LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown) - Page 41

Avanine-Commuter · #**801** Posted **Oct 10, 2009, 1:57 AM**

Oh, so you DO take things literally. Surprise surprise.

No one is denying anything. But apparently pop culture is the only culture there is in the world of edluva.

I know what high-minded is. Don't take me for a simpleton. but I would think it's more correct to say that NY is the trash chute where L.A. dumps all of it's pop culture for sale. Correct?

edluva · #**802** Posted **Oct 10, 2009, 2:11 AM**

wow, you made no sense. are you trying to win this "debate" being as inscrutable as possible?

what is your version of the truth? don't just try to sound tongue in cheek for the sake of mere appearance

KEVINcredible1226 · #**803** Posted **Oct 10, 2009, 3:28 AM**

I love that pic of LA. It's so heavily populated, although today, broadway is still dense with foot traffic.

Avanine-Commuter · #**804** Posted **Oct 10, 2009, 4:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edluva

wow, you made no sense. are you trying to win this "debate" being as inscrutable as possible?

what is your version of the truth? don't just try to sound tongue in cheek for the sake of mere appearance

Jesus, so I have to spell out everything? I should say you shouldn't try to sound so enlightened for the sake of mere appearance.

As I said before, you always equate pop culture as the only culture L.A. ever creates. Out of the many posts I've seen of you dragging L.A.'s name through the mud, criticism of L.A. usually ends up pointing at "pop culture trash".

Then you equate L.A. as N.Y.'s trash chute morally and culturally, as if. Culturally, both L.A. and N.Y. are extremely distinct. DO NOT assume you can throw a blanket statement and get away with it.

Quoted, "I would think it's more correct to say that NY is the trash chute where L.A. dumps all of it's pop culture for sale." That is not "tongue-in-cheek" at all. As straight forward as I would think it should be.

AndrewK · #**805** Posted **Oct 10, 2009, 6:14 PM**

guess i tried to make my foray into this thread at the wrong time...

WonderlandPark · #**806** Posted **Oct 11, 2009, 5:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewK

guess i tried to make my foray into this thread at the wrong time...

welcome to the L.A. thread, with all of the usual characters adding "color" to the scene.

But it keeps things interesting at least.

pesto · #**807** Posted **Oct 12, 2009, 4:06 PM**

Andrew: please stay; there are all kinds of discussions here from the highly specific to the general to the inscrutable and you can pick and choose.

Avinine has a really interesting point: LA may produce the pop culture but it is in response to world-wide demand and is almost entirely funded by NY money (with Japanese, Arab, Hispanic tossed in). And it's unclear how much culture is generated in NYC, as opposed to its funding and dissemination (publishers, agents, PR, lawyers). It's like saying that most football is in LA and NY because most of the NFL agents and PR firms are there.

In any event, city stereotypes are just that and break-down rather quickly.

JDRCRASH · #**808** Posted **Oct 13, 2009, 2:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edluva

ruffy - noone implied angelenos are literally more horny than new yorkers. it's called "metaphor" (are we really this shallow?) i'm not defending kunstlercast, because the discussion had some ignorant generalizations if its own. but however imperfectly it does it, it does touch upon many fundamental truths about la (and consumerism at large) that cannot be denied.

Just curious, but by "LA", what do you mean? The City? The County? The whole Region, perhaps, which would include Laguna, Newport, Thousand Oaks, etc?

LAMetroGuy · #**809** Posted **Oct 19, 2009, 10:34 PM**

Cities don't generate anything, people do... let's not forget that.

pesto · #**810** Posted **Oct 19, 2009, 10:50 PM**

100 percent correct. You always have to watch out for loose language like "blue collar workers believe that..." or "southerners like...". Groups don't believe anything; groups don't want anything; groups don't vote. Only individuals can do that. Groups are a convenient way of making summaries, but they are not reality.

DowntownCharlieBrown · #**811** Posted **Nov 2, 2009, 7:41 AM**

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2009/1...er_project.php

Renderings for Hollywood and Gower Project Finally Surface
Monday, October 26, 2009, by Dakota

Gaze upon developer Hanover Company's much-talked about, but never seen Hollywood Boulevard project, a 20-story, 176-unit rental building proposed for Hollywood and Gower. The completed draft environmental impact report hit the City's web site on Friday. But like the nearby Columbia Square project, the state of the financial markets means that ground-breaking for the building (designed by GMP Architects) isn't exactly imminent. "It's in the proposed but uncertain phase," says Ryan Hamilton, project manager at Hanover Co. Meanwhile, looking over the renderings, the one thing that surprised us was seeing all the intended supergraphics that'd go up on the building. Given that the project isn't entitled, wouldn't those be illegal given the ban on new signs? Not so, according Hamilton, who says the building falls within the Hollywood Supplemental Use District. And it's his belief the ban will eventually be lifted. "My understanding was that the intent of the sign ban was that it would be in place until the city could work out the solution to a citywide sign ordinance," says Hamilton. He adds that once the new ordinance is written, Hanover will begin signage entitlement work, but it's too early given that the stage of the project. Per the city attorney's office, all new off-site signs are currently banned (though there are exemptions), but who knows what the City Council will eventually do? We don't. Meanwhile, 7,200 square of retail are also planned, as is both subterranean and above ground parking.

JDRCRASH · #**812** Posted **Nov 2, 2009, 5:53 PM**

Something about the sign seems a little tacky...

SD_Phil · #**813** Posted **Nov 2, 2009, 7:16 PM**

so does something about the design frankly

pesto · #**814** Posted **Nov 2, 2009, 8:10 PM**

It does seem to be a bit of a yawner. But I think as we head into East Hollywood, there is going to be less money spent on architecture fees, materials and amenities.

colemonkee · #**815** Posted **Nov 2, 2009, 8:42 PM**

Eh, Hanover's never been accused of putting together amazing designs. That being said, this one's not offensive, it's just not good. Especially given how prominent it will be from points east in Hollywood, or on the Hollywood freeway.

StethJeff · #**816** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 5:34 AM**

I don't think its a bad design. I guess I'm alone on this one.

SD_Phil · #**817** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 5:53 AM**

^not bad just crazy boring

LosAngelesBeauty · #**818** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 5:54 AM**

What matters more is that there will be "more life" (albeit not that much) on the street than just the design of the tower. Personally, I don't think it's bad at all. It really doesn't matter to the street life (just look at Tokyo or Taipei).

dktshb · #**819** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 5:57 AM**

It is not an eyesore but it is nothing too interesting either. It is nice to see the vertical buildings moving east though towards the 101. I would like to see this built.

pesto · #**820** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 5:32 PM**

As you come through the Cahuenga Pass on 101 you get a view of a number of Hollywood buildings in older styles that are quite eye-catching (although admitedly in a bit of disrepair). It would be nice to add something that keeps up the architectural interest, which this does only slightly.

Maybe the sign gives it a little deco-ish style. If it's visible from the freeway, you would think that they would want to put the name on top.

Is it possible that that area will have a dozen of these between Vine and Western? What a triumph for transit and redevelopment.