LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[Troubadour]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

I disagree though I do see your point. Los Angeles is a truly beautiful city though it's beauty is VERY different from a lot of other cities. If you were to lay out hundreds pictures of street scenes from random cities all over the world, I would point to Los Angeles and say, 'that's LA.'

I agree on that - I can instantly tell if an outdoor scene of a TV show or movie that takes place somewhere else was shot in LA. It has a strange, glossy orderliness that doesn't exist in places with more organic energy. But it's never been very intrepid in exploring that about itself - it just happens by default. The fervid murals you're probably referring to in talking about "ugly beauty" seem like a contrasting reaction to that orderliness.

[alki]

Original post by dtlaCuriousity;

Definitely a fan of this. It pulls you in, allows for good use of public space while you hang around in the area, and directs you to another pleasant area near the Library Tower.

I wish I could see it in the flesh.

[alki]

Original post by RAlossi;

BTW, there's a historic theater operator that wants to lease the UA Theater from a new buyer. At least there's a plan for that beautiful building.

http://blogdowntown.com/2010/08/5605...am-on-broadway

Some day a grateful LA is going to celebrate the day the LA Conservancy was founded and then managed to keep safe this and so many other theaters on Broadway. What other city in this country has such a treasure trove of old theaters on one street? Kudos LA Conservancy!

[alki]

Original post by Colemonkee;

Now, I understand that the higher planters are likely there for security - to keep someone from driving a vehicle into the plaza. But it can be done in a much more pedestrian-friendly way, that allows for better sight lines and access for pedestrians. A good example is the pocket park in front of LAPD HQ, which uses low-slung benches to keep autos out (also adding functionality to the barriers, as you can sit on them), and puts plants around those benches.

I agree with Pesto.......I don't see the planters as an obstruction. However, I do not like the stone they used and they could have made the planters lower so people could look into the plaza from the street.

Some day there will be perfection!

[alki]

Original post by Sopas;

[QUOTE]And is it just me, or does the Citigroup Center building look really nice? In the 1990s and most of the 00s I thought it looked dated, but I like the way it looks now, I think it's aged pretty well for a late Modern building. Maybe the use of stainless steel paneling and green tinted glass has helped it age well (compared with the mirrored/reflective tinted windows that are on the Bonaventure Hotel, which now totally look discolored and oily)? It's from that period in Modern architecture when the skin of the building really was literally treated like skin, with the windows being flush with the curtain wall panels (to maximize leasable floor space square footage). I'm thinking it looks better than the US Bank Tower, which I now think looks horribly dated; I still like the way it looks from a distance, but now up close it's looking kinda dowdy, especially next to the Citigroup Center. At least that's my opinion.[/QUOTE]

I have always liked the Citi bldg....just wished the corners had been rounded.

Thanks for the photos. Well done.

[alki]

Original Post by ThreeHundred;

but overall, LA is a beautifully ugly city.

No city does ugly better than LA. I was reminded of that fact when I took a 'brief stroll' through Curbed LA's archives. Some of the crap I saw reminded me I've why I would get frustrated when I lived in LA. But it was the parking garage next to the Angelus Temple in Echo Park that put me over the edge. How did that monstrosity get approved and built???

[202_Cyclist]

This is interesting but not surprising. For at least the past two decades, the fastest growth in CA has been in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, where there is an abundance of land and housing prices were cheaper (not surprisingly, this is the area gaining legislative seats in the current redistricting process). As Chris Lienberger from Brookings has pointed out, however, demographics and consumer preferences are changing. I don't know the exact percentage off hand but something like 50% or more of households do not have children living at home. These people do not want to live in a gated community nor do they want to drive an hour each way to work (or get a gallon of milk). They want to be able to walk to nightlife, a coffee-shop, etc. At the discussion by Mr. Liengerger that I attended, he noted that for most of the post-WWII period, developers got realy good at building single-family homes and for most of the period from 1945-2000, provided these almost exclusively. Thus, therre is a tremendous pent-up demand for urban housing and, in fact, it is this housing that has maintained its value far better during the recent downturn in housing prices.

California to suffer housing shift, UCLA forecasters say
Demand will grow for urban rental units by the coast and shrink for single-family homes inland, resulting in fewer construction jobs and no boom for some areas hit hard by the housing bust.


Chain-link fences surround homes left unfinished in Hesperia. Demand for inland single-family homes is expected to decline. (Katie Falkenberg, For The Times / June 15, 2011)

By Alana Semuels
Los Angeles Times
June 15, 2011

"UCLA forecasters have seen the future of California's housing market, and it looks like this: more apartments near the coast, fewer McMansions in the desert.

That prediction is based on several factors, including expectations that rising fuel prices will encourage people to live closer to jobs along the Southland coast and in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The state's population is also skewing younger, meaning there will be more demand for urban rental units and less demand for suburban cul-de-sacs, according to the quarterly economic forecast released Wednesday by UCLA's Anderson School of Business..."

http://www.latimes.com/business/real...,3144669.story

[pesto]

Interesting. In general it sounds reasonable. As the article notes, the housing boom was artificial (government guarantees and subsidies or loans to bad risk borrowers) and naturally enough crashed, but has left lots of housing.

