LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[lovemycity21]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Love this response LOL. I can tell you are on a similar wavelength. Think a little deeper than average.

In many ways I've always felt LA was the barb-wire-tattoo of cities. Very little of LA's architecture is enduring precisely because most of it is fashionable but vapid. It only looks cool to those types who are easily fooled. And "those types" in LA are the masses. Angelenos go for things like this, or the Grove, or Palmer's Tuscan shit-boxes. Believe it or not, MANY people in LA see this crap as attractive. They see the anachronistic, faux-gothic USC Village as "collegial". Our masses are like the hipster who bought Hershel backpacks two years late in an attempt at looking the part. Never the ones to actually originate the part.

The stereotype that appearances matter more than substance is somewhat true. Even our self-described liberals and environmentalists are only fashionable. They don't truly understand the issues behind their purported cause because if they did they'd demand more density, reduced parking minimums, bike infrastructure, and progressive zoning (see Seattle, Vancouver, or Toronto), and yet they fight all of the above when it threatens easy parking for their multiple Range Rovers.

The reason LA's culture is ANTI-progressive is because its residents as a whole lack sophistication. Otherwise they'd demand progress en-bloc and we'd see the fruits of it. Instead we see a politically confused city. It's superficially liberal. It wants mixed use, but it wants abundant free parking. It wants transit, but not through my hood. It wants walkability and bikes, but not where it matters because cars musn't be inconvenienced at any cost. It wants revamped zoning, but in "that other" neighborhood only. It wants walkability, but it wants to preserve the suburban "feel" of a nabe. Yes these issues exist in other cities. But not this widespread. The proportion of those who DON'T "get it" is MUCH greater. That's why little progress and LOTS of REgress happens here. The kinds of developers we end up awarding proves this. Basically Angelenos don't understand urbanism. Are ambivalent about it. They live in an inferior version of Toronto but their brains are still stuck in Simi Valley or Orange County. Dense without connectivity. Discordant and brutally scaled.

It's all connected: a city's aesthetic sensibilities and its collective moralities. You can read a city's intellectual rigor and depth in its everyday architecture and urban design, in the council-members that it elects, and in the policies that it tends to enact. My purpose: a single vote to counterbalance all the backwardness of the masses. Maybe if I can convert a few while I'm here we can make progress and we can build more intelligent (i.e. thoughtful) looking architecture.

Jeez....the smug.

[Resident]

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Love this response LOL. I can tell you are on a similar wavelength. Think a little deeper than average.

In many ways I've always felt LA was the barb-wire-tattoo of cities. Very little of LA's architecture is enduring precisely because most of it is fashionable but vapid. It only looks cool to those types who are easily fooled. And "those types" in LA are the masses. Angelenos go for things like this, or the Grove, or Palmer's Tuscan shit-boxes. Believe it or not, MANY people in LA see this crap as attractive. They see the anachronistic, faux-gothic USC Village as "collegial". Our masses are like the hipster who bought Hershel backpacks two years late in an attempt at looking the part. Never the ones to actually originate the part.

The stereotype that appearances matter more than substance is somewhat true. Even our self-described liberals and environmentalists are only fashionable. They don't truly understand the issues behind their purported cause because if they did they'd demand more density, reduced parking minimums, bike infrastructure, and progressive zoning (see Seattle, Vancouver, or Toronto), and yet they fight all of the above when it threatens easy parking for their multiple Range Rovers.

The reason LA's culture is ANTI-progressive is because its residents as a whole lack sophistication. Otherwise they'd demand progress en-bloc and we'd see the fruits of it. Instead we see a politically confused city. It's superficially liberal. It wants mixed use, but it wants abundant free parking. It wants transit, but not through my hood. It wants walkability and bikes, but not where it matters because cars musn't be inconvenienced at any cost. It wants revamped zoning, but in "that other" neighborhood only. It wants walkability, but it wants to preserve the suburban "feel" of a nabe. Yes these issues exist in other cities. But not this widespread. The proportion of those who DON'T "get it" is MUCH greater. That's why little progress and LOTS of REgress happens here. The kinds of developers we end up awarding proves this. Basically Angelenos don't understand urbanism. Are ambivalent about it. They live in an inferior version of Toronto but their brains are still stuck in Simi Valley or Orange County. Dense without connectivity. Discordant and brutally scaled.

