LOS ANGELES | Angels Landing Towers | 854 & 542 FT | 64 & 48 FLOORS
 

THREE FINALISTS RELEASED

Unfortunately nothing above 1,000 feet.....

Handel is best IMHO, Onni is second .....VERY disappointed with Gensler's uninspired entry that would be better suited for Buffalo than Los Angeles (no offense to Buffalo). How can the same people that brought us the spectacular Shanghai Tower propose this embarrassment and keep a straight face? Unlimited heights restrictions, prime location in Los Angeles....baffling.

GENSLER:
https://urbanize.la/sites/default/fi...?itok=PscJfGsF

ONNI:
https://urbanize.la/sites/default/fi...?itok=ZnBN1Pd6

HANDEL:
https://urbanize.la/sites/default/fi...?itok=jL7g2Z9Z

https://urbanize.la/post/first-look-...angels-landing

Heights are 840 for Gensler, 883 for Onni and just shy of 1000 for Macfarlane. Of the 3, the best design in my opinion is Macfarlane, hands down. I wish they would extend the points of the tower a bit more to finish the tower, but not complaining much. The Gensler building is interesting and i like the street interactions, but the architecture is defintely lacking. The top looks like a typical glass box and the bottom is too hulking. It needs a redesign but they are very conservative and it sucks. If they can bring in UCLA as they said, that would put them over the top, regardless of design.

I like Gensler and Handel, not a fan of the offset cube thing that's happening in other cities. It's like an architecture school project rather than serious architecture.

Needs more height, time for LA to embrace its bigness. But mostly because I want a new signature tower for LA, something I think the Grand doesn't quite do. I would like to see this in the 1,200 ft range, but if not, it will still be a big addition.

I like this one best.


https://urbanize.la/sites/default/fi...?itok=1AeE18eO



https://urbanize.la/sites/default/fi...?itok=QPdm2SEb



https://urbanize.la/sites/default/fi...?itok=jL7g2Z9Z




From the link...

How tall can one go in LA?

The first or third design for me. The second one, with the jumbled boxes is ugly and would not look good on the LA skyline.
I like the height and general look of the third design, and the podium with the elevated open air space of the first one.

This site in particular has no height limit, though the title should probably say no height restrictions.

Looks like its taller than Wilshire Grand

I like the Handel design. Shame it isn't taller though. This is a good opportunity for a new tallest.

These were presented at a meetings with the proposal groups and city staff/elected officials. I've heard that many people in attendance made it known they want taller, so perhaps there is some hope still for a modification to over 1,000 ft.

I personally think the site is the perfect opportunity for something in the 1,200 range.

I vote Gensler. Like the colors and facade treatment.

Couldn't agree more. As much as I wanted the Grand to fill that need, it doesn't quite get us there (particularly given the bizarre decision not to light the spire). The Handel design has the potential as it is the most elegant and skyline defining of the three designs. Hopefully its chosen as the winning design, and hopefully they are given the direction (or opportunity) to increase the height. The current design could easily accommodate an additional 500-600 feet to create a more graceful peak and define the LA skyline....

One potential redesign (mine)....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137728...posted-public/
Original photo from Urbanize LA article https://urbanize.la/post/first-look-...angels-landing

Number 3 is the best by far.

While a nice design in the abstract, #1 is banal, uninspired '80's-to-mid-'90's tripe.

#2 is equally lazy at an au courant architectural trend that has been aesthetically improved upon in a lot of other places.

The *one* thing they need to do with the Handel proposal is make the fins top out at a 45º angle to break the flat roof tedium.

Wilshire Grand seems to try to do that, but IMO not too well.

Are there special protections for earthquakes in L.A?

I think Handel's is the best of the three. It's a good height, and looks good for its location. Gensler's isn't bad, I could see it happening. Onni's is the most butt-ugly building I have seen in a long time.

The skyscrapers can absorb the shock. Reinforced steel in the columns greatly helps, and shock absorbers. I believe the California building code includes earthquake related stipulations. The ones that are at risk are concrete based structures without steel reinforcement. Granted a massive magnitude earthquake will test everything, but there are measures in place for new towers. Things like a strong central core help, which a lot of skyscrapers have nowadays.

Hopefully it will be further refined to give LA the star it needs. I think 1,200 ft or more would be great. But it should definitely stand out as the tallest.

Most of LAs current tallest were in place during the last "Big" earthquake in 94, they faired better than most low rises. But Hollywood likes to topple LAs towers like dominos in every disaster movie.

I'm not sure why people prefer the MacFarlane/Handel proposal. The plaza looks to be just perpetuating the same problems that the older Bunker Hill development. Plus IMO the tower is an ugly mishmash. And the Lowe/Gensler proposal looks like they mistakingly talked with ASU instead of UCLA.

To me the Omni proposal is the most well-thought-out of the three. Even if you are aren't a fan of the cube stacks there is no denying that it would stand out more that the others. There are other renderings of the Omni proposal that shows that better. Someone complained about the simplicity of the design but that is one of the things I like about it.

The only thing with the Omni proposal IMO is that it is I feel its an aesthetic risk. It could, if built, come out great but I think the reason many like Handle is that is slightly resembles a shard design, is appealing, and a safe bet. Its not boxy, somewhat angular in nature, and looks like it would blend in well with the surroundings. I do think the roof/crown is incomplete though. The base, and interaction with the street is fantastic. I doubt the effectiveness of the vegetation on the upper floors, but the Handel design does a good job with maximizing landscaping and the pedestrian-street interaction. I think thats a plus.

Angels Landing (Gensler version) I feel is too busy, and the proportions are off. Gensler did a good job, no doubt, but the Handel design is more suited for DT LA.

Just my 2 cents on the matter.

I agree on Gensler. The thing to me about the Omni proposal is that, that type of design is not as well suited for a super tall building.