Here's a shot from Beacon Hill in eastern Griffith Park taken last Saturday evening. The tall tower on The Grand is a bit shorter than 444 Flower but about the same height as the Union Bank tower.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...fRTJ69V-XL.jpg

^ Great shot!

The official height for the taller of the two Grand towers is 467'. For reference, One California Plaza (the shorter of the twins) is 577' tall.

It seems that 500' is the threshold as far as making an impact on the skyline from a northwestern perspective, with 650'+ being the benchmark for altering it in a prominent way.

Gehry's Grand Towers? I thought the taller of the Grand Towers was 520 something, it looks like it will be.

Thanks.

That's a wonderful photo. You know all the great places to take these pics Bill, whether it be here in Griffith or K. Hahn Park, and you (and pwright also) are there at the right moment to take them. Thanks

The old DWP headquarters across from Gehry seems to look different. Is it clad in something new or being altered? Maybe not-- difficult to tell from this distance and time of day.

Thanks. I don't think the DWP building looks any different, here's a closer view:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...vTD89Xj-XL.jpg

LA needs more green space like NYC Central Park, otherwise you can't get quite close enough to that kind of density in certain places like Mid Town/Billionaires row etc.

Kinda too late for that though, you can't evict people for any reason these days. I bet the only new green space will be futuristic freeway coverings.

We do have Griffith Park which is about 5 times the size of Central Park and Elysian Park which is closer to downtown at about 2/3's the size of Central Park. There's also Los Angeles State Historic Park just east of Chinatown.

I agree with you that more green space would be a tremendous asset as LA improves its land use patterns and that unfortunately there aren't massive tracts of centrally located land to build something as central as a Central Park.

That being said there are some significantly sized green space plans even beyond the futuristic freeway caps (which I think will be tough to get enough funding for) including:

-Los Angeles River Master Plan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToNw...ature=emb_logo
Could produce a greenbelt through the entire region

-Silver Lake Reservoir Master Plan
https://urbanize.city/la/post/la-unv...lake-reservoir

-6th Street Bridge Park
https://urbanize.city/la/post/final-...t-viaduct-park

Plus I'd love to see better access to + improvement to some our massive parks like Griffith (which is 5x bigger than Central Park but much more inaccessible), Elysian, Kenneth Hahn.

Agreed, gondola would be great for access. Also, if one of these damn golf courses could be transformed into a park, that would be incredible. Rancho seems like the only one possible.

I'm a fan of the Dodger Stadium gondola (which would improve access Los Angeles State Historic Park), but still on the fence about the Griffith one. You don't want to lose *too* much wildness with a gondola over the hiking trails.

I did forget about one of the big one:
Evolving Santa Monica Airport into a 200+ Acre Park
https://www.archpaper.com/2017/01/sa...lic-park-2029/

LOL I love Griffith Park, but comparing a mostly rugged and shrubby wilderness that was preserved, slapping a name ontop of it and then comparing it to the heavily planned urban masterpiece that is Central Park (or Golden Gate, Lincoln etc.) is silly. They are not remotely the same.

Like I said, I love Griffith for things like hiking in the middle of a city (which not many have) and it could've probably had even more things had the city been smart and looked past Griffith's wife's murder, but oh well whats done is done.

LASHP, (or even Elysian) is a better comparison.

Kenneth Hahn should definitely be expanded, if only somehow those oil derricks nearby could disappear. :(

Griffith Park is also not easily accessible for very many people except by car. It's a completely different experience than a true urban park. It's a mountain unsuitable for development that was named a park. With mountain trails that have horse droppings all over.

I live downtown and I have no real park within walking distance. And most of the rest of LA isn't much better. We have an extremely park poor city. I imagine the thought was that the beaches were our "parks" and most people have yards so we don't need parks.

Maybe one day skid row can become a park.

Gondolas are cheap ugly eyesores. Don't want to see them here.

That whole area will eventually be redeveloped. But yeah, DTLA is badly in need of a real neighborhood park.

I was replying to the lack of "green space", not a manicured green space. BTW, Col Griffith didn't murder his wife; he did shoot her in the head, but she survived.

LA is not New York, nor should it strive to be New York. Folk came to LA to escape the cramped conditions of New York and other eastern cities. That said, more parkland should be part of any redevelopment plans.

No one suggested that LA become NYC. Central Park, along with Golden Gate and others were mentioned as good examples of urban parks. We absolutely deserve parks like that. No need to mischaracterize the discussion because you are triggered by the example of something nice that most are familiar with exists in NYC.

The original comment decried the lack of green space in LA,using Central park as an example. My point is urban green space need not be a manicured park, green space can be a natural setting. We have a large urban green space here in LA, it's called Griffth Park. As far as access, Metro/LADOT do have routes that service Griffth Park.