LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[caligrad]

The 1133 tower is decent infill and nothing more. And the good ole Carwash proposal. If that thing gains any traction, I'll be surprised honestly.

Originally Posted by black_crow

I agree.

I like the design and it's a massive project.
Imagine the reactions to that rendering 6-7 years ago.. before we got spoiled.

I agree. I believe we have gotten spoiled here. We just go 2 supertalls announced and proposed at the same time and everybody's like MEH. Time travel back in time before the Wilshire Grand and everybody here would collectively be losing their SH** HAHA I'm still losing my SH** because I remember a time when DTLA and LA in general only got one High rise built in like 10 years. Now they are sprouting up like weeds.

[chjbolton]

Originally Posted by caligrad

The 1133 tower is decent infill and nothing more. And the good ole Carwash proposal. If that thing gains any traction, I'll be surprised honestly.

Why is that? As opposed to which other project?

[caligrad]

^^^ Why do I feel that way about the carwash site proposal ? Because it was proposed a few years back by Ben Neman who was arrested on suspicion of a money laundering scheme linked to a drug cartel. Was he convicted ? not sure, but I personally feel that investors and bank will not want any part of that. So I'm not doubting the actual proposal but I'm doubting the developer.

He bought the land back in early 2014, gave us the proposal in January 2016 and its been quiet ever since. Crickets. No one is mentioning any movement in the permitting department that I know of....Meanwhile projects before it and after are either under construction or making some kind of progress. But who knows. Someone with "Insider Knowledge" said it was a for sure thing. We'll see.


Speaking of the Carwash site. Here's another render I've never seen.

https://www.nardi-associates.com/olympic-tower

[scania]

Originally Posted by caligrad

I agree. I believe we have gotten spoiled here. We just go 2 supertalls announced and proposed at the same time and everybody's like MEH. Time travel back in time before the Wilshire Grand and everybody here would collectively be losing their SH** HAHA I'm still losing my SH** because I remember a time when DTLA and LA in general only got one High rise built in like 10 years. Now they are sprouting up like weeds.

Omg!!!

It’s laughable how some of us are on here...99% of people on the other forums would be in awe with this last proposal, and we have people looking for every freakin negative they can find. I’m like I would love to see their homes. Lmao

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by scania

Omg!!!

It’s laughable how some of us are on here...99% of people on the other forums would be in awe with this last proposal, and we have people looking for every freakin negative they can find. I’m like I would love to see their homes. Lmao

If all of these towers, especially the supertalls, get built, L.A. will probably be a clear #3 in the U.S. imho, only behind NYC & CHI. Miami has more tall buildings, but no supertalls. L.A. skyline finally catching up and passing Houston and the other contenders for #3. In North America as a whole, L.A. would probably still be behind Toronto, although L.A. would have more supertalls. Toronto has a huge number of skyscrapers. L.A. almost certainly will never catch NYC and Chicago, but #3 is good.

[LA21st]

Downtown Houston has a larger skylne than LA? I dont know about that.

[scania]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Downtown Houston has a larger skylne than LA? I dont know about that.

I’ve been to Houston and no it doesn’t...but if you take pictures from certain angles it can look much larger, just like Atlanta. That’s including other areas that are not Downtown.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

If all of these towers, especially the supertalls, get built, L.A. will probably be a clear #3 in the U.S. imho, only behind NYC & CHI. Miami has more tall buildings, but no supertalls. L.A. skyline finally catching up and passing Houston and the other contenders for #3. In North America as a whole, L.A. would probably still be behind Toronto, although L.A. would have more supertalls. Toronto has a huge number of skyscrapers. L.A. almost certainly will never catch NYC and Chicago, but #3 is good.

Originally Posted by LA21st

Downtown Houston has a larger skylne than LA? I dont know about that.

Originally Posted by scania

I’ve been to Houston and no it doesn’t...but if you take pictures from certain angles it can look much larger, just like Atlanta. That’s including other areas that are not Downtown.

Los Angeles currently ranks is 15 in the world with 627 buildings and 561 highrises.

Houston currently ranks 18 in the world with 510 buildings and 485 highrises

Now I don't know what the stats are with supertalls but LA has a bigger more robust skyline surrounded by a dense core. There is no comparison with who has the beefier more dense skyline.

[LA21st]

From what I've seen, I think Seattle and San Francisco have better/larger skylines than LA. Not Atlanta or Houston.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by LA21st

From what I've seen, I think Seattle and San Francisco have better/larger skylines than LA. Not Atlanta or Houston.

