LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by edluva

the only reason you believe there are double standards between LA vs other cities is that you're unable to distinguish between respectable architecture and crap architecture. so due to your inability to distinguish between the two (and a possible hometown bias), you attribute any sort of criticism of LA proposals to elitism and double standards.

to me, and probably some others here, it's very simple. this stadium looks offensively retarded. it's stupid looking. and this proposal would not fly in any other city. this tampon stadium just wouldn't be proposed in new york, seattle, or sf - it would render the developer/politicians laughing stocks within their respective communities.

people in those cities - citizens, business leaders, and government alike, they're sharper. they're more sophisticated than their angeleno counterparts at every level. that's why there's so much trash here. we're less sophisticated, and more angeleno's are likely to see this as "good" or "cutting edge" architecture. this forum proves that.

angelenos are just more phillistine.

but it kind of makes sense doesn't it? the "urban" (more eastern) parts of LA are extremely poor and lack influence. the moneyed parts are suburban (yes, this includes much of the westside). Urban LA is being built through the lense of rich suburbanites who don't care about urban culture or architecture, and governed by politicians who receive donations from those very suburbanites. it's no wonder LA looks the way it does.

Cities like NY, SF, Chicago, etc, have moneyed and educated urbanites, who take ownership of their neighborhoods (who doesn't?) and maintain an influential discourse on their architectural heritage, identity, etc that eventually filters into the highest levels of government. That's what LA lacks. An urban economy, and society.

That's true to a greater extent. The issue here is L.A. is an extremely young city and it just needs a significant amount of time to mature into this cosmopolitan city that we all wish it could be today. Well, L.A. is great on so many levels and in pockets. However, the urban L.A. is great for Southern California and always improving. But, it needs to maintain a high level of focus in order to grow properly.

What do I mean by grow properly? Urban planning is key here and I pray that L.A. hires the best urban planners money can buy and that they manage to implement their rules and shape the L.A. of the future to ensure that this place continues to beautify. I am not in denial that L.A. is still developing a street life, in downtown as well as in other neighborhoods. However, that street life can only grow as quickly as money grows and it's allocated specifically towards urban development rather than suburban.

The issue here is that Westside money will never dry out. So, urban Angelenos must rely on the convergence of a continued effort from the monied elite of L.A. and its politicians to pour as much money into the urban core as possible. This is the only real solution for L.A. Of course, there will be from time to time foreign money that will come into play for certain real estate developments. However, the desire must come from within and Hollywood money must start shifting to downtown.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

That is such a nimby perception.... So we should do that because you wanna preserve your view of union station from far away or on other words your car. Pfft fuck that.. If u wanna see it at its true grandeur just visit the place up front and up close. Grand Central Terminal in NYC is doing just fine.. With high rises surrounding it. So will SF's future Transbay Terminal, AND they're getting a super tall.. And your complaining about 15-20 stories??? Jesus fucking Christ dude. I'm not saying we should build super talls also, but IF there are plans for tall high rises then why not?? Even SD has built skyscrapers around their union station.. As a matter of fact, their tallest skyscraper, one America plaza, sits just across the street from it... WITH a light rail station... So do not hold Union Station back on this.

Yes I have to agree with that. A city isn't just about what a building looks like from afar, it's how the collection of everything forming the built environment functions and how those pedestrians interact with the buildings and one thing that lacks around Union Station for such a relatively busy station is density. We need as many well connected large structures around Union Station as possible. It would be wonderful if Union Station was surrounded by high-rises as tall as the Metro headquarters. NIMBY attitudes need not be in Downtown LA, please.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

:
alki lives in Seattle, so when he said "here" he meant where he is located.

oh.....

[alki]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Wow to all the naysayers here. I guarantee you, if this rendering was shown of a new football stadium being built in DC, New York, SF, Chicago, all y'all will be like "why can't LA build a great urban stadium like that in its core". I guarantee it. Being anti-LA, just because it's LA is so tiring.

Your post is an effective way to stop all criticism. Its the 'you're either for us or against us' approach. I got the same response when I was critical of the renovated Pershing Square in the 90s.

