Guest on December 15, 2010, at 04:22PM – #1

Been waiting for this all day long!

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 04:25PM – #3

OMG OMG LOL I'm speechless, Im torn between the 1st and 2nd proposals though!! I like the 1st one because it looks airy and spacy definitetly ahead of its time, But then u come to the 2nd and its like I forgot about the 1st one lol, I like how the 2nd one totally overwhelms Staples, Like in typical LA fashion saying "Move Along Sweetie, you were last decade material, Now I'm taking over for the next few!!" lol hahahaha wow I like what I see I cant even type properly

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 04:46PM – #5

I would like to see more information and views from the inside of #2 But yea the Gensler proposal is kinda winning me over the more I look at it. But all that glass, God forbid the Big One happens, it'll make mincemeat out of anyone inside at the time.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 04:51PM – #6

A buddy of mine was telling me that Tim Leiweke is behind the Inland Empire idea as well. This is supposedly all a political tactic to get the Government to move faster. This is hard to believe for me considering how much I've read into the controversy between the two developers and the two (different companies), AEG and Majestic. Does this sound like it could be legitimate?

I like the Gensler design the most, it reads much like downtown L.A. The boxiness of the HNTB is a bit too reminiscent of something that would be in Indianapolis, Dallas, etc.

The rendering for the HKS looks cool from the birds-eye-view but the outside of the stadium is a bit boring.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 05:03PM – #8

The Gensler design hands down! I think the design blows away Roski's in Industry, but I am still torn because here we would NOT have tailgating and I think Industry is a better location for the rest of Southern California in the San Gabriel Valley. That being said, the Gensler design is beautiful and you get a perfect view of Downtown. Don't like the HKS and HNTB designs at all!

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 05:13PM – #11

@ Guest 3, why no tailgating in downtown? Where did you read that?

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 05:22PM – #12

The HKS rendering doens't look feasible - it looks like they haven't worked out the details yet. The HNTB design is too boxy. I'm all for Gensler.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 05:24PM – #13

the gensler design is the only one that appears to really take the rest of L.A. Live into consideration. i'd think that if aeg's goal is to make L.A. Live a premier entertainment district that this would be a major priority!

the shape seems to work with its surroundings in a way that the others don't. to me, the other two schemes look like they had been designed before and plopped into the plan.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 05:25PM – #14

It's been widely reported there would be no tailgating in Downtown. There would be no parking lot to accommodate it. That's the advantage of Ed Roski's plans because he would have 25,000 parking lot and people would be able to tailgate.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 05:27PM – #15

It'll never happen, until Al Davis is gone.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 05:43PM – #16

Fine as long as Los Angeles doesn't have to pay for this crap.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 05:47PM – #17

yeay gensler for knowing that there aren't that many palm trees downtown!!! seriously, is that what makes these relevant to L.A.?

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 05:51PM – #18

No. 6, I highly doubt that Tim Leiweke and his boss are secretly behind the proposal for the stadium in the city of Industry. Even more so when one of the people closely involved with that plan recently called Leiweke a "bad guy." In other words, those are fightin' words, and I'd think such a slam in public would be considered too harsh, assuming all the players aren't supreme tricksters.

Getting rid of the cut-rate original part of the convention center makes Leiweke's proposal automatically a good thing. That building has been a splotch on downtown since it was constructed in 1971. But I thought the new stadium was going to be so versatile that it would convert to convention space. Or another reason why the building includes a retractable roof.

The cost of a totally new structure to replace the current west hall seems to change the bottom line of the entire proposal. However, it does offer the advantage of new, alternative space for the demolished west hall to be up and ready sooner rather than later.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 06:03PM – #19

It's hard to judge the HKS proposal because there are no images, at least on this blog, of the interior of that architect's version of the "event space." For some reason, HNTB's plans look too predictable and boxy to me. So maybe it's a good thing that the design from Gensler appears to be preferable to the others, since that company has been in charge of creating the rest of LA Live.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 06:14PM – #21

the HKS one looks terrible

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 06:27PM – #23

Yeah I'm sure AEG created that whole website just as a ploy to get the Industry stadium built

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 06:34PM – #24

Update on the tailgating: at the press conference they are saying they would close off Chick Hearn Court to tailgating, but that makes NO SENSE! People tailgate out their cars would they be dragging their grills across Downtown? Also Roski's people just tweeted this: “Flashy renderings won’t disguise AEG’s call for taxpayer dollars at a time when California is broke.” -- John Semcken twitter/lastadium

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 06:35PM – #25

I think the whole lot of them are crazy. Los Angeles has tons of rotting real estate. Why does everyone insist on building everything on top of itself. The Convention Center is hell when there is anything going on at Staples, or LA Live. Parking is always unbearable. And ever since the removal of the Pacific Electric Railway, Los Angeles has NO real public transportation system! Why does everyone insist that EVERYTHING be in the heart of downtown.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 06:52PM – #26

Tailgating is SO collegiate. Eat at home or at one of the nearby restaurants before the game!

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 06:56PM – #27

@ Guest 12 Not true! Tailgating is a HUGE part of the NFL Gameday experience that even the Food Network dedicates several shows on it every season. Who wants to go pay for over-priced bland food at L.A. Live!!

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 06:59PM – #28

I'm more concerned over the new hall over Pico.. or wherever they'll be adding new space to the convention center.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 07:24PM – #29

As an architect I have to say the Gensler scheme is far more thought through than the other schemes. The roof actually looks buildable, the transparent stuff is not glass, but likely ETFE so its light and it won't shatter and fall on people. We have a hands down winner here in my opinion.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 07:34PM – #30

The HNTB design is the best. They turned the stadium toward LA Live to activate the space and create a bigger plaza. The stadium section is beautiful with the accordion roof. Very graceful. Very elegant.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 07:39PM – #31

ITS ABOUT TIME! BEEN WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO RUN WITH IT.ITS FIRST AND TEN ON THERE TWENTY, WAY TO GO LEWIWEKE JUST DON`T DROP THE BALL!

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 07:46PM – #32

@ guest 11 - Why are you hating on the idea so much? Downtowns are that...centers of attention, hearts of the city!

This is going to get done, because ...its AEG!

They've earned it and we deserve it!!

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 08:35PM – #34

do you guys understand the definition of the word, embargo? thanks for the cooperation.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 08:47PM – #35

All those designs are horrible. there is absolutely NO reason for a retractable roof for a football stadium in LA. LA doesn't get much rain in the fall and football was supposed to be played in the elements anyway.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 09:08PM – #37

The NFL doesn't want to be in South Central Coliseum area! Get over it. Industry is the best location period!

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 09:16PM – #38

@Guest 20 NFL design guidelines say that SuperBowl stadiums have to have a retractable roof

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 09:41PM – #40

HNTB, then Gensler. I don't like the HKS one at all.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 10:30PM – #43

Guest 20; this isnt just a NFL stadium, it will be used for conventions as well as other indoor events, such as final fours, boxing, etc.

D

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 10:45PM – #44

<< NFL design guidelines say that SuperBowl stadiums have to have a retractable roof >>

Actually, the 2014 Super Bowl will be held at the recently built, open-air stadium in New Jersey, a few miles west of New York City. The home of the New York Giants and Jets.

The reason the proposed stadium contains a roof is not due to LA's climate, naturally, but because such a feature permits the building to be used for more than just football games.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 11:17PM – #45

All the people complaining about the roof need to do a little research on the project's intended use. It is not simply an NFL stadium but a year round special event facility.

I seriously doubt the roof will ever be closed for football games. Blue skies. Southern California weather. Everything you want in an open-air stadium but a hell of a lot louder than the Coliseum or Rose Bowl.

Guest on December 15, 2010, at 11:23PM – #46

AEG proposed either UNDERGROUND additional parking or a parking structure... they're crazy. AEG designed that stadium without the fans... without people in mind. Sorry but I'm taking Roski's 600 acre and 25,000 onsite parking for tailgating site over AEGs 30 acre moleman site anyday... How the hell are you going to move a mass of 75,000 off a 30 acre site? AEG's plan is just not viable.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 12:27AM – #50

Guest26 is so right on! 600 acres of beautiful open space overlooking Mt. Baldy in Industry that Roski wants to build or this cramped 15 acre generic retractable roof stadium that AEG wants to build! I take Roski's plan hands down as well with 25,000 parking spaces and room for tailgating and a L.A Live type venue around it!

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 02:21AM – #51

its not just a football stadium... i don't know how many times this has been mentioned... LA Event Center (which i assume includes the new convention center)

Roski's plan would be just a stadium, and offers very little beyond that. Sure it's better for tailgating, but what happens when football season is over? People will not go to that site other than for an event. Have you guys been to city of industry? That place sucks

The LAL site has real potential to reactivate DTLA. I'm sold on Leiweke's "event capital of the world" vision for Los Angeles.

And on that note, I think the HNTB design is interesting in that they show the IM Pei entrance being preserved. To me this eludes that they are making integration with the convention center a priority in a way that is not apparent in the renderings. I think HNTB's scheme connects to the site better programatically especially because of the plaza and the transparent facade. That roof (fabric?) looks pretty light too which is probably why they're showing the facade as 100% glazing - cause the structure allows it. Too bad the design is not very pretty.

Gensler wins on aesthetics though. Those images are dead sexy.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 03:08AM – #52

Guest 22. Clearly you've been misinformed. Roski's site would not just be the stadium alone. The stadium is part of a 600 acre development with hotels, convention space, movie theaters, an amphitheater and concert halls and retail centers a la Universal City Walk. The site would in fact serve other uses even after football but you would have the benefit of it not being 75,000 people every day. You would have economic impact but it would be spread out from multiple cities and counties, not just the city of Los Angeles. It would be from fans and vendors coming in from Orange County, the Inland Empire, and beyond the LA Metro Area. Not only that but think about this; 75,000 people spread over a 600 acre site is so much more viable and feasible than 75,000 on AEG's 30 acres. And as for the "LA Event Center (which you assume includes the new convention center)" the plan call for the West hall of the convention center to be demolished and later replaced elsewhere with $300 Million in bonds...

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 03:17AM – #53

As for the designs, these three proposals are a snooze fest. Nothing to brag about whatsoever. Roski's City of Industry plan, which is designed by world renowned architect and Staples Center designer Dan Meis is just so one of a kind. There's a unique character about it, and it really speaks "California." These generic AEG proposals say "corporate shopping mall." They feel forced into the landscape... a la Space Ship @ Soldier Field...

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 07:32AM – #55

so.... LA has an NFL team?

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 07:37AM – #56

Wow! HKS guys REALLY mailed it in! You cannot hide bad architecture with a giant LED screen. The Gensler design seems to have some idea that this needs to be part of a DISTRICT and community - it fits. Love the idea of the roof retracting to unveil the skyline - that will be the money shot of every major event held at the Center....the real estate folks in the towers all along Fig and Flower will benefit from the exposure as well. The HNTB is credible and at least sites well for the campus. The building feels light and airy..good in a dense development. City of Industry? come on!

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 09:14AM – #59

Guest #11: Why Downtown? Let me see...Blue Line from Long Beach, Gold Line from Pasadena and East LA and Montclair (under construction), Expo Line from the Westside (Purple line also), Red Line from Union Station and North Hollywood, Orange Line connects to Red Line from Woodland Hills, Metrolink trains from Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange County, the high desert and Ventura County...Absolutely the easiest way to get to Downtown is by rail. Plus, the weather is much cooler and air is much cleaner Downtown than the City of Industry. And then let's talk about all of the places to eat Downtown!

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 09:38AM – #61

I liked HNTB's glass walls as it offers wonderful view of the outside which is very LA.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 09:41AM – #62

HNTB's design seems to fit the LA live area with the lasers shooting up in the sky. Gensler and HKS designs seems to fit on a suburban lot where the stadiums are in the middle of a parking lot.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 09:51AM – #63

I'm with the city of industry site.. It's not in the middle of nowhere, it's close to LA and everyone else. From the renderings, it's very nice and it will offer a lot even when there is not football season or games. I don't go to events at the coliseum or anywhere downtown because the traffic is horrible. (not to mention other things) No one wanted to to anything. Now that Roski finally did something and is moving forward, LA Live wants to do something to. Stick with Industry, it is better for real football fans. and a "Universal City Walk" type place would be awesome in the Industry area.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 09:56AM – #64

Guest 26 how long have you worked for roski?

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 11:07AM – #67

its so obvious which posters work for Roski. "ow many times can they say "Citywalk type?" get over it losers, no one wants to go to a suburban wasteland to watch a football game.

D

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 11:31AM – #68

The Battle of the Titans -- Ed Roski, chairman of the board of USC, head of Majestic Realty Co. in Industry, going up against the reclusive Phil Anschutz and his glamour firm, AEG, and his minion without a college degree, Tim Leiweke. If I were a betting man, I'd plunk my cash on degree, Tim Leiweke. If I were a betting man, I'd plunk my cash on Roski. He's got the land that won't cost L.A. taxpayers a penny, and build the stadium with his construction company, Majestic Construction LLC. That man doesn't know the meaning of the word "lose." Leiweke and his "boys" will try to get funding for their project with bonds. Hey folks, bonds cost money. Guess who pays for bonds? Uh, huh, we do.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 12:08PM – #69

Seems like you have got a bunch of morons that work for LIEweke supporting this nightmare of an idea Downtown! NOT ENOUGH PARKING there! It will be crazy with a 1pm sunday football game and a 6:30pm or 7:30pm sunday night Laker game. This idea is ridiculous! Also the proximity to the ghetto that is Pico-Union is horrible. Look at what happened when the Lakers won the championship. Your going to get all those Raider fan cholos rioting in Downtown again! Tailgating on Chick Hearn Ct. or going to those over-priced restaurants at L.A. Live? No thanks! Roski's plan in Industry makes much more sense for everyone in Southern California and stop talking about light-rail AEG people! This is a car-culture and you know very well that the majority of people will get to whichever stadium site wins out by CAR!!! If thats the case it makes more sense to go with the plan that offers 25,000 on-site parking spaces! 600 acres vs. 30 acres? and NO I don't work for Roski. Just a football fan that wants a true NFL gameday experience!

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 12:29PM – #70

What we have to work for Majestic to have an opinion? The Downtown plan raises too many concerns over the parking, the traffic, the site, the bonds, etc. This stadium doesn't belong downtown. How bout fixing the schools and streets in that area instead. A baseball stadium makes more sense downtown than a football one. The new Cowboys, Giants and Jets stadiums aren't even in downtown and they're doing wonders for their areas. You need lots of real estate for football stadiums and the Industry site makes sense. Like the above poster said, 600 acres > 30 acres.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 02:28PM – #74

It's funny how rendering quality is conflated with good architecture. It's also funny how people are able to completely judge the merits of projects based on only two images each.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 03:11PM – #75

Sorry Roski folks, a stadium next to a mall in the middle of nowhere is a terrible idea. And Citywalk is stupid as hell. If you're so worried about traffic, locating the stadium out in Industry will just force MORE people onto the freeways. The future is less cars, more green, and more mass transit, and this stadium will be the focal point of a revitalized urban core for LA. We need to support projects that ENCOURAGE people to get out of their cars and become comfortable with public transportation, not DISCOURAGE from doing so.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 03:13PM – #76

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=5924910

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 03:42PM – #77

No what is stupid as hell is putting a stadium on 30 acres with no room for parking or tailgating! The 110 fwy is a nightmare as it is. Imagine people on their way home on the 110 on a Thursday or Monday night when there is a game going on? 600 acres in Industry where they would be a green design surrounded by a year round tourist attraction which can draw from all of Southern California makes more sense! Downtown L.A. is much better than it use to be, but the reality it is still blocks away from the ghetto and do you really want drunk Raider fans roaming the area? Retractable roof does offer more events, but do you want a corporate venue offered by AEG a more fan friendly one with the football fan in mind in Industry? I say it should be Roski's idea!

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 03:50PM – #78

The Industry stadium would be a green BUILDING (short-term), but not a green SOLUTION (long-term). The AEG site would be well-integrated into the mass transit, so there's an equal argument that in the long-term in terms of getting people out of cars, that AEG is actually MORE environmentally friendly.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 04:16PM – #79

hilarious that "some" that may or may not work for roski think that Downtown LA should be a ghost town and can't have people park cars. what an uneducated shame you officially don't believe in jobs or all of the taxes and additional tourism that would immediately hit our economy. and BASEBALL has over 80 HOME GAMES and they are scheduled monday -friday and any time they want. I'd much rather FOOTBALL's 8-10 home games on SUNDAYS only then deal with baseball. try and educate yourself first before you get on the freeway.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 04:23PM – #80

I find it amusing all the pro-Roski posters/Roski employees are trying to convince us a "City Walk" in the suburban wasteland that is the City of Industry gives that proposal the edge? LOL Nobody cares about a generic mall around a stadium that destroys 600 acre of land.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 05:04PM – #82

for anyone saying the 110 is already a traffic nightmare..so is the 60/57 2 Mile interchange. It's absolutely terrible there. At least Downtown LA has several freeways and railways radiating out from the area. City of Industry has 2 freeways(3 if you count the 10Fwy) and only one Metrolink stop. Downtown LA would be handle NFL crowds incredibly better than Industry.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 05:08PM – #83

@ Guest 3 and everyone else speaking about the Raiders:

Is there something that I don't know? Did we acquire the Raiders yesterday along with the stadium renderings? NO. There are several possibilities still of teams to come to L.A.; Vikings, Chiefs, Chargers, Jaguars, Raiders. I hope we don't get the rowdy Raiders fans too, I do share that concern, and I'm sure that everyone surrounding the Stadium's development understands this too.

I'm in favor of The Vikings! Bring me some more PURPLE AND GOLD!! Wooo!!

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 05:23PM – #84

NFL Stadiums are not built downtown anymore. The Patriots play 25 miles from Boston, the Giants and Jets play 30 minutes from NYC, the Cowboys stadium is in the middle between Dallas and Fort Worth. Nobody don't want to take a rail to the games and Roski helped built the Staples Center. Blackouts can occur if this stadium gets built. That mall place that yall talking about is part of Roski's proposal. AEG got a long way to go because this downtown stadium could take years to get through the hurdles just like Roski's plan and any other sport stadium that is out there. AEG must go through a lot of hurdles that Roski did

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 06:21PM – #86

Leiweke has said over and over taxpayer money won't be used, but even so, why shouldn't taxpayers pay for some of it? A new football stadium will draw more business/restaurants/jobs to that area. If us taxpayers are benefiting from it, I don't have a problem paying for some of it.

And to think that the Blue Line won't increase their service on gamedays to handle the larger crowds is naive. They will have five years to plan ahead for increased service on days with major events. Leiweke already stated they are planning on reconfiguring the station.

Finally, exactly how would replacing a dilapidated convention hall with a shiny new stadium DECREASE the quality of life and property values? At worst, the effect would be negligible.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 08:28PM – #87

I like the idea of a Los Angeles stadium in the downtown than the City of Industry. I also liked HNTB clean building that will go with rest of the LA Live area.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 08:36PM – #88

Ok I'm going to start accussing many of the Pro-Downtown stadium people of working for LIEweke and AEG. CJ who lives in Downtown brings up a good point about the tailgating in the lots and garages and the trash that would generate! Also people this stadium would be just a few blocks away from crime ridden and gang infested Pico-Union which would attract drunk rowdy cholo/Raider fans! The Raiders would play the Chargers Downtown and you got a potential riot on your hands and break-ins in the vehicles in the various lots. Seriously it's a ridiculous idea! Industry is the more logical and fan-friendly location and I don't effin work for Roski, but many of you Downtown posters probably work for AEG!

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 09:10PM – #91

I echo CJ. Does anyone have any examples of any other place where a stadium brings up property values and quality of life? Does Leiweke or any of these other AEG people have their primary residance right next to a staduim? Or, would they or have they opposed any "oversized" developments near where they live?

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 09:37PM – #92

So what's on the site now? Looks like an oversized development to me. Perhaps an ugly strip mall that happens to be 'undersized' would be a better use for that site in your opinion?

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 09:44PM – #93

Why are people who are so enthusiastic about the city of Industry bothering to read a blog about downtown Los Angeles?!

Beyond that, the Roski proposal is about as alluring and exciting as the plans back in the 1980s by Al Davis and the Raiders to build a stadium in a huge gravel pit in the city of Irwindale. In other words, it reeks of BOONDOCKS!! HINTERLANDS!!

"Industry" sounds not much better than "Irwindale," and I bet a lot of movers and shakers in the NFL and throughout Southern California will unconsciously dismiss a team playing in Industry as being temporary and generic. It doesn't help that the Roski proposal shows a stadium inserted into the side of a hill. So it looks like a low-discount option, particularly compared with the big-time stadiums in New York and Dallas.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 09:47PM – #94

Yep, an event center- the floor of which will accommodate an interesting array of activities. One moment it's turfgrass and five yard lines. The next it's exhibition floor space to augument the convention center. I'm scratching what little hair that I have left...

If I remember right, electrical outlets and irrigation sprinklers just don't mix very well and on top of that, the grass needs a decent amount of sunlight to survive. How many teams play of artificial turf??? How many athletes would simply refuse to play on it??

So, either the exhibition floor or the turf field has to be retractable. You can't shade out the sunlight with the former, so how can you slide out the latter from under the seating and even then, it is shaded while retracted, so you gots to mount grow-lights beneath the seating and pay lots of electricity to keep the lawn alive while the goods are on exhibit. And will AEG bill each exhibitor or the convention authority for the use of the floor space????? Remember, it is now public land. Surely, they'll want the city to give it to them for about a one buck a year land lease and then turn around and charge up the gazoo for exhibition use.

Chris Hawthorn's article in today's LAT is on the money as far as urban design is concerned. This project could result in a very hacked up convention center layout and the only way to avoid that is to move the convention spaces forward towards Figueroa. As is, the three proposals will likely be torn to shreds by the city fire and building & safety departments.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 10:45PM – #96

Reliant Stadium in Houston hosts conventions and has a grass field.

Guest on December 16, 2010, at 11:20PM – #97

Roski's plan is shovel ready while this plan has a long way to go. The people who work at the Convention Center will find out about AEG demolishing the West Hall and they will protest this proposal. Heinz Field is in the surburbs

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 12:12AM – #99

It doesn't matter if a site is shovel ready. They need a commitment from a team before they can break ground. Which won't happen until the CBA is resolved for another year at least. And that gives AEG plenty of time to get their project 'shovel ready' as well.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 12:25AM – #100

Ed Roski has invested too much time and effort in Industry and fought offf lawsuits to then have Lieweke come in and stab him in the back! The AEG location makes no sense nd I am more convinced then ever that these like Benjamin work for AEG or are associated with them. Taxpayers can't be on the hook for the reconstruction of the West Hall.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 05:19AM – #101

Gensler's design makes most sense.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 05:23AM – #102

Gensler's design is best. HKS looks like they tried too hard and HNTB looks like it should be in another part of the world.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 08:07AM – #103

I notice various people complain about proposals like this as a burden to the taxpayers, as a major expense to the community. I can relate to that point of view. Therefore, I'm surprised by the many cities throughout the country that over the years have had ballot propositions to pay for a new stadium that have won on election day.

The most recent one was on the ballot in June. It was a proposal to build a new stadium in the San Jose area for the San Francisco 49ers. The measure passed with almost 60 percent of the vote. However, the plan doesn't place a huge amount of the total cost (as in close to $1 billion) onto the taxpayer. That could be why residents of Santa Clara accepted their city being on the hook for $114 million.

As for the Majestic Realty group's plan, I have a hunch that ever since it was first announced back in April 2008 (over 2 years ago!) no one in the NFL (owners included) has been so enthusiastic about it to make it a front-burner proposal. Unlike the plans from the downtown LA group, when I first saw the proposal for the San Gabriel Valley stadium near the 57 and 60 freeways, it didn't really grab my excitement. That was in spite of it being in a location closer to where I live and my thinking at the time that the Majestic people offered the only and final chance for returning a NFL franchise to this part of the country.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 08:35AM – #104

I am not sure just by looking at the artist drawing but the HNTB design shows a folding roof that they could open. I think is is very cool.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 09:33AM – #105

AEG said if they don't get everything of downtown proposal done by next Spring, they will kill this project and he will leave it to Roski.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 09:37AM – #106

I think people fail to realize that the site records your ip address when posting. Guest no. 4 is obviously Gensler -_-

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 10:07AM – #107

City of Industry? ARE YOU PEOPLE SERIOUS? This competition was held for a Stadium in DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT? This is not the coverage for the City of Industry Stadium. It is simply pathetic to see grown men and women commenting on a totally different location.

On a more positive note, "a stadium in Los Angeles, is a fantastic idea" all three projects are great. I commend the three firms for the ardeous work. My personal favourite is Gensler's.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 11:17AM – #110

Yall forgot something about this proposal. AEG downtown proposal must go through an environmental review and the other hurdles that Roski faced.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 12:10PM – #112

My apologies for my ignorance regards the use of artificial turf in professional play.

The diagonal slice in the HKS proposal would bring a bit of dramatic tension to the interior space. It is highly modern and futuristic.

The foremost urban design aspect of Gensler's (The Jetsons) proposal is that they've reconceived the front entry/facade facing Figueroa. The two images of the HKS (Star Wars) proposal do not show the eastern frontage. The HNTB (Peoria) concept barely merits a mention, save that it looks like a solution ripe for either Saudi Arabia or the University of Oklahoma, is thoroughly out of synch with the zeitgeist of L.A. The interiors of the Gensler and HNTB proposals are not THAT dissimilar! The gossamer supporting frames holding up those retractable roofs are just that: they're artistic illusions. Seismic realities and the need to keep the rain out will result in a much more leaden or massive appearance. These spaces are comparatively static.

Given sufficient space, the sculptural basis of the HKS team's concept offers the greater possibility. A highly refined and dramatic sculptural object would better represent this city (broadcast from coast to coast).

Think again, people: The HNTB and Gensler interior spaces look like conceptions of futurists circa 1960. I'd dig to see an interior rendering of the HKS solution.

If only one team had ventured to question the need for continuing the Cherry Street thoroughfare, also using the space occupied by the narrow parking structure between it and the Harbor Freeway. Also, a radical reconception of the Figueroa entrance and using the bland landscaped plaza for an extraordinary civic statement. The existing entry pavilion is too crammed up against the arena. A new entrance hard by Figueroa leading directly to replacement floor space for West Hall and on through and into the event center could allow greater separation between the contrasting functions of entertainment and exhibition. The city fire and building & safety departments could feel much more comfortable with such a more urbane solution, the greater public benefit would then suggest the possibility of public assistance to this effort.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 01:43PM – #113

LA needs many things, such as new parks and recreational facilities; busses which are cheap, comfortable, and run on time; street trees which are systematically planted and maintained (like all other nearby cities; enforcement of the city's zoning and building codes; a real mass transit system; many community gardens; sidewalks and gutters on many streets; sanitary sewers in some parts of the Valley; decent schools with small classes; ADA required curb cuts; prosecution of sign companies responsible for visual pollution with billboards and supergraphics, etc. Somehow, a football stadium on free public land seems like a ultra low priority given LA's enormous unmet needs for basic services and infrastructure! Build it in Industry instead.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 03:04PM – #115

Guest #26, your previous posts suggest you actually care little (or don't care at all) about what the city of LA needs or doesn't need, and are far more concerned about what the city of Industry needs. Your earlier posts about the proposed stadium in Industry would earn a round of high fives from Roski's public relations department.

My main question is if you're dropping by blogdowntown.com and posting to its forum only because you're somehow emotionally (or even financially?) invested in Roski's plans? If you live in or near the city of Industry that would explain a lot of what is affecting your opinion.

Guest on December 17, 2010, at 07:12PM – #116

Esperience teaches that Tim Romani's remark above (at 6:15) is the one to keep in mind when discussing the design merits of these three renderings. The design will change to the point that everyone will wonder what happened to the rendering image - if they remember it at all. That's a good thing.

The most important aspect is not the picture or the name on the door. It's who has the most experienced feet on the floor. It takes an entire staff of people who understand this type facility from experience to pull this off with a long simmered style, without throwing the budget off the cliff. One big name at the top is trumped by having multiple known quantities in sports facility design and construction throughout the process.

Watch out for the seduction of the first pretty face.

Guest on December 18, 2010, at 01:08PM – #118

Yeah, everyone is falling all over themselves proclaiming no cost to the public on this deal.

But how much do we really want a football team? The location is spot-on and in this regard, the NFL owners would much prefer the heart of the metropolis. I can't recommend Chris Hawthorn's critique enough.

For at least a quarter century, there has been talk of expanding the convention center to the north, to complement the Eighties Pei addition on the south. Now, with the prospect of a new stadium, there is space for new/replacement space along the north side of Pico and the west side of Figueroa. I feel that the Visitor's & Convention Bureau should commit to bonded indebtedness to assist this project, make it the envy of the nation - attract the NFL's support like bumble bees to a Rockrose in the merry month of May.

I was completely against public assistance for construction of Staples Arena. This is a far more complex and promising opportunity for the city. The whole Convention Center - L.A. Live complex needs a unifying element. The addition of a new stadium affords the opportunity of realizing that. AEG has committed itself to provision of replacement space for West Hall. Additional exhibition space would attract larger events, events now held elsewhere. The simultaneous pursuit of all three elements is a one-time opportunity that we should not pass up. Hotels would sprout.

We need a solution to blow away all other venues, blow them all away with the engineering marvels, the urbane and artistic vision of a special design team. Send a check to the three design teams and express gratitude for their efforts and then go out and hire Santiago Calatrava and Frank Gehry and have them collaborate on a more appropriate solution.

Guest on December 18, 2010, at 06:23PM – #119

Both proposals won't be built until a team comes to LA.

Guest on December 19, 2010, at 01:18PM – #121

For all the people talking about how AEG will have to go through "the same hurdles" as Roski and therefore we shouldn't support AEG since it's too far out, they completely forget that Roski had his EIR process waived by the Legislature, thereby speeding that proposal to its current state -- which seems to be going nowhere.

Downtown resident, supporter of the DTLA stadium/convention space.

Guest on December 19, 2010, at 09:42PM – #122

All three designs are ugly. The artists also forgot to include red tail lights reflecting off the glass from the jammed 10 and 110 freeways. I don't understand why we need a retractable roof in sunny Southern CA. I would rather see the players on real grass and not on astrotruf.

Guest on December 20, 2010, at 10:23AM – #124

to Guest 29 A retractable roof makes sense because they can open it and play football and close it when they would like to hold other events. May be they can use it for the next auto show. I liked the HNTB's retractable roof.

Guest on December 20, 2010, at 11:49AM – #125

I don't care what snake oil the AEG marketers try to sell, a retractable roof and astroturf in this climate is plain dumb. No way that local NFL fans will buy into this nonsense.

Guest on December 20, 2010, at 01:33PM – #127

Guest 49, You are correct about AEG's marketing and I am not sure if fans care for the turf. Anyway I would like to have roof closed on day like today when it is pouring all day. Anyway I believe that all proposals have some form of retractable roof but I can see how it work's in HNTB renderings. I am not sure about others. May be AEG knows.

Guest on December 20, 2010, at 06:45PM – #128

A few years ago, Roski, Leiweke, and Wesserman tried to build a stadium downtown, but the league said it don't want a stadium downtown because it don't have a place to tailgate. If this downtown proposal fails to get things going by next spring, Leiweke might team up with Roski to bring the NFL to LA. Roski and Leiweke are very good friends and very good business partners.

Guest on December 21, 2010, at 10:04PM – #130

its interesting to see how many people try to fear monger to get their way. to all the Roski supporters / family members / coi politicians, stop lying. also, the only advantage the roski plan has is tailgating, however, downtown offers so many more opportunities, its not even funny.

Downtown resident and strong supporter of the LA Live Event Center.

D

Guest on December 23, 2010, at 01:49PM – #131

The convention and visitor's bureau and the city council should give close attention to the design, especially the layout of a proposed replacement for West Hall. A confused, second rate concept would surely work against efforts to attract more and larger conventions to downtown L.A. This aspect is A HELL OF A LOT MORE IMPORTANT than the positive spinoffs that would result from a new stadium.

Guest on December 23, 2010, at 01:50PM – #132

I am not against a new stadium at the site; I'm all for it, if they hire the right team of designers. The municipal bond situation across the country is not looking very good. In fact, there is the prospect of an impending calamity in this sector. So the idea of public assistance for expanding the convention center in conjunction with AEG's replacing West Hall is not timely.

Guest on December 24, 2010, at 01:41AM – #133

"We're going to give this our best shot over the next three months," Leiweke said Wednesday, according to Bloomberg. "This is the second-largest marketplace in the United States and we're going to act like it."

If - and only if - the city gives them the land, scott free......

How many members of the city council will be bought off on this deal?????

Guest on December 25, 2010, at 05:36PM – #135

Let's get real. How many earthquakes have hit the area since 1970? A tornado hit the convention center back in the Eighties. Any structural engineer would laugh in glancing at the interior renderings of both the Gensler and HNTB proposals. The Gensler design doesn't show any sort of retractable roof, just a fancy framework to suggest the idea. I wouldn't want to be inside the HNTB solution with an 80 MPH Santa Ana blowing the fabric panels above all to hell. That's when the crowd stampedes for the exits.

Both concepts are gimcrack, sheer artsy-fartsy phantasmagorias.

The HKS design looks like a machine with space on top such that it is easy to imagine a roof splitting apart and two halves sliding in opposite directions. This sculptural box idea makes much more sense from a structural standpoint. Given a tornado, an earthquake or a big wind from the north, I'd feel a hell of a lot more safe inside a sculptural box. But WHERE did they put the convention space? Underneath? That would provide a lot more space than the present West Hall.

Guest on December 26, 2010, at 10:12PM – #136

Hey, use all of the unspent Stimulus funds. Make the convention center larger.

Guest on December 28, 2010, at 08:24AM – #137

HNTB proposal looks like an event center whereas other two have more suburban stadium with a large parking lot. My vote is for HNTB

Guest on December 28, 2010, at 06:47PM – #138

check out this very one-sided discussion of the AEG proposal, now up at Yahoo Sports:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-nfllosangeles122110

It's way-slanted in favor of Roski.

Guest on December 28, 2010, at 07:18PM – #139

The Yahoo yahoo def has Bloomington, Indiana tailgate-on-the-brain. This is the first time I've seen a rendering of the Roski (east side of the glorious City of Industry) proposal. Gawd, what a forward-looking design, one which would no doubt capture the pride and civic spirit of each and every citizen of that legendary suburb.

Just throw a 2 mile radius from Staples Center. Right, who needs tail-gating in Downtown, the center of what very well may be the gastronomic capital of North America.

Guest on December 28, 2010, at 11:06PM – #140

No wonder that the NFL owners haven't signed on with Roski. What a limp-bizkit turkey of an unforgettable stadium design!

Guest on December 29, 2010, at 12:45PM – #141

HNTB gets my vote..the first one I feel is predictable, number 2 doesn't have the full roof or LA view, it's too closed in, looks like a moon roof, and HNTB is large, airy, has beautiful views throughout.

Guest on December 29, 2010, at 07:15PM – #142

It's funny how some people are able to judge the quality of design, based on lasers....

Guest on January 01, 2011, at 09:03PM – #144

Most of all, I fear that if this proposal goes forward, that the new stadium will overwhelm whatever replacement space is afforded for the convention center and if that were to happen, the politicians now sitting up in city hall will either be gone or simply not care and would only distract us from the negative consequences to the long term financial operation of the convention center.

And exactly WHAT is the payoff for the city if it were to hand over management of the convention center to AEG? What are we left with after it gets its cut? We do not need a new overall plan for Downtown, Mr. Hawthorne. Of course, let's not cast things into stone by the end of March. We need only aim for an evolutionary concept, a superlative solution in urban design.

It seems as though we need an entrancing public space, a very welcoming front door to the complex which invites the pedestrian in from off of Figueroa. Such a space could serve to balance the contrasting elements of a convention center, an arena and a stadium. This can make them complement one another. Why not a symbolic living room for the entire city? This should be open for everyone, with or without a ticket or convention badge, a quasi-athenaeum. This possibility then invites public assistance and if such assistance is required, then I feel that designers such as Santiago Calatrava and Frank Gehry need to handle the job.

The existing entry pavilions to the convention center look like cooling towers for an atomic power plant.

Guest on January 02, 2011, at 11:38AM – #145

I laugh when people grumble about "corporate greed" and downtown LA. That's because the decline of the city's center occurred largely due to corporations (and others) abandoning the area beginning over 60 years ago. So in their minds there wasn't much to be greedy about in the first place.

However, there has been some greed. But that has been evident mainly among absentee-type landlords. Such as owners of buildings along Broadway who've milked money from first-floor rental income while using little or none of that to clean up the shabbiness of their property in general. People like that deserve our scorn.

Guest on January 02, 2011, at 04:39PM – #146

Usually at the end of a game at the Staples Center, it takes a good hour to even get out of LA Live, and the Staples Center holds 1/4th of the people that these new NFL stadiums will hold. The designs are awesome, but I just do not understand how they think the current infrastructure of downtown Los Angeles will be able to support a football stadium along with all of the other amenities at LA Live. I cannot even fathom the traffic if a Lakers game and an NFL game get out at the same time while Shakira is having a concert at the Nokia Theater.

Guest on January 02, 2011, at 06:36PM – #147

Yeah! Near a hundred thousand folks packed into the s.w. corner of Downtown, not counting however many might be attending whatever event at the convention center.

That would go a long way in making the southern flank of Downtown into a 24/7 place to be. A shot of adrenaline to the center of South Coast Civilization.

Many people prefer to be, and even live within the center of things. Either way-rural or max-metro, give suburbia a pass (or stay there and shut up).

Guest on January 08, 2011, at 05:14PM – #148

The L.A. Times reports that Farmers Insurance may have already committed to naming rights for a new stadium.

The N.Y. Times has a two page article up on its website, re. the clash pitting Roski against Lewiecke.