1111 Wilshire | 7 fl | U/C

[djm19]

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.

[D'Transporter]

I think this project has started already in construction.

[losangelino]

Originally Posted by D'Transporter

I think this project has started already in construction.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/articl...4897078087.txt

[goom]

Wow that surely shrunk

[croyboy]

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

[pesto]

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.

[croyboy]

i see it as a more residential area

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by pesto

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

Agreed!

[soup or man]

Originally Posted by croyboy

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.

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by croyboy

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.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by pesto

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.

[minsamol]

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

[tanzirian]

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

[pesto]

Originally Posted by minsamol

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.

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by pesto

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.

.

[pesto]

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.

[croyboy]

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.

[pesto]

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).

[JRinSoCal]

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

[vidgms]

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.