The New "Los Angeles Style": It Sucks

by Tony Chavira and David Almada

David's an architectural designer, lighting designer, and AutoCAD-smith at RACAIA Architects and Tony's the Communications Coordinator, whatever that means. David's design-prowess stems from years of drafting, model-building and general slaving away for architectural firms around L.A. and the Inland Empire. Tony just likes to play devil's advocate, eat lunch, and dream of owning a modern wonder of modular housing design.

David and Tony both feel a mixture of anger and depression when they talk about "standardized" architectural design in Los Angeles. They go to lunch all the time and rant, but this time Tony brought a voice recorder:

Tony: So why does design of most architecture in L.A. suck so much, Dave? Tell me again so I can write it down formally for this article.

David: Why does it suck? Well, I don't know what happened to all of the personality and personal identity of design. I mean, why does everything have to look the same?

T: What do you mean "look the same?" I did that article on cool architecture, remember? You helped me.

D: Look at everything, you know, all new construction: it all looks the same! Sure there are the same standards and methods, and typical construction that goes on everywhere. But you always see the same color schemes, same stucco, tiles, roofing. Commercial and residential now, the line is blurred. People get these ideas of what a house should look like and what a commercial building should look like: very cheap construction because you want to keep the cost down just makes everything look exactly the same.

T: But isn't some of that ADA compliancy or building code-related stuff?

D: No, that stuff's there to govern how a person uses the space or to be sure that the building is accessible. That's more of a functional issue, it has nothing to do with the way the building itself looks. Here's what I mean: take a drive around and look at every new house that goes up. Sometimes they're over-scaled, sometimes they just don't fit in with the community, but you see these homes everywhere. A home with its own design identity can still fit in with the surrounding community, but there's this idea that not only contractors have but ordinary people have about how things have to look. It's not the architects, it's the homeowners themselves! No one wants to push the boundaries of their home design, and the minute that you do, you start getting complaints about cost. But if the building design is really thought-out and there's enough research, you can make the building look special or uniquely-designed for the same amount of money. But you're not only fighting with the client's mental restrictions ... you're also fighting with the city, planners, contractors, builders ...

T: So everyone's against you and architectural innovation now? Sounds like an Ayn Rand book.

D: Maybe they are, and especially in L.A.! Think about it, what's L.A. known for? Glitz and glamour and Hollywood ... housing and building design done by a handful of rich people. That stuff has an identity itself: it's new and crazy and replicated worldwide, but it's not at all replicated in the buildings, spaces and architecture of this city. You look at things like Gehry's Concert Hall and it's this building entirely on its own, where everything around it in Downtown seems bland, contrived or boring by comparison. Look outside of Downtown and it gets worse: there's no interest, no identity.

T: How do you add identity, though? Wipe L.A. clean and start over again?

D: You have to look back to stuff that was going on in the 20s and 30s, when you still had traditional housing built, but the buildings themselves had a character to them that people associate with "Los Angeles" now. When the modernist movement was born, it had its own local character to it that was uniquely L.A., even among all modernist architecture! I think that it goes back to people not relying on a developer or contractor for design, but instead going to artisans: whether they're master craftsmen, whether they're architects, or whether they're interior designers. It's only a small percentage of the construction budget, but makes a huge difference in the end.

T: But if most building is developer-driven, then what do you expect? I mean, how can you really change anything?

D: It might be that you have to start your own development company, find political backing or just find people with lots of money to help you do it. But there're ways to get it done. I mean, if you put out a good product people are going to want it.

T: So this all boils down to literally marketing the idea of design?

D: Yeah, changing ideas will probably take marketing. I'm just dumbfounded, especially here in Los Angeles, why people wouldn't want their own homes to have more identity or more flair that shows their personality! Why doesn't this idea pick up? This idea's especially trapped in the heads of people in the upper-middle class to wealthy community. In fact, just drive around Rancho Palos Verdes and check out all of these new McMansions and all of these houses that are going up: it gives the people who own them a sense of empowerment. As if this were the only way a building could possibly look to make you feel empowered.

T: What about developers who do affordable housing, because then it sometimes is a budget issue? I don't see too many developers making McMixed-Used housing out there ...

D: You're right, but then again there are great examples of buildings you can see from architects in Mexico who do multi-family housing and they don't have anything in terms of budget! Yet their design and ultimately the buildings themselves are way more interesting because there's a lot of thought put into it. I'm sure that the local government helps support them, or else they'll find interest outside of Mexico by grabbing investors from Europe or the USA who want to build with creative flair and interesting designs instead of the same tract housing style we've gotten used to. But seriously, they have nothing for budgets.

T: So now it's a cultural thing in the USA? Or does the government just not support us enough?

D: It might have become a cultural thing! People get so used to seeing the same stuff over and over again that they assume it's nice.

T: So it's like the new "American Style"? "American Style" is lame.

D: Yup, and yet it's copied around the world. People see that it came from the USA and copy it, thinking that it's just part of our lifestyle. Like it's "just the way our buildings look." But seriously, it sucks.

T: Yes, it does suck.

[And then they laughed and ate lunch already.]

some Mexican architecture links
JSª • Taller de Architectura X • Legorreta+Legorreta