LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[Illithid Dude]

My biggest issue with Union Station is simply that I would prefer recourses to be focused on improving already built neighborhoods (Historic Core, FiDi, South Park) instead of creating something entirely new. For every high rise built behind Union Station, I'll just wish it was built on a parking lot next to L.A. Live, or in the Historic Core.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

pesto:



I'm not going to get in another debate about high speed rail but you could easily imagine someone wanting to live next to Union Station if they were a consultant and traveled to San Diego a couple times per month and perhaps flew from Burbank a couple times a month as well. I don't know how many such people there are but that convenience would be very attractive.

I agree... not getting into city VS city, but there are currently 5 condo towers, 25+ stories, surrounding San Diego's Union Station, less busy than LAUS... I don't see why LA can't do the same...

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

My biggest issue with Union Station is simply that I would prefer recourses to be focused on improving already built neighborhoods (Historic Core, FiDi, South Park) instead of creating something entirely new. For every high rise built behind Union Station, I'll just wish it was built on a parking lot next to L.A. Live, or in the Historic Core.

Well, the Metro "Taj Mahal" does pretty much stand alone as the only high rise near Union Station. Another building or two would definitely help the area! Plus, you're now densifying an area around a major transit hub that has Metrolink, Red, Purple and Gold Line trains coming every few minutes. That area needs more development.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

My biggest issue with Union Station is simply that I would prefer recourses to be focused on improving already built neighborhoods (Historic Core, FiDi, South Park) instead of creating something entirely new. For every high rise built behind Union Station, I'll just wish it was built on a parking lot next to L.A. Live, or in the Historic Core.

I can see what you're trying to say... working with what we have until we run out of space and need to spread development elsewhere correct?? I prefer it that way too but come on... it would totally be awesome to see development towers around US =D

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

My biggest issue with Union Station is simply that I would prefer recourses to be focused on improving already built neighborhoods (Historic Core, FiDi, South Park) instead of creating something entirely new. For every high rise built behind Union Station, I'll just wish it was built on a parking lot next to L.A. Live, or in the Historic Core.

The major difference between Union Station and Historic Core/South Park/FiDi is that MTA owns a lot of the land, therefore they're creating a master plan to develop that land in the best way possible. Those kind of master plans take 10, 20, or 30 years to complete, and are sold piecemeal to private developers as market conditions dictate. The exact same thing is happening around the Historic Core/South Park/FiDi neighborhoods, only the properties there are owned by various private entities, and will be developed as market conditions dictate. We're seeing a helluva a lot more activity in those three sub-markets at the moment anyway, largely because they've already established a market momentum and demand. That momentum and demand won't diminish on any meaningful scale just because some master plan is approved around Union Station 3 years from now.

[Gram3000]

Do you think that Downtown will create its own form of "provincialism" once South Park, Fidi, Historic Core, etc full gentrify and mature into their own identities? Will these areas continue to form their own pocket in a sense further creating the "chasm" or "dead" area (Skid Row, Warehouse Dist) between them and Union Station, Little Tokyo & Arts District to become even more of an island?? or what do you think "Skid Row" will develope into within 20 years? Is it better to have a seamless connection of hoods or should "Skid Row" still keep its "gritty factor" for decades to come?

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I'm not sure how much credence you should be giving to an internet poll.

Originally Posted by Pink Floyd

I can't see how a survey like this can bring you to the concusion that "there's something very wrong" with LA.

believe me, if that were the only instance where ppl seem quite & about the city, I wouldn't take it seriously. but I've seen other opinion polls through the yrs that aren't much better. I still think such a reaction is way more negative than it should be, but apparently many other ppl out there wouldn't agree with me or don't feel the way I do.

I mentioned a few months ago about taking ppl from out of town & showing them LA. Their reaction, esp around the dt area, wasn't too good. I have to admit that even I....when I think the public's response is more than justified.....will go to dt, see things not in the abstract but as they really are, & come away very disappointed. I always feel like such a on those occasions, or like the moment in the famous comic strip when Lucy at the last second pulls away the football from charlie brown & he falls flat on his back.

