Will revised Sunset Junction development plans win over Silver Lake?

Revised plan for 4000 Sunset with public plaza at the corner | Frost/Chaddock

SILVER LAKE — Developer Frost/Chaddock has modified plans to build three, large apartment buildings in  Sunset Junction, with a company attorney describing the new plans and designs  as a “significant improvement” over the previous proposal.  Despite the changes,  the Junction Gateway project remains big, totaling 324  apartments in a trio of multistory buildings, including a five-story structure in an area of mostly one and two story buildings.

“Not everyone will love it,” said David Rand, a land use attorney working for the West Hollywood developer.  “You never please everybody in land use.”

Frost/Chaddock’s initial plans met with a large amount of community resistance and prompted the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council to withhold it’s support.  The revised proposal is in response to those criticisms and suggestions. It’s still remains to be seen whether these changes will win over more residents.  Frost/Chaddock, meanwhile, remains committed to seeing the project get built, Rand said.

Here’s a rundown of the changes:

Prevision version of 4100 Sunset

Prevision version of 4100 Sunset

4000  Sunset:   This five-story building with 84 apartments that would rise at the intersection of Sunset, Santa Monica and Sanborn (across from Cafe Stella) underwent the most significant changes from the concept presented more than a year ago.   The number of apartments was reduced and the eastern corner of the building was notched to create a public plaza facing Sunset Junction.  The ground floor includes room for restaurants with outdoor dining and “creative office space”  was added to the building, said Rand.

The design of the building that bends slightly along Santa Monica was changed to give it a look that was more  “edgier” and more  “appropriate for the location and Silver Lake in general,” said Rand. Meanwhile, the top floor of the building was stepped back to make it appear less tall from the pedestrian’s point of view.  “It remains a five-story building,” Rand said, but it’s a “more sensitive five-story building than was proposed previously.”

4311 Sunset (Bates Motel site) | Frost/Chaddock

Previous version of 4311 sunset4311 Sunset:  The apartments and bulk that were removed from 4000 Sunset was transferred to this site, currently home of the vacant Bates Motel. The building, under the current plans, will contain 149 apartment units.

4100 Sunset (4100 bar site) | Frost Chaddock

Previous version of 4100 Sunset

Previous version of 4100 Sunset

4100 Sunset:  Located on the site of the 4100 bar, this proposed 91-unit apartment building now includes more than 40 parking public parking spaces under the current plans (they are public spaces but that does not mean they will be free).

The three buildings would include apartments reserved for low-income tenants.  Rand said the public review process will probably be completed next year; construction would take about two years.

Related Link:


  1. Echo Park resident

    Oh, goody! Looks just like every horrible mixed use building in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, etc. Can’t wait until we’re all homogenized!

  2. This is still WAY too much for there — especially the one claiming a Sunset Boulevard address that really is on Santa Monica Boulevard, that extremely narrow roadway there with the merge into Sunset.

    To build more than what exists is one thing; to think even the sky is not the limit is quite another. This COMPLETELY changes the character of Sunset Junction from that of a village to that of a dense downtown area — you know, to the kind of place no one who moved here wanted to live.

    • don’t worry: developers will be using city planner’s proclivity for approving high density projects to build these things even in the most inappropriate places. Those of us who moved to an area specifically because it was low density will soon be run completely out of town … unless you’re uber-wealthy enough to afford an enclave with neighbors powerful enough to repel the approaching wave of the new urbanism

    • “…the kind of place no one who moved here wanted to live.”

      “Those of us who moved to an area specifically because it was low density will soon be run completely out of town…”

      To be replaced by the ones who move into those units or who moved in recently because it was obviously becoming the kind of more-densely populated place in which they’d like to live; the kind of village with grocery stores, banks, restaurants, bars, public transit, fewer cars, more bikes and walkability. Keep up the good fight, but don’t forget whom you might have run out of town. Also, if you’re uber-wealthy you do not live near a commerce-laden arterial route unless you want to.

    • Except there’s already a half dozen buildings of a similar scale in the area, most of them much older than the majority of residents. But I won’t argue with those who think the design could be better… these are too bright, busy and overly branded. They should tone it down a bit, IMHO.

