almost every streetfront between 110 frwy and hill, 101 and 5th could use more street presence.

the bank of america plaza and that parking structure on 4th between flower and hope could fit 2 more skyscrapers.. or just stuff to do like an arcade or some kind of retail/restaurant space.. another grocery, department store, or theater.

many other blocks in the area have similar needs.. i don't know what an office with so few employees could do, but over the years i hope other offices follow their example and plant themselves downtown.

How I wish the WTC complex and the Marriott were bulldozed to create walkable lots and mixed used development, heck, even mid-sized office towers but in a human-scaled landscape would do...one day.

The courthouse is a go! it will break ground before years end and will open no later than march 2016. another big groundbreaking for DT LA in 2012!

The courthouse is a go! it will break ground before years end and will open no later than march 2016. another big groundbreaking for DT LA in 2012!

Certainly good news as compared to what's there now. But I'm a bit doubtful about the timing and what the scaled-back version is going to look like. I also hold out little hope for the city to put any pressure on the feds to make it attractive, integrated to the rest of civic center or creating any streetlife.

Sorry for the bad attitude.

i wish it was bigger.. capacity is obselete and it hasnt even been built yet.

How do you figure?

it was supposed to be 41 courtrooms, now scaled back to 24..

the royal building has 34 courtrooms and the spring street courthouse has 32 courtrooms. they are both over-capacity.

this new courthouse is replacing the spring street courthouse (trading 32 for 24). the royal building will still operate. so we're really trading 66 total rooms for 56. we actually need about 80-100 rooms and that would probably won't last too long either (if population continues to double in the region every 50 years)

besides this, the civic center is one of the most boring/unwalkable areas in downtown. true ghost-town status and the new lapd headquarters didn't help at all. that building might as well not even be there. i hope this courthouse doesn't take up the whole block. vendors/retailers/restaurants need to occupy the same lot somehow just to help connect pedestrians in historic core/bunker hill/little tokyo with union station/el pueblo/chinatown.

From Bringhamyen.com

http://brighamyen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/marriott-downtown-los-angeles.jpg

Earlier this month, some newer renderings surfaced of Downtown LA’s next ground up hotel, the 22-story Marriott Courtyard and Residence Inn by LA Live. And now another rendering courtesy the Central City Association (via Downtown News) gives us another perspective on how the new hotel tower will interact with LA Live and the rest of South Park. The newest rendering is a sea change from the ugly initial rendering released back in April 2011.

Of course, the Downtown LA community is very excited about this new dual branded hotel combo as it adds 393 hotel rooms to a growing South Park district aimed at becoming the next entertainment and convention hub of the West Coast. Urban infill projects like this also increase density, which subsequently adds much needed pedestrian activity to the area. Especially since the ground floor of the hotel will have a restaurant/lounge with outdoor patio seating along the sidewalk facing Olympic Blvd.

The Downtown News reports that the developer of the hotel, Williams/Dame & Associates, stated at a Central City Association panel event last week that they “plan to break ground in March” and “the project is 85% financed and is on track to secure all of its funding within 45 days.” Most of the funding was secured through EB-5 investments from American Life, Inc.

And perhaps we will see more exciting large scale developments happen sooner rather than later in South Park as AEG’s Executive VP, Ted Tanner, reportedly stated that “AEG is eyeing partnerships with other area property owners to spur development along Francisco Street to improve connectivity between South Park and the Financial District. The concept is currently dubbed “Avenue of the Angels.”

All sounds very urban and positive. AEG entering into private partnerships with other local firms is the way to go. The city should focus on parks, streetscape, fixing roads, public safety, etc.

That picture is FANTASTIC!

United Artists Theater to Be Ace Hotel

Oregon-Based Hotel Chain Confirms Plan to Open on Broadway

Posted: Monday, January 23, 2012 7:45 pm | Updated: 3:53 pm, Tue Jan 24, 2012.

By Ryan Vaillancourt, Staff Writer | 0 comments

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - Oregon-based Ace Hotel has confirmed plans to open in the historic United Artists Theater on Broadway.

Ace confirmed its plan on Monday after moths of speculation that followed the October purchase of the theater at 933 S. Broadway by Greenfield Partners.

The hotel chain's plan calls for 180 rooms in the former office building's 13 floors, and it will include a 1,600-seat entertainment venue in the structure's namesake theater. The plan also calls for a pool, restaurant and bar in the edifice that has not been fully activated in decades, according to the office of 14th District Councilman José Huizar.

Huizar's office, which this week celebrated the four-year anniversary of his Bringing Back Broadway initiative, worked with the Ace Hotel/Greenfield Partners team for several months before the deal to buy the property for $11 million closed, according to Huizar's office.

"Ace Hotel and Councilmember José Huizar's Bringing Back Broadway initiative have the same goals - to create a rich neighborhood destination that serves as a center for activity, tourism, and entertainment in Downtown L.A.," said Alex Calderwood, Ace Hotel co-founder, in a statement.

The Broadway landmark had long been owned by the University Cathedral, a congregation made famous by its late founding pastor, Dr. Gene Scott. The church has maintained the building, which was built in 1927 by United Artists founders D.W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford.

The building was the tallest privately owned building in Los Angeles until 1956, Huizar's office said.

One big step here. I can see the area south of 8th develop quickly since it doesn't have the density of historic buildings that you see further north.

IMO, the new Courtyard render is a substantial improvement over the more generic original one. A much better complement to LA Live.

One big step here. I can see the area south of 8th develop quickly since it doesn't have the density of historic buildings that you see further north.

numerous sites and buildings have sold or come on the market in the last couple months between 6th and 9th on broadway. i think everyone realizes the potential and this area will change asap. add that to the momentum of broadway around 5th street and its only a matter of time before we see a drastically better broadway.

DESIGNS FOR CONVENTION CENTER REVEALED . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture22201274000PM.jpg . At a just-completed meeting of the city's Ad Hoc Committee on the Proposed Downtown Stadium and Events Center, architecture firm Populous presented its designs for the less-discussed part of the South Park NFL stadium plan--the new Convention Center wing. . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture22201274015PM.jpg . Since AEG will need to tear down the Convention Center's West Hall (roughly between Staples Center and the 110 Freeway) to build their Farmers Field, their agreement with the city requires them to build a replacement (here are Gensler's latest renderings for the accompanying football field). . According to the LA Daily News, Populous's design "dramatically reshapes the existing site" by spanning the space between the proposed stadium and the existing South Hall--that'll make for a more connected Convention Center that can handle bigger events. . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture22201273947PM.jpg . LA Planning Director Michael LoGrande tells the LADN that "While elements of the design are likely to change, renderings include restaurants and patios outside the base of the hall, all intended to create gathering spaces...Additionally, there are references to L.A.'s film history, as well as exterior light columns similar to ones outside Los Angeles International Airport." . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture22201274006PM.jpg . Plans also call for 41 billboards. . ADRIAN GLICK KUDLER LACURBED POPULOUS

Seems fantastic!

That entire area is about to be lit up. Between that and this:


And perhaps we will see more exciting large scale developments happen sooner rather than later in South Park as AEG’s Executive VP, Ted Tanner, reportedly stated that “AEG is eyeing partnerships with other area property owners to spur development along Francisco Street to improve connectivity between South Park and the Financial District. The concept is currently dubbed “Avenue of the Angels.”

This next couple of years will be interesting. This means that this board will finally be active again :lol:

more good news, this time from Brigham Yen....

http://brighamyen.com/2012/02/03/wood-partners-22-story-tower-files-for-city-permits-in-downtown-los-angeles/

http://brighamyen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Park5th_Page_045_Image_0001.jpg

the company filed for permits in december to build the 22 story high rise

i like the mention about rethinking macy's plaza.. really needs an entire renovation

more good news, this time from Brigham Yen....

http://brighamyen.com/2012/02/03/wood-partners-22-story-tower-files-for-city-permits-in-downtown-los-angeles/

http://brighamyen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Park5th_Page_045_Image_0001.jpg

the company filed for permits in december to build the 22 story high rise

I love the shot when you scroll down showing the parking lot and where the tower will stand.

That entire area is about to be lit up. Between that and this:




This next couple of years will be interesting. This means that this board will finally be active again :lol:

No kidding:lol:... anyways, these are definitely good news for DT.

Most of the development seems to be south and around the La Live area. How high do we think the non-historic parts of town can go? It's been a long time between drinks for La but with the new marriot hotel, the court house and another 22 story resi, it certainly is a step in the right direction...

Most of the development seems to be south and around the La Live area. How high do we think the non-historic parts of town can go? It's been a long time between drinks for La but with the new marriot hotel, the court house and another 22 story resi, it certainly is a step in the right direction...Agreed, and don't forget the Grand and the Broad.

broad (today)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/VladVerzeni/Buildings/20120210_151114.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/VladVerzeni/Buildings/20120210_151106.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/VladVerzeni/Buildings/20120210_151307.jpg

ugh.. not a lot of sidewalk space, it seems. would have been nice to see retail or even lobby space rather than a blank wall :-/

ugh.. not a lot of sidewalk space, it seems. would have been nice to see retail or even lobby space rather than a blank wall :-/

I was learning that is there is going to be a tower just next to the broad, I'll try to find it, but it will remove that road for room to fit the tower. 19 floors I believe.

This is the unnamed tower.
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/6173/6144157515_67b3895248_o.jpg

ugh.. not a lot of sidewalk space, it seems. would have been nice to see retail or even lobby space rather than a blank wall :-/

That would be an awful location for retail space. Under Grand Ave. They always shoot movies there anyway.

ddxv, thanks for the pics! I have been wanting to snap a few updated shots of the Broad for some time now, but the reality is that neither work nor personal life takes me towards downtown these days.

Mojeda, there are actually two buildings proposed next to the Broad, by the same developer, and they both look rather ugly, especially in contrast to the museum itself. Better renders of these apartment / office buildings were posted previously in some thread on this forum, but I couldn't tell you which one, since we don't have a single thread where all the Broad pictures and news can be concentrated. One reason why a dedicated thread for this complex would be a good idea.

ddxv, thanks for the pics! I have been wanting to snap a few updated shots of the Broad for some time now, but the reality is that neither work nor personal life takes me towards downtown these days.

Mojeda, there are actually two buildings proposed next to the Broad, by the same developer, and they both look rather ugly, especially in contrast to the museum itself. Better renders of these apartment / office buildings were posted previously in some thread on this forum, but I couldn't tell you which one, since we don't have a single thread where all the Broad pictures and news can be concentrated. One reason why a dedicated thread for this complex would be a good idea.Are there any other renders on those two towers?

ugh.. not a lot of sidewalk space, it seems. would have been nice to see retail or even lobby space rather than a blank wall :-/

They are going to cap the road. The sidewalk you see will be in a tunnel.

They are going to cap the road. The sidewalk you see will be in a tunnel.

is it a large walkspace on top then? (that rendered pic makes it look that way)

That would be an awful location for retail space. Under Grand Ave. They always shoot movies there anyway.

it wouldn't necessarily be a bad location.. major dense districts in japan have far more bizarre business placements. an example would be a line of extreme narrow shops, arcades, restaurants in a city-block median between support pillars that hold up urban rail lines.

anyway, it doesn't have to be under grand, just out where people can walk to it from hope street.. but since it's gonna be capped, it would still be nice to have retail (not garage or wall) facing hope on that level.

AN ESCALATOR FOR TARGET AT FIG AT 7TH . PHOTOS BY GARY LEONARD/LACURBED http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture214201215052AM.jpg . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture214201215003AM.jpg . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture214201215058AM.jpg . LACURBED

Are there any other renders on those two towers?

Read what I wrote in my post. I went back and looked for you...they are on page 97, post 1927 of this thread.

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2012.02_8500burton.jpg


Curbed LA

BEVERLY GROVE: Today the 8500 Burton project tweeted this construction shot of itself with a giant crane stuck right in what looks to be its atrium. The project from the Grove's Rick Caruso will one day host 88 apartments and a Trader Joe's. [Twitter]

downtown LA news

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/ladowntownnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/fe/7fe7fd76-22c4-11e1-bd06-0019bb2963f4/4ee2a55b45d7e.image.jpg


Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:00 am | Updated: 9:36 am, Mon Feb 13, 2012.
0 comments

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - The damaged City Hall lawn is set for a makeover, one that will take a little green off the property for the sake of being a different kind of green.


The renovation plan approved by the City Council on Tuesday, Feb. 7, calls for a 51% reduction in the amount of water-thirsty grass in the 1.7-acre public areas that were damaged during the two-month Occupy L.A. encampment last year.
The cost of the makeover, which will replace turf with more drought-tolerant plants and permeable surfaces, while preserving the grassy south lawn for public gatherings, is estimated at about $390,000.
The cost to simply restore the original landscape, city officials said, was $76,000 — far less than the $400,000 that Recreation and Parks officials had first estimated.
The council action paving the way for the work also calls for a private fundraising campaign to help pay for maintenance, which will cost about $135,000 a year.
© Los Angeles Downtown News 2011

Selling brownies to water the City Hall lawn? Remind me of this when I say that LA is world class.

I don't mind spending money on worthy civic projects. But the quoted expenses are just ridiculous. $76K to replant grass on a smallish lawn. $400K to plant drought-resistant plants instead. And $135K per year to maintain. IMO, the requirements here are no more than a couple of gardeners working one or two days per week, a guy stopping by once a day to pick up trash, plus a good sprinkler system. That shouldn't cost $535K.

Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:00 am | Updated: 9:36 am, Mon Feb 13, 2012.
0 comments

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - The damaged City Hall lawn is set for a makeover, one that will take a little green off the property for the sake of being a different kind of green.

You forget the union wages, the supervisors, the environmental specialist, the irrigation expert, the back-office support, the data collectors, the insurance dept staff, purchasing, control, the equal employment analyses and reviews, the allocated overhead, the amortization charged to them from equipment lost or stolen 10 years ago, etc.

These are exactly the kinds of absurdities that keep the majority of the residents of ELA voting to stay unincorporated, the Valley and Hollywood wanting to secede, and businesses looking to get outside the city limits.

Hey guys, first post here but been following this forum for a while now. Anyways, looks like things might be getting a little more interesting at the corner of Figueroa and Olympic; bye bye car wash?:

From downtownnews.com

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/buy-a-car-wash-site-for-million/article_333a453c-59bb-11e1-80de-0019bb2963f4.html

by Ryan Vaillancourt | 0 comments

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - In the column “What’s for Sale,” Los Angeles Downtown News looks at everything from condos to multi-family buildings to vacant lots now on the market. We hope that regular snapshots of individual properties will make for a wide-ranging survey of the overall state of Downtown real estate.

This week, the focus is on the site of the Downtown Car Wash at Figueroa Street and Olympic Boulevard, which is on the market for the first time in 32 years.

The Property:
The site at 811 W. Olympic Blvd. has been home since 1980 to the Downtown Car Wash. The lot measures 36,608 square feet, or nearly an acre. It is listed at $25 million.

Finally for Sale:
Given its prime location, the site has been the subject of many unsolicited offers, especially during the early part of the decade, said broker Rod Delson, who represents property owner Robert Bush. Bush, an 82-year-old who has owned at least three car wash businesses in Los Angeles, was never inclined to sell — until now.
“People have been trying to buy this off him for years,” Delson said. “The price kept escalating and he wasn’t in a mood or position to want to sell…. It’s finally gotten to a point where the land is now far more valuable as an asset to his family than the income from the business.”

Location Cubed: In real estate, location is king, and the car wash sits in somewhat of a Downtown throne. It’s across the street from L.A. Live, and is on a corner — always the most desirable part of a block for commercial property owners. The site is a half-block from Homer Williams’ planned dual-Marriott hotel, which is slated to break ground in March, and is situated between the Convention Center and the Financial District.

Compared to What:
The most recent nearby reported sale was L&R Group’s purchase of a 2.7-acre lot at 1220 S. Figueroa St., which operates as a parking lot, for $31 million, according to seller Ektornet (the price of Williams’ more recent acquisition of land from Anschutz Entertainment Group, to build the Marriott project, was never publicly revealed). The L&R site, however, is entitled for a major mixed-use development with up to 650 housing units. The car wash site does not have development entitlements.
Hello Hotels: Delson said he is in preliminary talks with an array of potential buyers, but the most likely purchaser is a hospitality investor.
“Everyone seems to think there’s a lack of hotel rooms and that’s probably the highest and best use,” Delson said. “We do have people talking about retail with condos above it, but the prime players are hotel developers.”
Largely riding the wave of anticipated business stemming from a possible NFL stadium at L.A. Live, hotel investors have been hovering recently over the Downtown market. Williams’ 393-room project is the only one, so far, to make real progress in South Park. Investors, however, are considering a Hampton Inn on Figueroa Street, and representatives of the long-stalled Metropolis mixed-use project are also courting hospitality users. In the Historic Core, Ace Hotel recently announced plans to open a 180-room property in the United Artists Theater building.

Bad for Ads?:
Speaking of hotels, the car wash has been featured in countless TV shows and photos, mostly in the foreground of the Hotel Figueroa. The hand-painted advertisements that cover the entire south side of the hotel have made it a skyline icon during telecasts of Staples Center events. A high-rise in place of the car wash would likely obscure the Hotel Figueroa’s ads.

Skate to the Bank: Some may be happy to see the car wash site repurposed as a hotel. Not included in that group will be L.A.’s skateboarding community, which has long prized the facility’s odd, sloping concrete walls as de facto urban ramps.

Ciao Cucina:
The car wash site is also home to a corner restaurant space long occupied by Italian eatery La Bella Cucina. Now, it’s occupied by LaGran Cucina.

Lets hope the car wash doesn't
turn into a gas station.

Lets hope the car wash doesn't
turn into a gas station.

Hard to imagine anything but a 15-30 story hotel in that location. A gas station on a 25M lot would sound like a lot even for NY or Tokyo.

I'm a bit surprised the owner would sell at this point, however, since there are estate tax advantages to holding it until he dies.

It's going to cover that three poster tower now =/

Yeah, I ain't too excited about Hotel Fig being obstructed either. :| Oh well. As that area grows with LA Live and all, spots like that become more desirable.

Things are looking up!

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/development/bringing-back-the-building-the-latest-information-on-downtown-projects/article_deefbfaa-59d0-11e1-8447-0019bb2963f4.html

Things are looking up!

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/development/bringing-back-the-building-the-latest-information-on-downtown-projects/article_deefbfaa-59d0-11e1-8447-0019bb2963f4.html

Haven't heard much about this one, but this sounds great...Construction is set to start in April on a $95 million project that will bring a pair of seven-story apartment buildings to South Park by the end of 2013. The project, which will create a total of 247 units, comes from developer Century West Partners, a partnership between Chicago-based Fifield Companies and Los Angeles-based Michael Sorochinsky of Cypress Equity Investments. Last September, the company paid $16 million for two parking lots at 1340-1360 S. Figueroa St. and 1355-1365 S. Flower St.

Haven't heard much about this one, but this sounds great...Construction is set to start in April on a $95 million project that will bring a pair of seven-story apartment buildings to South Park by the end of 2013. The project, which will create a total of 247 units, comes from developer Century West Partners, a partnership between Chicago-based Fifield Companies and Los Angeles-based Michael Sorochinsky of Cypress Equity Investments. Last September, the company paid $16 million for two parking lots at 1340-1360 S. Figueroa St. and 1355-1365 S. Flower St.

I was disappointed to read about the Chinatown enhancements being nixed. Having visited Singapore's Chinatown, ours is sad by comparison. It wouldn't take much either to brighten things up yet we accept that. One would hardly know that they are in Chinatown visiting ours.

I was disappointed to read about the Chinatown enhancements being nixed. Having visited Singapore's Chinatown, ours is sad by comparison. It wouldn't take much either to brighten things up yet we accept that. One would hardly know that they are in Chinatown visiting ours.

That's kind of a mismatch. Like comparing our Ktown to Seoul or ELA to Mexico City.:lol:

But agree that Chinatown needs help; I expect it will be improving but the area may be too limited to ever make it a major district.

Hollywood is about to open its first redeveloped alley. DT could really use these since there are plenty of alleys that are nice and wide, and outdoors space is at a premium in the central core.

downtown had them long before anyone else.. santee is one and the toy factory alley, st v court and that "new alley" (which is diagonal from santee and needs to be redone)

The alleys are there but not developed. Santee is a beginning but is really half-assed and the access from the street is not good. It needs visibilty. But maybe it's better now, I haven't been there in a couple of years.

yeah, it's much better. and it's way developed! there's no room for more businesses to cram into the alley. it's very accessible. always crowded.. i don't shop much for apparrel outside of this area

yeah, it's much better. and it's way developed! there's no room for more businesses to cram into the alley. it's very accessible. always crowded.. i don't shop much for apparrel outside of this area

My confusion. I was actually talking about Santee Court, which was quiet last time I saw it but from the online pictures I found looks much better now. More of that would create the kind of quiet, human spaces that make for a nice contrast with the busy streets.

Santee Alley has been a mass of shops and humanity for some time now.

Wal-Mart Signs Lease for Downtown Space

Work to Remodel Site Near Chinatown for Grocery Store to Begin this Summer


Wal-Mart officials signed a lease for a 33,000-square-foot space at 701 W. Cesar Chavez. Plans call for a grocery store to open by 2013.

Posted: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:13 am

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - Downtown is set to become home to the first Wal-Mart grocery store in Los Angeles County. Company officials announced plans to open a 33,000 square-foot “Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market” by 2013.

Steven Restivo, a spokesman for the Arkansas-based retail giant, said the company has signed a lease for the corner space at 701 W. Cesar Chavez, just east of the Orsini apartment complex near Chinatown.

The space is in the ground floor of Grand Plaza, a 302-unit senior housing project that the CRA helped open in 1991. The space was originally built to accommodate a grocery store. It includes loading docks and 140 parking spaces.

The store will employ 65 people and, besides groceries, it will sell cleaning and paper products. It will also include a pharmacy.

“This store is going to be part of the solution for folks who don’t have affordable grocery options close to home, plus the opportunity to revive a vacant property is right in line with our sustainability goals and is going to help deliver an added economic boost to the area,” he said.

Restivo said that since the space is fully entitled as a market, the project will not require any approval from the City Council. Still, foes of the big-box brand may try and block the store from opening. The Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy said in an email that the group “and its allies are preparing for a major battle” with the retail giant over its plans to open a Downtown store.

The Wal-Mart neighborhood market concept was created by the company in 1998 to offer mostly grocery items in much smaller spaces than the typical Wal-Mart stores, which average about 150,000 square-feet.

There are 167 Wal-Mart Neighborhood Markets in the country but this will be the first in the city and the county of Los Angeles, Revisto said. There are currently 28 Wal-Marts in the county and five in the city.

The space was previously slated to become a Rio Ranch Market, which focuses on the Latino Market. That store was slated to open in 2011, but those plans fell through.



©Los Angeles Downtown News.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/south-park-to-get--story-tower/article_855c0496-6964-11e1-89cc-0019bb2963f4.html

That tower would be a fantastic addition to the skyline!

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/south-park-to-get--story-tower/article_855c0496-6964-11e1-89cc-0019bb2963f4.html

Looks nice. It says the developer plans to break ground by August...

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/ladowntownnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/cd/2cd25ac2-6965-11e1-a9d8-0019bb2963f4/4f59242c8b829.image.jpg

Looks like typical Vancouver...LOL

Does the Marriott have it's own thread yet, I couldn't seem to find it.

Anyways, I drove by and noticed that they gated the site. Pictures soon.
Seems like the 23 story tower will be rising pretty soon. =]

You can thank Illthid Dude, and BrighamYen for this.

http://brighamyen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/DSC01788.jpg

Construction is a go for April.

Threads are created once a project officially breaks ground if I'm correct. Anyway, nice to see the Marriot being on schedule.

Threads are created once a project officially breaks ground if I'm correct. Anyway, nice to see the Marriot being on schedule.

By that logic, LA Central should have never have gotten one then. I just hope that life comes back on with the development in the area. I'm sure with Farmers Field, and the Marriott under construction, investors will want a shot at the development and bring back LA Central.

By that logic, LA Central should have never have gotten one then. I just hope that life comes back on with the development in the area. I'm sure with Farmers Field, and the Marriott under construction, investors will want a shot at the development and bring back LA Central.

I stand corrected then.

Not sure about LA Central, but I'm confident we'll start seeing more development in the area. If I remember correctly, AEG is looking to expand LA Live (besides the stadium) to nearby lots. And with the streetcar having a good chance of coming to fruition, it could only help.

I stand corrected then.

Not sure about LA Central, but I'm confident we'll start seeing more development in the area. If I remember correctly, AEG is looking to expand LA Live (besides the stadium) to nearby lots. And with the streetcar having a good chance of coming to fruition, it could only help.

And it's good that there are plenty around that area. I'm glad those flat lots are finally being replaced. Only problem I see is what about parking for Laker games and such?

More Marriotts, More Money (http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/more-marriotts-more-money/article_079a0f3a-791d-11e1-a590-001a4bcf887a.html)

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/ladowntownnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/51/25136e7e-791f-11e1-ad47-001a4bcf887a/4f7386776fb21.image.jpg

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — The plans for a $172 million new hotel with two Marriott brands wasn’t announced today — that actually came about a year ago. The project hasn’t broken ground yet either — construction is slated to start sometime this spring. Still, hundreds of people showed up at the South Park site of the 373,000-square-foot development this morning to celebrate the effort.

They also put their voices together: At the close of the event for the 174-room Courtyard by Marriott and the 218-room Residence Inn by Marriott — both will be in the same 23-story high-rise — they sang “Happy Birthday” to Bill Marriott. The head of the company turned 80 today, and in honor of the milestone, Anschutz Entertainment Group President and CEO Tim Leiweke gave him a Lakers jersey with his name and age on the back.

Before the song, Leiweke and the others who gathered on the project site, a parking lot at the northwest corner of Olympic Boulevard and Francisco Street, touted the investment being made in Downtown Los Angeles. The development is slated to create more than 800 construction jobs and provide nearly 12,000 square feet of meeting space.

It also stands to boost Los Angeles’ place as a convention and tourism destination. Councilwoman Jan Perry referenced a just-released study by L.A. Inc., the city’s convention and visitors’ bureau, that found that Los Angeles has less than 1,700 hotel rooms within a half-mile of its Convention Center. The average city, according to the study, has 7,300 rooms within that distance. San Diego boasts nearly 8,200 and Anaheim claims 7,800.

