LA's famed Taix Restaurant on Sunset Boulevard made headlines earlier this month after a strange ruling by the City Council to designate only certain elements of the century-old establishment a historic landmark in an unprecedented move that could have ramifications for preservation efforts in Los Angeles and across the country for years to come.
The LA Times is reporting that efforts to save Taix from an encroaching redevelopment scheme culminated in a unanimous decision to limit the designation to the restaurant’s signage and cherrywood-topped bar.
The decision is unlike any other in recent history in that it eschews almost the entirety of the Norman Revival building in favor of a plan that recognizes only non-structural components as historic landmarks. By limiting the designations to the bar and advertising, critics say Los Angeles City Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell has created a dangerous standard that can be abused by development-hungry business interests where the opportunity to make money comes into conflict with the idea of a city’s material culture as valuable and even sacred.
The ire of preservationists is underscored by the new plan that calls for yet another mixed-use development by dangling a slim carrot of affordable housing to entice approval for a multi-million dollar project which is in reality 86% luxury condos.
“It’s somewhere that you’re going to go, not to just eat — you’re going to go to feel something. To feel together and feel like you belong, and that the city means something to you other than real estate,” local resident Susan Winsburg told the Times.
Another obstacle comes in the form of Taix’s owner, who has thrown his support behind the plan that would allow the restaurant to continue on in some fashion, claiming the costs of running the establishment as it presently stands have become too onerous –– a position opponents see as a dodge meant to help property developer Holland Partner Group avoid an Environmental Impact Report required to demolish a historic building in the city.
Holland spent over $170,000 in lobbying efforts last year, according to the Times.
Although little chance remains to save the current iteration of Taix following the failure of the landmark push, some are hoping its legacy and status as a memory site will in the end become its saving grace; an emotional appeal that places community over profiteering. A sentiment at the heart of many preservation efforts nationwide.
“Taix is wildly popular, an essential Echo Park destination for people of all walks of life,” one opponent said in a friends of TAIX Facebook announcement. “The community has come together here for 70 years to celebrate events and make business connections, to watch the game or the band, to meet old friends and make new ones. It has a Wikipedia page, and 'Taix Square' is the official city designation of that section of Sunset Blvd. It is the place itself that is authentically, organically inviting and unique. Please don't destroy it.”
95 Comments
And this is what the new garbage looks like. Designed and built in sketchup.
https://twitter.com/UrbanizeLA...
I used to walk past the windowless, unshaded beige stucco of Taix every day, baffled by the waste of an entire block of Sunset sidewalk. This would be a fabulous improvement.
is this building widely loved by locals? it looks odd but ugly in a conventional way. kind of a prototype chain restaurant with a themed facade. architecturally i can't see the potential value of preserving it.
The building is less than 60 years old. It's fine if you want to criticize, but "century old establishment" and "come together here for 70 years" are false.
I went to Taix a lot when I lived in Echo Park, because it had a convenient bar that usually had room when other places were full. The building is hilariously ugly, and I challenge anyone to describe the empty banquet rooms that take up most of interior.
If there is a bunch of empty banquet rooms, maybe it doesn't need as many. Maybe we don't need all of the building especially the ugly butt end of it on Reservoir St. end. Maybe, it can be reduced in size some and replace parts of the interior and replace the wall on Reservoir St. and replace that portion with a multifamily dwelling (apartment - affordable if possible). If it can be 4-5 stories high and consist of 5 or so units per floor (maybe more but need more accurate dimensions of the area to determine that and consideration for both stairwells and elevator). If you think about it, I would think that could be providing more housing for lower income individuals while still being decent. It just means you don't get too fancy with the interior. Non-load-bearing walls can use utility grade lumber and drywall. Load-bearing structural, you use #2 and better lumber where possible. You can use masonite board for interior walls not requiring fire-rated walls or situations where you may be exposed to moisture like shower walls. Again, one can make apartments that are affordable without necessarily making it fancy and expensive but can still be decent appearance. Livable but livable on a more limited budget. There is no reason a structure can't be adequately built and be affordable if you take a little longer ROI track than any sort of get rich quick scheme. I think it is possible if you find a way to play the game out with 20-30 years in mind and build it well enough to last 100 years. There is no sensible reason to build something that last only 30 years and it's trash at that point and can't last another 30 years after that. The restaurant may need to reconfigure itself given it's programmatic needs now is not like it was 60 years ago.
