LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by scania

Not only that...anyone that’s a sports fan and especially a baseball fan knows how incredible Dodger Stadium is in the sports world. People come from far and near just to visit Dodger Stadium. It is an icon in baseball. Not to be rude, but anyone who says we should tear down Dodger Stadium, only shows the extreme ignorance they have of the game.

Agree--KEEP Dodger Stadium, but tear up the parking lot in phases and build 10,000 or 20,000 badly needed housing units (both affordable and more fancy) and shops in some multistory towers. Great view up there--L.A.'s "Acropolis" and Dodger Stadium is the Parthenon. A few big parking structures (underground?) can handle the cars for Dodger Stadium and the residences. Gondolas can provide transport to and from the lowlands. Probably what McCourt plans to do anyway--why build a gondola to a parking lot empty most of the year? If they get this done by 2028, maybe some of the housing could be a used as an Olympic Village before being sold to the public. Closer to most of the venues than UCLA dorms. And like I said before, I hope the gondola can have a station in Chinatown, about half way between Union Station and Dodger Stadium. Lots of fans might choose to eat in Chinatown, as would residents. Chinatown can use the business. Just flying over it would be a missed opportunity for all concerned. Git'ter done!

[hughfb3]

Chetrit has installed 2 exterior elevator shafts leading to the rooftop of the Embassy Hotel/Trinity building. La Plaza in Chinatown is going up fast. Demolition is proceeding for Geoff Palmers largest yet building.

[Eightball]

What's up ya'll a few random pics of the Frankenstein towers from earlier today

#DTLA construction May 3rd 2018 by robb, on Flickr

#DTLA construction May 3rd 2018 by robb, on Flickr

#DTLA construction May 3rd 2018 by robb, on Flickr

And a bonus of the changing view from El Dorado balcony! More on my Flickr feel free to peruse

#DTLA construction May 3rd 2018 by robb, on Flickr

[BigCityOfDreams]

Originally Posted by Resident

My eyes lit up the same way yours did when I saw that statement. What are you guys smoking. It is a dingy three story building surrounded by fenced off parking lots. What is this "Historic streetwall"?? It literally doesn't exist. It's not like we are talking about tearing down a 10 story building on Main or Spring Street.

And really?? The building is too tall for the area and "Disrupts the urban fabric" of the area?? That would be great, because the urban fabric of that area is nothing special in any way shape or form. A bunch of low level buildings and parking lots. This would help create a new urban fabric, one that is allow Oliveria street, historic DTLA, and union station to be used a ton more. Right now this entire area is dead.

Olveria Street??? Okay.. First of all Olvera Street was once up for the wrecking ball too. Thank goodness it was saved. These our historic properties directly adjacent to Olvera Street and one of the buildings dates back to the 1800s, this is the definition of Historic DTLA, and who knows what type of facade is underneath the plaster, this very well may be a gorgous building. I am all for building the pants off Downtown, but we should be focusing on newer 1980s stucco crap, and parking lots, not historic buildings. What's worse? is that these buildings are flanked on all sides by parking lots. Build on the parking lots, and refurbish the historic structures. This shortsightedness is exactly why LA lacks in historic, fine-grain urban fabric that makes cities jewels. As for the guy that looked at google earth and determined these buildings were worthless, you are the definition of an armchair urban planner.

[BillinGlendaleCA]

Originally Posted by BigCityOfDreams

Olveria Street??? Okay.. First of all Olvera Street was once up for the wrecking ball too. Thank goodness it was saved. These our historic properties directly adjacent to Olvera Street and one of the buildings dates back to the 1800s, this is the definition of Historic DTLA, and who knows what type of facade is underneath the plaster, this very well may be a gorgous building. I am all for building the pants off Downtown, but we should be focusing on newer 1980s stucco crap, and parking lots, not historic buildings. What's worse? is that these buildings are flanked on all sides by parking lots. Build on the parking lots, and refurbish the historic structures. This shortsightedness is exactly why LA lacks in historic, fine-grain urban fabric that makes cities jewels. As for the guy that looked at google earth and determined these buildings were worthless, you are the definition of an armchair urban planner.

