Wednesday, October 26, 2016

New Echo Park residential project planned for Alvarado

712 alvarado map

The site of a planned 34-unit multifamily project on Alvarado

ECHO PARK — The surge of residential development in Echo Park now appears to be flowing in the direction of Alvarado Street, where a 34-unit multifamily project is now in the works for the busy street. The development would be the largest residential project built on this stretch of Alvarado since a 20-unit apartment building was completed five years ago.

A company known as Alvarado Property Partners is seeking city permission to build a project that is taller and more dense than what could normally be allowed on two lots at 712 & 706 N. Alvarado Street, according to a Planning Department case summary.  Alvarado Property Partners purchased the two lots, one of which contains a small bungalow, for about $1 million in May, according to Property Shark.

The Eastsider has contacted the architecture firm working on the project, KTGY Group, for more details.  The same firm designed a large, senior apartment building on Glendale Boulevard near Echo Park Lake.




Eastsider Advertising


  1. Whoa. I am not antidevelopment , but as more and more and more of these dense housing units are built, we REALLY have to look serious at super funding public transportation and creating safe bike routes. It will be impossible to drive. 34 units means about 50 more cars and that is ONE lot. I already have started to take the train to work because it is getting to be impossible to drive to work which is only 6 miles away. I would ride my bike if we has SAFE routes like Berlin or Amsterdam, but there’s too much side by side riding with cars. LA is changing as such a drastic speed, modern transportation options have to keep up with these massive developments. It’s already completely overly congested on the freeways and roads.

  2. We already have complete mass transit., Its called the bus. It goes everywhere. Building a train line instead will NOT give you more mass transit. It will simply give you inflexible mass transit, trains that cannot go around a broken down drain, bringing the entire line to a halt, trains that cannot go around streets closed for any number of reasons, and with the junk system we have been building for the purpose of instant gratification, it will leave us with trains that cannot carry the load because we are building the cheapskate light rail system instead of the heavy rail system like in New York.. Light rail cannot even come close to helping to handle the load our sold-out politicians have in mind for us.

    And most of the cars going down Alvarado are coming from 10, 15, 20+ miles away — they are not going to ride a bicycle no matter how many bicycle lanes you put in. As for them riding mass transit instead of their car, look at the New York City metropolitan region, the entire area is wall to wall cars in bumper to bumper traffic every single weekday despite all the mass transit there. Mass transit is NOT going to reduce traffic congestion, not when anything goes for development — instead, the taxpayers will simply be taxed for a system to falsely justify the overdevelopment.

    This kind of thinking that bicycles are going to solve all our ills is the complete reason why the city politicians, who if you look at their campaign contributions are all 110% sold out to developers (especially O’Farrell), are in favor of bicycle lanes, because they cite them as being able to handle all the extra traffic from their drastic overdevelopments. They lie about what the bicycle lanes will accomplish, and use the lie to justify drastic overdevelopment that otherwise would be illegal under CEQA as CEQA required traffic mitigation. If the politicians were so loving of everyone riding bicycles as they say, they would be riding bicycles to work.

    The problem here is not mass transit, or bicycles or cars. The problem is overdevelopment, and justifying that on the basis of copying others who have made that drastic mistake before us.. There is NOTHING pleasant about riding the subway in New York, as some people here would like you to think. Los Angeles has already run its course and played out growing and building a city — we have already reached the sensible limit, especially considering the lack of water, so now they want us to drink toilet water in order to justify even more development.

    What we need is city leaders who actually understand and are competent enough to manage what we have instead of continuing the Ponzi scheme of overdevelopment.. But instead what we have is a linking up of the bicycle movement with the overdevelopment movement in a Faustian merger.

  3. oh crap. I assumed it would end up being townhomes like what they’ve just done on Rosemont, which is not awesome but a hell of a lot better than 34 apartments. :/
    How tall exactly?

