PDA

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

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



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

LosAngelesSportsFan
May 25, 2012, 10:40 PM
Sounds like good news in Hollywood. Since the Spaghetti Factory is already torn down, it's hard to see why they would slow down, and 6200 has the potential to be a real winner.

btw, I went through the new alley behind St. Felix, etc. Very nice and I understand the north end will soon be up and running as well. I would hope to see this done since it it is the kind of look that attracts people: intimate, clubby, protected, with muted colors, texture, comfortable seating.

A hundred alleys in Hollywood and downtown should get this treatment, and every new development (e.g., Capitol Records) should build similar unstructured passageways (or a little wider) into the overall plan. They serve the same use as plazas, but are much more pleasant and habitable.

agreed 10000%

Kingofthehill
May 26, 2012, 9:16 PM
Just passed Vermont/Wilshire and saw cranes, water trucks, and cherry pickers, among other grading equipment, on the site. Great to see!

pesto
May 29, 2012, 9:39 PM
Just passed Vermont/Wilshire and saw cranes, water trucks, and cherry pickers, among other grading equipment, on the site. Great to see!

I stayed in Ktown and the Beverly Center area. Some comments:

The Cedars Sinai building is quite attractive; both it and the Caruso building at Burton are quite massive. Hopefully a sign of things to come.

The Miracle Mile is turing more Korean and a bit less run down. But there are still fine old builldings there than need tenants. Purple is going to do wonders.

3rd Street and Beverly seems to be adding stores and restaurants at a solid pace. This whole area (say, La Cienega to La Brea) is gettng refurbed and adding some more height.

The Pink Line is needed as much as any project in LA except the Purple.

all of the trash
May 29, 2012, 9:42 PM
I never understood why the pink line wasn't included in 30/10

pesto
May 30, 2012, 6:45 PM
I never understood why the pink line wasn't included in 30/10

I was stunned as well. And with WeHo's great efforts at turning SM Blvd. into an active, attractive street and the boom in Beverly Center, it makes less and less sense.

Illithid Dude
May 30, 2012, 7:11 PM
I believe the reason why the Pink Line got canned is because Metro simply decided to extend the Crenshaw Line north to Hollywood, which accomplishes pretty much the same thing.

LAofAnaheim
May 30, 2012, 7:21 PM
The Pink Line would have created an operational nightmare for Metro, that was the problem. It was studied as part of the AA and that was the conclusion. To have 3 subway lines share the same track between Wilshire/Vermont to Union Station and then have 1 split off at Hollywood/Highland to go through West Hollywood and re-join the Purple Line at Wilshire/La Cienega didn't make much sense. It's so odd, that I don't think any city saw a similiar structure.

But anyways, yes, as part of Measure R +, I'm sure you'll be hearing a lot about potential new projects that will be financed when you see ads for the tax extension. Metro appears to be giving in to announce that Measure R+ funds will include money for Gold Line to Montclair (to get the SGV Supervisors support) and likely, they will announce how Measure R+ will extend the Crenshaw Line north to Wilshire/West Hollywood/Hollywood.

Imagine, a rail transit line from Hollywood to the South Bay! That'll be huge!

gmsalpha
May 30, 2012, 11:35 PM
It is unfortunate that there are going to be so many automobile spaces for that Vermont/Wilshire building. Perhaps one spot per bedroom would be better? At $2100/month it doesn't sound like there are any efficiencies/studios, but if there were, I'd like to see a special area for them to park scooters or bicycles.

I'll be moving to Hollywood for school and will only have a scooter as my mode of transportation, and am curious how that's going to work out. But nonetheless, I felt in my brief visits to the area that Hollywood would be an excellent place to live, work, and play without a car.

LosAngelesDreamin
May 30, 2012, 11:37 PM
The Pink Line would have created an operational nightmare for Metro, that was the problem. It was studied as part of the AA and that was the conclusion. To have 3 subway lines share the same track between Wilshire/Vermont to Union Station and then have 1 split off at Hollywood/Highland to go through West Hollywood and re-join the Purple Line at Wilshire/La Cienega didn't make much sense. It's so odd, that I don't think any city saw a similiar structure.

But anyways, yes, as part of Measure R +, I'm sure you'll be hearing a lot about potential new projects that will be financed when you see ads for the tax extension. Metro appears to be giving in to announce that Measure R+ funds will include money for Gold Line to Montclair (to get the SGV Supervisors support) and likely, they will announce how Measure R+ will extend the Crenshaw Line north to Wilshire/West Hollywood/Hollywood.

Imagine, a rail transit line from Hollywood to the South Bay! That'll be huge!

will Metro ever build another new subway line?? it seems like everything is light rail and or buses.... yes its cheaper but you get what you pay for =/

DistrictDirt
May 31, 2012, 12:13 AM
I'll be moving to Hollywood for school and will only have a scooter as my mode of transportation, and am curious how that's going to work out.

My first year in LA, I didn't have a car and got by with a Vespa GTS 250. Cruising around LA (especially up in the hills) was good times. Having to file insurance claims and get it repaired 3 separate times when 3 separate idiots knocked it over in their misguided attempts to parallel park...not so fun. If I were you, I'd just park it on the sidewalk. I've noticed a lot of people doing that and they don't seem to get ticketed.

Also, watch out for distracted and stupid drivers...they are everywhere in LA. I eventually sold my scoot because I figured hey- I've made it this long in Los Angeles without getting killed on it, so why push my luck?

Illithid Dude
May 31, 2012, 12:29 AM
will Metro ever build another new subway line?? it seems like everything is light rail and or buses.... yes its cheaper but you get what you pay for =/

Yes. The Crenshaw extension is expected to be subway, and a line down Vermont is expected to be grade separated as well. The 405 line is probably going to be grade separated, but at this point, nothing is certain.

202_Cyclist
May 31, 2012, 2:49 AM
gmsalpha:
I'll be moving to Hollywood for school and will only have a scooter as my mode of transportation, and am curious how that's going to work out. But nonetheless, I felt in my brief visits to the area that Hollywood would be an excellent place to live, work, and play without a car.


Admittedly, I don't live in LA, but with the Expo line opening, there are now over 80 miles of subway/light rail, LA has one of the nation's most expansive bus systems, there is the Orange Line bus rapid transit, the 720 rapid bus, a new 4,000 bicycle bike-share system planned (and perfect weather for bicycling), MetroLink commuter rail with something like 85 stations. You can rent a car for $40 per day for the couple of times you have to drive to Orange County or the Inland Empire. I think you'll be alright with just your scooter.

JRinSoCal
May 31, 2012, 3:21 AM
The Crenshaw line will have underground segments, but it will still be light rail correct? Not heavy rail like the the Red and Purple lines correct?

Illithid Dude
May 31, 2012, 3:32 AM
The Crenshaw line will have underground segments, but it will still be light rail correct? Not heavy rail like the the Red and Purple lines correct?

