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

colemonkee
Dec 11, 2015, 3:17 PM
It's not yet the City Counsel, but glad to see that reason seems to be prevailing in the first review. Typically the City Counsel will go along with the Planning Commission. Let's just hope they follow the letter of the law during the review and approval process so as not to give the AIDS Foundation any ammunition to stop it. And if the ballot measure is brought to an actual campaign, I'll be the first to donate time and money to combat it.

Steve8263
Dec 11, 2015, 3:35 PM
From that L.A. Times article-

"We intend to exhaust every possible avenue to stop this project and other similar ones which will destroy the character of Hollywood," said Michael Weinstein, the foundation's president.

At Thursday's meeting, foes of the Palladium project said it is too big for the neighborhood and will accelerate the gentrification of Hollywood,

What "character" of Hollywood are they talking about? The pimps and ho's? The drug dealers and gangs shooting at each other? The trash filled side streets? Good grief. As if the alleged "gentrification" occurring is the worst thing imaginable.

The city council members are in a bit of a pinch here- caught between supporting the powerful trade unions and dissing the extremist anti progress constituents on the other side of this figurative fence.

retina
Dec 11, 2015, 4:41 PM
From that L.A. Times article-
What "character" of Hollywood are they talking about? The pimps and ho's? The drug dealers and gangs shooting at each other? The trash filled side streets? Good grief. As if the alleged "gentrification" occurring is the worst thing imaginable.

Exactly. I'm not sure what character they speak off. The glitz and glaumour of "Hollywood" definitely escapes the neighboorhood. I always shudder when I see tourists utterly disappointed when they come and see Hollywood and are greeted by the stench of the Blvd. These developments will only enchance the image. However, I cannot believe the CPC will allow a monstrous 2000 car parking garage on the property.

losangelesnative
Dec 11, 2015, 6:58 PM
Koreatown's Wilshire Galleria to be redeveloped into a mixed use residential or potentially a hotel

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/10/koreatowns-galleria-be-redeveloped/

caligrad
Dec 11, 2015, 7:11 PM
It's not yet the City Counsel, but glad to see that reason seems to be prevailing in the first review. Typically the City Counsel will go along with the Planning Commission. Let's just hope they follow the letter of the law during the review and approval process so as not to give the AIDS Foundation any ammunition to stop it. And if the ballot measure is brought to an actual campaign, I'll be the first to donate time and money to combat it.

Agreed. The Palladium towers need to happen. Hollywood has gentrified rapidly In the past 5-10 years. There's no need to stop that momentum now. I knew Hollywood was heading in the right direction when the millennium towers were proposed. Give it another 10-15 years and Hollywood will be able to rival our other cool neighborhoods. Give tourists something to actually look at when they get here besides the homelessness and street performers. Am I the only one who completely hate the street performers ? LOL

Quixote
Dec 11, 2015, 9:55 PM
I wonder if this NIMBY/anti-progress dynamic will still be as potent 20 years from now when us Gen XYZ are mainly in our 40-60s and the baby boomers begin to lose political influence. They're the only ones who are trying to preserve an outdated 1960s/70s version of LA that will never again exist. Am I right?

King Kill 'em
Dec 11, 2015, 11:56 PM
I wonder if this NIMBY/anti-progress dynamic will still be as potent 20 years from now when us Gen XYZ are mainly in our 40-60s and the baby boomers begin to lose political influence. They're the only ones who are trying to preserve an outdated 1960s/70s version of LA that will never again exist. Am I right?

Gen X was really the passive generation that never had a cause to complain about so they won't be angry NIMBYs when they're older. Millenials though seem to always be complaining about some retarded bullshit at colleges across the country so watch out for them when they're older. They'd actually be worse NIMBYs because when boomers protested stuff in the 60s/70s they actually had a point a lot of the time

StethJeff
Dec 11, 2015, 11:58 PM
City planning commission backs two 30-story towers in Hollywood


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-planning-commission-hollywood-palladium-20151210-story.html

Baby steps but important ones. One of the best looking projects on-hold and in exactly the kind of district that needs this type of growth. Can't wait.

caligrad
Dec 12, 2015, 2:07 AM
I wonder if this NIMBY/anti-progress dynamic will still be as potent 20 years from now when us Gen XYZ are mainly in our 40-60s and the baby boomers begin to lose political influence. They're the only ones who are trying to preserve an outdated 1960s/70s version of LA that will never again exist. Am I right?

LOL sad thing is. We will become the nimbys LOL. We, for the most part, are focused on mass transit, less traffic, better land use, bike lanes, density and better urban design overall.

Our kids may end up wanting over hang monorails everywhere, Electronic Billboards plastered everywhere, space needle like developments all over the place ( The Jetsons come to mind), subterranean freeways, etc.

I'm willing to fight against all of that BS :haha:. But I may let the monorail idea slide.

bobbyv
Dec 13, 2015, 12:13 AM
Interesting article about present and future LA metro projects:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-future-los-angeles-buildings-20151212-photogallery.html

JDRCRASH
Dec 13, 2015, 2:13 AM
Interesting article about present and future LA metro projects:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-future-los-angeles-buildings-20151212-photogallery.html

Won't show up, you need a subscription.

saybanana
Dec 13, 2015, 2:13 AM
Interesting article about present and future LA metro projects:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-future-los-angeles-buildings-20151212-photogallery.html

I think they listed 44 projects and about 15 of them are currently under construction. Lots of other equally major and large projects not listed like the 6th street bridge, Wilshire Grand, Circa. Hopefully the other 2/3s that were listed get started next year especially the sports venues.

Jun
Dec 13, 2015, 3:39 AM
Won't show up, you need a subscription.

I think theres a monthly limit on how many articles you can view. If you clear your browser cache it should reset.

NSMP
Dec 13, 2015, 5:02 PM
Koreatown's Wilshire Galleria to be redeveloped into a mixed use residential or potentially a hotel

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/10/koreatowns-galleria-be-redeveloped/

Wow! This building is perfect for residential reuse.

dktshb
Dec 13, 2015, 6:46 PM
Gen X was really the passive generation that never had a cause to complain about so they won't be angry NIMBYs when they're older. Millenials though seem to always be complaining about some retarded bullshit at colleges across the country so watch out for them when they're older. They'd actually be worse NIMBYs because when boomers protested stuff in the 60s/70s they actually had a point a lot of the time

Since I am 45 I guess I am a "Gen X'er" and I have to say you're completely wrong with your over generalization of an entire generation of people. I would imagine plenty of the original members on this board fall into the "Gen X" category.

I might add that I am pretty sure most every developer building in this city falls into the "Baby Boomer" "Gen-X" age bracket.

King Kill 'em
Dec 13, 2015, 7:03 PM
Since I am 45 I guess I am a "Gen X'er" and I have to say you're completely wrong with your over generalization of an entire generation of people. I would imagine plenty of the original members on this board fall into the "Gen X" category.

I might add that I am pretty sure most every developer building in this city falls into the "Baby Boomer" "Gen-X" age bracket.

Didn't mean to generalize. The characteristics of a generation get mixed when you get to the borders.
Boomers are 1946-1964
Gen X is 1965-early 80s
Millenials are early 80s-2000
People born at the tail end of one generation might have more qualities of the one that follows and people born at the beginning of one might be more like the one that preceeded them. For example I was born in 1997 so I'm technically a millenial but I don't quite feel like one because I'm still in high school. It's all arbitrary really.

dktshb
Dec 13, 2015, 7:37 PM
Didn't mean to generalize. The characteristics of a generation get mixed when you get to the borders.
Boomers are 1946-1964
Gen X is 1965-early 80s
Millenials are early 80s-2000
People born at the tail end of one generation might have more qualities of the one that follows and people born at the beginning of one might be more like the one that preceeded them. For example I was born in 1997 so I'm technically a millenial but I don't quite feel like one because I'm still in high school. It's all arbitrary really.

Well our generation was/is not passive and is and has been very active on many political fronts... including a push towards urbanism. LA's urban renewal began with the starting of the Red and Blue lines that began before many Millennials were even born. 10 years ago I was very active on this board when you were just 7 years old.

King Kill 'em
Dec 13, 2015, 8:03 PM
Well our generation was/is not passive and is and has been very active on many political fronts... including a push towards urbanism. LA's urban renewal began with the starting of the Red and Blue lines that began before many Millennials were even born. 10 years ago I was very active on this board when you were just 7 years old.

Thanks. Also you guys were technically the beginning of the renewal of downtown in the 90s with the adaptive reuse ordinance. In New York you guys brought a city back from hell. Never realized it was because of your generation. The narative of Gen X I think we're given is they had low voter turnout in the 80s, then MTV had their rock the vote campaign in the early 90s and that heloed get Clinton elected, then Kurt Cobain, a symbol of your generation died, and then nothing else happened because the 90s were a fun chill time of peace. So yeah thank you guys.

hughfb3
Dec 14, 2015, 4:30 PM
Something interesting I found out. Los Angeles; for the past several years, has not made it into the top 50 most livable cities according to "Mercer Quality of Living Survey." Last year 2014 was our first appearance, peaking at number 48.

