LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0 - Page 238

Illithid Dude · #**4741** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 8:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I heard thru the grapevine that LA Crash Mansion will be demolished...

Sorry for being stupid, but what is the LA Crash Mansion and what is the importance of it being demolished? Is this the same lot as the old City House/ Olympic proposal?

BrandonJXN · #**4742** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 1:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Sorry for being stupid, but what is the LA Crash Mansion and what is the importance of it being demolished? Is this the same lot as the old City House/ Olympic proposal?

Crash Mansion is a nightclub on the site where The City House and The Olympic is/was to rise. A few years ago, Crash Mansion signed a multi year lease so they could be there for a long time which sucks as that club has a history of shootings and loud people waking up the people in South Park.

RuFFy · #**4743** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 3:24 PM**

^^^ I do remember the City House/Olympic/Crash Mansion fiasco and the string of shootings at the club. We were all disappointed when that lease moved forward but almost immediately I think most of us wrote the project off. JDCrash has always been a fan of it though if I remember right. I would like to see a redesigned project, but we'll see. From the beginning Titan Partners and just the entire project have seemed far fetched.

pesto · #**4744** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Agreed about City House and Olympic sticking out like a sore thumb. What's bothersome is not the neoclassical design but rather the uttter disregard for context.

Beaux-Arts-inspired infill (no higher than 12-13 stories) in the Historic Core would be more palatable.

Yes. If there is a pre-existing style in an area, then try to respect it. If you're really creative, it shouldn't restrain you much.

I think of high rises as sort of falling out of this category, since they define their own space. But not if built in a relatively dense and consistent area.

LA/OCman · #**4745** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Sorry for being stupid, but what is the LA Crash Mansion and what is the importance of it being demolished? Is this the same lot as the old City House/ Olympic proposal?

It is a very historic structure..also known as Myron's Ballroom. It was built in 1910 by Mary Pickford and has was featured in the move "The Cotton Club". Lot's of history in this building.

alki · #**4746** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I heard thru the grapevine that LA Crash Mansion will be demolished...

Brigham, why the long lead times for restaurants opening in LA? Do you know? I had only one experience with a restaurant renting one of my commercial spaces and they gave up after a few months. I was too busy to find out why they had trouble getting a permit........figured they were inexperienced. However, now I read on your blog that it takes restaurants sometimes years to get permitted......Leka is the latest example.

What's the backstory......do you know?

alki · #**4747** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

City House and The Olympic were super ugles, IMO. I'd say second most important project to go bye-bye during the downturn would be L.A. Central. That project would have really tied South Park together, and it had a Whole Foods, which would have been fantastic for the community..

Oh, I like them both......esp. City House.

Would have made an interesting contrast on the LA skyline.

alki · #**4748** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Why? Cause the the rest of Downtown is too "modern"? Well, except the Historic District, at least.

Seriously, though, no skyline is perfect. NONE. Why should LA be restricted to building certain types of architecture while the rest of the world (NYC, London, etc. etc.) is free to build whatever they want?

I agree with you JDR..........I like City House. Too bad it didn't get built.

BrandonJXN · #**4749** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alki

Oh, I like them both......esp. City House.

Would have made an interesting contrast on the LA skyline.

No.

City House and The Olympic were too tall for the area and not to mention a architectural clash. South Park needs to be a bit more modern and contemporary. If you are going to recreate a long dead style of design, at least put it not in the middle of a up and coming neighborhood, but in the Historic Core. And reduce it's size. It's far too tall.

alki · #**4750** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

You have to get over this: everything you say is backwards. DT did not deteriorate because the city "let it". The city was pouring money into it from 1950's on, at the expense of the rest of the city. Bunker Hill, the Music Center, govt. buildings were all concentrated in DT. Dozens of companies (including Union Oil, ARCO, several banking and transport companies) were subsidized to move DT. The problem was that "people" (remember them?) didn't want to live there; they preferred less density, better schools, less crime and drugs, access to shopping, the beaches, etc.

Just because we do not agree does not mean I have it backwards. Its true suburban flight took place in most cities. The American Dream was a single family home with a yard........and that dream was encouraged in a number of different ways. However, LA took it one step further and encouraged the dispersal of its commercial core throughout the city and its suburbs.

For a while that worked.........DT continued to grow whiles its nodes also flourished..........esp the Westside. However, in the early 90s, that all came to an end. Up until the 90s, LA was a boomtown.......it was not unusual for LA county to build 50-75K housing units per year. Office absorption was millions of sq ft per year. LA was a major job creator. That all ended in the early 90s. Since then, LA has been all about slow growth and it can't support all the nodes it created during the boom years.

As a consequence, DTLA became a backwater. Any new office space was built on the Westside. Ditto with retail and hotels. In the 90s, DTLA had large office vacancies and terrible hotel occupany rates [in the 50s and 60s] compared to the Westside. Dept store after dept store closed up shop. All that was left was a sub par Broadway. Despite the fact that the Westside was an amorphous blob, it was king.

Now, its 2012 and things are changing. Staples Center happened. The Millennials prefer an urban setting. The historic core is coming alive. Transit is once again forcused on DTLA. And yet, I think it was ID who wondered why more projects weren't happening in DTLA.

Well you have two competing entities........DTLA and the Westside........in a slow growth economy. There isn't enough pie to go around. I don't care how onerous parking requirements are or whatever considerations people throw up, demand is key. If there is not enough demand, little gets built. LA does not have enough growth to support two 'downtowns'.

Quote:

If anything the city took the "urbanist" solution (high-rises, density, institutions, govt. intervention) rather than the "popular" solution, actually making life pleasant for people.

Bunker Hill is hardly an urbanist solution. Its more a Le Corbusier wet dream....more like century city with a bit of the suburbs thrown in for good measure. Very sterile and clean......and fairly unsuccessful as an urban entity. Are the office towers fully occupied now?

Quote:

And, again, the center of LA is not the 10 blocks between Alameda and the 110. This is maybe 1 percent of the city's population, excluding the myriad other inner suburbs from SaMo to Pasadena, that are effectively part of the city and have their own residents who are willing to fund institutions.

On that we can agree..........LA's center is the Westside........one of the oddest urban configurations in the country. And look how important it still is.........how many defenders it has on a forum devoted to DTLA.

alki · #**4751** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

No.

City House and The Olympic were too tall for the area and not to mention a architectural clash. South Park needs to be a bit more modern and contemporary. If you are going to recreate a long dead style of design, at least put it not in the middle of a up and coming neighborhood, but in the Historic Core. And reduce it's size. It's far too tall.

For me, part of their appeal is their height. Neo Classical looks squat when done with small bldgs. As for a South Park location.........given that they are on their own block, I am less concerned with their 'fitting' in......esp since most skylines are built over decades and usually present contrasting architecture..........case in point, never mind.......I can't cross Colemonkee's edict............but it rhymes with sue pork.

RuFFy · #**4752** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 8:23 PM**

RE: Stanley Mosk Courthouse and the Hall of Administration, Gloria Molina said this..

"These buildings have to come down, that's the one thing we really need," Molina said. "We need more green and more trees and more open space for people to enjoy."

Apparently she's calling for the removal of both buildings flanking the new park to be revisited. I'd really like to see them go. I'd also like to see the Hill Street ramps reconfigured. Perhaps we could rid at least 1 driveway and split the lanes at the garage entrance. One way in, the other out.

Link to the article in the Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-grand-park-20120727,0,562115.story

citywatch · #**4753** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alki

However, LA took it one step further and encouraged the dispersal of its commercial core throughout the city and its suburbs.

Bunker Hill is hardly an urbanist solution. Its more a Le Corbusier wet dream....more like century city with a bit of the suburbs thrown in for good measure. Very sterile and clean......and fairly unsuccessful as an urban entity. Are the office towers fully occupied now?

alki, I don't think that dispersal was encouraged as much as it was a natural progression of ppl not creating a city that was nice enough to begin with. So it was a place far too easy for most ppl to walk away from. Ppl would have been more willing to stick it out if dt had been a very attractive area from the beginning. But it wasn't.

in the 'noirish Los Angeles' thread at the found city photos page, a forumer posted the following pics....

1951 - Ellis R. Bosworth / Associated Press

J Scott Shannon

^ bunker hill has long suffered due to the economic factors that you pointed out in your post. But far much less due to its design being too, as you say, le corbusierian, as much as ppl thinking the hood was in general too shabby & unattractive, & therefore migrating away from dt & taking their $$ with them.

I think if ppl in LA a long time ago, inc owners of property, had been better caretakers of the city, dt wouldn't have become so

& bunker hill, even with the exact same design & layout, would still not be hurting----even in 2012----for devlprs to fill its remaining gaps.

I always knew that city house & the olympic towers would turn out to be pie in the sky. Even for those who didn't care for their design, the neo classicism architecture....with all the trim, granite & bric a brac.....would have cost alot more $$ to create than a simple plain bldg. And no way, no how, would that have allowed the proj to pencil out.

so here it is several yrs since that proj was first publicized, & the area still is mostly

parking lots. Things like that are something far more ppl probably do notice & aren't too thrilled about, compared with their POV of a huge new bldg not falling within certain design guidelines.

BrandonJXN · #**4754** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 9:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RuFFy

RE: Stanley Mosk Courthouse and the Hall of Administration, Gloria Molina said this..

"These buildings have to come down, that's the one thing we really need," Molina said. "We need more green and more trees and more open space for people to enjoy."

Apparently she's calling for the removal of both buildings flanking the new park to be revisited. I'd really like to see them go. I'd also like to see the Hill Street ramps reconfigured. Perhaps we could rid at least 1 driveway and split the lanes at the garage entrance. One way in, the other out.

Link to the article in the Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-grand-park-20120727,0,562115.story

I think this park is going to open people's eyes about Bunker Hill and how it's needs to be developed much differently than what's going on now. I've always envisioned Bunker Hill as a sort of architectural wonderland with modern and contemporary buildings. It can still be that and I hope that comes to light one day.

LosAngelesDreamin · #**4755** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 9:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Why? Cause the the rest of Downtown is too "modern"? Well, except the Historic District, at least.

Seriously, though, no skyline is perfect. NONE. Why should LA be restricted to building certain types of architecture while the rest of the world (NYC, London, etc. etc.) is free to build whatever they want?

i agree... people seriously need to step out of their comfort zone.. if everything looks modern then our skyline will be boring... have a variety of architecture everywhere, YES EVEN THE ONES YOU PEOPLE THINK LOOK LIKE FAKE RENAISSANCE, and all the designs will just compliment each other in their own way... just the way the Empire State Building and Bank of America Tower in NYC do so well. Its people like you guys that restrict the potential of the city... for example even though the Libeskind Tower was hated by MAJORITY... i thought it would have been better than what is being built there now... it was different and not something you would see in LA.. it would have open doors to other types of designs in Los Angeles... but nope.. now we get another boxy OC looking "tower"

alki · #**4756** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by citywatch

alki, I don't think that dispersal was encouraged as much as it was a natural progression of ppl not creating a city that was nice enough to begin with. So it was a place far too easy for most ppl to walk away from. Ppl would have been more willing to stick it out if dt had been a very attractive area from the beginning. But it wasn't.

Not true.........the planners came up with the nodal/multi centers concept in the 1970s.........I learned about in grad school. Here is a brief description:

http://www.planetizen.com/node/23535

in the 'noirish Los Angeles' thread at the found city photos page, a forumer posted the following pics....

1951 - Ellis R. Bosworth / Associated Press

Citywatch, you always manage to find the most unflattering pictures of old DTLA. Did you ever see the original War of the Worlds.......its a cult film? I think it was filmed in the 1950s. DTLA looked very nice in that film until the Martians leveled it.

Quote:

^ bunker hill has long suffered due to the economic factors that you pointed out in your post. But far much less due to its design being too, as you say, le corbusierian, as much as ppl thinking the hood was in general too shabby & unattractive, & therefore migrating away from dt & taking their $$ with them.

