LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown)

[Quixote]

^ Do you know if the Getty is in the running every time a Monet/Manet/Renoir/Degas/Cezanne is up for auction? Their not being an encyclopedic museum means they can concentrate on specific genres and target “statement pieces” (Young Man at His Window, Le Printemps, Modern Rome — Campo Vaccino, Arii Matamoe), but also “filler pieces.” What I would like to see them target with their funds are more works by Michelangelo and a Caravaggio.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ Do you know if the Getty is in the running every time a Monet/Manet/Renoir/Degas/Cezanne is up for auction? Their not being an encyclopedic museum means they can concentrate on specific genres and target “statement pieces” (Young Man at His Window, Le Printemps, Modern Rome — Campo Vaccino, Arii Matamoe), but also “filler pieces.” What I would like to see them target with their funds are more works by Michelangelo and a Caravaggio.

I doubt they bid frequently. It's probably a whole process when they decide they want something. Even though collecting in depth on singular artists is already one of their strategies. They bought two Manets within a decade, a Rembrandt in a collection full of Rembrandts and two Watteaus close to each other.

The standards at the Getty are really high. What goes up for auction isn't necessarily good enough for the Getty. They get a couple pieces a year that they spend upwards of around $40M on, and if they spend that much money it's a piece that's often going to be either the best or second best painting of that artist we have in this country, and in already excellent condition. But a Michelangelo (they do have a few drawings) and Caravaggio rarely come up, and if they do, the Getty would likely get priced out. The last Da Vinci went for $480M dollars, way out of the Getty's league. But even if it was a fraction of the cost, I kind of doubt the Getty would have wanted it anyway. They don't have a habit of buying just to name drop. It has to be really good.


Timothy Potts said the direction of the Museum was going to be about jumping on opportunities that arise. This is what he said when he was hired to direct the Getty:

“One thing we don’t have and probably never will have is a Leonardo, at least a painting. We don’t have a Caravaggio. Of course we’d really like to acquire works by those artists.“But if you have a rule or set of priorities and you decide you’re going to wait until a great Caravaggio comes along, you are going to miss 20 other extraordinary opportunities which could end up never being repeatable and the Caravaggio still won’t come along, and you’re left holding nothing.”

Imagine if they had saved up for that Di Vinci. They wouldn't have gotten it anyway, and if they did, they would have gotten a lackluster Da Vinci for $480M when they could have gotten 10 other blockbuster paintings at the top of the artists' careers, that would arguably do more for the museum than a single painting.

And they've recently said that consideration of what other LA museums have in their collections was part of their decision process and acquisition strategy. No other museum is making this level of blockbuster acquisitions on a yearly basis.

[Illithid Dude]

I've been wondering the same about how museums approach art acquisitions myself. Thank you for this post. Very interesting information.

[a9l8e7n]

A couple of new multi-story complex developments on Burbank Blvd in Sherman Oaks under construction.

https://la.urbanize.city/post/sherma...senior-housing

https://twitter.com/LA_Construct/sta...51284805636096

14534 Burbank Blvd, Sherman Oaks, CA





14743 Burbank Blvd, Sherman Oaks, CA

[colemonkee]

Hooray for brick!!!

[HeySparky]

The recently vacated Jaguar/Land Rover shop across from the new Thompson Hotel and Mother Wolf seems to have been spoken for already as signs on the building show Leased Has anyone heard what is going to take over this highly-visible plot? The site is perfect for creative offices, hotel or residential
1520 Wilcox Ave, Hollywood, CA 90028

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I've been wondering the same about how museums approach art acquisitions myself. Thank you for this post. Very interesting information.

For the price of a single rare Da Vinci the Getty could probably acquire a good Monet, Manet, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cezanne and have enough money left to buy a later Picasso, Hockney or Hopper. Better to get five or six good paintings than a single middling Da Vinci that maybe his students helped him finish.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by a9l8e7n

A couple of new multi-story complex developments on Burbank Blvd in Sherman Oaks under construction.

https://la.urbanize.city/post/sherma...senior-housing

https://twitter.com/LA_Construct/sta...51284805636096

14534 Burbank Blvd, Sherman Oaks, CA





14743 Burbank Blvd, Sherman Oaks, CA

There's actually a decent amount of infill in that part of the valley. Alot of smaller, new construction everywhere.

[homebucket]

Here are the LA locations that are closing. I've never been a fan of Starbucks anyways. Hopefully this opens the door for some small, independently-owned coffee roasters to set up shop. Or maybe boba shops. You can never go wrong with more boba.

Starbucks is closing 16 stores across Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, and other cities due to a high frequency of 'challenging incidents' — see the list
Mary Meisenzahl
Tue, July 12, 2022 at 11:15 AM

Starbucks is permanently closing 16 locations around the US by the end of July, The Wall Street Journal first reported.

