LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

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.

Of course this all has to do with the zoning history of downtown LA. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, plazas were encouraged specifically because city planners did NOT want canyons or dark streets most of the time; they wanted the areas around the skyscrapers to have a lot of sunlight for at least part or most of the day.

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

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 only the time of day, but time of year. In the winter, when the sun arcs in the southerly portion of the sky, the bottom levels of this shopping center never get any direct sunlight.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

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.

The reason why our high-rises are spread apart is because they were required to have plazas around their ground floor perimeter that prevents these skyscrapers from having zero-lot lining, which is what you see in cities like NY or SF where high-rises are crammed in closer together.

However, if you look at the Historic Core, the zoning was different back then when the buildings were built and the high-rises there are back-to-back (zero lot lining).

Thank Zeus the new planning codes for DTLA have been updated somewhat from the laughable and antiquated suburban requirements that DTLA had to endure for so long. The fact that a building in DTLA needed a variance to void a setback is beyond ridiculous. I don't think that's the case now thankfully.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

Thank Zeus the new planning codes for DTLA have been updated somewhat from the laughable and antiquated suburban requirements that DTLA had to endure for so long. The fact that a building in DTLA needed a variance to void a setback is beyond ridiculous. I don't think that's the case now thankfully.

I don't think it is, either. The Gas Company Tower doesn't have a plaza around it, as far as I know, and neither does that tower in City West. I'm surprised that none of the old office buildings have built over their plazas yet. I would think that they would be fairly eager to add a hotel, commercial, or even residential component to the building. For example, Citigroup Center seems ripe for development, if only because its plaza is situated on the corner of a busy street.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I don't think it is, either. The Gas Company Tower doesn't have a plaza around it, as far as I know, and neither does that tower in City West. I'm surprised that none of the old office buildings have built over their plazas yet. I would think that they would be fairly eager to add a hotel, commercial, or even residential component to the building. For example, Citigroup Center seems ripe for development, if only because its plaza is situated on the corner of a busy street.

And I forgot to mention that part of the reason why our skyline looks so gap-toothed is that we actually don't have that many high-rises clustered along parallel streets. All the skyscrapers are lined up almost in a single row along Figueroa mainly, blending onto Flower Street.

In order to have a "dense feeling" skyline, you also would need to have numerous high-rises on both sides of a street, that go on for at least several blocks to give you a "concrete canyon" feeling. When I think about, there are actually several high-rises in Chicago, Toronto, and even New York that I've seen that have larger plazas too. However, because there are just more buildings in general (i.e., very few parking lots) in those city centers, it feels way more dense and not as gap-toothed in their skylines.

Downtown LA would need to build skyscrapers on the OTHER side of the street along Figueroa (across from 777 and Ernst and Young, etc). More high-rises on Flower St (like 8th/Flower), and filling in the Metropolis site could help too.

Basically, if we could fill in all our remaining parking lots in the Financial District and South Park with high-rises, we would have the canyon effect that other city centers in America have.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Regarding the plazas surrounding our skyscrapers... i was never really a fan cause i like the building to interact with the street, however, i was at the BofA plaza today for their farmers market event and it was great. Its like a park, has cool siting areas where everyone can interact and was drawing large crowds from everywhere.

also, a small update on the Embassy Hotel. they delivered carpets a couple days ago so it looks like its still inching forward.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Regarding the plazas surrounding our skyscrapers... i was never really a fan cause i like the building to interact with the street, however, i was at the BofA plaza today for their farmers market event and it was great. Its like a park, has cool siting areas where everyone can interact and was drawing large crowds from everywhere.

also, a small update on the Embassy Hotel. they delivered carpets a couple days ago so it looks like its still inching forward.

Yeah, if plazas could be activated on a more regular basis, it would be an asset to the community. However, I think our issue in DTLA is there are too many of them. Having a couple isn't bad. Nevertheless, how they COULD remedy the situation is tearing out the concrete/granite/tiles, and replacing it will dirt, grass, more trees, making these plazas into parks.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

agreed. a couple here and there is fine, but afterwards i was at the paul hastings building and looking down, you see 10 different plazas. A lot of these can be better incorporated into the street scape, sort of like the mendecino farms / citibank plaza, and it was even more apparent from up there that the Bonaventure needs a complete exterior overhaul. its an abortion of a building and is really insulting to the surrounding area.

