PDA

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


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

kelbeen
Sep 29, 2014, 4:38 AM
Too lazy to look up these U/C buildings; taken today by me

Downtown Culver City
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3888/15201255399_7030417169_b.jpg

Hayden Tract
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2941/15364998516_5ee1001f68_b.jpg

blackcat23
Sep 29, 2014, 1:18 PM
^^That NMS apartment complex in Culver City is slower than molasses. It was originally supposed to open earlier this year, but I don't think they've made any visible progress in the past three months.

Here's a quick Hollywood Update.

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/09/sunset-boulevard-developments-making.html

Sunset Bronson Studios Expansion starting work.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8LDmy8YhHqk/VChuCtjLLdI/AAAAAAAAEJI/l4UnlWG_JDA/s900/DSC03352.JPG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Erw5a2UEpMs/U9vlZ6LeRyI/AAAAAAAADxs/01neDWGdJmE/s1600/sbs.PNG

Sunset Gordon now leasing; new one-acre public park is open behind the tower.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-97jNFTf6hSs/VCh1bpe-afI/AAAAAAAAEJg/ElGFwEdtzNU/s900/DSC03378.JPG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rLghB9XoKf4/VCh24ozGahI/AAAAAAAAEJs/sC0FvPMHpaw/s900/DSC03384.JPG

Columbia Square adaptive re-use looks excellent.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nsTJB8tuEIU/VCiBsrI3HVI/AAAAAAAAEJ8/DjBdV2njwrU/s900/DSC03340.JPG

Construction on the new office buildings and the 20-story residential tower to the north.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-upm1v6YPFc0/VCiFGer700I/AAAAAAAAEKI/1i-mMjkoJ4M/s900/DSC03317.JPG

SoCalKid
Sep 29, 2014, 4:20 PM
^^That NMS apartment complex in Culver City is slower than molasses. It was originally supposed to open earlier this year, but I don't think they've made any visible progress in the past three months.

Here's a quick Hollywood Update.


Blackcat, your blog is hands-down the best source of information on Los Angeles development on the internet. I am constantly wowed by both your knowledge and the time you put into it. Are you a broker? Or in the real estate industry?

Also, are you planning to monetize your blog at all with minimal ads like Brigham Yen did? I think you should be compensated for your awesome efforts.

StethJeff
Sep 30, 2014, 2:43 AM
Blackcat, your blog is hands-down the best source of information on Los Angeles development on the internet. I am constantly wowed by both your knowledge and the time you put into it. Are you a broker? Or in the real estate industry?

Also, are you planning to monetize your blog at all with minimal ads like Brigham Yen did? I think you should be compensated for your awesome efforts.

Agreed. You deserve some extra scratch for all your excellent work, Blackcat.

StethJeff
Sep 30, 2014, 2:47 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Erw5a2UEpMs/U9vlZ6LeRyI/AAAAAAAADxs/01neDWGdJmE/s1600/sbs.PNG

I look at this photo and honestly all I see is a freeway where Hollywood 101 Park should be.

Quixote
Sep 30, 2014, 3:04 AM
Hollywood is going through a nice little economic renaissance. Kilroy Realty's two projects (Columbia Square and Vine/DeLongpre) and J.H. Snyder's 959 Seward are bringing quality office space geared toward the creative media/tech sector of the entertainment industry. My sister, who works for BuzzFeed, just moved into a new office near Sunset/Vine. Hopefully this trend continues and will come to represent a new Hollywood less dominated by druggies and white trash Hollywood wannabes from the South and Midwest.

jengood008
Sep 30, 2014, 4:20 AM
Chiming in from the Eastside, I just wanted to say that things are really booming in Pasadena's Playhouse District. Aside from Playhouse Plaza (http://www.pasadenaplayhouseplaza.com/) (which has topped out) and Union Village (http://www.cbre.us/o/beverlyhills/properties/union-village/Pages/overview.aspx) (which is excavated), I google-fued an article tonight about work starting on two more vacant, eyesore lots in close proximity on Walnut (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-re-pasadena-hudson-apartments-20140919-story.html). Also, Hotel Contstance has reopened from what I understand. I haven't been down to check it out just yet.

Also, long time tenant Mccormicks and Scmicks closed down quickly and quietly in the plaza just across from City Hall. I can't wait to see what develops and spend my days daydreaming about what tenants might fill all of this new commerical space in my neighborhood! And, oh how I long for the old days of Brigham Yen and his wonderful Pasadena coverage. Love this stuff!!!

blackcat23
Sep 30, 2014, 1:26 PM
Agreed. You deserve some extra scratch for all your excellent work, Blackcat.

Thank you!

A few new renderings of the Palladium Residences

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/09/another-glimpse-of-future-palladium.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8DjmtrLZm7s/VCmh1DlQkRI/AAAAAAAAEKo/ydmKOhZGbY0/s900/palladium1.jpg

StethJeff
Oct 1, 2014, 6:08 AM
Thank you!

A few new renderings of the Palladium Residences

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/09/another-glimpse-of-future-palladium.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8DjmtrLZm7s/VCmh1DlQkRI/AAAAAAAAEKo/ydmKOhZGbY0/s900/palladium1.jpg

Just walked across the Palladium on Saturday night. That corner is just dying to realize its full potential. Hope this gets underway soon.

circuitfiend
Oct 2, 2014, 5:33 AM
Enjoy.

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj539/Dave1364/P1010205.jpg (http://s1266.photobucket.com/user/Dave1364/media/P1010205.jpg.html)

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj539/Dave1364/P1010214.jpg (http://s1266.photobucket.com/user/Dave1364/media/P1010214.jpg.html)

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj539/Dave1364/P1010215.jpg (http://s1266.photobucket.com/user/Dave1364/media/P1010215.jpg.html)

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj539/Dave1364/P1010216.jpg (http://s1266.photobucket.com/user/Dave1364/media/P1010216.jpg.html)

LAsam
Oct 2, 2014, 4:38 PM
Wow, that's a lot of rebar! Thanks, as always, for the photo update. I'm in 10100 Santa Monica so I'm very close to that construction site but can't see into it. Really looking forward to seeing this tower rise!

brudy
Oct 2, 2014, 4:53 PM
What's going in at Vine and Selma?

Flavius Josephus
Oct 2, 2014, 5:47 PM
What's going in at Vine and Selma?

1540 Vine is underway, and I think has been for some time. https://www.permitla.org/ipars/list_permit.cfm?RANGE_STR=1540&RANGE_END=1540&STR_DIR=N&FRAC_STR=&FRAC_END=&STR_NAME=VINE&STR_SUFF=ST&SUFF_DIR=&UNIT_STR=&UNIT_END=&ZIP=90028&ADDR=1540%20N%20VINE%20ST%2090028. BLA page is here: http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/search/label/Selma%20and%20Vine.

