LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Der Blut

It was Artwalk night but I didn't see any art really. Food trucks and people going to bars, but no art.

Exactly my thought! I mean, Art Walk seems to have devolved into Street Walk, though judging by the amount of pedestrian activity I saw that doesn't necessarily seem to be a bad thing.

[mdiederi]

A lot of galleries gave up on selling any art during artwalk last year because it became more about the street party and bars and people who don't buy art. A lot of the galleries now have their receptions on Saturdays or Sundays.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Der Blut

It was Artwalk night but I didn't see any art really. Food trucks and people going to bars, but no art.

Go inside the Alexandria. It's insane in there during Artwalk. It's pretty much the unofficial hub of Artwalk.

[colemonkee]

I feel compelled to respond to the many posts - and the very positive article - regarding the new Citibank plaza at 5th and Flower. While it's admittedly an improvement over what was there before, it's not without some significant faults. The plaza is indeed inviting when standing at the corner of 5th and Flower walking in to the plaza. But along the Flower Street side, the planters literally block off not only access to the plaza, but sight lines into it from the sidewalk.

The first picture below illustrates this. The shot is taken just north of the intersection of 5th and Flower, looking north down the Flower St. sidewalk. The woman in the picture is there for scale. She's about 5'5", and literally cannot see into the plaza over the plant life.


All pictures taken with my iPhone, so excuse the quality.

Now, I'm 5'9", and I can't see into the plaza from the Flower Street side. The top of the plants are roughly 5'9" in height from the sidewalk, so unless you're 5'11" or taller, the plaza is effectively walled off from Flower St. Here's another closer view. See how you literally can't see in from the sidewalk.


All pictures taken with my iPhone, so excuse the quality.

Granted, there is a pedestrian entrance on the Flower St. side close to the building (and just off the left of the concrete wall in the following picture), but it is not very visually inviting.


All pictures taken with my iPhone, so excuse the quality.

So while the new plaza does bring some much needed greenery, and makes walking out of the building much, much better, it really only welcomes pedestrians in from the corner of 5th and Flower, and from the east corner of the plaza along 5th, where the topography of the sidewalk allows for better views into the plaza. But it largely ignores pedestrians entering from Flower, or crossing over from the Bonaventure.

Now, I understand that the higher planters are likely there for security - to keep someone from driving a vehicle into the plaza. But it can be done in a much more pedestrian-friendly way, that allows for better sight lines and access for pedestrians. A good example is the pocket park in front of LAPD HQ, which uses low-slung benches to keep autos out (also adding functionality to the barriers, as you can sit on them), and puts plants around those benches.

[sopas ej]

I agree with you. I like the added greenery and landscaping, but essentially what was done, is that barriers were created. 9/11 has really turned Americans into a bunch of pussies. Pershing Square since its last re-do a decade and a half ago has been maligned for not being inviting to pedestrians from the street/sidewalk because of visual and physical barriers, and then THIS gets done. I remember when I first saw the fencing going up around this plaza thinking 'oh, they're gonna remodel it? I think it's fine the way it is.' Even from an aesthetic standpoint, the planters ruin the geometric pattern of the original paving and palm trees.

2000

lapl, Marissa Roth

Before

thelocationportal.com

After

thelocationportal.com

[pesto]

Just from the pictures, I don't mind the separation. This is often true of big city parks or plazas, where fences or hedges or walls define the area that is recreational, and separate it from the utilitarian sidewalk.

I also don't mind getting rid of the geometrical. But replacing the concrete sterility with low-water sterility (cactus, palm, shrub) is not the best. It really is OK to have trees for shade and beauty in warm areas.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Der Blut

It was Artwalk night but I didn't see any art really. Food trucks and people going to bars, but no art.

Obnoxious.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

i really wanna see more of the beaux arts buildings in the historic core get cleaned up... a lot of em are really dirty.. im surprised nobody every builds that way anymore..beaux arts to me look better than most modern architecture.. for some reason when i see and walk into a beaux arts building, the architecture is so grand that i feel like a king or some divine entity LOL but yea.. just me

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I agree with you. I like the added greenery and landscaping, but essentially what was done, is that barriers were created. 9/11 has really turned Americans into a bunch of pussies. Pershing Square since its last re-do a decade and a half ago has been maligned for not being inviting to pedestrians from the street/sidewalk because of visual and physical barriers, and then THIS gets done. I remember when I first saw the fencing going up around this plaza thinking 'oh, they're gonna remodel it? I think it's fine the way it is.' Even from an aesthetic standpoint, the planters ruin the geometric pattern of the original paving and palm trees.

2000

lapl, Marissa Roth

Before

thelocationportal.com

After

thelocationportal.com

LA's seems to mess up when it comes to plaza's and squares.. maybe trying to hard?? idk... pershing square was perfectly THE square and beautiful until they remodeled it into what an eyesore it is today, nokia plaza although really neat and cool looking is closed off from parts of the street, then you have this plaza.. which before was fine, simple and open.. is now walled off to some parts of the street. They really need to look at other places on how squares and plazas should look like. trafalgar square, washington square, union square, at&t plaza and union square sf.. which are very open and spacious.. sometime limited greenery can be beautiful and sophisticated looking. and it looks cleaner and neat.

