Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Joined
·
55,632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collosal Mixed-Use Development Planned Near Reef Building



Looming on the southern fringe of Downtown Los Angeles, the 10 freeway has stood for more than a half-century as both a physical and psychological barrier to the neighborhood's resurgence. Now, a large mixed-use development proposed for the parking lots surrounding Broadway's Reef Building could finally provide the impetus for change. According a May case filing from LADCP, plans call for the construction of 1,449 residential units and a 208-key hotel, supplemented by 85,000 square feet of retail uses. Located at 1900 and 1933 South Broadway, the project would also include 40,000 square feet of restaurant space, a 30,000 square foot grocery store, and an expansion of the 12-story Reef Building. Occupying 7.5 acres of land along the path of Metro's Blue line, the existing parking lots constitute a major dead zone in a neighborhood that doesn't otherwise lack for pedestrian traffic. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the Reef and its surrounding parcels are owned by PRH LA, a Glendale-based limited liability corporation.

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-details-emerge-for-massive-sola.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,916 Posts
A few comments. First, calling it "South Central" is a bit humorous since it is 1 block from the 10. Second, it's still "vapor-ware" at this point.

More generally, I think of Fig and Adams as the real keystone, a hub of solid activity and gorgeous architecture. South of there the main influence is USC and they have been progressing nicely.

North, the big developments are Trade Tech and Palmer. Say, what you will, but Palmer has done more for the fringes of DT than anyone else. And he even brings some style to an area that is about 95 percent (including the Reef) "midcentury modern", which is to say off-white slabs leaned up into rectangles, now crumbling.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to cover the 110 around Adams. A small patch there could create a nice plaza area to complement the Metro, churches, apartments and Fig project.

As for this project, way to early to see how real it is. I would say that if we need to have affordable housing, it should be further south and east, where there is PLENTY of room. If market rate housing can be profitably built in an area like this, don't stick impediments in its way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
This expansion of Downtown could be huge. The area is mostly made up of light industry. Redeveloping the area for high-rise mixed use from the 10 to USC would be amazing.
 

·
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Joined
·
55,632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
New Details Emerge for Massive SoLA Village



This past June, Glendale-based PRH LA Mart shocked many observers when they announced plans for SoLA Village, a $1 billion development intended for two sprawling parking lots adjacent to South Broadway's REEF Building. Consisting of 1.6 million square feet of new floor area, architectural renderings from Gensler and P-A-T-T-E-R-N-S portray shimmering condo towers and new apartment buildings along the path of Metro's Blue Line. Although the project remains years away from groundbreaking, a new environmental study released by LADCP sheds light on both the timeline and the scale of the development program.

Work would begin with significant modifications to the 12-story REEF Building. Currently, the 860,000 square foot structure offers an eclectic mixture of office, event, and wholesale/showroom space. Under the new development program, PRH LA Mart intends to reorient the property away from wholesale operations and more heavily towards creative office space.

Ground-up construction would also begin with the west block, on a site currently occupied by a parking lot and an inexplicable giant chair. A 19-story hotel tower would rise immediately south of the REEF, creating 208 guest rooms in an approximately 240 foot tall structure. An eight-story parking garage would replace the existing surface lot, creating 1,375 vehicle stalls that would serve both hotel guests and REEF tenants.

However, the more aggressive development program is reserved for the east block. Located at 1933 South Broadway, plans call for up to 895 condominium units, to be located within high-rise towers of 35 and 32 stories. The tallest structure, rising to an architectural apex of 420 feet, would become the tallest structure south of the Downtown freeway ring. A series of six-story buildings would house the development's 528 residential units, running the length of the block between Washington Boulevard and 21st Street. At ground level, the project would offer a landscaped central plaza, retail and restaurant space, a grocery store, a gallery and a fitness center.

Demolition work on the west block could commence as early as 2016, followed by approximately 30 months of grading and construction. A build out of the more grandiose east block would require approximately 32 months, including excavation for underground parking levels. Should everything go to plan (knock on wood), completion could occur as early as the end of 2021.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,916 Posts
Sounds great, assuming the street level is handled well. However...sorry....I'll believe it when I see the shovels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,185 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,916 Posts
A bold move that may activate some other development in the area. I’m glad they got rid of the SoLA name since this is closer to Glendale than it is to Compton.

The private paseos are a plus; with some ability to control street people from taking every square inch, you can attract a wider variety of people to the area.