“Today is another important milestone in the development of our Downtown,” said Perry.
Marriott has been active in Downtown Los Angeles. The 1,001-room Convention Center hotel across the street from the new project houses a J.W. Marriott and a Ritz-Carlton, which Marriott owns. There is also an older Marriott, a mid-rise at Third and Figueroa streets.

The new project is being developed by Williams/Dame Associates, a Portland firm led by Homer Williams, who previously built the Elleven, Luma and Evo condominium complexes in South Park.

The $172 million price tag is a marked increase from the $120 million cost announced in April 2011. The effort is being funded by Seattle-based American Life Inc., which helps people who invest $500,000 in distressed areas and create at least 10 jobs get Green Cards.

The project is slated to open in the summer of 2014.

LA Downtown News (http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/more-marriotts-more-money/article_079a0f3a-791d-11e1-a590-001a4bcf887a.html)

Daytime rendering of the Marriot hotel posted on blogdowntown (http://blogdowntown.com/2012/03/6662-two-new-marriott-hotels-hope-to-capture-convention)

http://a.blogdowntown.com/i/6cbde9cadf1b4f2810e0fea1f8de51b8/8069-m.jpg?1332977346

How tall is the smaller wing on LA Live? It seems to be just around the same height as the new Marriott, if not, around that area.

Enlarged photo's curtsy of Curbed LA.

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/2782/marriottrenderday.jpg
Image Source: Curbed LA (http://la.curbed.com)


http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4536/marriottrendernight.jpg
Image Source: Curbed LA (http://la.curbed.com)

The new Courtyard Marriott actually appears significantly taller than the JW Marriott portion of LA Live hotels. Guess that's just an optical illusion. XD

According to the pictures, and a few looks on Google Earth, it looks like there will still be a lot right next to the Courtyard. Although significantly smaller than the Courtyard, is it enough space to put a building? Hell, I took a big gander at the area and it just put a big frown on my face.

Look at this! >.<

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a268/mojeda101/lots.png

I'm glad they are slowly filling up those parking lots, but that area could make up 20% of the current skyline if it were filled up.

That parking lot is actually pretty big if you look at it from street view on Google Earth, with more than enough space to build something big (and if they did, they'd probably destroy that small building). And yeah... there's no shortage of lots in that area. That huge one right next to the freeway is the site of the long delayed Metropolis project.

Why do these have to be skyscrapers? So that LA can get on par with Seattle from a purely aesthetic standpoint? I'm more interested in creating NEIGHBORHOODS. Not behemoths from Chicago or Manhattan. Dense, mid-rise filled with retail and restaurants is what you should want. Paris and Madrid should be the dream.

Why do these have to be skyscrapers? So that LA can get on par with Seattle from a purely aesthetic standpoint? I'm more interested in creating NEIGHBORHOODS. Not behemoths from Chicago or Manhattan. Dense, mid-rise filled with retail and restaurants is what you should want. Paris and Madrid should be the dream.

Mostly agree with this. But in this 'hood surrounding LA Live, I think it's appropriate that there be mostly high rises and skyscrapers to sorta connect with the financial district. The new Marriott is a good start.

Yes, this is what you would call a coveted location.
Now, if only the city agreed on this point.

I was surprised to find this on Yahoo today, but, apparently, Farmer's Field could be in trouble if AEG doesn't reach more acceptable terms with the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_downtown_los_angeles_nfl_stadium_goodell_aeg_032912

I was surprised to find this on Yahoo today, but, apparently, Farmer's Field could be in trouble if AEG doesn't reach more acceptable terms with the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_downtown_los_angeles_nfl_stadium_goodell_aeg_032912

Beat me to it, lol.

weve been discussing this in the Farmers Field thread in the sports section. A) this writer has a AEG bias and has had one for a while B) AEG has spent 27 million on the EIR and millions more on other prep work / lawyers... they will make it happen C) its all part of negotiations D) Stan Kroenke and Anshutz are very close friends.

bottom line... im not worried

^Bs As se ve impresionante... Panama con esos edificios nuevos se parece una mini Dubai.

Bs As se ve impresionante... Panama con esos edificios nuevos se parece una mini Dubai.

TRANSLATES TO:

Bs Ace is seen impressive... Panama with those new buildings a mini seems Dubai.

^^ I've also read renewed interest (Magic/McCourt) in an Elysian Park stadium. (LATIMES)

LOL... did I really do that? I was commenting on LatinScrapers thread, I don't know how it ended up in the LA Forum... btw Bs As is an abbreviation for Buenos Aires.

there is many empty parking spaces there.its great are to start new projects

EIR REPORT ON FARMERS SIGNAGE RELEASED http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Ritz-Live-Shot-001.jpg . The signage for Farmers Field was released yesterday and despite some really small graphics, it gives you an idea of what this project will look like and how many signs will be in the area. . The dates on these graphics are March 3, I think, and there is no mention of this project on Gensler's site. . From Adrian Glick Kudler, CURBED LA . Today's the big release day for the Downtown NFL stadium's draft environmental impact report. Now we head to Appendix D and the various signs and sign regulations. The plan creates three sign zones with their own sets of rules, but overall it allows a maximum of 110,000 square feet of permanent signs "excluding wayfinding signage, 10,000 square feet of temporary signage, and 59,200 square feet of on-site aerial view signage." For off-site signage, advertising things you won't find at the stadium or Convention Center, the plan allows 70,000 square feet. . According to the report, "The majority of signage would be focused on the building façades along the perimeter of the Project Site, including along Figueroa Street, SR-110 and the freeway interchange." Under the existing sign regulations, AEG is also allowed to add signage at their Staples Center. Throughout the project, "signage types could include identification signs, temporary event signs, electronic digital displays, changeable message LED boards, static signs, identification signs and retail/tenant identification signs." . AEG expects the entire project to be finished "by mid- to late 2016" (although the DEIR uses 2017 to be safe), with Convention Center construction starting in 2012 and finishing up in 2014. The Bond Street should be finished in mid-2013, the LA Live Way Garages should be done in late 2014, and the stadium would be the last piece of the puzzle. AEG is hoping to bring in an NFL team well before it's finished; they would play temporarily at somewhere like the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl. . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture47201220021AM.jpg http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture47201220030AM.jpg http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture47201220041AM.jpg http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture47201220046AM.jpg http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture47201220052AM.jpg http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture47201220056AM.jpg http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture47201220125AM.jpg http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture47201220148AM.jpg

I love how the Stadium looks like football under armor. That's what will make this stadium signature.

la.curbed.com

Downtown's Beautiful Brockman Building Sells, Will Go Rental (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/downtowns_beautiful_brockman_building_sells_will_go_rental.php)
http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2012_04_brockmanbldg.jpg
Image via flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8254505@N08/6585058955/)

One of Downtown's loveliest buildings, the 91 year old Brockman, has sat empty at Seventh and Grand while the area around it--and under it--blossomed. After a long bankruptcy nightmare, the Brockman has been purchased and will become luxury rentals, reports Brigham Yen. Developer West Millennium bankrupted itself over the property--they initially wanted to finish work on the project in 2005 but cost overruns brought the conversion pricetag from $16 million to more than $40 million (they did manage to create 80 units before the well ran dry). After the project and West Millennium went belly up in 2009, Bank of America foreclosed and sat on the project for awhile. Colliers International was tasked with finding a new buyer and they recently found that in Denver-based Simpson Housing Group. No word on what they paid, but the sale "represented the second highest price-per-unit sale in Downtown Los Angeles' history," Multi-Housing News reports. The Brockman Lofts, as Collier is calling them, received a crazy amount of attention, with 26 "competitive" offers in one month.

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2012.04_aveangels1.jpg
http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2012.04_aveangels2.jpg

We know that LA Live developer AEG wants to build an NFL stadium in South Park, between Staples Center and the 110. And we know that as part of the plan it'll also build a new Convention Center hall with a new public plaza, and it'll help expand the 101 and the Metro station at Pico. But what hasn't been discussed much is the work AEG intends to do on seven blocks of Francisco Street stretching from the Financial District to the new Farmers Field area--they want to convert the stretch into a bustling link called the Avenue of Angels. AEG described the plan at a session at the American Planning Association conference yesterday and our mole on the inside tells us that "Ted Tanner of AEG described how they envisioned transforming Francisco street into something like the Gaslamp District in San Diego or the French Quarter in New Orleans. He didn't say more than that, only that they were still developing the plan for it." The Downtown News mentioned the Ave. of Angels briefly back in January, saying only that "AEG is eyeing partnerships with other area property owners to spur development along Francisco Street to improve connectivity between South Park and the Financial District."


We're also told that someone at the session yesterday asked for specifics on the expansion of the Blue/Expo/Silver Line Pico station, but AEG didn't have details, "just noted that they planned to spend $10 million on making improvements and expanding the station and enhancing the streetscape around it. They were working with Metro to figure out how to make the station work better."

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/plans_for_las_french_quarter_between_south_park_and_fidi.php

:drool: That looks awesome.

I'm shocked! The current site is just a large parking lot, this would be FANTASTIC for the skyline and downtown! Technically, the Courtyard is on Francisco, would that cause any problems with construction?

My god, I'll pledge thousands to make this happen.

in the map its seems that the project consists of 13 towers, and notice where it points out wilshire grand it includes two towers

There's the problem of Metropolis. Don't they own that lot?

in the map its seems that the project consists of 13 towers, and notice where it points out wilshire grand it includes two towers

These are all just place holders. Whatever building/tower will most likely have it's designed changed.

There's the problem of Metropolis. Don't they own that lot?

AEG doesn't have to buy all the properties. They just have to develop them into something the owner finds palatable. You can vaguely compare it to being a tenant in a storefront, you don't own the place, but you operate and manage it (renovations, hiring, etc.). The owners could be some obscure owner with no public face. They just have to be willing to go along with what AEG proposes.

I also imagine they'd want to do something about those parking garages if they want that whole area to be pedestrian-friendly.

I also imagine they'd want to do something about those parking garages if they want that whole area to be pedestrian-friendly.

There's currently only three parking garages in the proposed site. They're not going to touch the large garage next to the freeway (with the painted musicians) because that is needed for Target/Figat7th. One of them they seem to want to turn into a outdoor green space. And the other one is an office garage for TCW Tower, so that one has to stay. (it also appears in their rendering above) But Santa Monica has proven that you can have garages at street level and still maintain foot traffic as long as the overall area has appeal.

Plus Farmers Field is going to build 2 parking garages along LA Live Way. Parking isn't at all going to be an issue.

Plus Farmers Field is going to build 2 parking garages along LA Live Way. Parking isn't at all going to be an issue.

I took a gander at LA Live Way, most of the street already has large parking structures. With much smaller parking lots on each side. Couldn't they just add more levels to the current that are already there to save room and time? If they are going to construct two parking structures, why make them on such small lots?

On a side note, with the Convention center expanding, would that section of West Pico be demolished or would they make it a tunnel as how it is right now?

I took a gander at LA Live Way, most of the street already has large parking structures. With much smaller parking lots on each side. Couldn't they just add more levels to the current that are already there to save room and time? If they are going to construct two parking structures, why make them on such small lots?

On a side note, with the Convention center expanding, would that section of West Pico be demolished or would they make it a tunnel as how it is right now?

Why would you add levels to a already built parking structure?

Why would you add levels to a already built parking structure?

It's happened before. It saves overall space. Why buy more lots that are much smaller when you could use larger lots and go up?

This project is great news. If in fact, this and the stadium are built, D.T.L.A. will play an ever-increasing role as the center of the city. I get the impression they mention the Gaslamp District, not as their goal to achieve, but simply to exemplify who the project is aimed for.

Overall, this is the area where we could see Urban Outfitters, Forever 21, H&M, and such stores pop up. More importantly this project will provide hotel rooms for conventions, link L.A. Live and the FiDi (and practically these areas with the Historic Core via 7th street which is already a great thoroughfare), and be strategically placed near the Purple, Red, Blue, and Expo Lines.

If some are not entirely sold by the above facts, they should not worry, downtown has plenty of parcels to be developed for other crowds and tastes. At least, there will be cranes to watch! :cheers:

I was wondering about this a few years ago and how we would react to someone like Caruso coming in and doing the “Downtown Grove”. This seems to be more entertainment oriented but the same idea.

My fundamental thought here is that AEG can do whatever they want with their money; as long as they don't ask for city handouts. But AEG has so far been a serious underperformer on the aesthetic side and this kind of “plastic” development is already way over-done at Staples (and, potentially at the stadium next door). Another Gaslamp District is about the last thing I would recommend for a city trying to build a real DT as opposed to, say, DT Disney.

If LA needs a French Quarter, it should be on or near Bway. But I would prefer a “Lower East Side” quarter, maybe between South Park and the Fashion District, where there are many new hotels going in, signs of economic life and reasonable rents. AEG wants to use their economic muscle to squelch this sort of thing, with the worst effects most likely on Bway.

Notice again, that this plays into the “everything on the same block” mentality which some find very appealing. Baby cities put everything in their 2 blocks, because that's all the DT they have; big cities don’t. Giants/Jets Stadium, Lincoln Center, Times Sq., Javitz Convention Center and Greenwich Village are MILES from each other even in the densest city in country. Yet LA wants to put them next to each other and forget about the rest of the city. Great for AEG; horrible for LA.