San Francisco ranks 24 worldwide and Seattle ranks 57th. LA ranks 15th.

[saybanana]

Los Angeles area has lots of highrises, but it isn't concentrated in one general area like it is in Seattle or San Francisco or other cities. It is spread out all over the city/metro area. Often when people talks about an LA Skyline they talk about Downtown LA which is cool at its own but compared to other cities it doesn't put in that wow factor. If you take all the highrises from Brentwood, West LA, Century City, Westwood, Mid Wilshire, Koreatown, Hollywood, West Hollywood, the Valley, Burbank, Glendale, Long Beach etc and placed in all in the general Downtown area, then I think people would lose their minds. But it isn't like that. Oh well. Downtown is getting more impressive on its own, but I feel that there are so many tall buildings and not many in the middle range that it looks quite empty esp from Griffith or Hollywood/Runyon. Looking from the east like in the arts district or Boyle heights, you can see all these different heights which makes it look really impressive.

[Future_Manifested]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

If all of these towers, especially the supertalls, get built, L.A. will probably be a clear #3 in the U.S. imho, only behind NYC & CHI. Miami has more tall buildings, but no supertalls. L.A. skyline finally catching up and passing Houston and the other contenders for #3. In North America as a whole, L.A. would probably still be behind Toronto, although L.A. would have more supertalls. Toronto has a huge number of skyscrapers. L.A. almost certainly will never catch NYC and Chica5go, but #3 is good.

You've probably never been to Houston. LA is already #3. Miami has a bunch of condos but nothing significant.

[caligrad]

^^^ Most likely not. I've noticed when people make these grand claims, 99% of the time, they've never stepped foot in the city they try to compare the other to.

Originally Posted by saybanana

Los Angeles area has lots of highrises, but it isn't concentrated in one general area like it is in Seattle or San Francisco or other cities. It is spread out all over the city/metro area. Often when people talks about an LA Skyline they talk about Downtown LA which is cool at its own but compared to other cities it doesn't put in that wow factor. If you take all the highrises from Brentwood, West LA, Century City, Westwood, Mid Wilshire, Koreatown, Hollywood, West Hollywood, the Valley, Burbank, Glendale, Long Beach etc and placed in all in the general Downtown area, then I think people would lose their minds. But it isn't like that. Oh well. Downtown is getting more impressive on its own, but I feel that there are so many tall buildings and not many in the middle range that it looks quite empty esp from Griffith or Hollywood/Runyon. Looking from the east like in the arts district or Boyle heights, you can see all these different heights which makes it look really impressive.

You read my mind. I literally typed all of this up but deleted it because I knew people wouldn't get it.

LAs problem is that it has a lot of tall buildings downtown. Not much in the mid range. We are getting proposals for buildings in the 600+ range which is cool and all but we need more in the 300-500 range to give the skyline more depth to make the tall ones stick out more. Another problem downtown has is that all of its tall buildings are concentrated together. So you have the WG and US bank and all the bunker hill towers less than a block away from each other when compared to other cities, you'll have a very tall buildings, lets say the WG, surrounded by buildings in the 300-500 range and blocks away from the next really tall buildings. Instead, downtown has them all clumped together lining the 110 and fig while the midrange buildings are spread out all over the rest of the city. I agree. If you were to take all of the cluster of high rises all over the city and concentrate them all downtown, THEN downtown would have been that shinning start that everybody gawked at. Its growing and getting there. But we need more infill to fill in the gaps.

[Future_Manifested]

Originally Posted by saybanana

Los Angeles area has lots of highrises, but it isn't concentrated in one general area like it is in Seattle or San Francisco or other cities. It is spread out all over the city/metro area. Often when people talks about an LA Skyline they talk about Downtown LA which is cool at its own but compared to other cities it doesn't put in that wow factor. If you take all the highrises from Brentwood, West LA, Century City, Westwood, Mid Wilshire, Koreatown, Hollywood, West Hollywood, the Valley, Burbank, Glendale, Long Beach etc and placed in all in the general Downtown area, then I think people would lose their minds. But it isn't like that. Oh well. Downtown is getting more impressive on its own, but I feel that there are so many tall buildings and not many in the middle range that it looks quite empty esp from Griffith or Hollywood/Runyon. Looking from the east like in the arts district or Boyle heights, you can see all these different heights which makes it look really impressive.

