|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 7, 2011 11:35:13 GMT -8
More attractions on the Expo Line in 2011 - 2012...as the UCLA Bruins will be calling the LA Sports Arena home for next season, while Pauley Pavilion gets a re-do. UCLA basketball will be another destination on our Metro rail line and right next to USC/Expo Park station! (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2011/04/ucla-basketball-bruins-sports-arena-pauley-pavilion.html) Just have to make sure the line opens in Nov. before the season gets under way. |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 7, 2011 14:11:30 GMT -8
Don't know if you guys have heard of this but there is a huge redevelopment going in near the Expo/Crenshaw Station on Crenshaw Blvd at Rodeo (on the Leimert Park border). "The three story structure would be a cake that works like this: Ralphs on the bottom, Target, parking on top, retail (including a Chuck E Cheese) sprinkled all around. The financing agreement would be a recipe that works like this: The city would provide a $22.674 million HUD loan, and $6.5 million in CRA funds, roughly 30 percent of the whole $93 million budget." la.curbed.com/archives/2010/07/target_mania_store_proposed_crenshaw_boulevard_part_of_great_crensaw.phpwww.leimertparkbeat.com/profiles/blogs/rodeo-ralphs-makes-way-for?xg_source=activityThere's a nice pedestrian plaza to be constructed at the corner of Rodeo/Crenshaw with a fountain, this is just a short block away from the eastbound Expo Line platform. I stopped in about a week ago when Crenshaw Blvd was shutdown for reconstruction around the tracks (to buy ice cream at the outgoing Ralph's) and some of the businesses are already shuttering for the impending construction. There's also the on and off again work going on at the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Mall and Marlton Square across the street. Those are seeing some activity but we probably won't see much of a difference until heavy construction starts on the Crenshaw Line in a couple years. |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 8, 2011 4:23:35 GMT -8
More attractions on the Expo Line in 2011 - 2012...as the UCLA Bruins will be calling the LA Sports Arena home for next season, while Pauley Pavilion gets a re-do. Awesome! Sports Arena and Galen Center are within strangling distance of each other.  |
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Apr 8, 2011 7:11:56 GMT -8
More attractions on the Expo Line in 2011 - 2012...as the UCLA Bruins will be calling the LA Sports Arena home for next season, while Pauley Pavilion gets a re-do. Awesome! Sports Arena and Galen Center are within strangling distance of each other. And if the deal goes through for USC to buy the Coliseum and Sports Arena, UCLA would be paying rent to USC! ;D (I'm guessing it wouldn't be approved before the work on Pauley is complete, though). |
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Apr 8, 2011 15:14:36 GMT -8
I wonder if some UCLA fans who haven't been down to the USC campus area in a long time will be pleasantly surprised by how much the USC campus and north university park area have changed in the last few years, and wish the Bruins were playing at the Galen Center instead. It would be a lot shorter walk from the Expo Jefferson/Flower stop to Galen, then it will be from USC/Trousdale to the Sports Center. Hosting the LA Times Festival of Books will probably also be a game-changer for USC, and I think a lot of people will realize what an asset the Expo Line will be. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 12, 2011 8:21:27 GMT -8
Just a thought: I wonder if USC or any developers would consider creating new housing for USC students in Mid-City. Real estate is much less expensive in Jefferson Park, for example, than it is in University Park.
For example, I could easily imagine students commuting from a residential complex at La Brea station, only four stops away from campus. Or Western station, only one stop away.
