LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0 - Page 2

JDRCRASH · #21 Posted: **Jan 12, 2011, 2:30 AM**

^ Yeah, in my opinion, it's the best. HNTB is second. HKS, to me, is just garbage.

And how many stories is the Nikkei Center?

BrighamYen · #22 Posted: **Jan 12, 2011, 7:30 AM**

Didn't the Nikkei Center lose entitlements or something? I know it is now back to the drawing board...

BTW, there was also that tower proposed for the BURGER KING at Grand Ave and Cesar Chavez. The two brothers that own the Burger King (they own dozens of fast food restaurants IIRC) were planning on developing that land during the boom. Obviously, the plan is scrapped now, but it could be revived again sometime.

colemonkee · #23 Posted: **Jan 12, 2011, 3:46 PM**

^ That would be Lucia Tower, which is in there.

DistrictDirt · #24 Posted: **Jan 12, 2011, 3:46 PM**

Finally bid adieu to Echo Park last weekend and moved Downtown into SB Tower. Loving it so far!

I noticed that there's some new retail coming in downstairs. Anyone have any idea what its going to be? Looks like a restaurant or bar.

Westsidelife · #25 Posted: **Jan 12, 2011, 5:13 PM**

^ You are citywatch's new BFF!

LAsam · #26 Posted: **Jan 12, 2011, 7:55 PM**

Congratulations on the move! I'm sure you're going to love living downtown!

DistrictDirt · #27 Posted: **Jan 12, 2011, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAsam

Congratulations on the move! I'm sure you're going to love living downtown!

Thanks! I love being able to walk across the street for a cup of coffee or to pick up some groceries, and I really like waking up to this view:

Of course, I'd gladly give up the mountain view to have those ugly parking lots were developed!

BrighamYen · #28 Posted: **Jan 12, 2011, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Thanks! I love being able to walk across the street for a cup of coffee or to pick up some groceries, and I really like waking up to this view:

Of course, I'd gladly give up the mountain view to have those ugly parking lots were developed!

Congratulation Chris!

It's rare to hear from residents who live Downtown that they'll "sacrifice" their precious views for what they really moved to an urban area for, which is to experience the convenience offered from density and mixed-use development. Not to live next to parking lots that dilute the pedestrian experience by carving out a complete deadzone in the urban fabric.

There was once some Korean investor who bought in Luma or Elleven who came on this forum years ago, lamenting that LA Central would block his view of LA Live! Really! It's ridiculous how stupid they sound with that suburban minded bullshit.

DistrictDirt · #29 Posted: **Jan 13, 2011, 2:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

Congratulation Chris!

It's rare to hear from residents who live Downtown that they'll "sacrifice" their precious views for what they really moved to an urban area for, which is to experience the convenience offered from density and mixed-use development. Not to live next to parking lots that dilute the pedestrian experience by carving out a complete deadzone in the urban fabric.

Thanks! I don't think the average Angeleno feels the same way unfortunately.

mdiederi · #30 Posted: **Jan 13, 2011, 5:59 AM**

In this New York Times critical review of the Broad Art Foundation's architectural design they say that the honeycomb shell is made of steel. That's wrong, right? I thought it was concrete?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/ar...s&st=cse&scp=3

They also lament the redesign of the parking entrance. I think the critic was just mimicking Christopher Hawthorne's article on that issue.

colemonkee · #31 Posted: **Jan 13, 2011, 7:21 AM**

JDR, Here's a render to use for Icon Plaza, which is proposed for the corner of Figueroa and Exposition across from USC, along with the image source. They were moving dirt on the lot today, but I wouldn't call it "under construction" just yet. I would put it under "Approved" until we get verification they're actually constructing it.

Icon Plaza
6 Stories - Residential

(Image Source: CRA/LA)

Vangelist · #32 Posted: **Jan 13, 2011, 12:13 PM**

the NYT really has it out for the new museum, Broad and LA once again (no surprise) :

But the entrance was removed during the design process, and what was once a more complex reading of urban mobility has been reduced to something more banal.

This isn’t just bad news for Mr. Broad.

Grand Avenue has never really worked as an idea — not only because it was elitist but also because the idea of a singular, dominant cultural hub runs so counter to the city’s nature.

Still, in many ways the avenue’s fortunes have also come to embody Los Angeles’s continuing struggle to define its civic identity in an era when its cultural status continues to rise. A successful Broad museum would go a long way toward cementing that status, which makes the possibility of its failure that much more of a blow.

DistrictDirt · #33 Posted: **Jan 13, 2011, 2:58 PM**

I thought this was a valid concern:

The porous skin, which covers the roof as well as the four sides of the building, is intended to fill the top-floor galleries with sunlight. But the main windows there face southeast toward Grand Avenue — and the harsh morning light that is anathema to viewing art. (The northern walls, which would let in the kind of indirect sunlight artists and curators love, are largely blocked by mechanical systems and a freight elevator.)