It's all connected: a city's aesthetic sensibilities and its collective moralities. You can read a city's intellectual rigor and depth in its everyday architecture and urban design, in the council-members that it elects, and in the policies that it tends to enact. My purpose: a single vote to counterbalance all the backwardness of the masses. Maybe if I can convert a few while I'm here we can make progress and we can build more intelligent (i.e. thoughtful) looking architecture.

All this noise for 1400 Figueroa.

[Doctorboffin]

http://urbanize.la/post/fresh-render...s-grand-avenue


Little stubby, but I like it.

[blackcat23]

New Renderings for 1233 S. Grand Avenue

City Century's 24-story, 253-foot tower. Designed by Steinberg Architects. 161 residential units and 2,100 square feet of retail space.

[Doctorboffin]

^Is 1212 Flower going to happen?

[colemonkee]

I wonder when this "randomly" offset window fenestration pattern trend will finally die. It's so overused, it's getting comical. That being said, this tower is decent filler, just unimaginative.

What's really cool is the massing model they have showing all the potential towers in the area. If everything there is built (which is sadly not likely), that area of the skyline will actually be a part of the skyline, which would be a huge shift.

[Wilcal]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

New Renderings for 1233 S. Grand Avenue

City Century's 24-story, 253-foot tower. Designed by Steinberg Architects. 161 residential units and 2,100 square feet of retail space.

Anyone notice in the presentation that in addition to the 41 trees that the developer is required to plant (what a ridiculous amount per unit--the city should really reevaluate that) the developer is required to preserve the Canary Island pines along Grand. Mind you they are not native, and yes, they are established and for the most part surviving on underground moisture so they are drought tolerant. But they provide questionable shade and look so ratty and out of place in an Urban environment. And, unless they are skillfully trimmed (pines don't regrow cut limbs) they will look odd. Let's be honest, unless the developer takes charge of their care the city never will. Granted, many will say that this is inconsequential or nit-picky but its small things like this that create the haphazard, disheveled "look" that plagues many parts of DTLA.

[caligrad]

^^^ I'm kinda over the glass layout as well. But i'll take it. its still a descent infill tower. Especially for the area.

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I wonder when this "randomly" offset window fenestration pattern trend will finally die. It's so overused, it's getting comical. That being said, this tower is decent filler, just unimaginative.

What's really cool is the massing model they have showing all the potential towers in the area. If everything there is built (which is sadly not likely), that area of the skyline will actually be a part of the skyline, which would be a huge shift.

We might be surprised. That section of the skyline isn't too farfetched from actually happening this time, unlike the other times.

Included in the model is Fig central (under construction), circa (under construction), and the semi twins just east of this one are Onnis and they said they would break ground after their 50 story broke ground and started to see movement skyward.

The only 2 that might be sketchy based on that model is 1133 hope at 28 storys, which sadly hasn't seen any movement lately at all, not even in the permitting department and Mack Urbans tower but its still a few years off If I remember correctly.

[retina]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

Another place I think it would look good is in the Arts District. There's a small triangle block which is currently just parking at Traction and 3rd. I don't think it would be too expensive to make it a little park with some grass, benches, a few trees, and a center piece art installation like that.

I agree that triangle-shaped lot is perfect for a park not car storage.

[losangelesnative]

RE:Code LA is hosting six public forums unveiling portions of the new zoning code, the first one is tonight at Union Station http://recode.la/updates/news/public...ew-zoning-code

[Jun]

Originally Posted by Wilcal

Anyone notice in the presentation that in addition to the 41 trees that the developer is required to plant (what a ridiculous amount per unit--the city should really reevaluate that) the developer is required to preserve the Canary Island pines along Grand. Mind you they are not native, and yes, they are established and for the most part surviving on underground moisture so they are drought tolerant. But they provide questionable shade and look so ratty and out of place in an Urban environment. And, unless they are skillfully trimmed (pines don't regrow cut limbs) they will look odd. Let's be honest, unless the developer takes charge of their care the city never will. Granted, many will say that this is inconsequential or nit-picky but its small things like this that create the haphazard, disheveled "look" that plagues many parts of DTLA.

+1 on the pines.

Ugly and a fire hazard as well. I think ginko bilobas would look really cool, fairly drought and pollution resistant, and in fall they turn bright gold.

