|
|
Post by rajacobs on Feb 22, 2012 10:07:45 GMT -8
Matthew,
Your post offers an excellent argument to change the designation for lots, say within a quarter mile of stations, from R1 to R4 and in some cases C1. Whereas in previous decades this would have been seen as moves that would overly increase the population density and congestion, it seems quite within the public interest now.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 22, 2012 15:23:19 GMT -8
I agree that denser development at train stations and around Metro stations makes sense. Of course, generally speaking, a lot of the areas where we have built rail transit already was pretty dense to begin with, because it takes a certain amount of density to support rail. However, I do think we have to step cautiously. We can't just write off people with concerns as NIMBYs. (I fully support preserving Little Tokyo's history and cultural uniqueness, but also support the Regional Connector — I'm no NIMBY.) We're going to have to do this the Los Angeles way and listen to those people, address their concerns and even compromise. Hollywood will probably get some of the "elegant density" it deserves, but it will take a lot of effort to counteract the backlash. We also can't go from parking requirements to parking bans. Little Tokyo is in the middle of that downtown urban renaissance we've all been enjoying, but the fact of the matter is that a new parking structure was treated like kind of a big deal by the community. Sure, Brigham pointed out the plaza on top, but it's still a plaza on top of parking. EDIT: Basically, 1) aim high (and dense) BUT 2) you can't tell people to shut up 3) you can't tell people what they want. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Feb 22, 2012 18:20:29 GMT -8
Every developer would be happy to build without parking requirements. But you're not "letting the market decide" unless you actually prohibit the tenants contractually from having a car - you're just shifting the burden to the neighbors. The city could have excluded residents from eligibility for permit parking - (yes, Virginia, its been done before, though officials like to feign memory loss), but instead accepted a weaselly promise from the developer that he would "seek out residents without cars". Obviously, in a free society you can't completely dictate whether someone is going to drive a car or not. Also, remember, by not requiring parking, the cost of the apartments will be much less to build. By demanding developers build several $50k parking spaces for each unit, we ensure only high-end developments get built if anything at all, which raises the cost of housing. No, we're not dictating whether someone can own a car or not. Only where/when/how they are to store it. If we, the people, are gifting the developer $1M+ worth of cost savings by waiving all parking requirements, pursuing the theory that lower-cost apartments will result, is it really too much to restrict the new residents from taking up non-market-rate parking in the neighborhood? Whether the parking waivers will result in lower rents, well, you'd think so, eventually, but Santa Monica defies normal economics. In the "zero parking" building, rents start at $1750 for a microstudio. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 23, 2012 15:28:31 GMT -8
Real estate developers aren't required to be generous or altruistic. I wouldn't be surprised if they take that cost savings and pocket it.
Santa Monica could require affordable housing, but then you'd run into neighbors who are also looking out for the bottom line, namely the effect on their property values. Unfortunately, affordable housing runs into this problem all the time.
I don't like it, but that's how it goes...
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 24, 2012 2:04:06 GMT -8
Real estate developers aren't required to be generous or altruistic. I wouldn't be surprised if they take that cost savings and pocket it. Housing costs what people are willing to pay for it regardless of what it cost the developer to build. If parking is vital for people to live in a certain place, they will pay a premium for it and the developers will make sure to account for that when designing the project. Right now, parking minimums are causing more parking than necessary to be built, which is artificially reducing housing supply (projects not penciling out, neighborhoods getting projects cancelled) and increasing rents. In the short run, there might not be enough housing without parking near transit, so prices might not be that low. However, increased supply will always either decrease prices, or increase the value of living in a certain area due to increased amenities and liveliness. Either way, it's a good market signal to build what people want. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 17, 2012 12:04:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 25, 2012 8:03:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Sept 2, 2012 14:21:30 GMT -8
Mixed-use complex being built near Culver City light-rail station Construction has kicked off on a $63-million apartment and shopping complex near a light-rail station on the edge of downtown Culver City as developers move to capitalize on the new Expo Line. The six-story project is being built by Santa Monica-based apartment landlord NMS Properties. The development at 9901 Washington Blvd. in Los Angeles, across the street from Culver City, will be known as NMS@Culver City. It will house 131 units over restaurants and shops. The complex is across from the Kirk Douglas Theatre and Sony Pictures Plaza office building. (more - link)
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 2, 2012 15:03:46 GMT -8
It's actually equidistant from the Culver City and Palms Stations -- 0.72 miles to either station. At 15-minute walk, not really a TOD, but hopefully a good number of the residents there will use the Expo Line.
