Guest on August 26, 2010, at 02:17PM – #1

that whole stretch between L.A.Live and wilshire needs to be declared a light and entertainment zone, with UNRESTRICTED signage allowances.

Guest on August 26, 2010, at 04:00PM – #2

Now if they would remove the Bud Light and Coca-Cola supergraphics on the Olympic and Georgia sides of the building. They seriously cheapen the design of the building.

Guest on August 26, 2010, at 04:48PM – #3

There was virtually NO community input into the Sports and Entertainment District Specific Plan. The developer controlled the content, and had the boundaries drawn around his property. A Specific Plan is usually created by the stakeholders in a community...IE: existing residents, property owners, and business owners.... It's just a darn good thing LA Live doesn't impact anybody two blocks away! Or else, one might question the validity of the Specific Plan in the first place...

Guest on August 26, 2010, at 05:49PM – #5

When gross gets more gross.

Guest on August 26, 2010, at 06:04PM – #6

It's great to have so many options DTLA. If you don't like something, why be negative, just spend your money at the places you like. DTLA is becoming amazing, and even LA Live has a role, even if it's not your cup of Tea. But, I guess if you are negative long enough maybe all the new business and loft residences and everything else that is trying to bring DTLA to it's fullest will fail... I say more negativity... ugh. Get real.

Guest on August 26, 2010, at 06:43PM – #7

It has nothing to do with being negative. It has everything to do with hijacking the City's community plan process to help a developer. Shady is shady.... The Sports and Entertainment Plan was designed to maximize "guaranteed" sign revenue and minimized neighborhood improvements. FACT.

Guest on August 26, 2010, at 09:09PM – #8

^ Big whoop-de-doo. Don't worry about signage and hijacking of plans, or whatever. Worry about the fact that a large portion of downtown still is a wasteland.

Guests from the Ritz and Marriott hotels look out over a vast sea of mostly ratty buildings and miserable parking lots.

It calls to mind the joke about a huge earthquake hitting Los Angeles and causing hundreds of dollars worth of damage.

Guest on August 26, 2010, at 09:37PM – #9

Uh, did anyone here participate in the LASED planning process? No? Then why are you talking about hijacking of the community input process and all that?

Guest on August 26, 2010, at 11:38PM – #10

Guest #9: Obviously no one here participated in the process. That's the problem. Who was invited? How was word disseminated to the community? Who has heard of the LASED? Oh well, to late.

Guest on August 26, 2010, at 11:59PM – #11

@ #10: I know you want to complain that your rights were somehow violated, but the plan was from 2001. Unless you lived in South Park back then and participated in the process, you're the newcomer in the area throwing your weight around, not the opposite way around.

http://planning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/pdf/LASED.PDF

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 01:32AM – #12

I remember Councilman Ed Reyes saying that mega-billboards are a good fit for dense urban areas. What a knucklehead...can you imagine supergraphics on iconic urban buildings like the Empire State Bldg/Chrysler Bldg/Flatiron Bldg/etc.? Heck no.

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 03:07AM – #13

The fact of the matter is that what AEG wants, AEG usually gets in this town,regardless of the consequences (or cost to the City). The plan governing development of LA Live is a custom fit plan to deliver to the developer all the conditions they needed to build what they wanted. Is it important to have community participation and input in the crafting of community plans? Absolutely. Is there a reason why the City Attorney was advising against AEG's posting of signs at the cinemas? Absolutely. This City Council still doesn't understand that when rules are made they apply to even the best of buddies or campaign contributors. Otherwise, the courts see that the city is being inconsistent and then we are unable to enforce the law. Each time the City Council over rules the City Attorney on matters such as this they should be forced to take out their own insurance coverage (or pay the cost of defending the exceptions to the rules).

We can only hope that this monster sign being erected is not visible from any freeways or busy streets. That would be a real mistake from a public safety point of view. Who pays the damages in case of accidents brought on by those watching the screen instead of the road? AEG and/or the City?

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 09:51AM – #17

There are many of us who fought the approval of LA Live and unsuccessfully pushed for applying those same investment dollars into existing infrastructure.

At the time the development was marketed as Times Square West. We all know that the real Times Square wasn't a recent project to pop up at the fringe of Manhattan. The real Times Square had more in common with our Broadway and some Hollywood...suffering empty theaters, tackiness, decline...which resurged with changing tastes, improved economy, new residents, and reinvestment from many areas, including Disney.