      Also, the DOT should put in a new traffic signal at the unmarked cross walk at Bates.

    • Many of us moved here because we wanted to live in a walkable urban area, with convenient bike and transit connections to downtown, Hollywood and USC.

      Not everyone moved here for the reasons you did. And those people can still live on their hilltops – no one is talking about putting these sorts of buildings on hilltops.

      After these buildings, Sunset Junction will be almost as dense as the area around Vermont and Franklin – exactly the urban village kind of space we all love.

      • There are dense apartment buildings all around the Junction, one on Sandborn and another overlooking Triangle Plaza and those buildings were built in the 20’s and 30’s!!

        • There is nothing around there any where near as dense as these. Stop making up crap.

          • Ahem…

            – 1055 Sanborn
            – 3408 Sunset
            – 3209 Descanso
            – 760 Hoover
            – The two apartment complexes flanking Manzanita (by the Sunset bridge)
            – Jensen’s Rec Center

            Should I go on?

          • 1055 Sanborn is a good example of a problem building. Traffic from 1055 often bottlenecks the street and creates a very dangerous situation at the crest of the hill as people try to pass double parked cars on a blind hill. It also draws an unusually large amount of police and paramedic calls to a quiet street (anyone know why paramedics are there so often?).

      • [[[no one is talking about putting these sorts of buildings on hilltops.]]

        ah, but yes, they are. and yes, they will. now that it has caught their attention, they will not rest until it is ruined.

        • I doubt the zoning would allow that… but yes, the hilltops are overdeveloped (mostly houses and dingbats, but too much density nonetheless.)

          Growth is inevitable in LA, so isn’t it better to build moderate infill density along our major boulevards (where people can walk to stuff), rather than more car-centric sprawl that gobbles up open space in the hills (and virtually every single errand will be made by car?)

      • Uh, Kenny, if that is why you moved here, then why do you constantly complain that that is not what is here, we need to change what is here to that? Clearly, that is NOT why you moved here — because you keep saying that is not here, and that we need to change this area to what you would prefer. You always say whatever suits that comment — regardless of facts. You give twisted public relations, promotional responses, regardless of reality. And you do know how to package them to sound more reasonable than they are given how if looked at overall they conflict with each other — just like a pro pubic relations guy would.

    • And mind you, once this is in, it will be used to justify similar or even bigger all around. And right next door to the 4100 Bar, the El Cid property has been put up for sale — so expect another project this big or bigger in there too if this one goes through.

      This is complete wholesale redevelopment of the area we’re talking about, not a single project. Do you want the entire area redeveloped into a very dense area? That is the question here, not a single development. These are the ice breakers to justfy all the others that will follow.

  3. Pretty soon we won’t be able to see the horizon.

    • Pretty soon half of us will have much better views than we do now, because we’ll be living a few floors up and can finally see over the hills, without having to afford the million-dollar houses with their landslide supports.

  4. The baby boomers and their doomsday hyperbole that comment on here crack me up. You guys need a reality show where you sit in the front lawn of your duplexes and endlessly complain about all the change. These look just about right and are very appropriate for the area. Remember – these are homes – for people to live in – not a damn cattle slaughter house or something.

    • They would like live in a bubble enclosing Silver Lake & excluding those who are “not their type”. I used to call the place Brentwood East because many of the migrants came because they couldn’t afford the prime Westside neighborhoods. They’ve become obnoxious & tyrannical in their class warfare prejudices & oppose virtually everything not related to bicycles. I apologize the the residents of Brentwood for comparing them to the “progressives” of the Silver Lake area.

    • Nice try, except I’m in my mid-20s — and, whether you want to believe it or not, plenty of people in my age group are against this type of development in Silver Lake. I moved to Silver Lake, then to Echo Park beginning in 2006 because it didn’t have any of these horrible, tacky mixed used buildings that rich white people seem to love. I liked the small feel of Silver Lake, and especially the lack of obnoxiously tall buildings that do nothing but block sunlight and views of the mountains.

      The fact of the matter is no one who lives in this area now will be able to afford these apartments, and the design is grossly out of scale and style with the area. I can’t tell you one financially independent 20-something who can afford $2400+ month apartments on their own, so expect less artsy hipsters and more techie scum types moving in to Silver Lake very, very soon.

