else surrounding them. They're expected to be a slice of urbanity, but obviously that's not possible given their limited size and scope, which depends on working synergistically with other mixed-use projects in close/dense proximity.

That's the issue with all of LA's suburban linear commercial blvds. You would literally have to infill the shit out of them and connect the entire length with convenient bus-only lanes or streetcars to make them pedestrian conducive. Otherwise, you get what is there today, which are blvds that lack pedestrian activity.

True. But you could say the same about linearity in SF outside of downtown: look at Fillmore, California, Chestnut, Grove, Haight, Clement, Union and 50 other streets that are nice urban walking streets for 5-10 blocks, but often with no retail right off of the main street. And the Upper East Side has avenues with great retail but very little on the residential cross streets.

In SF in general there is very little retail on the side streets. Mostly just 2-4 story sfh's and apartments. The most pleasant neighborhoods do not in general have retail on the first floor; but they do have it within walking distance. The big difference from LA is NOT having retail, it's reasonable density and livability and convenience to interesting things.

Given the history of these places the way to go is to leave them as is and encourage moderate development around the historic (often linear) cores. A plaza area that opens to the street is good as well (Americana in Glendale), SM Place, smaller ones in Pasadena.

BrighamYen
May 15, 2012, 11:07 PM
I don't believe you can have a very fulfilling life as a pedestrian when all you have is a linear commercial blvd flanked by huge residential swaths of apartments and SFRs. It's too restrictive and doesn't allow for much dynamic experience when you can only walk up and down a street without veering off. You can walk in residential neighborhoods for recreation, like walking your dog or jogging, but it's not walking on a practical level like shopping, going to work, visiting friends, etc.

My expectations are a bit higher because I enjoy the expansive commercial grids and networks of mature urban centers that allow pedestrians to roam in 4-D (4 directional) not in 2-D (linearly). Transforming to a pedestrian ORIENTED city (not just friendly) depends on centering commercial activity in a commercial grid like Downtown LA. From Figueroa to Los Angeles (and beyond), from Chinatown to South Park, Downtown LA is the largest commercial grid with the greatest potential to becoming the pedestrian's paradise here in Los Angeles.

Other areas just fail at becoming much bigger than a few square blocks. Connecting these nodes by transit still doesn't solve anything if there isn't a place that you can exist as a pedestrian for more than a few hours without having to jump back into your car (or train) to get somewhere else. Downtown LA is physically large enough to play that role as a center of activity as more and more transit lines will funnel people INTO THE CITY.

Wilshire Blvd and others will continue to play its role as a linear extension of Downtown LA, but it will never be the same as a fully 4-D commercial mixed-use center.

all of the trash
May 16, 2012, 2:24 AM
I don't believe you can have a very fulfilling life as a pedestrian when all you have is a linear commercial blvd flanked by huge residential swaths of apartments and SFRs. It's too restrictive and doesn't allow for much dynamic experience when you can only walk up and down a street without veering off. You can walk in residential neighborhoods for recreation, like walking your dog or jogging, but it's not walking on a practical level like shopping, going to work, visiting friends, etc.

My expectations are a bit higher because I enjoy the expansive commercial grids and networks of mature urban centers that allow pedestrians to roam in 4-D (4 directional) not in 2-D (linearly). Transforming to a pedestrian ORIENTED city (not just friendly) depends on centering commercial activity in a commercial grid like Downtown LA. From Figueroa to Los Angeles (and beyond), from Chinatown to South Park, Downtown LA is the largest commercial grid with the greatest potential to becoming the pedestrian's paradise here in Los Angeles.

Other areas just fail at becoming much bigger than a few square blocks. Connecting these nodes by transit still doesn't solve anything if there isn't a place that you can exist as a pedestrian for more than a few hours without having to jump back into your car (or train) to get somewhere else. Downtown LA is physically large enough to play that role as a center of activity as more and more transit lines will funnel people INTO THE CITY.

Wilshire Blvd and others will continue to play its role as a linear extension of Downtown LA, but it will never be the same as a fully 4-D commercial mixed-use center.

