LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I think perhaps me using the phrase 'post-gentrification' might have not been the wisest idea. There are people that would readily argue that downtown will always be gentrifying, at least in some part. It's too open ended of a phrase, too loosely defined. And so, let me clarify:

It's not that I don't believe that downtown can't be improved, or that this is the best that downtown can get, as I believe the exact opposite, that there is room for untold improvement, and the best that downtown can be is still far off into the distance. Downtown, for me, has had this stigma of being a sort of an 'experiment', a 'fad', where a few hipsters (there I go using that word again) live in some brick-walled lofts and generally act artsy and harmless. Downtown, according to this stigma, won't take hold as a real neighborhood. I feel like this has changed, that downtown is a real, permanent, important neighborhood, and that L.A. proper has realized this. Just look at the rate new developments sell or lease out- The Jeffries has been on the market for a few short months and is already over half leased. From what I saw today, downtown is no longer 'revitalizing', but is officially 'revitalized'. Yes, there are areas that need to be improved (Broadway, the Lower Historic Core), but taken as a whole, downtown has finally reached critical mass.

I don't think LA is officially "revitalized". I live at 9th/Flower and the blocks bounded between Figueroa - Olive - 7th - 9th need significant improvement for me to suggest that. It's so barren of a walk from 9th street the subway at 7th street. 7th street, Spring St, Main St, Broadway, etc... are all happening areas, but there are definitely deadzones between activity centers. Until you get people walking off a linear path and crossing over streets/boulevards to other points of interest, then I will say "we've made it". Right now, it's still a linear activity center with Spring St and 7th St being the anchors. We need more retail and nightlife on all other streets.

[ziggy331]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Oh, and 7th and Grand looks almost complete, and very nice. The materials they used are really great, and the whole complex has a super clean, minimal, 'iRobot' look.

I'm assuming you meant 7Th and Fig but nonetheless, I was also in downtown this past weekend to check out the new park and I snapped this photo along the way:



I like it- once City Target opens up it will definitely be a game changer for DTLA. Hopefully they have great success. If that happens, I'm sure it will go a long way in convincing other retailers to open downtown.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

no, 7th and grand is a new restaurant / bar / lounge thats opening next month on the corner of 7th and grand. it looks great

[Illithid Dude]

I meant 7th and Fig.

[Mojeda101]

The E3 convention that always is hosted at the LA Convention Center just signed a contract to stay in LA until 2015. Could this complicate the Farmers Field project further?

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

The E3 convention that always is hosted at the LA Convention Center just signed a contract to stay in LA until 2015. Could this complicate the Farmers Field project further?

The plan is for AEG to build the new convention center halls first, and then demolish the west hall and build Farmers Field. Some of the articles are saying that all construction would be suspended for the duration of the 2013 convention, which runs for one week. Others say that AEG would start and finish construction in between E3 2013 and E3 2014.

[RST500]

So whats the status on the LA Central Site? I hope its not going to become another crappy lowrise like with the Liebeskind Tower site.

[Steve2726]

Originally Posted by RST500

So whats the status on the LA Central Site? I hope its not going to become another crappy lowrise like with the Liebeskind Tower site.

Ask these guys, they own the lot-

http://moinian.com/corporate/residen....php?s=3&b=316

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by RST500

So whats the status on the LA Central Site? I hope its not going to become another crappy lowrise like with the Liebeskind Tower site.

Sadly still on hold. Although have hope, miracles happen. Hopefully the construction in the area will encourage the construction on LA Central to begin.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Sadly still on hold. Although have hope, miracles happen. Hopefully the construction in the area will encourage the construction on LA Central to begin.

Here's a thought. Maybe this is what is happening with the lot where City House/Olympic is supposed to rise. Whether anything that rises there takes shape in that form remains to be seen, but either way, we might be seeing the beginning of the end of another dead zone.

[colemonkee]

LA Central is a fully entitled site, so it should be pretty attractive to a developer looking to swoop in and pick up a distressed property for future development. It may not be starting this year, but I wouldn't count it out down the road. I said this a couple pages back - and the Downtown News just published an article that agrees with this theory - but I think this is the model for the next couple years of downtown development: developers with deep pockets or access to financing picking up distressed properties that already have entitlements for below market value, making the project pencil out with slight revisions. I would wager we'll hear some news regarding the LA Central property over the next 12 months. There's no concrete basis for this - it's just my gut feeling.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

LA Central is a fully entitled site, so it should be pretty attractive to a developer looking to swoop in and pick up a distressed property for future development. It may not be starting this year, but I wouldn't count it out down the road. I said this a couple pages back - and the Downtown News just published an article that agrees with this theory - but I think this is the model for the next couple years of downtown development: developers with deep pockets or access to financing picking up distressed properties that already have entitlements for below market value, making the project pencil out with slight revisions. I would wager we'll hear some news regarding the LA Central property over the next 12 months. There's no concrete basis for this - it's just my gut feeling.

i was about to post the same exact thing and then i saw your post. these are my thoughts exactly. people shouldnt worry about the LA central site being a short building. this is a trophy location and AEG will make sure that the site is maximized to work with LA Live

[edluva]

i think any new green space is a great thing for los angeles, so in that respect, this is exciting.