Notice again, that this plays into the “everything on the same block” mentality which some find very appealing. Baby cities put everything in their 2 blocks, because that's all the DT they have; big cities don’t. Giants/Jets Stadium, Lincoln Center, Times Sq., Javitz Convention Center and Greenwich Village are MILES from each other even in the densest city in country. Yet LA wants to put them next to each other and forget about the rest of the city. Great for AEG; horrible for LA.

You've been on an anti-AEG shtick for awhile, so people should really be taking your comments with a grain of salt, as one could hardly argue that they are completely objective.

However, if you're not being disingenuous, and the comment above is actually a legitimate concern of yours, I'm a bit confused as to what the issue is. With the exception of the football stadium, every single one of those destinations you mentioned is located downtown. But New York's downtown is massive compared to LA. So if your goal is to emulate NYC, then your options for locating these destinations downtown are severely limited given downtown LA's small geographic size.

Is Dallas considered a "big city"? Their convention center, arena, and other points of interest (i.e. Uptown, West End) are all located downtown. Is Chicago considered a "big city"? Their convention center, arena, and football stadium are all located downtown. Is New York considered a "big city"? Their convention center, arena, and other points of interest (i.e. Fifth Avenue, Greenwich Village, SoHo) are all located downtown.

Calling this development "horrible for LA" is about as hyperbolic a comment as I've seen in awhile. It gets rid of a bunch of parking lots. If AEG ends up butchering the project and it turns out to be a disaster, then perhaps we can reevaluate. But absolutely NOTHING that has happened or been revealed to this point should give anyone legitimate cause for claiming this is horrible.

The apples-to-blue-fucking-whales nature of comparisons between New York and Los Angeles, and the other inconsistencies of your argument (missing Pesto's point, for one), aside, have you ever been to New York, honestly?

The apples-to-blue-fucking-whales nature of comparisons between New York and Los Angeles, and the other inconsistencies of your argument (missing Pesto's point, for one), aside, have you ever been to New York, honestly?

Are you going to make a constructive point? Or should we move on?

Renders of the Farmers Field Downtown vision.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/549264_329296410470582_131766036890288_900176_531900312_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/292146_329296320470591_131766036890288_900174_697082448_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/33959_329296703803886_131766036890288_900182_1463434304_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/318216_329296457137244_131766036890288_900178_690062360_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/530156_329296790470544_131766036890288_900184_1804283588_n.jpg

It's a domino effect if you ask me. Once this begins, so will Francisco, Wilshire Grand, and LA Central. Not to mention the Marriott and Courthouse would already be underway.
Grand Ave will probably go into hyperdrive once Civic Park is done, and the Broad would have begun it's towers.

Are you going to make a constructive point? Or should we move on?

ugh, if I must.

Whatever this "Downtown" of New York you seem to have imagined really is, I'm willing to guarantee that anyone with any familiarity with New York would disagree with your definition. In a purely semantic sense, "downtown" New York would typically be considered anything below 14th street, and even then you'd be stretching it (personally, I'd consider New York to have two "downtowns" in the CBD sense - FiDi and Midtown, not unlike the polycentric nature of LA), but let's go with that anyway. "Downtown" New York, by that standard, would comprise something like 3-6 square miles. Downtown LA, if we're looking at the area defined by the 110, 10, 101, and LA River, is a little under 5.5 square miles, and this is excluding areas that some other measures typically include in their definition of Downtown LA, like the Expo Park and City West areas. So, no, New York's downtown is not "massive by comparison". As Pesto said, "Giants/Jets Stadium, Lincoln Center, Times Sq., Javitz Convention Center and Greenwich Village are MILES from each other even in the densest city in country."

But drawing any usable comparisons between New York and Los Angeles is a pretty fruitless exercise. The two cities are too distinct in their ages, histories, economies, and social and civic cultures to use one as a standard by which to evaluate the other. The urban language of one simply does not translate to the other. As I said, apple-to-blue-fucking-whales.

But aside from the spurious logical framework of what you're saying, the gist of Pesto's post (at least appears to) come down to this: what AEG is trying to do is to force a vertically integrated, all-inclusive center-city destination district into existence in Downtown LA. The same interests do not control the "convention center, arena, and other points of interest" in New York City by a long shot. In fact, the football stadium isn't even in the same state. The basketball arena (soon to be arenas) is not controlled by the same interest that controls the "destinations" like Greenwich Village or 5th Avenue (by the way, these are working neighborhoods with diverse systems of property ownership, zoning, and so forth, not glorified outdoor lifestyle centers). Pesto's argument, with which I would agree (and believe me, I am not in the habit of typically agreeing with that commenter), is essentially that while the vertically-integrated urban "content campus" (as AEG likes to describe the LA Live/Convention Center/Farmer's Field/Francisco St/so on and so forth) may be a strong business model, it does not necessarily make for good urbanism. To quote Pesto again, "Great for AEG; horrible for LA." There's a neologism for this pattern of development: Mallification.

You can't force fine-grained, diverse and dynamic urbanism with master-planned development. For the degree to which they exalt Jane Jacobs, New Urbanists get her wrong on this point. I'm not a fan of market-oriented economic growth and urban redevelopment strategies, for reasons I won't bother to get into here, but I find that in this type of case that diversity, heterogeneity, and competition are more beneficial to the health of an urban district than the consolidation of a vast area under the auspices of one private entity. Perhaps that's one of the few cases where it would make sense for Los Angeles to take a cue from New York.

Pesto's argument, with which I would agree (and believe me, I am not in the habit of typically agreeing with that commenter), is essentially that while the vertically-integrated urban "content campus" (as AEG likes to describe the LA Live/Convention Center/Farmer's Field/Francisco St/so on and so forth) may be a strong business model, it does not necessarily make for good urbanism. To quote Pesto again, "Great for AEG; horrible for LA." There's a neologism for this pattern of development: Mallification.

That's all well and good, but unless you have a better idea for how those empty properties are going to be utilized, I don't see how vast empty parking lots and decrepit buildings could be considered "good urbanism". They're not changing the face of downtown. They're overseeing development of about four blocks of undeveloped land next to the freeway. And your comment about it being developed under the auspices of one entity? What does that have to do with anything? I don't care who develops it, as long as it turns out good. If company X not named AEG renovated all the buildings on Broadway and brought in a bunch of high-end retailers, would this still be considered "Great for company X, horrible for LA"?

And if comparing cities like New York to LA is a "fruitless exercise", then why do it? You can't sit there and state that LA should copy said city because it does things a certain way, then turn around and claim that you can't compare the two. So you can't have it both ways. Simply trying to copy other "big cities" is unproductive and unrealistic. As you said, LA is an especially unique city, so what works for one may not work for the other, and vice versa. For the record, I don't recall hearing many complaints on the "master-planned" Gehry or South Group projects. So I have very real doubts about the claim that a four block entertainment and retail district is going to crush LA's potential for "true urbanism".

... but I find that in this type of case that diversity, heterogeneity, and competition are more beneficial to the health of an urban district than the consolidation of a vast area under the auspices of one private entity. Perhaps that's one of the few cases where it would make sense for Los Angeles to take a cue from New York. You mean, like, when the Rockefellers developed their center?

You mean, like, when the Rockefellers developed their center?

Fair. I suppose it can be done successfully, although I'd call it an exception to the rule. Also, not to split hairs, but the entire Rock Center comprises about 22 acres; just the LA Live development (not included Staples or anything else) is 27 acres.

Rock Center was also supposed to be the flagship of the new, modern, rational, superior form of city building. It was the thoroughly-refined, argued-over, politicized, and complex result of an attempt to maximize both commercial density and healthful light and air, you know, to make sure no one got tuberculosis from being in the shade too long (just kidding about TB, but more like existential malaise). There was a great deal of idealism and forward-thinking going for Rock Center, not to mention fine architecture.

But all this still doesn't mean I'd consider that good urbanism. The earliest Rock schemes, for instance, sought to remove commercial activity and pedestrians from the street level entirely (at the height of fashion in the 1920s; see the grade-separated towers-and-arcades deco futurism of Harvey Corbett and others). I think a large part of the reason why Rock Center works (but even that is debatable) is because, all told, it only comprises three Manhattan blocks.

Compare this to AEG's attempt at crass, profiteering domination of a large corner of downtown LA. (And I have similar misgivings about the Hudson Yards project, believe me.)

This is almost hysterical. AEG has released a conceptual model, and the agenda-driven people have already dismissed it without knowing any of the details. Hmmmm....

Good urbanism is dictated by what is built, not who builds it.

Certainly, but what is built is dictated (more or less) by who builds it. I suppose my point is that I have little faith in AEG to produce much more than garish spectacle, which for me is fine to an extent, but not to the extent the concept shows.

My hope is that it ends up being a mixture of downtown San Diego and the Linq project in Vegas.

I'm imagining something more along the lines of Universal Citywalk.

That would be blah indeed. AEG has talked a lot about hotels, so if a few more of those pop up, I would be completely fine with that. An avenue of new hotels stretching from Wilshire Grand to LA Live would be great, especially for the convention business. Hopefully a good mix of retail, dining, and entertainment can complement it. Lord knows we need some upscale shopping in downtown.

You've been on an anti-AEG shtick for awhile, so people should really be taking your comments with a grain of salt, as one could hardly argue that they are completely objective.

However, if you're not being disingenuous, and the comment above is actually a legitimate concern of yours, I'm a bit confused as to what the issue is. With the exception of the football stadium, every single one of those destinations you mentioned is located downtown. But New York's downtown is massive compared to LA. So if your goal is to emulate NYC, then your options for locating these destinations downtown are severely limited given downtown LA's small geographic size.

Is Dallas considered a "big city"? Their convention center, arena, and other points of interest (i.e. Uptown, West End) are all located downtown. Is Chicago considered a "big city"? Their convention center, arena, and football stadium are all located downtown. Is New York considered a "big city"? Their convention center, arena, and other points of interest (i.e. Fifth Avenue, Greenwich Village, SoHo) are all located downtown.

Calling this development "horrible for LA" is about as hyperbolic a comment as I've seen in awhile. It gets rid of a bunch of parking lots. If AEG ends up butchering the project and it turns out to be a disaster, then perhaps we can reevaluate. But absolutely NOTHING that has happened or been revealed to this point should give anyone legitimate cause for claiming this is horrible.

Sure; you should take everyone with a grain of salt, but better, with a calm analysis of the facts and logic.

Dallas is very marginally a big city. Don't confuse highrises and sprawl with being a city. In any event, it's football stadium is in the outer suburbs. A right move if you are trying to build a real downtown.

Chicago is very much a big city; but it may be a longer walk from Soldier Field to the loop than you remember. I can't even remember what the nearest highrise is to Soldier Field, but I do remember plenty of grass and water. And I would guess that, say, LaSalle and Lake, is a good 3 miles (longer by car, given all the one way streets, etc.). This is about as far as the Coliseum is from 7th and Fig.

Our difference seem to be that you think of LA as a "baby city" something like Indianapolis or Jacksonville or KC. LA will have a DT the size (in fact, larger) than NY's in geogaphical spread. Not this year or decade, but it will. And like NY, there is no reason to put everything in the same 3 block area; or even in the city limits (Pasadena, BH, Glendale, SM, WeHo are as much part of LA in a demographic sense as are Bel-Air or Florence).

As for stadiums: Long Island, New Jersey, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens. That's where most of the NY teams play.

ugh, if I must.

Whatever this "Downtown" of New York you seem to have imagined really is, I'm willing to guarantee that anyone with any familiarity with New York would disagree with your definition. In a purely semantic sense, "downtown" New York would typically be considered anything below 14th street, and even then you'd be stretching it (personally, I'd consider New York to have two "downtowns" in the CBD sense - FiDi and Midtown, not unlike the polycentric nature of LA), but let's go with that anyway. "Downtown" New York, by that standard, would comprise something like 3-6 square miles. Downtown LA, if we're looking at the area defined by the 110, 10, 101, and LA River, is a little under 5.5 square miles, and this is excluding areas that some other measures typically include in their definition of Downtown LA, like the Expo Park and City West areas. So, no, New York's downtown is not "massive by comparison". As Pesto said, "Giants/Jets Stadium, Lincoln Center, Times Sq., Javitz Convention Center and Greenwich Village are MILES from each other even in the densest city in country."

But drawing any usable comparisons between New York and Los Angeles is a pretty fruitless exercise. The two cities are too distinct in their ages, histories, economies, and social and civic cultures to use one as a standard by which to evaluate the other. The urban language of one simply does not translate to the other. As I said, apple-to-blue-fucking-whales.

But aside from the spurious logical framework of what you're saying, the gist of Pesto's post (at least appears to) come down to this: what AEG is trying to do is to force a vertically integrated, all-inclusive center-city destination district into existence in Downtown LA. The same interests do not control the "convention center, arena, and other points of interest" in New York City by a long shot. In fact, the football stadium isn't even in the same state. The basketball arena (soon to be arenas) is not controlled by the same interest that controls the "destinations" like Greenwich Village or 5th Avenue (by the way, these are working neighborhoods with diverse systems of property ownership, zoning, and so forth, not glorified outdoor lifestyle centers). Pesto's argument, with which I would agree (and believe me, I am not in the habit of typically agreeing with that commenter), is essentially that while the vertically-integrated urban "content campus" (as AEG likes to describe the LA Live/Convention Center/Farmer's Field/Francisco St/so on and so forth) may be a strong business model, it does not necessarily make for good urbanism. To quote Pesto again, "Great for AEG; horrible for LA." There's a neologism for this pattern of development: Mallification.