I think even K-Town is more "3-D" than you're giving it credit for. Wilshire is where the high rises are, but streets like Olympic, 8th, 6th and 3rd have commercial activity and there's lots of cool restaurants/bars on these busy but unassuming streets. And between these streets are some of the densest/most diverse neighborhoods in L.A. If Ktown continues to revitalize, and gentrification spreads into westlake from Ktown in the west and downtown in the east, then you have one of the largest continuous area of urbanism in the western US outside of SF.

DistrictDirt
May 16, 2012, 4:02 AM
I think even K-Town is more "3-D" than you're giving it credit for. Wilshire is where the high rises are, but streets like Olympic, 8th, 6th and 3rd have commercial activity and there's lots of cool restaurants/bars on these busy but unassuming streets. And between these streets are some of the densest/most diverse neighborhoods in L.A. If Ktown continues to revitalize, and gentrification spreads into westlake from Ktown in the west and downtown in the east, then you have one of the largest continuous area of urbanism in the western US outside of SF.

I agree. Since moving to K-town, I've discovered a lot of gems on the streets you mentioned. Amenities definitely extend past Wilshire.

My main beef with urbanism in K-town is the fact that the roads are so wide and the traffic moves so damn fast. I can't imagine eating at a sidewalk cafe on 6th or 8th or Western the way you can on Spring or Main or 7th in DTLA. I hope they redo the streets at some point with wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and reduced traffic lanes, but I don't see it happening anytime soon- especially with K-town so underrepresented in terms of city council districts. The redistricting they just did leaves it as chopped up as it was previously. There's no single councilmember to hold accountable.

BrighamYen
May 16, 2012, 6:29 AM
I think areas like K-Town and Hollywood have potential at becoming great if we can change a lot of things DD mentioned such as widening sidewalks, building a shit load of mixed use developments along major streets like Vermont, Normandie, Western, etc.

But none of them are built the same way as Downtown LA which is commercialized throughout on almost every street so that every street is relevant and walkable.

I think it would be great if City West became very dense and melded together with MacArthur Park and then Ktown forming that large urban center.

But even so, Downtown LA will still always be the most walkable because it's got the largest commercial grid in the entire region.

edluva
May 16, 2012, 8:14 AM
this is a useless discussion. every place near a metro stop could be walkable if we had a rail network that was accessible for daily life, rather than a network built to serve imaginary commutes from azusa to culver city at 25mph

go to tokyo. do you think that city needs wide sidewalks and dedicated mixed use developments to be walkable? sure enormous tod's dot the landscape but they're tod's because of transit. still much of the city flat out lacks sidewalks altogether and yet it's plenty "4d".

it's the transit, stupid. the fact remains, the average angeleno could not build their daily life around our pathetic rail "network"; hence our city is not truly walkable.

BrighamYen
May 16, 2012, 8:24 AM
this is a useless discussion. every place near a metro stop could be walkable if we had a rail network that was accessible for daily life, rather than a network built to serve imaginary commutes from azusa to culver city at 25mph

go to tokyo. do you think that city needs wide sidewalks and dedicated mixed use developments to be walkable? sure enormous tod's dot the landscape but they're tod's because of transit. still much of the city flat out lacks sidewalks altogether and yet it's plenty "4d".

it's the transit, stupid. the fact remains, the average angeleno could not build their daily life around our pathetic rail "network"; hence our city is not truly walkable.

I have never been to Tokyo, but I assume it's very similar to Taipei no? Density and commercialized blvds are the key to walkability, IMO. Even before the MRT was completed, you would still have vibrant streets.

