LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[SoCalKid]

My vote is also Macfarlane. Although I think they should tweak the elevated plaza to make it at grade with the existing cal plaza. It doesn't look like that's currently the case.

[caligrad]

IF we're being honest, in true LA fashion, the first one, design wise, seems the most realistic because its really....Simple. It looks like a taller, more modern version of the NYC Metlife/Pan Am building. But its functionality is a little on the questionable side. I'm all for an urban campus but I don't see it happening on this scale. Atleast not in LA. I know theres the USC tower down in South Park, but that was created in an already built/repurposed tower. Building a brand new building for that purpose seems...unnecessary.

I honestly hate Onnis stacked Jenga boxes that have been redone time and time and time again. One of the first proposals for the new world trade center in NY was something that looked similar to this....15 years later. NO. Onni needs to rethink their direction, design wise, going further.

The Last is honestly the only one that's visually ok and actually makes sense (minus the K-5 School, that's not needed but probably a way to persuade the city), I wouldn't be mad if they added some creative office space somewhere. I mean, its sitting right on top of a rail stop. But, as someone else said, this IS MacFarlanes proposal. IF they really wanted to go big, they could have with Park Fifth, on land that is by far less challenging. Unless theres a clause that says they cant change designs once they are picked, I foresee them dropping the smaller tower and reducing the overall buildings height by at least 200 feet, if not more. But I do like how at 1000 ft. The tower still appears shorter than the US bank. It will keep the skyline from looking weird.

If Onni was the one attached to the 3rd design. I would actually be excited. As of right now. I'm a little blah. They all dropped the ball and for way different reasons.

P.S. Anyone else notice how MacFarlanes proposal looks like a more modern, rehashed version of the original Park Fifth proposal ? sky bridge and all.

[Doctorboffin]

I love the first one. Also the building boom bringing UCLA downtown would cause would be insane. Plus since it doesn’t inlcude any hotels or residential units it would force developers to build more towers.

The base is a bit bulky and I could go for more height, but the cladding and almost Art Deco aesthetics make it the best IMO.

[sopas ej]

Being that I'm a huge fan of Angels Flight, as well as attending concerts at the California Plaza for Grand Performances, apart from the design of the building, I'm more curious to see how these different designs interface with Angels Flight at the top and with California Plaza, as well as the streets.

These images from Curbed LA show that somewhat, but only for the Onni design:

[The Best Forumer]

This should be a nice addition.

[circuitfiend]

So is Onni's proposal supposed to be their homage to Gehry? His design is very cubey for Bunker Hill. Gehry has apparently inspired more cubes for our future.

[ThebiteofSuarez]

After looking at the designs more carefully, I think the one I dig the most is the UCLA tower. It has a very nice design, with contrasting materials, open space on multiple levels, it integrates the Metro station entrance into it's design, and that continuous uninterrupted south tower face combines the vertical component to the horizontal. My big issue is that solid facade facing Grand Central Market, which alienates that street frontage. I wouldn't have an issue with the podium having a facade similar to the 4th Street side.

Onni's tower design is just bad. They don't take into consideration the existing tower architecture BUT I do like their connection between California Plaza to Grand Central Market via that staircase, which is similar to the Spanish Steps. I really like the street connection in this one.

The McFarlane one I'm mixed on. I'm meh on the tower design but it is too abrupt in how in the skyline hierarchy, it is pretty much a huge wall marking the boundary of Bunker Hill and the Historic Core. The street connection I'm not too sure how to describe, but it seems too multi-level rather than a flowing circulation pathway that is done in Onni's design or even in the UCLA one. The tower design on this one seems too generic, like a tacky imitation of the Leadenhall Building in London. I would like to see the UCLA tower with a 1000 foot height.

[ArquitectoMontenegro]

Isn't Times Mirror Square supposedly also "Jenga Blocky?" With Frank Gehry's towers nearby (also cantilevered and offset blocky masses)--another Jenga Block Onni tower is overkill! All three of those developments would dominate the south/south-eastern view and I feel like they should all look as different as possible.

I could see Onni's proposal get value engineered to smaller cantilevers and become even more rectilinear and boring, then it will look like just a bigger version of Ten50 by Trumark.

