Why doesn't anyone stop this madness?

[Ed Bass]

This is precisely what I'm talking about Douglas.
Best, Toots

 

[Forgotten Man]

At least you guys didn't lose the Beaux-arts Penn Station.

Although this was a horrible mistake it did get people involved in preserving other structures but not enough though.

OMG... when I saw the history channel special about Penn Station, I cried! I couldn't believe what replaced it... I am convinced that modern design is anti beauty! Old or new, beauty is never out of style... that is why so many go to Europe to see such amazing buildings and such... because it holds wonder and amazement for those who see such fine works of art in a building being constructed out of such crude and raw tools.

These structures of the late 19th and early 20th Century are our castles... they are being torn down with such little regard to our future! They are built just about as well as most ancient buildings of Europe!

Pity,

FM~

 

[vonwotan]

Unfortunately this is one of the great losses for NYC it took get organizations like the Municipal Art Society noticed and helped give the Landmarks Preservation Commission some teeth. Grand Central was on the block as well and took arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States to stop its destruction. Radio City Music Hall, St. Bartholomew's Church, and many others owe their continued existence to these organizations. Unfortunately, MAS and others are funded by a few very dedicated individuals who have been criticised as bored, wealthy, entitled meddlers who are stalling progress / development in NYC.

My question to the critics is, would NYC be so desireable if we continue to tear down those landmarks that have given NYC it's character?

At least you guys didn't lose the Beaux-arts Penn Station.
[Although this was a horrible mistake it did get people involved in preserving other structures but not enough though.

 

[DOUGLAS]

Basically if they want the property they will take it whether it is protected or not. I have seen many beautiful building get destroyed that were "preserved" or landmarked. I saw one five story stucture on White Street loose an entire elevation because the contractors digging the foundation pit for a new building undercut the foundation of the adjacient. causing the entire west side to collapse.

 

[Forgotten Man]

From what I've seen of Beverly Hills (only on TV) you'll need a heck of an arm to fog a rock down those 1/4 mile driveways. Possibly a shoulder launched tactical nuclear device instead?

I know a good deal of WWII living historians with large collections of military items... I'm sure a rock tossed at the right trajectory to a pane of Beverly Hills Mc Mansion glass is a piece of cake for them lol


FM~

 

[HadleyH]

You gotta be kidding - Falcon's Lair being McMansionized? Shoulda stopped at the Lautner remodel. Then Madonga took her whack at it.
I have come to loathe my home town! The disregard for anything historic, the laying waste to things of cultural value. That damn talk show host who ruined Rudy Valee's home and all you mentioned can suffer the every pain of hell here on earth before roasting in Hitler's lap for eternity and I still will not be satisfied, for the glorious things of old will still be gone, auctioned off on the alter of profit to the most tasteless/richest S.O.B.s!
Sure, if they can afford it, they can do what they please with it? And for this "sacred right", I have seen this town deteriorate into a shoddy shambles of greased pol's palms and Tuscan-style turds flourish. A pox on all their houses! Cancel my rhumba lessons!

Now ask me how I really feel.

Ed, I loves ya!

Boy Oh Boy!!!!...... That was so good!!!

 

[Twitch]

The whole situation of what is and what isn't a historical building and what modifications can and can't be done is compounded as we go from municipality to municipality around theis area and attempt to make sense of codes and how they relate to zoning ordinances and more.

I live in a city that is near L.A. Many years ago we did an addition. The inspection alone was maddening. As a step was taken the city inspector had to be called. They'd come out and check the work invariably nitpicking at little things as insignificant as a nail head upraised 1/8" in no place critical. The contractor would dutifully fix the things noted and call in again. A couple days later another inspector would arrive basically saying,"the other other guy told you to fix that? Naw, that was fine but these other pickyazz stuff should be fixed."

People from the same agency of the same city couldn't agree on simple construction details how do we get sympathy for the serious stuff?

Now we blend in private home ownership in municipalities that may or may not be friendly to preservation with those having nazi-like regulations, throw in a couple preservationist groups vs. owner right groups and you have a never ending turmoil.

We must remember also that larger public architecture requiring guardianship also requires money in vast amounts that must come from somewhere to repair, reinforce, retrofit, restore, clean and maintain. If we decide to conserve a building we must make up for the lack of taxes that it would generate if it was rebuild or modified to another use that would produce revenue for the owner and the city. It becomes quite expensive for buildings to be removed from public and/or private use ranks so they can just be looked at by an admiring few.

It's fine to say "they should renovate that old building," and quite another to bear the high costs of conservatorship after creating a board of trustees and a non-profit organization that will assumably somehow have enough talent to raise the moneys required to restore and maintain a building.

 

[RondoHatton]

Saint Andreas will fix it all

OK, let Mother Nature have the last word, and let's just have the entire region shook to the ground, including all those downtown skyline ruining skyscrapers (air rights my asphalt) built with brittle welding rod material, and screw it - every damn building into the dust. We can then sell it to wholesale to foreign investors and "embrace densification" as the new Hong Kong of the West with no baloney like rent control, conservation, preservation, history or aesthetics; just pack 'em in at whatever the market will bear, hip, trendy, kewl new rabbit hutches stacked around metro stations. But please make sure I am fataly crushed to paste beneath my Modernist apartment building first, so that I may haunt forever whoever celebrates the resulting southland.

