LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[Kingofthehill]

Tonight, I saw fencing around the future Ace Hotel on Broadway. Hopefully construction will start sometime soon. I hung out in the NYC one about a month ago and LOVED it; incredible space with a nice, chill vibe. On the topic of Broadway, tonight a friend (from Philadelphia) and I were driving down the street, and regarding the sheer amount of untapped potential, he vouched that Broadway might have the most potential out of any street he has seen in the US.

BTW, what kind of building repairs/work are being done on the buildings immediately next to the Nickle Diner, on Main?

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

BTW, what kind of building repairs/work are being done on the buildings immediately next to the Nickle Diner, on Main?

I believe that's the renovation the Chrysalis Center is doing.

Form and function: Chrysalis to expand Downtown location with new aesthetic

[LA/OCman]

Originally Posted by The Dirty Goblin

I know. I was thinking the same thing. I couldn't find any benches in any of these pics. Granted it's not done, so it's possible they will put them in.

Speaking of pershing square kcet did a cool "journey" with it's redevelopments. So sad to see where it has gone.

http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_fo...e-decades.html

I like the Civic Park from what I saw of it on Sunday. There are plenty of full grown trees...Deodar Cedars, Palms, Olive, flowering shade trees...and the fountain is going to be amazing. Here are your benches and chairs for the civic park. BTW, the simple design of Pershing Square in the 70s and 80s was just a nightmare. Pershing Square needs a revamp but there was a reason the Biltmore changed the lobby from Olive St.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cult...-elements.html

[colemonkee]

I noticed the Ace Hotel fencing last night too as I grabbed some post-cocktail grub at Tacos Mexico next door (I also noticed how damn tasty their al pastor is). They have the surface lot fenced off too, so I hope it's simply being leased to stage equipment and construction trailers, and is not part of the development. It would be nice to see that lot - in addition to the smaller lot next to it immediately adjacent to Tacos Mexico - developed eventually.

I also noticed fencing around the building where I believe the new Ross Dress for Less store is planned to go in a couple blocks north. They have the entire sidewalk fenced off. And there were several people out on the sidewalk eating slices outside of Two Bits Pizza around midnight last night.

So changes are slowly but surely coming to Broadway.

[BrighamYen]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

end-to-end lawn with trees running the perimeter. throw in a fountain, gazebo, park benches, and a half-dozen chess tables. *boom* problem solved.

Exactly, you have a "Bryant Park" or "Madison Square Park" or "Washington Square Park"...

LA is still too immature and self-conscious.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

Park is incredibly disappointing.

We need parks, not plazas.

Also the Wilshire Grand...another reason why I'll prefer 5-12 story buildings is they get built quicker and transform neighborhoods more effectively and faster. I'll never understand the need (economically, urban planning wise, functionally) for another skyscraper anywhere in Los Angeles, including downtown other than it 'looks cool.' You can have a lot of cool glamour things at a shortened height if cities like tokyo are any indication.

A lot of truth to this.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

Exactly, you have a "Bryant Park" or "Madison Square Park" or "Washington Square Park"...

LA is still too immature and self-conscious.

A lot of truth here as well.

There is already plenty of space with no people in Civic Center. But this was conceived as a "civic center" park, which implies huge amounts of cement. Not really what DT needs, but it paid off the construction unions for their support. Perry was fairly clear about this right from the beginning ("this park is about jobs").

But let's see how it looks when it's done.

[BrighamYen]

It does look like there will be more grass and lawn space closer to City Hall. Perhaps when this is all done, it will look decent. It definitely will attract people to come just because it's the only larger park in DTLA. However, it's obviously circumscribed by those two gigantic County Buildings that I want torn down and removed!!

I still think we can relocate some of those services, such as the County Courthouse, into the existing Federal Courthouse once it is vacated for the new one. Relocating those services could allow the demo of the county buildings to expand the park to the edge of the sidewalks.


http://brighamyen.com/2012/03/07/ide...rand-ave-park/


Photos by me

[colemonkee]

Annexing the rotting foundation of the old State Building on 1st and Spring/Broadway and the Law Library would be the lower hanging fruit that would add dramatically to the more grassy - and flatter terrain - areas of the park, and have a much quicker, more dramatic improvement than the two county buildings (though I agree they should eventually go too).

Unfortunately, we continue to waste money on paying security to guard the State Building foundation (go check it out for yourself), and the Law Library is undergoing some significant "upgrades", so that one is staying around for a while too. Very poor city planning, if you ask me.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I agree. What happened to just trees, grass, some flowers sprinkled with some chairs and tables? Why are we making this so difficult?

Seriously.. whats with all that brown bark pieces used for A LOT of the "green space"??? why can't they just make them into grassy areas sprinkled wit trees??? =/ kinda disappointed in this

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

Park is incredibly disappointing.

We need parks, not plazas.

