Traffic is about to get worse in Hollywood

Another big development in Hollywood was approved today -- this one 1,000 rental units. Not surprisingly, city leaders are hailing it as another victory for Hollywood's rebirth. But as The Times' Sharon Bernstein recently reported, there are traffic problems that come with the buildup. Here are some details about the new project:

The complex would be the largest residential project among more than 2,500 upscale condominium and apartment units that have been built, are under construction or planned just on blocks around the famous intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and Vine Street. The $400-million development "continues the incredible momentum we have seen in Hollywood during the past five years," said City Councilman Eric Garcetti, who represents the area. "It's a picture of what the future of Hollywood will be as well."
The project is called Blvd6200 for its Hollywood Boulevard address. The council unanimously approved a zoning change that will allow construction to begin by early next year on the long-planned project on both sides of Hollywood Boulevard at Argyle Avenue east of Vine. It would also include shops and restaurants at street level.

What do you think? Hit COMMENT and speak out.

Comments

[Forum Friend]

The traffic in Hollywood is a piece of cake. I can't believe how easy it is to zip through the entire district, even at 5 p.m. on a typical work day.

I am a former Brooklyn, New York resident, who frequently waited in a long line of cars to funnel through the Holland Tunnel, when returning from work in New Jersey.

[letty]

((LOL at Ron James))

That's hilarious. It's so funny how these people pushing the dense-type living projects down our throats try to reason that the rich elite coming to live in Hollywood (who can afford to live in these overpriced developments) are really going to walk ANYwhere, and give up their Bmw's and Range Rovers to train off to Santa Barbra, Palm Springs, San Francisco, or wherever ((yea, right)) so they can be stranded THERE instead.

Picture the folks that can afford these projects heading for the beach – on a bus. ((Yeah. Picture that.)) Or why not picture them heading to the airport, with all their luggage in tow on the bus or train. (( OH sure, Yeah, Picture that.)) Just because you cram more people in, doesn't mean you'll reduce the problem, because the very idea that these people are going to, as Ron sings, go to Costco by cab, or even by train, etc. is ridiculous! I can't even picture them trying to cram their overflowing picnic baskets into a bus for the short ride to the Hollywood Bowl. Not happening.

If this were a logic test, they'd all fail.

My dad always told me, when something sounds contrived, it probably is. This blvd2600 project and the toilet flow of other density projects sound as contrived as they get.

[Bt]

A little recipe for our future:

Take today's increasingly stifling traffic - worsening by the year.

Throw in thousands of more cars, tens of thousands of more people living in more concentrated conditions, add more service people coming in and out, and condense it into a variance-overrided 'extreme density' situation, and simmer.

It's a miracle bake. Just see how things improve. Doesn't it sound like an appetizing peek into the future? Try not to choke on it.

[Ron James]

Seems like the solutions folks are offering around these parts are keeping adding more. More of everything!
Can't wait to see how many high end people choose to live in a Dense utopia instead of a reasonably open living space.

I have decided to join in with their rallying cry!

...Singing...

MORE!! MORE!!!! Bring it on!!!
Problems will vanish. Traffic will be gone!!

You will enjoy it, a magic bee hive,
The real bees are dying, but the humans will thrive!

Lug around your laundry, drag around your gifts,
Sidewalks will be widened, so keep stuff on both hips.

Parks aren't needed, the painted walls are great,
Elevators packed with bodies, 'will someone please push 8'

I need to go to Costco, can I fit this in my cabs?
Watch out for all the dog sh**, my neighbor have two labs.

The homeless have all vanished too, we don't see'em any more,
We took them in and fed them up, now they can't fit out the door.

The bad days they are all but gone, this Density's the greatest!
If only I could breath fresh air, but smoggy smoke's the latest!

I can't believe we thought it wrong, to stack and fill the city,
The Hollywood Turkey's good and stuffed, the suburbs are a pity.

Our mayor's brilliant, the council is tops, our problems they are mended.
But wait a second, where I at? Oh dear, I've been rear-ended.

[Jeremy R]

In response to:
"Anyone who has been in Hollywood recently, even before all the construction that is in the works is completed, will know one thing. The traffic makes the place one thing to AVOID - not visit. It will certainly double in the next 2-3 years and you think that is going to make people come running to the area to live?"

