LAist: Whither Architecture in Los Angeles?

urbanista

Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:45:46 -0800

I was referring to the American city of Los Angeles. Technically the settlement that became LA was created in 1781. It was part of Spain and Mexico till 1850.

Will Campbell

Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:00:58 -0800

FYI urbanista, Los Angeles celebated the 226th anniversary of its founding last September... but what's 74 years, right?

Callie Miller

Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:58:08 -0800

Fabulous post, Carrie! All of this becomes increasingly more important as we find that so many developers get the green light without anyone REALLY considering the visual & architectural impact these structures will have on our landscape in five, ten, fifteen years. And I'm so glad someone FINALLY said it - the "art" at the Getty bores me to tears. My money is on MOCA and LACMA for that.

Ike Baha

Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:01:42 -0800

Carrie, this is SUCH a good post to read on a sunday afternoon. I'm with you, I would miss the Getty "a million times yes". Half my visits I've walked around and chilled on the grass without even looking at the art. I also agree that we have hundreds of years of catching up to do with cities like Paris, but it won't be the years that does the trick but the city's understanding of architecture. Botton puts it nicely when he said "architecture's task is to render vivid to us who we might ideally be..." So whats it say about our city when us Angelino's can be insulted with the LA live project, using lights and projections to keep us happy, and most everyone is just fine with it? Plus on that list I'd throw in the Stahl house & Gamble house. Thanks Carrie.

urbanista

Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:38:01 -0800

Los Angeles is a very young city...only about 150 years old. Comparing the rich architectural heritage of European cities to LA is not fair...it has a couple hundred years of catch up to do. The architecture of LA is considered some of the most progressive in the world, and its the architectural capital of the west coast. Its absolutely fascinating in its diversity and amnesia, for all its failings it is already a great architectural city. Also my perspective is from living in Las Vegas, which at 50 years young and with a knack for imploding casinos every 10 years, the lack of built history is disturbing.

marc22386

Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:33:00 -0800

What about some of the art-deco buildings around the city like the Wiltern and the Times building? It's too bad most of the architects around here don't really apply that style to their work anymore. It's been dead for years, but it always seemed uniquely "LA" to me.

Will Campbell

Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:24:46 -0800

Great post! Personally I'm not so enamored with the Getty. Very true that it outshines the art collections it contains, but I've always had issues with putting things up high and fortress-like on a hill; symbolically off limits and out of reach, so to speak. As to L.A.'s lack of architectural history, it's not just that we haven't built up the millenneal residue of cities such as France it's also that what residue we've had we've destroyed. I think it's the impermanent, reinventive natures of the place both organic and manufactured. And as a PS, if you want to remember what life was like up there before the Getty just watch the final scenes of "Against All Odds," (early 1980s; Jeff Bridges/James Woods/Rachel Ward) which was filmed up on that ridge.