Location: 1111 Wilshire Boulevard
Function: Mixed-Use | 397 Units | Ground Floor Retail
Developer: Holland Partners
Architect: David Lawrence Gray Architects (http://www.davidgrayarchitects.com/index.html) | Nadel Architects (http://www.nadelarc.com/)
Completion: Summer 2010

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2830807481_503566b111_o.jpg

Go for it! :cheers:

Is this one suppost to go directly across from the 1100 Whilshire tower, or next to what used to be the TWA building, (the white 12 story building)

...next two the old run down TWA mid-rise.

420 units huh? hehe

High rise indeed.

http://www.davidgrayarchitects.com/NewFiles/1111-B.jpg

http://www.davidgrayarchitects.com/NewFiles/1111-C.jpg

http://www.davidgrayarchitects.com/1111welevpop.jpg (http://www.davidgrayarchitects.com/index.html)

:applause:

What's the projected timetable ? Based on a 2009 completion date, they'd better get a move on.

What's the projected timetable ? Based on a 2009 completion date, they'd better get a move on.

You know, I really should've put an "N/A" under "Completion". No timeline has been set for this project. It's still in the works.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2830807481_503566b111_o.jpg

Reconfigured 1111 Wilshire Project Listed for Sale (http://www.angelenic.com/4062/reconfigured-1111-wilshire-project-listed-for-sale/#more-4062)

By Stephen Friday
September 5, 2008

Expected as a follow up to its 201-unit GLO project, developer Holland Partners wowed City West residents in 2006 with plans to erect a 52-story residential/boutique hotel tower (http://www.angelenic.com/images/ccrendering_1111_wilshire.jpg) on the opposite corner of Wilshire and Bixel.

Now, like the visions of most builders in a sagging economy, ambitions have been scaled back to a more attainable level — at least, they hope, in the eyes of a new taker.

New information released by real estate company Moran & Company (http://www.moranandco.com/listings/sendfile.asp?type=listing&fileid=6028) listing the proposed development — known simply as 1111 Wilshire — for sale, indicates the hotel component has been dropped altogether, leaving room for 397 residential units and 6,500 square-feet of commercial space over two downgraded structures.

The smaller of the two, a six-story mid-rise facing Wilshire Boulevard, would contain 132 apartment units and all of the retail.

A 261-unit, 30-story tower with floor-to-ceiling glass windows and a seven-level parking podium would fill in the rest of the project site, currently a surface parking lot.

Entitlements for all of this are still being sought, and Holland Partners is looking to unload the responsibility, as its attention seems to be diverted to another project (http://www.angelenic.com/658/holland-partners-stays-course-with-good-sam-project/) just around the corner.

David L. Gray Architects (http://www.davidgrayarchitects.com/) and Nadel Architects (http://www.nadelarc.com/) are sharing design credit, and according to Moran & Company, a completion date of summer 2010 is now estimated.

-Residences @ Bixel Project Down-Sizes, Goes Rental (http://www.angelenic.com/688/residences-bixel-project-down-sizes-goes-rental/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/2830952995_57b72b8447.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2383/2038029153_22e50bd67c.jpg
1111 Wilshire project site

Good thing October 5th, 2007 still exists, to show what might have been.

Nice. Don't build it.

Strangely, I'm okay with the design change. To be honest, the older design -- though impressive in its size and scale -- did absolutely nothing for me. In fact, I found it to be quite cheap looking. There is something solid about this new vision.

Very nice. Hope it gets approval. :cheers:

Meh... Feh... I guess it's ok, kinda like if Hanover and Evo had a baby :) http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2830807481_503566b111_o.jpg

Truth Milque, truth...:yes:

Why does it look really short whereas the old version looked really tall??

^ Because the original was 52 stories and this is 30.

Ask a silly question...

^ Haha never really read it hard enough I guess

while the new design isnt totally lame, I actually really liked the old design. A big blade of blue.

Oh well, thats life I guess.

I think this project has started already in construction.

