Highland Park Transit Village
Ξ April 20th, 2008 | → | ∇ 90042, Highland Park |
It’s been a busy weekend for the Yorkblvd duo. The save our taco trucks campaign is a hit and has taken on a life of its own. Still, we’ve found time for the important things: A few beers at the York, a burrito at La Estrella on York (which I’ve decided is significantly better than the stand on Figueroa), and Chilaquiles at Antigua (the only thing I may love about that place more than the beautiful and friendly employees). It was at the latter where I ran across a poster advertising something called the “Highland Park Transit Village”. The developers, McCormack Baron Salazar (MBS), are proposing to build condominiums, townhouses, and commercial space that could house a satellite branch of East Los Angeles City College on the public parking lots between Figueroa and the Gold Line between Avenues 56 & 59. (See the proposal on page 6 of this pdf)
Fortunately, I was able to meet Antonio Bermudez, a project manager for MBS, at Antigua and chat with him a little about the project. Mr. Bermudez seemed genuinely excited by Highland Park’s potential. He promised a certain amount of affordable housing, a continued presence managing the property to avoid some of the pitfalls of affordable housing, and underground public parking. Obvious benefits could include a renaissance in the somewhat blighted “Paseo Figueroa” district, increased property value, and increased investment in the community. Still, there is valid community tension here. Rumors are spreading that the development will be 4 stories tall (twice as tall as any nearby building save the Highland Theatre), not fit into the architectural aesthetic of Highland Park, and that increased density could exacerbate crime, making it more difficult for police to patrol. We’ve sent an email requesting an email Q&A with Mr. Bermudez but if you want more personal answers, MBS will be hosting a community forum on the development Wednesday, April 30th at the Ebell Club (131 S. Ave 57 90042) at 6:00 PM. Neither of us may be able to attend because of work commitments but if someone wanted to let us know how it goes, we’d love a first hand report.
on April 21st, 2008 at 9:48 am
Rumors are spreading that the development will be 4 stories tall (twice as tall as any nearby building save the Highland Theatre), not fit into the architectural aesthetic of Highland Park, and that increased density could exacerbate crime, making it more difficult for police to patrol.
These can hardly be called rumors – the developer’s own drawings in the attached pdf show a four story, five in parts, mammothly overscaled behemoth that in fact in no way fits in with Highland Park. Strong words, but I defy ANYONE to stand there at the proposed development sites and argue otherwise.
This is an insulting zoning variance (politely called a “density bonus”) that people may argue for on disingenuous bases of race or class or worse yet being “green” (somehow “green” means more congestion and big buildings, who knew?) but the fact of the matter is developers made a lot of filthy lucre in the 80s, tearing the historic fabric out of Higland Park—our largest HPOZ—to build high-density apartment complexes. And now because of a train, and some faddish words like “New Urbanism,” we’re supposed to allow that to happen again?
Oh, and as for crime—come to HP some evening and wait for the pop-pop-pop! and the sirens and the helicopters, and tell me from where it emanates: some swath of Edwardian single-family homes, or one of the high-density apartment complexes? Case closed.
on April 21st, 2008 at 9:49 am
Ugh…this is just awful! We moved to Highland Park specially to get away from this type of cookie-cutter lifestyle. We’ll try our best to go to the meeting.
on April 21st, 2008 at 9:49 am
thanks for posting this. Judging by those design graphics in the PDF, it looks like it will be *at least* 4 stories. I don’t know… technically I guess something like could be a good thing, but for some reason I have a bad feeling about it. Just seems like this whole thing just kind of appeared out of the blue without a whole lot of community scrutiny.
on April 21st, 2008 at 9:56 am
Looks like others are concerned about this as well. Where is the HHPNC in all of this? Isn’t there a way to block this development at least until the potential impact can be investigated a bit more?
on April 21st, 2008 at 10:08 am
If you go to Pasadena (Del Mar station on the Gold Line), Little Tokyo, Wilshire/Vermont you will see what these developments look like. I think this will bring home values down…way down! More high density housing is the last thing we need in Highland Park.
on April 21st, 2008 at 10:11 am
Besides, this is the Mr. T’s parking lot we’re talking about! And where’s the farmer’s market gonna go? Who hasn’t loved those lots back there…open air. A novel concept, that. These days.
on April 21st, 2008 at 10:15 am
And you do realize that on top of not liking it, YOU get to pay for it? One of the charms of subsidized housing.
