HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


    Wilshire Grand Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Los Angeles Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Los Angeles Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2011, 4:17 AM
koops65's Avatar
koops65 koops65 is online now
Intergalactic Barfly
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quarks Bar
Posts: 7,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD_Phil View Post
Thanks for posting the pic. I don't normally comment on avatars but....MORN!
Yeah, I'm a big Star Trek fan.
Reading about jumbotrons on the sides of this tower made me think of Blade Runner, so I figured I'd throw up a pic. Flashy ads or not, I think it's going to look fantastic.
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 2:13 AM
misterp misterp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1
The new building doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of downtown, but I actually think that's OK. Los Angeles is known more for its palm trees that its skyscrapers and I don't think the skyline has anything special about it. This could be a move towards giving the skyline a new, distinctive personality.

And anything that takes away from the dreadful Ritz-Carlton/Marriott tower they built last year is OK by me.

/former east-coaster, now living in L.A.
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 2:29 AM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 2,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterp View Post

And anything that takes away from the dreadful Ritz-Carlton/Marriott tower they built last year is OK by me.

/former east-coaster, now living in L.A.
Oh no you di'int!

Kidding, to each his own. I rather like it even though (or maybe because) it looks pregnant from some angles.

I think the sharp lines of Wilshire Grand development complement the rounder forms of Ritz.
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 4:05 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterp View Post
The new building doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of downtown, but I actually think that's OK. Los Angeles is known more for its palm trees that its skyscrapers and I don't think the skyline has anything special about it. This could be a move towards giving the skyline a new, distinctive personality.

And anything that takes away from the dreadful Ritz-Carlton/Marriott tower they built last year is OK by me.

/former east-coaster, now living in L.A.
Welcome to the SSP forum, misterp!

I agree that this tower would change downtown in a big way. Another thing that would help is dumping the helipad ordinance. It could open the doors to more possibilities in tower crowns.

BTW, may I ask which city on the East Coast you lived in?
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 4:46 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California & Texas
Posts: 17,085
Great project, good to see some action. Life goes on.....

...love the lighting.
__________________
'Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f*ck things up' - Barack Obama
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2011, 2:42 AM
mdiederi's Avatar
mdiederi mdiederi is offline
4
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: JT
Posts: 4,933
How is the Grand going to take anything away from the Ritz? The Ritz stands all by itself way to the south, and the Grand will mostly be obscured in a cluster of other buildings.
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 8:48 PM
LosAngelesDreamin LosAngelesDreamin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 335
Yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Welcome to the SSP forum, misterp!

I agree that this tower would change downtown in a big way. Another thing that would help is dumping the helipad ordinance. It could open the doors to more possibilities in tower crowns.

BTW, may I ask which city on the East Coast you lived in?
seriously, they need to remove that helipad requirement rule... Fires break out in other big cities like Chicago, San Francisco and New York and they don't require helipads! Even the smaller city to the south of L.A., San Diego, has an iconic pointy top tallest building, One America Plaza. For those of you who didn't know the helipads are there in case of a fire emergency, NOT EARTHQUAKES! Why would you wanna go to the top of a building during an earthquake right?? hahaha Have they even actually used the helipads for fires yet?? If not then thats so damn pointless.

But really they need to do away with the helipad rule, maybe thats why some developers don't want to build in Los Angeles because design is so limited. Someone needs to bring that up with the City leaders.
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 9:15 PM
djlx2 djlx2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 263
Fires do break out in some buildings frequently. Even if the helipads aren't used when it's burning in there while it's on fire it's useful to think of a helicopter landing. Not that this, makes the helipads necessary to the architecture.
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 9:58 PM
Dwils01's Avatar
Dwils01 Dwils01 is offline
Urban Fanactic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 3,245
Nice proposal for LA, would like to see this one begin construction.
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2011, 2:25 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
If the helipad ordinance is there primarily because of fires, and not earthquakes, then why don't other cities have the ordinance?
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2011, 6:12 AM
djlx2 djlx2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
If the helipad ordinance is there primarily because of fires, and not earthquakes, then why don't other cities have the ordinance?
I'm not sure why they don't, but I know that one of the main reasons it's considered important now isn't necessarily because of fire but the heightened danger of terrorist attacks. There was an article about this and 9/11...
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2011, 6:39 AM
Rail Claimore's Avatar
Rail Claimore Rail Claimore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
If the helipad ordinance is there primarily because of fires, and not earthquakes, then why don't other cities have the ordinance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_I...ate_Tower_fire
__________________
So am I supposed to sign something here?
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2011, 12:36 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,692
The issue has come up a few times...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=186124
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“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.
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2011, 11:09 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail Claimore View Post
Okay, but the reason why Aon Center burned was because it didn't have a sprinkler system.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2011, 6:17 AM
Rail Claimore's Avatar
Rail Claimore Rail Claimore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Okay, but the reason why Aon Center burned was because it didn't have a sprinkler system.
Since when have any laws and ordinances been passed or amended because of reason?
__________________
So am I supposed to sign something here?
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2011, 2:00 AM
LosAngelesDreamin LosAngelesDreamin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by djlx2 View Post
I'm not sure why they don't, but I know that one of the main reasons it's considered important now isn't necessarily because of fire but the heightened danger of terrorist attacks. There was an article about this and 9/11...
Fire or terrorist attack, either way a helipad is still not gonna evacuate enough people in the building... more people got out of the building climbing down the stairwell during 9/11 not being rescued from the roof, i don't think anyone was even rescued by a helicopter during 9/11. LA has the opportunity to build skyscrapers without a helipad but year after year its like "well something might happen this year, no this year, no wait next year, hold on later next year maybe..." so on and so on when LA could've have built buildings without a helipad for years.