And then people wonder why things don't improve...........

[alki]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

Yes I have to agree with that. A city isn't just about what a building looks like from afar, it's how the collection of everything forming the built environment functions and how those pedestrians interact with the buildings and one thing that lacks around Union Station for such a relatively busy station is density. We need as many well connected large structures around Union Station as possible. It would be wonderful if Union Station was surrounded by high-rises as tall as the Metro headquarters. NIMBY attitudes need not be in Downtown LA, please.

Most train stations are located in the heart of the downtown.....or very close to the heart.....much closer than Union Station is to the heart of DTLA. And Brigham, you should know well enough that everything doesn't have to be cookie cutter.......leave some room for each city developing its own uniqueness.

If we didn't leave room for innovation and experimentation, its likely NY wouldn't have built a park on an elevated, abandoned road; Seattle a monorail, or San Antonio its river walk. None of these innovations impress me but they make their respective cities different from other cities.

The approach to Union Station is nothing if not iconic. It says LA......just like the control tower at LAX. Not everything in LA has to look like NY or SF. I think its important to leave some room for LA to have its own identity.

[alki]

Originally Posted by edluva

isn't what i said above substantiating enough? i've almost always attributed my criticisms to a cause. and for me it's consistently been the people. the inhabitants - especially those with power and money here. they are artistically shallow. this is a market based economy, is it not? cities only put up what its citizens are willing to patronize - and these kinds of buildings are what los angeles and angelenos have voted for, time and time again, which is really saying a lot.

You may be right.......Angelenos may be shallow. However, if you intent is to cause change, making that point over and over again will not encourage change but rather will provoke animosity where nothing is gained.

as far as being constructive goes - i realize i sound pretty negative. basically, you're saying if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it. i get it. but i'm not being ignored. just read the reactions people have to my comments. and contrary to what some here believe, i don't deliberately "stir the pot". i'm just take it or leave it blunt as fuck, and am not here to win popularity contests.

No, I am not saying that.......I would be the last person to censor someone. And I am not suggesting that this board be a popularity contest.

What I am saying is that telling me that a building is ugly because people are stupid tells me nothing about what you are thinking re. the actual design; about what is the critique you've done to come to that conclusion. That's what I am looking for.

but anyways, it's hard to be "politically correct" or positive here because this forum is a blind praise-fest for anything that breaks ground. for a supposedly cosmopolitan metropolis, it's extremely disappointing to see our collectively low expectations consistently manifest in enormously costly yet ridiculously stupid looking infill. infill that's not even ugly in a good way, and will be proven uglier with time.

i'm trying to wake people up. i feel that there's something constructive in that. some people here won't admit to it, but i've brought a lot of introspection to the LA forum, even to those who despise me. i have seen some forumers gain a more critical eye because of it.

Look......for ten years in the 90s, I railed about something happening in DTLA. When I left LA, I had given up that DT would revive. Ten years later, and its happening. Change does come to LA but its not going to happen like it does with other cities. I am not sure why........it may well be because people are shallow. I happen to think it may be a combination of corruption, intellectual laziness, and LA's perennial search for the next new thing.

Whatever the case, what's happening in certain parts of DTLA......I could only dream about ten years ago.

btw, i happen to think it looks like a winged insect.

More of this.

[alki]

Originally Posted by ElDuderino

It's the old Emporium location which closed in 1996. The Bloomingdales opened in 2006 and is the largest one outside NYC.

Pretty impressive.......SF is a pretty remarkable city. For all the criticism leveled at the city over its slow growth policies and its narcissistic attitudes, and claims that the city would implode from its own vanities, it continues to maintain its position as one of the more exciting urban environments in this country.

[alki]

Originally Posted by citywatch

alki, if you're corrrect, than a city it's being compared to negatively must be in really bad shape. that's cuz what I would consider a major intersection in seattle, where your city's version of disney Hall is located, doesn't look much better than this....


maps.google.com

^ benaroya concert hall is across the street from this....


maps.google.com

^ that's really tacky, & benaroya makes me wanna say "love me or hate me, just don't bore me!"


to get back to the topic of dtla, this is the most current pic of work on what's taking place across from LA's answer to benaroya hall...