Why does this matter? It's probably one of the major reasons that talking about projs around Union station is pie in the sky. I feel like it's no less realistic to talk about how we'll spend the money after we've won the $1 million Lotto. iow, most businesses still aren't moving to the hood. So how can anyone think about building more new towers when the existing ones, some of them completed over 20 to 30 yrs ago, still have lots of empty space?

Too many ppl still resist the idea of being in dtla, moving to dt....in spite of improvements like the red or gold lines....& I think a big reason for that is many ppl still feel when they think of LA, esp the oldest sections.

I don't wanna end on a down note.....& since I always prefer posts here that have pics in them, I'll show this image of the new marriott hotel, as of a few minutes ago....



marriott2lalive.com

[RuFFy]

Opinion polls, in my experience, consistently show California and Los Angeles are America's most disliked state and city, respectively, when those being polled are Americans. At the same time, California and Los Angeles are consistently rated Americas best state and city when those being polled are foreigners.

I also agree that adding Union Station to the mix doesn't take from any other area downtown. IMO, it would be naive to not create a vision for USPT. As far as the idea of living near union station to catch a train being dumb, I completely disagree and this is why. In 2000, I felt public transit was for poor, less abled people. It was not the image I wanted to portray. Now, im not saying my opinion then was fact, but i feel many people in the LA region feel, or have felt, the same. With greater exposure to public transit since including a few years of commuting downtown via foothill transit express, then having moved to New York and moved primarily by public transit it exposed me to something very valuable. The cost of owning and operating, insuring, maintaining, etc, a vehicle far exceeded the $86/mo transit pass that got me around the city on a daily basis. So now, when looking for a place to live, high on my list are transit options. I look for the opportunity to reduce auto expenses by replacing it with public transit whenever possible. I know there are some who still wouldn't agree with my assessment, but I'm willing to bet a bigger majority do, aaand probably felt as negative as I did about public transit some 12 years ago. Attitudes change, and living near HSR that functions like Metrolink locally at a hub of heavy and light rail transit is quite appealing, and with the cost of vehicle ownership on the rise, its likely to become even more appealing.

[202_Cyclist]

Regarding LA's Union Station, there are two threads in the transportation forum about large train stations either planned or under construction and a separate thread about the $7B plans for DC's Union Station, which would include approximately 1,300 units of housing, as well as several hundred thousand square feet of office space. Both of these would be a good comparison for what LA can do with the area surrounding Union Station.

[Mojeda101]

I was asking this on the Skyscrapercity page. Could you imagine Los Angeles had there not been height restrictions from 1904 to 1957? It was said the restrictions were put into place to not cause the "urban canyon" effect like in New York City or Chicago. It was also said they put it into place to allow California's natural sunlight to penetrate the sidewalk level.

Imagine our city had the restriction not been in place.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

I was asking this on the Skyscrapercity page. Could you imagine Los Angeles had there not been height restrictions from 1904 to 1957? It was said the restrictions were put into place to not cause the "urban canyon" effect like in New York City or Chicago. It was also said they put it into place to allow California's natural sunlight to penetrate the sidewalk level.

Imagine our city had the restriction not been in place.

I wonder that all the time. Imagine, the Eastern Columbia Building being 500 feet tall....

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I wonder that all the time. Imagine, the Eastern Columbia Building being 500 feet tall....

I'd imagine the historic district would be much taller overall. Majority being buildings with 20-40 floors with a few with maybe 50 and more. The downtown area would probably have been much larger overall too. Could have gone as far as Washington Blvd or at the very least Pico. I mean the Continental building was 13 floors and it was 1904. I'm sure they would have kept the example and would have grown more and more. Without the height restriction, nothing could have stopped them.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

I'd imagine the historic district would be much taller overall. Majority being buildings with 20-40 floors with a few with maybe 50 and more. The downtown area would probably have been much larger overall too. Could have gone as far as Washington Blvd or at the very least Pico. I mean the Continental building was 13 floors and it was 1904. I'm sure they would have kept the example and would have grown more and more. Without the height restriction, nothing could have stopped them.