      • How many financially independent 20-somethings are living in any of them impacted locations? They can’t afford a single-family home right on Sunset Blvd.

        And when you say these buildings do nothing but block sunlight and views of the mountains – you’re missing the fact that these buildings also house 300 people that would otherwise be bidding up the duplexes on side streets that financially independent 20-somethings do live in.

        • The developers you are encouraging to come in here and redevelop everything a lot bigger are biding up the prices dramatically on those streets you speak of — right out of the reach of middle income people. No prospective owner-occupant can outbid this flood of developers grabbing everything just to tear it down and build a lot bigger at huge profit, and then leave. The huge profits they get for that allow them to bid any price it takes to get the property instead of a potential owner-occupant.

          That is, economics does not work so simple mindedly as you would suggest — there are far more variables than you consider, and those are determining the prices. This drastic overdevelopment is not bringing down prices with supply, it is actually making prices soar. You just don’t understand how economics works. In Economics 101, they always will say something like “all else equal” when talking of which way that particular matter will tend to push things. You must not have been listening when they said that. But you see, in the real world, all else is never equal, and simply pushing for overdevelopment is not serving to bring prices down, is doing the opposite.

          • @Tom: With all due respect, you’re ignoring the impact of zoning. Big developers are not interested in lots zoned R1 or R2, which is the zoning on many of the streets in Silver Lake, Echo Park, etc. They are only interested in lots which may be developed more densely. So, middle income people are absolutely NOT competing with developers for most standard home purchases.

      • Au contraire young Mr. Silver Lake wannabe, you reveal much about your judgmental prejudiced self with your warning proclamation: “…so expect less artsy hipsters and more techie scum types moving in to Silver Lake very, very soon.

        • For what it’s worth: We manage hundreds of apartments around East Hollywood, Silver Lake and Echo Park. I personally review all of the tenant applications. And I can assure you that there are plenty of financially independent 20-somethings in interesting fields who can afford to pay $2400 / month in rent for a really nice apartment.

          • Where did this anti-techie bigotry come from? Everyone, including the art community is benefiting from the fruits of their productivity…smart phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, apps, games, content streamers, etc. They deserve to be paid for their creativity. Why would some describe them as scum and you find it necessary to suggest that they may not be “in interesting fields?” @Echo Park, the person who wrote the phrase “…so expect less artsy hipsters and more techie scum types moving in to Silver Lake very, very soon” is the real cancer plaguing the neighborhood.

          • @Jocko: They’re a convenient scapegoat. When working class folks were being priced out of the area, they blamed the hipsters; now that the hipsters are being priced out they blame the techies or yuppies. The issues surrounding gentrification are much more complex (middle class moving back to cities, outdated zoning and parking requirements driving up rents, speculative developers, no more cheap empty land for more sprawl, etc. etc.)

    • Front lawn? What’s a front lawn?

  5. All: I live in Silver Lake (east of Sunset Junction) and am working with Frost/Chaddock on this project. Would love to talk with anyone about these buildings, and encourage everyone who’s interested to drop us a line on the website so we can add you to our list for periodic updates: http://www.junctiongateway.com/contact-us

  6. You know, Lester, some people like myself don’t like this sort of change because:

    -L.A. already has some of worst traffic anywhere, and you’re okay with adding thousands of more cars to the mix?

    -These developments destroy L.A.’s neighborhood vibe, but you might not see that if you didn’t grow up here, or aren’t in touch with those vibes. If you are and don’t care, well, I and a lot of others do care. The L.A. I grew up in and remain in love with was made up of hundreds of specific, unique, cool and wonderful ‘hoods. These ‘things’ destroy them.

    -What a wonderful profit-driven madness, these ‘things,’ like the ones built and being built that butt right on up to the freeways in town, amazing. People wanting to live at freeway level, about 30′ from the 101, at eye-level? That is simply crap living. You can have it.

    • We will add hundreds of new residents to the Los Angeles area whether you like it or not. The question is whether those people live in dense buildings right on Sunset Blvd (so that they take bus and bike, or even walk, for some trips, and only drive a couple miles for others) or whether those people live in new single-family residences in Santa Clarita and drive dozens of miles every day to work at the same jobs. The latter actually produces much more traffic, even if a bit less of it is right at the corner of Sunset Junction.

