LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Well i am KIND OF joking. A certain clueless blogger on Curbed LA really wants to see everything gondolafied as a large-scale solution to LA's traffic problem.

LOL, now obviously that's an idiotic idea. However, keep in mind that a gondola can do things that buses and even trains can't: it can climb over hills and mountains for a more direct route... likely at a much cheaper price.

Keep in mind that a gondola/tram was in fact considered not that long ago:

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2008/0...dering_dod.php

I saw that. The proposal is an embarrassment to Cal Poly. I just hope folks confuse it with the Pomona campus. It is too idealistic and unrealistic for the Planning department at Cal Poly, unless it was from grad students or out of the architecture department - each are not bound by things that are practical.

[stuckintraffic]

Actually, an aerial cable transit (a.k.a. gondola or aerial tram) option to Chavez Ravine is not actually all that far fetched. According to this site:

http://gondolaproject.com/2010/06/16...s-lesson-7-3s/

modern systems have capacities of up to 6000 people per direction per hour. With a 2 hour pre-game arrival window, you'd have capacity for about 12,000 people. That's a little over a quarter of a sellout crowd (about 40,000 attendees, I believe). Considering the ridership levels of past Dodger shuttle programs from Union Station (pretty low), an aerial cable tram from the Gold Line Chinatown station could make sense. Most people would still take a car, but the option to take grade-separated transit would be there for those that wished to take it.

And the price would be reasonable, too. Price for a short 1/2 to 1 mile system is in the low tens of millions, as opposed to some sort of rail option, which would likely be hundreds if millions, if not billions of dollars.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by stuckintraffic

With a 2 hour pre-game arrival window, you'd have capacity for about 12,000 people.

Two hours is way too long. Anyone willing to show up 2 hours before a game can just drive, and nobody will want to wait 2 hours after the game to board the tram back. It would be faster to walk.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

Dodger Stadium is good for one thing, keeping the rif-raff away from downtown. other than that, it is a terrible terrible place. Very inhospitable. Only way to get there is by car. And the parking lot is not friendly at all.

If a baseball stadium was proposed for downtown... That would be /(;@$ huge win for the city and fans. Examples of fantastic implementation of a downtown stadium are as close as San Francisco and San Diego. Those stadiums TRANSFORMED the immediate area around them. Residential opportunities and nightlife exploded!

A football stadium... Is closer to introducing a dead zone.

In an ideal world, A baseball stadium would be great downtown. If it needed to be coverable for conventions.... Look no further than Seattle's Safeco Field for something to model. And, construct a super bowl type stadium at Chavez Ravine.... But add multi-use development around it and run a subway to it.

I think the SF and SD stadiums came in at the back end of redevelopment and were not the source of the economic revival. In SD, Horton Plaza, the Gas Lamp District, new and expanded convention and cruise facilities and high-rise housing was in place years (even decades) before Petco. It was more like the last piece. In SF, SoMA had been booming for at least 10 years before ATT was completed. Not just clubs, but Moscone convention center, arts centers, upscale dining, high-rise hotels, high-rise housing, the Caltrain station, highway improvements, etc.

Cisco Field in SJ will be the same idea. Downtown SJ is already rapidly developing and filling in with housing, transportation, nightlife. If and when the stadium is approved, it will fit well in the area; but it is not primary genrerator of the growth.

But, in general, I like baseball stadiums for urban areas.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

If people in downtown LA don't want "traffic", they should move to Santa Clarita, Lincoln, NE, Fargo, ND, etc....ALL WORLD-CLASS CITIES have traffic. Try driving between NE London to Central London at 6 pm on a weekday......you think LA is bad, wait until you drive in London where no motorways go into the Central City.

Traffic is a good thing, it means you are in an area of economic progress. Places with no traffic, are depressed and not economic engines. So, Los Angeles does NOT have a traffic problem.......it has a lack of a large transit network. That's the real problem, not "traffic". There's plenty of suburban cities people can enjoy if they don't want traffic. But they shouldn't be living in LA, Chicago, SF, New York, Toronto London, Paris, Madrid, Tokyo, Beijing, etc.. and constantly complain about traffic. You live in a DESTINATION, not in the middle of nowhere.