And yes, the quality issues in these places are legendary. Think Geoff Palmer/Orsini quality. Yep.
on April 21st, 2008 at 11:18 am
As a resident of Glassell Park, I would like to respectfully disagree with the prevailing sentiment.
#1. This is a transit oriented development - the more units around the station, hopefully will mean more cars off the road (eventually). I know this sounds idealistic, but remember we’re WAY short of building out MTA rail (although two lines are currently under construction).
#2. “Cookie cutter design” - MBS didn’t give the community “cookie cutter design” at the Sunset & Wilshire Metro stop. “Cookie cutter” would describe the stucco monstrosity directly across the street with a Ross dress for less, grocery store and condos with impossible parking.
#3. Density = crime. I’d like to modify this statement and say poorly planned density = crime. There are numerous examples of poorly planned density through Cypress, Highland, Glassell Park. Let’s ask for something better.
My final thoughts. The development will happen. Let’s work with the developer on creating a great building for the community. Fighting it on density grounds will not be a winning argument considering there is residential development at almost EVERY MTA stop along the gold and red lines. I don’t want Highland Park to be stuck with bad planning/design (i.e. what they hell happened at Avenue 26???) in addition to the density, that won’t be good for the community at all.
on April 21st, 2008 at 11:18 am
by the way - what time is the meeting on Wednesday?
on April 21st, 2008 at 11:24 am
Hold up for 5 minutes and think about what’s there now. A parking lot. A PARKING LOT. Is this the highest and best use of this land located directly next to a Gold Line station? No, it is not the highest and best use by a long shot. This should be housing. This should be dense. That stretch of Fig is as depressing as it gets. I am 100% in favor of this development and so are my neighbors in Highland Park. Maybe there can finally be some decent retail, shopping, and dinning in the area with the addition of some new residents.
on April 21st, 2008 at 11:36 am
I have updated the article with the 6:00PM start time for the meeting.
on April 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
The idea that building for more people means more people—that’s it. Not more cars off the road, unfortunately. Yes, it’s near a train, which is made from fossil fuels, and remember, electricity runs on fossil fuels. And of course this project is still being built with 350+ parking spaces. Idealism is idealistic, but it’s not utopian: the removal of the traffic lights on the 101 (traffic backed up) was sold to Santa Barbara as “traffic won’t back up, you’ll have less traffic” and, of course, traffic increased a hundred-fold.
Cookie-cutter design? There was a long and protracted battle to make the “Legends at Ave. 53” (364 N. Ave 53) look remotely like the surrounding neighborhood (despite it being much larger than the surrounding structures). Why can’t this development do that? (Of course, “Legends” is now in total foreclosure, which bodes oh-so-well for the whole concept of building this giant thing in Highland Park.)
In HP, density=crime, and poorly planned density definitely=crime, but let’s face it, HP has thorny issues with crime, allocation of resources, policing, gangs, guns, and building this thing, ringing it with razor wire and flood lights and security officers is just stupid. What are the developers going to do, work for ten years to change the culture of our youth before they break ground?