Obviously, the big concern for students would be safety. Students would need to feel like they're not going to get robbed or assaulted between their home and their station.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 12, 2011 9:13:47 GMT -8
Just a thought: I wonder if USC or any developers would consider creating new housing for USC students in Mid-City. Real estate is much less expensive in Jefferson Park, for example, than it is in University Park. For example, I could easily imagine students commuting from a residential complex at La Brea station, only four stops away from campus. Or Western station, only one stop away. Obviously, the big concern for students would be safety. Students would need to feel like they're not going to get robbed or assaulted between their home and their station. I was an undergrad in New York. When I started, many people wouldn't go north of 120th street on the Upper West Side. When I was graduating, I found out a group of female acquaintances were renting a place on 137th st., two stops North. Things change, and high prices are a big driver of that. There will definitely be some initial friction, but the Expo line is likely to change housing dynamics quite a bit along the line. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 12, 2011 9:55:28 GMT -8
Just a thought: I wonder if USC or any developers would consider creating new housing for USC students in Mid-City. Real estate is much less expensive in Jefferson Park, for example, than it is in University Park. For example, I could easily imagine students commuting from a residential complex at La Brea station, only four stops away from campus. Or Western station, only one stop away. Obviously, the big concern for students would be safety. Students would need to feel like they're not going to get robbed or assaulted between their home and their station. One of my friend is in real estate and specializes in multi-unit residential buildings and he says the market by USC west of Vermont Ave is getting a lot of interests from out of town investors. They certainly believe that USC student housing pattern will follow the Expo line west. Some of the properties in Jefferson Park are pretty cheap relatively speaking and can be rehabbed for student housing if you can evict the existing tenants. This is obviously a very sensitive subject with the local community and USC itself doesn't actively engage in buying properties west of Vermont, which slows down the demographic changes. I think the initially, the most likely change is that USC students will find Culver City and Baldwin Hills a viable train commute from campus. And when Phase 2 opens, the massive number of USC students living in Palms area will spread the word about Expo and more car-free students will find car-free Westside living and USC to be rather compatible. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 12, 2011 11:41:40 GMT -8
How's this for a trackside development?!?!? Space shuttle Endeavour coming to California Science Center, permanently"The space shuttle Endeavour is coming home to Southern California for permanent display at the California Science Center in Los Angeles.
The shuttle, much of which was built in Southern California, has one more scheduled flight, on April 29.
...
Now, the museum must pay $28.8 million to bring the Endeavour to Los Angeles and overcome the logistical challenges of transporting the craft, with its 78-foot wingspan, to a city famous for its traffic problems." LA Times storyNPR story link |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 12, 2011 15:32:27 GMT -8
Here is major news. Space shuttle Endeavour is coming to its permanent home in Exposition Park -- another huge attraction for the Expo Line! |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 12, 2011 15:38:37 GMT -8
Yes, it is major news ... see my previous post.  How's this for a trackside development?!?!? Space shuttle Endeavour coming to California Science Center, permanentlyI took this as an opportunity to join the California Science Center. They're going to need money to help build the huge facility for the Space Shuttle. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 12, 2011 15:50:03 GMT -8
Ah, your post must have an invisibility cloak.
This one and the Wild Garden they are building by the Expo tracks in Exposition Park will be great attractions for the Expo Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Apr 14, 2011 5:49:10 GMT -8
Hopefully, Endeavour will be in place a year from now, so I can see it when I come out to L. A. next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 14, 2011 20:57:00 GMT -8
Hopefully, Endeavour will be in place a year from now, so I can see it when I come out to L. A. next year. In an interview on KCRW, the head of the California Science Center said they won't have a permanent place to put the shuttle for several years. They'd like to figure out a temporary location, but don't have any plans yet. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Apr 15, 2011 8:24:24 GMT -8
Unfortunately, the 2:1 MINIMUM ratio of parking spaces to residential units is set by the city. At least the developer asked for a 10% reduction in that requirement. (There will be 3200 parking spaces for 1400 residential units and 34,000 sq feet of retail/clinic/etc, so that is less than the usual minimum!) Source: cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/LorenzoProject/DEIR/DEIR%20The%20Lorenzo%20Project.htmlIn much of San Francisco, new developments will have a parking MAXIMUM of less than 1 parking space per unit. In Los Angeles, we at least need to give developers the OPTION to provide less free/subsidized parking, if we want to make transit a good option, and keep new developments affordable (underground parking costs $50,000 per space) Is it realistic to expect dual-income couples and those with kids, those who can afford Palmer's rents, to take transit exclusively? Can we really expect that rents would drop in relation to the decreased cost, with less parking? ($50K = $250/month space rent?) |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 15, 2011 8:26:49 GMT -8
Is it realistic to expect dual-income couples and those with kids, those who can afford Palmer's rents, to take transit exclusively? Can we really expect that rents would drop in relation to the decreased cost, with less parking? ($50K = $250/month space rent?) No elray and nobody is saying that. Some parking is needed, but put your question in reverse..is it reasonable that EVERYBODY needs a parking spot and a car? No. There are people in LA who see no need for a car...it happens. Your making it extreme. Just because we propose a reduction in parking doesn't mean we want no parking. Instead of having 500 parking spots..go with 400. People who need parking should pay for it. People who don't...should not and can benefit financially. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 15, 2011 14:06:00 GMT -8
One parking space per unit would be fine, if they were not sold with the unit. Instead, the parking should probably be rented per month, or at least sold separately. Some people will want some space, some will want 3 or 4, some will want 0 spaces, if priced at a fair market rate.
