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

caligrad
Jan 16, 2016, 9:32 AM
Completely wrong. The Chargers are leaning towards coming to Inglewood but if not they stay in San Diego for the year and if they don't get a stadium then come to Inglewood. There is no way they leave San Diego for STL or San Antonio. They are better off in their crappy stadium in SD than moving to those cities.

The Raiders will come to LA if the Chargers don't. Otherwise, if the chargers leave I would expect the Raiders to either move in with the 49ers, move to SD, or move to San Aatonio.

This is what almost every sports reporter is reporting.

Coulda sworn I asked you to block me since for some reason you're following me everywhere :koko:, starting to think you have an insider crush on me or something lol or better yet, I must have upset you with one of your other screennames.

Please provide the links that says otherwise. You say every sports organization is saying this but aren't providing any info to back your claim...... Didn't you say you DIDNT like when people did that ?

Past Vikings owner and current NFL owners are pushing Mark Davis to go to San Antonio. Everyone knows San Antonio has been BEGGING the Raiders to move there since 2014.
(link below)
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4691337-raiders-relocation-options-san-antonio-red-mccombs-jerry-jones-bob-mcnair

San Diego mayor vowing to keep the chargers in place, just proposed a new 1.1+ billion dollar stadium this past wed. with more added tax incentives and perks.
(links Below)

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-diego-los-angeles-chargers-20150114-story.html

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/san-diego-chargers-los-angeles-dean-spanos-relocation-inglewood-stadium-011516

I understand you feel the need to have the last word and to stalk me on every thread to say I'm wrong,without providing any form of facts, but please block me. You're starting to worry me a bit and annoy me at the same time. Already reported you.

(on this post, you said I'm wrong but pretty much just repeated everything I just said, but say you're right? :koko: )

Resident
Jan 16, 2016, 11:56 AM
There's no way the Chargers will move to LA now. The current owner of the Chargers hated the Inglewood idea and even said today he has no plans on doing business with the Rams owner. The only move he was interested in was the Carson deal with the Raiders. As of now, the Chargers wont leave, I can almost Garuntee that the city of San Diego passes a tax increase for a new stadium. Sad I know but its going to happen.

IF any future move is to be made in the future, the Chargers will look to either St. Louis or San Antonio. If that happens. The Raiders may tap San Diego on the shoulder for something, also unlikely, but San Antonio and St. Louis both may be getting teams soon unless Jerry Brown wants to intervene and step in.

First paragraph of the first article you actually cited (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4691337-raiders-relocation-options-san-antonio-red-mccombs-jerry-jones-bob-mcnair)

"With the Rams on their way to Los Angeles and the Chargers likely to follow, attention now turns toward the odd-man-out Raiders franchise, owner Mark Davis and the Oakland market they've alienated in their failed pursuit of relocation."

Find me any article that says Chargers are considering San Antonio or STL. Here is a in-depth look at the chargers:
http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2016/01/14/so-whats-going-on-with-the-chargers/

As for the Raiders, they are a year away from making any decision, because they need to see what happens with LA and the Chargers. Like the 5th paragraph in your first article:

"The Raiders are longshots to wind up in Los Angeles, but it's still possible if the Chargers balk at their yearlong window to sign on with Stan Kroenke's Inglewood, Calif., stadium project, either as equity partners or tenants. A long-term future in Oakland seems even less likely."


There is no article out there saying STL will be getting a new team. So the complete falsehoods was 1. Chargers won't go to Inglewood. 2. Chargers will look at STL or San Antonio. 3. San Ant and STL will both be getting teams soon.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Jan 16, 2016, 6:26 PM
Ya, resident is absolutely correct.. The chargers options are either staying in SD or going to Inglewood. And when you analyze it, there is no way they are staying in SD. If they do and let the Raiders come to LA, they will be irrelevant in Southern California, much like the Padres are because the Dodgers (and to a lesser extent, the Angels) cast such a huge shadow. Just watch a Dodgers /Padres game from SD and its obvious that the LA teams completely dominate the market

Resident
Jan 16, 2016, 9:53 PM
Ya, resident is absolutely correct.. The chargers options are either staying in SD or going to Inglewood. And when you analyze it, there is no way they are staying in SD. If they do and let the Raiders come to LA, they will be irrelevant in Southern California, much like the Padres are because the Dodgers (and to a lesser extent, the Angels) cast such a huge shadow. Just watch a Dodgers /Padres game from SD and its obvious that the LA teams completely dominate the market

So there are two options.
1a. Chargers move to LA and play there in 2016. Raiders start working on new location now, be it Oakland, 49ers stadium, San Diego, or San Antonio.
1b. Chargers play one more season in San Diego and it doesn't work out. They move to LA in 2017 and Raiders do the same above options a year later.

2. Chargers stay in San Dieo long term with or without a stadium. Raiders will move in with Rams and start playing in LA in 2017.

King Kill 'em
Jan 16, 2016, 10:07 PM
Catching up on uploading some old images, these are from 1 month ago.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1490/23754166644_bb040057db_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Cc5jaj)USC Village (https://flic.kr/p/Cc5jaj) by Hunter (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hunterkerhart/), on Flickr



You could sell this shot to USC I bet. Seems like the kind of photo colleges always use on their brochures to get people to apply.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Jan 16, 2016, 11:00 PM
You could sell this shot to USC I bet. Seems like the kind of photo colleges always use on their brochures to get people to apply.

i agree, thats an amazing picture Hunter

Resident, pretty much sums it up

Jaycruz
Jan 16, 2016, 11:04 PM
The Most logical option would be for the Chargers to move to LA, but I do agree they might not be a good financial idea to do so.

St. Louis isn't getting another team for a few years and San Antonio will never get a chance at a team with Jerry Jones around.