What I gather from this is that we as a city are on the path upward; as are most big American Cities. As much as people are complaining in Hollywood saying it's too dense and going in the wrong direction; I would lead them to this study. The Hollywood community plan would also keep us moving forward. The dense, new city we are on track for is validated in these and other survey; but we have to be willing to give up the dominance of the single family home and the perception of reducing traffic by creating options. We also need to get that living in large spaces is a luxury that people in the most livable cities Worldwide make due without. IMO Density doesn't always equal skyscraper though. If there isn't one, we should have a clear height limit for high rises in Hollywood. Maybe like 25-30 story buildings... Whatever height that is. Downtown should have the supertalls and such.

I know I'm preaching to the choir on here; but if anyone goes to meetings or has any influence, here is a tool.

Wally West
Dec 14, 2015, 5:48 PM
Something interesting I found out. Los Angeles; for the past several years, has not made it into the top 50 most livable cities according to "Mercer Quality of Living Survey." Last year 2014 was our first appearance, peaking at number 48.

What I gather from this is that we as a city are on the path upward; as are most big American Cities. As much as people are complaining in Hollywood saying it's too dense and going in the wrong direction; I would lead them to this study. The Hollywood community plan would also keep us moving forward. The dense, new city we are on track for is validated in these and other survey; but we have to be willing to give up the dominance of the single family home and the perception of reducing traffic by creating options. We also need to get that living in large spaces is a luxury that people in the most livable cities Worldwide make due without. IMO Density doesn't always equal skyscraper though. If there isn't one, we should have a clear height limit for high rises in Hollywood. Maybe like 25-30 story buildings... Whatever height that is. Downtown should have the supertalls and such.

I know I'm preaching to the choir on here; but if anyone goes to meetings or has any influence, here is a tool.

Thanks for the heads up about the study. I'm sure the people who are stubborn will say the study is flaw rather than viewing it as evidence in LA's improved public perception. But the one thing that tends to frustrate other people is by asking them "Why are you defending empty parking lots and strip malls?"

Jaycruz
Dec 15, 2015, 7:23 AM
Nimbys need to understand. The only way to ease traffic congestion, with or without mass transit, is by densifying. Densifying with corridors of ground floor retail ( Hollywood, Vine, Santa Monica, Sunset, Highland) is the only way to partially accomplish this goal. This allows people to ditch the car for short trips to Restaurants, Grocery Stores, services and other Misc. to be able to walk down stairs and have most everything within a few blocks radius.

Most of the traffic in this city, Minus commuting, has to deal with people running errands. if running errands can be dealt with by a simple 2-3 block walk or 5 minute bike ride, traffic congestion will decrease while Density increases. Mass Transit only amplifies that.

SimonLA
Dec 15, 2015, 6:20 PM
Nimbys need to understand. The only way to ease traffic congestion, with or without mass transit, is by densifying. Densifying with corridors of ground floor retail ( Hollywood, Vine, Santa Monica, Sunset, Highland) is the only way to partially accomplish this goal. This allows people to ditch the car for short trips to Restaurants, Grocery Stores, services and other Misc. to be able to walk down stairs and have most everything within a few blocks radius.

Most of the traffic in this city, Minus commuting, has to deal with people running errands. if running errands can be dealt with by a simple 2-3 block walk or 5 minute bike ride, traffic congestion will decrease while Density increases. Mass Transit only amplifies that.

I agree with the first half of your comment, but I don't think most of our traffic comes from errands--it comes from work and people living far from their jobs. That's why we have an insane rush hour.

King Kill 'em
Dec 15, 2015, 10:46 PM
I agree with the first half of your comment, but I don't think most of our traffic comes from errands--it comes from work and people living far from their jobs. That's why we have an insane rush hour.

Well freeway is obviously mostly commuters but a lot of the traffic on the streets during rush hour is probably people just running errands or people that live close enough to their job that they could take public transit if the system was larger

Bikemike
Dec 16, 2015, 12:53 AM
It's crazy that Angelenos are still debating the causes of traffic. We have a LONG way to go.

bobbyv
Dec 16, 2015, 1:55 AM
All posts from bikemike about Los Angeles in the last couple of months:

"It's crazy that Angelenos are still debating the causes of traffic. We have a LONG way to go."

" As long as "everyone" must have a car, parking policy will always remain ass backwards in LA"

"I wish LA's urbanism were more fine-grained. The car virtually guarantees this will never be the case."

"It surprises me how many people in LA continue to subscribe to the myth that lanes will alleviate traffic to any degree. No wonder progress is so slow here."

"Count me skeptical of the Petersen design. It's definitely flashy, I'll give it that much. But underneath all that aesthetic fluff is a red box."

"By the way has anyone seen the new bikes hare stations going up in Santa Monica? They look kind of flimsy and cheap compared with those operated by Alta (of Citi bike, Bay Area Bike Share)"

"Thanks for posting this one, Mark. Ive noticed that non-Angelenos seem more interested in local policy as it relates to urbanism than Angelenos themselves"

"LA has the commercially most successful and active crappy architects in America bar none. There is so much money but so little relative improvement in aesthetics. We'll never be as cool as Seattle"

"Where is there a Herzog de Meuron going up anywhere in Santa Monica, or much less Southern California?"

"Imagine what could have been if Palmer hadn't built all those fortresses across the 110. Our skyline is so sparse. I only wish it could approach SF's in density."

"The Delta remodel already looks out of date. Like a 90s blast from the past. LA somehow lacks the vocabulary for elegant restraint"

"I wish design in LA was as sophisticated and intelligent looking as the stuff in parts of Europe. Tiny little Malmo or Rotterdam has more cosmopolitan architecture than LA does."

Geez does this guy have anything positive to say:???: Oh wait here's one:

"Beautiful curtainwall :cheers: DTLA needs more glass buildings"

Sounds like a fun guy to be around :rolleyes:

hughfb3
Dec 16, 2015, 2:50 AM
All posts from bikemike about Los Angeles in the last couple of months:

"It's crazy that Angelenos are still debating the causes of traffic. We have a LONG way to go."

" As long as "everyone" must have a car, parking policy will always remain ass backwards in LA"

"I wish LA's urbanism were more fine-grained. The car virtually guarantees this will never be the case."

"It surprises me how many people in LA continue to subscribe to the myth that lanes will alleviate traffic to any degree. No wonder progress is so slow here."

"Count me skeptical of the Petersen design. It's definitely flashy, I'll give it that much. But underneath all that aesthetic fluff is a red box."

"By the way has anyone seen the new bikes hare stations going up in Santa Monica? They look kind of flimsy and cheap compared with those operated by Alta (of Citi bike, Bay Area Bike Share)"

"Thanks for posting this one, Mark. Ive noticed that non-Angelenos seem more interested in local policy as it relates to urbanism than Angelenos themselves"

"LA has the commercially most successful and active crappy architects in America bar none. There is so much money but so little relative improvement in aesthetics. We'll never be as cool as Seattle"

"Where is there a Herzog de Meuron going up anywhere in Santa Monica, or much less Southern California?"

"Imagine what could have been if Palmer hadn't built all those fortresses across the 110. Our skyline is so sparse. I only wish it could approach SF's in density."

"The Delta remodel already looks out of date. Like a 90s blast from the past. LA somehow lacks the vocabulary for elegant restraint"

"I wish design in LA was as sophisticated and intelligent looking as the stuff in parts of Europe. Tiny little Malmo or Rotterdam has more cosmopolitan architecture than LA does."

Geez does this guy have anything positive to say:???: Oh wait here's one:

"Beautiful curtainwall :cheers: DTLA needs more glass buildings"

Sounds like a fun guy to be around :rolleyes:

DAAAAAYYYYYYYYMMMMMM!!! You cut him

News today...yet another company is moving from SoCal. Toyota is moving about 3,000 employees out of LA county to Dallas Texas area because they say housing is too expensive. They took a poll of employees and many of them said they wanted to move so they can "Live the American Dream and buy a house" which they feel is not as attainable in SoCal.

As many old/established companies that move out of LA, the vacuum gets filled with new, exciting and different occupations [example SpaceX, Google, etc]. I'm not worried; but we do get to greatly increase our mass transit. Neither New York City or San Francisco proper offer the American Dream but companies and people stay there because
A. They don't expect those cities to offer the Dream of buying a home and
B. They both have far reaching quick public transportation to allow someone to live way out, buy a home, and commute in.

Bikemike
Dec 16, 2015, 3:21 AM
DAAAAAYYYYYYYYMMMMMM!!! You cut him

News today...yet another company is moving from SoCal. Toyota is moving about 3,000 employees out of LA county to Dallas Texas area because they say housing is too expensive. They took a poll of employees and many of them said they wanted to move so they can "Live the American Dream and buy a house" which they feel is not as attainable in SoCal.

