LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

What are you smoking?!?! WG is a SUPERTALL and the tallest building on the West Coast! Your eyes deceive you!

At 1099' WG is 81 feet or EIGHT phantom-stories taller than US Bank Tower! You're delusional!

At this point in time, the Wilshire grand is shorter than both the U.S. bank and Aon. Wilshire grand has two very important elements that create it's super tall status; the sail and the spire... Neither of which are actually on the building just yet. This building isn't truly a supertall from the core alone. Wait a few months for the glass curtain to reach the top

[ConstructDTLA]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

At this point in time, the Wilshire grand is shorter than both the U.S. bank and Aon. Wilshire grand has two very important elements that create it's super tall status; the sail and the spire... Neither of which are actually on the building just yet. This building isn't truly a supertall from the core alone. Wait a few months for the glass curtain to reach the top

True top out should be September.


Yesterday:

6th & Main by Hunter, on Flickr

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

^If you want vertical suburbia, look at century city residential towers. It's suburbaneqsue because it isn't walkable and made for cars. DTLA is walkable.

DTLA is only truly walkable in the older parts (Broadway, Spring, Los Angeles St. etc)

What is being built in South Park plus Metropolis (and what has been built on Bunker Hill) is Miami style vertical suburbia and brutal modernism respectively. Have you been to Paris, Manhattan, Tokyo, or SF? THOSE places are infinitely more walkable. Why? LIFE is conducted car-free for a meaningfully large share of city dwellers such that said cities are built by and for such car-free dwellers.

My point is, it's one thing to take photos of your city at certain angles and feel good about it looking like a city only superficially. It's another to actually LIVE it. We are NOT living it. We are fantasizing it through the camera lens. HUGE difference. I don't want to live in some IDEA of a city suggested by some carefully staged photograph taken from a distant hill. I want to live IN the actual city. Many of use here don't know the difference because I'm willing to bet they've never lived in a genuine urban city. Operative word being LIVED. They are evaluating it with the mindset of the San Fernando Valley suburbia that reared them.

Let's see: Wake up on the 34th floor, take elevators down to the 5th floor in parking podium, get in your car, drive four excruciatingly mind-numbing minutes down the garage, swipe pass to exit gated podium, drive 76 minutes to office park in Cerritos. After work, drive to that Ralph's three blocks from home, get ticket at entry gate, park 3rd floor under, shop, validate parking ticket, load car, submit validated parking ticket to exit gated parking, drive three blocks back to 5th floor of parking podium. Nope. Sorry. That is not urban living. My friends from Tokyo and Paris will laugh at you for suggesting that.

I really really fear the Miamification of DTLA is rapidly underway, and MY fantasy is that Re/Code LA is somehow in the process of codifying future growth away from such a future. But unfortunately, I don't hold such high hopes for our city's planners.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by ConstructDTLA

True top out should be September.

True. Drilling a flagpole on the roof takes a lot of time

Good point. Once the flagpole gets "constructed" WG will look MUCH taller than US Bank Tower. 81 phantom feet taller, in fact.

Wonderful pictures. Thanks!

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

True. Drilling a flagpole on the roof takes a lot of time

Good point. Once the flagpole gets "constructed" WG will look MUCH taller than US Bank Tower. 81 phantom feet taller, in fact.

Wonderful pictures. Thanks!

Spire.

The parapet and spire count towards official height, like it or not.

The parapet is actually going to be lit and it'll change colors just like the Bank tower's crown so i'm looking forward to that. Amazing shots Hunter. Everyone scroll up.

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

True. Drilling a flagpole on the roof takes a lot of time

Good point. Once the flagpole gets "constructed" WG will look MUCH taller than US Bank Tower. 81 phantom feet taller, in fact.

Wonderful pictures. Thanks!

You're forgetting the sail, which hasn't been constructed yet either.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

DTLA is only truly walkable in the older parts (Broadway, Spring, Los Angeles St. etc)

What is being built in South Park plus Metropolis (and what has been built on Bunker Hill) is Miami style vertical suburbia and brutal modernism respectively.

Have you been to Paris, Manhattan, Tokyo, or SF? THOSE places are infinitely more walkable. My point is, it's one thing to take photos of your city at certain angles and feel good about it looking like a city only superficially. It's another to actually LIVE it. We are NOT living it. We are fantasizing it through the camera lens. HUGE difference. I don't want to live in some idea of a city suggested by some carefully staged photograph. I want to live IN a city. Many of use here don't know the difference because I'm willing to bet they've never lived in another city. Operative word being LIVED. They are evaluating it with the mindset of the San Fernando Valley suburbia that reared them.

I really really fear the Miamification of DTLA is rapidly underway, and MY fantasy is that Re/Code LA is somehow in the process of codifying future growth away from such a future. But unfortunately, I don't hold such high hopes for our city's planners.

I 100% agree with this sentiment. It's a pet peeve of mine when people whine and complain about the aesthetics of the "skyline" or other such superficial crap as it has absolutely no impact on how an urban core actually works and functions.

