NFL Deal to Happen Fast or Not at All, Leiweke Says
Eric Richardson
[Flickr]
AEG CEO Tim Leiweke is pushing plans to construct a $1-billion, retractable-roof stadium next to Staples Center and the Nokia Theatre on the site of the Convention Center's West Hall (top right).
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Before 350 attendees of a Central City Association luncheon this afternoon, AEG CEO Tim Leiweke reiterated his commitment to bringing a new stadium, at least one NFL team, and an expanded Convention Center, but only if the deal happens quickly.
"I spend most of every waking hour right now on the NFL," Leiweke said. "But I will also promise you this: we're going to give this our best shot over the next two to three months … We're not going to hang around for ten years."
Leiweke has spent many of those waking hours making speeches over the two months. There were several quiet months after word first leaked in April that AEG was working on plans for a Staples Center-adjacent stadium, but the CEO has been on the talking circuit of late discussing the company's vision.
At the center of that vision is the Los Angeles Convention Center, whose West Hall would need to be torn down to make way for the stadium. Leiweke emphasized Wednesday that the center was more than just a land source.
"Do we believe in football? Yes, we do, we're excited about it … but we believe in the event and tourism business even more," he said.
He also stressed his commitment to making sure that the city didn't end up on the hook for any of the costs. Debt service on bonds issued for the construction of the new Convention Center hall would be covered by new taxes generated in the area, and Leiweke promised to have AEG responsible for any deficit.
Leiweke's ten year remark was in reference to developer Ed Roski of Majestic Reality's Los Angeles Football Stadium concept, which would bring the NFL to the City of Industry. "This project will be much more difficult than advertised and will require traffic and environmental studies that could take years," said a source close to the Majestic project after Leiweke's remarks. "Regardless of how flashy they make it seem they are selling a deal with zero specifics except for the needs for taxpayer dollars under the name of city bonds."
One of the specifics that has been in the news in recent weeks was the rumor that AEG owner Phil Anschutz had purchased a share of the San Diego Chargers. "No, we have not bought any of the San Diego Chargers," Leiweke said Wednesday.
He did offer a few details on transportation improvements that would need to take place around the new stadium. 10 to 20 percent of stadium attendees could arrive via rail, and Leiweke said that the existing Blue Line station at Flower and Pico will need to be upgraded to handle the increased load. AEG plans to build just two new parking structures next to the stadium, counting on the 32,000 spaces that the company says are available with less than a 15-minute walk to handle the NFL load.
And what will that extra traffic mean for Downtown residents? "I don't think you came here for the peace and quiet of the ocean and the waves," Leiweke said. AEG would make sure that NFL games don't overlap with Staples Center events, but otherwise the company doesn't see much impact for residents. "For the most part, life doesn't change in Downtown," he said.
"I hope that what we look at years from now is a hundred thousand people who want to live Downtown because it's not only one of the most livable areas in the country, but it's exciting and it has energy and it has nightlife."
Tim Yee on December 08, 2010, at 04:19PM – #1
Have other downtown cities actually benefited in terms of desirable living from building a new stadium? Does this actually help bring in grocery stores, better schools and more diverse businesses or are there mainly negative impacts of rowdy crowds on Sunday, increased congestion and further blightedness of downtown LA? I am actually asking this for feedback as I'm unsure whether someone living downtown sees a new stadium as a benefit or not.
misslapin on December 08, 2010, at 05:17PM – #2
I think that there has been very little benefit to anyone but team owners, and perhaps developers. Seattle may be an exception, but the area around the baseball stadium was already very walkable with a restaurants, etc. http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2010/12/times_again_asks_for_downtown.php
Guest on December 08, 2010, at 05:23PM – #3
all one has to do is look at Staples Center and you will see that LA has benefited greatly from it. It put Downtown back on the map for thousands of Angelenos and all the businesses around downtown will tell you of all the benefits. now multiply those benefits by 10 and you can begin to see how this new event center will help.
Make it happen AEG!
D
SteelPulse on December 08, 2010, at 05:35PM – #4
Not so sure I agree with guest in comparing the benefits of Staples to the proposed NFL stadium.
Staples programs events nearly every night of the year including: games for 2 NBA teams, one NHL hockey team, and many concerts.
Staples has a much smaller footprint than an NFL stadium as well. So the scale is much more conducive to Staples fitting in and dominating a neighborhood.
