LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0 - Page 258

RAlossi · #**5141** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 5:18 AM**

Pretty cool -- the US Bank Tower's crown is lit up purple and gold in honor of our Lakers =)

BrandonJXN · #**5142** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 3:13 PM**

^ Awesome.

JDRCRASH · #**5143** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 11:03 PM**

Yeah, but it looks more blue than purple.

BrandonJXN · #**5144** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 4:00 AM**

I said this on angelenic but US Bank should be lit up for team victories. The Empire State Building in NYC does the same thing whenever the Mets and the Yankees play each other. Whoever wins the Subway Series, the following night got their colors displayed on the ESB. The Mets won the last series so their colors (orange and blue) were on the ESB.

US Bank should do the same for all of the cross town rivalries: Lakers and Clippers, Dodgers and Angels, Kings and Ducks, Trojans and Bruins. Even though I'm not a hockey fan, I would love to see the crown of US Bank lit purple, black and white.

And a bonus: Whoever wins a championship should have their team colors lit on Union Bank Tower, 777 Tower, Fig @ Wilshire, Union Station and Staples Center. Might be a bit overload but LA is a sports mecca and should treat our teams as such.

Echo Park · #**5145** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 4:01 AM**

Well the ducks and angels play in anaheim and i'll be damned if they display their colors on the US bank tower.

Quixote · #**5146** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 6:12 AM**

From SSC (in reference to the Ritz-Carlton/JW Marriott):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolverineman

Just a little update. Glass should start in 2 to 3 weeks. We are close to finishing the podium levels 2,3,4 and are almost ready to continue up the tower at lightning speed. The lower floors are moving along with pipe,ac and stud walls. We are on an accelerated schedule.

DowntownCharlieBrown · #**5147** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 6:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

I said this on angelenic but US Bank should be lit up for team victories. The Empire State Building in NYC does the same thing whenever the Mets and the Yankees play each other. Whoever wins the Subway Series, the following night got their colors displayed on the ESB. The Mets won the last series so their colors (orange and blue) were on the ESB.

US Bank should do the same for all of the cross town rivalries: Lakers and Clippers, Dodgers and Angels, Kings and Ducks, Trojans and Bruins. Even though I'm not a hockey fan, I would love to see the crown of US Bank lit purple, black and white.

In addition to sporting events, I'd like other events celebrated in lights. "Red, White, and Green" for Cinco de Mayo, Rainbow for Gay Pride, Gold for the Oscars, etc. I think lighting it for sporting and other celebrations helps bring focus to downtown and gives the Library Tower more iconic status.

DowntownGymRat · #**5148** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 12:49 PM**

I agree about lighting up downtown highrises for any special event. Back in my hometown of Little Rock, AR, they would use red white and blue lights in the windows of the BofA building to say U S A from the top down and during the the holidays there was a Christmas tree as seen in the picture. (sorry it's so far away)
As far as LA goes, I'm just glad they put lighting on 1100 Wilshire when the condos opened in 06. Btw, Union Station every Valentines Day has a heart at the top of the building using lights from the windows. I'll see if I have a pic of it.

JDRCRASH · #**5149** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 2:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

And a bonus: Whoever wins a championship should have their team colors lit on Union Bank Tower, 777 Tower, Fig @ Wilshire, Union Station and Staples Center. Might be a bit overload but LA is a sports mecca and should treat our teams as such.

Thats seems a bit much. I mean, it wouldn't look good having much of the city being lit up in purple and gold, or Blue and White (especially since i'm not a Dodger fan).

So what do you guys think of that article I just posted? People can sure be dillusional idiots, huh?.

DowntownCharlieBrown · #**5150** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally posted by JDRCrash
So what do you guys think of that article I just posted? People can sure be dillusional idiots, huh?.

It's one of those articles with a lot of low hanging fruit to pick at, just hard to make a comment about it that relates to Downtown Development. Seems more like a transportation thread topic.

JDRCRASH · #**5151** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DowntownCharlieBrown

It's one of those articles with a lot of low hanging fruit to pick at, just hard to make a comment about it that relates to Downtown Development. Seems more like a transportation thread topic.