This is not necessarily about the building per se; it’s about the place, and what’s gone on there for decades—dining, drinking, gathering, schmoozing, etc.
Taix is one of those practically institutional old joints of which most cities have a handful. Here, see also Philippe the Original, Musso & Frank, Langer’s Deli, Cielito Lindo, Canter’s, The Apple Pan, et al. Many others are gone, which is one of the concerns of preservationists.
It’s a similar case for Barney’s Beanery. What happens when cultural heritage priorities meet skyrocketing property values? Apparently, not much good.
Before/current:
After/ proposed (see if you can spot the ‘preserved’ historic eatery):
It’s a thorny challenge, and I don’t know the best answer. But I’m pretty sure it’s NOT this.
in that case the building isn't the institution. in cases like this i think people need to recognize that society changes and once thriving businesses become tired and die off. keeping the building is just embalming the corpse.
Yeah, it's a tricky issue in preservation. Sometimes the significance is much more about location and association than structure.
Taix already changed buildings once. If people care about Taix as a place for dining, drinking, gathering, schmoozing, they should be fine with them changing buildings again so they can keep it going. Some people would rather keep the un-used 1960's banquet rooms as an empty mausoleum and let Taix die. Odd choice, in my opinion.
The big issue is that they are replacing something which is architecturally blah, but had some cultural presence, with something that is even more blah, with all the presence of a "stumpie". I think a less generic design would have alleviated a lot of these concerns. Btw Max, are you sure you dont work for these architects?
You've mistaken me, friendo. This new building was clearly shat out by a machine learning algorithm that's been seeded with the necessary municipal codes and profit margins. The thing is, it's still an improvement on the current building, in which the "architect" seems to have knocked the gin bottle over on the drafting table, erasing 3/4 of the rendering. And after having to live with the Taix dead zone around that entire block of Sunset, the empty street to street parking lot, the empty street to street dining rooms, the trucker cap dudebros in the bar savoring the irony of a dirty martini, all while housing prices more than doubled /
Meanwhile, surrounding homeowners sitting on a cool million of pure equity from the dire housing shortage made worse by their successful fight against every single unit of new housing, are all suddenly discovering how extremely important it is to have a disused porte-cochère in the community.
And now I have to listen to a bunch of east coast jabronis rant about the "cultural presence" of a place they haven't been, haven't really looked at, absolutely don't understand, but are somehow certain is worth more than any new housing and some actual useful businesses at street level?
Yeah, no. I'm not paid by anyone. It's just time for that smelly building to go.
The entire city is being filled up with the$e hi-rent formulaic "sketch-up" apartments. Miraculously, the homeless population is on the rise!
The food of Taix is pretty mediocre but the bar lounge is usually packed with friends and their martini laughter.
The proposed development will be just another new place that I will know what it used to be in Los Angeles and people who didn't know what the old Taix was won't give a damn.
I don't know if it's that useful to measure historical value with the number of years. As we know, something that happened or existed in the recent past might have a big historical significance.
Yes indeed. I can understand that the owner could not make it work anymore and had to sell off to get that restaurant back in the building. But just perhaps the "design" could be a little less mediocre than it looks now and have paid some homage to the cultural institution Taix is. Not sure what is coming to where Amoeba music used to be, but I do hope its not another skecthup masterpiece.
ok. is nostalgia a sufficient reason to landmark a building? it does have negative side effects - the world can't be organized as just as a museum to the memories of our predecessors.
just another new place vs. just another old place is the crux of the issue.
What are your memories of the old Taix, before they relocated in 1962?
