-
09/16/2010 12:11:00 AM
40 stories is a "Mega Skyscraper"? We had those back in Kansas City. Great skyline but hardly "mega".
-
Brigham 04/21/2009 1:41:00 PM
Geez! Can this article be anymore biased and PARTIAL? And for those who don't like tall buildings and "big city stuff," you're in the WRONG place buddy. LA hasn't been anything but the second largest city in the US for awhile, and pitting a skyscraper against a small bungalow is playing on people's emotions because that argument is completely moot. Why? Because isn't a quiet suburban city anymore. It's a gigantic city and many residents who live here need to accept that or they need to move to Pleasant Grove, Utah. In order for LA to evolve efficiently, it cannot rely on automobiles as the main mode of transit. LA has to continually build more compact neighborhoods for people to walk in coupled with subway construction that's been a replicated by dozens and dozens of great cities all across the world (Tokyo, Paris, London, Taipei, New York, Chicago, Berlin, Moscow, Copenhagen, Seoul, Shanghai, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, etc. etc.). LA needs to STOP BEING WEIRD. Stop the growth of suburban sprawl which depends on automobiles. Just look at the wasteland that is Orange County. Is there anyway you could get around that hell hole without a car? LA can do better than that. Well, if we rid our city of the anti-smart-growth retards.
-
05/25/2008 10:06:00 AM
If you dont like skyscrapers or earthquakes avoid Chicago.
-
DCB 05/12/2008 11:49:00 PM
Some development is needed so that the city doesn't stagnate. But this huge building along a major boulevard, and near public transit??? Well.. well... that's exactly what the city needs to continue to grow, yet develop smart to alleviate traffic. Otherwise the city withers and dies (go look up Detroit), or creates more traffic by not putting development near public transportation lines.
I too, have seen renderings and heard about this project for over a year now.
And to those that don't like earthquakes, go live in New York.
-
H in hollywood 05/09/2008 12:42:00 AM
I was surprised by the tone of this article and by the inference that Columbia Square has been a secretive project. I saw a DVD on this proposed development a year ago at a open-invite Chamber of Commerce function with about 150 other people. I've since heard about the same development at Chamber meetings, Business improvement district meetings, and neighborhood council meetings. I hear about a lot of would-be projects that way, and all of those meetings are open to the public. If you live in an area and you care about it, a little initiative goes a long way. I'm an adult. I don't expect to be spoon-fed.
-
In the Know 05/09/2008 12:34:00 AM
Don't you all fret...Molasky declared Chapter 11...the Las Vegas Review Journal front page business section....
This deal will never happen with him....he can't even balance his check book.....and the other issues that will come out of this....he has deep problems...
-
realist 05/06/2008 7:49:00 PM
To "excluded"- none of the current housing being built is affordable to the 'common man', nor is it intended to be. And when projects like this are built it drives the cost of housing in the area (old or new) UP not down. It's called gentrification and it's happening in an LA area near you. You can sit there and pretend that this is all for the good of the people or you can be honest with yourself. Maybe you should put down your economics textbook and open your eyes to the real problems facing most angelinos who dont make millions.
-
Edward W. Jackson 05/06/2008 7:09:00 PM
What about the earthquakes? Forty stories of steel coming down on your head. What about that? I say, go live in New York, if you like those big tall buildings. EWJ
-
Michael Collins 05/06/2008 7:20:00 AM
Re: Patrick Range McDonald�s superb �Doomscraper? Here Comes Hollywood's First-Ever Mega-Skyscraper� [May 2-May 8]: Why is it that the Weekly is where we have to learn about the Stealth Towering Doomscraper instead of the elected officials whose jobs are supposed to include telling us about these major changes to our increasingly compromised and unlivable city? Money, obviously, not that oodles of developer cash are necessarily a bad thing if you think that trees grow from the leaves first, trunk and roots to follow, since the neighborhood infrastructure seems inadequate for an STD this size. But as McDonald so ably points out, few folks are aware of the project (until now) and there has been no Environmental Impact Report filed. When that EIR is filed, it would be wise to note the tonnage of dust that STD construction will make airborne. Residents beyond the ominous shadow zone that the monoliths will create are going to have to deal with this dust that will fallout and infiltrate their environment no matter how much they try to keep it out.
Gone forever are the days of good traffic in Los Angeles but the argument that it is so bad that the city can afford an STD that will paralyze that part of Hollywood in gridlock is specious. Thanks to McDonald�s truly enterprising reportage, and the Weekly�s surge in fine investigative pieces about a city awash in uncontrolled and ill-conceived developments and plasma TV-style billboards, those folks trapped in traffic by construction of this STD will know that the junk their inhaling isn�t fairy dust. But it will take fairy dust to convince folks that this is a smart idea when McDonald has exposed that developer sold the place recently and skedaddled before the dust really hits the fan. Perhaps they know this is an STD that no one will want to end up with.