I still see a great inertia against taking the Expo Line. Many people I talk to at USC or Palms say "Why?," "I would never use public transit in LA," "I can drive there in 15 minutes," "I like my car," "I need to have my car with me at all times in case I need to go somewhere else," etc. It will be a while before rail transit becomes more popular. New lines that are being built should help.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 2, 2012 15:19:12 GMT -8
It's actually equidistant from the Culver City and Palms Stations -- 0.72 miles to either station. At 15-minute walk, not really a TOD, but hopefully a good number of the residents there will use the Expo Line. I still see a great inertia against taking the Expo Line. Many people I talk to at USC or Palms say "Why?," "I would never use public transit in LA," "I can drive there in 15 minutes," "I like my car," "I need to have my car with me at all times in case I need to go somewhere else," etc. It will be a while before rail transit becomes more popular. New lines that are being built should help. I hope so too, but I agree with your assessment. While attitudes are changing fairly rapidly, transit still isn't even on the radar for most Angelenos. And this is pretty far from a station. Walkable, but farther than most would walk on a daily basis. Also, I'm guessing that it will have lots of parking. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 2, 2012 15:34:55 GMT -8
It's actually equidistant from the Culver City and Palms Stations -- 0.72 miles to either station. At 15-minute walk, not really a TOD, but hopefully a good number of the residents there will use the Expo Line. I still see a great inertia against taking the Expo Line. Many people I talk to at USC or Palms say "Why?," "I would never use public transit in LA," "I can drive there in 15 minutes," "I like my car," "I need to have my car with me at all times in case I need to go somewhere else," etc. It will be a while before rail transit becomes more popular. New lines that are being built should help. I think you're looking at this the wrong way, those people are gone. The job of transit isn't to try and turn those people over, because population churn will solve this problem. As the system grows and more people grow up with the system, the attitude will change. Smart long term planning is key here. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 2, 2012 23:04:35 GMT -8
It's actually equidistant from the Culver City and Palms Stations -- 0.72 miles to either station. At 15-minute walk, not really a TOD, but hopefully a good number of the residents there will use the Expo Line. I still see a great inertia against taking the Expo Line. Many people I talk to at USC or Palms say "Why?," "I would never use public transit in LA," "I can drive there in 15 minutes," "I like my car," "I need to have my car with me at all times in case I need to go somewhere else," etc. It will be a while before rail transit becomes more popular. New lines that are being built should help. I think you're looking at this the wrong way, those people are gone. The job of transit isn't to try and turn those people over, because population churn will solve this problem. As the system grows and more people grow up with the system, the attitude will change. Smart long term planning is key here. If we had transit service where it was faster to use rail than drive then you would actually get quite a few of those people. Right now transit is a great deal on cost, but if it takes longer a lot of people just don't care. Once people start seeing people taking transit beating them on time, that is a powerful change. We have a few instances of this in our system with the Red Line to some degree and once Expo Phase II is completed we will have some of this with Expo at least in one direction. The Westside Subway and the Sepulveda Line if it is a tunnel would be strong examples of this. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 3, 2012 2:14:07 GMT -8
I think you're looking at this the wrong way, those people are gone. The job of transit isn't to try and turn those people over, because population churn will solve this problem. As the system grows and more people grow up with the system, the attitude will change. Smart long term planning is key here. If we had transit service where it was faster to use rail than drive then you would actually get quite a few of those people. Right now transit is a great deal on cost, but if it takes longer a lot of people just don't care. Once people start seeing people taking transit beating them on time, that is a powerful change. We have a few instances of this in our system with the Red Line to some degree and once Expo Phase II is completed we will have some of this with Expo at least in one direction. The Westside Subway and the Sepulveda Line if it is a tunnel would be strong examples of this. Certainly time savings is a factor, but not as much a factor as density around stations (density around stations means it's more likely for the network to be near a start/end point of a trip) and the overall network reach. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 3, 2012 11:12:01 GMT -8
