- City Guides:
- New York
- San Francisco
- Chicago
- London
LA architecture — which many claim came into its own in the ’60s — is facing a mid-life crisis. The old new buildings, which ironically were all about rejecting the past, have become the new old buildings. Ahem. That is, the city’s “modern” architecture, that of aggressive lines and the machine aesthetic, is quickly becoming outdated, both visually and practically. So what’s the issue?
These old-timers are being threatened by developers who want to tear them down and replace them with “greener” buildings – yes, most post-war buildings were constructed without our dear planet in mind, and are ridiculously inefficient. However, the preservationists — like the Los Angeles Conservancy and the National Trust for Historic Preservation — maintain that, besides being landmarks, the energy required to tear down the old buildings and start from scratch with the new is just as wasteful as allowing the buildings to keep on functioning.
So everyone gets to use the environmental argument and so far, no one wins. The situation begs another question — modern architecture is known for its tendency to buck popular taste and the old standards that came before, so is this aging movement finally getting its just desserts? Past that, there’s always the issue of taste.
Take a look at these soon-to-be dinosaurs of late-modernity and see what you think. Do they deserve the wrecking ball to make room for shiny, energy efficient replacements or should they be preserved in all their awkward, engine filter-resembling glory? [via LAT]
Columbia Savings and Loan Association by Irving Shapiro, 1964; Image via you-are-here.com
Detail of Irving Shapiro building; Image via publicartinla.com
The Department of Water and Power’s John Ferraro Building; Image via latimes.com
Commonwealth Savings & Loan Bank by Gerald Bense, 1961; Image via you-are-here.com
Fine Arts Building & Science Hall by Peter J. Holdstock, 1966; Image via you-are-here.com
Flavorpill covers cultural events, art, books, music, and world news. Join now.
Email to a friend
Tweet
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
13 Responses
I love this era of architecture and find it a shame that these buildings are starting to be destroyed everywhere.
As an aspiring architectural historian, there should be some grounds understood in respecting this era which is so integral to the way we approach things architecturally today anyways. Our country is fairly "new" in comparison to things, and its a shame, medieval europe didn't tear down their shit 40 years after is was built. If its built from 1900-1970, I say keep it. If its built in the 80s, its probablably not only an eye sore, but it is in the realm of post modern, and probably is wasting alot of energy. They could consider preservation and retrofitting?
Keep them! Remember the Eiffel Tower was nearly universally despised not long after it was built. So many developers want an instant classic, but we should remember that many of the classics go through seasons of inattention or outright disdain either at their arrival or periodically after – Shakespeare, Eiffel Tower, Elvis and the Beatles, and 60's Modern Architecture included….
I had the pleasure of working in the Century Plaza Hotel as the director of public relations some years ago (top photo in this article) and truly appreciated the architecture masterpiece that Minoru Yamasaki dreamed up. I was also lucky enough to meet one of his students who had visited the hotel to see how the hotel was holding up. I forget what his name was, but he was a lovely man who showed me the thought process behind Yamasaki's design ideas as we toured the grounds. For instance, the building, which is designed on an elongated "C" curve, was originally supposed to have an exact building built directly across from it. The idea was to have the simple but bold design work along with the elements of the clouds and sky above, the earth, etc. Many people don't realize that Yamasaki later went on to design the Trade Center twin towers. In the end, I hope this building survives all the change. There is nothing like this type of rich architecture and design thought anymore.
most of the images above are great designs. i really enjoy how they look. maybe it’s the angle or the way they’re shot, but i’d hate to tear these down and replace them with today’s bland architecture. if they can be made more efficient, great. if the new construction retains the old design aesthetic, that would be cool.
Is everything old automatically beautiful? They're all kinda nice looking except for the last honeycomb-hunk-o-doodoo.
so funny. these are all some of my favorite buildings in LA. I say retrofit as well
They sure photograph well. Keep them!
@wordz: just because it’s not your taste doesn’t make it garbage… that one happens to be my favourite of the lot!
if they retrofit, I hope they don’t end up doing like so many beautiful mid century ranch houses- gutted and refitted with horrible generic maple and granite kitchens and Tuscan dream spa bathrooms. blegh. dull.
Hi there,
We've launched a new user-generated Architecture and Design site, Notebook, and would love for you to have a look, post some 'notes' and generally give us some feedback.
We're quite excited about this new site and would love to get you involved!
http://www.ajnotebook.com
Look forward to your posts,
Notebook.
Part of the Architects' Journal Blog Network.
I love that we differ. I like it even more when we express our differences.
obviously, everyone has different taste and opinions… that one is my favorite of the group! I hope they keep them all. It's important history.
I guess what they are really fighting about is the location. because, last time I looked, there are plenty of places in los angeles to build new and modern energy efficient bldgs. more recent large urban scale projects such as LA live or even hollywood & highland few years back , maybe… hmmm