http://laist.com/2004/09/13/ambassador_no_more.php All comments for Ambassador No More? en-us 2008 Staff Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:00:02 -0800 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss noreply@gothamist.com noreply@gothamist.com 60 http://laist.com/2004/09/13/ambassador_no_more.php#comment-143325 http://laist.com/2004/09/13/ambassador_no_more.php#comment-143325 Comments Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:39:23 -0800 <p>I wonder if it ever occured to the LAUSD that they might want to lobby the city for more help. There are all sorts of urban development issues that aren't being addressed here. What I would really like to know is how Hollywood and Highland was greenlighted with little trouble while LA's history is being trampled for a new school. It seems awfully ridiculous to build more mega shopping-and-entertainment complexes when there isn't even enough space to build a school without tearing down landmarks. Besides, one of the most important political events of this city's history happened at the Ambassador. It seems that the assassination of Bobby Kennedy would carry a little bit more weight in the discussion.</p> http://laist.com/2004/09/13/ambassador_no_more.php#comment-143320 http://laist.com/2004/09/13/ambassador_no_more.php#comment-143320 Comments Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:41:39 -0800 <p>Yes, and don't forget Irving Gill's Dodge House, also eradicated thanks to the LAUSD. That was so long ago that one would think such a thing couldn't happen again, especially to so high-profile a landmark. I guess one thing is consistent! Sigh.</p> http://laist.com/2004/09/13/ambassador_no_more.php#comment-143312 http://laist.com/2004/09/13/ambassador_no_more.php#comment-143312 Comments Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:46:48 -0800 <p>Because this town is run by short sighted idiots, that's why. But I do feel that the razing will be held up again, once the Conservancy meets on this...</p>