HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2007, 8:37 PM
Vangelist Vangelist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 678
far be it for me to defend anything stucco-vomitous like "Glo" but...los angeles' greatest and most notable architecture remains residential, instead of commercial. we're also seen as the most cutting-edge city by archie schools in terms of what novelties or eccentricities even *can* be built, which of course has its downsides too. but i've talked to many arch students here, and they all share the same sentiment about choosing LA to study in: it's sense of freedom and experimentalism is invaluable, and new york's conformity just doesn't have the attraction of "the future." compare and replace said statement with any of the rest of the arts as well: the lack of "sense of place" is the sense of place and generates the wild /open-canvas freedom just as these artists desire

yes, that's the old line on la, that as it's the "future," it's expected to be more free-wheeling - which unfortunately has riddled us with many experiements gone wrong. that whole chestnut is outdated, but then so is the criticism here. it's funny that ed luva keeps repeating the standard, conventional criticism of la - which itself is outdated more than 30-50 years - get a new one! post-postmodernism it's sort of irrelevant - while in paris they're having exhibitions at the pompidou center on our wacked-out aesthetic since they're (genuinely and not patronizingly) fascinated with our "pomo 80s ugliness," with Googie and Neutra, with pre-war modernism and pop-dysfunction, with all these things ....even with mimicry and bastardized classicist appropriations. whether one likes it or not - and it is subjective - that *is* our culture and hertitage, and it's non-ironically respected and starting to get academically codified. would anyone doubt andy warhol was a legitimate artist these days? why the need to even compare him to caravaggio? you can't blame a city for the age it came into its own, that's ludicrous.

i'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better standards commercially. i'm not trying to defend the bland or tacky suburban stucco developments at all. but to conflate those somehow with the much larger and more complex issues of "architecture in la," or "la's aesthetic," is fallacious. los angeles is more than strip-mall atrocities..it's strip mall atrocities AND frank llyod wright, it's sterile office buildings AND morphosis, it's the grove AND Schindler - what are you gonna do? it's not one or the other; it's not just britney spears, it's also jodie foster or dustin hoffman (both born here!). britney seems a lot more disneyfied lousiana or wherever she's from - she wasn't raised here. but walter mosley was, as just one counterexample.

and on that note, i'm just weary of anyone still trying to pigeonhole la into hollywood, or regurgitate the hoary and inaccurate meme of "la = hollywood, therefore la = cheapness & artificiality," which is the sense i get when i read one of ed luva's one-note dismissals of la as the worthless philistine harlot. everytime i read one of hawthorne's criticisms, for example i can still see the nuances, i can view him grappling with the contradictions, the complexities with the place. everytime i read one of ed luva's posts it feels like i'm watching him hock unmitigated intellectualized muckus all over the city, and to what end?

Last edited by Vangelist; Oct 9, 2007 at 9:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2007, 8:56 PM
Vangelist Vangelist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 678
Here's someone who *really* cares about architecture in LA: the movie producer trying to preserve notable houses by purchasing them one at a time. again, underlining that the most notable built stuff here is residential, not commercial. From sunday's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/st...=1&oref=slogin

October 7, 2007
Safe Houses

By STACIE STUKIN
Michael LaFetra cringed every time he heard about another iconic Los Angeles house crumbling under the wrecking ball. Two by R. M. Schindler — gone. A Richard Neutra — dust. Just as bad were the ones left standing. They had to suffer the indignities of master-suite additions, reconfigured floor plans, buffed-out kitchens with granite countertops and industrial-size appliances. The trend was disturbing enough to spur the 40-year-old film producer into action. The only way to save these houses, LaFetra reasoned, was to buy them.

Now LaFetra collects houses the way some people collect art. It started innocently enough in 1999, with the acquisition of Pierre Koenig’s Case Study House #21. At that point his passion for modern architecture was still nascent. He had grown up in Claremont — a college town about 30 miles east of downtown Los Angeles — in a 1960s modern post-and-beam house and had gone to a preschool that had been designed, coincidentally, by Neutra.