[colemonkee]

Nokia Plaza was a surface parking lot before it was Nokia Plaza. While it's not a perfect design by any means, it's much better than what was there before.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Nokia Plaza was a surface parking lot before it was Nokia Plaza. While it's not a perfect design by any means, it's much better than what was there before.

yea i know it was a surface parking lot, but im just saying although it is a nice place and all that... i love it... it just could have been better and more inviting to the streets. cant do anything bout it now its already been built.. me saying anything wonit change it... im just sayin.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

LA's seems to mess up when it comes to plaza's and squares.. maybe trying to hard?? idk... pershing square was perfectly THE square and beautiful until they remodeled it into what an eyesore it is today, nokia plaza although really neat and cool looking is closed off from parts of the street, then you have this plaza.. which before was fine, simple and open.. is now walled off to some parts of the street. They really need to look at other places on how squares and plazas should look like. trafalgar square, washington square, union square, at&t plaza and union square sf.. which are very open and spacious.. sometime limited greenery can be beautiful and sophisticated looking. and it looks cleaner and neat.

Of course Pershing Square was the perfect square right before it was turned into the roof of an underground parking lot in the early 1950s. It has gone through several iterations since then.

I went to the Citigroup Center plaza today to take pictures of it. The article that was posted about it says that the designers didn't want the remodeled plaza to turn its back on the city; I feel it definitely does turn its back on the street.

Photo by me


It also feels more cluttered.

Photo by me


Photo by me


Definitely a different feel and look from the original design of the plaza, which I liked; gone are the stainless steel accents that used to be there among the geometric pattern that was the theme of the paving.

Photo by me


The design does have its positives. At least it'll be a gathering place for people who can take advantage of the places to sit, and of course office workers etc. who'll be using the space for their lunch breaks. I like the use of the palo verde trees (which always look exotic to me); those will look really nice when they grow in more and provide shade.

Photo by me


Off topic, but here's a pic of what used to be a traffic light standard for northbound traffic on Flower back when this stretch was a two-way street, before it was turned one way for the 1984 Summer Olympics; you can see the stub of the mast arm. Also, I noticed that LA's LED streetlight installation project has reached the downtown area.

Photo by me


And is it just me, or does the Citigroup Center building look really nice? In the 1990s and most of the 00s I thought it looked dated, but I like the way it looks now, I think it's aged pretty well for a late Modern building. Maybe the use of stainless steel paneling and green tinted glass has helped it age well (compared with the mirrored/reflective tinted windows that are on the Bonaventure Hotel, which now totally look discolored and oily)? It's from that period in Modern architecture when the skin of the building really was literally treated like skin, with the windows being flush with the curtain wall panels (to maximize leasable floor space square footage). I'm thinking it looks better than the US Bank Tower, which I now think looks horribly dated; I still like the way it looks from a distance, but now up close it's looking kinda dowdy, especially next to the Citigroup Center. At least that's my opinion.

Photo by me

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin

yea i know it was a surface parking lot, but im just saying although it is a nice place and all that... i love it... it just could have been better and more inviting to the streets. cant do anything bout it now its already been built.. me saying anything wonit change it... im just sayin.

Well it could be worse. I mean it's not COMPLETELY closed off from Figueroa, because at least there's a small lively alley between Club Nokia/ESPN and the Grammy building.

[citywatch]

thanks for the pics, sopas & colemonkee. they do help give a better idea of the way that the revamped citicorp plaza interacts with the sidewalk & surrounding area. I can see the points you're all making about it, but if I were a frequent visitor to that location, I would now feel more comfortable spending time there, if only cuz there are now chairs, benches & adjoining tables. but also cuz the original setting was starker than I recall it as being, & seemed too hard edged without the new beds of landscaping.

As for comments about nokia plaza, or bldgs like these....

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I'm thinking it looks better than the US Bank Tower, which I now think looks horribly dated; I still like the way it looks from a distance, but now up close it's looking kinda dowdy, especially next to the Citigroup Center. At least that's my opinion.

alot more ppl see the bldgs & sites that I've highlighted in these pics, which I borrowed from skylinescenes thread on LA in the my city photos forum. They sit right next to very high visibility corridors, so thousands more visitors & regulars to dt will notice them before they notice almost anything else.

As for something being dowdy, there's dowdy & then there's DOWDY!! Like the bldgs that sit across from LA Live. or the original part of the convention ctr, which doesn't look much better than a glorified warehouse.


Bill Cobb, skylinescenes.com


Bill Cobb, skylinescenes.com

so a big thumbs down to these particular bldgs in the hood. they're a big reason why any proj that will require the demolition of such sites is a good thing & won't come a second too soon.

however, I do think one aspect of the somewhat new LA live plaza is noticeably weak: the light & billboard towers. Their design is clunky & they look like they were created in a rush & on a tight budget.

