LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by Bwin517

Parking is free. The park is beautiful...enjoy!

Park is beautiful, but the parking is not free. $2 for one hour, not sure about the pricing beyond that. Automated pay station.

[ConstructDTLA]

Getting ready for the Pepsi logo?
Wilshire Grand Tower by Hunter, on Flickr

[Blesha13]

Originally Posted by ConstructDTLA

Getting ready for the Pepsi logo?
Wilshire Grand Tower by Hunter, on Flickr

Ugh.

[colemonkee]

Oh boy, let's hope not. Looks great as is without a logo.

[Wilcal]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Well since you have such deep opinions on this, enough to take a shot at a bunch of people, what defines acceptable architecture for a residential tower for you? Have an example of what we should be seeing?

Wow Just, take it from a mental health professional and cool off a bid. Remember, this is a forum of differing opinions which should be viewed and accepted with a modicum of respect. I did not take a "shot" at others--I'm not even sure of what that means today in your generational parlance--but if it implies a hostile act (in writing) than no it was not a shot but merely a "multi-quoted" response to similar themes or ideas of three or four different writers--those of whom I did not share the same opinion with. Do you understand now? Oh and in actual response to your question about my standard for excellence, I submit what I consider to be the finest:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Point_Tower#Architecture. And before you take a shot at this work, consider the world is full of brilliant and talented architects (yes some very costly and some young upstarts who are not--by the way, the Onni group can afford the best--I happen to think that they are being smart enough to pay for designs to be at the level that would be accepted by the local DTLA consumer). And the last point on my issue of mediocrity in design. Southpark is getting to be intensely developed as we all know and land space is shrinking. There are alot of very nondescript 🞵🞵🞵🞵 boxes that have and are still being built, so is it really ideal to have just more and more bland towers in the area? Yeah, it's exciting to see tall towers as one approaches the city by car (especially in a city with such a notoriously historic flat skyline--which other than Citywatch, I am old enough to remember). But up close, not so much; the blandness becomes apparent and excitement soon wears off.

[DJ1272]

Edit: nvm, wrong user.

[black_crow]

Originally Posted by Wilcal

Wow Just, take it from a mental health professional and cool off a bid. Remember, this is a forum of differing opinions which should be viewed and accepted with a modicum of respect. I did not take a "shot" at others--I'm not even sure of what that means today in your probably juvenile generational parlance--but if it implies a hostile act (in writing) than no it was not a shot but merely a "multi-quoted" response to similar themes or ideas of three or four different writers. Those whom I did not share the same opinion with. Do you understand, now?

Fair enough, but he has a point too.

What do you expect? That every tower is a master piece of design?
How realistic is that? We need housing. What is wrong with a normal looking glass tower?

edit:

I agree that design would be awesome, but you won't find many residential skyscrapers with that kind of design.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Wilcal

Wow Just, take it from a mental health professional and cool off a bid. Remember, this is a forum of differing opinions which should be viewed and accepted with a modicum of respect. I did not take a "shot" at others--I'm not even sure of what that means today in your probably juvenile generational parlance--but if it implies a hostile act (in writing) than no it was not a shot but merely a "multi-quoted" response to similar themes or ideas of three or four different writers--those of whom I did not share the same opinion with. Do you understand, now? Oh and in actual response to your question about my standard for excellence, I submit what I consider to be the finest:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Point_Tower#Architecture. And before you take a shot at this work, consider the world is full of brilliant and talented architects (yes some very costly and some young upstarts who are not--by the way, the Onni group can afford the best--I happen to think that they are being smart enough to pay for designs to be at the level that would be accepted by the local DTLA consumer). And the last point on my issue of mediocrity in design. Southpark is getting to be intensely developed as we all know and land space is shrinking. There are alotof very nondescript 🞵🞵🞵🞵 boxes that have and are still being built, so is it really ideal to have just more and more bland towers in the area? Yeah, it's exciting to see tall towers as one approaches the city by car (especially in a city with such a notoriously historic flat skyline--which other than Citywatch, I am old enough to remember). But up close, not so much; the blandness becomes apparent and excitement wears off.

As someone who sees Lake Point Tower every day, I think it's smaller sister Harbor Point is much better.



What works in Chicago doesn't work in LA. However, if you think Lake Point is fine and 820 is boring, I question that. Lake Point is fine just because of it's location. LA has a lot of mediocre towers. So does Chicago. So does Dubai. Not everything needs to be a 5 star award winning design. A city would be boring as hell if that were the case.

[Wilcal]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

As someone who sees Lake Point Tower every day, I think it's smaller sister Harbor Point is much better.



What works in Chicago doesn't work in LA. However, if you think Lake Point is fine and 820 is boring, I question that. Lake Point is fine just because of it's location. LA has a lot of mediocre towers. So does Chicago. So does Dubai. Not everything needs to be a 5 star award winning design. A city would be boring as hell if that were the case.

Brandon, you and the others (that is not a "shot" by the way) make my point because both those buildings mentioned are in Chicago, not DTLA. Yes, not all buildings or designs work in differing cities or locations but that is the the province of the architect and quite frankly defines part of what makes a design excellent. But back to the issue of blandness, try to name five buildings (built within the past 40 years in DTLA) that are truly outstanding. Of those in Chicago, I could name maybe 15. Dubai is hopeless.

