LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

It did indeed look nice when it was first built. What made it look nice in the old photos compared to now is that the photos show how it was originally designed; it was a great example of mid-20th Century modernism, totally unadorned, without any ornament; form followed function.

everyone's tastes are different, for I've always considered the WG (or former hilton) to be an overly plain type of bldg. It's always made me think of the modest budgets & peculiarly dowdy styles of the time when it was built, the 1950s. the era when cars had huge fins, women wore tightly permed hairdos, & nuclear bombs---yes, radiation spewing devices!!!----were being tested out in the nevada desert.

the more recent changes to the WG, if anything, made the bldg look less dowdy. that's due mainly to a different shade of color being painted in alignment with all the cookie cutter windows. so the monotony of the original bldg isn't as noticeable.

only bad thing about the upcoming work is the site will become a temporary gap during all the months of demolition & then all the months of construction. And as some others have mentioned, if devlpt of the tallest tower is delayed for many yrs, that means the site will have a deadzone on it well into the future. so in the meantime, will the gap be used for a small parking lot (I HOPE NOT!), or will it just sit as a vacant piece of land with a fence around it?

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

So, I got some pictures of The Broad construction last weekend. I just got around to posting. Here they are:

I guess that will be one of the major devlpt sites in dt for the next few yrs. A relief that such a major gap in that area finally is being taken care of.

I understand work has also recently begun on a new apt bldg---semi low rise at only around 6 to 7 floors----on wilshire blvd across from the 1100 wilshire bldg. Farther north, in chinatown & not too far from city hall, another piece of land is being developed on the west side of broadway, north of chavez blvd. I recall all the yrs I'd drive by that location, look to my right side & see the huge parking lot that's been there for yrs & yrs, & go "uggh". It created a major divide between the civic ctr & chinatown. I still don't know what the proj will look like since I don't believe the devlpr has ever released a drawing of what is being described as a residential bldg with lots of parking under it.

[LAsam]

^ Chinatown Gateway

[pesto]

I have to admit I like the firehouse, the building next to it, the ceiling at Mas Malo, the dog painting and the awnings more than the old Statler Hilton. Like the Beverly Hilton and much of modernism, it was the abdication of style for power expressed through sheer bulk. Try to imagine a city like that: no color, no curves, no decoration, overpowering masses. Or you could have visited Warsaw, East Berlin, Moscow, etc., in the 1950's to 1980's.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Not quite, my friend. The hotel portion, still a heft 750ft, is the one breaking ground. The actual supertall won't break ground until market conditions improve, which means that though it is likely to break ground it is no done deal. Still, though, the fact that we are getting any tower is cause for celebration.

No kidding. I've just about had it with this city sitting in the economic shitter for so long.

Originally Posted by RAlossi

Now my biggest fear is Korean Air will go bankrupt or lose funding or something, leaving a big pit in the ground for years. Onward and upward, I suppose.

I wonder if the fact that it is a foreign company means anything. I mean things are so bad here in the US, it has to be better in Korea, right?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by citywatch

everyone's tastes are different, for I've always considered the WG (or former hilton) to be an overly plain type of bldg. It's always made me think of the modest budgets & peculiarly dowdy styles of the time when it was built, the 1950s. the era when cars had huge fins, women wore tightly permed hairdos, & nuclear bombs---yes, radiation spewing devices!!!----were being tested out in the nevada desert.

the more recent changes to the WG, if anything, made the bldg look less dowdy. that's due mainly to a different shade of color being painted in alignment with all the cookie cutter windows. so the monotony of the original bldg isn't as noticeable.

Originally Posted by pesto

I have to admit I like the firehouse, the building next to it, the ceiling at Mas Malo, the dog painting and the awnings more than the old Statler Hilton. Like the Beverly Hilton and much of modernism, it was the abdication of style for power expressed through sheer bulk. Try to imagine a city like that: no color, no curves, no decoration, overpowering masses. Or you could have visited Warsaw, East Berlin, Moscow, etc., in the 1950's to 1980's.

I won't miss the Statler/Hilton/Omni/Wilshire Grand; I just think it looked better how it originally looked. That's the trouble with Modern architecture; it doesn't age well. For a Modern-style building to look good, it has to be polished/cleaned up, or even architectural elements need to be replaced, like tinted windows; they end up looking oily after over a decade or so. Modern architecture is almost like a machine in that respect. Take the Lever House building in Manhattan. Some years ago, it was "restored," but basically all of the windows and the exterior curtain walls was replaced; so, was it really a "restoration?" I think it looks gorgeous now, though.

I actually wasn't a fan of mid-20th Century Modernism until maybe about 8 years ago or so. I appreciate it now, or at least the philosophy behind it. Some examples of Modernism I find quite striking and attractive. I really like the early International Style/early Modernism from the 1920s and 1930s. Of course I do like other styles of architecture, too.

The way the Wilshire Grand looks now, it's such a horrible mismatch of styles. I'm glad it's going to be gone. That block has evolved a lot in the last 100 years:

First the Foy House:

LAPL

Then it became a Studebaker dealership:

LAPL

Demolition of dealership:

LAPL

Construction of the Statler:

LAPL

Soon to look like this, with epileptic seizure-inducing LED lighting, maybe?

archpaper.com


archpaper.com


archpaper.com

Is the LED lighting really necessary?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I wonder if the fact that it is a foreign company means anything. I mean things are so bad here in the US, it has to be better in Korea, right?