but while i do acknlowledge that it's a small piece of land to begin with, i still feel it was a bit of wasted potential and money, and an utter disappointment. the park should have been greener, with less concrete. from a design perspective it already looks somewhat dated, and will appear outdated rather quickly. it's also very tacky with a lack of design cohesion - the obtrusive lighting, the neon furniture, the granite, the random greenery - no unifying style or message and no tie-in to context. a resigned "it does the job" result more befitting a suburb in the valley or orange county than the civic center of a global city.

contrast this with the high line, or millenium park. there is a clear design philosophy with both. for example the high line was successful at preserving memory of the infrastructure (rail ties, sections of track, slatted park benches) and planting involved meadow shrubbery that give the park the appearance of natural regrowth reclaiming industrial infrastructure. the aesthetic message is clear and it's beautiful. millenium park is very orthogonal, but like high line, the green scape was much more thoughtful and of much higher caliber than grand ave's greenery. and while it's larger than grand ave, it is still only 25 acres, so we lose that as an excuse. again but in a different way, much more imaginitive incorporation of design and architecture (and in millenium park's case, acutal visual art) than grand ave.

in all i'm glad we're beginning to value public space here, but the stark gap in the level of professionalism and creativity of planning here in los angeles drives home the painful fact that los angeles is an amateur in the league of global megacities. we are already far outclassed by much smaller cities around the world.

[202_Cyclist]

I don't want to get into a city vs. city competition but the Yards Park (http://www.yardspark.org/) that openned two years ago in DC should be an example for the rest of the nation for how to create a vibrant, beautiful park.

[ThreeHundred]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

LA Central is a fully entitled site, so it should be pretty attractive to a developer looking to swoop in and pick up a distressed property for future development. It may not be starting this year, but I wouldn't count it out down the road. I said this a couple pages back - and the Downtown News just published an article that agrees with this theory - but I think this is the model for the next couple years of downtown development: developers with deep pockets or access to financing picking up distressed properties that already have entitlements for below market value, making the project pencil out with slight revisions. I would wager we'll hear some news regarding the LA Central property over the next 12 months. There's no concrete basis for this - it's just my gut feeling.

I've thought about this as well. There are lots that are all over downtown that have had buildings proposed for that site. LA Central, Park Tower, Indigo (remember that?). While I don't think LA Central will rise in the way that we remember it, those lots, especially in and around the South Park area are going to get more and more and more valuable. Even parking lots that no one ever talks about are only going to get more and more eyes on by potential developers. For example: if ever there needs to be a large scale office/hotel/residential project, it needs to be on 8th and Fig (in between the 777 Tower and Macy's Plaza).

And in regards to parks: I agree with edluva. I just spent 2 weeks in Chicago and went to Grant Park as well as Millenium Park and have come to realize that LA needs to step up. Now. Grand Park is far from a terrible park (because it's quite good actually) but as a city, Los Angeles needs to mature. Pink parking benches are fine and dandy and at least Grand Park has things to do (I'm guilty of wading around in the splash area) but compare that to Grant Park. LA has the venues comparable to those found at Grant Park but as a city, LA needs to do better.

Speaking of parks, heavy equipment is on site of the Spring Street Park so at least that's near the starting gate.

Now if only something were to happen to Pershing Square. I know that people always say that they want to see the Pershing Square of old but I think that a modern park with historical elements is what that park needs.

[Hubris]

You get what you pay for.

Millenium Park cost $475 million.

Highline cost $152 million.

Grand Park cost $56 million, and was privately funded.

The creativity came in getting Related to commit $50 million towards the park as part of the still stalled Grand Avenue Project.

[LAofAnaheim]

Here's an interesting question....should there be pedestrian bridges connecting the 3 "Grand Park"s instead of having pedestrians cross car traffic to get to the next "Grand Park"?

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Here's an interesting question....should there be pedestrian bridges connecting the 3 "Grand Park"s instead of having pedestrians cross car traffic to get to the next "Grand Park"?

I think there should be one crossing Grand Ave as well. When I was at the park in the opening day, so many people went to the music center fountain thinking that was also part of Grand Park.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Here's an interesting question....should there be pedestrian bridges connecting the 3 "Grand Park"s instead of having pedestrians cross car traffic to get to the next "Grand Park"?

Or, the best case scenario:

1) Knock out the county buildings
2) Close Hill, Broadway, and Spring
3) Move the parking ramps
4) Create a continuous green space roughly bounded by Grand, Temple, 1st, and City Hall
5) Put plenty of trees and native plants
6) Make an even BIGGER fountain
7) Quadruple the size of the crosswalk at Grand, maybe use something like fancy-pants red bricks
8) Beautify the entrance to the subway
9) Build an awesome Streetcar stop on 1st

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Or, the best case scenario:

1) Knock out the county buildings
2) Close Hill, Broadway, and Spring
3) Move the parking ramps
4) Create a continuous green space roughly bounded by Grand, Temple, 1st, and City Hall
5) Put plenty of trees and native plants
6) Make an even BIGGER fountain
7) Quadruple the size of the crosswalk at Grand, maybe use something like fancy-pants red bricks
8) Beautify the entrance to the subway
9) Build an awesome Streetcar stop on 1st

The park will virtually triple in size.