And HP resident, I could not disagree with you more. This is Los Angeles—driving to the train is Just How It’s Going To Be. This property should not be housing, or dense, with all due respect. The highest and best use is that flat ground with blue sky above it…one of the benefits of Los Angeles-styled modernity…shiver at that horrible, terrible word: sprawl. And I walk down to, and shop at, that stretch of “depressing” Fig rather than drive to Pasadena, thank you very much. Though when I’m lazy and want to hang out in Antigua, or Las Cazuelas, or wherever, I’ll drive down the hill and park…in those lots.
on April 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
there are several things that need to be said here. from the rendering, it’s clear the developer has broken down the scale of the development into what looks like several buildings, creating a “main street” look instead of a monolithic block that characterizes bad development. the architecture (details) isn’t great right now, although isn’t anywhere nearly as bad as Orsini, but design is something that can be improved thru the community process. but at 4 stories and done in traditional design, it’s not out of scale or character with downtown HP. this height is what is allowed by zoning, which was put in place thru the public community plan process; the developer doesn’t appear to be requesting a height increase. and mixed-income housing (it’s probably 80% market, 20% affordable) doesn’t mean subsidized housing. the only “incentives” here are for reduced parking, which makes sense give it is right beside the gold line station. so you are not paying for it. moreover, HP crime is because of local gangs, not because there are 4-story buildings. by that logic, the 4-story multi-family sections of beverly hills would be crime-ridden. crime is correlated with income, not density. even in a big city like New York — which is like 20 times more dense than anything being built in L.A. — you don’t see crime in the uber-dense but wealthy Upper East or West Sides. let’s not traffic in fear here. let’s just ensure work to ensure that the design is of the highest quality.
on April 21st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
nathan — you are not living in the real world. to wish for dangerous vacant parking lots over eyes on the street is just foolish. yes l.a. grew up with little planning and sprawled and that’s great for those who got here early enough to buy up one of those suburban houses. those single-family areas will still be here a hundred years from now, and people will still be able to drive around. but parking lots won’t be; the land is just too valuable. the old and new can and will co-exist — some people can drive and other people will take the train. some people will live in houses, others will live in apartments. areas that are primarily single-family will stay that way, but areas along major streets and near transit will be mid-rise apartments with retail on the ground. l.a. will still be l.a., don’t worry, it won’t look anything like new york or san francisco.
on April 21st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Come on, we are talking about a 4 floor building in the center of the 2nd largest city in the United States. 4 FLOORS is nothing. Please try hard, really really hard, to not screw this up.
on April 21st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Dude, no, I don’t live in the real world…I live in Highland Park! The real world looks like the Westside (which used to look like Highland Park) and that’s what I’m trying to prevent here in my own (call it NIMBY if you feel you must) small way.
I understand your point about crime and income, yes, but still, I’ve been in those parking lots plenty at night—not scary. The Monte Vista Arms—scary. The driving forces that produce HP crime aren’t going away any time soon, and this project won’t help. That’s just my opinion. Adding Beverly Hills’ condo complexes or the Upper East Side isn’t a fair comparison.
These lots are actually sketchier now that the Gold Line’s there. And as for the “eyes on the street,” Kitty Genovese, anyone? (Now THAT’s a fear-trafficking reference probably before your time.)
Seriously, that’s not my intent: I just wanted to point out a long-forgotten maxim…
Principiis obsta — Finem respice
on April 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Let’s be clear this isn’t low imcome housing. This is market rate, which will be very expensive, mixed with a percentage of low income units. So you’ll have 800,000 condos next to 300,000 condos.
This is a good project and I support fully.
on April 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
To be clear, the developer would have an extensive process to go through with the City whereby there are countless opportunities for community involvement. First of all, the Highland Park HPOZ provides a framework whereby the design will be evaluated based upon it’s appropriateness for the Historic District. Secondly, the project will involve a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and a Zone Change–with a lot of oversight from the Community, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
I agree completely with Craig–this is a realy opportunity for the community to have something great at the transit stop (as opposed to an idiot parking lot). I hope you folks will be involved to shape the project in an appropriate fashion, and I hope you can see past your knee-jerk NIMBY objections which are, for the most part, ignorant and hysterical.
on April 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
HP – I read your posts so I went back to the architect’s plans and double-checked. The main part with sixty residential units is “100% affordable”; another thirty-units are “50% affordable”; according to the City, “affordable” means Section 8.
Also, despite what you say about this being just “a four story building,” it IS four blocks long. Anyone who is going to post about this really needs to go and look at the site. (At least look at it with the bird’s-eye tool on maps.live.com.) Any argument that it will be the largest structure in ‘42? Didn’t think so.
