Quantcast

Huge hole marks the spot of a 200-unit Echo Park apartment building

Excavation for Echo Park apartment complex on Temple Street

Future home of Alexan South Echo

ECHO PARK ––  One of the neighborhood’s largest residential projects, the 200-unit Alexan South Echo on Temple Street, will rise five stories high.  But before construction crews build up they had to dig down deep to create a block-wide hole in the ground big enough for subterranean parking.

City records indicate that the developer applied to haul away more than 100,000 cubic yards of dirt from the site in the  1900 block of Temple. The same property was once occupied by the Derby Dolls roller rink, and, way before that, an ice cream cone plant.

The excavation was completed as of September 1, said an official with developer Trammell Crow Residential.  The first phase of Alexan South Echo is expected to be completed in early 2019.

Screenshot 2015-12-10 at 3.10.51 PM

Can’t get enough Echo Park news? Sign up for The Eastsider’s Echo Park Weekly email newsletter. Echo Park Weekly features EP-centric stories, tidbits, advice, observations, information as well as the week’s top news.

Jesús Sanchez, Publisher
The Eastsider

Please fill out every field

Subscribe to our mailing list





View previous campaigns.

Problem with the form? Let us know



Eastsider Advertising

33 comments

  1. Al those people and their cars — and people on this site complained when the plan to make the street one lane in each direction was blocked.

    • The city requires a lot of parking and designs streets so walking or riding a bike is a dangerous and miserable experience. Traffic choked, car dependant LA is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  2. Isn’t this Historic Filipinotown?

  3. We need to start seriously looking at bike lanes and bike networks across this city. More and more massive apartments/condos are coming with more and more cars. Do the math.

    • WRONG. IF there are any extra traffic lanes, they need to be devoted to mass transportation of the public between point A and B NOT devoted to providing a recreational bike lane for the occasional cyclist. ONLY when I observe existing bike lanes being regularly used by dozens of commuting cyclists will I be convinced that there is a genuine demand for commuter bike lanes. Otherwise, it remains an agenda without any demand.

      • Perhaps there’s a correlation between streets designed for highway speeds and minimal people choosing to walk or ride a bike for short trips… Crazy, I know.

        • Speed limit on Temple is NOT highway speed. C’mon man………

          • Are you kidding me? I live off of Temple and watch people speed and run red lights daily. I’ve nearly been hit as a pedestrian and as a drive on multiple occasions by people running the red light at Boylston.

          • LOL, like anyone pays attention to the speed limit in Los Angeles.

          • The comment said “designed for highway speeds” which is pretty accurate. The very wide straight street encourages speeding, no matter what the posted limit says.

          • Algomalo, I’ve had all of those experiences you describe on highways and residential streets and not only as a pedestrian but also as a driver, e.g., there doesn’t seem to be a cyclist in the city who doesn’t feel entitled to disregard lights, signs, and pedestrians. and even the limits of their own bike lanes(?!?). Meanwhile, the LAW states that slower traffic must move as far to the right as possible. How many of you have also experienced the lone cyclist hogging up an entire traffic lane and slowing traffic to 10-12 mph? Btw, I’ve even had this experience on streets where there is a bike lane that cyclists will disregard so that they can ride side-by-side instead of single file to let faster traffic drive by. That type of entitled bulls**t is precisely what alienates even potential supporters of the long-term cyclist vision.

          • So then enforcement would be a logical response instead of turning every street into a Rowena for non existent cyclists……

        • Short or long trips, makes no difference. The Rowena bike lane is typically unused at all times of the day and week including Saturday and Sunday when you think people would take advantage to run short errands. The bike lobby should at least designate a day of the month or week for its supporters to use existing bike lanes to illustrate the need. Instead their strategy seems to be “if we build it, they will come.” BullS**t. I own three bikes (road, mountain, and cross-country) and I would NEVER trust gadget-distracted residential or highway drivers with my life. Whenever possible, I stick to sidewalks until I reach the river or trailhead or park or wherever else it is that I’m planning to recreate. Another starting point is relying on the L.A. river to determine the best spots for bike lanes that intersect with major highways. Otherwise, EVERYthing the bike lobby has demanded comes across as arrogant and entitled grandstanding for bike lanes that serve no useful purpose and only contribute to the frustrating grind of the daily commute.

          • People locked into a mid-20th Century mindset of automobile privilege probably need to travel more to find that there are indeed other ways of doing things. It turns out that people actually like to walk and bike when it’s safe to do so, and when city planning and infrastructure provide that safety. Broaden your horizons and your vision.

          • You’re not paying attention. Los Angeles was NOT planned or provided with infrastructure to ensure cyclist safety but let’s start there not by wedging bike lanes to nowhere into neighborhoods and city streets designed to accommodate vehicle traffic. I also suggested an idea that incorporates existing infrastructure (i.e., the L.A. river) to spread more access across the city to cyclists and complement that by using any spare lanes to accommodate mass transit of people. That’s Phase I the results of which will inform Phase II. Some people need to break out of their quaint utopian fantasies and think Big like city dwellers. Otherwise, perhaps the burbs or small town living is more their speed(?).

