HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive

    

Wilshire Grand Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Los Angeles Skyscraper Diagram
Los Angeles Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2010, 7:37 PM
OneWorldTradeCenter's Avatar
OneWorldTradeCenter OneWorldTradeCenter is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Renningen, Germany
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by pablosan View Post
It would be an incredible addition to the Los Angeles skyline, if built.
I agree. The US in general need more supertalls and modern highrise architecture that provide modern office space to potential tenants. Its not only an architectural question, its also an economic question.
__________________
One World Trade Center= the best skyscraper in the world and the tallest in the Western Hemisphere
All the way with LBJ
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2010, 11:34 PM
Rail Claimore's Avatar
Rail Claimore Rail Claimore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 6,215
Maybe it's just me, but I think the concept of a spire on the side or corner of a building like that is kind of tacky. I'm excited at the real possibility of LA getting another supertall and a new tallest, but they can surely come up with a better top than that for such a massing.
__________________
So am I supposed to sign something here?
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2010, 3:25 AM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 2,715
^Even though I agree, I'm definitely in the "beggars can't be choosers" camp about this. Tiny little side spire be damned, I'd just be happy if this means the economic conditions in downtown LA have improved to the point where a project like this is viable.
__________________
Consumer Ethic:
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
-------------------
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/preppy381
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2010, 5:06 AM
Dylan Leblanc's Avatar
Dylan Leblanc Dylan Leblanc is offline
Website Manager
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,352
really, I would rather see the office space in this tower split between two smaller towers, say in the 40 to 50 storey range. the downtown skyline doesn't need a new tallest, especially one as lumpy looking as this. Library Tower is just fine as the tallest building
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2010, 5:15 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,926
^ Why not have a new tallest? The US Bank is beautiful and all, but does it need to be the center of focus on Downtown?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail Claimore View Post
Maybe it's just me, but I think the concept of a spire on the side or corner of a building like that is kind of tacky. I'm excited at the real possibility of LA getting another supertall and a new tallest, but they can surely come up with a better top than that for such a massing.
One reason why I think the helipad ordinance pad should be removed.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2010, 11:29 AM
Dylan Leblanc's Avatar
Dylan Leblanc Dylan Leblanc is offline
Website Manager
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,352
Yes, the US Bank Tower should remain the tallest downtown, it is a very well designed tower. This new proposal isn't.
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2010, 8:16 PM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 2,715
That tower is more than two decades old. I'm not one to quibble here. Wilshire Grand isn't ugly by any stretch and it's significantly taller than anything in the state (for now). Why not build it if the economic conditions justify it?
__________________
Consumer Ethic:
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
-------------------
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/preppy381
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2010, 6:35 AM
sw5710 sw5710 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,517
Does anyone know if the 1250 foot # is from the ground or above sea level?
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2010, 7:54 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,735
its from the ground. Downtown LA is probably somewhere around 500 feet above sea level
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2010, 9:28 AM
sw5710 sw5710 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,517
Google earth shows about 300 above sea level.
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2010, 8:08 PM
Just-In-Cali's Avatar
Just-In-Cali Just-In-Cali is offline
Urbanite in Suburbia
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles Metro
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by sw5710 View Post
Does anyone know if the 1250 foot # is from the ground or above sea level?
Yeah..according to the diagrams a few pages back and a facts sheet from the city, the taller tower will rise to 1090' to the roofline. Then the parapet and spire will bring the overall height to 1250'. So its supertall no matter how its measured. US Bank will still have more floors, but structurally shorter on all counts. And I like that US Bank would have a counterpart anchoring the southern end of the skyline. Some of the most famous skylines have at least two large towers spaced apart, like sentinals. ESB and Chrysler, Sears Twr and John Hancock and, hell even Houston and Boston and Philly have a similar profile. And looking at pictures of how the skyline would be massed with the tower from many angles, it actually looks rather impressive. Not to mention we would finally be the third metropolis in the US with two or more supertalls. Then figure in the at least 4 more large towers proposed, and suddenly all the years of people trashing on our skyline would be hard pressed to say much.
__________________
Blue State Heaven
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2010, 8:41 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali View Post
Yeah..according to the diagrams a few pages back and a facts sheet from the city, the taller tower will rise to 1090' to the roofline. Then the parapet and spire will bring the overall height to 1250'. So its supertall no matter how its measured. US Bank will still have more floors, but structurally shorter on all counts. And I like that US Bank would have a counterpart anchoring the southern end of the skyline. Some of the most famous skylines have at least two large towers spaced apart, like sentinals. ESB and Chrysler, Sears Twr and John Hancock and, hell even Houston and Boston and Philly have a similar profile. And looking at pictures of how the skyline would be massed with the tower from many angles, it actually looks rather impressive. Not to mention we would finally be the third metropolis in the US with two or more supertalls. Then figure in the at least 4 more large towers proposed, and suddenly all the years of people trashing on our skyline would be hard pressed to say much.
The Wilshire Grand project would actually be on the western side of downtown. Right up against the 110 freeway.
__________________
Washed Out
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2010, 11:09 PM
sw5710 sw5710 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali View Post
Yeah..according to the diagrams a few pages back and a facts sheet from the city, the taller tower will rise to 1090' to the roofline. Then the parapet and spire will bring the overall height to 1250'. So its supertall no matter how its measured. US Bank will still have more floors, but structurally shorter on all counts. And I like that US Bank would have a counterpart anchoring the southern end of the skyline. Some of the most famous skylines have at least two large towers spaced apart, like sentinals. ESB and Chrysler, Sears Twr and John Hancock and, hell even Houston and Boston and Philly have a similar profile. And looking at pictures of how the skyline would be massed with the tower from many angles, it actually looks rather impressive. Not to mention we would finally be the third metropolis in the US with two or more supertalls. Then figure in the at least 4 more large towers proposed, and suddenly all the years of people trashing on our skyline would be hard pressed to say much.
Hey thanks: I just went back and looked at the diagrams 1090' above the ground roof. And 1250' above the ground total. WOW!.
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2010, 12:09 AM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 2,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
http://dlanc.com/planning/aa-hearing...grand-project/