 

[Vintage Betty]

<snipped tale of woe and good advice about maintaining old buildings>QUOTE]

Just a note to add onto Twitch's statement:
My husband and I applied for a lot line adjustment and the County held it up until they could pass a law specifically designed for our property prohibiting this action from taking place.
This is illegal.
And, according to my neighbors, occurs all the time.
I'd love to spill the info to some reporter :rage:

With actions like this taking place, one wonders how much of the same is occuring to prevent preserving our historic past...

Vintage Betty

 

[HadleyH]

OK, let Mother Nature have the last word, and let's just have the entire region shook to the ground- every damn building into the dust.

Yes. And what little is left standing afterwards, lets bulldoze into oblivion and be done with the whole darn 'problem' once and for all.

 

[Twitch]

The fact that our society can afford to dally in reburbishing old buildings is only as strong as we are rich.

I like So. Cal. in that there is little that is truly worth preserving. Building here has always been lighter due to good weather. This lends for easy demolition. Stucco and 2 X 4s isn't classic nor was it ever conceived to last a millenium.

Where we have half a dozen old buildings to referbish old eastern cities have dozens. And everybody start whining about their favorite. "Oh they should save the old 5 and dime store." "Bubba's department store was a landmark." "Let's not forget the very 1st Dairy Queen west of the Mississippi."

The reality is that very few buildings will be able to be saved as ttime progresses. The ones that are had better be big time and not just 25 year old taco stands. Remember this is your kids' money you're spending.

 

[Forgotten Man]

The fact that our society can afford to dally in reburbishing old buildings is only as strong as we are rich.

I like So. Cal. in that there is little that is truly worth preserving. Building here has always been lighter due to good weather. This lends for easy demolition. Stucco and 2 X 4s isn't classic nor was it ever conceived to last a millenium.

Where we have half a dozen old buildings to referbish old eastern cities have dozens. And everybody start whining about their favorite. "Oh they should save the old 5 and dime store." "Bubba's department store was a landmark." "Let's not forget the very 1st Dairy Queen west of the Mississippi."

The reality is that very few buildings will be able to be saved as ttime progresses. The ones that are had better be big time and not just 25 year old taco stands. Remember this is your kids' money you're spending.

The thread started out by talking about rather large mansions that the stars of Hollywood’s golden age once had… they were built very well, expensive rare woods, marble and fine work of old world quality. The homes that are going up in their place are made of sheetrock, stucco, drywall and other shabby materials...let alone having bad design and the characteristics of a stack of cardboard boxes!

If you want to see some true sturdy construction, take a look at the old office buildings and theaters down town LA. Construction and architecture of the late 1910’s to the 1940’s here had such amazing construction and craftsmanship! It will truly outlast anything built today! There are scores of homes that have been around for 100 years or so that seem to withstand earthquakes wile newer models seem to fall down.

Whenever I have a chance to visit LA, I enjoy taking a walk through Union Station! That place is so beautiful and built so well! It would cost more to knock it down then to leave it standing. And thank goodness for Hollywood in the fact that they use that place for so many movies and commercials that it has been saved from the wrecking ball.

They can knock down every building from the 60’s on to now for all I care, my concern is the Art Deco masterpieces and earlier structures of the 1900’s. And if you look closely, you’ll find a good deal still standing.

FM~

 

[RondoHatton]

...thank goodness for Hollywood in the fact that they use that place for so many movies and commercials that it has been saved from the wrecking ball...

..They can knock down every building from the 60’s on to now for all I care, my concern is the Art Deco masterpieces and earlier structures of the 1900’s. And if you look closely, you’ll find a good deal still standing...

FM~

Go take a (last) look at Hollywood while you can - see those tall construction cranes? Hollywood will soon be unrecognizable when the "improvements" are completed. Ditto for downtown - go see the old whore the "Grey Lady", the Times building in all her glory before she is walled in by new construction - no, no, certainly not Manhattanization by any means, no, harrumph, cough cough, and don't look behind the curtain! Ironic justice for her slutting herself out to a pro-developer editorial stance.
There are some OK buildings from the 60s IMHO, mid century modern-ist, which ought to be spared, but 70s-on, let 'em have it! DOZER!

 

[Matt Deckard]

As for LA in general and preservation.

One thing that has preserved downtown LA is the sprawl. Back when it was a moving and shaking inner city where people lived you had mass transportation systems like cabs and the Red Car

Similar to the cable car system in San Fran, it offered an alternative to commuters.

Anywho with the money and diffusion of the inner city, development slowed and the old buildings remained, many unaltered with glass sidewalks out front and original exteriors and somewhat untouched interiors.

Right now that's changing as the inner city once again is becoming a real place for big commercial bussiness and people are looking for closer places or places within to live. New apartment structures are being built and old buildings are now being renovated.

LA has the perfect weather for a new redcar system. It's time. I think destroying the past is a bad thing, though I am happy to see LA become again a used city.