Also, if a place is walkable, you don't need transit to actually WALK. I can walk from Midtown to Brooklyn because it's dense and commercialized mostly all the way through without ever stepping in a subway. I would NEVER walk the same distance in LA because it's not 4-D and it's not dynamic or interesting given its huge homogeneous suburban zoning oriented obviously for cars. It's always 2-D, which doesn't work without dedicated transit (like bus lanes or streetcars) along those linear stretches to take a pedestrian further ahead or back where they started from.

edluva
May 16, 2012, 8:45 AM
before taipei built its now envious metro, taipei was not unlike los angeles in that there were many isolated pedestrian strips with lots of commercial activity.

but if you haven't figured out by now, walkability is more than the mere act of walking down a pre-designated strip of sidewalk (especially after parking your car).

it's a lifestyle - and when applied to a city, it is a lifestyle that defines that city's urbanism. and that didn't reliably apply to pre-transit taipei, as it doesn't to present day los angeles.

but i agree that you don't need transit for walkablity, if you live in a small-town or village.

DistrictDirt
May 16, 2012, 3:18 PM
this is a useless discussion. every place near a metro stop could be walkable if we had a rail network that was accessible for daily life, rather than a network built to serve imaginary commutes from azusa to culver city at 25mph

go to tokyo. do you think that city needs wide sidewalks and dedicated mixed use developments to be walkable? sure enormous tod's dot the landscape but they're tod's because of transit. still much of the city flat out lacks sidewalks altogether and yet it's plenty "4d".

it's the transit, stupid. the fact remains, the average angeleno could not build their daily life around our pathetic rail "network"; hence our city is not truly walkable.


I disagree. Yes, we need more transit. But good urban design is just as important. Give people places where the sidewalk is wide, where traffic is calmed and not rushing by, and where there are plenty of storefronts curbside, where there's a pocket park or two, and people will walk around the area. The success of places like Old Town Pasadena, 3rd Street Promanade, not to mention the "fake" but well-urban-designed (at least from the inside) places like the Americana and the Grove shows the massive demand these walkable places in LA. And last time I checked, with the exception of Pasadena, the places I listed do not yet have nearby Metro stations. The benefit that a fully-built-out Metro system brings is that many people would be riding the train to these places rather than driving there.

Downtown has it all- good urban design (although some of those sidewalks could be wider), lots of Metro stations (and plans for many more), and increasing number of active storefronts that give people a reason to want to walk around. But plenty of other places in LA have the potential to be smaller, but just as walkable places if the city could just get its shit together with street design. Silverlake and Echo Park for example, would be much more appealing places if Sunset wasn't a 5-lane mini freeway, and if the sidewalks more more than the narrow strips they currently are.

edluva
May 16, 2012, 4:09 PM
^noone is saying urban design is unimportant. but it's not the source of walkablility. LA has enough sidewalk space to be five times as walkable as it already is, regardless of how deplorably you choose to characterize it.

my point was, transit is the ultimate decider of a city's walkability. because it decides everything else - the political viability of limited parking ratios, the attendant commercial density which can be developed as a result, and ultimately, the market for pedestrian spaces (the market for good urban design). good transit renders the potential walkability of neighborhoods limitless. good urban design by itself, on the other hand, only makes limited portions of cityscape (eg downtown, 3rd st) more appealing for drivers. absent the appropriate mass transit, the extent to which such nabes can be commercialized is ultimately limited by the scarcity of parking space, regardless of how "inviting" urban design might be.

don't forget to see the big picture. angelenos have a particularly difficult time keeping perspective on their vast, center-less city.

BrighamYen
May 16, 2012, 5:18 PM
The big picture is LA's economic/commercial activities are too spread out, which has made it a difficult place to navigate and access, which makes it the dysfunctional traffic nightmare it is today. Everything about LA is spread out, from the macro to the micro level. And yes, the lack of transit also handicaps the region even more.

From a macro level, the many "nodes" that make up LA (Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Hollywood, etc.) are separated by vast residential seas of SFRs and apt/condos that make walking between these nodes impossible. Have you tried walking from Westwood to Beverly Hills before? Or Santa Monica to Century City? So connecting these nodes with HIGH SPEED transit will be important. Not an Expo Line that waits for 6 minutes at the Washington junction!

Then on a micro level, it's spread out as well, even in commercialized areas. There are huge blocks generally speaking and not enough density to pack more into less space, which makes walking at 2-3 mph efficient and effortless.

