PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

dktshb
Jan 7, 2010, 1:22 AM
The new Hollywood Tower Terrace on Franklyn is coming along. The homes that were torn down for this development looked much better and unique but what can you do... at least it isn't an empty lot like it was for a few years after they tore down the homes. I tried to find an old picture I had of the row of homes but I couldn't locate it. Anyway, here's the almost complete new development:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/dktshb/IMG_7606.jpg

colemonkee
Jan 7, 2010, 6:00 AM
Ditto on the 1030 N Alvarado sentiments. That's a really nice design. Let's hope the finishes do the render justice.

Kingofthehill
Jan 7, 2010, 7:02 AM
Here's how it's coming along:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4162174724_6a083ed11f_b.jpg

Oh, and Crescent Heights is West, not east of Fairfax.

colemonkee
Jan 7, 2010, 3:39 PM
Wow, I had no idea it was that far along.

BrandonJXN
Jan 7, 2010, 3:51 PM
Ditto on the 1030 N Alvarado sentiments. That's a really nice design. Let's hope the finishes do the render justice.

I agree. These types of designs are sorely needed as infill all across Los Angeles. And if you guys get overrun with them, can you send them out here to Tucson? Pwease?

mdiederi
Jan 7, 2010, 4:36 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v120/mdiederi/buildings/WilBrea.jpg

WonderlandPark
Jan 7, 2010, 4:37 PM
wtf is that ^^^

is that in long beach?

BrandonJXN
Jan 7, 2010, 4:42 PM
That's one hell of a church.

Quixote
Jan 7, 2010, 4:45 PM
wtf is that ^^^

is that in long beach?

That's the old Columbia Savings building at the corner of Wilshire and La Brea. It is being demolished for a mixed-use development.

sopas ej
Jan 7, 2010, 5:21 PM
:previous:
I just drove by that over the weekend; I'm glad it's being demolished. The strip mall next door to it was also being demolished, I'm thinking it's already gone by now.

pesto
Jan 9, 2010, 5:42 PM
so, end of the day, this is a winner? Got some deco, ground-level retail, about 4-7 stories, at transit. Fought through the NIMBY attack by tapering down to neighborhood level on the side streets. Any major issues or complaints?

tommaso
Jan 9, 2010, 9:33 PM
So, what's the latest greatest from L.A. Metro? Any new photos and updates for the area? Thanks;)

dktshb
Jan 11, 2010, 5:46 AM
wtf is that ^^^

is that in long beach?

No that's the southeast corner of La Brea and Wilshire.

JDRCRASH
Jan 11, 2010, 5:14 PM
I can't believe a ton of Curbed's members were defended this structure. One of them even compared it to buildings in the Historic Core. Clearly a NIMBY. :koko:

AndrewK
Jan 12, 2010, 8:11 AM
im not gonna say that it was a great piece of architecture, but as brutalist designs go, i think it was one of the better representations of the style. something about those white fins gave it an intriguing personality.

mdiederi
Jan 16, 2010, 8:02 AM
Still chipping away at it when I drove by Friday.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v120/mdiederi/buildings/wlb2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v120/mdiederi/buildings/wlb1.jpg

mdiederi
Jan 16, 2010, 8:05 AM
This is something going up a block or so just east of there.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v120/mdiederi/buildings/jan15.jpg

AndrewK
Jan 18, 2010, 4:18 AM
i drove past that today and was wondering what that was too. also the seemingly abandoned project in the block between these two on the other side of wilshire.

edit: did some research and apparently both lots are supposed to eventually hold the new beverly hills bmw.

colemonkee
Jan 22, 2010, 2:19 AM
A 13-story tower proposal soon to surface around the Grove. No rendering yet, and will likely get downsized, but good to see that developers are starting to think high rise again...

From the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-grove21-2010jan21,0,7245627.story):


Casden Properties proposes condo project near the Grove
The 300-unit development at 3rd Street and Ogden Drive is similar to one rejected by the community in 2006, but the builder hopes to win support by reserving more homes for senior citizens.
By Esmeralda Bermudez
January 21, 2010

Nearly four years after the community beat back a proposal to build a 300-unit condo project near the Grove shopping center, complaining it was too dense and would generate too much traffic, the developer has come up with a new plan: Another 300-unit condo project, this one with taller buildings and about three times as many units set aside for senior citizens.

The redesigned project by Casden Properties will be presented to community leaders next week, and developer Alan Casden hopes the enhanced senior citizen component will win him support this time around.

But the proposal is coming under scrutiny from neighbors over familiar issues -- traffic, density and whether Casden has met an original condition to turn the site into an assisted living center.

The Beverly Hills developer known for building the luxurious Palazzo Westwood Village wants to demolish an existing Ross Dress for Less building at the southeast corner of 3rd Street and Ogden Drive and construct four buildings, the tallest at 13 stories. The site is known for being hit by a methane gas explosion in March 1985.

