The LA Times' architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne tackles the proposed NFL stadium in Industry, but it's a pretty depressing read because it becomes clear that the stadium represents a backwards approach to development, growth, and transportation. The stadium may be built into a hill, a move which means less steel is necessary in the construction (hence the developer's claim of "green"), but its location neither encourages transportation (the Metrolink stop is a mile away and Majestic doesn't anticipate it'll be utilized by stadium goers in the first few years), or development (the site is bound by freeways and warehouse districts). As Hawthorne notes, the "same qualities that make a piece of land ideal for development aiming to attract visitors from across a broad area in Southern California — easy freeway access, wide-open spaces, precious few pesky neighbors — also tend to make it a kind of planning black hole, a site that has little chance of succeeding in urban terms in any but the most circumscribed sense." And since project architect Dan Meis also did Staples Center*, there are comparisons between the two developments, but if both are essentially self-contained entities, the larger LA Live campus "helps promote downtown as a whole." Meanwhile, you could also argue how ironic the NFL stadium's design/location is given that over the last decade or so, there's been a movement to get away from the trend of placing placing stadiums in empty lots miles from city centers (Seattle's Safeco Field is one example of a more modern stadium). Update: *Meis did Staples Center, not LA Live.
· Should we buy into the dream? [LA Times]