Side note, does anyone know who owns the Old Morrison hotel? That eyesore is sitting on prime territory

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by Wilcal

Anyone notice in the presentation that in addition to the 41 trees that the developer is required to plant (what a ridiculous amount per unit--the city should really reevaluate that) the developer is required to preserve the Canary Island pines along Grand. Mind you they are not native, and yes, they are established and for the most part surviving on underground moisture so they are drought tolerant. But they provide questionable shade and look so ratty and out of place in an Urban environment. And, unless they are skillfully trimmed (pines don't regrow cut limbs) they will look odd. Let's be honest, unless the developer takes charge of their care the city never will. Granted, many will say that this is inconsequential or nit-picky but its small things like this that create the haphazard, disheveled "look" that plagues many parts of DTLA.

Yes to the pines. Pines are great trees and on my street we have these really tall pine trees 50-100 ft. tall. In an urban environment they do look bad though. I think part of it is that they look weird when they're not taller than the buildings around them.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I wonder when this "randomly" offset window fenestration pattern trend will finally die. It's so overused, it's getting comical. That being said, this tower is decent filler, just unimaginative.

What's really cool is the massing model they have showing all the potential towers in the area. If everything there is built (which is sadly not likely), that area of the skyline will actually be a part of the skyline, which would be a huge shift.

I agree with you regarding the pattern. Its becoming all too familiar. A few are ok but now every new tower has this look.

The massing model shows towers that are either under construction or will start very soon (Mack Urban). I dont see anything on there that wont be completed honestly.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

I agree with you regarding the pattern. Its becoming all too familiar. A few are ok but now every new tower has this look.

The massing model shows towers that are either under construction or will start very soon (Mack Urban). I dont see anything on there that wont be completed honestly.

there's 1133 hope in it which was cancelled. Onni's 1212 flower was announced 2-3 years ago but Onni seems reliable and will probably follow through.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

The reason LA's culture is ANTI-progressive is because its residents as a whole lack sophistication. Otherwise they'd demand progress en-bloc and we'd see the fruits of it. Instead we see a politically confused city. It's superficially liberal. It wants mixed use, but it wants abundant free parking. It wants transit, but not through my hood. It wants walkability and bikes, but not where it matters because cars musn't be inconvenienced at any cost. It wants revamped zoning, but in "that other" neighborhood only. It wants walkability, but it wants to preserve the suburban "feel" of a nabe. Yes these issues exist in other cities. But not this widespread. The proportion of those who DON'T "get it" is MUCH greater. That's why little progress and LOTS of REgress happens here. The kinds of developers we end up awarding proves this. Basically Angelenos don't understand urbanism. Are ambivalent about it. They live in an inferior version of Toronto but their brains are still stuck in Simi Valley or Orange County. Dense without connectivity. Discordant and brutally scaled.

LA is dominated by NIMBY's because we stupidly allow local residents to have a large voice in planning decisions. It's an institutional problem. Move planning decisions away from local governments and I promise you we'll see better outcomes.

[JerellO]

Originally Posted by eclipse

Never had their donuts, but I really love the transformation of this little area, with all the new buildings plus whole foods and now these guys.

Dunkin Donuts is so overhyped.. I'm not a big fan of cakey donuts.. Tastes just like every other donut out there.. Actually you can find so much better local donuts. Coffee?? Tastes just like plain old coffee no difference there TO ME.

[IconRPCV]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Love this response LOL. I can tell you are on a similar wavelength. Think a little deeper than average.

In many ways I've always felt LA was the barb-wire-tattoo of cities. Very little of LA's architecture is enduring precisely because most of it is fashionable but vapid. It only looks cool to those types who are easily fooled. And "those types" in LA are the masses. Angelenos go for things like this, or the Grove, or Palmer's Tuscan shit-boxes. Believe it or not, MANY people in LA see this crap as attractive. They see the anachronistic, faux-gothic USC Village as "collegial". Our masses are like the hipster who bought Hershel backpacks two years late in an attempt at looking the part. Never the ones to actually originate the part.

The stereotype that appearances matter more than substance is somewhat true. Even our self-described liberals and environmentalists are only fashionable. They don't truly understand the issues behind their purported cause because if they did they'd demand more density, reduced parking minimums, bike infrastructure, and progressive zoning (see Seattle, Vancouver, or Toronto), and yet they fight all of the above when it threatens easy parking for their multiple Range Rovers.

