Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch
I kind of know what you mean, & I have to admit that I've contributed my fair share of debbie downerism on occasion.  however, I try to limit my own negativity to what I consider the really, really bad aspects of dt.....& not on things like new bldgs lacking what I might rate as award winning design, or being too short, or being too this, or being too that. |
At what point do you stop accepting bad design simply because it fills in dead zones? Is there a certain point where you will say "Phew, that's all done now, LA is finally a 'complete' city so NOW I can start complaining about design flaws!"
There are always going to be surface lots in LA because the city is massive and the footprint of the infrastructure is designed for cars. There's no definitive point in the future where LA simply flips from "suburban" to "urban." The city is more complex than that and progress is always going to be continuing and ongoing.
In the meantime I will say design, parking space, street treatment and the like matter a lot, esp to people like me who don't have a car, walk/bike/take metro everywhere and live in K-town and are in DTLA frequently. Details matter at the street level to pedestrians--even if they are "common" people who are not urban hobbyists they will still subconsciously register these things in their minds--and there are LOTS of pedestrians in LA.
Besides this is Skyscraperpage page. This is a hobbyist forum for people with a special interest in design so of course we are going to critique it, and there's always a new project popping up so new and different stuctures to critique and evaluate. What is always the same though is that dead zones and surface lots make LA ugly. I mean, DUH that is obvious! So you can stop starting (literally) every single post saying the same thing. We don't need it mentioned on every page.
Threaded Mode