Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner
You folks should reach out to city stake holders and the developers and give your input. If enough of them see the value in making this a "centerpiece" of their city skyline, they may indeed give it a more fitting hat.
|
No, they won't.
I am in contact with McFarlane and also with Handel Architects.
They got a lot of feedback and incorporated it into the design. The Angel Terrace was one of those things.
A statue on top is for sure not part of their concept and a 250 ft. tall crown is also unrealistic.
We are talking about a 1000 ft. tall building. A "real" 250 ft. crown is a big and expensive challenge (due to earthquake proof).
It's about meeting at least the code requirements.
Not even money can help you here and they have to find lenders. Just take a look at this article about the Wilshire Grand Center:
Quote:
At 63, he has helped shape some of the world's most distinguished skyscrapers: the Petronas Towers in Malaysia, Taipei 101 in Taiwan and Shanghai Tower in China.
The New Wilshire Grand, however, proved to be in a class by itself, presenting engineers with unprecedented challenges.
The results doomed the architect's original vision for the top of this soaring edifice: a filigree of steel encased in glass and topped by a spire. Rising 300 feet above the tower, the features — too tall, too light — would never survive those top-floor forces.
On this point, there was no room for debate.
|
http://graphics.latimes.com/wilshire-grand-earthquakes/
The project is a joint venture between three companies and financing is another challenge. Possible lenders shouldn't be a problem, but Mr. Peebles pointed out that they won't start without a maximum price guaranteed and with everyone being happy.
There are many parties involved. We have a saying in Germany: "Too many cooks spoil the broth."
It will be a long and tough process.