And that we have the oasis we have in “the second largest city in the United States” is, in fact, exactly the point.
on April 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Semprini – glad you can dismiss my concerns as ignorant, hysterical knee-jerk NIMBYism.
I’m sure none of my concerns are based on having seen the City, at work with the developers, with all the oversight you mention, come up with something just GREAT.
Over, and over, and over again.
Fine. It’s a fait accompli. I’m tilting at windmills. Etc. One question though.
Do you people live here, or just drive through and decide what’s best for us?
on April 21st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I live here and get on the train at this station every day and feel an accute sense of shame that adjacent to a transit stop in an urban village we have a parking lot and some crappy stucco apartments.
on April 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
%19 Are you seriously calling a parking lot an “oasis”??? Wow, that’s both funny and sad all a the same time. You must love your car so very much.
on April 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I hope all of you show up to the meeting so we can have a productive discussion about this. You’re right, this project probably won’t go away, so hopefully all of our input will help make it the best it can be. You have to admit though, a 4-block, 4-story building no matter what, will be an eye sore in this location. Even more so than the parking lot that’s there right now. My fear is that we end up with a Disney/Las Vegas style faux historic looking monster.
on April 21st, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Wow, I’m just happy a developer is showing interest in this part of Fig. Any interest is appreciated.
on April 21st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Nathan is correct…. it says right on the rendering there that the biggest building there is 100% affordable, and the 2nd biggest one is 50% affordable.
So, does affordable really mean Section 8? I didn’t realize that.
And if so, what types of retail would you expect they’d put in there? For example, would it end up being stuff like check cashing joints and the like?
on April 21st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Btw, what’s wrong with this part of Fig? Have you been to Antigua Bread? It’s a great little spot. Not to mention that you’ve got an art studio nearby, a great vets office (recently re-modeled), the Highland Theatre, and many other things.
It seems like this part of town is slowly building itself up and doing just fine without the help of any “developers”.
on April 21st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Don’t expect fancy retail. They promised retail for the Ave 26 lofts and all they have now is an office to help residents with foreclosure.
It seems some folks are over optimistic and don’t understand market forces. Despite creeping gentrification, the majority of residents in HLP are working class families and they rarely have the extra dollars to support the kinda boutique-y fancy retail you find in South Pas.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 am
I’d like a Starbucks please.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 am
where will site 3 be (from developer’s proposal) ?? i think as long as it all remains truly affordable to the wkg class residents of hp, and the independent business owners along figueroa don’t get forced out by defacto raised rents due to fancy new buildings, and there is sufficient parking for gold line users or in underground garages, it could be a good thing. BUT it will effectively end the parking lot scene behind mr t’s which i will mourn. plus, it will obliterate out some great graffiti lots….
on April 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 am
really HP resident? a STARBUCKS? why would you want to force the great guys at antigua out of business in exchange for that? they are good people, so invested in the community. did you know that the oil painting in there was painted by an artist in mexico who they commissioned and is a imagined rendering of the corner and storefront 100 years ago? stuff like this is what makes HP great. you’d never get that from starbucks. move to the westside or pasadena then.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 2:22 am
There are hundreds of Starbucks in MEXICO so please don’t use that line on me. Or is Highland Park not even as good as Nuevo Leon Mexico which has 24 Starbucks locations? How about Morelos Mexico which has 4 Starbucks locations?
I’m sure Antiqua and Starbucks could co-exist. Antiqua serves full meals, Starbucks does not. They are two different business models. Some well run competition might help Antiqua shake the cobwebs off and step up their game considerably. I absolutely don’t want them run out of business. I want them to compete for my dollars with a quality, consistent product against other retailers who are also competing for my dollars with their own quality, consistent product. I am not running a charity here. I am looking to purchase a hot beverage.
I’d like a grande soy cap with spenda and I’d like to buy it at a Starbucks in Highland Park please.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 am
Ah, yes the truth comes out… “I want a Starbucks”. Only then can Highland Park prove that we are as “good” as the other guys.