Whats the solution then? There are only a few choices
a) Leave the area underdeveloped and decaying and ecourage future decline circa 1970's
b) Grow LA outwards so that from Santa Barbara, to San Diego, to LA Vegas becomes the new "LA". A contiguous 10,000 sq. mile city with 89 freeways?
c) build low density in hollywood forcing more people to live in the exurbs and commute and cutthrough LA at all hours? Causing more beautiful strip malls? What a sight to show the world. The newest neighborhood in the global city of los angeles has the same density as Sacramento!
d) Dont build at all ever again?

Downtown SF is dense as hell with tens of thousands of people there daily. They seem to do just fine with density. As the center of LA becomes more dense, the transportation dynamics change. More people walk, and bike. More rail gets developed. Fewer people cut through LA and more start living in real walkable neighborhoods. Of course, because LA is designed like crap, it will hurt ALOT before it helps. Think of LA as going through a transition period. Transition periods can be VERY hard, but once you are in a new and more healthy state, its all gravy.

Just imagine! What if the whole basin was connected with aweomse rail and large sidewalks. What if the nearest store was always just 8 pleasant blocks away. What if the area looked beautiful and urban?

SF is 3 times denser than LA and yet there is NEVER traffic. Do you care to know why?

[Jeremy R]

The parking if for residents and non residents alike. The parking spot per unit number is derived from the total number of spaces divided by the total number of units. It should be computed by taking the total number of spaces * (the % of spaces used by residents) divided by the total number of units. My guess is that many people will park there for the pantages theatre, other hollwood hotspots, the grocery store, the other ground level retail, and access to the red line.

Parking may be tougher than you think.

Lastly, these developments need to pencil out. What wealthy los angeles resident is going to pay 3000/month rent and get no parking? How are they going to go to the airport, palm springs, san diego, or santa barbara on occassion? How will they access the other 90% of LA that inst in walking distance or next to a rail line?

[Shaun]

Wow Sylvia, so apparently anyone that thinks big and thinks about regional planning and development and how to handle the millions of more people that will move to this region is dense and not so bright. And if you were anywhere near bright you’d realize what an informal, unscientific “study” that was that the LA Times did. And if you were bright you would also know there are a lot more studies, real ones and not ones done by some low level LA Times employee, that state the exact opposite. But I’m sure you are not even aware of the many studies done on Smart Growth or Transit Oriented Development. And I already addresses that article you are referencing. I didn’t mention it in my posts here b/c that is not the article in question, so why the hell would I bring it up. And since you seemed to miss my critique of that article here it is for you to attempt to comprehend:
“All of these TOD's are being done piecemeal and there isn't any comprehensive or regional land use and transporatation planning or development occuring. If you're going to have transit and TOD at point A then you also need transit and TOD at point B for it to work. Many people may be moving into these TOD's but if they place they are working is nowhere near or easily accessible my transit then it wont work. Encourage more jobs and offices near transit like downtown or along Wilshire, ect... Stop building sprawling office parks in Santa Clarita or Orange County, those types of developments do not encourage transit use.
TOD's may not be perfect yet but LA has a really bare bones rail system so what excactly were we expecting? When our overall transit system sucks and not all new developments are transit or pedestrian friendly then it's gonna take a while before we see what we want.
Is this article suggesting that we give up and go back to auto oriented devlopments and refocus all of our resources on roads and freeways? THAT DID NOT WORK EITHER!! So I am hoping people don't take from this is that we need to refocus our efforts on freeways and low density sprawl. It's gonna take a while before we see a lot of people walking to run errands and taking trains to work b/c we just don't have all the pieces together now. LA has only started encouraging TOD's and is slowly, very slowly expanding it's rail system. Just look at all the people, jobs, entertainment destinations in West LA that are nowhere near a train station.
Orange County is on course to turn into LA County in the next 20 years with their never ending suburban sprawl about to reach capacity as all the land fills up and te ever expanding freeway system that will become even more gridlocked that it is today. They decided not to build a light rail system and instead opted for more freeway expansion; sound familiar? This is much of the same crap LA did and somehow Orange County thinks there version will end up better.
SoCal has some serious fundamental problems with governance and planning. I can't understand how a region with 15+ million people plans transportation at the county rather than regional level. Since when did our cars stop at the county line? It’s like they are deliberately creating bottlenecks when one county improves a freeway but the adjacent county does not. i.e. I-5 through LA and OC. We need to strip local govts of certain transportation and land use power and give them to SCAG or something b/c nothing we have tried so far has improved our quality of life overall. Nothing ever seems to get better here but just stays the same or gets worse. So lets no revert back to old ways that got us to where we are but try a new direction that SoCal is headed but many of us refuse to acknowledge it or don’t see it. WE HAVE NO ROOM LEFT TO BUILD like we always have. The day of the single family home on a large lot is over. We need denser housing, denser office developments, and denser retail developments. And we need more and better rail transit. SoCal has reached a critical tipping point in it’s transportation and land use patterns and the sooner we and our leader realize that the sooner they will do things differently and change the direction we are heading.”

