Kip Nitrale on January 29, 2010, at 04:51PM – #2

It is a great location and I would love to see that area north and east of Pershing spiffed up a bit; however, the Park Fifth design has always seemed a bit overpowering for that spot in my view. I'd like to see a scaled down version, especially with the market such as it is. I have no doubt it will be developed at some point, but I certainly agree these near-term plans look pretty dubious.

Ken H on January 29, 2010, at 06:03PM – #3

I would be stunned if this deal is legitimate. I am very skeptical.

Jeff Alu on January 29, 2010, at 06:18PM – #4

I live in the Title Guarantee Building, the "tiny" building right next to where Park Fifth would be built. I'm lucky to have a view overlooking Pershing Square, folks on the other side of the building are going to get their views blocked if Park Fifth goes up. Part of me wants to see this built (the coolness factor is way up there for me, even during the construction process) and part of me doesn't, esp. the part that envisions tall Park Fifth breaking up during an earthquake and crushing poor little Title Guarantee. Silly maybe, but I can't shake the image. We'll see what happens...

Aaron on January 29, 2010, at 07:18PM – #5

Jeff, what views exactly do you think residents of an apartment building are guaranteed? Is that in the lease?

And I'm not just talking about for-lease buildings either. Why would anyone in Downtown expect that they'll have unobstructed views of anything? It's an urban area. A dense urban area. Full of parking lots that will eventually be built.

By the way, their views are of a crappy parking lot. They would be better off.

bc on January 29, 2010, at 07:44PM – #6

The Downtown News is very naive for picking up this story and running with it. I guess they can't be blamed because no one ever accused them of being journalists - they are downtown boosters. This project will never get built unless they find a billionaire who's looking to become a millionaire.

Juanito on January 29, 2010, at 08:24PM – #7

This news from Houk, coming simultaneously with that of the impending demise of the Pasadena Playhouse may not be simply ironic.

Does Houk still own the Playhouse? Are we being distracted here?

Perhaps we should begin calling this development Park Ponzi.

If the new investor truly has so many millions to toss around, he should wise up on the design, toss it down the trash chute and hire Herzog & de Meuron. The french duo have brio sufficient to design something far more auspicious, bright and astonishing enough to start a stampede from west of La Brea. That is what is sorely needed at that site.

As stated above, the larger tower of the present design overwhelms and obscures Parkinson's historic structure.

Max on January 29, 2010, at 09:19PM – #8

As for Houk, he declined to comment to blogdowntown on the potential deal, saying that it was "in the works," but "it's not real yet."

Then why did you, David Houk, leak word about it to begin with? You're doing nothing but setting yourself up to look very foolish, unethical and dishonest. After all, the previous investors were flim-flam men and if Gabriel Hertzberg is no better, you'll end looking like an even bigger flop and flake.

So until and unless you've gotten a 100% legitimate, iron-clad deal signed and delivered, zip your lips and avoid the spotlight.

Downtown Cowboy on January 30, 2010, at 07:00AM – #10

@bc: to be fair, blogdowntown never represents that this is going to happen. They're actually being responsible journalists by letting us know about conversations taking place, and identifying them as such. From the tone of the article there seems to be little belief on their part that this is going to happen. It would be cool, though, if there were someway this project (or, alternatively, a better designed project)could rise. It would really add to the energy of downtown.

Visitor on January 30, 2010, at 09:33AM – #11

I believe Mr. Houk owned the Pasadena Playhouse several years ago, before he declared bankruptcy and lost control of the property.

I wonder if Gabriel Hertzberg is scamming Houk? That would be very possible if it was Hertzberg who gossiped about his intentions in order to generate some publicity, arouse the interest and excitement of Houk and thereby set him up for easy pickings.