As many old/established companies that move out of LA, the vacuum gets filled with new, exciting and different occupations [example SpaceX, Google, etc]. I'm not worried; but we do get to greatly increase our mass transit. Neither New York City or San Francisco proper offer the American Dream but companies and people stay there because
A. They don't expect those cities to offer the Dream of buying a home and
B. They both have far reaching quick public transportation to allow someone to live way out, buy a home, and commute in.

bobbyv: My comments are only a reflection of the state of things as I see them in LA right now. My reflection is highly tempered with a broad perspective of travelling to and seeing lots of cities around the world. To me, LA is OK. But there's a LOT of design, transit, and as you can see from the above, economic improvement to be desired here. LA is in an economic trap - too expensive for its own residents, yet too intellectually and institutionally poor to bring the economic might and desirability of SF, NY, London, etc. I understand that your celebrations about the number of cranes and other relatively superficial stuff is warranted given the sorry state of affairs we are coming up from, but at the risk of sounding mean you are kind of like the TMZ of urbanism. There's very little substance behind crane-counting and critiquing facades in a vacuum.

I look at things from where they should already be. What matters is urban design and human capital, and LA lags far behind lots of cities in these respects. Just because I'm not a blind cheerleader like some of you doesn't detract from my opinion. LA has a LOT of work cut out for it as far as sustainable, highly livable, prosperous, and innovative cities go. A building boom that is based on design that is one step forward/two back won't hide LA's fundamental challenges. Lipstick on a pig. That is my unbiased perspective. If you take solace in ignoring these significant challenges for short-term improvements (i.e. losing parking lots) then power to you :cheers:

bobbyv
Dec 16, 2015, 3:49 AM
bobbyv: My comments are only a reflection of the state of things as I see them in LA right now. My reflection is highly tempered with a broad perspective of travelling to and seeing lots of cities around the world. To me, LA is OK. But there's a LOT of design, transit, and as you can see from the above, economic improvement to be desired here. LA is in an economic trap - too expensive for its own residents, yet too intellectually and institutionally poor to bring the economic might and desirability of SF, NY, London, etc. I understand that your celebrations about the number of cranes and other relatively superficial stuff is warranted given the sorry state of affairs we are coming up from, but at the risk of sounding mean you are kind of like the TMZ of urbanism. There's very little substance behind crane-counting and critiquing facades in a vacuum.

I look at things from where they should already be. What matters is urban design and human capital, and LA lags far behind lots of cities in these respects. Just because I'm not a blind cheerleader like some of you doesn't detract from my opinion. LA has a LOT of work cut out for it as far as sustainable, highly livable, prosperous, and innovative cities go. A building boom that is based on design that is one step forward/two back won't hide LA's fundamental challenges. Lipstick on a pig. That is my unbiased perspective. If you take solace in ignoring these significant challenges for short-term improvements (i.e. losing parking lots) then power to you :cheers:
LOL nice try Mikey as I hardly ever give any opinions on new construction cranes, design, and have mostly given opinions about preservation rather than "TMZ urbanism". As you can see by the date of registering and amount of posts, I am a man of few words, so you can save your remarks for someone else:tup: you're barking up the wrong tree.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Dec 16, 2015, 4:03 AM
DAAAAAYYYYYYYYMMMMMM!!! You cut him

News today...yet another company is moving from SoCal. Toyota is moving about 3,000 employees out of LA county to Dallas Texas area because they say housing is too expensive. They took a poll of employees and many of them said they wanted to move so they can "Live the American Dream and buy a house" which they feel is not as attainable in SoCal.

As many old/established companies that move out of LA, the vacuum gets filled with new, exciting and different occupations [example SpaceX, Google, etc]. I'm not worried; but we do get to greatly increase our mass transit. Neither New York City or San Francisco proper offer the American Dream but companies and people stay there because
A. They don't expect those cities to offer the Dream of buying a home and
B. They both have far reaching quick public transportation to allow someone to live way out, buy a home, and commute in.

Thats not new news, that happened last year and toyota execs said that the main reason was to be central to the united states

Wally West
Dec 16, 2015, 4:15 AM
Thats not new news, that happened last year and toyota execs said that the main reason was to be central to the united states

Not to mention the lack of income tax in Texas

Bikemike
Dec 16, 2015, 4:32 AM
LOL nice try Mikey as I hardly ever give any opinions on new construction cranes, design, and have mostly given opinions about preservation rather than "TMZ urbanism". As you can see by the date of registering and amount of posts, I am a man of few words, so you can save your remarks for someone else:tup: you're barking up the wrong tree.

I just assumed you were a cheerleader because your response is an accounting of all of the comments I've made that you feel are too "negative" I'm a realist, not a pessimist. From my experience, people who automatically condemn realists as downers tend to be vapid.

The majority of these new projects are based on ridiculous parking requirements, excessive curb cuts, and a general catering to regressive mobility trends (cars). The only two positives being new money, and density. I'm sorry but that's not enough for the challenges that we're facing. Change MUST come faster if LA is to merely KEEP UP. In this ultra-competitive global context we're in, if you're not leading you're stagnating. Any city can build new things. There's nothing special about construction for its own sake.

I totally get that people are excited about cranes and stuff, but that's how low our standards are. I've been to many cities where public commentary on project architecture, context, and walkability are a given. Coming back to LA from London or NY is a little like how I imagine coming back to Fresno is for a local visiting SF. It helps to put things into perspective

SimonLA
Dec 16, 2015, 5:15 AM
BikeMike on LA: "too intellectually and institutionally poor to bring the economic might and desirability of SF, NY, London, etc."

"Coming back to LA from London or NY is a little like how I imagine coming back to Fresno is for a local visiting SF."

Hopefully, he'll get banned for trolling like that former poster who will remain nameless. Or maybe he's him? It always bewilders me why people who hate L.A. remain vested in its future. Here's a tip: go to another city's page!

caligrad
Dec 16, 2015, 6:03 AM
^^^ HA ! I know EXACTLY which poster you're talking about!

the similarities are all there. I mean literally even the way the sentences are made to be condescending. We see you ! Someone is slowly exposing who they truly are.

Bikemike. Dude...... I don't think in the above conversation that anyone was debating why LA has traffic, I mean seriously it isn't rocket science. They were merely expressing concern for the nimbys and how the nimbys need to be taught urbanization/density 101 and how traffic flow will benefit with density.....

The comparisons to cities that were already well established for 200+ years need to stop. You make youre self sound educated in the way you post but comparing LA to cities that have been around and well known/established for way longer makes you sound rather uneducated. and a bit biased.

Bikemike
Dec 16, 2015, 7:29 AM
^^^ HA ! I know EXACTLY which poster you're talking about!

the similarities are all there. I mean literally even the way the sentences are made to be condescending. We see you ! Someone is slowly exposing who they truly are.

:shrug: mmmkay?
While I'm not trying to be condescending, my tone is a separate issue from my message.

Bikemike. Dude...... I don't think in the above conversation that anyone was debating why LA has traffic, I mean seriously it isn't rocket science. They were merely expressing concern for the nimbys and how the nimbys need to be taught urbanization/density 101 and how traffic flow will benefit with density.....

It definitely isn't rocket science to many people outside of LA. Here it seems "controversial". From NIMBYs who say "density=congestion" to the very discussion above

brudy
Dec 16, 2015, 4:18 PM
BikeMike on LA: "too intellectually and institutionally poor to bring the economic might and desirability of SF, NY, London, etc."

"Coming back to LA from London or NY is a little like how I imagine coming back to Fresno is for a local visiting SF."

Hopefully, he'll get banned for trolling like that former poster who will remain nameless. Or maybe he's him? It always bewilders me why people who hate L.A. remain vested in its future. Here's a tip: go to another city's page!

Not sure why anyone would want to ban someone for offering legitimate criticism and observation? And he's right about that feeling when coming back to LA after going to bigger, more developed cities. Sorry we can't all be blind cheerleaders.

LA is a frustrating place to live, I know I both love it and hate it at the same time. You root for it even as it beats you down. But hey, I'm sure you wish you could ban me for saying that...:shrug:

Jaycruz
Dec 16, 2015, 4:56 PM
It's crazy that Angelenos are still debating the causes of traffic. We have a LONG way to go.

No one was debating the causes of traffic. :shrug:. As others have said, its obvious why LA has traffic, Even outsiders know why LA has traffic.
MY direct response was to the Nimbys. Who honestly aren't fighting these projects because they fear traffic and etc. Because why would the same nimbys also fight mass transit and your beloved bike lanes?

They are fighting to keep LA the way it is which we all know isn't a step in the right direction. There also seems to be a sign of Envy when I read some nimby comments

"well I cant afford to live there so it shouldn't be built"

"these are luxury units that I wont be able to afford"

"This is supporting the top 1%"

" This will increase traffic (as they complain about sitting in traffic themselves)"

So I know my response was "nimbys need to be educated on how density works" But that was just a political way of doing things. I know they know already and if I were a politician I would call them out on their BULLS***.

Ive read your posts on other threads before and youre very pro "bikes, bikes, bikes, more bike lanes, share bikes, more bikes !" I understand that may work in the long term of things only as density grows and for younger individuals but you cant expect a family of 5 to bike it miles from downtown to santa monica, You cant expect everyone to bike the distance from the south bay to downtown or Long Beach to downtown or god forbid Bike the hills to get to the valley.

Jaycruz
Dec 16, 2015, 5:11 PM
Not sure why anyone would want to ban someone for offering legitimate criticism and observation? And he's right about that feeling when coming back to LA after going to bigger, more developed cities. Sorry we can't all be blind cheerleaders.

