LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[Just-In-Cali]

Well, to clarify for you, Citywatch, the problem with the comments you tend to make have, of course, nothing to do at all with the state of the city or the problems that it faces or the solutions that are needed to move it in the direction that many think it needs to move in.
My response to you is singularly in the realm of "can we please stop complaining about the exact same problem in every post week after week no matter how much it may have been discussed.”
Your single mindedness on the issue leads me to believe that you are simply being antagonistic with no real reason or resolve. Just the need to be responded to seems to be your motive, as even the most hostile forumers towards LA (we know who they are) don’t harp on a topic for the better part of a month. It makes the forum less interesting and quite frankly feel like we are standing next to the man on the street corner waving the "Repent" sign daily...never really making a point, just being disruptive for the sheer need of it.

As far as the ENDLESS comparisons we seem to never escape on here...lets think about this...
LA has always gone its own way. It’s been making huge strides in the last 20 years, though it has MUCH left to fix. But I know…and this is proven everyday in here, that LA could literally tear itself down to the infrastructure, send all 4 million residents to the school of “Urban Living”…and rebuild it as a street for street replica of NY or Tokyo, and many people in here and nationwide would STILL complain…why?...because its LA…it’s the rule.
It would never be enough, it could never change enough for some people. I’m willing to bet, if any of the recent proposals here in DTLA were proposed in lets say…Boston…all the critics in here would herald them as “wonderful examples of modern urbanism” for that city. But, because they are here…they are maligned. It’s a trained mentality, very hive like in its inflexibility, that has been decades in the making.
It’s almost knee jerk...and it’s frankly tiresome. It’s not enough that we all agree that there are problems. It’s as if, unless we agree to HATE the city as much as the complainers do, we are somehow deluded and "boosters". I find it amusing that people that have such a distaste for something spend so much time talking about it, debating it, and getting upset over it.
I can’t stand American Idol…so does that mean I have to spend time watching it everyday to prove to myself how much I dislike it?
Downtown Los Angeles is finding its way, and its years from being its most ideal self, but I’m willing to watch, read, and participate in its growth because I want to see it get better, not to prove how right I was for it not being there yet.

Now if you will excuse me, I’ll be looking for news on Wilshire Grand, The Broad, Liebskind’s tower proposal, the Farmer’s Field proposal, the regional connector, the Broadway Revitalization, The Grand, the second hotel at LA Live, a possible development on the former Jardin parcel, the 7th&Fig remodel… etc…etc…you know…actual developments in DTLA…

[edluva]

justincali, while i agree with your comments about citywatch, i'm sure you'll already know i disagree with your fatalistic summary about criticisms (by myself, undoubtedly) toward la projects - that the same major projects (eg. ritz/marriot) would be hailed if plopped down in say boston or new york.

that comment demonstrates your own inability to discriminate projects on your own terms, since, while i understand that taste is a subjective thing, nobody with any respectable knowledge of architecture would agree with your simplistic broad-stroked comment which ignores criticism of any sort. if you read criticism of the downtown ritz carlton, piano's bcam, or wdch, or death star, or lucas's cinematic arts building, or galen center, or h&h, you'd would be able to see how an unbiased view of some of these projects would see them as mediocre failings no matter where they're situated. but you don't, because they're in la.

so in all, it is ironic but i'll take your comment as further confirmation of my earlier feelings that it is actually you who is biased and it is you who lacks architectural discrimination (as well as substance) because you wish to like anything that's proposed in la.

i could care less where a project is situated. i was hailing diller scofidio renfro's broad museum as well as jean nouvel's proposal while i distinctly remember you reacting emotionally to my repugnance of libeskind's dtla proposal awhile back. get off my case - it is my right to hate libeskind. as our city has a manner of doing with many architects, la has made libeskind even worse than usual. and adding insult to downtown - mayne is an architectural quack - whether he builds in la or toronto i could care less. perhaps you should consider the possibiity that i do not dislike proposals for the mere fact of being in la, but rather, that proposals in la tend to be subpar to those of wealthier, more sophisticated cities with the means, the drive, and the context to create intelligently provocative things

i actually believe that la confuses talented architects - there is a relative lack of context and history which critics such as hawthorne have acknowledged (and which i beat him to the punch on) and you prefer to spend your energy attacking me instead of seriously considering these arguments for yourself. you are no less tiresome than citywatch with his inane ramblings about powerlines & unflattering comments. why don't you go beat up some giants fan or something? do you actually care about the sport?

you, among many forumers here, are the first to cheerlead anything new, but are the last to offer a personal distinction as to why you like a given proposal. you have demonstrated no understanding of architecture whatsoever, but are the first to cry murder in order to defend anything that is criticized. you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

ask me anything - why do i like diller scofidio renfro's proposal and not gehry's? why do i not care for other pomo darlings of los angeles such as eom, gehry, or mayne? why am i disappointed with the selection of fentress? why do i admire craig ellwood so much? do you have your own opinions, justincali? or just hollow knee-jerk defenses and attacks based on homerism? i suspect the latter.