[ernie pearl]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

agreed. a couple here and there is fine, but afterwards i was at the paul hastings building and looking down, you see 10 different plazas. A lot of these can be better incorporated into the street scape, sort of like the mendecino farms / citibank plaza, and it was even more apparent from up there that the Bonaventure needs a complete exterior overhaul. its an abortion of a building and is really insulting to the surrounding area.

YES, The Bonaventure needs to get rid of that insulting fortress like concrete base and those 1970's paranoia walkways that criss cross over Figeuroa and Flower Sts.

[pesto]

also agree. It's not that DT has too many plazas, it's that they are all in the same hoods and not enough other places.

The B of A plaza is one of the biggest and "concretist" but getting people in there makes all the difference. How about a couple of huge trees? How about Trader Joe's where the fountain is and grass and seating all around it? Kiosks and benches.

I still think a skateboard park off Grand somewhere would change the whole mood of the area. This is a city, not a mausoleum.

Conversely, breathing space from pocket parks on Bway would not bother me. That's why you have to recess building over a certain height. This also creates the receeding layers on buildings, which helps make NY buildings so interesting.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by ernie pearl

YES, The Bonaventure needs to get rid of that insulting fortress like concrete base

I'd much rather them get rid of it's elevated park in the southwest section of the podium facing 5th street.

and those 1970's paranoia walkways that criss cross over Figeuroa and Flower Sts.

I actually kind of like the walkways; maybe they can be decorated with something to make them look more presentable.

[sopas ej]

I like the walkways too; they actually make it very convenient to walk from the top of Bunker Hill to the inside of the Bonaventure.

And, if they were gotten rid of, how could you reenact the opening credits of "It's A Living"?
• Video Link

[Just-In-Cali]

HAHAHA!!! Ive walked that bridge several times and do hear that song in my head each time.

[sopas ej]

Me too!

[alki]

Look closer. It says Meiman Narcus. It is a filler name.

LOL. Thanks.

[djlx2]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I like the walkways too; they actually make it very convenient to walk from the top of Bunker Hill to the inside of the Bonaventure.

And, if they were gotten rid of, how could you reenact the opening credits of "It's A Living"?
• Video Link

Love the video! "That's entertainment."

[alki]

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.

Unfortunately, architects build monuments to themselves.......or worse, its the developers building monuments to themselves. And it seems the bigger the boom a city experiences, the bigger the egos. Dubai and the Chinese cities are seeing the downside of big egos..........lots of outsized, 'see thru' buildings. Apparently, dealing with the surrounding context is just too ordinary and mundane.

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

Fortunately, not all architects work that way. There is a new condo project........I think lower Manhattan......über modern.......but in a neighborhood of very old buildings. Yet, it fits in very well. I wish I could remember where I saw the photo so I could link the thread to it. I believe architects can make their own statement and still relate to a building's surroundings.

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.

I agree.......my criticism is not about the concept of flashy and trendy per se but about where flashy and trendy can lead. When LA proclaimed that sprawl was good, I suspect that was trendy and flashy at the time. When LA decided it didn't need a downtown or the redcars or mass transit, I bet each of those times the prevailing view was that those positions were considered very trendy. When LA renovated Pershing Square, the new design was considered very flashy...a new direction for public squares. Too often flashy and trendy can lead to a weak design or a weak concept that does not withstand the test of time. Not always but frequently.

The latest trend hitting LA seems to be to incorporate very busy signage into the facade of buildings. Talk about flashy.......these buildings epitomize the word. An example is the new W building in Hollywood. Personally, I don't like it......in my mind, it smacks of overcommercialization. I suspect 10-20 years down the road people will ask what the hell were they thinking.

Then again, trendy can lead to an important contribution in urban design. Case in point is the LAX control tower. From what I've read, the building was heavily criticized when it was first built............was considered too jetsonian. Flash forward 50 years and now it is an iconic building of LA........a favorite in movies filmed in LA.

My evaluation is very anecdotal but I think trendy and flashy misses more than it hits. And I found that Angelenos were all too conscious of the city's cutting edge reputation and sometimes worked over time to live up to that rep...and not in a good way.