The first spur from LAX to Expo will be majority grade-seperated, but still have some street-running sections. The later, northern spurs will be mostly, if not entirely, grade separated.

dachacon
May 31, 2012, 5:22 AM
The Crenshaw line will have underground segments, but it will still be light rail correct? Not heavy rail like the the Red and Purple lines correct?

in short yes.

all of the trash
May 31, 2012, 8:26 AM
The Pink Line would have created an operational nightmare for Metro, that was the problem. It was studied as part of the AA and that was the conclusion. To have 3 subway lines share the same track between Wilshire/Vermont to Union Station and then have 1 split off at Hollywood/Highland to go through West Hollywood and re-join the Purple Line at Wilshire/La Cienega didn't make much sense. It's so odd, that I don't think any city saw a similar structure.



Wouldn't one way to avoid running 3 lines on the same track is to build a vermont extension and reroute the red line so that it continues south on Vermont to at least the expo line and then just have pink and purple between wilshire/Vermont and union station?

LAofAnaheim
May 31, 2012, 2:43 PM
Wouldn't one way to avoid running 3 lines on the same track is to build a vermont extension and reroute the red line so that it continues south on Vermont to at least the expo line and then just have pink and purple between wilshire/Vermont and union station?

Hollywood to Downtown LA is a very heavily ridden route. You would sacrifice a standing room crowd to re-route their trains to south of Vernont? There are more people who want/need to travel between Valley/Hollywood and downtown LA than Valley/Hollywood to Vermont Ave. the latter would have so little support.

pesto
May 31, 2012, 4:21 PM
The Pink Line would have created an operational nightmare for Metro, that was the problem. It was studied as part of the AA and that was the conclusion. To have 3 subway lines share the same track between Wilshire/Vermont to Union Station and then have 1 split off at Hollywood/Highland to go through West Hollywood and re-join the Purple Line at Wilshire/La Cienega didn't make much sense. It's so odd, that I don't think any city saw a similiar structure.

But anyways, yes, as part of Measure R +, I'm sure you'll be hearing a lot about potential new projects that will be financed when you see ads for the tax extension. Metro appears to be giving in to announce that Measure R+ funds will include money for Gold Line to Montclair (to get the SGV Supervisors support) and likely, they will announce how Measure R+ will extend the Crenshaw Line north to Wilshire/West Hollywood/Hollywood.

Imagine, a rail transit line from Hollywood to the South Bay! That'll be huge!

Then why not just have a short connecting line that extends from H/H to Purple? No need to continue to downtown or the Valley; in fact, that seems ridiculous with the Red Line already running there.

I hope there was a better reason for not building it than that. I change subways in NY, London, etc., all the time and don't think anything of it; sometimes with a quarter mile walk.

Muji
May 31, 2012, 4:23 PM
Hollywood to Downtown LA is a very heavily ridden route. You would sacrifice a standing room crowd to re-route their trains to south of Vernont? There are more people who want/need to travel between Valley/Hollywood and downtown LA than Valley/Hollywood to Vermont Ave. the latter would have so little support.

This is true, but I suspect that that ridership between DT and the Purple Line extension (and possibly Pink) will eventually be just as high if not higher. It's my impression that there are plenty of cities where the most common subway commutes require transferring between lines (this was so when I lived in Taipei). I'd argue that for most commuters, the inconvenience of having to transfer in a subway station is pretty slight given the many other time savings and benefits offered by taking transit.

pesto
May 31, 2012, 4:33 PM
The Pink Line would have created an operational nightmare for Metro, that was the problem. It was studied as part of the AA and that was the conclusion. To have 3 subway lines share the same track between Wilshire/Vermont to Union Station and then have 1 split off at Hollywood/Highland to go through West Hollywood and re-join the Purple Line at Wilshire/La Cienega didn't make much sense. It's so odd, that I don't think any city saw a similiar structure.

But anyways, yes, as part of Measure R +, I'm sure you'll be hearing a lot about potential new projects that will be financed when you see ads for the tax extension. Metro appears to be giving in to announce that Measure R+ funds will include money for Gold Line to Montclair (to get the SGV Supervisors support) and likely, they will announce how Measure R+ will extend the Crenshaw Line north to Wilshire/West Hollywood/Hollywood.

Imagine, a rail transit line from Hollywood to the South Bay! That'll be huge!

The Crenshaw portion north of Wilshire will be of some use, especially if it is underground. However, I can't even foresee a time when that will be built.

Not sure I care about changing trains. You have to get used to doing that or the metro is just a second tier method for selected travel destinations, not the default assumption for everyday travel. With greater frequency of trains, changing trains becomes a minor issue.

And since I'm complaining, LRT of that length is utterly useless. Pretty much no one wants to take 2 hours to do that trip.

StethJeff
May 31, 2012, 8:10 PM
With respect to the crowding of trains near Vermont and having to make transfers, the problem is that this is LA we're talking about. Metro is still in the process of convincing people to ride these lines. If it isn't convenient, i.e. wasting time with transfers, many people will rather do what they're used to already - driving.

Plus given the few lines that we have for such a large metro, the idea of having to transfer to get from DTLA to anywhere else just sounds silly. At this point, there shouldn't be any reason to have to transfer trains from Hollywood, WeHo, BH, CC, etc. Admittedly, Green Line is somewhat of a unique situation.

LAofAnaheim
May 31, 2012, 8:52 PM
Then why not just have a short connecting line that extends from H/H to Purple?

Hence the Crenshaw Line northern extension!

And it will happen shortly after the 1st batch of Measure R projects are completed. The second round will include, most likely:

- Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink
- Gold Line to Montclair (Ontario Airport only if SB County is willing to finance a portion of the line)
- Crenshaw Northern Extension to Hollywood/Highland via West Hollywood
- Purple Line to Santa Monica
- A rail line connecting North Hollywood/Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena (something for the SGV)
- Vermont corridor between Wilshire/Vermont - Vermont/Athens Green Line station

Those seem reasonable to assume in Measure R Part II

pesto
Jun 1, 2012, 4:48 PM
Hence the Crenshaw Line northern extension!

And it will happen shortly after the 1st batch of Measure R projects are completed. The second round will include, most likely:

- Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink
- Gold Line to Montclair (Ontario Airport only if SB County is willing to finance a portion of the line)
- Crenshaw Northern Extension to Hollywood/Highland via West Hollywood
- Purple Line to Santa Monica
- A rail line connecting North Hollywood/Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena (something for the SGV)
- Vermont corridor between Wilshire/Vermont - Vermont/Athens Green Line station

Those seem reasonable to assume in Measure R Part II

In general, these are good choices. They stay within 5 miles of the LA core area. What happened to 405 and the VA station?

Ontario for sure only if SB pays. This is going to be minimal usage given the ease of access and parking around Ontario Airport.

Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink I haven't got a clue.

JRinSoCal
Jun 1, 2012, 6:41 PM
And when will the green line to lax become a reality?

LosAngelesSportsFan
Jun 1, 2012, 7:37 PM
can any of our Hollywood peeps confirm that Blvd 6200 has started?

Also, anyone remember when that hotel on Selma and Cahuenga is supposed to break ground?

LAofAnaheim
Jun 1, 2012, 7:47 PM
And when will the green line to lax become a reality?

That was studied as part of the Alternatives Analysis. It was/is being knocked out of conention. It didn't have strong support compared to a people mover from the future Century station on the Green Line. Measure R has $200 million allocated for the people mover project into LAX.