Most NFL stadiums host only 8 games a year. Ghost towns the rest of the year. I realize AEG has a different vision for their proposal.
Bottom line I think the stadium is a fine idea IF executed well and programmed with multiple events. That said, I think the biggest beneficiaries would be the new owners and football fans. I like footaball but not enough to pay through the nose to attend games. So I hope no public money goes into this venture, as AEG officials have stated.
SteelPulse on December 08, 2010, at 05:39PM – #5
Edit to my comment above:
I meant the smaller scale of Staples ensures that it does NOT dominate the neighborhood it is located in. It can blend in with surrounding uses.
A hulking NFL stadium has the PONTENTIAL to be a hulking mass that is quiet much of the time/year.
Again, if done with sensitivity it could be a good thing. It's not like the existing West Hall is particulary sensitive either.
Guest on December 08, 2010, at 06:08PM – #6
I think downtown San Diego is an excellent example of a stadium assisting in the revitalization of a downtown area.
However, I think the proposed addition of just two new parking structures is irresponsible. Parking is already difficult during Staples events -- and this would be several times worse.
Also, as a Historic Core resident, it's easy for me to be in favor of this, but if I lived in Southpark, I'm not sure I'd feel the same way. I find it hard to believe that things wouldn't change in that neighborhood.
Still, I think the positives outweigh the negatives, so long as the project is done in a responsible way.
David Crowley on December 08, 2010, at 06:50PM – #7
I think an NFL stadium would be awful for downtown LA. Back when the Giants wanted to build a stadium in Manhattan, the hells kitchen residents pretty much shut the project down because of the perceived negative impact. I think we need to do the same thing.
And Leiweke saying people didn't move to downtown for the peace and quite is complete BS. Sure it's not the quietest place in the world, but that doesn't mean I want the hassle of a football stadium and all the associated events. Traffic is hell already when the Lakers play, imagine if there's just one game where theres a basketball game and a football game. And a ton of extra parking, this whole proposal seems very unsound. I especially don't want to pay a dime in taxes or anything else to support it.
Guest on December 08, 2010, at 06:56PM – #8
LA sports fans are not well behaved. This is the bottom line. I don't care why this is true, don't really care about the reasons it true. But it is true. They are reckless, ill behaved roughnecks who break, throw and light on fire.
David Markland on December 08, 2010, at 07:40PM – #9
Here's another question: has AEG ever taken on a project that hasn't been mutually successful for them AND the surrounding area?
Guest on December 08, 2010, at 07:52PM – #10
If they were to hire the wrong (hack) architectural firm, I'm against it.
If they were to hire the world's best, most imaginative and urbane team of designers, I'm all for it!
Steve White (@StevenMWhite) on December 08, 2010, at 07:52PM – #11
I honestly don't know where the parking argument comes from... TRAFFIC is an issue in South Park during big events (especially on nights when the multiple venues all have events), but I have never had an issue finding decent partking. AEG's West Garage handles a ton of cars, and there are private lots all over the place that are cheaper and easier to get to traffic-wize if you don't mind a walk (under 10 minutes).
Of course parking will be more of an issue with a 60,000-seat venue than it is with a 20,000-seat one, but with the addition of the LA LIVE complex, I have not ever had difficulty parking even on nights when there are events in all three venues (Staples Center, Nokia Theatre, and Club Nokia). I'm confident that the planning for another venue will be done well in this regard.
The biggest concerns should be traffic control, pedestrian flow, light rail scheduling and improvements, etc.
If this city had any money, I'd even be in favor of a public contribution. But it doesn't so I certainly appreciate that this plan basically has AEG footing the bill. The convention business (while not as exciting as the GRAMMYs, Super Bowls, Emmy Awards, etc) is a huge moneymaker for hotels, restaurants, etc. and there's no way this won't be a HUGE positive for LA.
Guest on December 08, 2010, at 07:53PM – #12
@David Crowley
They've already stated they wouldn't overlap major events. And the Jets proposed stadium in Manhattan was smack dab in the middle of Chelsea. This stadium would be completely shut off from interfering with the neighborhood because of LA Live, Staples, the Convention center, and the freeway.
