HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #761  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 2:48 AM
Hubris Hubris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 55
Hopefully even more is done to clean up and liven up that stretch of Fig. So many people already walk up and down Fig b/w LA Live and 7th/Metro before and after events at LA Live venues.
     
     
  #762  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 3:17 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
Suprised no one has posted this yet:

NEW RENDERINGS






http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/04/ne...nderings_released_new_name_announced.php

Pretty much the new renders, and the fact that they are changing the name to FIGat7TH. Oh, and when asked about the fact that the mall is now on a sign district, a sales person said "no comment".
Why am I not impressed with this? I'm glad a Target is going in and other stores, but something about this design leaves something to be desired; underground/subterranean malls somehow don't work well in southern California.

Just add a replica of the Triforium and you have the Los Angeles Mall at the Civic Center.

you-are-here.com
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
     
     
  #763  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 3:20 AM
djlx2 djlx2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Why am I not impressed with this? I'm glad a Target is going in and other stores, but something about this design leaves something to be desired; underground/subterranean malls somehow don't work well in southern California.

Just add a replica of the Triforium and you have the Los Angeles Mall at the Civic Center.

you-are-here.com
Good point. What do you think needs to happen to be improved in the shopping districts of LA?
     
     
  #764  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 1:09 PM
bmfarley's Avatar
bmfarley bmfarley is offline
Long-Time Californian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California; All Over
Posts: 1,302
There is below grade mall in San Francisco that has a level entrance with the Muni/BART system. I believe it is at the Powell Street Station?

7th Street Station is a very short distance.... perhaps it is close enough that a new entrance is feasible? That would draw a heck of a lot of subway users through the mall that are on there way to and from work, or even LA Live.

Just a thought.
__________________
- Think Big, Go Big. Think small, stay small.
- Don't get sucked into a rabbit's hole.
- Freeways build sprawl. Transit builds cities.
     
     
  #765  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 3:08 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,197
I'm going to change the subject here for a bit. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that none of the high rises downtown are close together? They are all far apart. I hate this. I go to any other city and there are lovely canyon effects down every street. For some reason, out of all the cities, Los Angeles doesn't have this. It bugs me more then anything else does downtown.
     
     
  #766  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 3:11 PM
DistrictDirt's Avatar
DistrictDirt DistrictDirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by alki View Post
We may be saying the same thing. LA architecture tends to be flashy/trendy. I remember when some people were talking about the newly renovated Pershing Square. They were very impressed with the purple monolith........how it spoke to a new kind of plaza where the plaza becomes art. I remember thinking I would have preferred a few more trees and fountains while sparing the cost of the 'famed' architect from Mexico City. LA has a 'cutting edge' reputation and seems easily seduced by the latest fashion whether it be in music, cars, clothes or architecture. Sometimes it works and makes the city more interesting.........other times, not so much.
I'm always wary of contemporary architects for this very reason. They're so obsessed their new concept that they often throw out everything that's known to work. 2000 years of knowledge of how to architect buildings, parks, and streets that actually are functional and beautiful and they disregard it all to try things that are new and untested. I find it to be extremely arrogant and selfish, especially considering that the public is then forced to look at/walk through their creation for the next 50 years.

I don't blame individual architects so much...this is just what the entire field of contemporary architecture has become. Everyone hopes to be the first one to think of something new and exciting, kicking off a new trend and furthering their career. All the modern materials and software tools architects have at their disposal just seem to accelerate this trend. Can you dream it up? Then you can build it. Don't be held back by the past...you know, things that actually work

This is why I gravitated more towards urban design than architecture. As a whole, the field of urban design is less concerned with whats new and trendy, and more concerned with using the entire body of knowledge of the past to create spaces that function and feel good to be in. Pick up your average urban design book and you'll see everything from plazas in Rome and Florence, to streets in Paris, to pocket parks in New York City. Its all about using what already works. Which really, was what architecture was all about until the mid 20th century when they threw the book away and started over.
__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram

Last edited by DistrictDirt; Apr 6, 2011 at 3:25 PM. Reason: grammar, word choice
     
     
  #767  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 3:23 PM
DistrictDirt's Avatar
DistrictDirt DistrictDirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Why am I not impressed with this? I'm glad a Target is going in and other stores, but something about this design leaves something to be desired; underground/subterranean malls somehow don't work well in southern California.