I've always said that they roll up the sidewalks after 7:00... I think that's starting to change.

Now will the change incorporate the past? I hope so.

As for Hollywood. I've sat in on the Hollywood heritage meetings and i'm happy we have a group ready to fight for preservation. I've seen too many signs put up blocking beautiful city landmarks and other buildings renovated into monsters (the Chinese Theatre)... Unfortunately the city isn't in tune with it's history and it's going to be a great uphill battle. Though like with the Derby, I think some battles can be won.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

They can knock down every building from the 60’s on to now for all I care, my concern is the Art Deco masterpieces and earlier structures of the 1900’s. And if you look closely, you’ll find a good deal still standing.

FM~

See the problem with all this....is that there is someone out there saying

'preserve the victorians"

and another dude out there saying 'preserve the mid century 60's buildings'

So basically with all the different 'eras' that there are people wishing to defend and preserve we approach the 'can't knock down anything, can't build, can't -do- anything point.

I know that -we- like to think our chosen era is the bee's knees and worth preserving -over- some other era.....face it...there are others that feel the exact same way about their chosen eras.

 

[Forgotten Man]

Go take a (last) look at Hollywood while you can - see those tall construction cranes?

No, I haven't, I don't visit Hollywood very often... tell me more.

FM~

 

[Forgotten Man]

See the problem with all this....is that there is someone out there saying

'preserve the victorians"

and another dude out there saying 'preserve the mid century 60's buildings'

So basically with all the different 'eras' that there are people wishing to defend and preserve we approach the 'can't knock down anything, can't build, can't -do- anything point.

I know that -we- like to think our chosen era is the bee's knees and worth preserving -over- some other era.....face it...there are others that feel the exact same way about their chosen eras.

Ok, how about 1967 to now then? lol

 

[Ed Bass]

The thread started out by talking about rather large mansions that the stars of Hollywood’s golden age once had… they were built very well, expensive rare woods, marble and fine work of old world quality. The homes that are going up in their place are made of sheetrock, stucco, drywall and other shabby materials...let alone having bad design and the characteristics of a stack of cardboard boxes!

FM,
All is not lost. You have the clearest understanding of the sentiment in my original post. Thank you.
Best, Toots

 

[K.D. Lightner]

We are truly a throw-away society here in the U.S.

Is it because, until recent times, we always had a frontier to run away to, a place to expand? When things got rough, we just moved away, chewing up the scenery as we moved along. That pretty much ended after WW II.

Is it because in the late 60's, early 70's, we started using credit cards instead of saving or using lay-away to buy something? (Anyone here remember lay-away?), creating a culture of I-want-it-and-I-want-it-now instant gratification and a new generation who only knows of this.

Is is because somewhere in mid-centruy, builders, auto makers, furniture makers and makers of anything realized that, if they created anything of quality, people would buy it and keep it, passing it along to their great grand-kids. And so now we have junk cars, buildings that need demolishing in less than 50 years, McMansions that will blow away in the first tornadic windstorm (this has already happened in Iowa), poorly made fedoras, and electronics that are outdated and tossed away within minutes after we buy it.

Why would a society that lives that way honor anything of beauty and quality in this world? No, tear it down, build big houses with the focal point being a three-car garage -- our toys are the most important thing we have, after all. Just keeping slapping down the plastic, folks, and buying more junk. When it is out-of-date, get new stuff.

I just threw out a radio I purchased at Best Buy less than 2 years ago. It had stopped working. I was told it could be repaired for $70, more than I paid for it, so I got a new one. Guess what? -- both radios were made in China.

I have an old Stewart Warner radio in storage that my father bought before I was born. It would still work if I could find the tubes for it.

karol

 

[RondoHatton]

Tee Hee, We Pwomissed! But We Cwossed Our Widdle Pfingers!!

LAUSD reneges on saving Cocoanut Grove
Associated Press
LA Daily News
Article Last Updated:09/26/2007 09:26:08 PM PDT
The old Cocoanut Grove nightclub, spared the wrecking ball as part of a plan to use it as an auditorium for a school being built at the site of the historic Ambassador Hotel, appears doomed after all.

In a blow to preservationists, the Los Angeles Unified School District board voted 7-0 on Tuesday to tear down most of the nightclub because tests show it is too weak to withstand an earthquake.

"Maybe it's not the ending everyone would have hoped for, but it's the ending that we're at because of the poor structural condition. We had to change our plan," construction consultant John Kuprenas said.

The Los Angeles Conservancy said the school district broke its promise to the community.

"In my mind, this issue is really probably more about accountability for LAUSD - that if you say you're going to do something, you do it - than the nitty-gritty of what are the issues of preservation of the Cocoanut Grove," conservancy Executive Director Linda Dishman said.

Ten months ago, construction began on a large K-12 schools complex on the site of the hotel where Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1968.

The 1,000-room hotel was razed over objections from conservationists, but planners promised that the Cocoanut Grove would stay and be an auditorium.

Now, only the east wall, the circular entry and a portion of the glass west wall of the nightclub, as well as the coffee shop, will remain. Demolition of the other three-quarters of the club will begin next month.