      (Also, what part of any of these buildings is within 30 feet of the 101?)

      • or they’ll live in Silver Lake because it’s hip/cool with things to do when they’re not working… and drive to Santa Clarita for their job (or to Pasadena.. like the gal who sits right next to me who just moved from Pasadena to Los Feliz because she thought it more young and hip).

        Since we can’t control where people live/ work.. adding more residents, on average, is going to add more local car trips. Period. This leads to more local congestion and worse local pollution and aggravation. Sure, these new residents might drive less than their suburban counterparts… but the miles they do drive are less efficient (because of congestion) and concentrate pollution right where the people are… which is worse, imho.

        • Why drive from Silver Lake to Pasadena when there is the RED+ GOLD? Or better yet, just take the 704 that comes EVERY 10 minutes during rush to Union Station and transfer to the GOLD to Pasadena. FYI…Pasadena has 6 stops along the line. Sunset Junction is a transit rich place where you can easily survive car-lite and car-free. Sounds as if you’re stuck in the ’50s.

          • well, if you read my post, you’ll see that it is my co-worker who drives each day. I asked her this morning why not transit. Her answer: “Total trip time via train is twice as long. Gotta get from home to station, make transfers, get from station to work. The bus is too slow. Finally, after work I may want to go places the train doesn’t go, so if I have my car with me, I have the flexibility I need.”

            She’s 22. Doubtful she’s stuck in the 50’s.

            I think public transit is great. I think we need much more of it. However, I’m not stuck in the 50’s.. I’m stuck in reality, and the reality is that there’s alot of people (young people included), who will live in these new high density condos, but will not use transit for many of their trips for one reason or another.

          • Why? There are afar too many reasons why. People are fully aware of the Red Line and Gold Line and all the other transit — and they still prefer to drive themselves, even if it means sitting in bumper to bumper traffic for the commute — yes, it is that much different and that much preferred. They do not find it preferable to ride transit. They have voted with their cars — and you need to face the facts. They are going to drive their cars, regardless of them living at Sunset Boulevard.

            People keep saying that everyone will “want” to ride the transit. Well, look at the roads dispute transit already being everywhere: they are packed, because that is the form of transit people actually do want, for lots and lots and lots of reasons.

            So, thee totalitarians here keep pushing for anything and everything to try to put up roadblocks, to bludgeon people into doing what these people want them to do — so as to make false excuses to justify overdevelopment.

            Frankly, this line of argument is just a matter of being a shill for the developers.

          • To true freedom and “tom”. Visit any city with a robust transit network and you have even more traffic than here. Have you seen the streets of NYC? Seoul? Paris? First you must frame your argument solidly. Street by street we our traffic is miniscule even in our city center to the traffic of those other cities in their respective city centers. Why? Because of the quest to move ever more private cars on the public’s dime whether you can afford one or not. Do you really think that your co-worker could drive across central Paris or from Midtown Manhattan to Hollis, Queens in 15-20 min? Probably not. That’s because those places have placed a higher importance on transit than the never-ending and lost battle of accommodating ever more cars. So, yes the reality is that your co-worker may be able to drive herself from Silver Lake to Pasadena in 20 min but be mindful that her trip is aided enormously by public investment that ironically divests away from public transportation. She pays a subjugated gas tax that hasn’t been raised since 1992 that if were would put gas at $6-7 a gallon. She pays no direct user fee on the freeways that she drives, ironically bus and rail riders do. And the expense of a mandated parking space is usually passed on to someone else be it other residents in her building or consumers where we shops. I’m not sure if she pays for her space at work but usually even that is heavily subsidized by everyone else.
            So frankly, car drivers in this City have really good since everyone else helps support their ownership.
            A few things that would help your co-worker find the nearest bus or rail stop: Have freeway drivers pay a direct user fee or a vehicle miles traveled tax. Unbundle parking in residential. If I don’t own a car why should I help pay for your parking space? Rid the city of minimum parking requirements. No one should be responsible except for YOU in accommodating your private purchase, especially when there is a public option available.