Just add a replica of the Triforium and you have the Los Angeles Mall at the Civic Center.
Agreed, but keep in mind that this is was already a half-underground mall. Short of scrapping the whole thing and starting over, they did the best they could with what they had to work with.
__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram
     
     
  #768  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 3:35 PM
DistrictDirt's Avatar
DistrictDirt DistrictDirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
I'm going to change the subject here for a bit. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that none of the high rises downtown are close together? They are all far apart. I hate this. I go to any other city and there are lovely canyon effects down every street. For some reason, out of all the cities, Los Angeles doesn't have this. It bugs me more then anything else does downtown.
Lack of height limit maybe? Why build 10 midrises when you can build one supertall?

Just going by what I learned in DC. There is a 12 story height limit there which forced development to cover more surface area. There's literally no gaps in the urban fabric. The current spate of big projects for the city are all about reusing existing space. For example: one developer is redeveloping the navy yard into a mixed use project, and another one is planning to build a new neighborhood over the tracks behind Union Station, using air rights they purchased from the city.

Great canyons there, especially with all the odd "flat-iron" intersections created by the diagonal avenue grid hitting the rectangular street grid.
__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram

Last edited by DistrictDirt; Apr 6, 2011 at 3:39 PM. Reason: Added links
     
     
  #769  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 4:53 PM
RAlossi RAlossi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,573
People will complain about absolutely anything. Get out, live life a little and stop worrying about the spacing of towers. Seriously, if there were a "canyon" effect in Downtown with towers placed so closely, everyone would be bitching about how there's no light and how we're trying to be like Paris or DC or NY. Sorry to bring it up like that, but this forum has been nonstop negativity for a long time.

As someone who uses the shopping center quite frequently, I am glad to see the direction that 7+FIG is going. The new plan has great sight lines, MUCH better street access and looks open and airy.

Really, this is no "LA Mall" here. That place is called "the Pit" by everyone who works around there for a reason. It's dark and dank and mostly unusable.
     
     
  #770  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 5:20 PM
DistrictDirt's Avatar
DistrictDirt DistrictDirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAlossi View Post
People will complain about absolutely anything. Get out, live life a little and stop worrying about the spacing of towers. Seriously, if there were a "canyon" effect in Downtown with towers placed so closely, everyone would be bitching about how there's no light and how we're trying to be like Paris or DC or NY. Sorry to bring it up like that, but this forum has been nonstop negativity for a long time.
Honestly, its the debates that keep me coming back here. Everyone has a unique viewpoint and I think having a debate is healthy, as long as everyone keeps it respectful and avoids personal attacks. Curbed/Eater/Racked already do a great job on reporting development and retail news. If this forum just duplicates what they're already reporting on and we never talk turkey, what's the point?
__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram
     
     
  #771  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 5:36 PM
Just-In-Cali's Avatar
Just-In-Cali Just-In-Cali is offline
Urbanite in Suburbia
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles Metro
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
I'm going to change the subject here for a bit. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that none of the high rises downtown are close together? They are all far apart. I hate this. I go to any other city and there are lovely canyon effects down every street. For some reason, out of all the cities, Los Angeles doesn't have this. It bugs me more then anything else does downtown.
While I understand what you are saying, I have to agree with RALossi.
Thats small beans compared to the real troubles DT. And furthermore, Its kind of inaccurate. Any street in the Historic Core has that "canyon" effect, even if it may not be as deep as some. Even Figueroa is starting to have that look to it. The effect you are talking about really only exists in a few US cities, such as NY or Chicago or SF. The rest are very much like downtown. A collection of 500+ foot towers, and a sea of 10-15 story buildings. Houston, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc. all have a similar layout.

As far as the Fig at 7th, now we are just nitpicking. DistrictDirt has it right. It may not be an ideal pallet to start with, but the plans look to be done very well considering what they are starting with. And frankly, if it serves the neighborhood and provides much needed retail and services that many, such RAlossi, know of and use, then thats FAR more important that a few design aspects that people may not like.
__________________
Blue State Heaven
     
     
  #772  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 5:44 PM
DistrictDirt's Avatar
DistrictDirt DistrictDirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali View Post
And furthermore, Its kind of inaccurate. Any street in the Historic Core has that "canyon" effect, even if it may not be as deep as some.
You're right. When I replied to Illith I was picturing the Bunker Hill area, not the Historic Core...which is kind of silly because I live there.
__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram
     
     
  #773  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 6:03 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Target: nice to have a Target but the shopping center is just awful; there is nothing urban about it. It looks like a cheesy suburban mall dropped into what should be a developing urban district. Ideally, I would probably just fill in the hole and make a classy low-rise building with 2 or 3 levels of Target and some office or residential. The other retail can fill in vacancies in the immediate area.