The development would include 75 rental units for low-income seniors, and another 75 would be reserved for seniors and sold at the market rate. The remaining units would be sold at market rate. A parking structure with 662 spaces would also be built.

"This is what we have to do to make the project work and we think it's a quality project," said Howard Katz, vice president of community development for Casden.

If approved, the homes could be completed by 2014.

Read the rest of the article here (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-grove21-2010jan21,0,7245627.story).

JDRCRASH
Jan 22, 2010, 6:53 AM
F**k these NIMBYs...take the Metro buses.

AndrewK
Jan 22, 2010, 7:50 AM
can someone tell me why they need 662 parking spaces for 300 units? i guess im just used to sf developments, where that same number of units would get around 150-200 spots.

pesto
Jan 22, 2010, 6:23 PM
I would guess a couple of reasons for the parking:

1. locals would hate it even worse if you proposed many units and few parking places; street parking and other lots would become even more crowded. This brings people but also creates parking spaces to ease congestion.

2. this is not DT SF; this is closer to the San Mateo or Santa Monica model, which are thriving thanks in part to very large, fully utilized parking structures.

3. there is no rail transit even planned for within a mile of this area. I would have a very different attitude if the "Beverly" or "3rd St." subway were in the works, but there isn't even a proposal. Why would I buy a condo in an area with bad traffic, no parking and no subway plans?

edluva
Jan 23, 2010, 8:11 PM
I would guess a couple of reasons for the parking:

1. locals would hate it even worse if you proposed many units and few parking places; street parking and other lots would become even more crowded. This brings people but also creates parking spaces to ease congestion.

2. this is not DT SF; this is closer to the San Mateo or Santa Monica model, which are thriving thanks in part to very large, fully utilized parking structures.

3. there is no rail transit even planned for within a mile of this area. I would have a very different attitude if the "Beverly" or "3rd St." subway were in the works, but there isn't even a proposal. Why would I buy a condo in an area with bad traffic, no parking and no subway plans?

^^^ that's why i don't believe any statement about la's urbanism whenever a big dense "urban looking" project goes up. it's still a sub-urban development when there is no fundamental walkability and everybody served by that development is forced to drive. that is la's as yet, unaddressed problem despite all these "positive developments" which pretty much amount to nothing as far as urbanism is concerned.

our two subway lines and our rapidbus, as sad as that sounds, continues to remain the only thing that really counts toward anything so far, despite all the new lrt lines which have gone up over the years. world class my ass.

AndrewK
Jan 24, 2010, 2:13 AM
I would guess a couple of reasons for the parking:

1. locals would hate it even worse if you proposed many units and few parking places; street parking and other lots would become even more crowded. This brings people but also creates parking spaces to ease congestion.

2. this is not DT SF; this is closer to the San Mateo or Santa Monica model, which are thriving thanks in part to very large, fully utilized parking structures.

3. there is no rail transit even planned for within a mile of this area. I would have a very different attitude if the "Beverly" or "3rd St." subway were in the works, but there isn't even a proposal. Why would I buy a condo in an area with bad traffic, no parking and no subway plans?

i guess i should say that i would understand even 450 spaces for 300 units, but i cant possibly see how they would expect every unit to average more than two cars (assuming the parking is for residents only of course).

dktshb
Jan 24, 2010, 5:37 PM
^^^ that's why i don't believe any statement about la's urbanism whenever a big dense "urban looking" project goes up. it's still a sub-urban development when there is no fundamental walkability and everybody served by that development is forced to drive. that is la's as yet, unaddressed problem despite all these "positive developments" which pretty much amount to nothing as far as urbanism is concerned.

our two subway lines and our rapidbus, as sad as that sounds, continues to remain the only thing that really counts toward anything so far, despite all the new lrt lines which have gone up over the years. world class my ass.


Walkability and auto-centric can coexist. I would rather this city had transit so this parking would be irrelevant but this development is on 3rd and Ogden for Christ's sake. If you can't walk 100 yards to the grocery store or across the street to the grove and farmers market you're an idiot. Plus isn't there going to be a subway stop on Wilshire and Fairfax? Heaven forbid you have to walk .74 miles to the subway stop when it opens. Too many lazy dumbazz people in this city apparently.

pesto
Jan 25, 2010, 6:31 PM
The funny thing is that everybody's comments make a lot of sense depending on your vision for the area.

1. This is a highly senior-dense area; Fairfax/Wilshire is a long walk; I would guess that there will be shuttles eventually. 600 parking places is a lot but I am guessing it's to cater to the community.

2. This area is largely suburban at this time evolving to mid-density urban. It is unlikely to ever be urban like the cores of NY, Chicago, etc. The Westside area is huge and density of a Manhattan sort would imply 10M plus people and hundreds of high-rise office buildings, neither of which is going to happen. There are going to be sfh's and cars in this area for 100 years or longer.

