Yesterday, Jeffery M commented on my photo of See’s Candies said that they moved from that location on Santa Monica Blvd to Wilshire Blvd in a Vons supermarket. And so I went looking to see if I could find a photo of it. Oh boy, did I ever: this atmospheric night shot of the Vons at 1311 Wilshire Blvd, Santa Monica at Euclid St. The neon on the tower is spectacular, as is the lighting hidden behind the V O N S. And See’s Candies nabbed themselves a prime position and probably nabbed a lot of foot traffic coming out of the supermarket. The date on this photo was given as 1940 which is 4 years earlier than yesterday’s photo, so maybe they moved from Wilshire to Santa Monica Blvd.
Rod L. says: “The back lit lighting of the Vons logo in the original photo is called “Halo” lighting. It’s attractive but many retailers prefer internally illuminated letters which are brighter and show the logos colors.”
This is roughly how that view looked in December 2023. While I was surprised to see that Vons was still there, the building is a shadow of its former self.
See’s stayed at that corner of Von’s until about 2010 or so, when it moved across Euclid about three or four doors west to 1227 Wilshire, where it remains.
I lived in that neighborhood for 18 years. A lot has changed, but the Vons is still there. Never knew that it had once been an open front supermarket. It sure was a beauty!
Why does everything have to get worse?
I agree!!!!
Why is it that every new building in your photos looks like a box compared to the styling of the older buildings. I just don’t get it!!! Don’t we have any real architects anymore that give a damn what a building looks like?
Just disgusting.
John, if these posts continue to bother you so much, why do you keep looking at them? I don’t want to be rude, but I have to say that your constant complaining about them is getting very tiresome every time I come here. I’ve tried to explain some of the reasons buildings aren’t designed as they used to be. For example, all that lighting on the original Vons in the photo takes energy and over time, and the growth of Southern California, energy conservation is a thing. It’s also good in terms of air pollution. I’ve also mentioned earthquake restrictions are taken into account when building things now. There’s a whole lot more people around than there were in 1940. That year there were 1.5 million people. Now there’s near 8 million. There used to be more space to look at nice buildings from a distance. Not so, now. I’ve also tried to explain that most of the photos from the past we look at were taken to “show off” what we’re looking at. So they’re lit nicely and the like. GSV is not that. I also don’t think it’s healthy to be so negative. I’ve lived in the same location for over 30 years and been in L.A. around 40 years and things are generally so much better now than they were then, there’s just a lot more of everything…people places and things. I hope I haven’t offended you, but I recall hearing a saying attributed to Wayne Dyer once that you should consider: “When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” It means that if you see the positive side of something, it will have positive effects on you and those around you, too, and if you concentrate on the negative side of something, you, and those around you, will be affected negatively as well. Thanks for listening.
So, your argument is “sure, it’s crap, but at least we have a lot of it!” LOL!!
I refer to their current style as “Corporate Crap”!
Generic grey boxes with no distinctive architectural detailing or identification except the “sign”, such as
McDonalds, KFC, Taco Bell…
No more arches, buckets or bells! 🙁
Pure consumerism. No heart and no art.
It’s not an argument, NR, it’s just a realization that times have changed and buildings and styles come and go. Everywhere.
Your response “why does everything have to get worse” above is what’s crap because it reveals a lack of understanding of why, over time, things change for a myriad of circumstances, plus it’s a generality that I can argue is not true. “Everything” now is not worse. Back in the day, people were not living their daily lives appreciating all those buildings like people looking at them on this site now do. They were just the buildings that were around them at that time. if you’ve noticed, about 50 years after buildings get built, the current people want to tear them down. Why? Because the current people don’t think those buildings are anything special. They’ve lived with them. They’re just there. The L.A. Museum? That’s fifty years old, let’s tear it down. How many people actually look at what’s around them now? They’re looking at their phones. People back then were probably looking at pictures of the Victorian Houses in Los Angeles that were getting torn down and lamenting those. When people watched Mad Men a decade ago audiences were lamenting it wasn’t the 1960s with it’s flair and style and in the 1960s they were lamenting it wasn’t the 1950s. This point is effectively made in the film Midnight in Paris, when a person from “today” is enamored with Paris in the 1920s and when he’s in the 1920s he meets a woman who thinks the Paris of her today-the ’20s-is crap and she longs for the style of the 1890s, the Belle Epoque era. No one in the 1960s thought a thing about tearing down the lovely art deco NBC Building. Now there are people that really like the Millard Sheets designed bank building with it’s murals and stained glass windows on the corner that replaced it. There are many who want to get rid of that now and replace that corner with a high-rise.