We lost quite a few buildings dating back into the 1800's around the Plaza in the late 1940's and early 1950's which became parking lots, the Hollywood Freeway and the LA Mall. We really should make an effort to save historic buildings when possible.

[112597jorge]

Originally Posted by BigCityOfDreams

Olveria Street??? Okay.. First of all Olvera Street was once up for the wrecking ball too. Thank goodness it was saved. These our historic properties directly adjacent to Olvera Street and one of the buildings dates back to the 1800s, this is the definition of Historic DTLA, and who knows what type of facade is underneath the plaster, this very well may be a gorgous building. I am all for building the pants off Downtown, but we should be focusing on newer 1980s stucco crap, and parking lots, not historic buildings. What's worse? is that these buildings are flanked on all sides by parking lots. Build on the parking lots, and refurbish the historic structures. This shortsightedness is exactly why LA lacks in historic, fine-grain urban fabric that makes cities jewels. As for the guy that looked at google earth and determined these buildings were worthless, you are the definition of an armchair urban planner.

In addition to posting google maps link I’ve also been there in person. Nothing worth saving there. One story building and 2 story building nothing special about them. Absolutely nothing worth saving. It’s a waste of space and opportunity. In the parcel where that one story building is a larger denser development may arise. Same with the 2 story building parcel. Forget about the studio gang tower. It may or may not be built but in the case it didn’t and 1, 2, or 3 separate projects arise from these parcels it will be one hundred times better for the urban fabric of the neighborhood.

I posted the link to show it’s a surface parking lot, and building with horrible pedestrian integration, it literally has a wall and fence at the sidewalk. Why the f*ck would you even want to renovate or incorporate those types of buildings in a new project or keep them? Tear it down and build something in its parcel. Same with the next one story building to the north. Tear it down and build denser. SAME with the 2 story corner building tear it down and replace it with denser... the same goes for every parcel being occupied with a non historic low rise/low density building. Talking about jewels of cities and wanting to keep these non historic low density and visually displeasing buildings is ridiculous. If we were talking about the one story spread found in lovers street then by all means keep that. That has historic value. This doesn’t.

[BillinGlendaleCA]

Originally Posted by 112597jorge

In addition to posting google maps link I’ve also been there in person. Nothing worth saving there. One story building and 2 story building nothing special about them. Absolutely nothing worth saving. It’s a waste of space and opportunity. In the parcel where that one story building is a larger denser development may arise. Same with the 2 story building parcel. Forget about the studio gang tower. It may or may not be built but in the case it didn’t and 1, 2, or 3 separate projects arise from these parcels it will be one hundred times better for the urban fabric of the neighborhood.

I posted the link to show it’s a surface parking lot, and building with horrible pedestrian integration, it literally has a wall and fence at the sidewalk. Why the f*ck would you even want to renovate or incorporate those types of buildings in a new project or keep them? Tear it down and build something in its parcel. Same with the next one story building to the north. Tear it down and build denser. SAME with the 2 story corner building tear it down and replace it with denser... the same goes for every parcel being occupied with a non historic low rise/low density building. Talking about jewels of cities and wanting to keep these non historic low density and visually displeasing buildings is ridiculous. If we were talking about the one story spread found in lovers street then by all means keep that. That has historic value. This doesn’t.

It appears that some of the buildings in that project's scope date to the early 1900's at the latest. It can often be difficult to tell a building's age and possible historic significance. The one story buildings on the north side of Spring and Ord date to the late 1880's, they used to be taller buildings but have lost height in the intervening years.

[bhunsberger]

Chinatown in general is just a sad place. 95% of the buildings don't even have a 'nod' to Chinese architecture, if you will. I wish it looked more like San Francisco's Chinatown. Some street lamps and decor could really make a huge difference. The only place in Chinatown that I like is the little plaza between Hill and Broadway but even that seems to have fallen into despair.

Anyone know if there will be any other 'iconic' buildings on Bunker Hill near Disney and Broad? Would be nice to see some other interesting buildings up there. I don't believe the Grand Ave project really qualifies, but we shall see.

