Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingofthehill
I'll never understand the people in LA who are staunch advocates of tearing down what little skyscrapers we have -- even if they are 'ugly' -- in favor of another one, when there are literally tons of adjacent lots...as if a block or 2 over is going to make a big difference; since most of the traffic to these new towers will be automobile (i.e don't have to worry about the building being too far from mass transit), an additional minute or 2 isn't going to spell the end of the world. All those underutilized/empty parcels and they want to go after the one with a fully-functioning, *historic* building...no wonder why this city has no history left!
And the touted successors for the CP building....2 more impersonal glass towers? yawn.
|
the only way that i can explain it. is LA is the between point of two very different cultural neighbors. one being San Francisco, who deems every building historical and preserves everything it sees, and Las Vegas. Vegas is all about the new glitz and glam. try finding a building older than 10 years old that is still relevant and not having a demolition date in the near future.
most of the people moving out, and in general traveling go through LA so we get both extremes of preserving for preserving's sake, and desires to build new glitzy modern buildings to show off. as a result we have a sort of middle ground where if a building has outlived its useful life then its destroyed, unless it has some
very important historical status.