I think where the area is going is something like 5-8 story in many places and maybe double the density of the area overall in 20-40 years. Cars are not going away; parking AND transit are going to be in demand. Light-rail connecting Hollywood to Beverly Center via 3rd/Fairfax would be nice, but I don't see this on the "must do" list.

There is room for rational development with medium-rise, retail, hidden parking and a real street scene, but not with the density of much of NY, etc. This is still urban, like much of SF, Georgetown, etc.

dktshb
Jan 27, 2010, 3:55 AM
No surprise here:

http://franklinavenue.blogspot.com/2010/01/results-are-in-hollywood-and-highland.html


Our regrets to Hollywood and Highland, which pulled ahead to easily win our survey for worst shopping mall in Los Angeles.

The Beverly Center came closest -- and for me, it's a toss up. The Beverly Center is a hulking mess of an ugly building with no character, but at least it has some actual shopping options.

Hollywood and Highland was terribly designed, with no thought given to where stores are laid out. Some unfortunate shops are found in dead ends, and the corridor next to the Kodak Theatre entrance is particularly sad and un-pedestrian friendly. But at least it's airy, and has views of the hills.

LosAngelesBeauty
Jan 27, 2010, 8:33 AM
^ Yeah, and the least despised mall is the most suburban one of all. Not the best poll to draw any meaningful conclusions from as it pertains to urban development. H&H isn't that bad. I go there to people watch. There are VERY few malls that do it for me anyway (I love shopping vintage).

pesto
Jan 27, 2010, 6:18 PM
Beverly Center is actually good for shopping but is my choice for the biggest single problem in the area. It's like a death star hulking in the middle of town. It actually used to be even worse before restaurants and some retail was added at ground level.

Asuming they are not going to radically redo it, how about some glass or openness to moderate the oppressiveness? Some open dining plazas at the upper levels? A digital news and picture ring around the place?

H&H is terrible for shopping. I don't really have a solution but some rethinking could improve the shopping and maybe some focus on entertainment/tourist services would help (e.g., small branches of the film, radio, etc., museums and art galleries; a visitor's bureau office; "earthquake experience", etc. Tacky but, hey, this is Hollywood.

LosAngelesBeauty
Jan 27, 2010, 7:51 PM
^ Beverly Center: there is a dining terrace on the top for the food court.

H&H: CIM bought it from Trizec Hahn and spent millions improving it. It was much worse before (i.e., no escalators in the front, no water fountain, etc.), and there is a LA Visitors Bureau in the front of the complex.

pesto
Jan 27, 2010, 9:12 PM
But the top floor dining deck is not visible from the outside. I want something that will open up the shell and give some visible connection to the outside world.

The Vistor's Bureau is a start. Now get some more advertising for visitor attractions into the premises. Of course, Cirque coming to the Kodak may help this and change the economics.

Quixote
Jan 29, 2010, 5:47 AM
So, the W Hollywood Hotel opened today. Yeah.

DowntownCharlieBrown
Jan 29, 2010, 6:02 AM
Team Hollywood
W Hollywood opens with contributions by slew of LA firms

http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4197&PagePosition=1

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2524/4312537063_e4bba9749f.jpg

The W Hollywood Hotel and Residences is finally scheduled to open tomorrow, dropping its hefty highrise anchor on the eastern flank of a revitalized Hollywood Boulevard. The $350 million development, by Gatehouse Capital and HEI Hotels & Resorts, brings 305 hotel rooms and 143 luxury residences to the neighborhood.

In a collaboration that Kevin Daly of Daly Genik Architects dubbed a “Venn diagram,” due to the way their contributions overlapped, a sizeable group of firms worked on the project, including LA architects like HKS Architects, Rios Clementi Hale Studios, Daly Genik, and Sussman/ Prejza; Portland, Oregon–based designstudio; and a trio of artists—Erwin Redl, Pae White, and Christian Moeller.

The hotel bucks previous style cues established by the W, well known for its clubby, violet-lit interiors. This W is sun-drenched and glamorous, featuring a dramatic circular lobby staircase with Swarovski crystals trailing down its center, by designstudio, developer Marty Collins, and a team of lighting designers.

“The amount of light here is definitely something that had to get carried through the project,” said Daly, who sourced warm, natural materials for the residential portion of the project, such as wave-like slats of computer-cut Douglas fir that cover lobby walls. On the rooftop residential pool, Daly Genik’s cabanas are walls of squared aluminum “scales.”

Elsewhere in the complex, HKS Architects and Rios Clementi Hale added exterior sheer glass walls to evoke the “silver screen,” including a glass-box nightclub 12 stories up that cantilevers 52 feet over Hollywood Boulevard.

Perhaps the most stunning contributions are public art pieces. Christian Moeller’s hunk of milled aluminum uses light and shadows to reveal a series of waving hands. Pae White’s mobile of painted metal circles will cascade down into a 12-story alcove, while Erwin Redl’s strings of LED lights drape into the auto plaza, lighting up like a disco ball.

