SkyscraperCity banner

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
although I completely agree with creating more housing around metro stops, this project looks to fall short. Why are they only 3-4 story buildings? Why not build something higher? Are there rules and regulations for that? Or is there not enough demand? My first thought is that demand will absolutely be abundant.
My thoughts exactly. I have the same complaint with the Vermont/Wilshire development and a lot of the South Park developments. In downtown, I really feel we should be building to house about 1 million residents.

I could honestly careless how high the ceilings are or big the bathrooms, I want to see developments intended to comfortably house a thousand people-plus, not just a couple of hundred. Not to mention that until and unless these developers start building more 3 bedroom or 2-bedrooms and a nook/loft, they're going to be pricing out the very people the city wants to inhabit these residences: young active people with expendable income. There's a limited number of idiots in Los Angeles willing to spend 50%-plus of their income renting a "luxury" apartment/condo and suburban parents willing to spoil their kids with an "urban experience."
 

·
LAL | LAD | LAK
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
One million is a bit too much. Manhattan houses roughly 1.5 million people and it's 23 square miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
urban experience hu? send them to rent out a room in east la and leave downtown to real folk.

but really are these luxury apartments or just normal ones?

they may have really droped the ball on this one
 

·
LAL | LAD | LAK
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
Otherwise I agree that we should build taller, especially around metro stops. We should build between 10-15 stories.
 

·
LAL | LAD | LAK
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
LOL, this is considered "urban" by Los Angeles standards:



Just because they look nice doesn't make them "luxury". They're just your typical new suburban condo development in the same architectural style that is defined as "urban living". You can find these type of developments everywhere especially in Pasadena.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
LOL, this is considered "urban" by Los Angeles standards:



Just because they look nice doesn't make them "luxury". They're just your typical new suburban condo development in the same architectural style that is defined as "urban living". You can find these type of developments everywhere especially in Pasadena.

Why get caught up in the architectual style of a building,(eventhough it's ugly as ****) that's silly. These hold about the same amount of people that those average pre-war 6 story urban buildings hold that are abundant in NYC throughout the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn, whose density LA is more closely related to. **** do we also have to have E. coast architecture to halt our self-loathing. Perhaps this would be considered "urban" in LA about 10 years ago but with forward thinkers like AV and Green freaks like Garcetti, I don't think they would cast a rosey eye on these Visconti (sic) projects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
One million is a bit too much. Manhattan houses roughly 1.5 million people and it's 23 square miles.
Yes. 1.5 million people live on the island but during the day it's population increases to about 5 million. Downtown L.A. is about a quarter to a fifth the size of Manhattan. And by the way, the island isn't all 1000 footers. I would bet the overwhelming majority of buildings are less than 10 stories and a sizeable number are less than 5. Plus, there's that park in the middle of it. :)

But more or less, I'm suggesting we start planning for a downtown that can hold 150K people per square mile.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
But if we are talking about Manhattan and a comparable square mileage, wouldn't that be "our" Manhattan which stretches from Downtown to Santa Monica, more or so north of the 10 to south of the (mountain range that seperates the basin from the)Valley? That area is about 15 x 5 miles where Manhattan is about 13 x 3 1/2. I wish we would give a name to that area which represents the actual city core. Maybe we can name it Los Angeles.
 

·
Angeleeeeeeeno
Joined
·
1,720 Posts
But if we are talking about Manhattan and a comparable square mileage, wouldn't that be "our" Manhattan which stretches from Downtown to Santa Monica, more or so north of the 10 to south of the (mountain range that seperates the basin from the)Valley? That area is about 15 x 5 miles where Manhattan is about 13 x 3 1/2. I wish we would give a name to that area which represents the actual city core. Maybe we can name it Los Angeles.
Manhattan is much smaller than that.

Here's L.A. and Manhattan (via Google EArth) 40,000 feet above.

 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
Manhattan is much smaller than that.

Here's L.A. and Manhattan (via Google EArth) 40,000 feet above.


These seem to be at different zoom levels. The Beverly Hills is much larger than the New York.

4th and S. Santa Fe Ave, Los Angeles, CA to Ocean Blvd and Colorado, Santa Monica, CA = 16.6 miles
Broadway and 9th Ave, New York, NY to Broad St and South St, New York, NY=16.5 miles
This is the length of the two areas at their furthest most points that I could find. So NO Manhattan at least lengthwise is not that much smaller than our own "Manhattan" that runs from Downtown out to Santa Monica where I'm assuming our highest densities occur and the majority of the population in LA city lives. I didn't do widthwise (from the foot of the Hollywood Hills down to about the I 10)because I already know thatthey are about the same again. This area is what to me represents LA's urban core. But if we want to get technical, the length of our "manhattan" is even smaller because I am including Santa Monica, which all of us know is its own municipality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
no, hes right. i tried it on my computer at home but the screen size was not big enough to replicate his. i am actually surprised how large the basin really is
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
The Noho development reminds me of Playa Vista. I find nothing wrong with mid-rise developments like these. They provide density and human scale as well. Let's say these projects are best located in "transition" areas--those areas or "boundaries" you get into before the suburb "meets" the city.

 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top