UrbanNthusiast on December 02, 2011, at 03:57PM – #1

We need inventors in this area that reside where they work. Places that offer live/work spaces. Green streets lined with townhomes of different heights. We don't need mega highrises here.

We also need more greenspace such as greening and connecting the river to people, removing the concrete where feasable and replacing it with green biological walls and water diversion and retention areas.

Main thouroughfares such as Spring, Broadway and Main should have multi-use buildings not exceeding 10 floors that allow themselves off street plazas and alleyways with cafes and shops.

-my two cents

James Fujita on December 02, 2011, at 04:54PM – #2

I'm surprised that the study area goes as far south as Little Tokyo.

I'd be all for mixed-use projects which would connect the community with the local light rail station, such as the proposed Blossom Plaza in Chinatown would do.

However, I think the city needs to take care not to change the basic character of such communities as Chinatown and Little Tokyo.

Downtowner on December 03, 2011, at 12:37PM – #3

Here's a suggestion: Tear down those Mozaic apartments that block the view of Union Station when one is driving south on Alameda.

John G on December 03, 2011, at 10:49PM – #4

We actually need more high-rises as well as mid-rise mixed-use projects. Going green is fine, but that doesn't mean we can't balance this area with higher density. With a large development in the Union Station area, this transit-oriented location will most likely grow if residents live and work nearby.

We must be ready for the future and should not limit ourselves to more toned-down small-scale projects. Even 4 to 6 story buildings would be nothing more than low-rise urban sprawl, just like our past suburban sprawl. We need to think ahead where future infrastructure will accomodate the higher-density projected in the future.

Simon Hartigan on December 04, 2011, at 04:49PM – #5

Tearing down transit oriented development right next to a major mass transit hub, as a previous posted suggested, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As John G mentioned, we need plenty of residential density around union station with nice public spaces for people to enjoy. It should be treated like a village where every day things are in walking distance to encourage the use of walking/biking or taking transit and discourage the use of using cars.

JDRCRASHER on December 05, 2011, at 12:04PM – #6

Just like LA isn't New York, Chicago, or Boston... it isn't London, Paris, or DC, either. No more low-rise sprawl. Remember, more smaller buildings instead of fewer tall buildings means LA has to work THAT MUCH HARDER to make all of the smaller buildings architecturally beautiful rather than the stuccofied mediterranean, tuscan crap we see today.

Let's take advantage of an area that could be the largest TOD in the city. 10 story height limits make no sense. 20-40 stories makes much more sense.

Bert Green (@bgfa) on December 05, 2011, at 11:43PM – #7

Mosaic next to Union Station is not a transit oriented development. It has no street entrance, no good pedestrian access, and turns its back on the intersection of Alameda and Chavez. It is built for people to drive in and out of it, and all of this in spite of the fact that it it a part of the Union Station campus.

There is no point in tearing it down, but it simply proves the point that building something bad is a long term problem. Buildings hang around for a very long time.

Steve White (@StevenMWhite) on December 06, 2011, at 12:23PM – #8

As someone who lives at Mozaic I experience the good and the bad. I believe it is transit oriented. It is built to face the station. Every morning, I walk out the front doors and, along with many others, straight into Union Station.

It does a terrible job of interacting with the streets -- there is no entrance on the "back" side, facing Alameda or Caesar Chavez. Union Station does a similarly bad job. The parking lot is fenced in by large bushes, the small plaza in front of the main entrance is really an island and rarely used by a pedestrian.

All in all, I love Mozaic and love living there, though it would have been great if the first floor was retail or coffee shop or restaurant oriented and if there was access on all sides. I think the height is good... any higher and it would really hide the station.

Simon, I completely agree that the area should be treated like a village. Between Union Station, Olvera Street, el Pueblo, hopefully someday Park 101, China Town, and even Little Tokyo, there should be very strong pedestrian connections and public spaces. I get a slight taste of this walking from my apartment across Union Station and into el Pueblo, but the pedestrian connection isn't great and the plaza at el Pueblo is prime and ready for some development activity (not new buildings, but new uses in the empty ones!)

JDRCRASHER on December 07, 2011, at 06:14PM – #9

Yea but Mosaic is RIGHT NEXT TO Union Station. Of course anything taller would have "overwhelmed" it.

But what about 2 or 3 blocks away? Could taller buildings work?

BobbyD on January 06, 2012, at 06:59PM – #10

In the picture above the green area is hard to walk to for recreation and things like that. I think a parking lot, maybe two levels below ground level would be good- maybe for those with 3 or 4 riders going to work around there. One place up in San Francisco I put a one level parking garage underground with a mostly concrete park over it with the local rose society agreeing to put in rose bushes and maintain it forever. Under the Civic Center Park they just ripped out in Los Angeles I put in a parking level for employees- 55 years ago! Pershing Square sits on soil that is in a big concrete container(from about 72 years ago) with a level under that big container. Point I am is that it does not have to only have top use that is visable- layer of parking or whatever can go under the top part- if there is anybody in or around that can think as good as a Fifth Grader! Surely not in City Hall.