And people keep hammering away at the 'parking issue', But if you provide more parking, you are essentially ENCOURAGING more traffic and congestion in downtown. By having limited parking, you will get people to shift out of this horrible car-centric paradigm LA suffers from and instead encourage them to use light rail, which is both convenient and environmentally friendly.
Guest on December 08, 2010, at 08:06PM – #13
Los Angeles is stuck in an old kind of boondocks category since it hasn't had a professional football team for over 15 years. If LA truly were a big-time town like New York City or Chicago, no way would such a situation have ever occurred in the first place or remained true for so long.
Beyond sports, LA originally did suffer from the stigma of being a cultural wasteland. Even today, folks from Northern Cal or supposedly enlightened cities continue to cling to that stereotype of LA.
It doesn't help that in the eyes of a national audience, which has made NFL games and, of course, the Super Bowl among the most popular hours on TV today, Los Angeles is a non-entity. It's a big zero.
Making matters worse, far too much of downtown LA continues to give off the vibe of being a sad and tired place. Certainly by the standards of areas similar to the one mentioned by #7 David Crowley, referring to Manhattan.
Benjamin Pezzillo (@pezzillo) on December 08, 2010, at 10:41PM – #14
We've lived in South Park for nearly a year and events at the Staples Center one block from us have never interfered with enjoyment of our home. The night of the Lakers' championship, we just stayed inside and let LAPD do an outstanding job of reigning in those who wanted to tarnish the win with violence. We had many, many more complaints when we lived in the Historic Core.
Sunday traffic is generally so light Downtown that game days would not be the nightmarish impact forecast by some of the commenters here. Could a Monday or Thursday night game snarl traffic? Sure. But so could a Dodgers' game or a jack-knifed big rig.
The sooner this project gets up and running, the sooner hundreds if not thousands of construction jobs can start getting people back to work. Once up and running, a stadium operation could provide thousands of part-time jobs as well as collateral revenue into the local television market and benefits to the City's General Fund from the Parking Occupancy Tax to name just one possibility.
In short, this Downtown resident wants a NFL team in Los Angeles and supports the stadium project Downtown. Let's find ways to make this happen, not ways to keep it from happening!
Russell Brown on December 08, 2010, at 10:42PM – #15
Attended the presentation this afternoon.
For those who were not there, the proposal is much more than a 10 day a year football ghost town. The proposal is for a retractable roof stadium that will host football, soccer, basketball, races, concerts and conventions. The floor of the field can be covered for exhibit space when the roof is closed. Mr Lieweke is proposing a schedule of 50 or more events a year.
Football is basically a Sunday afternoon event. Downtown is much quieter in that area on Sunday. He also stated that any events at Staples would not be scheduled at the same time as the game. A Monday night or Thursday football game is less than 3 events a season.
This is also contingent on a $350 million expansion and renovation of the convention center. That is where the real pay off is. Taking the LA Convention Center from #26 (Des Moines) to peer level with Las Vegas, New York, Chicago, Orlando, San Francisco. The project is expected to spawn 5 new hotels, retail and a regional tourist draw. The expected economic benefit would be $250 million a year.
The financing would be bonds (same as a house mortage on capital improvements) sponsored by the City and AEG. It would be paid for by the NEW sales tax that would only be generated by the creation of this development. Existing level of taxes would be protected. The City would still own the Convention Center and the land.
Any deficit would be covered by AEG. Presently the Convention Center runs a deficit anyway. It used to be much much worse.
AEG presently manage 90 venues throughout the world, owns many entertainment and sports teams, and manages convention complexes around the world. Including the London Millenium Dome.
Guest on December 08, 2010, at 10:56PM – #16
Resident at 7th/Flower here. I support the project and even though I don't like sports, the benefits of increased activity in Downtown plus the added convention/events space more than makes up for some inconvenience during game nights. As others have pointed out, Sunday in DTLA is absolutely quiet in that area. I doubt it would have a huge impact.
Also, the Expo Line will be opening soon and that should help relieve some parking issues.
By the way, to the commenter who suggested that this project won't help improve the lives of DT residents or improve the schools... that's laughable. Since when is it ANY project's responsibility to bring in more grocery stores or new schools, world peace, etc? Get a grip.
patrick manpous on December 08, 2010, at 11:17PM – #17
I live in South Park and I am 200% behind this project. I think the comments made by Steelpulse are spot on so I won't reiterate them.
