LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by ziggy331

However, it's hard to find a lot of people (at least around my neck of the woods) that support the stadium in DTLA with concerns of tax money being used and of course the typical traffic arguments.

It's my understanding that the tax money being used is for the work on the Convention Center only. Who do people think should pay for this? Our city underperforms when it comes to drawing conventions... this is a smart tax expenditure in the short term that will bring in more long term tax revenue.

[BrighamYen]

Originally Posted by 213

^ Street traffic is nominal on weekends, but freeway traffic generally isn't. Compounded by stadium inflow, congestion would be severe enough to deter many from venturing downtown for other reasons.

Traffic alone is not a reason for nixing the project, but it's a factor to be considered if downtown is to remain a casual and appealing destination. If getting here becomes a presumed chore, we jeopardize that.

Uh oh, a NIMBY being born in Downtown LA?

That's the number one argument NIMBYs across LA use to shoot down projects. "Too much traffic!!!!"

If that's the case, then DTLA should discontinue building ANYTHING, because as it stands right now, people still drive their little cars. Let's not build the stadium because it could attract 5 new hotels! That'll make traffic EVEN WORSE!!!

[bobcat]

From what I've read the city would issue bonds for the portion of the convention center being replaced, but that the bonds would be paid for by a surcharge levied on the stadium tickets. Therefore tax money really wouldn't be used at all.

Traffic concerns? Seriously? People will find a way if they want to get there badly enough. How do a million people get downtown for the Lakers victory parade? Even though the rail system isn't complete there are still plenty of transportation options available. In a few years the Expo line should be completed to SM along with the Gold Line Foothill extension. Coupled with the existing lines all that's needed is to beef up Metrolink service and most people will have the option to take a train into downtown.

I also understand AEG intends to finance much of the downtown streetcar.

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by 213

^ Street traffic is nominal on weekends, but freeway traffic generally isn't. Compounded by stadium inflow, congestion would be severe enough to deter many from venturing downtown for other reasons.

Traffic alone is not a reason for nixing the project, but it's a factor to be considered if downtown is to remain a casual and appealing destination. If getting here becomes a presumed chore, we jeopardize that.

So if traffic is a problem, why isn't Santa Clarita the most bustling city in the southland? There's no traffic there. Why build in LA when Santa Clarita has some serious asphalt that can park cars!

We shouldn't hold economic progress to traffic. If we did, we'd be no better than any midwestern town or Santa Clarita with limited cultural attractions. Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, DC, etc.. have TONS OF TRAFFIC. This is not an LA thing, it happens in every city. But those aforementioned cities are awesome because of what we offer. A football stadium creates more economic benefits and makes Los Angeles an even greater city than our outlying suburbs (which we shouldn't compare against, we need to be the New Yorks, Chicagos, Londons of the world...not freakin' Kansas City or Oklahoma City).

Now, if we continue to hang on this thread about "traffic problems"...what do you expect to do to fix that? Build more lanes, more parking? Any of those "solutions" will just give people more convenience to drive and park, that Metro rail and bus becomes an afterthought (oh, why should we go Metro, there's lots of parking). This stadium won't happen until 2015 at the earliest; by then we'll have Metro rail to Culver City (and Santa Monica in 2016...2015 will not happen no matter what the FB Official Expo Line page says), Long Beach, Hollywood, Asuza (via Pasadena), East LA. By 2020, we'll probably have the DT Connector, Crenshaw Line, and a subway to Wilshire/Fairfax completed. So if we get caught up on this "oh what about the traffic", we'll never get anywhere. We're Los Angeles. Not a 2nd rate city.

By the way, what's going to happen to demand for driving when gas price settles to $4 by end of 2011 and $5 by end of 2013/14? We need to start focusing on alternative transportation methods instead of more conveniences for car drivers (parking, wider lanes, left-turn signals, restricted street parking, etc...). People will take Metro if it's convenient and the other options are not as convenient. Right now, driving is too darn convenient in LA.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

The Lorenzo
44 stories - Residential


(Photo credit: http://www.ghpalmer.com/home.html)

I'd like to nominate this image for "Worst Rendering Ever". Who's with me?

