Developers were hit with waves of criticism Monday night about a 920-unit apartment complex they plan to build between Broadway and Los Angeles State Historic Park in Chinatown.
Critics say the proposed project, called Elysian Parks Lofts, effectively puts a wall between the state park and a large swath of the surrounding community, which fought to create the park in the first place. One resident called it “The Ugly Wall of Chinatown.”
At the meeting, hosted by the Historic Cultural Neighborhood Council’s urban design and land use committee, members of at least two advocacy groups for the state park criticized the project, saying it will block views from the park to the surrounding hillsides and cut the community off from the park.
The multi-building complex would rise on a slim property that runs from the northern side of the park to its western point, near the Spring Street entrance to the park. The Lofts would bring 920 apartments units in six buildings, ranging from seven to 14 stories tall, a two-story resident amenity center, and 1 acre of public green space to the site.
The developers, Lincoln Property Company and S & R Partners, which is run by the Riboli family that founded the San Antonio Winery 101 years ago, have not committed to providing a set amount of affordable units in the project. That was a major pressure point for many speakers, as Chinatown and Solano Canyon are overwhelmingly low-income.
Historic Cultural Neighborhood Council executive officer and developer Yuval Bar-Zemer said it was clear to him that the Lofts would not be within financial reach of the community. (Bar-Zemer is not involved in the development of this project.) Elysian Park Lofts is merely “capitalizing on the large investment the state made on the park,” he said.
Robert Kane of Lincoln Property Company said at the meeting that the exact amount of affordable units was still being decided.
Several attendees also railed against against the project’s lack of transit connectivity. This stretch of Broadway, many noted, is a vital corridor for people in the neighborhood seeking to head Downtown or to Northeast LA by bus. Additionally, the project’s “South Parcel” segment is a stone’s throw away from the Gold Line’s Chinatown station.
In spite of the Lofts’s proximity to two forms of public transportation, not only do project renderings not show enhanced bus stops (or any bus stops at all), but the 920-unit project includes nearly 1,800 parking spaces, noted Sissy Nga Trinh of the Southeast Asian Community Alliance.
To build the project, Lincoln and S & R Partners need approval from the city to build taller than what code allows including a height district change, a change to the site’s zoning, and a general plan amendment.
“You’re asking for massive changes,” but you’re not giving anything back to the community, said land use committee chair Laura Velkei.
Plans for Elysian Park Lofts are in the environmental impact report process now. The public has until February 28 to submit comments on the plans as part of that process.
In a statement to Curbed, Lincoln Property’s Robert Kane says that the developers “highly value” the comments voiced at the meeting, and that they “are committed to a thorough and engaging process ... in the months ahead.”
- A closer look at the long, skinny project that would bring 920 units to Chinatown [Curbed LA]
- 7-building complex would bring 920 apartments to very skinny lot along Gold Line [Curbed LA]
Comments
okay, that does actually suck.
By WhatupPo on 02.13.18 3:55pm
Dude, that park is incredibly PATHETIC. I went there about a month ago to check it out and even though the park is brand new, the grass was completely brown! Yes, the place was clean, but the lack of a playground, basketball courts, or anything other than a gravel loop around dead grass seemed like such a missed opportunity to make it a truly welcoming space in a city so devoid of fucking greenery. How in the hell does the city let this happen, while golf courses are green as fuck during 100 degree days?
This development needs affordable housing and less parking spaces, but it no doubt needs to be built! To have such an open space and have basically the entire east side of it be full of warehouses is so stupid. Maybe then they’ll start watering the goddamn grass.
By WE_FAM_NOW on 02.13.18 4:20pm
Encouraging to see a community organization advocating for less parking.
By cakes on 02.13.18 4:54pm
I know Curbed advocates for affordable housing, but this blog misleadingly suggests that the primary reason for opposition to this project is the "lack of affordable housing." A quick perusal of the meeting minutes indicates that yes, indeed, there is opposition to the project, but for many other reasons and NONE of which are because of the lack of affordable housing.
By Cleavon Little on 02.13.18 9:49pm
I can’t with the "blocks our views" bullshit response to all multistorey buildings proposed in la.
By Karkiller on 02.14.18 6:29am
Thank god no vagrants in this building.. I might have to move in there now.. The poor suck…
By beachwooddude on 02.14.18 6:45am
poor people are fantastic, i love ’em to death, they keep the world spinning.
it’s just living around them that sucks.