LA is a frustrating place to live, I know I both love it and hate it at the same time. You root for it even as it beats you down. But hey, I'm sure you wish you could ban me for saying that...:shrug:

I agree Brudy. I'm not for banning anyone either. I enjoy everyone's different point of view.

But as someone pointed out earlier. You honestly can not compare the city of LA, which by all means was a developmental experiment, with its freeways, suburban sprawl, Major height restriction, Central core, satellite downtowns like century city, Long Beach, Santa Monica and etc. to cities that were already well off and developed and densifying while LA was still trying to figure out what it was going to be. LA is truly the first type of city of its kind, maybe Tokyo taking that claim first.

But with the limitations placed onto LA, it honestly isn't fair to say "well it needs to be more like NY, London and SF, and lets just pretend like those cities didn't have a huge head start at the starting gate" that's not right. Hell London has been around for how many hundreds of years ? New York has been around for how many hundreds ? and lets not forget that the US government originally favored SF as THE metropolis of the west coast in the 1800s while LA was still Farmville with a mere 5k-10k population.

LA can be extremely frustrating at times but we do have to give credit when its due, Purple line expansion, Crenshaw line, LAX modernization, More mass transit proposals and a downtown that is finally realizing that it needs to be the regional center it was built to be. But we cant go to city hall and tell them to throw out every law/regulation and just adapt those of New York and London. I doubt anyone would want SF regulations because they are stricter than ours.

SimonLA
Dec 16, 2015, 6:23 PM
JayCruz says it well. And Brudy, you know BikeMike's words go beyond mere "criticism and observation." Insulting an entire city's intelligence is not thoughtful critique.

I am far from a cheerleader. But I enjoy this page for its updates and information; not to be told I'm stupid and that my home is a backwoods. This page has been so pleasant for months, without someone unnecessarily stirring the pot. Can we keep it that way, please?

brudy
Dec 16, 2015, 6:39 PM
I'm all for keeping it peaceful, but there will always be disagreement.

I think of course we can (and should) compare LA to other cities. If you grew up here that may not be palatable, but comparison offers lessons (good and bad), ideas, and possibilities. It demonstrates that LA is not necessarily special and that we should be aspirational to move policy and development towards these places to meet 21st and 22nd century needs. Europe already has urbanism largely figured out while still looking ahead. And there's really no doubt that in terms of what's general accepted as city life, most of the world's greatest cities fare far better than LA. To deny that is to deny reality. Example - go to Tokyo, witness how clean it is and then come back here. Downtown to La Brea is largely a dump outside of some of that residential around midcity. It just is and can feel very disappointing to come back here sometimes.

If LA is going to compete globally for companies, talent, and residents it needs to see the great cities as its competition and react and develop accordingly and aggressively. At this point people need to move on from the past and excuses about why the trains were ripped up or whatever. There is only the future.

NSMP
Dec 16, 2015, 7:10 PM
and lets not forget that the US government originally favored SF as THE metropolis of the west coast in the 1800s while LA was still Farmville with a mere 5k-10k population.

... And then it was 75% destroyed in the first decade of the 20th century. SF did not have a head start on LA. LA decided what it was going to be at the same time as SF was tasked with starting completely anew. The Huntington suburbs, the trolley cars, all of them were in place by 1910. Saying that NY and London are merely ahead of LA is also misleading because it implies that we are just behind in our development when the reality is that we are on a completely different track altogether.

Bikemike made lots of good points. Even though there are some that I am not in full agreement with, they are all well-reasoned and respectfully made as far as personal interaction is concerned.

As for the NIMBY discussion, Jaycruz, I think the smokescreen is the luxury discussion, not the discussion about mass transit and bike lanes. The organized NIMBY opposition to most projects is composed of the wealthy and homeowners. Whether or not they could afford to live in new developments is a red herring. The reality is that they don't want to add units in their neighborhood or give up their driving space on the road to other cars or alternative means of transportation.

Jaycruz
Dec 17, 2015, 1:22 AM
... And then it was 75% destroyed in the first decade of the 20th century. SF did not have a head start on LA. LA decided what it was going to be at the same time as SF was tasked with starting completely anew. The Huntington suburbs, the trolley cars, all of them were in place by 1910. Saying that NY and London are merely ahead of LA is also misleading because it implies that we are just behind in our development when the reality is that we are on a completely different track altogether.

Bikemike made lots of good points. Even though there are some that I am not in full agreement with, they are all well-reasoned and respectfully made as far as personal interaction is concerned.

As for the NIMBY discussion, Jaycruz, I think the smokescreen is the luxury discussion, not the discussion about mass transit and bike lanes. The organized NIMBY opposition to most projects is composed of the wealthy and homeowners. Whether or not they could afford to live in new developments is a red herring. The reality is that they don't want to add units in their neighborhood or give up their driving space on the road to other cars or alternative means of transportation.

So you're basically saying I'm wrong by literally repeating everything I just said ?

SF knew what kind of city it was going to be long before LA did. ( Gold rush, big banks, Transcontinental railroad), The gov already had in mind of making SF the NYC of the west. LA was still considered a Sleepy cow/farm town.

Yes SF rebuilt after the quake and start rebuilding at the same time LA begin to build. However, SF, knowing what type of city it was, just simply rebuilt under the same principles and guidelines already in place. LA had no solid plan. IF LA already knew what it was going to be, We will still be Farm/cattle town but we are not.

Yes LA already had the Red car in place in the early 1900s, But if you look up some pictures, a lot of the redcar tracks went through farm land once you left downtown and the west side.

Yes, LA is and always have been on a different path, I literally said that in my last post, "LA is truly the first city of its kind". NYC, London and SF had land constraints, regional LA at the time did not. All three were port cities from the start, LA didn't surpass SF as the key port for the west until the 1930s. All three built dense. LA instead was given a height restrictions on all buildings and was encouraged to expand outwards.

LA didn't know what kind of city it was going to be until the 1950s when Eisenhower signed the interstate highway bill. Literally the Planning of future Los Angeles revolved around this bill.

The Gov Experimented with the design of LA to see if it would actually work. Freeways, single family homes, Everyone has a car, no mass transit, cheap gas. The American Dream.

Jaycruz
Dec 17, 2015, 1:45 AM
I'm all for keeping it peaceful, but there will always be disagreement.

I think of course we can (and should) compare LA to other cities. If you grew up here that may not be palatable, but comparison offers lessons (good and bad), ideas, and possibilities. It demonstrates that LA is not necessarily special and that we should be aspirational to move policy and development towards these places to meet 21st and 22nd century needs. Europe already has urbanism largely figured out while still looking ahead. And there's really no doubt that in terms of what's general accepted as city life, most of the world's greatest cities fare far better than LA. To deny that is to deny reality. Example - go to Tokyo, witness how clean it is and then come back here. Downtown to La Brea is largely a dump outside of some of that residential around midcity. It just is and can feel very disappointing to come back here sometimes.

If LA is going to compete globally for companies, talent, and residents it needs to see the great cities as its competition and react and develop accordingly and aggressively. At this point people need to move on from the past and excuses about why the trains were ripped up or whatever. There is only the future.

I agree Brudy, when you put it in those terms, LA should compare itself to other cities, even though attracting businesses here has more to do with state regulation and taxes, But youre right, in terms of the long run, LA should make comparisons.

Now calling history "excuses" is the reason why the phrase "a history forgotten is a history repeated" was created. Yes LA railways being ripped away and replaced by freeways is truly tragic, but I wouldn't call past mistakes "excuses" when they in fact have to deal with the reason why LA is the way it is today.

I grew up on the east coast and just frequently moved here a few years ago so beat me up for not being a native, but before I made the move I looked up a lot of info about LA and was fascinated by its history, probably the most under rated history of a city in the united states, shockingly by the natives.

You say forget and move on.....Well isn't that what the city of LA is trying to do ? Freeway caps, River rejuvenation, Downtown core becoming more solid, Metro Expanding rapidly, LAX upgrading. By all accounts, to me it looks like LA is in fact out of the past and looking forward but apparently by some people its not enough :shrug: and that's when comparing the city to another becomes a waste of time.

N. Fred
Dec 17, 2015, 2:24 AM
LA Times Pro Palladium Towers Opinion Piece: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-oe-1216-cuff-palladium-residences-density-20151216-story.html

King Kill 'em
Dec 17, 2015, 4:17 AM
LA Times Pro Palladium Towers Opinion Piece: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-oe-1216-cuff-palladium-residences-density-20151216-story.html

Damn, she totally owned those NIMBYS. Comments on the article are cringey as hell as they always are on these LA
auto-de-fe
Earthquakes are inevitable!

BG_888
@auto-de-fe Earthquakes schmeathquakes -- I'm just tired of being scammed by our elected officials into swallowing a very flawed solution to an enormous problem.