I think this project has started already in construction.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/articles/2011/06/07/news/doc4deeb06647784897078087.txt

Wow that surely shrunk

this is mourningly sad... why even build it at all that close to our financial district

Admitedly this is close to downtown and on Wilshire, but 7 stories isn't that bad for that area. There is plenty of older housing in City West ("inner Westlake") that would not be missed. 30 new projects like this would do more good for the area than a couple of towers in a sea of run-down.

I guess the real issue is whether that side of the freeway will be true CBD.

i see it as a more residential area

30 new projects like this would do more good for the area than a couple of towers in a sea of run-down.



Agreed!

this is mourningly sad... why even build it at all that close to our financial district

City West is (shockingly) one of the densest areas in Los Angeles. There are a lot of buildings in the 5 to 7 story range. This will fit in fine and add to the area. Although it should be said that in the early 90's, developers had huge ideas for that area. The Watt City Center would've risen where the Medici is now festering and it would have been a 2 tower complex. One tower was to have been 62 (about the height of Cal Plaza 2) stories and the other was to be 27 stories. There was also Pacific Rim Plaza on Bixel and 6th which would've been around 45 stories tall. The lot is still there so it would be interesting to see what happens in the coming years.

this is mourningly sad... why even build it at all that close to our financial district

This happened a lot in New York after the 1929 crash. Once grand development schemes were discarded and one or two story "taxpayers" filled the lots. 60 years later, those buildings were demolished and replaced with a sea of new towers, especially in Times Square. Anything beats an empty lot and if the site is valuable enough, something huge will eventually replace this nice but stumpy building. :)

Admitedly this is close to downtown and on Wilshire, but 7 stories isn't that bad for that area. There is plenty of older housing in City West ("inner Westlake") that would not be missed. 30 new projects like this would do more good for the area than a couple of towers in a sea of run-down.

I guess the real issue is whether that side of the freeway will be true CBD.

agreed. i like height as much as everyone else, but i wouldnt mind ten more of these in that area.

Is this building in Downtown??? Sorry I am not from the area.

If this is 7 storeys now then the title of the thread should be modified accordingly.

Is this building in Downtown??? Sorry I am not from the area.

It's about 1 block west of the 110 freeway, which is the western boundary of the most common definition of "downtown" or the central business district. But it's easy to call this area downtown since it has high-rises in some places.

For sure, the name of the thread has to change.

30 new projects like this would do more good for the area than a couple of towers in a sea of run-down.


I just got this report today that apartment and condo construction of this type is taking off in L. A., with home construction almost dead. . <embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50106582&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/16/eveningnews/main20071786.shtml" />

This is very hopeful. I would assume that the heaps of unused housing in the outer 'burbs would fill in since they are just sitting there, and eventually the banks will sell them off. But seeing some real demand for multi-story urban is a good sign.

well, L.A. county needed over 650,000 residential units built between 1990 and 2000 just to achieve 95% occupancy rate (for that time's demand). only 120,000 were built, so now we have to make up for that and meet the demand between 2000 and 2010.

You are certainly right, at least in part. But if you assume that the shortage of housing resulted in multi-family uses and overcrowding of existing stock, then the people who want to move into new housing have to make the same decision: urban expensive, urban cheap or suburban. My guess is that most will go for a rent or purchase of a full-sized home in the IE (or Stockton, etc.) if they possibly can rather than renting all their lives.

But economics may cut in your favor. If you can't afford to buy, then renting in a cheaper part of town is the only choice (besides Texas).

I actually like it. I think it's time to update the rendering on the first post though.

I think that this type of low/medium rise does more good for a neighborhood because it does take up vacant lots or parcels that need to be redeveloped into more adaptive uses. In the end I think that most people would rather have dense walkable neighborhoods vs. a few towers here and there with blight in between those towers.

well, L.A. county needed over 650,000 residential units built between 1990 and 2000 just to achieve 95% occupancy rate (for that time's demand). only 120,000 were built, so now we have to make up for that and meet the demand between 2000 and 2010.

Hence the exodus. The scarcity of housing drives prices up and sends families packing to Texas. Not all but some of the scarce housing can be directly blamed on NIMBY's and the slow growth caucus. And as people leave looking for housing and jobs elsewhere it directly affects our economy. Not getting involved and allowing NIMBY's to run the show has consequences.

