Quote:
Originally Posted by alki
Pesto, that's my point........why should it be on the Westside and why should it have to take up 40 acres??? There are any number of vacant one acre sites DT that would have been more than adequate to site the complex; locations that would have been much more democratic.
I don't mean to be argumentative or derogatory but you are thinking just like an Angeleno. A new museum? Of course it has to be on the Westside. And of course, it has to be on this huge expanse of land. And it has to be isolated on a mt top so the masses can't get to it.
Lets not forget the greatest museums.....Le Louvre, the Whitney, the Art Institute of Chicago etc......all have urban locations. For me, the Getty was a wasted opportunity. It should have been DT.
|
Of course, you cite museums in flat cities, so they're not likely to build on a hillside.
Basically, a category mistake. The Getty is not a great art gallery, it's a center for art and manuscript study, restoration and related techniques, that caters to the world. It also has an art gallery, gardens, ponds and views.
You already have LACMA, the Fowler, Broad and Norton Simon in urban areas. The Huntington and the Getty would be ridiculous in a high rise on 1 acre. The have a dozen buildings, gardens, lakes, etc. Look at SF, who put the De Young in a park away from other buidlings or the Palace of Fine Arts in a remote suburban area away from transit. The POINT is to have a beautiful location, not a packed-in one. The Getty could not have gotten the land on the westside to do so without excessive costs and delays.
You are also exaggerating the remoteness. It's in Brentwood, 1 mile from Wilshire and the Purple Line and basically on the 405.