[BrighamYen]

Once DTLA has a critical mass of activities and things to do (i.e., retail shopping, etc.), no amount of traffic will deter most people from wanting to go downtown because it'll offer a completely unique urban experience that is not available ANYWHERE outside of a handful of cities on the West Coast...I'm thinking SF, Seattle, maybe Portland and San Diego's downtowns.

What 213 fails to understand is that as DTLA gains more and more activities, surpassing all other areas in LA County (including Pasadena and Santa Monica or Beverly Hills, etc.), it will be worth it to people to FIND A WAY to get downtown.

The fact that this stadium event center won't be completed until like 2015 realistically, means that the Expo Line would be so close to opening in Santa Monica that more options to take mass transit downtown will be available to people on the notoriously congested Westside. Don't forget that the Purple Line will open stations up in PHASES. By 2015, we may already have a completed station at La Brea/Wilshire.

[ThreeHundred]

I don't understand how people can say that a football stadium downtown will snarl traffic to gridlock status. Never mind the fact that Charlotte, Indianopolis, Cleveland, Cinncinati, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Seattle, and a few other cities have football stadiums downtown. And they get along fine. New Orleans hosts the Super Bowl every few years and they manage just fine with the huge influx of media and whatever else. And LA has more transportation options than any of those cities.

[Just-In-Cali]

Off the stadium topic, but something interesting on the Wilshire Grand Project. It appears to have a dedicated website now. Im not sure if its been mentioned or posted yet, but it has a some interesting insight into the project.

www.wilshiresquare.com

Follow the link...and add your thoughts!

[213]

For whomever missed it:

Originally Posted by 213

Traffic alone is not a reason for nixing the project, but it's a factor to be considered if downtown is to remain a casual and appealing destination.

In other words, build it in my backyard, but do it smartly and with enlightened regard for concurrent dynamics and goals. As urban enthusiasts we understand that nothing occurs in a vacuum, or can be duly evaluated on broad assumption (let alone the promises of a developer).

Once DTLA has a critical mass of activities and things to do (i.e., retail shopping, etc.), no amount of traffic will deter most people from wanting to go downtown because it'll offer a completely unique urban experience that is not available ANYWHERE outside of a handful of cities on the West Coast.

...provided that the shopping and dining are absolutely unique in a region that also contains Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. Provided, too, that the urban inclinations of Angelenos are generally as robust as yours and mine.

[Just-In-Cali]

It also features a couple of videos and a downloadable PDF. The "walk through" video seems a bit dated, as I had seen it on a news report in 2009, before the official heights were released...so the rendering seems a bit short compared to the newest rendered images that more clearly show the heights given of 1,250 ' for Twr A and 750' for Twr B

[BrighamYen]

Originally Posted by 213

For whomever missed it:


In other words, build it in my backyard, but do it smartly and with enlightened regard for concurrent dynamics and goals. As urban enthusiasts we understand that nothing occurs in a vacuum, or can be duly evaluated on broad assumption (let alone the promises of a developer).

...provided that the shopping and dining are absolutely unique in a region that also contains Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. Provided, too, that the urban inclinations of Angelenos are generally as robust as yours and mine.

From my anecdotal experience, there are always a substantial subset of people that are attracted to "energetic" locations. If I had a nickel every time I heard someone tell me how disappointed they are coming back to LA after visiting a robust city like New York, Shanghai, Beijing, SF, Chicago, etc., I'd be rich.

There is NO OTHER location in SoCal outside of maybe DT San Diego that is as 3-dimensionally urban as DTLA. Not Long Beach, not Hollywood, not Santa Monica, not Pasadena, not Beverly Hills Golden Triangle.

That's why I said when DTLA reaches a critical mass of MANY, MANY THINGS TO DO AND SEE, which it hasn't yet reached, it will offer a unique experience unrivaled anywhere outside of a handful of downtowns on the West Coast. It doesn't mean Santa Monica or Pasadena or Hollywood will dry up, but it does mean that throngs of people will converge on DTLA that will fill up its street grid with ENERGY that is 3-dimensional (not linear) and create an urban experience that many Angelenos and visitors will be addicted to. And we all know there is no lack of people in this region, so as long as even a decent percentage of the 18 million people in this area want to visit DTLA on any given day, DTLA will reign supreme.

And the fact that eventually DTLA will be the undisputed hub of a robust rail transit system (Purple, Red, Expo, Gold, Blue, Metrolink, HSR, etc.) means it will benefit tremendously from that energy influx.