You can't force fine-grained, diverse and dynamic urbanism with master-planned development. For the degree to which they exalt Jane Jacobs, New Urbanists get her wrong on this point. I'm not a fan of market-oriented economic growth and urban redevelopment strategies, for reasons I won't bother to get into here, but I find that in this type of case that diversity, heterogeneity, and competition are more beneficial to the health of an urban district than the consolidation of a vast area under the auspices of one private entity. Perhaps that's one of the few cases where it would make sense for Los Angeles to take a cue from New York.

A nice post, which pretty well summarizes my views. Sorry that you don't agree with me more often, but, hey, nobody's perfect.

Now you're scrambling. Dallas not a big city? It's the fourth largest in the country. The truth is that LA is a unique city, and retail and entertainment districts exist in big cities everywhere (NY, Chicago, Dallas, Houston). That's all this is proposed to be. If you're getting back to complaining about the football stadium being located downtown, then we've been over that ad nauseum. The fact is that convention centers need perepheral development to be successful, and I don't know anyone that believes that the LA Convention Center currently has a satisfactory amount of supplementary development around it.

Now you're scrambling. Dallas not a big city? It's the fourth largest in the country. The truth is that LA is a unique city, and retail and entertainment districts exist in big cities everywhere (NY, Chicago, Dallas, Houston). That's all this is proposed to be. If you're getting back to complaining about the football stadium being located downtown, then we've been over that ad nauseum. The fact is that convention centers need perepheral development to be successful, and I don't know anyone that believes that the LA Convention Center currently has a satisfactory amount of supplementary development around it.

See my prior comment re highrises and sprawl. On your theory, the IE is one of the world's great cities. I can't remember anyone saying that Dallas is currently one of the world's great "urban" cities (although I applaud their efforts to get there).

But your comment borders on the bizarre since Dallas put their stadium where it belongs: in the outer suburbs. Just like NY, Boston and SF, the main "true urban" cities in the country. Chicago built their stadium about 80 years ago, but even now it's not near any highrises; much more analogous to the Coliseum.

I don't have any issues with development around Staples; in fact I strongly encourage it. If AEG thinks it can make a go of a French Quarter (by which I mean a casual, noisy, happening place consisting of many smaller clubs, bars, street vendors, small and charming hotels, with an anything goes attitude) then great. But I'm afraid it will be more of the sterile, monolithic chain of over-priced, game-oriented restaurants that fill LA Live.

It is not Greenwich Village; not LES; not French Quarter; not Union Sq. These places are fueled by their desirability as interesting, attractive places to go. Not so with LA Live, which would be utterly deserted if various teams didn't play there and IS utterly deserted when the teams aren't playing there.

And, worse, LA has a natural place on Bway, Spring, Main, 5th to Pico, that would he highly appropriate for this type of small-scale entertainment.

I agree that Linq is pretty much what it will be. But before endorsing that you should note that its developers are very open about its purpose: to funnel people away from the street and into a branded, advertising focused environment which will encourage them to linger and spend money. Hardly the place where the next Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong or Woody Guthrie is likely to fit in.

And, worse, LA has a natural place on Bway, Spring, Main, 5th to Pico, that would he highly appropriate for this type of small-scale entertainment.

.

What's wrong with having another entertainment place besides Bway, Spring, Main?? You'd rather have empty parking lots or soulless garage structures there instead? I don't imagine it to be the next French Quarter. But if it can be something similar to Third Street Santa Monica, I'll be extremely happy.

I agree that Linq is pretty much what it will be. But before endorsing that you should note that its developers are very open about its purpose: to funnel people away from the street and into a branded, advertising focused environment which will encourage them to linger and spend money. Hardly the place where the next Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong or Woody Guthrie is likely to fit in.

It's about four square city blocks squeezed in between the Financial District and a freeway. I don't know anyone who believed that Metropolis was ever going to be the place where the next great musical genius would be discovered. A retail, dining, and entertainment district with a couple hotels sprinkled in is just about the best we could hope for to be replacing those parking lots. And I haven't endorsed anything yet. I just haven't dismissed it out of hand as all the anti-AEG people already have.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5192/6915508308_4dc8034002_c.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7046/6915508928_c1cef06585_c.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7131/7061593223_c7a74d5bed_c.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5451/7061593015_0391c66a60_c.jpg

It's about four square city blocks squeezed in between the Financial District and a freeway. I don't know anyone who believed that Metropolis was ever going to be the place where the next great musical genius would be discovered. A retail, dining, and entertainment district with a couple hotels sprinkled in is just about the best we could hope for to be replacing those parking lots. And I haven't endorsed anything yet. I just haven't dismissed it out of hand as all the anti-AEG people already have.

I am not anti-AEG. But you will please recall that their employees and agents are required by law to carry-out the best long-term interests of their shareholder. That's what their job is. It is not to worry about LA's overall development. They don't give a crap about anything that doesn't help their shareholder's business interest.

At the moment that is to get a team to come to their stadium and avoid whatever impdediments are in the way.

Staples was fine and brings activity to part of DT. LA Live was a disappointment: every visitor I know calls it sterile and not a place you want to hang in. The Ritz is a beautiful building. But more of the same plastic in the same spot is just not needed. Let's allow some organic growth.

btw, the new designs for the stadium are a vast improvement. Grassile, not bulky, and fitting for the area. It's probably still too crowded, but a clear improvement.

I am not anti-AEG. But you will please recall that their employees and agents are required by law to carry-out the best long-term interests of their shareholder. That's what their job is. It is not to worry about LA's overall development. They don't give a crap about anything that doesn't help their shareholder's business interest.

I don't know how you can say that without equivocation. Seems like a red herring. Not being required to give a crap about LA's development does not mean that they do not. My job does not require me to care a single iota about LA's development, but that does not mean that I do not. Conversely, for argument's sake, even if they did not care about LA's development, that does not mean that they would intentionally try to sabotage it. Which is a very negative attitude if that's what you believe.


At the moment that is to get a team to come to their stadium and avoid whatever impdediments are in the way.

Link? This sounds like more hyperbole. They're not doing anything City of Industry didn't do.


Staples was fine and brings activity to part of DT. LA Live was a disappointment: every visitor I know calls it sterile and not a place you want to hang in. The Ritz is a beautiful building. But more of the same plastic in the same spot is just not needed. Let's allow some organic growth.

I agree, there are some major design flaws in LA Live. But I don't necessarily see why you are expecting Avenue of Angels to be an exact imitation of LA Live though. Is AEG's resume filled with case after case of identical developments?


btw, the new designs for the stadium are a vast improvement. Grassile, not bulky, and fitting for the area. It's probably still too crowded, but a clear improvement.

Let's get off this stadium kick. There's a separate thread for that. The discussion of AEG came about because of Avenue of Angels, not the football stadium.

What's wrong with having another entertainment place besides Bway, Spring, Main?? You'd rather have empty parking lots or soulless garage structures there instead? I don't imagine it to be the next French Quarter. But if it can be something similar to Third Street Santa Monica, I'll be extremely happy.

AEG brought up "French Quarter" not me. I'm just pointing out that this makes no sense in the context of a corporate behemoth with low aesthetic targets. If they had said, "we want to extend the LA Live corporate plastic vibe for another few blocks and put up a sign that says "French Quarter" I would have disliked it, but at least it would have been honest.

Same for 3rd St.: that would be very nice, but not likely with AEG developing it.

I don't know how you can say that without equivocation. Seems like a red herring. Not being required to give a crap about LA's development does not mean that they do not. My job does not require me to care a single iota about LA's development, but that does not mean that I do not. Conversely, for argument's sake, even if they did not care about LA's development, that does not mean that they would intentionally try to sabotage it. Which is a very negative attitude if that's what you believe.

Link? This sounds like more hyperbole. They're not doing anything City of Industry didn't do.

I agree, there are some major design flaws in LA Live. But I don't necessarily see why you are expecting Avenue of Angels to be an exact imitation of LA Live though. Is AEG's resume filled with case after case of identical developments?

Let's get off this stadium kick. There's a separate thread for that. The discussion of AEG came about because of Avenue of Angels, not the football stadium.

The link to football here is that the French Quarter idea is being floated as part of the saturation PR blitz for the stadium (new renderings, a new poll being leaked, meetings with the Vikes and NFL, etc.).

Of course, if they change the nature of the proposed development I could very well change my view. But "French Quarter by AEG" does not float my boat. Or would it be The Sony French Quarter at Farmer's Field by AEG"?

On one point you seem to be intentionally. If faced with a situation which is good for AEG and bad for LA, AEG employees are required by law to support that position. That's what agents and employees owe to their employer; otherwise they are violating the law. Therefore it makes a lot of sense to review AEG's ideas to see if they really are good for the city as a whole, not just for them. In this case, what improves two blocks of Francisco in my view may be beneficial to the restaurants at LA Live, but it also hurts Bway, Main, etc.

On one point you seem to be intentionally. If faced with a situation which is good for AEG and bad for LA, AEG employees are required by law to support that position. That's what agents and employees owe to their employer; otherwise they are violating the law. Therefore it makes a lot of sense to review AEG's ideas to see if they really are good for the city as a whole, not just for them. In this case, what improves two blocks of Francisco in my view may be beneficial to the restaurants at LA Live, but it also hurts Bway, Main, etc.

I see, so this seems to be the crux of your position. Not sure how many others would agree with that assessment, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

You mean, like, when the Rockefellers developed their center?

Oh lord...I'm agreeing with "milq" now. Rockefeller Center is a very good comparison to what AEG is attempting if not an even better one being boring and sterile Battery Park. AEG will be successful with their composite endeavor. It will be great for Downtown LA, creating convention space, more beds and more visitors to LA who will undoubtedly escape AEG's prison at least once and venture on the subway to Hollywood or other parts of Downtown. This won't be a place that I would go on a regular basis perhaps just when friends from out-of-town come in or ice skating during the Xmas holidays. Good for them!

Now you're scrambling. Dallas not a big city? It's the fourth largest in the country. The truth is that LA is a unique city, and retail and entertainment districts exist in big cities everywhere (NY, Chicago, Dallas, Houston). That's all this is proposed to be. If you're getting back to complaining about the football stadium being located downtown, then we've been over that ad nauseum. The fact is that convention centers need perepheral development to be successful, and I don't know anyone that believes that the LA Convention Center currently has a satisfactory amount of supplementary development around it.

I guess that depends on whose data you believe.

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/05/united_states_metro_area_and_c.html

^^ actually surprised dallas made top ten

Oh lord...I'm agreeing with "milq" now. Rockefeller Center is a very good comparison to what AEG is attempting if not an even better one being boring and sterile Battery Park. AEG will be successful with their composite endeavor. It will be great for Downtown LA, creating convention space, more beds and more visitors to LA who will undoubtedly escape AEG's prison at least once and venture on the subway to Hollywood or other parts of Downtown. This won't be a place that I would go on a regular basis perhaps just when friends from out-of-town come in or ice skating during the Xmas holidays. Good for them!

Rockefeller Center is a classic single-developer project: it is an economic success but hardly a human one. It is like Century City: an area of highrises and concrete that you would never confuse for a community. If you can find ONE PERSON from NY who has ever said "I don't like the Village and SoHo, let's go hang in Rockefeller Plaza" I would be amazed.

But having said that, I will give the Rock this: the architecture is vastly superior to anything at LA Live except the Ritz. Big city style, classicism, effortless grandure, a sense of place.

Yeah, art decorative! Classic setbacks.
The main tower is way to slim for its width
and would just collapse here.

Oh lord...I'm agreeing with "milq" now.

You know, if you guys just listen to me
the world would be a better place! :)

Squabbling over urban design considerations aside, "Avenue of the Angels" would really be a terrible, hokey name for this district. I think they'd be better off sticking with "Francisco Street" and building an identity around that - if it's a successful endeavor, the galaxy of connotations that will develop around "Francisco Street" (modern, urban, cosmopolitan, luxe, exciting, whatever) could be really powerful.

Squabbling over urban design considerations aside, "Avenue of the Angels" would really be a terrible, hokey name for this district. I think they'd be better off sticking with "Francisco Street" and building an identity around that - if it's a successful endeavor, the galaxy of connotations that will develop around "Francisco Street" (modern, urban, cosmopolitan, luxe, exciting, whatever) could be really powerful.

Agreed. "Avenue of the Angels" is kind of embarrassing.

"Francisco St." is actually rather cool: urban, edgy, industrial. It would soon become "Frisco", as in "They're playin' at some place on Frisco."

I actually agree. Francisco Street is all that needs to be said. 'Want to go down to Francisco Street?'

I'm partial to "Richard Ellis Group Francisco Street presented by Korean Air"

Avenue of the Angels sounds like it could be something from the Bible

ugh, if I must.

Whatever this "Downtown" of New York you seem to have imagined really is, I'm willing to guarantee that anyone with any familiarity with New York would disagree with your definition. In a purely semantic sense, "downtown" New York would typically be considered anything below 14th street, and even then you'd be stretching it (personally, I'd consider New York to have two "downtowns" in the CBD sense - FiDi and Midtown, not unlike the polycentric nature of LA), but let's go with that anyway. "Downtown" New York, by that standard, would comprise something like 3-6 square miles. Downtown LA, if we're looking at the area defined by the 110, 10, 101, and LA River, is a little under 5.5 square miles, and this is excluding areas that some other measures typically include in their definition of Downtown LA, like the Expo Park and City West areas. So, no, New York's downtown is not "massive by comparison". As Pesto said, "Giants/Jets Stadium, Lincoln Center, Times Sq., Javitz Convention Center and Greenwich Village are MILES from each other even in the densest city in country."

