# LOS ANGELES: The City House and The Olympic



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Here are two very interesting towers proposed for Downtown Los Angeles. The City House (60 stories) and The Olympic (49 stories) are designed in the New Beaux-Arts style. Also notice that there's a mini-spire on The Olympic. So what do you think about this faux architecture? Do you think these two towers are too classic looking for today's time? Or do you believe this type of faux architecture should develop as a new trend? I personally love these two towers and think they will give Downtown Los Angeles a more established look to it but there's plenty of classic architecture in Downtown already. 

The City House (60 stories)










The Olympic (49 stories)










The City House and The Olympic:























































http://www.titanorganization.com/homepage.htm

http://www.robertsonpartners.net/index.html


----------



## jacobboyer (Jul 14, 2005)

I like them.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

They look pretty interesting actually. Hopefully the developer doesn't cheapen out on the materials.


----------



## Octoman (Nov 16, 2006)

These look great. A refreshing change to the sea of glass and steel going up everywhere else.


----------



## Crownsteler (Aug 20, 2003)

Ah yuck. I really can't understand how people could possibly love these kind of buildings, sure, I kinda like beaux arts style and really like art noveau and art deco, but those times have (unfortunatly) past, such buildings should not be build in our time, they do not belong here (not that I advocate demolishing them!). Aside from this plainly being kitsch and style and tasteless, they just do not belong in our time. As Gerrit Rietveld put it:
"...We didn't avoid older styles because they were ugly, or because we couldn't reproduce them, but because our own times demanded their own form, I mean, their own manifestation."

Architecture isn't just the science of organising buildings as efficiently as possible, it is also and art, and quality art is refreshing, daring and above all, original, this isn't any of those things, and for the sake of architecture, such buildings should be banned from ever being build.


----------



## jacobboyer (Jul 14, 2005)

^^ Agreed we should stick with the glass and our time.


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

They look great! Very Russia or Poland.


----------



## Crownsteler (Aug 20, 2003)

jacobboyer said:


> ^^ Agreed we should stick with the glass and our time.


I'm not saying we should, historical reference is great and if it could be included in the building, it would be wonderful, look at the Tower of Russia, look at the steel bracing along the facade, to me, it looks like a reference to art deco (the sunburst pattern), it is done very tasteful and modern, I couldn't care less about the rest of the building, but I think that is a very nice and tasteful touch. Nor should we stick to glass, look at the BoA tower in Charlotte, NC, beautiful post-modern architecture.
It is just that we live in exiting times, we can do so much right, technology and design wise, the future is really exiting, we should embrace it, instead of hiding from it. Look at the 19th century, that really was one big disappointment for me, they had all this nice new technology, production technics and design options, yet they choose to build neo gothic, neo renaissance and no classical styles instead, and really, aside from a few buildings here and there, there are very few buildings worth remembering from the 19th century.

No really, embrace the future, don't hide from it.


----------



## TopperCity (Apr 30, 2006)

The materials are keys to the beauty of this design. Hope it will turn out fine.


----------



## Elsongs (Oct 18, 2006)

Crownsteler said:


> No really, embrace the future, don't hide from it.



tis nothing to worry abiut. This building dares to be different. Besides, what's aesthetically "cool" now might not look cool in the future. '70s glass box, anyone? I rest my case. 

We have plenty of buildings in Los Angeles that "embrace the future" -- Disney Hall, the Cathedral, et al. If there was some neo-classical copycat trend then okay, maybe you might have to start worrying.


----------



## OhioTodd (Jul 25, 2006)

TopperCity said:


> The materials are keys to the beauty of this design. Hope it will turn out fine.


I agree. If they use top notch materials and pay great attention to detail then these buildings will look great. If they don't then they will look like cheap imitations.


----------



## Erebus555 (Apr 21, 2006)

If real stone is used on this, then it will look great but if 21st century cheap cladding is used than this is a disaster. I love the tower designs nonetheless. I love the amazingly high pillars on the City House. Awesome design.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

They're both made out of limestone.


----------



## Imperfect Ending (Apr 7, 2003)

Omg...
THEY DON'T HAVE HELIPADS!!!!


so the design will probably change


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

NO. There is NO need for helipads anymore!


----------



## Davee (Oct 22, 2005)

The look fantastic. I like them very much.


----------



## godblessbotox (Jan 3, 2006)

i dont see what all the fuss is about. just buildum and buildum well. these kind of buildings are constantly being built in hongkong and china. [yah i know la is not china] but there is a certain kind of allure to these types of buildings they attract a different kind of person. kind of like an old english pub versus a new trendy club. both have there regulars that go there. but why should the clubs out number the pubs because there newer? 

i hope im not lossing anyone here. 

i see all the new designs coming into the la news and developments. and all the buildings primarily look the same. large glass areas, neutral tones, and balconies. this would be a nice change of pace and would [should] open up down town living to a different kind of folk


----------



## Erebus555 (Apr 21, 2006)

Threehundred said:


> They're both made out of limestone.


LIMESTONE?! Thats a disaster for Los Angeles. The smog mixed in with moisture creates carbonic, sulphuric and nitric acid rain which loves to dissolve limestone...


----------



## godblessbotox (Jan 3, 2006)

...there is moisture in los angeles?


----------



## Crownsteler (Aug 20, 2003)

Elsongs said:


> If there was some neo-classical copycat trend then okay, maybe you might have to start worrying.


uhm ahm, there is. I see horrible neo style buildings poping up everyway these days, even my own little villages I see horrible unoriginal, uninspiring, neo style buildings being build, there is a trend for such buildings, and as lovers of architecture (well I do anyway), we must hate such buildings as they are by no account architectural interesting (or architecture at all).
Such buildings do not dare to be different, no Swiss Re dares to be different, Torre Agbar dares to be different, the Hearst Magazine Tower dares to be different, the Seattle Library dares to be different, the City House and the Olympic do not dare to be different, infact they don't dare to do anything, they are just playing safe, following safe and proven convention, you dare to call that daring to be different? The developer/architect is either afraid to be different, or doesn't have the skill to be truely different or unique. Either way, the City House and the Olympic (et al) do not deserve praise, they deserve our disgust.

You claim that everybody hates the 70s architecture (what 70s architecture?), but you fail to realise that people tend to hate any architecture style which has gone out of fashion. In the early 20th century, the general population really hated the very neo styles you are defending now, later people started to hate art nouveau and art deco, then people started hating the international style, then people started to dislike post modernism, and now people are starting to dislike late modernism (as proven not only by these buildings, but also by this topic).
Yet, people really like those 19th century neo styles (which I do not understand btw), and art deco and art nouveau (which I do understand), I can guarantee you that half of those '70s architure' buildings you hate, will be declared historical landmarks in the next 30-40 years, hell, a number already are. I can also guarantee you, that if deconstructivisme catches on big time, people after a while will hate the disney concert hall, which you appearently like so much now.

Now, you might claim that I'm one of those people who hate such buildings because they are not fashionable, but I judge buildings on their architectural quality, and as I explained earlier, neo and retro styles have little to no architectural quality, and in my opinion, 99.9% of those buildings can be torn down.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

New renderings of *The City House* and *The Olympic*!


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

I love the new design! The towers have a "New Yorky" look to them!


----------



## kamil.bukowski (Mar 14, 2006)

The building presents nicely.


----------



## Sbz2ifc (Apr 16, 2006)

I liked the old design better.


----------