At the epicenter of this boutique chic is an unusual amenity: A Metro Red Line subway station embedded within the courtyard. Rios Clementi Hale’s Frank Clementi said his team looked to the courtyards found in places like Grauman’s Chinese Theater for inspiration. Palms and bamboo create dramatic partitions in the space and contribute to the “filmic” quality of the plaza. “In order to be contextual in Hollywood, we had to be exotic,” he said.

Another nod to Hollywood history: A red carpet, made from a ground glass-impregnated aggregate, leads from the sidewalk through the lobby and into the auto courtyard. Other plaza finishes include black granite and a dusting of feldspar, which reference Hollywood Boulevard’s glittery terrazzo. “Folks should expect us to tastefully reinvent old Hollywood,” said Gatehouse Capital’s Collins. “And I think we did that."
Alissa Walker

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4313273142_885210c629.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4038/4312536639_84115b9e5c.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4312536881_68689f8c17_o.jpg
All pictures from The Architect's Newspaper

LosAngelesBeauty
Jan 29, 2010, 7:46 AM
I likey :) I am definitely going to check that out soon!

Steve2726
Jan 29, 2010, 3:53 PM
Christopher Hawthorne weighs in as well-

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-w-hotel29-2010jan29,0,1182068.story

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-01/51907951.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-01/51908518.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-01/51907959.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-01/51908467.jpg

LAsam
Jan 29, 2010, 4:34 PM
Nice quote here from Hawthorne regarding the W:

"It symbolizes almost perfectly a city that is groping toward a denser, more vertical and more public future while still reluctant to abandon its love affair with the car and the glossier, more exclusive corners of celebrity culture."

pesto
Jan 29, 2010, 5:29 PM
I found Hawthorne a bit arch and catty (like maybe he really wants to be a NY critic talking to a NY audience).

Just from the pictures, I am very impressed.

It looks like the usual W dark minimalism is mixed in with a lot of light and some glitz. Sort of NY cool meets Miami heat, which in some ways describes LA. A very LA/SoCal element is the disregard for ostentation or decoration for its own sake which is often present in upscale hotels. It seems that you would be comfortable walking in in street clothes, where many hotels make you feel like you should be wearing a suit or black hipster gear.

pesto
Jan 29, 2010, 5:40 PM
btw, note to Austin Beutner, new head of making LA a good place to do business:

"On the top floor of the hotel tower is a bachelor suite featuring a small raised area that includes a stripper pole -- or rather did include a stripper pole until city building inspectors, according to Olson Rigdon, asked the W to remove it because the area wasn't wheelchair accessible. (Any elevated space inside a hotel room with a dedicated use has to accommodate wheelchairs; removing the pole, apparently, was enough to remove the use.)"

I can only assume that this would have put strippers in wheelchairs at a disadvantage.

dktshb
Jan 31, 2010, 2:28 AM
I just drove by the W and the whole courtyard was bustling with people and there were people on the balconies too. There is a big restaurant with a large outdoor elevated patio that was packed too. Unfortunately I did not have my camera but the place was really vibrant. Now if only the parking lot across the street could be developed...

JDRCRASH
Jan 31, 2010, 7:49 AM
^ I think what helps is that it is built ontop the subway station. I hope more of that happens.

Edit: Wow, I haven't seen you post for a while, DCB.

DowntownCharlieBrown
Feb 1, 2010, 5:51 AM
:previous: Yeah, the job I took on last year really eats into my free time.

But I do check in almost daily to see if anything new has been reported or if a change is needed to the first page.

Which btw needs some good pictures of the completed buildings. Solair comes to mind. So if anyone with a camera is in the area, please snap a few shots for the thread.

mdiederi
Feb 9, 2010, 9:11 PM
Not really a development of any sort, but there hasn't been much posted here lately, so figured I'd post this just for the heck of it.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Land-Trust-Near-Deal-for-Hollywood-Sign-83883147.html

Group to Rename Iconic Hollywood Sign -- For a Day

As part of its initiative to save land near the sign from development, Trust for Public Lands wants to cover the sign with a shroud that reads, "Save the Peak."

Quixote
Feb 11, 2010, 5:39 PM
Yay! :banana: :cheers:

Deal Spares Century Plaza Hotel from Wrecking Ball (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-centuryplaza11-2010feb11,0,1715542.story)

An agreement between the owner and preservationists would save 400 rooms and calls for a 'sensitive rehabilitation' of the site. The developer plans to propose other buildings on the property.

By Martha Groves
February 11, 2010

The Century Plaza, the elegantly curved luxury hotel that has welcomed presidents, princes and pop stars since its 1966 opening, will be spared from the wrecking ball under a historic agreement between the owner and preservationists.

The agreement, shaped over months of negotiations, calls for dramatically revamping the developer's original plan to raze the hotel and build two 50-story high-rises with condos, a boutique hotel, offices, retail shops and public plazas.