          • @Fallopia : the subsidized drivers argument is tired and weak. First, roads are needed to move goods as well, so the infrastructure is required. Second, transit riders pay for a minute fraction of the costs to build and operate transit. You think the Gold Line is pulling in billions from Tap cards to pay for it? Of course not.

          • Additionally, parking minimums are required unless you can guarantee (somehow) that these new residents will not own cars, or have friends that visit who own cars. Otherwise, you need a place to put them.

            Also, if your time is worth $5/hr, please continue to ride the bus. For me, I don’t have time for that… and this is coming from a guy who definitely supports transit and other green things (I compost, I spent $25k for solar, I own an EV, I bike to work many days per week, I transit WHEN it makes sense).

            THe problem is that our transit system is not effective enough to be a viable option for most things that most people need to do. I actually WANT to ride the train, but it just doesn’t make sense most of the time. That’s why the roads are still clogged. The answer is not to cram more hamsters in the cage, but rather to improve the infrastructure over time so that rail and street cars provide a dense and efficient network. Buses will be a problem, because they are stuck in traffic with everyone else. Making bus only lanes is problematic, because they require removing an auto-lane which will be nearly politically impossible to do.

          • My partner actually does this drive. He works at Caltech. The real problem is that the Red Line is a 15 minute walk from our house (would be 10 minutes if they ever fix that intersection at Hollywood/Sunset/Virgil/Hillhurst), and Caltech is about a 20 minute walk from any of the Gold Line stops. That’s the price we pay for putting rail in the freeway median, rather than paying to put it under Colorado Blvd.

            Anyway, the work commute to Pasadena is not such an issue – that’s just one car out in the morning and one car in in the evening. Apart from his work commute, we only use the car once in a while for groceries (I’m not sure if ordering from Yummy is more efficient from a street use perspective). Meanwhile, people who live in the hills, or who live in less dense neighborhoods, end up using the car 4, 6, even 8 times a day, since they use it for all their shopping, dining, visiting friends, and going to events.

            Work commutes just aren’t the main issue, though they are obviously a serious one.

          • If we really needed roads to solely move goods, then we would just move goods. And on many roads trucks that transport goods aren’t even allowed! Really??? Rather what you have is a system that subsidizes car travel whether you own a car or not. The argument is only “weak and tired” if you have a lack of understanding or are ambivalent to social and environmental justice concerns.
            Court cases all over the country beginning in the mid-60’s amidst urban renewal and intra urban highway building projects are there for you study, if you care.
            The Green Line was not built out of Metro’s wants and desires for a crosstown rail line from nowhere to nowhere. Rather, it was built because of the successful suit against the I-105 freeway that was to tear through low-income and minority neighborhoods, displace them and then require these same folks to go into the private market and purchase a product to have access to the very thing that displaced them. If they could not afford that product, they would then have no reasonable access to their very costly public investment and sacrifice. This is a violation of environmental and social justice laws that now are on the books and the Green Line which provides a modicum of public access in this area, will be a permanent symbol of that fight.

            Now, what is really TIRED is the argument that “transit riders don’t pay their full share”. OF COURSE THEY DON’T! That is at the very essence of any PUBLIC OPTION. The public agrees to provide a service usually an essential one like housing or healthcare, usually at a heavily subsidized cost or even free sometimes for the betterment of THE PUBLIC as a whole and to provide access to all. The Gold Line as a PUBLIC OPTION is subsidized of course, but anyone can ride the train, that’s the essence and objective of any public amenity. Your car on the other hand is subsidized just as much IF NOT MORE, but you’re not required to stop at various street corners and pick up strangers are you? NO. The reality is that the public has no obligation to support the operation or storage of something that you DECIDED to buy on the private market.

            Parking minimums are just that. The government forces businesses, churches, residential, libraries, taco stands you name it, to provide space for a product that is purchased and ONLY purchased on the private market. The repercussions to that is that planning is then forced to respond to the accommodation of the automobile by making streets wider, longer traffic signal revolutions, how buildings are built, removing vehicle obstructions in other words planning now begins to plan for cars and those planning initiatives eventually become policy. In essence, you have private industry i.e. Big Oil, Auto manufacturers etc driving planning policy because of the forced accommodation of their product by the government. It’s almost as if the government is being run by Big Oil. Who would’ve thought??

