Right behind Taco Bell … welcome a new 13-story apartment house !

 
Screenland-Lofts-Burbank-Media-District

 

Another newbie developer flexing its wings on little ole’ Burbank.

We’re becoming like one of those Mexican whores who specializes in dads bringing their sons in for a good first time:

The Burbank skyline may have a new addition. Connecticut-based firm Lexham Realty is waiting on city approval for a 13-story residential building with 40 units in the Burbank Media District at 115 North Screenland Drive.

If approved, the project dubbed “Screenland Lofts” would represent Lexham’s first ground-up residential development in Burbank. According to the firm’s website, it owns two commercial properties in the city — the mixed-use 25,000-square-foot 224 East Olive Avenue and 3808 Riverside Drive, a 40,000-square-foot office property located in the Burbank Media District. The Screenland Lofts project calls for 40 two-bedroom apartments and amenities such as a second-floor terrace garden, rooftop swimming pool and possibly a fitness center.

The 170-foot structure would also encompass more than 3,700 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and an underground 229-car parking area. The commercial area will lend to restaurants and retail, according to the project’s architectural firm, Roger Ferris + Partners. The residential lofts are designed with with “large, open terraces that act like stacked ‘front porches,’” the company said on its website.

Burbank is home to numerous high-profile media companies including Walt Disney, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Marvel Studios and ABC Studios. The district saw 28,320 square feet of positive absorption in 2014’s fourth quarter. The Screenland Lofts project has yet to establish a budget or timeline.

Affordably low and moderate income of course. The kids’ll love the pool.  (What street is that supposed to be in the picture? It looks like all the neighbors have been torn out.)

Btw … who builds 13-story buildings?

 

1a4ba1461eee27f2a7c186b12ce4a5b1

 

And who on staff is bringing these people in to convert this town to a 21st-Century Mixed-Use Paradise? It’ll look good on their resumes, yes.

 

FireShot Capture 23 - N Screenland Dr - Google Maps_ - https___www.google.com_maps_@34.15
 
FireShot Capture 24 - N Screenland Dr - Google Maps_ - https___www.google.com_maps_@34.15
 

 

 

Advertisements

26 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

26 responses to “Right behind Taco Bell … welcome a new 13-story apartment house !

  1. Faux Fuddy Luddy

    just down the street from Talapia …YAY more condos , just what we need

  2. Anonymous 3

    40 more apartments does not seem a problem.

    Seems they have plenty of parking planned as well.

    • Anonymous

      LaChasse and his cover up of the Angel email scandal “does not seem a problem” either, right, A3? Oh wait, Angel .. resigned? wtf? LASD just isn’t as sophisticated and nuanced as BPD, right?

      • Anonymous 3

        Stick to the topic at hand.

        • Anonymous

          Oh hark, the happy shotcaller! What, no Pavlovian brown nosing of LaChasse? His years long cover up of Angel’s serial racist emails is a far more significant issue. And it will bring him down.

      • Dina

        When did anon 3 become the den mother of this Blog?
        Barking orders is not becoming.
        We get along with the fellas on this Blog just fine, what’s wrong with you?

    • Anonymous

      40 units x 10 projects all over town no big deal.

      • Anonymous 3

        What 10 projects, bright guy?

      • Anonymous

        “40 units x 10 projects all over town no big deal.” LMAO…don’t forget, they’re suppose to bring the prices down to a more affordable level as well. Right? ….that’s part of the smoke screen too!

        • semichorus

          Yes, we need to build more apartments in Burbank to keep the rents down!

          That’s always been the big excuse to justify these projects, and it’s a sham.

          The new excuse btw is that we don’t have enough “acceptable” housing for the upper crust. That was our last city manager’s complaint about Burbank. “It’s just so hard to find good rental housing here…”

          Jerk.

          • Jeff

            Affordable apartments ? Give me a break there will be nothing attractive or affordable about the new projects and as for 40 X 10 give it a couple of years and that will be just what it becomes along with a whole lot more traffic and congestion. This council just doesn’t get it that real estate prices are where they are in Burbank because we are not a chucked full of all these big project city as everyplace around us. Guess they want to destroy their own tax base and become just like Los Angeles.

          • Anonymous 3

            “We”? Who is “we”? You have nothing to do with it.

            • Butch

              The “we” includes all of us.
              YOU, piss-ant, are in no position to dictate what semi has to do with anything AT ALL.

              • donkeypunch

                I’m fairly certain that these mindless “Semi” worshiping fools are either half-retard or Jimbo himself… which means both.

                • semichorus

                  I haven’t been worshipped in years.

                  Nice try. Planning on moving into one of the pool units? Or are you just helping to lease them?

  3. chad

    This property was approved for a mix use development something like ten years ago. The neighbors who live next to the property came to city hall to protest but of course lost. The approved development never came to be. (I think it was a gas station in the before this.) The Media District is starting to choke almost as much as the hillside, Semi.

  4. Anonymous 2

    Must be the WF effect. Apparently I live in an upperclass neighborhood..right? Thanks Cusumano. Traffic issues aside, just how are all those people going to ride their bikes to work when Olive at the site is a no parking zone and a raceway most mornings. Or is staff going to try a different spin this time, what with all the bike lanes around Talaria.

  5. Al in SoCal

    Because the tree-free asphalt slab parking lot is so much better? What would we all prefer … a fallow field?

    That said, would like all ventures to include a percentage of affordable housing units … you can do that through red tape, especially if they are looking for a variance or 2.

    • Wrong Al. The city has no ability to force developers to include low income units in apartment developments. Condos yes. Apartments no.

      • oscarhgake

        Developers can apply for a density bonus which allows them to add extra units, as log as those units are affordable. Many of the projects proposed including the IKEA development and the Cusuamano 14 story have opted not to apply for them because of the resistance of residents like you.

        • semichorus

          You have no idea what you’re talking about.

          Is this the new thing now — blaming “Nimby”s” for the fact that developers won’t build affordable housing in Burbank?

  6. chad

    The word “mitigation” is such a euphemism at this point.

  7. donkeypunch

    But on the bright side, they’re gonna need janitors. Jimbo can have a real job again. And maybe, just maybe, move out of that un-permitted converted garage.

  8. Anonymous 3

    For the no growth crowd out there this is bad.

    Council will approve. It needs the tax revenues.

    • Anonymous

      I guess no one wants to consider payroll and pension reform as a means of cutting costs…?

      As of 2014, there were 112 salaried employees of the City of Burbank whose combined salary and benefits (incl. “other pay” and overtime) exceeded $200,000 [Source: http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2014/burbank/%5D. There are some employees who made nearly three times their base salary in overtime, “other pay,” and benefits. While the median full-time city employee salary is just over $93,000, that figure is almost $40,000 more than the average salary of a private sector resident of the city ($53,769) [Source: http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2014/burbank/summary/%5D.

      Total employee compensation in 2014 were over $159M and as taxpayers we pay a large chunk of that to cover pension plans and other benefits that have no basis in reality (since these plans often assume unrealistic double-digit market returns which, if not met, have to be made up by taxpayers).

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s