  4. I ride the bus, but the bus is slow, doesn’t show up often, and quite often not dependable. How often do you take the bus? I understand we are not ll going to be riding bikes, but until folks stop having children, there are going to be more and more people living in higher and higher buildings. Manhattan used to be farmland. All I am saying is if I was given more opportunity in a safe manner to ride my bicycle, I WOULD and I am 50 years old. I was born and raised in this city and I am seeing such drastic congestion that I just don’t see the automobile and freeways being a viable way of moving the massive amounts of people we will have living here in the next 40 years. If someone wants to drive in from Lancaster and sit in two hours of traffic, they can, but I would like to see more options for those of us who do NOT wish to do that. It just seems to me if there was a SAFE way to ride my bike around, I would. I already take the bus and train. I KNOW there is public transportation. All I am saying is if we don’t seriously look to the future of transportation in this city, we are f****ed. This city will continue to grow just like New York City did….UP, but we don’t possess the same public transportation system they do. I flew in from San Francisco last night, took BART to the airport, got to LAX, and even though I took the Flyaway, it still took forever. SO much traffic. Why we do NOT have a train going directly to the airport is BEYOND BELIEF! We need to look to the future and stopping development is just not going to happen. The population is growing, but shrinking.

    • We’ve had a train directly to LAX since the Green Line was built. YOU get off at the Aviation station,and there is a free airpot shuttle to take you five minutes to the airport and around to all the terminals. The LA Times has been screaming for years that it does not connect;the LA Times has clearly never ride the Green Line to LAX — I always do.

      But LA is never going to have door-to-door train service. It is not compact like Manhattan and NYC — which 150 years after it started building its subway system still is not finished. For instance, it doesn’t even have a line to the Upper East Side yet. LA expects instant gratification, instant subway. All you will ever generally have for a train is region-to-region transit, the bus will always been the local transit, the train is not going to be stopping every few block.. Trains are not generally geared to get you within walking distance of where you’re going, They are geared to get you to the bus. If they were geared to stop every few blocks like the bus,they would be every bit a slow in getting you anywhere as the bus is.

      We need to stop TRYING to make more people move here. This city expends horrendous amounts of money trying to attract more people to come here. That’s the reason why we now are trying to get the Olympics. Its whey the city officials are so determined to get an NFL team here. We are so afraid that people won’t see LA if a movie or TV show is filmed at an out-of-state location that we subsidize the rich movie companies to film here! We send missions all over the world trying to convince people they should come to LA. We build things like the Convention Center to draw more people to come her, see LA, move here. We need to stop doing all we can to attract people here and focus on managing what we have instead.

      Meanwhile, we are not building for the people who are here, we are building for much richer people than are here now. Those you speak of who are having babies who will grow up here — they are going to find themselves priced out when they come of age and will have to move away to make room for the rich people we are doing everything possible to attract. LA is not serving the people of LA, and the people of LA are dropping the ball by jumping on the bandwagon.

      • A train directly to LAX would be a train that goes directly to LAX. Tons of airports have these trains – like National in DC, or Hartsfield in Atlanta. A train that requires you to then get on a bus and sit in the LAX traffic is not a train that goes direct to the airport.
        It will get better once the people mover opens in…2024 – but it still won’t be a train direct to the airport.
        The Oslo ariport or Frankfurt airport – they have trains linked to the national intercity train line that are right in the airport – hop on and you are in the city center in just a few minutes. And could then continue on to the next city. It would be like having a high speed line that goes directly from the airport to Union Station with no stops. It’ll never happen, though.

      • “But LA is never going to have door-to-door train service. It is not compact like Manhattan and NYC — which 150 years after it started building its subway system still is not finished. ”

        We did have door to door train service.

        The Red Cars and LARY served SoCal for almost 90 years until our genius past leaders decided to scrap the whole system.

        • True, but they weren’t much faster (or comfortable) than the buses we have today, as they ran in mixed traffic. I agree we should’ve upgraded a lot of the ROW’s to light rail, but it is what it is.