Canyons: The worst parts of NY and SF (for example) are where the canyons are. Does anyone ever say how cool it is to live or party on Wall St. or Montgomery St.? How about, by comparison, Greenwich Village, Chelsea, the Marina, Russian Hill? At a more practical level, wall to wall buildings means most units have no useful windows. I've lived in units like that in NY.
     
     
  #774  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 6:10 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
btw, that new shopping "sign-post" is reminiscent of down-market shopping centers; something you'd find in a burnt-out industrial suburb trying to attract a Ross or Dollar Store.

And, yes, the triforium is among the worst pieces of public art I have ever seen.
     
     
  #775  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 7:30 PM
DistrictDirt's Avatar
DistrictDirt DistrictDirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
Suprised no one has posted this yet:

NEW RENDERINGS
Notice that for that first rendering they chose the time of day that maximizes the sunlight into the shopping center. In other words, it will never be bright down there as it is in the moment depicted in the rendering.

Not faulting them for doing that...I would (and have) done the same thing in my own renderings. Just pointing out one the tricks up the 3D artists sleeve...
__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram
     
     
  #776  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 7:35 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
I'm going to change the subject here for a bit. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that none of the high rises downtown are close together? They are all far apart. I hate this. I go to any other city and there are lovely canyon effects down every street. For some reason, out of all the cities, Los Angeles doesn't have this. It bugs me more then anything else does downtown.

Easy answer: humongous minimum parking requirements. These buildings need space to put up a parking garage and the necessary on/off ramps for people to drive. I'm not saying parking is not needed, but the ridiculous amount of parking at each building is beyond absurd. And some companies provide free parking to their employees. And people wonder why there's traffic....? It's all about convenience....
     
     
  #777  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 8:57 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim View Post
Easy answer: humongous minimum parking requirements. These buildings need space to put up a parking garage and the necessary on/off ramps for people to drive. I'm not saying parking is not needed, but the ridiculous amount of parking at each building is beyond absurd. And some companies provide free parking to their employees. And people wonder why there's traffic....? It's all about convenience....
IS that so.... It actually does make sense, in an odd way. Is there any drive right now to strip L.A. of these Parking Requirements?
     
     
  #778  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 11:36 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
i just came on to post that the lot has been fenced off. i noticed it a couple days ago, just kept on forgetting to post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali View Post
The parking lot which I have used numerous times is indeed fenced off with that typical green covered construction fence.
Looks like the Broad is off and running!
thanks for the verification & TY for the pic. I've been hesitant to celebrate the demise of another parking lot until things are absolutely certain. I recall cheering last yr after a parking lot across from the eleven condo tower appeared to be getting prepped for a new proj. but that was a false alarm.

the demise of another parking lot in the hood is always cause for celebration. even more so since that lot across from Disney is very visible to VIPs---& ppl in general---who are arriving to & leaving from a concert. So it's to Disney what the new USC university gateway proj is to the Shrine auditorium.
     
     
  #779  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 11:48 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by alki View Post
We may be saying the same thing. LA architecture tends to be flashy/trendy.
alki, if you go back of one of my previous posts & see my mentioning "joyce wildenstein" & pics of her, you'll realize I wasn't criticizing the city for being too flashy or trendy. IOW, I'll take flashy & trendy any day over something that is just flat out unattractive.

I don't mind ppl not liking LA cuz, in their mind, it's too flashy or hollywoodish. but I do mind ppl not caring for LA cuz it's----again, in their mind----depressing or fugly. the former type of reaction is less humiliating to a city----any city----than the latter.
     
     
  #780  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 11:57 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
It bugs me more then anything else does downtown.
more than all the empty lots, parking lots & rundown bldgs? If so, I'll definitely have to say I see things very differently than you do.

btw, I do admit that other than the deadzones, the triforium is one of those things in the hood that makes me wince. not sure if I cringe even more now that the reflecting pools that used to sit under the triforium were removed several yrs ago.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:11 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.