Jeff Alu on January 30, 2010, at 10:40AM – #12

Hi Aaron! I never said anyone was guaranteed a view of anything at all, just a simple statement that some of us who have a view will loose it. True, the view is of a parking lot, but it's not really about the actual view, but the openness created and natural lighting which comes through the window...things will, I'm assuming, be somewhat more dark and closed for these folks when Park Fifth is built. That's one of the things unique to this building, the open views. The single deciding factor for my moving into this loft is my amazing view of Pershing Square. It makes my tiny loft seem somewhat larger ;)

JDRCRASHER on January 30, 2010, at 11:38PM – #13

"Park Fifth Announces New Money, But Is It Real?"

I hope so. This would be a tremendous boost to Pershing Square and the Historic Core.

Jasmijn on January 31, 2010, at 08:13AM – #14

And the Pasadena Playhouse might be closing after all (but Houk doesn't own it anymore, does he?) -

LAofAnaheim on January 31, 2010, at 01:39PM – #15

People who move into a dense urban area...should not expect overlooking views. That's reserved for the hillside overlooking the downtown area. I wish the Market Lofts across from my building was taller...we'd have more residents walking the street and maybe more street retail! (more demand, that's why)

The view is a bonus, but is not a guarantee.

B on February 02, 2010, at 01:37PM – #17

This is another example of graphic design as architecture that continues to creep across downtown. It doesn't acknowledge historical context. It's also the type of project that works in a real estate bubble when people are obsessed with shiny stuff, not in a downturn when people are looking for tangible value. This won't happen anytime soon.

Juanito on February 04, 2010, at 08:41PM – #19

Conceived at the height of the Po-Mo era, the massing, articulation and summit of Library Tower has become way archaic. The building shouldn't stand as the prominent civic symbol that it has become.

If Bert thinks that such extraordinary scale is proper so close to the square, then I would say that both the condominiums and hotel of Park Fifth should be combined into one single, gigantic tower, that it be set back as far as possible from the public right-of-way and that it's massing and fenestration speak very much to the future. Such a building could rise as high and put Library Tower to shame. Call Thom Mayne!

And frankly, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near 633 West Fifth in a major earthquake. Those joints are way too brittle. All those architects (in their designer bow ties) next door in the 444 Building will get one big surprise.

John Crandell on February 06, 2010, at 10:46AM – #21

The photo above shows the problem in all of it's contendable glory. Major question: why impinge into the Historic Core with such gigantic scale? This illustrates exactly why the Conservancy filed a lawsuit in the late Eighties against the developer, against a proposal then current. I feel that this proposal (of much larger scale) is an outright violation of the settlement of that lawsuit and why has the redevelopment agency laid down and played dead?

The top of the podium rises above, pays no heed to the cornice of Title Guarantee. Nothing wrong (in terms of urban design) with having a podium cover the entire site. But why should we tolerate such crass massing? Educator/architect Richard Weinstein has expressed his reservations and regrets over decisions in which he participated as a one-time official overseeing highrise development in Manhattan, that there was often a lack of urban design sensitivity. Here we have an illustration of his perspective.

I just feel that a single tower, located at the northwest coner of the site and having sculptural massing and far more expressive fenestration, could better point towards the future. The current proposal is ponderous, overwhelming and the fenestration derivative of works by Cesar Pelli . The bulk of the massing should be set towards Bunker Hill, rather than the Historic Core. Make it the most spectacular and enthralling structure on the west coast!

L.A. can do better.

Visitor on February 06, 2010, at 11:41AM – #22

"L.A. can do better."

Considering that Los Angeles remains a very suburban-oriented metro area, and that a lot of people and businesses associated with the city's prosperity remain hooked to communities over 6 miles to the west of downtown, a more accurate statement would be whether LA, referring to downtown LA, will ever be much better than a half-crocked version of almost any truly vibrant city in the world.

