LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0 - Page 432

Vangelist · #**8621** Posted **May 28, 2010, 6:22 AM**

I'm appreciative of all he's done of course but his ego just irks me. If I had to wish death upon any city official it would be Antonovitch of course

DowntownCharlieBrown · #**8622** Posted **May 28, 2010, 7:21 AM**

^^ Antonovitch does do his best to keep this a backwards town.

But it is exciting to have someone with mounds of money wanting to build something architecturally significant… and wants it done in a hurry. Yeah, he does have an ego, but I wish there were more of them kind around.

Steve2726 · #**8623** Posted **May 28, 2010, 1:21 PM**

So does the museum supplant any future plans for high rise towers on that site, or will they leave room for part of the phase 2 plan to proceed down the road?

JDRCRASH · #**8624** Posted **May 28, 2010, 2:52 PM**

^ Given the current economy, any additions to the project, to me, seem minimal at best. But down the line, as soon as the GAP is finished, it wouldn't surprise me if more development in the area starts right after.

I would've hoped that the museum plans would include residential and retail development on top of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DowntownCharlieBrown

^^ Antonovitch does do his best to keep this a backwards town.

Shame he represents us out here in the SGV...

pesto · #**8625** Posted **May 28, 2010, 5:11 PM**

No demand for retail on Bunker Hill. Aside from M-F lunch time, there is minimal street life (and that's mostly government workers and derelicts and not on Grand at all). Weekends are zero at the moment. Significant residential is the other side of Bway and more naturally will go to Bway and east.

How can you object to the "Broad" Gallery? His money, his direction, his influence and patience, his generosity. The Guggenheim, Wallace, Frick, Morgan, Getty, Norton Simon, Hammer (or Disney, Chandler, Taper, Avery Fisher, Carnegie and 10,000 others) don't bother you? The name is a recognizable brand and benefits LA, the MOCA, DT and not vice-versa.

StethJeff · #**8626** Posted **May 28, 2010, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

How can you object to the "Broad" Gallery? His money, his direction, his influence and patience, his generosity. The Guggenheim, Wallace, Frick, Morgan, Getty, Norton Simon, Hammer (or Disney, Chandler, Taper, Avery Fisher, Carnegie and 10,000 others) don't bother you? The name is a recognizable brand and benefits LA, the MOCA, DT and not vice-versa.

I'm glad someone pointed out the obvious. How is Broad any different?

LosAngelesSportsFan · #**8627** Posted **May 28, 2010, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vangelist

Oh gawd. Wasn't his ego satisfied sufficiently by inspiring the "B" in BCAM? A temple of vanity indeed. Maybe it can be renamed after his death; he is 76 after all (wishfully delusional thinking, I know his foundation owns the cultural institutions in this city)

If hes spending 100 million on a museum and countless other millions on the art, i think its cool that they name it after him.

Vangelist · #**8628** Posted **May 28, 2010, 6:53 PM**

I was just being catty, and hey he already has his name on BCAM as I noted. The Broad Museum is okay, but "the Broad Collections" sounds way too temporal, and just reminds one that these "collections" were originally promised to LACMA before that offer was retracted, and if this turns into another Renzo Piano disappointment, that memory will sting.

He also still owes LACMA 6 million, as that article from the NYT I posted pointed out... I bet Mr. Govan has very "complex feelings" towards Mr. Broad. But of course he can never voice them, publically or privately. Let's see how Mr. Dietch fares...

sopas ej · #**8629** Posted **May 28, 2010, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

No demand for retail on Bunker Hill. Aside from M-F lunch time, there is minimal street life (and that's mostly government workers and derelicts and not on Grand at all). Weekends are zero at the moment. Significant residential is the other side of Bway and more naturally will go to Bway and east.

If there were more residents on Bunker Hill, then there would be a demand for retail; that's why I think if they were to create retail on Bunker Hill, they should also build more housing too, and of course urban-style housing that encourages pedestrian activity on actual streets, not like the 1960s-era Bunker Hill Towers that were built as an island unto itself.

ocman · #**8630** Posted **May 28, 2010, 7:31 PM**

Koolhaas and Diller, Scofidio & Renfro are the finalists. I wish they had invited Michael Maltzan to compete and I was rooting for Christian De Portzamparc.

Judging from only their past, I don't like the D,S&R team's taste. And Koolhaas' forms are just confused and tend to look Star Trek inspired but half-assed, and I wonder if his architecture is willing to play second fiddle to Gehry's landmark building, which it will have to. None of the architects should want to compete with it.

I hope the city scraps Gehry's Grand Ave scheme. It just mimic's the Hall.

Anyway, Broad still has a perfectly workable building on Wilshire that he built and abandoned. It'll be interesting to see if his choice is more successful than that Renzo Piano tragedy. (Maybe that's why he abandoned it?)

pesto · #**8631** Posted **May 28, 2010, 7:38 PM**

sopas: agreed, but the propsosed units are some time away and not very many. The next nearest available areas are Hill and Olive, from 1st to 3rd, where some residential could fit among the government buildings, but not many and it doesn's strike me as a high demand ares.

The REAL solution is to take the county buildings along the mall; make them govt. buildings for 3 stories and put 20 stories of residential above them. But the State and County are too self-important to ever do that.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**8632** Posted **May 28, 2010, 9:54 PM**

Let's not forget the "air rights" that can be passed to another parcel if the Broad Collections museum is built. It means that perhaps the parcels near it can build taller to make up for lost floors.

JDRCRASH · #**8633** Posted **May 28, 2010, 10:24 PM**

^ Wasn't the "Zen Tower" supposed to be built a few blocks away?

northbay · #**8634** Posted **May 28, 2010, 10:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

Let's not forget the "air rights" that can be passed to another parcel if the Broad Collections museum is built. It means that perhaps the parcels near it can build taller to make up for lost floors.

'passed' as in sold right? to help fund the museum.

pesto · #**8635** Posted **May 28, 2010, 10:48 PM**

That's an interesting point; certainly worked for the Library. But the issue is what are those rights worth these days?

Kingofthehill · #**8636** Posted **May 30, 2010, 11:10 PM**

South Park looks good from this angle:

edluva · #**8637** Posted **May 31, 2010, 1:32 AM**

yea you have to squint your eye and tilt your head slightly in order to catch a more flattering urban glimpse of la. because it's not real.

Kingofthehill · #**8638** Posted **May 31, 2010, 1:43 AM**

Ed, do you consider South Central to be "real?" Yesterday, I was working on a project down there, and had the time to take a few pics; it definitely struck me as not fake (and neither was the area from where I took that pic, Santee).

IMO, South LA has a good amount of fairly intact Craftsman bungalow nabes left, so many, that were they to be anchored by half-decent, amenity-filled commercial streets and transit, they would almost certainly be viable alternatives for those seeking easy access to DTLA.

These are the kinda nabes I'm talking about:

TexasPlaya · #**8639** Posted **May 31, 2010, 2:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Wow, those palm trees really stand out. Does LA have a lot of palm tree lined streets like this?

StethJeff · #**8640** Posted **May 31, 2010, 4:04 AM**

yes, many.