Remember about 10 years ago when Disney was sniffing around Broadway, checking to see if they could replicate the Times Square success story here? Apparently the time wasn't ripe, and as a private company who's to force them, but flashforward to today...now with LA Live up and running and making big bucks, we have to ask if LA Live is now a hindrance to Broadway's redevelopment...even if Broadway is clearly more ripe for change than ever in the last 50 years.

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 10:06AM – #18

Who pays the damages in case of accidents brought on by those watching the screen instead of the road?

Has anyone ever done a study of the effect that a huge array of very brightly lit signs on the Citadel discount mall, next to the 5 Freeway, in the city of Industry has had on drivers?

For that matter, have studies through the years indicated noticeably more traffic accidents in New York City's Times Square and Las Vegas?

There may be, although I'm not aware of them.

As for downtown LA, I'd theorize there probably have been more accidents through the years caused by drivers -- in a subtle weekend-getaway type of panic -- rushing to get away from the city's urban ills, including squalor, aggressive panhandlers and deranged homeless people run amok.

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 10:52AM – #19

Personally, I don't even care that much about this digital sign. I think everyone should be concerned about the creative manipulation of a planning department process that was meant to protect neighborhoods. And as for those that say "why should anybody care, the rest of the neighborhood is a wasteland, anyway,"..I say what kind of leadership allows the rest of the neighborhood to continue to rot in the shadow of LA LIVE. This complex is a temple of decadence and excess, providing very little benefit to the rest of downtown. Could the rest of us get thrown a little something...even a sidewalk hosing.. or some potholes fixed.... frankly I think it might be time to look at new council boundries...Redistricting should be happening soon. Let them know downtown is up for grabs.

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 12:19PM – #20

I say what kind of leadership allows the rest of the neighborhood to continue to rot in the shadow of LA LIVE.

The kind of leadership that hasn't been aggressive enough in haranguing property owners to clean up their buildings or plots of land. Or to tear down their pieces of junk and blight. Or to at least install some decent landscaping on their wastelands.

The only decadence through the years has been the decadence of being lazy and meek about the absurdly rundown, unattractive and squalid condition of the city.

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 12:58PM – #21

OK #10... I agree..the Council Office has done NOTHING to assure high standards downtown. Setting standards IS the primary job of a councilman. This is government, not "Let's make a deal!" And for that matter, look at Broadway in CD14. No store fronts, no business licenses... Some of those stores are selling merchandise that still says "Rite-Aide" on the sticker... Parts of downtown are like the Old West. Lawless. There should police on the corners in the historic core, not just deployed to protect LA Live from Laker fans. Where are our foot patrols? Where is the Building and Safety Department? Why are the parking lot operators running the show from the Convention Center to the Civic Center? There are 40,000 people downtown. If you aren't careful the neighborhood will be sold out from under you. And yes, the very point of LA LIVE is to lure people in with bright lights, create a captured audience, then hit them with overprice food and parking. Sharing the wealth downtown was never part of the business model.

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 01:06PM – #22

Sorry #10, I meant #20. Keep up the good fight!

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 02:51PM – #23

LA Live…. good. Signage…. good. Creating Jobs...GOOD. For those that are complaining, if you can offer jobs to all those involved in this project, go ahead and contact us. My family will appreciate it otherwise, go back to your cage and curl up on fetal positions while watching me support my family.

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 05:03PM – #24

to #23 if your developer can't figure out a way to give you a minimum wage job without a $50 million tax subsidy we don't need the project. And by the way, tell him to stop closing the street. It belongs to the tax payers.

Guest on August 27, 2010, at 09:09PM – #25

if your developer can't figure out a way to give you a minimum wage job without a $50 million tax subsidy we don't need the project.

If the developer hadn't built anything in the first place, there would be zilch, nada, zero economic activity created by it. A subsidy, therefore, would have been totally irrelevant or meaningless--to both the developer and city government. That's because without the potential of new wealth created in the community due to a major development, the folks at city hall would have had no reason to believe a new source of revenue was on the horizon and could be encouraged with the offer of tax breaks.

For the dummies who can't figure how this all works out, they might just as well proclaim "oh, goody, the city of Compton (or East LA) is so lucky! They're not willing to lure big developers with the promise of subsidies! So that town's prosperity and taxpayers are being protected!"