Anyway. It was fun interacting with you guys. I requested my account be deleted, reason stated on the LA downtown thread. I would hate to see any of your accounts banned as well, since I requested mine to be banned, I hope you guys can stop the childish bickering and arguing, it really is a drain to watch on these threads, being suspended for a few days and just watching some of you.....the teenage drama needs to stop with everyone's need to always be right over the other person. Nevertheless, i'll return back to being a lurker. Maybe I'll come back in the future.

ozone
Jan 17, 2016, 6:30 PM
In shitastic news, former mayor and living fossil Richard Riordan comes out for the anti-development ballot measure with fellow leeches from the AIDS foundation.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-richard-riordan-endorsement-20160114-story.html

To be clear it is not the entire AIDS Foundation that's doing this. It's the head/founder, who is strongly disliked by many within the organization and community it serves. There's been a call for him to step down for years. I hope it will finally happen. So I think it's really uncool to call the AF leeches.

ozone
Jan 17, 2016, 6:50 PM
NFL owners voted not to let the Raiders move to Los Angeles so that needs to be put to rest. The Chargers have the option to move to LA but I don't think they voted on them moving to another city other than LA and I'm pretty sure it was a yea vote just to try and put the squeeze on San Diego to invest in a new stadium.

King Kill 'em
Jan 18, 2016, 1:18 AM
Totally owned some NIMBYs on the LA times article on Riordan.

Resident
Jan 18, 2016, 1:49 AM
NFL owners voted not to let the Raiders move to Los Angeles so that needs to be put to rest. The Chargers have the option to move to LA but I don't think they voted on them moving to another city other than LA and I'm pretty sure it was a yea vote just to try and put the squeeze on San Diego to invest in a new stadium.

Again. Completely wrong. The NFL voted to allow the Rams to move this next year and the Chargers have until Jan 17th 2017 to choose if they want to move. If they don't move, the Raiders have the option to move starting Jan 18th 2017 until Jan 2018. No new votes.

ozone
Jan 18, 2016, 5:16 AM
Again. Completely wrong. The NFL voted to allow the Rams to move this next year and the Chargers have until Jan 17th 2017 to choose if they want to move. If they don't move, the Raiders have the option to move starting Jan 18th 2017 until Jan 2018. No new votes.

Well I'm not "competely" wrong. I'm speaking in terms and time tables closer to the present not a hypothetical future. I seriously doubt that once the Rams move back that either of the other teams will want to follow or that the owners would agree to it. If you think otherwise then so be it. I think the vote was just designed to give the owners of the Chargers and Raiders more leverage in dealing with their respective cities. I don't think anyone really thinks LA is going to get two teams anytime soon.I mean this is how the press I'm reading is reporting it. But it may not be what some overly enthusiastic fanboys from LA want to hear.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Jan 18, 2016, 6:32 AM
Well I'm not "competely" wrong. I'm speaking in terms and time tables closer to the present not a hypothetical future. I seriously doubt that once the Rams move back that either of the other teams will want to follow or that the owners would agree to it. If you think otherwise then so be it. I think the vote was just designed to give the owners of the Chargers and Raiders more leverage in dealing with their respective cities. I don't think anyone really thinks LA is going to get two teams anytime soon.I mean this is how the press I'm reading is reporting it. But it may not be what some overly enthusiastic fanboys from LA want to hear.
I'm not sure what you have been reading, but I've been following this very closely for a couple years and is almost a certainty that either the chargers or the Raiders will join the rams in Inglewood. 99.9999999% chance

Resident
Jan 18, 2016, 7:26 AM
Well I'm not "competely" wrong. I'm speaking in terms and time tables closer to the present not a hypothetical future. I seriously doubt that once the Rams move back that either of the other teams will want to follow or that the owners would agree to it. If you think otherwise then so be it. I think the vote was just designed to give the owners of the Chargers and Raiders more leverage in dealing with their respective cities. I don't think anyone really thinks LA is going to get two teams anytime soon.I mean this is how the press I'm reading is reporting it. But it may not be what some overly enthusiastic fanboys from LA want to hear.

Here is the press conference from the Rams coming here. At 27 minutes you will hear Kronke mention that having a second team was part of the approval for coming to Inglewood. But the Chargers/Raiders have full approval to move here. With the Clippers selling for $1.8 billion they would be idiotic to stay in their home city.

http://www.stlouisrams.com/videos/videos/Los-Angeles-Rams-Introductory-Press-Conference/12992e79-7d81-4669-bda0-f2fbf39d3685

SoCalKid
Jan 19, 2016, 1:15 AM
So there are two options.
1a. Chargers move to LA and play there in 2016. Raiders start working on new location now, be it Oakland, 49ers stadium, San Diego, or San Antonio.
1b. Chargers play one more season in San Diego and it doesn't work out. They move to LA in 2017 and Raiders do the same above options a year later.

2. Chargers stay in San Dieo long term with or without a stadium. Raiders will move in with Rams and start playing in LA in 2017.

How do you not see the irony in ranting about people making speculation fact and then turning around and saying there is no possible situation in which the Rams play in LA alone long term?

I'm sorry, I try to stay out of arguing and the childish disputes that happen here, but where the #!&@ are the moderators?? Please, do something. This guy is awful. He started out good, disputing the rampant and wild speculation, but now is by far the worst of them. He engages in personal arguments and is a general drain around here. PLEASE take care of this, these forums have been getting absurd lately.

losangelesnative
Jan 19, 2016, 5:08 AM
Grindr is moving into to WEHO pacific design center

Resident
Jan 19, 2016, 6:40 AM
How do you not see the irony in ranting about people making speculation fact and then turning around and saying there is no possible situation in which the Rams play in LA alone long term?

I'm sorry, I try to stay out of arguing and the childish disputes that happen here, but where the #!&@ are the moderators?? Please, do something. This guy is awful. He started out good, disputing the rampant and wild speculation, but now is by far the worst of them. He engages in personal arguments and is a general drain around here. PLEASE take care of this, these forums have been getting absurd lately.

The problem with this argument is that I am right. (Same goes for other speculation that I have refuted to date) Anybody who has followed this closely or even loosely watching the local news knows that I am. It's not speculation when it is actual facts. The specific deal for the Rams to move to Inglewood included a plus one option of the Chargers or Raiders following them. Try consulting the google and then complaining about the facts I presented. In fact, the Chargers and Rams had an all day meeting today to discuss lease vs buy in terms.

Anyways, the people who know me in real life have thanked me for actually for shutting up the main people who made the rampant speculation into facts. Examples of falsehoods:
1. 750 ft minimum at 8th and Fig
2. Towers not happening because of labor shortage.
3. Chargers and Raiders are both leaving California. Basically anything about this outside of chargers are probably coming to LA and if they don't the Raiders will is inaccurate.

I'm sorry if the people I called out for creating these falsehoods or spreading them got their feelings hurt. Wait. I'm not really.

