HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2017, 10:13 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
Does the project have financing, or is it just a proposal at this point?
proposal that's yet to be approved.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2017, 6:27 PM
blackcat23's Avatar
blackcat23 blackcat23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,396
__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter @UrbanizeLA, Facebook and Instagram.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2017, 7:03 PM
112597jorge 112597jorge is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: LA/OC
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcat23 View Post
Is that figure final or is it subject to change? Adding an extra 40 feet in the design process won't hurt at all. Plus they got two years to figure it out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2017, 12:55 AM
Blesha13 Blesha13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90026
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcat23 View Post
Why not incorporate the towers into one? I'd love to see more height capped with a lit spire.
__________________
GO DODGERS! GO LAKERS!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2017, 2:15 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,408
Quote:
The development team has tapped Handel Architects to design the soaring glass structure, with accompanying landscape and open spaces designed by Olin. The larger 88-story tower will rise to a peak height of 960 feet above street level, per a project representative. It has been billed as a bookend to the Downtown skyline. The smaller 24-story building would peak at 265 feet above street level.
Hopefully it will be refined to give us a taller tower. Not that a 900-footer is bad. But this has the potential to be something more.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2017, 9:49 PM
112597jorge 112597jorge is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: LA/OC
Posts: 354
Article on curbed LA saying at 1000 ft it's gonna be the tallest residential building in the western US
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2017, 10:25 PM
JMKeynes's Avatar
JMKeynes JMKeynes is online now
In the long run...
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 633
This is great news!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2017, 10:31 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 23,282
Excellent. I like the direction. Hopefully more super talls will spring up. Its good when one finishes, and another proposal pops up. Let's keep the momentum!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2017, 1:02 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 23,282
Interview with Don Peebles (Developer):

= = = = = = =

How does project break down between the partners?

Quote:
What in particular are you bringing to the table? The structure of the deal is MacFarlane and Peebles are primary partners, and Claridge is a local partner. MacFarlane and I are each 40 percent partners. We’re collectively co-developers and sharing responsibilities on every element from predevelopment to design development, construction and management. It’s really a joint venture between the three of us.

[Peebles Corporation] has extensive public-project development experience. We have had 30 years’ experience developing projects in partnership or with significant government involvement. It’s one of the unique things we do, so we’re helping to put together Request for Proposal responses and moving things forward with the city. We also bring our experience with hospitality space and mixed-use development. We’re working through the entitlement process, regulatory process, working with the community, with government agencies, and bringing everyone together to move the development forward.



How did you come to work with Claridge and MacFarlane?

Quote:
I’ve known [Claridge founder] Ricardo Pagan for a decade, and I’ve known [MacFarlane CEO] Victor MacFarlane for 20 years. MacFarlane and I have done projects in Miami and D.C. together, and we’re good friends.

The beauty is any of the three of us could have bid on this separately, but we thought it made sense to join together and form a super team. Victor moved out to Los Angeles not five years ago and encouraged us to look out there, so we went and looked a few times with him, then we started zeroing in on where we had interest and identified this site. We did further due diligence and decided to pursue this when the RFP came out.

All three of the firms are minority-owned. How important was that to you when teaming up? That’s something we were very mindful of. Something that all three of us share in common is a commitment to equal economic opportunities. The selling point for the three of us to join forces was that it would be a wholly-owned development by minority developers that are each capable of developing projects themselves, but decided to join together to build a transformative development. By being [among] the tallest building in the western U.S. is transformative; by being the last site the city owned in Downtown LA is another key element and transformative; a billion-dollar-plus project itself is transformative; and adding to that is that it’s a wholly-owned minority development team with two of the most successful African-American entrepreneurs in the country made it more transformative. It’s also an opportunity to provide minority- and women-owned businesses contracting opportunities. Our goal is 25 percent on all our projects across the board.


Why do you think your proposal stood out?

