HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #661  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 8:37 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
I am excited about this project!

Mainly, I believe that Hollywood is far from becoming "over-saturated" by glitzy entertainment venues. In fact, even though today Hollywood is much better than it was before (living up to people's expectations, that is), it's still a far cry from anything "overwhelming" like Times Square, which knocks your socks off.

And having a building taller than the Chinese theater would not "block it" since Hollywood+Highland a few meters away is a giant next door. If everything in LA is short and tiny, forget about knocking people's socks off.

Plus, the Hollywood Wax Museum is a total let down. Having MT come to town would really add something fresh and exciting! In fact, I hope the renderings I see there suggest large LED lighting on the side of the building which would sorta complete the part of Hollywood with enough LED lighting to be somewhat impressive. Because the current amount of LED lighting in the area is pretty unimpressive when you're calling Hollywood an "entertainment capital."

If you're not cool with Hollywood's glitz, don't go and move a few blocks away and u'll be away from the lights! But don't ruin it for people who do enjoy it and are starving/yearning for an area of LA that can finally provide that kind of atmosphere that doesn't exist anywhere else outside of Vegas and Times Square in the US.
__________________
DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #662  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 10:11 AM
Damien Damien is offline
Cool dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 404
Quote:
The changes haven't mollified preservationist Robert Nudelman, who says the glassy design "looks like an Irvine medical center" and should be resurfaced to become more compatible with Grauman's and other historic buildings in the area.
Somebody tell Bob that this is home of the ego-centric architect! Bush has a better chance of finding WMDs in Iraq than we have of expecting architects to care that a project's design compliments the area's existing architecture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #663  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 10:13 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,712
Are they joking? It's right next to Mann's Chinese Theatre, and that's a bad location for a wax museum? If they are expecting apartment dwellers or Gucci to set up shop right next to the movie theatre, they are out of their minds. I agree that Hollywood needs to be more pragmatic, but this location is perfect for the wax museum and will do a lot for making Hollywood a more enjoyable experience for the tourists. And it will keep the "Hollywoodness" contained for other areas to the Hollywood to evolve into a more practical living space.

Last edited by ocman; Oct 26, 2006 at 11:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #664  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 3:23 PM
RAlossi RAlossi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,573
Hollywood Boulevard between La Brea and Vine... the best spot for all tourist-oriented businesses, end of story. If residents want some more high-end retail, I say that's great -- but don't interfere with tourist-oriented projects on the touristy part of Hollywood Blvd!

The north/south streets can provide a lot of those neighborhood/resident-retail services they're looking for. Also, Sunset has many blocks that can be redeveloped (Sunset and La Brea comes to mind right away).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #665  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 3:48 PM
LAMetroGuy's Avatar
LAMetroGuy LAMetroGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 3,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAlossi
Hollywood Boulevard between La Brea and Vine... the best spot for all tourist-oriented businesses, end of story. If residents want some more high-end retail, I say that's great -- but don't interfere with tourist-oriented projects on the touristy part of Hollywood Blvd!

The north/south streets can provide a lot of those neighborhood/resident-retail services they're looking for. Also, Sunset has many blocks that can be redeveloped (Sunset and La Brea comes to mind right away).
I totally agree with you!

Hollywood boulevard is FAR from being too glitzy. I'm surprised that people would expect to move near or on Hollywood Blvd and expect a cozy neighborhood and no tourst traps... come on! This is the best spot for a development like this, and like RAlossi said... north/south streets would offer that type of services... just look at 1540 Vine....
__________________
Since 1997, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper and building enthusiast communities on the Internet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #666  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 4:16 PM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,543
It would be nice to have some better retailers in hollywood. But I agree, its far from being too-entertainment oriented. Frankly, I dont want it to just become another retail node. Id rather it be the center of entertainment-related things
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #667  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 5:04 PM
Damien Damien is offline
Cool dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 404
^ Well said DJM19.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #668  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2006, 9:54 PM
bjornson's Avatar
bjornson bjornson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn NYC
Posts: 622
From LABJ:

Park Proposed Atop Freeway

By DANIEL MILLER
Los Angeles Business Journal Staff

The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce is proposing the creation of a 24-acre park that would be built on a concrete cap atop the Hollywood Freeway – at a cost of several hundred million dollars.

