City Comforts, the blog

Further Remarks on the "Blue Whale"

With reference to the aforementioned Blue Whale I have some further comments as to its merit in terms of urban design and "walkability."

Whether a building is a "good" "bad" or "indifferent" depends on the frame of reference and the standard by which you are judging it. So people can have different conclusions depending on their perspective. The only problem with that is that that there are some frames of reference which are more socially-desirable than others. Promoting "Walkable Neighborhoods" is of course what I think is most important. Of course what confounds me and what makes the whole issue more difficult is that there is no inherent conflict between "object" buildings like the Blue Whale and promoting walkable neighborhoods — if the designer and the owner care about making one.

The Pacific Design Center (the "Blue Whale") is in fact (ironically and tragically) in or at the edge of a walkable pedestrian-oriented neighborhood....a traditional built-to-the-property line "Main Street" neighborhood. And yet it turns away from the street. You can't see in because of the color (?) of the glass. It has a plaza in front to keep pedestrians at a distance.  It isolates itself from its community. It doesn't "talk" to its neighbors except to say "Go away, I am high design." Its primary mistake is its (lack of) orientation/connection to the street. Its designers should apologize and indicate some regret. To paraphrase Marlon Brando, "It coulda been a contender."

Here's a street-level shots from Google showing the Blue Whale:

Here's a shot showing Melrose Avenue a block or so west of the Whale:

See what I mean? Even better, Google to 8687 Melrose Ave West Hollywood CA and via "Street View" (click the little orange figure) see for yourself what the neighborhood is like.

(Click on photos above to enlarge.)

 

Pretty weak reason

3quarksdaily has this to say:

I love the Pacific Design Center in Los Angeles but, generally speaking, I think it’s pretty underappreciated. Sure, people know it. They recognize it, it’s generated it’s share� of buzz (let’s be honest, mostly not very positive). It has won the hearts of post-modernists and ironic architecture-appreciating hipsters during its various oscillations on the so-wacky-it’s-cool spectrum. But I think where it really earns the most points is in its sheer lack of apology or regret.

"...where it really earns the most points is in its sheer lack of apology or regret."

That's the damnedest reason I have ever heard in defense of a structure. I think such a reason is meaningless. Beyond the anthropomorphizing, such a rationale could be used by defenders of the worst strip mall or seedy motel (or whatever) in LA. What difference does it make that the building (or even its human defenders) won't apologize or regret? Not apologizing or regretting does not in itself create a good building or even "design integrity."  And its designers should apologize and make amends and do better.

As an object, and for me only from afar, the Blue Whale is sorta interesting. As a piece of urban design, of "city," it's terrible. I was hoping I'd find some engaging and its absence of "apology or regret" and its refusal to admit a mistake.

An insight into why we will repair the viaduct

It's just too much trouble to do anything "big" and requires endless adjustments to the surroundings. Of course some people think that's a good thing i.e. to precipitate big and dramatic and unpredictable;e change.. But in the end, and luckily, they are not the ones who will make the decisions.

Things Fall Apart, but Some Big Old Things Don’t

“You cannot just replace the old stock with new stock, without changing a lot of stuff around it,” said Viren Doshi, a London-based consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton, who has studied the telephone and electricity industries. “So they keep on patching up the old stuff.”

How walkable is your neighborhood?

How walkable is your house?
Just plug in your own address and see what happens.
Bravo to the programmers!