Sorry to break the news to you HP resident, but I dont think you’re going to get a Starbucks in these new buildings. Laundromats and check cashing places are probably more likely.
Now who is thinking short-sighted? The people who question the feasibility and longevity of these new developments, or the people who are praying for them to break ground just so they can get a Starbucks in Highland Park?
And cobwebs on Antigua? What are you talking about? The place is great… good, hot coffee… friendly staff…. nice ambiance… local flavor…. etc, etc. There are 10 trillion Starbucks throughout the greater metro LA area that you could frequent…. let’s face it, in the grand scheme of things, Starbucks is a tiny step up from having a new McDonalds at this point.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
I sat through one of the meetings and now I am set to go on a tour of other buildings the developers have done throughout Los Angeles. There is no possible way to stop what is going to happen but they are very open to the communities input on what the structures are going to look like. Everyone that has time to post here needs to shop up to the open house with the architects and bring your input. We have a chance to bring something really great for the area if we all work together. We are in an HPOZ and the have to listen to us. I have been here for 10 years now and own to historic homes at the moment so I really don’t want to see this community start to go south just when things are starting to look up. Brohammed you hit the nail on the head with the Starbucks comment. That is exactly what this neighborhood does not need and if you ever need any help keeping franchises and big chains out of the area you can email me at wagonworks@msn.com.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Sorry Wagoworks, the big chains are already in place in HP. We already have a McDonalds, we alreay have Taco Bell, we already have Fallas Padres, we already have the 99 cent store, we already have Smart and Final. We already have Jack in the Box. We already have Blockbuster. We already have El Pollo Loco.
Some of you talk about Highland Park like it’s Beverly Hills and you can’t tolerate even the thought of having a chain store in the boundries of your HPOZ. Get over yourselves. You are already swiming in chain stores. Let’s at least get a Starbuck in the retail mix and if the developers can do that for us, they I support them. If they can’t do that for us, then someone else will.
And yes, having a Starbucks is proof that we are, after so many depressed and crime ridden years, good enough or at least as good as the rest of LA.
I’d love to see that happen and have already invited company reps to tour the area for possible retail locations.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Jason – thank you for going to that meeting; I’m assuming you mean the Ebell HHPNC get-together on April 1. My first feeling of “uh-oh” was that no-one was alerted to this meeting until the day before. Glad there’s another one on deck…
Comment 27 hit the nail on the head. How is it that retail in a new building, just because, what, it’s outgassing CFCs, will magically attract dollars? Who here remembers when Figueroa had that all that façade renovation, only to have the living bejeezus tagged out of it immediately afterward? Not that Fig doesn’t look better. It does. Not that it’s not coming up, it is. But despite LA’s murder rate going down, ours is going up. And I stand by my contention about high density.
HP is replete with commercial development that caters to the working poor because that’s what we by and large have here. Will the burgeoning screenwriter-iBook crowd who bought their houses in HP at $200/sf make Crate & Barrel Corporate scream “look at this new building! Highland Park is the future!” I have my doubts.
And in response to comment 17, consider the condo development on Ave 53. 400k apiece and they’re in foreclosure. (I might add that the Powers That Be as mentioned in comment 18 bent over backwards to give them extra units [above and beyond legal zoning] just because there was a train stop nearby—and now there’ll be no parking at the train stop.) Now, again, this development is largely not market rate, but under County jurisdiction of the Housing Authority (they’re in Monterey Park, call ‘em). This means property taxes go up to build this, and property taxes go up to shelter these residents. (I’m not saying this to be snarky, in fact, it doesn’t even effect me, since I’m Mills Act. I’m just pointing out the What’s What.) Couldn’t we rehab the untold number of extant structures suffering neglect from criminally absentee landlords?
This is not the Upper East side, like in comment 13, and it is not Nuevo Leon, a la comment 31—I see the point, but these are specious arguments. This is the Here and Now. And if, as Jason says, this is going in no matter what—such is any battle with the City in cahoots with developers, in exchange for our tax dollars—I guess, yes, it’s all about community involvement for the possible, a cynic might say improbable, but I’ll go ahead and say possible betterment.