Also the Wilshire Grand...another reason why I'll prefer 5-12 story buildings is they get built quicker and transform neighborhoods more effectively and faster. I'll never understand the need (economically, urban planning wise, functionally) for another skyscraper anywhere in Los Angeles, including downtown other than it 'looks cool.' You can have a lot of cool glamour things at a shortened height if cities like tokyo are any indication.

But if you look at an aerial view of Tokyo and Los Angeles... Tokyo is obviously more appealing due to many skyscrapers and high rises they have built all over the metro, while los angeles looks majority like a suburban wasteland with a skyscraper and high rise center here and there

[colemonkee]

You don't live life from an aerial view.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Annexing the rotting foundation of the old State Building on 1st and Spring/Broadway and the Law Library would be the lower hanging fruit that would add dramatically to the more grassy - and flatter terrain - areas of the park, and have a much quicker, more dramatic improvement than the two county buildings (though I agree they should eventually go too).

Unfortunately, we continue to waste money on paying security to guard the State Building foundation (go check it out for yourself), and the Law Library is undergoing some significant "upgrades", so that one is staying around for a while too. Very poor city planning, if you ask me.

ive been thinking about this for a long time too. i even wrote an email to the council and mayors office, with no response of course. How could they NOT include those parcels from the beginning. its right outside city hall for christ sake. its your everyday view. They could even add the state building lot today and get it completed by the time the civic park opens in June.

[LA/OCman]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Annexing the rotting foundation of the old State Building on 1st and Spring/Broadway and the Law Library would be the lower hanging fruit that would add dramatically to the more grassy - and flatter terrain - areas of the park, and have a much quicker, more dramatic improvement than the two county buildings (though I agree they should eventually go too).

Unfortunately, we continue to waste money on paying security to guard the State Building foundation (go check it out for yourself), and the Law Library is undergoing some significant "upgrades", so that one is staying around for a while too. Very poor city planning, if you ask me.

How much land does the old foundation encompass? I always notice the litter around that area. I wonder why that area was not included in the park space. One thing I notice about grassy areas downtown is they draw homeless people sleeping all day. It is probably why there is quite a mix at the new park. It will be interesting to see if this happens at the Civic Park. It did not happen much around the lawn at City Hall but it is bad near Olvera Street and the park next to Angels Flight. I think that is the city's biggest fear is that the homeless will take it over and scare away the other locals, children and seniors who just want to enjoy a day in the park. The fountain here will be entertaining and powerful. Should be a draw for all residents.

[ThreeHundred]

The State Building also sits on top of a old parking garage. I'm not sure if it's even in use but it should be included in the park by removing the foundation some kind of way.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

But if you look at an aerial view of Tokyo and Los Angeles... Tokyo is obviously more appealing due to many skyscrapers and high rises they have built all over the metro, while los angeles looks majority like a suburban wasteland with a skyscraper and high rise center here and there

tokyo didn't build skyscrapers to "appeal" to urbanists. developers built them because there really was no space. demand for space exceeded supply, hence, the need to create more space. vertically. the operative word is *need*

los angeles, on the other hand, *does not need* a single additional skyscraper. it is a suburban wasteland for a couple reasons:
1. there are not many important institutions in this metro for its size, and
2. what office space exists is scattered throughout the expansive suburban wasteland in the form of countless suburban office parks in non-descript suburbs like costa mesa, carson, and woodland hills.

and contrary to what some la boosters love to repeat, the "nodes" like downtown glendale, century city, and downtown los angeles actually don't account for much of our metro-wide office space when taken as a whole. it's the the countless 2-3 story office parks scattered amongst all those hundreds of square miles in between these nodes which constitute the bulk of our regional commercial real estate.

so basically, greater los angeles dug itself a deep glut of low-quality commercial real estate and doesn't have enough educated people or big companies to fill them, which is the first step required before anyone will consider new construction in our core.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by edluva

tokyo didn't build skyscrapers to "appeal" to urbanists. developers built them because there really was no space. demand for space exceeded supply, hence, the need to create more space. vertically. the operative word is *need*

los angeles, on the other hand, *does not need* a single additional skyscraper. it is a suburban wasteland for a couple reasons:
1. there are not many important institutions in this metro for its size, and
2. what office space exists is scattered throughout the expansive suburban wasteland in the form of countless suburban office parks in non-descript suburbs like costa mesa, carson, and woodland hills.

and contrary to what some la boosters love to repeat, the "nodes" like downtown glendale, century city, and downtown los angeles actually don't account for much of our metro-wide office space when taken as a whole. it's the the countless 2-3 story office parks scattered amongst all those hundreds of square miles in between these nodes which constitute the bulk of our regional commercial real estate.

so basically, greater los angeles dug itself a deep glut of low-quality commercial real estate and doesn't have enough educated people or big companies to fill them, which is the first step required before anyone will consider new construction in our core.

