John Crandell on April 01, 2008, at 05:38PM – #1

This is exactly where rehabilitation of Broadway could go wrong. Very wrong, ten years down the line. The city planning department and the redevelopment agency ought to foresee what could happen with the prevalence of such small units in the historic core. Small units for people without motor vehicles would be fine - included into a mix of sizes within new buildings, say in South Park. The negative factors or elements of living in the historic core ought to be counterbalanced by larger size units. Turning the entire structure over to small size living spaces could easily backfire, especially at 7th and Broadway.

Jared Fledman on April 01, 2008, at 06:28PM – #2

This actually sounds like it would be nice little hotel. 155 rooms between, 304 sq.ft and 1000. Sounds perfect to me.

Metro Local on April 01, 2008, at 09:06PM – #4

Eric is likely right that this is more about adding value to the building rather than a conversion in the current market.

However, at a certain price point, there is a large market for pied-a-terres to stay off daily commute marathons. Small units for people who either take the train in for the week or park their car at the office Monday morning and drive it home Friday night.

With increasing gas prices, don't be surprised if people who clock 90 minutes each way in an auto realize that there is a cost benefit to just crashing in town for the work week.

Juanito on April 01, 2008, at 11:23PM – #5

A boutique hotel and an intimate theater in the same building, clad in a very unique shade of terra cota and situated at the nexus of two major pedestrian/retail corridors. I'm trying to think of where in southern California there is such a combination. If only Bill Graham and Ian Schrager could have partnered on such a venture. I imagine that Ms. Ronstadt would prefer to perform in this type of venue, rather than the dump she got thrown out of in Vegas for talking politics. There could be series for the Boomers, for Blues seekers, Jazz, Folk/Bluegrass, Hop, whatever - all a short walk from two Redline stations. Conventioneers would gravitate as well for evening entertainment. (No Country allowed; those bozos still think we belong in Iraq. Oops).

Bert Green on April 02, 2008, at 12:04AM – #6

Looks to me like there ought to be a lot more than 155 units that could fit in the building at those sizes. Maybe not all of the building will be residential?

Dr Boris on April 02, 2008, at 12:09AM – #7

Currently I run my burgeoning Chiropractic practice out of "Lofty" two room office on 12th Floor of the United Building. Thru the large original windows I have great views of the Historic Downtown skyline. The building has many historic details, for example the corridors are lined with marble, granite, and terrazzo.

The theatre on the ground floor, which currently is home to the "Iglesia Universal" is well preserved and is filled to capacity weekly by the church. The rest of the building seems to be well occupied mostly by jewelers, and it would not surprise me if some of those potential "condos" may of the commercial variety.

However the building would need an extensive amount of work, new pluming, electrical, and seismic retrofit. Also the layout of the building is in a L - shape due to the theatre on the ground floor, so it looks larger than it actually is.

Perhaps one day the interior of the building will match the beautiful exterior.

For Chiropractic treatment and a peek inside my office on the "Penthouse" level of the this Historic Edifice you can call

Dr. Boris Mayzels, at , or visit www.drmayzels.com

707 S. Broadway #1221

VictorAtomic on April 02, 2008, at 01:30AM – #9

wow maybe I should get my back checked out so I can be nosy as well :)

Great LA pics on Dr. Mayzels site btw.

Jon on April 02, 2008, at 11:04AM – #10

Smaller units like that is a good thing. Not just downtown, but all over the city. You go to other major cities in the world and these small units are the norm. Most people don't need such large living spaces.

Plus it will help with the increasing population that Los Angeles has.

Wake up on April 02, 2008, at 12:30PM – #11

Don't we have a traffic problem here in LA? Why would we want to build more condos and have more people live in a conjested area. It's not a good idea for this project. Buil more parks not more condos. I really hope this plan gets rejected.

Jared Fledman on April 02, 2008, at 03:09PM – #13

Quick question. What about the condotels. How are they zoned? Maybe that is the ultimate idea?

Karin Liljegren on April 02, 2008, at 09:26PM – #14

While I know nothing about this particular project and what the Developer's goal or demographic buyer is . . . In general, small loft units are needed and there is a strong demand for them. In all the projects that we've designed (many Adaptive reuse lofts), the first to sell or lease are the smallest ones. Unfortunately, the cost of living downtown is getting more expensive and smaller units are a way for many, specifically younger singles, to be able to afford a space of their own.

Bert Green on April 03, 2008, at 12:21AM – #15

Wake up: Do you really think the people who move into the micro-condos are going to drive everywhere? They will walk, bike and take Metro, like most other people downtown, and unlike people in the rest of LA.

loveandhatela on April 03, 2008, at 12:37PM – #16

I like the idea of smaller units. Though 304 sq. feet seems really small. I do have experience living in a 450 sq. feet, one bedroom unit before. Right now I live in 1200 sq. feet, 8 miles south east of downtown los angeles. I do plan on down sizing. Like the saying goes- "less is more" and not just in wearing make-up..lol I spend more time in my kitchen and bedroom than anything and backyard patio(in the spring/summer). Smaller living quarters make you think about what you really, seriously "need" vs. "want". By the way i make my environmental contribution by choosing not to drive a car(since 2004), not easy but also not impossible either. :)

David Kennedy on April 03, 2008, at 02:06PM – #17

loveandhatela: Check out the apartments above Grand Central Market. Their units are quite small, but very thoughfully designed. I remember living in a studio apartment there and having so much storage space. The architect who did the conversion, Brenda Levin, did a wonderful job. Prices tend to be pretty reasonable, too.

jON on April 08, 2008, at 08:55AM – #18

Wake Up needs to wake up. Where are all the people moving to LA going to live. Not only is the population of LA growing, but so is Californias and the entire country. Should we just keep building sub divisions farther and farther out in the desert. Yeah, urban sprawl is the answer.

No, more density in the city is the only answer. If you don't like living in a mega city, then move to Lancaster.

Urban Trojan on April 08, 2008, at 01:07PM – #19

Let's not engender Blade Runner claustrophobia in downtown, or anywhere else. If the new zoning/building ordinances allow a developer to construct a building made up entirely of 304 sq. foot spaces, it would be highly unfortunate. Back in the day I lived in a small building made up of 200 to 250 sq. ft. units in an upscale part of town. The limited amount of space was bad enough, but with a substance/rock and roll addict living next door, life sometimes bordered on insanity. There was no resident manager and the owner of the property remained indifferent to problems caused by the addict. Police visited the location many times. I wrote a letter to the chief of police. That solved the problem, for like three months. The building was constructed in 1929 to house the domestic staff of a prominent family involved in the entertainment industry.

In short, it's not too hard to imagine if certain developers of the sort similar to one particular property owner in the Historic Core are allowed to build rental or condominium buildings cram full of subhuman living spaces, what will result.