            You’re out of step. I’ve read your posts before and you usually seem somewhat reasonable but your above arguments concerning transit vs private vehicle ownership are quite hollow. No one can deny the control and subsequent damage that the industries that make, fuel and shoe cars and buses in this country have had not just on our planning policy but our foreign policy as well!

            I agree, our transit system is still growing and still has missing links. Who denies that? But as of this moment the region is working on 5 new rail lines and/or extensions as I type and you read this.

            It’s one thing to point out the failures of pt in this town but then to not admit the structural advantages of the automobile over transit in $$$, in foreign and planning policy and the fact that private cars wouldn’t be anywhere nearly as competitive if they paid their own way, and by not admitting the public’s heavy investment in the accommodation and ease of driving a privately purchased car in LA whether you can afford a car or not is disingenuous at best.

          • @kenny : so let’s say a few years down the road, you and your partner decide to have children. Now, you will have 6-8 trips per day running them to and from school, to art class, ballet class, soccer practice, play dates, doctor’s appts, etc.. which is compounded exponentially if you have more than one kid. If our transit system become dense and efficient enough, it may be doable, but that’s unlikely. It’s much more likely that now, you will be the one stuck in those gridlocked local trips.

          • @true freedom : it’s unlikely that my partner and I will decide to have kids. But from our current location, I know that middle school (at King), music classes (at Silver Lake Conservatory), play dates (at any number of neighbors’ houses), and doctor’s appointments (at Kaiser) are very easy walking distance. I haven’t paid attention to schools at other levels, ballet studios, soccer fields, etc. since kids aren’t on our horizon. But I would guess that most of this is still walkable, given how much is walkable in our neighborhood.

            And what this really shows is that if there are a few activities that families feel the need to drive for, then we need some more of those amenities locally. Maybe that means a few more parks in walking distance, but for a bunch of the others it means more buildings.

        • > Since we can’t control where people live/ work.. adding more residents, on average,
          > is going to add more local car trips. Period.

          Yes, that’s true. Unless we follow the route of Stockholm or London and make people pay to bring their car with them when they’re traveling, and even Manhattan was banned from doing that.

          > This leads to more local congestion and worse local pollution and aggravation.

          There is more local congestion, but less regional congestion. If you only ever drive within a mile of your home, your drive will be less pleasant, but if you drive long distances, then the additional 2 minutes you spend in your home neighborhood is less of a cost than adding an additional 5 minutes in your total commute, which is the alternative. (Either that, or homelessness, or an end to human reproduction.)

          > Sure, these new residents might drive less than their suburban counterparts… but
          > the miles they do drive are less efficient (because of congestion) and concentrate
          > pollution right where the people are… which is worse, imho.

          These miles are a bit less efficient, but in terms of CO2 emissions, it’s still better to drive 2 miles at 30 mpg than it is to drive 5 miles at 45 mpg. And the people living in these buildings will both be driving shorter distances to work than people out in the suburbs, and also will be doing much less non-work driving than people out in the suburbs.

          As for as non-CO2 emissions, modern cars are fairly clean – as far as I can tell, trucks are the source of most of the toxic pollutants like ozone and particulates. As long as it’s just CO2, it doesn’t matter where it’s being emitted – we just care about the total amount on earth. The real pollution problem of cars is the way they pollute our walking experience, not our breathing – high speed traffic gets in the way of anyone who wants to cross the street. I’m not totally sure what the net effect is of increased local congestion on street crossing and general walkability/livability of a neighborhood. That’s something that I’m definitely open to further thoughts on. (And also if you have any corrections about non-CO2 emissions of cars – I don’t know much about that.)

      • Is it our city’s responsibility to make space for every millennial transplant who wants to live in “the coolest neighborhood in LA”? And are we relying on depot cheapo developers to fix our supposed housing inventory crisis the same way coffee houses reluctantly offer laptop campers a temporary office?…. A wifi enabled space with a view that is very much temporary, and way overpriced for the market. But hey,
        It’s near all the action!…. Ok, it’s right on top of the action…. Wait, what happened to all of the action?…. Oh shit, this looks like Century City!

