I wince whenever I think of the demolition of the old atlantic richfield bldg. that's one landmark that I very much wish could have been saved....although the twin towers that replaced it are crucial in their own right. but surprisingly enough, I didn't realize certain other ppl....at least in the past....would not only not have agreed with me, they'd have even recommended doing just the opposite.
meanwhile, I think of the person or persons responsible for redoing the top of one of the 2 towers that has long since replaced the richfield bldg & the property around it, & ruining its simple dignity.
this is why I try to grin & beat it when it comes to clashing opinions....towards viewpoints that may run counter to my own....over what makes dt good or bad, or why one proj is better than the other, or why some new devlpt isn't good enough, or why another devlpt is better. I also have to try to not be surprised when ppl like Cedd Moses can take a stance that is so unpredictable & oddly contrarian.
Quote:
|
In spite of its landmark status, the Richfield Building attracted largely negative critical opinion for much of its existence. At the time of its completion, Los Angeles Times art critic Arthur Millier derided the tower’s design for its insensitivity to the region’s climate and architectural context, giving glowing praise instead to Bullock’s Wilshire. In his landmark book The Image of the City (1960), urban planner Kevin Lynch described the Richfield Building simply as “ugly.”
|
Prev
sorry about that. Its just soooooo heart breaking. Granted, I'm glad that at least she wasn't replaced with a parking lot or garage but man its just sooooo heart breaking. Makes you wonder how would the downtown skyline have morphed around her if she was still here. 
:no_upscale():format(webp)/cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50154927/cement_20trucks.0.jpg)
Linear Mode