But LaFetra had never even heard of Koenig (or, for that matter, Neutra) until his real-estate broker showed him an issue of Architectural Digest that featured the Case Study houses. All he knew was that he liked what he saw. When the Koenig house came on the market shortly thereafter, he walked in and, as he recalls, “it just felt right.”

So began his education in architectural preservation — and a fantastic buying spree. From the Koenig, he moved on to the Hollywood Hills, restoring a midcentury house with a Garrett Eckbo-designed garden and a Neutra addition. Next came a 1938 Schindler in Sherman Oaks, where instead of giving it a whitewash, he went with the architect’s original choice — a burned shade of yellow-orange. There is the house he now lives in, an essentially glass-walled Ray Kappe from 1967 in Brentwood, as well as a John Lautner above Sunset Plaza with a cantilevered pool. For another Schindler in Silverlake, he rebuilt the architect’s original furniture and light fixtures from plans. Two more houses in Brentwood — by the Case Study architects A. Quincy Jones and Thornton Abell, respectively — were added to his haul. Next spring, LaFetra plans to break ground in Malibu on a Koenig house that the architect designed for him before he died in 2004.

Since he began collecting, LaFetra has sold four of these houses but still has seven in his portfolio. Gloria Koenig, Pierre’s widow, an architecture writer and now a good friend, says LaFetra is not just a house flipper: “For Michael, it’s a passion, not a business.

He wants to honor and preserve these homes for generations to come.” While there are certainly others who restore and sell significant modern homes in Los Angeles, as LaFetra puts it, “No one is as cracked as I am.” And no one is doing it on such a large scale while earning the respect of the city’s preservation community.

“Michael’s sense of purism is kind of insane and intense,” says Kimberli Meyer, the director of the MAK Center for Art and Architecture, Los Angeles, where LaFetra has made donations and sits on the advisory board. “Since there’s no public entity in Los Angeles that can handle our incredible collection of important homes, we need people like Michael. Private restoration is becoming more and more important.”

In many ways he is doing what nonprofit preservation organizations can’t. He has the funds they don’t, and he’s learned not to let go of a house until he registers it as a Los Angeles historic cultural monument and enrolls it in the Mills Act (a tax abatement program that gives future owners incentives to maintain the house under historic preservation guidelines). While Los Angeles preservation laws aren’t perfect, these protections entice a certain type of buyer and deters developers who may want to bulldoze and rebuild a faux Mediterranean McMansion. It also eliminates the need for LaFetra to accompany his broker when a particular house is shown — an experience that LaFetra likens to having his “skin flayed.” Instead, he can “let it go,” knowing he’s done all he can to protect the integrity of the house.

LaFetra has been known to go to extremes to match the present with the past. He used archaeological techniques to determine what shade of yellow to paint a Schindler house and had the window hardware for the Lautner house custom-welded. When he moved into his Kappe house, he contemplated removing the granite countertops that had been installed during a 1990s kitchen renovation and bringing back the original Formica. But then Kappe himself weighed in, assuring LaFetra that houses have lives of their own and it’s O.K. if they change a bit over time. The granite stayed. For LaFetra, the architect is the last word. “I think the architect is God,” he says.

But because many of the architects in his house collection are no longer alive to advise him, he ultimately takes a very academic approach: he analyzes the original plans, cross-references them with old photographs and enlists the aid of architectural scholars.

“Unlike a lot of these homeowners, Michael consults the experts,” says Judith Sheine, herself a Schindler expert who chairs the architecture department at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. “He doesn’t renovate these homes just to live in them, he’s doing it to get them right. It’s amazing what I’ve seen some owners do to their houses,” she adds. “When they proudly show me, I want to burst into tears.”

The fear of losing such legacies — and making people like Sheine cry — keeps LaFetra’s checkbook out. While he buys houses based on aesthetics and location rather than pedigree or square footage, he has a soft spot for homes from the 1960s. Schindler is one of his favorite architects, as is Harwell Harris, another Modernist. He calls David Gebhard and Robert Winter’s “An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles” his bible and regularly visits Internet hot spots like Realestalker.blogspot.com and Modcom.org to get the latest real-estate and preservation gossip. He is not above stalking a house.