1601 Vine, which BLA says was delayed due to some CRA/LA signoff problems, seems to have at least some LADBS permits under review, although nothing significant actually issued yet. https://www.permitla.org/ipars/list_permit.cfm?RANGE_STR=1601&RANGE_END=1601&STR_DIR=N&FRAC_STR=&FRAC_END=&STR_NAME=VINE&STR_SUFF=ST&SUFF_DIR=&UNIT_STR=&UNIT_END=&ZIP=90028&ADDR=1601%20N%20VINE%20ST%2090028. There are also demo permits under review for the existing buildings on site on other pages. BLA page is here: http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/search/label/1601%20Vine. No idea if the CRA/LA issue has been fully resolved, but a resolution relating to that address received State Finance approval in late February. http://www.crala.org/internet-site/upload/DOF_Letter_OB_23_24.pdf.

brudy
Oct 2, 2014, 5:55 PM
1540 Vine is underway, and I think has been for some time. https://www.permitla.org/ipars/list_permit.cfm?RANGE_STR=1540&RANGE_END=1540&STR_DIR=N&FRAC_STR=&FRAC_END=&STR_NAME=VINE&STR_SUFF=ST&SUFF_DIR=&UNIT_STR=&UNIT_END=&ZIP=90028&ADDR=1540%20N%20VINE%20ST%2090028. BLA page is here: http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/search/label/Selma%20and%20Vine.

1601 Vine, which BLA says was delayed due to some CRA/LA signoff problems, seems to have at least some LADBS permits under review, although nothing significant actually issued yet. https://www.permitla.org/ipars/list_permit.cfm?RANGE_STR=1601&RANGE_END=1601&STR_DIR=N&FRAC_STR=&FRAC_END=&STR_NAME=VINE&STR_SUFF=ST&SUFF_DIR=&UNIT_STR=&UNIT_END=&ZIP=90028&ADDR=1601%20N%20VINE%20ST%2090028. There are also demo permits under review for the existing buildings on site on other pages. BLA page is here: http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/search/label/1601%20Vine. No idea if the CRA/LA issue has been fully resolved, but a resolution relating to that address received State Finance approval in late February. http://www.crala.org/internet-site/upload/DOF_Letter_OB_23_24.pdf.

Thanks, Flavius. I was thinking of the Camden. Seems to lack density given it's proximity to transit and kind of a bummer for Planet Fitness for the ground floor. But at least it's an unoffensive design.

blackcat23
Oct 2, 2014, 8:02 PM
http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-renderings-for-hollywoodwesterns.html

This is the 80-room, six-story hotel project planned one block west of Hollywood/Western. Appropriately named "Eighty Cool Rooms."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-efq9y_xXunE/U7WTCKazEUI/AAAAAAAADeM/8hbPw2AE-s8/s1600/2.jpg

Steve2726
Oct 2, 2014, 8:35 PM
You'd have to be a masochist to propose anything over 1 story in that part of town after what happened to the formerly under construction Target store nearby.

Flavius Josephus
Oct 2, 2014, 10:01 PM
You'd have to be a masochist to propose anything over 1 story in that part of town after what happened to the formerly under construction Target store nearby.

2 year timeframe = time for HCPU to be back in force.

black_crow
Oct 2, 2014, 10:06 PM
You'd have to be a masochist to propose anything over 1 story in that part of town after what happened to the formerly under construction Target store nearby.
:???:

blackcat23
Oct 3, 2014, 1:49 PM
San Pedro Beacon (www.sanpedrobeacon.com/2014/09/25/construction-of-mixed-use-apartment-complex-on-gaffey-could-begin-next-spring/) with an article from late 9/25 about the new mixed-use development on Gaffey Street.

Larger renderings:
http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/renderings-emerge-for-san-pedros-mini.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rJHq3UBJv9g/VC4LatOmdEI/AAAAAAAAEMY/5yNyOPxKtgM/s900/gaffey.PNG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nfiIETg59T8/VC4LbpYPFcI/AAAAAAAAEMg/QhWu52icwec/s900/gaffey2.PNG

brudy
Oct 3, 2014, 3:04 PM
http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-renderings-for-hollywoodwesterns.html

This is the 80-room, six-story hotel project planned one block west of Hollywood/Western. Appropriately named "Eight Cool Rooms."


Only 8 cool rooms? The other 72 are unhip?

blackcat23
Oct 3, 2014, 3:08 PM
Only 8 cool rooms? The other 72 are unhip?

Oops!

Wilcal
Oct 3, 2014, 4:07 PM
Oops!

Blackcat,
of all the time that I've followed you I think this is your first slip-up--"Oh how the mighty have fallen." Just kidding--you're forgiven.

brudy
Oct 3, 2014, 4:33 PM
In all seriousness, that looks like a nice little hotel in a great location. I hope it survives the inevitable CEQA challenges from that scumbag lawyer.

Flavius Josephus
Oct 3, 2014, 4:47 PM
In all seriousness, that looks like a nice little hotel in a great location. I hope it survives the inevitable CEQA challenges from that scumbag lawyer.

I think the delay until 2016 is to give the city time to get the HCPU back in force so it complies with the plan.

chris08876
Oct 5, 2014, 12:42 PM
First Renderings for Hollywood/Western's Boutique Hotel

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ESDe2kjnasU/U7V3EnGCN2I/AAAAAAAADdw/6GJnNYv-Ayw/s1600/1.jpg

Take a first look at Eighty Cool Rooms, the so-called "European Style Luxury Boutique Hotel," that intends to set up shop down the street from the Hollywood/Western subway station. The aptly-named development would consist of 80 guest rooms and 867 square feet of restaurant space, rising in a six-story structure designed by Westwood-based Atelier V Architecture. Guest amenities would include an outdoor deck on the low-rise building's second level, offering both a fire pit and a swimming pool. The hotel would occupy the address of 5600 Hollywood Boulevard, currently a vacant lot.
===============================
http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-renderings-for-hollywoodwesterns.html

Flavius Josephus
Oct 5, 2014, 10:24 PM
Eyesore vacant lot at Olympic and La Cienega, long slated for a senior assisted living facility, may be getting active again - LADBS filing suggests some activity back in July. https://www.permitla.org/ipars/list_appl.cfm?ID1=12010&ID2=10000&ID3=00644&ADDRESS=1022%20S%20LA%20CIENEGA%20BLVD%2090035

Flavius Josephus
Oct 5, 2014, 10:31 PM
Not sure if we'd already heard about this, but Westside Today has this: http://westsidetoday.com/2014/10/03/37-5-million-block-sale-indicative-santa-monica-blvd-real-estate-boom/

The light-industrial corridor of Santa Monica Blvd. on the Westside has been earmarked as the next growth hotspot for developers with a recent $37.5 million-sale of an entire city block to one buyer, spurring speculation of the area’s development potential.
The block is situated at the southeast corner of Santa Monica Blvd. and Barrington Ave. in the heart of West Los Angeles with the sale labeled “indicative of the market” by real-estate speculators. The 2.64-acre commercial-zoned property stretches from Barrington and Barry Ave. and borders Idaho Ave. on the south side.
Bought by United El Segundo, Inc., a Los Angeles-based third-generation real estate investment and development firm, the deal was brokered by Dyer Sheehan Group (DSG).

And, in news that's been reported every year since 1994 and has yet to be true: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/994905-st-louis-rams-rumors-sources-say-relocation-to-los-angeles-is-a-done-deal/

The St. Louis Rams have already made the decision to relocate to Los Angeles, and will make the official announcement after the Super Bowl, according to a new report.

“There’s a strong belief, people that are in–that I believe are in the know–multiple people, have told me that the decision has already been made and that the team is moving,” one of the hosts of 101 ESPN said in a recent show.