I think downtown would have been smaller. The reason it is as large as it is today is that as the buildings were shorter, they had less space, and more building needed to be built. For example, ten fifteen story buildings have the same amount of office space as five thirty story buildings. I would think, though, that if anything, buildings would have higher ceiling heights then they do now.

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I think downtown would have been smaller. The reason it is as large as it is today is that as the buildings were shorter, they had less space, and more building needed to be built. For example, ten fifteen story buildings have the same amount of office space as five thirty story buildings. I would think, though, that if anything, buildings would have higher ceiling heights then they do now.

The way I see it is this. Due to the height restriction, it didn't really bring a lot of investors or architects to look into the Los Angeles area for that reason, the building wouldn't be tall. I'd imagine if the height restriction was gone, it would bring more people into the city to try and get their buildings there. This would then cause a race for tallest building if you ask me. LA would look more like the other young cities that didn't have height restrictions as severe such as San Francisco or Seattle but in a much larger scale. Although we are just speaking gibberish. We'd never know how the city would have turned out.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

The exact same thing could be - and was - said about South Park less than 10 years ago. In fact, in 2004, when I started taking the first pictures for this forum of the construction of Eleven - when it was still a hole in the ground - South Park was written off by the vast majority of media pundits, realtors, and commenters on a then-burgeoning site called "Curbed LA." It's that very attitude that we know eventually rings false if enough money and willpower are behind proving it false. In 2002 or 2003, very, very few people could ever imagine living in South Park, and now it's much more desirable. With the right conditions, the area around Union Station could very well be the same story in 2018.

Well, for sure just about everyone commenting on Curbed is negative; but I take your point that South Park was a debated proposition that has done well.

But if you mean office towers or mid-to-upper residential towers I don't see it. And I assume no one is talking affordable highrise.

What I expect is low-rise affordable; a few transit-oriented hotels and fast food; that's about it unless you get rid of the jails and warehouses. If they ARE removed, then it's easy to imagine 3-5 story apartment complexes in various areas.

[blackcat23]

Not sure how reliable of a source this is, but I ran into a security guard at the Wilshire Grand today who said that demolition is scheduled to start next month.

[Pink Floyd]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Not sure how reliable of a source this is, but I ran into a security guard at the Wilshire Grand today who said that demolition is scheduled to start next month.

At least it's something, there's been no official news as of late. It could still finish by spring of next year in time for the construction of the new building.

It'll be interesting to see how they'll take the building apart, considering there's not a whole lotta room there.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I think downtown would have been smaller. The reason it is as large as it is today is that as the buildings were shorter, they had less space, and more building needed to be built. For example, ten fifteen story buildings have the same amount of office space as five thirty story buildings. I would think, though, that if anything, buildings would have higher ceiling heights then they do now.

I think dt would have been bigger.. taller buildings take up more space on a block than shorter buildings, i think, otherwise the buildings in downtown now would be super thin towers if they were built taller with the same width. I think about what the city would have looked like too.. possibly development all the way to the LA river... would have been nice like Chicago's.

[RuFFy]

Height limit or not I don't think the skyline of Los Angeles would have been any bigger because the central city was just not in demand for most of the 1900's. Perhaps a few taller buildings but nothing on the scale of Chicago... Or even Century City. Who knows, but that's my take.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

Height limit or not I don't think the skyline of Los Angeles would have been any bigger because the central city was just not in demand for most of the 1900's. Perhaps a few taller buildings but nothing on the scale of Chicago... Or even Century City. Who knows, but that's my take.

I can see LA looking like Detroit or Philly's pre-war skyline if LA had no height restrictions owing to the fact that as stated above demand for the central city was already dropping (already sprawling) by the 1940s due to the car, and LA was similar in population to Philly/Detroit through the 1930s-40s.