Grand Avenue - Presentation Tuesday 22 February 2005

LongBeachUrbanist · #1 Posted: **Feb 20, 2005, 11:09 PM**

The Grand Avenue Committee, working with Related Companies, will be presenting its work to-date at the following meeting.

. Tuesday, February 22
. 6:00 - 7:30 pm
. Dorothy Chandler Pavilion Grand Hall
. 135 North Grand Avenue
. Free Parking at LADWP
. Located at 111 North Hope Street

There will be other meetings throughout the region, although last time, most of them were cancelled. So this is the one to attend. Let your voices be heard, fellow urbanists!!!

LongBeachUrbanist · #2 Posted: **Feb 20, 2005, 11:50 PM**

When this billion-dollar project opens in about five years, it is destined to be the crowning jewel of a truly revitalized LA Central City. It would be the greatest disappointment if the project opened in isolation, still surrounded by empty lots and sad empty streets.

Right now the city should be thinking big, and doing everything it can to ensure that the area surrounding this development truly stands out. Specifically, the city needs to

...redouble its efforts to stimulate development along 2nd and Hill Streets.

...fund and complete the 1st Street Redesign Project.

...improve transit and taxi access, here and throughout the city.

...consider creating a landmark bridge at the Grand/4th Street overcrossing, as suggested by architect Doug Suisman.

...lobby the county to tear down those damn buildings.

Grand Center needs to have a world-class grand opening. This will be the world debut of 21st-Century Downtown Los Angeles. A city becomes a truly great city if it is willing and able to take advantage of its own massive developments. Hopefully, our city leaders recognize that this is a singular opportunity they had better not squander.

LosAngelesSportsFan · #3 Posted: **Feb 22, 2005, 5:29 AM**

Great ideas that seem obvious yet it seems as though no one at City Hall gets it. i wish we had a way to talk to hahn face to face. maybe LABeauty can bring it up to his contacts at work or others he knows.

ThreeHundred · #4 Posted: **Feb 22, 2005, 6:06 AM**

Does anyone have any new renderings or models?

bobcat · #5 Posted: **Feb 22, 2005, 10:57 PM**

Anyone going to this? Attendance will probably be low because of the rain.

Wright Concept · #6 Posted: **Feb 22, 2005, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Great ideas that seem obvious yet it seems as though no one at City Hall gets it. i wish we had a way to talk to hahn face to face. maybe LABeauty can bring it up to his contacts at work or others he knows.

It isn't just Hahn, it's Councilwoman Perry and County Supervisor Molina that would need to talk to as well.

I'll be attending the one in East LA because I have a good feeling Supervisor Molina or one of her deputies will be there.

LongBeachUrbanist · #7 Posted: **Feb 22, 2005, 11:38 PM**

Remember everybody, parking is available right at the Music Center. It's important to show up if you care about this critical Downtown project . If you can, RSVP at http://www.grandavenuecommittee.org/calendar.php.

My wife, daughter and I will be there, rain or shine. So I guess the fewer people show up, the more likely I will be able to give comments. That is, if they will be taking comments. I don't know what the format will be like at this meeting. :sly

bobcat · #8 Posted: **Feb 22, 2005, 11:58 PM**

Cool, take notes and give us a complete report.

LongBeachUrbanist · #9 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 6:07 AM**

Just came from the meeting at the Music Center. The plans, in their early stages, are as follows:

The part of the project that would open first would include the parcels between 1st and 2nd, along with the park. These were the focus of tonight's meeting. The parcels west of Grand would open later.

They emphasized they have no control over the County buildings, although they seemed to favor their removal and seemed willing to design the park around their eventual elimination.

Civic center park would be integrated across the three blocks, using lots of integrating design elements, such as path design, scenic steps and view locations.

The three blocks of the park would be programmed separately: cultural/recreational uses, including a "great lawn", for the County building block; public gardens for the center block; and civic uses (like farmer's market, marathon start/finish) across from City Hall. Each segment would have active areas, including cafes, quiet areas, and lots of amenities.

The parking under the park would remain, but the entrances would be redesigned so they wouldn't interfere with pedestrian flow. (Yeah, I've heard that one before!!!)

The main parcels (between 1st and 2nd Streets) would have four towers, between 20-35 stories each. Two would be residential, one would be hotel + condo, and the other (at First/Hill) would be office. Residential ~2000 units.