You can read about Measure R funding here: http://www.metro.net/projects/progress_tracker/bytype/expansion/

LAofAnaheim
Jun 1, 2012, 7:49 PM
In general, these are good choices. They stay within 5 miles of the LA core area. What happened to 405 and the VA station?

Ontario for sure only if SB pays. This is going to be minimal usage given the ease of access and parking around Ontario Airport.

Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink I haven't got a clue.

The 405 line is called the "Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor" and has $1 billion allocated from Measure R. Read up here: http://www.metro.net/projects/progress_tracker/bytype/expansion/

The Norwalk Green Line station is 2 miles from the Norwalk Metrolink station. Right now, Norwalk Transit runs a shuttle bus between the two stations. The eventual plan is to extend the Green Line east by 2 miles to connect to the Metrolink station; thereby much easier for OC folks to get to the South Bay by Metro. Lots of jobs are located on the western branch on the Green Line, where many OC people commute to daily.

202_Cyclist
Jun 1, 2012, 8:47 PM
JRinSoCal:
And when will the green line to lax become a reality?


I heard from the contractor building this that construction on the Crenshaw line to LAX will begin in August. I think the ceremonial ground-breaking will be in late July/early August.

JDRCRASH
Jun 1, 2012, 9:23 PM
Hollywood to Downtown LA is a very heavily ridden route. You would sacrifice a standing room crowd to re-route their trains to south of Vernont? There are more people who want/need to travel between Valley/Hollywood and downtown LA than Valley/Hollywood to Vermont Ave. the latter would have so little support.

If you built a separate platform with tunnels that connected to the Red Line tunnels just north of Wilshire/Vermont, you could still theoretically preserve that ridership while also launching a new N-S line.

LAofAnaheim
Jun 1, 2012, 11:34 PM
JRinSoCal:


I heard from the contractor building this that construction on the Crenshaw line to LAX will begin in August. I think the ceremonial ground-breaking will be in late July/early August.

That's a misunderstanding. There is NO CONSTRUCTION on Green Line to LAX today. There IS CONSTRUCTION on Crenshaw Line connecting the Expo Line and Green Line via the Crenshaw Corridor and creating the new Century station that will be the new LAX transfer point (replacing the current Aviation station). Green Line trains will extend to Century station in 2017.

However, there is NO CONSTRUCTION on a line TO LAX. The Metro Board just voted to start the DEIR last month. Three years of a DEIR and FEIR has just started on the rail line (most likely people mover) into LAX.

a9l8e7n
Jun 2, 2012, 2:08 AM
The first phase of Blvd 6200 finally breaks ground!!! :cheers:
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/huge_hollywood_mixeduse_blvd6200_finally_breaks_ground.php
Things seem to be moving forward finally for LA

Quixote
Jun 2, 2012, 4:06 AM
Five levels of underground parking? Yeesh.

dachacon
Jun 2, 2012, 7:15 AM
^^
probably some form of public parking in there.

Illithid Dude
Jun 2, 2012, 7:23 AM
About damn time. Also, in the article, Curbed alluded to Columbia Square being close to breaking ground, which would be great.

pesto
Jun 2, 2012, 4:25 PM
The 405 line is called the "Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor" and has $1 billion allocated from Measure R. Read up here: http://www.metro.net/projects/progress_tracker/bytype/expansion/

The Norwalk Green Line station is 2 miles from the Norwalk Metrolink station. Right now, Norwalk Transit runs a shuttle bus between the two stations. The eventual plan is to extend the Green Line east by 2 miles to connect to the Metrolink station; thereby much easier for OC folks to get to the South Bay by Metro. Lots of jobs are located on the western branch on the Green Line, where many OC people commute to daily.

Legitimately a very busy corridor. But are people really going to use metro? I would think the South Bay is too spread out for it to be an effective form of transit, even with company shuttles at the end.

Kingofthehill
Jun 2, 2012, 4:30 PM
Five levels of underground parking? Yeesh.

No wonder why no middle class or "TOD" condo dwellers ride the train. There is absolutely zero incentive to do so. It is enough that our system, in its current state, is limited and hamstrung with regards to effectiveness and coverage. But free parking wherever you go? That, in essence, means you have no reason to even get out of your car. In the world's best transit cities, transit coverage is ample and widespread, and parking is expensive and a hassle. Basically, the harder it is to park in a city, the easier it is to live.

LosAngelesDreamin
Jun 2, 2012, 4:32 PM
That's a misunderstanding. There is NO CONSTRUCTION on Green Line to LAX today. There IS CONSTRUCTION on Crenshaw Line connecting the Expo Line and Green Line via the Crenshaw Corridor and creating the new Century station that will be the new LAX transfer point (replacing the current Aviation station). Green Line trains will extend to Century station in 2017.

However, there is NO CONSTRUCTION on a line TO LAX. The Metro Board just voted to start the DEIR last month. Three years of a DEIR and FEIR has just started on the rail line (most likely people mover) into LAX.

Wait is the people mover a for sure thing?? if so that would be great!! i rode it in Chicago and was sooooooooo so so so so sooooooooo fun and convenient... would make it so much easier for people to move inside LAX.. and would make LAX more attractive.

pesto
Jun 3, 2012, 9:50 PM
No wonder why no middle class or "TOD" condo dwellers ride the train. There is absolutely zero incentive to do so. It is enough that our system, in its current state, is limited and hamstrung with regards to effectiveness and coverage. But free parking wherever you go? That, in essence, means you have no reason to even get out of your car. In the world's best transit cities, transit coverage is ample and widespread, and parking is expensive and a hassle. Basically, the harder it is to park in a city, the easier it is to live.

It is certainly true that people will use the subway more when parking is very difficult to find. But this doesn't imply that it is easier to live in a city with no parking.

As a practical matter, people who move to LA from NY find it much easier to live here. Often that is the very reason they move here and they often will fight efforts to create greater density. The SFV is a great example, but even the westside prefers the moderate density they have to the excessive density they left.

The idea of "free parking wherever you go" is a bit dated as well. Very little of this on the westside; you either pay or parse through detailed discussions of what permits are required. Your comment is much closer to the reality in the SFV or SGV, although not in the denser parts of those areas either.

I'm not opposed to urban density for those who want it. But there is little reason to believe that everyone wants it.

edluva
Jun 3, 2012, 10:59 PM
i can't disagree with the desire of developers to continue building massive underground parking even in TODs because at its current state public transit in LA is nowhere near an adequate replacement for driving. Ultimately developers are in a business, and their projects need to pencil out. they are not charities.

Illithid Dude
Jun 3, 2012, 11:19 PM
i can't disagree with the desire of developers to continue building massive underground parking even in TODs because at its current state public transit in LA is nowhere near an adequate replacement for driving. Ultimately developers are in a business, and their projects need to pencil out. they are not charities.

I can't blame developers either. It is incredibly hard to live life in L.A. without a car. Even if you do use the metro every day, there are going to be times that you need to drive somewhere. Like, say, visiting friends/family in the SFV. And besides, just because you own a car doesn't mean that you have to use it. People can still live on Blvd 6500 and take the Metro to work every day, only using theirs cars every once in a while.

DistrictDirt
Jun 4, 2012, 12:14 AM
I can't blame developers either. It is incredibly hard to live life in L.A. without a car. Even if you do use the metro every day, there are going to be times that you need to drive somewhere. Like, say, visiting friends/family in the SFV. And besides, just because you own a car doesn't mean that you have to use it. People can still live on Blvd 6500 and take the Metro to work every day, only using theirs cars every once in a while.