And I’m not paid by the hour but am on salary, as if that had anything to do with my viewpoints. Why can’t you understand that people who support these projects and an urban environment are just regular people who don’t work for the city or developers. I guess anyone that doesn’t agree with you must be on the inside and have some financial interest in it; talk about some paranoid, conspiracy theory BS.
Unfortunately this town has people with your mentality so things seem to have to get worse before a solution is built. Why do you think Beverly Hills and other Westside communities and their local leaders now are begging for a Wilshire subway to Santa Monica when they opposed it less than a decade ago? B/c they had your mentality and had to let traffic get so unbearable before they realized that a subway was the only way to move people across that corridor fast and efficiently. It would be nice if they built it now and let development follow it, but we have some inept leaders and loud mouth negative NIMBY’s like yourself that prevent any real progress to prevent these problems.
And please tell me what your solution is? You have not answered any of the questions I posed b/c you can’t. All you seem to know how to do is complain, complain, and say no to anything and everything. LA IS NOT GOING TO STOP GROWING SO HOW DO WE PROVIDE MORE HOUSING FOR THESE PEOPLE? I;m sure you will ignore that question again b/c you have no answer or mental capacity to come up with one. Should we build more homes in Lancaster, b/c that doesn’t add traffic to our freeways, right? It’s your type of mentality and thinking that got LA into the mess that it is today and it’s that same thinking that will make it an even worse place to live. Your mindset is so incredibly backwards, uniformed, and unprogressive it’s pretty scary. If the Bay Area can have a viable rail system so can LA, land use patterns and development are not that different than LA with the exception of the city of SF, which makes up a very small portion of the Bay Area. And you call the people on here “not so bright thinkers” even though the majority are against what you say. Do you think more than 6 months into the future at all? Slyvia, I am not trying to be rude, but you don’t know what the hell you are talking about at all. I doubt you have any real world experience or education relating to urban planning, development or transportation planning and development and don’t understand so many things on how large urban areas develop and evolve and what it takes to make them sustainable. Please go get some education on a subject you seem to know nothing about but only complain and say no to everything. Please enlighten me on to where LA’s growth is suppose to go. If not Hollywood then where? Please tell me how LA is suppose to handle millions more if everyone has to drive b/c we don’t have any dense neighborhoods or a real rail system b/c people like you prevented it from getting built.
Also realize that you can’t solve congestion, no city in the world ever has or ever will. You want to solve congestion then you need a whole new transportation system like something in Minority Report and that isn’t really isn’t plausible. But what every other major, world class city in the world has done is PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES TO DRIVING IN TRAFFIC! That is what these developments and push for more rail is about.

[SylviaS]

Of course that long diatribe ignores the facts in this important article

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-transit30jun30,0,2432973,full.story?coll=la-tot-topstories

and their long-winded critique of those against overly-dense developments certainly looks to be written by someone paid by the hour. Sad, really.

Interesting how their post admits things are going to get worse FIRST, and then the problems will be fixed... somehow. I thought the politicans were saying there were going to be NO problems. Only they AREN'T the ones who will be living there, so these lobbyists and developers must be doing a great job financing our elected leaders, or else they'd be lining up to move in themselves. Seems to be you don't start designing a bad thing and hope to fix it after-the- fact with some 'down the line' solution. Are these the same people making plans for Iraq?

Seems like we've got more than a few 'not so bright thinkers' on this site. Yeah, let's create a problem... solutions will come.
Well, solutions haven't magically appeared to help with our current traffic problems... so somehow they are going to come later. Oh yes, somehow...
The people who thought of this project are as Dense as their plans...