But drawing any usable comparisons between New York and Los Angeles is a pretty fruitless exercise. The two cities are too distinct in their ages, histories, economies, and social and civic cultures to use one as a standard by which to evaluate the other. The urban language of one simply does not translate to the other. As I said, apple-to-blue-fucking-whales.

But aside from the spurious logical framework of what you're saying, the gist of Pesto's post (at least appears to) come down to this: what AEG is trying to do is to force a vertically integrated, all-inclusive center-city destination district into existence in Downtown LA. The same interests do not control the "convention center, arena, and other points of interest" in New York City by a long shot. In fact, the football stadium isn't even in the same state. The basketball arena (soon to be arenas) is not controlled by the same interest that controls the "destinations" like Greenwich Village or 5th Avenue (by the way, these are working neighborhoods with diverse systems of property ownership, zoning, and so forth, not glorified outdoor lifestyle centers). Pesto's argument, with which I would agree (and believe me, I am not in the habit of typically agreeing with that commenter), is essentially that while the vertically-integrated urban "content campus" (as AEG likes to describe the LA Live/Convention Center/Farmer's Field/Francisco St/so on and so forth) may be a strong business model, it does not necessarily make for good urbanism. To quote Pesto again, "Great for AEG; horrible for LA." There's a neologism for this pattern of development: Mallification.

You can't force fine-grained, diverse and dynamic urbanism with master-planned development. For the degree to which they exalt Jane Jacobs, New Urbanists get her wrong on this point. I'm not a fan of market-oriented economic growth and urban redevelopment strategies, for reasons I won't bother to get into here, but I find that in this type of case that diversity, heterogeneity, and competition are more beneficial to the health of an urban district than the consolidation of a vast area under the auspices of one private entity. Perhaps that's one of the few cases where it would make sense for Los Angeles to take a cue from New York.

"Downtown" New York in general is supposed to be Manhattan itself from The Financial District up to the northern tip of Central Park.

Anyway, LA does have it's downtown area but just like Midtown Manhattan, LA has a "midtown" CBD as well which is Century City and The Westwood area.

AEG, Maguire Want 20-30 Story Tower Near South Park Ritz (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/aeg_maguire_want_2030_story_tower_near_south_park_ritz.php)

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2012_04_MaguireAEG.jpg

LA Live developer AEG and Robert Maguire, formerly of MPG Office Trust née Maguire Properties, recently announced plans to construct a 600,000 square foot creative office space tower on a parking lot across the street from the LA Live campus in South Park, the Los Angeles Business Journal reports [sub. req.]. The lot is next to the double Marriott tower expected to break ground soon. Gensler, the architect behind LA Live's Ritz-Carlton, will design the building. It's early in the plans, so renderings aren't available, nor is it clear how tall this office building would be (which, if completed, would be Downtown's first ground-up office tower built since '92). The LABJ surmises that, considering the square footage and the higher ceilings given to creative office suites, it could rise to a maximum of about 30 stories. The 78 year old Maguire, driven out of MPG after the tumult of the last few years, sees an opening for creative companies moving Downtown. Specifically, he sees office space similar to his Water's Edge project in Playa Vista, which houses Electronic Arts in a glassy, modern building. There are rumors that NFL's local offices in Culver City could be lured Downtown after their lease is up in 2015, especially if the NFL stadium is a go. But the idea is to also attract less flashy businesses, like law firms, to creative, open spaces, in lieu of regular Class A offices.

la.curbed.com (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/aeg_maguire_want_2030_story_tower_near_south_park_ritz.php)

^^^ Very exiting news!

And...
The Avenue of Angels is awfully cheesy indeed. Everyone has valid points about this project and I fully agree with all. However, my whole argument is that, first of all, if downtown is to get a development much like The Grove or CityWalk, this is the right place to build it-away from the historical and architectural significant buildings. The crap proposed for 4th and Broadway must be redesigned!... Second of all, even though AEG's prime interest isn't to centralize L.A., it does L.A. much better to have this new "center" in downtown than in Glendale or Redondo Beach.

correction for this. Dallas didn't put a stadium anywhere. Dallas was going to build the stadium in downtown Dallas, just south of the convention center. There was even a deal for it, renderings and everything. At the last minute(literally the last few days before a deal was to be signed) you started having some political wranglings about it being unfair to have the stadium referendum on the ballot that November. Behind the scenes, Jerry Jones was negotiating with several suburbs and got a sweetheart of a deal with Arlington. Cheaper land, and Arlington had no tax dedicated to public transit. If you know Jerry's history, he has long fought DART(Dallas' transit authority) and their sales tax because he wanted that money for a new stadium in Irving. People in DFW think the stadium location is horrible as is its neighbor, Rangers Ballpark. Most people in DFW live well north of Arlington. The geographic population center actually lies in North Irving, about 20 miles to the North and East of the stadium. There is no public transit to the stadium. No rail, no buses, no light rail. It sits in the middle of what was once a single family residential neighborhood. It sits several blocks from the nearest freeway where its hard to see anything but the roof. The Dallas site would have been served by 3 rail lines, several bus lines, 5 major freeway arteries and would have cleaned up a major brownfield. LA should jump at the chance to get such a great stadium location.

AEG, Maguire Want 20-30 Story Tower Near South Park Ritz (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/aeg_maguire_want_2030_story_tower_near_south_park_ritz.php)

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2012_04_MaguireAEG.jpg



la.curbed.com (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/aeg_maguire_want_2030_story_tower_near_south_park_ritz.php)


Isn't this old news? I thought this was a go a year ago, with ESPN rumored to be moving into the building?

The blitz of recent PR from AEG is a sign of something. They seem to be trying to direct public attention to possible new draws for the convention center. Maybe a rival football stadium is in the works and they want attention focused toward the benefits to the convention business instead.

I don't see the logic of creative companies moving to a new high-rise on Fig. Aren't rents going to be high compared to, say, the area east of Alameda? But Maguire isn't really talking about creative companies, he seems to have media offices and production facilities in mind. This makes as much sense here as anywhere else I suppose, assuming terms are good.

Isn't this old news? I thought this was a go a year ago, with ESPN rumored to be moving into the building?

The blitz of recent PR from AEG is a sign of something. They seem to be trying to direct public attention to possible new draws for the convention center. Maybe a rival football stadium is in the works and they want attention focused toward the benefits to the convention business instead.

I don't see the logic of creative companies moving to a new high-rise on Fig. Aren't rents going to be high compared to, say, the area east of Alameda? But Maguire isn't really talking about creative companies, he seems to have media offices and production facilities in mind. This makes as much sense here as anywhere else I suppose, assuming terms are good.

ESPN moved to LA Live a couple years ago. also, i love how you make things up and roll with it lol

Edit: Nevermind.

LA should jump at the chance to get such a great stadium location.

Now if only we would jump at the chance of
building something substantial, like you have.

ESPN moved to LA Live a couple years ago. also, i love how you make things up and roll with it lol

PR 101: you don't do a PR blitz unless you have something to say. If Magic and co. are going to propose expanded hotels, nightlife or production facilities in the Dodger Stadium area, this (plus Ave. of Angels) might be a good pre-emptive move. But it could be something entirely different as well.

As I recall this is the tower that ESPN was going to move not only their LA Live people to but create larger production facilities and probably move their world HQ too as well, if you believe the chatter.

Now if only we would jump at the chance of
building something substantial, like you have.

Milqy please: Don't confuse bloated and pretentious for substantial or attractive.

DT LA has City Hall, Disney, the Broad and a dozen great deco buildings. Dallas has a monument of bad taste football stadium.

Do you really think the Dallas Stadium would look attractive or appropriate in SoHo or the Village? Maybe pushed up against MOMA on 6th Ave.? Somewhere on the Left Bank or near Westminster? So why do we want it at Fig and Pico?

Don't fall into the NFL mantra that to be a real city the taxpayers have to build (or pay their local billionaires to build) a neo-Stalinist/Mussolini pile of cement and glass. Or, if you do, at least get it the hell out of town

Do you really think the Dallas Stadium would look attractive or appropriate in SoHo or the Village? Maybe pushed up against MOMA on 6th Ave.? Somewhere on the Left Bank or near Westminster? So why do we want it at Fig and Pico?


You do know where the stadium is going to be located? There is no neighborhood PERIOD in that area, much less a SoHo or Greenwich Village. This stadium is going to be built on undeveloped land wedged between the freeway and Staples Center. It will replace an ugly convention hall, which you can't even see from most of South Park anyway. This is not even close to the same mistake that the IFA made with the Aviva Stadium. But please, this stadium debate is old.


The Avenue of Angels is awfully cheesy indeed. Everyone has valid points about this project and I fully agree with all. However, my whole argument is that, first of all, if downtown is to get a development much like The Grove or CityWalk, this is the right place to build it-away from the historical and architectural significant buildings.

Spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Well, I don't really care what happens south of Houston Street
or what butts up against the river at Westminster or the Left Bank,
but I'm talking about a structural roof that's costing us about 900
million and the rest of the stadium suffering by compare.

Look at what the roof is covering!
Four seperate banks of aluminum stadium seating one would find
at some of our larger high schools! It should be an unbroken circle!

That stadium at Texas is a palace compared to what we got, and at
a comparable price too - which is what really makes me insane!

The roof's fine, if a little ungainly, but work that interior! Please!

^ Comparing Farmers Field to Cowboys Stadium isn't the right comparison. A huge, massive structure looming seemingly in the middle of nowhere.

The better comparison would be CenturyLink Field in Seattle.

Well, I don't really care what happens south of Houston Street
or what butts up against the river at Westminster or the Left Bank,
but I'm talking about a structural roof that's costing us about 900
million and the rest of the stadium suffering by compare.

Look at what the roof is covering!
Four seperate banks of aluminum stadium seating one would find
at some of our larger high schools! It should be an unbroken circle!

That stadium at Texas is a palace compared to what we got, and at
a comparable price too - which is what really makes me insane!

The roof's fine, if a little ungainly, but work that interior! Please!

Generally, the Texas stadium is just a loser except if you have Texas values ("let's build the biggest damn stadium in the world and shine 'er up just like that King Louie fella in France"). But putting it downtown compounds the felony.

Agree that the cost of AEG's stadium is inexplicable in rational terms. This has been commented on by everyone from the Jets ownership to many locals.

^ Comparing Farmers Field to Cowboys Stadium isn't the right comparison. A huge, massive structure looming seemingly in the middle of nowhere.

The better comparison would be CenturyLink Field in Seattle.

Agree on this. I was just picking on Milqy, who just loves Dallas Stadium but which I find difficult to imagine in a city. I agree that Dallas did well to build it in a place appropriate for football.

Right. Cowboys Stadium is big, expansive, and right where it needs to be. This wouldn't work at all in Downtown Dallas.

http://www.prlog.org/11267360-dallas-cowboys-stadium.jpg

There isn't many stadiums in the NFL that are as interwoven into the urban fabric as Farmers Field.

Well, the price is comparable!
If you're gonna try to make something that's ..
hmmm, iconic, something that will hold a plastic
sheet over the field and the stands, then do so!

But don't spend all the money on the structure
that holds and unfolds the plastic sheet!
Spend some money on the interior.

Now, let's look at that interior.
First of all, the stadium capacity in sq. footage
is tiny, (Have I been through this before?), and
the style of the broken up pieces comprising the
seating is dismal and cheap looking! They made
the stadium compact because they didn't want
to interfere with Cherry Street? (L. A. Live Way)

The one in Texas may be a monolith,
but at least it's substantial.
I hope to God we're not making a joke
that will last for thirty years!
(The exterior of The Cathedral comes to mind.)

I don't think Cowboys Stadium is all that important to be honest. It has a huge tv and a roof that is never open. It's fine for what it is but I wouldn't want that for LA and again, is unfair to even compare Farmers Field to Cowboys Stadium as they are both too different from each other.

Condos and Hotel Planned for Spring Street

Title Insurance Building Could Get 250 Units; Cambria Suites May Open in Adjacent Building

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/ladowntownnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/c5/9c5bc7f2-9309-11e1-8fbe-0019bb2963f4/4f9f014c837f7.image.jpg

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/condos-and-hotel-planned-for-spring-street/article_030b1084-92f6-11e1-b92d-0019bb2963f4.html

The design for Cowboys Stadium was different when it was going to be in downtown Dallas. Almost looked like a giant Staples Center.

Condos and Hotel Planned for Spring Street

Title Insurance Building Could Get 250 Units; Cambria Suites May Open in Adjacent Building

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/ladowntownnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/c5/9c5bc7f2-9309-11e1-8fbe-0019bb2963f4/4f9f014c837f7.image.jpg

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/condos-and-hotel-planned-for-spring-street/article_030b1084-92f6-11e1-b92d-0019bb2963f4.html

EXACTLY what that area needs. i really dont know how there hasnt been any hotel development in the historic core. i bet we see multiple new boutiques on spring, main and broadway in the very near future.