The pedestrian flow would be along paseos forming an 'X' through the two parcels, with the center of the 'X' in the form of a pedestrian bridge crossing Olive. They promised that adequate connections would be made to Olive Street, but I wasn't so convinced.

The ground floor seemed like it could be very lively. Not just towers, but lots of retail at the street level. As mentioned by others on this forum, they apparently are already working to secure retailers for this project.

The towers were lower and narrower than I expected. Also, they tended to be oblique to the street. That said, it was hard to get a feel due to the strange angles of the renderings. We were told these concepts were preliminary, as architects have not yet begun work in any detail. Also, there seemed to be interest in making one of the towers an 'icon'.

Lots of talk about 'transparency', 'flow', 'airiness'. The East Coast architects seem to have been persuaded by the West Coast people that we are interested more in airiness than density. That said, they frequently cited New York and Barcelona when it came to influences and specific ideas. From my perspective, that's a good thing!!!

Overall, nice job, but of course I didn't like everything. I'd like to see less 'light' and more urbanism. Less enclosed-mall, more street presence. Less pedestrian bridge, more pedestrian sidewalks. Less isolation, more connectivity.

I especially liked the paseo, the public gardens, the "great lawn", and the retail components. This thing's supposed to open in 2009...I can't wait!

LosAngelesSportsFan · #10 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 6:44 AM**

Thanks for the notes. Just curious, how many people at the meeting and what were some of the public comments. Im dissapointed in the floor counts for the towers though, hopefully they will go up because you cant really have a Iconic tower that is 25 stories tall.

LosAngelesSportsFan · #11 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 6:46 AM**

Also, did they ive a timeline? i think i heard they were gonna break ground in early '06. Did they mention any retailers specificly or did they mention what kind of retail and businesses they wanted to bring in?

LongBeachUrbanist · #12 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 7:07 AM**

I'm rarely a good judge of number of people, but I'd guess around 150 showed up. Who knows though, I didn't count.

They broke us up into five groups to take/deflect our comments. Then each group had one participant report the group's issues to the meeting at large. Brigham (LABeauty) spoke for his group, and I spoke for mine.

People generally agreed that the massing of the towers wasn't overdone. In fact, some of us definitely thought that the towers should be taller.

Connections seemed to be a big issue for people. Pedestrian connections, visual connections to the rest of the city, etc. There was also the justifiable fear by some (myself included) that we would repeat mistakes of past Downtown developments. And of course, there were a few Bunker Hill tower residents that didn't want their views of the mountains blocked. (Boo-hoo!!!)

The timeline I saw had the design process completed later this year, with grand opening in 2009. I don't know how current that timeline is, but it was printed on the materials we received today.

The only retailer I heard mentioned specifically was a "Whole Foods" type of market at the street level of Hill Street. That said, there was lots of talk about cafes, restaurants, etc.

LosAngelesSportsFan · #13 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 7:50 AM**

Thank you very much. Glad to hear that ~150 people showed up.

yeah215 · #14 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 8:02 AM**

I wanted to know if any of these materials that you received included any renderings or massings. Do you know where these materials will be posted. Will the website be updated? Also, is there any way that you could post the materials so we can read them? Thanks.

LongBeachUrbanist · #15 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 8:25 AM**

The document I have, entitled "Reimagining Grand Avenue - Project Overview", doesn't have any specifics about the plans. I can tell it was produced after Aug 2004, but other than that, it's not of much use beyond what you'd find on the website.

They had large-size renderings on easels at the meeting. These give a better idea of where they're going conceptually with their plans. I'm sure these renderings will be at the other meetings planned throughout the region over the next week or two.

LAmetroman · #16 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 10:58 AM**

^ LongBeachUrbanist, what group were you part of?

From the renderings, I saw the tallest tower somewhere in between California Plaza 1 and 2. They seemed to be all residential, with one having a possibility of government/residential. Also, my group's leader (from Related), almost gave up on First Street, saying it was too busy and too wide for retail.

Over all, I thought the work was very segmented. The park was one project, the 'paseo' another project, and the parcels west of Grand Avenue almost an afterthought.

I wished to see some sort of uniftying concept/element. The representatives of Related seemed to push residential and neighborhood residential, something that would not provide for a focus of Los Angeles.