Resident
Jan 19, 2016, 6:43 AM
How do you not see the irony in ranting about people making speculation fact and then turning around and saying there is no possible situation in which the Rams play in LA alone long term?


I mean I even provided the actual dates and from the agreement that the NFL voted on. You can't call that speculation.

JerellO
Jan 19, 2016, 7:09 AM
Grindr is moving into to WEHO pacific design center

Hahaha I didn't even know they were HQ in LA.

colemonkee
Jan 19, 2016, 1:56 PM
^ Are they leasing space in the red building? That thing's been sitting empty since they built it.

losangelesnative
Jan 19, 2016, 4:39 PM
Yes they are leasing 14,000 square feet in the red building

Resident
Jan 19, 2016, 11:24 PM
The Chargers applied for trademarks LA Chargers and Los Angeles Chargers over the last couple of days. Infer what you will.

King Kill 'em
Jan 20, 2016, 1:59 AM
Looks like some tracts have been upzoned in the Mid City area and along the Crenshaw Expo Intersection for future TOD

http://planning.lacity.org/documents/policy/WAdams.pdf

cesar90
Jan 20, 2016, 3:17 AM
10000 SANTA MONICA

http://i.imgur.com/V9LIwxf.jpg?1

blackcat23
Jan 20, 2016, 5:32 PM
http://urbanize.la/post/first-look-6200-sunset-boulevard

Renderings for 6200 Sunset Boulevard, the Hanover Company's proposed seven-story development in Hollywood. 270 residential units and 12,400 square feet of retail space.

Design by Steinberg Architects.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140w/public/field/image/sunset_0.JPG?itok=MqYswjFc

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140w/public/field/image/6200sunset_0.JPG?itok=gH4y_3n4

losangelesnative
Jan 20, 2016, 7:15 PM
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-inglewood-real-estate-20160120-story.html

Inglewood's real estate is heating up ahead of the Rams/Crenshaw Line/ and renovated Forum

King Kill 'em
Jan 21, 2016, 12:01 AM
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-panorama-shopping-center-20160119-story.html

Prepare for screams of gentrification.

Wally West
Jan 21, 2016, 12:40 AM
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-panorama-shopping-center-20160119-story.html

Prepare for screams of gentrification.

No one is going to worry about gentrification there since that lot has been empty for ~15 years. It's been an eyesore for nearly 2 decades and I'm sure people would rather have more retail and housing instead of empty buildings.

King Kill 'em
Jan 21, 2016, 1:58 AM
No one is going to worry about gentrification there since that lot has been empty for ~15 years. It's been an eyesore for nearly 2 decades and I'm sure people would rather have more retail and housing instead of empty buildings.

I realized that after reading the comments section which is usually full of NIMBYs on the La times. This along with the eventual LRT or BRT along Van Nuys blvd. will be great.

blackcat23
Jan 21, 2016, 4:19 PM
http://urbanize.la/post/two-large-apartment-complexes-planned-koreatown

Jamison Services working on plans for two residential developments in Koreatown.

Seven-story building with 160 residential units and 10,000 s.f. of retail space at 7th/Western/Manhattan, and a seven-story building with 224 apartments at 4th and Normandie.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140w/public/field/image/jamison.JPG?itok=k28YJczC

hughfb3
Jan 21, 2016, 4:44 PM
Oh my gosh! This is for real! There is a stop Manhattanwood.org Billboard on Vine Street just north of Santa Monica Blvd. I can't believe this! Can somebody get up there and Tag it please! Go Manhattanwood. Or do we need to contact somebody Who can raise money to put up a wise city planning development billboard. What do I need to do to voice my opinion about what's going right with Hollywood?

Do these people not remember what Hollywood was like in the '90s and early 2000's? Yes there was much less traffic, but it was awful and depressed. I feel people need an education lesson on where we've come from in Hollywood and the potential possibilities with what's next.

Any web designers wanna take on a new site called GoHollywood.org? Then we can fund raise for billboards

ByTheBay
Jan 21, 2016, 5:05 PM
Oh my gosh! This is for real! There is a stop Manhattanwood.org Billboard on Vine Street just north of Santa Monica Blvd. I can't believe this! Can somebody get up there and Tag it please! Go Manhattanwood. Or do we need to contact somebody Who can raise money to put up a wise city planning development billboard. What do I need to do to voice my opinion about what's going right with Hollywood?

I think it would be funny if someone played by the NIMBY's game and put up a 'stop Bakersfieldwood' Billboard across the street! GoFundMe anyone?

colemonkee
Jan 21, 2016, 5:42 PM
Depending on the location of the board, you would need anywhere from $4,500 - $10,000 to put up a counter billboard for a month. Easily something you could raise with a GoFundMe. If you can raise that, I will donate my time to secure the board, as I've done plenty of that in the past.

Wilcal
Jan 21, 2016, 6:32 PM
Depending on the location of the board, you would need anywhere from $4,500 - $10,000 to put up a counter billboard for a month. Easily something you could raise with a GoFundMe. If you can raise that, I will donate my time to secure the board, as I've done plenty of that in the past.

Given such costs, it makes you wonder who or what is funding that group

Wally West
Jan 21, 2016, 7:19 PM
Oh my gosh! This is for real! There is a stop Manhattanwood.org Billboard on Vine Street just north of Santa Monica Blvd. I can't believe this! Can somebody get up there and Tag it please! Go Manhattanwood.

Not that I encourage such actions but the most effective tagging would be adding a "Can't" in front of stop so the billboard can read "Can't Stop Manhattanwood".

When I was daydreaming, I was thinking about buying billboards in the suburbs of LA stating "You are traffic". Seeing lots of people in Reddit having their mind blown at that thought shows me that lots of people don't realize how density is a more efficient option than having a 30 mile commute from Valencia to Brentwood. Another billboard I daydreamed about were to ask people if any city became more affordable by denying density or asking people if they think Hollywood's character is defined by parking lots and strip malls.

A man can dream...

