Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan
it doesn't work that way
|
Why not? Before they put up the John Hancock & Sears (now Willis), nobody thought Chicago would have a 100 story. In the 1950s and early 1960s, nobody thought L.A. would have a 40 story. They were wrong. It got 2 in 1967/68--Conn. General (later Union Bank) & Crocker Citizens Plaza and many more later. In the 1960s nobody thought L.A. would have a 50 story. It got some in the early '70s--ARCO Plaza, Security Pacific (now BA Center), plus the 62 story--United Cal. Bank/1st Interstate (now Aon) and many more later. In the 1970s & early 1980s nobody thought L.A. would have a 70 story tower. It got 2--Library Tower in 1990 (later 1st Interstate and now U.S. Bank) and the Wilshire Grand now. It is time for an 80+, 90+ and 100+. The land costs in DTLA rival Chicago, and a mixed use 100+ would find demand. Say 25 stories of office floors+35 stories of hotel+40 stories of condo/apt. Some retail at the bottom & observation deck + restaurants at the top capped with a tall spire and the building would be the height of the Empire State Building at least and an instant L.A. icon if well designed.
I don't understand all the statements of L.A. not being ready for a 100 floor when there are many cities with much smaller populations around the world that have one or more. Central L.A. has a high population density (above 40,000 people per square mile just west of DTLA) & high land costs & expanding transit infrastructure & the city has 4 million people and it is overdue for a really tall exclamation point on the skyline visible for 50 miles on a clear day. You can see the Willis (Sears) Tower at the Illinois/Wisc. border, or across the lake in Indiana and even southwest Michigan on a really clear day. A 100 story in DTLA could probably be seen from Catalina (at least with binoculars) on a clear day. Lit up at night, it would be beautiful.