    • Yes! More bike lanes and less car lanes for sure. Let’s get people off their lazy azz and start biking places – better health (and possibly lower health insurance premiums), better air quality, less noise, less traffic related debris. It’s a win for everyone.

      • Do you include people doing a week’s shopping for their family in your lazy azz category? Where to put bags of groceries? Or parents taking babies or toddlers in for a checkup? No sane person puts a little one n a bicycle carrier and then drives down a traffic-filled street. What about business people who must dress professionally and often carry satchels or large briefcases home and back? Do they have to bike to work in cycling clothes, including helmets, and then use their offices as bathrooms in order to shower and dress presentably? And speaking of health issues, does Anyone need to be biking in 90-degree weather, just begging for heat stroke? You need to widen your view of how people go about their everyday lives.

        • Excellent point. Very few everyday chores that can be completed on a bike other than dropping a letter off at the post-office for those of you who still rely on snail-mail. Also, inhaling traffic exhaust the entire way will not contribute to improved health.

        • In Japan, to mention one place, you’ll see a lot of people on bicycles getting their groceries at the market. You’ll also see plenty of parents biking with sometimes up to *three* babies or other children strapped in their carriers on just that one bike. Yes, people go to work in business attire on bikes. (Even in a climate that can get pretty hot and humid.) And there’s public transit that can take you just about anywhere, relatively cheaply and quickly. The transportation lifestyle of a place like Japan is *so* much less stressful (and more healthy) than driving a car and dealing with all the other automobile traffic of a city like LA. In case you haven’t noticed, we don’t really have room for more cars here.

          Like I wrote in a response above, folks chained to a sense of automobile privilege perhaps need to travel more to see that there are other, sometimes better ways of doing things. If you don’t have money or time to travel, there are plenty of books and documentaries on how other cities have oriented their transit around people, rather than climate change-inducing machines.

        • I’ll start with this – where this is a will, there is a way. But, if you would have read my comment, I clearly didn’t state to eliminate all cars – if you want to go to Costco to buy 50 pounds of canned tuna, you should probably take your car. But if you don’t actually need to use your vehicle, get off your lazy azz and ride your bike. Your body will thank you for it…even if it’s 90 degrees out 😉

  4. One of the main reasons new housing in LA is so expensive… Parking.

  5. Build baby build!

  6. studios starting at $1700….. cool. NOT.

    • Well, it’s not charity. But there plenty of places in America with affordable housing. In fact, at this very moment, there are houses for sale in Chicago and Cleveland for less than $100k. In you want to stay in a big city in California, you can buy a homes in The Inland Empire and even Sacramento in the mid-$200k range.

      • Why not take your logic a step further and simply designate “gated cities” that just like gated communities are reserved for the wealthy. The “help” can simply commute from San Bernardino or Lancaster if they want the work. Otherwise, ALL of America should be affordable and those spots that aren’t should be targeted for change.

        • “My logic” is really just the world in which we live, not this pie-in-the-sky socialist/communist utopia in which you refer (and doesn’t exist anywhere in the world). But to address your failed understanding of free market economics, the “help” doesn’t need to commute to Los Angeles from San Bernardino because $12/hr. jobs are not exclusive to Los Angeles, but prevalent throughout California – you can literally get a job washing dishes, cleaning houses, and doing yard work anywhere. If Los Angeles eventually turns into a figurative gated city for the wealthy, “help” type jobs will have to pay more to cover living expenses or compensate for the commute. The only reason wages would not rise is because other forces artificially suppress the labor market such as the exploitation of an illegal workforce (people working for below- minimum wage).

      • There -are not- houses for sale in Chicago for $100 k. Absolutely not. Hasn’t been since the 1980’s.

        • Perhaps your should educate yourself BEFORE offering such a strong unfounded opinion.

          Let me lay out the steps: Go to Realtor.com, search for single-family homes in Chicago, IL, maximum price – $100,000…stare in wonderment and disbelief as your entire paradigm is shaken. Then, come back here and make some excuse as to why the homes are $100k and how they don’t count so you can still be “right”.

          • Well having grown up in Chicago in the inner city I can tell you,without a doubt ,the houses/condos in Chicago that are $100,000 and below are in absolute battle zones that no hardened LA gangbanger has ever seen. Some of these areas haven’t been touched since the 69 riots , these trap houses for sale may be perfect if you like living like a prisoner in your own house.

          • So predictable…anyway, this isn’t a debate as to the home prices in Chicago. I made this point to illustrate that affordable housing does in fact exist in America and if someone was interested in improving their financial situation by moving to a community where housing is less expensive, they could own their own home with a modest fixed payment that no landlord could ever increase. And, if an individual was marking, say – $12-$15/hr. in Los Angeles vs. an affordable city, this would actually raise their living standards since their fixed monthly cost (rent which would now be a mortgage payment) would actually decrease. Isn’t it great that in America, we have the choice to either continue living in Los Angeles and suffer at the hand of landlords OR simply pack up and move to a more affordable city with equal financial opportunity and become property owners ourself? We can actually solve our own problems if we know what we want…

      • YOU FIRST BOSS!

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 *

*