Another totally biased L.A. Times Op-Ed by yet another biased architect, and Urban Theorist author, telling everyone what Hollywood needs. We don't need 'urban theorists' that's for sure. We don't need people who live nowhere near Hollywood (i.e. Hollywood Chamber President) telling everyone what Hollywood needs.
I was born in Hollywood. I live near this project. I have to try and get around Hollywood every day. It's becoming impossible. I have business appointments all over and three kids in school(s) so I need my car and I'm grateful I have it. Where are all these people claiming they're walking and riding bikes everywhere in this wonderful new urban oasis with all the urban amenities. If they are riding bikes and taking public transit that's fine, but not everyone has that time or luxury. Lets all live and let live.
Hollywood doesn't need corridors of huge skyscrapers creating more chaos, more traffic, even if there were a housing shortage. What is sorely missing is affordable housing, and these projects are not helping at all. The only population growing in Hollywood is the homeless population, there are tents all over, and food lines with more kids on them, than ever before. This is absolutely shameful. Why isn't anyone doing a thing about that, instead of selling Hollywood to these out of state developers who don't care one bit about anything but making more money. Instead of fixing the real problems in Hollywood they just keep dumping more and more upscale housing up all over. Homeless food lines and tents and upscale housing going up all over. Something is very wrong with this picture. And that is not urban 'theory'

Ok first off the definition of op-ed is opinion piece so obviously it's gonna contain opinions. Second everything else you said was wrong and I could totally own you on it but this guy who replied did it better.

@meghan2 "We don't need people who live nowhere near Hollywood (i.e. Hollywood Chamber President) telling everyone what Hollywood needs."

Hi, I own a house three blocks away from this project, and I want to see it built.

"Where are all these people claiming they're walking and riding bikes everywhere in this wonderful new urban oasis with all the urban amenities."

Hi, me again, I walk everywhere in the neighborhood for my basic needs - for groceries, restaurants, bars, etc., and it's easy to hop on the subway to get to other great neighborhoods around town. I only use my car to get to work (I used to take the subway until my company switched our office location). Just because the lifestyle you choose to live is no longer convenient doesn't mean you get to freeze the neighborhood in amber to preserve it exactly how you like it against the wishes of me and lots of other local residents who live here too

No research whatsoever has gone into this. Anyone writing a piece like this should be required to disclose where exactly they LIVE. At the Planning Commission hearing Commissioner Katz (MTA) asked what the 'grade' is at all the intersections here now. 'All are 'F' grades'. 'And what does that mean?' 'They all are at an 'F' or FAIL grade'.So let's add over 60 new overscale over dense developments like the Palladium in this area, (yes, count them over 60!), the most abused area with constant street closures. Star Wars has shut down streets in this area for days. And let's all collectively lie that these projects will not add to the gridlock because everyone in these luxury units will all ditch their cars, take public transit, ride bikes. The city is being run and recreated by the greediest, wealthiest developers over building to make more bang for their bucks, funding city politicos, Hollywood Chamber, CIM, city departments, who all bend over backwards to accommodate illegal projects. Other decision makers (Planning Commission, etc. ) are all appointed by the most developer corrupted mayor to come along. The Hollywood Community Plan was thrown out by a Judge who called it 'fatally flawed' and 'wishful thinking' based on false population data to justify over dense projects in Hollywood. It was not 'population accommodating' but was 'population encouraging' New unaffordable buildings sit empty. There is no affordable housing in these new projects, no accommodations for families, and families are getting tossed out of the area, as residential buildings get torn down for new luxury overscale buildings. Building owners jump on the greed bandwagon converting residential housing into hotels, the city grants zone changes, and many wind homeless, with children!
Do some research.

Holy shit what crawled up your ass. The best way to deal with someone this mentally defective is with humor just like this person did.

@O'Riordan "Star Wars has shut down streets in this area for days."

I have not seen the renderings for the Star Wars development project. Do you have a link? I bet it looks pretty cool!

What a load of platitudes. “Density is inevitable” Baloney. Look at this web site for all the cities that have lost population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinking_cities_in_the_United_States

The only things that are inevitable is that developers will try to cloud the facts behind unsubstantiated predictions and try to maximize their profits by increasing income producing floor space and reducing costly parking.

These zoning-busting projects reduce the number of construction jobs by eliminating the extra foundation and roof that would be built in two smaller zone-compliant structures. The developers don’t pass that cost savings on to the tenants or residents. The developers charge market rates for their floor space regardless of the cost or cost savings. It all goes into their greedy pockets and to the election campaigns of the crooked politicians that they buy off to get the illegal project approvals.

There is no shift away from cars. Mass transit use has declined in Los Angeles from the 1980’s. The rail lines only took riders from the buses.

Nor is there a housing crisis. There is sufficient expansion capacity (called “build-out”) under the existing zoning rules for additional housing. If the developers were really interested in this great public-spirited mission to create more housing there is nothing stopping them from doing it without any impediment from opposing community group lawsuits against the bloated projects the developers are seeking to build. The developers can do “by-right” project yesterday, today and tomorrow within the existing rules to meet the 100,000 unit goal or even more if they wanted to but they don’t. Building housing is not the developers’ goal. Making more money than is legal under the exisiting zoning is their only goal.

I don't even know where to begin with this one. There's at least 3 mind bogglingly wrong claims within it. This comment is just so wrong it's not even funny anymore it's scary.

Fantastic article! Thank you for the insight. Density is inevitable in Los Angeles!

@ameliad If you want density, I suggest you move to New York. They got lots of it.

Enjoy!

This claim that we can't have high density here is just so illogical. Whenever we try to add density they say you should move to New York. The more logical solution is that if you don't like density you should move somewhere even less dense than LA like Palmdale.

This is hardly affordable housing unless you are making more than $100,000 a year. And these tenants will not be taking the bus or the Red Line, but will be tooling to work in their BMWs.
Did you even read the fucking article? About 25% will be affordable and a large number will hopefully be non-luxury and within reach of those making median income. And maybe, just maybe, the ones that will drive wouldn't if so much parking was needed by code? You know cause NIMBYs complain there's not enough parking in these buildings and then complain that everyone who moves in will cause more traffic? How hard were you dropped on your head at birth?

@Central, because Los Angeles operates an entrenched NonProfit Industrial Complex, that UCLA and cityLAB are certainly part of. Eventually they'll compete for special interests when the whole County is overrun by fraud, and funding sources shrink annually. Most Angelenos don't realize 'Doheny' is a FAMILY, for which they named a street. NonProfit Industrial Complex — system of relationships between the state, owning classes, foundations, and social service + justice organizations that results in the surveillance, control, derailment, and everyday management of political movements
Looks like the conspircay theory crowd has joined forces with the NIMBYs.

Great op-ed! What I want to know is why the Aids Foundation cares at all? Shouldn't their money be spent on helping people instead of fighting much needed housing? How does this comment have twice as many dislikes than likes? I thought they cared about the poor? Guess not. They'd rather see the Aids Foundation continue to piss money away that could instead be used to help the less fortunate. Also how are they even allowed to do this? Because they're a non-profit, they have a tax free status. Isn't part of that status under the condition that they don't use their donation money for political purposes? That's why the Sierra Club lost their tax free status in the 60s. I'm not saying they should lose their tax free status because that would hurt those they're suppose to help even more, I'm just pointing out what they're doing might be illegal.

Jaycruz
Dec 17, 2015, 7:55 AM
No, I wasn't really trying to just say you're wrong. Nor did I repeat everything you said. But I was responding to a few different posts in my post so that's my bad.

Anyway, LA gave itself height restrictions. And, again, it did so before the SF quake. I don't think it is defensible to claim that LA didn't know what it was going to be until the 50s. I see where you're coming from but I think you're ceding too large of a share of responsibility to the Federal Govt

So back in late 1800s, LA already knew what it was planning on being, even at that time 85% was still farmland ? the valleys were still farmland ? because as of today, that plan of remaining farmland didn't stick.......Orange county is named orange county for a reason..... So yes. LA didn't know what it was going to be until the 40s-50s when the port finally dominated over SF, Hollywood became bigger and everyone flocked here after world war 2 because entire cities were created for veterans ( look up the city of Lakewood,Ca and how the houses are all the same for a reason).

LA didn't realize it was going to be the "Go to " city of the west until the 50s when Eisenhower signed the bill that pretty much made LA the car capital of the world. THATS when LA decided to be a true and first sunbelt/nodal city of the country With freeways, Suburban sprawl, malls everywhere and Single family homes. The blue print for cities like Phoenix, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta. And each one, minus Phoenix, is dealing with Traffic problems nearly as bad as LAs.

a9l8e7n
Dec 17, 2015, 5:12 PM
Playa Vista "The Brickyard"

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/eouGo82jJZu1LF1RPuETiSwuEzpAFMf9B5p9SIhiFTPS3tDdBaz4s4E3RVsEl7rOAcSi9wrapGrYhRngOhYEL0epsZpnB95NM4JBnFwPXAYzZjlzHUHz8BvE3ktyqKszz3ACl1_TYRKrNlQAfY1l3FX5FagrNlxDhfVcmqS9To5ij5zIgBRdsjkpDs9ZVyFmAGSNca_vX1IO48WpppGVrMEDVWd5542e9J0E41guu_7U807C7yj1TPysoqhD01jVerlbpNggRCxA0p4JOnW69z-jAQs8pPJIEKlQ5qX_tlDsubHaHMF56jj8W4RONCj2I8sVrPEqlc3hXjEa_i3gjWbQhFk7OURpKQGL5t-wre61EvcLq5K2Mi90TtYhiUY4j6LX5BGWvN7zegBu_5Q1XLaeLjlrx7hD1f9aauPltMr1SYfjxwKlx01QZl3Vkfir0nl42GfqJ1AqkXR-3GNZR1DNZTHQEaicJDnFtUoh6FEvBk9TMNLdetANCAcYMmzZtnMzYGZ2n5-tyGidWX4nazxnUgmEFkcqHHhlmIf45gZzhP-YOc6N0WvyPVfndrwI3RlX=w863-h488-no

SD_Phil
Dec 18, 2015, 4:25 AM
LA is a frustrating place to live, I know I both love it and hate it at the same time. You root for it even as it beats you down. But hey, I'm sure you wish you could ban me for saying that...:shrug:

You're not alone. I grew up in LA. I boost LA whenever I get the chance but it's hard not be frustrated with feeling two or three decades behind other cities that LA competes with economically.