0Vky9nO12RE

The sad part is once the occupy movement comes back, that's where they will be.

The sad part is once the occupy movement comes back, that's where they will be.

:ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno:
:ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno:

I was looking into the matter, and they have plans of closing the park at 7PM! Usually parks close at 10 PM to prevent such, but 7? Just a tad early, right?

I doubt they will camp right there. Also, closing at 7pm would sorta defeat the purpose of the fountain show.

The problems of running a big city. If you leave a downtown park open and someone is killed you are sued on the theory that you knew that violent groups hold protests there and there has been violence and murder in other cities; that drug and alcohol abuse takes place there; that mentally troubled people are there, but yet you did nothing to protect the deceased. 20M judgement and your name in the papers for months.

Came back from the site of the Courtyard marriott. They removed some of the blue coverings. Don't tell me it's turning into another LA Central.

vFyFCuBgRTA

It's a good concept. However, ever since that highly speculative article about building a baseball stadium instead, I can't help but think how much better it would be for downtown to have that magnitude of vibrancy 81 times, not 8, a year.

To be on the verrrry speculative side, and speaking as a Dodger fan and admirer of Dodger stadium, wouldn't it be great for the Dodgers to move to this site and rebuild Chavez Ravine with massive T.O.D.'s/mixed-use projects? It doesn't hurt to dream! :banana:

Assuming some form of mass transit system was built of course...

^^ That would be epic beyond proportion, a dream come true for us all I believe

Dodger Stadium was discussed by each of the bidders and as far as I know, they all decided that it would be a PR disaster to even talk about moving out.

In any event, why build TOD where there is no transit?

It's a good concept. However, ever since that highly speculative article about building a baseball stadium instead, I can't help but think how much better it would be for downtown to have that magnitude of vibrancy 81 times, not 8, a year.


Think of it outside of just football. It could possibly host other events such as Soccer friendlies of other international teams just like how San Diego does it. Possibly the World Cup in 2026 as well. It would be more than just a football stadium. Concert events, etc...

Think of it outside of just football. It could possibly host other events such as Soccer friendlies of other international teams just like how San Diego does it. Possibly the World Cup in 2026 as well. It would be more than just a football stadium. Concert events, etc...

True to some extent, but there are about 20 other stadiums (completed, proposed or under construction) that also argue that they make sense becaue they will attract the World Cup, Super Bowl, etc. This week both Santa Clara and Minneapolis said the same about their new stadiums. My guess is that the US gets the World Cup about every 30 years, and no stadium gets more than 3 matches.

As for concerts, there is already the Rose Bowl, Dodger Stadium, the Coliseum and more amphitheaters and theaters than I can begin to name. Not to mention a dozen unused historic theaters and auditoriums in DT LA.

I think any stadium has to make sense on the basis of football alone or baseball alone. And football is a very tough sell, with only 10 games a year.

The World Cup is not the only time the sport of soccer is played.

Smart & Final Extra concept store opening at 845 S. Figueroa St. in first quarter of 2013

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/ladowntownnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/3b/c3b32ed4-e0b3-11e0-9002-001cc4c002e0/4e73ce4a7dae3.image.jpg

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/smart-final-to-open-downtown-grocery-store/article_763ff7e6-9ade-11e1-a591-001a4bcf887a.html

The World Cup is not the only time the sport of soccer is played.

Like I said, friendlies. Not to mention the Gold Cup.

Like I said, friendlies. Not to mention the Gold Cup.

Exactly. And I completely agree with you. But it's like people are looking for reasons to bash this downtown stadium. I'll tell you this. The football stadium is going to be far busier and produce much more economic spinoff activity than the old West Hall ever could have with such a small amount of acreage wedged between Staples Center and the 110. Perhaps the perfect fit would have been a baseball stadium. But Farmers Field is not a bad compromise.

Exactly. And I completely agree with you. But it's like people are looking for reasons to bash this downtown stadium. I'll tell you this. The football stadium is going to be far busier and produce much more economic spinoff activity than the old West Hall ever could have with such a small amount of acreage wedged between Staples Center and the 110. Perhaps the perfect fit would have been a baseball stadium. But Farmers Field is not a bad compromise.

It's one of those things like "Why fix something that isn't broken."

We have dodger stadium. Now of course we have the Colosseum and Rose Bowl, but they aren't in the heart of the city. Farmers field will cause a domino effect in downtown. We have a baseball team. We have a soccer team. We have a basketball team. What are we missing?

the coliseum is close enough and still on a grid and not on a remote hill or in pasadena. plus 2 train stops

the coliseum is close enough and still on a grid and not on a remote hill or in pasadena. plus 2 train stops

Pasadena isn't Los Angeles city is it? AEG is thinking of the city, not the county. I am fully for this. It's the best the city will get. This stadium will possibly give the downtown 11 new towers. That puts the cherry on top.

It's one of those things like "Why fix something that isn't broken."

We have dodger stadium. Now of course we have the Colosseum and Rose Bowl, but they aren't in the heart of the city. Farmers field will cause a domino effect in downtown. We have a baseball team. We have a soccer team. We have a basketball team. What are we missing?

The Coliseum is very much in the heart of the city and the area around USC is going to continue to change. Especially with the Expo Line opening.

Anyway, the Marriott is at the starting line. Here is a picture I took last night.

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/581209_3845558655550_1175665265_3557183_1430407761_n.jpg

Pasadena isn't Los Angeles city is it? AEG is thinking of the city, not the county. I am fully for this. It's the best the city will get. This stadium will possibly give the downtown 11 new towers. That puts the cherry on top.

the coliseum is not in pasadena, it's 1.75 miles south-east of the staples center and it's even on the same street. the grid on the way there is also in perfect alignment. especially with the development going on there, it would be unreasonable not to think of the whole area as a continuous downtown within 50 years. already, the campus is included on downtown maps.

The World Cup is not the only time the sport of soccer is played.

Well, sorry. But then again the Coliseum and Rose Bowl are more than adequate for soccer and there's already a new made for soccer stadium in LA.

It's one of those things like "Why fix something that isn't broken."

We have dodger stadium. Now of course we have the Colosseum and Rose Bowl, but they aren't in the heart of the city. Farmers field will cause a domino effect in downtown. We have a baseball team. We have a soccer team. We have a basketball team. What are we missing?

This is getting repetitive, but NOT being in the center of town is an advantage as every large city in the country and Europe has shown. NY, SF, SJ, Dallas, Boston, DC, London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Istanbul, who puts football (or soccer) stadiums in the heart of downtown highrises? It diverts traffic away and allows the city to develop consistent and mid-sized streetlife.

Even the suggestion of putting a stadium in these cities would bring laughter or anger in these cities.

who puts football (or soccer) stadiums in the heart of downtown highrises?

Not that I oppose the stadium (I don't), but I think Mojeda's been here long enough for us to know what he cares about the most.

This stadium will possibly give the downtown 11 new towers.

This is getting repetitive, but NOT being in the center of town is an advantage as every large city in the country and Europe has shown. NY, SF, SJ, Dallas, Boston, DC, London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Istanbul, who puts football (or soccer) stadiums in the heart of downtown highrises? It diverts traffic away and allows the city to develop consistent and mid-sized streetlife.

Even the suggestion of putting a stadium in these cities would bring laughter or anger in these cities.
They might not be comparable due to capacity but how does downtown handle it when the Lakers and Clippers play in the Staples center? I've been to a few games and there is plenty of traffic getting to the staples center but didn't AEG say they had this in their minds? Fixing the Metro stop nearby and such. Although we are comparing 19,000 to 72,000 and I admit you have a point, the traffic will be terrible during matches.

Although you're giving the other cities too much credit. Think of the stadiums that do exist in the downtown such as Yankee stadium, Rogers Centre, Cincinnati stadium, etc... They seem to handle the situation just fine.

How do the heights of the surrounding buildings matter at ALL? I mean seriously, who comes up with these arbitrary one-size-fits-all rules? It's just ridiculous. It's okay to have a personal opinion against a football stadium, but please, don't just make things up.

As for Madrid, have you ever been there? The Bernabeu is located in the heart of the city's business district on el Paseo de la Castellana, which is filled with, yes....high rises. The stadium is great, gets sell-outs every game, and street life is fantastic because it is at the heart of the city and is easily accessible via public transport. But god forbid, there is a high rise housing the Spanish office of KPMG right next door! What a shame, I suppose Madrid is just not the world class city we all thought. It's a ludicrous argument to make, the height of surrounding buildings has absolutely ZERO to do with the effectiveness of a stadium's location. ZERO. If South Park residents thought this would hurt their housing values or residential life, they would be up in arms about it. Instead, they are supporting it.

They might not be comparable due to capacity but how does downtown handle it when the Lakers and Clippers play in the Staples center? I've been to a few games and there is plenty of traffic getting to the staples center but didn't AEG say they had this in their minds? Fixing the Metro stop nearby and such. Although we are comparing 19,000 to 72,000 and I admit you have a point, the traffic will be terrible during matches.

Although you're giving the other cities too much credit. Think of the stadiums that do exist in the downtown such as Yankee stadium, Rogers Centre, Cincinnati stadium, etc... They seem to handle the situation just fine.

Yankee stadium is in The Bronx. Not Manhattan.

Yankee stadium is in The Bronx. Not Manhattan.

That may be true but the surrounding area resembles the area of LA live.

As show. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffreyputman/16605678/)

Why not mention anything on the others? Hmm?

The area around Yankee Stadium resembles LA Live never.
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5854/yankeesb.jpg


And I didn't mention the others because they are actually in a downtown setting.

http://thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/nfl_stadium_farmers_field_aeg-590x331.jpg

Look similar if you ask me.

Second stadium, flat short building, low buildings all around(Aside from the Ritz Carlton).

Look similar if you ask me.

Second stadium, flat short building, low buildings all around(Aside from the Ritz Carlton).

Correct. The Bronx is denser than South Park, but the development that does exist in South Park is filled with mostly midrise and warehouses, not skyscrapers. Also, Farmers is not in the middle of the Financial District. In fact, it will be so hidden, that if you were walking south on Figueroa, you wouldn't even know a convention center or stadium was nearby. Old Trafford is a good comparison to Farmers. While close to the city's financial district, its distinctly separate, as Farmers is in an unused portion of downtown abutting the freeway. But its really a moot point, as I mentioned previously, the height of surrounding buildings to stadiums is irrelevant.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Southpark.jpg

Yep.

How do the heights of the surrounding buildings matter at ALL? I mean seriously, who comes up with these arbitrary one-size-fits-all rules? It's just ridiculous. It's okay to have a personal opinion against a football stadium, but please, don't just make things up.

As for Madrid, have you ever been there? The Bernabeu is located in the heart of the city's business district on el Paseo de la Castellana, which is filled with, yes....high rises. The stadium is great, gets sell-outs every game, and street life is fantastic because it is at the heart of the city and is easily accessible via public transport. But god forbid, there is a high rise housing the Spanish office of KPMG right next door! What a shame, I suppose Madrid is just not the world class city we all thought. It's a ludicrous argument to make, the height of surrounding buildings has absolutely ZERO to do with the effectiveness of a stadium's location. ZERO. If South Park residents thought this would hurt their housing values or residential life, they would be up in arms about it. Instead, they are supporting it.

Bernabeu was built in 1940 so is in no way comparable except to show that cities grow over time. In any event, it is miles from the high-rise office district (and miles from the government buildings and tourist areas). Across the street are single story buildings as well as some mid-rises from way back. As an area it has more in common with, say, Palms or WLA than with downtown. In any event, it has more than 10 matches a year so it isn't a dead spot as often as a football stadium would be.

I will agree that it is in an urban area (as is the case in Milan, Paris and many other cities) but would strongly disagree with the assertion that it improves the urbanity of the area.

They might not be comparable due to capacity but how does downtown handle it when the Lakers and Clippers play in the Staples center? I've been to a few games and there is plenty of traffic getting to the staples center but didn't AEG say they had this in their minds? Fixing the Metro stop nearby and such. Although we are comparing 19,000 to 72,000 and I admit you have a point, the traffic will be terrible during matches.

Although you're giving the other cities too much credit. Think of the stadiums that do exist in the downtown such as Yankee stadium, Rogers Centre, Cincinnati stadium, etc... They seem to handle the situation just fine.

A bit off the subject and not very comparable. I have no problems with basketball (17k, about 40 times a year) and baseball (40k, 81 times a year).

Cincinnati is not a large city; it's barely medium sized. Rogers Centre seats 45k and is intended for football and baseball use. I am not picking fights, so I will leave it to others to comment on its usefulness for these purposes.

Yankee Stadium isn't a football stadium and isn't even in Manhattan, so I can't guess what you're driving at. For the record, it is in a fine location: about 10 miles from Wall St., 5 miles from midtown.

Correct. The Bronx is denser than South Park, but the development that does exist in South Park is filled with mostly midrise and warehouses, not skyscrapers. Also, Farmers is not in the middle of the Financial District. In fact, it will be so hidden, that if you were walking south on Figueroa, you wouldn't even know a convention center or stadium was nearby. Old Trafford is a good comparison to Farmers. While close to the city's financial district, its distinctly separate, as Farmers is in an unused portion of downtown abutting the freeway. But its really a moot point, as I mentioned previously, the height of surrounding buildings to stadiums is irrelevant.

