Source : Urbanize.LAThe plan to redevelop the Fashion District's historic City Market as a 10-acre mixed-use complex continues to move forward, with a hearing scheduled next week at the Los Angeles City Planning Commission.
The project, which is being led by Lena Group, imagines reinventing the former produce market with multiple buildings between three and 38 stories, featuring up to 948 residential units - including 48 priced for the workforce and low income affordability levels - a 210-key hotel, 225,000 square feet of commercial space and a 300,000-square-foot campus for that could house an educational institution. According to the Planning Department's staff report, various commercial uses within City Market could include shops, restaurants, even space, and a 744-seat multiplex theater.
Architecture firm HansonLA is designing the project, which could feature towers up to 454 feet in height. The master plan for the sprawling development site would be broken up through a series of internal walkways, both elevated and at street level. The property's central pedestrian spine is oriented along the produce market's historic courtyard, giving a not to the project's origins.
Renderings show a series of jagged towers and mid-rise structures, providing a significant departure from the more boxy forms that typify modern commercial developments. Building facades are articulated for maximum sun exposure and limiting the appearance of an imposing street wall.
The development team is also a signage program which would allow buildings to display digital advertisements.
Lena Group has already repurposed a substantial portion of the property - branded City Market South - as a mixture of office and retail space. The existing space was 98 percent leased as of Summer 2017.
A definitive timeline for the larger ground-up project has not been revealed. Past reports have pointed to a potential phased build out over the course of 20 years.
The Planning Department's staff report recommends the approval of the development scheme, as well as an agreement to provide over $11 million towards the creation and preservation of affordable housing in the area.
3
The story so far is that the refurb of low rise warehouses is moving along. What is in question is when anything taller than about 3 stories is really going to happen. I would guess a decade out from the vagueness of the article.
I think the key is that the refurb ("clean-off that area and give it some paint") is practically free while building requires money.^^ I'm surprised this one isn't off the ground yet, if the article is correct in its statement that the office/retail is already 98% leased.
This proposal has lasted so long that it's turning out to be a Grand Ave Project situation.
For an area this empty, there aren't many people encamped nearby (considering skid row is just up the street). I would think the obvious vacancy/emptiness of the perimeter would be a magnet for those living just up the street.
As for local councilman payoff scenario, if it were the case, this project should've either started up or been scrapped by now. I mean the private pedestrian bridge is already part of the development, so why the wait?
Sounds about right but gentrification, getting rid of the street zombies and putting in stores selling decent merchandise are all part of the same thing. Are you blaming the retailers for selling what is sold in every middle class neighborhood of every developed country in the world? They are the ones with a real stake in this; if no one buys they will go out of business and the storefronts go empty again.Locals don't seem to mind when encampments and empty lots are worked on and developers move in. Developers and city officials get more flak when it's locals getting priced out or hipsters coming in fresh from.. wherever.. and start harassing peloteros or local business people and then putting up their own bougie business that sells pretty much the same thing as the locals were, but with a higher price tag.
If anything, this will just get raw nimbys (but even that would shock me since the immediate area doesn't have any residents that quite meet the typical nimby paygrade and housing status).
The only downside I can see anyone putting up against a project like this is the lack off transit connection nearby. This development is larger than the Wilshire/Vermont station TOD directly above, yet City Market is nowhere near any rail station. Even bus routes are infrequent.
Agree generally. But I don't approve building ready-made slum housing in gentrifying areas. Drive through South Central or east toward the OC or most of the SGV and SFV. Badly aging small homes, many subdivided with dead yards and half a dozen cars parked around the street and yards. THAT is where the subsidized apartments should be going, not in gentrifying areas.Well, based on what i've seen on this up to this point, (which has not been much) i like everything about this plan, with only one exception, with a possible 948 units, low income units offered, 48, should be bumped to 148, the income from the 225 room key hotel could make up the difference, but as for the plan itself, in this part of downtown, i believe its totally viable, and its been tailored for the school district, if memory serves, this area is mostly retail, with leased or rental space mainly going to the production of clothing/garments, with the actual residential population of lets say, less than a maximum 50%, (or the population of the 9 block area that surrounds, centered on the project) much of the work force in this area actually live south or east of the I-10 fwy, in my opinion, as long as the city does not pass 2 or 3 other projects of this size and scope, until 5 years after all phases of this project are brought on line, this project is a winner,
the ''spire'' depicted in the first rendering, would surely add landmark status to this project, and i would like to see it included in the final plan to pass the city counsel,
Sounds about right but gentrification, getting rid of the street zombies and putting in stores selling decent merchandise are all part of the same thing. Are you blaming the retailers for selling what is sold in every middle class neighborhood of every developed country in the world? They are the ones with a real stake in this; if no one buys they will go out of business and the storefronts go empty again.
As for transit, that's the beauty of buses; they can be put in when needed at small expense and removed when not needed. Above ground rail is the LAST alternative in any truly dense area (see Manhattan, central London, Chicago, Paris, etc.).