What's the point of your question? if there were any memories before 62, they're not my memories. I have only been in Taix a few times in my 45 years in LA, some of them in the adjacent neighborhood of Echo Park which I know pretty well before the millennial yuppies moved in. When I used to drink and frolicked I was a Gold Room material, before the area was gentrifying/gentrified, with other criminal types and off-duty homicide detectives back in the day. Have you seen the "Barfly"? Some scenes were shot in those Echo Park bars not in Taix. Yeah, I have some memories of the old hood bars.
There are two groups on Taix gentrification. I am neither. But somewhat advocate worthy preservation. Taix? I don't really know and am on both sides of the fence.
My point was that no one has memories of this version of Taix before '62, since it didn't exist, but lots of people are still happy to claim a 100 year legacy for it. If that legacy counts when they changed buildings the first time, seems like it should still count the second time?
I lived in the area for 20 years, starting back when the Short Stop was still a cop bar. I generally lean towards preservation, but watching white people from across the country join together in praise for this obnoxious stucco pile has made me performatively anti-Taix. People are really out here defending the parking lot. It's sad.
in all fairness i'm typecasting this as just another themed restaurant that some people remember fondly from a time when the business was great. the architecture is associated with the fond memories but in itself architecturally worthless, just a building. i have similar memories of the suburban shopping mall my mom used to take me to during summer vacation on our way to the local amusement park - i was a bit sad when it closed but accept it's just a commercial building and subject to obsolescence and renewal.
a comparison from what i can see here is this old italian restaurant in chicago which everyone has been to and most would quietly acknowledge is merely mediocre and overpriced. but it's memorable and well known. i wouldn't argue to preserve the building though - whatever good memories formed there have passed; it's now just another italian restaurant / urban tourist trap.
That's a beautiful sign and the facade is like a modern painting. VSBA would say 'learning from Italian Village."
The basement bar at Italian Village is still 100% authentic Chicago. Free tavern pizza to go with your drinks and you can barely see the menu to order.
double post.
Just a reminder for anyone who hasn't been there in a while, or who's never actually walked the area and just used valet — this is Taix. If you're going to sing its architectural praises, please do be clear about its actual architecture. I had some good times in the bar, but it is, objectively, a dump.
i don't even see the building in this photo. is it behind the wall?
The beige wall is the building. It's a sprawling windowless mess.
This is the back side of the building, you disingenuous prick.
I'm flagging your comment – how dare you call me disingenuous. You also missed the point that one entire street-facing side of this building is "the back." Blank walls to the street was a hostile trend in the later 20th century that I don't mind reversing.
If that was "the point" then why not say so instead of posting photos of one side of the building and saying they are "its actual architecture" without noting they only show one half? That's disingenuous. You being a prick is just my opinion. You prick.
I somehow doubt you were confused that showing one side of a building is in fact only showing one side of a building. I think there's a word for people who act confused and offended about something they're fully aware of...
But if you seriously need me to point out that there are two street-facing sides to this building, and that the main entrance is a gigantic parking lot, please consider it pointed out.
Good to know we got you to say the whole truth out loud, then.
The fact that Taix faces two streets is a basic fact. Even if you never went there, you could see it on any map.
The whole truth is that the building has all the architectural charm of a carnival dark ride. It's been a hipster bar inside of a mostly vacant building for a very long time, and the only reason I can see for folks in Brooklyn and Indianapolis to proclaim its Vital Importance is that it's a rare bastion of old school white tackiness from before the neighborhood demographics changed. Sort of like a gentrification Mayflower. Either that, or they just really hate housing and active street life.
I think the building is fucking ugly. I also don't think that's the issue here, dude.
Why don't you explain your personal memories of Taix and why it's better for the community to have blank walls facing the streets.
Why don't you point out where I suggested anything of the sort?
I didn't suggest you had explained yourself. Because you haven't. You called me a prick and loudly argued that buildings have more than one side. Afraid that's all we know about where you're coming from.
I called you a DISINGENUOUS prick. The adjective is critical.