Meanwhile, the hilariously ambitious plan to build a 35-story residential tower on a run-down stretch of 8th St/Kenmore/Catalina in Koreatown is apparently scheduled for a City Council PLUM Committee meeting. The developers apparently decided to push for a general plan amendment to allow unlimited height without offering any affordable housing or similar sweeteners to the city, which suggests to me that they're complete amateurs. http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=09-3072. Not that I wouldn't love to see the "linear downtown" along Wilshire spread a few blocks in either direction, but these developers clearly don't have a clue how to do that in a way that actually stands some chance of success.

blackcat23
Oct 6, 2014, 5:16 PM
The developers of that tower proposal have been postponing their hearing with the PLUM committee for close to a year now. I'd keep that one filed under "not gonna' happen."

A look at some of the zone changes proposed by the Los Angeles Transit Neighborhood Plan in neighborhoods surrounding phase two Expo Line stations.

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/expo-line-bringing-zone-changes-to.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KRFCaugKbQo/VDFvcw41cLI/AAAAAAAAENA/oOieYOTp5sU/s900/zonechange.PNG

The Westwood/Rancho Park station is in the middle of a pricey neighborhood of SFHs, so nothing will be happening in the immediate vicinity. Although, LATNP wants to rezone the nearby stretch of Pico Boulevard to RAS4, which allows for five-story apartment buildings with ground floor retail. The surroundings of Expo/Sepulveda Station would have a combination of industrial and residential uses, a compromise that allows the city to retain industrial land while still developing residential near the station. The Casden project is a notable exception.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pcCw9PwfkKg/VDK9lxincaI/AAAAAAAAEN8/6f285W2Msok/s900/bundy.PNG

Expo/Bundy Station is already in the middle of some large retail buildings and a few mid-rise office towers. LATNP wants more of the same north of Olympic Boulevard, with some residential potentially spliced in (i.e. Martin Expo Town Center). More controversially, their proposal also calls for upzoning part of the SFH neighborhood to the south. Multi-family development on side streets, mixed-use on Bundy Drive.

Urbannizer
Oct 6, 2014, 7:43 PM
The Millennium Santa Monica

http://www.themillennium.com/California/Santa-Monica/Millennium-Santa-Monica/

http://www.dinersteincos.com/images/corporate-gallery/Santa-Monica/exterior-santamonica.jpg

Flavius Josephus
Oct 6, 2014, 8:16 PM
The developers of that tower proposal have been postponing their hearing with the PLUM committee for close to a year now. I'd keep that one filed under "not gonna' happen."

A look at some of the zone changes proposed by the Los Angeles Transit Neighborhood Plan in neighborhoods surrounding phase two Expo Line stations.

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/expo-line-bringing-zone-changes-to.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KRFCaugKbQo/VDFvcw41cLI/AAAAAAAAENA/oOieYOTp5sU/s900/zonechange.PNG

The Westwood/Rancho Park station is in the middle of a pricey neighborhood of SFHs, so nothing will be happening in the immediate vicinity. Although, LATNP wants to rezone the nearby stretch of Pico Boulevard to RAS4, which allows for five-story apartment buildings with ground floor retail. The surroundings of Expo/Sepulveda Station would have a combination of industrial and residential uses, a compromise that allows the city to retain industrial land while still developing residential near the station. The Casden project is a notable exception.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pcCw9PwfkKg/VDK9lxincaI/AAAAAAAAEN8/6f285W2Msok/s900/bundy.PNG

Expo/Bundy Station is already in the middle of some large retail buildings and a few mid-rise office towers. LATNP wants more of the same north of Olympic Boulevard, with some residential potentially spliced in (i.e. Martin Expo Town Center). More controversially, their proposal also calls for upzoning part of the SFH neighborhood to the south. Multi-family development on side streets, mixed-use on Bundy Drive.

As LetsGoLa has been saying on his/her blog and twitter feed, the LATNP is ridiculously NIMBYish. Still too much SFR near transit, missing the opportunity to have some transit-oriented density. The projected demand is laughably low (so low, in fact, that it would be hilarious if some YIMBYs sued them under CEQA for relying on inaccurately low projections).

blackcat23
Oct 6, 2014, 8:55 PM
In a perfect world, LADCP could push through more substantial overhaul. But the political reality is that even the underwhelming upzoning proposed here is catching major backlash from residents. IIRC, the West Los Angeles Neighborhood Council has already written a letter in opposition to the LATNP. Not sure if the Westside Neighborhood Council has taken an official stance yet.

blackcat23
Oct 7, 2014, 2:58 PM
http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/del-rey-getting-two-low-rise-apartment.html

Couple of low-rise residential buildings planned for Culver Boulevard, west of the 405.

11811 Culver Boulevard: 5 floors, 27 apartments, Shubin + Donaldson Architects
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dkGM11NsjU0/VDLWyYqRbYI/AAAAAAAAEOM/MqlCELxr-DY/s800/11811culver.png

11749-55 Culver Boulevard: 4 floors, 19 apartments, REC Architects
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9Xfk23g4jk4/VDLXLKPHBKI/AAAAAAAAEOU/3r5LGJHO__Y/s800/11749culver.jpg

Flavius Josephus
Oct 7, 2014, 3:36 PM
Per the fortnightly filings report (http://cityplanning.lacity.org/CNCRpts/dsp_viewFileDetail.cfm?filename=299):

- 12 story hotel coming to 1523 N Wilcox (Hollywood)
- Adaptive reuse of a church into a charter school at 461 W 9th St in San Pedro
- Modern technology meets an old zoning code at 6624 W Melrose, where the owner of a 3D printing business is trying to get that use permitted.
- 1715 N Bronson (Hollywood) is hopefully going to see a 7-story, 89 unit job.
- 5750 W Wilshire is seeking permits for a farmers' market
- 36 unit building proposed at 121 S Kings Rd (by the Beverly Center)
- 46 room hotel at 10740 W Ventura
- 36 unit apts at 1330 S Federal in West LA
- 56 unit apts at 350 S Alexandria in K-town
- 4 story, 226 unit mixed user at 3076 W Olympic, also in K-town
- A handful of sub-30 unit residential buildings around the place, including a 22 unit job at 7228 N Amigo in Reseda, 22 units at 7047 N Jordan in Canoga Park, 29 units at 1144 N Cahuenga in Hollywood, and a 14-unit condo building at 1644 S Malcolm in Westwood.

Steve2726
Oct 8, 2014, 5:17 PM
Construction permits are in the works for the Wetherly Luxury Residences. 12 stories/152', 55 condos, located a few blocks west of the Beverly Center/Cedars-Sinai.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--QB4DSSX4H8/VAYSJK2aO1I/AAAAAAAAD8o/d1FE-ynvUMI/s1600/wetherly.jpg


There's a huge fence (almost 2 stories high) up around this lot. Not sure if digging or construction has started yet, but it seems imminent.

112597jorge
Oct 9, 2014, 2:01 AM
New 13 story hotel, Marriott Edition coming to the Sunset Strip, very beautiful design, IMO.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/whoa_ian_schrager_designing_lush_sunset_strip_marriott_hotel.php

all that lush, jungle look is a great touch.

blackcat23
Oct 9, 2014, 2:19 AM
http://www.wehoville.com/2014/10/05/british-minimalist-design-john-pawson-collaborates-ian-schrager-sunset-blvd-hotel/

British Minimalist Designer John Pawson Collaborates with Ian Schrager on Sunset Blvd. Hotel

http://www.wehoville.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Edition-view-from-Harratt.png

Ian Schrager, who pioneered the “boutique hotel” concept with such famous examples such as the Delano in Miami and the Morgans, Paramount and Royalton hotels in New York, and John Pawson, the British minimalist designer, have collaborated on the design of the new Marriott Edition hotel planned for the southeast corner of Sunset Boulevard at Doheny on West Hollywood’s border with Beverly Hills.