[marv.b]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Look at that truck in the air in that last photo!

I'm extremely delighted to see Oceanwide in full swing after some of us had doubts a few months ago.

Guys, I could use a bit of help here. I'm working on the adaptive reuse projects, but I think i'm missing a few. Could someone help me point out what's missing? This is what I have so far.

Case Hotel
Harold Examiner
Trinity Auditorium
Giannini Place
Clark Hotel
Commercial Exchange
May Co Building
939 S Broadway
950 S Broadway
Harris Building(Cal State DTLA)
Singer Building(Stalled)

The Two projects that come to mind are first:

The Variety Arts Center Building on Figueroa (Hillsong Church)
http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/mega-...2be7fda-c61d-11e5-b84d-8fdc76880161.html

And secondly, if you want to include the renovation of the
Hotel Figueroa building

[Bikemike]

I think people here are impressed by all the newness of the buildlings, and the breadth of all the construction taking place in downtown, and really metro-wide right now.

But I'm reminded of the fact that LA has had booms in the past, in fits and starts. For instance, the 70s saw many many dense housing developments go up throughout the entire city. Watching all those buildings go up in a short time undoubtedly also impressed the pants off many of the SSP LA subforum's 70's counterparts, who similarly geeked off the idea that LA was "becoming" something. Ironic that the unanimously car-focused development going up then is now seen with much disdain and the source of most of our urban design challenges today, and yet, the unanimously car-focused development going up in DTLA is currently being celebrated for probably the exact same hollow reasons. No major changes. Just bigger versions of the same old thing.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

What are you smoking?!?! WG is a SUPERTALL and the tallest building on the West Coast! Your eyes deceive you!

At 1099' WG is 81 feet or EIGHT phantom-stories taller than US Bank Tower! You're delusional!

p.s. That shot of DTLA from presumably Griffith (Cesar90) is always disappointing to look at. It demonstrates how hollow and spartan our skyline is. A one-dimensional string of skyscrapers with gaps larger than the skyscrapers themselves. It looks like we're TRYING to have a grown-up skyline LOL (as opposed to simply BEING a big city skyline). Not impressive. DTLA needs to build 200% as many skyscrapers (and not a ton of thirty-story podiums) as already exist now on top of its current skyline in order to have anything worthy of LA's on-paper size.

Having lived in LA my whole life, I stopped banking on "skyline diplomacy" to elevate the profile of our city internationally and have since focused on improving LA at the street level where real life happens. That's why I'm still disappointed in Oceanwide and Circa. We are turning South Park into Miami. LA deserves much better than a vertical suburbia. To hell with the profile of our downtown as viewed from Kenneth Hahn or whatever.

Oh yeah. And the obligatory thanks for and complements to the pics. Great stuff.

you need help

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Spire.

The parapet and spire count towards official height, like it or not.

The parapet is actually going to be lit and it'll change colors just like the Bank tower's crown so i'm looking forward to that. Amazing shots Hunter. Everyone scroll up.

You meant to say, "the spire counts towards CTBUH's official height". Major difference. Criteria are also subjective.

For instance, the visual sense that WG will be and is much shorter than US Bank Tower is also subjective Many forumers here have noted as much.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

you need help

A picture is posted about downtown LA's skyline, and I'm pointing out an obvious thing about downtown LA's skyline based on that picture, in a thread about what other than.... downtown LA. What's wrong with that LosAngelesSportsFan? Don't be butt-hurt about an opinion you'd rather sweep under a rug.

Countless visitors to LA routinely make this observation all the time. Cesar90's is IMO an unflattering picture which pretty much captures those collective sentiments. The major buildings responsible for the bulk of our skyline are kept far apart from each other by innumerable short buildlings invisible from any skyline perspective, such as Mellon Buildling, Bonaventure, ATT Antenna, One Wilshire, or the Marriot, and in South Park's case, huge podiums and loads of shitboxes. The result: a series of really tall buildings down a mere couple of streets (Fig or Grand) separated by huge gaps. Views from Griffith are the best (worst?) in revealing that. South Park's (let's be honest. Mainly Figueroa's) boom in highrise construction is both helping and hurting the skyline. WIDE podiums topped by neither tall nor short (but skinny) skyscrapers a la Miami. Yes more buildings, but also more gaps LOL.

Anayways, the ones who need help are those who suffer deep emotional problems with this opinion being expressed
I'm just sayin'. I really dislike that angle in particular because it reveals the one-dimensional Figueroa-dependent skyline for what it is. Far from a thing to pin ones hopes on, at this point. Hence, my obsession with human-scale street-level improvements and weaning from car-dependent planning.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I 100% agree with this sentiment. It's a pet peeve of mine when people whine and complain about the aesthetics of the "skyline" or other such superficial crap as it has absolutely no impact on how an urban core actually works and functions.

Ultimately that's what really matters. Not how many cranes are going up, nor even how quickly parking spaces are disappearing.