She gave USC an undisclosed amount of money, probably close to $100 million, to build a dance school. When she was asked why she didn't give the money to UCLA (despite being a West LA resident herself), she said “And USC can connect with the Music Center, which is also downtown.” I think the Expo Line connection may be helping things a bit here.  Glorya Kaufman gives USC millions to build a dance schoolThe arts patron's groundbreaking gift for the USC Glorya Kaufman School of Dance will establish the first new endowment-funded school at the university in 40 years. Glorya Kaufman's gift to USC follows big dance-focused donations to the Music Center and to UCLA. (Al Seib, Los Angeles Times / November 9, 2012)November 9, 2012, 9:00 p.m.In the arts world, they call her “the dancing philanthropist.” And now, with her latest and largest endowment to date, Glorya Kaufman has a new dance partner in the University of Southern California. Her groundbreaking gift for the USC Glorya Kaufman School of Dance will establish the first new endowment-funded school at the university in 40 years. (The last was the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, which opened in 1973 with a gift from Walter H. Annenberg.) Robert Cutietta, dean of USC's music school, who will head the new dance school, calls the gift one of the largest donations in the history of dance. Kaufman won't reveal the dollar amount of the gift — suffice to say it will surpass by far the $20 million she gave Los Angeles' Music Center in 2009 to bring major dance companies to L.A. with her Glorya Kaufman Presents Dance. PHOTOS: Arts and culture photos by the Times But on Friday morning, in the midst of moving from the sprawling Brentwood ranch house where she raised her four children to a much smaller Italian villa-style home in Beverly Hills — “I'm downsizing,” she says — Kaufman is relaxed and open about other aspects of the gift. “I was disappointed in UCLA. They don't have a dance school. It was all talk,” she says when asked why she chose USC after she'd given $18 million to UCLA in 1999 to help renovate the School of the Arts and Architecture's dance building. “And USC can connect with the Music Center, which is also downtown.” Kaufman has been an arts philanthropist since the early 1980s, after the death of her husband, Donald Bruce Kaufman — of the home construction and financing firm Kaufman & Broad, now KB Homes. In addition to her Music Center and UCLA gifts, she's given $6 million to New York's Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater and $3.5 million to the Juilliard School. USC currently doesn't have a dance school — or even a dance major. It does offer individual dance classes, such as ballroom, hip-hop, tango and tap, through its theater school. Kaufman's donation will help develop all aspects of the new dance school, from designing a contemporary and classical dance curriculum to hiring faculty and constructing a brand-new building, the Glorya Kaufman International Dance Center. Cutietta, who served as dean of University of Arizona's School of Music and Dance before moving to Los Angeles 11 years ago, says the hope is to hire an architect by early spring 2013 and break ground in early 2014 in the space that was the student health center near the Thornton school of Music. If all goes according to plan, the Kaufman School will open in the fall of 2015. The endowment will also fund dance scholarships for students. “We have so much [dance] talent here in L.A.,” Kaufman said a few hours before the official Friday night announcement of the gift, “and there's no place for them to go. We want to get the best students, the best teachers, and the kids, when they graduate, will be able to make a living right away.” Kaufman has been working closely with Cutietta over the last year to conceptualize the school's identity. The new dance school will be small and very selective, Cutietta says, with 60 to 80 students. He and Kaufman envision a three-pronged curriculum with dance instruction at its core. But the program will also focus on dancer wellness and the business side of dance, to help extend dancers' all-too-short careers. “My vision is for the students to leave and go into dance and the business of dance,” Kaufman says, “to do whatever they want because they'll be that talented and prepared.” “This new school is going to put us [Los Angeles] on the map,” says Bonnie Oda Homsey, director of the Los Angeles Dance Foundation. “It raises the quality of training and therefore, the quality of artists we're sending into the professional workforce.” Southern California, she notes, has become an important “creative laboratory” for the arts, specifically dance. “Dance needs physical space — to train and rehearse and create. And we have that. Los Angeles is really poised to become a more forward-thinking dance mecca.” The genesis of the new school came out of a casual conversation between Kaufman and Cutietta. They met at a USC dance performance last November and hit it off immediately, Cutietta says. That night Kaufman asked him, out of the blue: “What if I wanted to start a dance school here? What would it take?” “I was