LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

Changing the subject, did you all hear that the Angel Knoll site has basically unlimited height approved (13:1 ratio)?

This means that theoretically it could become the tallest building in L.A.

Yeah. A 900 footer there could actually appear to be the tallest there because of the height boost of Bunker Hill.

[112597jorge]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

Yeah. A 900 footer there could actually appear to be the tallest there because of the height boost of Bunker Hill.

I doubt it, cal 3 was +900' and it seemed level to cal plaza 2 which is 745', since cp3 was planned near the bottom of the hill with a much lower elevation. So if this tower is planned at the lower end then it will have to be officially the tallest by a couple hundred feet to roof height to appear tallest, that being said I hope it's a true new tallest for the city regardless where the base of the tower is. 400m is what I'm wishing for, let's hope the Chinese make a splash.

[colemonkee]

We'll just have to wait to see what those developer proposals are before we jump to conclusions. The RFP requires public space to be integrated, which will limit the floor area of any buildings, but it's up to the developer to program the site. The site has a pretty dramatic elevation change from Olive to Hill (100-150 ft?), so it could end up looking very tall in the skyline or not tall at all. We'll just have to wait and see.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

^ It's not an ignorant statement. It's a factually correct statement. Proportional to population and the number of existing housing units, Seattle is currently building a higher percentage of new housing units than LA, and significantly so. The stats in the Reddit article aren't exclusive to the downtown area.

That doesn't mean much though - - Seattle's housing supply is a fraction of LA's. It's easier to grow percentage-wise from a smaller base.

DTLA could double the amount of housing units under construction in the next few years (a distinct possibility) and still do worse than Seattle proportionally. Doesn't mean I'd trade shoes with Seattle.

[JiminyCricket II]

Originally Posted by LA21st

So a Seattle former recently said since 2011, Downtown Seattle's had 19 buildings break ground over 398 ft.

Going off that chart, Downtown LA has had 13 over 398 ft since 2013. It should pass 19 some time in 2017.

You always hear about Seattle booming, but downtown LA has been more impressive in the last two years.

Those numbers cant be right, Seattle has 18 projects over 300' under construction right now. All but a couple are 440' and above. Since 2011, I'd guess it's 35ish towers break ground.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

That doesn't mean much though - - Seattle's housing supply is a fraction of LA's. It's easier to grow percentage-wise from a smaller base.

DTLA could double the amount of housing units under construction in the next few years (a distinct possibility) and still do worse than Seattle proportionally. Doesn't mean I'd trade shoes with Seattle.

I would. I hate that downtown is the only place that allows any housing supply growth. It's terrible for us and not a means of producing affordably housing and moderating rents.

[scania]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I would. I hate that downtown is the only place that allows any housing supply growth. It's terrible for us and not a means of producing affordably housing and moderating rents.

So you are saying you would rather trade shoes with Seattle?

[Quixote]

Why are we talking about Seattle and why does it matter whether or not Seattle is building more than LA? For fuck's sake, can we just drop it?

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Why are we talking about Seattle and why does it matter whether or not Seattle is building more than LA? For fuck's sake, can we just drop it?

Because it highlights how insane our local governance is as we should be building a shit load of more housing than them...

[scania]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Why are we talking about Seattle and why does it matter whether or not Seattle is building more than LA? For fuck's sake, can we just drop it?

I agree...there are some on here that rarely have anything positive to say about LA. If they do, it's always some negative remark at the end. Let's be frank, Seattle is no LA. There some in the country who woul dream to live there. But it doesn't hold a candle to LA. The next time you are in Dallas, NYC, Chicago, etc. and you here someone saying Oh ever since I was in college, I've wanted to live in Seattle. Lol. You should run!

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

Changing the subject, did you all hear that the Angel Knoll site has basically unlimited height approved (13:1 ratio)?

This means that theoretically it could become the tallest building in L.A.

Keep Related and Frank Gehry away!

[Doctorboffin]

^ Damn right! We need Palmer to get on it!

[cesar90]

• Video Link

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by scania

I agree...there are some on here that rarely have anything positive to say about LA. If they do, it's always some negative remark at the end. Let's be frank, Seattle is....

The pomp, circumstance, and pageantry that surrounds the Rose Bowl is well documented, but until experiencing it on Monday, I truly did not have an appreciation for the spectacle of the event.

USC’s thrilling 52-49 win over Penn State Monday in the Rose Bowl may be considered the greatest version in the 103-year history of the “Granddaddy of Them All,” but it is still hard to believe that I was fortunate enough to be there.