One longtime object of his affection is the Stevens House by Lautner in Malibu. The six-bedroom property, which looks like an avant-garde boat that’s been hauled onto the beach, was put on the market by the original owners about four years ago. LaFetra couldn’t finance it then, but he continued to keep a close watch. At one point he had his broker inquire whether the owners would entertain an offer, and they agreed to let him see it. What he saw was alarming. Gone was the original teak and mahogany master bath; in its place was a big white porcelain tub. They had painted the poured concrete white and removed the Lautner-designed furniture; the cast-in-place concrete light fixture in the dining room had been replaced with a French chandelier lit with fake flame bulbs.

“It was painful to see,” LaFetra says, describing it as a bit Stevie Nicks: “If you want to buy a shabby-chic house in the colony, there are plenty available. Why buy a Lautner?” It is precisely when people start to tinker with the architecture, taking away essential details, that homes like these no longer make sense and get bulldozed, he insists. So he made an offer. The house became his this past June.

“I know Michael’s been out there when he comes home looking like he’s been out on a fabulous date with a beautiful girl,” says his longtime girlfriend, Alison Letson, about the Stevens house. She has stuck with him through the scaffolding, the constant renovations, the feeling of “living inside a Saks Fifth Avenue window.” She has tolerated impracticalities like the pristine white floors that their Great Dane, Tarmac, would inevitably dirty with muddy paws. And ultimately, she has come to love some of these houses as much as he does. “In some ways, Michael looks at these homes like paintings,” she says. “You can’t really rework a Kandinsky because it was so beautifully conceived in the first place. It’s sad when that happens, then it just becomes a Kandinsky paint-by-numbers.”

The comparison to painting is apt; many of these houses are no longer considered just real estate but are being handled like works of art. Last year, Koenig’s Case Study #21 sold at auction for $3.1 million. (The seller purchased the house from LaFetra, who completed the restoration with Koenig’s help.) “A responsible preservation job, without a heavy hand, increases market value and can be a very strong selling point,” says Crosby Doe, a real-estate agent who specializes in the sale of architecturally significant houses. “If you buy one of Michael’s houses, you know it will be in turnkey condition.”

While LaFetra has certainly made money on these ventures, the margins are still very small because the time and investment is so large. But you get the feeling profit is not the real motive: “When I start cursing myself that I’m not making a lot of money on these homes, I have to remind myself, I’m not doing this to make money. I’m doing this to save a house.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2007, 9:27 PM
jlrobe jlrobe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
I really hate that buildings in LA are being used as billboards. The City already put a stop to new freestanding billboards a few years ago, but now there seems to be a proliferation of using buildings as billboards, which is just as ugly (or somehow worse) as a freestanding billboard. I wish it were outlawed.

I just got back last night from San Diego. Their downtown area/Gaslamp Quarter is really vibrant. Even though some of the newer downtown housing they built there is bland in terms of architecture, the residents and commercial areas on the lower floors have really livened up the place. The last time I was in the Gaslamp District (probably 3 years ago) I still remember having to dodge bums and seeing a lot of vacant lots. I still doubt I'd want to live in San Diego, I've always found it nice to visit but never wanted to live there (too Republican, and for a big city, somehow not as cosmopolitan as other big cities). But if I HAD to live in San Diego, I wouldn't mind living downtown. If only downtown LA were more like downtown San Diego at this point in time... but I'm optimistic that downtown LA will be very nice in the near future.
Gaslamp has good energy, but I dont like the vibe. To me its like Hermosa beach with a small small TINY splash of SF's north beach in an old town pasadena setting. Not that appealing.