But for the record, I'll gladly pitch in 30 bucks for a pro-development billboard. The media only hears about NIMBYs, we should really make an effort to have the media report about YIMBYs.

losangelesnative
Jan 21, 2016, 9:59 PM
Sweet Green to move their HQ to LA

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/sweetgreen-to-move-headquarters-to-la/2016/01/06/f53a115e-b4b0-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

a9l8e7n
Jan 21, 2016, 10:14 PM
Blvd 6200 Phase 2 Webcam:
http://earthcam.com/clients/BLVD6200/?cam=south

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/m1F1W5A_AUMalIMZSJCWL4eLpO3jBFv6idkOvxShbK-6XOqSOdz3o3mPzytJx0I8elkRa98cNPW-WQA9Le7GCBFf0T44icGKMENjROwa1-FQur8cUiU_5c5RXCm9ezx_PxMC0o66y5D5aMzwbZrH039EblaGgnRciYD5_PN3vfwtymrYc2CrDlw3vG_17rXMt9W-Qf9-NZDCumqf8zQsauIm-YF6vsRfILXmOvBDFHdBH_clIzILeBUOBMFf6NvVTsrRCMoxCvKhaFJV5pg0Es17Wu_Z3xjDEvEZsU_UUtWahidOg-tKVpDqehcJMlVExfi8AJmZ5lY1348kFZIoCSPF_ri9fRpYMV2ENgN8sVw81xRkDp_VNZLk2gsZtvj9uW6ewKASo1Ix-2H6qf0-_vT_OeyjLlIMAaTuoGttDR9f7Fhi_3vt39gCMLU34ZeuUr7uktm6tdRduSccZY7wyCiFOeF7T35YaB6e70YZRnxSkRvgU9m5xmcSf97B16FPwFAU1x3GYLgtSvLJPczfVkX5rbZ1gZSIRSnBXR84yLgwRmG0AltT3WCqGT25HCaSMx0Z=w963-h639-no

King Kill 'em
Jan 21, 2016, 10:34 PM
What do you think the punishment would be if I got caught vandalize the stop Manhattanwood billboard. If it's just like a slap on the wrist it would be worth it I think

As for fighting the nimbys we need to start an organization against them now. I'm all done with college apps and have a lot of free time now. I'm in all the way and want to help as much as I possibly can.

colemonkee
Jan 21, 2016, 11:27 PM
^ At the very least it would be charges of trespassing and vandalism, so not recommended at all. Always best to fight legally.

Love the Blvd 6200 web cam. Has a great view of Columbia Square and the office building just off the 101 that I can never remember the name of.

Wally West
Jan 21, 2016, 11:53 PM
If it's just like a slap on the wrist it would be worth it I think

As for fighting the nimbys we need to start an organization against them now. I'm all done with college apps and have a lot of free time now. I'm in all the way and want to help as much as I possibly can.

It's a very high penalty and I assume you'd get caught since you're not used to vandalism. It's certainly not worth the risk. But with the money that you'd be willing to pay for the fine, you can easily use that money for a GoFundMe project to support a positive billboard. That would certainly help.

bzcat
Jan 22, 2016, 12:24 AM
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-inglewood-real-estate-20160120-story.html

Inglewood's real estate is heating up ahead of the Rams/Crenshaw Line/ and renovated Forum

Like I mentioned 2 pages ago... get in before the hipsters come ;)

King Kill 'em
Jan 22, 2016, 2:43 AM
Ok not vandalizing it then. If I did vandalize it though I just want to point out I'd cross out stop and write go creating "Go Manhattanwood". Putting can't in front producing "Can't Stop Manhattanwood" could make more people think dense development in Hollywood is a bad thing and backfire.

As for a gofundme for a pro-development billboard I would donate $30 or so as well.

King Kill 'em
Jan 22, 2016, 2:44 AM
Like I mentioned 2 pages ago... get in before the hipsters come ;)

Hipsters wouldn't move into such a place with such mainstream consumerism and advertising.

UserName01010
Jan 22, 2016, 3:28 AM
Ok not vandalizing it then. If I did vandalize it though I just want to point out I'd cross out stop and write go creating "Go Manhattanwood". Putting can't in front producing "Can't Stop Manhattanwood" could make more people think dense development in Hollywood is a bad thing and backfire.

As for a gofundme for a pro-development billboard I would donate $30 or so as well.

I operate a real estate development news blog covering both Orange County and LA at http://www.laocdb.com and thought this is a perfect opportunity for an opinion piece as a way to keep spreading the message that the NIMBY's attempts are antiquated and harmful. If anyone is interested in submitting the opinion piece, I will be more than happy to publish it on my website.

Resident
Jan 22, 2016, 4:36 AM
If I was building a billboard to oppose the NII, I would go with the message "The AIDS Health Foundation. Is spending your donations on making Los Angeles more expensive rather than fighting AIDS"

NativeOrange
Jan 22, 2016, 4:39 AM
In shitastic news, former mayor and living fossil Richard Riordan comes out for the anti-development ballot measure with fellow leeches from the AIDS foundation.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-richard-riordan-endorsement-20160114-story.html

I seriously can't read the comments on LA Times anymore. It's full of so many selfish backwards idiots that reading them turns me into a frustrated child throwing a tantrum. I wonder how many of these people are non-natives and moved here to "escape" the overcrowded East Coast.

Ugh, I need to throw up now.

cesar90
Jan 22, 2016, 6:05 AM
http://i.imgur.com/9YXYXo6.jpg?1

HRyF4zTEhu4

FdyXRo1jv_A

hughfb3
Jan 22, 2016, 6:18 PM
Wow!! Those are some beautiful shots.

I wonder if Target would be willing to pitch in to a GoHollywood.org movement and allow a banner from residents to say "we want our target open now! GoHollywood.org" and educate people in the community about the service they are being held from by these nimbys. I'm sure the residents of the community that don't really care about development would care about having a closer and completed target eyesore complete.

I can at least take pictures and start a GoHollywood hashtag on what's coming and what's being held up

SimonLA
Jan 22, 2016, 6:24 PM
What IS going on with Hollywood Target? Why is it taking so long to change the zoning there so this GD thing can move forward?

King Kill 'em
Jan 22, 2016, 10:18 PM
I operate a real estate development news blog covering both Orange County and LA at http://www.laocdb.com and thought this is a perfect opportunity for an opinion piece as a way to keep spreading the message that the NIMBY's attempts are antiquated and harmful. If anyone is interested in submitting the opinion piece, I will be more than happy to publish it on my website.

I'll write one. I will PM it to you when I am finished.