[bobcat]

There does seem to be an unmet demand for this type of urban experience--just witness the runaway successes of Art Walk and CycLAvia.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

If I had a nickel every time I heard someone tell me how disappointed they are coming back to LA after visiting a robust city like New York, Shanghai, Beijing, SF, Chicago, etc., I'd be rich.

I've also noticed that in ppl I've spoken with going back yrs & yrs. Their reaction is worse due not just to the city's robustness---or a lack of enough of that---but cuz of the fugly factor in too much of LA. IOW, ppl don't just say "zzzz....this place isn't exciting!", they also say "peeuuu, this place looks like a dive!"

they can walk down the street or turn the corner in too many part of the city & run into things not much better than this:



things are better today than they were just a few yrs ago, or definitely over 15 yrs ago. Ex: the difference between the intersection of 5th & Broadway today compared with several yrs ago. And when the chester williams bldg on the NE corner of those streets is finally cleaned up & opened, we'll look back at 2011 & realize there still was alot of need for more improvement.

but we in LA shouldn't have ever allowed things to get so fugly & decrepit to begin with. That's why I laugh at ppl who complain & say "we can't have a new bldg for sports....it will cause too much traffic!!!" but maybe that's the reason the city became so bad in the first place. Too many ppl here would say "it will cause too much traffic!!" Or "it will cause a shadow!" or "it's too fancy!" or "it's too cityfied!" Or "it's too $$$!"

[RAlossi]

Citywatch, you really just busted out that infamous photo from six or seven years ago on this thread (Vol. 1)?? Dude!

[RuFFy]

That's why we need more people who actually live in downtown to contribute to this thread because they keep this thread alive and can take pictures of the crust.

All my friends who come to LA look at telephone poles and just.. ::yawn::

[BrighamYen]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I've also noticed that in ppl I've spoken with going back yrs & yrs. Their reaction is worse due not just to the city's robustness---or a lack of enough of that---but cuz of the fugly factor in too much of LA. IOW, ppl don't just say "zzzz....this place isn't exciting!", they also say "peeuuu, this place looks like a dive!"

they can walk down the street or turn the corner in too many part of the city & run into things not much better than this:



things are better today than they were just a few yrs ago, or definitely over 15 yrs ago. Ex: the difference between the intersection of 5th & Broadway today compared with several yrs ago. And when the chester williams bldg on the NE corner of those streets is finally cleaned up & opened, we'll look back at 2011 & realize there still was alot of need for more improvement.

but we in LA shouldn't have ever allowed things to get so fugly & decrepit to begin with. That's why I laugh at ppl who complain & say "we can't have a new bldg for sports....it will cause too much traffic!!!" but maybe that's the reason the city became so bad in the first place. Too many ppl here would say "it will cause too much traffic!!" Or "it will cause a shadow!" or "it's too fancy!" or "it's too cityfied!" Or "it's too $$$!"

Ugliness still takes a back seat to well functioning cities. Paris is supposedly one of the "prettiest" cities in the world right? When I went, I just didn't feel it. It wasn't one of my favorite cities of all time.

Also, here are some pictures of Taipei, which I consider pretty butt ugly. But it's a city a lot of people like because of the energy of the city and because it functions pretty well with the MRT subway system. Notice the ugly alleys and power lines.








metrolic.com



michaelgormley.com



wired.com



michaelturton.com

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

Paris is supposedly one of the "prettiest" cities in the world right? When I went, I just didn't feel it. It wasn't one of my favorite cities of all time.

but, LAB, it's not what you feel, but what you SEE. so many parts of paris are sort of like bev hills, but on steroids. IOW, you don't keep running into fugly hoods, fugly streets. instead you see mile after mile of OK to great devlpt. so there's nothing that screams out "deadzone!! dump!!!"

i'm sure parts of Tapei are bad too, but the pics you show don't quite equal the pic I've posted when it comes to Every city has its weak or bad parts. But the difference is the amt of the good compared with the bad. LA has been hurt cuz nice hoods, nice streets don't dominate our town. so you're on a nice street, but only a few blocks or miles away it becomes bad. then it becomes nice for a short stretch, but then, after that, it becomes bad again.

this is true of most american cities, esp in the midwest & south. But LA needs to be way better than those places.

and Ralossi & ruffy, I agree if you think this part of the DTLA projs thread is getting way too OT or too generic. Or too much of a zzzzz. So if some of these posts get deleted by colemonkee, I won't be surprised.