[m]

One thing that sucks about these dense housing projects no matter how much I (or you) enjoy walking is that as we build up, we lose mountain/land views for all of the pedestrians. The mountains and the ability to find pockets of nature in the urbanization is an interesting part of LA to me. For example, they want to create some huge development near the Universal City Station. That is fine, but the walk to that station over the freeway has a beautiful view overlooking a park (which is impossible to actually access) with the mountains in Burbank, the mountains where Universal Studios is and the huge mountains along Ventura blvd in the background. The new building they want to put up will obscure these mountains from the view. Seeing the land (not buildings) is one of the few things that makes that area livable to me, not seeing parking structures and another huge building that sticks out like a sore thumb as the NBC Universal building does. There is plenty of density in that area. I live on a street with almost nothing but apartment buildings (there is 1 house where many people live) and pretty much no parking spots for guests. Since I don't have any grass to wiggle my toes in, please just let me see some green. Nature helps keep people sane.

[Shaun]

" When was the last time someone said this neighborhood is great, it is so Dense."

As someone noted to before, go to NYC, Boston, SF, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, ect.. and there are millions of people that prefer dense neighborhood where they can walk to local stores. Not everyone wants to live in some low density, suburban sprawl type of environment. And LA already has plenty of development like that so why are you guys complaining? No one is asking you to live there or in those types of places. Some people prefer an urban setting to a suburban setting so live and let be and let these people have want they want.

Los Angeles is the nation’s SECOND LARGEST CITY and the DENSEST METROPOLITAN AREA IS THE NATION! Do you honestly think America’s 2nd largest city in America’s densest metropolitan area is not going to have density and be able to accommodate everyone driving? Yes, traffic will likely get worse. BUT that is why we need a better mass transit system. We are going to have to greatly improve our rail network whether we like it or not and these types of projects will help support more rail development and expansion. It will help LA provide housing for its ever increasing population. Some of you have the most backwards and unprogressive mentality; thinking LA cannot and will not change in the future and believing some 1950’s and 1960’s suburban utopia of newly built, wide open freeways is still possible. THIS IS 2007!! If you don’t like density and traffic then you are in the wrong place. LA is what it is and it will only continue to add people, become denser, and traffic worsen. We cannot stop growth unless you want to stop creating jobs. And worsening traffic congestion will only help the fight for a better rail network in LA. SF, NYC, Boston, and other dense cities are very congested and more difficult to drive around than LA but THEY HAVE ALTERNATIVES to driving and people there love the density and don’t care about using public transit to get around. Public transit, when done right, can be more relaxing and easier to use than driving. Unfortunately instead of thinking about the future and outside of the box many people in LA held onto the belief that the car would always be king; well look where than mentality and thinking got us. LA is now going to have to spend huge sums of money to play catch up with it’s public transit and rail network, but it is going to have to be done b/c we couldn’t build enough freeways, parking, roads, ect.. and spread people out enough to where we can all drive.

Some of you just can’t get past that mentality that no one wants to live in a dense environment, take a train, or walk and that everyone prefers some dull, lifeless, auto oriented, suburban sprawl. I’m willing to bet many of you naysayer’s live out in the burbs too, probably somewhere in the Valley, Santa Clarita, or Orange County. There are thousands of people out there that are sick of that lifestyle that some of you swear by. Dense, urban living is becoming very popular all across the country and are some of the most sought after developments that command the highest prices. If NYC and SF were such horrible places to live b/c they are so dense then why the hell are they the most expensive to live in to and have the most demand??? Please Sylvia, Ron, Elizabeth, or Federick answer that one. You guys probably don’t follow urban planning and development across this country, but every day more and more of these types of projects are going up b/c there is such strong demand for them. Maybe some of you need to talk to others than don’t always agree with you and get another point of view b/c you don’t seem to be understanding others POV’s at all. I understand where some of you are coming from, but that mentality just doesn’t fly in modern LA with the way it is. But there are plenty of places around this region that provide for the low density, lifestyle some of you seem to prefer.

This project is great and I am glad more and more are going up everyday. The denser LA becomes and the quicker it does so the sooner, hopefully, we will start to get the rail network we deserve to sustain this type of environment. LA still has a lot of work to do with it public transit, but some of us are not ready to just give up and say no to density forever. LA is going to have to change and it will and the sooner we realize where it is headed and what we need to do to accommodate the growth, the sooner we will have a real rail network connecting the city and it’s neighborhoods. You can be a naysayer and say it will never happen, but that isn’t going to help anything at all.

