PDA

View Full Version : LOS ANGELES | Oceanwide Plaza | 677' - 49 FLOORS | 2X - 530' - 40 FLOORS | ON HOLD


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Quixote
Aug 12, 2007, 8:56 AM
http://www.trbimg.com/img-549b6e52/turbine/la-fi-1225-property-report-fig-central-20141225

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/10980153_1042215029126206_6826833828806117227_o.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1606/24755912301_c4b38b7e87_b.jpg

NYguy
Aug 12, 2007, 8:35 PM
http://la.curbed.com/2007.07.finalcentral.jpg

http://la.curbed.com/2007.07.central3.jpg_http://la.curbed.com/2007.07.central4.jpg

I like it. More density for LA, plus the pedestrian movement is good...

NYguy
Aug 12, 2007, 9:05 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-kotkin12aug12,0,6283475.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Why the rush to Manhattanize L.A.?
There seems to be little public debate about the dramatic remaking of Los Angeles into a left-coast New York.

By Joel Kotkin
August 12, 2007

Last week, the City Council voted 12 to 0 to approve a sweeping set of zoning changes that will encourage larger and more dense development downtown.

The new rules are only the latest move toward the Manhattanization of Los Angeles. There's also the renewed interest in extending the Red Line subway to the ocean. And there's billionaire Phil Anschutz's plan to create a Times Square for Los Angeles near Staples Center, as well as billionaire Eli Broad's aim to duplicate New York's 5th Avenue along Grand Avenue. There's even talk, in planning circles, of building mini-condos and apartments at -- what else? -- Manhhattanite sizes of 250 to 350 square feet.

Los Angeles, the first great modern metropolis with multiple urban cores, seems determined to remake its urban DNA -- and fashion itself, to one degree or another, in the image of New York City. Bruce B. Brugmann, the populist publisher of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, coined the term "Manhattanization" in the 1970s to describe just what we're seeing. Broadly speaking, it refers to a vertical urbanism in which the entire city serves as a bedroom for a dominant urban core that is chock-full of cultural attractions. Density is a premium value in a successfully Manhattanized city, producing economies of scale, extraordinary concentrations of skills and an entertaining street scene. Human activities are more important than sunlight, nature or individual privacy.

Such development is peculiarly suited for Manhattan Island, a geographically constrained and remarkably stable lump of rock on which the city grew rapidly in the heyday of water and rail transportation. It's not so clear, however, that L.A., which has been expanding outward for more than 100 years and is famously sun drenched, car crazy, blessed with natural beauty and earthquake prone, should follow a similar course.

At the very least, such a dramatic change should be the topic of serious debate among politicians, city officials and the public. But so far, the debate about higher density in L.A. has been as contentious as public discussions in the former Soviet Union.

Why is this happening? One reason for the city's apparent lock-step march to Manhattanization is that big developers are increasingly dominating and politicizing land-use decisions, much as they do in New York City. The $4-billion "Atlantic Yards" project in New York is an example. The proposal would add about 6,500 mixed-income residential units to the generally low- and mid-rise environment of downtown Brooklyn, making population density in the area among the nation's highest. Despite intense grass-roots opposition, developer Bruce Ratner and his ally, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have won at least $500 million in subsidies for the project.

"You can't stop interests unless you have equally powerful interests on your side," said urban historian Fred Siegel.

Similar developer-driven politics is becoming increasingly common in Los Angeles as well. Land and politics have a long history in the city. But many smaller builders -- people who constructed tract housing or apartments in the 1970s and 1980s -- no longer can play today's complex political game, involving government subsidies, "air rights" to allow more high rises and inclusionary zoning that requires below-market units in new projects. One retail developer told me that he and others like him prefer to build in such places as San Fernando, Burbank and the Inland Empire, where "the development game" is not as complex and politically determined.

That leaves the field largely to big developers with deeper pockets, more lawyers, better political connections and diversified interests that enable them to wait out the city regulatory process. "A decade or two ago," said Robert Scott, who served on the Los Angeles Planning Commission from 1993 to 2003, "you could still build pretty much by the existing code. But the process has become less and less accessible" to smaller players.

In part, that's because city policies have promoted, at least in principle, such social goals as affordable housing and "smart growth" -- building condos and apartments near commercial areas and transit lines. But the side effect of these policies has been to make the development process impenetrable to all but the most well-heeled, Scott says.

[b]What opposition there is to Manhattanization is relatively isolated -- like the citizen recall effort against Westside City Councilman Jack Weiss, who is considered by some of his constituents to be too friendly with big developers. Weiss alienated them when he embraced construction of two 47-story condominium towers in Century City, calling the project a perfect example of smart growth. Homeowner groups strongly opposed the development because they contended that it would add to already heavy traffic congestion in the area. (Chicago-based JMB Realty, the project's developer, eventually agreed to create a $5-million fund to soften the environmental effects of the towers, and a dispute about who controls it sparked the recall effort against Weiss.)

But only a handful of local politicians -- including, most notably, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky -- seem to recognize that some Angelenos think that adding density to our already crowded region won't necessarily improve the quality of life. He recently told a gathering of neighborhood councils that "the gulf" between City Hall and the community over land use and development "gets wider every day."

The paucity of official opposition to Manhattanization reflects, in part, changes in L.A. politics. As recently as the 1990s, the city's political scene was a fractious game, with distinct voices representing different neighborhoods, ethnic groups, labor and business associations. Opposition to further high-density development was particularly strong in the San Fernando Valley. There, such grass-roots-oriented City Council members as Joel Wachs and Ernani Bernardi paid more attention to the interests of their constituents than to those of developers and unions. Bernardi, for instance, was a constant foe of the city's redevelopment agency, which long promoted high-density growth, and he and Wachs often challenged downtown development proposals tied to taxpayer subsidies.

Today, small developers, who often had local supporters, are out, and citywide and national players are in. Prime examples are New York-based Related Cos. (Grand Avenue), Anschutz Entertainment Group (L.A. Live), JMB Realty (condo towers in Century City), Astani Enterprises (downtown condos), J.H. Snyder Co. (NoHo Commons), as well as the shopping-mall giant Westfield, which has proposed building in the west Valley what would be one of the largest malls in Southern California.

These companies, along with other developers, have become substantial contributors to the campaigns and causes of local politicians. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's campaign to control the L.A. Unified School District, for instance, was a recent beneficiary. Because it was an issue campaign (rather than a political race), there were no limits on contributions, and many big developers with projects pending or already underway in the city were generous in their giving.

For example, Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) gave $125,000 to the mayor's Committee for Government Excellence and Accountability, set up to lobby for a bill that would have given him significant control over L.A. Unified, and to Partnership for Better Schools, which spearheaded Villaraigosa's successful drive to win a majority on the school board. Other contributors to the two committees included developer J.H. Snyder Co. ($100,000); AP Properties, a JMB Realty affiliate ($100,000); Astani Enterprises ($100,000) and Westfield ($100,000).

Term limits also may encourage developer-driven politics. Before voters limited their time in office to two consecutive four-year terms in 1993, council members often represented their districts for decades without having to worry much about challengers. Bernardi, for instance, served 32 years on the City Council.

But in the era of term limits, ambitious council members facing the end of their terms have to begin fundraising for their next race for elected office almost immediately after election day. Given the high cost of modern campaigns, they have no incentive to alienate wealthy developers who could bankroll them. True, individual contributions to political campaigns are capped. But big developers have subcontractors, lobbyists and lawyers who can add even more dollars.

This may partly explain why the City Council -- even those members who represent the Valley and South Los Angeles and might logically be skeptical about subsidies for downtown developers -- has largely bought into the mayor's vision of "elegant density" to keep pace with rising demand for housing. For instance, not only did council members vote 12 to 0 on last week's zoning overhaul, but earlier this year, the vote to lease public land and grant about $66 million in tax breaks over 20 years to the developer of the Grand Avenue project was 13 to 0 by the City Council and 4 to 1 by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. And in 2005, AEG received $270 million in financial help from the city for L.A. Live. The vote: 14 to 0.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with unanimity. The problem is the lack of rigorous debate or much public discussion. For instance, the council's decision last week to change downtown's zoning rules involved virtually no debate at all.

Ever higher density downtown -- and in other parts of the city -- may be one answer for L.A.'s housing shortage. Although it's hard to see studio or one-bedroom apartments as a big help for working- or middle-class families.

But the current Manhattanization poses many risks. Traffic congestion is likely to get worse before it gets better because the city's transit system is not sufficient to get people out of their cars now or in the immediate future. Too much construction of expensive high-density space, particularly downtown, could create a glut, which could dampen prices and force developers to seek renters rather than buyers. Already, the trend is toward rentals, rather than sales, in the downtown market.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether Los Angeles will have a serious debate about where it is headed. Jumping blindly on the Manhattan express, without considering the implications for the city and its many great neighborhoods, is not a promising first step.

Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of "The City: A Global History" and is working on a book about America's future.

colemonkee
Aug 12, 2007, 9:43 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Joel Kotkin is an ass clown.

kenratboy
Aug 12, 2007, 11:43 PM
LMAO - compare the land area of Manhattan to Los Angeles - its not going to 'Manhattanize' itself.

Awesome looking site, it looks like something that could easily be built.

Stephenapolis
Aug 12, 2007, 11:57 PM
What would be better for a city? To Manhattanize? Or to LAize? (sprawl even more)

As to this project, it will be nice infill, as well as add more density. From a design standpoint, I find the rendering bland. But the real thing could easily look better.

NYC2ATX
Aug 13, 2007, 5:14 AM
I feel that "Manhattanization" is simplay a term divised by people who are anti-development. L.A. will never be Manhattan, but I don't mean that in a bad way. Los Angeles will always be Los Angeles, building new skycrapers will not change that.

Yes to outrightly say, "lets give L.A. a Times Square and a Fifth Avenue," is a little ridiculous. Cities should look to foster and build upon a unique individual identity, and not imitate others (and Los Angeles already has a fantastically unique identity.)

But to those who frown on the loss of the multiple-urban-core existence that is L.A., they are worrying for no reason. Unless you downzone the other centers of L.A. (and knock down a lot of tall buildings), you won't lose those other cores, and if you want to preserve them, build them up more as well! (Century City, the Miracle Mile, Santa Monica, Hollywood, etc. aren't going anywhere!)

One could even argue that Long Island City in Queens, downtown Brooklyn, the Financial District, Midtown are "multiple urban cores" of New York City.

As the city grows in population, it needs to grow in density of development. Just because Manhattan was the original dense city, doesn't mean to densify is to "Manhattanize". :koko:

Echo Park
Aug 13, 2007, 5:50 AM
What would be better for a city? To Manhattanize? Or to LAize? (sprawl even more)



I hope in the next few decades, "Los Angelesization" will come to mean something different than sprawl. i hope it comes to mean linear densification with hgih rises rising along main thoroughfares built on top of mass transit lines and connected by nodes. it wont be hyperurban core of manhattan and it wont be the evenly distributed urbanized sprawl of tokyo, but more like a spiderweb design. LA has the template for it and it'd really be the only city of its kind in the u.s. like that.

as far as the render for LA Central is concerned i'll just say this: when it comes to building skyscrapers in DTLA, beggars cant be choosers. the design could be a lot better than this.

BrandonJXN
Aug 13, 2007, 7:18 AM
I coined the term 'Los Angelesization.'

Lol.

NYguy
Aug 13, 2007, 11:52 AM
I coined the term 'Los Angelesization.'

Lol.

Say it 3 times very fast...;)

BrandonJXN
Aug 13, 2007, 4:01 PM
I tried. Saying Zzyzx is easier.

=\

djvandrake
Aug 13, 2007, 5:30 PM
I hope in the next few decades, "Los Angelesization" will come to mean something different than sprawl. i hope it comes to mean linear densification with hgih rises rising along main thoroughfares built on top of mass transit lines and connected by nodes. it wont be hyperurban core of manhattan and it wont be the evenly distributed urbanized sprawl of tokyo, but more like a spiderweb design. LA has the template for it and it'd really be the only city of its kind in the u.s. like that.

as far as the render for LA Central is concerned i'll just say this: when it comes to building skyscrapers in DTLA, beggars cant be choosers. the design could be a lot better than this.


I think this is spot on. I lived in LA for 10 years and feel that this pattern of growth is what is most likley to occur. The density in West LA near the Santa Monica border and places like Century City are certainly a more accurate barometer for growth around desireable areas.

I also agree the towers are a touch bland, but a very welcome development. :tup:

colemonkee
Aug 13, 2007, 5:32 PM
^ For non-locals, Zzyzx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zzyzx,_California) is actually the name of a territory and road off the 15 freeway on the way to Vegas.

JDRCRASH
Sep 15, 2007, 12:40 AM
LMAO - compare the land area of Manhattan to Los Angeles - its not going to 'Manhattanize' itself.


LMAO?

Just look at our basin....it's just about filled up.
Since people will continue to come to our sunshine paradise, unless something similar to my idea about tunneling under the San Gabriel Mountains to Palmdale and Victorville is approved, we will experience a Super-Boom of high-rises that will make us the Manhatten of the West Coast.

@StatenIslander237: Ha, dude, seriously, Los Angeles WILL become bigger than New York City in the coming decades.

People that really like the Big Apple just deep down inside know it.
But they keep on continuing with their comments such as "give me a break" or "LMFAO" because they just are having a tough time dealing with.;)

BrandonJXN
Sep 15, 2007, 1:00 AM
Dude..seriously..LA will never rival Manhattan in terms of skyscrapers.

Quixote
Sep 15, 2007, 1:47 AM
So...

LA Central should've officially broken ground already. K3d reported on August 21 that LA Central was to break ground in three weeks. Well, three and a half weeks have gone by since then, any word as to the status quo? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do. ;)

Quixote
Sep 15, 2007, 1:54 AM
As for the design being bland, I don't mind that at all. I like bland (basically another word for simple) designs, just not cookie-cutter ones.

Quixote
Sep 16, 2007, 9:48 PM
September 15, 2007

L.A. Central Site
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/ziggy331/LA/JuniorYear211.jpg

JDRCRASH
Sep 19, 2007, 1:04 AM
Dude..seriously..LA will never rival Manhattan in terms of skyscrapers.

:sly:
You should try saying that when numbers clearly show more people are coming into Southern California than the Northeastern States.

In fact, don't you guys remember on the News that 60 million people will live in California by 2050?

Right now California has about 39 million people.
Southern California boasts 25 million people.

If the current average increases across the state continue, than Southern California will have AT LEAST 40 million by 2050.

Therefore, I think we should be realistic.
There is no way New York City will continue it's claim of having the most skyscrapers much longer.

DowntownCharlieBrown
Sep 19, 2007, 11:35 PM
:previous: JDRCRASH, From the City High-rise list on Skyscraper Page, New York has about 5 times as many high-rises as LA. And in the past couple years, New York has been building more than LA, so we are not even starting to catch up, in fact we are falling behind. Even if this trend reverses, think how many projects actually start in any given year. Ten if we start having really good years? You’re a lot younger than I am, but I don’t think either of us has enough years left in us to see LA win this race.

We in LA shouldn’t see it as a race and should concentrate our efforts to make LA the best that it can be and a place where people enjoying living.



Originally posted by colemonkee
For non-locals, Zzyzx is actually the name of a territory and road off the 15 freeway on the way to Vegas.

Fact: Also the name of the lowest grossing movie of all time.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1330/1409862144_98a5161262_m.jpg

Thank you all for putting up with my completely off the topic post.

Echo Park
Sep 19, 2007, 11:38 PM
:sly:
You should try saying that when numbers clearly show more people are coming into Southern California than the Northeastern States.

In fact, don't you guys remember on the News that 60 million people will live in California by 2050?

Right now California has about 39 million people.
Southern California boasts 25 million people.

If the current average increases across the state continue, than Southern California will have AT LEAST 40 million by 2050.

Therefore, I think we should be realistic.
There is no way New York City will continue it's claim of having the most skyscrapers much longer.

You need to stop this.

gttx
Sep 20, 2007, 2:19 PM
:sly:
You should try saying that when numbers clearly show more people are coming into Southern California than the Northeastern States.

In fact, don't you guys remember on the News that 60 million people will live in California by 2050?

Right now California has about 39 million people.
Southern California boasts 25 million people.

If the current average increases across the state continue, than Southern California will have AT LEAST 40 million by 2050.

Therefore, I think we should be realistic.
There is no way New York City will continue it's claim of having the most skyscrapers much longer.

OK, for the sake of argument, let's be "realistic."

According to Emporis, here are the stats. for the number of high-rise buildings in New York:

- Completed: 5573
- Under Construction: 143
- Approved: 33
- Proposed: 124
- Demolished: 214

Now here is a similar list for Los Angeles:

- Completed: 473
- Under Construction: 10
- Approved: 18
- Proposed: 36
- Demolished: 15

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all the proposed and approved buildings are built in this cycle. Factoring out the demolished ones, New York will have 5659 high-rise buildings, and L.A. will have 522. That means that, in terms of skyscrapers, New York will be 10.84 times the size of L.A. Even if L.A. went through the biggest boom in its history, it still could not compete with New York, especially since NYC is putting up skyscrapers at an unprecedented rate.

Now I'm no statistician, but the numbers seem to speak for themselves pretty clearly.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Sep 20, 2007, 5:07 PM
thank you Gttx. JDCrash, we appreciate your enthusiasm but we have to be realistic. now lets get back on topic on this thread.

BrandonJXN
Sep 21, 2007, 2:43 AM
LMAO?

Just look at our basin....it's just about filled up.
Since people will continue to come to our sunshine paradise, unless something similar to my idea about tunneling under the San Gabriel Mountains to Palmdale and Victorville is approved, we will experience a Super-Boom of high-rises that will make us the Manhatten of the West Coast.

@StatenIslander237: Ha, dude, seriously, Los Angeles WILL become bigger than New York City in the coming decades.

People that really like the Big Apple just deep down inside know it.
But they keep on continuing with their comments such as "give me a break" or "LMFAO" because they just are having a tough time dealing with.;)

:sly:

It took about 120 years for Manhattan to be where it is in terms of skyscrapers. It took LA about 40. So until LA goes on a boom and builds 80 years worth of skyscrapers in a few years (and Paris Hilton wins the Nobel Prize), LA will NEVER rival NYC in terms of skyscrapers.

Houston is LA's cheif rival skyscraper wise.

Quixote
Sep 23, 2007, 7:39 AM
September 22, 2007

LA Central all fenced up
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee6/laofanaheim/LosAngeles016.jpg
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee6/laofanaheim/LosAngeles017.jpg

BrandonJXN
Sep 23, 2007, 5:47 PM
So it should be any day now.

Quixote
Sep 27, 2007, 4:39 AM
I have a feeling that LA Central will look a lot like the Atelier in NYC once completed. In case you haven't caught on to it already, LA Central is being developed by the Moinian Group, the same people behind the Atelier. It's no wonder that both pose a striking resemblance to one another. Their facades share the same look - same rectangular windows, same glass, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66283982/original.jpg
By NYguy

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01791.jpg
By Scruffy

colemonkee
Sep 27, 2007, 6:45 PM
That would be nice. I really like the way the Atelier turned out.

JDRCRASH
Sep 27, 2007, 7:36 PM
Sigh.....
I know I 'm often a pain in the ass, but you know what, I seriously i'm tired of this trash people talk about Los Angeles!:pissed:

I may not favor some cities, but I don't talk BS about them.

For example, New York City will always be the most famous city in America.:yes:

But I want L.A. to show the world what it's REAL economic ability can be.
That is why i'm tired of it not being on top.

Quixote
Oct 27, 2007, 7:38 AM
October 14, 2007

And yes NOTHING happening at LA Central yet...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2169/1752956425_51c3928d6b_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2221/1752959357_ed077db7ee_b.jpg

Quixote
Nov 6, 2007, 3:08 AM
November 3, 2007

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2250/1850048938_faa0b25934_b.jpg
From Flickr, by fridayinla

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2065/1850032268_66e6482e70_b.jpg
From Flickr, by fridayinla

colemonkee
Nov 6, 2007, 7:42 PM
My guess is they are waiting on construction - or demolition - permits. The City can be painfully slow with those sometimes, er, most of the time.

JDRCRASH
Nov 6, 2007, 8:39 PM
Yeah, and unfortunatly the Housing Market is making it worse!:pissed:

LosAngelesSportsFan
Nov 6, 2007, 9:17 PM
My guess is they are waiting on construction - or demolition - permits. The City can be painfully slow with those sometimes, er, most of the time.

i agree Colemonkee. We shouldnt just jump to conclusions on every little thing. we have seen time and time again with the city, permits are a disaster. And remember a couple things:
1) the location of this project is A+
2) the building will be done in 2010, so who knows what the market will be like, more than likely better than today.

on a side note, its shocking how big that damn lot is.

colemonkee
Nov 6, 2007, 11:24 PM
^ The concern that they might not get financing due to tighter credit standards and reduced liquidity in the credit market is a valid one, but you can't make that assumption until Morley comes in and removes their fencing. Until then, it's a pretty safe assumption that the city is slowing things down.

BrandonJXN
Nov 9, 2007, 3:17 AM
i agree Colemonkee. We shouldnt just jump to conclusions on every little thing. we have seen time and time again with the city, permits are a disaster. And remember a couple things:
1) the location of this project is A+
2) the building will be done in 2010, so who knows what the market will be like, more than likely better than today.

on a side note, its shocking how big that damn lot is.

You also have to factor that this is a valuable parking lot (if there is such a thing). This lot has gone roughly unused for about 2 months. Downtown LA wouldn't have this lot closed off for as long as it has if this project wasn't going to go through soon.

Quixote
Nov 25, 2007, 7:31 AM
November 24, 2007

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2410/2060377063_175016be0b_b.jpg
From Flickr, by fridayinla

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2248/2061162286_56ba43882d_b.jpg
From Flickr, by fridayinla

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2373/2060380757_182b9f61e6_b.jpg
From Flickr, by fridayinla

SD_Phil
Nov 27, 2007, 3:46 AM
So it's back to temporary parking?

Quixote
Dec 16, 2007, 3:35 AM
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l38/awherron/LACentral3.png

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l38/awherron/LACentral5.png

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l38/awherron/LACentral2.png

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l38/awherron/LACentral4.png

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l38/awherron/LACentral1.png

JDRCRASH
Dec 17, 2007, 6:40 PM
Nice rendering for whoever made them.

Echo Park
Dec 17, 2007, 6:52 PM
Bland Central

JDRCRASH
Dec 28, 2007, 3:13 AM
Don't feel so defeated yet Echo Park, at least it's approved.

dktshb
Dec 28, 2007, 3:23 AM
That's one surface lot that needs to get developed if I ever saw one.

Big Daddy
Dec 28, 2007, 7:12 AM
:sly:

There is no way New York City will continue it's claim of having the most skyscrapers much longer.

It is far more unrealistic to think they should build any towers in LA. It is absolutely inevitable that a major quake is coming your way and I don’t care how you build those buildings, many of them will come down.

As for New York, New York is New York it will always be THE city especially when it comes to skyscrapers. Dubai may have the tallest, but it will also be the emptiest and LA will always be the “wanna be”.

Xeelee
Dec 28, 2007, 4:35 PM
hrm...

BrandonJXN
Dec 31, 2007, 2:55 AM
It is far more unrealistic to think they should build any towers in LA. It is absolutely inevitable that a major quake is coming your way and I don’t care how you build those buildings, many of them will come down.


You should think of originality as your New Years Resoloution.

JDRCRASH
Dec 31, 2007, 7:17 AM
It is far more unrealistic to think they should build any towers in LA. It is absolutely inevitable that a major quake is coming your way and I don’t care how you build those buildings, many of them will come down.

As for New York, New York is New York it will always be THE city especially when it comes to skyscrapers. Dubai may have the tallest, but it will also be the emptiest and LA will always be the “wanna be”.

My opinions have have changed a little since this comment I made.
Wanna be? As we speak, our development ordinances are being revised, something we haven't done literally in decades since the early 20th Century.
That is what every non-wanna be city does.

What many fail to realize is that Los Angeles was indeed a city of what was considered then High-Rise development before the oil companies came in.
And what many fail to accept is that the skyscraper does not exclusively belong to one city.......period.
It is not :lmao:, :haha:, :sly:, or :koko:, but rather simple logic. It is not that hard to understand or comprehend.

That does not mean I support wasting profit from oil to build Superscrapers for no economic purpose, when that large sums of capital made from a fossil fuel could and should be used for bringing people out of poverty.:rolleyes:

LosAngeles
Jun 8, 2008, 6:57 PM
somebody know something new?????????
i cant believe its approved but not started yet..
i know why i just cant wait anymore xD
hope they will start this year (July,August,September)

Easy
Jun 14, 2008, 5:08 PM
i cant believe its approved but not started yet..

Lots of projects around the country are on hold because the mortgage crisis has made it hard for both developers and home buyers to get loans. I think that they will break ground when they can secure financing. Supposedly they already have a high end hotel attached to the project.

Lovetowers
Feb 15, 2013, 2:56 AM
Sooooooo whats going with this project ? Is something gonna happen with that lot ?

JDRCRASH
Feb 15, 2013, 3:09 AM
Yeah, so... I basically stopped everything I was doing right now when I saw someone comment on this ancient thread, perhaps with new info to share... but alas, it wasn't meant to be :(

Sooooooo whats going with this project ? Is something gonna happen with that lot ?

Hopefully we'll hear something soon given all the activity over the last couple years. Right now it has been approved; "all" that's left is getting the financing...

blackcat23
Feb 15, 2013, 3:15 AM
Yeah, so... I basically stopped everything I was doing right now when I saw someone comment on this ancient thread, perhaps with new info to share... but alas, it wasn't meant to be :(

Me too haha.

There's been a bit of movement with the other lots surrounding Staples/LA Live. Car Wash parcel was sold, a hotel development is rumored for the lot at Pico/Figueroa, and the Double Marriott is under construction. I'd like to think we'll hear something about LA Central in the coming year.

Lovetowers
Feb 15, 2013, 3:30 AM
Lol yea I knew that post would have gotten some hopes up lol sorry about that but just really wanted to know

Valyrian Steel
Feb 15, 2013, 7:52 AM
Lol yea I knew that post would have gotten some hopes up lol sorry about that but just really wanted to know

The fact that the last comment was posted 5 years ago should have given you a hint. But anyway, if there is any new information available for a project, it will be posted. But if you're really curious, you can always use the downtown thread, instead of bumping very old threads like this one.

BrandonJXN
Feb 15, 2013, 7:55 AM
Sooooooo whats going with this project ? Is something gonna happen with that lot ?

You really should be banned. I'm serious when I say that. 5 years between posts is not news enough?

Lord have mercy.

Lovetowers
Feb 15, 2013, 7:08 PM
lol so typical, I mean is that really necessary ? Goodness I realize the last post was some years ago but damn it was just a simple question as to whats going to happen with that lot, that's all. LA Central was the last project proposed for that site which is why I decided to post in this particular thread, I figured I'd get an answer faster here then from the city. All you needed to do was just simply be polite and give a simple answer if you had an answer, if not, then just simply ignore my post not start yet another ridiculous argument that's not going to help get anything built. Damn I didn't think asking a small simple question was going to get me tarred and feathered. :uhh:

BrandonJXN
Feb 15, 2013, 7:29 PM
When something happens, you along with everyone else who reads this thread will be the first to know. But 5 years of inactivity is a clear indication that nothing is going on.

Mojeda101
Jul 1, 2013, 9:32 AM
Well it only took several days for this to actually be put here..

Didn't see this mentioned already, sorry if it's a repost. We could see some action with the L.A. Central parcel soon-

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-21/moinian-seeks-buyer-for-downtown-los-angeles-real-estate.html

Moinian Seeks Buyer for Downtown Los Angeles Real Estate


New York developer Joseph Moinian is marketing downtown Los Angeles land planned for a high-end retail, hotel and residential project.

Moinian Group, which bought the 4.5-acre (1.8-hectare) property in 2006 for $80 million from Anschutz Entertainment Group, has about 10 bidders and will choose within 30 to 60 days. Moinian, who had planned to build a mixed-use development on 1.5 million square feet (139,000 square meters) at the corner of 11th and Figueroa streets, decided to abandon the project to focus on New York real estate

“We have long believed that this is the best development site in Los Angeles and are encouraged by the incredible interest we are receiving from the buyer community,” Joseph Moinian said in an e-mailed statement.

About half the bidders for the Los Angeles land are from overseas, including China and the Middle East, the person said. The project may be valued at as much as $900 million once completed, said the person with knowledge of the process.

blackcat23
Jul 1, 2013, 3:29 PM
Hopefully this means we'll be looking at this in a few years.

http://img27.fansshare.com/pic103/w/sports-entertainment/1200/111_rtkl_la_sports_entertainment_district.jpg

blackcat23
Jul 4, 2013, 6:33 AM
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-staples-parking-lot-20130704,0,557741.story

Lot near Staples Center attracting bidders

by Cale Ottens

A sprawling parking lot across the street from Staples Center and L.A. Live is up for sale and drawing bidders eager for a prime piece of downtown Los Angeles real estate.

The 4.6-acre site at the southeast corner of 11th and Figueroa streets has been approved for a high-end mixed-use complex called Fig Central.

Moinian Group bought the property from Staples owner Anschutz Entertainment Group about seven years ago when L.A. Live was under construction....

A website for the Fig Central project includes plans for two towers. The north tower plan has 51 stories, rises 575 feet and includes hotel and residential space. The hotel would have 500 rooms. The second tower is designed to have 37 stories devoted to residential space.

The new buyer may somewhat alter the current design plans, but John Eichler, executive director of Cushman & Wakefield, said he doesn't expect significant changes to be made.

Mojeda101
Jul 4, 2013, 6:35 AM
So they cut 3 floors. No big deal.

LosAngelesSportsFan
Jul 4, 2013, 8:57 AM
no, im pretty sure they havent cut anything as the new buyer hasnt been selected yet.

blackcat23
Jul 4, 2013, 4:49 PM
http://figcentral.la/index.html

From SSC. Looks like the number of hotel rooms has been upped to 500.

I'm just going to unload this.
The dates are from 2013.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013102845PM.jpg

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013101133PM.jpg

http://s231.photobucket.com/user/trolltoast/media/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013103033PM.jpg.html

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013101156PM.jpg

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013102051PM.jpg

http://s231.photobucket.com/user/trolltoast/media/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013102107PM.jpg.html

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013102122PM.jpg

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013102140PM.jpg

http://s231.photobucket.com/user/trolltoast/media/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013102158PM.jpg.html

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013111455PM.jpg

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013111501PM.jpg

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013111436PM.jpg

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013111446PM.jpg

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture732013103022PM.jpg

Duck From NY
Jul 4, 2013, 9:36 PM
These are some very smooth designs.

sbarn
Jul 4, 2013, 9:40 PM
Awesome project, hope it gets built! :cheers:

Quixote
Jul 4, 2013, 9:41 PM
These are some very smooth designs.

Really? It looks like any standard post-modern residential tower you'd find in Vancouver, Toronto, Chicago, or NYC.

Duck From NY
Jul 5, 2013, 5:00 AM
Really? It looks like any standard post-modern residential tower you'd find in Vancouver, Toronto, Chicago, or NYC.

Not so much the buildings, more the street-level elements, and the layout of the whole district (from what I can see). Smooth, clean, sleek.

BrandonJXN
Jul 5, 2013, 7:38 PM
It has the feel of The Cosmopolitain in Vegas. I like the street level interaction. Not bad. Something like this is much needed in South Park.

MarshallKnight
Jul 5, 2013, 8:29 PM
This will be a huge boon to anybody stepping off the train. It's sort of a depressing walk to Staples right now. I don't have strong feelings about the aesthetics of the towers -- not ugly, not spectacular -- but they fit with the Ritz/Marriott, giving it some much needed company on that part of the skyline.

Hope this gets built.

Quixote
Jul 5, 2013, 8:32 PM
It has the feel of The Cosmopolitain in Vegas. I like the street level interaction. Not bad. Something like this is much needed in South Park.

It looks like LA Live, Dundas Square, and Irvine Spectrum all rolled into one.

112597jorge
Jul 5, 2013, 9:29 PM
These aren't the final designs, nor the final heights and dimensions, right?

We are yet to see the proposals of the other potential buyers, right?

:shrug:

Quixote
Jul 6, 2013, 4:28 AM
Here's a scaled down version of the project. It's the classic dichotomy of height versus density.

http://figcentral.la/images/alt-image-1.jpg

Quixote
Jul 6, 2013, 4:31 AM
The official website:

http://figcentral.la/index.html

Quixote
Jul 6, 2013, 5:06 AM
A big thanks to eclipse for posting these images. I don't know how to get flash images on a Mac other than to take a screenshot.

http://figcentral.la/images/overview-picture.jpg
http://figcentral.la/images/overview-picture.jpg

http://figcentral.la/images/render-3.jpg
http://figcentral.la/images/render-3.jpg

http://figcentral.la/images/rainbow_signage.png
http://figcentral.la/images/rainbow_signage.png

http://figcentral.la/images/street-elevation.jpg
http://figcentral.la/images/street-elevation.jpg

http://figcentral.la/images/street-elevation2.jpg

Mojeda101
Jul 6, 2013, 8:39 AM
no, im pretty sure they havent cut anything as the new buyer hasnt been selected yet.

I say this because of the title of the thread says 54/40 respectively and the article now claims 51 and 37. Just figured they cut a few floors, no biggie.

BrandonJXN
Jul 6, 2013, 3:27 PM
Here's a scaled down version of the project. It's the classic dichotomy of height versus density.

http://figcentral.la/images/alt-image-1.jpg

This needs to be moved 1 block south.

JDRCRASH
Jul 6, 2013, 9:17 PM
I say this because of the title of the thread says 54/40 respectively and the article now claims 51 and 37. Just figured they cut a few floors, no biggie.

Yeah, but i have to imagine that they'll want to move it back to 55/40 before long.

Mojeda101
Jul 6, 2013, 9:28 PM
Yeah, but i have to imagine that they'll want to move it back to 55/40 before long.

Can't argue with that. Remember when it was slated for 45/33?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/rpulido/LA%20Central/LACentral.jpg

elcoronel
Dec 22, 2013, 3:11 AM
Are there any updates for this development?

Thefigman
Dec 23, 2013, 4:05 PM
This blends in well with LA Live.

losangelesnative
Dec 27, 2013, 4:36 AM
according to LosAngelesSportsFan fig central has been sold to oceanwide real estate who will develop the site, once again great find LAsportsfan

losangelesnative
Dec 27, 2013, 7:37 AM
http://www.emporis.com/building/fig-central-i-los-angeles-ca-usa
according to this its supposed to break ground next year finish 2016 fig central tower 1

BrandonJXN
Dec 27, 2013, 10:12 PM
From Curbed:

Yesterday brought signs that the decades-stalled Metropolis project might be sputtering back to life; now South Park's other long-in-the-works megadevelopment, Fig Central, has a revived heartbeat too. Beijing-based developer Oceanwide Real Estate Group has agreed to buy the multi-million-dollar mixed-use project "for no more than $200 million," reports the Wall Street Journal; the project has been dying for that kind of cash influx since progress was halted by crappy market conditions back in 2008. "[T]he authorities' approval to build the project has been secured" already, Oceanwide said in a statement, suggesting that groundbreaking won't be far off, though there's no official date for completion.


First approved back in 2007, Fig Central, aka LA Central, would sit across the street from the Staples Center, at Eleventh and Twelfth between Flower and Figueroa Streets (currently a parking lot). Plans at the time included a 45-story high-rise, a 33-story tower, and a 222-room hotel and retail space, but it's unclear how much the new owners will deviate from the previous designs and plans.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/12/la_liveadjacent_megaproject_fig_central_is_back_from_the_dead.php

blackcat23
Dec 27, 2013, 10:34 PM
It's been approved for years, but they'd still need construction permits. This is good news, but I'd like to see what the Moinian Group has to say before getting too excited. As we saw when the Greenland Group bought into the Metropolis project earlier this year, information from press releases can be inaccurate due to the language barrier.

elcoronel
Dec 28, 2013, 3:33 AM
Are there any plans for this plot's twin across 12th Street?

Valyrian Steel
Jan 7, 2014, 7:58 AM
Detective Mojeda:

I just got off the phone with John Eichler, Executive Director of Fig Central. He told me the project will finally commence construction between 5-6 months. He really gave me optimism and hope. The project is updating their fire safety code to meet the current standard since they were still using the same code they used from 6 years ago. The code has recently been updated but that would only take a few months, and after that the project would essentially be shovel ready with Oceanwide wanting to start once they get the greenlight. Oceanwide will be making slight changes to the design, but nothing major. The project will still retain it's basic amenities in terms of hotel rooms and residential units so we won't be seeing any downsizing or upscaling. He was giving his opinion and he is happy to be claiming the biggest project in LA. He said his is around 1.5 million square feet compared to Grand Ave. being around 1.3. He gave his opinion on the news of Metropolis today and he believes that Greenland are still about a year from construction based on the permits and approvals they have yet to recieve.

This is it guys. By summer we should be seeing LA Live's neighbor rise :cheers:

http://figcentral.la/images/overview-picture.jpg

BigDan35
Jan 18, 2014, 4:35 PM
Subscribed!

black_crow
Feb 13, 2014, 10:13 PM
I got the same information.

They have already a nice website:

http://www.figcentral.la/index.html


Oceanwide will change our skyline very fast.

Zapatan
Feb 13, 2014, 10:22 PM
There is no way New York City will continue it's claim of having the most skyscrapers much longer.


I also hear Luxembourg is on it's way to passing the population of China in the near future...

No but seriously even if LA had more people it would never build one tenth of the high rises NY has because it is like one big suburb let alone surpass it.

Good to see at least some high rise action there though.

black_crow
Feb 13, 2014, 10:29 PM
Oh and by the way, Mr. Eichler wrote me:

"Mr. Pinnow, the below information that I gave is correct, except for the following Greenland is probably 6+ months away from starting construction; not 12 months."


I am really happy to hear that. I got my answer in 1 minute, this guy is very fast.

edluva
Feb 18, 2014, 9:04 AM
so, still no definitive date?

Submariner
Feb 18, 2014, 8:32 PM
I'm a NYC guy but I am always interested to hear about other activity in the country. Could someone give me a rundown of the "major" projects going on in downtown?

112597jorge
Feb 18, 2014, 8:52 PM
I'm a NYC guy but I am always interested to hear about other activity in the country. Could someone give me a rundown of the "major" projects going on in downtown?

ill include todays, and future developments

*Wilshire Grand
Grand Ave
*Metropolis
Fig Central
*Regional Connector
Mack Urban Towers
Onni Towers
Fig 36 story twin towers
Pershing square redo
*Bringing back Broadway
*Broad
Renaissance Hotel
Sixth Street Iconic Bridge
Barry Shy Projects
*The Bloc
Stationers Building
34 story shomof tower
Park CIM Tower
9th Olive 27 story tower
*wood partners tower
*too many 7 story shitboxes
LA streetcar

etc

*= going on right now

Submariner
Feb 18, 2014, 10:45 PM
ill include todays, and future developments

*Wilshire Grand
Grand Ave
*Metropolis
Fig Central
*Regional Connector
Mack Urban Towers
Onni Towers
Fig 36 story twin towers
Pershing square redo
*Bringing back Broadway
*Broad
Renaissance Hotel
Sixth Street Iconic Bridge
Barry Shy Projects
*The Bloc
Stationers Building
34 story shomof tower
Park CIM Tower
9th Olive 27 story tower
*wood partners tower
*too many 7 story shitboxes
LA streetcar

etc

*= going on right now

Thanks for that. Here is to hoping the boom accelerates and even taller towers are built!

JDRCRASH
Feb 20, 2014, 8:03 PM
I also hear Luxembourg is on it's way to passing the population of China in the near future...

No but seriously even if LA had more people it would never build one tenth of the high rises NY has because it is like one big suburb let alone surpass it.

Wait... are you actually replying to a comment I made 6 1/2 years ago... when I had JUST turned 18 years old?

Obviously, when I look back at that comment I can't help but laugh. I mean, really, my knowledge (while still relatively little) of real estate, economics, urbanity, socioeconomic patterns, etc is light-years from what it was back then.

black_crow
May 22, 2014, 8:04 PM
http://www.figcentral.la/index.html

The website is not working anymore, we need some updates.

blackcat23
Aug 29, 2014, 9:42 PM
Minor update regarding Fig Central (via Google translate)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://www.money-link.com.tw/news/newsc.aspx%3Fsn%3D2014082900500296%26k%3D120&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dfig%2Bcentral%2Boceanwide%2Bgroup%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DHcV%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Dsb%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D743%26tbs%3Dqdr:d

Hong Kong - Dow Jones Newswires Friday saw sales documents show that Chinese real estate developers Oceanwide Holdings Ltd (Oceanwide Holdings Co., Ltd., 000046.SZ referred to as: Oceanwide Holdings) intends to issue five years through overseas subsidiaries dollar-denominated bonds, investors will inquire; raising income intended for their real estate projects in Los Angeles Fig Central....

According to the information, Fig Central project site covers an area of 18,700 square meters, total construction area of 223,000 square meters, the project covers five-star hotels, luxury apartments, shopping centers.

black_crow
Aug 30, 2014, 1:18 PM
So Oceanwide has not the money for the project, but Mr. Eichler tells everybody, that they will start in 2014? :koko:

Or did I get something wrong?

colemonkee
Aug 31, 2014, 10:19 PM
It appears they are issuing private bonds to finance the construction. If they sell enough of them in a short amount of time, and they have their construction drawings complete or near complete (which recent posts on this forum allude to), it's reasonable to accept that they might start construction by December. Remember, there are still four months left in the year.

blackcat23
Sep 3, 2014, 3:38 PM
http://www.mingtiandi.com/real-estate/finance-real-estate/oceanwide-real-estate-sells-320m-bond-as-developer-debt-grows/

Oceanwide Real Estate Sells $320M Bond as Developer Debt Grows

http://turbo3.mingtiandi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/fig-central.jpg?61174c

Oceanwide Real Estate International opened up a new season of bond issues this week with a $320M sale as debt by China’s real estate developers reached historic levels.

The international bond sale by the Beijing-based developer comes as Oceanwide seeks to develop a 45-storey five-star hotel, apartment and retail project that it acquired in December 2013 for $200 million.