The issue here is not having ONE CONTINUOUS urban area that is walkable throughout without being forced to go to "another node." How much time can you really spend in Santa Monica or Pasadena? In Manhattan, it is an "entire world" crammed on a small island the size of Santa Monica (24 sq mi) comprised of dozens of geographically small neighborhoods. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts because there is SYNERGY between the neighborhoods. It's like putting downtown Santa Monica next to downtown Pasadena next to downtown Beverly Hills next to Venice next to Hollywood next to Downtown LA in ONE concentrated area. With LA, it's like taking Manhattan and spreading out Chelsea from Meatpacking from Midtown etc. That negates their synergy and dilutes their power as accessibility is hampered tremendously by distance (waste of time).

Downtown LA, as a bona fide commercial GRID, is the only area in the region that could play that role as one large contiguous urban walkable area because it is actually quite large from a pedestrian's standpoint when you're walking 2-3 mph. DTLA has many layers of commercial streets unlike anywhere else in the region. Back to back to back commercial streets uninterrupted by residential SFRs (Fig, Flower, Hope, Grand, Olive, Hill, Broadway, Spring, Main, Los Angeles are all back to back). From Temple down to Pico. You have the largest commercialized grid in the region with the most access to transit, funneling in pedestrians from the suburbs and smaller nodes.

Once you hit the sidewalks of DTLA, it is automatically more natural to walk. I've given at least a hundred walking tours of DTLA (both professionally and for pleasure) and 99% of people who do not walk anywhere else in LA (i.e., car dependent) are utterly amazed they don't find walking in Downtown LA to be unpleasant. Well, as DTLA continues to be revitalized, it will be the largest 4-Directional (north, south, east, and west) urban center in the region. That will attract a fair amount of people who will sense that without having to be analytical urbanists!

And transit plays a key role here because it will FUNNEL people into Downtown LA since all rail and buses lead to DTLA making it the most vibrant urban part of LA.

edluva
May 16, 2012, 5:23 PM
^downtown la at maybe 3-4 sq miles and tens of thousands in population will never play the role that manhattan at 23 square miles and 1.6 million will. never. furthermore, LA will never be a single-centered metropolis.

regarding your requirement for uninterrupted pedestrianism, barely anyone in tokyo would ever need to walk from shibuya to neighboring shinjuku, or in manhattan's case, uptown to downtown. in either case, metro networks serve their respective built environments exactly as required. linear in manhattan's case, and webbed in tokyo's.

contrary to your post above, contiguous uninterrupted pedestrianism is not a requirement for walkability when you've got good metro and feeder coverage between nodes. with LA, areas between nodes can remain residential or lightly mixed, so long as they are adequately served by feeders.

transit-connected nodes. that's our best hope of finding any sort of cohesion. you really should experience tokyo or mexico city in person, brigham. it'll give you some perspective about LA.

202_Cyclist
May 16, 2012, 5:36 PM
edluva:
transit-connected nodes. that's our best hope of finding any sort of cohesion.

I couldn't agree more. This is what you essentially have in DC. Downtown here is essentially dull and lifeless most the time in the evenings except for a few areas. Washington is a city of neighborhoods, both within the District and the surrounding counties. These different nodes are all pretty walkable-- I think Chris Leinberger identified something like 25 or 30 distinct walkable urban areas in the DC region-- and connected by (at times) decent transit.

I would like to see downtown LA be successful and from this forum, it looks like there have been great improvements over the past decade but the DC model of a multi-nodal urban area connected by transit is what the LA region should strive for instead of trying to be Hong Kong or New York.

BrighamYen
May 16, 2012, 6:01 PM
Downtown LA is the largest node in this region -- by far. No other node comes close to its size. That means more things will be crammed into DTLA if the economic development continues down the same path as it has been for the last 5 years. All that economic activity concentrated into DTLA equals a higher pedestrian urban energy in a larger area, which a lot of people will prefer because it feels more "big city." A feeling you could NEVER get in DT Santa Monica or Pasadena or Beverly Hills.

