Dialog / City Hall Redux

Last week’s report on earthquake damage at Los Angeles City Hall (An Open-or-Shut Case) asked whether the Civic Center landmark should be saved. Here is a sampling of e-mail and letters we received.

Los Angeles is the city of the future. But this does not mean that historical buildings and monuments should be forgotten. Would New York even consider doing away with the Empire State Building? Or would the city of Chicago raze the Wrigley Building? Never.

ARAM ORDUBEGIAN

Glendale

*

In a city with little architectural richness, City Hall might be our centerpiece. However, the fiscal reality of restoring an old building cannot be ignored. Los Angeles is not the same city it was when this building was erected. Not the same city it was when “Mars” destroyed City Hall in the early 1950s or when Jack Webb “introduced” it in the 1960s. We need a new City Hall that symbolizes the new Los Angeles.

Leaving an empty building as a monument to our past has a kind of creepy feel associated with the great pyramids of Giza--a dead but former great civilization.

JOHN G. LAPIN

Studio City

*

The view of City Hall always brought back nostalgic memories of when I immigrated to the United States some 13 years ago. To me, City Hall symbolized the American dream. My memories of going to City Hall for that job interview and eventually getting my first-ever job in this country [will] forever be cherished.

So to answer the question: Should City Hall be saved? I say yes from the bottom of my heart.

TED C. GALSIM

Azusa

*

When Los Angeles still had a self-imposed height limit of 12 stories, the 28-story City Hall marked the center of the region (on days clear enough to see it). Why not dismantle the tower, carefully removing and storing the decorative elements, window sash and cladding for reuse, and design and construct a new tower in the style of the original?

This new tower would be at least 10 stories taller and would benefit from the latest thinking in seismic and fire protection, would have new elevators, stair towers and mechanical systems and could be designed to provide needed additional structure to the historic base.

Tower floors could cover more area to bring the new shaft into correct proportion for its new height. And enough city offices could be accommodated to allow the demolition of that eyesore, City Hall South!

JOHN HELLER

Preservation architect

Los Angeles

*

Knock it down!

1. It will be cheaper.

2. Lots of cheap space out there [is] going begging.

3. Not a particularly great-looking building anyway.

4. Hardly a landmark anymore. It can hardly be seen.

5. Saving stuff just to save stuff reminds [me] of my dad and in-laws.

6. Great cities are continually renewing themselves--out with the old and in with the new.

7. One should never be sentimental with other people’s money.

FRANK SORACCO

Venice

*

Chop the top 24 floors off City Hall or demolish it entirely. Retrofit is for the birds.

WILLIAM JENANYAN

Los Angeles

*

The Los Angeles City Hall should by all means be saved. In May 1947, when my family and I came from Nebraska by train to live in Los Angeles, we arrived at Union Station. Even at age 8 I was struck by how beautiful the building was. Union Station and City Hall are the two buildings that I will always see in my mind’s eye when I think of the true heart of downtown.

ERIC WILSON

Santa Monica

(Editor’s note: The panel studying the seismic retrofitting of City Hall will make its recommendation to the mayor and City Council on Wednesday.)