Chicago, San Francisco and New York are very well vulnerable to massive fires like in the past and terrorist attacks, yet they don't enforce it, why LA?? LA never had a historic fire in the city like SF in 1906 and Chicago in 1871

iono bout you guys but i wouldnt want to climb to the roof of a skyscraper during a fire, quake or terrorist attack.. i'd rather put an effort to go down the stairwell
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2011, 2:28 AM
djlx2 djlx2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesDreamin View Post
Fire or terrorist attack, either way a helipad is still not gonna evacuate enough people in the building... more people got out of the building climbing down the stairwell during 9/11 not being rescued from the roof, i don't think anyone was even rescued by a helicopter during 9/11. LA has the opportunity to build skyscrapers without a helipad but year after year its like "well something might happen this year, no this year, no wait next year, hold on later next year maybe..." so on and so on when LA could've have built buildings without a helipad for years.

Chicago, San Francisco and New York are very well vulnerable to massive fires like in the past and terrorist attacks, yet they don't enforce it, why LA?? LA never had a historic fire in the city like SF in 1906 and Chicago in 1871

iono bout you guys but i wouldnt want to climb to the roof of a skyscraper during a fire, quake or terrorist attack.. i'd rather put an effort to go down the stairwell
If it's the right staircase, yes, but what if you decide to go down a stairwell, you're looking for the building entrance, you end up underground in the basement and then the building falls in on you and you just get crushed? That happens, people get trapped in earthquakes and fires all the time for not being able to find the doorways.
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2011, 3:31 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,999
What the helicopter pads are actually for is to bring firemen to the top of the building, so that they don't have to climb up however many flights of stairs to get to the source of the fire. The thing is, now the helipads are pointless, as such things as high-speed fire resistant elevators now exist. I heard Los Angeles was in discussions about changing the code.
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2011, 4:16 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by djlx2 View Post
If it's the right staircase, yes, but what if you decide to go down a stairwell, you're looking for the building entrance, you end up underground in the basement and then the building falls in on you and you just get crushed? That happens, people get trapped in earthquakes and fires all the time for not being able to find the doorways.
It would likely be unsafe to land a helicopter on a building that is unstable. And even if it was, smoke from fires would hinder the helicopter's ability to land anyway.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2011, 6:00 AM
djlx2 djlx2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
It would likely be unsafe to land a helicopter on a building that is unstable. And even if it was, smoke from fires would hinder the helicopter's ability to land anyway.
This is only an issue because this is an architecture forum, because this is about aesthetics. It isn't likely unsafe to land a helicopter on an unstable building, it is unsafe, it wouldn't be the best way of saving people from a burning building or from an earthquake but heliports aren't there because it's the best way, they're there because it's a way. Rescuers get injured all the time. People who go on rescue missions get killed all the time, that's why they're "heroes." Architects are about design. In another forum if you talked about earthquakes you'd talk about seismic technology, you'd talk about mitigation, how to get people out of a building before a disaster happened, in another forum if you talked about heliports, if you were talking about terrorists, it would be all about when people wished there was a helicopter. You'd talk about emergencies when people weren't able to get out quick enough when they needed it, because intelligence wasn't quick enough to know it was going to happen, you'd care more about all the times people have died, maybe you'd care about how that would mess up the design and you'd care about the beauty and aesthetics of the building, but that would come second. You'd think about safer ways to get out of the building because you'd care about people, you'd think about eliminating heliports because you care about rescuers getting injured, and rescuers get injured because they do things fast when they're necessary, they don't sit around and think about design. If the city doesn't lift restrictions it's not because they know heliports aren't the best way, that they'll even be the way a rescue happens, it's because they know city damage is in population and aesthetics is secondary. It's because the louder people talk about aesthetics the less they'll listen to those voices, the less they'll trust architects who ask to get heliport restrictions removed just because there's better options. It's just saying that the beauty of the skyline is what comes first, it's not the seismologist saying how it could have been prevented and it's not the pilot saying why it wasn't fast enough, it's saying there should be better-looking ways, instead of enough. I'd trust a skyscraper forum for ideas of beauty. I wouldn't trust it for safety, not when aesthetics come first.
     
     
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 6:12 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.