Plus, you cannot refute that Downtown LA is the HUB of the fledgling rail network. More and more people are taking the train to DTLA. Once the Regional Connector, Expo Line 2, and Purple Line to Westwood is completed, DTLA will still be the largest node and benefiting the most from the new more robust rail network as it will still be the center of the rail network.

Obviously not everyone can live downtown, but a lot of people will be able to go downtown when they want their urban fix.

edluva
May 16, 2012, 6:02 PM
yes DC's model is more what LA should aspire toward. it's ridership is also no slouch by north american standards.

i'd love to see downtown LA densify, but can't help but know that it's also limited by transit access. especially if one is to hope that surface lots (and valuable parking space currently used by patrons) might one day give way to more development.

brigham - you seem to be fixated on downtown LA. yes it is the largest hub. noone said tokyo or new york don't have hubs that serve more passengers than others. but are you really trying to make the case that downtown LA can be the manhattan of LA? hate to brake it to you, but reality cannot be warped to fit your imaginary view of what you wish it could be. this isn't sim city.

BrighamYen
May 16, 2012, 6:50 PM
yes DC's model is more what LA should aspire toward. it's ridership is also no slouch by north american standards.

i'd love to see downtown LA densify, but can't help but know that it's also limited by transit access. especially if one is to hope that surface lots (and valuable parking space currently used by patrons) might one day give way to more development.

brigham - you seem to be fixated on downtown LA. yes it is the largest hub. noone said tokyo or new york don't have hubs that serve more passengers than others. but are you really trying to make the case that downtown LA can be the manhattan of LA? hate to brake it to you, but reality cannot be warped to fit your imaginary view of what you wish it could be. this isn't sim city.

Not Manhattan for heaven's sake. I'm not crazy. Midtown alone has more commercial office space than all of LA and OC combined. That kind of commercial concentration/density is not possible here.

Nevertheless, DTLA will stand out as the largest node in this region, period. No other node as one contiguous urban district will be larger and more energetic on the street level through an expansive 4-D area. That's all I'm saying. It will be unique in terms of its expansive urban commercial grid built environment since no other node in the region is very expansive at all. A few square blocks and sometimes just one street!

And for those who enjoy the feeling of that urban energy, they may choose to move downtown (as we're seeing more and more of) or they may choose to come downtown to shop/play. And obviously it is still the largest single employment center in the region with 31 million square feet. It won't be Manhattan, but it will be the most energetic and largest walkable district in LA. Everyone will decide on their own what that means to them. And if there's a common thread among those opinions, then it will start to form a "new reality" for DTLA in the future -- whatever that may be for Angelenos who are yearning for a place to be pedestrians (as DD mentioned).

pesto
May 16, 2012, 8:36 PM
I don't believe you can have a very fulfilling life as a pedestrian when all you have is a linear commercial blvd flanked by huge residential swaths of apartments and SFRs. It's too restrictive and doesn't allow for much dynamic experience when you can only walk up and down a street without veering off. You can walk in residential neighborhoods for recreation, like walking your dog or jogging, but it's not walking on a practical level like shopping, going to work, visiting friends, etc.

My expectations are a bit higher because I enjoy the expansive commercial grids and networks of mature urban centers that allow pedestrians to roam in 4-D (4 directional) not in 2-D (linearly). Transforming to a pedestrian ORIENTED city (not just friendly) depends on centering commercial activity in a commercial grid like Downtown LA. From Figueroa to Los Angeles (and beyond), from Chinatown to South Park, Downtown LA is the largest commercial grid with the greatest potential to becoming the pedestrian's paradise here in Los Angeles.

Other areas just fail at becoming much bigger than a few square blocks. Connecting these nodes by transit still doesn't solve anything if there isn't a place that you can exist as a pedestrian for more than a few hours without having to jump back into your car (or train) to get somewhere else. Downtown LA is physically large enough to play that role as a center of activity as more and more transit lines will funnel people INTO THE CITY.