By GhettoUrchin on 02.14.18 10:55am
Developers shouldn’t be forced to provide subsidized units for a few lucky lottery winners who believe they are entitled to live in a brand new building with nice amenities and a great central location….and not pay market rate.
By LA Living on 02.14.18 10:13am
I don’t view things on the extremes, but there has to be a concession made for those who don’t earn the same income as the Tech employee able to afford $3,000 studio rents. Where will the maintenance employee live who needs to maintain the grounds? What about the janitor? What about the parking lot employee? Where will these people commute if they cannot afford to live close to the (more) expensive housing options and more expensive neighborhood? Will they add more emissions and traffic due to longer commutes?
It doesn’t have to be 50% affordable, but I support 5-10% affordable development requirements for the concessions from the city of increasing density/height to add a little more units.
By USC_858 on 02.14.18 3:59pm
(I support 5-10% affordable)—those are the lucky housing lotto winners that perpetuate the obnoxious/unsustainable "Entitled mentality"
By LeBasque on 02.14.18 6:37pm
The problem isn’t asking the guy that can afford the $3000/mo rent to subsidize people. The problem is that the guy paying $1200/mo has to subsidize someone who may just be one notch down from him on the income ladder. When developers set aside BMR units, they don’t take the loss in their profits. The banks that finance the projects won’t allow it. They pad that loss into the rent of the market rate units. Not a big deal if everyone in the new building can afford it. Problem is, those higher-than-would-be market rate units reset the rate higher for the surrounding older properties which may have people that are not far off income-wise from the people in the BMR units. It’s a scam. You end up asking people who make $30,000/yr to subsidize someone making $20,000/yr who basically won the lottery. It’s the government picking winners and losers from the masses of plebeians.
By CaliforniaGoldFarmstand on 02.16.18 4:22pm
The developer should be required to provide some public benefit for building taller/denser than allowed, but it need not be tons of subsidized housing. I would really like a public pedestrian bridge over the gold line tracks between Broadway and the State Historic Park.
By RXBXUXNX on 02.14.18 11:14am
<i">members of at least two advocacy groups for the state park criticized the project, saying it will cut the community off from the park."
No the Gold Line does that.
By RXBXUXNX on 02.14.18 11:24am
I don’t understand the criticism that it doesn’t connect to transportation when the south site is a block from the Gold line station. What is an enhanced bus stop anyway? More benches? Coffee kiosk? I know we’ve grown used to forcing developers to fix all of the problems in the city, but these criticisms seem pretty weak.
It looks pretty ugly, but it’s a lot less ugly than the surface parking lot that’s there now and it’s going to add 920 units which we are supposedly desperate for.
By CaliSon on 02.14.18 11:17am
"Huge Chinatown development"
Curbed and their biased journalism. This project isn’t huge. Projects with slightly under a thousand units are not special, unique, or even uncommon in the US’s second largest city. Across the world, projects with 10,000 units are not even uncommon.
We need hundreds of thousands of units a year to solve this housing crisis. This project wouldn’t even dent 1% of the need the year it opens.
By RXBXUXNX on 02.14.18 11:19am
Wtf are you talking about? Bet you’ve never even underwritten or dealt with a real estate transaction.
A 920-unit project is huge. That’s going to be 1/4-1/2 billion in capital expenditures, adding a significant % of inventory into the submarket.
10,000 unit projects? How many of those are on-going in the country? I bet if there isn’t any.
By USC_858 on 02.14.18 4:04pm
"You’re asking for massive changes," but you’re not giving anything back to the community, said land use committee chair Laura Velkei."
They are building 920 units in the middle of a housing crisis. That is what they are giving back to the community, more fucking housing. If people want "affordable housing" there is plenty of it if you drive a few miles to the east.
By LADude on 02.14.18 11:42am
It’s hard to tell on that little diagram, but it doesn’t look like the south parcel has any pedestrian cut throughs to Broadway and the Gold Line. A project of this scale should provide a topnotch pedestrian network to parks and transit.
By Parlorpink on 02.14.18 8:22pm
the structures could have more intentional relationships to existing transit.
the design could be better. LA has so many architects, yet this is the crap we get?
the structures are located directly next to a train line. for the consumer, i hope there is exceptionally good sound insulation. however, i doubt there will be anything but the minimal per code. that will lower the assessed value significantly.
we need more housing period. the greater the vacancy rate is across the city the lower the cost of housing becomes for everyone.
By Sandcastle Dreams on 02.15.18 12:49pm