The 148-room hotel will be the West Coast flagship of the Edition hotel concept, developed by Schrager, who also is known for partnering in the 1970s with Steve Rubell on New York City’s Studio 54, the nightclub of choice for the likes of Andy Warhol, Liza Minnelli and Mick Jagger. The concept is to create the one-of-a-kind feel of a boutique hotel, as exemplified by its unique food and entertainment offerings, among other things, in a chain hotel. It will also include 20 condominiums, a restaurant and spa.

Flavius Josephus
Oct 9, 2014, 2:33 AM
New 1 story hotel, Marriott Edition coming to the Sunset Strip, very beautiful design, IMO.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/whoa_ian_schrager_designing_lush_sunset_strip_marriott_hotel.php

all that lush, jungle look is a great touch.

Yep. Rainforest-inspired look is great in a drought. I have a feeling the words "recycled water" are going to come up a lot in the Planning Commission meeting...

kelbeen
Oct 9, 2014, 4:51 AM
Camden out in Glendale

Los Feliz X San Fernando

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/03/glendale_cant_quit_big_mixeduser_begins_in_southwest.php

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3949/15297524717_51092f0b9b_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3938/15480950201_52e0145279_b.jpg

blackcat23
Oct 13, 2014, 1:02 PM
The two Expo-adjacent hotels in Downtown Santa Monica. OTO Development and designed by Gwynne Pugh Urban Studios:

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/excavation-underway-for-expo-adjacent.html

136-room Courtyard by Marriott
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-efVkyWFl14E/VDmQbs1by3I/AAAAAAAAEUs/XHgeKZSOXT4/s900/DSC03432.JPG

143-room Hampton Inn & Suites
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7iBw0Iw8jY8/VDmRtAACxiI/AAAAAAAAEVA/f0dEUel7Tjg/s900/DSC03442.JPG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3_tscyTeD_M/VDnrnl5TCkI/AAAAAAAAEWQ/b312GGvfHjg/s1600/gateway.jpg

RST500
Oct 13, 2014, 5:21 PM
That's pathetic. This is what Santa Monica should look like.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-H3IwLG87Dnw/TlEnPnZ4a-I/AAAAAAAAAm4/2GcWVSGu0p4/s1600/PowellStreet.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-H3IwLG87Dnw/TlEnPnZ4a-I/AAAAAAAAAm4/2GcWVSGu0p4/s1600/PowellStreet.jpg

Flavius Josephus
Oct 13, 2014, 6:52 PM
That's pathetic. This is what Santa Monica should look like.



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-H3IwLG87Dnw/TlEnPnZ4a-I/AAAAAAAAAm4/2GcWVSGu0p4/s1600/PowellStreet.jpg

Completely agree. Let's hope that, as transit options in Santa Monica become more like SF, planning policies follow. Not too optimistic, though.

LAsam
Oct 13, 2014, 7:00 PM
Why should Santa Monica (suburban LA) look like downtown San Francisco?

Wally West
Oct 13, 2014, 7:38 PM
Why should Santa Monica (suburban LA) look like downtown San Francisco?

Should Santa Monica really be considered as suburban LA? It's quite the urban hub. I view areas like Downey and Santa Clarita as suburban LA, though.

LAsam
Oct 13, 2014, 8:35 PM
Should Santa Monica really be considered as suburban LA? It's quite the urban hub. I view areas like Downey and Santa Clarita as suburban LA, though.

I think so... it's not even City of LA. Maybe you could say it's akin to the Marina, Richmond, or Sunset neighborhoods in SF but those neighborhoods have nowhere near the same density as Downtown SF.

Valyrian Steel
Oct 13, 2014, 9:36 PM
Santa Monica will never become a dense high rise city.

brudy
Oct 14, 2014, 12:37 AM
The two Expo-adjacent hotels in Downtown Santa Monica. OTO Development and designed by Gwynne Pugh Urban Studios:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3_tscyTeD_M/VDnrnl5TCkI/AAAAAAAAEWQ/b312GGvfHjg/s1600/gateway.jpg

Those are phenomenally lame in so many ways. At least DTLA now has some competition in the race to the bottom with these things.

StethJeff
Oct 14, 2014, 1:05 AM
Goldilocks. The currently planned shitboxes are lame and not very dense, meanwhile DTSF (or even DTLA) is terribly unrealistic. Something akin to Hollywood/Vine levels of density would make sense for SaMo though.

RaymondChandlerLives
Oct 14, 2014, 1:18 AM
I personally wish Redondo Beach looked more like The Loop. But that's just me.

Seriously though, Santa Monica is a good 16 miles from DTLA. Expecting it to look like the most urban part of San Francisco is unrealistic. Put it another way, nowhere outside of NYC and maybe Chicago will you find anything as urbane and bustling as Santa Monica 16 miles from the CBD. It's fine.

Quixote
Oct 14, 2014, 2:17 AM
Well, I happen to think that 4-6 stories is ideal for Santa Monica... and really any urban residential neighborhood, for that matter. The most desirable parts of Manhattan are the areas that have a more human scale.

http://content.related.com/SiteCollectionImages/Sales%20Site%20Redesign/OAS%20(A)/565x458/3.1_Sky-Bridge_565x458.jpg
http://content.related.com/SiteCollectionImages/Sales%20Site%20Redesign/OAS%20(A)/565x458/3.1_Sky-Bridge_565x458.jpg

http://www.contemporist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/pi_150914_02-630x446.jpg
http://www.contemporist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/pi_150914_02-630x446.jpg

http://medialibrarycdn.propertysolutions.com/media_library/2752/51dde941b208f506.jpg
http://medialibrarycdn.propertysolutions.com/media_library/2752/51dde941b208f506.jpg

http://medialibrarycdn.propertysolutions.com/media_library/2752/518810bd85565549.jpg
http://medialibrarycdn.propertysolutions.com/media_library/2752/518810bd85565549.jpg

Illithid Dude
Oct 14, 2014, 2:41 AM
Yeah, I've always thought that, for the most part, Santa Monica is going in exactly the right direction. Not everywhere needs to be fucking downtown San Francisco.

edluva
Oct 14, 2014, 4:42 AM
yeah, santa monica doesn't need to imitate the CBD of SF. santa monica needs to look at amsterdam, or copenhagen, or the mission. it needs to stop with those giant ugly shit-boxes. the work that has come out of gwynne pugh proves that scarpa was the talented half of pugh+scarpa. it's such a shame how much perfectly good money has gone towards such visual trash in santa monica and throughout the rest of LA.

it's amazing how ugly LA's block apartments are in comparison to its counterparts in SF and Seattle. like i said, there's something in the water. this city prizes garish color and form in architecture and fashion. LA does not look smart, and santa monica is no exception.

and for all of santa monica's purported civic progressivism it's got some pretty backwards urbanism. zoning is still absurdly auto-oriented, as seen by the sheer amount of subterranean excavating and driveway paving going under new developments near the planned expo line. incessant setback requirements, a lack of innovative human-scale small-lot developments, regressive affordable housing and renters rights policies, NIMBYism that's more rampant than pretty much anywhere else in the state, and local government has been hijacked by anti-development party SMRR for decades all ensure even sensible, ped-oriented, human-scale increases in commercial and residential density get blocked for the forseeable future. basically, santa monica is in the process if building a lower-rise version of west-LA. just as auto-dependent and brutal only on a smaller scale.

angelenos in particular have the poorest understanding of urbanism of any group of liberal urbanites i've encountered. there is absolutely no appreciation for distinctions between good, pedestrian oriented density and the bad density which increases automobile congestion. there is only an autonomic assumption that density, regardless of the quality of such density, equates to automobile congestion. this lack of discernment is responsible for the rampant knee-jerk suburban mindset that keeps santa monica and the rest of LA from substantive change.

compared with LA, santa monica is an urban paradise. that speaks less to how great santa monica is and more to how far behind LA has fallen. and neither place is very impressive.

