LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[WonderlandPark]

LA is surprisingly one of the most difficult places to build new in the nation. It has a Byzantine planning department, overlapping and complex series of regulations. Huge power is given to neighborhoods who only have to whisper the word traffic to stop a project dead. It took an act of the governor and legislature at the state level to help move along the stadium. If left to local leaders, it probably (and I am serious) wouldn't be built until 2018 or 2020. LA is always late in the building cycle because of this. Downtown is not over built because it never had a chance to boom.

[edkao]

Very different. I like the removable roof idea, instead of retractable.

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Whoa.

BlogDowntown is reporting that Gensler has unveiled a completely new "light and airy" design for the Farmer's Field.


Image: Blogdowntown


Image: Blogdowntown

Apparently it has a "deployable" roof as opposed to a "retractable" roof. So the default would be no roof, but they could assemble a roof for events/weather that calls for it.

So? Opinions?

[edluva]

Why am I not surprised it's getting a warm reception from angelenos. It looks like it was designed by an architect from china.

La is going down the toilet

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

Much better, and it would be the best design out of any sports venue in the L.A. area (not saying too much tho). But I wouldn't call it 'iconic'. I was hoping the developers would go more ambitious (think Beijing National Stadium, AAMI Park in Melbourne, or Nou Mestalla)

I would much rather have something like this than the Birds Nest. I'm not a fan of that one bit.

[SD_Phil]

The bird's nest is fine for its context but this works great in LA.

[pesto]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-farmers-field-notebook-20111116,0,4589862.story

Hawthorne has an excellent article in the Times today. He notes that the reduction of mass is a great improvement over the humpy little proposal, but the wings are disproportionate to the underpinnings and to the space involved. He calls it still an effort to match the placelessness and sterility of LA Live. Worth reading in its entirety.

The call for minimalism is right on. DT LA is not the Dallas suburbs and the move is toward humane architecture, not architecture that impresses you with how rich the owners are. Leave that for the two-bit sheikhdoms.

[OneMetropolis]

I like the new stadium design, but the shoulder pad like front is kinda weird when you keep looking at it. They should of enhanced the orginal plans and surrounding enviorment, or somthing instead of messing with the whole frontal part, which was fine to begin with, but it works. It would look better probally in real life too so who knows, as long as they get a NFL team and just build it im good.

[JDRCRASH]

Actually I have mixed feelings about it. The LA Times article mentions that "it will likely to hours, rather than minutes", to assemble the roof.

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

Downtown is not over built because it never had a chance to boom.

Yeah never really thought of it from that angle.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

Downtown is not over built because it never had a chance to boom.

Maybe not in new construction, but there has been a ton of adaptive reuse in the past few years. We've had more new residential unites created in our downtown then in Seattle, or Portland, or even San Fransisco (though SF started out having more then us, they just haven't created as much new unites). We just didn't built as many new condo towers, so our boom wasn't as visible.

[jamesinclair]

Im loving the sign....but it has a major "flaw"

Unimpeded views onto the field by the neighboring towers.

We cant be having that. Expect the design to change to block any and all views.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

Im loving the sign....but it has a major "flaw"

Unimpeded views onto the field by the neighboring towers.

We cant be having that. Expect the design to change to block any and all views.

Well, given that AEG owns most of the neighboring towers/soon to be built neighboring towers, maybe the design won't change. After all, having a free view of the football game is a great boon to sales, which is, by proxy, a great boon to AEGs pocketbook.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Actually I have mixed feelings about it. The LA Times article mentions that "it will likely to hours, rather than minutes", to assemble the roof.

the planners & designers may not want to say anything about another reason for the change in the roof, but I have a hunch it was done mainly to reduce the cost of the stadium. I bet they're under great pressure to keep the budget manageable. That's cuz the greater the price, the more difficulty they'll have in making the proj pencil out, with a possible new team & to keep the football league happy.

I can understand the floor of an arena being changeable----from basketball to hockey, & back again----but how can a huge roof on top of a stadium be removeable instead of retractable?! So everytime they want to put a ceiling over the field, they'll have to bring in huge cranes to lift & move the pieces of the roof?

btw, from what I've read & heard, if this proj doesn't pencil out, then all the ppl in LA who'd like to see football return locally will be out of luck. the competing proj in the san gabriel valley has a smaller chance of succeeding. It's sponsored by a devlpr who has even less to offer in the way of funding.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by pesto

Just for curiosity: does anyone know of a stand-alone Nordstrom's anywhere in California? The only ones I have ever seen are in malls.

there is a nordstrom's next to the new bloomingdales in SF that was built many yrs ago as part of a mall, but cuz of the way it relates to the street & sidewalk, it generally might just as well be considered free standing....


sanfranciscodays.com

^ that is a good example of the way SF didn't lose all its $$ as dtla did. I've sometimes wondered if certain ppl who live in LA & help shape the agenda have ever traveled much. I've wondered that cuz I recall some of them several yrs ago claiming that enough had been done to revitalize the hood. My response to them: have you ever visited cities like SF? NY? Tokyo?! If so, & you think enough has been done to fix up LA, then you're

we in LA can only hope the bldg shown on the right, which is where that new rumored dept store would be located, won't be as faded as it now is....


maps.google.com

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

From Curbed LA:


Image Credit: Cypress Equity Investments

Downtown Libeskind Tower Replaced With Two Seven Story Apartment Buildings
Thursday, November 3, 2011, by Adrian Glick Kudler

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

It seems that for every attractive building that is built in Los Angeles, two ugly buildings are built along with it. It is extremely aggravating, and bugs me to no end. Id say, the reason this happens is because, in L.A., people settle for what they have got. Like take this forum for example. Everyone seems to like the proposed building because it is 'better' then what is there now. People in L.A. have no civic pride. I am positive that if this building was being built in, say, Seattle on an empty lot, people would be all against it.

but you also have to keep things in their full, proper context. we're not starting off from a high level & moving to an even higher one. this is the current condition of the location of the new apt bldg....


maps.google.com

^ before this was parking lots, it was a jumble of old, grungy 1 to 2 story tall bldgs, right across from the convention ctr. I used to go when I thought of all the visitors who'd attend events at the ctr, esp if they were from out of town, look at the hood & think: WHAT A DUMP! LA is a joke!!