[JP]

Those who are complaining about the increased density may not see the long term picture.

The future of cities like ours is going to be about walking, biking, and using mass transit. The way cars factor into the equation is going to be diferent because the equation is going to change.

[Sylvia S]

Obviously, those touting this project as another example of coming success stories in traffic mitigation have not read the article linked above in the header ending in "...are traffic problems that come with the buildup."

If you did, you would stop touting false prophecies. You obviously know NOT of what you speak.

[FredrickBillings]

It is obvious those talking in favor of the project are playing with the company deck of cards. Reasonably speaking, you are simply putting more gerbils into the same size cage. Key word: Dense. When was the last time someone said this neighborhood is great, it is so Dense. Puhhlease. Sooner or later, you are going to see them all eating each other alive, and when it comes to traffic in your city currently, we are already tempers away from explosion.

Those people in the highly dense areas will have visitors, family, friends and will need to use the airport, go to hospitals, visit stores outside of walk-able ones, take kids to daycare, etc and they will take to the streets in their cars. The traffic is going to become remarkably worse. Hollywood and Highland has already proved this point. There are at least a dozen new major developments coming online within the next 18-24 months and even more after. If you think everyone is going to be walking around on the sidewalks, smiling and shopping, gleefully singing the praises of walking to and fro with their bundles of computer screens, appliances, holiday shopping for families, picking up the family dry cleaning, you are naive. At best, the subway will be carrying in their day laborers from outying areas to tend to their cleaning and day care. They'll still be driving their cars, oh I'd say 2 per unit would be about right (minimum), but oh how they'll be stuck on the streets with you and I who lived here and voted these village idiots into office.

You won't see much of anything but a stream of red tail lights.
You won't see smiles.

But DO keep a lookout for more trucks to delivery to these people, more mail and more services in and out, more repairs to streets from more usage, more accidents involving pedestrians, and more fire engines and ambulances coming to assist, more friends and visitors coming and going, hunting for parking, more of everything, and less movement to the traffic TRYING to service these multitudes of new people.

Dangerous world.
How fast do you think an ambulance arrives in New York?

I would love to know if the folks in Los Feliz, and Beverly Hills and surrounding areas are going to ride mass transit. What do you think? Do you really think they are going to? Seriously, now.

I think they'll stop going to the theaters in Hollywood, avoiding the area altogether. I believe they'll stop dining in Hollywood, spending their dollars in town and, instead, leave town for their entertainment.

I hope the new residents in these Dense buildouts are good and hungry, because they are going to have to continuously fill the seats of all these few walkable restaurants, theater shows, special events time and time again as no one from the outside will be able to park and visit, not to mention GET there in the first place.

Will they go to the Hollywood Bowl 4 times in a row for the 4th of July?
Would you go even once with that parking mess?

Think about the 5 fwy now and the 101 heading north and the 10 towards Vegas. Now think about it when you add these incredibly Dense living spaces, one on top of the other, thousands of new people, thousands of more cars, without open space, without an escape.

Try counting to a thousand. Seriously, try counting right now.
Pain in the neck, isn't it?

Now figure them all on the freeway around you and on the city streets, trying to get somewhere at the same time you are.

Sounds like a happening place, this New Hollywood dream. Everyone seems to say it is magically just going to work, when we can't even get things moving currently, so who do you really believe? C'mon, didn't you learn anything from listening to Bush and his lobbied governmental voiceboxes over these past years?

Believing everything you hear from government again?
Well, smell you.

[Ron James]

"If Ron James' argument actually held water, then places like New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Mexico City, and Tokyo would not be the vibrant, functioning cities they are today."

You are absolutely right. That Ron James is dumb. He should realize how wonderful it will be to have our very own Mexico City right here in Los Angeles. What is he thinking anyway? Lucky for us, Mexico City is on its way and we'll all get to experience it's vibrance. And it's functioning qualities.

I get all giddy thinking about it. Especially during construction.

[ElizabethB]

The only way to make sure this is TRULY a good project for the people living there, is to have the mayor, and all the council persons live in it themselves. You know how soon THAT is going to happen, don't you? NOT EVER. They wouldn't touch it with a ten foot lobbyists stick.

