SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Found City Photos (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   noirish Los Angeles (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=170279)

ProphetM Jun 30, 2014 3:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyingwedge (Post 6636701)
Yes, the post-bombing Los Angeles Times building was built stronger than its predecessor:
http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/...1.jpg~original
Los Angeles Times, September 29, 1937

The post-bombing 1912 building had a basement and sub-basement, perfect for repurposing into a two-story subterranean parking garage:
http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/...2.jpg~original
http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/...e.jpg~original
Southwest Contractor and Manufacturer, July 29, 1911 (Volume 7, Number 12) @ HathiTrust -- http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?i...ew=1up;seq=365

So the 1912 basement and sub-basement walls have survived until now, with the 1938 parking structure built within them, correct?

The only thing that doesn't quite add up is why the 1938 drawing of the parking structure shows the long part of the eastern wall at an angle (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ostcount=22274), when that part of the eastern wall of the Times building was straight (parallel with Broadway). That angled wall would seem to have to start under the building to the east of the Times building on 1st Street.

P.S. Also in regard to that 1938 drawing, it shows the upper parking level 19 feet high, and the lower parking level just under 9 feet. Would the pressroom, described in the 1911 article as being located in the basement/upper parking level, need to be 19 feet high? The answer to that might determine if what's being demolished now includes the entire Times building basement (walls and floors).

And welcome back gsjansen!

Great followup!

I did notice something else in Hunter's new pictures - there was demolition crew spraypaint on a lot of the walls, but in a couple spots I noticed that it said "NO DEMO". So after they are all done, there might still be leftover exterior walls from the 1912 Times building, at the edges of the property near the sidewalks. :haha:


Like this one.

ConstructDTLA Jun 30, 2014 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProphetM (Post 6636898)
Great followup!

I did notice something else in Hunter's new pictures - there was demolition crew spraypaint on a lot of the walls, but in a couple spots I noticed that it said "NO DEMO". So after they are all done, there might still be leftover exterior walls from the 1912 Times building, at the edges of the property near the sidewalks. :haha:


Like this one.

Yep, the west & south walls were marked NO DEMO. Maybe too costly to pull them apart?

Lwize Jun 30, 2014 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyingwedge (Post 6636701)
P.S. Also in regard to that 1938 drawing, it shows the upper parking level 19 feet high, and the lower parking level just under 9 feet. Would the pressroom, described in the 1911 article as being located in the basement/upper parking level, need to be 19 feet high? The answer to that might determine if what's being demolished now includes the entire Times building basement (walls and floors).

Just to speculate, if they store paper in the sub-basement, it would make sense that the basement-level press room would be the printing press room - containing tall machines that would make a 19ft ceiling necessary. It would then appear the exposed levels are from the 1912 Times building.

ProphetM Jun 30, 2014 9:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTLAdenizen (Post 6637041)
Yep, the west & south walls were marked NO DEMO. Maybe too costly to pull them apart?

That close to the street, I assume you'd have to put something in to keep the sidewalks from falling into the new giant hole in the ground. So better to just leave those walls on the edges where they will act as retaining walls while the property is filled back in.

GaylordWilshire Jun 30, 2014 9:56 PM

Spreading interest in the is-it-or-isn't-it Times basement:


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-C...2520PM.bmp.jpg


and

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-M...2520PM.bmp.jpg

Martin Pal Jun 30, 2014 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ethereal_reality (Post 6636284)
__

postscript:

OOPS. Memories can be tricky. Here's a photograph from 1982 (the year I moved to L.A.), and the escalators were actually enclosed
in glass. I would have bet money that they were open air.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/843/2r0x2.jpg
http://videopolis.tumblr.com/post/22296709094
__

E_R, perhaps you remember it that way because the row of windows in certain sections of the escalators were/could open and you could view the Hollywood Hills and the city with the Santa Ana's blowing in your face...

http://www.comics101.com/comics101//...scalators2.jpgScott Tipton

GaylordWilshire Jun 30, 2014 11:39 PM

Still more interest...except, I realize, they all have the idea that it's the basement of the bombed Times building that may or may not have been found, rather than the basement of its replacement...