The move will be toward more rentals, but I'm not sure that that will be on the coast. I suspect that putting multiple people into houses in the IE will prove to be preferable to living in expensive housing near the coast or run-down neighborhoods in the city. That's why people moved to the IE in the first place. Wanting to be near nightlife is "westside yuppie" talk; substantial numbers of real people don't make decisions like that.

They don't talk about the continued outflow of people based on the quality of education and attitude toward business. The young people with skills are going to leave and be replaced by immigrant young people without skills. This is what will drive the move toward multi-person use of empty sfh's and the drive away from home ownership. Unfortunately, more in LA than in the Bay Area since LA receives more unskilled immigrants.

[DistrictDirt]

Walking past 537 Broadway this morning (does this building have a name?) I noticed that the plywood barrier around the 1st floor had come down, and that some workmen were removing the retractable metal doors.


537 Broadway

While I think the doors make for an urban feel (maybe because I associate them with Brooklyn and Manhattan), there's no question that they diminish the pedestrian experience (no window shopping after hours), and make Broadway feel forboding and desolate. They're also just plain ugly, as you can always see the retracted doors, even when they're closed.

All that to say, its great to see another building on Broadway lose the doors. Back in DC I don't remember seeing many metal doors, but there were a ton of barred windows. As each neighborhood gentrified and became safer, the bars came down. Nice to see the same thing start to happen here.

[202_Cyclist]

pesto

The move will be toward more rentals, but I'm not sure that that will be on the coast.

The larger national builders will have to adjust to this or else they will go the way of the automakers with their near-death experience. Much of the urban infill planned or under construction now is apartments and not owner-occupied units. The builders who focus on this segment of the housing market have the flexibility to do this and it makes sense to offer them as rentals as long as economic growth remains slow. On the other hand, I might be wrong, but I don't think Pulte or Toll Brothers has ever offerred one of their new homes as a rental.

Wanting to be near nightlife is "westside yuppie" talk; substantial numbers of real people don't make decisions like that.

Perhaps but you can substitute gym, grocery store, restaurant, or any other amenity for "nightlife." The point is people increasingly want a neighborhood where they don't have to drive everywhere, where there is some stimulation, and where they don't have to pay thousands of dollars per year in gas and other auto expenses. People might not want Hong Kong or Manhattan living but nor do they want Temecula either. Walkable urban neighborhods are going to become more desireable as energy prices continue to rise, roads become more congested, and the demographic trend of fewer households with chiildren living at home continues.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt;5316251

[IMG

http://i.imgur.com/LsUMZ.jpg[/IMG]
537 Broadway

Looks good. I did some quick research on the building, to look for historic photos, and I gotta say, they certainly cleaned up that facade over the last couple years. However, I couldn't find any historic photos of the building so that I may learn what the bottom floor looked like before it was gutted. Does anybody know? Moreover, does anybody know if there are any plans to clean up and restore the bottom floor of the building? Thanks.

[sopas ej]

In my quick rudimentary search for that building, I couldn't find any old photos that showed the whole thing, but this is what I found:

1939

USC Archive

537 S. Broadway is the building at the extreme left of the photo. Broadway looked so much better back in 1939.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

In my quick rudimentary search for that building, I couldn't find any old photos that showed the whole thing, but this is what I found:

1939

USC Archive

537 S. Broadway is the building at the extreme left of the photo. Broadway looked so much better back in 1939.

How intriguing. It looks to me as thought the original bottom floor facade never actually was part of the building, and was the retailers choice. That makes me feel a lot better about the current lack of bottom floor facade, as it looks like there isn't really anything to restore. Anyways, prepare for double post.

[Illithid Dude]

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/0...e_santa_fe.php



I'm not sure what is more exciting in this article; the fact that One Santa Fe has an official ground breaking date of January 2012, or that WE ARE GETTING A NEW SUBWAY STOP. Judging by my use of capitalization, it would seem that I have decided on which article of news is more exciting. Micheal Maltzan, the architect of One Santa Fe, is one of the most talented L.A. area architects out there, so it is great to see him doing something so major. He is, in my opinion, one of the only architects that can make stucco look appealing. Moreover, the fact that One Santa Fe is $150 million is really cool. That shows that even in a post-recession world, developers are still going to build big in downtown, not just talk about possibly building big. Downtown is like that snowball that rolled down a hill, picked up snow, and turned into an avalanche. There is no stopping an avalanche. Anyways, on to the subway stop.

Metro is going to extend the Red and Purple Lines from Union Station to the Arts District. In the picture, you can see what the proposed station will look like. From a transit enthusiasts point of view, this is cool, because it is L.A.s first open-air heavy rail station. Also, it has a sky bridge connecting it to One Santa Fe, also very cool. Moreover, I bet this station will canalization the Little Tokyo Gold Line stop, due to it being quicker and Heavy Rail and stuff. The station, by the by, will cost only $90 million to build, which is incredibly cheap.