Of the 3, MacFarlane is the most aesthetically pleasing but it also has a similar profile to the Wilshire Grand (minus the spire): straight on one side, gradual slope on the other side, and uses those over-extended glass curtain walls.

The UCLA downtown campus concept is cool, but also borrowing from a tired trend with all the asymmetrical cut-outs and the gradient paneling that appears to follow no logical progression. It's also incredibly massive, what a rude neighbor. I like the circulation at the podium level though, but the podium itself is not too attractive. Something this massive should be original and not a regurgitation of current trends.

I was really eager to see MAD architect's porposal--I guess they bowed out?

These three proposals are not iconic at all--the city should reject all of them.

[hughfb3]

My vote is for #3 MacFarlane/Claridge/Peebles Partners. This is the only one that has come forth with solid vendors; SBE for hotels and the charter school operated by Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprises. Downtown needs a competitive K-5 school especially with downtown’s potential for raising families. I also love the way that this tower is slender enough not to block the Cal Plaza view in the skyline from the east. It also looks like this proposal has an upper cal plaza connection and a lower plaza with the metro.

Side note, although I didn’t like that MacFarlane went mid rise with the Park fifth site; I realize that on that project, they developed it by themselves. With this project, they have partners and so it’s like 3 major companies co-signing on a project. I completely forgot that MacFarlane was a developing partner with AEG on the LA Live JW/Ritz tower. MacFarlane seems to work well in cooperation and this would be the equivalent of that project. Also SBE owns both the SLS and Mondrian brands and have been insistent on a project downtown after their fallout with related on the grand avenue project.

My thoughts on the 1st proposal by Lowe Enterprises: UCLA has stated they haven’t said anything about this project. This project hasn’t cleared with Them, they aren’t on board so we don’t know for sure if they would be really committed to this proposal or if the developers are sort of just throwing that out there as a possibility. Also, I love the material use of Terra Cotta, but I don’t like how massive the tower is, how it blocks all view of Cal Plaza 2 from many vantage points. As someone said above “it’s a rude neighbor.”

I would be down with Onni though, they get ish done!

[NYC2ATX]

I must say, I'm most partial to the Gensler design for several reasons (something I never thought I'd say), mostly because I like the other two far less.

The Onni proposal could be saved by an expertly and dynamically designed facade system that evokes mid-century modernism, but that's a long shot, having seen the value-engineered facades of their other projects. Not so bad for a 20- or even 40-story building, but not so great at all for an 840-foot landmark tower.

The Handel design, honestly, looks like it was designed by CGI animators for Stark Enterprises. It needs a lot of refinement, and while the green space facing out to 4th and Hill looks lovely, I don't like how there's literally a blank wall abutting the Angel's Flight track.

I know the Gensler design doesn't do a great job of embracing the AF either, but there's clearly a mindfulness of the activity nodes at the base, urban streetwalls, and the brown terracotta is going to do an excellent job of accenting both the older Bunker Hill office towers and the newer glass facades of recent constructions.

Also, anyone getting major pre-recession Park Fifth vibes from the Onni design?

[hughfb3]

I’m looking at each proposal for more than just what they look like and who their architects are. LA city will be judging by more than aesthetic. They will be looking at the proposal from a visual, who is behind each, their experience, and what they bring to the table based on the guidelines the city provided

The first proposal is by Lowe Enterprises. They are locally based in LA which is a plus. They’ve built nice projects throughout the city including one in the arts district. They’ve never done a project of this scale before and as of now are the only developers attached to their proposal. There is minimal community aspect in this other than UCLA which isn’t a solid.



Onni has a nice interaction with the Street which is a plus and they also are already huge landlords and developers with deep pockets and an ability to execute... even if it means cutting costs. They have expertise with projects of this size; how to logistically deal with the city, and the know how to make it happen. This project lags in the part where the city asked for a community benefit. This project so far only benefits Onni.



Claridge/Peebles/MacFarlane collectively have experience in projects of this magnitude and scale. They have private operators already on board and have the community aspect with the added bonus of a school. Peebles is a developer based in DC with projects throughout the east coast including NYC. Claridge is a private investment firm. MacFarlane is based in SF, CA and already does work in LA with huge projects like LA Live and park 5th, so they know how to handle.
This proposal has 3 heads working together and so far have come with the most detailed proposal out of the 3 that includes all that the city asked and more.