Oh yeah, and I have to respond to comment 22. I do love my car, and the oasis of the parking lots, and yes, it’s quite bittersweet. I guess I’m the comical archetypal Angeleno in that respect. At least my car is twelve years old and gets good mileage. And I don’t drive to work. But I do drive all over Los Angeles, just looking at it (and taking a lot of pictures), so man, please trust me when I say I know exactly where Highland Park can go, both good and bad.
If I talk about Highland Park like it’s Beverly Hills it’s because I have pride…overweening pride…hubris even. I won’t even get into the chain store argument—suffice it to say when I choose Taco Bell over La Estrella, then I’ll throw in my two cents.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Build it tall and dense. Make it market rate and put high quality retail in the ground floor.
This is the new HP and we deserve it.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 8:47 am
Tall and dense? Really? Can we take some sort of Highland Park poll on this one?
And high-end retail, yes, great. I still think that’s magical thinking. While we’re at it, I’d like this development to be covered in redwood shingle, its floors in quarter-sawn white oak (I’ll settle for the residential paneling in old-growth douglas fir) though the library and music rooms should be in Atchafalaya cypress and bird’s-eye maple, respectively. And yes, the retail should have a first-rate cheese shop, and an actual record store, an independent book store, and a place that sells architectural salvage. But that’s just me.
I DO like the part about the “college floor campus.” Though kids today are “schooled” in holding pens, and don’t get me started on the LAUSD, education is the only way out of whatever mess it is we’re in, in my humble opinion. Plus young people have lots of disposable income which they’ll spend at all this retail we keep talking about (I foresee a video arcade and very loud pizza hangout in our future).
One-half of Los Angeles are immigrants, one-third of whose adults have not finished high school, and 60% do not speak English. As such, Ernesto Cortes Jr., director of the Industrial Areas Foundation said last weekend “The question is: Are we going to be a 21st century city with shared prosperity, or a Third World city with an elite group on top and the majority at poverty or near poverty wages? Right now we’re headed toward becoming a Third World city. But we can change that.”
I think it’s exactly this kind of project that has failed people on both sides of the class spectrum. Sure I can quote hundreds of examples, but then, this project is going IN, so all I can have is hope against hope. So I will, and perhaps it’s better to stick to deliberating over architectural details than theories on societal betterment.
This is the new HP and we deserve it? Jeez, what did we DO?
on April 24th, 2008 at 1:02 am
You must be so much fun at parties.
on April 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
As must be you, my friend! Let’s dial up our Rant-O-Meters to 10 on April 30 and really have a time.
No, no, I’ll be on my best behavior, all tweed elbow patches and thoughtful nods.
on April 27th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I think I’m pro development. As much as I love the free and easy parking back there, most that space is disgusting & littered with gross trash and tagging. I am also happy to welcome more homeowners into the area. I think there is enough diversity in HP to make this work & not drive out the mom & pop businesses.
on May 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am
I am not pro development. Unfortunately, I’ve read, the City has made deals with developers of multi-unit developments to forego parking requirements in lieu of “some” affordable housing units. Imagine not enough parking for all those new apartment dwellers. Increased street parking could potentially attract more criminals.
Additionally, there is no guarantee that these residents will be spending their money in their new neighborhood. Who will own the apartment complex(es) and where will this rent money go? Will this rent money stay in our neighborhood? I doubt it.
I agree the aesthetic of my neighborhood is important and a 4 story apartment/condo complex and its resulting increased traffic, trash and unbiodegradables will only spoil.
There are enough loft developments downtown and another one is not needed in Highland Park.
on May 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
FYI:
The meeting last night was pretty informal. They just had a few stations set up with a few different guys from the architects’ office explaining the project to the general public. I asked all 3 guys similar questions, and got different answers from each. 2 of the 3 guys were nice, the other one (the short older guy) came across as a bit of a defensive prick. For example, one guy told me that the current renderings were totally hypothetical and not at all representative of what the final project might look like, while another guy said that they are pretty much what it will be like, and the 3rd (defensive) guy just emphasized that there will be 100 units and that was it.