        • I don’t see why we shouldn’t be making space for everyone who wants to live in an interesting and fun neighborhood. The alternative is to price them all out and only allow millionaires in. (Or to just hope that the human species stops reproducing, so that we don’t have to accommodate any new humans anywhere in the world.)

          Also, I’m not sure what a 5 story building has to do with Century City.

          • Thank you Kenny. Just as you, I and Moody are now living here others also have a right to live here as well. Google Jerry Brown sues the City of Pleasanton for not providing a growth element in their General Plan. Every city must have a growth element in their General Plan. So, the answer is yes. You must make space for millennial transplants who may like to live here.

          • @C. Phylis : Jerry Brown sued Pleasanton because the voters had voted to limit growth, yet they city was approving tons of new commercial space.. so the argument was that new jobs without housing was forcing commutes.

            @Kenny : It’s my opinion that a city (and it’s residents) should not have to change zoning to accommodate all who want to live there. There may be many reasons why: local environmental superseding regional environmental might be one. Example: millions might want to move to Malibu, but the coastal environment may not support it.
            Long standing zoning might be another: I don’t think long time existing R1 (SFR) neighborhoods should be re-zoned for multi-family dwellings, just because people want to live there.

          • @true freedom Jerry Brown as Attorney General sued the City of Pleasanton because they did not include a growth element which would have of course limited growth. You can chase your tail all day long but the end result is that they wanted to limit growth for whatever reason, and simply put you can’t do that, you must include a growth element in your GP. Therefore, as all of us are now living here we must also make reasonable accommodations for those that would like to live here too, as was for us. Directing growth around transit rich areas like Sunset Junction along Sunset would be the smartest and least impactful way to do just that. And that is why this project is VERY appropriate, it could even be denser.

          • @CPhylis : there is no such thing as a “Growth Element”. There is a “Housing Element” which is supposed to show how a city will meet it’s RHNA numbers (Regional Housing Needs Assessment”.. which are population growth projections concocted in very dubious and unscientific methods by a group called “SCAG”. .the Southern California Association of Governments.

            So, this group comes up with how many low/ medium/ etc income units are needed in a city, now and in the future. The city is supposed to concoct a plan that will allow (not actually build) the construction of these units.

          • @ true freedom: Yeah I know, SCAG, Obama and the Pope are all part of Agenda 21 that will eventually have us all living in dense 400 sq ft apartments and taking public transit. Housing is simply one component of the overall “growth element” in a general plan. Simply remove your tin foil hat and just take a deep breath. Everything will be ok.

      • The truth about Los Angeles public transportation is it it’s still in a “tweener” stage. It is sub par so it is under utilized thus, because it is under utilized it remains sub par.

        What we should be fighting for is this:


        Not each other.

        I’ve never lived in NYC nor Sydney, Australia but I can say I NEVER needed to rent a car while I was there or any other city with great public transit. Lets all fight for that.

        • The second highest autobus ridership in the country belies the assumption that the system is underutilized. The 720, Vermont and Western buses to name a few have riderships of over 50,000 trips per day. All in all statistically, LA falls somewhere in the middle of US cities when it comes to ridership/utilization but we are one of the fastest growing.
          In this order NYC metro area (of course) is way out front, then drop about 20 percentile points and reaches SF-SJ metro area. Drop another 10-12 points and you get a glob of cities like Chicago, DC, Philly, and Seattle at the low end of that. Then drop about 4-5 points and you reach LA then Portland. After that you reach the single digit cities like SD, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, SA etc. http://www.apta.com/resources/links/Pages/default.aspx

          If you take a page out of the NYC and SF playbook, the best way to get people onto transit and induce demand is to limit car access and accommodation.
          So what LA needs to do is continue to build more rail while simultaneously limiting car access and encouraging a larger modal share on the streets through road diets, more bike lanes, lessening parking requirements and continuing to build denser developments around transit.

  7. Not cheesy enough!

    OK, so no one has mentioned the MAJOR change to the Junction since the last round of designs for this project: the announced closing of the Cheese Store of Silver Lake. This changes everything about the viability of dense development in and around Sunset/Santa Monica.