"Afraid that's all we know about where you're coming from."
Exactly. Proceed accordingly.
When the Taix, wasn't the side of the building that is primarily blank, the side of the building where other adjacent structures were planned..... you know... like zero lot line structures built up to the lot line and other future buildings would be built up to the wall. If you see long windowless/doorless facades on a building, it is probably a wall that was planned to be adjacent to another building..... party wall/shared wall for example.
What you see here is a big parking lot. An option could be to make an addition along that side and reduce the parking lot a little (doesn't have to be massively reduced. Reducing it by 30-40 ft. and bump out along that side by about 25-30 ft. and have a 5 to 10 ft. sidewalk. There are ways to address that. What we have is a big boring ugly-ass parking lot that can be made into buildings and a parking structure of multiple levels while also mitigating the parking structure footprint. I can see various opportunities but if this discussion was ever about affordable housing, then it simply means requiring landlords by law to rent properties instead of keeping them off the market in order to artificially keep the supply low or use the power of eminent domain to seize those properties to make available for public affordable housing programs. I'm not talking about Dodger Stadium / Chavez Ravine. In addition, it would be targetting those that are trying to make it impossible to find affordable housing. The way to do it is for the government (Federal, State, County, and/or municipal) to do it and for the public good make available affordable housing and if that includes exercising the power of eminent domain to do so then do so but must be done properly.
side of the building that is primarily blank, the side of the building where other adjacent structures were planned
It is literally a street.
reduce the parking lot a little (doesn't have to be massively reduced
haha lol, no
Okay, I reading the pictures wrong from what was the building. I thought the building was much further in the distant in the picture (park sunset medical building). Just as a future reference to make it easier to point to the building is to edit the image files by putting an arrow pointing to the structure. Okay, scratch what I said earlier as that was based on misinterpreting the images.
I am not sure what one should do with the Taix building. The sides of a building facing a street should be more aesthetically pleasing. Is there some photos from when the building was originally built? Even the original architectural drawings. I am not sure if this facade butt we see in max_roi's images above is original to the building when it was built. I don't know why some people do some things but sometimes people literally fuglify a building to lower its assessed value in order to reduce property taxes being likely a reason for doing such a thing along with a F.U. message. In my opinion, portions of the building could perhaps be replaced/changed while retaining the character defining features that is valuable. If it was me, I would consider that as an option.
I would redo the portion of the building that is on the Reservoir St. side of the building and redo that of the structure and redo that. There are ways to do that better without demolishing the whole building with nothing but signage and whatever else. There is a modest scale way to do things that can improve the building overall. Maybe that back section could be redone in a way that will allow for the restaurant. Can someone elaborate on what that part of the building is used for? I am suspecting it is the "kitchen". There may be options for adding a two or three-story apartment complex above the kitchen and safely pass through the duct to roof-mounted exhaust fans that would be required for the commercial kitchen. You can have a commercial kitchen yet also have possibly some housing that is on the Reservoir St. side of the building for only about 15-25% of the footprint of the building structure.
So you suspect that the building has been deliberately modified to make it this hostile and ugly. But you also believe it must be preserved at all costs?
Huh.
"...you also believe it must be preserved at all costs?"
(source missing)
Weird way to admit you didn't read the article you're commenting on.
max_roi, I am not saying that was necessarily the case but it is possible. Seen some crazy sh-t happen before. Since this is supposedly the 'butt' end of the building and not the entrance, they apparently did not prioritize that side of the building for the attractive facade. Honestly, it could have been better. However, I have noticed what might have been an addition or something along the facade. A part of the facade uses some kind of brick material (not talking about the CMU stuff which is also an add-on that was put in at some point after the building was originally built in the 1960s). Why they didn't keep the "Norman Revival" theme along that side is kind of odd but I am suspecting this was due to remuddling (badly done remodel). Then if it was mainly a commercial kitchen section it was very utilitarian on that portion.
