Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcat23
Oh come on. I personally think it's a poor use of taxpayer money to demolish City Hall East for open space, rather than simply refurbishing it, especially when the master plan also calls for replacement office buildings. But the notion that it could ever be a landmark on par with the 1920s building is laughable.
L.A. City Hall spent a generation as the tallest building in the city, has been featured in countless TV shows, movies, etc. Now its the centerpiece of the New Years Eve celebration.
City Hall East isn't awful, but there's nothing that distinguishes it from the dozens of similar office buildings that line Wilshire Boulevard through K-Town.
|
Perhaps you're not familiar with the sunken plaza beneath City Hall East? Easily one of the most visually arresting public spaces in the whole of Los Angeles:
I'll be the first to admit the drawbacks of modern architecture from an urban planning and livability standpoint, believe me, but take a walk around City Hall East on a quiet, still night and you'll feel as though walking through a cathedral of concrete overgrown with plant life. It's awe-inspiring and monumental in an alien sort of way that shocks your preconceived notions about what is and isn't beautiful.
Buildings like City Hall and Union Station are "easy" to like...they are comforting and familiar in their aesthetic and pull you in with a warm nostalgia. It is for the buildings like City Hall East, DWP, and the Bonaventure that historic preservation now exists. For the buildings that are "challenging" and slow to reveal their charm, important not for their outward beauty but for their inward embodiment of creativity and human daring.
Sorry to get all highfalutin about this, I just really love architecture and felt the need to stand up for an ugly duckling.