Real estate investor Michael Rosenfeld's plan to knock down the stylish hotel galvanized the preservation community and spawned an outpouring of community support for the hotel, designed by Minoru Yamasaki as the centerpiece of Century City.

In response, the National Trust for Historic Preservation named the structure to its annual list of America's 11 most endangered historic places.

L.A. City Councilman Paul Koretz, who represents Century City, pushed for the negotiations, saying the 19-story, 726-room hotel would be torn down "over my dead body."

"We went from the point where I thought I would have to watch them at every turn, for fear they would sneak in and demolish it, to having them work as our partners," he said. "They're not only going to preserve the hotel but do it right -- including restoring some of the finishes to make it look more like it did when it was brand new."

As of now, plans call for "sensitive rehabilitation" of the hotel to preserve 400 hotel rooms while converting those on the top floors to 45 condos. Meeting space would be reduced, and a slightly smaller ballroom would replace the existing one. The developer plans to propose other buildings on the site to the rear and/or sides of the hotel and a low-scale structure with some retail shops or restaurants to enliven the front of the hotel.

Diane Keaton, a trustee of the National Trust, said in a statement: "I am so glad that everyone came together and found a way to preserve this architectural gem. You see? It can be done. Development and preservation are not mutually exclusive."

StethJeff
Feb 11, 2010, 7:30 PM
Can't wait to see what they decide to do with those 50 story towers.

LosAngelesBeauty
Feb 12, 2010, 5:10 AM
The developer plans to propose other buildings on the site to the rear and/or sides of the hotel and a low-scale structure with some retail shops or restaurants to enliven the front of the hotel.



That is exactly what I was referring to in my last photo thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178317) on Century City where I commented on how we can retrofit Century City to be more lively and pedestrian oriented by adding retail to all the large plazas that do little to generate pedestrian activity.

I hope that when this new project moves forward with this hotel, that other property owners will take notice and replicate more "low-scale structures with some retail shops/restaurants" on their underutilized plazas.

That will complement a future subway station much better and give pedestrians something to do when they come out of the station besides just going into the office towers or the mall.

JDRCRASH
Feb 12, 2010, 6:25 AM
Hopefully they can shorten the towers a little and place them behind the building.

pesto
Feb 12, 2010, 7:27 PM
I'm going to guess 1 building now; maybe 39 stories? I think that's what the proposed tower above the new Bloomingdales was cut back to.

LAB: agree that it would be nice to have more in-fill around the existing high-rises; there is room on many of the properties. But I wonder if they will get enough business given the distance between the buildings. I believe there already are small shops and restaurants inside some of the buildings.

dktshb
Feb 23, 2010, 5:37 PM
They're finishing up on The Jefferson across from H&H:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/dktshb/IMG_7893.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/dktshb/IMG_7895.jpg

BrandonJXN
Feb 23, 2010, 5:49 PM
That looks quite nice actually. I see hints of Streamline as well as art deco architectural styles.

pesto
Feb 23, 2010, 6:05 PM
300: agreed; the short side in particular has a bit of deco/moderne look.

The longer side is too plain. An extended version of the other side would have been nice.

But every little bit helps.

ocman
Feb 24, 2010, 3:00 AM
Why do architects add so many pointless physical layers and the tan color schemes, and think that looks good? Sometimes less is more, specifically when talking about LA high-rise architecture. And the color is depressing. Just paint over the whole thing in white. Stop using tan.

edluva
Feb 24, 2010, 3:19 AM
Why do architects add so many pointless physical layers

because this is la. a philistine city.

BrandonJXN
Feb 24, 2010, 4:44 AM
Why do architects add so many pointless physical layers and the tan color schemes, and think that looks good? Sometimes less is more, specifically when talking about LA high-rise architecture. And the color is depressing. Just paint over the whole thing in white. Stop using tan.

I agree.

colemonkee
Feb 24, 2010, 6:39 AM
I'll wait to reserve final judgement until I see it in person, but from the pictures, I'm gonna have to disagree with most of you. I think it looks like shit. The Streamline-inspired side is ruined with the use of painted stucco (stone could have saved it some style points), and the Highland-facing side is just horrendous. And horrendously lazy. I'm glad that ground floor retail will activate that side of Highland, but design-wise, this makes Hollywood and Highland look good by comparison.

Avanine-Commuter
Feb 24, 2010, 8:12 AM
because this is la. a philistine city.

We all know how much you HATE Los Angeles with passion, but the beige/layer thing is present in many many American cities and it's a strange trend even though it's widely known to be ugly and pointless. Look at any infill condo in Phoenix or Las Vegas- same thing. So don't start spouting your usual bullsh!t again.

JRinSoCal
Feb 24, 2010, 4:07 PM
edluva, what keeps you living in this philistine city anyways?
:shrug:

BrandonJXN
Feb 24, 2010, 5:16 PM
edluva, what keeps you living in this philistine city anyways?
:shrug:

The Israelites have a stronghold near LAX.

pesto
Feb 24, 2010, 6:32 PM
Well, the Philistines captured Sampson and he eventually brought down their temples when his hair grew back. This doesn't quite tie back to Griffith's Babylonian set across the street at H&H, but it gets close. If you see a long haired guy around The Jefferson, stand back.