Currently Los Angeles forces developers to subsidize parking by requiring a minimum number of off-street parking spaces, in addition to the hundreds of thousands of "free" parking spaces on public streets.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 16, 2011 8:03:45 GMT -8
Currently Los Angeles forces developers to subsidize parking by requiring a minimum number of off-street parking spaces, in addition to the hundreds of thousands of "free" parking spaces on public streets. I think there is a huge disconnect between transit advocates and urbanistic/pedestrian thinking. Street parking is not bad at all...in fact, I highly encourage it in cities. Check out the greatest world-class cities, all have abundant street parking. Why? 1 - reduces the need for significant off-street parking, which itself is the reason people drive (hey, there's a 2,000 space underground parking garage at Hollywood/Highland for $2, let's go there...or there's 10,000 parking spaces in Santa Monica, etc..). It's parking garages that bring traffic, not street parking. 2 - a pedestrian bufffer. Cars naturally decrease speed by between 5 - 10 mph when street parking is available as drivers need to be more cautious of those searching for spots. Thus, the cars move slower and pedestrians feel safer. Also, walking along the curb is not so dangerous when your by a parked car instead of cars driving at 40 - 50 mph. Walk along La Brea during anti-gridlock zoning (7 - 9 am and 3 - 7 pm) and compare that to when cars are parked. You will feel safer. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Apr 16, 2011 12:12:13 GMT -8
Just a thought: I wonder if USC or any developers would consider creating new housing for USC students in Mid-City. Real estate is much less expensive in Jefferson Park, for example, than it is in University Park. For example, I could easily imagine students commuting from a residential complex at La Brea station, only four stops away from campus. Or Western station, only one stop away. Obviously, the big concern for students would be safety. Students would need to feel like they're not going to get robbed or assaulted between their home and their station. Doubtful. Developers are seeking the deep pockets of USC parents, not lower cost rentals. The mythical "bed shortage" concerns space within walking distance, not a satellite community like UCLA does. USC already has enough safety issues thanks to LA City/County governance - adding housing farther west will only exacerbate them. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Apr 16, 2011 12:20:45 GMT -8
One of my friend is in real estate and specializes in multi-unit residential buildings and he says the market by USC west of Vermont Ave is getting a lot of interests from out of town investors. They certainly believe that USC student housing pattern will follow the Expo line west. Some of the properties in Jefferson Park are pretty cheap relatively speaking and can be rehabbed for student housing if you can evict the existing tenants. This is obviously a very sensitive subject with the local community and USC itself doesn't actively engage in buying properties west of Vermont, which slows down the demographic changes. I think the initially, the most likely change is that USC students will find Culver City and Baldwin Hills a viable train commute from campus. And when Phase 2 opens, the massive number of USC students living in Palms area will spread the word about Expo and more car-free students will find car-free Westside living and USC to be rather compatible. USC intentionally does not buy west of Vermont, per agreement with "the community", to their own demise. How do you make a community safe if you can't remove the negative elements? Evicting and rehabbing is not cheap or easy. The City has seen to that with their various anti-redevelopment / anti-rehab and relocation ordinances. That's why you only see only new mixed-use developments on commercial lots, floated by well-heeled developers who can bypass the city council's usual interference. No USC Mom is going to have her child living in Baldwin Hills. Palms will benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 16, 2011 13:28:25 GMT -8
To me, community improvement hinges on reduction of assault, drugs, and theft. There are under-class neighborhoods that have achieved this. A modicum of gentrification does not have to change the fundamental positive characteristics of a neighborhood. The real issue to address for the area west of Vermont to become more "desirable" will remain crime reduction.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 18, 2011 22:46:39 GMT -8
To me, community improvement hinges on reduction of assault, drugs, and theft. There are under-class neighborhoods that have achieved this. A modicum of gentrification does not have to change the fundamental positive characteristics of a neighborhood. The real issue to address for the area west of Vermont to become more "desirable" will remain crime reduction. I recently moved into South Pico-Robertson at around Venice near La Cienega, I remember when moving into the area the stigma that many placed on the area east of Palms and west of USC so I looked at the numbers. There has been drastic decreases in crime in West Adams, Mid City, Mid City West, Crenshaw and in Pico-Robertson in recent years especially in keeping with a general downward trend in crime in Los Angeles. |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 18, 2011 22:55:05 GMT -8
