[QUOTE=blackcat23;7349055]Proposed Convention Center Hotel will feature 40-story and 28-story towers

1,100 guest rooms, 20,000 sq. ft. of retail. Architect is Gensler, developer is the Lighthouse Group.

Does the "small commercial" building mean the one which houses Hooters? If so, the building was okay (too bad), the occupants, not so much. Good riddance to them.

or die. :shrug:

Well all developers need to make money but most aren't in it solely for the money I'd say. He of course is, but most at least care that what they're putting out improves a community. "Greedy Developers" like Palmer make all developers look bad and give misinformed suburban NIMBYs an mental image of a Bond villain when they here the word "developer".

Another Gensler designed tower, huh? I hope they change things up a bit. Don't really want to see another Metropolis re-hash. Would love to see some of the texture treatments they displayed in the Paul Hastings underground retail area for a while last year.

Updated my list, current as of today.

Have anything else to add or change?

Edit:

Removed & Added to next post.

Stationer's Tower was cancelled? NOOOOOOO!!!

Also, has anyone pointed out that you have Frankentower 1 as breaking ground 1/2015 instead of 1/2016

Thanks for pointing that out! :cheers:

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1526/...d795d549_b.jpg

For goodness sake, can these Palmer projects be stopped? Ugh

I was wondering the same thing. That's the only 'small commercial building' on that parcel, but the aerial map in the article wasn't updated to include it within the project boundary.

Looking at the initial motion linked on Urbanized first article, it states that the project would be developed on three parcels. The LA County site shows that the parking lot is 2 parcels, while the Hooters is the third. Everything else on this block is taken up by Circa and that tiny side street to Hooters.

So I think it's pretty safe to say that it was a slight error on Urbanized.LA's part.

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...01-19-2016.pdf

^First sentence in the third paragraph.

Apparently the city did not like the design in the context of the existing historic buildings.

Not the city, one person

I find it hard to believe one man would be able to stop a project that would be over a hundred million in costs and would generate a profit in the millions. He never intended to build it and was simply a cry for attention for someone to buy the lot. I called it two years ago and It's been quoted on SSC :cool:

Basically someone from C garage of Historic Districts thought the first 10 floors of the Stationers building believe it should somewhat resemble the urban canyon art deco theme it has always had. Personally I wouldn't care either way. I'm all for diversity in the historic core. NYC does it, Chicago does it, Philadelphia, Boston, detroit, etc... They all do it. Why can't we?

It's not dead, and it is a real project.

As it stands it is being held up because a certain person in the Historic department of the planning department feels that the lower 10 floors should look like the adjacent buildings. The tower will either proceed with the changed lower floor or certain people can be convinced that it should be built how it is planned now.

Many of the people on this forum have advocated for a city commission that would ensure that projects meet certain architectural standards (to stop Palmer and TCA). This is just a small taste of how such a commission would bog down the already overly cumbersome process of getting things built.

Ok, that doesn't sound like cancelled at all.

Thank you for the update.

It sounds like Hellen submitted a plan that was rejected. He is not revising his plan nor resubmitting the old plan so the city has nothing to approve or disapprove. Sounds pretty dead to me.

Don't get mad at me or blame SSP. This is in the latest DTNews update update:

http://m.ladowntownnews.com/developm....html?mode=jqm