Downtown LA, Century City and Glendale alone account for something like 75 million square feet of office space, so ya, they do account for much of the office space in the LA area. you are right though, the scattered 2 story offices do make up a significant amount unfortunately

[edluva]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Downtown LA, Century City and Glendale alone account for something like 75 million square feet of office space, so ya, they do account for much of the office space in the LA area. you are right though, the scattered 2 story offices do make up a significant amount unfortunately

actually it's more like:

glendale - 6msf
century city-10msf
downtown la- 32msf
total = 48 msf


and just for some perspective:

westside+wilshire (includes century city) - 59msf
los angeles county - 186msf
*source - grub ellis


so 48msf out of 186msf for la county (roughly 300msf for the metro) is relativey minor. so going back to my point about la forumers giving our landmark skyscraper nodes way more psychological importance than is reflected by reality, you can see that the vast majority of la's white collar employees drive to non-descript office parks in random suburbs, and that with "nodes" like century city, downtown glendale, and burbank, even though their mini-skylines appear psychologically significant against the backdrop of the suburban wastelands that surround them, they are peanuts in terms of their actual role as employment centers.

so no matter what happens, LA will never see a skyscraper boom even a fraction of the level seen in tokyo, or even chicago. we have too much office space, and 87 percent of it is scattered across literally thousands of square miles in such a way that we won't ever have a dominant urban employment center. this city has gone awry for so long that nothing, not even a mass transit renaissance, can turn things around. la has been a victim of its own success - of sprawling its way into a generic hell. it is the epitome of the generic city. unimportant locations for unimportant office parks for unimportant people, and a present day struggle to find meaning amongst ubiquity.

our hope is in laying a good framework (a concentrated mass transit infrastructure) to support future inner-city growth. but the question then becomes, how much more will we grow?

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by edluva

so no matter what happens, LA will never see a skyscraper boom even a fraction of the level seen in tokyo, or even chicago. we have too much office space, and 87 percent of it is scattered across literally thousands of square miles in such a way that we won't ever have a dominant urban employment center. this city has gone awry for so long that nothing, not even a mass transit renaissance, can turn things around. la has been a victim of its own success - of sprawling its way into a generic hell. it is the epitome of the generic city. unimportant locations for unimportant office parks for unimportant people, and a present day struggle to find meaning amongst ubiquity.

Obviosuly, L.A. will never boom like Tokyo, as Tokyo is the biggest city in the world, and really, almost no city can compare. Chicago, on the other hand. One of the biggest reasons Chicago boomed over the past few years is that, due to incentives, companies have began to relocate to the core. Yes, L.A. has a lot of office space outside of its nodes, but now, we are starting to see a shift. Companies are relocating from suburbs to the core. This is happening to L.A. as well. Just a few weeks ago I read about a company that is moving from Universal City to DTLA. As this trend continues, more office space will be built in the nodes, and the scales will shift. Moreover, much of the Chicago boom was residential. I have no doubt that, in 20 years, DTLA will have an amazing skyline. Not with office skyscrapers, but with residential towers. As of now, the residential occupancy rate in DT is like, 95%, and rents are rising every quarter. Regardless of current office demand, there is clear residential demand, and as more people relocate to the core, more people will want to work closer to where they live, and more companies will begin to relocate to the core as well, to follow the people they serve. I do agree, though, that, in many respects, L.A. was a victim of its own success. When it matured, in the 60s, and 70s, L.A simply followed the current urban trends. In a way, it is a perfect example of a mid-century city, and I'm sure, at the time, L.A. was considered one of the most perfect cities anywhere. Now, of course, trends have changed, and we as a society value urbanity more then suburbanity. L.A. simply needs to catch up. Luckily, I think it will.

[edluva]

^change will not come that fast. this real estate stagnation will last at least another 5-10 years, so your prediction that some magical housing boom will cause a flurry of skyscraper condo construction rendering ours an "amazing skyline" in 20 years is highly unlikely. and who cares about skylines anyway? that's a juvenile preoccupation. we care more about quality urbanism throughout the city, and that requires money and improved land use intensity (it requires white collar employment density) which brings me to the following point...

urbanism is something that takes decades to develop. the significant redistribution of office space into a more concentrated setting would require a tremendous population and industrial boom the likes of which doesn't occur in the industrialized world anymore. another ridiculously unlikely scenario. sorry, but a few (or even a few dozen) companies relocating into downtown is not going to do this.

and bringing up chicago is moot. chicago even before the recent condo boom was already leagues ahead of los angeles in terms of quality urbanism. we should hope for even half the quality urbanism and land-use intensity of pre-boom chicago, notwithstanding chicagoland's notorious sprawl of course.


so to put it crudely, los angeles of today is a big urban-planning fuck-up. an 18 million large fuck-up. it's been done and you're not going to be able to significantly change what has been laid down.

our hope is in channeling future growth into good urban growth. but unfortunately we can never escape the fact that the bottom of the iceburg (the fuck-up) will always be the bulk of our city, and that we will forever be pound-for-pound much much less of a city than our population suggests because of it.