Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva
the only reason you believe there are double standards between LA vs other cities is that you're unable to distinguish between respectable architecture and crap architecture. so due to your inability to distinguish between the two (and a possible hometown bias), you attribute any sort of criticism of LA proposals to elitism and double standards.
to me, and probably some others here, it's very simple. this stadium looks offensively retarded. it's stupid looking. and this proposal would not fly in any other city. this tampon stadium just wouldn't be proposed in new york, seattle, or sf - it would render the developer/politicians laughing stocks within their respective communities.
people in those cities - citizens, business leaders, and government alike, they're sharper. they're more sophisticated than their angeleno counterparts at every level. that's why there's so much trash here. we're less sophisticated, and more angeleno's are likely to see this as "good" or "cutting edge" architecture. this forum proves that.
angelenos are just more phillistine.
but it kind of makes sense doesn't it? the "urban" (more eastern) parts of LA are extremely poor and lack influence. the moneyed parts are suburban (yes, this includes much of the westside). Urban LA is being built through the lense of rich suburbanites who don't care about urban culture or architecture, and governed by politicians who receive donations from those very suburbanites. it's no wonder LA looks the way it does.
Cities like NY, SF, Chicago, etc, have moneyed and educated urbanites, who take ownership of their neighborhoods (who doesn't?) and maintain an influential discourse on their architectural heritage, identity, etc that eventually filters into the highest levels of government. That's what LA lacks. An urban economy, and society.
|
That's true to a greater extent. The issue here is L.A. is an extremely young city and it just needs a significant amount of time to mature into this cosmopolitan city that we all wish it could be today. Well, L.A. is great on so many levels and in pockets. However, the urban L.A. is great for Southern California and always improving. But, it needs to maintain a high level of focus in order to grow properly.
What do I mean by grow properly? Urban planning is key here and I pray that L.A. hires the best urban planners money can buy and that they manage to implement their rules and shape the L.A. of the future to ensure that this place continues to beautify. I am not in denial that L.A. is still developing a street life, in downtown as well as in other neighborhoods. However, that street life can only grow as quickly as money grows and it's allocated specifically towards urban development rather than suburban.
The issue here is that Westside money will never dry out. So, urban Angelenos must rely on the convergence of a continued effort from the monied elite of L.A. and its politicians to pour as much money into the urban core as possible. This is the only real solution for L.A. Of course, there will be from time to time foreign money that will come into play for certain real estate developments. However, the desire must come from within and Hollywood money must start shifting to downtown.
Threaded Mode