COMPLETELY AGREE!!

And traffic in dtla gives people a reason to actually walk the streets instead of having to be stuck in the car in traffic. You can't solve traffic problems, ever... NYC has the most extensive and widely used public transit in the nation, yet they have one of the worst traffic congested streets. It's always gonna be there you can't fix it. And i agree its a sign of economic progress, there's obviously something in the city that people are trying to get to, if downtown was dead then the streets would be free from it.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

Dodger Stadium is good for one thing, keeping the rif-raff away from downtown. other than that, it is a terrible terrible place. Very inhospitable. Only way to get there is by car. And the parking lot is not friendly at all.

If a baseball stadium was proposed for downtown... That would be /(;@$ huge win for the city and fans. Examples of fantastic implementation of a downtown stadium are as close as San Francisco and San Diego. Those stadiums TRANSFORMED the immediate area around them. Residential opportunities and nightlife exploded!

A football stadium... Is closer to introducing a dead zone.

In an ideal world, A baseball stadium would be great downtown. If it needed to be coverable for conventions.... Look no further than Seattle's Safeco Field for something to model. And, construct a super bowl type stadium at Chavez Ravine.... But add multi-use development around it and run a subway to it.

I agree... look at San Diego's before and after pic of the area surrounding petco park. The baseball stadium has been a catalyst for development in the immediate area.

[bobcat]

Pretty impressive numbers for Downtown hotels this past quarter. They led the region with a 15.9% increase in hotel occupancy and a whopping 37.5% increase in revenue per available room.

http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles...et-on-the-rise

This should bode well for future hotel development.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Pretty impressive numbers for Downtown hotels this past quarter. They led the region with a 15.9% increase in hotel occupancy and a whopping 37.5% increase in revenue per available room.

http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles...et-on-the-rise

This should bode well for future hotel development.

An interesting article. The guy interviewed claims that there is little hotel construction activity in LA due to "high barriers to entry", which keeps new hotels out and keeps the existing hotels protected and happy. I wonder how much they contribute to the city council and related boards who are presumably the reason for the high barriers existing.

He also notes that building is so tough in LA that the best way to enter the market is to buy and reposition existing hotels. In effect, this is what the Palomar in Westwood did and also the former Holiday Inn downtown. Some interesting insight on why there are so few new hotels built.

[pesto]

Going on the assumption that Dodger Stadium is not moving, there is still the option of putting a new football stadium in Chavez Ravine. This would make some sense, since the parking is already there and there are advantages of hillside building (ala Industry and Dodger Stadium's planned parking additions). This would create interesting opportunities for development in the areas around and between the two stadiums, which would presumably become entertainment, mid-rise housing and hotels.

It would also leave South Park for a revamped convention center (if anyone believes there is really money in this) and neighborhood growth.

Traffic would be an issue, for sure, and some ideas for connections to Union Station. AEG would hate the idea as would Roski, too, I suppose.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

Traffic would be an issue, for sure, and some ideas for connections to Union Station. AEG would hate the idea as would Roski, too, I suppose.

Traffic will never go away. And, again, you want traffic as it means you are in an economically viable area..and a place of destination. Try driving in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, London, Paris, etc... there is always traffic, but always a reason to go there.

So, forget the "traffic barrier", that will never be won as traffic never vanishes. What's "traffic" in one persons eyes, is not "traffic" in another. And, as somebody who lives on 9th street.......cars are zooming by at 30 - 40 mph at all times, outside of the 1 hour block before/after a Laker game. That's it. No need to expand a waistline just for 1 hours "problems". Traffic does make people consider the use of alternative transit...otherwise, there's no reason to go Metro if you can drive and park for free.