King Kill 'em
Jan 23, 2016, 3:07 AM
Does anybody know how many affordable units are included in the following Hollywood projects, or where I could find such information,
-Millenium Towers
-Palladium Towers
-Horizon Hollywood
-Crossroads of the World redevelopment
-Academy Square
-6220 Yucca

Thanks

DJM19
Jan 23, 2016, 3:37 AM
As far as I know, Millennium has no on-site affordable but have committed to giving several million dollars toward affordable housing in Hollywood. I know of know affordable housing element for Palladium or Horizon.

Crossroads has stated 70 units affordable. Academy Square, I do not think, has finalized its plans but has not mentioned affordable to my knowledge. Same for 6220 Yucca, no mention I believe.

I support all of these towers, though its fair to say there is not much about them that is affordable. It would be nice if we could convince Devs to include some less luxurious units for discretionary approvals.

Im curious the status of Millenium. They are still actively trying to build it. They recently sponsored a Hollywood Freeway Cap Park event.

caligrad
Jan 23, 2016, 10:01 AM
Anyways, the people who know me in real life have thanked me for actually for shutting up the main people who made the rampant speculation into facts. Examples of falsehoods:
1. 750 ft minimum at 8th and Fig
2. Towers not happening because of labor shortage.
3. Chargers and Raiders are both leaving California. Basically anything about this outside of chargers are probably coming to LA and if they don't the Raiders will is inaccurate.

I'm sorry if the people I called out for creating these falsehoods or spreading them got their feelings hurt. Wait. I'm not really.

Wait what? who did you "shut up" exactly? the more likely scenario is that people simply blocked you, as I did, instead of entertaining the rampant hypocrisy that have become associated with your posts. I'm only responding now because I skimmed through the thread before I logged in and thought it was funny.

I remember bringing up the 750ft Height limit twice. Never said it was fact. I remember seeing another poster bringing it up a year or 2 ago and asked if anyone could confirm. No one did so I dropped it. Why you're still harping on that is beyond me.

The labor shortage thing you completely took out of context. Someone on here was referring to an article that was posted on here last year about Labor Unions trying to intervene with Onni group who wanted non Union workers. Not a big deal, honest mistake but you ran with it anyway.

ANYTHING to do with the Chargers and Raiders is pure speculation on everyone's part including mine and yours until an actual deal is done. The Chargers are still in SD and the Raiders are still in the Bay. All of the articles and sports networks are all reporting wildly different stories on the subject.

No one said both were leaving. If you're referring to me, anyone with a logical thinking capacity can read my posts on the subject matter and see they are pure speculative and guessing. Never stated facts, just a sports fan, all sports fans speculate. I posted links and even you said "those articles are speculating".......... its sports, that's normal.

caligrad
Jan 23, 2016, 10:17 AM
Anyways, the people who know me in real life have thanked me for actually for shutting up the main people who made the rampant speculation into facts.

I'm sorry if the people I called out for creating these falsehoods or spreading them got their feelings hurt. Wait. I'm not really.

The people you know in real life are thanking you ? HA, Where ???? That alone is a "falsehood". Seeing how there are about 2 dozen active LA forumers on the LA threads and most choose to ignore you or have little interaction with you. that seems unlikely. If its true, its rather odd how those "people" cant speak up on their own behalf on how they feel about these subjects. its just a message board. Not like they will get physically assaulted for having a difference of opinion.

I've seen some of your other different posts. You keep saying "I know the facts, I'm not speculating, trust me, I have insider knowledge of everything going on straight from the 3rd or 8th person in charge" but all you're doing is like the rest of us, posting links from blackcat and urbanize and Speculating as well. How you made it ok for you to do that but no one else is beyond me.

You're fairly new to these threads (created in December). I find it odd how you're very confident in your claims and approach to some people on here as if you've been on these threads before or currently....

Your posts are becoming a bit adolescent.

caligrad
Jan 23, 2016, 10:42 AM
Ya, resident is absolutely correct.. The chargers options are either staying in SD or going to Inglewood. And when you analyze it, there is no way they are staying in SD. If they do and let the Raiders come to LA, they will be irrelevant in Southern California, much like the Padres are because the Dodgers (and to a lesser extent, the Angels) cast such a huge shadow. Just watch a Dodgers /Padres game from SD and its obvious that the LA teams completely dominate the market

Right..... But Leaving SD means you're opening the door for the Raiders to move into the SD market (which has been making a few headlines as a possibility). Meaning. So moving to LA will make you second fiddle to the Rams who will dominate the LA market, as they are already and You have now just alienated all of the Charger fans in SD who stuck by you for 50 years. The Raiders will take over SD and attract all of "Raider Nation" to flock to them and you can say bye bye to majority of those Charger fans because of how the deal went down.... Which still leaves the Chargers as the irrelevant team of Southern California with a shrinking fan base. At least by staying in SD, the Chargers can hold onto their fan base.

UserName01010
Jan 23, 2016, 4:40 PM
I was in LA last night and got to see the NIMBY billboard at Western Avenue and 101 FWY:

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1919075_10153749109786208_327252309349599385_n.jpg?oh=1ac0eebfcba87fa29ba9b69c90676f3c&oe=57360A06

King Kill 'em
Jan 23, 2016, 6:03 PM
I was in LA last night and got to see the NIMBY billboard at Western Avenue and 101 FWY:

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1919075_10153749109786208_327252309349599385_n.jpg?oh=1ac0eebfcba87fa29ba9b69c90676f3c&oe=57360A06

Somebody posted a picture of that billboard on twitter and saying "stop manhattanwood because this is Hollywood". I responded "crappy strip malls and surface parking lots is Hollywood?"

SoCalKid
Jan 23, 2016, 7:13 PM
Does anybody know how many affordable units are included in the following Hollywood projects, or where I could find such information,
-Millenium Towers
-Palladium Towers
-Horizon Hollywood
-Crossroads of the World redevelopment
-Academy Square
-6220 Yucca

Thanks

I'm assuming this if for the opinion piece you mentioned you were going to write. If you contact the developers and/or the planning department and explain why your asking I bet they'd be inclined to give you information you need.

citywatch
Jan 23, 2016, 7:19 PM
"crappy strip malls and surface parking lots is Hollywood?"


Those words on a large billboard would be a great rebuttal to the sign shown in username01010's photo!

UserName01010
Jan 23, 2016, 8:13 PM
I'm assuming this if for the opinion piece you mentioned you were going to write. If you contact the developers and/or the planning department and explain why your asking I bet they'd be inclined to give you information you need.