[Illithid Dude]

The Grand Avenue project has been unfortunately downgraded in to one of the ugliest projects to be built this cycle.

[Resident]

Just because a dingy building was built around 1900 doesn't mean that it is historic or should be saved in perpetuity. You talk about "armchair urban planning" while you are speculating that there might be some great historic facade beneath the stucco.

It was a dingy building when built in the 1900s and it is still that today. And it will be even better when it is torn down and replaced with something not as dingy. If it was worth saving today, it would have people coming and going and there would be decent stores there. Right now if Zombies took over there would be no change in the number of people who walk down that street.

[Illithid Dude]

A dingy building built to a human scale fronting the street will still interface better with a pedestrian than a lovely tower set back from the street by the plaza. Cities are meant to be walked through and lived in, not photographed from afar. I care more about how a building relates to the surrounding urban fabric than if it looks nice.

[BigCityOfDreams]

My point is that building on parking lots like this one in question:

SpringSt_ParkingLot by Brett Thomas, on Flickr

Instead of tearing down historic buildings and urban fabric like these ones in question (on the right):

SpringSt_Building by Brett Thomas, on Flickr

Allows you to end up with an urban built environment that looks like this:

San Francisco Towers and Historic by Brett Thomas, on Flickr

Instead of like this:

Bank-of-America-Plaza-01 by Brett Thomas, on Flickr

[DJM19]

I don't even so much care about the buildings themselves. I moreso care about the nature of the lots. This is an area that hasn't had all of its human scale, urban plots of land gobbled up into a massive behemoth.

Putting a tower on a park right there next to all of those little plots changes the direction that area COULD go, which is to maintain the fine grain urbanism.

It would be my dream that LA actually enforce this to some degree downtown, especially in that area.

[bhunsberger]

Just because something is 'historic' doesn't mean it's always worth saving.

[Doctorboffin]

https://urbanize.la/post/two-more-re...wn-los-angeles

Holy heck. This is big....

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by bhunsberger

Just because something is 'historic' doesn't mean it's always worth saving.

Agreed, especially when better stuff can be built.

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

https://urbanize.la/post/two-more-re...wn-los-angeles

Holy heck. This is big....

Nice, but based on the floor heights in relation to the lot sizes, we might be looking at more massive podiums.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by bhunsberger

Chinatown in general is just a sad place. 95% of the buildings don't even have a 'nod' to Chinese architecture, if you will. I wish it looked more like San Francisco's Chinatown. Some street lamps and decor could really make a huge difference. The only place in Chinatown that I like is the little plaza between Hill and Broadway but even that seems to have fallen into despair.

Anyone know if there will be any other 'iconic' buildings on Bunker Hill near Disney and Broad? Would be nice to see some other interesting buildings up there. I don't believe the Grand Ave project really qualifies, but we shall see.

I disagree. I was just there on Saturday morning. It doesn't have amazing architecture, but it's full of life and pretty urban.

Those two new buildings u/c on Cesar Chavez give Chinatown a much better look. Those parking lots were sad.

[cesar90]

• Video Link

[Illithid Dude]

I honestly like Podiums as long as they are wrapped in apartments. Gives me a feeling of overwhelming density and urbanity, and makes the street wall look good to boot.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I care more about how a building relates to the surrounding urban fabric than if it looks nice.

but the worst of both worlds is when a place is both unattractive and not user friendly. However, ppl do have different opinions about what they like or don't like. nonetheless, most ppl when driving or strolling through a city base their first, main impressions on its looks, not as much on how human sized & scaled are its bldgs.

for example, this small segment of urban life in dtla, which was originally very nice looking & ped friendly in the early 1900s, eventually fell into disrepair....for decades. It became a swapmeet embarrassment, as happened to much of the rest of broadway. Even areas of LA that at least have been always somewhat human scaled & oriented to the sidewalk, when they lost a friendly look, saw most of their value disappear. A lesson in the power of a lack of attractiveness hurting other positive aspects of an area.



DTLA Real Estate


• Video Link