Yes Martin, I certainly do get what you are saying but it sure does seem odd to me that people of today cannot appreciate fine architecture that was built in the 20s and 30s. Once these works of art are destroyed we will never see that craftsmanship again. I just wish more people today would look at these older buildings much like they would look at the structures in Rome or Greece and try harder to save them rather than tear them down.
As you can see by the other folks that have posted I am not thee only person who feels this way Martin. I am entitled to call them as I see them without being lectured by you or anyone else. If it bothers you so much don’t look at my comments. And yes you have offended me by the way!!!
Sorry. it is healthier not to live your life in a state of offense. I am also allowed to call your comments as I see them. You and Norman have a perfect right to feel that some building lovingly photographed in the past is better than a GSV photo of what’s there now, but you do often ask questions like “why was such and such changed or destroyed?” I and some others have often told you many reasons “why” yet you still go there. Even the buildings that are still there you often say, “The old photo still looks better.” So, if you don’t want anyone to respond to your comments, I’d advise you not asking “why?” Maybe Martin should stop posting the “now” photos if they upset you so much. Or just put a link to them that one can choose to look at or not. The point of Martin’s daily posts is to celebrate the Los Angeles in which his novels take place. The now photos are more for reference, not the main discussion topic in the comments, no?
Since you dragged me into this, asking “Why” in this situation is called a rhetorical question. It isn’t actually meant to solicit a response but instead asks the reader to think about the subject being addressed. And now that I’ve explained that to you, I assume you’ll no longer need to comment on my or anyone else’s use of this literary device.
As regards Mr. Turnbull’s daily posts I have to ask the literal question, “Has he asked you to speak on his behalf or solicited your advice for his webpage in some official capacity?” If not, it seems you’ve dragged someone else into your little personal drama. If he has, I’ll gladly respect your suggestions on how he should be conducting his business.
Finally, the difference between what John did and what you’re doing is that John commented on the subject matter. You chose, unsolicited, to comment on him. Think about it.
Once again Martin, I am not interested in being lectured by you or anyone else. This is a free forum and as such I will ask “WHY” as often as I wish. What are you the gatekeeper of this group?
NR: John has posted on these photo posts a great deal and I don’t recall seeing that from you, which is maybe why you found me “commenting on him” possibly out of bounds. I’ll forget the rest of what you wrote because you didn’t know that.
John: I’m not “the gatekeeper of this group.” So I’ll tell you what straight out: After looking at the daily photos for a long time, sorry, but I’ve just gotten really tired of your daily responses that seem only filled with complaints/negativity. That’s how it cumulatively comes across day after day. Here’s the routine: We get to see the daily photo from the past. Then there’s a current photo of the same location. Then one reads your same/similar daily comments about it. That’s a daily downer. That’s the reason I’ve previously answered a lot of your “whys” and comments a lot of the time. I tried to be as polite as possible conveying this until now. I don’t think it’s lecturing, but you haven’t taken to it. I didn’t like seeing you in seeming distress every day and that’s how your comments come across. Of course, you’re free to do what you want to. I was not trying to lecture you or be negative, but rather tried to be helpful in my explanations. I also apologize to Martin Turnbull for derailing this particular comment section.
Any photos of the Hollywood Ranch Market at night? I’m not sure if you’ve posted these before. If so, how do I pull them up again.
Ask and you shall receive:
https://martinturnbull.com/2023/08/17/a-night-shot-of-the-hollywood-ranch-market-1234-vine-st-hollywood-1961-2/
Does anybody remember the Tonight Show host, Steve Allen, doing his “Man on the Street” interviews in front of the Hollywood Ranch Market? This is where ‘man on the street’ Don Knotts got his start as a very, very nervous interviewee. Ahhh, the good ol’ days.
Also, Tom Poston, with his smooth, ultra groovey “Hello, Steverino”.
This is the Vons that I’ve shopped at for the last 30+ years. I understand why the look has changed, per Martin Pal’s post above, so I’m glad there’s a record of how it once looked. On the inside, it still has what I would guess are its original dark hardwood floors, which I enjoy as I’m rolling my cart around the store.
One nice thing about the laundry that occupies the space once filled by See’s: it participates in a program through which people can donate used suits, ties, and other formal work wear, so that those items can in turn be given to people who need them for job interviews and subsequent jobs, but don’t have the means to purchase them. When I retired back in 2014, I was glad to be able to put my no-longer-needed work clothes to good use by donating them at the aforementioned laundry.
There’s also a Van de Kamps signage on the far right wall of the market (inside). Maybe there’s a bakery section over there? There might also be the typical outside hanging windmill sign, but it’s hard to distinguish the details with the lighting glare.
Hey Al – well spotted with the Van de Kamp’s sign. I missed that completely!