I would much rather downtown LA take on the vibe of the historic core, arts district, artsy/gritty chinatown, w third st (LA's not santa monicas), beverly blvd (LA's not west hollywoods) and some silverlake mixed income ethnic edginess. That would be my hope. Instead its probaly going to be like a Gaslamp filled with USC and UCLA students
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2007, 10:07 PM
jlrobe jlrobe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
i hate how architecture in la is still so attention-grabbing in the pomo sense, as though architects felt the need to compensate for a lack of richness in local culture by creating their own - most of the time being shitty kitsch rather carefully thought-out. look at the london, tokyo, or chicago threads for an idea of how architecture could be creative through the subtle and considerate manipulation of proportion. creativity shouldn't be determined by relative lack of inhibition (visual noise) as it is here in low-brow la.

and these self-conscious aspirations toward times-square, what's up with that? why are developers trying to build a life-sized version of citywalk? for ad revenue or to create "street energy"? it makes our city so wannabe, like toronto's equally self-conscious dundas. la cannot hold it's own as long as its greatest cultural asset consists of mimicry. mimicry always fails, because the copier can never fully appreciate the creative process of the originator. ikea may be able to mimic an eames dcw to great commercial success, but the grossness of most ikea productions won't fool the more initiated. and by initiated, i'm not limiting to industrial designers. you'd be surprised how many people (in other cities) could tell a difference, or at least give a damn.

so the aesthetic sensibilities of a city's populace eventually trickles into all aspects of local architecture and planning. la has a lower collective aesthetic sensitivity - one that probably fails to discern commercial mimcry from the original due to the extent of pop here. in la, "looks like" is as authentic as the real thing, because culturally speaking, we're spoon-fed. and anyways, what else would one expect from an economy that's often said to be driven by acting. yeah we have shipping but so what? noone gives a hoot about shipping. to a great extent, hollywood is la's version of wall street or banking. vegas architecture mirrors local culture as well. whatever works right? the western world probably cringes at the sight of houstonian architecture, but as long as that architecture reflects local context then at least it's realized some of it's responsibility. in some respects houston or vegas are america's la and la is the western world's houston. and so forth. both are a bit uncouth by most standards. both are boomtowns with little originating classicism.

ocman was spot on. "pointless flourishes" captures it all. nearly every new building in la must make it's "i'm here" overstatement, and nearly always to the expense of everything else. it's architectural selfishness. perhaps our scarcity of place necessitates that but it sure is an ugly necessity.
LA does lack a sense of place (frankly its layout and look is HORRIBLE) and will never achieve a cohesive character. THat being said, all we can hope for is LA's continued cultural activities. Remember, in downtown there are 4 theatres being restored for the proposed purpose of culture.

The Latino theatre companys space, the Linda Lea, and the other theatre that AEG sold to someone for the performing arts in south park, and another braodway theatre being refurbished for cultural arts. Heck, just look at the downtown news devleopment article and skip down to cultural/educational stuff. Lets not forget that although our city severly lacks a sense of place or an urban maturity, there is tons of culture abound. The colburn school, the new high school for performing arts, the arts scene in downtown, sci-arc, FIDM are all apart of downtown LA. Sure its not "urban" enough, but lets not consider LA a cultural wasteland just yet. LA is probably the ugliest cultural capitol in the world. I am sorta proud of that contradictory distinction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2007, 10:37 PM
Vangelist Vangelist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 678
Don't forget Otis - one of the "top four fashion institutes worldwide," in the top five fashion schools (the most prestigious on the west coast) and "the most culturally diverse school of art and design in the country. It has 1100 students, from 39 states and 26 countries." It's downtown, which does have a "sense of place," and is less abstract/ugly than the rest of LA

Also let it be said that even though i disagree with edluva on this issue, i still enjoy reading his posts a lot because there's actual thought put into them. As opposed to say, 90% of the intelligence-lacking cheers and jeers posted on SSC. Such plebes. Fellow snobs need to stick together - or how boring would this all be!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2007, 12:01 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrobe View Post
Gaslamp has good energy, but I dont like the vibe. To me its like Hermosa beach with a small small TINY splash of SF's north beach in an old town pasadena setting. Not that appealing.