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-5...2520PM.bmp.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j...2520PM.bmp.jpg

Beaudry Jul 1, 2014 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyingwedge (Post 6636020)
Does the color photo in er's post show the remains of this?:

http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/...3.jpg~original
http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/...7.jpg~original
Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1938

Yeah, 1939 garage. I too was there yesterday morning crawling over the mountains of rubble, trying to gauge what was what.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2913/...c4de4a11_z.jpg

Was going to race home and post my pix but had other engagements (and Hunter's images are much better and more complete!) -- including a Robert Brown Young tour where I met fellow Noirisher Tetsu, great guy.

Made a couple of vids like this and this.

Here for example is a recent shot of where this used to be. Real sorry to see that go.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/...df77351f_z.jpghttps://farm6.staticflickr.com/5488/...f2cde10c_z.jpg

So while this archaeological site didn't turn out to be the wonders of the 1886/1912 basement -- though those remaining outer "no demo" walls may contain just that -- it was still an interesting exercise. E.g., got into it with the usual knuckle-draggers on Facebook (in a "DTLA" group) who promote "progress" over history with quips like -- and this is an actual quote, about how and why this discovery just must not be important: "if the attack on the Times for their anti-Union stance was so important, then there would be more memorials about it." I mean, face to palm or what. My word, they even pulled out the ludicrous trope, refuge of the disingenuous developer-class: THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Apparently we could never maintain the basement as a monument, not because it's simply unhistoric and not important, but because it will (not may, they assert, but will) collapse and hurt children. Therefore, I guess, if you are pro-history, you hate children? Anyway. I guess I don't expect most people to be smart (we Noirish clan are a rarefied breed!) but I don't usually expect them to be total chowderheads.

I pointed out that all I was asking for was a stay of execution for a short bit so we could go check it out and evaluate. (It always amazes me how unhinged some folk get about merely proposing that. Well, God bless 'em, I'm sure they mean well.) That being said (and my snarkiness aside), I am extremely gratified that the subject was covered in the Times, on Curbed and the LAist, and elsewhere, which shows it to be the important topic it is, and will underline that these preservation discussions are worthy of coverage and substantive discussion.

So again, knowing a stop work order wouldn't happen, had to go on a Sunday morning to crawl atop peaks of concrete and through mazes of rebar to do recon. (Speaking of which, saw a lot of late-30s rebar, and not the twisted kind you would expect from the 'teens, so no early walls torn up that I could ascertain.) And now the mystery is (mostly) solved. On to the next!

If you're a completist, or just desire to see some more, here's a collection of shots, again, not Hunter-quality, but some of them have their moments.

GaylordWilshire Jul 1, 2014 1:08 AM

http://i.imgur.com/uKqpHa9.jpg?1?6946Charles Fisher

The Larchmont Buzz and Curbed are reporting that this filling station--which apparently started out as a Gilmore unit--will be restored by Starbucks. 859 N Highland.

Anyone ever seen a picture in its original guise?


The location is listed as a Gilmore outlet in the '38CD but not in the '39 or '42 books; a Charles S. Norris is listed as the operator of the station in those editions but without a brand indicated. I'm not an expert on gasoline lore, but I'm wondering if it looked like this in 1935... looks to me as though it was give a corporate Texaco makeover somewhere along the line.


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-I...2520PM.bmp.jpgGSV March 2014

ProphetM Jul 1, 2014 1:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaylordWilshire (Post 6637473)
Still more interest...except, I realize, they all have the idea that it's the basement of the bombed Times building that may or may not have been found, rather than the basement of its replacement...


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-5...2520PM.bmp.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j...2520PM.bmp.jpg

*facepalm*

ProphetM Jul 1, 2014 1:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beaudry (Post 6637499)
Yeah, 1939 garage. I too was there yesterday morning crawling over the mountains of rubble, trying to gauge what was what.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2913/...c4de4a11_z.jpg

Was going to race home and post my pix but had other engagements (and Hunter's images are much better and more complete!) -- including a Robert Brown Young tour where I met fellow Noirisher Tetsu, great guy.

Made a couple of vids like this and this.