My questions is, is there anything we can do to express our support for this project? petitions? emails? facebook page? we need to rally the troops!
Guest on December 09, 2010, at 05:34AM – #18
To me this is a no brainer. Yes, I hate it when the idiots riot after Laker victories but I hope one day the LAPD will know how to control the situation better. I love football and live Downtown. I would love to see a stadium built within walking distance of my loft. I also know it will bring more jobs to the Central City. If you haven't seen this video for the LA Streetcar...check it out. Can you imagine seeing thousands of fans park further away from the stadium and take the Streetcar? It will be a different downtown and we will see more and more investment here.
Guest on December 09, 2010, at 05:37AM – #19
Here is the streetcar video...
http://www.lastreetcar.org/
Los Angeles SEO on December 09, 2010, at 06:43AM – #20
The Los Angeles Metro area is HUGE and there is no reason that you should have 2 stadiums so close to each other. If AEG really wants to "help" revitalize the city, they would find an area that doesn't already have a revitalization project in progress.
And for a larger audience, move the stadium east a bit. If you put it more central to LA County, not just the city of LA, you'll get more people coming because it won't be so much of a hike for everyone to get there. And the western side of Los Angeles County isn't the only place that needs revitalization.
Karin Liljegren on December 09, 2010, at 08:42AM – #21
Go new Stadium! Go AEG! and I agree, the stadium's design needs to be totally out of the box amazing, world class!
Laldava02 on December 09, 2010, at 09:05AM – #22
@Los Angeles SEO - I'm sorry but the "county" mentality is what has contributed to the sprawl of area resources and attractions, much to the detriment of visitors and residents alike. Instead of placing a stadium in an area that is equally inconvenient for everyone, let's put it where it's conveninent to most.
In this case that's downtown L.A, which is both the geographic center and public tansit hub for the region. Placing the stadium in an area that is both a hassle to get to by car and transit is a no win situation for us all.
Guest on December 09, 2010, at 09:26AM – #23
All for NFL Stadium and revitalization of the convention center.
@ Guest 8 - Do you know anything more about the rail system? How can they not include Little Tokyo or the Arts District in their plans? Are they going to just void those areas?
... In the video the rail only goes through South Park the Historic Core, Parts of the Fashion Area.
Guest on December 09, 2010, at 11:24AM – #24
Please do not allow the architecture to mimic Staples Center or the ESPN building. Those buildings are already tired looking even though LA Live just opened. Soemthing more contemporary needs to happen.
GilbyDM101 on December 09, 2010, at 12:51PM – #25
@Los Angeles SEO
“And for a larger audience, move the stadium east a bit. If you put it more central to LA County, not just the city of LA, you'll get more people coming because it won't be so much of a hike for everyone to get there”
If the intended use of this new events center is to not only have football games but to increase the number of conventions, why would they put it in City of Industry?
J-M on December 09, 2010, at 02:28PM – #26
I never thought I would say this, but this type of development is making me wonder if I want to stay Downtown.
Guest on December 09, 2010, at 04:02PM – #27
@ J-M
Were you thinking of leaving downtown and now you may want to stay? or Are you wanting to leave because of the development?
Guest on December 09, 2010, at 07:08PM – #28
You people are failing to look at the big picture. This proposal will do wonders for the city. I was at the luncheon as well and Mr. Leiweke made it clear AEG wants to rebuild Los Angeles. By upgrading the convention center, adding 5 new hotels, and bringing a football team to LA, the economic impact would be massive. The restaurant business, the taxicab business, public transportation business, and many others would thrive. It is almost a no-brainer. Everyone doubted Staples and said it would be terrible... It isn't. LA Live was supposed to be a flop... It isn't. JW Marriot was supposed to be taking business from the other hotels... It didn't; instead hotel occupancy rates are at all-time HIGHS.
Guest on December 09, 2010, at 09:12PM – #29
the LA Live design still sucks. Also, we still have no shopping over there. Just huge cave-like chain restaurants.
George Cowie on December 10, 2010, at 04:30AM – #30
Yes, folks, this is a limited time offer! Operators are standing by! If you qualify, that is, then we can ship you a football team. For only pennies a day, spare pocket change, you can have your own team. Humbug!