The reason LA's culture is ANTI-progressive is because its residents as a whole lack sophistication. Otherwise they'd demand progress en-bloc and we'd see the fruits of it. Instead we see a politically confused city. It's superficially liberal. It wants mixed use, but it wants abundant free parking. It wants transit, but not through my hood. It wants walkability and bikes, but not where it matters because cars musn't be inconvenienced at any cost. It wants revamped zoning, but in "that other" neighborhood only. It wants walkability, but it wants to preserve the suburban "feel" of a nabe. Yes these issues exist in other cities. But not this widespread. The proportion of those who DON'T "get it" is MUCH greater. That's why little progress and LOTS of REgress happens here. The kinds of developers we end up awarding proves this. Basically Angelenos don't understand urbanism. Are ambivalent about it. They live in an inferior version of Toronto but their brains are still stuck in Simi Valley or Orange County. Dense without connectivity. Discordant and brutally scaled.

It's all connected: a city's aesthetic sensibilities and its collective moralities. You can read a city's intellectual rigor and depth in its everyday architecture and urban design, in the council-members that it elects, and in the policies that it tends to enact. My purpose: a single vote to counterbalance all the backwardness of the masses. Maybe if I can convert a few while I'm here we can make progress and we can build more intelligent (i.e. thoughtful) looking architecture.

Seriously does everyone think this way about each other. We all need to stop feeling so elite about people we feel don't think the way we do.

[scania]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Love this response LOL. I can tell you are on a similar wavelength. Think a little deeper than average.

In many ways I've always felt LA was the barb-wire-tattoo of cities. Very little of LA's architecture is enduring precisely because most of it is fashionable but vapid. It only looks cool to those types who are easily fooled. And "those types" in LA are the masses. Angelenos go for things like this, or the Grove, or Palmer's Tuscan shit-boxes. Believe it or not, MANY people in LA see this crap as attractive. They see the anachronistic, faux-gothic USC Village as "collegial". Our masses are like the hipster who bought Hershel backpacks two years late in an attempt at looking the part. Never the ones to actually originate the part.

The stereotype that appearances matter more than substance is somewhat true. Even our self-described liberals and environmentalists are only fashionable. They don't truly understand the issues behind their purported cause because if they did they'd demand more density, reduced parking minimums, bike infrastructure, and progressive zoning (see Seattle, Vancouver, or Toronto), and yet they fight all of the above when it threatens easy parking for their multiple Range Rovers.

The reason LA's culture is ANTI-progressive is because its residents as a whole lack sophistication. Otherwise they'd demand progress en-bloc and we'd see the fruits of it. Instead we see a politically confused city. It's superficially liberal. It wants mixed use, but it wants abundant free parking. It wants transit, but not through my hood. It wants walkability and bikes, but not where it matters because cars musn't be inconvenienced at any cost. It wants revamped zoning, but in "that other" neighborhood only. It wants walkability, but it wants to preserve the suburban "feel" of a nabe. Yes these issues exist in other cities. But not this widespread. The proportion of those who DON'T "get it" is MUCH greater. That's why little progress and LOTS of REgress happens here. The kinds of developers we end up awarding proves this. Basically Angelenos don't understand urbanism. Are ambivalent about it. They live in an inferior version of Toronto but their brains are still stuck in Simi Valley or Orange County. Dense without connectivity. Discordant and brutally scaled.

It's all connected: a city's aesthetic sensibilities and its collective moralities. You can read a city's intellectual rigor and depth in its everyday architecture and urban design, in the council-members that it elects, and in the policies that it tends to enact. My purpose: a single vote to counterbalance all the backwardness of the masses. Maybe if I can convert a few while I'm here we can make progress and we can build more intelligent (i.e. thoughtful) looking architecture.

Man, get over yourself. It's funny, but you tell so much about yourself as person. Living in Manhattan for 10 years, before moving here and owning property in Atlanta, I can tell you that a lot of Manhattanites LOVE The Grove. Being urban is so much more than buildings being right on the street, or having parking decks disguised/hidden amongst other things that some on here have mentioned. The development going on downtown is incredible and much deserved for a city as prominent as LA. Sometimes, I have to chime in because I'm not sure how it is here with the people on this forum, but the ones typically screaming these elitist attitudes, were always the ones, let's say wasn't even living in an urban area of the city(and more can be said, but to keep it politically correct) I'll leave it there.

[timpdx]

Bikemike needs to get out more....most of America is as he describes. Yes, certain regions tend to emphasize urban design more (like the TC area, and the Midwest in general) but there is plenty of vapid, fugly crap built everywhere. In the same awful vernacular as the Palmer Tuscans (see suburban Atlanta, for one). Stop the stupid MYTH that LA is somehow this exception urban built environment of the nation, its largely the same everywhere, even comparing era to era (our LA 1970s vs 70s Long Island or the 70s T1-11 clad shitboxes of Portland)