colemonkee - we are in keeping with the thread topic. this has not gotten bad yet.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Well maybe think of it this way:

Lower Manhattan - DTLA
Midtown Manhattan - Hollywood & Miracle Mile
Uptown Manhattan - Westwood & Santa Monica

Or am I being a little too naive?

not really. there is truth to that. and as much as i hate brighamyen's concoction and his weasley method of disseminating it there is definitely truth to the idea of an urban focus though dispersed it still is.

downtown would be like a tinier version of lower manhattan or the shinjuku or la defense - that's precisely why i despise those who overemphasize its significance for la's urbansim. how heavily does manhattan's identity ride on the successes and failings of lower manhattan? likewise with london and the city/canary wharf? would tokyo's 23 wards be lost without shinjuku "tying it all together"?

this cartoonish attachment of a city's urbanism to its cbd is an especially american phenomenon. it is simple minded and demonstrates the shallowness and unsophistication of those who adhere to this belief - and there are many of influence in la who do. la needs new politicians, developers, and wealthy elites who are better schooled in urban planning, or are at least more cosmopolitan. that way la will also begin to appear more sophisticated and cosmopolitan.

[pesto]

Everybody's getting tired; the discussion is practically civil.

alki: I agree with pretty much everything in your 2nd post (unlike the 1st, which seems to say that desirablity flows from built environment rather than mostly vice-versa). My point is still the same: the reason that nice stuff is built in the westside is that there is basic demand there (ocean, weather, safety, whatever); not vice-versa. I won't disagree that the westside is getting crowded and that lots of people like "real urban" styles ala DT and will live there even in the absence of great amenities, or that DT and surrounding hoods are going up in value. But this is partly because the westside is so expensive that Hollywood, Silver Lake, etc., can go up considerably before reaching that level.

I assume (with Brigham) that the westside will get denser and DT cleaner and that there will be a huge urban area between. To me the question is how can this be reasonably coordinated given the large number of LA people who really don't want greater density.

btw, Manhattan is more like 21 sq. miles (it tapers considerably in the north). LA's core area is not well defined but probably about 50-60 sq. miles (DT to SM to LAX). Zero chance it will have NY style density except in pockets for the next 100 years.

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by edluva

justincali, while i agree with your comments about citywatch, i'm sure you'll already know i disagree with your fatalistic summary about criticisms (by myself, undoubtedly) toward la projects - that the same major projects (eg. ritz/marriot) would be hailed if plopped down in say boston or new york.


colemonkee - we are in keeping with the thread topic. this has not gotten bad yet.

Wow. So, if Im correct, you made my whole statement about YOU?
Glad I managed to touch a chord so deep you dedicated a whole paragraph to me when your name never came up! Thank You!

[edluva]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Wow. So, if Im correct, you made my whole statement about YOU?
Glad I managed to touch a chord so deep you dedicated a whole paragraph to me when your name never came up! Thank You!

oh come now justincali even if you never directed a jibe at me (which everybody here knows you did, becuase you are incessantly doing it - you're the one that's obsessed with me and you know it ) everything i said about you would still stand, just like everything you said about citywatch stands true.

let's hear some substantive analysis about downtown architecture? let me ask you - do you honestly think there's an "la effect" whereby the ritz/marriot would be praised more had it been built in chicago? do you think wdch would be criticized less had it been built in ny? if so, then how? does hawthorne have an anti-la agenda? how bout ouroussoff? which of their articles demonstrate that? who are the "haters" you refer to if they aren't the ones?

you're quick to attack "complainers". let's hear you back yourself up for once. let me see you formulate an intelligent architectural analysis for once (you'll probably dance around this with some personal attack, watch). you have plenty to say about unflattering takes on la architecture and planning - well, then back it up.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by pesto

btw, Manhattan is more like 21 sq. miles (it tapers considerably in the north). LA's core area is not well defined but probably about 50-60 sq. miles (DT to SM to LAX). Zero chance it will have NY style density except in pockets for the next 100 years.

right - i get about 50-60 sq miles myself. that's the enormous challenge with a walkable la. transit density is already a joke in the current iteration of mta's long range plan. how do you tie such a large area with transit to promote functinoal walkability across that expanse? that kind of walkability requires london style land use intensity - and that kind of land use intensity requires the kind of metro coverage density that you see there as well (the kind that's beginning to take shape in downtown)

[Just-In-Cali]

Still needing my attention? Awe......
I'm not getting into a personal debate on architectual critics with you in here...nor am i going to personally attack your intelligence or standing as you have mine regularly.
You want a debate on critics and design in general...private message me. Id be happy to go over all of it time and again. Otherwise, since I have no need to be banned from here, Im dropping it.