It's true that many of the elements in the Jefferson are popular nowadays. But you can always hope for better.

LosAngelesBeauty
Feb 24, 2010, 8:02 PM
^ "Everything" is designed plain jane these days to save money I guess.

I think even Downtown Denver has more interesting architecture generally speaking, which is sad.

DJM19
Feb 24, 2010, 10:46 PM
I am really tired of all these buildings using half-assed gestures (like two different colors, or a slight set back) to break up facades. It doesnt make the buildings any less bland. They hired architects for this? Where do these people study? What kool-aid are they drinking?

DowntownCharlieBrown
Feb 27, 2010, 5:39 AM
From CurbedLA
Friday, September 4, 2009, by Neal Broverman

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2776/4390895923_b708106303_o.jpg
Morphosis

Friday, September 4, 2009, by Neal Broverman


When plans for an extension campus in Hollywood for Boston-based Emerson College were announced, it sounded like an amorphous plan. Well, we knew architect Morphosis, Thom Mayne's architecture firm, was picked to design the campus at Sunset and Gordon. But in a profile on attorney Lewis Feldman, who represents Emerson College, in this week's Los Angeles Business Journal, there's a rendering of the reported $85 million project. What are we looking at? For more details on the 10-story building, which could break ground by the end of next year, we turn to Kim Groves, principal architect at Morphosis.
Where are the dorms? Can the public use that cafe? Groves explains all.>>>

First, more background: The program is designed for Emerson College seniors, who will reside on this Hollywood extension as part of a live/study program that'll see the college students studying at this center, while doing internships with companies in Los Angeles.

The whole lot size is about 37,000 square feet, which isn't quite even a city block, according to Groves. The building will be built over three levels of subterranean parking.

As for the design itself, there are 224 student rooms--not termed dorms, since the word "dorm" implies there are kitchens—which’ll rise along the tower structures on the sides—while the middle area, the glass part, will contain academic facilities. The ground floor could include two retail spots and quite possibly an Emerson Cafe similar to the cafe that's currently on the Boston campus. All of this ground floor retail and the cafe would be open to the public.

Meanwhile, that wrinkled, metallic-looking "fabric" on the interior of the two towers are exterior balcony guard rails. And what kind of material are those rails made of? Given that the final budget isn't finalized, Groves said she couldn’t talk about material choices yet.

But there is a ground-breaking schedule. “We want to start construction in end of 2010, early 2011, “ says Groves.

Anyway, what to think of this latest Hollywood addition? Shades of OMA's CCTV headquarters? Better than the rest of all those planned Hollywood buildings?


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4038/4391664424_f3f557d737_o.jpg
Morphosis

:cheers:

edluva
Feb 27, 2010, 7:52 AM
one question - why?

i wish we could get herzog de meuron to do something in la. mayne is good for visual stimulation - that's about all he's good for. has anyone ever listened to this guy talk? pure sophistry and he's not even convincing at it either. i lost total respect for him as an architect when i attended one of his lectures at lacma a couple years back.

BrandonJXN
Feb 28, 2010, 12:23 AM
As much as I love progressive architecture, I don't like it at all. A weird fusion of Le Grand Arche and just nonsense.

ocman
Feb 28, 2010, 1:37 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/arts/design/21maltzan.html?pagewanted=1&ref=arts


The Carver apartment buildings. It seems the homeless are better at commissioning good architecture than businesses. And why do I have to rely on the former LA Times architecture critic at the NY Times to keep me informed about what's going on in LA? And Hawthorne is reviewing a convention hotel.

pesto
Feb 28, 2010, 6:53 AM
I might as well get my fair share of abuse.

Love Emerson; love Carver except for the color. A mellower color strikes me as more comforting and reassuring for homeless people seeking to pull their lives back together.

I wouldn’t want an Emerson on every block, but aside from a couple of older mediocre studios Sunset east of Vine has very little of interest (that I can recall). Considering it’s one of the creative capitals of the world, it could use a stiff jolt of “what could be if you really tried”.

But I admit reasonable people could differ on this.

dktshb
Feb 28, 2010, 6:37 PM
Why is nothing in this city built to the scale of the surrounding neighborhood? I am not liking that Emerson College expansion rendering at all. At least it has subterranean parking tho.

pesto
Mar 1, 2010, 6:27 PM
dk: fair point; one of my favorite complaints, in fact. I sympathize with NIMBY’s when they see an 8 story proposal next to their well-kept sfh neighborhood.

However, I’ll try arguing the opposite on this one. Working from my memory, I believe Sunset already has a scattering of high-rises (studios, offices at Vine) and the area is mixed commercial with light-industrial (film equipment and processing) in parts. The Palladium is maybe 3 blocks away, so we are not in the burbs.