By the way, just read an article that 36% of downtown LA's land is devoted to cars.........now how bad is that. And yet, people don't understand why we have traffic (i.e. more convenience to cars via parking, wide lanes, restricted parking, etc.. --> much easier to drive)

http://www.good.is/post/ban-cars-in-...st-might-work/

So, no more parking lots, structures, etc... LA has too much already. Let's focus on construction for people (housing, offices, transit)!

[pesto]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Traffic will never go away. And, again, you want traffic as it means you are in an economically viable area..and a place of destination. Try driving in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, London, Paris, etc... there is always traffic, but always a reason to go there.

So, forget the "traffic barrier", that will never be won as traffic never vanishes. What's "traffic" in one persons eyes, is not "traffic" in another. And, as somebody who lives on 9th street.......cars are zooming by at 30 - 40 mph at all times, outside of the 1 hour block before/after a Laker game. That's it. No need to expand a waistline just for 1 hours "problems". Traffic does make people consider the use of alternative transit...otherwise, there's no reason to go Metro if you can drive and park for free.


By the way, just read an article that 36% of downtown LA's land is devoted to cars.........now how bad is that. And yet, people don't understand why we have traffic (i.e. more convenience to cars via parking, wide lanes, restricted parking, etc.. --> much easier to drive)

http://www.good.is/post/ban-cars-in-...st-might-work/

So, no more parking lots, structures, etc... LA has too much already. Let's focus on construction for people (housing, offices, transit)!

Agree in part. It is true that traffic is bad in big cities and I agree it will never go away. However, it is still the goal to get traffic from, say, "complete 24-hour gridlock" to "very bad" if possible. You should make choices that help move larger amounts of traffic smoothly.

I agree that surface lots have to go. However, parking structures and "free" parking, in the sense of subsidized by local businesses, are fine. This is just the locals trying to run their businesses; why take a tool away from them that suburban and most urban centers provide?

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

Agree in part. It is true that traffic is bad in big cities and I agree it will never go away. However, it is still the goal to get traffic from, say, "complete 24-hour gridlock" to "very bad" if possible. You should make choices that help move larger amounts of traffic smoothly.

I agree that surface lots have to go. However, parking structures and "free" parking, in the sense of subsidized by local businesses, are fine. This is just the locals trying to run their businesses; why take a tool away from them that suburban and most urban centers provide?

I don't agree that local businesses need to subsidize parking in the downtown core. Look at the success of the restaurants on 7th street, Spring street, Main street, many of them do not subsidize parking. Now, they can rent out valet parking services, but that should their own expense. Subsidized parking is a deterrent of opening business in the downtown core, and actually hurts small business. Most of their business in a downtown core is for the urban "on the foot" person. Look at Walgreens and Rite Aid in downtown LA, they don't need parking, and do tons of business (probably better than the suburbs). Neither do those small businesses on Main street between 6th and 4th. If they really need parking, then there are plenty of places in the suburbs they can rent out.

"Free" parking is a huge deterrent from urbanistic planning, where we can have some nice infill development. Right now, due to our parking requirements we get developments that even you have been championing against (i.e. LA Live!), etc...Imagine the parking for the Marriott when it breaks ground across from LA Live!. Going to other major cities you see tons more small businesses, because of foot traffic. We need to encourage that with infill development (not everybody has to drive), more transit options, biking, pedestrian, density, etc... Parking does nothing to help the latter..in fact, it discourages human activity.

Some parking is needed, but I think downtown LA has plenty with 36% of its land already dedicated to the personal automobile.
P

[pesto]

I don't think that business should have to subsidize parking either. But if they want to, then it's their call not anyone else's. If Walmart chooses to provide free parking (with the costs effectively built into their price) why shouldn't local merchants downtown "validate" parking for their customers? It's their money and they presumably know how to run their businesses better than a committee of bureaucrats waiting for their pensions to vest. They can also validate MTA tickets, if they think this helps their businesses. I expect this will happen when the Purple Line opens and MTA develops more upscale ridership.

