LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0 - Page 192

Jun · #**3821** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 12:15 AM**

29 Story planned for 845 S. Olive St.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/story...c1d40ac-c709-11e6-9825-674d2511b01b.html

Mojeda101 · #**3822** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 12:27 AM**

Darn beat me to it ^

Yeah, i'm a huge fan of it. It's so close to all the other towers and the design is gorgeous. That part of town is going to be so dense. If we could get a double tower project on that corner I could die happy.

Also, apparently Footaction has lights. Can't wait to see it when the blade sign is put up.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BONtjeTDXn3/?taken-by=footaction

Jun · #**3823** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 12:30 AM**

.

Illithid Dude · #**3824** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 12:47 AM**

Love the massing of that proposal, how it relates to the existing historic building and fully lines the lot. Reminds me of the density and use of space in new projects in New York.

Here's another render.

Wally West · #**3825** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 2:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Love the massing of that proposal, how it relates to the existing historic building and fully lines the lot.

Thanks for sharing that render. I'm now fully sold on this project.

NativeOrange · #**3826** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 3:48 AM**

Love that design, and also glad to see something proposed that doesn't take up multiple lots. In fact, once the lot facing the corners gets developed, you will barely notice that this building even has a parking podium (other than the awful but currently required curb cut/driveway on the western end, which I think they've blended nicely anyway considering the land constraints).

Also, at least from what we can see, no street level setbacks or large spaces between the historic structure next to it. This is about as good of an urban design as you can get with LA's current regulations, although more units is always better.

EDIT: BTW, this is how Onni's 49-story and LEVEL should have looked, with units on both sides of the street. Instead of those tumor-like podiums that stretch from end to end.

Doctorboffin · #**3827** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 4:18 AM**

Any guess for how long till the parking lots next to it get built up?

mhays · #**3828** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 6:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scania

I think some of you are really oblivious to how things work...more residents living in DTLA will definitely increase foot traffic, BUT, OMG the traffic will become insane! The rush hour traffic in DTLA is already pretty bad, its going to become worse as more residents are moving into DTLA. Some people on here complain, but no other city is building residents in their downtown like DTLA is doing now. It's incredible what's going on here.

One of the main points behind living in a downtown is to avoid commuting entirely. Many residents are net reductions in traffic, not additions.

DTLA's housing boom is impressive, but not on an unusual scale. Miami, NY, Chicago, Seattle, Vancouver, and Toronto are at least similar, and some are much higher.

BrandonJXN · #**3829** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 11:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Well, L.A. city has about 1.5 million more people than Chicago, and land costs are as high, so why shouldn't L.A. have a 90 or 100 story tower? Chicago has several. Grand should be GRAND. "Make no little plans"..Burnham.

LA's land size doesn't warrant a 100 story building.

112597jorge · #**3830** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

LA's land size doesn't warrant a 100 story building.

??? If you are saying it's not big enough then you're wrong because Chicago and even NYC is smaller but have 100 story buildings and there are cities abroad with larger land area that have or have planned 100 story buildings (ex. Bangkok), not to mention LA is in a first world nation and at a better economic state.

MKLA · #**3831** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 4:02 PM**

I think he means the opposite. It is too large a plot of land. Cities like manhattan have no choice but to go up. With the LA basin being so large, it does not have a need for a 100 story building, despite having a population larger than other cities with taller buildings.

BrandonJXN · #**3832** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 112597jorge

??? If you are saying it's not big enough then you're wrong because Chicago and even NYC is smaller but have 100 story buildings and there are cities abroad with larger land area that have or have planned 100 story buildings (ex. Bangkok), not to mention LA is in a first world nation and at a better economic state.

Chicago's land area is much smaller than LA. You drive 20 minutes north and you're in Evanston (a totally different city). 20 minutes west and you're in Oak Park (a totally different city). Plus the economics here work different. Sears built the Sears Tower to consolidate all of it's businesses into one building. But even when it was finished, it was only about 40% occupied for a very long time. Hell when the Empire State Building was finished, it sat empty for so long, it was known as the Empty State Building. Granted, it was in the middle of the Great Depression but still. Plus, Manhattan is an island. They have no choice but to build up.

I don't care what they build in Bangkok. Asia will build a 150 story skyscraper in the middle of the Gobi Desert if they wanted to. LA doesn't need nor warrant a 100 story building.

ChargerCarl · #**3833** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 4:53 PM**

The demand for that type of office space is a lot lower than it used to be. Even in NYC most of the supertalls being built are residential, with the office space being subsidized by the city. (Hudson Yards)

Unfortunately our building code makes it difficult to build tall, skinny residential towers.