Not surprising that the convention ctr has a long reputation of never attracting many events.

when you mentioned seattle, I thought I'd do a quick google street view of that town, & without too much searching I came across this....


maps.google.com

there is a tendency for all of us to sometimes think the grass is greener on the other side of the hill. at the same time, if many ppl really do think LA is worse than places like seattle---& not just the really big time cities----then we really are a joke!

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Actually I have mixed feelings about it. The LA Times article mentions that "it will likely to hours, rather than minutes", to assemble the roof.

That same article says this:

Instead of an expensive retractable roof, the 72,000-seat stadium will be topped by what AEG calls a "deployable" roof, a collection of light fabric panels that can be stored outside the stadium. That change means it will take longer to close the roof — perhaps hours instead of minutes. But it has the architectural advantage of requiring smaller trusses and therefore a less massive structure above fans' heads. AEG and the firm it hired to oversee the stadium project, Icon Venue Group, estimate the roof will be closed at most about 15 times per year, mostly for large-scale convention activities and rare events like a basketball Final Four. It would remain open for nearly every NFL game.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by citywatch

there is a nordstrom's next to the new bloomingdales in SF that was built many yrs ago as part of a mall, but cuz of the way it relates to the street & sidewalk, it generally might just as well be considered free standing....


sanfranciscodays.com

^ that is a good example of the way SF didn't lose all its $$ as dtla did. I've sometimes wondered if certain ppl who live in LA & help shape the agenda have ever traveled much. I've wondered that cuz I recall some of them several yrs ago claiming that enough had been done to revitalize the hood. My response to them: have you ever visited cities like SF? NY? Tokyo?! If so, & you think enough has been done to fix up LA, then you're

we in LA can only hope the bldg shown on the right, which is where that new rumored dept store would be located, won't be as faded as it now is....


maps.google.com

That Nordstrom is hardly stand alone; it is an anchor tenant at Westfield SF Centre, a large mall with food courts, controlled entrances, escalators, etc.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by citywatch

but you also have to keep things in their full, proper context. we're not starting off from a high level & moving to an even higher one. this is the current condition of the location of the new apt bldg....


maps.google.com

^ before this was parking lots, it was a jumble of old, grungy 1 to 2 story tall bldgs, right across from the convention ctr. I used to go when I thought of all the visitors who'd attend events at the ctr, esp if they were from out of town, look at the hood & think: WHAT A DUMP! LA is a joke!!

Not surprising that the convention ctr has a long reputation of never attracting many events.

when you mentioned seattle, I thought I'd do a quick google street view of that town, & without too much searching I came across this....


maps.google.com

there is a tendency for all of us to sometimes think the grass is greener on the other side of the hill. at the same time, if many ppl really do think LA is worse than places like seattle---& not just the really big time cities----then we really are a joke!

Agree with this. I think it is safe to say that almost every city is for the most part mediocre to ugly. The key error that some make is to criticize the entire city rather than the specific project.

Also, admit that a parking lot on Fig does nothing for me. But the 7 story apartments are going to be there, say, 40 years and the parking lot could change to 30 stories 3 years from now. It's a call the city council has to think about.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by pesto

But the 7 story apartments are going to be there, say, 40 years and the parking lot could change to 30 stories 3 years from now. It's a call the city council has to think about.

But how many yrs before you think the economy can support a highrise bldg, not just in dt in general, but esp right around the convention ctr? I think we're looking at yrs & yrs & yrs & yrs of either no new devlpt of smaller, shorter, bldgs, or current parking lots or other deadzones remaining exactly what they are right now. plus, the design of the new apt bldg on Fig looks okay to me. It won't earn any design awards, but most bldgs in any city are designed in not much less of an anonymous way.

otoh, the old masonry bldg a few blocks north, where Hooters is located, that was resurfaced recently with stucco & painted blue? that's a disaster!

btw, I did mention the nordstroms in SF was built many yrs ago as part of a mall & unlike the new bloomingdales next door, there are no entrances that lead to it from the ground level. So while it actually can't be considered free standing, the bldg it's housed in can be mistaken for looking like a traditional old time big dept store.

[patriotizzy]

That is the coolest proposed stadium in the world I think. Have this built, and LA will only further continue to prove it worthiness in the architecture world.

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

That is the coolest proposed stadium in the world I think. Have this built, and LA will only further continue to prove it worthiness in the architecture world.

They still don't know how they're going to assemble/re-assmble it yet 'cause,

as we all know, the weather in Los Angeles really does change on a moment's notice right?

.

Let's compare:

HKS

COWBOYS STADIUM

1.33 BILLION (Wiki, but could be up to 1.6 - really doesn't matter - plus,

they get to keep their name! No corporations here!)

.

.

.

GENSLER

FARMERS FIELD

1.3 BILLION

.

.

.

.

Comparable in price only, but I think we got fucked. By the way, it's already known as MaxiPad Stadium. Just thought I'd throw that in there.