Tim Yee on December 10, 2010, at 10:58AM – #31
I really have enjoyed the feedback here with various views though haven't heard any convincing examples of how a football stadium has benefited the immediate neighborhood in terms of liveability for residents. San Diego's Qualcomm is not city center (but their baseball stadium is which is a different crowd and vibe).
If somehow this stadium can truly be more than a sports arena and more of a community gathering spot than Angelenos would want to come and stick around downtown more often. I have never seen that before anywhere else because of a football stadium/convention center.
How many go to 3rd Street Promenade or the Grove just to be around where there's some activity even though they aren't that architecturally or culturally engaging? Downtown needs something different and I do hope if it happens, a unique design can help improve Downtown's look and vibe. Staples was built in the 90's and LA Live was built to match in some ways. I do think there could be an overall benefit for LA and downtown but not sure the developers are clearly stating the potential downturns (at least for those who have chosen downtown LA as their residence).
I'm sure this will help in many ways as many have stateds but not convinced it will help with the LA Downtown "renaissance" everyone talks about.
Guest on December 10, 2010, at 11:26AM – #32
I Live in EVO and I support the project. If it wasnt for AEG there would be no downtown life at all. I look forward to walking to football games and enjoying everthing else that will come with it. Build it ASAP please!!
Benjamin Pezzillo (@pezzillo) on December 10, 2010, at 06:54PM – #33
Depends on what your definition of "liveability" is.
That I could walk home during halftime of a NFL game and make it back before kick-off of the Third Quarter?
That redefines "liveability" at a level I could not have even dreamed of in my most selfish of moments.
J-M on December 10, 2010, at 07:53PM – #34
Guest #27: after 6 years here, I'm starting to dislike the "vision" of Downtown I hear being touted recently. After years of people telling me I was crazy to live here, I now see those same people hanging out at the bars and restaurants that have opened in the past few years. Everyone's ranting and raving about Downtown, and talking about what's best for the neighborhood. I used to live in South Park, before there was really anything there. Now I look at that neon mess and realize I, unlike Benjamin above, could never live in that neighborhood again. It can be fun (love the Regal theater and the concert venues) but it's already a mess on game nights, during big conventions and when the pop gods descend upon the town, but add a football stadium into the mix and I will never go that side of town again.
I find I have (mostly) good days Downtown, but sometimes bad days. Whenever I read about Tim Leiweke's football dream and Hooters across the street, I think maybe I've outgrown this place. I have nothing against Mr. Leiweke or AEG. I think they've done great things in and for this community. I just happen to think they're wrong about this. We need to focus on infrastructure and basics before forging ahead with something on this scale.
Benjamin Pezzillo (@pezzillo) on December 10, 2010, at 11:09PM – #35
J-M: Funny, that's exactly how we feel about the Historic Core, no way we'd want to move back there after four years because of the bar and nightclub development among the residential buildings!
Infrastructure improvements around LA Live, Staples and the Convention Center like pedestrian bridges and barriers that both increase safety and improve traffic flow around the Blue Line and along Figueroa, Flower, Olympic and Pico will never get built in the current economic environment without something on this scale acting as a catalyst.
The largest sector of unemployment in Los Angeles is in construction jobs, thus the supply of qualified labor is very high right now. But the pool of capital in the marketplace is such that investors with liquidity will take their dollars elsewhere at the slightest hint of resistance and we'll all sit and scratch our heads wondering why Los Angeles continues to lose out to San Diego on big ticket conventions like Comic Con and instead becomes dependent upon unsafe raves to try to fill hotels to keep low wage workers employed with out-of-town visitors.
Last but not least, the possibility of a lock out in the 2011 NFL season means there may be some team owners looking to get out of the professional football business.
If we snooze as a community on this, we will lose -- and the real loss will be unseen by most of us living Downtown, it will be the loss of potential employment in the urban core for hundreds if not thousands of people.
From everything I have read and heard, AEG is not asking for a pass on anything, just the support of the community and City Hall. If I am wrong about this, please correct me with details.
As for complaining about a Hooters that has yet to manifest into reality? Let's try focusing as a community on the businesses Downtown that are already exploiting women like the allegations levied recently at Club 907. Or any number of the strip clubs operating in the industrial corners of Downtown. Or maybe start taking a closer look at the working conditions of labor in the fashion district. There is certainly still much humanitarian work to be done in Skid Row.