I seen stuff happen to buildings over the years and sometimes it's something that would be a pisser. I am not sure all of the restaurant building is hostile or ugly. There is that portion of the building that is fugly and could be redone. Why get rid of the whole building when you can redo a portion of it and make it better. I am not outright saying preserve at all cost but as a rule, demolition is one of the last things to do until a competent assessment that involves historic preservation architects have evaluated ( I say this for this type of project given a licensed architect is required and one that is competent and well experienced in historic preservation, renovations, rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, etc.
The building does have its own character and charm which I think would be a shame if we just demolish it to put another cookie cutter bloated housing project for the rich that does not and never could ever be cost affordable as affordable housing for people who make less than $25,000 a year that would be rented at $0.50 to $1.25 per sq.ft. of apartment unit floor area per month. If the units costs more than $600 a month, it is not affordable housing because people on minimum wage can not afford to spend more than that much for rent when they also have to pay for electricity, gas, telephone/cell phone, internet (required these days even for work), food, and water/sewage & trash delivery. Guess what, that's going to consume 85-90% of a worker's monthly take-home pay from a full-time job. Let's not forget that many also have student loans which will consume at least 10% of a person's income in order to not default and make their required monthly payments so they won't default on the loans because they don't pay off the loans in the payment term.
We know that developers like Holland Partners Group does not make affordable housing unless you are talking affordable to million dollars a year attorneys. That is not affordable housing for some high school graduate working a full-time job at a minimum wage job. Newly built apartments can never be affordable to that group because it costs so much to build the structure. This is why affordable housing are usually 50+-year-old structures usually minimally maintained and likely out of compliance with a lot of things. However, when developers like Holland and others are buying up the old and low-value structures and tearing them down like they have done with a lot of apartments that are old and building big condominiums (condo = expensive dwelling units for well to do). Affordable to a person earning $150,000 a year or more but not so much for the $25,000 a year income person. Why don't Holland Partners Group and other such developers start developing and finishing up California City?
Is Taix building all garbage? I don't know if it is. I don't have a personal attachment to the place. I never been to it. That's because it was not one of the places I went to when I lived in Los Angeles area and I lived in a different part of 'town'.
Where I am..... Astoria, Oregon, historic preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse IS the way things are done here more often than we do with new construction. Yes, sometimes a building is demolished but it usually has to damn near be falling down as it is before demolition permits are allowed. However, this doesn't mean one can't make additions or changes that enhance the building and value.
If the taix restaurant is dead as a business does not mean the building can't be used for another restaurant business where people go to and so forth. Another option is it could be converted into a community theater. It's general lack of windows does make for a theater environment. Yes, it is possible to have a community theater establishment in the footprint of such a building or portion of the building that would be most ideal.
Since you bring up minimum wage workers, I just want to point out that this is an overpriced French restaurant in a neighborhood where the median home is a million dollars.
"Weird way to admit you didn't read the article you're commenting on."
"...you also believe it must be preserved at all costs?"
'You' does not mean "the people in the article."
But by all means, keep trolling.
Pointing out the elaborate and expensive strategies suggested to save the cheap, recently-built shell of a restaurant is not "trolling."
Trolling is dishing up nimby qanon conspiracy theories about anyone who prefers more housing and active streets to vacant, butt-ugly boomer luxury fortresses.
Accusing me of espousing opinions not in evidence to keep me replying is trolling. But you know that and are continuing to be a disingenuous prick.
max_roi, are you associated directly or indirectly with Holland Partners Group.... as in do you work for them either as an employee or someone contracted by them whether that be an architect, engineer, or construction contractor? Be clear about who you are in regards to this. It is suspicious that you create an account on this forum on the very month if not very same day this post came out. It sounds like someone they hired as PR. This is not unusual for companies concerned about their 'image'. This is not something new to me and even when I didn't appear to notice it, I had notice it. After all, you are not posting on other threads. Donna makes a point and I seen this kind of stuff before that Donna mentioned below.
I don't know or care who holland partners are.
I registered here with a twitter account I've had for about ten years. I've never heard of this site before and don't care about it in particular. I found it by way of links from anti-housing nimby's.