I can't totally blame them either, but its just a shame because its a total catch-22. Don't build enough parking now, and people are forced to dependent on Metro, which isn't quite there yet. Build enough parking, and its great for people now, but people have no reason to utilize Metro at all, depriving the system of ridership and revenue.

Illithid Dude
Jun 4, 2012, 12:33 AM
I can't totally blame them either, but its just a shame because its a total catch-22. Don't build enough parking now, and people are forced to dependent on Metro, which isn't quite there yet. Build enough parking, and its great for people now, but people have no reason to utilize Metro at all, depriving the system of ridership and revenue.

I think there are still some very logical reasons to use Metro. For one, it's often faster then driving. Say you live in Hollywood, and want to go downtown. It's five PM. Major rush hour. By car, it could take half an hour, or more. By Metro it's fifteen minutes. Same case with all lines. Moreover, it's cheaper. With gases prices going up, it will make a lot more financial sense to take Metro instead of driving for many people. Also, it's just really fun, but that's more of a personal opinion.

DistrictDirt
Jun 4, 2012, 2:50 AM
I think there are still some very logical reasons to use Metro. For one, it's often faster then driving. Say you live in Hollywood, and want to go downtown. It's five PM. Major rush hour. By car, it could take half an hour, or more. By Metro it's fifteen minutes. Same case with all lines. Moreover, it's cheaper. With gases prices going up, it will make a lot more financial sense to take Metro instead of driving for many people. Also, it's just really fun, but that's more of a personal opinion.

I agree with you completely, but then again I spend 99% of my time in the triangle formed by Hollywood, Koreatown, and DTLA. Given where I live, work, and spend my free time, I'd be a complete dumbass not to take Metro. But I think the point other people on this thread are making is that Metro doesn't blanket the city uniformly. If I lived in West LA, worked in the Valley, and spent my free time at the beach, I'd probably poo-poo the Metro too.

pesto
Jun 4, 2012, 5:27 PM
I agree with you completely, but then again I spend 99% of my time in the triangle formed by Hollywood, Koreatown, and DTLA. Given where I live, work, and spend my free time, I'd be a complete dumbass not to take Metro. But I think the point other people on this thread are making is that Metro doesn't blanket the city uniformly. If I lived in West LA, worked in the Valley, and spent my free time at the beach, I'd probably poo-poo the Metro too.

As you imply, the DT-Ktown-Hollywood triangle is getting quite urban. The next logical place to extend the "transit mentality" is west from there, eventually to the coast. Another reason to get the Purple, Pink, 405 and other projects for the westside done quickly.

Conversely, the effect of Crenshaw or Foothill on car usage will be negligible locally and literally zero in the densest parts of LA.

gmsalpha
Jun 4, 2012, 5:39 PM
Has anyone used Zipcar (car-sharing)? It looks like for about $10/hr you can rent something like a Mini Cooper if you need to drive somewhere that's not convenient for Metro or subway.

I'll be moving to Hollywood Dec of this year for school and plan to use a Vespa in part because it's only $5k new and gets around 70mpg. I don't really expect to leave the small little pocket of home/school during my two years there, but eventually I might. And if/when I do, I'm curious if anyone's tried any of these hourly car rental services that are offered in the city? Thoughts?

202_Cyclist
Jun 4, 2012, 5:51 PM
Has anyone used Zipcar (car-sharing)? It looks like for about $10/hr you can rent something like a Mini Cooper if you need to drive somewhere that's not convenient for Metro or subway.

I'll be moving to Hollywood Dec of this year for school and plan to use a Vespa in part because it's only $5k new and gets around 70mpg. I don't really expect to leave the small little pocket of home/school during my two years there, but eventually I might. And if/when I do, I'm curious if anyone's tried any of these hourly car rental services that are offered in the city? Thoughts?

I haven't used ZipCar but I've used Car2Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car2Go) here in DC and I strongly recommend it (unfortunately, I don't think this service is offered in Los Angeles). Unlike ZipCar, there are no fixed stations for the Car2Go Smart Fortwo vehicles. You use your phone to find a car and drop it off anywhere you finish your trip.

DistrictDirt
Jun 4, 2012, 6:46 PM
Has anyone used Zipcar (car-sharing)? It looks like for about $10/hr you can rent something like a Mini Cooper if you need to drive somewhere that's not convenient for Metro or subway.

I'll be moving to Hollywood Dec of this year for school and plan to use a Vespa in part because it's only $5k new and gets around 70mpg. I don't really expect to leave the small little pocket of home/school during my two years there, but eventually I might. And if/when I do, I'm curious if anyone's tried any of these hourly car rental services that are offered in the city? Thoughts?

Back in DC, I used ZipCar on a weekly basis. Even used a ZipCar truck to pick up some sod for a Park(ing) Day project (http://vimeo.com/6853213)! :)

When I moved to LA, I quickly learned that there weren't enough ZipCar locations to make the system useful. At the time, the stations were limited to college campuses like USC, UCLA, and CalTech. I used it once or twice- having to take a bus just to get to the ZipCar. I finally admitted to myself that it's totally inconvenient. The system only really works if there's a ZipCar location within walking distance of you.

I've heard that they've expanded a lot recently, so you may have better luck now than I did in 2010.

StethJeff
Jun 5, 2012, 3:14 AM
I think there are still some very logical reasons to use Metro. For one, it's often faster then driving. Say you live in Hollywood, and want to go downtown. It's five PM. Major rush hour. By car, it could take half an hour, or more. By Metro it's fifteen minutes. Same case with all lines. Moreover, it's cheaper. With gases prices going up, it will make a lot more financial sense to take Metro instead of driving for many people. Also, it's just really fun, but that's more of a personal opinion.

I love Metro and ride it whenever I can, but I disagree. With the exception of maybe Blue Line during rush hour, much of metro is not actually faster than driving, even during rush hour. Gold Line from Memorial Park to Union Station? You can do it on the 110 during rush hour in the same amount of time (maybe even faster). Red Line from CHLA/Kaiser to Pershing Square? Again, the drive isn't much different from the train ride. When you include the possible 10 minute wait time for trains, time-saving isn't necessarily one of Metro's selling points.

pesto
Jun 5, 2012, 4:55 PM
I love Metro and ride it whenever I can, but I disagree. With the exception of maybe Blue Line during rush hour, much of metro is not actually faster than driving, even during rush hour. Gold Line from Memorial Park to Union Station? You can do it on the 110 during rush hour in the same amount of time (maybe even faster). Red Line from CHLA/Kaiser to Pershing Square? Again, the drive isn't much different from the train ride. When you include the possible 10 minute wait time for trains, time-saving isn't necessarily one of Metro's selling points.

I think this is a fair statement. But continuing development and more frequent trains would largely shift this. And the parking cost and hassle is not insignificant.

DistrictDirt
Jun 5, 2012, 6:24 PM
I love Metro and ride it whenever I can, but I disagree. With the exception of maybe Blue Line during rush hour, much of metro is not actually faster than driving, even during rush hour. Gold Line from Memorial Park to Union Station? You can do it on the 110 during rush hour in the same amount of time (maybe even faster). Red Line from CHLA/Kaiser to Pershing Square? Again, the drive isn't much different from the train ride. When you include the possible 10 minute wait time for trains, time-saving isn't necessarily one of Metro's selling points.