    Where will all these new residents go when they run out of cheese? And how will they get there? Before the announced closing, it would have been walkable for people to restock on essentials like cheese wine and baguettes. Now it will require a car trip. I’m sorry, but no one wants to take public transit for a smelly cheese run. I love the 2/4 buses and use them regularly, but transporting cheese on them would make me self-conscious. Existing residents will also have to start driving for cheese, too, and even though we can still walk for coffee, flowers, guitar strings, tacos, and farmers market stuff within a block or two, I think the extra car trips for staple items like what the Cheese Store of SL offers will mean that increased density in this area isn’t viable. People seem to be using “walkable” in a strange way–it means something more than “I can physically walk up and down the street”: the basic goods necessary for daily life have to be accessible within walking distance for a neighborhood to be walkable.

    Without a cheese store, Sunset Junction is no longer walkable, and the entire Frost/Chaddock project needs to be scrapped. I’m sorry that the developers wasted all that money on land and designs, but no one every said real estate development was risk free. They should have checked with Gareth and Chris first before banking on the continued presence of a cheese store. I cannot support this project unless the cheese store remains within 1-2 blocks of the Junction.

    • HAHA!! Excellent! And since there will be more people driving for cheese, we’ll have to widen Sunset and get rid of the crosswalks which are just a false sense of security anyway.

  8. The website says it has retail parking. Anyone know how many spaces?

    Also what’s the deal with the community space. What does that mean for how long?

    Residential and retail parking spaces
    Space for community use

    • At their community meeting, they said that they had all the required parking for residences and retail, plus an additional floor of 44 public use parking spaces. I can’t imagine that those parking spaces will fill unless the neighborhoods around the area all get permit parking.

      I didn’t quite understand the idea of a community room, so I don’t know what those spaces will be like, or how they will be accessed by the community. I think they are intended to remain in that status indefinitely, but I don’t know if that means that a local non-profit will occupy them, or if they will be managed by the building to be shared among various community groups.

      • More parking only begets more cars. The daft NIMBYs who are asking for more parking but less congestion are frustratingly slow. Can society just move on without them?

  9. They seem too tall and too dense for the area. The wonderful thing about Silver Lake is the charm of the local shops and village feel. 5 stories when a block off sunset is residential is too high. To those who say that we should develop along main roads like sunset, that would only hold true if there was a metro or streetcar or rail along sunset. There is not so the traffic congestion will be terrible with these huge buildings.

    • Carsmakepeoplestupid

      Both the 2, 4 and 704 connect you directly with the Red Line in less than 5 min from Sunset Junction.

  10. I grew up at “Sanborn Junction” which for some reason and time was changed to Sunset Junction. There were few businesses open on that corner in 1975. It has come along way and after being gone for 30 years it appears like a mirage of great dining and fun bars. This was what West Hollywood is today many gay bars and the Gay Parade going down Sunset past the “Sanborn Junction”. It all moved west and the neighborhood was no longer in East Hollywood but now Sunset Junction in Silver Lake. I laughed when an old friend who still lives on Manzanita told me he lived in Silver Lake.
    Anything that gets rid of Bates Motel is an improvement! This place was a disaster always. Playing at The Jewish Community Center on Sunset and Bates was too much fun. Watching prostitutes both men, woman and unknown using the motel and drug dealers conducting business outside was not. I remember getting robbed at gunpoint and seeing the crooks then buying drugs at the Bates. Build anything as quickly as possible. Hopefully all these apartments flood the rental market and bring down the rents. Too bad the “Sanborn Junction” Electric Red Car trains are gone! Santa Monica in 20 minutes, Downtown 15 minutes, and Hollywood just 15 minutes. There are many large buildings with no parking because of these trains at least the new places will. A 10 minute walk to the Red Line now.

  11. Sad note — interesting how the cool, interesting, diverse neighborhoods seems to spring up from old building stock. Then cheezeball developers move, homogenize everything in the name of some strange notion of progress, tear out the old, classic building stock, and the whole neighborhood becomes a cheese ball fest nobody really wants to live in anymore.

  12. I love how since the goal is to now make the entire project look less enormous, the figures in most of those renderings are scaled to 7′ tall. Many would have to bow to enter the building.

Leave a Reply to Moody Cancel reply

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *