Quote:
Originally Posted by GaylordWilshire
 Google Books
No part of these houses should be missing, but then we wouldn't have had them at all if not for the men who made the money to build them. May we take a moment to remember them? For one thing, they were by and large responsible for the finer aspects of the built environment of Old Los Angeles, some of which remains today. Without them, good architects, including Gill and Hunt, wouldn't have had jobs, none of the construction jobs their projects required would have been created, and none of us would be here celebrating the best buildings that money could buy back when... just a thought.
|
I remember them
GW, some were horrors ("grim, inhuman individuals", as Carey McWilliams would have it) who built ridiculous conspicuous-consumption piles (which did create jobs), others, like Homer Laughlin, I'm quite fond of. He was paternalistic, but nicely so, taking his workers on opera outings, etc. and building them recreation parks (although I'm sure some workers would have preferred to get paid more and be given less). Laughlin turned out a good, useful product too. Richfield Oil's spendthrift ways were alarming and damn near sunk the company (the late 20s were, of course, legendary for such pranks), but some decision-maker there had exquisite taste, which we all benefited from (I'm glad the company was rescued by receivership, as I later worked for them off and on over 30 years). Jack Gill would have preferred, I think, to spend all his time building workers' housing and civic projects, but he would have been more broke than he was without commissions from the wealthy. I've voiced my appreciation for the Rindges here too. It's been a trade-off since patriarchy (and patronage of the arts) began. Democracy probably wouldn't result in many mansions.
I just don't share your seeming opinion though that humanity would starve to death without (often) ill-paid jobs bestowed by capitalists.
Thank you for the photo of 666 W 28th. You always come through.