Again we have this strange sense that NY or SF or Chicago don't have parking structures. They do, often 5 or 10 story ones in the heart of downtown, to say nothing of parking in office towers.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

I don't think that business should have to subsidize parking either. But if they want to, then it's their call not anyone else's. If Walmart chooses to provide free parking (with the costs effectively built into their price) why shouldn't local merchants downtown "validate" parking for their customers? It's their money and they presumably know how to run their businesses better than a committee of bureaucrats waiting for their pensions to vest. They can also validate MTA tickets, if they think this helps their businesses. I expect this will happen when the Purple Line opens and MTA develops more upscale ridership.

Again we have this strange sense that NY or SF or Chicago don't have parking structures. They do, often 5 or 10 story ones in the heart of downtown, to say nothing of parking in office towers.

San Francisco and New York have no parking minimums in the downtown core....so, as you say "no bureaucrat waiting for their pension" can decree how much parking they have to add. However, downtown Los Angeles HAS parking minimums, just some businesses may get some exemptions if they ask for it (i.e. Wilshire Grand will get 20% parking reduction...400 spaces less than required by law.

The problem is that in LA you are required by law parking, but you can get by with no parking in other cities as they have maximums and not minimums. Unfortunately, one side of the party line who believes in small government, actually advocates for parking minimums. Its the party of large government that doesn't advocate for parking minimum....make sense? Ironic....

[pesto]

This is a change of subject. We were talking about whether local merchants can decide that subsidizing parking with their own money is beneficial to their business. No government decisions or minimums involved.

Whether minimum parking should be required is based on the city's determination as to whether it benefits the city overall (business, residents, etc.). The libertarian answer is typically no, since complete freedom for builders is allowed (put up anything if you figure you can rent it to somebody). A more moderate answer is that it depends on whether it gives an economic advantage to new builders when the already existing buildings were required to have parking; whether alternatives are available; whether the overflow of cars will jam up previously availble parking, etc. In downtown areas, I would lean toward low or no minimums for parking. But I expect the existing residents, landlords and business owners will hate this.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

This is a change of subject. We were talking about whether local merchants can decide that subsidizing parking with their own money is beneficial to their business. No government decisions or minimums involved.

Whether minimum parking should be required is based on the city's determination as to whether it benefits the city overall (business, residents, etc.). The libertarian answer is typically no, since complete freedom for builders is allowed (put up anything if you figure you can rent it to somebody). A more moderate answer is that it depends on whether it gives an economic advantage to new builders when the already existing buildings were required to have parking; whether alternatives are available; whether the overflow of cars will jam up previously availble parking, etc. In downtown areas, I would lean toward low or no minimums for parking. But I expect the existing residents, landlords and business owners will hate this.

Totally agree. I would go libertarian on this issue as well. We should have no requirements for parking, but it's solely up to the discretion and expense of the business owner or landlord. Not mandated city decision.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

im liking the fact that most new restaurants, and even some older ones (palms) are including outdoor seating for their restaurants. adds a lot of life and energy to the streets.

[LAofAnaheim]

Okay........it's been a while, but does anybody know of anything happening in downtown in terms of construction?

All I recall is the YWCA building is wrapping up at 11th/Grand, another Geoffrey Palmer classic is being built at 6th/Whitmer, etc...anything else?

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Okay........it's been a while, but does anybody know of anything happening in downtown in terms of construction?

All I recall is the YWCA building is wrapping up at 11th/Grand, another Geoffrey Palmer classic is being built at 6th/Whitmer, etc...anything else?

Look at the front page


I kid, I kid. There's some affordable housing being built, some stuff down near USC, and, most importantly, The Broad is officially under construction (or at least the parking garage is).

[colemonkee]

^ The New Genesis Apartments on Main (between Winston & 5th) are now above ground, and the first floor looks close to being finished. Also, there are a couple of projects under construction in Chinatown, the Icon Plaza apartment building on the corner of Figueroa & Exposition is building out basement parking floors, and the two projects further north on Figueroa (one at 30th St. and one at 27th) are nearing completion.