HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2101  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 5:43 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Intriguing! The sidewalks need to be wide at that corner to handle the bus crowds. An entry on Wilshire strikes me as ill-conceived, given the traffic and inevitable back-ups. Move the entry to Shatto. No use getting NY style grid-lock if you can avoid it.

Otherwise, clearly an improvement. Hopefully still 25 and 30 stories. A little bit of Seoul, with a nice connection to BH, Century City, Westwood, SM.

Last edited by pesto; Jan 26, 2012 at 5:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2102  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 7:03 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,646
I totally forgot about the bus situation. Perhaps the little car pull-up zone on Wilshire is for buses? That would actually be really great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2103  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 2:42 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,646




The sidewalk is strange, but not necessarily suburban. Look how the grassy spaces are being used as outdoor seating for cafes. It's completely different from anything else in the area, but I think it just might work.

The one thing I don't like is the fact that it has 800 parking spaces for 500 residential units. This is literally across the street from a Metro station, don't forget. Complete overkill.

Also of note, this building is being built without any tax-breaks, signage, or shenanigans, and still manages to 'pencil out'. Take note developers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2104  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 3:21 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,593
not too shabby. i like it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2105  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 7:34 PM
Kingofthehill's Avatar
Kingofthehill Kingofthehill is offline
International
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 4,051
Very Miami in appearance and aesthetic. And in the sheer amount of parking, too, from the looks of things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2106  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 7:44 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Playa del Rey, CA
Posts: 1,702
^ Well, those do look like coconut palms
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2107  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 7:53 PM
DistrictDirt's Avatar
DistrictDirt DistrictDirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 946
Ugh...

Just noticed this car:



...and realized that the entirety of the first 6 floors is podium parking. This is the Solair all over again, just with slightly better camouflage.
__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2108  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 9:23 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Playa del Rey, CA
Posts: 1,702
So long as the podium has an architecturally appropriate facade and retail on the ground level, who cares if it is used for parking?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2109  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 9:34 PM
dachacon dachacon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 148
agreed as long as there is ground floor retail to help sustain a lively street vibe, who cares where and how many parking spaces are in the project. Im all for public transit use (i use it myself), but not everyone is going to want to use the bus and subway network. i actually like that they have alot of parking, it allows for everyone who wants to be in the area get there whether its by car, bus, or rail. besides podium cladding can always be changed. a perfect example of a nice cover up is on 7th and Figueroa, the office building next to Dublin's Irish pub and houses HSBC. sorry i don't have a picture to show. illl try and find one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2110  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2012, 5:19 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Well, I give them an A for drawing and imagination. Gleaming white sidewalks, sun-drenched palms on a northern exposure, tall slim people in suits. If Vermont and Wilshire ever looks even vaguely like that I'll climb the palm trees and pick some coconuts.

But if the Museum Row and Miracle Mile look can be extended to Vermont, so much the better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2111  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2012, 8:52 PM
colemonkee's Avatar
colemonkee colemonkee is offline
Ridin' into the sunset
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: L.A. - Skid row adjacent
Posts: 7,198
That parking podium is no better - and possibly worse - than the one at the Watermarke tower on 9th and Flower, which also has ground floor retail to activate the base. The City really needs to create strict architectural guidelines for above ground parking garages requiring them to have some sort of meaningful facade treatment that adequately disguises the parking aspect while providing adequate ventilation for the garage itself. The parking garage on Spring between 3rd and 4th is a good starting point. Or even the podium on 717 Olympic, which while not the best treatment, at least makes a decent attempt to incorporate the garage into the overall aesthetic of the building (which isn't that good to start with).

This design is embarrassing at best. It's largely open - almost flauntingly so on the sides - and doesn't in any way relate to the aesthetic of the rest of the building. This is clearly where some of the cost savings are taking place, and sitting just above eye level, it will be just as bad of an eyesore on that area as the Watermarke podium is on 9th and Flower.
__________________
"Then each time Fleetwood would be not so much overcome by remorse as bedazzled at having been shown the secret backlands of wealth, and how sooner or later it depended on some act of murder, seldom limited to once."

Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2112  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 8:43 AM
jamesinclair jamesinclair is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingofthehill View Post
Very Miami in appearance and aesthetic. And in the sheer amount of parking, too, from the looks of things.
Exactly what I thought. From the sidewalk, to the grass to the parking to the building itself.