Wilshire Blvd and others will continue to play its role as a linear extension of Downtown LA, but it will never be the same as a fully 4-D commercial mixed-use center.

And yet the SF streets I mention are the proof to the contrary. I doubt that anyone would object to the walkability of these neighborhoods and the high demand they are in. They are certainly much more in demand than living in the "all retail" areas of Union Sq. and surroundings. These are for commerce and tourism.

Generally speaking the nicer residential areas of NY do not have retail, except on the avenues. Midtown is a partial exception, but not known as a place to live. Even in Greenwich Village, Gramercy Park, etc., the residential streets are in huge demand and the commercial ones far less so. And the Upper East and West Side have very little commerce off the avenues.

As a practical matter, DT is set and so are most other areas. Westlake and Ktown will become more multi-story, but I would not expect the residential streets to become retail on the first floor, nor would I expect that kind of development further west on the streets surrounding La Brea, Fairfax, etc. This would be in no way desirable, and would not reflect the way that most of SF or NY are.

LA21st
May 16, 2012, 8:43 PM
edluva:


I couldn't agree more. This is what you essentially have in DC. Downtown here is essentially dull and lifeless most the time in the evenings except for a few areas. Washington is a city of neighborhoods, both within the District and the surrounding counties. These different nodes are all pretty walkable-- I think Chris Leinberger identified something like 25 or 30 distinct walkable urban areas in the DC region-- and connected by (at times) decent transit.

I would like to see downtown LA be successful and from this forum, it looks like there have been great improvements over the past decade but the DC model of a multi-nodal urban area connected by transit is what the LA region should strive for instead of trying to be Hong Kong or New York.

I'm from the DC area. There are more urban walkable districts in LA metro, easily. Places like Rossyln and Ballston in Alrington have alot of TOD, but they're very bland. And if you walk off the main drag, you're in nowheresville. You don't see many people walking around those areas outside of rush hour periods. I was just in Ballston last fall and it was completely dead on a Saturday afternoon. The streets, the restaurants etc. Same goes for Crystal City, CourtHouse etc..
I think DC's TOD nodes are overrated on these forums.

Illithid Dude
May 17, 2012, 12:27 AM
http://www.jerde.com/cms/media/experimental/aerial_2.jpg

http://www.jerde.com/cms/media/experimental/vermont_wilshire.jpg

http://www.jerde.com/cms/media/experimental/aerial-horiz_crop.jpg

http://www.jerde.com/cms/media/experimental/wilshire_closeup.jpg

Curbed L.A. is reporting that work is set to begin at the Wilshire/Vermont apartments. It isn't a perfect project by any means- note the little 'driveway' thing- but it's great density (464 apartments) and much better then what is there now. Also, new render.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/work_set_to_begin_at_koreatowns_giant_the_vermont_towers.php

a9l8e7n
May 17, 2012, 12:30 AM
http://harleyel.nextmp.net/resources/uploads/images/projects/vermont_case_study-lg.jpg

Curbed L.A. is reporting that work is set to begin at the Wilshire/Vermont apartments. It isn't a perfect project by any means- note the little 'driveway' thing- but it's great density (464 apartments) and much better then what is there now. Also, new render.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/work_set_to_begin_at_koreatowns_giant_the_vermont_towers.php

Finally a source!!!

colemonkee
May 17, 2012, 12:51 AM
910 parking spaces for 464 apartments and 35,000 sq. ft of retail, directly across the street from a subway station, and it's by far the worst design element of what would otherwise be a great development. So sad. If they cut the parking down by 300 spaces, they would still have ample parking for both uses, and probably afford to have some sort of architectural screening on that garage.

On the bright side, those units will have some killer views.

Kingofthehill
May 17, 2012, 3:21 AM
Yeah, 900 parking spaces. Way to incentivize mass transit in the city's densest nabe, and also one of its poorest. Where will all of these cars even be coming from?!

pesto
May 17, 2012, 9:31 PM
Yeah, 900 parking spaces. Way to incentivize mass transit in the city's densest nabe, and also one of its poorest. Where will all of these cars even be coming from?!