How so? It gives the impression that the Times believes that developments like L.A. Live(which is directly related to Downtown Development) bring nothing but negative outcomes, and that traffic is the only thing that matters, regardless of how much revenue is recieved by the city, which I think is preposterous considering we have a multi-million dollar budget deficit on our hands.

colemonkee · #**5152** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 5:50 PM**

Actually that article only supports the notion of building more mass transit. That woman's commute would be 20 minutes shorter if the Purple line went down Wilshire. It also supports the idea of people moving closer to their jobs. Anyone who lives 50+ miles away from their job forfeits their right to complain about commute times.

JDRCRASH · #**5153** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 5:56 PM**

Huh? I'm talking about the one on Monday, Coleman. It supports the building and expanding of Freeways as a solution to our traffic problems, which we ALL know is not true.

colemonkee · #**5154** Posted **Jun 12, 2008, 6:04 PM**

JDR, you read everything too literally. Yes, the writer and people interviewed in the article voice their opinions that freeway construction or less development are the solutions, so the article is taking the freeway position. My point was that the discussion happening in the article could be - and should be - used as an argument for increased public mass transit to support the increased - or existing - densities brought on by development.

JDRCRASH · #**5155** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 4:35 PM**

So we could use the very information they gave and translate it into a positive arguement; is that what you mean?

I just think that there was a lot of negativity towards developments such as L.A. Live which they say will bring 48,000 more cars daily to the area.

LongBeachUrbanist · #**5156** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 5:13 PM**

^ Look at the line that you highlighted:

"For years, elected county and city officials across Southern California have put economic development and jobs ahead of mobility, approving major commercial and residential developments without requiring builders to pay enough for improvements needed to handle extra traffic."

Even if the entire article seems to argue in favor of more highways, it is really also saying that it is mobility in general that has been short-changed. This includes transit.

We as a region have been willing to approve mega-project after mega-project, without considering how people are going to get there. We need to do a better job of improving all our modes of transportation - car, bus, rail - that people use to get from place to place.

JDRCRASH · #**5157** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 6:56 PM**

Somehow I feel that many suburbanites here will STILL complain about building up Los Angeles, even if we create one of the world's most efficient rail networks.

They will probably say crap like: "Skyscrapers block views."

StethJeff · #**5158** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Thats seems a bit much. I mean, it wouldn't look good having much of the city being lit up in purple and gold, or Blue and White (especially since i'm not a Dodger fan).

So what do you guys think of that article I just posted? People can sure be dillusional idiots, huh?.

actually, having dtla as well as other parts of LA lit up in purple and gold would be awesome, even if they have been playing poorly in the finals.

other suggestions:

sept 4 - red/gold/green
earth day - off completely

DowntownCharlieBrown · #**5159** Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StethJeff

earth day - off completely

Now that's funny. Good one!

Quixote · #**5160** Posted **Jun 14, 2008, 8:58 AM**

This is great. An additional $30 million added to the Civic Park budget will allow for the extra features in the enhanced model. And with even more funds, the County buildings will give way to more green park.

Grand Avenue Park Likely to Secure $30 Million

News Brief

Developer Related Cos. announced last week that it will likely receive $30 million in state funds for the proposed Civic Park, part of the developer's $3 billion Grand Avenue project. The 16-acre park, slated for county-owned land, will stretch from the Music Center on Grand Avenue to City Hall. It is part of the first phase of the Frank Gehry-designed project officially dubbed The Grand. Scheduled to break ground next spring and wrap in 2011, the park was originally budgeted for the $50 million already paid to the county by Related. The additional money, said Related of California President Bill Witte, is expected to be approved by a state committee this week and will allow the developer to incorporate enhanced features - such as an open-air event pavilion or a pedestrian bridge over Broadway - into the initial designs. "We got feedback from the state that we are going to get this $30 million," Witte said last week. The developer and county officials have said they will continue to seek funds for extra amenities after the park breaks ground. Although the real estate crisis has caused Related to delay the groundbreaking on the main first phase elements of The Grand - which include two high-rises and a retail component - Witte said the park will proceed.