Quote:
One, being [among] the tallest building in the western U.S., and from a design perspective, Handel designed an amazing building. The strong financial capacities of our developers, the solid financing proposals and our development program was the most unique. We have a good understanding of what government look for. One thing they like is hotels, because they attract tourism to an area and are tremendous job generators, from unskilled labor up to the executive staff. There’s a growing residential population in the area, and we think the charter school was a determining factor. Also, we were the only team to emphasize a commitment to minority- and women-owned businesses, and that was something important to a city as diverse as Los Angeles.


Is the financing for the project in place?

Quote:
MacFarlane is a majority private equity fund and their dollars are committed, ours are committed, and we have strong interest from the senior debt side. We can’t lock it down without contracting in place, design and development, and the maximum price guaranteed. We have strong interest from some of the most active lenders in the marketplace, and we’ve all received calls from lenders [showing interest].


Was there anything that ended being a real point of contention with the city?

Quote:
What L.A. did was astute. After narrowing down the 10 or so proposals to four and an RFP, they gave the developers a draft of their proposed developer agreement in contract and all of the respondents had to review, comment and disclose changes they were seeking. Then they had comprehensive presentations from developers with follow-up questions. They notified us on Friday we would be selected, and on Tuesday we testified. It went to the full City Council on Wednesday, so that process was so rapid.

The [typical] period between the award and action could be anywhere between three months to a year, and the time between a selection and official action can be weeks or months. That creates an environment of lobbying and negotiations, but this streamlined it. The City Council ratified it, and the city already understands our comments and are turning around documents already. We’ll probably get paperwork back on Friday or the middle of next week, with red-line changes and comments on our changes.

How did you determine the number of homes — 5 percent — set aside for people making between 80-120 percent of the area median income, and why are there no affordable units below that?

Quote:
We have some room on that, it’s going to depend on financing. We can take that up to a higher level based on the number of units or affordability. There was a minimum threshold, and we wanted to do that.

======================
TRD
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2017, 10:43 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 840
Agree with the suggestions for a spire or crown. Or the top of the tower could just continue to taper to a pointed top, like the "Shard" in London. The tower could easily rise to 1250 feet. Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, would love to see a winged statue, either in the plaza or better yet at the top of the tower and spire/crown. An angel or a winged victory "NIKE" holding aloft a torch that would honor the 2028 Olympics and L.A. as the "City of Angels". Appropriate for "Angels Landing".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Dec 26, 2017, 4:36 PM
Submariner's Avatar
Submariner Submariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,151
You folks should reach out to city stake holders and the developers and give your input. If enough of them see the value in making this a "centerpiece" of their city skyline, they may indeed give it a more fitting hat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2017, 12:28 AM
black_crow's Avatar
black_crow black_crow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
You folks should reach out to city stake holders and the developers and give your input. If enough of them see the value in making this a "centerpiece" of their city skyline, they may indeed give it a more fitting hat.
No, they won't.

I am in contact with McFarlane and also with Handel Architects.

They got a lot of feedback and incorporated it into the design. The Angel Terrace was one of those things.
A statue on top is for sure not part of their concept and a 250 ft. tall crown is also unrealistic.
We are talking about a 1000 ft. tall building. A "real" 250 ft. crown is a big and expensive challenge (due to earthquake proof).

It's about meeting at least the code requirements.

Not even money can help you here and they have to find lenders. Just take a look at this article about the Wilshire Grand Center:


Quote:
At 63, he has helped shape some of the world's most distinguished skyscrapers: the Petronas Towers in Malaysia, Taipei 101 in Taiwan and Shanghai Tower in China.

The New Wilshire Grand, however, proved to be in a class by itself, presenting engineers with unprecedented challenges.

The results doomed the architect's original vision for the top of this soaring edifice: a filigree of steel encased in glass and topped by a spire. Rising 300 feet above the tower, the features — too tall, too light — would never survive those top-floor forces.