ChelseaFC
Oct 14, 2014, 5:04 AM
Honestly thought the poster was trolling about the SF thing. Would be very strange if that was an actual sentiment.

Santa Monica's urban scale is already excellent. But a cap over the 10 would make it even better.

edluva
Oct 14, 2014, 5:17 AM
Santa Monica's urban scale is already excellent.

santa monica is ok, relative to more consistently urban places in europe, SF, NY, and east asia.

that or you have extremely low standards for excellence.

btw, santa monica encompasses far more than the areas surrounding 3rd street. it stretches in all the way to centinela, in case some of us here didn't know ;)

SimonLA
Oct 14, 2014, 6:21 AM
Jeez, relax people, this was a Midas before on one of these blocks. It's an improvement and change is slow. Santa Monica is filled with old people that do hinder development, but EdLuva can trash the city's policies as much as he wants--for someone who absolutely despises L.A. and environs, he sure keeps up with what's happening here (maybe detach yourself? just a suggestion)--but they are moving the needle forward. Just because it's not as fast as you want it to swing doesn't mean it isn't happening. Been to Tongva Park lately? It used to be a surface parking lot.

ByTheBay
Oct 14, 2014, 9:57 AM
That's pathetic. This is what Santa Monica should look like.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-H3IwLG87Dnw/TlEnPnZ4a-I/AAAAAAAAAm4/2GcWVSGu0p4/s1600/PowellStreet.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-H3IwLG87Dnw/TlEnPnZ4a-I/AAAAAAAAAm4/2GcWVSGu0p4/s1600/PowellStreet.jpg

That is NOT what downtown Santa Monica should look like. That is what Broadway in DTLA should look like If you're comparing apples to apples, which would be LA's comparable street to that street in the pic of Downtown SF. Santa Monica and Venice Beach on the other hand is LA's version of Fisherman's Wharf and North Beach in SF, and in that regard, toe to toe comparisons are much more favorable to Santa Monica hands down IMO.

Flavius Josephus
Oct 14, 2014, 12:22 PM
That is NOT what downtown Santa Monica should look like. That is what Broadway in DTLA should look like If you're comparing apples to apples, which would be LA's comparable street to that street in the pic of Downtown SF. Santa Monica and Venice Beach on the other hand is LA's version of Fisherman's Wharf and North Beach in SF, and in that regard, toe to toe comparisons are much more favorable to Santa Monica hands down IMO.

LA is a large urban area with multiple downtowns. The comparison should be to downtown Manhattan and midtown Manhattan (though I think those levels of density are too high for a city not on an island). Compared to Century City, it has far more potential to be a true downtown with clustered housing, offices, and entertainment. If it gets the transportation infrastructure to handle it, DTSM would be a great place for more density, at least on the 10-15 story level. SM traffic is because SM has jobs but doesn't build nearly enough housing.

blackcat23
Oct 14, 2014, 1:16 PM
As mentioned briefly mentioned last week, a new 12-story hotel is planned at 1523 Wilcox Avenue in Hollywood. This is just south of the Dream Hollywood, and west of another boutique hotel planned on Cahuenga.

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/another-mid-rise-hotel-planned-for.html
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2llhoBepYQg/VDV9wiEMsbI/AAAAAAAAERo/nkROTd2HoZw/s900/1523wilcox.PNG

brudy
Oct 14, 2014, 4:32 PM
Jeez, relax people, this was a Midas before on one of these blocks. It's an improvement and change is slow. Santa Monica is filled with old people that do hinder development, but EdLuva can trash the city's policies as much as he wants--for someone who absolutely despises L.A. and environs, he sure keeps up with what's happening here (maybe detach yourself? just a suggestion)--but they are moving the needle forward. Just because it's not as fast as you want it to swing doesn't mean it isn't happening. Been to Tongva Park lately? It used to be a surface parking lot.

Like many things, it's one step forward, two back sometimes. Just because Tongva Park is great, doesn't mean we shouldn't demand more of architects in terms of design.

brudy
Oct 14, 2014, 4:36 PM
LA is a large urban area with multiple downtowns. The comparison should be to downtown Manhattan and midtown Manhattan (though I think those levels of density are too high for a city not on an island). Compared to Century City, it has far more potential to be a true downtown with clustered housing, offices, and entertainment. If it gets the transportation infrastructure to handle it, DTSM would be a great place for more density, at least on the 10-15 story level. SM traffic is because SM has jobs but doesn't build nearly enough housing.

This. SM has a strong job market and a lack of housing. Traffic isn't going to get any better when people have to drive in to work. The NIMBYS don't get this, but they do get their inflated home values due to the lack of housing in the immediate area.

caligrad
Oct 14, 2014, 4:44 PM
Honestly thought the poster was trolling about the SF thing. Would be very strange if that was an actual sentiment.

Santa Monica's urban scale is already excellent. But a cap over the 10 would make it even better.

Yeah.....I think everybody missed the sarcasm mark with the guys statement. And everybody foolishly took the bait to be able to thrown in their 2 cents lol.
The statement was obviously sarcastic, poking fun at all the crazies :koko: down here who think every inch and corner of LA county needs to look like SF or NY. Even SF and NY don't look like the way people make them out to look on the LA forums. Santa Monica doesn't need to be a major hub city center, Santa Monica was built for the tourism industry, let it remain for the tourists, it doesn't need towering high-rises. Westwood and Century City are close enough to handle all that drama. People complain about downtown not getting enough high-rises but under the same breath they want to see high-rises in every other part of the county.... PICK A STRUGGLE ! but I will say that SM needs more dense housing. But most of the traffic comes from the tourists, not the locals.

And to the poster who posted that comment.....If you truly believe that. You must not have ever stepped foot in Santa Monica.

RaymondChandlerLives
Oct 14, 2014, 10:31 PM
Yeah.....I think everybody missed the sarcasm mark with the guys statement. And everybody foolishly took the bait to be able to thrown in their 2 cents lol.
The statement was obviously sarcastic, poking fun at all the crazies :koko: down here who think every inch and corner of LA county needs to look like SF or NY. Even SF and NY don't look like the way people make them out to look on the LA forums. Santa Monica doesn't need to be a major hub city center, Santa Monica was built for the tourism industry, let it remain for the tourists, it doesn't need towering high-rises. Westwood and Century City are close enough to handle all that drama. People complain about downtown not getting enough high-rises but under the same breath they want to see high-rises in every other part of the county.... PICK A STRUGGLE ! but I will say that SM needs more dense housing. But most of the traffic comes from the tourists, not the locals.

And to the poster who posted that comment.....If you truly believe that. You must not have ever stepped foot in Santa Monica.

To be fair, it's sometimes difficult to spot sarcasm in print, especially when you have posters arguing quite earnestly that Santa Monica should resemble Amsterdam and Copenhagen. What, Barcelona and Florence are too unrealistic?