-
ROYAL TAYLOR 05/04/2008 6:12:00 PM
trying to find out about an actist by the last name davenport {black}
-
D 05/04/2008 4:31:00 AM
This is a new age in LA and im very thankful for it. I wish projects like this one would line all our major blvds. This project, like most of the new ones, are a short walk from the subway. Excellent! I love the stupid line that it will block the view of the Hollywood sign for thousands. First of all it wont be thousands, and secondly, who gives a shit? I rather have smart, mixed use projects like this than worry about a dumb view. I hate all the negativity in the LA Media towards large projects. it really boggles the mind. instead of opposing these projects, why not be proactive and push for transit solutions. The LA media needs to get some perspective. The mega cities in the world are not build around 1 story strip malls. We are a megalopolis of 18 million plus, we will have traffic. Deal with it. I hope this gets built ASAP!
-
jeff 05/03/2008 11:02:00 PM
Excluded by Economics misses the point, as do those who oppose all big development, anywhere: There are inappropriate places and appropriate ones for large-scale development. This sort of huge project, being on Sunset Blvd. which is on a transit corridor which is already near subway stops and buses, is just the kind of "smart growth" that makes sense. By building density in places like this, it can be kept OUT of R-1, and many R-2, low-density areas where it would ruin quality of life and property values. So both sides are right, it's not either- or. Garcetti MIGHT be right in general as long as he sticks to this double-edged planning vision, and doesn't go the way of the lunatics on the Planning Commission like Mike Woo -- who want dense projects everywhere, even overshadowing small homes and quiet streets -- or Ed Reyes, the DANGEROUS head of the City Council's PLUM (Planning and Land Use) Committee, who's intent on demolishing all zoning and Community plans, even knowingly destroying property values (what's left of them) to provide massive projects, subsidized by the same angry taxpayers, into explicitly R-1 neighborhoods. Those like Excluded by Economics are speaking out of a class envy that would destroy the fiber of the city by intentionally ruining the low-density neighborhoods that are left, as havens of the besieged middle and upper middle class. On the other hand, there is a need for rental units, from the luxury apts. and condos in 6121 Sunset (these are NOT low-income units, either) to truly low-income units on OUTER areas of town, where there's space and where they don't destroy zoning and community plans. But forcing their way into more affluent areas is socialistic, at best: everyone has to work their way up into those areas, fair and square, or live where they can afford. Putting projects into Holmby Hills or Tarzana, like Reyes wants, is just class-hatred communism and will destroy the city, after creating an open war. I think Garcetti knows the difference.
-
Patrick Range McDonald 05/03/2008 2:54:00 AM
Thanks for those comments. Eric Garcetti is a very likeable, charming person. Sometimes his words don't always match up with his actions, though. My article points this out. And it's not a matter of liking or disliking the project. The city makes it very hard for the public to know what's happening with megaprojects like this, so open and public scrutiny is nearly impossible. So I went in there and scrutinized. Lastly, behind the scenes deals aren't myths. The article exposes them outright. Thanks again for reading. Patrick
-
Excluded by Economics 05/03/2008 2:24:00 AM
This article should start out with "I, the author, don't like this project, and I don't want you to either."
For those of us who don't live in Hollywood, and who have seen what the anti-development activists have done, this point of view seems unwarranted. Anti-density laws, like the height limits discussed in this article, have restricted the supply of housing, which has driven up its price. That keeps out poor and middle class people. Luxury developments like this one, eventually become more affordable as they age: thats how affordable housing is naturally created. But when you don't build anything new, demand remains so high that nothing is affordable.
As for the gridlock problem, it exists and its awful. But discouraging construction like this, near public transit, bears no relation to easing gridlock. This is where we should be building the new projects the city needs, not in the middle of nowhere, where everyone drives.
The city should make it easier, not more difficult, to develop dense, walkable projects, like this one, near public transportation. Over the objections of short-sighted activists, if necessary.
-
Helene Schpak 05/02/2008 11:53:00 PM
I am disappointed that the LA Weekly portrayed City Council President Eric Garcetti in completely negative terms. Although Mr. McDonald pointed out some very critical issues around land-use in Los Angeles, his article was so extremely one-sided that his arguments appear biased as well as unbalanced.
Is Councilmember Garcetti at fault because Mr. McDonald couldn�t find more people who oppose this project? It would seem, according to those quoted in the article, that many people support it. Every community has varying levels of participation based on readily available information and a choice to engage in a particular issue. Projects of this magnitude usually take years before breaking ground and during that entitlement process there are many opportunities for the community to voice their support or organize their outrage. So, it�s not helpful to perpetuate the myth that this is a done deal when it clearly is not. At this point, the proposal for a 40-story skyscraper is just that, a proposal.
Development proposals come and go all the time as they have done in my community and throughout the city. It�s been my experience with Councilmember Garcetti and his staff that they send developers to interact directly with the community. Time and again they have facilitated the involvement of community members, supporters and critics alike, in the decision making process that affects my neighborhood. The results of their policy to engage the community at the beginning of the process have produced a broader consensus of support for those proposed developments.
Helene Schpak
Glassell Park
