LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0 - Page 138

jgacis · #**2741** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 2:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

I'm also looking forward to the reveal of the big Arts District development at 6th/Alameda that some company from Irvine bought last year. Apparently it's suppose to include highrises!

^^^ From the above post, there's your boy King Kill'em!

Although it certainly won't be the final design, its a start...

Illithid Dude · #**2742** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 2:29 AM**

Wow. That's an insane proposal. Super out of character for the Arts District, maybe too much so, but also a startlingly ambitious proposal from one of the most prestigious architecture firms in the world. I really don't know how to feel about this.

Valyrian Steel · #**2743** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 2:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgacis

This just in from the L.A. Times...

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...htmlstory.html

Whoa. This is nuts.

King Kill 'em · #**2744** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 2:44 AM**

My jaw dropped at the arts district proposal. It'll be an uphill battle to get it through at the size it currently is, but speeding up the timeline for the northern WSAB line, which will have an aerial 7th/Alameda stop, would certainly help it's case. What an exciting time to be alive!

Quixote · #**2745** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Wow. That's an insane proposal. Super out of character for the Arts District, maybe too much so, but also a startlingly ambitious proposal from one of the most prestigious architecture firms in the world. I really don't know how to feel about this.

That's what makes it such a killer project -- it sets a major precedent. This project could potentially fast-forward the redevelopment of all that vast light-industrial wasteland in between Los Angeles and Alameda Streets. And that's before even mentioning the architect.

Also, the design looks like it's paying homage to the nearby LA Terminal Market (ROW DTLA).

ChargerCarl · #**2746** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 3:08 AM**

Oh man, the NIMBY reaction is going to be fierce.

bobcat · #**2747** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 3:11 AM**

Amazing. Reminds me of the old Park 5th project. Not expecting it to get built as proposed but still more exciting than the Grand Ave Project.

NativeOrange · #**2748** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 3:15 AM**

It's like two giant middle fingers in the face of the NII !!!

I had to read the article twice, sorta like a double take. Absolutely insane.

NativeOrange · #**2749** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 4:16 AM**

Also something intriguing is that the comments section of the LA Times article (usually infested with closed minded NIMBY's), is rather tame for once.

JDRCRASH · #**2750** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 4:30 AM**

EDIT: Seems quite unusual for them to propose something of this scale this early in the evolution of this section of DTLA, especially considering it would require the very same motions by the City Council that have brought on ilk like Silverstein to Hollywood. I thought it would be AT LEAST another 20 years before we ever saw something remotely close to the 500 ft (let alone +700) range built in the Arts District... and that was assuming the West Santa Ana branch LRT would be running down Alameda by then...

Hmm... maybe they know something about Re:codeLA and the Garcetti-proposed zoning updates that we don't???

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Nice! This is the best news all week. We should all pool our thoughts together and enter a proposal, funding be damned. I've been thinking of how I would want to develop that site for months. I'm thinking Bjark Ingels as the architect...

One strange idea that just popped into my head is a supertall with a public park on top, accessible through a special elevator with a straight shot to the top. Place some sort of a fee to get in to maintain it.

black_crow · #**2751** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 5:45 AM**

Won't happen and I think that's good.

I don't like the design at all (the towers are ok, but the rest? - no, sorry).
That's how you draw attention... nothing more.

We might see a high-rise with 28 stories (300"), but they will water down the design.

jgacis · #**2752** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 6:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by black_crow

Won't happen and I think that's good.

I don't like the design at all (the towers are ok, but the rest? - no, sorry).
That's how you draw attention... nothing more.

We might see a high-rise with 28 stories (300"), but they will water down the design.

Perhaps you're absolutely right but just drawing the attention is a psychological force itself, especially as a contrast to the NII. While it may add fuel to the NII fire, its another forced hand against the initiative that flaunted its ability to reach the ballot.

And even a watered-down version of 28 stories is a major jump from all the lower-rises under construction in the area there now.

black_crow · #**2753** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 6:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgacis

Perhaps you're absolutely right but just drawing the attention is a psychological force itself, especially as a contrast to the NII. While it may add fuel to the NII fire, its another forced hand against the initiative that flaunted its ability to reach the ballot.

And even a watered-down version of 28 stories is a major jump from all the lower-rises under construction in the area there now.

Absolutely.. nothing wrong with that.

King Kill 'em · #**2754** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 6:40 AM**

It shows the contrast of two visions for LA. One embraces progress, new ideas and the future and the other shuts the door on those things.

black_crow · #**2755** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 6:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

It shows the contrast of two visions for LA. One embraces progress, new ideas and the future and the other shuts the door on those things.

That is too black and white.

Not every skyscraper in every neighborhood means progress.
There is a way more to that, but I am pretty sure you know that.

bobbyv · #**2756** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 7:57 AM**

All images from the LA times article:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...htmlstory.html

Wally West · #**2757** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 8:15 AM**

This is very hard to accept. As much as I'd like to see this precedent in the Arts District, I think they're planning for a water down of the height. The Arts District has quite the number of NIMBYs and they will fight like hell against this and I think the incredible height is just an easy way to compromise.

NativeOrange · #**2758** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 9:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally West

This is very hard to accept. As much as I'd like to see this precedent in the Arts District, I think they're planning for a water down of the height. The Arts District has quite the number of NIMBYs and they will fight like hell against this and I think the incredible height is just an easy way to compromise.

That's what I was thinking too. Even so, any precedent set will likely be significant even if the project were to be cut in half. Nothing else in the arts district comes anywhere close to this height.

Resident · #**2759** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 9:33 AM**

The Arts District NIMBYS can fight all they want. They have never won a single fight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally West

This is very hard to accept. As much as I'd like to see this precedent in the Arts District, I think they're planning for a water down of the height. The Arts District has quite the number of NIMBYs and they will fight like hell against this and I think the incredible height is just an easy way to compromise.

SanDiegoGuy · #**2760** Posted **Sep 24, 2016, 11:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident

The Arts District NIMBYS can fight all they want. They have never won a single fight.

So what?

I don't see a single skyscraper there.
That project is unrealistic and the projected height a joke.

They will go for half the size max.