Citywatch, Bunker Hill was a fail because people don't like walking a block to go from one building to the next. Stop driving thru DTLA and start by walking Seventh from Fig to Broadway; then the length of Grand Avenue on Bunker Hill. Note the differences. Then read The Life and Death of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs if you haven't already done so.

Quote:

I think if ppl in LA a long time ago, inc owners of property, had been better caretakers of the city, dt wouldn't have become so & bunker hill, even with the exact same design & layout, would still not be hurting----even in 2012----for devlprs to fill its remaining gaps.

Cities take care of what's important. At some point in the 1970s or 1980s, most LA movers and shakers decided DTLA was not important. There were some holdouts but even the LA Times had given up on DTLA.

Quote:

I always knew that city house & the olympic towers would turn out to be pie in the sky. Even for those who didn't care for their design, the neo classicism architecture....with all the trim, granite & bric a brac.....would have cost alot more $$ to create than a simple plain bldg. And no way, no how, would that have allowed the proj to pencil out.

Not true.........there are neo classical bldgs that have been built through out the US during the last 50 years. The bric a brac no longer has to be done by craftsman. There are molds using cheaper materials that can replicate the look. Like other condo projects proposed at the time, City House didn't pencil because market demand wasn't strong enough to make it work.

Quote:

so here it is several yrs since that proj was first publicized, & the area still is mostly parking lots. Things like that are something far more ppl probably do notice & aren't too thrilled about, compared with their POV of a huge new bldg not falling within certain design guidelines.

This happens over and over again in LA. Bldgs are allowed to be torn down based on a promised development that never materializes. Sometime during the 1980s one of the grandest auditoriums in DTLA was torn down by S. CA Gas because they promised to build a new tower on the site. It never got built and it was a parking lot when I left LA in 1998.

LosAngelesDreamin · #**4757** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

No.

City House and The Olympic were too tall for the area and not to mention a architectural clash. South Park needs to be a bit more modern and contemporary. If you are going to recreate a long dead style of design, at least put it not in the middle of a up and coming neighborhood, but in the Historic Core. And reduce it's size. It's far too tall.

You gotta be screwing me -__-'' r u serious???? What is it with LA and segregation of everything?? "this needs to be here only and that needs to be there... and that kind of stuff only looks good all the way over in that area... blah blah blah"..... really??

LosAngelesDreamin · #**4758** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 10:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RuFFy

RE: Stanley Mosk Courthouse and the Hall of Administration, Gloria Molina said this..

"These buildings have to come down, that's the one thing we really need," Molina said. "We need more green and more trees and more open space for people to enjoy."

Apparently she's calling for the removal of both buildings flanking the new park to be revisited. I'd really like to see them go. I'd also like to see the Hill Street ramps reconfigured. Perhaps we could rid at least 1 driveway and split the lanes at the garage entrance. One way in, the other out.

Link to the article in the Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-grand-park-20120727,0,562115.story

They also mentioned of considering redesigning Pershing Square again!

blackcat23 · #**4759** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 10:54 PM**

Walked past the Courtyard Marriott site today. It's starting to rise above the hole in the ground. Here are a few low quality pictures I took with a crappy cell phone camera.

Quote:

You gotta be screwing me -__-'' r u serious???? What is it with LA and segregation of everything?? "this needs to be here only and that needs to be there... and that kind of stuff only looks good all the way over in that area... blah blah blah"..... really??

I don't think that any architectural style should be prohibited just because it's not common for downtown. If it's an attractive building and the demand is there, by all means build it. But context is still important. A pair of 60 story building amidst a sea of low rises doesn't really fit in.

Although in regards to City House/Olympic, there are other high rises planned for the surrounding areas, so if something of height did wind up getting built there, it probably wouldn't seem out of place for too long.

blackcat23 · #**4760** Posted **Jul 28, 2012, 11:50 PM**

Also took a look at the Wilshire Grand while I was down there. Didn't see activity, since it's a Saturday, but it definitely looks like the interior on the first floor has been stripped away a bit. Probably going to be a while before we'll see any progress on the exterior, though.