Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-27-2012, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,084 posts, read 15,774,395 times
Reputation: 4049

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
If you believe the reports that say these types of projects don't increase congestion, they're FAR more interesting than office park skyscrapers: La Brea Mixed-Use Projects Underway | Larchmont Buzz - Larchmont Village and Hancock Park News
Five Mega-Projects that Will Transform La Brea | Streetsblog Los Angeles
These types of projects are far more interesting, and will do more to "fill out" L.A. than any skyscraper. And they're coming folks, get ready. One just opened on Burton Way, near the Beverly Center, and it looks phenomenal. It even has a Trader Joe's at street level--how awesome is that?
I've seen it in pictures but not in person. A little gaudy and over-priced but it is the kind of development that should be the future of Los Angeles, at least inner Los Angeles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-27-2012, 06:47 PM
 
2,720 posts, read 5,603,055 times
Reputation: 1320
Reminds me too much of the development going on in Houston where most of the fun is centered around the town centres (the British English spelling makes it sound fancier). They popped up all over the city and people think they're the best things since sliced bread.

Reall they're gaudy, expensive and overbearingly yuppie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 07:04 PM
 
810 posts, read 1,337,072 times
Reputation: 478
They use the term "Lifestyle Centre" in Iowa. It's bad.

Usually followed by some:

"Work, play, live" tagline, implying it's amazing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
9,197 posts, read 16,777,542 times
Reputation: 6373
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Our biggest skyscrapers were designed by Mother Nature:
http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumb...gthumbnail.jpg
These too:

But these will do for L.A.

We wouldn't want too many more erections blocking out this beautiful sun, would we?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,363,199 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarcelonaFan View Post
Reminds me too much of the development going on in Houston where most of the fun is centered around the town centres (the British English spelling makes it sound fancier). They popped up all over the city and people think they're the best things since sliced bread.

Reall they're gaudy, expensive and overbearingly yuppie.
You're thinking of places like this: Welcome to Flickr!

L.A. has a few of those scattered about and yeah, they're lame. The ones on La Brea are simple mixed use though. Among the five projects taking place there, one is replacing a Carl's Jr., the other a supermarket (which was redundant, since there's another one across the street). They'll improve the structural density of the street, for sure, and that's L.A.'s main problem. The city is one of the most densely populated in the US, by most metrics the second densest. It isn't percieved as dense IMO in large part because because most of the main arterials (with the notable exception of Wilshire Blvd) are so relatively short. It isn't due to lack of skyscrapers--London and Paris have tiny skylines; they crush Chicago in urbanity. It's the flat nature of Melrose, Sunset, and Santa Monica Blvd that taint perceptions of the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 09:19 PM
 
1,018 posts, read 1,840,327 times
Reputation: 754
BarcelonaFan, if LA were to emulate Mexico City, Rio or Hong Kong, what would it build?

As people have noted, there are already neighborhoods with clusters of highrises, especially Downtown, Hollywood, Century City, and Westwood. The whole Wilshire corridor (within the city of Los Angeles, not Beverly Hills or Santa Monica) is a mid-highrise corridor, visible from the air. These are places where it would be appropriate to build more highrises, they all either have or will have heavy rail (subway) and other transit.

I absolutely agree with the people saying that the fabric of LA doesn't have to be highrise, but can instead be 4-6 story buildings. That's a lot more common and a lot cheaper to build. It can achieve substantial densities--Jane Jacobs argued that 6 stories was the most efficient building height in terms of usable space (after that you need more elevators etc.). One way to help this type of building is to reduce parking requirements, especially around transit stations. The highrises are for places where you can get a lot of people who'll pay a premium for the height.

Seeing the mountains--My wife and I had come down to LA several times. But it wasn't until we came down on a nice clear February day that she saw the San Gabriels. She was shocked--what are those doing there?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 12:11 AM
 
2,720 posts, read 5,603,055 times
Reputation: 1320
Quote:
Originally Posted by trancedout View Post
They use the term "Lifestyle Centre" in Iowa. It's bad.

Usually followed by some:

"Work, play, live" tagline, implying it's amazing.
LOL! They pull the whole "centre" thing too? That's hilarious. Yeah in Houston there are about more than a dozen. Some neighborhoods are literally built around it like the Woodlands and Sugarland which are just giant extensions of the centres.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 12:17 AM
 
2,720 posts, read 5,603,055 times
Reputation: 1320
Quote:
BarcelonaFan, if LA were to emulate Mexico City, Rio or Hong Kong, what would it build?
I think LA is fine the way it is, but from my many meetings with the City Planning department for my council, the goal is to try to make LA into a Manhattan. This is coming from the mouths of planners themselves. Downtown will experience more construction and more development soon. I don't mind this as DTLA is my favorite part of town but I hope it doesn't stretch far beyond K-town.

LA is fine with the density it has now. In regards to Rio or Hong Kong I just think that further west toward the beaches it should focus less on creating a mega city and more of a beautiful Mediterranean coastal city. I want to know I am getting away from a huge city when I venture past Brentwood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,084 posts, read 15,774,395 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
You're thinking of places like this: Welcome to Flickr!

L.A. has a few of those scattered about and yeah, they're lame. The ones on La Brea are simple mixed use though. Among the five projects taking place there, one is replacing a Carl's Jr., the other a supermarket (which was redundant, since there's another one across the street). They'll improve the structural density of the street, for sure, and that's L.A.'s main problem. The city is one of the most densely populated in the US, by most metrics the second densest. It isn't percieved as dense IMO in large part because because most of the main arterials (with the notable exception of Wilshire Blvd) are so relatively short. It isn't due to lack of skyscrapers--London and Paris have tiny skylines; they crush Chicago in urbanity. It's the flat nature of Melrose, Sunset, and Santa Monica Blvd that taint perceptions of the city.
The ones on La Brea are going to be huge for that street, which has some really ugly development in some places and some really nice development in others - it will sort of help connect the area from Hollywood / La Brea to Santa Monica / La Brea. Love that one of the projects is re-habbing that old 4-5 story industrial / office building that is really close to Santa Monica / La Brea (across from what looks like a cement plant). Hopefully a Carl's Jr gets put into the mixed-user that replaced it.

In my experience the mixed-use developments in Los Angeles have avoiding being overly yuppy like in most cities. For example, a lot of the ground floor retail in these mixed use buildings are actually local businesses, not an Au Bon Pain or Cosi or something lame like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
9,197 posts, read 16,777,542 times
Reputation: 6373
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Hopefully a Carl's Jr gets put into the mixed-user that replaced it.
What, not In-N-Out?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top