This is a great idea. Another option is to find the Environmental Impact Reports pertaining to those projects.

http://planning.lacity.org/eir/6250sunset/deir/DEIR/DEIR/3.%20General%20Description%20of%20Environmental%20Setting.pdf

^This one shows the list of projects in the Hollywood area.

http://planning.lacity.org/eir/TocDeir.htm

^This one shows the list of DEIRs

http://cityplanning.lacity.org/

^ Under "Development Services" -> Environmental Review -> Final EIR (shows list of final EIRs)

Resident
Jan 23, 2016, 9:01 PM
The people you know in real life are thanking you ? HA, Where ???? That alone is a "falsehood". Seeing how there are about 2 dozen active LA forumers on the LA threads and most choose to ignore you or have little interaction with you.

:shrug: Feel free to ignore me. I was actually in the room when the Alexan passed with 8 strong yes votes and one abstention. You can also mark my word. You will hear about a new fight over a tower in DTLA in the next month.

But I really just created a profile on here to stop the rampant speculation you and a few other specific users were doing, not actually spread information.

And for the record, you specifically said both the Chargers and the Raiders were going to leave Cali contrary to every single report out there.


IF any future move is to be made in the future, the Chargers will look to either St. Louis or San Antonio. If that happens. The Raiders may tap San Diego on the shoulder for something, also unlikely, but San Antonio and St. Louis both may be getting teams soon unless Jerry Brown wants to intervene and step in.

California only needs 3 teams (LA, SD, SF). Somebody has to go.

dktshb
Jan 24, 2016, 12:31 AM
I think a billboard that reminds these anti density people that they're really just a bunch of selfish douchebags would suffice. Their anti density blithering, which boils down to petty issues like the views they don't want obstructed and the wish of no traffic while driving are only making things worse for the majority of other Angelinos in the city who worry about non petty issues like simply having a place to live. The anti density no brains are exacerbating the situation for their selfish petty reasons for which they should be called out on and embarrassed for. Meanwhile more and more people will have to choose between rent and eating.

King Kill 'em
Jan 24, 2016, 1:04 AM
What if there was a comic called Density-Man and he fought a super villain called Lord Nimby. Lord Nimby's true identity would be Silverstein. And Riordan could be one called The Past Due Hypocrite and the the guy from the Aids foundation could be Misuse-of-Funds Man.

NSMP
Jan 24, 2016, 4:15 PM
Whoa. Item from Metro's Board meeting on Thurs. I know there has been (rightfully) very little enthusiasm for the presumed route extending the green line from its terminus a few more miles to crenshaw in Torrance. This is potentially a big change up, serving the forum and the NFL stadium, del amo plaza and el camino college. If only inglewood had stipulated that the Rams owner bear some of the costs of transpo to an from the stadium instead of tripping all over themselves to approve the project.

"Motion by Directors Butts, Ridley-Thomas, Knabe, Fasana, Antonovich and Kuehl that the Board of Directors Amend Item 58 to: Instruct the Chief Executive Officer to expeditiously facilitate a Feasibility Study, followed by a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR/SEIS) as deemed appropriate, for the Measure R South Bay Transit Corridor Rail Project focusing on an alignment extending from Florence Avenue in Inglewood to the City of Torrance, potentially along Prairie Avenue, as prescribed in Measure R. The cost for this work should come from Measure R Administrative funds; and Instruct the Chief Executive Officer to ensure that this alignment is considered as part of the "South Bay Transit Corridor Rail Project" within the Long Range Transportation Plan Update."

NSMP
Jan 24, 2016, 4:44 PM
For reference, i did a little mock-up. Previously proposed Measure R South Bay extension shown by green dotted line, new feasibility corridor shown by grey dotted line, Crenshaw line shown in pink

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

King Kill 'em
Jan 24, 2016, 5:08 PM
^There are several lines that could be built with measure R/R2 that are more important
-WSAB line
-Crenshaw line north extension
-Sepulveda/Van Nuys Line
-Orange Line Conversion and Extension to Pasadena(I've designed a route for this)

NSMP
Jan 24, 2016, 5:40 PM
That's great and all but totally irrelevant. The green line South Bay extension is a measure R project and WILL receive funding. This study is regarding the feasibility of this corridor as an alternative to the harbor subdivision alternative. At least as I read it.

Easy
Jan 24, 2016, 5:46 PM
That's great and all but totally irrelevant. The green line South Bay extension is a measure R project and WILL receive funding. This study is regarding the feasibility of this corridor as an alternative to the harbor subdivision alternative. At least as I read it.

I think you're right. I give it maybe a 2% chance of happening. It would be significantly more expensive and in general less desirable for commuters from the Torrance area except on the rare occasion they're going to the stadium area.

NSMP
Jan 24, 2016, 6:14 PM
I tend to agree it doesn't seem likely but still interesting. The feasibility studies do play an important role in project (re)definition, so im curious what if anything will come of it

dktshb
Jan 24, 2016, 6:21 PM
I think you're right. I give it maybe a 2% chance of happening. It would be significantly more expensive and in general less desirable for commuters from the Torrance area except on the rare occasion they're going to the stadium area. I don't know, connecting the forum, college and the massive new stadium development, which will be much more than just a stadium, seems to be a line the whole metro area would benefit tremendously from... especially if we get the Olympics.

NSMP
Jan 24, 2016, 8:02 PM
Due to the size of the development, repurposing the South Bay Metrorail extension on either La Brea/Hawthorne or Crenshaw would provide access within a 1/2 mile of the stadium or at least its grounds. Let's assume that prairie will eventually be ruled out due to the infeasibility of constructing both a station to connect it to the green line and a station to connect it to the Crenshaw line, ballooning costs and slowing down each of the other lines in the process. Which is better? La Brea or Crenshaw?

Either one would be able to run at grade south of imperial and we know how much Metro loves that. The Crenshaw option would give the option for a more straight shot n-s line up to hollywood a bit and open the door for the harbor subdivision line to be reconceptualized as a single LRT line connecting Union Station to LAX (via the WSAB line on the north end). Here's a quick visualization of what I'm thinking about with Crenshaw...

http://i.imgur.com/tU8SEre.jpg

King Kill 'em
Jan 24, 2016, 8:59 PM
^That yellow line you have won't happen. They're converting it to a bike path

NSMP
Jan 24, 2016, 9:14 PM
Metro did not buy the ROW to put a bike path there. There's a bike path next to the expo line, there's a bike path next to the orange line, the fact that there is a bike path here is not going to stop the Slauson LRT from eventually being completed. That would be nonsensical.