In my experience in this city and others, a lot of the time savings you get riding the train is from not having to deal with parking at your destination.

LAofAnaheim
Jun 5, 2012, 7:40 PM
In my experience in this city and others, a lot of the time savings you get riding the train is from not having to deal with parking at your destination.

In many other cities, they don't have abundant underground/aboveground parking available at your destination. There would be public garages located near/around your destination with time limits and high cost. LA has very cheap and abundant parking...and usually AT your destination; something other cities don't frequently have (unless you're paying $50+/day for parking).

Again, cut down the massive parking requirements and you'll see a shift in livability, affordability and more Metro usage!

edluva
Jun 6, 2012, 7:24 AM
Again, cut down the massive parking requirements and you'll see a shift in livability, affordability and more Metro usage!

no, cut down on parking, and people move elsewhere (why do la forumers have things so backwards?). until there is a reliable, timely, and comfortable way to get around on transit, period, developers will not build to very high densities, and NIMBY's will rightly reserve the option to block projects which will bring excessive congestion to their neighborhoods.

it's as simple as that. if you were a developer, you wouldn't build something without adequate parking because your parking-less development won't garner tenants. simply having a rail station underneath your condo building, for example, won't be enough to convince buyers to ditch their cars. who cares if you have a single subway line running underneath your building if all it does is connect you to a useless array of destinations you could care less about.

it's a function of having a transit *network* that can compete with the car, which will determine whether parking requirements can be reduced or eliminated. as of now you'd be fooling yourselves if you thought the metro in its current state was competitive with driving for the average person.

StethJeff
Jun 6, 2012, 8:01 AM
In my experience in this city and others, a lot of the time savings you get riding the train is from not having to deal with parking at your destination.

In LA I'd argue the exact opposite. I fail to see where the hassle is with parking in LA compared to SF or NY. We have ample street parking, open lots, or dedicated parking garages seemingly everywhere. The walks between your car and destination are pretty damn short here. And it's usually even cheap or free!

Meanwhile, some of our trains are slow as shit, don't travel frequently, or simply shutdown completely at ridiculously early hours. Metro can be economical, green, convenient (at times), etc. but time-saving isn't one of it's strongest qualities.

pesto
Jun 6, 2012, 4:11 PM
In many other cities, they don't have abundant underground/aboveground parking available at your destination. There would be public garages located near/around your destination with time limits and high cost. LA has very cheap and abundant parking...and usually AT your destination; something other cities don't frequently have (unless you're paying $50+/day for parking).

Again, cut down the massive parking requirements and you'll see a shift in livability, affordability and more Metro usage!

Again, this doesn't follow. Eliminating parking FORCES people onto metro (or to leave the city) but that doesn't imply livability. It implies the opposite: it's harder to get around by your choice of vehicle.

LAofAnaheim
Jun 6, 2012, 8:16 PM
no, cut down on parking, and people move elsewhere (why do la forumers have things so backwards?). until there is a reliable, timely, and comfortable way to get around on transit, period, developers will not build to very high densities, and NIMBY's will rightly reserve the option to block projects which will bring excessive congestion to their neighborhoods.

it's as simple as that. if you were a developer, you wouldn't build something without adequate parking because your parking-less development won't garner tenants. simply having a rail station underneath your condo building, for example, won't be enough to convince buyers to ditch their cars. who cares if you have a single subway line running underneath your building if all it does is connect you to a useless array of destinations you could care less about.

it's a function of having a transit *network* that can compete with the car, which will determine whether parking requirements can be reduced or eliminated. as of now you'd be fooling yourselves if you thought the metro in its current state was competitive with driving for the average person.

I never said "remove parking", I said "reduce parking". Instead of providing 1.2 cars/unit, cut it down to .875/unit.

Also, this belief that people need parking to live is false. If that's the truth, then why are there more people who frequent/live in Venice, Santa Monica, Hollywood than desire to go to SFV or OC? SFV and OC has way more cheap and abundant parking, compared to Venice, Santa Monica or Hollywood, but yet the later three is where people want to be.

Also, isn't it ironic that when more parking lots disappear in downtown LA, more people move into downtown LA? Public parking lots gone and more people move in? Hmmmm

Illithid Dude
Jun 7, 2012, 2:55 AM
Also, isn't it ironic that when more parking lots disappear in downtown LA, more people move into downtown LA? Public parking lots gone and more people move in? Hmmmm

It's not ironic at all. When parking lots disappear, new development goes in its place. New development brings new housing units. New housing units bring more people. It's simple logic.

OneMetropolis
Jun 7, 2012, 4:16 AM
This is great so glad blvd 6200 is finally getting built, that dead zone looked so horrible when I last visited, that part of Hollywood blvd just seemed so disconnected, now the problem can be hopefully solved now thank goodness. :banana:

BrandonJXN
Jun 7, 2012, 4:17 AM
Now all we need is for someone to do the same with Macy's Plaza.


http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/40073
Beating out shortlisted competition including John Friedman Alice Kimm and Brooks+Scarpa, Italian firm Studio Fuksas has been awarded the commission to revamp the Beverly Center, the legendary (not to mention, ahem, aesthetically challenging) high end shopping mall in Beverly Hills. The job, overseen by Michigan-based developer Taubman Group, calls for revamping a building that has become tired both inside and out. Considering the ethereal lightness of Fuksas’ work—for instance, his undulating, glass-wrapped Fiera in Milan— he should be the perfect architect to reconsider one of the bulkiest buildings in LA. Look for an official announcement in the coming weeks.

Illithid Dude
Jun 7, 2012, 4:41 AM
Now all we need is for someone to do the same with Macy's Plaza.


http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/40073

The best part is that Studio Fuksas is actually an amazing architecture studio. We're gonna get a really cool design for the mall. It's gonna be great.

pesto
Jun 7, 2012, 4:06 PM
I never said "remove parking", I said "reduce parking". Instead of providing 1.2 cars/unit, cut it down to .875/unit.

Also, this belief that people need parking to live is false. If that's the truth, then why are there more people who frequent/live in Venice, Santa Monica, Hollywood than desire to go to SFV or OC? SFV and OC has way more cheap and abundant parking, compared to Venice, Santa Monica or Hollywood, but yet the later three is where people want to be.

Also, isn't it ironic that when more parking lots disappear in downtown LA, more people move into downtown LA? Public parking lots gone and more people move in? Hmmmm

Backwards again: it's not the high price or lack of parking that drives interest in these areas. It is some extraneous factor (entertainment, beach, nice shopping) that makes the area desirable in the first place. THEN people want to go there; THEN parking becomes in short supply, prices go up, etc. One way to alleviate is to have transit (or more parking). But it is NOT transit that creates the demand.

pesto
Jun 7, 2012, 4:27 PM
Now all we need is for someone to do the same with Macy's Plaza.


http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/40073

About frikkin' time. I hope their work is up to their best levels.