This is just the beginning of thousands of seriously underused buildings that extend for miles south of the 10 and east of the 110. I hope the symbolism of this move will not be lost on other developers. You market the hell out of the idea of DT, USC, University, etc., being right next door.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
The Transamerica Effect moves a bit further south, and the actual Transamerica building no longer exemplifies its namesake phenomenon (once Mack Urban gets going on those residential towers, anyway).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,916 Posts
The Transamerica Effect moves a bit further south, and the actual Transamerica building no longer exemplifies its namesake phenomenon (once Mack Urban gets going on those residential towers, anyway).
Kind of a slow effect. The Occidental Life building (later Transamerica and other names) was built 50 years ago. :lol:

But whatever you call it, hopefully it continues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
Kind of a slow effect. The Occidental Life building (later Transamerica and other names) was built 50 years ago. :lol:

But whatever you call it, hopefully it continues.
By "Transamerica Effect" I was referring to the perspective trick that makes it seem much larger/taller than the other buildings downtown when viewed from certain angles... I thought the term was established but apparently here I am making stuff up again
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,916 Posts
By "Transamerica Effect" I was referring to the perspective trick that makes it seem much larger/taller than the other buildings downtown when viewed from certain angles... I thought the term was established but apparently here I am making stuff up again
Ah, sorry, now I get it. Yes the buildings do seem like considerable towers when viewed against that background.

May have to change it to the "ATT effect" or "Reef" effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,074 Posts
I think real density is likely to go toward the west more than south. But at least some growth in that direction is great.
¿Really? I think it's moving south, but what do I know. McArthur Park (Westlake) is a greater challenge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,916 Posts
¿Really? I think it's moving south, but what do I know. McArthur Park (Westlake) is a greater challenge.
We're talking different scopes of growth. I agree that if you mean South Park and another half mile south, then growth is strong in the southward direction.

But I'm talking from DT to SaMo, where growth has been and continues to be very strong resulting in mid and high rises and density. To me that is LA's real DT, just like the Battery to, say, Central Park is NY's DT.
 

·
Globalizing LA
Joined
·
880 Posts
MORE NIMBYISM…

Ensuring Development in South LA is Equitable, Sustainable, and Community-Led

November 30, 2015

"Development is not for us, unless it is led by us."

Dawn Phillips of Causa Justa delivered this powerful yet succinct statement at the recent PolicyLink Equity Summit that I attended along with a number of my colleagues and community partners. This statement captures what equitable development ought to be. Yet as simple as it is to articulate, it has proved more challenging to ensure developers and planners alike put it into practice.

Case in point: the Reef Project proposed in South LA. If approved as proposed, this 2.5 million square foot, multi-use development would include over 1,400 luxury residential units, as well as a hotel, upscale businesses, and over 230,000 feet of signage--in stark contrast to the current neighborhood aesthetic, demographic, and needs.

South LA is a vibrant and close-knit community home to mostly low-income residents of color. The neighborhood has historically been hit by disinvestment, segregation, and other harmful policies, which have led to high rates of poverty, overcrowding, and homelessness. Rather than addressing these problems, the Reef will exacerbate these problems and create significant environmental impacts. The United Neighbors in Defense Against Displacement (UNIDAD) coalition, of which NRDC is a part, has detailed these important concerns through public comments on the Reef Project's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

By providing luxury housing, amenities, and resources without addressing the needs of current residents, the Reef Project could lead to significant displacement in South LA--up to 43,000 residents, according to Health Impact Report commissioned by UNIDAD to determine the health effects of the Reef project on residents of the surrounding area. The report further explains that displacement and financial strain can cause and exacerbate stress-related physical and mental illness, including depression, anxiety, obesity, heart disease, hypertension and diabetes. In addition, as I've explained before, displacement of low-income residents near transit has real environmental impacts: core riders of transit in LA are low-income, so studies have found that transit ridership actually decreases when these riders are displaced and car usage increases as higher-income, non-transit reliant residents move in. Yet the DEIR did not identify displacement as a potential impact of the project and, consequently, failed to provide any mitigation measures to address these impacts. It also did not adequately address the significant impacts related to air quality, noise, light, and traffic, among other concerns.

The environmental review process exists mainly to allow for the involvement and input of the public, especially those members of the public who will be directly affected by a proposed project. Current South LA residents deserve protection from likely environmental and health hazards, as well as the right to a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work, regardless of their race or income. Now is the perfect time for the Reef developers, as well as the City of LA, to do the right thing by integrating the needs of the residents of South LA into the Reef Project, and allowing these residents to continue to live and thrive in the community that they built.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rsivasubramanian/ensuring_development_in_south_.html

So development can't happen unless it's led by them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: milquetoast

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
The only thing I'm going to say about this is that it's inaccurate to characterize this response as the kind of NIMBYism we see elsewhere in the city that frets over the loss of property value. Regardless of whether this particular project will have the kind of devastating impacts described here (and I personally doubt it would on its own), the stakes for poor people in these situations are far more material and immediate. It's the difference between "I might have to upend my life and leave" versus "I might not get as much as I'd hoped for my house one day."

Of course if you don't see the former result as an issue then I guess there's no point in even discussing it.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top