Wright Concept · #17 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAmetroman

^ LongBeachUrbanist, what group were you part of?

From the renderings, I saw the tallest tower somewhere in between California Plaza 1 and 2. They seemed to be all residential, with one having a possibility of government/residential. Also, my group's leader (from Related), almost gave up on First Street, saying it was too busy and too wide for retail.

Over all, I thought the work was very segmented. The park was one project, the 'paseo' another project, and the parcels west of Grand Avenue almost an afterthought.

I wished to see some sort of uniftying concept/element. The representatives of Related seemed to push residential and neighborhood residential, something that would not provide for a focus of Los Angeles.

This sounds like the same crap they've done in NYC with the Columbus Circle development it's an internal mall with a Whole Foods on the Ground Floor, I believe other retail elements from the Columbus Circle will be present or an exact carbon copy in this development.
This sounds the same things they did at the October meeting. Did anyone push for trying to integrate the MTA/Downtown Connector into the project? If not it's cool, I'll just mention this at the East LA meeting, hopefully Supervisor Molina or a representative of hers will be there.

It sounds like they are just going through the motions and pushing the residential aspect because this is what will make them money yet provide an incentive to create an actual neighborhood. If this was truely a Civic Imaging project, there would be representatives from MOCA, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Wells Fargo Center and California Plaza all working together AND there would actually be meetings happening instead of all of them being Cancelled.

LongBeachUrbanist · #18 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 6:57 PM**

LaMetroMan, I was in Group 2, the guy with the blue shirt and the little girl that talked.

I agree that the project didn't have the kind of focus I would have liked. It seemed like everybody was focused on residential, residential, residential, plus retail and local park...as opposed to a bold statement of LA, one that would be a draw for tourists from around the world.

Of course, all of these things are key components. Lots of residential and retail, and an improved park, are going to help make Downtown work. But what we also need is a bold stroke, like a grand tower or bridge...something that will announce LA to the world.

I'm sorry to hear your leader has given up on First Street. First street's problem isn't that it's too wide, but that it's surrounded by government ghetto. Yet another reason to keep govt bldgs like the Police HQ north of First, IMO. BTW, I wonder if they know that the First Street Redesign project has been approved and will start soon?

I specifically asked about Grand Avenue, since I thought part of the project was a streetscape redesign along Grand down to the Library. My leader said that was no longer in the scope of the project. Hmmmm.....

In fact, the organizers had very little to say about specific connections from the W/Q parcels (the main ones) to the surrounding streets. Of course, when people started saying they wanted more connections, they assured us that connections would be there. Hmmmm....

Of course we have to understand that the developer needs to turn a profit. But we cannot allow them to make the same old mistakes again. World class teams of developers were competing for this thing, so we need to hold this team to account.

LongBeachUrbanist · #19 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 7:08 PM**

One more thing, the budget I keep seeing is: $900 million private money for the project, and $300 million public money for infrastructure improvements.

Of course, much of the $300 mill will go the park. But I kept hearing this attitude of "this or that is outside the scope of the project". We've got a third of billion in public money going into this thing!!! So we've got a right as taxpayers to push for good pedestrian connections to the surrounding neighborhoods!!!

PV, please push this when you go to the Eastside meeting. If you can, find out specifics on the connections, and make sure the message gets across that we want density, connections, and a bold stroke!!!

LongBeachUrbanist · #20 Posted: **Feb 23, 2005, 7:25 PM**

I've got it...A BOLD VISION!!!!

A vast bridge, starting at the W/Q parcels, going over First Street, over the County Building, and ending in the park!!!!!

That would be f-ing awesome!!! It would be iconic, beautiful and functional, all at the same time! It would be the ultimate tourist attraction!!! People would be talking about it everywhere, and would come downtown just to go over the bridge!!!

It would solve the whole "how do you get into the park" problem. At the same time, Related would love it because it will bring people to their development.

Can you imagine it?

I'm not talking a crappy ped-bridge, BTW. I'm talking about something beautiful. Think about the Golden Gate Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Eiffel Tower. With views of the entire city. WOW!!!

Plus, over the long run, I think it would eventually bring about a great hue and cry to tear the County Eyesores down!!!

(BTW, seriously think about it. The more it rolls around in my head, the more I like the idea!!!)