BC was always interesting architecturally but an urban nightmare: hulking, enclosed, basically ignoring its surroundings. Trying to make it look lighter is a no-brainer. A few other thoughts, probably way outside the scope of work:

- fewer stores and better quality; both it and its clientele are turning down market
- remove a few floors and have higher ceilings with terraces midway up
- a traffic lane from San Vicente that goes straight into and out of the complex; used for deliveries during closing hours
- conversion of existing delivery areas to open-air dining, children's play area, etc.
- get a subway to Hollywood and Wilshire; cancel Crenshaw to do it; offer jobs exclusively to residents of the Crenshaw district

202_Cyclist
Jun 7, 2012, 4:58 PM
Backwards again: it's not the high price or lack of parking that drives interest in these areas. It is some extraneous factor (entertainment, beach, nice shopping) that makes the area desirable in the first place. THEN people want to go there; THEN parking becomes in short supply, prices go up, etc. One way to alleviate is to have transit (or more parking). But it is NOT transit that creates the demand.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You claim to be such an expert in free-market economics, it shouldn't be difficult to understand. The reliability and scope of transit helps determine the amount of transit ridership but parking does as well.

Driving and transit are substitute goods. If you make parking more readily available, especially if it is underpriced, you reduce the demand for transit ridership. As with just about any other good or service in our economy, if you reduce the cost of something (driving, parking) people will consume more of it.

There have been many studies that have statistically proven a negative correlation between parking and transit ridership.

Office Development, Rail Transit, and Commuting Choices
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-5%20Cervero.pdf

The trouble with minimum parking requirements
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Trouble.pdf

The Factors Influencing Transit Ridership: A Review and Analysis of the Ridership Literature

"Finally, strategies to increase parking costs or the probability drivers will have to pay for parking are found to be more effective in increasing transit mode share than increasing the level of transit service in terms of frequency and accessibility."

http://www.uctc.net/papers/681.pdf

RST500
Jun 7, 2012, 9:55 PM
Now all we need is for someone to do the same with Macy's Plaza.


http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/40073

I know a lot of people in LA consider the Beverly Center an eyesore but I personally think it one of most interested and unique structures in LA of its era. I have said this on the forum several times but I always envsioned that area as LA' Time Square with the Beverly Center covered in Neon Signs and Elecctric Billboards, and the Beverly Center and some of the strip malls near by turned into 30-50 story highrises.

StethJeff
Jun 8, 2012, 3:29 AM
I know a lot of people in LA consider the Beverly Center an eyesore but I personally think it one of most interested and unique structures in LA of its era. I have said this on the forum several times but I always envsioned that area as LA' Time Square with the Beverly Center covered in Neon Signs and Elecctric Billboards, and the Beverly Center and some of the strip malls near by turned into 30-50 story highrises.

no one here would complain about that :yes:

BrandonJXN
Jun 8, 2012, 3:20 PM
no one here would complain about that :yes:

Unless they can figure out the traffic situation (La Cienega and San Vincente is the WORST INTERSECTION ON THE PLANET), I don't see too much in terms of high rise develoment in that area. Not right now at least.

pesto
Jun 8, 2012, 4:19 PM
I know a lot of people in LA consider the Beverly Center an eyesore but I personally think it one of most interested and unique structures in LA of its era. I have said this on the forum several times but I always envsioned that area as LA' Time Square with the Beverly Center covered in Neon Signs and Elecctric Billboards, and the Beverly Center and some of the strip malls near by turned into 30-50 story highrises.

I agree it is architecturally interesting, but not place appropriate. What part of Times Sq, or Picadilly or other urban center looks like a fortress?

And capreting it with signs on the sides is about the worst nightmare I can imagine. You really want Target, Weightloss, Fad Diet ads blaring in all directions 24/7? How does that help attract shoppers?

As for 50 story highrises, there is zero chance. There are neighborhoods of single story houses with yards within a block or two.

pesto
Jun 8, 2012, 4:34 PM
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You claim to be such an expert in free-market economics, it shouldn't be difficult to understand. The reliability and scope of transit helps determine the amount of transit ridership but parking does as well.

Driving and transit are substitute goods. If you make parking more readily available, especially if it is underpriced, you reduce the demand for transit ridership. As with just about any other good or service in our economy, if you reduce the cost of something (driving, parking) people will consume more of it.

There have been many studies that have statistically proven a negative correlation between parking and transit ridership.

Office Development, Rail Transit, and Commuting Choices
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-5%20Cervero.pdf

The trouble with minimum parking requirements
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Trouble.pdf

The Factors Influencing Transit Ridership: A Review and Analysis of the Ridership Literature

"Finally, strategies to increase parking costs or the probability drivers will have to pay for parking are found to be more effective in increasing transit mode share than increasing the level of transit service in terms of frequency and accessibility."

http://www.uctc.net/papers/681.pdf

But that's what I said and what you disagreed with! You claimed that more people want to go to Venice than the SFV even with cheap parking in the SFV. I agree. But you implied that the lack of parking somehow made Venice more desirable, which is just nonsense. (If I got your argument wrong, please correct me.)

The demand comes from extraneous reasons (e.g., the beach); then comes the demand, which causes parking shortages. You can address this through more parking or through transit, or both.

Of course if there is plenty of parking there will be less transit use and vice-versa; that's obvious. Maybe this is what you mean by more "demand", but that's not the proper usage of the term. This would be the "quantity demanded", which goes up while demand stays the same (that is, the demand is still to go to the beach; this causes the quantity of parking demanded (at any given price) to go up). Same applies for transit: the lower the price the more the quantity of seats demanded. But this does not change demand, which is driven by "the beach".

202_Cyclist
Jun 8, 2012, 4:43 PM
pesto:
But that's what I said and what you disagreed with! You claimed that more people want to go to Venice than the SFV even with cheap parking in the SFV. I agree. But you implied that the lack of parking somehow made Venice more desirable, which is just nonsense. (If I got your argument wrong, please correct me.)


I think LAofAnaheim said this, not me.

pesto
Jun 8, 2012, 5:04 PM
pesto:


I think LAofAnaheim said this, not me.

Yes. but you took up his argument by disagreeing with my response. But, like I said if you have a different argument please clarify. I certainly won't disagree that there is less demand for transit when there is ample parking and vice-versa (demand staying constant).

RST500
Jun 8, 2012, 5:33 PM
I agree it is architecturally interesting, but not place appropriate. What part of Times Sq, or Picadilly or other urban center looks like a fortress?

And capreting it with signs on the sides is about the worst nightmare I can imagine. You really want Target, Weightloss, Fad Diet ads blaring in all directions 24/7? How does that help attract shoppers?

As for 50 story highrises, there is zero chance. There are neighborhoods of single story houses with yards within a block or two.

Time Square has a similar affect. Maybe its les like a fortress but all the highrises together create a manmade canyon much like the Beverly Center does. Even more so if they tunr the Beverly Connection across the street into highrises.

mbesse@sbcglobal.net
Jun 8, 2012, 5:53 PM
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.

wilshire vermont towers are definately under construction. it started last week and I live next door. I can see tructors working on a daily basis.

a9l8e7n
Jun 8, 2012, 6:56 PM
wilshire vermont towers are definately under construction. it started last week and I live next door. I can see tructors working on a daily basis.