What's really important is: How will this new development contribute to an improved, more walkable, more human scale, more humane, more green, more livable Los Angeles of 2035? Contrary to most of the people here, I am not impressed by development for development's sake. LA has been here MANY times before and not much can be said for it today. It has done the 70's version of the 2010s. Wash rinse repeat, etc.

just my $0.20

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

You meant to say, "the spire counts towards CTBUH's official height". Major difference. Criteria are also subjective.

For instance, the visual sense that WG will be and is much shorter than US Bank Tower is also subjective Many forumers here have noted as much.

It's universally accepted at this point. 1WTC is taller than the Willis Tower, and the WG is taller than the US Bank tower once completed. The spire will definitely be taller than the roof of the bank tower regardless of how tall the bulk of the building itself looks. The parapet alone will make it appear almost as tall by itself. The bank tower also sits a bit higher on the hill which could distort the overall appearance but the spire will be notably taller. It's a first for our skyline and certainly won't be last. Take a look at the bunker hill towers. They're shorter than some but appear much taller thanks to Bunker Hill. You lose.

Also, try and merge your posts next time please? 3 in a row can be a little annoying, thanks.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

At this point in time, the Wilshire grand is shorter than both the U.S. bank and Aon. Wilshire grand has two very important elements that create it's super tall status; the sail and the spire... Neither of which are actually on the building just yet. This building isn't truly a supertall from the core alone. Wait a few months for the glass curtain to reach the top

If going by CTBUH:

Supertall = 300m = 984ft
Wilshire Grand Roof = 284.8 m = 934ft = not "supertall"

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

It's universally accepted at this point. 1WTC is taller than the Willis Tower, and the WG is taller than the US Bank tower once completed. The spire will definitely be taller than the roof of the bank tower regardless of how tall the bulk of the building itself looks. The parapet alone will make it appear almost as tall by itself. The bank tower also sits a bit higher on the hill which could distort the overall appearance but the spire will be notably taller. It's a first for our skyline and certainly won't be last. Take a look at the bunker hill towers. They're shorter than some but appear much taller thanks to Bunker Hill. You lose.

You're playing the "cite a reference" game. Meaning if you can cite something in text that looks "official" (such as CTUBH) then surely it must be absolute truth. Fair enough.
My game is the reality game. And in the game of reality, you lose.

CTBUH's is an arbitrarily derived, official definition for the height of buildings. It's wholly reliant on semantic wordplay. It entire basis is dependent on arbitrarily defining a subjective criteria for what can be counted as "building". But what's a building? Is a building a functional object or an ornamental one? If going by the former, then CTBUH's subjective criteria are wrong. You can cite as many "acceptors" of CTBUH's official definition as you please as though the popularity of its criterion alone is enough of an "argument" to validate the legitimacy of your personal truth. Okay. On the logical basis of your argument, you can be Ptolemy and I'll be Copernicus

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

If going by CTBUH:

Supertall = 300m = 984ft
Wilshire Grand Roof = 284.8 m = 934ft = not "supertall"

Actually if you're going to use CTBUH, it also defines the Height to the architectural top as the following:

Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open-air, pedestrian entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment. This measurement is the most widely utilized and is employed to define the CTBUH rankings of the "World's Tallest Buildings."

Which means the spire is included.

Originally Posted by Bikemike

You're playing the "cite a reference" game.
My game is the reality game. And in the game of reality, you lose.

CTBUH's is an arbitrarily derived, official definition for the height of buildings. It's wholly reliant on semantic wordplay. But what's a building? Is a building a functional object or an ornamental one? If going by the former, then CTBUH's subjective criteria are wrong. You can cite as many "acceptors" of CTBUH's official definition as you please as though the popularity of its criterion is enough of an "argument" to validate the legitimacy of your personal truth. You can be Ptolemy and I'll be Copernicus

Am I thought? Because in the end, which is the higher in the end? The roof of the bank tower, or the tip of the spire?

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Actually if you're going to use CTBUH, it also defines the Height to the architectural top as the following:

You're being a captain obvious. If you haven't figured it out by now, I could care less about CTBUH's arbitrary and subjective criteria. The fact that you preach it like the Gospel makes it even less convincing LOL. Unlike with you, the repeated reiteration of a statement or the "officialness" of a statement does not make said statement more true to me.

But originally I was responding to what I though was hugh's statement that WG was supertall from the core alone, when in fact he stated that WG was NOT supertall from the core alone, so NM about that.

[Just-In-Cali]

Yet another page derailed by the mental stylings of you know who...pathological is an understatement...

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Actually if you're going to use CTBUH, it also defines the Height to the architectural top as the following:



Which means the spire is included.




Am I thought? Because in the end, which is the higher in the end? The roof of the bank tower, or the tip of the spire?

The question is, in the end, which is the higher? The roof of bank tower, or the roof of WG? If you answer my comparison of equivalents, then I'll address your comparison of non-equivalents.

Nice pictures, btw!