[Troubadour]

I have to say something. There's a certain city in the Middle East that shall remain nameless to avoid being accused of city vs. city trolling, but I just finished a marathon viewing of its general photography thread, and then stopped here - the Big City nearest to me, that comprises a large part of my urban identity. And now I find myself crushed with envy, disappointment, and a massive inferiority complex, feeling like I just crashed headlong from images of a 22nd-century urban dreamworld into suburbia circa 1985. Dear Korean Air, please build the Wilshire Grand as soon as possible!

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Troubadour

I have to say something. There's a certain city in the Middle East that shall remain nameless to avoid being accused of city vs. city trolling, but I just finished a marathon viewing of its general photography thread, and then stopped here - the Big City nearest to me, that comprises a large part of my urban identity. And now I find myself crushed with envy, disappointment, and a massive inferiority complex, feeling like I just crashed headlong from images of a 22nd-century urban dreamworld into suburbia circa 1985. Dear Korean Air, please build the Wilshire Grand as soon as possible!

A high rise does not make a city. In fact, in the case of your 'nameless city' it probably destroys it. That city is huge, empty, and hulking, and moreover dedicated to cars. I would hate for our downtown to be little more then a taller suburban office park, which is sort of like what that Middle Eastern city is. Plus, they totally overbuilt, and everything is now tall and lifeless. Is that what you would want for L.A.? For that is the logical conclusion to the sort of development you want. I sure don't. In fact, I would say that re-instituting the 150 foot policy that was around pre-1959 would be better than almost anything right now, as it would encourage growth, urbanity, and density, as it did in the twenties, thirties, and forties. Think about it: the second we started building high-rises, did the general livability of downtown not start to crumble?

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Troubadour

I have to say something. There's a certain city in the Middle East that shall remain nameless to avoid being accused of city vs. city trolling, but I just finished a marathon viewing of its general photography thread, and then stopped here - the Big City nearest to me, that comprises a large part of my urban identity. And now I find myself crushed with envy, disappointment, and a massive inferiority complex, feeling like I just crashed headlong from images of a 22nd-century urban dreamworld into suburbia circa 1985. Dear Korean Air, please build the Wilshire Grand as soon as possible!

Dubai/Doha/Abu Dhabi (you are talking about either one of them I can guarantee it ) is a example of urban planning in the hands of someone who has Tourette's tripping on acid. You do expect a city to reach global status when all you have are skyscrapers built next to a massive expanse of sand. The booming middle eastern cities are prime examples of what not to do.

There is the Jumeria Beach Residences in Dubai. Imagine the Medici, but 50 stories tall. And add about 50 of them.

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/8642/imresolt150xw5.jpg

There is no city on earth that LA should strive to be LESS than Dubai.

[BrandonJXN]

Btw, it should be said that when I lived in Tucson, Palo Verde trees where everywhere. They don't provide much shade and they attract a lot of bees but they sure do smell good.

[Troubadour]

You all have good points - and I must admit I was sleep-deprived when I wrote the above. So let me add a qualifying note: There are two domains of architecture in which LA really needs to try harder - appearances, and street life. Appearances pull people in and create anticipation, and then the street life seals the deal. If it looks like crap from a distance, then however awesome it is up close, it's never going to reach its full potential, so I don't at all buy into the "street life is everything" attitude.

What I saw that made me so envious were images of a city appearance that were truly amazing, and IF a city managed to combine that with good or great street life, they would be fully meeting their potential. Those images were only from certain angles and under certain lighting conditions, obviously - you can find crappy looks anywhere if you try - but however much you want to ascribe to the genius of the photographer, what I've seen has expanded my notions of what is possible for a city to look like. LA shouldn't strive to look like any other city, but it should strive to look like a more magical representation of itself. That's my biggest complaint with LA, I think - no magic. Hopefully the magic will come the more people live in DTLA.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Troubadour

You all have good points - and I must admit I was sleep-deprived when I wrote the above. So let me add a qualifying note: There are two domains of architecture in which LA really needs to try harder - appearances, and street life. Appearances pull people in and create anticipation, and then the street life seals the deal. If it looks like crap from a distance, then however awesome it is up close, it's never going to reach its full potential, so I don't at all buy into the "street life is everything" attitude.

What I saw that made me so envious were images of a city appearance that were truly amazing, and IF a city managed to combine that with good or great street life, they would be fully meeting their potential. Those images were only from certain angles and under certain lighting conditions, obviously - you can find crappy looks anywhere if you try - but however much you want to ascribe to the genius of the photographer, what I've seen has expanded my notions of what is possible for a city to look like. LA shouldn't strive to look like any other city, but it should strive to look like a more magical representation of itself. That's my biggest complaint with LA, I think - no magic. Hopefully the magic will come the more people live in DTLA.

I disagree though I do see your point. Los Angeles is a truly beautiful city though it's beauty is VERY different from a lot of other cities. If you were to lay out hundreds pictures of street scenes from random cities all over the world, I would point to Los Angeles and say, 'that's LA.' Sure there are a lot of things I would change in regards to architecture in downtown (how come the Westside gets the cool stuff and DTLA gets Glo?) but overall, LA is a beautifully ugly city. If you want to see what I mean about ugly beautiful, go out to the Arts District. That's one area of this city that explains my point entirely.