The planned Hollywood Central Park, which boosters will announce this week, would be a grassy and tree-lined expanse over freeway traffic. The freeway essentially would be a tunnel for about two thirds of a mile under the park.

The chamber has worked behind the scenes for months to build support for the project, which it contends is critical for the development of Hollywood. Supporters include some local developers, neighborhood councils, elected officials and, most importantly, Caltrans – since the park would be built above state-owned land in state airspace.

“It is an easy decision. This is available air space put to good use for the public,” said Deborah Harris, spokeswoman for the California Department of Transportation. “If it can be used for the betterment of the community, we are all for it. Of course there are several details that have to be worked out. We look forward to looking further into this proposal.”

The park – which would stretch from around Hollywood to Sunset boulevards between North Bronson Avenue and North Wilton Place – will face its first test on Thursday when the board of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency will decide whether to pay for a feasibility study.

If approved, the study would be done by engineering and planning firm Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. with a targeted completion date of January. In addition to CRA money, the chamber is seeking money for the study from private donations.

Chamber officials said the park is a critical element for Hollywood to continue to thrive, given a severe lack of green space that makes the neighborhood less attractive for residents and businesses.

“We wanted to make sure … that the local economy and community is sustained, so we can build the community and have sustained growth,” said Rochelle Silsbee, vice president of public policy for the chamber. “It is primarily about protecting area livability.”

It is not clear who would own the park, though backers have not ruled out joint ownership by different entities.

Park deficient

Hollywood has a real need for open space, according to a report by the chamber.

The report indicates that in Los Angeles there are about 0.012 acres of open space per resident, and in Hollywood, the figure drops to 0.005 acres.

Also, a 2003 study by the Trust for Public Land found that two-thirds of Los Angeles children do not live by a park, while 91 percent of New York City children live within walking distance of one.

“We believe there is a severe park shortage here,” Silsbee said.

And that will only get worse, given that about 4,500 residential units are either approved or under construction near the park site, according to the report.

At its narrowest point, the proposed park would be as wide as a football field.

About 50 such “freeway cap parks” are in various stages of development around the country, including in Sacramento, Phoenix and Portland, Ore., according to the chamber. Locally, there is a small freeway cap park in La Cañada Flintridge above the Foothill (210) Freeway, just east of the Glendale (2) Freeway interchange.

And in Hollywood, land is more expensive than in many other cities. So while the park would be expensive, it still would be cheaper than acquiring 24 contiguous acres by traditional means, said Don Scott, a Hollywood Chamber of Commerce board member who first proposed the park.

Vacant land in Hollywood near the freeway costs between $200 and $400 per square foot, while the freeway park in Portland is being built on land that costs $200 per square foot, Scott said. Even so, the park could cost well over $200 million.

“It’s a big number, but we feel it’s achievable through federal, state, and local funds,” he said.

Local U.S. Reps. Xavier Becerra and Diane Watson have said that next year they will work to appropriate federal money for the project, according to Silsbee. The project planners are also eyeing the infrastructure bond on the Nov. 7 state ballot as a possible source of funding, should it pass.

A spokesman for Becerra said the congressman supports the project, while Watson could not be reached for comment. Still, the cost of the park could pose an impediment.

“It’s a wonderful idea. But you drive down the road and there are potholes everywhere, so I don’t know how they are going to build a cap on the 101,” said John Tronson, a principal in the Hollywood office of Ramsey-Shilling Commercial Real Estate Services. “While I think it’s a noble cause, I do have reservations about how much time people should spend on it until we can pay for it.”

Wired on coffee

Possible plans for the park include an amphitheatre, sports fields, and a European-style square. Plans for the park call for it not to eliminate on- or off-ramps to the freeway below.