          LA could speed up transit service fairly easily though, if we simply painted bus-only lanes on most major streets. We’re stuck in traffic congestion today because we build virtually everything around private automobiles (the least space efficient form of urban transportation: http://bit.ly/1LuV2zV)

          • Adopting and integrating new technologies will soon enable greatly increased efficiency and mobility of travel on our existing roads.
            Embedding controllable LED striping into our roadways will allow the creation of instantaneous bus only lanes during the hours needed.
            It will allow traffic enginners/managers to reallocate lanes to the direction where demand is greatest and switch them back when the rush hour has passed.
            The self-piloting car will allow greater coordination of traffic flow with minimal spacing between vehicles while reducing collisions to nearly zero percent.

          • @Berry Blue: We’ll see… electric cars have been around for over 100 years, and we’re still mostly driving around with dirty combustion engines.

  5. That is pretty much my old backyard. Would have never thought i’d see the day where that many units would get built right there. Any of the old schoolers know that hooker central and lots of madness right there in that alley 10 + years ago. Was nice to see some of the houses get restored but not sure how I feel about something that big. I guess it’s better then the crackhead hooker era though.


  7. It seems like nobody cares that all the wood bungalows are being bulldozed in Echo Park. We have a small window of time that is closing quickly to do what Pasadena has done to save these bungalows and make sure that any new builds match the vibe and feel of the area. No more stucco boxes and faux Italianish Orsini type developments please. Save the neighborhood before it is too late.

    • You may care and i may care and some others may care about preserving the cultural/architectural heritage of the Echo Park neighborhood, but the monster must be fed and our elected city leaders are part and parcel of the monster feeding system.
      The need to encourage more development and more density is rooted in the City government’s constantly growing appetite for revenue.
      Preserving historic neighborhoods increases their desirability and solidifies the value of individual properties.
      However, the incremental increase of revenue for the city government is minimal under preservation.
      New development with added density brings a rush of revenue from building permits, fees and ad valorem assessments. Once the new project is sold at market rates it generates multiple amount of property tax revenue than the preserved home it replaced which carried a 30 year old Prop.13 assessment.
      Since our elected politicians have a long history of profligate budgetary waste and overspending, they must constantly increase revenue just to keep current on paying the city debts.

  8. Eastsider,

    Thanks again for notifying locals of important news. Please continue to keep us informed.

  9. should’ve at least been mixed use.. until we build smart density we’re just forcing more people into a smaller space that still need a car.

    Eliminate / modify the dated and pointless single use zoning restrictions to promote more walkable environs. Packing more people in this lot without markets, restaurants, offices etc will perpetuate the need to drive and increase the already horrendous traffic.

    • More empty commercial space like the ones on sunset near Grand on the street level of Palmer’s monstrosity (the Medici? Or was it the Orsini, or the Davinci??)

      No one appreciates strolling through a simulacrum when there is real city nearby. See Old Town Pasadena, York Or Figuroa in Highland park. THAT is what we should be going for.

      Restoration, preservation, and highly deferent, quality new construction. Less Orsini, more Shutters On The Beach.

  10. Getting on the 101 is already a trial on Alvarado, this certainly won’t help. I feel like a lot of overdevelopment protest is crying wolf, but Alvarado is already stressed.

  11. Anyone know if possible to obtain info on building plans online? Would like to see some details, but I’m pretty much homebound. Thanks

  12. If and only if the neighborhood wants it, should it be built, but no car owners should be allowed to live in it, and it ought to be built in a style that is deferent to the existing architecture.

    If it looks anything like that shit pile near Chango, no current resident wants it.

  13. Palmer’s next massive development should not be called Orsini. It should be called Houdini and he and his mega faux, crappy, poorly designed apartments should all disappear instantly! Palmer is ruining LA!!!!

Post a Comment

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 *