Again, Santa Monica is 16 miles from LA's CBD, expecting Mission/Russian Hill/Amsterdam density that far from the core is unrealistic, unnecessary, and highlights the impossible standards some have for LA. Most of San Francisco doesn't resemble the Mission District, much less the rest of the Bay Area, what makes LA so special that it needs that type of density in its beach communities?

edluva
Oct 15, 2014, 12:10 AM
To be fair, it's sometimes difficult to spot sarcasm in print, especially when you have posters arguing quite earnestly that Santa Monica should resemble Amsterdam and Copenhagen. What, Barcelona and Florence are too unrealistic?

Again, Santa Monica is 16 miles from LA's CBD, expecting Mission/Russian Hill/Amsterdam density that far from the core is unrealistic, unnecessary, and highlights the impossible standards some have for LA. Most of San Francisco doesn't resemble the Mission District, much less the rest of the Bay Area, what makes LA so special that it needs that type of density in its beach communities?

firstly, since when has the location of LAs CBD have a substantial impact on how land-use is determined anywhere else in the metro? did you just come out from under a rock?

secondly, did you know that santa monica neighborhoods already have density approaching that of mission district, or many neighborhoods of amsterdam?

the point that's lost upon you is that it isn't the density perse, but the quality of density that makes for good urbanism. santa monica's bread and butter continues to be mega-block apartments with enormous subterranean parking garages; the type of urban design which contributes to the high-density suburbanism rampant throughout LA. this is thanks to persistently regressive zoning upheld by the city of santa monica, a supposedly forward thinking city (it is progressive in other ways, i'll admit, but not in the most important).

as with parts of santa monica, density in amsterdam, the mission, etc also consists of mostly 3-4 story housing. but unlike santa monica, those places consist of good density - a concept that, you just demonstrated, is lost upon the majority of angelenos like yourself, demonstrated by your ignorance of this basic disinction

i already said in other posts that i have very low expectations for angelenos. they don't get it. their ignorance is apparently so bad that angeleno forumers, such as yourself, forumers on a site devoted to urbanism of all things, still can't appreciate the difference between good and bad density. how do you expect LA to "grow up" when its own residents aren't educated on the basic conceptual difference between auto-centric density and ped-centric density? you honestly think every-day angelenos are that savvy if LA's own SSP forumers such as yourself aren't?

caligrad
Oct 15, 2014, 4:17 AM
To be fair, it's sometimes difficult to spot sarcasm in print, especially when you have posters arguing quite earnestly that Santa Monica should resemble Amsterdam and Copenhagen. What, Barcelona and Florence are too unrealistic?

Again, Santa Monica is 16 miles from LA's CBD, expecting Mission/Russian Hill/Amsterdam density that far from the core is unrealistic, unnecessary, and highlights the impossible standards some have for LA. Most of San Francisco doesn't resemble the Mission District, much less the rest of the Bay Area, what makes LA so special that it needs that type of density in its beach communities?

Yeah and not only that. Century City and Westwood/miracle mile cluster of high-rises are literally only 3-4 miles away from Santa Monica. Century City is close enough to handle the high rise construction drama. Let Santa Monica remain the touristy beach trap while all us locals head to Manhattan/ Hermosa and other beaches. :tup:

caligrad
Oct 15, 2014, 4:20 AM
In other news. Quite shocking. The 2 high rise residential towers currently under construction in Long Beach, one is 18 floors and the other is 32 floors i believe....... THE CRANE WAS BEING INSTALLED TODAY ! and when I say being installed I mean already up and ready to start operating. Its amazing how this project started AFTER metropolis and is on the same scale as the first faze of metropolis but yet already has its crane up..... Metropolis is starting to make me nervous.

edluva
Oct 15, 2014, 4:26 AM
Yeah and not only that. Century City and Westwood/miracle mile cluster of high-rises are literally only 3-4 miles away from Santa Monica. Century City is close enough to handle the high rise construction drama. Let Santa Monica remain the touristy beach trap while all us locals head to Manhattan/ Hermosa and other beaches. :tup:

raymondchandler's response has nothing do with high-rises. you're apparently confused about what's being debated here.

we're talking about urban density (and with the point i'm making, how best to support such density). neither SM, MB, or hermosa are good ped-oriented density. do you have any clue what's being discussed or are you trying to prove that angelenos are reliably vapid? :tup:

SimonLA
Oct 15, 2014, 4:40 AM
Wow, you truly are the worst. You go on on a Skyscraper Page forum for a specific city and constantly denigrate the entire city and its entire population. I wrote about urbanism for over six years, so I have an idea what it is, thanks. Los Angeles is its own entity. Everyone who lives here knows that. You don't like the city? Leave its SSP forum then. You won't be missed.

SimonLA
Oct 15, 2014, 4:46 AM
And lastly EdLuva--I refuse to quote his vile messages--I'm glad you think everyone outside of L.A. is Jane Jacobs. That's a laugh. Many NYers and SFers are NIMBYs too and don't understand density like you think you do.

edluva
Oct 15, 2014, 4:50 AM
Wow, you truly are the worst. You go on on a Skyscraper Page forum for a specific city and constantly denigrate the entire city and its entire population. I wrote about urbanism for over six years, so I have an idea what it is, thanks. Los Angeles is its own entity. Everyone who lives here knows that. You don't like the city? Leave its SSP forum then. You won't be missed.

ok, well if you genuinely write/think about urbanism as much as you say you do then rather than being all emotional about things why don't you let us know exactly how LA and LA's urbanism is its "own entity" (wtf does that even mean anyway? like, substantively?), and let us know if you're saying that to justify all of the problems that persist here. sounds like a lot of hot air to me

edluva
Oct 15, 2014, 4:51 AM
And lastly EdLuva--I refuse to quote his vile messages--I'm glad you think everyone outside of L.A. is Jane Jacobs. That's a laugh. Many NYers and SFers are NIMBYs too and don't understand density like you think you do.

no you don't have to be jane jacobs to understand that living without a car is actually okay, and even desireable. millions of new yorkers and san franciscans understand that basic concept, without reading books on urban theory. do you?

SimonLA
Oct 15, 2014, 5:01 AM
no you don't have to be jane jacobs to understand that living without a car is actually okay, and even desireable. millions of new yorkers and san franciscans understand that basic concept. do you?

Yeah, I would say so, you pretentious twit. You want to see my TAP card? How about I list off the bus lines? More than half the people I work with bike or take the bus to work. But us Angelenos being so "vapid," I wonder how they understand where to put the $1.75 or avoid getting run over on the street?

edluva
Oct 15, 2014, 5:04 AM
Yeah, I would say so, you pretentious twit. You want to see my TAP card? How about I list off the bus lines? More than half the people I work with bike or take the bus to work. But us Angelenos being so "vapid," I wonder how they understand where to put the $1.75 or avoid getting run over on the street?

wow, now you're name-calling. very intelligent :tup:

thanks for your incredibly subjective, unrepresentative anecdote. do you work at a bike shop in LA? you sound very logical.

last i checked, LA just broke the 1% barrier for bicycle commute mode share. like most angelenos i bike to bev center and the grove every time i need a cheesecake. that proves that angelenos get walkable ped friendly urbanism. you're right, angelenos overwhelmingly get it :tup:

edluva
Oct 15, 2014, 5:16 AM
the funny thing is, in spite of his many highly emotional replies, simonLA hasn't made a single statement discrediting any of my comments. i expect a little more from someone who claims to writing about urbanism for 6 years.

huh, angelenos :rolleyes:

SimonLA
Oct 15, 2014, 5:16 AM
wow, now you're name-calling. very intelligent :tup:

thanks for your incredibly subjective, unrepresentative anecdote. do you work at a bike shop in LA? you sound very logical.

last i checked, LA just broke the 1% barrier for bicycle commute mode share. you're right, angelenos overwhelmingly get it :tup:

Yeah, I certainly claimed angelenos overwhelmingly get it... What? But your fixation and assumption that all angelenos don't understand urbanism is just that, an assumption. The city and its inhabitants are certainly more urbane in the 14 years since I moved here, where I've seen the Gold Line and its extension, two busways, and the Expo Line open, not to mention CicLAvia and hundreds of miles of bike lanes and paths.