I would much rather downtown LA take on the vibe of the historic core, arts district, artsy/gritty chinatown, w third st (LA's not santa monicas), beverly blvd (LA's not west hollywoods) and some silverlake mixed income ethnic edginess. That would be my hope. Instead its probaly going to be like a Gaslamp filled with USC and UCLA students
I like that the Gaslamp is full of people walking around and hanging out, and that downtown residents are also in the mix. As I was sitting in a restaurant in the Gaslamp on Sunday, I saw a nice mix of people walking around outside, locals and tourists, plus joggers and people walking their dogs. San Diego always had a small town feel to me, and the Gaslamp is no different.

Downtown LA, by virtue of being denser and having more taller buildings than downtown San Diego (even the old ones along Spring and Broadway, etc.), I think guarantees that it will not have the "vibe" of the Gaslamp. Downtown LA always felt more like a "big city" to me, whereas downtown San Diego always felt more like an overgrown small town, if that makes sense. By that alone, I think downtown LA has one up on downtown SD. Once downtown LA gets more cleaned up and more commercial businesses go in, restaurants, etc., and the housing gets built out, I think downtown LA will be a very nice and interesting place to live and visit. And San Diego doesn't have a Chinatown or Little Tokyo... more pluses for downtown LA.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2007, 12:09 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrobe View Post
LA does lack a sense of place (frankly its layout and look is HORRIBLE) and will never achieve a cohesive character.
It always surprises me when people say that LA doesn't have a sense of place. In my opinion it always did, even as a kid, I knew right away when I was in LA. I guess what it is, is that LA is so huge, and depending on what neighborhood one grew up in or frequented, LA "means" something different to different people. Example, I'm friends with someone who grew up in Encino. To HIM, LA was Encino, Ventura Blvd., and the Westside. Hollywood was an enigma to him as a young adult, having never really gone into Hollywood as a child. For me growing up, LA was the Miracle Mile, Wilshire Boulevard, and Century City/Westside. But as I got into my teens and 20s, I got more familiar with Hollywood, Silverlake, downtown and more of the City of LA. And after having moved to South Pasadena 9 years ago, I got more familiar with Eagle Rock and Highland Park, areas I NEVER used to go through. I agree with you that LA will never have a cohesive character, and it's because LA is so huge; its individual neighborhoods have their own character.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 6:42 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
vangelist, i also see the nuances in hawthorne's articles. but i still think it a bit of a cop-out to excuse full-bore incompetence as "experimentation" or whatever admirers of architectural kitsch like to call it. it's good to be eclectic. it's also good to exercise taste and restraint where appropriate. that we're a knowing summation of eames, disney, dustin hoffman, and gilmore is quite a stretch imo. modernist residential LA (ellewood, schindler, etc) is just a more preferable bit of the broader immaterial miscellany rather than an important freestanding architectural movement. it's more cultural artifact (as is all of pop anyhow), little more than the incorporation of an international movement rooted elsewhere, much like all the other "bastardized" adaptations that comprise this cultural miscellany that we call pop and then attribute (almost proudly) to our city, but just a lot less bastardized (still referring to "LA modernism"). to me, it's the scale of the bastardization-to-miscellany phenomenon here that impresses and in my opinion, misleads said admirers.

i think it's sorta funny you mention pompidou's birth of an art capital exhibition. i've always thought la's pomo, (post-pomo, samo school, or whatever catchy blanket phrase one wants to use because they don't understand where in the continuum of western art history la's seemingly uncategorizable collection of "styles" belongs) to be most appropriate in some sort of sterile retrospective "study" of pop art. And that's exactly it. Like pop-art, LA only makes sense when it's been extensively filtered, tabulated, and codified, but not when it's actually in play, because none of the good stuff that happens here was intentional. if neitzsche were around, he'd classify LA a dionysian experience, but an apollonian study. from an artistic point of view, LA is an apocalyptic phenomenon by virtue of its disregard to chronology and history. it's also a reflection of our unique place in human development to those capable of seeing it in such a way.