Is there really a scarcity of housing in LA? I thought DT had lots of units available and not selling. Same for many other areas. In fact, aren't the outer suburbs quite cheap and available?

Because of social conditioning and perception of downtown most two parent families with 2 kids are not going to buy a condo downtown. It's an assumption but I believe that to be true. Before the bust the average house in LA was roughly $400,000 which was a challenge for the average family to afford, hence scarcity of affordable housing.

Is there really a scarcity of housing in LA? I thought DT had lots of units available and not selling. Same for many other areas. In fact, aren't the outer suburbs quite cheap and available?

nope, not true.

The rental vacancy rate in downtown LA is very low. Even the condo market is healthy. there definitely is a lack of inventory for middle income clients. I personally know plenty of people that would move downtown, if the price point was correct.

nope, not true.

The rental vacancy rate in downtown LA is very low. Even the condo market is healthy. there definitely is a lack of inventory for middle income clients. I personally know plenty of people that would move downtown, if the price point was correct.

That is a BIG if. I once toyed with the idea of relocating downtown from the Valley and looked at one of the lofts in the garment district. While the unit itself was affordable at the time, I was astonished by the $400 - $600/month homeowner association fees. Stunned really given there was nothing that these fees could possibly cover such as landscaping, etc. I viewed it as a total rip off. Who can afford the high monthly payments (at the time) with this other cr#p heaped on top? I was afraid to even look at what parking would be. I hope that they rethink this money grab.

yup the HOA's are a big deterrent for buyers, however, prices have dropped to accommodate the high HOA's and for other reasons of course.

nope, not true.

The rental vacancy rate in downtown LA is very low. Even the condo market is healthy. there definitely is a lack of inventory for middle income clients. I personally know plenty of people that would move downtown, if the price point was correct.

That's true of everywhere on earth.

so everywhere on earth has a very low rental vacancy? good to know ;)

"Pest" is defending his point that if there is vacancies then that means that anyone can move into them. Neglecting the two points that I brought up which are social conditioning i.e. the lure of a sfh in the suburbs aka the "American Dream". And the fact that if we want families living in the core of our cities we must provide affordable and workforce housing. Yes, there may be a demand for high end housing in city centers but the average working to middle class family is priced out. Now if you want your cities to be all singles, dinks and empty nesters then so be it. But diversity is also inclusive of the perceived normative which is hetero working class families with 2 or 3 kids and though not the normative that also goes for gay families with children who are equally priced out. Should we allow the market to run its course and we end up with the Paris-effect, monied in the center poor and immigrants creating a ring around the city because of some arbitrary belief in an amoral and mindless free market ethos? Or should we set aside a portion of new build residential for those who couldn't otherwise afford the city center in our effort to create more of an egalitarian system and true class diversity?

Rode by on my bike today. There is a small crane on site, up to the third floor now. Didn't realize that there was a thread for it so I didn't take a picture.

Nice to know the construction is progressing. Will it be just 7 floors high (as the thread suggest)? Hope not!

Rode by on my bike today. There is a small crane on site, up to the third floor now. Didn't realize that there was a thread for it so I didn't take a picture.

There's movement on this? sweet! :)

so everywhere on earth has a very low rental vacancy? good to know ;)

You're right; I was a bit sloppy. The last sentence "I personally know plenty of people that would move downtown, if the price point was correct." is the part that is true about everywhere."

"Pest" is defending his point that if there is vacancies then that means that anyone can move into them. Neglecting the two points that I brought up which are social conditioning i.e. the lure of a sfh in the suburbs aka the "American Dream". And the fact that if we want families living in the core of our cities we must provide affordable and workforce housing. Yes, there may be a demand for high end housing in city centers but the average working to middle class family is priced out. Now if you want your cities to be all singles, dinks and empty nesters then so be it. But diversity is also inclusive of the perceived normative which is hetero working class families with 2 or 3 kids and though not the normative that also goes for gay families with children who are equally priced out. Should we allow the market to run its course and we end up with the Paris-effect, monied in the center poor and immigrants creating a ring around the city because of some arbitrary belief in an amoral and mindless free market ethos? Or should we set aside a portion of new build residential for those who couldn't otherwise afford the city center in our effort to create more of an egalitarian system and true class diversity?