I only care about this subject because unlike almost everyone else here, I lived next to Taix for a long time, and still live nearby. This actually is my backyard.
If Donna thinks I'm being paid, please ask her where I get my check.
Fair enough. So you came across this link from one of the NIMBY groups. I'm trying to understand your position. It's in your backyard. Okay. I understand you are not fond of the Taix restaurant. It is unclear whether or not Taix should be preserved or renovated or replaced but if the most latter, I personally think we should do better than what is proposed by the Holland Partners Group even if it is a little longer. The houses I see up the street of reservoir (up hill... up the incline of the road) are houses that have an assessed value that where I am would be about maybe $500K or so give or take). When you mentioned assessed value of a million dollars. Where I am, that would be about $10,000 a year in taxes. They wouldn't necessarily be homes for those working minimum wage but they can be homes for those that are working jobs with a salary but again not necessarily earning $100K or more. You'd have to pool the money for 10-15 years to buy it with a little assistance of loans and than refinancing it into a mortgage and pay that off. However, owning a home is usually a tad less expensive as renting in the long-term if you get the property as a decent price. Gentrification is countr-productive for modest income people to aquire such properties. We're talking people from minimum wage needing housing (apartments) they can afford and your middle-income folks like school teachers can afford to buy instead of being inflated beyond any reasonable measure.
This is probably a much bigger topic and issue than just the Taix building.
Rick, where you are and where LA is means there's no common frame of refence.
Those modest bungalows up the hill on Reservoir are going for more like 2 million. They're on the boundary between Echo Park and historically whiter, wealthier Silver Lake. Please note which organization filed the landmark petition to block new housing at Taix.
First off, SneakyPete, there shouldn't be drastic difference because if it is worth a million dollars, why isn't the neighborhood and services in the area making the difference in value. Astoria is a town (municipality) and there is quite a bit more service per square acre than say.... some hut out 200 miles away from civilization. L.A., it's inflated value is due to artificially manipulating the availability of houses or housing on the market so as to inflate the value. It's due to rich people buying up property but not living or having occupants. It's a manipulative scam that is going on. I see the same shitty sidewalks and roads that are in the same lame conditions since I lived in L.A. area back in the 1990s.
Assessed value is in part of the matrix in the calculations of property tax (which is part of calculating affordability). What are the taxes going? What are your tax dollars funding?
Oh sweet summer child. This is California. We don't pay property taxes on the currently assessed value.
So it isn't the "current" assessed value but it does increment over time. However, when existing buildings are torn down and replaced with new buildings, those properties are no longer going to be valued at 1976 property values..... essentially automatic reassessment. While property taxes are more in Oregon than maybe in California but Oregon doesn't have a sales tax. Even sales of properties may trigger reassessment. Assessed value is capped at an annual increase of 2% (called annual adjustment) and taxed at no more than 1% of that value.
That automatically means that when new construction is made like demolishing a 1920s era apartment that was an affordable apartment for minimum wage workers and replace with a new apartment or condo complex, the property is going to be reassessed and the property taxes are going to increase which automatically means the monthly rent is going to be higher and that means less affordable if not not affordable.
No housing is being demolished here, and yet the opposition to new housing is still just as fierce. How odd. It's almost as if the specific arguments against new housing are completely arbitrary.
Housing isn't just single-family dwelling. There are also apartments. There is several prongs to the problem of affordable housing availability. It isn't like Los Angeles is really having that many more people than they had in the 1990s and there has been additional sprawl since I lived there. I been there a couple times or so since I no longer lived in L.A. area. The problem is complicated but the solution isn't building a bunch of brand new condos for the yuppies and nouveau riche. Lets not forget we need solutions for places to live that are not sucking the life out of people who aren't working a single full-time job earning $75,000 and higher income like most who work for minimum wage and wages/salaries that are just a little more than minimum wage. There needs to also be places for homeless REGARDLESS of their background other than the morgue or jail cell (which maybe the case for some of them but not all of them or even most of them). Why do we make it difficult? I know Los Angeles isn't the only place in the country that is making things difficult for affordable housing. The problem is constructing new and ROI plans that developers are working on these days especially in the accelerated rate where they are trying to get ROI return in time cycles like they would in the tech field. Affordable housing doesn't make ROI that quickly. You have to adapt your pro forma for a longer-term cycle.