AA Hearing Re: Wilshire Grand Project


WHERE: LA City Hall – 200 North Spring Street – Room 1020 – Los Angeles, CA 90012

WHEN: WEDNESDAY – NOVEMBER 3, 2010 – 10:00 AM

PUBLIC HEARING OF CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ADVISORY AGENCY/HEARING OFFICER

PROJECT NAME: Wilshire Grand Redevelopment
.
So the public hearing for this was three weeks ago. Anyone go? Anyone have any news? I know there have been a few skyscrapers proposed for DTLA since I've been a member that never materialized (City House + The Olympic, Grand Ave, numerous others) but I'm excited about this one (Grand Ave too if it ever goes through).
__________________
Consumer Ethic:
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
-------------------
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/preppy381
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2010, 1:46 AM
Just-In-Cali's Avatar
Just-In-Cali Just-In-Cali is offline
Urbanite in Suburbia
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles Metro
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeHundred View Post
The Wilshire Grand project would actually be on the western side of downtown. Right up against the 110 freeway.
You are very correct, I was refering to its greatest distance from the US Bank tower would be to the south/southwest. Seen from the east or west, it would prominantly jut into the sky towards the southern end of the primary massing of towers downtown.
__________________
Blue State Heaven
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2010, 12:34 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD_Phil View Post
So the public hearing for this was three weeks ago. Anyone go? Anyone have any news?
I didn't go, but from what I understand, Korean Air/Thomas Properties is seeking a tax break for the project.

(look a little more than halfway through the article)
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/1...s_to_break.php

Quote:
I know there have been a few skyscrapers proposed for DTLA since I've been a member that never materialized (City House + The Olympic, Grand Ave, numerous others) but I'm excited about this one (Grand Ave too if it ever goes through).
City House + The Olympic/Titan Project and Grand Ave will probably happen, but I have a feeling they won't start until the economic downturn is behind us. Although getting Eli Broad to put his art collection across the street from the Walt Disney Hall isn't a bad start. Not to mention the Civic Park is already under-construction.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2010, 6:59 PM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 2,715
^Thanks for the links JDR. I'm a little surprised to hear your opinion over City House and The Olympic. My impression was that those were long dead, buried, exhumed, cremated, and then spread over the ocean.

They were an interesting pair at least.
__________________
Consumer Ethic:
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
-------------------
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/preppy381
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 5:43 PM
Lovetowers Lovetowers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 34
I dunno about the design, I mean hopefully they alter it a little . In my opinion the tallest building in the city is more then likely going to be the iconic building for the city that is unless something taller gets built. New York City had 3 Empire State Bldg and the twins now 1wtc. I just feel if LA is going to get a new "supertall" it should be something that is at least a little bit more exciting . . . again just my opinion
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 6:04 PM
mdiederi's Avatar
mdiederi mdiederi is offline
4
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: JT
Posts: 4,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeHundred View Post
The Wilshire Grand project would actually be on the western side of downtown. Right up against the 110 freeway.
The Wedbush building is in between the site and the 110, but this thing will dominate.
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 9:13 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD_Phil View Post
^Thanks for the links JDR. I'm a little surprised to hear your opinion over City House and The Olympic. My impression was that those were long dead, buried, exhumed, cremated, and then spread over the ocean.

They were an interesting pair at least.
Well, so i've been told by LA forumers, the 62 and 49 story towers was the old design of the project. I think the new design calls for twin 60 story towers.

Link to developer's website (1st and 5th slides):

http://www.robertsonpartners.net/ResComMixUse.htm
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:37 PM.

     

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