I landed at LAX Saturday morning and had a weekend full of events planned leading up to the Rose Bowl.

Seeing Disneyland in Anaheim and going to an L.A. Kings NHL game at the Staples Center on New Year’s Eve were unique, and the L.A. Rams NFL game at the Coliseum on Sunday on USC’s campus was different.

Attending the Penn State pep rally at L.A. Live, the entertainment complex in downtown Los Angeles, was an eye-opener as it was only then that I realized how many Penn State fans actually made the trip.

After grabbing dinner with…a high school classmate…Hollywood was the next stop and it provided several hours of entertainment.

Experiencing the Rose Parade live gave the event a different meaning. Having seen it for years on TV, it was not until Monday that I was able to appreciate how detailed the floats are, and TV truly does them no justice.

I had been to the Rose Bowl for a tour in 2014, but being there with 95,000 people is something that I will never forget. The energy in the stadium was electric, and with USC’s campus being 17 miles from the Rose Bowl, the crowd was obviously predominantly Trojans fans. Nonetheless, I would venture to guess that there were at least 30,000 Penn State fans there.

Watching the game on TV all these years, I always thought it was cool seeing the game start in daylight and ending at night. Witnessing the slow change was breathtaking, and there truly was a “big game” feel all night long.

Yough athletic director Tom Evans was at the event, and he shared his feelings. “I have been to numerous big sporting events and many famous stadiums,” said Evans, who is known for going to sporting events when his schedule permits. “And this Rose Bowl is the best game I have been to and the most amazing event that I have experienced.”

I was at LA Live a bit before xmas, which made me think of the difference between the past & today. The combination of the ice rink & quite a few visitors there on that evening was another reminder of how different dt is in 2016-2017 compared with a time when that area was a huge parking lot. Also saw a movie...the new star wars one...at the nearby Regal & thought of the time when that entire area was very desolate...deserted....at night. I can hardly wait until the lot across Olympic blvd & the jumble of the medical bldgs to the north of that are filled in with a counterpart to Metropolis.

The best is yet to come!

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Because it highlights how insane our local governance is as we should be building a shit load of more housing than them...

Can we just collectively agree that more (urban, high density) housing everywhere is good, and the entirety of the west coast could use even more than all the new housing it is currently getting (which isn't a small amount.)

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

Changing the subject, did you all hear that the Angel Knoll site has basically unlimited height approved (13:1 ratio)?

This means that theoretically it could become the tallest building in L.A.

Sounds like the perfect place for a 100+ story multiuse--office/condos/hotel/retail. L.A. has 4 million people, Chicago about 2.5 million, yet Chicago has 2 100s stories and a few 80-100. L.A. has nothing above 73 stories. About time to play catchup.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by calinative

sounds like the perfect place for a 100+ story multiuse--office/condos/hotel/retail. L.a. Has 4 million people, chicago about 2.5 million, yet chicago has 2 100s stories and a few 80-100. L.a. Has nothing above 73 stories. About time to play catchup.

it doesn't work that way

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Sounds like the perfect place for a 100+ story multiuse--office/condos/hotel/retail. L.A. has 4 million people, Chicago about 2.5 million, yet Chicago has 2 100s stories and a few 80-100. L.A. has nothing above 73 stories. About time to play catchup.

San Jose also has a larger population than San Francisco yet their skyline has nothing higher than 27 floors.

[CaliNative]

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.

[BrandonJXN]

Chicago built the Sears Tower because it wanted to consolidate all of it's offices (which were scattered all over the city) into one central location. Keep in mind that Sears Roebuck was (at the time) the largest retailer in the world with over 350k employees so it was a necessity. Fast forward a couple of decades and Sears is falling further an further downhill. I live across the street from a Sears store and I haven't been inside one since my grandmother brought me a pair of Bugle Boy pants when I was like 10.

In the US, there are only 4 buildings with 100+ stories. Sears (I refuse to call it Willis), John Hancock, One World Trade, and the Empire State Building. Skyscrapers are fine and dandy only if the situation calls for it. London has a population around 8 million but just one supertall that the US Bank Tower is still taller than. Your lust for a 100 story building in LA is fine but LA should focus on increasing it's urbanitity as opposed to building supertall skyscrapers just because. So what if it does? And then what? Back in the 90's, LA proposed the 9th and Figueroa Tower which was 90 stories and 1,270 feet tall. Cancelled. Plus, it would've stuck out but not in a good way.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2290/...b10b0753_o.jpg