My guess is that the target renter is Korean adults and families; people who will be there long-term, can afford a car and want room for guests. I know a number of people in SoMa who had this issue and ended up moving to the suburbs when they get married.

The location is very good news, since it is at the edge of West Lake and may bode well for development in that direction. This is an area of Wilshire that could boom if it's central location is "discovered".

Chef Boyardee
May 21, 2012, 8:41 AM
This vermont thing starts construction today.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-property-report-20120521,0,7862099.story

Illithid Dude
May 21, 2012, 8:53 AM
This vermont thing starts construction today.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-property-report-20120521,0,7862099.story

Highlights from the article include:

Ground-floor retailers are to include Starbucks, the Counter restaurant, a grocer, a bank and a dry cleaner when the complex is finished in 2014. Apartment rents are to start at $2,100 a month.

Smaller things like dry cleaners are what makes a community livable. I'm glad to see the developer including them in his project.

Hopefully, this is the start of many more apartment towers throughout the L.A. area. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple more break ground before the end of the year, especially in Hollywood and Korea Town.

a9l8e7n
May 21, 2012, 4:25 PM
We should update the "under construction" list. For one thing, LA times announced that the vermont towers would ground break today, and the wilshire/la brea project has been under construction for quite some time. In fact I found a very interesting video that may have already been posted on this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uAOvvv_Voo

To see two big projects courtyard Marriott in downtown and now the vermont towers to break ground makes me very excited for LA. :notacrook:

BrandonJXN
May 21, 2012, 6:00 PM
I'm starting to think that LA might be nearing that 'booming' point many people wanted back in the glory days between 2006-2008 when there was a new tower proposed every week. It isn't often that we get any sort of new ground up developments so to see what's happening and what could happen this year is very exciting to see.

Chef Boyardee
May 21, 2012, 9:53 PM
That old spaghetti factory tower is probably not happening at this point.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/neighborhood-group-sues-city-over-demolition-of-1920s-era-building.html

Illithid Dude
May 21, 2012, 11:16 PM
That old spaghetti factory tower is probably not happening at this point.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/neighborhood-group-sues-city-over-demolition-of-1920s-era-building.html

How is this indicative that the tower isn't happening? It's just a group suing, nothing new. The case will either not be picked up or be resolved, and the tower will continue.

Chef Boyardee
May 21, 2012, 11:37 PM
How is this indicative that the tower isn't happening? It's just a group suing, nothing new. The case will either not be picked up or be resolved, and the tower will continue.


I would think if anybody, people on this board would know how these things usually go with big projects in california. 1) A lawsuit is filed. 2) It takes years to resolve. 3) Tired of fighting legal battles without end in sight the developer sells the land. 4) The land sits undeveloped as a parking lot or whatever for years/decades.

Illithid Dude
May 22, 2012, 12:06 AM
I would think if anybody, people on this board would know how these things usually go with big projects in california. 1) A lawsuit is filed. 2) It takes years to resolve. 3) Tired of fighting legal battles without end in sight the developer sells the land. 4) The land sits undeveloped as a parking lot or whatever for years/decades.

I believe the tower is already under pre-construction. This thing is happening, lawsuit or not. And besides, plenty of projects are sued and still go ahead. Hell, I'd go as far as to say most are.

OneMetropolis
May 22, 2012, 5:05 AM
I believe the tower is already under pre-construction. This thing is happening, lawsuit or not. And besides, plenty of projects are sued and still go ahead. Hell, I'd go as far as to say most are.

I love your optimism, LA needs more people like you.:tup:

colemonkee
May 22, 2012, 5:38 AM
The issue at hand with the lawsuit is whether or not CIM reneged on a previous agreement with the City - conditional to the entitlement of the project - to preserve certain elements of the old Spaghetti Factory building. If they didn't meet the terms of that deal, they'll likely have to pay back all or a portion of the $3.7 million the City gave to the development for preservation of the facade.