What’s more, the perforations in the skin will make the sunlight mottled and uneven. And forget hanging art on most of the exterior walls. My guess is that after the first show, the entire wall will simply be boarded over, and you’ll never see it again.

And I thought this was crap:

Finally — and as critical to the design’s overall success — there is the relationship between man and car. In their original proposal, Diller Scofidio included a parking entry at ground level along Second Street, which would have cut underneath the lobby and spiraled down to the underground parking. This entry added a crucial dimension to the narrative: the interweaving of pedestrian and automotive life that is central to the experience of Los Angeles generally, and of Grand Avenue in particular, with its views onto nearby freeways. But the entrance was removed during the design process, and what was once a more complex reading of urban mobility has been reduced to something more banal.

In other words, because LA built too many freeways, we should design our cultural institutions to reflect that? Should every highrise we build be flanked by parking garages? Should every restaurant be a drive-through?

Grand Avenue has never really worked as an idea — not only because it was elitist but also because the idea of a singular, dominant cultural hub runs so counter to the city’s nature.

annnnddd that's when I realized that the reviewer has no idea what's going on downtown.

ocman · #34 Posted: **Jan 13, 2011, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vangelist

the NYT really has it out for the new museum, Broad and LA once again (no surprise) :

But the entrance was removed during the design process, and what was once a more complex reading of urban mobility has been reduced to something more banal.

This isn’t just bad news for Mr. Broad.

Grand Avenue has never really worked as an idea — not only because it was elitist but also because the idea of a singular, dominant cultural hub runs so counter to the city’s nature.

Still, in many ways the avenue’s fortunes have also come to embody Los Angeles’s continuing struggle to define its civic identity in an era when its cultural status continues to rise. A successful Broad museum would go a long way toward cementing that status, which makes the possibility of its failure that much more of a blow.

What are you talking about? The critic at NY Times critically favors architecture in LA more than he does for those currently in New York.

As for the Broad foundation building, it's very NY-school in that it's very tasteful, very boxy, very white (color-wise) and fashionably modern while being a little outdated at the same time. It has the look of being interesting and should satisfy Broad's taste. That's not to say that it's a bad addition to Grand Ave, but it doesn't break Broad's bad luck with architects. At least it's leaps better than his building at LACMA.

pesto · #35 Posted: **Jan 13, 2011, 7:03 PM**

We should bear in mind that the NY Times critic could be fired tomorrow, in which case he is just an unemployed wind-bag. Conversely, Broad and his advisors are art collectors and professionals with 40 years of experience at picking winners. So while you can't argue about taste, you can argue about whose finger is likely to be on the pulse of trends in art and architecture.

ocman: "fashionably modern while being a little outdated at the same time"? Sounds like a Monty Python satire of critic-babble. lol.

Illithid Dude · #36 Posted: **Jan 13, 2011, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto

We should bear in mind that the NY Times critic could be fired tomorrow, in which case he is just an unemployed wind-bag. Conversely, Broad and his advisors are art collectors and professionals with 40 years of experience at picking winners. So while you can't argue about taste, you can argue about whose finger is likely to be on the pulse of trends in art and architecture.

ocman: "fashionably modern while being a little outdated at the same time"? Sounds like a Monty Python satire of critic-babble. lol.

Why is he going to (maybe) be fired tomorrow?

Just-In-Cali · #37 Posted: **Jan 13, 2011, 9:22 PM**

Yay for the new thread! Good start up JD! New thread, new avatar for me.
I take any "critics" reviews with a 20 ton block of salt. All the experts alrady have their favorite versions of whatever, and anything that deviates from that formula gets picked apart for not being of a quality that only the critic seems to see.
The consensus of most people have been that the Broad museum is a welcome and interesting structure, so if the people that must look at it daily like it, thats all that really matters. Hopefully the trolls wont stink it up too fast.

Illithid Dude · #38 Posted: **Jan 14, 2011, 5:46 AM**

The ugly Lorenzo tower has been cancelled. Yay!

LAofAnaheim · #39 Posted: **Jan 14, 2011, 5:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The ugly Lorenzo tower has been cancelled. Yay!

I hate Palmer's Tuscan themed apartments with ridiciulous (and I mean beyond ridiculous for an urban area) parking. It's like "we don't expect our residents to walk, bike, or go Metro". EVERYBODY HAS TO DRIVE. A minimum 2 parking spots per unit. Beyond ridiculous in an urban area. I wouldn't expect any less near an Expo station with Lorenzo.

ladowntowner · #40 Posted: **Jan 14, 2011, 6:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The ugly Lorenzo tower has been cancelled. Yay!

Where did you get your information from?

This Los Angeles Times article today states otherwise. It says the council put off a vote regarding the project, but nothing about it being cancelled.