[alki]

There's been lots of talk about skyways and building canyons and plazas on this thread. For every example of a plaza that doesn't work I can find one that does work. Here in Seattle.....the Westlake plaza in downtown is always active......day and night. People play hacky sack or eat an ice cream cone or have a cigarette. Then they move on. Minneapolis has tons of skyways and they work very well because they were incorporated and integrated with the urban fabric from the getgo. Other than city hall, LA didn't have a skyscraper until I believe the 1970s. I believe their aversion to canyons came, in part, from that delay in skyscraper development. When new construction techniques made skyscraper design for earthquakes feasible, it was believed that development of skyscapers would block out the Sun......the glorious LA Sun. This was a city built on the Sun and its incredible climate. For decades, the city had been advertised as a climate mecca. Putting up skyscrapers would block the Sun.........in fact, many opposed the Hollywood subway because it would force people underground....away from the sunlight. Hence, the intense zoning restrictions on hi-rise construction.

My point is I don't think there is a set formula that makes for a vibrant downtown. What works in one city may not work in another city. In fact, what works on one block may not work another block. You can build it but that doesn't mean they will come. I liked walking on 7th street but not on Fig. I liked the 7th @ Fig mall but not the Macy's mall or the one in Little Tokyo. There is a 5-6 story mall here in Seattle. It commands some of the highest rents in the downtown area. I don't know why it works but it does....its busy day and nite.

What I do know is that for a building, a plaza, a street or a mall to be successful people have to like being there, have to feel comfortable and have to be willing to spend time and money. Otherwise, it fails as an urban setting.

[djlx2]

Originally Posted by alki

What I do know is that for a building, a plaza, a street or a mall to be successful people have to like being there, have to feel comfortable and have to be willing to spend time and money. Otherwise, it fails as an urban setting.

I am in complete agreement on this one. You know what the problem with LA is in terms of urban landscape? You have certain architects focused on making things "perfect" for their ideal audience, at total detriment to the plaza itself being feasible and structural possibility, and then you have other architects "strict" about development, in that they would only will it according to their grand design. You can't have the urban landscape develop on a basis of harmony, because one architectural element is "anything to please" and the other is "according to strict design," resulting in certain buildings being a structural mess in an attempt to accommodate audience, and another structurally sound but intimidating to any visitors.

That's downtown LA right now. Lots of gardens, lots of intimidating buildings, plazas with zero development, somewhat bleak. It's not that we wouldn't like things to be lovely and make things work. The architectural design element has all seemed focused on lack of structural accord. Nothing is practical, none of the major design-harmony flaws have been addressed, or are anywhere near fixing, so the focus seems based not on practical elements but based on vague calls for optimism that require detailed attention. So here's the question. If there was a simple survey of "What's wrong with DTLA and how do we make it work" what are the questions and points you'd answer? Because that would help architecture. Right now it's at an impasse.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Still needing my attention? Awe......
I'm not getting into a personal debate on architectual critics with you in here...nor am i going to personally attack your intelligence or standing as you have mine regularly.
You want a debate on critics and design in general...private message me. Id be happy to go over all of it time and again. Otherwise, since I have no need to be banned from here, Im dropping it.

where have i attacked your intelligence? i've only questioned your knowledge to date - and still do.

and this is ssp - why would you want to hide behind pm's in a discussion about the architectural merit of downtown buildings of all things? you don't want people to see what you (don't?) know? isn't this the place for exactly this kind of discussion?

i'm still puzzled about your comment about the ritz - you referred to it as modern, when stating that it would be praised if plopped in the dt of a better respected city. first of all, you think that's a "modern" design? what elements make you think that? and you honestly don't see any flaw with the ritz such that if it were built in boston, it wouldn't also be criticized for the same things hawthorne saw in it?

or do you think the ritz is innovative? and if so, how is it innovative? i'm genuinely curious about your opinion. and one more question: in your opinion, what other projects by big name architects (besides the ritz, as we all know gensler is a big name ) get biased reviews simply for being in la?

and sorry, i will not hide this discussion in a pm (think of this as my reply that pm you sent me). i ask fair questions that are perfectly fitting for this thread.

[edluva]

double post