LOS ANGELES | Angels Landing Towers | 854 & 542 FT | 64 & 48 FLOORS

[38 Geary]

Was there a height reduction? It doesn't look as tall relative to 2Cal (750 ft) as it did in previous renderings.



https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2...s-landing-project-wins-key-city-approval

Before (after the initial height reduction from 1020 ft):


https://urbanize.city/la/post/heres-look-scaled-back-plan-angels-landing

[Quixote]

^ Yes, it's now 854 feet as the thread title indicates.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ Yes, it's now 854 feet as the thread title indicates.

The newest proposal is 63 stories, the older version was to be 64 stories--but no update on the current heights.

Also remember, as the Los Angeles Times article covers, that Angels Landing will be excavating "five stories" of hillside--the same hill on which Two California Plaza sits--so it will look shorter than it really is compared to the other towers on top of the hill.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by craigs

The newest proposal is 63 stories, the older version was to be 64 stories--but no update on the current heights.

Also remember, as the Los Angeles Times article covers, that Angels Landing will be excavating "five stories" of hillside--the same hill on which Two California Plaza sits--so it will look shorter than it really is compared to the other towers on top of the hill.

It does look slightly shorter (like a story or two), maybe ~835 ish now, accounting for the elevation difference.

Not a big deal, still one of the tallest buildings in LA.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Really shows the massiveness of the big ones. And (NYC at least, I don't keep that close track of Chicago) they just keep getting bigger and bigger.

if you're curious to learn more about how NYC & Chicago have been increasing their dominance of the tallest buildings in the nation, have a read through the following thread:

New York & Chicago skyscraper dominance of the US grows in the 21st century



as for this LA proposal, glad to hear it's been approved!

[colemonkee]

Man, that is crazy. Well, LA has 3 buildings on the boards just over 800 ft. that actually have a chance to be built (and two more that are more or less DOA), so we have the potential to double our current allotment, but still nowhere close to NYC or CHI.

[NYguy]

https://labusinessjournal.com/special-reports/five-questions-with-don-peebles/

Five Questions with Don Peebles

BY MICHAEL AUSHENKER
AUGUST 29, 2022

Where is Angels Landing now in its development timeline?

We just got the entitlements in May. We are finishing up some documents with the city in regards to the sale of the site. We are going through the hotel incentive agreement with the city now. We are now beginning our next phase of the project, which is really the design and development.

We’ll begin on construction documents so we can get the building ready to construct. That’ll take us another 18 months or so to get the building permitted. From there, we’re going to go forward and build it and get it open hopefully before the 2028 Olympics.

[Charmy2]

Does anybody have any news on the future of this project? Is it cancelled?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Charmy2

Does anybody have any news on the future of this project? Is it cancelled?

I thought it was supposed to be built for the 2028 Olympics but not sure I still see that happening.

[ahealy]

So this is dead or on hold, right?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by ahealy

So this is dead or on hold, right?

IIRC it was cancelled.

1045 Olive, to my knowledge is the only 800+ footer proposed for LA at the moment.

[NYguy]

https://therealdeal.com/la/2025/01/17/city-of-los-angeles-faces-lawsuit-for-angels-landing-project/

Peebles, MacFarlane entity sues city for thwarting $1.6B Angels Landing project
Developers seek to recoup $20 million investment in the DTLA mixed-use development


By Lauren Elkies Schram
Jan 17, 2025

Developer Don Peebles and partner Victor MacFarlane’s Angels Landing Partners has sued the City of Los Angeles for allegedly unlawfully terminating their contract to build the $1.6 billion Angels Landing project Downtown, which would have been among the largest African-American-led developments in the city’s history.

Peebles’ eponymous firm and MacFarlane Development Company are seeking $20 million they invested in the project when the city “abruptly and inexplicably terminated its agreement with Angels Landing without proper justification,” according to the complaint filed in L.A. Superior Court.

The Angels Landing team was selected by the city to develop the vacant site at 361 South Hill Street, between Hill and Olive streets and 4th and 5th streets, in the Bunker Hill neighborhood following a request for qualifications in April 2017.

The 1.9 million-square-foot DTLA mixed-use project was going to mark the Peebles Corporation’s foray into the L.A. market, the company’s CEO said. The firm is based in Miami, but has developed in New York and elsewhere.

Angels Landing called for two mixed-use buildings — one 850 feet tall and the other 600 feet tall — with hotel rooms, rental and condominium units, retail, restaurants, an elementary charter school and open space.

The city and the developers executed an exclusive negotiating agreement as of March 2018. It stipulated that the developers would be reimbursed by the city if the city terminated the agreement when the developers were not in default of their obligations, per the complaint.

Peebles and MacFarlane filed suit against their minority partner, Ricardo Pagan-led Claridge Properties, for failing to make an initial capital contribution of $184,951 in April 2021. The suit was resolved and dismissed in June 2023, with Claridge no longer maintaining a capital interest in Angels Landing.

But the city informed Angels Landing in July 2023 that Claridge’s transfer of interests to Peebles and MacFarlane “constituted an unauthorized ‘transfer,’ which would allow the city to terminate” the exclusive negotiating agreement. The city sent a second letter about the default in October 2023 calling the assignment an “unpermitted transfer.”

In February 2024, the city terminated the agreement with Angels Landing.

“The city tried to say it was a breach of our development agreement, which it was not,” Peebles told The Real Deal Wednesday. He added that they tried to “argue they had the right to terminate our agreement, which they did not.”
Advertisement

[ahealy]

@ ZAP & NyGuy, thank you. I had read that article and was hoping there was some secret progress for movement. Ugh...