In short, it would be a real shame if 'intellectual resistance' in the Downtown residential community to football or the design of stadium led to the demise of a project that could truly signal economic community in the region and hope to many in need of hope.
And yes, in full disclosure, I love NFL football so I have a selfish reason too.
I hope people keep posting their specific concerns to this project. To counter another poster, I have yet to hear one objection that is a silver bullet, slam dunk reason justifying saying no to a project that would put a lot of people to work at a time with there is not a lot of work to be had.
Jasmijn on December 11, 2010, at 09:19AM – #36
Well, then, I'll take the "not at all" option, thanks.
J-M on December 11, 2010, at 09:40AM – #37
I'm putting up "intellectual resistance" to both Hooters and an NFL stadium. Neither exist, yet surprisingly I am able to conceptualize both. Safe to say we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. No amount of cheer-leading is going to convince me otherwise.
Benjamin Pezzillo (@pezzillo) on December 11, 2010, at 12:34PM – #38
It's not called cheerleading, it's just called leadership.
There's a silent epidemic in our City right now and it is the plight of tens of thousands of unemployed construction workers. The lower skilled the worker, the higher the rate of unemployment. That means more crime, more domestic violence and more substance abuse in the larger community.
When you run into an unemployed construction worker, tell him or her you are opposed to a stadium project Downtown that could create thousands of jobs because a football stadium doesn't appeal to your intellectual sensibilities of what urban core renewal should look like.
And while you are at it, stop by the strip clubs and hostess clubs operating Downtown and explain to the women there how you don't object to their exploitation, but you are opposed to even the concept of a Hooters next to the convention center.
There are real problems in our City, and this proposed project is a real solution that would go a long way to signaling the economic confidence needed in the City.
Guest on December 11, 2010, at 06:46PM – #39
Long-term Economic Impacts of Stadiums and Sports Teams A Summary of Robert Baade’s Work by Janice Houston
Findings Baade began by analyzing the economy of 48 cities from 1958 to 1987. Of these cities, 36 were the home of professional sports teams and/or had stadiums constructed or renovated during this time period. There were 12 additional cities included in the study. These cities did not have either a professional team or a stadium and were used as a control group to compare against the 36 above. For each of the cities included in the study, Baade examined the economy of the whole Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) rather than looking exclusively at the hosting city. For Utah, this means data on the entire Salt Lake-Ogden MSA were used, rather than just Salt Lake City specifically. This was done to make sure that the stadium was generating new economic activity rather than just relocating it from one part of the metropolitan area to another. For the 36 cities, Baade found: Presence (or gain/loss) of a Professional Sports Team • There were 32 cities that gained or lost a professional team during the time period studied. • Of these only two cities showed any significant economic impacts from hosting their teams. • For Indianapolis, the economic impacts were positive. • For Baltimore, the economic impacts were negative. • For the other 30 cities (including Salt Lake), there were no changes in economic activity. Change in the number of stadiums or venues • There were 30 cities that had a change in the number of stadiums and/or arenas. • Of these, 27 (including Salt Lake) showed no changes in economic activity due to the construction or renovation of these venues. • For the remaining three (St. Louis, San Francisco/Oakland, and Washington DC),the economic impacts were negative
Guest on December 11, 2010, at 07:10PM – #40
there is a big difference regarding sports in 1987, the last year of that study, and now. A BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGG difference. that report means nothing.
D
Guest on December 11, 2010, at 07:17PM – #41
History tends to repeat itself unless we can learn from past mistakes. Been reading lately about Downtown Los Angeles during the depression(1930's that is). Eery the similarities. This study (and others like it--do a google search) are very, very valid and not to be discounted.
JDRCRASHER on December 11, 2010, at 08:40PM – #42
They should try building a stadium on that massive railyard near the San Antonio Winery restaurant (and presumably, move the railyard underground). All in all, it would create a new district in Downtown. Enough space for condos, office buildings. Right next to a river that will soon be "greened" and revitalized. Next to the future Silver Line LRT project. Metrolink also runs through the property.
And best of all, it's been done before (or would've, at least). Remember New York's Hudson Yards?
Raymond3000 on December 11, 2010, at 11:05PM – #43
Yea theres alot of potential in that area for a new district (Union Station & vicinity) but what about those jails are they gonna be up for demolition in the next 20 or 30 years or so?
