Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Guess Who Wants Another Pedestrian Bridge?


Less than one year after an ugly controversy surrounding a proposed pedestrian bridge at the half-destroyed Da Vinci complex, Geoff Palmer is ready to rehash the same storyline on Broadway.

According to a case filing from the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, the Beverly-Hills-based developer intends to construct a pedestrian bridge across Olympic Boulevard, linking the two halves of his Broadway Palace development.  The project, which broke ground in September, will offer 686 apartments and over 50,000 square feet of ground-floor retail when completed.

Palmer frequently incorporates pedestrian bridges into his Italian-themed apartment complexes, most of which flank the Central City freeway ring.  In May 2014, he argued to the City Planning Commission that a bridge was necessary at the Da Vinci complex to for both internal circulation and protection from a nearby homeless encampment.  While that argument was rejected by the Commission, their ruling was later overturned with the help of 14th District Councilman Jose Huizar, who represents the majority of Downtown.

However, Palmer's other developments are located on the neighborhood's fringes, isolated from significant pedestrian traffic.  The same cannot be said for Broadway Palace, which is located near the popular Ace Hotel and a slew of upcoming residential-retail complexes.  A bridge over Olympic Boulevard, though not specifically prohibited by the Broadway Design Guide, would seem to conflict with the pedestrian-friendly neighborhood envisioned by the Bringing Back Broadway initiative.


19 comments:

  1. I didn't have a problem with the bridge at the remote complex on Temple ST. But this complex is in a vibrant, active part of downtown. It is stupid to put a bridge there. There should be know bridges on these streets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Although I'm sure the argument will be consolidation of amenities.

      Delete
    2. There is no way a bridge should be allowed here. Zero

      Delete
    3. We'll see what happens. Da Vinci was far enough on the outskirts that it was understandable, athough Palmer was completely tone deaf when voicing his arguments to the CPC. A bridge at Broadway/Olympic should be a much tougher sell.

      Delete
  2. Does anyone like this guy? I've heard nothing but bad things from tenants. Building quality and management are both terrible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yelp reviews aren't great, although I've never rented from him.

      Delete
  3. I'm sure he'll get his way being that there is already a pedestrian bridge across Olympic at the California Market Center. It seems to me that would hurt any argument against adding another one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's between a parking garage though. Dude can't just put laundry rooms/fitness equipment in each building? Probably cheaper than building a bridge, anyway.

      Delete
  4. I'll withhold judgment until I see the bridge design. Many historic European cities have beautiful pedestrian bridges over streets (e.g., Oxford). Done well, it's a nice placemaking quirk. Done badly, it's exclusionary without the placemaking benefits. Knowing Palmer, I'd guess the latter, but we'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  5. East of Main, yes (offices & show rooms). West of Main, no (lots of residential). It would be a very negative precedent going forward for the South Park area. Let's not equate the environs of Oxford with Palmer's glorious 'Broadway Palace' (re. place-making or otherwise). Bridges can be used to denote identity as well as entry into a particular area or zone. This isn't such a case. If allowed, other developers would then want theirs too. Do we need one more Bunker Hellish intrusion into the street space of Olympic Boulevard?

    ReplyDelete
  6. HELLO! Who wants to walk to your neighbors house on the way to the pool across the street with your Bikini and Robe...and cross Olympic St...?? Why? When you can cross the inside Bridge that adjoins the complex and keeps you safe from distractions! ALSO! You people didn't BITCH when the pedestrian bridge next door at the CAL MART linked to the across the street parking garage! What makes this different??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you really want another project that resembles the Cal Mart fortress?

      Delete
  7. It's been well over four decades now since so-called planners in the city redevelopment agency and the city planning director were all gaw-gaw over pedestrian bridges. And what resulted was our glorious 'World Trade Center' and the hellish environs across the western part of Bunker Hill (actually it was below the hill in Arroyo de Los Reyes). Unfortunate that so many Downtown boosters and 99.9 percent of people in the real estate industry remain SO DAMNED BLIND to the factors which do or do not make cities great. Those factors are part and parcel to the design subset known as Urban Design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think a lot of the problem is that there are so many large parking lots completely under the control of single developers. As a result, Downtown winds up with a lot of internally-focused superblock developments.

      Hopefully these types of projects become less the norm as more surface lots are eaten up in South Park.

      Delete
  8. So who's going to set fire to this pile of crap?

    I kid I kid...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *Knock on wood*

      Pedestrian bridge notwithstanding, Broadway Palace certainly beats a parking lot.

      Delete
  9. You could argue that pedestrian bridges are actually more pedestrian-friendly. Instead of schlepping down to the ground floor and then walking across the street (potentially in the rain or cold), pedestrians could just walk across the climate controlled bridge.

    If you don't like the pedestrian bridge, just don't use them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the closed off nature of Palmer's developments that people rail against, more so than anything. The bridges are just the easiest targets for criticism.

      Delete