This development is bought and paid for with lobbyist dollars. I can see why LA and Hollywood are slipping into an over-crowded cancerous mess. The people in charge are too busy taking money from developers, or sleeping with reporters to mind the store.

Let me know when ANY of the council persons is moving into one of these 'highly sought after' hell hole developments. I want to see them smiling in all this DENSE joy they proclaim to be the future.

I do believe we won't be getting a response any time soon.

[yours truly, johnny dollar]

"...must build denser.....:" what city official has the deodorant concession?
This project smells.

[Bill]

It would be nice if the Hollywood / Vine metro station had a sign to say what it is, it looks to be under construction.

[RB]

If Ron James' argument actually held water, then places like New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Mexico City, and Tokyo would not be the vibrant, functioning cities they are today.

[Sylvia S]

Anyone who has been in Hollywood recently, even before all the construction that is in the works is completed, will know one thing. The traffic makes the place one thing to AVOID - not visit. It will certainly double in the next 2-3 years and you think that is going to make people come running to the area to live?

THAT is the most ridiculous comment about 'smart' growth.... it isn't smart.

I agree with Ron - this isn't going to work, but in the meantime, forget the movie industry working more in the area - they are going to avoid it like the plague and is anyone figuring THAT into their numbers? How about figuring how many people will choose OTHER areas for conventions and special events because the area is way too congested for making use of the time.

If you want to continue to put plastic wrap over the face of Hollywood, go right ahead. But her demise from too-much-growth, too-fast will prove one thing... experts in city growth, AREN'T. Paid planners, don't LIVE in the areas they are 'PLANNING' and money makes the world go round... but in this case, it is going to CHOKE hollywood to its core.

I'll be the Oscars are going to be out as soon as their contract is over. Then what? Glitter and glitz - GOODBYE!

[Richard H]

An absolutely fascinating website on Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in California including those surrounding LACMTA Metrorail stations on the Red, Purple and Gold Lines. ( http://www.tndwest.com/index.html )

The link to the page on the Hollywood and Vine TOD: ( http://www.tndwest.com/hollywoodvine.html )

To answer somebody's question: "[Blvd 6200] Project plans call for 1017 apartments and 24 live-work units. In return for various subsidies, the developer has agreed to reserve 20 per cent of the units for low-income families." That would be about 208 units for low-income families. Each unit will have an average of 1.5 parking spaces for cars.

[Tim]

I say it should be built. Los Angeles has grown outward far enough; it's time to start building upward. Let the traffic get worse, maybe it will finally convince people and officials of our DIRE need for a full rail and transit system. Denser development will make that easier anyway. If we keep building outward people will be commuting 3+ hours to work...does that sound like fun?

[yours truly, johnny dollar]

Traffic will not be increased; just re-arranged. The traffic is out there already.
If there is a hundred more vehicles at Hollywood and Vine than before (the complex), then there will be hundred less vehicles somewhere else.

[Simon Llewellyn]

It's about letting people not get in their cars for some of their errands and needs. Not about permanently putting them into transit. I was in a community meeting where they said that they were giving people free bus passes and MTA passes who are living in the project. As someone who hates traffic, lives in the Hollywood Hills, and usually watches my neighbors oppose everything--this one had unanimous support. Pretty amazing. And sorry to see such a kneejerk headline.

[Josh Kamensky, Communications Director for Council President Eric Garcetti]

Please don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. The linked Bernstein article asked a very narrow question about to-and-from work trips. Angelenos make many trips each day. Work accounts for two of those. But in a neighborhood like Hollywood, you can leave your car at home as you walk to the dry cleaners inside your building or to the movie theater around the corner. There's more to transit-oriented-development than commutes.

As for 6200Hollywood, unreported on the blog or in the accompanying article was the $2 million commitment Council President Garcetti won from Clarett, the developer, to addressing mobility issues via the city's Hollywood mobility trust fund. Tenants will receive free MTA passes and the developer has committed to car share, bike parking and providing incentives for retail employees and visitors to get out of their cars.

Don't take our word for it, though. This project received early and vocal support from the neighborhood councils in the area--councils which would fiercely oppose a project they saw as worsening traffic. They, like our office, are dedicated to building an urban Hollywood that moves.