But my main concern is that this isn't real. Show me the money or call me again in 5 years.
Agree generally except on aboveground rail: that is one of basic hallmarks of a slum, not only an eyesore but noisy. Until there is enough density for underground, I would stick to express bus shuttles from a south AD "station" to the center of DT.Putting in any store is fine. I wouldn't say I'm blaming retailers for selling what is sold in every middle class neighborhood everywhere in the world. Mostly because I don't think the middle class would spend $90 on a beanie or $250 for sunglasses. But you're right. They can go out of business due to supply and demand (or flourish). Noticed many of the new developments never even fill up. Guess the Paleteros and Eloteros and swapmeets could just adjust their prices to keep up (as long as the new neighbors don't push them around).
As for transit (best case scenario), grade-separate rail is the way to go within the downtown circa and much of the surrounding neighborhoods (above ground is fine if it's elevated).
Pretty much thinking the same thing about the reality of this project. If it doesn't pick up soon, I doubt even five years will be enough time to see anything grow on that lot.
My dictionary says it is a squalid neighborhood inhabited by poor people. And that fits since the streets that surface or elevated rail travels on in are typically much poorer than adjacent streets without rail, noise, crowds, loitering, etc. To say nothing of the added congestion.^^ Wouldn't quite pair it together with a slum. Remember a slum is defined by the absence of utilities (water, power, etc...) and rail is a major utility or mode of city service. This type of grade separation runs thru many cityscapes like Tokyo, Osaka, Bangkok, Berlin, Hamburg, and even Vancouver, yet I wouldn't even think of the neighborhoods as slums or ignored communities.
It can definitely be known to be an eyesore if implemented hastily into its surroundings. Definitely will have noise, but (although I hate this option over the other) light rail isn't as noisy as heavy rail.
Of course, the preference is below-grade. But between the other options, above-grade is preferable to at-grade (Gold Line in Pasadena and East L.A., Santa Monica portion of Expo Line, south Long Beach portion of Blue Line, and even their shared tracks thru Downtown). In those examples, I'd say Metro is flirting with the concept of a puny streetcar rather than a major/heavy passenger volume transportation mode (the obvious preference for our congested region).
Very broad definition. That would mean the majority of neighborhoods within the city (and surrounding communities) are slums. To say that's not the case means this definition is really just being a matter of opinion when a neighborhood's population is compared to whoever is making the comparison (I suppose the Saudi prince would consider Rodeo Drive a "slum").My dictionary says it is a squalid neighborhood inhabited by poor people.
Central, South, and East have elevated lines, but even the U-Bahn is still 20% above ground. I wouldn't say East Berlin is "much poorer". Maybe East Germany, but the capital itself is mending pretty fast for a span of nearly 30 years. And the rail integrated into each neighborhood looks quite beautiful. Most current construction is out in the burbs.I'm not sure what part of Berlin you are talking about; the route the Bahn travels along is downmarket compared to other streets and the west got rid of surface trolleys altogether (the much poorer east still has them in working class areas).
Don't have to. Property value examples here along Expo (at mostly elevated or at-grade sections) have risen an average of 300% since the line was under construction.Ask SD or SFV people about rail by their property; that's why they left where they came from back east.
The definition is straight from the dictionary; word for word.Very broad definition. That would mean the majority of neighborhoods within the city (and surrounding communities) are slums. To say that's not the case means this definition is really just being a matter of opinion when a neighborhood's population is compared to whoever is making the comparison (I suppose the Saudi prince would consider Rodeo Drive a "slum").
Central, South, and East have elevated lines, but even the U-Bahn is still 20% above ground. I wouldn't say East Berlin is "much poorer". Maybe East Germany, but the capital itself is mending pretty fast for a span of nearly 30 years. And the rail integrated into each neighborhood looks quite beautiful. Most current construction is out in the burbs.
Don't have to. Property value examples here along Expo (at mostly elevated or at-grade sections) have risen an average of 300% since the line was under construction.
I'd be surprised if that's the only definition.The definition is straight from the dictionary; word for word.
Doesn't quite paint a picture of poor to modestly comfortable. Those type of establishments cater to the rich. If they aren't present in anyone's surroundings, I don't think they'd feel poor without them. I'd be surprised if even the average middle class household can afford to stay in a five star hotel for two days within 10 years.a block or two away Hugo Boss and 5 star hotels.
Possibility of rezoning has proven to be about as true as it's strictly legal definition. "Possibly" isn't often the same as "likely" to change zoning and has proven to vary quite considerably depending on any block along any rail line (or proximity to transit).I don't know values along Expo, but if they have had greater than average movement it is because of the possibility of rezoning into higher density and from the fact the area was suburban and down market to begin with. It is certainly not that people wanted tracks near their houses: they were the subject of huge fights and delays to stop them, then to slow down the trains for safety, then to make better crossings, then to elevate them rather than have them on the street.