^ you can see we've got seattle type weather right now.

Citywatch, I am not about to defend Seattle. It is what it is. If you think picking out one or two buildings, and coming to some conclusions about the city based on your critique of those buildings and their designs........then go for it.

[Muji]

I was very pleasantly surprised to see the green bike line being installed today along Spring Street!



Across from Spring Street Park, now under construction.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

If you think picking out one or two buildings, and coming to some conclusions about the city based on your critique of those buildings and their designs........then go for it.

alki, how about 3 or 4 (or more).

the rather new seattle main library designed by rem koolhaus is to the right, but look at the bldgs to its left. For some reason they remind me of the type of design I'd see in a sunbelt city in texas......


maps.google.com

one thing I also noticed about the central portion of seattle is that it doesn't have all the deadzones or super grit-----or poverty----that is all over LA, esp dt. while you or others may trace the city's problems to newer bldgs cuz of their bad designs, or argue about the width of sidewalks or number of subways, or apt bldgs with too much parking, or things like that, I think far more ppl go to LA cuz of things like this....


maps.google.com

^ LA has way too much grunge & grit. A bit of it can be hip, but an excess amt of it can make a city seem like a big joke. So either ignoring or not recognizing that may be one reason ppl start arguing about whether new highrises around Union station are a good or bad thing. iow, why worry about that when there's no $$ for that type of devlpt? The reason? the hood still has more vacant office space than anyone knows what to do with----a problem that dates back yrs & yrs & yrs.

Does anyone really believe that some devlpr is going to put up more highrises even in the best part of dtla, much less around the edges----& union station is at the northern extreme of the hood-----at least before everyone here at ssp is old & gray?! ppl have to do a better job in connecting the dots.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Muji

I was very pleasantly surprised to see the green bike line being installed today along Spring Street!

thanks for the pics, muji! I always like seeing improvements & changes---but good ones----taking place in the hood.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Does anyone really believe that some devlpr is going to put up more highrises even in the best part of dtla, much less around the edges----& union station is at the northern extreme of the hood-----at least before everyone here at ssp is old & gray?! ppl have to do a better job in connecting the dots.

Even for you, this is an unusually pessimistic statement...

Let's see, so why do you even visit this thread when you feel that the majority of developments on page 1 aren't going to happen before I am "old & gray"??? BTW, i'm only 22. Illithid Dude is 18, I believe. And that really young kid (Threehundred joked and called him my "little brother") that showed up late in the 3.0 thread whose comments made little sense was 14, I think. Forgot his name.

Seriously, if ANYONE needs to connect the dots, it's YOU. You completely ignore significant changes that have already happened, are currently happening, and are going to ESPECIALLY happen this decade and the next, all of which point to greater high-rise growth downtown.

One of them - that I appreciate now more than I used to - is the bike lane expansion.



EDIT: Here's something to consider: Even if the housing market does in fact take 20 years (from now) to recover, I'll still only be 42. Not young, but definitely not "old & gray".

Just to give you an idea of how ridiculously inane your statement was.

I know you - and anybody else - will probably not respond to this comment, but still...

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Illithid Dude is 18, I believe.

Hahaha. Try sixteen.

Originally Posted by citywatch

[/b]Does anyone really believe that some devlpr is going to put up more highrises even in the best part of dtla, much less around the edges----& union station is at the northern extreme of the hood-----at least before everyone here at ssp is old & gray?! ppl have to do a better job in connecting the dots.

Well, next year, at least, three high rises are breaking ground (Wilshire Grand, those ugly Mariotte towers, and the nineteen story apartment on Grand). I assume it will only get better from there.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

BTW, i'm only 22. Illithid Dude is 18, I believe.

ok, jdrcrash, for you & illithid I'll modify my statement to "before anyone is married & has kids in high school!" or kids in middle school.

when I see forumers debating about some proposed new bldg not being tall enough, or whether towers should be in south pk or around union station, they make me think of ppl talking very seriously about how they'll spend their money after winning the $300 million lotto. iow, they're setting themselves up for disappointment, or they're gonna have to wait a very, very long before anything happens.