Here for example is a recent shot of where this used to be. Real sorry to see that go.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/...df77351f_z.jpghttps://farm6.staticflickr.com/5488/...f2cde10c_z.jpg

So while this archaeological site didn't turn out to be the wonders of the 1886/1912 basement -- though those remaining outer "no demo" walls may contain just that -- it was still an interesting exercise. E.g., got into it with the usual knuckle-draggers on Facebook (in a "DTLA" group) who promote "progress" over history with quips like -- and this is an actual quote, about how and why this discovery just must not be important: "if the attack on the Times for their anti-Union stance was so important, then there would be more memorials about it." I mean, face to palm or what. My word, they even pulled out the ludicrous trope, refuge of the disingenuous developer-class: THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Apparently we could never maintain the basement as a monument, not because it's simply unhistoric and not important, but because it will (not may, they assert, but will) collapse and hurt children. Therefore, I guess, if you are pro-history, you hate children? Anyway. I guess I don't expect most people to be smart (we Noirish clan are a rarefied breed!) but I don't usually expect them to be total chowderheads.

I pointed out that all I was asking for was a stay of execution for a short bit so we could go check it out and evaluate. (It always amazes me how unhinged some folk get about merely proposing that. Well, God bless 'em, I'm sure they mean well.) That being said (and my snarkiness aside), I am extremely gratified that the subject was covered in the Times, on Curbed and the LAist, and elsewhere, which shows it to be the important topic it is, and will underline that these preservation discussions are worthy of coverage and substantive discussion.

So again, knowing a stop work order wouldn't happen, had to go on a Sunday morning to crawl atop peaks of concrete and through mazes of rebar to do recon. (Speaking of which, saw a lot of late-30s rebar, and not the twisted kind you would expect from the 'teens, so no early walls torn up that I could ascertain.) And now the mystery is (mostly) solved. On to the next!

If you're a completist, or just desire to see some more, here's a collection of shots, again, not Hunter-quality, but some of them have their moments.

Thanks for the pics!

I agree with you about the naysayers being stupidly pig-headed. I don't think that this can or should be saved, but their reasons for coming to that conclusion are just dumb. I think the chance to save this piece of history was gone in the 30s when they gutted the basement and turned it into a garage. There are a couple of nice signs I see in the pics that could stand to be saved, but the structure itself doesn't have a lot going for it. You can't save everything and I think pictures ought to suffice in this case.

Beaudry Jul 1, 2014 1:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FredH (Post 6415432)
1970 - Upper three stories of the Hotel Armondale, 748 South Flower Street, have been demolished as
work progresses concurrently on the Congress Hotel next to it. Blue 1960 Gas Company building prominent
in background sits across 8th Street.

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/68...90/36/wxhl.jpg
http://cdm16003.contentdm.oclc.org/c...id/7702/rec/18

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/93...0/707/1gzf.jpg
http://cdm16003.contentdm.oclc.org/c...id/7702/rec/18

Ok, so, back to the Armondale for a moment. It too is a mystery. To me.

So we know it's the Armondale, but it's also the Hotel Congress. That is, it's two buildings; the south building is the Congress, and the north is the Armondale...

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5554/...9880253d_b.jpg

A postcard of the Hotel Congress -- note the name on the marquis along 8th --
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5526/...6b082d39_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3884/...ef372e4f_c.jpg

Certainly looks like one building to me -- the fenestration, the facade details, the cornice --
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2916/...584188d0_c.jpg

The sure seem to be billing it as one building, so to speak, right?

And yet, it's also the...Armondale.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2932/...3c8eb0ca_o.gif

Yet in the late 60s it's gone back to being quite differentiated between the two structures (note too in FredH's images above how they tore down one and not the other):

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5320/...c3d4265c_b.jpg
huntington

That's kind of all I wanted to say on the matter...just something to occupy my mind other than this all-consuming State Building garage! As such, cool pictures:

1916:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3923/...23f61f51_c.jpg
usc

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3838/...ca502d4c_b.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/...cd7629c0_o.gif

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5111/...4b04ce7f_o.gif

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2928/...f13c475d_b.jpg

I don't know a whole hell of a lot about Japanese gardens, but...I mean, that one might be dead-on, but it sure seems to be set in against a "California Eucalyptus School"-typa painting. Interesting one too, by the looks of it. Where is that?

Beaudry Jul 1, 2014 2:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProphetM (Post 6637578)
Thanks for the pics!

I agree with you about the naysayers being stupidly pig-headed. I don't think that this can or should be saved, but their reasons for coming to that conclusion are just dumb. I think the chance to save this piece of history was gone in the 30s when they gutted the basement and turned it into a garage. There are a couple of nice signs I see in the pics that could stand to be saved, but the structure itself doesn't have a lot going for it. You can't save everything and I think pictures ought to suffice in this case.

I agree with everything you say -- although about signs? I have no idea what you're talking about.

ProphetM Jul 1, 2014 2:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beaudry (Post 6637593)
I agree with everything you say -- although about signs? I have no idea what you're talking about.

A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat. :tup:

CityBoyDoug Jul 1, 2014 3:40 AM

Noir ?....probably.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Beaudry (Post 6637583)
Ok, so, back to the Armondale for a moment. It too is a mystery. To me.


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/...cd7629c0_o.gif

Hotel Armondale ...one of LA's really fun places.

As for the ''two'' hotels concept. There might have been some sort of estate or family sale that forced the hotel to divide up into two entities. I've seen this happen before.

GaylordWilshire Jul 1, 2014 11:29 AM

:previous:


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--...2520AM.bmp.jpghttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9...2520AM.bmp.jpgAug 4, 1912

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-t...2520AM.bmp.jpgMarch 21, 1909


Looks like Lewis built it on site the old family house.... Norman Sterry went on to become a lawyer to the stars, and we've seen him--and the sad fate of new couple's daughter--here before:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ostcount=19404

More Sterry-family:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ostcount=21628


But I digress...

Perhaps after the Carletons' split (he had also invested in a Hupmobile franchise, btw), Lewis took over the property but continued operating two different hotels. Interesting that the design of the Armondale was an extension of the Congress's, so who knows what the agreement may have been between Carleton and Lewis.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-i...2520AM.bmp.jpghttps://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-M...2520AM.bmp.jpgApr 18, 1914


All LAT

HossC Jul 1, 2014 1:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaylordWilshire (Post 6637557)

http://i.imgur.com/uKqpHa9.jpg?1?6946Charles Fisher

The Larchmont Buzz and Curbed are reporting that this filling station--which apparently started out as a Gilmore unit--will be restored by Starbucks. 859 N Highland.

Anyone ever seen a picture in its original guise?

Here's an undated picture I found of the gas station in Gilmore guise.

http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/z...eHighland1.jpg
howard gribble (Kid Deuce) on flickr

As close as I could get to the same angle today.

http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/z...eHighland2.jpg
GSV

On the opposite corner of Highland and Willoughby is the old Community Laundry Building. An article on justabovesunset.com describes it as "a building from 1928 by W. J. Saunders", and includes some close-up pictures. A small piece in An Arch Guidebook to Los Angeles by Robert Winter dates it as 1927, and says "The piers of this Spanish Revival building are covered with shields. When the sun rakes over them about midday, the effect is that of the Casa da las Conchas in Salamanca. We never exaggerate.".

http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/z...ityLaundry.jpg
GSV

GaylordWilshire Jul 1, 2014 2:02 PM

:previous:

Great find, Hoss--so it looks like the building was built this way for Gilmore.... I'd been wondering if it hadn't had a later corporate Texaco makeover.

Godzilla Jul 1, 2014 3:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HossC (Post 6637890)
Here's an undated picture I found of the gas station in Gilmore guise.

http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/z...eHighland1.jpg
howard gribble (Kid Deuce) on flickr

As close as I could get to the same angle today.

http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/z...eHighland2.jpg
GSV


I think HossC nailed it. The same or similar design appears to have been used at several locations.




http://yougottobekidding.files.wordp.../image0021.jpg
http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/show...ostcount=11613

gsjansen Jul 1, 2014 6:24 PM

i'm still on the side of the fence that says that the perimeter walls of the underground garage for the state building was a utilization of the existing below grade perimeter foundation walls of the 1911/1912 times building. There is no other explanation that I can think of for why the angled wall was kept in relation to the state building.

http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics17/00018375.jpg
LAPL

(of course, I could be wrong..........)


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.