LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[JerellO]

I think it only looked like LA had a larger population downtown in the past because it was the place to work, shop and see entertainment. It was a busy place, but I feel even back then most angelenos lived in the outskirts of downtown and commuted by the streetcars. I think that’s why they say that the red cars were the reason why LA became so spread out, as the cars became faster to travel those long distances, highways were seen as a more efficient way to travel leading to the demise of one of the largest urban railways in the world. I think if the city had built heavy rail subways instead of streetcars it would have been a different stort.

[headcheckjj]

Anyone have any updates on the 4th/Hill tower and/or the Alexan (9th/Hill)?

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by scania

That’s not what I’ve read about the population.

Originally Posted by JerellO

I think it only looked like LA had a larger population downtown in the past because it was the place to work, shop and see entertainment. It was a busy place, but I feel even back then most angelenos lived in the outskirts of downtown and commuted by the streetcars. I think that’s why they say that the red cars were the reason why LA became so spread out, as the cars became faster to travel those long distances, highways were seen as a more efficient way to travel leading to the demise of one of the largest urban railways in the world. I think if the city had built heavy rail subways instead of streetcars it would have been a different stort.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/archi...val/index.html

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Downtown had twice the population in 1920 as it has now and was urban. I do believe it will surpass what it was and probably within the next 10 years but this is a rebirth or second birth for Downtown LA not the "first in history" for LA.

Are you sure about that?

Although some old mansions on bunker hill were occupied by ppl....originally of some wealth.....even all of that started to fall apart during the early 1900s. Most of the rest of the housing around there were wood clad houses & plain multi story apt bldgs....mainly for lower income tenants....for pensioners.

there was some additional housing scattered throughout other sections of dtla, but I don't believe it was either plentiful or aimed at the upper scale.

Some ppl may have been long term guests in the biltmore hotel or alexandria, but they wouldn't have numbered much beyond a few dozen.

I believe you're overly romanticizing dtla of the distant past. If so, that's why it's better today than ever before in LA's history.

however, one reason why devlprs....in 2018....still don't want to invest in highrise bldgs, much less the super talls that sspers love to talk about, other than a few shorter ones mainly for residents or hotel guests, is the problem shown by this.....

Citigroup Inc. is moving out of the Citigroup Center at 444 S. Flower St. in downtown Los Angeles to 29,000 square feet at nearby One California Plaza at 300 S. Grand Ave., according to sources.

Citigroup currently leases nearly 71,000 square feet at its namesake building according to CoStar Group Inc.

Citigroup will vacate around 55,000 square feet of space in the Flower Street building, but retain more than 10,0000 square feet as part of a bank branch, Ricci said.

Big banks have been reducing their headcount and floor space as more customers use mobile banking. Citigroup in particular has focused on digital banking.

The bank’s move also will give Coretrust the opportunity to offer signage on the 48-story, 914,000-square-foot tower.

[dboakland]

Originally Posted by citywatch

of the three major cities in CA, san diego had a more revitalized center before LA did. even today, tourists or travelers often rate dtsd as being right behind what has long been said about SF. part of that is due to those two centers being near the water. In that regard, dtla obviously will always have to march to its own beat.

But another difference is also because other cities, inc SF & SD, have enjoyed a faster pace in cleaning up & filling in their urban cores. All the best cities out there have had fewer gaps compared with what has long been true of dtla.

what's happening in dtla right now is leading to a center that's a first in the history of LA. Even back when more ppl went to dt to shop & do other things, it wasn't a fully fleshed out urban setting. Ppl of some success & means in LA didn't want to live in dt. They started to abandon bunker hill over 90 yrs ago. Some of dt's visibility in the past was also due to there being less competition from the burbs.

however, dt san diego is more cutesy, less gritty & authentic....which better fits some ppl's idea of what makes for a good or bad urban experience. dtsd is more like a santa monica, which a lot of ppl prefer to urban grit. But dtla has more of a big city seriousness about it. It's more interesting, it has more layers.




• Video Link

Seems like a lot of the comments on this thread lately are pretty critical. DTLA is geographically huge and the downtown revitalization trend hit DTLA later than a lot of other cities. That being said, the explosion of new development in DTLA in the last decade is spectacular. Yes, it will take a while for the environment in downtown to reach the levels of NYC or SF, but when I was in school there in the 1980's DTLA was really nothing more than a bunch of parking lots. Its come a LONG way since then.