shocked,” Cutietta says. “The next morning I made an appointment with the provost [Elizabeth Garrett] and said, ‘Can we start a school from scratch?' She said, ‘I don't see why not!'” The new USC dance school, says Cutietta, will likely work closely with its downtown L.A. dance cousin, Glorya Kaufman Presents Dance at the Music Center, which features companies such as Alvin Ailey, American Ballet Theatre and the Joffrey Ballet. “Dance is just taking off here,” Cutietta says of L.A. “A lot of that has to do with Glorya's gift to the Music Center, and the timing is perfect now. This is the next piece of the puzzle.” Pressed once more to disclose the amount of the USC endowment, she declines: “It puts a number and value on a gift that's from the heart. And that's not why I do it. They did that really big at UCLA — it was all about putting a dollar figure on my nose. And I don't like that.” She'd rather talk about why she loves dance. “At a performance, everyone in the audience has problems — so do the dancers. But for an hour and a half,” she says, “everyone forgets their problems and enjoys a meaningful piece of art. I'm so grateful to be in a place to be able to share this with everyone.” |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 3, 2012 12:19:43 GMT -8
USC's proximity to Downtown LA has always been a great strength. I remember being able to attend recruiting events in Downtown after work hours while I was an undergrad at the Accounting School. The UCLA students were always showing up late and complaining about traffic.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 21, 2013 13:26:08 GMT -8
It seems that properties near the expo line are selling for "as much as seven times higher than previously assessed values." la.curbed.com/archives/2013/01/mixeduse_complex_planned_near_downtown_samo_expo_stop.phpOnce the economic benefits of the rail line are felt, I wonder if this can translate into increased support for more rail on the westside. Better yet, I wonder if there is a way to translate this into a value capture model that could finance future rail lines. |
|
|
|
Post by fishballl on May 3, 2013 15:28:23 GMT -8
Article on transit oriented development along Expo Line Phase 1. Many projects in the USC area and Culver City. www.neontommy.com/news/2013/04/expo-line-spurring-transit-oriented-development-south-la-culver-city"Multiple large scale projects are going up adjacent to Expo Line stations. At the 23rd Street station, riders can see the massive wood frame of the Lorenzo under construction on a site that was once a parking lot that nearly covered an entire block. The developer, G.H. Palmer associates, is pouring roughly $250 million into the project. 495 apartments at the Lorenzo will open this summer, with space for 1,990 residents, primarily USC students, says Meshay Talae, the Lorenzo’s marketing manager." But the neighborhood’s character is beginning to change. The Expo Line’s current terminus in Culver City has become another magnet for development. One current project, Legado Crossing, will consist of 115 apartments, with a commercial space on the ground floor." |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 10, 2013 10:33:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 10, 2013 11:45:56 GMT -8
Being pro-transit and transit-oriented development doesn't mean pro-"uber"-development just because there's a station nearby. The city and residents shouldn't allow developers to line their pockets just because rail is being introduced.
From what I've read Casden is an uber-developer, taking advantage of (in the worst sense) much needed transportation change. I cannot imagine yet another Target on the Westside (3 in Culver City alone). Key in discussions with LA planning has been non-chain stores, and I think this is a concept that should be applied to the Casden project. ...As for the height and density of development, enough is enough. A few stories would be reasonable, more increases the traffic density and prevents rail from delivering a better quality of life in that area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 10, 2013 12:25:30 GMT -8
Mr. Casden spent $75 million on the land alone and he certainly wants to make the best out of his money.
Many people don't want any development at all and some want as much development as possible.
However, let's not forget that the cause of the traffic is not the development -- it's people's love of their cars and how cheap it's to own and drive a car. I remember a lady on the train complaining that $1.50 for a ticket was too expensive. She normally drove a car.
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 10, 2013 13:30:34 GMT -8
Development is necessary to create an accessible grid of resources that enables residents to do something other than pull into the street with their cars--I have in mind walking! The debate is going to be how dense that grid should be. $75M is a lot, but Casden's sunk cost is not my concern; future livability is. Bigger box and chain stores will not positively impact my life. Rather they will detract from my sense of community and connectedness that rail has the potential to positively contribute to.