Guest on August 28, 2010, at 01:34PM – #27

The signs look neat I guess, but they blindingly bright at night. I used to live across the street from the big video board above ESPN Zone and the brightness was insane.

Guest on August 28, 2010, at 02:32PM – #28

The fact of the matter is that what AEG wants, AEG usually gets in this town,regardless of the consequences (or cost to the City).

But no BFD compared with what the city of New York has done over the past few decades. That town's leadership has given huge concessions to corporations in order to keep their headquarters in Manhattan or to bring them back in. A good case can be made that such tax breaks were either unnecessary or excessive. That's because the heart of New York City (Manhattan) has remained a competitive, healthy part of the Tri-state region.

Downtown LA, by comparison, has been fading away since the 1950s. It has been more of a flop and embarrassment than anything else, and traditionally shared way too many of the traits of the rusty, dusty and tired urban cores of midwestern and southern cities.

Guest on August 28, 2010, at 04:42PM – #30

#28 If New York City has remained so competitive , why did it teeter on the edge of bankruptcy in 1975, asking President Ford for a bailout. By 1979 over 1 million people had fled the City. It took 20 years to regain the population loss. By the way, it is common knowledge that nothing gets built in New York without paying a mob tax. I would not use them as a role model for LA.

Guest on August 28, 2010, at 05:28PM – #31

The proprietors ought to run a flick or two every night on the damned thing, starting 30 minutes after sunset.

First up: Boogie Nights! That could cause some in the crowd to hyperventilate.

Ya think?

Guest on August 28, 2010, at 05:34PM – #32

Greensmark: "vibrate downtown"

??????

The lobbyists up at City Haul can handle that, easy.

Guest on August 28, 2010, at 05:47PM – #33

There is no infrastructure for retail downtown because the politicians have spent all their time and resources kissing up to AEG. There are no City parking structures and meters are up to $4 per hour. Good luck operating a new store. The only City owned structure downtown, Pershing Square Garage, is about to be sold off to pay bills.

Guest on August 29, 2010, at 09:38AM – #37

Guest #30: The city government of New York was and is a joke. But that's been greatly offset by the strength of New York's private sector (its corporate wealth) and special role as the financial, cultural capital of America.

Take those advantages away from NYC, give most of Manhattan a long-time history of being no more nicely or impressively developed than some town in Iowa or Kansas, and you end up with a place similar to downtown Los Angeles.

New York City has filled up most of its gargantuan amount of office space over the past 20 years. Downtown LA, which doesn't contain more than a fraction as much space, hasn't come close to doing the same thing since 1990.

Guest on August 29, 2010, at 09:10PM – #38

#26 Ginny, this is exactly why I have been critical of DLANC. I know you have a backround in public policy. You say you saw this Sports and Entertainment Specific Plan in 2004. Did you, or anybody on DLANC actually give any input into the plan? As you probably know, specific plans are developed by the community to direct future development. It is similar to a HOA process. DLANC should have been writing this document, not "being made aware" of it by LA LIVE. Also, I happen to know that the company CEO was walked through the City departments by a Council office deputy. The management was told that the Councilperson "liked the plan just the way it was..." meaning no changes would be tolerated by the reviewing agencies. Not even the most basic changes were accomodated to bring the plan into conformance with City standards. I'm talking signage, building and safety, transportation, and public works issues. There is a reason why the City Attorney's office is upset. This Council Office along with the developer have made the City a target for lawsuits, and disrespected the downtown community.

Guest on August 30, 2010, at 09:26PM – #44

The management was told that the Councilperson "liked the plan just the way it was..." meaning no changes would be tolerated by the reviewing agencies.

You have every reason to be unhappy about that councilperson. Unhappy about his not demanding that AEG do everything possible to buy up all the mangy properties that still encircle their current real estate holdings in downtown, clearing them out and, in effect, wiping the slate clean.

As far as I'm concerned, what I'm suggesting goes without saying. But has AEG (or any other major investor) really hustled to purchase all the remaining dreck that still exists throughout the southwestern section of downtown? If so, and if they decide to convert such land to parking lots for the foreseeable future -- because it looks like the current recession is going to hang around for a long time -- do they have enough class to at least make them half-way presentable?

They can make them resemble the large parking lots that encircle the typical suburban mall. In other words, at least install enough trees and other plantings around and throughout them so they don't look like asphalt deserts.

Is this asking or hoping for too much?!