[LosAngelesBoy]

Okay, so we know now that cities around the world are building BIG. Chicago will have a 2,000 feet super skyscraper. And the Freedom Tower in New York will stand at 1,776 Feet tall. In other parts of the world, the Burj Dubai will stand on the top of the world at 2,684 feet in Dubai...

Now, in Los Angeles we have kept (But not for long) in having the tallest skyscraper West of Chicago. The US Bank Tower (Library Tower) stands at 1,018 feet but with new plans in having a bigger building in San Francisco for its Transbay Terminal in having a mega-structure of more than 1,100 feet.

It's time to think of the future, set plans for our super tall skyscraper in Los Angeles. This page will give you some examples on WHERE this building may be located at, HOW it should look like by comparing it to the other L.A buildings, and having visual representations to help us all look at the future L.A Skyline....

PLEASE give your input on HOW this new structure should look like, some renderings of this proposal and WHERE the location will fit BEST. :yes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Construction/la068.jpg
Image provided by http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Construction/la068.jpg

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

While I'm thinking about what the tower should look like, I have a question:



Who are you?



As of this post, you are on post # 2 and both are starting new threads. Do we know you by another alias? Just wondering? Good question, BTW.

[LosAngelesBoy]

Well, I'm actually new here BUT fascinated with buildings and architecture (Well, thats my major too) and the name is Andy :)

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

Welcome to the boards, Andy.

I apologize for being nosy, but I've never seen a new poster start off by creating a new thread, let alone 2 new ones. So I thought maybe you were one of the regulars that changed their name. Anyway, I look forward to your future posts.

Have you been out of the California Forum and visited this yet?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=130839

and here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=142650

Charlie

[StethJeff]

My only preference regarding location is that it should not be built near Library Tower or even the central cluster of buildings downtown. Something detached would bring more attention to itself as well as not diminish the other buildings in downtown. IMO, anything that draws attention away from Library Tower being the centerpiece of that site would be a shame.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i think the perfect spot for a new tallest would be where the Olympic and city house were proposed. That way, we can create a second huge cluster around it, which is already happening, with LA Live, LA Central, etc and it would be separated from the main cluster by historic and low rise buildings, much like the historic district. I would love a 1200 footer there, but in a more glassy modern style.

[erickg47]

IMO a good spot would be at the edge of the proposed 100 acre park. If you guys have not seen the pics here is the link to the thread. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153500

The sky scraper would be fare enough away from the library tower to not take away from all its gloriousness!

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I honestly think the tallest tower would do more for LA if it were closer to the 10 freeway in South Park. Being next to the 100-acre park would be meaningless, IMO. It would be this lone super-tall with beautiful parkland around it a la Century City. Build mid-rises around the park with maybe a few high-rises, but NOT the next super tall. I vote for South Park.

[LosAngelesBoy]

Me too, the South Park district would be the perfect way to go to plant that next iconic structure for L.A... Besides there is a lot of other projects roaming around the area and not to mention a lot of space too (parking lots and old factories!). Although, our skyline will start to look more 'horizontal" from north to south rather than expanding from all sides... But good way to start :yes:

[Westsidelife]

I honestly think the tallest tower would do more for LA if it were closer to the 10 freeway in South Park.

Strategically speaking, that'd be a smart way to encourage further revitalization of South Park.

[Bernd]

South Park. Let's continue to expand that skyline south. Perhaps with a spire!!

[JDRCRASH]

Good thread, LABoy! I've been deeply contemplating on this for a while now. As bullish as this sounds, i'd say a 2,000 foot enviro-friendly looking "LEED Certified" Obelisk-shaped Tower somewhere in South Park would be good. Such a unique design could withstand the force of Earthquakes like the Transamerica Tower in San Francisco.

I've even sketched it out on a paper recently with how it may look on the exterior. I've envisioned it being split into different sections for different purposes; a Hotel, office space, residential lofts and condominums, and even a Multi-Story Observation Deck topping it off (which I think is critical, because the Chicago Spire doesn't have an Observation Deck).

Going along with what one of you just said, having it next door to a Mass Transit station, as well as the 10 Freeway would keep the Traffic whiners away.

[erickg47]

Although, our skyline will start to look more 'horizontal" from north to south rather than expanding from all sides... But good way to start :yes:

Another place that imo would be a good area to put it would be on the edge of the arts/industrial district. This would created an already booming sector into a mega development area with plenty of room for expansion. Also it would expand the skyline west to east.

