LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0

[LongBeachUrbanist]

To continue a topic from a couple days ago (I've been traveling), I will take a rare opportunity to agree with edluva. There really is no need to directly emulate any existing city, or any part of any existing city. Times Square is cool because it's a great urban crossroads. It is a junction of two important boulevards, as well as several important rail lines. In fact, it evolved into what it is now precisely because it was a crossroads.

L.A. Live is no such crossroads. I highly doubt that most people in L.A. could (at this time) find Figueroa on a map. But that doesn't mean it can't be successful. A city becomes important because it generates its own meaning, it can't take on meaning simply by looking like another city.

The world has tons of examples of great urban places. They all developed into great places by virtue of their history or sense of purpose. This is the challenge to DTLA: to become a great urban space in its own right. For this to happen, Downtown will have to develop its own unique way. It will have to become an important part of what it means to experience L.A., above and beyond simply its 'look and feel'.

[jlrobe]

deleted: Might as well.

[jlrobe]

deleted: Might as well.

[Quixote]

^ LA tries to emulate NYC? I completely disagree. Sure, maybe it did in the 90's, but not anymore. First you mention LA's undeniably unique assets - weather, beaches, mountains, large pool of creative talent, etc. Then you acknowledge its potential to develop its own sort of self-respect. LA may not have as much civic pride as NYC, but it prides itself on those qualities aforementioned. Your argument is a paradox.

Also, I think it's silly to deduce such a conclusion based on that one single premise of "Times Square West". I absolutely despise the comparisons between LA Live and Times Square, but in LA Live's defense, it's only trying to recreate a certain atmosphere, not the locale itself. Whatever that atmosphere may be, it certainly isn't exclusive to NYC. LA Live will evolve into a bona fide urban crossroads overtime.

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

Originally Posted by jlrobe

LA's biggest mistake is that it tries to emulate NYC. when it does, it looks ridiculous. LA can have great food in the spirit of cal cuisine, good performing arts from their large pool of actors, great music and arts from the many musicians and artists who live here. As asia grows, LA can be the largest benefactor. On top of this, LA has nice beaches, great mountains, huge lovely homes in many areas. .

The funny thing is, is that LA is idolized by many across the country for the reasons you mentioned. I hear it all the time from friends and relatives in the east. However, hear on SSP, home to Urbanist and Skyscraper Lovers, it's easy to knock it when comparing it to cities that excel in these areas.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

In general, I don't think Angelenos aspire to "be like NYC". Most people seem to instinctively understand that L.A. is a unique place. Simply copying Times Square, or Barcelona's Ramblas, here in L.A. isn't going to work, for so many reasons.

I do understand that many of us want the density and vibrant streetlife and subways and tall buildings. I think these things are the way of the future, and are required of any big city. We have a lot to learn from others about taking care of these 'basics'.

However, these things alone are not sufficient. Times Square, the Ramblas, the Champs-Elysees are part of people's memory, their history, their culture. They are known around the world for being special places, places with something special to offer (even if that 'something special' is largely glitter and spectacle, as in the case of Times Square).

So that's really the question: how important is the place to people? Is it a crossroads of international finance? Is it a place where locals go to shop, meet friends, and take a stroll? Are there events, stores, or theaters there that you can't find anywhere else? Do tourists come home talking about the time they spent exploring the place? Does it show up in guide books? Or is it just a collection of undistinctive streets, buildings and stores, like you would find in any other city?

To me, any of these projects (like L.A. Live) will be great if they contribute to the vitality and uniqueness and importance of Downtown L.A.

[Just-In-Cali]

I think Los Angeles is popular because its NOT New York. All the cities that emulate NYs style and design are far less known and regarded because they are always in that city's shadow. When watching a movie or commercial, you see a street lined with brownstones and towering art deco buildings and snow with a busy pedestrian filled sidewalk, you instantly think "that must be NY". You see a scene with palm trees rushing by, blue skies and million dollar spanish style homes and beaches filled with people, you instantly think LA.
Its part of the culture. Its what the world knows us as.
LA can NEVER be like NY, and doesnt really seem to be trying, despite what some people think. It will always be that easy, breezy, sunny city that acts as the complete counterbalance to the NY lifestyle. Two cities, two coasts, two totally different ways of life.
Its like comparing two cities in two different countries.
London to Sao Paulo, Paris to Hong Kong...New York to Los Angeles.
As far as Times Square, I will say it again, that area was a dump up until about 15 years ago...when they COMMERCIALIZED it and turned it into what it is. Its funny how people keep comparing LA Live to a square that has been there for nearly 200 years and has seen its fair share of lows and highs.
Give LA Live a chance to BE BUILT before we start comparing.

[jlrobe]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ LA tries to emulate NYC? I completely disagree. Sure, maybe it did in the 90's, but not anymore. First you mention LA's undeniably unique assets - weather, beaches, mountains, large pool of creative talent, etc. Then you acknowledge its potential to develop its own sort of self-respect. LA may not have as much civic pride as NYC, but it prides itself on those qualities aforementioned. Your argument is a paradox.

Also, I think it's silly to deduce such a conclusion based on that one single premise of "Times Square West". I absolutely despise the comparisons between LA Live and Times Square, but in LA Live's defense, it's only trying to recreate a certain atmosphere, not the locale itself. Whatever that atmosphere may be, it certainly isn't exclusive to NYC. LA Live will evolve into a bona fide urban crossroads overtime.