Largely true, but misses the point. First, there are true high-rises within about a block of Staples/LA Live, not counting the Ritz, which itself is a high-rise. I haven't been ot Yankee Stadium in a while but last I saw it did not have high-rises (even though, like most of NY, there were some midrises in the area). It's 10 miles from Wall St.

In any event, the issue is that dense high-rise district create traffic and stadiums aggravate it. This is why you build them away from each other.

Smaller indoor arenas are quite acceptable in dense areas with decent transit; baseball less so, but still creates some activity several times a week for 6 months. Football stadiums are huge and dark about 95 percent of the time. Again, why do the most urban cities in the country (NY, SF, Boston) move them away from center city neighborhoods?

In any event, the issue is that dense high-rise district create traffic and stadiums aggravate it. This is why you build them away from each other.

If this is true, then a football stadium that's busy "8 days a year" as you put it would not affect traffic in a financial district. Financial districts are only busy during weekdays. Football stadiums create traffic on the weekends. Again, if local residents were worried about the football stadium was going to affect their quality of life, they would be adamantly outspoken against it. Instead, most of them believe that the stadium will bring ancillary development such as retail and dining, which will IMPROVE their quality of life and property values instead of diminsh them.

In any event, it has more than 10 matches a year so it isn't a dead spot as often as a football stadium would be.
.

And the West Hall isn't just as dead? Seriously, on those 12 acres between Staples and the 110, what were you hoping for?

Again, why do the most urban cities in the country (NY, SF, Boston) move them away from center city neighborhoods?

Very simple. Land is cheaper, and more plentiful. Most football owners are pragmatists, not idealists, nor urbanophiles.

Again, I’m not sure what your thesis is. If it’s that football stadiums inherently damage the quality of urban life, well that has been proven otherwise. There are several football stadiums that border high-rise districts that still maintain a vibrant downtown. If it’s that downtown stadiums will always harm urban life in “world-class” cities, well there isn’t much proof for this either. It seems like just another “universal truth” designed to frame a particular opinion. The physical location of stadiums matters very little, it matters how they relate to and are integrated into the surrounding community (transport, retail, etc.). Every situation and stadium is unique, and you can’t simply put an argument in a box and regurgitate it every time the subject arises.

So..I'm not sure if any of you remember this little building in South Park but it's about to go through a tremendous make over.

From this.
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-02/68302043.jpg

To this.

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027783-xten-downtown-la-hotel-2.jpg
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027783-xten-downtown-la-hotel-2.jpg

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027826-xten-downtown-la-hotel-17.jpg
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027826-xten-downtown-la-hotel-17.jpg

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027790-xten-downtown-la-hotel-6a.jpg
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027790-xten-downtown-la-hotel-6a.jpg

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027787-xten-downtown-la-hotel-5-1000x512.jpg
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027787-xten-downtown-la-hotel-5-1000x512.jpg

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027824-xten-downtown-la-hotel-16.jpg
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027824-xten-downtown-la-hotel-16.jpg

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027807-xten-downtown-la-hotel-10-updated-1000x415.jpg
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027807-xten-downtown-la-hotel-10-updated-1000x415.jpg

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027810-xten-downtown-la-hotel-12-updated-1000x564.jpg
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027810-xten-downtown-la-hotel-12-updated-1000x564.jpg

what's its function? (can't tell if it's residential or a recreation center)

Hotel.

Interesting. An elegant modern touch that looks like what a DT area is supposed to be like (as opposed to LA Live glitzy and tacky). Looks like a winner.

Easy to picture this in NY, Chicago, SF.

If this is true, then a football stadium that's busy "8 days a year" as you put it would not affect traffic in a financial district. Financial districts are only busy during weekdays. Football stadiums create traffic on the weekends. Again, if local residents were worried about the football stadium was going to affect their quality of life, they would be adamantly outspoken against it. Instead, most of them believe that the stadium will bring ancillary development such as retail and dining, which will IMPROVE their quality of life and property values instead of diminsh them.



And the West Hall isn't just as dead? Seriously, on those 12 acres between Staples and the 110, what were you hoping for?


ery simple. Land is cheaper, and more plentiful. Most football owners are pragmatists, not idealists, nor urbanophiles.

Again, I’m not sure what your thesis is. If it’s that football stadiums inherently damage the quality of urban life, well that has been proven otherwise. There are several football stadiums that border high-rise districts that still maintain a vibrant downtown. If it’s that downtown stadiums will always harm urban life in “world-class” cities, well there isn’t much proof for this either. It seems like just another “universal truth” designed to frame a particular opinion. The physical location of stadiums matters very little, it matters how they relate to and are integrated into the surrounding community (transport, retail, etc.). Every situation and stadium is unique, and you can’t simply put an argument in a box and regurgitate it every time the subject arises.

Most of this is so ridiculous that it is hard to comment. But briefly:

NY and Boston owners did not move out of the DT area for cheaper land; they were driven out by citizens who were outraged that such monstrous developments would be proposed for inner cities (although developers used all their funds and political muscle to get them put there). Dallas was more complicated but the citizenry did not clamor for an urban stadium.

The Convention Center is just as dead as LA Live and Nokia. So the solution is to build more?

Why would things that are empty 95 percent of the time attract retail? I suppose some will eventually come there, but mostly bars oriented toward the football crowd.

The Convention Center is just as dead as LA Live and Nokia. So the solution is to build more?

No, because you're not building "more" per say. The solution is to replace a dead convention hall on a site with little to no prospects of true urban development with something that will bring more conventions to Los Angeles. Replacing the West Hall and improving the convention center is the most important piece of this project for the city of Los Angeles. The NFL is an added bonus for us football fans.


Why would things that are empty 95 percent of the time attract retail? I suppose some will eventually come there, but mostly bars oriented toward the football crowd.

Because the more conventions you can book, the greater your chances of attracting more development (retail, dining, lodging, etc.). Simple supply and demand. As evidenced by the hotel project a few posts above this one, we are already seeing the effects.

I'm still waiting to hear what you would have done with the current site of the West Hall.

Interesting. An elegant modern touch that looks like what a DT area is supposed to be like (as opposed to LA Live glitzy and tacky). Looks like a winner.

Easy to picture this in NY, Chicago, SF.

Honestly, I can't understand what the hub-bub is all about over NY, CHI or SF. I much prefer our downtown and really think that it is quite nice. Aspiring to be these other places is frankly odd and I'd guess some sense of inferiority. We are not by any stretch inferior to those places, nor should we try to be like them.

Honestly, I can't understand what the hub-bub is all about over NY, CHI or SF. I much prefer our downtown and really think that it is quite nice. Aspiring to be these other places is frankly odd and I'd guess some sense of inferiority. We are not by any stretch inferior to those places, nor should we try to be like them.

I agree. My vision of DT LA is NOT the density and over-crowding of NY, SF and some others. It is less intense, more open space and setbacks. Only, say, Los Angeles to Fig, 3rd to 8th should be mostly the truly urban look of traditional US cities, both because it is an interesting contrast in limited amounts and because some people like it. I wouldn't do that over a larger area unless there is clear demand for it.

But the argument here is whether a football stadium plunked in the middle of a medium rise residential area bordering on a high rise office area makes sense for creating a walkable neighborhood. The cities I mention are famous for having walkable neighborhoods. They are also famous for being outraged at the idea of putting stadiums anywhere near the their financials centers, civic centers, or urban shopping districts.

So..I'm not sure if any of you remember this little building in South Park but it's about to go through a tremendous make over.

From this.
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-02/68302043.jpg

To this.

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027783-xten-downtown-la-hotel-2.jpg
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027783-xten-downtown-la-hotel-2.jpg

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027826-xten-downtown-la-hotel-17.jpg
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027826-xten-downtown-la-hotel-17.jpg



Very nice. Looks to have great potential. A city like LA should have 100 of these in process. There are some similar things in Venice but this is the first I've seen in downtown with style and elegance on both interiors and exteriors.

Hate to pick on Staples (which is successful economically, but not otherwise) and LA Live, but couldn't they have found a way to incorporate coolness, finish, elegance, pattern, comfort, univesality to their construction? I would love to see AEG offer a prize for how to use these sorts of techniques to improve the open areas around Staples and LA Live. You might end up with Barcelona or Tribeca instead of Circus Circus.

But the argument here is whether a football stadium plunked in the middle of a medium rise residential area bordering on a high rise office area makes sense for creating a walkable neighborhood.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. That 12 acre parcel was NEVER going to become part of a walkable neighborhood. It's a hidden parcel bordered by A) the Convention Center, B) Staples Center, C) a parking structure, and D) the 110 freeway. The convention center had to stay in some shape or form. It was NEVER ever going to be anything other than a convention hall or stadium, nor should it. The site has absolutely NO connectivity to anything resembling a neighborhood.

But the argument here is whether a football stadium plunked in the middle of a medium rise residential area bordering on a high rise office area makes sense for creating a walkable neighborhood. The cities I mention are famous for having walkable neighborhoods. They are also famous for being outraged at the idea of putting stadiums anywhere near the their financials centers, civic centers, or urban shopping districts.


you keep on repeating this stupid line. do you actually know where the West Hall is? seriously

Very nice. Looks to have great potential. A city like LA should have 100 of these in process. There are some similar things in Venice but this is the first I've seen in downtown with style and elegance on both interiors and exteriors.

Hate to pick on Staples (which is successful economically, but not otherwise) and LA Live, but couldn't they have found a way to incorporate coolness, finish, elegance, pattern, comfort, univesality to their construction? I would love to see AEG offer a prize for how to use these sorts of techniques to improve the open areas around Staples and LA Live. You might end up with Barcelona or Tribeca instead of Circus Circus.

agreed. i would love to see dozens more of these 6 - 15 story edgy buildings. they have loads of character.

And i agree about the blandness of LA Live and the surroundings... i really wish that they mixed it up a bit more.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. That 12 acre parcel was NEVER going to become part of a walkable neighborhood. It's a hidden parcel bordered by A) the Convention Center, B) Staples Center, C) a parking structure, and D) the 110 freeway. The convention center had to stay in some shape or form. It was NEVER ever going to be anything other than a convention hall or stadium, nor should it. The site has absolutely NO connectivity to anything resembling a neighborhood.

Self-fulfilling. I won't even begin to tell you how many 'hoods in NY, Brooklyn or Queens, SF, etc., you could say the same about. Cut off by freeways, bridges, water, swamps, industrial decay: and now housing goes 1M and up (way up) and they are busy with people night and day. Some of them are literally under bridges and yet thriving neighborhoods.

Your problem is a willingness to settle for ANYTHING that someone proposes today, without thinking about the broader 'hood 10 or 20 years from now. There is no reason to write off a substantial corner of what could be a walkable hood (especially when there are hundreds of square miles in LA County that will never be urban or walkable).

Your problem is a willingness to settle for ANYTHING that someone proposes today, without thinking about the broader 'hood 10 or 20 years from now. There is no reason to write off a substantial corner of what could be a walkable hood (especially when there are hundreds of square miles in LA County that will never be urban or walkable).

Hello. EARTH TO PESTO. I don't know how many ways I can state it. The convention hall HAS to stay, in some shape or form. That "substantial corner" you talk about can't have anything on it besides a convention hall. Unless you want someone to build Pico Hall and then connect it to a bunch of apartments and condos instead of a football stadium. Which would be absolutely brilliant. Come on man.

Hello. EARTH TO PESTO. I don't know how many ways I can state it. The convention hall HAS to stay, in some shape or form. That "substantial corner" you talk about can't have anything on it besides a convention hall. Unless you want someone to build Pico Hall and then connect it to a bunch of apartments and condos instead of a football stadium. Which would be absolutely brilliant. Come on man.

i think if we walked him down there, stopped and looked at the site, he would still argue. i give up

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1337027783-xten-downtown-la-hotel-2.jpg



Apparently that's not what's getting built there. From LA Downtown News:

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - Another hotel is coming to South Park, and although plans for what is now a derelict structure are early, those involved say it will be a boutique establishment.

The city had initially looked at acquiring a three-story brick edifice at 1130 S. Hope St. and tearing it down to build a park. That plan never came to fruition, and instead the property was purchased by a group of private investors. The group, BIMHF, LLC, has hired an architect and is in the preliminary design and planning phase, said co-owner Rick Son.

While Son said that BIMHF has $25 million in financing "lined up" and the group is looking to open the new hotel in 2014, the room count has not yet been decided. Earlier this week, the website Archdaily.com (http://Archdaily.com) published renderings (http://www.archdaily.com/234370/downtown-la-hotel-xten-architecture/) purportedly of the project by architecture firm XTEN.

XTEN participated in a design competition for the hotel, but did not win, Son said. He also said the images posted online do not reflect the design direction of the hotel.

“It’s completely different,” he said.

Son said he expects to reveal renderings of the hotel in June.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/group-planning-south-park-hotel/article_a3672ac8-a132-11e1-8140-0019bb2963f4.html

I took over 100 pictures of downtown and even got several on the Courtyard Marriott construction. Should I post them here or should we start a thread on the tower now that construction begun? Progress is going nice. I managed to get a few through the fence and a few overview shots from the 26th floor of The Ritz.

Apparently that's not what's getting built there. From LA Downtown News:

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/group-planning-south-park-hotel/article_a3672ac8-a132-11e1-8140-0019bb2963f4.html

What's up with that front facing parking lot?

What's up with that front facing parking lot?

That's an empty lot across the street.