I recall mentioning to you the history of the park fifth proj & noting its devlpr has been trying to get something built on that site across from pershing sq since the early 1980s. and bunker Hill? there's still vacant land up there since the early 1960s that's yet to be developed!!

actually, since I try to be realistic, I end up appreciating projs like these even more.....


lacurbed.com

^ I know that $$ & the economy dictate that much bigger, fancier projs aren't likely to happen anytime soon, & in the meantime there are too many gaps & deadzones that need to be cleaned out to think that one actual, real & REALISTIC proj will somehow ruin the hood's----or city's----future.

[JDRCRASH]

These days, I probably edit my posts more than I post at all, lol.

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by citywatch

[/b]alki, how about 3 or 4 (or more).

the rather new seattle main library designed by rem koolhaus is to the right, but look at the bldgs to its left. For some reason they remind me of the type of design I'd see in a sunbelt city in texas......


maps.google.com

one thing I also noticed about the central portion of seattle is that it doesn't have all the deadzones or super grit-----or poverty----that is all over LA, esp dt. while you or others may trace the city's problems to newer bldgs cuz of their bad designs, or argue about the width of sidewalks or number of subways, or apt bldgs with too much parking, or things like that, I think far more ppl go to LA cuz of things like this....


maps.google.com

^ LA has way too much grunge & grit. A bit of it can be hip, but an excess amt of it can make a city seem like a big joke. So either ignoring or not recognizing that may be one reason ppl start arguing about whether new highrises around Union station are a good or bad thing. iow, why worry about that when there's no $$ for that type of devlpt? The reason? the hood still has more vacant office space than anyone knows what to do with----a problem that dates back yrs & yrs & yrs.

Does anyone really believe that some devlpr is going to put up more highrises even in the best part of dtla, much less around the edges----& union station is at the northern extreme of the hood-----at least before everyone here at ssp is old & gray?! ppl have to do a better job in connecting the dots.

LA has a lot more manufacturing than Seattle. Of course LA is going to have industrial corridors that look neglected because they are primarily used by big trucks.

[bobcat]

To a large degree I think intense scrutiny of individual projects is sort of like missing the forest for the trees. The biggest problem with LA isn't lack of tall buildings or too much stucco, it's the decaying infrastructure and stifling bureaucracy. If we were to fix our transportation system, roads, schools, and get rid of all the bureaucratic red tape we'd be 90% of the way there.

Originally Posted by Ilithid Dude

Hahaha. Try sixteen.

No offense, but this explains a lot.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by bobcat

No offense, but this explains a lot.

Does it? I think I'm a hell of a lot more rational and polite then most of the people on this forum, people who I would assume are a number of years older then me. Do my opinions hold less merit because they come from a person of a lesser age? I would think not.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

\Do my opinions hold less merit because they come from a person of a lesser age? I would think not.

Of course not. But I sense from many of your posts that you may not fully understand just how long it takes for cities to turn around, and that is likely due to your age. Typically it takes neighborhoods 20+ years to fully gentrify, i.e. longer than you've even been alive. To someone like yourself it would literally be a lifetime.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by bobcat

Of course not. But I sense from many of your posts that you may not fully understand just how long it takes for cities to turn around, and that is likely due to your age. Typically it takes neighborhoods 20+ years to fully gentrify, i.e. longer than you've even been alive. To someone like yourself it would literally be a lifetime.

I understand plenty how long it takes neighborhoods to take around. But I've also watched as downtown L.A. goes against all that normally happens as a neighborhood gentrifies. Downtown Los Angeles has a bigger population then most of the other downtowns in the United States, many of which are actually the wealthy centers of their respective cities. Downtown L.A. bucked all the trends; it has the people to sustain higher-end retail, but doesn't have the high end retail. Normally, the retail comes in as the people come in, and normally, that process happens at a much slower pace then what is happening in DLTA. I think that DTLA is such an outlier in the world of gentrifying areas that, really, anything can happen.