Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeHundred
Downtown looks hauntingly beautiful back then.
|
Sorry, threehundred, but if you think the hood was beautiful back then, hauntingly or otherwise, then I'll have to say the architects who designed the orsini are the greatest in the world, emerald terrace is the height of excellence, & deadzones are a figment of everyone's imagination.
BTW, I do give some slack to the devlpr of the emerald because they are working under the restraints of subsidized housing. However, would it really have busted their budget to make the row of windows inserted on both sides of the raised corner walls, which have the cornice on top, a bit larger?
Some ppl aren't happy with new bldgs that are too short or made out of wood, or both. Now don't get me wrong. I'd be the first to say that nothing is better or more exciting than very $$$ highrise bldgs, made of steel & concrete. For instance, if parkfifth doesn't get built, I'm gonna be POed to the 10th degree. But I have to be a realist too, & accept that economics & consumer demand are going to have the last word in what's built or not built.
Can a new highrise condo or apt bldg have units that sell for around $300k----& that are more than, say, 400 sf----or rent for no more than $1500 per month? If so, they'll sell or lease quickly, or at least have a much bigger pool of potential buyers or renters.
Do shorter wood framed bldgs provide a devlpr with profit margins that are no more lucrative, or even less lucrative than they are for tall bldgs? If so, alot more devlprs will start switching over to highrise construction. They'll ask: what the hell is Astani worried about?! And why did a spokesperson for the devlpr of the Hanover apt bldg tell ppl at a conference last yr that their bldg wouldn't pencil out in today's economy?!
Another thing: I've read that highrise projs are easier to build in chicago or further east because there are more experienced contractors & suppliers than there are in LA, & easier access to fabricators of big bldg material (steel beams) too. Also, the cost of such devlpt is lower because there's no need to worry about making them quake resistant.
As for shorter, wood framed bldgs, they're all over SF. And the last time I checked, that city was, & is, admired by many for its urbanism:
Finally, I had to be in DT tonight & the thing that struck me (& bothered me too) was how surprisingly quiet the streets & sidewalks were. There still needs to be a greater sense of momentum in the hood, where far more housing----lowrise or highrise----& far more ppl living in them create a greater sense of completeness.
IOW, I was so busy noticing all the unfinished business, meaning all the parking lots, scabby old bldgs & even new projs that have yet to be occupied (a lot of windows in certain new condo & apt bldgs looked quite dark), that I certainly couldn't be sweating over whether a bldg is 5 floors or 50 floors, or is architecturally 1000 times better (or worse) than the old wood framed row houses in a city like SF.
Prev
And those tacky roof overhangs look like a cheap attempt to add distinctiveness to an otherwise very lacking project. It didn't work. That part of town would have been better off with a surface parking lot for a few more years until something better could be proposed rather than that eye-sore. Even Medici et al. are better looking in my opinion. Now that's saying something.
Ya got me there! I had read about and forgotten that a long time ago. Another tragedy for mass transit. A trolley/light rail-line connecting DT to Glendale/Burbank seems like a no-brainer and that old tunnel/right of way would've been ideal as it was the most direct route to accomplish that (probably why it had been used in the past, eh?). Trying to reproduce it now would be so expensive as to make it nearly impossible.
Just trying to get my point across at how fugly and gag inducing I think GLO is. Even the name sucks. Did I mention it's fugly, too? Yeah? Just checking. 
Linear Mode