The housing is very hodge-podge and very aged, with small sfh’s, small apartments and some larger apartment complexes; very transitional. What really needs to happen is for much of it to go and be replaced by towers along Hollywood and Sunset (plus low-rise commercial) and low-to-mid-rises and parks in the area between. Urban renewal is always a bit of a shock, but it should in general happen in the most mixed or dilapidated neighborhoods, especially when they are adjacent to higher demand areas (central Hollywood, Los Feliz, Ktown).

The proposed building is 10 stories and I suspect there are several 3-5 story apartments in the area already. If some student housing, ala USC’s Gateway Project were to follow, so much the better. This is an urban area.

The aesthetics are, of course, a matter of opinion. The rest of the neighborhood has no style other than rundown eclectic and could certainly take Emerson as a clue.

StethJeff
Mar 1, 2010, 11:30 PM
agreed, its definitely bizarre. but if there's any neighborhood where ridiculous architecture can just sort of blend in, i guess it'd be hollywood. sunset should for the most part be pretty much fair game for this sort of stuff.

JDRCRASH
Mar 1, 2010, 11:33 PM
There's something about this building that I don't like. But I can't figure out what it is. Wish I could elaborate further.

BrandonJXN
Mar 1, 2010, 11:34 PM
Does Los Angeles have any zoning laws? I ask because LA reminds me of Houston and some of you may or may not know this but Houston is the largest city in the US without any zoning laws. Which is why it's third tallest building (Williams Tower at 904 feet) is located about 6 miles from downtown Houston.

http://i.factmonster.com/images/transco.jpg

pesto
Mar 2, 2010, 12:59 AM
LA definitely has zoning but I'll let the experts fill in on what it is in that neighborhood. But this is not that far out of line, seing as how it is on Sunset and high-rises are proposed for there and Hollywood Blvd.

Houston has been famous for no zoning for years. I rememeber maybe 30 or 40 years ago when I was a kid a picture of a high-rise in Houston with a single family home with an old man on a porch literally next door.

In all honesty, there is something I don't like about this building as well; but I do like the idea that it is proposed to be built and that it will hopefully wake up a neighborhood that should be an area of architectural interest.

Ditto for WeHo which is disappointing considering the artsy community there.

sopas ej
Mar 2, 2010, 1:38 AM
LA has had strict zoning for some decades now-- minimum parking requirements, setbacks, height limits, etc. The only area I know of in LA that doesn't have a short height limit on buildings is downtown and possibly Century City. I know that Westwood has had height limits on buildings since the early 1990s. I think the neighborhood where the Beverly Center is located also has height limits. And mixed-use wasn't allowed until the late 1990s or early 2000s.

pesto
Mar 2, 2010, 6:17 PM
The City has zoning maps available at their website. I would guess that Hollywood, Sunset, Vine, Gower are zoned (loosely speaking) some form of multi-story commercial with height limits and the streets between them and the freeway are multi-story residential. If not, they should be. The area north of Sunset is too much in the middle of potential entertainment, commercial and high-rise development to stay as sfh. Ten stories on the boulevards and 3-5 stories on the side streets is not off-base.

I believe Hollywood between Gower and Western has at least one 15-20 story residential building proposed. Columbia Sq. at Sunset and Gower was proposed for over 20, but I am sure will be cut back (assuming it happens at all).

DistrictDirt
Mar 12, 2010, 9:57 PM
LA has had strict zoning for some decades now-- minimum parking requirements, setbacks, height limits, etc.

Cities like San Francisco and Washington DC are starting to implement parking maximums for new development. Its frustrating to see LA coming out strong with transit oriented developments but then shoot itself in the foot by allowing...and mandating so much parking. As I type this I'm looking out my office window at the Solair, a condominium project sitting on top of the Wilshire/Western metro station. At its base is 6 stories of podium parking. Its extremely troubling that this is 'okay' to do in Los Angeles. Developers will always try to max out parking...its the cities job to limit that, not encourage it.

BrandonJXN
Mar 12, 2010, 10:42 PM
Better than 1100 Wilshire's 15 (!) stories of parking. I've been up there before. It gets horrible after driving past the 9th floor.

pesto
Mar 13, 2010, 12:41 AM
I suppose one could argue that a city providing both mass transit and sufficient parking would be doing a good thing.

Kingofthehill
Mar 16, 2010, 5:45 AM
solair

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4428097673_0ed0f03f17_b.jpg

i photographed a bunch of cool, 4-7 story infill projects on the side streets as well..just too lazy to upload

colemonkee
Mar 16, 2010, 2:40 PM
Thanks for posting that, King. I bet those balconies provide for some pretty killer views.

LAsam
Mar 16, 2010, 3:56 PM
I believe the Ma Dang development across the street from Solair is complete as well. Not sure if the retail there has opened for business yet though...