Resident
Jan 25, 2016, 3:09 AM
http://i.imgur.com/tYPXUCr.jpg

You are talking about putting two lines that run parallel to each other and have the same start and terminus that are only 1.5 miles apart. With the exception of game days, this line would serve hardly anybody new that wouldn't already be able to walk a mile to get to the other line.

I doubt rail will connect to the stadium, but if it is I would bet on just a spur that goes out and back.

retina
Jan 25, 2016, 3:23 AM
Due to the size of the development, repurposing the South Bay Metrorail extension on either La Brea/Hawthorne or Crenshaw would provide access within a 1/2 mile of the stadium or at least its grounds. Let's assume that prairie will eventually be ruled out due to the infeasibility of constructing both a station to connect it to the green line and a station to connect it to the Crenshaw line, ballooning costs and slowing down each of the other lines in the process. Which is better? La Brea or Crenshaw?

Either one would be able to run at grade south of imperial and we know how much Metro loves that. The Crenshaw option would give the option for a more straight shot n-s line up to hollywood a bit and open the door for the harbor subdivision line to be reconceptualized as a single LRT line connecting Union Station to LAX (via the WSAB line on the north end). Here's a quick visualization of what I'm thinking about with Crenshaw...

http://i.imgur.com/tU8SEre.jpg

Prairie does not seems feasible. The obvious path would be up Hawthorne/La Brea, connecting existing Green and Crenshaw line stations. This arterial is very wide and has a paved median almost the entire way up. There would still be a need to have a spur or streetcar or bus system to take people to the stadium down Century. Can't imagine this happening anytime before 2030 unless the Olympics come here and Measure R2.1 passes this fall.

hughfb3
Jan 25, 2016, 3:39 AM
What about if this segment were a one way single track rail from Inglewood crenshaw station down Prarie and linking back up with the green line to create a circular at grade route. Much cheaper than double track and still can serve the stadium and large development. It would be like portland's dowtown segment of one ways. Prairie could go south, crenshaw from the green line would go north to link with the crenshaw line.

New line. From Norwalk green line turning north on crenshaw to continue all the way up to hollywood. Crenshaw line south turning onto Prarie to continue along green line west/southbay

NSMP
Jan 25, 2016, 4:13 AM
You are talking about putting two lines that run parallel to each other and have the same start and terminus that are only 1.5 miles apart. With the exception of game days, this line would serve hardly anybody new that wouldn't already be able to walk a mile to get to the other line.

I doubt rail will connect to the stadium, but if it is I would bet on just a spur that goes out and back.

No, again, my shitty little map is depicting alternatives. Mutually exclusive. And I'm not doing anything other than speculating on a motion by the Metro board that indicates their interest in revisiting a Measure R-funded project that, as of now, is scheduled to go through an industrial/suburban dead zone whose primary benefit is that it goes kinda sorta close to a giant mall.

NSMP
Jan 25, 2016, 4:37 AM
Prairie does not seems feasible. The obvious path would be up Hawthorne/La Brea, connecting existing Green and Crenshaw line stations. This arterial is very wide and has a paved median almost the entire way up. There would still be a need to have a spur or streetcar or bus system to take people to the stadium down Century. Can't imagine this happening anytime before 2030 unless the Olympics come here and Measure R2.1 passes this fall.

Yeah, the only way that this seems possible is if the NFL agrees to put up some money for it (unlikely) or the USOC does (maybe even less likely). However, I disagree that there would need to be an additional circulator for the NFL stadium if Metro did opt to go this route. The walk from Expo/Vermont to the Coliseum is nearly a half mile and people opt to do that en masse for big events like fests or sporting events. A ten minute walk is doable for most of the people who would be at an NFL game or a concert at the Forum.

Resident
Jan 25, 2016, 7:24 AM
No, again, my shitty little map is depicting alternatives. Mutually exclusive. And I'm not doing anything other than speculating on a motion by the Metro board that indicates their interest in revisiting a Measure R-funded project that, as of now, is scheduled to go through an industrial/suburban dead zone whose primary benefit is that it goes kinda sorta close to a giant mall.

ohhh... Your alternative would skip the airport

NSMP
Jan 25, 2016, 2:37 PM
ohhh... Your alternative would skip the airport

Haha, I can see where this gets confusing. LAX is being covered by two separate measure R funded projects. The crenshaw line (between expo and green lines) is under construction currently and will serve the airport from a station at 96th. The people mover is the other project, and it hasn't broken ground yet.

These are both separate projects from the South Bay extension which has been generally envisioned as extending the Green Line from its terminus in Redondo down along either the harbor subdivision or the PCH eventually to meet back up with the Blue Line. However the Measure R funded extension is focused on getting it to the Galleria and COG input for R2 suggests it will only be extended to Crenshaw blvd in Torrance. The harbor subdivision ROW for the route in question is not in an ideal location, which I think is why the board is using the opportunity of this huge thing happening in Inglewood to decide if it is the best project for the area. Who knows what they'll decide, although this newly studied route is twice as long and who knows how much more expensive than they the other. It's unlikely, but would be kind of cool

blackcat23
Jan 25, 2016, 3:47 PM
Hollywood Park, as of yesterday.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140wb/public/field/image/20160124_172254%280%29_0.jpg?itok=8aEmBHkj
http://urbanize.la/post/could-metro-rail-reach-new-inglewood-stadium

retina
Jan 25, 2016, 4:34 PM
Seems like a gargantuan task to get this project up and running by 2019 when a simple 7 story takes 24 months to finish. At least the parking garage looks completed for the new casino!