This is likely to be settled far before it goes to court, with some sort of concession made by CIM. I'm interested to see how this turns out, to be perfectly honest. I'm all for this development, but if they made an agreement with the City, took taxpayer money pursuant to that agreement, then turned around and did the exact opposite, they should be held fully accountable.

Illithid Dude
May 22, 2012, 5:49 AM
The issue at hand with the lawsuit is whether or not CIM reneged on a previous agreement with the City - conditional to the entitlement of the project - to preserve certain elements of the old Spaghetti Factory building. If they didn't meet the terms of that deal, they'll likely have to pay back all or a portion of the $3.7 million the City gave to the development for preservation of the facade.

This is likely to be settled far before it goes to court, with some sort of concession made by CIM. I'm interested to see how this turns out, to be perfectly honest. I'm all for this development, but if they made an agreement with the City, took taxpayer money pursuant to that agreement, then turned around and did the exact opposite, they should be held fully accountable.

And really, 3.7 million is a tiny fraction of how much it costs to build an apartment tower. Even if CIM does have to pay, I wouldn't think it would be too big a deal.

Steve2726
May 25, 2012, 2:34 AM
There's a large fence going up around the building and parking lots at the NE corner of Hollywood and Argyle. Could this be the start of construction for phase 1 of the BLVD 6200 project?

Illithid Dude
May 25, 2012, 4:01 AM
There's a large fence going up around the building and parking lots at the NE corner of Hollywood and Argyle. Could this be the start of construction for phase 1 of the BLVD 6200 project?

It's about damn time.

Kingofthehill
May 25, 2012, 4:31 PM
Two updates:

The building along Alvarado directly across from MacArthur Park has concluded its renovation, and looks quite sharp. Unfortunately, my excitement faded away when I read that upon its conversion from an SRO, it was made int 79 "affordable housing" units. They're for seniors, which really isn't that bad, that Westlake and Pico-Union have more than enough low-income housing. Part of the reason they're such shitholes is that only poor peasants from Central America live there, and do little upkeep on the (said low-income) properties. Here (http://www.lahousingpartnership.com/Property_ParkviewOnThePark.html) is the link to the development.

Also, on Cahuenga, near Hollywood, there is a small Art-Déco building covered in shrouding, presumably undergoing a renovation or facade repair. Here (https://maps.google.com/?ll=34.100065,-118.329524&spn=0.004328,0.006539&hnear=1253+S+Spaulding+Ave,+Los+Angeles,+California+90019&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=34.100006,-118.329523&panoid=7HG-sCT7G6mxe_Ku37qrDA&cbp=12,325.24,,0,-3.27) is the building in mention.

LosAngelesSportsFan
May 25, 2012, 5:39 PM
Two updates:

The building along Alvarado directly across from MacArthur Park has concluded its renovation, and looks quite sharp. Unfortunately, my excitement faded away when I read that upon its conversion from an SRO, it was made int 79 "affordable housing" units. They're for seniors, which really isn't that bad, that Westlake and Pico-Union have more than enough low-income housing. Part of the reason they're such shitholes is that only poor peasants from Central America live there, and do little upkeep on the (said low-income) properties. Here (http://www.lahousingpartnership.com/Property_ParkviewOnThePark.html) is the link to the development.

Also, on Cahuenga, near Hollywood, there is a small Art-Déco building covered in shrouding, presumably undergoing a renovation or facade repair. Here (https://maps.google.com/?ll=34.100065,-118.329524&spn=0.004328,0.006539&hnear=1253+S+Spaulding+Ave,+Los+Angeles,+California+90019&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=34.100006,-118.329523&panoid=7HG-sCT7G6mxe_Ku37qrDA&cbp=12,325.24,,0,-3.27) is the building in mention.

the building on Cahuenga is the former Capital Cities bar (which was an amazing place, not sure why they shut it down) and its being converted to another Bar / Restaurant by the same owners from what i was told a few months ago by my neighbor who works for space craft.

Also, i really hope that BLVD 6200 is starting. they are way behind schedule