If it's better in Korea, why do Koreans keep moving here?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

If it's better in Korea, why do Koreans keep moving here?

Well since Seoul is a whole lot more crowded than LA (half of the country's population lives in the Seoul metro), it probably shouldn't be that surprising that they would wanna live here.

[QuarterMileSidewalk]

If I had been in charge, that Studebaker building would still be there today. I like it.

[sopas ej]

What's interesting to me is that, looking at the Foy House, it sat on a scarp, I assume formed by an earthquake fault. Throughout its history, LA has leveled hills and knolls and scarps for development and whatnot. I have a book on LA's earthquake faults; I live near one in South Pasadena (Raymond Hill being a huge scarp and the Oak Knoll neighborhood of Pasadena having scarps running through it). The LA Mormon temple sits on a huge earthquake fault-formed scarp on Santa Monica Boulevard.

[jamesinclair]

Hopefully the demolition works out better for you guys than Boston.

A new york developer, came in, demolished a building of similar age, and promised a mixed use tower (hotel, residential, commercial). Once the building was gone, and a pit dug, construction stopped.

Two years later, at a speech in NYC, the developer talked about how blight is a useful tool in extorting public money. Nobody wants a pit, so he creates a disaster to the state is forced to give him money to fix it.

Charming downtown Boston for 3 years now

[Illithid Dude]

Did that New York developer have a good track record prior? Ours does.

[jamesinclair]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Did that New York developer have a good track record prior? Ours does.

Vornado Realty Trust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vornado_Realty_Trust

[DtlaCuriousity]

Wow, it does make for a great scene though...I mean providing you don't live there

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

Hopefully the demolition works out better for you guys than Boston.

A new york developer, came in, demolished a building of similar age, and promised a mixed use tower (hotel, residential, commercial). Once the building was gone, and a pit dug, construction stopped.

Two years later, at a speech in NYC, the developer talked about how blight is a useful tool in extorting public money. Nobody wants a pit, so he creates a disaster to the state is forced to give him money to fix it.

[Quixote]

I spent my Friday evening at The Script concert at Club Nokia. LA Live was hopping, and not just because of the concert-goers. Say what you will about LA Live, it's been a rousing success in more ways than one since it first opened. It's why I firmly support AEG's efforts to build Farmers Field; the track record is certainly there. I just wish the whole Staples/LA Live entertainment district didn't exist in such a vacuum.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

I spent my Friday evening at The Script concert at Club Nokia. LA Live was hopping, and not just because of the concert-goers. Say what you will about LA Live, it's been a rousing success in more ways than one since it first opened. It's why I firmly support AEG's efforts to build Farmers Field; the track record is certainly there. I just wish the whole Staples/LA Live entertainment district didn't exist in such a vacuum.

But doesn't putting a football stadium in the middle of downtown guarantee that LA Live will be in a vacuum? If you look at any "live" neighborhood in, say, NY, you look mostly at low-rise housing and retail (the Village, SoHo, Chelsea, etc.); not at large institutions and even worse, athletic facilities with very limited use. MSG and Yankee Stadium have not made their 'hoods "cool" places to hang. Quite the opposite.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by pesto

But doesn't putting a football stadium in the middle of downtown guarantee that LA Live will be in a vacuum? If you look at any "live" neighborhood in, say, NY, you look mostly at low-rise housing and retail (the Village, SoHo, Chelsea, etc.); not at large institutions and even worse, athletic facilities with very limited use. MSG and Yankee Stadium have not made their 'hoods "cool" places to hang. Quite the opposite.

Personally, I don't think that building a football stadium will make much of a difference. It is replacing a big old hulking structure with another big old hulking structure. Nothing gained, nothing lost.

[RAlossi]

Yeah, it's not a debate on whether to build a stadium on top of the convention center vs. housing/retail/other uses; it's whether to build a stadium on top of the convention center vs. keeping things exactly as they are now.

Adding the stadium use, IMO, will only help.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by RAlossi

Yeah, it's not a debate on whether to build a stadium on top of the convention center vs. housing/retail/other uses; it's whether to build a stadium on top of the convention center vs. keeping things exactly as they are now.

Adding the stadium use, IMO, will only help.

Exactly. why is that so hard to understand Pesto?

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

But doesn't putting a football stadium in the middle of downtown guarantee that LA Live will be in a vacuum? If you look at any "live" neighborhood in, say, NY, you look mostly at low-rise housing and retail (the Village, SoHo, Chelsea, etc.); not at large institutions and even worse, athletic facilities with very limited use. MSG and Yankee Stadium have not made their 'hoods "cool" places to hang. Quite the opposite.

I would concur this arguement with what I saw at Fenway Park in Boston. The neighborhood is filled with bars, restaurants, etc.. a very lively atmosphere whenever the Red Sox are playing..or not because they have built thousands of residential units within walking distance of the baseball stadium. So everything is relative.