Last edited by edluva; Oct 13, 2007 at 7:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 6:53 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
ps, also glad to have a fellow snob here to b.s. with for change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 7:20 PM
jlrobe jlrobe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
It always surprises me when people say that LA doesn't have a sense of place. In my opinion it always did, even as a kid, I knew right away when I was in LA. I guess what it is, is that LA is so huge, and depending on what neighborhood one grew up in or frequented, LA "means" something different to different people. Example, I'm friends with someone who grew up in Encino. To HIM, LA was Encino, Ventura Blvd., and the Westside. Hollywood was an enigma to him as a young adult, having never really gone into Hollywood as a child. For me growing up, LA was the Miracle Mile, Wilshire Boulevard, and Century City/Westside. But as I got into my teens and 20s, I got more familiar with Hollywood, Silverlake, downtown and more of the City of LA. And after having moved to South Pasadena 9 years ago, I got more familiar with Eagle Rock and Highland Park, areas I NEVER used to go through. I agree with you that LA will never have a cohesive character, and it's because LA is so huge; its individual neighborhoods have their own character.
I am a huge fan of LA and love this place, but it doesnt have a sense of place. That to me is why I love it. One minute you are in Santa MOnica and it is all beachy. Next you are in Venice and its a little artsy, a little funky, a little wierd, a little gritty. I love it. Next, you're in the san gabriel valley and you feel like you are in a suburb of bejing. South pasadena, montrose, larchmont village, all fill like small little towns. Many parts of beverly hills feel stuffy, west hollywood if funky at times, sometimes way too mainstream, and has tons of russians and gays. Silverlake looks like the indie rock and grittier version of Seattle circa 1990. Leimert Park sometimes reminds me of the south side of chicago. I can never get a fix on this town cause its so big and so different where ever you go.

When you go to Detroit, you know you are the D. When you are in SF, anywhere you go, you feel like you are in the beautiful city by the bay. When you are in LA, aside from all the strip malls and graffiti, you dont know where you are, Korea, bejing suburb, small town, beach town, funky beach town, etc.

Don't take it as an insult.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 8:11 PM
solongfullerton solongfullerton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrobe View Post
I am a huge fan of LA and love this place, but it doesnt have a sense of place. That to me is why I love it. One minute you are in Santa MOnica and it is all beachy. Next you are in Venice and its a little artsy, a little funky, a little wierd, a little gritty. I love it. Next, you're in the san gabriel valley and you feel like you are in a suburb of bejing. South pasadena, montrose, larchmont village, all fill like small little towns. Many parts of beverly hills feel stuffy, west hollywood if funky at times, sometimes way too mainstream, and has tons of russians and gays. Silverlake looks like the indie rock and grittier version of Seattle circa 1990. Leimert Park sometimes reminds me of the south side of chicago. I can never get a fix on this town cause its so big and so different where ever you go.

When you go to Detroit, you know you are the D. When you are in SF, anywhere you go, you feel like you are in the beautiful city by the bay. When you are in LA, aside from all the strip malls and graffiti, you dont know where you are, Korea, bejing suburb, small town, beach town, funky beach town, etc.

Don't take it as an insult.
This is why some many people love this city, because it has something for just about everyone!

Once you find your niche area, you can pretty much forget the rest of the city exists because it is so big. It would be nice if things were integrated a bit more, but its also nice that they aren't to an extent, because you get these segregated neighborhoods that are so different from eachother.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2007, 6:19 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
i hate how architecture in la is still so attention-grabbing in the pomo sense, as though architects felt the need to compensate for a lack of richness in local culture by creating their own - most of the time being shitty kitsch rather carefully thought-out. look at the london, tokyo, or chicago threads for an idea of how architecture could be creative through the subtle and considerate manipulation of proportion. creativity shouldn't be determined by relative lack of inhibition (visual noise) as it is here in low-brow la.