I see everyone's point. EVeryone agrees with my statement that LA has unique qualities that make it known throughout the world. Most of you disagree that LA is trying to emulate NYC.

I said this because EVERYONE compares LA to NYC instead of cities like Toronto. Common examples of comparisons to NYC are as follows:
LA wants to build more rail, it must want to become manhattan. LA's transit 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 because it isnt as good as manhattan. LA's skyline 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 because it isnt as large as manhattan. LA's art scene 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 cause it isnt like manhattan's. LA's downtown is reviving and turning into a central place like manhattan. My point is that almost everyone compares LA directly to Manhattan (not NYC, but the island of Manhattan), which I dont think is a useful comparison. THat is all I was trying to say.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

FWIW, when I was in NYC in Jan of this year, I spoke to a bunch of random NYers on streets (struck up some nice conversations with regular NON-SSP types) and all of them from a girl in Soho, to a worker at McDonalds, to a gay guy in the village, all thought LA was really amazing. It was nice to hear it from all these NYer's mouths instead of always relying on hearsay on this forum.

[Easy]

LA gets compared to NYC is because NYC is a point of reference that everyone is familiar with. NYC is also the model for urbanity in the US. If you say that something is "like NYC" you're saying that it will be top-notch and popular. In actuality it may have more in common with Denver or Oklahoma City, but who the hell wants to hear that?

[Echo Park]

If any evidence is needed that New York is a far more intriguing city than LA, well just read the last few pages here

[k3d]

The ESPN street level revealed.


More steel at Ritz-Carlton.


717 Ninth


Concerto

[JDRCRASH]

What many don't realize is that Los Angeles was once one of the first modern Major cities around the world to build up using the skyscraper. How do we know that? Go down Broadway and you will see 10-15 story buildings that were made before even World War One! The fact that many immediately think of nothing but Hollywood, palm trees, the beach, celebrities and Freeways when they think of Los Angeles(as Just-in-Cali pointed out), shows that they don't know much about our whole history; but at the same time, it also shows we HAVE NOT done a perfect job preserving it over the decades by letting the Rockefellers and the rest of the Oil and Automobile Industries make untold profit by creating a forest of oil wells. In other words, Los Angeles is one of the only cities in America that dramatically turned into something it wasn't originally supposed to be.

Because of that, we have a legitimate reason to Manhattanize LA; we are on a worthwhile mission to restore and start over our old large urban lifestyle.

[Just-In-Cali]

And JD, I love LA as much as the next person...but it will NEVER be known as a place that revolutionized skyscrapers. The City Hall is about the only thing it has that really made a buzz back in the day.

I was wondering, what kind of impact is the 717 tower going to make? I have seen several things that shows it will be rather tall compared to many of its neighbors. Also, has there been ANY movement on that blasted Grand Ave Prjt?
The thing seems to be frozen in time.

[KevinFromTexas]

I've deleted several posts that were reported by someone. Let's leave New York and San Francisco out of this thread. It's one thing to use New York as a point of reference as one forum member said, but it's another to turn it into a city vs city argument.

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

Quote

original quote by JDRCRASH
What many don't realize is that Los Angeles was once one of the first modern Major cities around the world to build up using the skyscraper.

Due to the threat of earthquakes, the height limit that the City of LA placed on buildings (150 ft until 1957) ensured that LA would not be known for its skyscrapers. Other cities were building them sooner and taller.



However, as the discussion of our city moves forward, I question: "Are the city's flaws that may make it look like a "backwards" city, due to the city being too "forward" thinking... at the wrong time?"


The city believed the "car" was the future and abandoned its rail system and extended its freeway system like no other and built wide avenues extending away from DT. It also demolished Bunker Hill to make way for the "city of the future" (with plenty of parking) and created mini business hubs around the city. At the time, many applauded what was happening in LA and believed it was heading in the right direction.

For a time this seemed to work, however, now we see the sprawl as unsustainable and it clogs the freeways. And it wasn't the norm before the 80's, but we now treasure the older buildings and who knows what treasures we lost on bunker hill.

So what we are really doing now is examining our issues, looking at what works in other cities, and discussing the implementation that will help "forward" Los Angeles.

[Steve2726]

The Ritz hotel ballrooms and Regal Theater construction has started at L.A. Live. You can see the new crane in the webcam. This is from a SSC poster who is working on the project:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=19777490&postcount=1061


Wolverineman


This photo of the model shows how the 2 different buildings are going to be joined together


LAMetroGuy

[jlrobe]

So AEG went modern on the towers, and made all the other buildings look like staples center, then for the movie theatres, they designed it like a rick caruso project. Are there any better renderings of the movie theatre? It never seemed to fit with everything else to me.

[Steve2726]

Originally Posted by jlrobe

So AEG went modern on the towers, and made all the other buildings look like staples center, then for the movie theatres, they designed it like a rick caruso project. Are there any better renderings of the movie theatre? It never seemed to fit with everything else to me.

I believe this is the most recent render-

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2008/01/a_look_at_la_li.php

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

guys, lets move the NFL discussion to the LA Forum in the appropriate thread. lets keep this thread for what it is.

I dont like the regal as well. it just doesnt fit. why not make it modern, like the lowes in the NFL stadium proposal?