Something even better will go in there someday

[Illithid Dude]

The death of the Angel's Flight project has to be one of the most embarrassing examples of Los Angeles executive dysfunction in recent memory. I'm not sure there's any way to sugar coat it. Just terminal humiliation all around.

https://la.urbanize.city/post/crala-putting-angels-landing-and-bethune-library-sites-grabs

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The death of the Angel's Flight project has to be one of the most embarrassing examples of Los Angeles executive dysfunction in recent memory. I'm not sure there's any way to sugar coat it. Just terminal humiliation all around.

https://la.urbanize.city/post/crala-putting-angels-landing-and-bethune-library-sites-grabs

Disagreed. I see no good reason for anyone in Los Angeles to feel "embarrassed" or "humiliated" because a pre-pandemic proposal won't get built. Talk about overwrought. There is no need to bother to "sugarcoat" the failed plans of mice and men.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by craigs

Disagreed. I see no good reason for anyone in Los Angeles to feel "embarrassed" or "humiliated" because a pre-pandemic proposal won't get built. Talk about overwrought. There is no need to bother to "sugarcoat" the failed plans of mice and men.

But it wasn't built not because of economics, but because of city machinations. That's the issue!

See:

Black developers refuse to work with De León on $1.6-billion Angels Landing project

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...on-on-1-6-billion-angels-landing-project

Black real estate developers behind the proposed $1.6-billion Angels Landing project in downtown Los Angeles said that they refuse to continue working with City Councilman Kevin De León, in light of the secretly taped racist conversation he took part in, saying they now fear he holds a racial bias against them and has been stalling city approvals.

“We knew they were slow-walking us,” Peebles said in an interview. “It’s like we had leprosy.

“We’ve been trying to meet with De León for seven-plus months,” he said. “We could see Biden or Newsom sooner.”

and

Peebles, MacFarlane entity sues city for thwarting $1.6B Angels Landing project
Developers seek to recoup $20 million investment in the DTLA mixed-use development

https://therealdeal.com/la/2025/01/17/city-of-los-angeles-faces-lawsuit-for-angels-landing-project/

Peebles’ eponymous firm and MacFarlane Development Company are seeking $20 million they invested in the project when the city “abruptly and inexplicably terminated its agreement with Angels Landing without proper justification,” according to the complaint filed in L.A. Superior Court.

Peebles and MacFarlane filed suit against their minority partner, Ricardo Pagan-led Claridge Properties, for failing to make an initial capital contribution of $184,951 in April 2021. The suit was resolved and dismissed in June 2023, with Claridge no longer maintaining a capital interest in Angels Landing.

But the city informed Angels Landing in July 2023 that Claridge’s transfer of interests to Peebles and MacFarlane “constituted an unauthorized ‘transfer,’ which would allow the city to terminate” the exclusive negotiating agreement. The city sent a second letter about the default in October 2023 calling the assignment an “unpermitted transfer.”

In February 2024, the city terminated the agreement with Angels Landing.

“The city tried to say it was a breach of our development agreement, which it was not,” Peebles told The Real Deal Wednesday. He added that they tried to “argue they had the right to terminate our agreement, which they did not.”

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

But it wasn't built not because of economics, but because of city machinations. That's the issue!

If you choose to feel "embarrassed" and "terminally humiliated" over this failed project, then nobody can stop you.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by craigs

If you choose to feel "embarrassed" and "terminally humiliated" over this failed project, then nobody can stop you.

There was no reason to post this reply to a group chat. It is not an update nor is it accurate. Illithid Dude gave us the developmental update on why Angels Knoll has been canceled. He said it is [an embarrassment] implying to the city, which it is. Disgraced city council members that were kicked out of office along with a scandal whose ramifications highlight the dysfunction in the city government is an embarrassment to the city. He didn’t say he was personally embarrassed.

Moderator, please delete this (my post) and the one above as it fails to advance discussion on projects and developments.

Thank you

[craigs]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

There was no reason to post this reply to a group chat. It is not an update nor is it accurate. Illithid Dude gave us the developmental update on why Angels Knoll has been canceled. He said it is [an embarrassment] implying to the city, which it is. Disgraced city council members that were kicked out of office along with a scandal whose ramifications highlight the dysfunction in the city government is an embarrassment to the city. He didn’t say he was personally embarrassed.

Moderator, please delete this (my post) and the one above as it fails to advance discussion on projects and developments.

Thank you

My point is that we knew that project was dead in the water years ago, and that it is not unusual for proposals to fall through, especially when the initial proposal came before COVID. "Embarrassed" and "terminally humiliated" are not terms describing projects and construction; they are personal emotions. And DeLeon was rightfully kicked to the curb by voters, but that is a political issue best left to other subforums.

[Urbannizer]

Cancelled

https://la.urbanize.city/post/crala-putting-angels-landing-and-bethune-library-sites-grabs

The failure of two pre-pandemic proposals for mixed-use developments will mean that two marquee sites controlled by CRA/LA are to be declared as surplus land and put up for grabs.

A few miles north in Downtown Los Angeles, CRA/LA is set to do the same with the Bunker Hill Y-1 Parcel - a hillside property located at the northwest corner of Hill and 4th Streets. As with the Bethune Library site, CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles had forged an agreement in which the City would be responsible for leading the development process.

In 2017, the City's request for proposals process landed on a joint submission by MacFarlane Partners and the Peebles Corporation, which called for redeveloping the property with a mixed-use, high-rise complex dubbed Angels Landing. Plans had called for buildings standing 64 and 42 stories in height, featuring more than 400 homes, two hotels, and commercial space.

While a declaration of the site as surplus land may be the final nail in the coffin, Angels Landing has been off the table for several years at this point. The developers publicly sparred with former Councilmember Kevin de Leon, who represented Downtown on the City Council prior to being unseated by current Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, and would later sue the City over the scuttled project.