[DistrictDirt]

I'm going to interrupt the sparring to post some info and pics of the new Angel City Brewery in the Arts District. We stopped by while doing some photo recon of street art throughout the neighborhood, and was pleased to see that the brewery was open, albeit with a temporary bar set up. The permanent one will come later, after all their permitting goes through.

Let me just say, this space is HUGE. Its a warehouse like space with more than enough room for the brewery itself, a large gallery, and the future brewpub. There is also a large brick patio fronting Traction Ave that will eventually be filled with more seating (again, they're waiting on permitting/liquor licensing.)

Once Angel City is finished and the patio is set up, I can really see it becoming a hub for the Arts District, and a catalyst for new businesses in the neighborhood. Very exciting stuff.


Patio area in front of brewery, and some nice street art from french artist J.R.


Traction Ave entrance



Tanks - still empty as of yet


Giant spiral slide in middle of brewery!


Temporary bar, $5 pints.


Lots of artwork already up in the gallery

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Wow. So, if Im correct, you made my whole statement about YOU?
Glad I managed to touch a chord so deep you dedicated a whole paragraph to me when your name never came up! Thank You!

You're so vain; I'll bet you think my post is about you. Don't you? Don't you?

[pesto]

Love the Angel City Brewery pics! With a few more tats, face rings and obscenities scrawled on the wall it could be straight out of Berlin. Not your father's beergarden.

Now we're talking a fukin' Arts District!

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by pesto

You're so vain; I'll bet you think my post is about you. Don't you? Don't you?

[LAmarODom420]

Colemonkee, please save this thread. You might need to a little.

[djlx2]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

I'm going to interrupt the sparring to post some info and pics of the new Angel City Brewery in the Arts District. We stopped by while doing some photo recon of street art throughout the neighborhood, and was pleased to see that the brewery was open, albeit with a temporary bar set up. The permanent one will come later, after all their permitting goes through.

Let me just say, this space is HUGE. Its a warehouse like space with more than enough room for the brewery itself, a large gallery, and the future brewpub. There is also a large brick patio fronting Traction Ave that will eventually be filled with more seating (again, they're waiting on permitting/liquor licensing.)

Once Angel City is finished and the patio is set up, I can really see it becoming a hub for the Arts District, and a catalyst for new businesses in the neighborhood. Very exciting stuff.


Patio area in front of brewery, and some nice street art from french artist J.R.


Traction Ave entrance



Tanks - still empty as of yet


Giant spiral slide in middle of brewery!


Temporary bar, $5 pints.


Lots of artwork already up in the gallery

awesome photos here! Thanks for this rundown on the opening. So good to hear this is getting underway! Look forward to seeing more of the interior...as they get more artwork in there. Sure they'll probably keep the best-liked ones as they are here, but I bet they'll move others around as they keep it as a mixed-use space...

[JDRCRASH]

Thanks for giving this thread a little life Chris Loos! Awesome photos!

[RuFFy]

Originally Posted by edluva

this cartoonish attachment of a city's urbanism to its cbd is an especially american phenomenon. it is simple minded and demonstrates the shallowness and unsophistication of those who adhere to this belief - and there are many of influence in la who do. la needs new politicians, developers, and wealthy elites who are better schooled in urban planning, or are at least more cosmopolitan. that way la will also begin to appear more sophisticated and cosmopolitan.

I have to say that I agree with pretty much everything Edluva said on all his posts. What I'd like to add to the above referenced post is that it's important to remember the age of LA. It's unfair to expect LA to have the sophistication or cosmopolitan feel of a city, for example, like New York. New York moved into the world eye when Los Angeles was a pueblo. That doesn't mean, however, that LA isn't moving in the direction of better urban planning or that it's wealthy elite will not do for LA what the wealthy elite did, and continue to do, for New York. That said, I am no architect. I have been guilty at marveling at new developments because of the way they look without any serious consideration for the design. I will say though that I've learned a lot from other posters and I anticipate most forumers here have also learned from the ideas of others here as well. To me, that is a testament to the direction LA is headed. By the simple fact we check out this thread we have an interest and we share that with others and raise awareness of the issues LA is confronted with. As a community, IMO, LA is moving forward and that's not always a fast pace. That said, I'm not saying Edluva is wrong because I agree with his post 100%, if anything, I'm just adding to it.