What is the point you're making by constantly making your anti-L.A. claims? You probably get your jollies off pissing people off in forums. And no I don't work in a bike shop, I work in the penthouse of an 18 story office building in Westwood.

edluva
Oct 15, 2014, 5:24 AM
Yeah, I certainly claimed angelenos overwhelmingly get it... What? But your fixation and assumption that all angelenos don't understand urbanism is just that, an assumption.

that's about as intellectually honest as saying "your assumption that farmers have better understanding of agriculture than manhattanites is just that, an assumption". you are not thinking very broadly or honestly :rolleyes:

The city and its inhabitants are certainly more urbane in the 14 years since I moved here, where I've seen the Gold Line and its extension, two busways, and the Expo Line open, not to mention CicLAvia and hundreds of miles of bike lanes and paths.

more personal anecdotes. if your highly subjective anecdotes are true, then why do angelenos continue to vote regressive councilmembers like gil cedillo, paul koretz, or sue himmelrich into office? why don't angelenos elect more more frank grubers or pam oconnors into office? what about the influence HOAs have on our urban landscape? Ciclavia is nice for getting awareness to masses, but it's not substance. if it were, there would be far more than a 1% bike mode-share wouldn't there? can you explain this glaring hole in your "argument"

another reason i now you're not even the armchair urbanist you're trying to make yourself out to be: you're touting LA's ridiculously piece-meal bike lane "network" as some sort of achievement worth mentioning, when it's painfully obvious to any real armchair bike advocate that it's mostly a bunch of disparate, disconnected bike lanes painted as low-hanging fruit for lane-mile bragging rights.

SimonLA
Oct 15, 2014, 5:32 AM
that's about as intellectually honest as saying "your assumption that farmers have better understanding of agriculture than manhattanites is just that, an assumption". you are not thinking very broadly or honestly :rolleyes:



more personal anecdotes. if your highly subjective anecdotes are true, then why do angelenos continue to vote regressive councilmembers like gil cedillo, paul koretz, or sue himmelrich into office? why don't angelenos elect more more frank grubers or pam oconnors into office? what about the influence HOAs have on our urban landscape? Ciclavia is nice for getting awareness to masses, but it's not substance. if it were, there would be far more than a 1% bike mode-share wouldn't there? can you explain this glaring hole in your "argument"

Oh yes, let me sit here and explain the last 20 years of local elections here for you because I care that much what you think. I actually have a life, so I'll just block your negativity and return to enjoying SSP. Hopefully, everyone else follows suit.

edluva
Oct 15, 2014, 5:37 AM
Oh yes, let me sit here and explain the last 20 years of local elections here for you because I care that much what you think. I actually have a life, so I'll just block your negativity and return to enjoying SSP. Hopefully, everyone else follows suit.

funny that you have just enough of a life to sit here and even name-call and sustain a rather lengthy but hollow back and forth and yet, a whole thread page later and you haven't made a single substantive retort against me. just a bunch of empty "fact-dropping" about ciclavia and coworker anedcotes. keep up that urbanist writing ;)

nice exit strategy. pull that tail out from between your legs.

caligrad
Oct 15, 2014, 6:15 AM
raymondchandler's response has nothing do with high-rises. you're apparently confused about what's being debated here.

we're talking about urban density (and with the point i'm making, how best to support such density). neither SM, MB, or hermosa are good ped-oriented density. do you have any clue what's being discussed or are you trying to prove that angelenos are reliably vapid? :tup:

I put you on my ignore list. I had to take you off my ignore list to respond. How did you figure out a way around it to quote me???????????. LOL if that's not the signature move of a troll, I don't know what is HAHAHAHA :cheers:. Dude if you see somebody has put you on their ignore list, which I'm sure is half the forum right about now, don't be rude and still quote people, they have obviously blocked you for a reason.

edluva
Oct 15, 2014, 6:40 AM
I put you on my ignore list. I had to take you off my ignore list to respond. How did you figure out a way around it to quote me???????????. LOL if that's not the signature move of a troll, I don't know what is HAHAHAHA :cheers:. Dude if you see somebody has put you on their ignore list, which I'm sure is half the forum right about now, don't be rude and still quote people, they have obviously blocked you for a reason.

ignorance is bliss

Illithid Dude
Oct 15, 2014, 7:29 AM
Right now, L.A. is not really competing in terms of biking infrastructure anywhere outside of Downtown and Venice. Edluva is right - I've found that most bike lanes go in little used streets so LADOT can say that they've laid 40 something miles of bike lanes a year. HOWEVER I am incredibly curious to see what happens with Garceti's "Great Streets" initiative, and am hopeful that it will go a long way towards transforming L.A.'s auto-oriented major thoroughfares in to something more pedestrian friendly. Santa Monica, by the by, is doing a great job with bike lanes. I'm curious to see how far they've progressed when I finally get back to L.A. in November.

blackcat23
Oct 15, 2014, 1:15 PM
MOVING ON...

This is a spec office development currently under construction in Playa Vista. 204,000 sq. ft. from Tishman Speyer, designed by Shimoda Design Group.

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/playa-vista-spec-office-complex-takes.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U3RXd7HybJA/VDqm8F7wNrI/AAAAAAAAEWg/JlhwoimaqU8/s900/DSC03405.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VtoViqvUfs8/VDqop31szII/AAAAAAAAEWs/uZRPuTYjPrM/s900/collective1.jpg

Illithid Dude
Oct 15, 2014, 2:59 PM
Bummed Edluva got banned. Always appreciated his viewpoints, even if he framed them in a little too hostile a manner.

And nice about the office space going up in Playa Vista. Shimoda Design group always pumps out quality stuff.

brudy
Oct 15, 2014, 3:10 PM
Bummed Edluva got banned. Always appreciated his viewpoints, even if he framed them in a little too hostile a manner.

And nice about the office space going up in Playa Vista. Shimoda Design group always pumps out quality stuff.

I agree. His approach can be a little hostile and condescending, but makes good points. He gets banned - but did SimonLA? He reduced himself to name calling...

ChelseaFC
Oct 15, 2014, 4:15 PM
There may have been a certain element of truth to those sentiments, but we really could do without the condescending attitude. Modern urbanism is not one-size-fits-all, and many too often make the mistake of oversimplifying, copycatting, or attempting to make it a black-and-white conversation.

Eightball
Oct 15, 2014, 4:25 PM
Right now, L.A. is not really competing in terms of biking infrastructure anywhere outside of Downtown and Venice.
True, but once the bike share system is going it will make a big difference in mass adoption. LA is a natural biking city (great year round weather, grid, flat for large stretches).