King Kill 'em
Dec 18, 2015, 4:44 AM
^I know what you both mean. I get angry at LA whenever there is poor street design that is hostile to everyone not driving a car. All the what-ifs only fuel this rage. I try to blame those who ran the city in the middle of the century but there are ultimately too many people I could take my anger out on, all of which are dead. Then I think of the bigger picture. How far LA has come since the dark ages. It is my calling to continue this noble fight to bring LA into the light against the evil NIMBYs!

blackcat23
Dec 18, 2015, 4:30 PM
http://urbanize.la/post/20th-century-fox-studios-plans-expansion

20th Century Fox Studios files plans for 1.1-million-square foot expansion of its Century City lot.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140wb/public/field/image/20151114-DSC06456.jpg?itok=lfv4BCAI

Steve8263
Dec 19, 2015, 12:30 AM
There's heavy equipment on site and major demolition in progress on the May Company/ Movie Museum project. I took a few photos, will email if anyone wants to host.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/trolltoast092/Fullscreencapture1272014103526PM-001.jpg

Quixote
Dec 19, 2015, 6:12 AM
That photo of Century City and the Wilshire Corridor is rather appropriate for this news. Metro will be awarded its FFGA for Section 2 of the Purple Line extension next year. Two down, two to go.

https://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/congress-passes-omnibus-spending-bill-includes-sig/

sopas ej
Dec 20, 2015, 10:00 PM
LA didn't know what kind of city it was going to be until the 1950s when Eisenhower signed the interstate highway bill. Literally the Planning of future Los Angeles revolved around this bill.


LA actually embraced the automobile decades before the Interstate Highway Bill. California did, in general, too, and had a number of freeways before the Interstates (hence its exemption for the longest time of the use of exit numbers). Many of LA's and California's freeways pre-date the Interstate Highway System, and were simply renumbered to reflect the then-new Interstate Highway route numbering system.

dktshb
Dec 20, 2015, 10:06 PM
So you're basically saying I'm wrong by literally repeating everything I just said ?

SF knew what kind of city it was going to be long before LA did. ( Gold rush, big banks, Transcontinental railroad), The gov already had in mind of making SF the NYC of the west. LA was still considered a Sleepy cow/farm town.

Yes SF rebuilt after the quake and start rebuilding at the same time LA begin to build. However, SF, knowing what type of city it was, just simply rebuilt under the same principles and guidelines already in place. LA had no solid plan. IF LA already knew what it was going to be, We will still be Farm/cattle town but we are not.

Yes LA already had the Red car in place in the early 1900s, But if you look up some pictures, a lot of the redcar tracks went through farm land once you left downtown and the west side.

Yes, LA is and always have been on a different path, I literally said that in my last post, "LA is truly the first city of its kind". NYC, London and SF had land constraints, regional LA at the time did not. All three were port cities from the start, LA didn't surpass SF as the key port for the west until the 1930s. All three built dense. LA instead was given a height restrictions on all buildings and was encouraged to expand outwards.

LA didn't know what kind of city it was going to be until the 1950s when Eisenhower signed the interstate highway bill. Literally the Planning of future Los Angeles revolved around this bill.

The Gov Experimented with the design of LA to see if it would actually work. Freeways, single family homes, Everyone has a car, no mass transit, cheap gas. The American Dream.

Los Angeles surpassed SF's population by the 1920 census. LA was a traditional city pretty similar to SF until about the 1940's when city leaders unfortunately decided to take it in another direction. Prior to that bad decision the city was already firmly established.

Jaycruz
Dec 21, 2015, 6:10 PM
LA actually embraced the automobile decades before the Interstate Highway Bill. California did, in general, too, and had a number of freeways before the Interstates (hence its exemption for the longest time of the use of exit numbers). Many of LA's and California's freeways pre-date the Interstate Highway System, and were simply renumbered to reflect the then-new Interstate Highway route numbering system.

I'm guessing you're referencing the highly flawed Wikipedia article. LA has always been in love with the car, true. But LA was never planning the system we have now. it actually had plans for "expressways" Something that is totally different than the freeways it has now. Look at the arroyo seco parkway, the first in the LA area. It was never meant to be a freeway, it was meant to be a straight route from Pasadena to downtown and that's it. It was suppose to end on both sides.

There are remnants of this type of system in Long Beach. What happened was Eisenhower came along and said "think bigger" and the city of LA did to get funding from the Interstate highway bill. So our expressways that were meant to begin at one point and end at the next ended up becoming freeways that connect to have endless flow. Look at a map of the oldest freeways in LA and you will see what I'm talking about.


Los Angeles surpassed SF's population by the 1920 census. LA was a traditional city pretty similar to SF until about the 1940's when city leaders unfortunately decided to take it in another direction. Prior to that bad decision the city was already firmly established.

I think you missed my point. I didn't say that LA wasn't an already established city. It was actually. Largest public transportation network in the nation. No solid identity since Hollywood wasn't huge yet, The port was still second rate to SF and other factors. LA was a city surrounded by farmland. literally outside of Downtown and surrounding hoods, It was miles of farm land.

Saying LA in the 1910-20s knew back then that it would be the sprawling metropolis with no solid urban center, until recently, isn't even remotely true. SF and LA were 2 different cities back then. SF was dense, centered, Finance, banking and port city of the west in the "east coast" traditional sense. LA was established but no where near where SF was, It was still pretty much a TOWN with farms surrounding it. didn't become its own identity until the 40s-50s when the wars ended and everyone flocked here with the Hollywood boom, banking boom, port boom, oil boom and LAX becoming massive.

And you actually agreed with me on that so not sure where the response by you was needed?

I think everyone has had enough of this. Onto other topics.

DJM19
Dec 21, 2015, 6:46 PM
I do not think Eisenhower envision anything like the freeways within cities that we have today. His vision was more like the autobahn, where cities are connected to other cities on the periphery. It does not bisect the city into pieces. For instance he would not envision downtown LA being surrounded on all sides by freeways.

sopas ej
Dec 21, 2015, 7:22 PM
I'm guessing you're referencing the highly flawed Wikipedia article.

I am not; I've read lots of books on the subject, and even have some at home. I can give you the titles if you want, at least of the ones I have at home, once I get home from work, which won't be for several hours.

The expressways/freeways planned for the LA area even before WWII were actually quite extensive. And immediately after WWII, work resumed on building some already planned freeways well before Eisenhower's Interstate system. A number of those planned freeways were not built because of opposition. Century City was planned with the un-built Beverly Hills Freeway in mind.

losangelesnative
Dec 21, 2015, 7:44 PM
nice post by blackcat on urbanizela on LA county + USC medical center's building boom on its 90 acre campus

http://urbanize.la/post/la-county-usc-medical-centers-building-boom

King Kill 'em
Dec 21, 2015, 8:26 PM
I do not think Eisenhower envision anything like the freeways within cities that we have today. His vision was more like the autobahn, where cities are connected to other cities on the periphery. It does not bisect the city into pieces. For instance he would not envision downtown LA being surrounded on all sides by freeways.

Yes exactly. When he was in the army, they crossed from coast to coast in tanks. It took them two months to get from Washington to San Francisco. He was impressed by Germany's Autoban which was a big advantage for the Nazis during the war. The interstates were just meant to let people get across the country by car relatively quickly and help the army in case of an attack. It's possible Eisenhower would be shocked by how inefficent and jammed our city freeways are now, not to mention how they've destroyed communities.

caligrad
Dec 21, 2015, 11:52 PM
All in all. I think everyone comes to an agreement that LA is truly a unique city, probably one of the most unique in terms of how its laid out.

Now lets please change the topic. The LA threads have been all over the place lately.

News out of Long Beach, seems like the machinery have pushed dirt back into the hole that is currently the foot print for tower 2 of "The Current" project, what's suppose to be the new tallest of Long Beach.

Spoke with some of the construction dudes on site who said they are still going ahead with tower 2 but were told that the developer decided to wait until tower one was completely finished, which apparently is currently around 59% leased up/sold with people calling everyday, suppose to open in spring 2016.

I don't forsee tower 2 being canceled but IF it does, I'm going to be PI$$ED !.

cargocultpants
Dec 22, 2015, 8:41 PM
Spoke with someone at MAD and they said 8600 either just has or is about to break ground. Also found some renderings that I don't think we're widely circulated before - http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=11&clip_id=4012&meta_id=234076

bzcat
Dec 22, 2015, 10:40 PM
http://urbanize.la/post/20th-century-fox-studios-plans-expansion

20th Century Fox Studios files plans for 1.1-million-square foot expansion of its Century City lot.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140wb/public/field/image/20151114-DSC06456.jpg?itok=lfv4BCAI

Fox was trying to do this on the down low but you blew their cover ;)

Get ready for NIBMY battle royale in Century City. This is going to make Hollywood Palladium tower looks like child's play.