and these self-conscious aspirations toward times-square, what's up with that? why are developers trying to build a life-sized version of citywalk? for ad revenue or to create "street energy"? it makes our city so wannabe, like toronto's equally self-conscious dundas. la cannot hold it's own as long as its greatest cultural asset consists of mimicry. mimicry always fails, because the copier can never fully appreciate the creative process of the originator. ikea may be able to mimic an eames dcw to great commercial success, but the grossness of most ikea productions won't fool the more initiated. and by initiated, i'm not limiting to industrial designers. you'd be surprised how many people (in other cities) could tell a difference, or at least give a damn.

so the aesthetic sensibilities of a city's populace eventually trickles into all aspects of local architecture and planning. la has a lower collective aesthetic sensitivity - one that probably fails to discern commercial mimcry from the original due to the extent of pop here. in la, "looks like" is as authentic as the real thing, because culturally speaking, we're spoon-fed. and anyways, what else would one expect from an economy that's often said to be driven by acting. yeah we have shipping but so what? noone gives a hoot about shipping. to a great extent, hollywood is la's version of wall street or banking. vegas architecture mirrors local culture as well. whatever works right? the western world probably cringes at the sight of houstonian architecture, but as long as that architecture reflects local context then at least it's realized some of it's responsibility. in some respects houston or vegas are america's la and la is the western world's houston. and so forth. both are a bit uncouth by most standards. both are boomtowns with little originating classicism.

ocman was spot on. "pointless flourishes" captures it all. nearly every new building in la must make it's "i'm here" overstatement, and nearly always to the expense of everything else. it's architectural selfishness. perhaps our scarcity of place necessitates that but it sure is an ugly necessity.
We got to remember fortunately Los Angeles has a lot of wonderful unique architecture, instititutions and character. H&H is so contrived but it has spurred a rehabilitation of authentic Hollywood too. Downtown LA is coming together and I suspect LA Live will /may have the "City Walk" quality to it, but a more authentic neighborhood is also evolving.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2007, 3:41 AM
jlrobe jlrobe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by solongfullerton View Post
This is why some many people love this city, because it has something for just about everyone!

Once you find your niche area, you can pretty much forget the rest of the city exists because it is so big. It would be nice if things were integrated a bit more, but its also nice that they aren't to an extent, because you get these segregated neighborhoods that are so different from eachother.
I agree totally. I can find may way around it no problem. I just wish others did to. LA is very underutilzied. If it were more connected........WOW!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2007, 1:25 AM
friedpez's Avatar
friedpez friedpez is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA Area
Posts: 308
The Century

Hi everyone, I know this is kinda the wrong place to post about this, but does anyone know if there's a thread in the highrises portion that covers The Century, the 42-story building going up in Century City? I've got a pretty sweet view of the "skyline" from our condo in West LA and thought I could contribute photos of its construction if there's a thread for it. If not, is there an appropriate place in the California/LA subsections? Thanks!

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2007, 1:59 AM
Echo Park Echo Park is offline
California goth
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: cardboard box on skid row
Posts: 1,776
friedpez, we have a thread for non-downtown L.A. metro projects:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=78475

You can post your construction pics there
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2007, 5:47 AM
friedpez's Avatar
friedpez friedpez is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA Area
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echo Park View Post
friedpez, we have a thread for non-downtown L.A. metro projects:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=78475

You can post your construction pics there
Thanks!! Do you think this project also deserves its own thread in the highrises section?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2007, 7:14 AM
Echo Park Echo Park is offline
California goth
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: cardboard box on skid row
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by friedpez View Post
Thanks!! Do you think this project also deserves its own thread in the highrises section?
You are certainly at liberty to create such a thread. If the piece of shit police HQ can get its own thread, certainly the Century can.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2007, 7:36 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
The Century already has its own thread.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2007, 4:20 PM
friedpez's Avatar
friedpez friedpez is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA Area
Posts: 308
^ Thanks for all the info Echo Park and Westsidelife. I just moved back to the area so I need to do some catching up, esp on this "piece of shit police HQ" business lol!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2007, 8:35 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
^ It doesn't look that bad. But of course, that's just my opinion.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
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 4:58 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.