As for the Conservancy, they need to start making as big a stink about things like the dreadful parking lots throughout downtown, including the one that seems to almost encircle the Title Guarantee building and cheapens the nearby Subway Terminal building. An auto lot that probably will still be there several years into the future.

purple haze on February 06, 2010, at 08:18PM – #23

Oh, hell yeah! Get those civil servants at the CRA off their butts and turn all that empty asphalt into designer parking lots. Snide, unknowing vacuity knows no bounds in this town. The population density and human vibrancy between the 110 and whatever point six miles west is exceeded only on the island of Manhattan (within the U.S.). The idea of the metropolis as being three hundred odd suburbs in search of a city is so old and antiquated. Sounds like a recent arrival from Encino doesn't like the view out their window

Juanito on February 07, 2010, at 03:11PM – #24

The history of this very particular site was reflected in a superlative design entry to the 1986 Pershing Square competition. That entry was produced by a group of architects and landscapers headed up by William Morris, who has long since flown the L.A. coop and gained a measure of fame elsewheres. Their design gained only a runner up award, did not make First, Second or Third. The selection of the winning entry was one of the more infamous moments in local design history.

It was unfortunate that their entry wasn't given the light that it deserved. As a graphic presentation, as a work of environmental art and design, I still feel that it was by far the best of all entries early that summer season. Their work looked as if artist Isamu Noguchi had got together with director John Ford and sculptor Frederic Remington and they all tripped out on Twenty Mule Team Acid. It seemed to speak of the entire history of the Southwest: the Spanish/Sullivanesque Auditorium Building, of Ms./Mrs. Charles Fletcher Lummis establishing her menagerie while Charlie had his walk across the continent, all of the mining magnates gathered together to meet Winston Churchill in the California Club and of Remi Nadeau, his choice of Los Angeles rather than San Franciso to transship silver ores from Cerro Gordo - all a part of the historical loci - of this one place.

The seventy six story pancake design speaks nothing of these things; things that even Frank (to be frank) doesn't want to hear about. It's antisepsis bespeaks all of the soul and spirit of a wet mop. This point in time is similar to that sad time in the city spanning the riot of 1992 to the Northridge Earthquake and we so need something to lift the spirit and we now are in need of a developer with the right architect for this site, both with sufficient vision to counter the moment. I feel that we need a design that could do for Los Angeles equal to what composer Antonin Dvorak gave to the world with his New World Symphony. Something representative of what we are and may yet become.

Juanito on February 07, 2010, at 09:55PM – #26

Bert, a miniscule, glass-walled balcony six hundred feet above Hill Street isn't what I'd call an indoor/outdoor lifestyle. Antiseptic synopsis would be more like it and this isn't a dialectic regards a suburban lifestyle, our interaction with nature. Some day, super-strength glass and composite materials will allow for the weight of gardens high in the air. Until then, the most essential argument about Downtown concerns the continuing perfection in the quality of it's urban design. There is a distinct aesthetic and historical precedent for preventing gargantuan scale from intruding into the Historic Core of Los Angeles. Initiated over a century ago by architects Parkinson and Austin, that precedent is in need of a larger degree of respect.

John Crandell on February 08, 2010, at 10:17PM – #29

FIFTY NINTH FLOOR!

Those are truly wings of desire, Bert.

Visitor on February 08, 2010, at 11:21PM – #30

The seventy six story pancake design speaks nothing of these things

Oh, for God's sakes. Just build the damn thing.

All this idle chatter about what would or would not be sophisticated, profound and appropriate, or hoity-toity, architecture at 5th and Hill Streets sounds like so much navel gazing from a bunch of folks sitting in a circle.

That's even more the case because Los Angeles's economy has become so wilted and gutted through the years (where did all of the city's Fortune 500 companies -- never a lot to begin with -- go?!? should we all snicker and laugh?), and has historically been more boondocks than big city in the field of highrise construction, that it will be a miracle if much more than a Taco Bell stand is built north of Pershing Square.

purple haze on February 08, 2010, at 11:41PM – #31

Rooftop hoity toity Taco Bell.

That may be something!