[JDRCRASH]

$90 Million?! That sure is cheap. Then again, all you're really doing is building a platform and a pedestrian walkway.

Hopefully this will be a prelude to a Whittier Blvd extension.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

pesto


The larger national builders will have to adjust to this or else they will go the way of the automakers with their near-death experience. Much of the urban infill planned or under construction now is apartments and not owner-occupied units. The builders who focus on this segment of the housing market have the flexibility to do this and it makes sense to offer them as rentals as long as economic growth remains slow. On the other hand, I might be wrong, but I don't think Pulte or Toll Brothers has ever offerred one of their new homes as a rental.


Perhaps but you can substitute gym, grocery store, restaurant, or any other amenity for "nightlife." The point is people increasingly want a neighborhood where they don't have to drive everywhere, where there is some stimulation, and where they don't have to pay thousands of dollars per year in gas and other auto expenses. People might not want Hong Kong or Manhattan living but nor do they want Temecula either. Walkable urban neighborhods are going to become more desireable as energy prices continue to rise, roads become more congested, and the demographic trend of fewer households with chiildren living at home continues.

I would hope so, but the trends don't bear it out. LA, the Bay Area and most other cities are growing faster in the outer counties than in the inner core (e.g., SF slowest, Santa Clara moderate, Contra Costa and further out, the fastest; ditto LA, OC and IE). With an enormous unused stock of housing, you don't need to build out there; you just move in.

IF LA can turn it around and attract large employers, they will want to go to medium denstiy suburban parks. But unless something changes (and I don't believe it will), a rapid out flow of employers will offset the trends you note. This will make low cost housing the only hope for most new immigrants.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/0...e_santa_fe.php



I'm not sure what is more exciting in this article; the fact that One Santa Fe has an official ground breaking date of January 2012, or that WE ARE GETTING A NEW SUBWAY STOP. Judging by my use of capitalization, it would seem that I have decided on which article of news is more exciting. Micheal Maltzan, the architect of One Santa Fe, is one of the most talented L.A. area architects out there, so it is great to see him doing something so major. He is, in my opinion, one of the only architects that can make stucco look appealing. Moreover, the fact that One Santa Fe is $150 million is really cool. That shows that even in a post-recession world, developers are still going to build big in downtown, not just talk about possibly building big. Downtown is like that snowball that rolled down a hill, picked up snow, and turned into an avalanche. There is no stopping an avalanche. Anyways, on to the subway stop.

Metro is going to extend the Red and Purple Lines from Union Station to the Arts District. In the picture, you can see what the proposed station will look like. From a transit enthusiasts point of view, this is cool, because it is L.A.s first open-air heavy rail station. Also, it has a sky bridge connecting it to One Santa Fe, also very cool. Moreover, I bet this station will canalization the Little Tokyo Gold Line stop, due to it being quicker and Heavy Rail and stuff. The station, by the by, will cost only $90 million to build, which is incredibly cheap.

This is all good stuff. I assume the similarity to a train wreck was coincidental?

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/0...e_santa_fe.php


Metro is going to extend the Red and Purple Lines from Union Station to the Arts District. In the picture, you can see what the proposed station will look like. From a transit enthusiasts point of view, this is cool, because it is L.A.s first open-air heavy rail station. Also, it has a sky bridge connecting it to One Santa Fe, also very cool. Moreover, I bet this station will canalization the Little Tokyo Gold Line stop, due to it being quicker and Heavy Rail and stuff. The station, by the by, will cost only $90 million to build, which is incredibly cheap.

There has been no approval by the Metro board, or an EIR about this station that I'm aware of. Isn't this just a proposal (plea?) to get Metro to build a station here? Unless you hear this news from the Metro board..I'm not holding my breath.

Personally, I would LOVE for this station to be built, if it does happen. I just wouldn't tie the One Santa Fe groundbreaking to the station construction. Until, again, Metro board approves and something is done about an EIR, if applicable.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

There has been no approval by the Metro board, or an EIR about this station that I'm aware of. Isn't this just a proposal (plea?) to get Metro to build a station here? Unless you hear this news from the Metro board..I'm not holding my breath.

Personally, I would LOVE for this station to be built, if it does happen. I just wouldn't tie the One Santa Fe groundbreaking to the station construction. Until, again, Metro board approves and something is done about an EIR, if applicable.

Actually, if I am correct, the EIR for this is being included in the Wilshire Purple Line extension EIR.

Anways, a word on some minor construction in downtown.

http://blogdowntown.com/2011/06/6277...nderway-on-7th

The Okada Resturaunt building on 7th is going through a renovation. The bottom floor is being converted to retail, above which will be offices. The kicker is the top floor, which is going to be a penthouse, which is very interesting, and also very cool.

[jamesinclair]

RE: citiplaza

Looks like the redo went from making it an extension of the street, a public plaza for all, to a private employee-only plaza. Im not saying outsiders arent allowed, but 100% of the design says "private property"

Typical corporate move.