ChargerCarl · #**3834** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 4:57 PM**

Also skyscrapers are built where land is most valuable. In LA that's on the westside, not downtown. In a free housing market Santa Monica and the wilshire corridor would probably be a skyscraper district extending into DTLA.

This is LA's urban center:
http://imgur.com/a/sO5Xi

Just-In-Cali · #**3835** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 112597jorge

??? If you are saying it's not big enough then you're wrong because Chicago and even NYC is smaller but have 100 story buildings and there are cities abroad with larger land area that have or have planned 100 story buildings (ex. Bangkok), not to mention LA is in a first world nation and at a better economic state.

No one is saying its impossible. Some rich Asian conglomerate may want to make a statement and build an 80 to 100 story tower. There is just no demand for it here currently. Literally the only place in the US building them is NY right now, and those pencil thin sticks aren't all that beloved by the locals and are only that tall because the lots are the size of postage stamps in the neighborhoods they are being built.
The way LA would get more 75+ story towers is what they did with Wilshire Grand...Mixed Use. That is the future of supertalls in the US for the most part. Any combination of office, residential, hotel, even industrial would be needed to push a building above the standard 50 stories.
If they create a tower with 25 floors of creative office, 35 floors of residential, and then 40 floors of hotel rooms, then boom, 100 stories, and probably around 1250-1300 ft.
But that's IF the investment will be made. When the parking lots are fleshed out with dozens of 30-40 story towers, you'll see taller. Hell, there are two proposed 700+ footers on the books. That's taller than the average in most cities.

mhays · #**3836** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 5:23 PM**

Land cost is a big factor, but there are others. A 100-story building comes at a high premium in $/sf. It's also inconvenient for occupants, with commonly a two-stage "commute" to your level. So powerful motivators are needed. Maybe it's the view that can't be had otherwise on a permanent basis. Maybe it's a lack of buildable land in a key high-rent district, coupled with high demand. Maybe it's subsidy of some type. Capacity for tremendous financial risk is always a factor.

cesar90 · #**3837** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 5:30 PM**

• Video Link

112597jorge · #**3838** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

No one is saying its impossible. Some rich Asian conglomerate may want to make a statement and build an 80 to 100 story tower. There is just no demand for it here currently. Literally the only place in the US building them is NY right now, and those pencil thin sticks aren't all that beloved by the locals and are only that tall because the lots are the size of postage stamps in the neighborhoods they are being built.
The way LA would get more 75+ story towers is what they did with Wilshire Grand...Mixed Use. That is the future of supertalls in the US for the most part. Any combination of office, residential, hotel, even industrial would be needed to push a building above the standard 50 stories.
If they create a tower with 25 floors of creative office, 35 floors of residential, and then 40 floors of hotel rooms, then boom, 100 stories, and probably around 1250-1300 ft.
But that's IF the investment will be made. When the parking lots are fleshed out with dozens of 30-40 story towers, you'll see taller. Hell, there are two proposed 700+ footers on the books. That's taller than the average in most cities.

Totally agree I don't think we will see 100 story office buildings but 100 story mixed use isn't so far fetched as some think. If the current boom keeps this pace we will be really short on open parking lots and smaller parcels will yield taller towers, who knows 100 story or 80 or whatever but taller nonetheless, and like I said, not so far fetched

112597jorge · #**3839** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

Chicago's land area is much smaller than LA. You drive 20 minutes north and you're in Evanston (a totally different city). 20 minutes west and you're in Oak Park (a totally different city). Plus the economics here work different. Sears built the Sears Tower to consolidate all of it's businesses into one building. But even when it was finished, it was only about 40% occupied for a very long time. Hell when the Empire State Building was finished, it sat empty for so long, it was known as the Empty State Building. Granted, it was in the middle of the Great Depression but still. Plus, Manhattan is an island. They have no choice but to build up.

I don't care what they build in Bangkok. Asia will build a 150 story skyscraper in the middle of the Gobi Desert if they wanted to. LA doesn't need nor warrant a 100 story building.

No city ever "needed" a 100 story, NYC didn't, neither did Chicago, they just built for reasons other than "needing" same could happen in LA in the future, if the set up is there like it was in other cities it may happen.

Valyrian Steel · #**3840** Posted **Dec 21, 2016, 7:50 PM**

LA isn't running out of parking lots. There dozens left all around downtown and other areas. That's in addition to sea of short, nondescript buildings that can easily be demolished.