I agree that vast islands of income-segregated people is not desirable; but I have less trouble with smaller "neighborhoods", where similar size and quality homes are mandated by zoning.

But that is hardly the problem in downtown or most of the surroundings since huge amounts of down-market housing is available. There really is no great shortage of reasonably priced housing between Pico and Century both to the east and west, nor in Westlake, Ktown, etc. The good news is that more and more "non-poverty" housing is moving in; but this doesn't imply that the lower middle and working poor are in dire threat of being squeezed out.

If you are referring to the really destitute, they are in trouble pretty much wherever they are.

yesterday:

http://i.imgur.com/ybafl.jpg?1

I agree that vast islands of income-segregated people is not desirable; but I have less trouble with smaller "neighborhoods", where similar size and quality homes are mandated by zoning.

But that is hardly the problem in downtown or most of the surroundings since huge amounts of down-market housing is available. There really is no great shortage of reasonably priced housing between Pico and Century both to the east and west, nor in Westlake, Ktown, etc. The good news is that more and more "non-poverty" housing is moving in; but this doesn't imply that the lower middle and working poor are in dire threat of being squeezed out.

If you are referring to the really destitute, they are in trouble pretty much wherever they are.
It took you 7 months to respond? :lol: I agree that there is a massive supply of housing just to the west of downtown, most being multi-family units. Now, I've been predicting on this board since time immemorial that Westalke will be one of the hottest neighborhoods in the coming economic upturn. Quite frankly, Westlake is a sitting duck. A neighborhood with everything that one who enjoys city living would want a neighborhood to have. Truly good bones! Where I don't agree with you is the assumption that those that are there now will not be "pushed" or priced out.....because they will. They will be squeezed south as Koreatown to the west continues its march east, they will be squeezed from the north as the impenetrable Echo Park and Silver Lake areas continue to gentrify and they will and are being squeezed from the east as Downtown begins to overflow(and we are just at the tip of the iceberg with that).

It took you 7 months to respond? :lol: I agree that there is a massive supply of housing just to the west of downtown, most being multi-family units. Now, I've been predicting on this board since time immemorial that Westalke will be one of the hottest neighborhoods in the coming economic upturn. Quite frankly, Westlake is a sitting duck. A neighborhood with everything that one who enjoys city living would want a neighborhood to have. Truly good bones! Where I don't agree with you is the assumption that those that are there now will not be "pushed" or priced out.....because they will. They will be squeezed south as Koreatown to the west continues its march east, they will be squeezed from the north as the impenetrable Echo Park and Silver Lake areas continue to gentrify and they will and are being squeezed from the east as Downtown begins to overflow(and we are just at the tip of the iceberg with that).

I posted months ago so I'm not sure why it is dated this April. But in any event, I am hopeful that you are right and over time E. Hollywood, Westlake and such will increase in value and the lower income people will move further south or east or leave LA for outer suburbs.

But given the size of the the poorer elements in those areas, plus downtown and Ktown, etc., this is at least a 20 year process which means most of the change will occur by way of death, change of employment, family changes, etc., not by forcing thousands of the poor onto the market in a few months or by some other socially significant movement.

The method by which those 'hoods upgrade will be by older apartments being replaced by newer, somewhat larger ones, one by one; and by aging groups of 3-6 sfh's (largely with older occupants) being replace by apartments. This by its nature is a very slow process. I don't see any kind of sudden huge housing boom in this area.

Any kind of move is difficult, but in this case there is no shortage of places to move to. There seems to be a substantial housing stock and no great upward pressure on rents in the center of LA County.

Nearing completion.
Taken on 8 Jan 2013

http://imageshack.us/a/img442/9595/20130108235527.jpg

Taken on 13 March 2013 by me:

http://imageshack.us/a/img9/9118/20130312195730.jpg