King Kill 'em
Dec 23, 2015, 12:25 AM
Spoke with someone at MAD and they said 8600 either just has or is about to break ground. Also found some renderings that I don't think we're widely circulated before - http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=11&clip_id=4012&meta_id=234076

wow that's amazing architecture

dktshb
Dec 23, 2015, 6:43 AM
Fox was trying to do this on the down low but you blew their cover ;)

Get ready for NIBMY battle royale in Century City. This is going to make Hollywood Palladium tower looks like child's play.

Well there was already a woman on NPR today complaining about this project.

blackcat23
Dec 23, 2015, 3:56 PM
http://urbanize.la/post/onni-group-plans-hollywood-development

Onni Group does more than Vancondos! Plans filed for a mixed-use development at 6911 W. Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood. Seven-story building with 231 residential units and 15,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140w/public/field/image/onnihollywood.JPG?itok=7WxN_kcv

NSMP
Dec 23, 2015, 4:18 PM
That's awesome! It's great to see some new residential going in by theatre row. What I wouldn't do for LRT under SMB...

NSMP
Dec 23, 2015, 4:27 PM
Wilshire/rimpau is pushing dirt. Apparently it's just a few town homes http://www.larchmontbuzz.com/larchmont-village-life/small-lot-townhomes-set-wilshire-rimpau/

bobbyv
Dec 24, 2015, 5:17 AM
http://www.wehoville.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Edition-view-from-Harratt.png

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-edition-hotel-20151224-story.html

King Kill 'em
Dec 27, 2015, 3:05 AM
Koreatown with 3033 Wilshire on left

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1671/23967816486_fbc755438e_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CvXjPh)2015-12-26 12.18.32 (https://flic.kr/p/CvXjPh) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

Anybody know what's going on here with this old hospital. Last I heard a few months ago a developer has proposed to tear it down and put up apartments on the site which I really hope doesn't happen because it would make a great adaptive reuse.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1534/23365813544_686651a424_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BAKUjd)2015-12-26 12.50.34 (https://flic.kr/p/BAKUjd) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5754/23911524791_6bcad640cc_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CqYPfP)2015-12-26 12.54.14 (https://flic.kr/p/CqYPfP) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5652/23367313153_20a166583d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BATA6x)2015-12-26 13.34.11 (https://flic.kr/p/BATA6x) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1489/23968018696_4750286d4a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CvYmVE)2015-12-26 13.34.57 (https://flic.kr/p/CvYmVE) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1664/23626303279_3be7dd5bf0_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BZLYQx)2015-12-26 13.35.35 (https://flic.kr/p/BZLYQx) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1567/23885921972_0ef5be8303_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CoHAqU)2015-12-26 13.37.01-1 (https://flic.kr/p/CoHAqU) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1588/23626365019_11902a3cd1_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BZMic2)2015-12-26 13.37.55 (https://flic.kr/p/BZMic2) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

Because it's not Hollywood unless ads get in the way of what you're trying to get a picture of.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1696/23698537390_0b29b5dcee_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/C7acwf)2015-12-26 13.39.22 (https://flic.kr/p/C7acwf) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

Some apartment building near Hollywood and Highland
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1600/23367418543_6deaeec056_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BAU8qB)2015-12-26 13.41.23 (https://flic.kr/p/BAU8qB) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1546/23626445769_5571aa2c93_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BZMHcg)2015-12-26 13.57.01 (https://flic.kr/p/BZMHcg) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

Thought the NIMBYs were protesting but nope just PETA.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1601/23367420173_5aff4e788c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BAU8UH)2015-12-26 13.55.36 (https://flic.kr/p/BAU8UH) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1609/23367498443_9b9d27242c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BAUxbc)2015-12-26 13.58.39 (https://flic.kr/p/BAUxbc) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5650/23698619270_8161811c46_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/C7aBRY)2015-12-26 13.58.56 (https://flic.kr/p/C7aBRY) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5786/23367503573_559218dcd0_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BAUyGD)2015-12-26 13.59.24 (https://flic.kr/p/BAUyGD) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

Affordable housing on Cahuenga.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1717/23626459039_dd894dd534_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BZMM94)2015-12-26 14.01.31 (https://flic.kr/p/BZMM94) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1661/23911780011_47322a86c0_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Cr188a)2015-12-26 14.05.53 (https://flic.kr/p/Cr188a) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

The Burbank project which I will be providing updates on. The buildings are now all torn down and now we wait for the whole to be dug and the foundations to be poured. Then I expect some more outrage from the NIMBYs will happen even though they have already lost.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1648/23698636060_93cb271a8d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/C7aGRs)2015-12-26 14.08.54 (https://flic.kr/p/C7aGRs) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

SimonLA
Dec 27, 2015, 3:28 AM
Thank you for the pics, King Kill 'Em. Did you happen to see any progress on the 8-story office tower going up across the street from Trader Joe's?

King Kill 'em
Dec 27, 2015, 4:01 AM
Did you happen to see any progress on the 8-story office tower going up across the street from Trader Joe's?

No I did not.

NativeOrange
Dec 27, 2015, 4:53 AM
Because it's not Hollywood unless ads get in the way of what you're trying to get a picture of.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1696/23698537390_0b29b5dcee_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/C7acwf)2015-12-26 13.39.22 (https://flic.kr/p/C7acwf) by Oscar Gake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135818526@N06/), on Flickr

Lmao. For real tho. And it's not just Hollywood, but all of Southern California. Ads everywhere.

Great update, btw.

Jaycruz
Dec 27, 2015, 7:41 PM
^^^ Yup. And the sad thing about it is, these ads and billboards go unnoticed by most people in So-Cal most of the time. I don't even pay mind to them, even when walking.

colemonkee
Dec 27, 2015, 9:54 PM
The Edition Hotel looks.... interesting. If they are able to pull it off with as much greenery in the rendering, it could look quite good. I would like to see the other side, however.

Illithid Dude
Dec 28, 2015, 4:13 AM
The Edition Hotel looks.... interesting. If they are able to pull it off with as much greenery in the rendering, it could look quite good. I would like to see the other side, however.

It's being designed by John Pawson, one of my favorite architects in the world, and has a chance of actually being an incredibly beautiful building.

King Kill 'em
Dec 28, 2015, 4:30 AM
It's being designed by John Pawson, one of my favorite architects in the world, and has a chance of actually being an incredibly beautiful building.

After looking up who that was and seeing some of his work, I think his style goes perfectly with that side of town.

colemonkee
Dec 28, 2015, 3:17 PM
Yeah, looking at his web site, I'm feeling very, very good about this one too. Can't wait!

blackcat23
Dec 28, 2015, 3:31 PM
http://urbanize.la/post/large-residential-retail-complex-proposed-koreatown

Mixed-use development to replace shopping center in Koreatown. Seven-story building with 367 residential units and ground-floor retail space.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140w/public/field/image/serrano.JPG?itok=GsmrTBgB

colemonkee
Dec 28, 2015, 4:23 PM
^ More TOD is AOK with me!

NSMP
Dec 28, 2015, 4:39 PM
Thank you for the pics, King Kill 'Em. Did you happen to see any progress on the 8-story office tower going up across the street from Trader Joe's?

I just walked by there yesterday. There are rebar cages but it's still a hole in the ground.

blackcat23
Dec 29, 2015, 4:01 PM
http://urbanize.la/post/affordable-housing-underway-vermontbeverly-station

Affordable housing complex from AMCAL underway at Vermont/Beverly Station.

Four-story building with 100 residential units and 4,100 square feet of ground-floor commercial space. Designed by Killefer Flammang Architects.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140w/public/field/image/meridian.JPG?itok=8o8sPY4l

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140wb/public/field/image/20151226_132619.jpg?itok=HfVlF-Bu

colemonkee
Dec 29, 2015, 6:50 PM
Not bad: cladding will consist of cement plaster, ceramic tile and perforated metal panels. No stucco to be seen. I like!

And while I like the TOD nature and 100% affordable housing ($1,200 for a 3-bedroom apartment will be a savior for some families), this should be 200 units, not 100. LA as a city probably needs somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000-20,000 affordable units over the next few years, so 100 is progress, but only a drop in the bucket. I'll take it, but 200 or more would have been better, especially that close to a Red Line stop (half block away).

Jaycruz
Dec 29, 2015, 10:01 PM
^^ I agree. To bad its not denser less than a block away from a major subway portal.

One thing to look at is the rents. Makes you wonder how this project is able to charge such low rents ( 1200 for a 3 bedroom is hard to come by in California period) but palmers monolithic fortresses are charging double for just a studio/1 bedroom.

If we can get reasonable rents ( i think 800-1100 is reasonable for LAs current economic atmosphere for a 1 bedroom) by getting rid of the community gyms, pools, Jacuzzis and other ammentities that keep residents inside and off the streets, Ill be the first to say kill the ammentities asap. they aren't needed in every condo/apartment building.