"After careful consideration, we are closing some stores in locations that have experienced a high volume of challenging incidents that make it unsafe to continue to operate, to open new locations with safer conditions," a Starbucks spokesperson told Insider. The incidents involve drug use in stores by customers and other members of the public reported by workers.

The closures are a move to make Starbucks locations safer for customers and employees, the company said, echoing a letter from senior VPs of US operations Debbie Stroud and Denise Nelson sent to employees on July 11. The company also gives local leaders the authority to close bathrooms, reduce seating, and take other measures to keep conditions safe for employees.

"We look forward to continuing to serve these local communities and encourage our customers to visit us at our other stores in these areas, which can be found on the Starbucks App or Starbucks Store Locator," the spokesperson said.

See the full list of store closures here:

Santa Monica & Westmount, West Hollywood, California

Hollywood & Western, Los Angeles, California

1st & Los Angeles (Doubletree), Los Angeles, California

Hollywood & Vine, Hollywood, California

Ocean Front Walk & Moss, Santa Monica, California

2nd & San Pedro, Los Angeles, California

https://www.yahoo.com/news/starbucks...181508972.html

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Here are the LA locations that are closing. I've never been a fan of Starbucks anyways. Hopefully this opens the door for some small, independently-owned coffee roasters to set up shop. Or maybe boba shops. You can never go wrong with more boba.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/starbucks...181508972.html

I question the reasoning for the closure of some of these locations. A block away from the Starbucks in Little Tokyo (which was listed) is a Gong Cha. Why go to fucking Starbucks when you can go to Gong Cha instead?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Go...4d-118.2412604

I call bullshit. Little Tokyo is right near the LAPD headquarters, and no other businesses there seem to be complaining about "security" in the area.

And BTW, I've never been a fan of Starbucks either.

[bossabreezes]

Gotta love when people deny the harsh reality of some places in LA....its almost as if they don't leave their own little bubbles.

I've seen homeless people sprawled out inside a Starbucks in Hollywood. I'm not surprised that they're closing some of these locations, it is impossible to do business that way.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I question the reasoning for the closure of some of these locations. A block away from the Starbucks in Little Tokyo (which was listed) is a Gong Cha. Why go to fucking Starbucks when you can go to Gong Cha instead?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Go...4d-118.2412604

I call bullshit. Little Tokyo is right near the LAPD headquarters, and no other businesses there seem to be complaining about "security" in the area.

And BTW, I've never been a fan of Starbucks either.

There's also a new Starbucks here: https://goo.gl/maps/iq4qvk2NCrmwSM8c7. So maybe they just closed that location because it's older.

Actually, nevermind. It looks like that's the 2nd & San Pedro spot that's closing as well. Oh well, looks like a nice spot for another business at least!

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Gotta love when people deny the harsh reality of some places in LA....its almost as if they don't leave their own little bubbles.

I've seen homeless people sprawled out inside a Starbucks in Hollywood. I'm not surprised that they're closing some of these locations, it is impossible to do business that way.

I didn't say that ALL of these closures were dubious, just that some were. I've seen homeless in other franchises too at some locations. I've seen homeless people kicked out of restrooms and even kicked out of the dining areas of some fast food places.

I go to Little Tokyo fairly regularly, and the homeless people for the most part pretty much leave you alone. I wouldn't doubt these particular locations were also "underperforming," hence the closures.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by homebucket

There's also a new Starbucks here: https://goo.gl/maps/iq4qvk2NCrmwSM8c7. So maybe they just closed that location because it's older.

Actually, nevermind. It looks like that's the 2nd & San Pedro spot that's closing as well. Oh well, looks like a nice spot for another business at least!

Across the street from that particular location was a coffee place called Demitasse, which closed permanently during the pandemic. It was a really good place (if a little overpriced). Their lavender hot chocolate was bomb!
Their Santa Monica location is still open though, I think.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I call bullshit. Little Tokyo is right near the LAPD headquarters, and no other businesses there seem to be complaining about "security" in the area.

A coworker of mine's partner works at the LAPD HQ and was assaulted by a homeless man while leaving work... right outside the building.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by LAsam

A coworker of mine's partner works at the LAPD HQ and was assaulted by a homeless man while leaving work... right outside the building.

Yikes! Terrible.

I've seen and been around and dealt with homeless people while out and about for a good part of my life now, ever since I was in my teens. I feel I kind of have the sense of which ones are the dangerous ones and which ones will leave you alone. But I guess you can never be too sure.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Yikes! Terrible.

I've seen and been around and dealt with homeless people while out and about for a good part of my life now, ever since I was in my teens. I feel I kind of have the sense of which ones are the dangerous ones and which ones will leave you alone. But I guess you can never be too sure.