C E on December 12, 2010, at 05:36AM – #44
I normally refrain from commenting on the banter written in blogdowntown. However, in this case I have to say most of the "Anti Stadium, Anti Target, Anti Everything" that will grown downtown people have no clue what they are talking about. Many of you boastfully tout with great pride that you've lived in downtown for 5 or 6 years and "Whoa is me" the city has changed for the worst. "Big projects don't help, "We" need to focus on the small things first". If that is honestly how you feel, then you should move back to the beloved communities you abandoned for this "god forsaken" area named Downtown LA.
Let me give you a little history lesson on large scale projects and the reality of downtown growth. This is not something I've read, this is something I've seen first hand. I moved to downtown during the spring of 1989 while attending USC. I lived here before everything that is being argued about in this discussion. I have watched this area literally grow right before my eyes.
When I first moved to the area there was no "Green Glass" Convention Center building facing Figueroa Street. There were actually tenement type two and four story "walk-up" apartment on the grounds where the Staples Center now sits. The Disney Concert Hall was a dirt lot. The Water Court which host the Grand Performances, the California Plaza II building next to it and the Steps of Bunker Hill did not exist. The Metro Rail Blue line was still under construction. And the actual "Loft District" was east of Alameda near the 1st Street bridge. All of this has all happened in the 20 plus years since I've lived in Downtown.
Those that claim a NFL Stadium would adversely affect the area, don't know Downtown LA. If it weren't for the large scale projects which I listed above, the neighborhoods most of you live in would not exist...!!! The large scale projects that have put downtown on the map created jobs, which in turn brought revenue to the area. Without those jobs and revenue, the developers would not have had the same incentive to build housing many of you now live in.
So for the "Anti Everything People" I have a question. Without the jobs, revenue and residents how do you propose the smaller projects multiple grocery stores, retail, restaurants, parks...etc will be built?
JDRCRASHER on December 12, 2010, at 03:22PM – #45
I doubt it, Raymond3000. With the current crowded state of our jails and prisons, Twin Towers is probably gonna be here for a while.
Guest on December 12, 2010, at 04:30PM – #46
Karin,
you are so right. The city council shouldn't pass judgement until they see an advanced design concept. Accommodating an 'events center' and providing an equal amount of floor space as exists in West Hall will be a tricky problem.
Uniting the two together and knitting these into the Figueroa Corridor is a question of urbanity and nothing else. Only one of the three design firms has anywhere near the capacity for this.
The large atrium fronting the original building should be removed; if they keep it, we'll end up with a turkey. A large living room of sorts facing Figueroa, if conceived right, should garner public support ($). They'll have to make it an eye-popping image, be the envy of every other burg in the nation in order to garner such support in this era. Timidity would likely kill this proposal. Civic image and the public benefit is key.
Guest on December 12, 2010, at 04:56PM – #47
C E, excellent post
D
J-M on December 13, 2010, at 03:55PM – #48
I'm hardly anti-everything and would appreciate people taking a chill pill and breathing when they read stuff online. For the record, I'm pro-Target, pro-development, but anti-NFL-stadium-in-that-specific-location. Why is there no discussion about other potential locations? Will that area implode without this project? Are there better fits? These are the questions I'm asking and I think they're valid. I understand that projects like this can bring growth, but I can pretty much guarantee that a lot of that money will go to contractors who are not based Downtown, so that's not a rock-solid argument. Are there other ways of bringing growth Downtown?
The biggest reason I have bad days Downtown now is because of the increasing number of assholes who move here. People are what make a community, and no amount of fancy buildings (not including Hooters, natch) is going to make a difference if you don't have buy-in. Now, excuse me, I have to go liberate the women from the local hostess clubs!
Tim Yee on December 14, 2010, at 11:54PM – #49
The LA Times is throwing in their two-cents: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-feehanshea-stadiums-20101210,0,1368257.story
These two writers don't seem too hot on the idea of a downtown stadium.
J-M on December 15, 2010, at 09:59AM – #50
Thanks, Tim. Interesting article.
C E on December 17, 2010, at 02:33PM – #51
Forbes Magazine weights-in on the Downtown LA vs. City of Industry NFL Stadium Debate: http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/12/17/downtown-la-tops-city-of-industry-as-ideal-site-for-new-football-stadium/?boxes=businesschannelsections