La Cienega at Jefferson is shaping up to be quite a different place with the Expo Station, the Starbucks/Arbys in a recently renovated building of which I was looking for leasing space and they prominently mention the Exposition light rail line, and another unknown renovation at the corner. Though there should be some upgrades put in place to make the place more walkable like, like curb cuts south of Jefferson on La Cienega for I have to in many cases dismount my bike to cross streets (if not for me, think of the disabled!) and the awkward pedestrian crossing at the La Cienega/Fairfax split. It has been really nice biking and walking along La Cienega this weekend with the street closed down at Jefferson the vibe is much calmer and they made some new street parking spots in Culver City to narrow the street to one lane. Huge difference from the normal: a sprint for cars down to the highway section of La Cienega over the hill to the 405.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 19, 2011 17:59:39 GMT -8
Though there should be some upgrades put in place to make the place more walkable like, like curb cuts south of Jefferson on La Cienega for I have to in many cases dismount my bike to cross streets. Are you riding your bike on the sidewalk in this area? You must be looking forward to the bike path/lanes along the Expo Line! The new Los Angeles city bike plan suggests bike lanes on La Cienega, someday... |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 27, 2011 8:26:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 27, 2011 9:42:36 GMT -8
To me the unspoken thrust of this article is that the City of L.A. has done basically nothing to encourage TOD along these lines. Granted it's been a brutal real estate market generally, but why aren't they getting ahead of the game by rezoning station-adjacent properties to allow for lower parking minimums and greater density? Meanwhile, Culver City and especially Santa Monica -- with its LUCE and Bergamot redevelopment plans -- are more on the ball in this regard. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 27, 2011 10:19:15 GMT -8
I wouldn't say Los Angeles has been lacking in regards to development around Expo Line. Culver City and Santa Monica hasn't done anything significant around the Expo Line since the project started construction in 2006/2007. Santa Monica now has Santa Monica Place, but outside of that...anything new?
Los Angeles has revamped the Figueroa corridor with all the new housing coming online. University Village, the new large housing complex at 23rd street, another housing complex at Adams/Figueroa, and Expo/Figueroa (previous Chevron station). Another 6 story Palmer development was approved near 23rd street station; construction expected next year. The Figueroa corridor has benefited from USC, but it is Los Angeles.
It would be nice to see those dilapidated warhouses along Jefferson on La Cienega and La Brea to be torn down and some multi-unit housing start popping up with ground floor retail. That is Los Angeles city, and a re-zoning is needed there.
I'd be interested to see what Culver City does around Venice/Robertson/Culver/Main in order to facilitate better pedestrian movement between Venice/Robertson station and downtown Culver City. I still haven't seen any concrete plans.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 27, 2011 12:03:32 GMT -8
Rezoning properties? That's one of those local-government processes that is not for the impatient, even moreso if there's a party with a vested interest in the "status quo."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 13:31:11 GMT -8
I would say outside of the obvious densification that can/has been occurring along Figueroa/Flower, the line isn't the most suited to major redevelopment. Vermont has some limited potential on two corners, but the rest is educational/cultural/historic.
Western is probably one of the most primed for redevelopment, since there are commercial uses all around. Crenshaw has some redevelopment potential with those big-box stores to the south. Farmdale isn't an option for redevelopment, La Brea is already dense and La Cienega has a lot of commercial/office uses there.
Outside of a relative few areas, I really don't know where all this supposed density would be going. Just past a one-block radius from the stations, most of the line is SFRs in neighborhoods.
The real potential for this line is its ability to reactivate those empty commercial spaces, and spur homeownership and reinvestment in the neighborhoods. I doubt we'll see much major density outside of the Figueroa and Downtown CC areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 27, 2011 13:40:39 GMT -8
^I have to disagree. You can't judge future densification based on current buildup. Just because there are buildings on every lot, doesn't mean they can't be torn down and replaced with something more dense.
The biggest impediment to densification on valuable land is zoning, and zoning changes are constrained by the wishes of the local population.
I see opportunities for redevelopment at Vermont, Crenshaw, La Brea and La Cienega. Yes, all of those have existing uses, but those uses can and will be uprooted if there is money to be made. The quality of the redevelopment will primarily be limited by the city's ability to optimize the zoning near the station (as well as by the strength/weakness of the real estate market).
Western, on the other hand, is not surrounded by valuable land, and won't be for the foreseeable future unless something drastic is done to the neighborhood. The only thing I know of going on at Western is Metro's planned removal of the used car lot on the northeast corner, to add parking and a "safety zone".
|
|