“Our interest is in maintaining the lanes as they exist today as well as available space for future use,” said Harris, Caltrans spokesperson for District 7, which covers Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

Area schools and children would stand to benefit greatly from the park. At least three schools are in close proximity to the park, including Central Los Angeles High School, which is under construction. The proposed park also would be near two Metropolitan Transit Authority subway stations.

The park is the brainchild of Scott, who conceived it while driving on the Hollywood Freeway.

“I tell everyone I drank too much coffee that day,” said Scott, senior vice president at First Financial Bancorp. “But I was driving over the freeway and I heard something on the radio about the Big Dig in Boston. A light bulb went off.”

Scott concedes that the Big Dig – which involved sinking a 3.5 mile stretch of Interstate 93 in central Boston at a cost of nearly $15 billion – may be a controversial analogy. The East Coast project includes park land over the sunken highway, but has taken decades to build, experienced large cost overruns and recently a portion of the tunnel’s ceiling fell, killing a motorist.

By contrast the Hollywood park project involves building a concrete cap over an existing freeway, not sinking what was an elevated highway into a newly dug tunnel.

And what about calling it the Hollywood Central Park?

While the name may hark to the prominent park in New York, it also has some local meaning. The chamber says that the park is located at the nexus of central and east Hollywood.

For now the Hollywood Central Park is only an interim name, but supporters say they think it could stick – provided it is built in the first place.

Last edited by bjornson; Oct 30, 2006 at 10:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #669  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2006, 10:25 PM
colemonkee's Avatar
colemonkee colemonkee is offline
Ridin' into the sunset
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 9,289
Quote:
The proposed park also would be near two Metropolitan Transit Authority subway stations.
I smell dense, mixed use buildings with transit access and park views...
__________________
"Then each time Fleetwood would be not so much overcome by remorse as bedazzled at having been shown the secret backlands of wealth, and how sooner or later it depended on some act of murder, seldom limited to once."

Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #670  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2006, 10:28 PM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,543
Im all for the park but a little confused as to how it will layout because there are on and off ramps that get in the way at both ends. Is the park going to be between them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #671  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2006, 10:30 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,895
beat me to it again!!!!! seriously though, this is great news. hopefully we can surround it with dense, pedestrian oriented mixed use as Cole was saying. so much potential. Also, we now have some numbers and backing to use for Downtown, so that we can connect Chinatown to the main downtown area, and to connect the Cathedral with the School with a nice park, as well as on the 110 for city west and the main district. so much can be done with these!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #672  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2006, 1:12 AM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty
I am excited about this project!

Mainly, I believe that Hollywood is far from becoming "over-saturated" by glitzy entertainment venues. In fact, even though today Hollywood is much better than it was before (living up to people's expectations, that is), it's still a far cry from anything "overwhelming" like Times Square, which knocks your socks off.

And having a building taller than the Chinese theater would not "block it" since Hollywood+Highland a few meters away is a giant next door. If everything in LA is short and tiny, forget about knocking people's socks off.

Plus, the Hollywood Wax Museum is a total let down. Having MT come to town would really add something fresh and exciting! In fact, I hope the renderings I see there suggest large LED lighting on the side of the building which would sorta complete the part of Hollywood with enough LED lighting to be somewhat impressive. Because the current amount of LED lighting in the area is pretty unimpressive when you're calling Hollywood an "entertainment capital."

If you're not cool with Hollywood's glitz, don't go and move a few blocks away and u'll be away from the lights! But don't ruin it for people who do enjoy it and are starving/yearning for an area of LA that can finally provide that kind of atmosphere that doesn't exist anywhere else outside of Vegas and Times Square in the US.
I don't like the design, it already looks tired and dated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #673  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2006, 2:13 AM
SunMonTueWedThuFriSa's Avatar
SunMonTueWedThuFriSa SunMonTueWedThuFriSa is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: City of Angles
Posts: 145
I love the idea of capping freeways with parks. I think the same should be done for the portion over the 110 between 4th and 7th or the 101 between Grand and Hill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #674  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2006, 10:00 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,118
I really hate the design of that museum. Why does LA architecture overcompensate so much for lack of substance with disposable junk pop-art? Like gum-wrapper that isn't made to last. For once, Gehry was correct about something. And I hate that.