Do you think a live cam will be placed at the site? I think many people would like to see that.

pesto
Jun 10, 2012, 4:16 PM
Time Square has a similar affect. Maybe its les like a fortress but all the highrises together create a manmade canyon much like the Beverly Center does. Even more so if they tunr the Beverly Connection across the street into highrises.

But who wants anything like Times Sq. there? It's just a super-sized honky-tonk for tourists. Maybe OK for somewhere DT or Hollywood but as far as I know no one in the Beverly Center area would have any interest in that. Weho and BH would sue the hell out of any attempt as would the local LA neighborhood associations.

Conversely, the area very much has the roots of a middle or upper-middle class medium-rise district along Burton, La Cienega, 3rd, San Vicente, etc., over to Park La Brea, the Grove and Wilshire. This would make perfect sense to expand, with an opened up shopping center acting as an additional focus point.

mdiederi
Jun 11, 2012, 6:43 AM
This is a major piece of the waterfront redevelopment in San Pedro.

USS Iowa Berths at the Port of Los Angeles
The giant battleship is slated to become a museum
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/USS-Iowa-Berths-at-the-Port-of-Los-Angeles-158336005.html


By Melissa Pamer and Vikki Vargas | Sunday, Jun 10, 2012

The length of threee football fields and the height of 15-story building, the USS Iowa on Saturday began its reign as an impressive presence at the Port of Los Angeles.

The decommissioned World War II-era battleship berthed at the port after a years-long struggle from supporters to get her to San Pedro.

"There's nothing like giant guns, heavy armor and the ability to go so fast nobody can keep up with you," said Robert Kent of the Pacific Battleship Center. "This is the last battleship left in the world."

Dubbed "The Battleship of Presidents," the USS Iowa is set to become a floating museum and memorial in coming months. San Pedrans also hope she'll attract tourists to the harbor community.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/Feeds/Reuters_Images/2012/06/10/10-06-2012-06-06-00-908mdf70681.jpg/ALTERNATES/crop_630x400/10-06-2012-06-06-00-908mdf70681.jpg
The USS Iowa makes her way through the main channel of the Port of Los Angeles to her permanent home, Berth 87, in San Pedro.
Image by: LORI SHEPLER / REUTERS

circuitfiend
Jun 18, 2012, 6:57 PM
Lo and behold, a backhoe and several small trucks are in the lot. They've dug a rather deep trench, maybe 12 feet deep, three feet wide and approximately 25 feet long, at the center and perpendicular to the wall adjacent to the 1800 CPE building and put in metal supports to keep it from collapsing. There is also a small bulldozer on the property. Approximately 20 workers on the site.

I'll post pics if I can figure out how, or not, if someone else beats me to it.

202_Cyclist
Jun 18, 2012, 7:28 PM
Hollywood population density at issue in development fight
The plan would enable developers to build high-rise skyscrapers, but residents say the neighborhood's declining population doesn't need more apartments.

June 17, 2012
By Bob Pool
Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-06/70506438.jpg
Image courtesy of the LA Times.

"Finding a peaceful resolution to this Hollywood feud is one tall order.

Hollywood "flat-landers" and development advocates are urging Los Angeles officials to increase density guidelines in Hollywood, paving the way for glitzy new skyscrapers and apartment buildings they say are necessary to house tens of thousands of future residents.

But Hollywood's hillside dwellers are fighting the move. They say high-rises are unnecessary, because the population there is shrinking, and contend that new towers will only ruin the area's scenic and world-famous skyline..."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/17/local/la-me-hollywood-plan-20120617

Illithid Dude
Jun 18, 2012, 7:41 PM
Lo and behold, a backhoe and several small trucks are in the lot. They've dug a rather deep trench, maybe 12 feet deep, three feet wide and approximately 25 feet long, at the center and perpendicular to the wall adjacent to the 1800 CPE building and put in metal supports to keep it from collapsing. There is also a small bulldozer on the property. Approximately 20 workers on the site.

I'll post pics if I can figure out how, or not, if someone else beats me to it.

Ooooooooh. That is very exciting. They are planning a 45 Story Apartment Tower at 1000 Santa Monica. It's not Nouvel, but it's still pretty nice.

Also, @ The Hollywood Development Article.

Hollywood has a world famous skyline? I know there are one or two buildings in Hollywood that are world famous, but the skyline itself? Not really.

RST500
Jun 18, 2012, 7:53 PM
This is it.

10000 Santa Monica Blvd
? stories – Mixed
Century City

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5016/5515920149_786f70a60a_z.jpg
la-fi-condo.com

circuitfiend
Jun 18, 2012, 9:54 PM
Re the above-posted rendering for 10000 Sta Mon Blvd...

I believe that rendering was considered a place marker and not a serious proposal. I could be wrong, but I gleened that info from somewhere on here (or not).

Illithid Dude
Jun 18, 2012, 9:59 PM
Re the above-posted rendering for 10000 Sta Mon Blvd...

I believe that rendering was considered a place marker and not a serious proposal. I could be wrong, but I gleened that info from somewhere on here (or not).

The proposal was serious, but the design could still be changed, according to the developers. My gut says the design will look similar, as it is very detailed for a 'placeholder' design.

Steve2726
Jun 19, 2012, 12:17 AM
Based on this article, it doesn't sound like construction start is imminent-

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/04/business/la-fi-condo-development-20110304

Its proposed 486,000-square-foot building would rise 36 to 39 stories. Approval, planning and construction could take about six years, Afriat said.

Now granted much of that time frame is for construction, but figure at least half of that is for entitlements, approval and planning.

Steve2726
Jun 19, 2012, 7:38 PM
As a followup to my own post :haha: I have discovered some tantalizing new renders of what 10000 Santa Monica Blvd might be evolving into-

http://www.grantarch.com/

Enter Site> Projects> Condominium Tower Los Angeles

Flash Player website unfortunately, help would be appreciated to post.


For now, it's the second building over from the top left corner \/ \/

http://www.gparchs.com/images/imggrid.jpg

colemonkee
Jun 19, 2012, 8:32 PM
Interesting. It says it uses a terra cotta baguette brise soleil system on the facade, which in the right color, could look pretty cool with glass behind it. Or zinc panels, as the diagram shows. This could look pretty cool up close, but the effect from afar may not be as impressive, as the renders suggest. Still, I'm interested.

I'm traveling for the next couple of days, but I'll grab the images when I get home if someone hasn't done so in the meantime.

Illithid Dude
Jun 19, 2012, 8:34 PM
That is an incredibly cool render. Many people won't like it, but it's provocative, modern, different, and bold- just as modern architectures should be. Also, concerning the six year time table, that seems too long. Most of the time, these things take three to four years, unless you are building like, a supertall, or something. LA Times has been wrong before, and hopefully, this is one of those cases.

circuitfiend
Jun 20, 2012, 2:12 AM
More serious digging at 10000 Sta Mon Blvd today. The backhoe started to make the trench longer, to about the center of the lot, then started to fill said trench in, only to commence digging a much larger hole, which is currently approx 30 ft square and is maybe 8 feet deep, but appears that it will extend across the width of the property. We'll see what tomorrow brings. Stay tuned folks!

And I like the new render. Thanks for digging it up.