If you believe there are not more people in Los Angeles than there were 30 years ago, there's not much reason for us to talk anymore.
The housing crisis here is not something you have any familiarity with. And since you live in a rural community a thousand miles away, there's no reason you should. But you should be at least dimly aware of your ignorance.
I didn't say it didn't increase at all. The metropolitan area of Los Angeles was around 11.3 Million in 1995, when I was last living in Los Angeles area. It is now about 13.13 Million. So there was only in increase of about just under 2 million. There had been a housing stock capacity in Los Angeles metropolitan area to house 15 Million back in 1990. We increased that capacity we all that sprawl all the way out to San Bernardino to the east 30 years ago had miles of desert land in between. Now, housing and commercial development spread all the way to San Bernardino/Redlands and immediate eastern neighborhoods. It had filled in. There should be enough affordable housing for the metropolitan area population. It is not a shortage of housing. It is the lack of affordable housing units being available. Part of it is the buy up of affordable apartments and tearing them down and replacing with non-affordable housing that would be affordable to low-income folks. This is because new constructed 10+ story apartments/condos are simply not going to be affordable. The reason is they have to charge more money in monthy rent in order to for the pro forma to pencil. The next area of sprawl is probably going to be in the SE filling in from Riverside to Hemet and easterly towards Palm Springs connecting to the Salton Sea area.
Right now, the current trend at this time is expensive densification but eventually, there will need to be another sprawl at some point.
Just here to point out the obvious: max_roi (that stands for Maximum Return On Investment, for those younguns who don't know) is a sock puppet account for the developer, Holland. They created their account *only* to comment here and are commenting *only* on this article. Nothing they say can be seen as impartial.
Which is not to say they're automatically *wrong*, it's just to point out that they're not a regular, and their oppionion is clearly profit-driven. So take whatever they say with a huge grain of salt.
Hi Donna. The user name is from the 10 year old twitter account I registered with. I use it to deal with trolls, because they tend to go after you personally. Ahem.
Wait... are you in Indiana?
Follow the money: who benefits from this redevelopment?
It's not the community that must live with the outcome.
Politicians look at an increased tax base and imagine how they're going use that revenue to make themselves look responsible and effective while shitting on their constituents (imagining for just a second that their constituents are the people who elected them and not the people they actually work for).
as someone with no "dog in the fight" I see new housing and commercial space with a significantly higher tax contribution and activation of the streetscape vs a dumpy old themed restaurant. If the former doesn't benefit the local community, the latter damn sure doesn't either.
Agree though that a new development could do much more to engage with and benefit the immediate neighbors, but this is a systemic problem in architecture, development, and land-use planning.
Engaging and benefiting the neighbors is irrelevant. This development is about maximizing private profit. Gentrification is just another branch of corporatism. Referencing SneakyPete in the Automation Nation thread, what happens when everything has been upscaled - Soylent Green?
I live nearby, and lived down the street for a decade, so I have a different perspective on the irrelevance of the neighbors.
Maybe your next art piece can be "Jaded architect becomes artist, shakes fist at corporatist clouds?"
In all seriousness though, what development is not about maximizing private profit? That's the whole point of capitalism. Government regulation (in the form of codes, land use and planning standards, et al) is designed to constrain these developments and ensure that the needs of the community are not subsumed to profit motive. When done correctly (without giveaways or loopholes for developers) it is a virtuous loop that makes money for continued operation of the development business while putting buildings where there is demand and need for them.
What is the difference between development and gentrification? Could you point out a similar redevelopment that avoided gentrification?
jaded. adj. 1. Worn out; wearied, an apt description.