That brings me to my next point and perhaps the most disturbing. Lots of forumers have been here for quite some time and have advanced their thinking as to how Los Angeles should be because of their regular participation. As of late, we have new participants who did not share that growth and are taking over the thread. I know my post is rambly today but I'll say this. I read this thread pretty much every single day and I don't post unless I feel that what I have to say presents either a quality argument or is important for the thread. I may even bounce off subject a bit but recently we're going off subject frequently and right in the middle of the disturbance is citywatch. Citywatch once came in here and went off on how people who don't live downtown do not contribute to the thread with pictures and as a result cause the thread to die. Citywatch, your obsession with quoting people, power lines, and posting WAY too much completely unrelated posts is causing this thread to die.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by djlx2

Which is largely their own failure. They hadn't done the careful research and planning to put residencies of the skyscraper into effect; when this didn't take place, they went, "Ugh. The skyscraper was a terrible idea," and then sat around feeling futile, constructing a few low-level buildings for commercial development. While sending out press releases to city council that redevelopment was, in fact, still under effect: this is what I meant by PR (public-relations, which sends out press releases).

djlx2, the main problem was the hood had been allowed to crumble & decline for so long, that when attempts were finally made to turn things around, it was a case of too little, too late. I think if more had been done to improve the appearance of dt from no later than the 1950s, or before, that would have helped. but based on the record----& for various legal, economic, political reasons----not much was done until the 1960s & 1970s. or about 20 to 30 yrs after the fact. by that time, the rush to the burbs, inc hoods out towards Samo, was reaching a fever pitch.

When I first came across the comment from a famous movie star a few months ago, that was an a-ha! moment to me. iow, the negative reactions go back a long time, way before bunker hill had become a dive. They show the city was vulnerable to falling apart from very early on. The reason? Ppl who aren't too impressed or happy with a place are less likely to want to stick around & keep things going. so it was that much easier for ppl to pick up & abandon DT.

not helping things, there were some ppl in the media & in govt who over 15 yrs ago actually believed enough had been done to improve dt. in their minds, attention should instead have been switched to the hoods most affected by the riots of 92.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

But I know…and this is proven everyday in here, that LA could literally tear itself down to the infrastructure, send all 4 million residents to the school of “Urban Living”…and rebuild it as a street for street replica of NY or Tokyo, and many people in here and nationwide would STILL complain…why?...because its LA…it’s the rule.
It would never be enough, it could never change enough for some people. I’m willing to bet, if any of the recent proposals here in DTLA were proposed in lets say…Boston…all the critics in here would herald them as “wonderful examples of modern urbanism” for that city. But, because they are here…they are maligned.

just-in-cali, I know there is the case of ppl secretly wanting to see the person (or thing, cities included) sitting on top of the perch getting knocked off. it's sort of like how some in the public are fascinated when they see someone famous & successful run into hard times. I guess there may be some of that directed at LA. But I think many ppl's reactions towards DT are honestly felt. IOW, they really are feeling a vague sense of disappointment. A reaction of "is that all there is?" If you're resentful or insulted by that response, just keep in mind that more & more ppl also are starting to have a more positive impression of the hood. Today is much better than the way things were 5 yrs ago, 10 yrs ago, certainly 20 yrs ago.

as for when some ppl make snarky comments about new devlpt in the hood----ex: criticizing LA Live for not being good enough, or being too flashy, or turning its back on the area----I think such ppl are being intellectual nitpickers or snobs more than they are being the type who slams something in LA just cuz it's in LA. So they'd probably complain about new devlpt regardless of where it was located----some of those ppl also are nimbys.

I find it when ppl claim that I'm being a spoiler or hurting this thread cuz I'm pointing out things. Compared to many others, I rarely if ever nitpick or complain about almost any of the new projs & devlpt in dt, or anything else, for that matter, unless it's really bad. If anything, I may be too much of a cheerleader for change & improvement.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

we're going off subject frequently and right in the middle of the disturbance is citywatch.

and yet at the start of your post you give hugs to one of the most notorious trolls at SSP, someone who has a long record of setting up flame bait----snarking about & smirking against LA---on a regular basis?

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

the new Angel City Brewery in the Arts District.
Once Angel City is finished and the patio is set up, I can really see it becoming a hub for the Arts District, and a catalyst for new businesses in the neighborhood. Very exciting stuff.

TY for the update! I've been wondering what was going on there for several months. I can recall driving by that location going back yrs & always wondering whether it had been abandoned or why it couldn't be cleaned & fixed up.

you mention it is in the arts dist, but it's also just as much a part of little tokyo, which is one of the most user friendly parts of DT.

google streetview is to thank (or blame) for reviving my interest in posting here, cuz it allows me to get a better sense of things. some of these images make it easier to recreate what is going on in the hood & to recall what it's like when one is actually there. These pics show how the brewery relates to one of LT's older shopping ctrs----the place where one of the shops has a "we serve breakfast" banner hanging on it. It also show how it relates to new condos added to the hood over the past several yrs....





^ this is an example of how much life has been brought to the east side of dt. there was a time, not all that long ago, when the boundary of little tokyo, or a part of dt where ppl wanted to be around, stopped west of alameda st, or westward from where the Honda plaza ("we serve breakfast") shopping ctr is.