I work in the building next door, so I'm getting a birds-eye view of the festivities.

mdiederi
Jun 20, 2012, 5:54 AM
Controversial plan to allow bigger buildings in Hollywood gets OK
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/hollywood-community-plan.html


June 19, 2012 | 2:05 pm
The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday green-lighted controversial new zoning guidelines for Hollywood that could dramatically change the look and feel of the city’s most iconic neighborhood -- and set new standards for development around other transit hubs.

The new guidelines will make it easier for developers to build more and higher buildings around subway stations and bus stops. Supporters, which include business groups and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, say it is a visionary change that will allow Hollywood to fully realize a decade-long transformation from a seedy haven for drug dealing and prostitution into a smartly planned, cosmopolitan center of homes, jobs, entertainment and public transportation.

LosAngelesDreamin
Jun 20, 2012, 8:11 PM
Controversial plan to allow bigger buildings in Hollywood gets OK
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/hollywood-community-plan.html

:banana:

LosAngelesSportsFan
Jun 21, 2012, 12:30 AM
http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/06/19/five-mega-projects-that-will-transform-la-brea/

nice roundup from streetblogs LA regarding the 5 major projects transforming La Brea in Hollywood and West Hollywood.

As a kid, i would always wonder why Highland and La Brea were so shitty and low rise. looks like i was ahead of my time. These are good sized projects for the area.

circuitfiend
Jun 21, 2012, 1:51 AM
I took this shot late today, around 4:30 p.m. My building's shadow obscures some of the detail, but you get the idea. Beverly Hills High School is to the upper right hand corner.

The current hole is marked to extend across the entire property. The workers seem to be checking if there is anything in the soil to prevent further, more extensive digging. We'll see.

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj539/Dave1364/P1000547.jpg

Illithid Dude
Jun 21, 2012, 4:05 AM
They are either under construction or digging a really big pool, and my money isn't on them digging a really big pool.

tgannaway89
Jun 21, 2012, 4:35 AM
Awesome!

pesto
Jun 21, 2012, 4:48 PM
I took this shot late today, around 4:30 p.m. My building's shadow obscures some of the detail, but you get the idea. Beverly Hills High School is to the upper right hand corner.

The current hole is marked to extend across the entire property. The workers seem to be checking if there is anything in the soil to prevent further, more extensive digging. We'll see.

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj539/Dave1364/P1000547.jpg

Nice. Right on SM Blvd, near the 2nd choice station for Purple Line. The proposed additional development at the Beverly Hiltion, will make Little SM a thriving district from BH to Century Plaza shopping center.

Unlike the center of CC, which is probably going to be car oriented indefinitely, the eastern end of CC has real potential to become walkable and thriving.

JDRCRASH
Jun 21, 2012, 10:07 PM
Unlike the center of CC, which is probably going to be car oriented indefinitely, the eastern end of CC has real potential to become walkable and thriving.

Right, that's why there's more development planned towards the center of CC. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Chef Boyardee
Jun 21, 2012, 10:14 PM
To continue the century city theme, westfield will begin it's project (mall expansion, condo tower) "later this year".

http://www.lamag.com/columns/business/Story.aspx?ID=1700394

colemonkee
Jun 21, 2012, 11:44 PM
^ My guess is the work that will start this year will be the mall expansion, which effectively adds a second story. I would wager that the condo tower, now 39 stories instead of 49 (which isn't that bad, to be perfectly honest), is part of a later phase that will either follow or straddle the mall development. The whole project is expected to be finished in 2017, according to the article, so we're looking at a long timeline here.

circuitfiend
Jun 22, 2012, 1:09 AM
Here is a new pic from early this morning, revealing better detail of yesterday's work:

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj539/Dave1364/P1000556.jpg

Looking up SM Blvd to the east, Beverly Hilton across the street:

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj539/Dave1364/P1000560.jpg

And at the end of the day today, with the attendant building shadow. They've made it to about halfway across the property. The dig seems to be exactly through the center of the lot.

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj539/Dave1364/P1000561.jpg

pesto
Jun 22, 2012, 5:30 PM
Right, that's why there's more development planned towards the center of CC. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well, hope you're right, but last I heard the only street-facing retail in existence or proposed is on Little SM or just off it, between Ave of the Stars and Wilshire. The rest of CC MIGHT become sort of "resort urban" (tall buildings connected with meandering paths of greenery and occasional shops and cafes), but where is actual urban even proposed? I hope you don't mean the shopping center.

pesto
Jun 22, 2012, 5:49 PM
^ My guess is the work that will start this year will be the mall expansion, which effectively adds a second story. I would wager that the condo tower, now 39 stories instead of 49 (which isn't that bad, to be perfectly honest), is part of a later phase that will either follow or straddle the mall development. The whole project is expected to be finished in 2017, according to the article, so we're looking at a long timeline here.

Sounds about right, especially if the retail market is already back. The original idea was that Bloomingdale's would occupy the first 3 floors of the condo tower, with the Purple station having an entry into it (ala London and NY). The station would also feed Little SM and the new hotels and condos at the Beverly Hilton, but the station is presumably out now.

I assume the tower is still purely residential?

RST500
Jun 24, 2012, 1:03 AM
Any renderings of the Beverly Hilton project? Havn't heard anythign about that in a few years. There's also on the project on the former Robbinson Maycompany site but I thought that one was canceled.

colemonkee
Jun 25, 2012, 6:01 PM
The affordable housing complex above the MacArthur Park Red/Purple Line stop opened today, and Torti Gallas & Partners, one of the design architects on the project, has some pictures on their web site (displayed below). The finished project looks better than it did under construction (no surprise there), but ultimately it's aesthetically disappointing to me. I realize this is affordable housing, so there are budget limitations at play, but after seeing some images of recent social housing projects in the outskirts of Paris, I feel myself wanting for more.

The most laughable part in this is the project description on Torti Gallas & Partners' site that reads: "The materials, fenestration and style of the architecture employs an elegant contemporary language." It's certainly "contemporary" in it's use of stucco, but there's nothing even remotely elegant about this design. The massing isn't bad, to be honest, but the choice - and placement - of facade materials is pretty bad. There's no way around that. This is made even more disappointing when you look at Torti Gallas' other work in cities like D.C., which is far, far better.

All photos courtesy of Torti Gallas & Partners (http://www.tortigallas.com/project.asp?p=192520):

http://www.tortigallas.com/IDAMBROWSESERVICE/(S(pyowu545qz0jb4y3bsqsdx55))/RetrieveAsset.aspx?instance=IDAM_TGP&id=357016&type=asset&width=1080&height=516&size=1

http://www.tortigallas.com/IDAMBROWSESERVICE/(S(pyowu545qz0jb4y3bsqsdx55))/RetrieveAsset.aspx?instance=IDAM_TGP&id=357014&type=asset&width=1080&height=516&size=1

http://www.tortigallas.com/IDAMBROWSESERVICE/(S(pyowu545qz0jb4y3bsqsdx55))/RetrieveAsset.aspx?instance=IDAM_TGP&id=357013&type=asset&width=1080&height=516&size=1

http://www.tortigallas.com/IDAMBROWSESERVICE/(S(pyowu545qz0jb4y3bsqsdx55))/RetrieveAsset.aspx?instance=IDAM_TGP&id=195812&type=asset&width=1080&height=516&size=1