HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 5:22 PM
Totojuice's Avatar
Totojuice Totojuice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 89
LOS ANGELES | Angels Landing Tower | 1,020 FT | 88 FLOORS

THREE FINALISTS RELEASED

Unfortunately nothing above 1,000 feet.....

Handel is best IMHO, Onni is second .....VERY disappointed with Gensler's uninspired entry that would be better suited for Buffalo than Los Angeles (no offense to Buffalo). How can the same people that brought us the spectacular Shanghai Tower propose this embarrassment and keep a straight face? Unlimited heights restrictions, prime location in Los Angeles....baffling.

GENSLER:


ONNI:


HANDEL:


https://urbanize.la/post/first-look-...angels-landing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 5:32 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,716
Heights are 840 for Gensler, 883 for Onni and just shy of 1000 for Macfarlane. Of the 3, the best design in my opinion is Macfarlane, hands down. I wish they would extend the points of the tower a bit more to finish the tower, but not complaining much. The Gensler building is interesting and i like the street interactions, but the architecture is defintely lacking. The top looks like a typical glass box and the bottom is too hulking. It needs a redesign but they are very conservative and it sucks. If they can bring in UCLA as they said, that would put them over the top, regardless of design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 8:02 PM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 7,498
I like Gensler and Handel, not a fan of the offset cube thing that's happening in other cities. It's like an architecture school project rather than serious architecture.
__________________
He said he'd cure your ills, but he didn't and he never will
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 9:42 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,464
Needs more height, time for LA to embrace its bigness. But mostly because I want a new signature tower for LA, something I think the Grand doesn't quite do. I would like to see this in the 1,200 ft range, but if not, it will still be a big addition.

I like this one best.















From the link...


Quote:
Their project is imagined with two towers - a 24-story edifice at 4th and Olive Streets and a sleek 88-story structure fronting Hill. A full buildout of the project would include:

-400 rental apartments - with 20 units for individuals earning 80 to 120 percent of area median income
-250 condominiums
-500 hotel rooms operated by SLS and Mondrian
-50,000 square feet of retail space
-A K-5 public charter school operated by Los Academy of Arts and Enterprise.

The project would set aside approximately 57,000 square feet of publicly accessible open space, including a 13,700-square-foot plaza along Hill and Angels Terrace - a 25,000-square-foot elevated plaza at the center of the property.

The larger of the two buildings, which would stand approximately 1,000 feet above street level, is intended as a "bookend" to the skyline with the nearby U.S. Bank Tower.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 10:06 PM
The Best Forumer The Best Forumer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,098
How tall can one go in LA?
__________________
The suburbs are second-rate. Cookie-cutter houses, treeless yards, mediocre schools, and more crime than you think. Do your family a favor and move closer to the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 10:28 PM
DrNest's Avatar
DrNest DrNest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,103
The first or third design for me. The second one, with the jumbled boxes is ugly and would not look good on the LA skyline.
I like the height and general look of the third design, and the podium with the elevated open air space of the first one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 10:32 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Forumer View Post
How tall can one go in LA?
This site in particular has no height limit, though the title should probably say no height restrictions.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 10:51 PM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 7,498
Looks like its taller than Wilshire Grand
__________________
He said he'd cure your ills, but he didn't and he never will
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 11:36 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 23,365
I like the Handel design. Shame it isn't taller though. This is a good opportunity for a new tallest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 4:34 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,471
These were presented at a meetings with the proposal groups and city staff/elected officials. I've heard that many people in attendance made it known they want taller, so perhaps there is some hope still for a modification to over 1,000 ft.

I personally think the site is the perfect opportunity for something in the 1,200 range.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 4:22 PM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,290
I vote Gensler. Like the colors and facade treatment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 5:53 PM
Totojuice's Avatar
Totojuice Totojuice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Needs more height, time for LA to embrace its bigness. But mostly because I want a new signature tower for LA, something I think the Grand doesn't quite do. I would like to see this in the 1,200 ft range, but if not, it will still be a big addition.

I like this one best.
Couldn't agree more. As much as I wanted the Grand to fill that need, it doesn't quite get us there (particularly given the bizarre decision not to light the spire). The Handel design has the potential as it is the most elegant and skyline defining of the three designs. Hopefully its chosen as the winning design, and hopefully they are given the direction (or opportunity) to increase the height. The current design could easily accommodate an additional 500-600 feet to create a more graceful peak and define the LA skyline....

One potential redesign (mine)....

Original photo from Urbanize LA article https://urbanize.la/post/first-look-...angels-landing

Last edited by Totojuice; Oct 25, 2017 at 6:33 PM. Reason: Added photo credit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 11:48 PM
Prezrezc Prezrezc is offline
A.F.K.A. JayPro
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: South Huntington, Long Island, New York
Posts: 685
Number 3 is the best by far.

While a nice design in the abstract, #1 is banal, uninspired '80's-to-mid-'90's tripe.

#2 is equally lazy at an au courant architectural trend that has been aesthetically improved upon in a lot of other places.

The *one* thing they need to do with the Handel proposal is make the fins top out at a 45º angle to break the flat roof tedium.

Wilshire Grand seems to try to do that, but IMO not too well.

Last edited by Prezrezc; Oct 25, 2017 at 11:50 PM. Reason: clean-up
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 1:15 AM
Mr Saturn64's Avatar
Mr Saturn64 Mr Saturn64 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Philly
Posts: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
This site in particular has no height limit, though the title should probably say no height restrictions.
Are there special protections for earthquakes in L.A?

I think Handel's is the best of the three. It's a good height, and looks good for its location. Gensler's isn't bad, I could see it happening. Onni's is the most butt-ugly building I have seen in a long time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 1:44 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 23,365
The skyscrapers can absorb the shock. Reinforced steel in the columns greatly helps, and shock absorbers. I believe the California building code includes earthquake related stipulations. The ones that are at risk are concrete based structures without steel reinforcement. Granted a massive magnitude earthquake will test everything, but there are measures in place for new towers. Things like a strong central core help, which a lot of skyscrapers have nowadays.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 2:31 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJM19 View Post
These were presented at a meetings with the proposal groups and city staff/elected officials. I've heard that many people in attendance made it known they want taller, so perhaps there is some hope still for a modification to over 1,000 ft.

I personally think the site is the perfect opportunity for something in the 1,200 range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totojuice View Post
Couldn't agree more. As much as I wanted the Grand to fill that need, it doesn't quite get us there (particularly given the bizarre decision not to light the spire). The Handel design has the potential as it is the most elegant and skyline defining of the three designs.

Hopefully it will be further refined to give LA the star it needs. I think 1,200 ft or more would be great. But it should definitely stand out as the tallest.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 4:55 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64 View Post
Are there special protections for earthquakes in L.A?

I think Handel's is the best of the three. It's a good height, and looks good for its location. Gensler's isn't bad, I could see it happening. Onni's is the most butt-ugly building I have seen in a long time.
Most of LAs current tallest were in place during the last "Big" earthquake in 94, they faired better than most low rises. But Hollywood likes to topple LAs towers like dominos in every disaster movie.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 8:09 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,222
I'm not sure why people prefer the MacFarlane/Handel proposal. The plaza looks to be just perpetuating the same problems that the older Bunker Hill development. Plus IMO the tower is an ugly mishmash. And the Lowe/Gensler proposal looks like they mistakingly talked with ASU instead of UCLA.

To me the Omni proposal is the most well-thought-out of the three. Even if you are aren't a fan of the cube stacks there is no denying that it would stand out more that the others. There are other renderings of the Omni proposal that shows that better. Someone complained about the simplicity of the design but that is one of the things I like about it.

Last edited by ozone; Oct 26, 2017 at 8:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 8:35 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 23,365
The only thing with the Omni proposal IMO is that it is I feel its an aesthetic risk. It could, if built, come out great but I think the reason many like Handle is that is slightly resembles a shard design, is appealing, and a safe bet. Its not boxy, somewhat angular in nature, and looks like it would blend in well with the surroundings. I do think the roof/crown is incomplete though. The base, and interaction with the street is fantastic. I doubt the effectiveness of the vegetation on the upper floors, but the Handel design does a good job with maximizing landscaping and the pedestrian-street interaction. I think thats a plus.

Angels Landing (Gensler version) I feel is too busy, and the proportions are off. Gensler did a good job, no doubt, but the Handel design is more suited for DT LA.

Just my 2 cents on the matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 11:14 PM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 7,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
The only thing with the Omni proposal IMO is that it is I feel its an aesthetic risk. It could, if built, come out great but I think the reason many like Handle is that is slightly resembles a shard design, is appealing, and a safe bet. Its not boxy, somewhat angular in nature, and looks like it would blend in well with the surroundings. I do think the roof/crown is incomplete though. The base, and interaction with the street is fantastic. I doubt the effectiveness of the vegetation on the upper floors, but the Handel design does a good job with maximizing landscaping and the pedestrian-street interaction. I think thats a plus.

Angels Landing (Gensler version) I feel is too busy, and the proportions are off. Gensler did a good job, no doubt, but the Handel design is more suited for DT LA.

Just my 2 cents on the matter.
I agree on Gensler. The thing to me about the Omni proposal is that, that type of design is not as well suited for a super tall building.
__________________
He said he'd cure your ills, but he didn't and he never will
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:28 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.