A building goes up to much fanfare - oohs and aahs about how much impact it has. Then becomes aesthetically outdated in like 3 years after the current fads die out, and horrid after 10 years with all the physical deterioration. Everything shitty about the state of architecture thrives in LA. Everything shitty about LA's inability to establish sense of place.

Where's our modern day craig ellewood, or neutra? At least those guys understood proportion despite being ignorant of urban design. Contemporary architects understand the virtue of neither. Austerity and subtlety can be as awe-inspiring as gut-bucket shock factor. Architecture is becoming less the altruistic, humanistic manipulation of physical space, and more the cynical, opportunistic manipulation of virtual space (mental) in the form of advertisement. It's like their unwittingly dirty marketing campaign.

Last edited by edluva; Oct 31, 2006 at 10:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #675  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2006, 11:20 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,712
I love that idea. I hope they bury some of the freeways in downtown as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #676  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2006, 4:53 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 656
Just for a visualization my friends.

from:http://www.prarchitects.com/urban.html

Hollywood Freeway Cap





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #677  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2006, 5:42 PM
Damien Damien is offline
Cool dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 404
There's a great (and recent) study on the net, which resulted the Sacramento freeway cap proposal that I linked to a month or two ago. I'll see if I can find it; I think its in pdf. Most encouraging fact in the study: the caps can be constructed strong enough to support 8 story buildlings!

When looking for the study I came across some commentator suggesting that the new open space go toward affordable housing for police officers, teachers and firefighters and using their pension funds to partially finance the cap. Great idea if you ask me.

Thankfully, there are a lot of depressed freeways in our town. (I think I posted a list a while back.) With the increase in population and densification of the city I hope this possibility becomes more commonplace in the discussion for more housing, schools and park space, as an alternative to bull-dozing homes through eminent domain and what not. We could build a few pretty nice size schools on top of the 10 and 105 freeways for example and we know the areas need them. Imagine a Los Angeles of 2056 that doesn't have any depressed freeways, just freeway tunnels.

My suggestion is to build the 45 billion dollar rail system and use the soil to cap the freeways!

And oh yea, this isn't some wild, off the wall suggestion. Seattle capped a freeway a couple of decades ago for a park.

Last edited by Damien; Oct 31, 2006 at 5:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #678  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2006, 6:07 PM
Damien Damien is offline
Cool dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 404
Quote:
In addition to CRA money, the chamber is seeking money for the study from private donations.
Exactly! Get those damn developers to cough up some money for the study. They stand to gain the most financially speaking!

Quote:
The report indicates that in Los Angeles there are about 0.012 acres of open space per resident, and in Hollywood, the figure drops to 0.005 acres.

Also, a 2003 study by the Trust for Public Land found that two-thirds of Los Angeles children do not live by a park, while 91 percent of New York City children live within walking distance of one.

[....]

Area schools and children would stand to benefit greatly from the park. At least three schools are in close proximity to the park, including Central Los Angeles High School, which is under construction. The proposed park also would be near two Metropolitan Transit Authority subway stations.
Love the "what about the children" hook. Countless studies point to numerous respiratory problems and other ailments for people, specifically, children in their developmental stage, who live next to freeways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #679  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2006, 6:44 AM
Vangelist Vangelist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 678
That museum is the ugliest thing I've seen. I'd be really embarrassed if it's approved
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #680  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2006, 7:41 AM
bjornson's Avatar
bjornson bjornson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn NYC
Posts: 622
It's not the ugliest thing. I've seen way worst. I bet you wouldn't think it'd be ugly if the curved part of the exterior is gone. Geez it's not that bad. It's a far cry from the ugliest thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.