daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > North American Skyscrapers Forum > Metropolis & States > Los Angeles > Los Angeles forums > Projects > Development News



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 8th, 2012, 06:44 PM   #201
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,385
Likes (Received): 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Lots of issues and most of this is speculative, but why not?

I strongly prefer organic as well, but that isn't very likely at Dodger Stadium. And it's hard to argue with Camden Yards and its surrounding 'hood which have nice shopping and a variety of attractions, where there was once serious decay. Smith's work there has influenced a dozen other DT stadiums; it's hard to imagine someone better for creating an integrated 'hood.

It's similar to ATT in SF, in that it is happening a mile or so from downtown in an area that is experiencing a re-birth of demand. MLK and surrounding streets in SF are consistently "BMW and trust fund" highrise, which could very well be the goal here as well. I suppose the businesses they would look for are broadcast, creative, tech, consulting and the like, same as SoMa. Not exactly DT, but urban with some of the amenities of the suburbs.

I would assume that there will be meaningful expansion of non-auto transit, hopefully toward Union Station and along Sunset. If not, traffic will be very poor and demand to live there pretty weak.
ya but the Dodger stadium site is on a hill, isolated from the city. the ATT park area is at least part of the urban fabric. Thats why i would like to see a new Dodger Stadium in the area around Union Station / Chinatown / Cornfields cause i see a lot of potential there
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old August 8th, 2012, 07:16 PM   #202
slipperydog
Registered User
 
slipperydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,477
Likes (Received): 433

I just can't see the mentality of essentially driving to Dodger Stadium 5 days a week to get home or get to work being appealing to any business or family that can actually afford it. Comparing the AT&T Park, Camden Yards, or Petco Park sites to Chavez Ravine is like comparing Central Park to Griffith Park. They have completely different dynamics and shouldn't be used as precedents or as models for the other. Give me large open green spaces and nice landscaping that break up the massive concrete parking lots at Chavez. Give people a reason to come early with their kids and enjoy the nice LA weather in a safe environment. I don't need Dodger Stadium to be "Caruso-fied". Update the stadium and immediate perimeter, but don't attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole by building something that there is little demand for, as well as destroying the historic nature of what Chavez has meant to so many generations of Dodger fans. Chavez is a retreat away from it all. If we want the Grove, we'll go there.

Last edited by slipperydog; August 8th, 2012 at 07:21 PM.
slipperydog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2012, 12:49 AM   #203
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,385
Likes (Received): 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipperydog View Post
I just can't see the mentality of essentially driving to Dodger Stadium 5 days a week to get home or get to work being appealing to any business or family that can actually afford it. Comparing the AT&T Park, Camden Yards, or Petco Park sites to Chavez Ravine is like comparing Central Park to Griffith Park. They have completely different dynamics and shouldn't be used as precedents or as models for the other. Give me large open green spaces and nice landscaping that break up the massive concrete parking lots at Chavez. Give people a reason to come early with their kids and enjoy the nice LA weather in a safe environment. I don't need Dodger Stadium to be "Caruso-fied". Update the stadium and immediate perimeter, but don't attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole by building something that there is little demand for, as well as destroying the historic nature of what Chavez has meant to so many generations of Dodger fans. Chavez is a retreat away from it all. If we want the Grove, we'll go there.
exactly my thoughts
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 07:44 PM   #204
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

Certainly good points but you can't argue with the "givens": there IS a hill and ravine; there IS an inconic stadium which is not going anywhere; there is expected to be great demand (I remember during the Dodger bidding process that someone called the parking lots the most attractive undeveloped urban area in the US); it is not going to be organic or left alone. Expanding parkland is doubtful; there is already a huge park on two sides of the stadium that is very lightly used compared to true urban parks.

The development won't be fully integrated into DT in the sense of a grid pattern, but that's not critical. Istanbul, Paris, Budapest, Rome and others (just in Europe) have areas separated by hills or ravines that are very nice, very urban and very desirable without being fully integrated into the city grid; it actually creates opportunities for open space, ponds, unique architecture. The idea is to create a community that stands as urban on its own and then have good connections to Chinatown and Union Station on one side and Sunset on the other. The above cities have used funiculars, cog rail, winding steps through parks and the like quite successfully to allow movement between the areas.

The US master plan is an obvious interaction here. While mid to upscale housing next to Union Station strikes me as highly doubtful, connecting housing at the stadium into the US and DT neighborhoods seems possible. If you want to dream big, maybe some reworking of the 110 to cover it in parts to allow transit or footpaths.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2012, 09:15 PM   #205
slipperydog
Registered User
 
slipperydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,477
Likes (Received): 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Certainly good points but you can't argue with the "givens": there IS a hill and ravine; there IS an inconic stadium which is not going anywhere; there is expected to be great demand (I remember during the Dodger bidding process that someone called the parking lots the most attractive undeveloped urban area in the US)
I don't personally see it being very attractive for that kind of development, but let's say the report was correct and there is massive demand for the site...is that what Dodger fans want? Does the front office believe this kind of development is desired for Chavez Ravine?