[Blesha13]

Will there be a Citi logo installation on One California Plaza since AECOM installed theirs last year?

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Are you sure about that?

Although some old mansions on bunker hill were occupied by ppl....originally of some wealth.....even all of that started to fall apart during the early 1900s. Most of the rest of the housing around there were wood clad houses & plain multi story apt bldgs....mainly for lower income tenants....for pensioners.

there was some additional housing scattered throughout other sections of dtla, but I don't believe it was either plentiful or aimed at the upper scale.

Some ppl may have been long term guests in the biltmore hotel or alexandria, but they wouldn't have numbered much beyond a few dozen.

I believe you're overly romanticizing dtla of the distant past. If so, that's why it's better today than ever before in LA's history.

however, one reason why devlprs....in 2018....still don't want to invest in highrise bldgs, much less the super talls that sspers love to talk about, other than a few shorter ones mainly for residents or hotel guests, is the problem shown by this.....

Yes I am sure about that. I am not trying to romanticize anything but you're trying to dismiss its past. Downtown's population was about 50% of the entire population of the City of Los Angeles in in the late teens and early twenties. The City of Los Angeles had a population in 1920 of about 570K people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_in_the_1920s

In 1919, the community living in the downtown area formed 50% of the population of Los Angeles, and mostly Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Very few people lived in the hills and the suburbs were sparsely populated

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by dktshb

In 1919, the community living in the downtown area formed 50% of the population of Los Angeles, and mostly Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Very few people lived in the hills and the suburbs were sparsely populated

If only it were still like that now. Still, it won't be long before DTLA hits 100k. It's only going to go up from here.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by dboakland

but when I was in school there in the 1980's DTLA was really nothing more than a bunch of parking lots. Its come a LONG way since then.

my idea of a nightmare would be to get trapped in a time machine & have to relive the past all over again....except to be exactly as old then as I am today....


• Video Link


• Video Link

Originally Posted by dktshb

Yes I am sure about that. I am not trying to romanticize anything but you're trying to dismiss its past. Downtown's population was about 50% of the entire population of the City of Los Angeles in in the late teens and early twenties. The City of Los Angeles had a population in 1920 of about 570K people.

In 1919, the community living in the downtown area formed 50% of the population of Los Angeles, and mostly Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Very few people lived in the hills and the suburbs were sparsely populated

I'm thinking the definition of dt that's being used....either then or now....goes way beyond the boundaries of the 4 fwys that now represent what most ppl think of as dtla. however, there may have originally been more residential housing in dt in sections of it that have looked mainly industrial or commercial for over 80 yrs.

I do recall seeing several yrs ago a rundown apt bldg in the SE part of dt surrounded by warehouses. but such housing couldn't have ever been considered all that nice or fashionable.

Did ppl in LA over 90 yrs ago say, dt is the place to be! I wanna live there!

Look at all the wealthier ppl who started to abandon bunker hill as early as around 1920 or 1910.

In terms of higher quality housing for more demanding, trendy ppl....& that goes way beyond just a few houses on a hill.....I'd say today's dt represents a first in the history of LA.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by ocman

There isn’t anything wrong with it. That’s what I’m saying. LA residents SHOULD feel a sense of belonging to the wider areas cultural institutions, just as residents in other cities all over LA county should feel a sense that this is there's when they visit institutions in the city limits. LA identity is more as a county with arbirary boundaries than as a city.

Yeah. Pretty much online with every other major city/county in the Country lol. OC with Disneyland. The bay area with anything related to San Fran. I think a problem we have on this forum is that everybody likes to make everything JUST an LA issue/occurrence when its common globally.

Best example of this. Las Vegas. The strip is actually not in Las Vegas city limits but its in the county. Its actually in the unincorporated city of Paradise. But Since Vegas is the head honcho of the area. Everybody just says Las Vegas. Typical big City/County coining in on something that is attached but not really a part.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by Blesha13

Will there be a Citi logo installation on One California Plaza since AECOM installed theirs last year?

No.

[RuFFy]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Are you sure about that?