Back OT: someone mentioned the proj at 8th & grand, on land owned by the devlpr of the Concerto. the post said the devlpr may increase one of the bldgs in size?! that would be very interesting. But if the news were confirmed, we'd then get news that the proj will break ground in 2020. or if it were instead 2011, that we'd be told that the funder has just bailed out & now the proj is on hold.

Maybe the reason this thread keeps getting too OT or generic is cuz the reality of the hood booming with totally new devlpt isn't too high right now.

[Westsidelife]

The same conversation is rehashed every two months or so.

LAB: Beijing is "robust?" How so? Beijing is exactly like LA -- an agglomeration of dispersed activity centers connected by large traffic-choked highways/arteries.

[BrighamYen]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

The same conversation is rehashed every two months or so.

LAB: Beijing is "robust?" How so? Beijing is exactly like LA -- an agglomeration of dispersed activity centers connected by large traffic-choked highways/arteries.

I've never been to BJ before, but that's what my friends tell me after they come back?

For me, I think LA is in such desperate need of a strong downtown core that I think DTLA is absolutely the most important part of LA in terms of the city's future marketability.

Sure, LA is more akin to a spread out urban core like London, Paris, or Tokyo with many centers, but you cannot DENY that most people DO THINK of DTLA as part of their idea/impression of the city.

It is important that DTLA continues to attract FLAGSHIP caliber businesses, which it is currently doing with restaurants like Bottega Louie, Mas Malo, Drago, Chaya, etc. The next phase will have to be FLAGSHIP caliber retail that trumps other stores in size and prestige. That gives an area cache that extends far beyond JUST shopping. It's a "halo effect" that will attract other creative energy that will snowball into greater things.

A strong downtown will have enough GRAVITY to not only attract a lot of people, but also have enough MASS to hold the impression of an entire area. Think of Pasadena: relative to its size, most people ONLY think of Old Pasadena. If you go east of Lake Avenue, Pasadena starts to look like a dump along Colorado Blvd. with ugly car dealerships and motels all the way to Arcadia really. But because there's ONE area that is done really well, OLD PASADENA, people will overlook the crappy parts of Pasadena and focus on the good.

Same with DTLA. If it was REALLY REALLY nice, people would overlook a lot of LA's other ugly parts and focus mainly on this new downtown. Then we would actually have "LA Pride" again as people can grasp the concept of LA and relate it to a certain area finally (instead of the sprawling suburbs to nowhere). The connection with the built environment would be stronger than ever as people finally converge in DTLA and walk to everything. Of course, this is many years out because it entails developing AT LEAST another 2 dozen parking lots (some are very big parking lots like 8th/Grand, Olympic/Olive, etc. etc.), but who knows, perhaps DTLA will go thru another building boom like San Diego/Miami in the future...

[RAlossi]

DTLA did pretty well last round of development. Of course, we were 3-4 years late, which ended up hampering development and slowing the momentum of the neighborhood.

Last cycle, the population of the neighborhood went from under 10,000 to nearly 43,000 (45,000+ once the recently opened buildings fill up). Most of the "adaptively reusable" buildings in the Core were rehabbed. Large cultural projects were underway or completed, including the Disney Hall and the Colburn addition. LA Live. Improved transit. Top-level restaurants.

Even with the effects of the recession, the number one thing I'm hearing residents say now is... where the **** is the retail?? I feel like we're on the verge of the next phase of the development wave, which is taking the ground-floor retail environment to the next level. This is being led by Target.

I just fear there's not going to be a cohesive plan for where to put it. All I can say is, Broadway, Broadway, Broadway. That's the last big chunk of the puzzle missing before I'd be completely satisfied with the progress of the past ten years. I think once 5th/Broadway becomes a residential square over the next year (Jewelry Trades, Metropolitan, SB loft building and now the Chester Williams Bldg), that will send a big message to the other Broadway building owners. 9th and Broadway is already transforming and looks completely different with the Blackstone; as well as a mishmash of buildings up and down the street, either residential (like the Judson, Broadway/Spring Arcade) or the improvements/renovation to Clifton's.

Anyway, that's just my assessment as a resident.