Quote:
Expanding parkland is doubtful; there is already a huge park on two sides of the stadium that is very lightly used compared to true urban parks.
Again, I'm primarily in favor of better landscaping and green spaces to encourage a better gameday experience, not to become an urban park. If that's what it becomes, then great, but that would not be my primary or expected objective.

Quote:
The development won't be fully integrated into DT in the sense of a grid pattern, but that's not critical. Istanbul, Paris, Budapest, Rome and others (just in Europe) have areas separated by hills or ravines that are very nice, very urban and very desirable without being fully integrated into the city grid; it actually creates opportunities for open space, ponds, unique architecture.
If so, that might be interesting. Can you reference names of specific areas or provide any photos? An example of such a site that is anchored by a historical stadium would be even better for a more apt comparison.
slipperydog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2012, 06:07 PM   #206
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipperydog View Post
I don't personally see it being very attractive for that kind of development, but let's say the report was correct and there is massive demand for the site...is that what Dodger fans want? Does the front office believe this kind of development is desired for Chavez Ravine?



Again, I'm primarily in favor of better landscaping and green spaces to encourage a better gameday experience, not to become an urban park. If that's what it becomes, then great, but that would not be my primary or expected objective.



If so, that might be interesting. Can you reference names of specific areas or provide any photos? An example of such a site that is anchored by a historical stadium would be even better for a more apt comparison.
Well that's what I get for making comparisons. First, let me say that I don't consider any of these exact duplicates of LA; they are examples of how hilly terrain does not have to destroy connectivity in an urban context.

Montmartre in Paris; Castle Hill in Buda; all of central Istanbul (loosely, the Beyoglu or greater Taksim areas) plus many new neighborhoods heading north; many areas of Rome.

Castle Hill was for centuries the royal center; it is at the top of a plateau near the Danube and has winding roads, a funicular or two and long steps to get up there now. It has historical squares and buildings and also hotels and tourist and local oriented restaurants, bars and clubs. Across the river is the main commercial and govt. part of town.

In Istanbul, the entire center of the city is on a plateau well above the coast; old cobblestone roads and paths go up the center, with funiculars at either end (Galata Bridge and near Kabatas). From the Golden Horn side, access is very difficult. As you head north, there are many new developments (highrise residential with small retail and food) that are isolated due to the steep hills. The old BJK Inonu stadium (soccer) is an interesting parallel, since it is in a small ravine with hills around it near Taksim (city center) and traffic is very poor. The city is built up rather close around it.

Rome similarly has hills all over from the relatively low ones around the Spanish Steps and Via Veneto, to the taller ones east of the Circus Maximus and around the Protestant Cemetery. This creates breaks in the urban fabric but doesn't keep the areas from being urban.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2012, 06:10 PM   #207
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

Per multiple sources, the Dodgers are looking at getting 240-280M per year from Fox for broadcast rights (vs. the 39M they currently get).

Focusing just on Dodger Stadium, this would imply that there will be considerable funds for development of the stadium and parking lots. I would guess that we will be hearing more about this is in the near future. The smal stuff (clubhouses, electronics, eating areas) will be done this off-season so it will be interesting to follow the next steps.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2012, 05:33 AM   #208
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,385
Likes (Received): 161

ya, i hope they funnel some of that money towards a gold line spur (unlikely, very unlikely, i know.)
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2012, 06:16 PM   #209
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
ya, i hope they funnel some of that money towards a gold line spur (unlikely, very unlikely, i know.)
You may be right. The MTA won't do it and the Dodgers may not have the inclination on public transit if the city is not interested. But we can hope that with the Union Station plan and downtown getting all kinds of development, there will be some government funds.

It sort of reminds me of when Cupertino asked Steve Jobs if he planned to build new parks and roads at the proposed HQ (5-10k more tech jobs in a city of 40k). He said "no; that's your job. I pay 25M of taxes to you and you take care of public projects." Guggenheim might say that they so far have provided 2B to get McCourt out; maybe 200M for expansions and upgrades and another 200M for new players; brought attention to a major LA brand; and paid whatever taxes they pay.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2012, 06:33 AM   #210
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

Renovations have begun on expanded locker rooms, improved training facilities and updated electronics. Stan Kasten, Dodger CEO, had promised the media a detailed gameplan of the new renovation plans 2 weeks after the season ended. This was first put off indefinitely and now has been rescheduled for January.

This seems to indicate that there is still some uncertainty about what to do, and also raises the question of what role Guggenheim will play in bringing football to LA.

I'm also curious as to how this will all tie-in with Union Station and the Cornfields projects.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2013, 06:45 PM   #211
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Renovations have begun on expanded locker rooms, improved training facilities and updated electronics. Stan Kasten, Dodger CEO, had promised the media a detailed gameplan of the new renovation plans 2 weeks after the season ended. This was first put off indefinitely and now has been rescheduled for January.