Although some old mansions on bunker hill were occupied by ppl....originally of some wealth.....even all of that started to fall apart during the early 1900s. Most of the rest of the housing around there were wood clad houses & plain multi story apt bldgs....mainly for lower income tenants....for pensioners.

there was some additional housing scattered throughout other sections of dtla, but I don't believe it was either plentiful or aimed at the upper scale.

Some ppl may have been long term guests in the biltmore hotel or alexandria, but they wouldn't have numbered much beyond a few dozen.

I believe you're overly romanticizing dtla of the distant past. If so, that's why it's better today than ever before in LA's history.

however, one reason why devlprs....in 2018....still don't want to invest in highrise bldgs, much less the super talls that sspers love to talk about, other than a few shorter ones mainly for residents or hotel guests, is the problem shown by this.....

Just for reference, Downtowns residential population peaked at over 100k in the 1940's. Also, Spring Street was the Wall Street of the West so the financial and business heart of Los Angeles was indeed in Downtown Los Angeles bringing in thousands of workers through the then public transit system. I don't think the "fantasy" of downtown Los Angeles is really far fetched and is actually more reality than fantasy.

[RuFFy]

Personally, I dislike the monstrosity that seems to have collided with the LA Times Building, but I can see why "some" people would defend it. And of course it threatens the Onni redevelopment and new development of Times Mirror Square.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...703-story.html

[IconRPCV]

Originally Posted by scania

Pedestrian experience we have now in DTLA isn’t bad. Is it San Fran? No. But not too many cities are that much better. Especially at night! When you go to these other cities, they have some streeets that are really nice...but don’t get it twisted. One of my favorite hotels in San Fran is Hotel Zetta, and yes it’s cool, it’s urban, but the quality of sidewalks, trash on the street, is nothing to rave about. Of course we have work to do, but hell what city doesn’t. San Diego, give me a break. They have the Gas Lamp District, but besides that, it’s not much else. The only people outside of San Diego that get lit over the Gas Lamp District as far as nightlife are the people from OC. Anybody from a major city was simply say...it’s cute.

San Diego is way more than the Gaslamp: Hillcrest, Little Italy, Northpark, Southpark, OB, PB, Mission Beach, these are where the non-tourists walk around.

[BillinGlendaleCA]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

Personally, I dislike the monstrosity that seems to have collided with the LA Times Building, but I can see why "some" people would defend it. And of course it threatens the Onni redevelopment and new development of Times Mirror Square.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...703-story.html

I tend to err on the side of the preservation of historic buildings, but even I can't see any rational of preserving that.

[DTLA-Joe]

Originally Posted by BillinGlendaleCA

I tend to err on the side of the preservation of historic buildings, but even I can't see any rational of preserving that.

Totally agree, IMHO it is an appendage that totally distracts from the grandeur and beauty of the original masterpiece.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by BillinGlendaleCA

I tend to err on the side of the preservation of historic buildings, but even I can't see any rational of preserving that.

Same. This is like a benign tumor on your favorite labrador retriever. Harmless, but it should be cut out.

[cesar90]

• Video Link

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Same. This is like a benign tumor on your favorite labrador retriever. Harmless, but it should be cut out.

I have such mixed feelings on this one. It's awesome 1970s futurism that I'd be whole heatedly advocating for preservation of with if it weren't crawling up the side of one of LA's finest examples of art deco architecture like a drunken prom date after midnight.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

Just for reference, Downtowns residential population peaked at over 100k in the 1940's.

I just can't figure out where most of those ppl lived, assuming when statistics labeled as being the population of dtla over 80 yrs ago referred to residences located generally within the 4 fwys of today....or figueroa st to the west, alameda st to the east, temple to the north & venice...or even washington blvd....to the south.

most of the identifiable housing in dt of the past was around bunker hill...but even that wasn't too highly regarded over 80 yrs ago....or stated to lose its appeal not too long after the late 1800s, early 1900s.

Over the past 60 yrs, dt definitely was increasingly hollowed out.

It wasn't all that long ago when on each 4th of July almost no one would be hanging out in dt....or want to be there....such as around the civic ctr.

a lengthy video that can be fast forwarded through to get the general gist of dtla 2018. But around 9:20, the question is when is the tinker toy parking structure along 1st st going to be finally torn down?


• Video Link