That's the unfortunate reality that we are dealing with. When you have unhoused individuals with mental illness and drug addiction issues roaming throughout the city in the quantities that we have, it's really just a roll of the dice as to what can happen. This happened just last week: https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/us/ki...ial/index.html. It's a real problem because if people don't perceive an area to be safe, they will avoid it. My understanding is that's what ultimately hurt Westwood Village at at some point prior to when I moved to LA.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by LAsam

That's the unfortunate reality that we are dealing with. When you have unhoused individuals with mental illness and drug addiction issues roaming throughout the city in the quantities that we have, it's really just a roll of the dice as to what can happen. This happened just last week: https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/us/ki...ial/index.html. It's a real problem because if people don't perceive an area to be safe, they will avoid it. My understanding is that's what ultimately hurt Westwood Village at at some point prior to when I moved to LA.

I think there's more to Westwood Village's "decline" as a hip place to be; it can be attributed to more than just one thing. It was *THE* spot to hang out in/go to on weekends in LA during the 1980s. There were the movie theaters, boutiques, restaurants, bookshops, Tower Records had a location there, it was a total hangout for teens and twenty-somethings, and of course the UCLA campus provided that college student demographic. Ultimately, people in LA are fickle when it comes to places to hang out at---Westwood Village just became "passé." Right around 1989 or 1990, Santa Monica took what had been a run-down pedestrianized 3rd Street from the 1960s, changed the landscaping and paving, and then rebranded it as the "Third Street Promenade." And then from that point on, "The Promenade" or "Third Street" started becoming more of the hangout place, and Westwood crowds started to diminish. Parking was easier at Third Street Promenade too compared to trying to find parking in Westwood, so that contributed to Westwood starting to become less popular. And then the news media played up the killing of Karen Toshima in Westwood, which happened in 1992 or something, who was a 20-something woman out having fun with friends but got caught in the crossfire of a gang shooting. An unfortunate and sad incident for sure. But people generally point to that incident as the "death" of Westwood as a hangout, but I think it had already started to decline before that.

Edit: Hehe reminiscing about the Westwood Village of my teen years during the 1980s, I'm remembering that there was even a nightclub there called Dillon's, and there was even a Bullock's department store. Back in the 80s on Friday nights, they'd even close down some of the streets in the village, and it'd all be people walking everywhere. They even had pedi-cabs.

And they had bookstores. I think these student-oriented businesses started going away when UCLA expanded its Student Union/bookstore. It's like why would a UCLA student living on campus go into Westwood Village when you can just go to the Student Union?

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Gotta love when people deny the harsh reality of some places in LA....its almost as if they don't leave their own little bubbles.

I've seen homeless people sprawled out inside a Starbucks in Hollywood. I'm not surprised that they're closing some of these locations, it is impossible to do business that way.

Did you post the comment in Seattle's thread?
They had 4 close with a much smaller population
Troll.

Somebody from.nyc should really really not be talking about crime right now
Social media is going off how nyc sucks these days z not that you would see the truth on this forum.

Reddit covers it very well though. Nyc looks God awful.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I think there's more to Westwood Village's "decline" as a hip place to be; it can be attributed to more than just one thing. It was *THE* spot to hang out in/go to on weekends in LA during the 1980s. There were the movie theaters, boutiques, restaurants, bookshops, Tower Records had a location there, it was a total hangout for teens and twenty-somethings, and of course the UCLA campus provided that college student demographic. Ultimately, people in LA are fickle when it comes to places to hang out at---Westwood Village just became "passé." Right around 1989 or 1990, Santa Monica took what had been a run-down pedestrianized 3rd Street from the 1960s, changed the landscaping and paving, and then rebranded it as the "Third Street Promenade." And then from that point on, "The Promenade" or "Third Street" started becoming more of the hangout place, and Westwood crowds started to diminish. Parking was easier at Third Street Promenade too compared to trying to find parking in Westwood, so that contributed to Westwood starting to become less popular. And then the news media played up the killing of Karen Toshima in Westwood, which happened in 1992 or something, who was a 20-something woman out having fun with friends but got caught in the crossfire of a gang shooting. An unfortunate and sad incident for sure. But people generally point to that incident as the "death" of Westwood as a hangout, but I think it had already started to decline before that.

Edit: Hehe reminiscing about the Westwood Village of my teen years during the 1980s, I'm remembering that there was even a nightclub there called Dillon's, and there was even a Bullock's department store. Back in the 80s on Friday nights, they'd even close down some of the streets in the village, and it'd all be people walking everywhere. They even had pedi-cabs.

And they had bookstores. I think these student-oriented businesses started going away when UCLA expanded its Student Union/bookstore. It's like why would a UCLA student living on campus go into Westwood Village when you can just go to the Student Union?

Interesting. Did not know that about the history of Westwood Village. I stayed there recently to visit a friend who was giving birth at UCLA Medical Center and found it to be a very relaxed, walkable little neighborhood. A good amount of pedestrian activity, without it feeling overly crowded or congested. Certainly not a place in a state of decline. Sawtelle was very similar in that regard as well. More organic. I think I prefer both to the Third Street Promenade actually which feels more manicured as you allude to.