Muji
Jan 25, 2016, 8:09 PM
The fencing is down at the Platform office/retail complex next to the Culver City Expo Line station (pictures taken yesterday). Nothing seems to be open yet besides a Soulcycle, but the sidewalks and new plaza are now open. I think they've done a great job of creating both an intimate plaza and pleasant sidewalk environment facing the street, a rare achievement among similar developments. I can definitely see this being a hotspot once the buildings are filled up.

https://urbandiachrony.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/img_4748-e1453698976515.jpg

https://urbandiachrony.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/img_4750-e1453698983296.jpg

losangelesnative
Jan 25, 2016, 9:17 PM
http://www.dailynews.com/events/20160125/if-la-gets-2024-summer-games-olympic-village-will-be-at-ucla-media-village-at-usc

olympic village to be at UCLA media village at USC

saves 1 Billion dollars.. hopefully this really help to speed up the purple line

Resident
Jan 25, 2016, 11:10 PM
Metro CEO just said at a forum that the expo line will open in May.

NSMP
Jan 25, 2016, 11:25 PM
^thats awesome!

bzcat
Jan 26, 2016, 12:14 AM
Due to the size of the development, repurposing the South Bay Metrorail extension on either La Brea/Hawthorne or Crenshaw would provide access within a 1/2 mile of the stadium or at least its grounds. Let's assume that prairie will eventually be ruled out due to the infeasibility of constructing both a station to connect it to the green line and a station to connect it to the Crenshaw line, ballooning costs and slowing down each of the other lines in the process. Which is better? La Brea or Crenshaw?

Either one would be able to run at grade south of imperial and we know how much Metro loves that. The Crenshaw option would give the option for a more straight shot n-s line up to hollywood a bit and open the door for the harbor subdivision line to be reconceptualized as a single LRT line connecting Union Station to LAX (via the WSAB line on the north end). Here's a quick visualization of what I'm thinking about with Crenshaw...

http://i.imgur.com/tU8SEre.jpg

Interesting proposal. Let's see the ridership potential from the study... can't be any worse than the current version of Green Line South Bay extension which is :slob:

Resident
Jan 26, 2016, 12:20 AM
^thats awesome!

So I think I misunderstood your post. You were talking about going all the way down prairie instead of extending teh green line, right?

NSMP
Jan 26, 2016, 12:42 AM
So I think I misunderstood your post. You were talking about going all the way down prairie instead of extending teh green line, right?

Correct. The motion suggests looking at a "prairie corridor" between Florence and the city of Torrance, scrapping the extension of the current green line that ends in Redondo. But don't read too much into Prairie blvd itself, that's bound to change. In fact the original alternatives analysis for what we currently know as the Crenshaw line also was identified as a Prairie transit corridor, before Metro decided that Crenshaw blvd was more viable. The same thing seems likely here.

bzcat
Jan 26, 2016, 8:56 PM
Correct. The motion suggests looking at a "prairie corridor" between Florence and the city of Torrance, scrapping the extension of the current green line that ends in Redondo. But don't read too much into Prairie blvd itself, that's bound to change. In fact the original alternatives analysis for what we currently know as the Crenshaw line also was identified as a Prairie transit corridor, before Metro decided that Crenshaw blvd was more viable. The same thing seems likely here.

Yea... we need to wait until the alternative analysis to be completed to see which actual street makes more sense.

The only problem I have with extending Crenshaw line between Florence station and Torrance is that it basically "orphans" the current Green line dogleg to El Segundo. Depending on how Metro operates the trains, it could be very difficult to maintain frequent service on that segment.

i.e.

Line 1 - Norwalk to Mid City (potentially Hollywood) via LAX
Line 2 - Torrance to Mid City (potentially Hollywood) via Prairie

Still have to find a way to route a train to Redondo Beach/Marine station. It will mean reduced headways on one of the main lines.

brudy
Jan 26, 2016, 9:44 PM
Metro CEO just said at a forum that the expo line will open in May.

That's great news! Can't wait...

King Kill 'em
Jan 26, 2016, 10:09 PM
Why didn't they just decide to open the gold line extension and expo line extensions on the same day? They'd save a lot of money because of all the maps they're going to have to replace.

Resident
Jan 27, 2016, 12:13 AM
Why didn't they just decide to open the gold line extension and expo line extensions on the same day? They'd save a lot of money because of all the maps they're going to have to replace.

Its because they don't have the rail cars. They have been short because the first company screwed up a year into the contract so they have slowed down the construction of the lines until they had the cars.

And I doubt they will make new maps for the 2 months that there is only gold extension

SimonLA
Jan 27, 2016, 1:31 AM
Regarding the maps, they'll probably just put a sticker on the Expo extension, saying it opens in May.

Regarding Green Line, it would be a shame to not at least extend the line to the South Bay Galleria; they have the ROW already and it's only a few miles. At least terminate the Green Line at SOMETHING.

hughfb3
Jan 27, 2016, 5:04 AM
Its because they don't have the rail cars. They have been short because the first company screwed up a year into the contract so they have slowed down the construction of the lines until they had the cars.

And I doubt they will make new maps for the 2 months that there is only gold extension

It was the unions that screwed us on this and the company chose not to build an assembly plant in Palmdale after all.

Oh well. I'm just excited it will open this year

blackcat23
Jan 27, 2016, 3:40 PM
http://urbanize.la/post/north-hollywood-station-gets-another-tod

Mixed-use development to replace the rental car lot at North Hollywood Station. Seven-story building with 127 apartments (10 for very-low income households) and 12,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/styles/1140w/public/field/image/noho_0.JPG?itok=Aa5SF93d

cesar90
Jan 27, 2016, 4:12 PM
gV50KRw9mnA

Subscribe to my channel

brudy
Jan 27, 2016, 7:15 PM
Why didn't they just decide to open the gold line extension and expo line extensions on the same day? They'd save a lot of money because of all the maps they're going to have to replace.

Do you really think they'd print the signs twice?

King Kill 'em
Jan 27, 2016, 10:49 PM
Do you really think they'd print the signs twice?

yes

bzcat
Jan 27, 2016, 11:59 PM
It was the unions that screwed us on this and the company chose not to build an assembly plant in Palmdale after all.

Oh well. I'm just excited it will open this year

Huh?

The original contract was cancelled because the Italian company (AnsaldoBreda) couldn't even deliver a prototype. That's why we are nearly 2 years behind on train delivery.

The 2nd contract went to a Japanese company (Kinki Sharyo) and they delivered the prototype ahead of schedule. The trains are being produced in Palmdale at the rate of 7 or 8 trains per month so we will have enough trains to start Expo II service in May.

If AnsaldoBreda had been able to perform the original contract, we would have had all the trains in 2014 and neither Gold line nor Expo line construction would need to slow down to wait for the trains to arrive.