Guest on December 14, 2010, at 02:44PM – #3

cant wait! hopefully its something interesting.

D

Guest on December 14, 2010, at 03:06PM – #4

Great to see the quick progress on at least the initial designs. This has great potential for Downtown. Go AEG!

Guest on December 14, 2010, at 04:34PM – #5

This would be a great boon for DTLA. We're starting to feel like a real metro area. Look out Chicago and NYC, Los Angeles is finally growing up!!!

Guest on December 14, 2010, at 05:52PM – #6

David, why do you hope it falls through, this is a huge benefit for downtown and the community

Guest on December 14, 2010, at 07:53PM – #7

I don't think we need a stadium DT, but if it must be built, below is what the Wilshire Grand just announced today in terms of "givaways to the City. I expect AEG to offer somthing like this as well. Especially street and freeway upgrades.

From the developer agreement with the city, just some of the community benefits of project:

----Thomas Properties/Hanjin will pay nearly $9 million for street improvements around 7th street.

----The developer will agree to fund part of feasible study for the freeway cap park over the 101 Freeway.

----The project will create an estimated 7,000 on-site construction jobs and an additional 5,000 construction-related jobs.

----To obtain a new sign district for this project, Thomas Properties/Hanjin would remove existing billboards from other neighborhoods

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 02:15AM – #9

Sorry if I do not understand why AEG gets to dictate timing of review of a major project of this scope. If the City needs more time to do an appropriate review, that time should be there.

As to giveaways, some of us wish that Joel Wachs were still on the Council looking out for the best interests of the city and its taxpayers. Instead, we have too many council members and a mayor who want to be buddies with the AEG folks and who couldn't make a tough deal if their lives depended on it. (Just look at the fiscal mess the city is in.) The minute somebody has a project with jobs, they all fall over themselves to say yes, yes, yes... regardless of the impact on infrastructure and future generations.

As to the mention of yet MORE signs, don't get me started. Sure they will trade away signs elsewhere... There are THOUSANDS of signs all over the city that aren't generating any meaningful money for the ad companies. So, here is a great opportunity for them to plaster downtown with yet more signs under the guise of reducing signage. Give me a break. The city is finally enforcing sign regs and has built some credibility with the courts; to start allowing each new project to become its own sign district is a big mistake and not how sign districts are meant to be fashioned.

There should be a very broad range of discussions on this project and a very thorough environmental review process. AEG should not think that because no EIR was required for the Irwindale project that that will happen again. All the impacts of this proposal must be vetted and appropriate mitigations considered and financed. And, please let's not give the developer financing or let them off the hook for future taxes, etc. They have already gotten enough from LA. Let them find their own financing if this thing moves forward.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 09:25AM – #10

This will benefit downtown tremendously. Whether you agree with "big business" or not, AEG has had a measureable impact on downtown and surrounding communities. Downtown was a ghost town 15 years ago, and now you have thriving businesses, restaurants and apartment buildings. Small independent businesses are vital to downtown but so are larger corporations. To help downtown continue to grow, you need to appeal to more than just city dwellers because they cannot support downtown alone. You've got to pull people from all over the place to come in and drop their money in downtown. There is nothing wrong if you ONLY want to support small/independent companies, but time to get off the “high horse” and realize that downtown is finally on “the map” to a lot more people because of L.A. LIVE and AEG. I have friends who own bars and restaurants in downtown and even they can appreciate the business and perception that L.A. LIVE and AEG have brought to downtown.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 02:15PM – #13

J-M, The obvious answer is that no one else has stepped up to the table with $1 billion in their pocket to say they want to build a stadium anywhere else in the City of Los Angeles.

As for discussions of where to build a stadium in Los Angeles, they have been going on for years. Including a 2007 blogdowntown article where someone even commented it could be built atop the Convention Center:

http://blogdowntown.com/2007/04/2613-imagining-a-downtown-stadium

The sticking point has always been financing, as in who is going to pay for it, and the ability to secure a NFL team. If AEG can put the elements together, why look a gift horse in the mouth?

As for impact studies, what's drastically different from the impact of a stadium and the impact from a large convention that brings tens of thousands of people to it at once? Very little.

Unfortunately, it's been a long time since the Convention Center attracted an event of that size. Nevertheless, the surrounding infrastructure (i.e. parking, traffic controls, etc) have only improved.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 09:31PM – #16

J-M, Converting the Coliseum was studied long ago. As a National Historic Landmark, the structure presents challenges to bring it to the standards of a 21st century venue league owners would approve as part of a Los Angeles team deal. Luxury boxes and night game lighting were just two I recall when the Coliseum was previously shot down by the League years ago. The same issues existed with the Rose Bowl. If memory serves, that was right around the time the last expansion teams were being added to the NFL (so several years ago). Bringing the NFL back to Los Angeles has been a conversation that has been going on for well over a decade. You might want to read up on what has been proposed and debated in years past to understand why so many people are so supportive of this plan now.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 09:37PM – #17

I WAS AT THE LAST HOME GAME THE RAMS PLAYED IN ANAHEIM DECEMBER 24, 1994... A FRIENDS MOTHER WAS GOOD FRIENDS WITH GEORGIA FRONTIERE, GEORGIA GAVE US HER 50 YD LINE SEATS, FIELD LEVEL... THE WHOLE PLACE HAD BANNERS SHOWING THEIR DISAPPROVAL OF GEORGIA, MANY WITH CHOICE WORDS, THEY WERE CHANTING AT HER... IT WAS QUITE COMICAL, MY FRIEND BECAME DISPLEASED WHEN I LAUGHED AT ONE OF THE BETTER BANNERS... IT WAS A GREAT DAY, THE RAMS LOST, BUT I STILL HAD FUN...

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 11:22PM – #18

AEG proposed either UNDERGROUND additional parking or a parking structure... they're crazy. AEG designed that stadium without the fans... without people in mind. Sorry but I'm taking Roski's 600 acre and 25,000 onsite parking for tailgating site over AEGs 30 acre moleman site anyday... How the hell are you going to move a mass of 75,000 off a 30 acre site? AEG's plan is just not viable.