I want LA Planning and the council to incentivize smaller service-oriented businesses. I look at what's happening in Culver City downtown and I salivate--and not because so many of the storefronts are restaurants (too many in my opinion), but because a walkable grid with density that seems "just-right" has been created, largely by on-premises store-owners. I would not want to see Target and Office Depot and Olive Garden, etc., etc., offering giant signs and presence that detracts from my transiting (if you will) experience. Culver City downtown and Santa Monica downtown seem reasonable development paradigms.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 10, 2013 18:01:23 GMT -8
Ah, but we need much more density, much more verticality, one of the great thing about the Casden project is how tall it is, unlike the pathetic TODs of two-three stories in Culver City. The elevator was invented over a hundred years ago, we need to deregulate all these inane height restrictions so that Los Angeles is allowed use of the amazing invention of technology like the elevator.  Traffic still moves effectively in San Diego despite the Downtown being far denser than anything comparable in Los Angeles. As for the Target, there's one in the Fox Hills Mall, and one buried deep offstreet in one of the malls off Jefferson, neither are transit friendly (imo, neither are car friendly either!). And there's nothing inherently wrong with a chain store that people like to buy products from, otherwise, we'd all hate Trader Joes. |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 10, 2013 18:03:16 GMT -8
Ah, but we need much more density, much more verticality... We'll have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 11, 2013 10:13:16 GMT -8
The current version of Casden project doesn't strike me as too dense. It was downsized significantly and is still facing opposition.
The problem with the people opposing this project is their absolute stance on development. They want zero change to land use at this corner, in fact, they are against Expo too (yea, same group of nut jobs). They will not be happy until Casden decide to keep the cement plant open indefinitely.
Casden has made several important changes to the design of the site, including having the retail area face the train station (rather than parking lot) and establish pedestrian link/green belt to Pico Blvd. The possible selection of Target as anchor tenant doesn't bother me as this area is a little under served by retail. But Target is not going to be the only tenant so I don't know why anyone would oppose this project on that basis alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 12, 2013 11:07:57 GMT -8
and the development will be a lot prettier and give a lot more to the community than the cement plant.
about four years ago I lived at Sepulveda National, a few times a week I'd walk to Little Osaka and/or The Westside YMCA that was my gym at the time, This area is not particularly pedestrian friendly, and additional transit oriented development around the expo line is going to be a major improvement for the neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 13, 2013 8:34:07 GMT -8
I’m not sure that it is a question of supporting or opposing development at Sepulveda and Pico. I believe all of us support the increased density brought on by transit-oriented development. The question will always be, where is the “sweet spot?”
The sweet spot is determined not optimum density but livability. I received the impression from some of the recent mayoral advertisements that candidates were attempting to support increased freeway and transit facility at a time when Los Angeles seems to be in transition from near-total reliance on the private vehicle to increased reliance on public transit. (We needed transit through the Sepulveda Pass not just more freeway lanes.) LA should not want to encourage continued reliance on the auto—we’ll never resolve the congestion!