True, LA's polycentric nature does dillute some of that "wow" factor. But that's only if we look at just the DTLA skyline. LA's multitude of skylines does make me feel like I'm in a global city though. Driving through DTLA, Koreatown, Mid-Wilshire, Century City, Westwood all the way to the Pacific Ocean -- you really get a sense of the density/enormity of it all. You don't get that feeling driving thru Houston or Seattle...

[Bwin517]

Originally Posted by dktshb

San Francisco ranks 24 worldwide and Seattle ranks 57th. LA ranks 15th.

By most accounts, a skyscraper is defined as a building standing 150M+, Supertall 300M+, Hypertall 600M+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...st_skyscrapers

LA is currently #36 with only 24 skyscrapers, but growing

[Bwin517]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Los Angeles currently ranks is 15 in the world with 627 buildings and 561 highrises.

Houston currently ranks 18 in the world with 510 buildings and 485 highrises

Now I don't know what the stats are with supertalls but LA has a bigger more robust skyline surrounded by a dense core. There is no comparison with who has the beefier more dense skyline.

By most accounts, a skyscraper is defined as a building standing 150M+, Supertall 300M+, Hypertall 600M+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...st_skyscrapers

LA is currently #36 with only 24 skyscrapers, but growing

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by Bwin517

By most accounts, a skyscraper is defined as a building standing 150M+, Supertall 300M+, Hypertall 600M+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...st_skyscrapers

LA is currently #36 with only 24 skyscrapers, but growing

Wow, by that measure, LA is behind both Miami and Houston with San Fran just under LA.

If you want to use buildings above 100m then LA is behind Atlanta, Honolulu, Houston, Miami, and San Fran.

In terms of high rises or more, then LA is comfortably in 3rd among the US with 518 highrises with Honolulu in 4th, followed quickly by San Fran, Houston, Dallas, and Miami. So it seems the majority of the high rises in LA are below 100m.

LA certainly has a plentiful amount of skyscrapers, the main issue as to why the skyline seems so underwhelming is the fact that they're spread out among the city rather than have them concentrated on the city center. Think of Century City. That's it's own skyline all by itself. Along with Miracle Mile, Koreatown, Westwood, Hollywood, LAX hotels, etc.. Take a drive around the city and you'll see them everywhere.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Future_Manifested

True, LA's polycentric nature does dillute some of that "wow" factor. But that's only if we look at just the DTLA skyline. LA's multitude of skylines does make me feel like I'm in a global city though. Driving through DTLA, Koreatown, Mid-Wilshire, Century City, Westwood all the way to the Pacific Ocean -- you really get a sense of the density/enormity of it all. You don't get that feeling driving thru Houston or Seattle...

I agree with & appreciate that. If the inanimate aspect of LA's bldgs being too short....or not tall enough....is treated like the end all & be all, that's similar to ppl believing computers or ipads are good or bad depending on the hardware & not the software.

Most ppl who have problems with LA....who aren't happy with it....don't react that way due to there not being enough highrises. They're reacting that way more likely due to traffic being too slow, streets & sidewalks being too dirty, homeless ppl being too plentiful, streets & hood looking too rundown & lifeless.

things like this say a lot more about dtla....& the city in general too....than whether the park fifth proj...which can be seen in certain segments....isn't tall enough or isn't sleek enough. Such an event would not have occurred in dt too many yrs ago, certainly in pershing sq....


• Video Link

[northbay]

Gotta be honest here. Who’s di.., er, I mean, skyline is bigger to me is a silly discussion. LA is not like any other city. Why compare it to Houston, which is completely different, or San Francisco, which is completely different? LA has in my opinion a beautiful skyline. It’s LA. I wouldn’t trade it for Houston’s, Miami’s or Atlanta’s. But that’s just MY opinion, man.

[scania]

Originally Posted by northbay

Gotta be honest here. Who’s di.., er, I mean, skyline is bigger to me is a silly discussion. LA is not like any other city. Why compare it to Houston, which is completely different, or San Francisco, which is completely different? LA has in my opinion a beautiful skyline. It’s LA. I wouldn’t trade it for Houston’s, Miami’s or Atlanta’s. But that’s just MY opinion, man.

You make great points...I drove up to Pasadena and Glendale today and when driving back on the “2” coming from the “210” my friends from NYC were all like wow look at Downtown and the canyons that surround. They were literally in awe. One said there’s nothing this beautiful in the US.