Private profit is the problem, not the solution. Private development is never about demand or need - except for the 'need' for more profit.
As for regulation, government serves money interests first, last, and always - with an occasional placebo thrown to the public to grease the wheels. I'm surprised that you haven't figured that out yet.
Every gentrified upscale whitewashed profit center development has displaced or destroyed a vibrant multicultural community - unless of course your idea of a vibrant community is upscale restaurants and corporate chain stores. Fuck mom and pop, and the poor, they're not going to be buying units in the shiny new developments.
I don't worship at the altar of the dollar. Anything done solely for money is guaranteed to be shit.
Don't ya hate it when someone's idea of a vibrant community is an upscale restaurant?
.
While we might agree that dismantling capitalism is a lofty end goal, Miles' tone here seems to be that nothing short of dismantling capitalism is worth doing. & to me that's some ivory tower bullshit. It's easy to criticize the system from a philosophical distance while offering nothing of substance in return. Any idiot can criticize. It takes a special kind of idiot to interrogate and propose something positive. Capitalism ain't going away anytime soon, so we'd be better focusing our efforts on small achievable steps in a better direction.
We have the very best government that money can buy. Ten years ago you had to raise $2,500 a day for your entire term to get reelected to the house. For the senate it was $15,000 a day, every day of your six year term.
That was 10 years ago, I can't imagine how much it costs now.
The people necessary to change the system are the ones benefiting from it and controlling it.
Capitalism is kind of like democracy, it sucks, except every other system sucks more.
I wouldn't call any of the frequently-cited "socialist democracies" in western and northern Europe particularly socialist. They simply have well-run market economies that favor the interests of citizens and the environment more than ours does. We give out plenty of welfare, just mostly to corporations.
Can't believe I'm defending capitalism, but here you go. I think it is the most efficient way of putting resources where they are demanded, provided the inputs are not perverted by political intervention to the degree they have in the United States. Highest and best land-use and all that good stuff.
The financial sector is over 20% of GDP. What does it create - aside from money for itself?
The horribly inefficient and wasteful health care system is 17% of GDP but at least it provides some care for some people.
The US hasn't tried any other system, and "favoring the interests of the people" is pretty much the definition of socialism.
Why isn’t nostalgia a valid reason to preserve a place? We are nostalgic because a place has transcended its pure utility, which also seems to be the core quality of “important architecture”. I don’t think this transcendence need be based solely on its tectonic expression or historical role to be valid. There are places within communities that gain some mythic status at a local scale, that can’t been necessarily seen at a architectural history book or theory scale. Whether it’s a local bar, an old haunted house that pokes the imagination of generations of kids, or a little ice cream shop that’s been in town for generations, the value of these spaces can only be observed in the storytelling of the locals.
maybe, but what's the threshold? is it just a couple people in a city of 3 million? how big is a community in the context of "urban commercial plaza"?
What's the community in the context of the immediate area?
I think this is the most pertinent and interesting question to ask here.
Sometimes people just need to learn to let go and adapt, which is something we, as a species, is inherently good at. LA is so damn fluid/dynamic. Nothing that exists within it can be expected to be permanent.
Whether it's being replaced by something BETTER is a different topic in itself.
this is my feeling. the contemporary cycle of architectural mediocrity is something to criticize, but the individual instances themselves are meaningless. obviously, since they're mediocre.
i'm nostalgic about the 94 honda civic i drove in high school and like to think not only myself but my brother and community of friends have some good memories of our times in it. but eventually it was time to get something less broken down and ugly, and while it's a shame some resources were probably wasted i can't argue against scrapping it. i assume but don't know for a fact that it's no longer on the road.
Yes, but Im sure you didnt replace the 94 civic with a 95 corolla. That is the issue here.
well, i don't think my 2012 ford focus is entirely a different category of automobile either - none of them are going in jay leno's garage someday
You said it - the new building is a 2012 focus, whereas it had the capacity to be something much better. No offense to your focus, i like that model.
I don't know the threshold, that's a good question.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.