On this point, there was no room for debate.
http://graphics.latimes.com/wilshire-grand-earthquakes/

The project is a joint venture between three companies and financing is another challenge. Possible lenders shouldn't be a problem, but Mr. Peebles pointed out that they won't start without a maximum price guaranteed and with everyone being happy.

There are many parties involved. We have a saying in Germany: "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

It will be a long and tough process.
__________________

Real DTLA Development Group
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2018, 9:08 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by black_crow View Post
No, they won't.

I am in contact with McFarlane and also with Handel Architects.

They got a lot of feedback and incorporated it into the design. The Angel Terrace was one of those things.
A statue on top is for sure not part of their concept and a 250 ft. tall crown is also unrealistic.
We are talking about a 1000 ft. tall building. A "real" 250 ft. crown is a big and expensive challenge (due to earthquake proof).

It's about meeting at least the code requirements.

Not even money can help you here and they have to find lenders. Just take a look at this article about the Wilshire Grand Center:




http://graphics.latimes.com/wilshire-grand-earthquakes/

The project is a joint venture between three companies and financing is another challenge. Possible lenders shouldn't be a problem, but Mr. Peebles pointed out that they won't start without a maximum price guaranteed and with everyone being happy.

There are many parties involved. We have a saying in Germany: "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

It will be a long and tough process.
OK--put the winged "angel" or Olympic "goddess" statue in the plaza, not on top of the building, sort of like the "Atlas" statue that Rockefeller Center has in the plaza. But I do think the building needs a spire of some sort, or at least should taper to a point. Flat tops are boring--L.A. has too many. A spire could take the building to 1200 feet or higher. Unlike a crown, spires don't add that much weight and cost but do inspire. What would the Empire State Building be without its "dirigible mast" spire that brings it to 1250'? Incomplete. Spires can be functional (beacons, electronic & communication equipment etc.), but mostly are visual exclamation points & inSPIREational. This building should "go for it"--be the tallest in L.A.!

Last edited by CaliNative; Jan 6, 2018 at 10:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2018, 9:21 PM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 803
^ I agree besides 925 S. Figueroa will beat it if nothing is added (925 S. Figueroa is a more beautiful design even with a flat top in IMO).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2018, 10:19 PM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by CastleScott View Post
^ I agree besides 925 S. Figueroa will beat it if nothing is added (925 S. Figueroa is a more beautiful design even with a flat top in IMO).
I agree. Angels Flight needs some fine tuning to make it more beautiful & architecturally significant. The process is early, so the final product can be hopefully a gem, and with a bit of added height the tallest west of Chicago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2018, 12:25 AM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 803
Quote:
I agree. Angels Flight needs some fine tuning to make it more beautiful & architecturally significant. The process is early, so the final product can be hopefully a gem, and with a bit of added height the tallest west of Chicago.
I agree this can easily be done to be a prettier design and just watching Salesforce go up in SF gives me hope with this project-I even recall Salesforce's concrete core topped off at 970 before the 100ft crown went up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2018, 3:39 AM
Blesha13 Blesha13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90026
Posts: 199
I'm just glad we are getting another tower on Bunker Hill, but I feel like I'm still ungrateful. I really want this to be the next tallest in LA somewhere around 1200'-1300'. Just stick a damn lit spire on it please.
__________________
GO DODGERS! GO LAKERS!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2018, 1:32 PM
The Best Forumer The Best Forumer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,098
Might as well cancel the whole thing... disappointing... but something is better than nothing.
__________________
The suburbs are second-rate. Cookie-cutter houses, treeless yards, mediocre schools, and more crime than you think. Do your family a favor and move closer to the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2018, 7:03 PM
headcheckjj's Avatar
headcheckjj headcheckjj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 81
Two Cal Plaza is 748ft. tall, meaning Angels Landing will be about 200ft. taller, but what is the altitude difference between 2Cal's base on Grand St. and AL's base on Hill?

Is it about 200ft, rendering the two about the same height from afar?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:36 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,719
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.