on March 25, 2010, at 04:25PM – #2

Korean Air owns the hotel.

I have been puzzled at this proposal, especially as it was made as they were in the midst of a partial renovation of the hotel. Frankly I question its viability, even 3-7 years out.

Daveed Kapoor on March 26, 2010, at 02:04PM – #3

the existing hotel is difficult to salvage and an eyesore. im not crazy about the new design but will be an improvement to that area once the dust settles

chophia () on March 27, 2010, at 07:55AM – #4

from a korean standpoint, i can see why patience is always a little shorter than the americans. it's always "let's go, let's go....quickly!"

i can't imagine after years of driving by the hotel that something humongous will be standing in that corner in the near future.

Downtown Cowboy on March 27, 2010, at 12:59PM – #5

It's terrific they're building this downtown L.A. They could have gone to any major city. We are fortunate they are spending 1 billion in our city. Now, City of L.A., do what you need to get this going!

David McBane on March 30, 2010, at 12:02AM – #6

The elephant in the room that no one is talking about and the reason why this project is moving slowly is because the owner/developer is asking for extra FAR. The City goes slowly with granting extra FAR since whatever they do with this project will be scrutinized by future developers. If this project gets the extra FAR without providing some public benefit like low-income housing, then every single developer is going to ask the City, "Why didn't they have to build low-income housing when I have to so I can get extra FAR?" If the City doesn't have a legally defensible argument, the City will end up in court and lose.

If this development stuck to a by-right scheme, the approvals would be done in less than 9 months but now that they are asking for something extra, you double the time (at least) to getting your approvals.

I also find it annoying that the owner is bringing the mentality of doing business in Korea to doing business in L.A. Unlike Korea, where projects approvals are a top-down affair, approvals in L.A. and most of the country are bottom-up affairs. The mayor has no official role in approving any private development project in the City so blaming him for the delays is barking up the wrong tree. Instead, the owner should explain what public benefit the City will receive for granting the extra FAR. My gut tells me there is no explanation for the request for FAR besides "bigger is better" and so City Planning is dragging their heals hoping someone will quietly explain to the owner that's he's being an asshole. Thomas should had done that before the project application was submitted but it looks like they dropped the ball too.

David McBane on March 30, 2010, at 10:51PM – #8

Guest 7 - Yeah but those benefits as you describe come with extra traffic, the need for more police and fire service, higher electricity and water demands, etc. The City plans to provide future services to handle these future demands by basing them on the allowable FAR in a given area. So when someone comes in and wants to build bigger, the City is caught in a little bit of lurch since the City doesn't have the capacity to handle that extra demand.

You may say that the extra demand from only this project can't be so high that the City couldn't handle it and you would be right but if the City allows it to happen on this corner, then every corner in the area is going to want to build bigger than what is currently allowed. You start adding up all the future projects and then the City really won't have the capacity. So the City has to the hold the line on every individual project in order to handle future growth.

Finally, the owner/developer bought the property knowing how much they are allowed to build by-right. Now they want the added profit from building bigger without paying for it.

I know I sound anti-development but I am completely the opposite. I develop for a living but these guys give developers a bad name since asking for more without paying for it just encourages all those other developers than people bitch about - like the ones who tear down single-family homes and ask to build a 5-story apartment building to tower over their neighbors.

Whitman Lam on April 01, 2010, at 08:06PM – #9

If I may to borrow a catch phrase from the 2008 Republican Presidential ticket.

If we want to pull ourselves out of this economic depression ... Stop holding up investment, and " Build Baby, Build !! "

yang chong on April 07, 2010, at 02:42PM – #10

"My gut tells me there is no explanation for the request for FAR besides "bigger is better" and so City Planning is dragging their heals hoping someone will quietly explain to the owner that's he's being an asshole."

This is why shit doesn't get done. People like this kept the purple line from going to the sea, expo line being two years late, ...etc. It's always the same excuse, traffic, inconvenience, blah blah blah. This is urban development, it's not suburbia. Yes there will be more traffic, yes more money will go into the city coffers, yes you will be inconvenienced because you prefer to drive, and yes Los Angeles downtown is becoming the center of the Southern California universe as it was originally intended.

So let's get shit done like we used to in America, before we became a bunch of p*****s.

This is what we used to be. Two years to build the Empire State Building.

Empire State Building, in central Manhattan, New York City, on Fifth Ave. between 33d St. and 34th St. It was designed by the firm of Shreve, Lamb, and Harmon and built in 1930–31.