This seems to indicate that there is still some uncertainty about what to do, and also raises the question of what role Guggenheim will play in bringing football to LA.

I'm also curious as to how this will all tie-in with Union Station and the Cornfields projects.
Per multiple sources the new stadium scoreboards are going to be bigger and much more HD and return to hexagonal shape (bringing back a nice '60's motif). The best in any sports facility. Smith has been implying that the '60's look is going to be preserved and now is quoted as saying that the stadium is rock solid in its construction and needs no basic work.

Yet, as has been pointed out before, the Dodgers are refusing to say that they will stay in the stadium for the long-term. This seems to be a company policy, which means that there must be some thought about moving.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 06:11 AM   #212
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,385
Likes (Received): 161

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25550211

good video that provides more detail about some of the changes.
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 06:42 PM   #213
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

This most interesting part is that they have until March 28 to get it done. Right now the lower level is mostly dirt, the concourses are construction sites, and it looks more like a scene from Battle Los Angeles than Field of Dreams.

Mark my words: something (bathrooms, scoreboard, food facilities?) won't be quite done.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2013, 08:37 AM   #214
Westsidelife
LAL | LAD | LAK
 
Westsidelife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,727
Likes (Received): 50

I heard on ESPN LA Radio last week that the renovations might not be done in time for Opening Day.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods
Westsidelife no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2013, 05:15 PM   #215
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
I heard on ESPN LA Radio last week that the renovations might not be done in time for Opening Day.
That sounds like PR speak for "no way in hell they will be done".

Is that the same article that talked about switching out series with the Giants and others so as to open DS later? I would find that very unlikely since it would be widely reported and makes it look like you're not running a competent organization.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 06:37 PM   #216
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

Per various sources, it looks like you can add another billion or two to the Dodgers "stadium renovation or replacement fund" as they sign a broadcast deal with Time Warner rather than Fox (some say it's not quite a done deal).

This may not change current plans much (even though gold bathroom fixtures would be nice) but makes it easier to go with a football stadium in the parking lots or build a new baseball stadium somewhere else downtown.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2013, 11:26 PM   #217
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...s-Angeles.aspx

NFL and Guggenheim are in talks re building a football stadium in Dodger Stadium. This would certainly allow for a bigger and splashier design than AEG's. And Guggenheim would presumably be flexible on controlling football revenues so long as they have overall control of the Chavez Ravine environment and a fat cash inflow from rent.

Note the Hollywood Park mention as well.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2013, 07:51 PM   #218
klamedia
Silver Lake
 
klamedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lost Angeles
Posts: 5,673
Likes (Received): 154

There's no transit there. How is this a good idea to anyone with a working frontal lobe?
__________________
"Self defense is not violence" - Malcolm X
"I love Los Angeles. I love Hollywood. They're so beautiful. Everything's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic." - Andy Warhol
Minimum parking standards are fertility drugs for cars. - Donald Shoup
klamedia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2013, 08:27 PM   #219
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 260

Transit is clearly an issue, but mostly for baseball. The Dodgers have already started talking about dedicated bus lanes from US and Sunset/Vermont Red Line; these would be good for either sport. Other ideas have been kicked around and now it looks like there might be money to implement them, between Guggenheim, the NFL and the massive US development plan.

Football traffic is normally not too bad since fans drive hours before the game so they can tailgate at the stadium. After the game it's already Sunday evening and traffic will only be disastrous right around the stadium.

Countering the questionable transit situation, the NFL's thinking is probably that it is the best place to build a world class stadium, so do it right in your one chance. It has the room; multi-story parking structures have already been thought about; the land and surrounding area is already controlled and zoned for sports related activities, so you worry less about the city, neighbors, etc., suing whenever anything upsets them; views are great; and hotels, dining, etc., can be shared with the Dodgers for near year-round use.

Last edited by pesto; February 27th, 2013 at 08:41 PM.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2013, 02:57 AM   #220
klamedia
Silver Lake
 
klamedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lost Angeles
Posts: 5,673
Likes (Received): 154

The area around the stadium will forever be constrained. No wonderful full capacity hotels will be built around the stadium, no vibrant commercial center will develop and no high density neighborhood like in other cities will form around the stadium. Why? Because the area 1) has no transit....no not an Sunday evening only bus but true 365 day transit 2) the neighbors will flip once the EIR comes out and shows the amount of increased traffic going up that hill 3) the roads are not wide enough to handle a "new city" in a ravine and transit would take years to be built...and we're not just talking 5 years.
Build the stadium where we have transit already and the area around that stadium will be able to accommodate high-rise hotels, dense housing and a true commercial corridor.

This idea is dumb.
__________________
"Self defense is not violence" - Malcolm X
"I love Los Angeles. I love Hollywood. They're so beautiful. Everything's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic." - Andy Warhol
Minimum parking standards are fertility drugs for cars. - Donald Shoup
klamedia no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu