TRUMP L.A.: MARKING HIS SPOT : This Guy’s Here for a While : His buildings don’t so much stand as stand for something. They’re part of a larger scheme having little to do with the city, everything to do with the builder.
Somewhere between the end of the ‘80s and the beginning of the ‘90s, it happened.
There was no announcement, nor even any public discussion of it, really. But every soul in New York City felt it, knew it instinctively. Bloated, slightly numb from a decade of forced feeding, the city had finally, painfully reached its saturation point.
We could not tolerate a single silver spoonful more of Donald Trump.
Trump must have realized it, too. For though he owns the single largest private tract of land on the island of Manhattan--a space that, for several years, he has vigorously sought to overdevelop in typically Trumpian fashion--it appears that he is now prepared to focus his attentions, and his erector set, in someone else’s back yard.
I am sorry, Los Angeles, but it had to be you. Donald Trump simply does not do Peoria. Trump’s proposal to construct a commercial-residential tower near downtown Los Angeles was, of course, intended to raise a ruckus. Mr. Trump likes to be announced whenever he enters a room. I’m sure one can think of many good reasons to welcome him to Los Angeles. Some solid citizens no doubt envision new jobs, an expanded tax base and the economic vitality that such huge construction projects usually entail. Others reasonably worry about the dangers of increased pollution, unnecessary congestion and a sinking quality of life. Then, too, there are bound to be concerns on purely aesthetic grounds. For instance, how would the proposed tower fit in with the existing skyline and the community of buildings surrounding it?
I confess I have no idea what exactly Trump plans to build on Wilshire Boulevard. However, as a strictly pedestrian New Yorker, I have ample experience with Trump Palace, Trump Plaza and Trump This-and-That to get the gist of what you are in for. Even if the proposed tower were to be a graceless clunker, there can be no doubt that it will merit the three letters most precious to Trump in all the alphabet. Every Trump project is by decree the ------est in the whole darn world. (In this case, I am told, the larg-est ballroom in Los Angeles is planned, though the fill-in-the-blank part is not of particular concern.)
The funny thing about Trump buildings, however, is that they don’t so much stand as stand for something. New York is chock full of graceless, proletarian-looking towers. Trump’s most audacious projects, which rise throughout midtown Manhattan, are somewhat imposing and unimaginative monoliths, but they are superior in design and construction to many of their neighbors. What really sets Trump buildings apart is that they serve as part of a larger scheme having little to do with the city and everything to do with Trump.
Not unlike a dog that leaves a special part of itself at every hydrant in the neighborhood, Donald Trump feels compelled to let us know that he has been around the corner, across the street, down the block. Consider the following: It is possible to fly into New York on the Trump Shuttle, take a Trump helicopter across the city, during which time one reads a full-page Trump ad in the New York Times and a Trump feature story in New York magazine. Arriving in Manhattan, one may drive up the West Side and spot the gargantuan Trump yacht plying the Hudson, meanwhile becoming entangled in traffic beneath a billboard hawking Trump casinos, finally breaking free to cruise down Central Park South past Trump Parc condominiums. Justifiably in need of refreshment, one may stop for a drink on the corner of the park at Trump’s Plaza Hotel before walking a few blocks down Fifth Avenue to Trump Tower to purchase Trump, the game. Exiting Trump Tower, one need only cross the street to find the ubiquitous Trump autobiography, written by Trump’s ghostwriter (see aforementioned New York magazine).
So you see, the real debate before you, Los Angeles, has little to do with the merits of a single building. It is a shallow exercise to determine whether you find such and such aspect of the proposed tower aesthetically pleasing or appropriately functional. The real questionis whether you are prepared to sacrifice your landmarks, your press, yes, even your sacred life style, to a full-scale cultural-physical invasion.
The question is not: Can you afford another skyscraper in Los Angeles? The question is: Can you afford to open the door to a guest who will likely never leave?