This would also force the future street car to travel down to that area. With a super tall skyscraper it would have a lot of developers wanting to build new mid rise structures. It could be like our empire state building, the lone tall skyscraper in the middle of mid-rises (if they build around it).

[JDRCRASH]

"Angel Obelisk!":D

[tujunga]

Taller isn't always better, Chicago has plenty of super-talls but it's skyline is kinda boring. A super tall would be great but I think the arrangement the buildings and the quality of the building's design is more important.

[M II A II R II K]

Should this supertall be purely an office tower, or a condo/hotel...

[JDRCRASH]

Taller isn't always better, Chicago has plenty of super-talls but it's skyline is kinda boring. A super tall would be great but I think the arrangement the buildings and the quality of the building's design is more important.

Yes; and this is why I think that it should be part of a complex, surrounded by 1,500 and 1,200 supertalls as well.


Should this supertall be purely an office tower, or a condo/hotel...

To tell you the truth; I think it should be Mixed-Use.

[Reverberation]

I would like to see it in the Mid-Wilshire area.

[StethJeff]

I would like to see it in the Mid-Wilshire area.

At least it would give LA a much needed observation deck in the central area of the city! A view from here (http://lh5.ggpht.com/_AWoTAs-bs6E/R6ajBwtPo4I/AAAAAAAANlM/4-gikh9Prlc/DSC_7334.JPG) would be spectacular.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Sorta like the amazing view you get when you're on the top floor of the parking structure at The Grove. A complete 360 degree view of LA.

[StethJeff]

^ Sorta like the amazing view you get when you're on the top floor of the parking structure at The Grove. A complete 360 degree view of LA.

apples & oranges. besides, i hate the idea of going to the grove for anything, much less a view.

[QuarterMileSidewalk]

It should definitely have a public observation deck. The circular upper floors of US Bank could've been perfect for that, but alas.

I agree that LA's defining icon ought to be somewhere along Wilshire, too. Whenever I get to drive into LA, my favorite view of the city is from the 10, looking north towards the towers lining Wilshire, with the sea of homes and palm trees in between. I'm a big fan of that sort of linear development, with high density areas lining the arterial roads and freeways.

Eventually, I'd like to see high rises of all types and uses lining all the major roads, like that. Since the LA basin is almost totally built out, that sort of density shouldn't be too far away from happening, I think. (unless we build a 12-lane freeway tunnel straight through to Lancaster!)

This iconic building ought to help take LA's traditional strip development patterns to the next level of urbanism, by promoting increased density, transit, and walkability.

...Just my delusions of grandeur...

...and it should be at least 2000 ft. Can't let Dubai have all the fun! :cool:

[JDRCRASH]

^ Boy you remind me so much of someone when he first came to this forum.:)

Welcome to the forum, dude!

[QuarterMileSidewalk]

^ Thanks!

I'm curious as to whom you're referring?

[JDRCRASH]

I think the other forumers will eventually fill you in on who exactly i'm talking about.:D

[dachacon]

It should definitely have a public observation deck. The circular upper floors of US Bank could've been perfect for that, but alas.

i was thinking they should move the seafood restaurant that's on the 3rd floor to the circular level. have our version of windows. imagine the view as your eating lunch or dinner.

This iconic building ought to help take LA's traditional strip development patterns to the next level of urbanism, by promoting increased density, transit, and walkability.

...Just my delusions of grandeur...

...and it should be at least 2000 ft. Can't let Dubai have all the fun! :cool:

That's the most it can be. i thought that FAA regulations didn't allow buildings to exceed 2,000 ft. thats why the chicago spire didn't go any higher. while 2,000ft would give los angeles the tallest building in the U.S. i doubt anyone will go inside because of fear of earthquakes. i just take comfort that it will be at least 1201ft.

[JDRCRASH]

Well, Tokyo is building one close to 2,000 ft, so whats the problem.

Besides, simple physics state the design of an obelisk can withstand forces much better than others, especially with today's technology and materials.

[dachacon]

^^ my problem is that the everyday angelino will not appreciate a tower that tall. there is no purpose other than to one up Chicago. and most people would not want to be in or around the building during an earthquake. no matter what you say about the building materials used. then you have this building as a terrorist target. i am all for building a 2,000ft building but there is no use for getting our hopes that high when there's a slim chance it will be that tall. the tower in San Francisco will be 1200ft. so ours logically will be 1201ft. to 1300ft.
Tokyo's is a transmission tower so no one will be living or working inside it.

[JDRCRASH]

Tokyo's will also have an observation deck, if i'm correct.