[CaliNative]

Height of MacFarlane is a plus. Would like to see a spire, bringing final height to perhaps Empire State Building-like 1250 feet. Would also like to see some retro design features, perhaps Art Deco. This would make the building a bridge between the older historic district on Broadway/Spring and the modern towers to the west.

As a UCLA alum, maybe MacFarlane could talk UCLA into taking up some of the footage for a downtown campus. Maybe even put UCLA logo on top like the other proposal. UCLA should have a presence downtown.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

New Nordstrom Rack opens this week in Downtown LA!

Take a peek inside.

http://brighamyen.com/2017/10/24/new...h-downtown-la/

[Jun]

delete

[black_crow]

Originally Posted by JerellO

MACFarland hands down.

MacFarlane Partners, I agree. I like the design and it would be another supertall skyscraper.

Too bad that the Onni Group didn't work with Handel Architects and Olin. They would get it done in no time.
It would be a disappointment if Gensler or Kilograph make it.

We will know more in November.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

I love the first one. Also the building boom bringing UCLA downtown would cause would be insane. Plus since it doesn’t inlcude any hotels or residential units it would force developers to build more towers.

The base is a bit bulky and I could go for more height, but the cladding and almost Art Deco aesthetics make it the best IMO.

i love the bulkiness and how it doesn't taper the skyline or try to transition it to the low/midrise a block over. i love the way it connects to the existing plaza and the AF. i also agree that it would be wonderful to get a UCLA tower down there - imagine how much all the people living/working/attending classes there would liven up the area and promote further development. plus, as you say, it doesn't add hotel or (we think) condo, and possibly no new office space beyond UCLA's needs, so it doesn't reduce demand at all downtown. and the brown/rust color would look great on the LA skyline to break up the monotony.

build it, i say!

[Illithid Dude]

All I'm saying is I would feel SIGNIFICANTLY different about the Gensler proposal if the podium didn't look like a giant blank box.

[surfnspy]

The Gensler Tower is awful. Just imagine being on Hill looking up at that monolithic terra-cotta red oppressive wall. The circulation plan provided shows just how convoluted the pedestrian access is--literally corkscrew to get thru the building. It's an urban nightmare of the Pan Am NY sort. This is a billion dollar project, does a public university seem like the sort that is going to float this? Nah. Not a chance. If UCLA wants a skyline presence it is not going to be in a Class A brand new building.

The Omni towers have one redeeming quality--respect for the Angel's Flight Rail Line. The large central stairway is a nice connection, but it's ALL STAIRS. Not a tree or shrub in site. And rather than the spanish steps, I feel like it is without a lot of thought. Obviously it could be improved. But those towers--I am sick of offset mass gimmick. They are unsettling to look at--defying gravity is not a feeling you want to fiddle with in earthquake prone L.A. You can tell me they are stable, but don't make me live on the 50th floor. And then they feel so monotonous and bland and in the end, dull.

The Final presentation is the most interesting with the exception of the poor consideration of AF. It's just shoved aside and put behind a wall. Now I suppose it could be moved. Is that taboo? But could it be incorporated into the central plaza which Olin seems to have paid a lot of attention to? Nice terraces and connection.

I DO wish the tower had a spire. I throw one up on photoshop, but I still don't know how to post pictures here. I don't know why it's so difficult!

[112597jorge]

If there vertical bands of glass that run up the sides of the macfarland tower tapered to a triangle top and was finished off with a spire it would be perfect.

Also the "champagne" color of the tower reminds me of renderings of the ping an tower in Shenzhen and the triangle top plus spire of the ping an original plan is what I wish they would do to this.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

All I'm saying is I would feel SIGNIFICANTLY different about the Gensler proposal if the podium didn't look like a giant blank box.

Exactly. I like the tower portion a LOT. My problem is the bottom half. The bulky boxes stacked on top of each other is NOT needed. Its as if Gensler looked at Macys massive fortress downtown and said " Oh, we can do that bigger and more modern and use similar colors while we're at it"........NO. Get rid of the boxes, take the tower portion all the way down to street level and add another tower or midrise for faculty housing. EASY fix. But I feel Gensler is hiding a LOT of parking in the podium box things.