LosAngelesSportsFan
Mar 16, 2010, 9:15 PM
Thanks for posting that, King. I bet those balconies provide for some pretty killer views.

The Views are ridiculously awesome. The pool deck is 30,000 square feet and the units are all well done. the HOA's on the other had are out of hand, starting at $904 a month for the smallest units.

BrandonJXN
Mar 16, 2010, 9:49 PM
We need more Solair type developments downtown.

dktshb
Mar 17, 2010, 5:04 AM
I guess that Solair isn't all that bad and that's about the best LA can do. Thanks for posting KOTH.

JDRCRASH
Mar 18, 2010, 3:17 AM
I guess that Solair isn't all that bad and that's about the best LA can do.

I'm sure Edluva would disagree.:rolleyes:

BrandonJXN
Mar 18, 2010, 4:56 AM
I'm sure Edluva would disagree.:rolleyes:

Personally, I could give a shit what edluva thinks.

edluva
Mar 18, 2010, 1:07 PM
jdrcrash obviously feels differently

colemonkee
Mar 18, 2010, 2:40 PM
Wow, $904 a month for smaller units? Did they have a reason for why HOA's are that high? Those are upper east side New York high.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Mar 18, 2010, 8:56 PM
Wow, $904 a month for smaller units? Did they have a reason for why HOA's are that high? Those are upper east side New York high.

Well, no not really. They have the standard amenities from pool to conference room to ground floor retail, but nothing special. They are targeting a higher end clientele with units "starting" in the 800,000 (really its in the high 600's with negotiations). Still, these HOA's are nothing compared to the Wilshire blvd of towers HOA's, which go up to 5000 - 6000!

tujunga
Mar 19, 2010, 4:04 AM
jdrcrash obviously feels differently

I was a compliment. She said "she could give a shit what you said":D

DistrictDirt
Mar 20, 2010, 12:31 AM
I suppose one could argue that a city providing both mass transit and sufficient parking would be doing a good thing.

Not if you want residents to actually use the train. Say a resident of the Solair needs to go downtown. He has a car in the parking garage underneath his condo, and his destination downtown has a garage close by. Is he going to drive, or take the train?

We need carrots and sticks.

milquetoast
Mar 21, 2010, 8:55 AM
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/3513538320_cb2ce3d5de_o-1.jpg LACURBED

RLS_rls
Mar 22, 2010, 4:17 AM
That's a wicked view...

Just out of curiosity, is that a clear day for LA? I can see some haze, but it doesn't look as bad as its made out to be.

dl3000
Mar 22, 2010, 5:24 AM
That looks pretty typical maybe a little on the clearer side from my experience but not by much. For this time of year thats common.

RAlossi
Mar 22, 2010, 6:29 AM
That's a wicked view...

Just out of curiosity, is that a clear day for LA? I can see some haze, but it doesn't look as bad as its made out to be.

LA's pollution hasn't been as bad as it's made out to be since the early '90s. California in general and LA in particular are doing a great job in pollution reduction.

dl3000
Mar 22, 2010, 6:31 PM
This is true, California has the most strict emissions laws of anywhere for a reason. LA's situation is merely exacerbated by the fact that it is a tight basin surrounded by steep mountains on nearly all sides and the winds come from the ocean side. Most of the crap blows into the inland empire.

JDRCRASH
Mar 23, 2010, 3:06 AM
Actually, the 70's was even worse. My dad grew up in El Sereno and he said used to always smelled the smog, and could see it in the skies.

pesto
Mar 24, 2010, 12:44 AM
District: he would do whichever he preferred and be thankful he lived in a place that gave him an option.

And if I told him he HAD to do one or the other, we would presumably explain to me his true feelings.

dktshb
Mar 24, 2010, 1:41 AM
Not if you want residents to actually use the train. Say a resident of the Solair needs to go downtown. He has a car in the parking garage underneath his condo, and his destination downtown has a garage close by. Is he going to drive, or take the train?

We need carrots and sticks. Well I would definitely take the subway.... cheaper than parking and more convenient and liberating IMO. Also a lot less stressful than driving. Having lived close to the H&H stop it became a no brainer to take the subway if I was going to Los Feliz/Silver Lake or Downtown.

Kingofthehill
Mar 24, 2010, 2:51 PM
ktown infill:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2722/4460158002_ca3ccaf5f6_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/4460158940_8a366848bf_b.jpg

BrandonJXN
Mar 24, 2010, 3:05 PM
^ See these type of infill projects I don't have a problem with. It's design is suburban enough that it could work is Chatsworth or Riverside but also urban enough that it could work downtown or Santa Monica.

Kingofthehill
Mar 24, 2010, 3:11 PM
I'm happy enough they eschew the faux-Tuscany/Mediterranean look that has been all the rage as of late. Not only do they do that, they are size-appropriate for their environs and are built urban enough (subterranean parking, little to no setback, etc).

If increased Korean immigration to LA manifests itself in the form of these developments, I say the more the merrier!