It is in service to that point that I oppose many larger stores near some of the stations, Sepulveda/Exposition being one. While increased congestion will drive transit ridership, it also increases the stress we experience. I do not want development that increases the congestion density--and I think that already exists at Pico and Sepulveda. Smaller stores + higher population density encourages street life and, in my opinion, raises the quality of life. Think about the “street life” around Bed Bath and Beyond over on Olympic or Sport Chalet or Best Buy, just west--it's non-existent! Then look at the stretch along Pico east of Overland—great integration of smaller homes on adjacent streets and smaller businesses that both sell “stuff” and offer services. Even Westside Pavilion seems to fit-in. (I think it not coincidental that Westside Pavilion is privately held rather than part of a mall conglomerate like Westfield) What we don’t have there is large, “brash” retailers focused on their sales strategy rather than integration with the community. This is what I wish to avoid at Pico and Sepulveda.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 13, 2013 8:55:49 GMT -8
I’m not sure that it is a question of supporting or opposing development at Sepulveda and Pico. I believe all of us support the increased density brought on by transit-oriented development. The question will always be, where is the “sweet spot?” The sweet spot is determined not optimum density but livability. I received the impression from some of the recent mayoral advertisements that candidates were attempting to support increased freeway and transit facility at a time when Los Angeles seems to be in transition from near-total reliance on the private vehicle to increased reliance on public transit. (We needed transit through the Sepulveda Pass not just more freeway lanes.) LA should not want to encourage continued reliance on the auto—we’ll never resolve the congestion! It is in service to that point that I oppose many larger stores near some of the stations, Sepulveda/Exposition being one. While increased congestion will drive transit ridership, it also increases the stress we experience. I do not want development that increases the congestion density--and I think that already exists at Pico and Sepulveda. Smaller stores + higher population density encourages street life and, in my opinion, raises the quality of life. Think about the “street life” around Bed Bath and Beyond over on Olympic or Sport Chalet or Best Buy, just west-- it's non-existent! Then look at the stretch along Pico east of Overland—great integration of smaller homes on adjacent streets and smaller businesses that both sell “stuff” and offer services. Even Westside Pavilion seems to fit-in. (I think it not coincidental that Westside Pavilion is privately held rather than part of a mall conglomerate like Westfield) What we don’t have there is large, “brash” retailers focused on their sales strategy rather than integration with the community. This is what I wish to avoid at Pico and Sepulveda. On the Westside, you really see the difference between the streets that were developed primarily for cars like Wilshire and Olympic vs. streetcar streets like Pico, Santa Monica, and San Vicente that are much more pedestrian friendly. In fact, that is a great worry for Expo, because it runs very close to Olympic in my neck of the woods, and Olympic is almost impossible to walk here as you mentioned. On the Westside Pavilion, I agree it does fit in pretty good for a shopping mall, but that is primarily due to its small footprint (it was put in a narrow spot). It is owned by Macerich, which is a large national mall operator. |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 13, 2013 9:27:42 GMT -8
On the Westside Pavilion, I agree it does fit in pretty good for a shopping mall, but that is primarily due to its small footprint (it was put in a narrow spot). It is owned by Macerich, which is a large national mall operator. I'm surprised that it's owned by a national operator--they seem to operate quite differently from Westfield, which brands each mall acquisition with its name and my impression, makes the mall itself a commodity. Westside Pavilion is tasteful, not pretentious, two anchor stores with quality merchandise and offers a quiet retail presence to the community. ...Interesting comment regarding Olympic and Pico; I never really thought about how the streets differ, but you're right. And now with the congestion on the Westside even Olympic with its wider structure can't seem to handle the traffic as rush hours approach. Light rail is long over due. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 13, 2013 12:26:35 GMT -8
The sweet spot is determined not optimum density but livability. I received the impression from some of the recent mayoral advertisements that candidates were attempting to support increased freeway and transit facility at a time when Los Angeles seems to be in transition from near-total reliance on the private vehicle to increased reliance on public transit. (We needed transit through the Sepulveda Pass not just more freeway lanes.) LA should not want to encourage continued reliance on the auto—we’ll never resolve the congestion! The auto will be what resolves congestion, Rail is just a nice stop gap on the path to saturation of self-driving cars. Once we hit a tipping point with 30-40% self driving cars rail will become increasingly irrelevant as the slow travel caused by congestion will largely be eliminated by the automation of the perfect computer synchronization between computer controlled autos. IIRC, they want to put in a 'City Target' which is a smaller footprint store and less of a big box. Meaning it won't be a monolith like you see on the Olympic bed bath and beyond. The Westside Pavillion has a monolithic fortress on the streetfront side, there's no mall access, no storefronts, just endless brick, like most malls, or the Olympic BB&B (though to be fair, you can access the Olympic BB&B from Olympic), not very pedestrian friendly, but it is very car friendly with the free parking and enormous lots. They don't even have anywhere to rack a bike, so I'm left locking mine to a street pole or parking meter. |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 13, 2013 13:58:33 GMT -8
The Westside Pavillion has a monolithic fortress on the streetfront side, there's no mall access, no storefronts, just endless brick... It is... but it's on the street and easily accessible to pedestrians through curbside entrances on Pico and Overland, rather than buffered by an endless, surrounding landscape of asphalt and parking spaces. Storefronts would be a nice addition. As for the brick, I'm please there is no advertisement, unlike Culver City's Fox Hills Mall (oops, name-change "Westfield Fox Hills"). |
|