King Kill 'em
Dec 29, 2015, 10:10 PM
If we can get reasonable rents ( i think 800-1100 is reasonable for LAs current economic atmosphere for a 1 bedroom) by getting rid of the community gyms, pools, Jacuzzis and other ammentities that keep residents inside and off the streets, Ill be the first to say kill the ammentities asap. they aren't needed in every condo/apartment building.
Parking is the most important thing to kill. If the devlopers don't have to build
ludicrous amounts of parking rents will go down. As for amenities here's what I propose. No ridiculous amenities like rock walls and movie theaters and strip clubs etc. Include a community room where people can hang out and stuff but the tenants themselves will be responsable for bringing stuff into it that they want. Then you could include plans for a pool and/or gym that could be built if everyone chips in money. This part would obviously work better if it is a condo complex with an HOA and stuff.

NativeOrange
Dec 30, 2015, 2:36 AM
^^ Well affordable housing seems to be a bigger issue than parking minimums. Unless you meant that by removing parking minimums, thus lowering the cost for the developer (No parking podiums would increase the amount of units a developer could build, and they wouldn't have to go through building costly subterranean garages), would then in turn make it more feasible to include a higher number of affordable units? If that's what you meant then my bad.

I don't know how much of a difference that would make though.

King Kill 'em
Dec 30, 2015, 2:51 AM
^^ Well affordable housing seems to be a bigger issue than parking minimums. Unless you meant that by removing parking minimums, thus lowering the cost for the developer (No parking podiums would increase the amount of units a developer could build, and they wouldn't have to go through building costly subterranean garages), would then in turn make it more feasible to include a higher number of affordable units? If that's what you meant then my bad.

I don't know how much of a difference that would make though.

^yeah I was talking specifically about affordable housing, just multifamily housing in general.

blackcat23
Dec 30, 2015, 3:34 PM
http://urbanize.la/post/new-renderings-proposed-hollywood-development

Some better renderings for the mixed-use development planned at 1311 N. Cahuenga Boulevard. Seven-story building with 369 residential units and 2,500 sq. ft. of commercial space, designed by Nadel Architects.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140w/public/field/image/cahuenga.jpg?itok=tObiEPwG

timpdx
Jan 2, 2016, 3:07 AM
Happy New Years Photo update for Hollywood and westward

First Columbia Square, I think this is the gold standard project due to its scale, not too big and it does not seem big even though the tower is 20 stories. Plus great adaptive reuse, a nicely done quality project.

http://i.imgur.com/BDrRgwB.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/sWlo7LJ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/2J3m4dC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/mPbAMw8.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/TKJM12m.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Vi7AvPJ.jpg

-----------------------------------------
Icon, working on 10th floor now

http://i.imgur.com/1ZtPVZh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/4RgqrUs.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/iCrcojV.jpg

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

Dreamhotel taking its time, the facade cover has been up over half a year now

http://i.imgur.com/R9z4y6B.jpg

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

Argyle Hotel just flying along

http://i.imgur.com/Oi7k7f1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/vWCSaOp.jpg

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

1601 Vine still in the ground

http://i.imgur.com/QxAIrLc.jpg

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

Santa Monica and Formosa

http://i.imgur.com/QKZqH6S.jpg

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

Highland and De Longpre

http://i.imgur.com/wrNfnAm.jpg

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

Former Trader Joes shopping center on Santa Monica

http://i.imgur.com/VS54A6w.jpg

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

moving West

Sunset and La Cienega

http://i.imgur.com/IHkbWLe.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ObL6QSh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/MhVA7go.jpg

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

Waldorf Astoria

http://i.imgur.com/GgCtzHs.jpg

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


10000 Santa Monica (looks to be 38 floors up there)

http://i.imgur.com/ZAl6lhG.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/CPXtVgQ.jpg

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

Westfield Century City

http://i.imgur.com/2xOrbGB.jpg

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

Bonus, continuing on to Malibu and enjoying a sunset and a beer :cheers:

http://i.imgur.com/UEORcWe.jpg

Lalaland
Jan 2, 2016, 3:30 AM
Beautiful update. Thank you so much. Bravo.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Jan 2, 2016, 3:38 AM
Excellent update! I love how there is so much going on all around LA

cesar90
Jan 2, 2016, 4:29 AM
CvmKvCtRKpw

Jaycruz
Jan 2, 2016, 4:33 AM
With all of these projects happening downtown and in the metro, LA is growing up quickly, I love it.

King Kill 'em
Jan 3, 2016, 8:58 PM
So outside of downtown all I know this year is that the Century Plaza towers are suppose to start in March. In Hollywood I imagine Academy square will start, we haven't seen too much outrage with that one. Then what are the chances we'll see action on the two most controversial Hollywood projects, the Millenium and the Palladium towers, this year? Any smaller scale projects expected to go forward this year too?

Steve8263
Jan 3, 2016, 9:01 PM
http://www.wehoville.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Edition-view-from-Harratt.png

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-edition-hotel-20151224-story.html

After sitting dormant for months, they finally have heavy equipment on site and major demo in progress.

Pankow is the contractor-
http://www.pankow.com/projects/the-edition-hotel-residences/

saybanana
Jan 4, 2016, 8:14 AM
Pasadena construction photos. Not much has been taken lately of Pasadena. Here are some projects taken during the Rose Parade.

Union Village by Mack Urban - at the Playhouse District behind the theatres/bookstore
http://www.mackurban.com/properties/union-village/

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1474/23797480589_e5bfba2b37_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CfUiTt)Union Village (https://flic.kr/p/CfUiTt)

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1695/23869679540_75194c508e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Cnhm7Y)Union Village (https://flic.kr/p/Cnhm7Y)

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1691/24165300205_e6b8fddd7a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CPptQZ)Union Village (https://flic.kr/p/CPptQZ)

A block down is recently completed Playhouse Plaza building which is a beautiful Art Deco inspired building.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1617/23538527983_dfc4518f87_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BS27in)Playhouse Plaza (https://flic.kr/p/BS27in)


Paseo Colorado - former Macy's for new 179 room Hyatt Place Hotel . I couldnt get across the street to see how far it has gotten. Here is a news link about the project.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/business/20150819/pasadenas-paseo-colorado-to-get-70-million-makeover

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1576/24057227842_55b8c6bfe5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CDRzGo)Hyatt Place Hotel (https://flic.kr/p/CDRzGo)

Last is 144 room Residence Inn by Marriott - in Old Town Pasadena. Looks like it topped out.
http://www.rdolson.com/news-items/r-d-olson-construction-commences-residence-inn-marriott-pasadena/

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1612/24082691771_2ee327f6f8_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CG76eD)Residence Inn by Marriott (https://flic.kr/p/CG76eD)

Jaycruz
Jan 4, 2016, 8:29 AM
The Palladium website is pretty cool, I don't think I've seen it posted on here yet.

http://www.palladiumresidences.com/

Seems like they are really serious about that project, I think its probably one of the better projects proposed for Hollywood.

So outside of downtown all I know this year is that the Century Plaza towers are suppose to start in March. In Hollywood I imagine Academy square will start, we haven't seen too much outrage with that one. Then what are the chances we'll see action on the two most controversial Hollywood projects, the Millenium and the Palladium towers, this year? Any smaller scale projects expected to go forward this year too?

I think in terms of "big" projects in the metro area, Century Plaza towers seem to be legit in regards to starting this year....I think we lucked out with the Academy Square proposal because of its location, anyone to try to block that project has to be a complete fool with the surrounding area not being the great to fight over.

I think the Palladium Towers will happen but not until next year, if anything late this year.

As for the Millennium towers.........That proposal will sit in limbo for a long time I'm afraid and when it does re appear, it will be significantly downsized.

( Just my hunches though, don't want anyone to take what I said and run with it, apparently that's starting to upset a forumer or two)

PS. I could go on about the smaller 7 story projects/proposals but honestly theres way to many of those now in the region to even bother discussing anymore.

blackcat23
Jan 4, 2016, 3:50 PM
New Look for Martin Expo Town Center (http://urbanize.la/post/striking-new-look-martin-expo-town-center)

Olympic Boulevard and Bundy Drive, designed by Gensler. 10-story, 160-foot tower with roughly 200,000 square feet of office space, plus a seven-story residential building with 516 units and 81,000 square feet of ground-floor retail.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140w/public/field/image/martin1_0.JPG?itok=VZJfAF46

Doctorboffin
Jan 4, 2016, 3:56 PM
^ Picture that as a 500+ tower in DTLA. :slob:

hughfb3
Jan 4, 2016, 4:19 PM
Wow!!!! Blvd 6200/Eastown phase 2 just broke ground this morning with heavy equipment tearing up the concrete. Lot is completely closed now. Super exciting

Steve8263
Jan 4, 2016, 4:26 PM
Wow!!!! Blvd 6200/Eastown phase 2 just broke ground this morning with heavy equipment tearing up the concrete. Lot is completely closed now. Super exciting

I drove by there yesterday wondering if they would ever start. Guess I should have waited a few hours...

Illithid Dude
Jan 4, 2016, 8:27 PM
Expo Town Center is a near perfect project, trading a car dealership for density and urbanity. Could do without the giant billboard on the side of the office tower though...