In short, here are some of things I took away from the meeting:
–The current renderings are “more or less” just a tentative starting point. While there will be at least 100 units, the actual design is still being finalized, hence the meeting to get community input.
–Of the 100+ units, about 60 will be affordable rentals. The remaining ones will be marketpriced sales.
–Parking: they were a bit nebulous on this one. Supposedly, they will replace all of the current parking spaces underground, but they weren’t clear about whether this is in addition to the added parking for the units theyre building. Seemed a bit shady on this one.
–There are currently *no plans* for retail, but they are open to it if the community wants it. I guess it will still be “mixed use”, but the “mixed” part will be community projects. For example, they are thinking of dedicating 10,000 sq ft to college space for some community college extension. Other ideas are a police substation, and a museum or community space of some sort.
–The whole project is in the very early stages of development, hence this informal meeting to get some initial community feedback. They had a sign up sheet to inform people of future meetings/events, of which they assured us there would be plenty
–They are also doing a bus tour this weekend of other projects theyve done, in Boyle Heights and Hollywood. It leaves at 9am from the parking lot at Ave. 57 & Marmion…. to RSVP you can call Claudia Ramirez at 213-236-2660 or email claudia.ramirez@mccormackbaron.com
Thats about it.
on May 4th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Did anyone go on the tour? Interested to hear about that bus excursion into the greater world of http://www.mccormackbaron.com/
Brohammed pretty well summed it up. The meeting was set up with these stations, with big post-it-note boards where we as the community were supposed to go up and give input. That wasn’t good enough for the community, so the community hijacked the thing, set up chairs and started firing off questions. Poor flustered MBS.
The short older guy was Milofsky of http://www.m2a-architects.com/ …he was there in the capacity of talkin’ scale, massing and other architectural whatnot. When I asked him about how they needed one-hundred-one units+ to get their State funding, he defended with a sort of “I’m just following orders” and “it’ll have to go through your HPOZ so don’t worry about a thing” argument.
Anyway, I was glad to hear that the project was at such an early stage of development, and that the community-at-large made it loud and clear that a four-story building was not welcome. Whether that’s worth something to the outcome of all this I don’t know.
One thing I took away that I liked is that, as a McCormack Baron Salazar project, this project would be under the management of McCormack Baron Ragan, who I’m assured (by MBS, anyway) do things like go out and paint over graffiti as soon as it goes up, among other worthwhile managerial activities. More investigation into MBR may be in order.
There was one big piece of paper on the side wall for comments of all stripes, which expressed stuff like “make housing affordable” and “save Mr. T’s parking!” – what I found interesting were the ones that said “no Disney-style old-style contextualizing!” and “make it look modern!”…not the sentiments I would express, but I was glad people turned out to express them.
One member of the community asked an MBS’r “is there a website or something where we can contribute further?” and the guy up front looked pretty taken aback. “Uh…we can’t just put up a website for every project we’re developing!” he shot back.
So I went home and bought the rights to highlandparktransitvillage.com and at some point in the near future it’ll be a place where all available images of the site, and renderings by developers, will live, and there’ll be a forum like this dedicated to related discussion…
on May 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am
NO! I saw this at Antigua too and it is horrifying. The reason why Highland Park is so great and quaint is because it is not overly developed with ugly apartment buildings. The next thing you know, starbucks and the gap will pop up and it will be another fucking tourist trap. Somebody save us!
on May 12th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
We should be so lucky to have a Starbucks and a Gap.
on July 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
this is a lame project. we dont need to pollute anymore by building these gigantic buildings. and were is the farmers market going to go during construction? what about traffic in that area? its already hellish betwn. 5:30-6:00.
meeting on this stupid gentrifying project
tuesday july 8th 2008 6:30pm at ramona hall. (around Superior Market, next to sycamore park)