[m]

When I moved into an apartment not too far from a subway station 3 years ago, no one I met in my new building (manager or neighbors in the building) ever mentioned the subway station to me, even as a "selling point". I knew the 101 freeway was nearby since I could hear it out of my window. Since I had moved there from 40 miles east, it wasn't like I had experience with the red line since it doesn't go out that far and subway stations aren't obvious from the street if you don't know what you are looking at. It wasn't until random friends around me mentioned the red line that I even found out it existed. Now I use it almost daily, but I guess my question is, are people that move into building near subway/rail station even told about the public transportation that is nearby? If most people experience what I did, it is fine and dandy and nice that buildings are built near stations, but you MUST make the people aware of the public transportation option when they are viewing buildings, signing a lease or buying a place, especially if nearby public transportation is being considered when the building are constructed.

[Shaun]

Ron James:
You're right, nothing will change as long as there are people like you with that negative mentality that LA cannot evolve and become a better place, or at least not a worse, to live. And just b/c you don't like dense, urban living doesn't mean there isn't a huge market our there for it. Most projects like these are very successful and people pay those high prices or else they wouldn't build them.

This project will be a success and will only encourage more like it.

[Jason Burns]

Los Angeles needs dense projects like this.

The problem is, it also needs a major public transit network to support such an influx of new residents. We need a comprehensive plan that includes bold ideas like finishing the Purple Line, a Sunset Line, rail to Burbank, Glendale, LAX, etc.

I applaud City Council on approving projects like this, as long as they announce a new Metro Rail project in the same press conference. Without that, these moves will continue to look foolish.

[SK Duncan]

I remember when runaways and drug dealers use to vie for sidewalk space near this street corner. I'd rather have the new development.

Will it increase traffic? Yes! Do we need to get out of our cars and walk more. Yes!

Maybe this development will encourage the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods to walk or ride a bike to these shops rather than drive.

[Ron James]

It's actually going to be hilarious to watch as they put so many cars into a dense living space that people will be unable to move. You think people who live there will just park and leave those cars in the garage? No, they drive. Everyone drives. That is cultural in LA, and they think that is going to change? Forget it.

Just a few times stuck in Hollywood's increasing horrible traffic will keep people from outside the area at home, not buying tickets to shows, not eating out, not visiting Hollywood. Then, those stuck in the center of living in it are gong to get stir crazy from being trapped in by traffic and decide to move out and leave these areas. Who wants to spend big bucks to be placed in a cage with too many rats? No one with any means who can afford it wants to live in that kind of mess, and most certainly visit it from outside the area.

If they want to bankrupt their own project, let 'em.
It's going to be hilarious to watch.

[Shaun]

And traffic will get worse if it's built somewhere else too. If it's built out in Santa Clarita that is still additional cars clogging the freeways, at least this one is near a subways stop so they can take it SOME places. And if LA ever decides to build a world class rail system then it will be a great advatage to live in this location. There also needs to be a MAXIMUM parking requirement. Over 2 spaces per unit is ridiculous! That adds at least $50-60k per unit.

This is the type of development LA needs more of. We already grew out as far as we can so now we have to grow up. Now all we need is a decent rail system to move people around in a denser LA.

[Michael L]

People are missing a fundamental point that smart growth will NOT make traffic better. That is okay because the residents will have other options. Options being the key word. They can drive, walk, take public transportation, and bike, whichever suits their needs. Many places that aren't built with the ideals of smart growth really only give you one option... driving. Who cares if the traffic is awful if you don't have to drive. That is the point of smart growth. Growth is going to happen whether you like it or not, might as well plan for the future of a much more dense Los Angeles. Mobility people is about more than our roads!! It is about options. okay, rant over. As for people living in these buildings and taking their cars...well that is because LA officials have only been dealing with one part of the puzzle. Once that train goes to where they actually work and play, then you will see the real revolution of smart growth that has been working so well in other cities. It is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

[Carter]

Traffic is definitely a concern. But I guess it's better that they're building it right next to the Red Line than anywhere else in the general area.

[Colette Schamet]

Did the city study do a feasibility study on traffic issues before it approved a project of this magnitude? 1,000 units? with each unit owning on average 2 cars? the city should be held accountable for the consequences of this mismanaged projec -- and how many units have been allocated to low income residences? as if we need any more to add to the inventory-