Posted by Dan (216.102.155.137) on July 25, 2002 at 06:28:33:
Before last week, I was a strong proponent of conserving this great Los Angeles icon. However, after an extensive tour of the Ambassador last week, I have changed my mind.
As we speak of all of the historic goings on at the complex, it's easy to forget that with a few notable exceptions, the architecture and design of these buildings are hardly significant from an aesthetic standpoint. There are some wonderful moments in the bungalows and the casino level shops, but the "great" ballrooms, hotel lobby, and even the Coconut Grove have, quite frankly, become embarrassing reminders of past generations' attempts at grandeur. Furthermore, it is vividly obvious why the preserve/destroy pendulum has continued to swing over the last two decades. The cost of bringing it back to its "glory" would be tremendous and impractical. Is it really worth saving? I vote no.
We should, without a doubt, memorialize the legacy of the Ambassador; for it is the HISTORY, not the place, that is our beloved icon. Let's not allow our fond memories cloud our perception of the sad reality that barely stands before us and may very well be a barrier to our future.