This was originally a Miami proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2113  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 10:30 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by colemonkee View Post
That parking podium is no better - and possibly worse - than the one at the Watermarke tower on 9th and Flower, which also has ground floor retail to activate the base. The City really needs to create strict architectural guidelines for above ground parking garages requiring them to have some sort of meaningful facade treatment that adequately disguises the parking aspect while providing adequate ventilation for the garage itself. The parking garage on Spring between 3rd and 4th is a good starting point. Or even the podium on 717 Olympic, which while not the best treatment, at least makes a decent attempt to incorporate the garage into the overall aesthetic of the building (which isn't that good to start with).

This design is embarrassing at best. It's largely open - almost flauntingly so on the sides - and doesn't in any way relate to the aesthetic of the rest of the building. This is clearly where some of the cost savings are taking place, and sitting just above eye level, it will be just as bad of an eyesore on that area as the Watermarke podium is on 9th and Flower.
Sympathize to some extent; but LA is not NY or Chicago. It's closer to SD, Miami and such in weather and therefore in connection to the outdoors. Most Northern cities are built to exclude the weather since it is usually too cold and the rest of the time too hot and humid.

btw, it could very well be that the density of DT is what caused people to move away. The DT style was not replicated anywhere they moved to, with Westlake, Wilshire, Beverly Center, BH, Westwood, etc., getting dense, but with set-backs and gaps.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2114  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2012, 1:57 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Sympathize to some extent; but LA is not NY or Chicago. It's closer to SD, Miami and such in weather and therefore in connection to the outdoors. Most Northern cities are built to exclude the weather since it is usually too cold and the rest of the time too hot and humid.

btw, it could very well be that the density of DT is what caused people to move away. The DT style was not replicated anywhere they moved to, with Westlake, Wilshire, Beverly Center, BH, Westwood, etc., getting dense, but with set-backs and gaps.
People never lived in downtown L.A. It was always mostly businesses and retail. People always lived in suburbs in L.A. Yes, the suburbs were very urban, but they were suburbs nonetheless. As L.A. grew in size, the suburbs expanded in every direction. As people started living farther and farther from Downtown, they moved farther and farther from the businesses downtown. And so, the businesses downtown moved to the suburbs to be nearer to the people. Moreover, at the time L.A. experienced its biggest growth (1960s), it was extremely car-oriented. The new 'downtown', Wilshire Blvd, was linear because it was oriented to the car. Cars could drive in a straight line all the way across 'downtown'. Historic DTLA was decidedly not car oriented, and as such was becoming more and more 'antiquated'. This was also a time when history was not respected, and everything new and modern was in vogue. Wilshire was new and modern. Downtown was 'antiquated'. As such, guess what was more favored? Wilshire.

You are absolutely correct on the part about L.A.s weather affecting architecture. L.A. is unique in that it is one of the few cities to have its own architectural style, California Modernism. This style takes advantage of the weather of L.A. by making the transition from outdoors to indoors as seamless as possible. This was done by making low, long buildings, glass walls and sliding doors so that it seems like the outdoors and indoors are one, and heavy use of natural materials. It truly is a beautiful architectural style, and many consider it to be the last beautiful architectural style. Some examples:





Park Fifth was based off of this design, with the sliding doors and large balconies. I wish every day that those towers were built....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2115  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2012, 7:16 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
A nice discussion and I generally agree. The people who moved to the westside (or eastside or valley, etc.) could have built a new downtown in the Bway style, but went for other styles, mostly lower rise and with set-backs, which are actuall more appropriate for the climate. Same things when Bunker Hill went from residential to commercial; however, they failed to provide retail, food, and other amenities. It wasn't until South Park and the new Jtown that the new LA urban style is catching on. Wilshire has had similar for many years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2116  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 5:55 AM
all of the trash all of the trash is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Koreatown
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Sympathize to some extent; but LA is not NY or Chicago. It's closer to SD, Miami and such in weather and therefore in connection to the outdoors.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. LA did develop around the suburb and it is true that some architectural flourishes in new development are in line with San Diego and Miami. But Los Angeles has a density that far outweighs those cities and approaches a 10,000/sq mi when you factor out the Santa Monica mountains and the Hollywood hills and so it had to deal demographically, politically and economically with issues that older more mature cities face. Hence while LA may seem like Miami and sd on the surface, it has the grit, wear and tear of older cities. It's precisely this crowded sense of space and tension that should be informing developers and architects who are building for LA. Crowded space means community is important that's why I cant stand these towers that are elevated on podiums, essentially removing the structure from the street and creating a suburb-in-the-sky effect. Space is an illusion in LA. One that is as exacerbated by our mild climate. We succumb to car culture and parking requirements, so your suggestion that architecture in LA reflects our sunny climate is suspect for this very bit of reality: we have gorgeous weather but most of us want to be inside our cars. Um hello!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2117  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 7:12 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by all of the trash View Post
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. LA did develop around the suburb and it is true that some architectural flourishes in new development are in line with San Diego and Miami. But Los Angeles has a density that far outweighs those cities and approaches a 10,000/sq mi when you factor out the Santa Monica mountains and the Hollywood hills and so it had to deal demographically, politically and economically with issues that older more mature cities face. Hence while LA may seem like Miami and sd on the surface, it has the grit, wear and tear of older cities. It's precisely this crowded sense of space and tension that should be informing developers and architects who are building for LA. Crowded space means community is important that's why I cant stand these towers that are elevated on podiums, essentially removing the structure from the street and creating a suburb-in-the-sky effect. Space is an illusion in LA. One that is as exacerbated by our mild climate. We succumb to car culture and parking requirements, so your suggestion that architecture in LA reflects our sunny climate is suspect for this very bit of reality: we have gorgeous weather but most of us want to be inside our cars. Um hello!?
Miami and SD don't have grit? The gaslamp district was whores and heroin 30years ago. Miami's slums are straight 3rd world.

But this is not about density; it's about climate. You can crowd people in hot cities as well as cold ones. But the point of architecture in colder cities is to conserve heat and minimize time outside. Cities with mild climates (LA, SD, Honolulu, etc.) open to the outdoors because it is preferable to being crowded indoors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2118  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2012, 6:39 AM
strange_brew strange_brew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3
I have a question directed towards anyone knowledgeable with the fiscal aspects of development in Los Angeles. It's self evident that L.A. is built out horizontally and for the past 10 or 15 years there's been a dearth of new housing supply. Land prices are high. Current stock prices are high. Shoddy dingbats from the 70's and 80's command prices in the 3 or 400$/sq. ft. range in certain areas. Yet currently, all that seems to be proposed and built are wood framed building 5-7 stories tall. I understand that wood frame construction is significantly less expensive than steel or concrete, but by how much on a cost per sq. ft. basis? With land prices being what they are, would the economies of scale gained by building taller justify the increased construction costs? How can cities like Miami and Chicago build tall and sell in the $300/sq. ft. range, but Los Angeles Can't? Is it a confluence of zoning, litigation, and funding keeping builders on the sideline?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2119  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2012, 6:49 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by strange_brew View Post
I have a question directed towards anyone knowledgeable with the fiscal aspects of development in Los Angeles. It's self evident that L.A. is built out horizontally and for the past 10 or 15 years there's been a dearth of new housing supply. Land prices are high. Current stock prices are high. Shoddy dingbats from the 70's and 80's command prices in the 3 or 400$/sq. ft. range in certain areas. Yet currently, all that seems to be proposed and built are wood framed building 5-7 stories tall. I understand that wood frame construction is significantly less expensive than steel or concrete, but by how much on a cost per sq. ft. basis? With land prices being what they are, would the economies of scale gained by building taller justify the increased construction costs? How can cities like Miami and Chicago build tall and sell in the $300/sq. ft. range, but Los Angeles Can't? Is it a confluence of zoning, litigation, and funding keeping builders on the sideline?
I'm not quite sure either. However, I know that, in the next year, at least ten apartment buildings with concrete construction will by underway in L.A. My guess is developers were simply hesitant because of the economy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2120  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2012, 7:24 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,593
i think parking minimums are a huge hindrance. Also the economic collapse of the last few years didnt help much. However, as Illithid dude points out, 2012 will see a slew of new projects.
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 > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:48 PM.

     

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