RST500
Oct 15, 2014, 5:31 PM
Yeah.....I think everybody missed the sarcasm mark with the guys statement. And everybody foolishly took the bait to be able to thrown in their 2 cents lol.
The statement was obviously sarcastic, poking fun at all the crazies :koko: down here who think every inch and corner of LA county needs to look like SF or NY. Even SF and NY don't look like the way people make them out to look on the LA forums. Santa Monica doesn't need to be a major hub city center, Santa Monica was built for the tourism industry, let it remain for the tourists, it doesn't need towering high-rises. Westwood and Century City are close enough to handle all that drama. People complain about downtown not getting enough high-rises but under the same breath they want to see high-rises in every other part of the county.... PICK A STRUGGLE ! but I will say that SM needs more dense housing. But most of the traffic comes from the tourists, not the locals.

And to the poster who posted that comment.....If you truly believe that. You must not have ever stepped foot in Santa Monica.


I wasn't totally joking. Parts of on SM remind he of SF, primarily along 2nd street.

Ex.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/43620699.jpg
http://www.panoramio.com/m/photo/43620699


Also this building on the left.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2612/3747132101_da5c933359.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/39694152@N02/3747132101/

dweebo2220
Oct 15, 2014, 6:33 PM
Wait, why did edluva get banned? I guess the guy was cranky, but what specific rule did he break? As brudy already mentioned, SimonLA engaged in name-calling, which I thought was an explicit no-no.

I don't post that often on here, but I regularly check, and I will definitely miss edluva's perspective, even if I didn't always agree. Also, I want to make sure I'm up to date on rules.

the urban politician
Oct 15, 2014, 6:46 PM
Wow, I've been having run ins with Edluva for nearly a decade, and it looks as if the fella (or lady? Never exactly figured that one out) got banned.

Oh well, such is life..

DistrictDirt
Oct 15, 2014, 8:38 PM
There may have been a certain element of truth to those sentiments, but we really could do without the condescending attitude. Modern urbanism is not one-size-fits-all, and many too often make the mistake of oversimplifying, copycatting, or attempting to make it a black-and-white conversation.

Yeah I'm not bummed in the slightest. Its one thing to critique the current state of Los Angeles but I don't think I've ever seen him do so without reasoning that "its because Angelenos don't have taste, knowledge, enlightenment about urbanism, etc." Considering that I'm an Angeleno and I can only assume that many of you are as well, his stupid generalizations always came off to me as a personal attack. Which was clearly his intent. Trolling, in a word. Good riddance.

POLA
Oct 15, 2014, 11:34 PM
Sorry, I'm in Edluva's camp. His critisism was never unfounded and no worse then the vapid "rah-rah" posts. Mods, set some groundrules and let him come back after things cool off. And guys, don't take it so personal; if you live in LA, you have to learn to take it on the chin.

Valyrian Steel
Oct 15, 2014, 11:45 PM
You can criticize without being an a-hole. Ed knows the rules of the forum. If he says the things he says behind a computer to people face to face, well.. I don't think he'd be happy with the outcome. And yes, people do take it personal when he makes sweeping generalizations about LA residents being "idiots" and "pathetic".

RaymondChandlerLives
Oct 16, 2014, 1:04 AM
His criticisms were mostly crying over spilled milk anyway. We can't go back in time and turn Santa Monica's street grid into something resembling Amsterdam, so why complain about it? Or worse, why attack Angelenos for it?

The Illusive Man
Oct 16, 2014, 1:45 AM
He's just the type of person that loves to be miserable regardless of the situation. Bashes and loathes a city including it's populace. What does he do? Continues to live in that city.

Intelligence and brilliance at it's finest.....

SoCalKid
Oct 16, 2014, 2:01 AM
Can't he just use a different username and continue being part of the forum?

ozone
Oct 16, 2014, 3:49 AM
Too bad some people are so thinned-skinned. People should be allowed to have their opinions without someone with a stick up theirs reporting them and gettin them banned. Even if people are saying outrageous and ridiculous things that doesn't make them trolls. Some people are too touchy. They belong on Micechat not skyscraperpage forum.

Anyway, I never have thought LA should judge itself by the standards of traditionally designed cities. Density and walkability can be achieved within the current LA urban framework. Whenever LA tries and mimic other cities it always comes across ironically as inauthentic.

StethJeff
Oct 16, 2014, 5:53 AM
Wow, I've been having run ins with Edluva for nearly a decade, and it looks as if the fella (or lady? Never exactly figured that one out) got banned.

Oh well, such is life..

That's the thing that surprised me. I've seen so many longer and more inflammatory arguments with Ed in the middle over the years that I'm surprised this one did him in. In fact still not sure what he did wrong. :shrug:

Anyway, Ed was one of the most important voices on the forum. Most of his points are dead on and he could cut through other people's bullshit with ease. For every delusional forumer singing the praises of Grand Park, you need a cynic like Ed to tear them a new one. The problem though, as everyone has mentioned, was his delivery. Always generalizing, constantly bashing, glass 1/2 empty on autopilot. I'd accuse him of having zero tact but instead it was quite the opposite, he was trying to get under people's skin in order to generate discussions/arguments from others that he could then readily dismantle. It's just his style I guess.

He hates LA too much in order to abandon SSP. He'll come back with a different username in no time, and I hope he does, despite how annoying or repetitive he could be.

The Illusive Man
Oct 16, 2014, 6:06 AM
Why is liking Grand Park considered delusional? If people like Ed are entitled to their opinion, why are the people that actually like LA as it is delusional?

blackcat23
Oct 16, 2014, 1:10 PM
http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/10/woodland-hills-post-office-may-go-bye.html

Woodland Hills Post Office is apparently slated for demolition, to be replaced by apartments.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IqJ82HUaUhk/VD6v83KdQ2I/AAAAAAAAEX0/-ZipaT6utu8/s900/postofficeabove.PNG

BrandonJXN
Oct 16, 2014, 3:28 PM
Personally, SSP hasn't been fun for me for a while. Who wants to be in a constantly negative environment? While I agreed with a lot of what he said about LA, generalizing *ALL* Angelinos as people who don't know anything about anything got old 5 years ago. I respect his opinions about the city but not his constant negative attitude. You can have a harsh opinion about something but you don't have to be an ass to get your point across.

My .2¢.

Also: sans pink benches, I quite like Grand Park. Does that make me crazy?

the urban politician
Oct 16, 2014, 4:26 PM
Personally, SSP hasn't been fun for me for a while. Who wants to be in a constantly negative environment? While I agreed with a lot of what he said about LA, generalizing *ALL* Angelinos as people who don't know anything about anything got old 5 years ago. I respect his opinions about the city but not his constant negative attitude. You can have a harsh opinion about something but you don't have to be an ass to get your point across.

My .2¢.

Also: sans pink benches, I quite like Grand Park. Does that make me crazy?

^ Actually, this goes to show you just how different Angelinos are compared to Chicagoans (at least on this forum). You guys are thick-skinned and open enough to criticism to have tolerated his negativity for 12 years!

If he were a Chicagoan trolling the Chicago forums with that attitude, he would have been banned a long, long time ago. Chicago allows for plenty of criticism, for sure, but at a certain point you either stop your constant bitching or get the fuck out!

bobbyv
Oct 16, 2014, 5:31 PM
I hardly ever comment, but can some of you please get off Ed's ballsack already and can we focus on LA metro development?