[Wilcal]

Originally Posted by LDVArch

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with mediocrity. Most people live mediocre lives. Most people never do or manage to posses something that is truly original. Faced with that reality, you would think more of us would be more kind and understanding in the face of mediocrity.

That brings us to Frank Gehry on the subject. When he received the Asturias Award, a reporter asked him, "How do you answer to those who accuse you of practicing showy architecture?"

Gehry gave the guy the finger and replied:

“Let me tell you one thing. In this world we are living in, 98 percent of everything that is built and designed today is pure s**t. There's no sense of design, no respect for humanity or for anything else. They are damn buildings and that's it. Once in a while, however, there's a small group of people who does something special. Very few. But good god, leave us alone! We are dedicated to our work. I don't ask for work. I don't have a publicist. I'm not waiting for anyone to call me. I work with clients who respect the art of architecture. Therefore, please don't ask questions as stupid as that one."

It is important to note that Gehry is not pretending here to know the difference between mediocre architecture and everything else. Anyone who claims they do would probably also get the finger from Gehry. As Gehry explained later, he was only saying there is big difference between those who try and those who don't try.

It's interesting that you should note that because I think that with a few exceptions, a lot of Gehry's work is "grossly overrated 🞵🞵🞵🞵."

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Wilcal

Brandon, you and the others (that is not a "shot" by the way) make my point because both those buildings mentioned are in Chicago, not DTLA. Yes, not all buildings or designs work in differing cities or locations but that is the the province of the architect and quite frankly defines part of what makes a design excellent. But back to the issue of blandness, try to name five buildings (built within the past 40 years in DTLA) that are truly outstanding. Of those in Chicago, I could name maybe 15. Dubai is hopeless.

1. Cal Plaza 2
2. CalTrans District 7
3. Disney Hall
4. Wells Fargo Tower
5. John Ferraro Building

It's all subjective yes.

[black_crow]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

It's all subjective yes.

Correct.

I don't even need to go so far back.
I absolutely love the Ritz-Carlton and the Wilshire Grand Center is nice too.

The Fox Plaza is also a beauty.

There is no accounting for taste.

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by Wilcal

Wow Just, take it from a mental health professional and cool off a bid. Remember, this is a forum of differing opinions which should be viewed and accepted with a modicum of respect. I did not take a "shot" at others--I'm not even sure of what that means today in your generational parlance--but if it implies a hostile act (in writing) than no it was not a shot but merely a "multi-quoted" response to similar themes or ideas of three or four different writers--those of whom I did not share the same opinion with. Do you understand now? Oh and in actual response to your question about my standard for excellence, I submit what I consider to be the finest:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Point_Tower#Architecture. And before you take a shot at this work, consider the world is full of brilliant and talented architects (yes some very costly and some young upstarts who are not--by the way, the Onni group can afford the best--I happen to think that they are being smart enough to pay for designs to be at the level that would be accepted by the local DTLA consumer). And the last point on my issue of mediocrity in design. Southpark is getting to be intensely developed as we all know and land space is shrinking. There are alot of very nondescript 🞵🞵🞵🞵 boxes that have and are still being built, so is it really ideal to have just more and more bland towers in the area? Yeah, it's exciting to see tall towers as one approaches the city by car (especially in a city with such a notoriously historic flat skyline--which other than Citywatch, I am old enough to remember). But up close, not so much; the blandness becomes apparent and excitement soon wears off.

LOL. So, as a mental health professional, you could interpret my mood by me asking for examples in text, on a forum? And as for opinions, that's exactly what I asked for. Not getting where the diatribe was needed, but eh...
I know you feel backed into a corner, but no need to lash out, we're all friends here.
My point is, Im going to reserve my disdain for truly prominent structures that are skyline defining and streetscape altering. A common residential tower among others isn't going to hurt my feelings if it isn't a work of art. Ill await your next dismissive comeback with baited breath!
That's all.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

LOL. So, as a mental health professional, you could interpret my mood by me asking for examples in text, on a forum? And as for opinions, that's exactly what I asked for. Not getting where the diatribe was needed, but eh...
I know you feel backed into a corner, but no need to lash out, we're all friends here.
My point is, Im going to reserve my disdain for truly prominent structures that are skyline defining and streetscape altering. A common residential tower among others isn't going to hurt my feelings if it isn't a work of art. Ill await your next dismissive comeback with baited breath!
That's all.

Pretty much. Residential towers are generally nice if not boring and inoffensive. I'm fine with boring as it tends to be more timeless. Certain design elements don't age well. Buildings like Level and 820 are timeless in design and will age better than something overly designed and garnished with gold this and spired that.

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

Pretty much. Residential towers are generally nice if not boring and inoffensive. I'm fine with boring as it tends to be more timeless. Certain design elements don't age well. Buildings like Level and 820 are timeless in design and will age better than something overly designed and garnished with gold this and spired that.

Exactly.

I get why this comes up. LA is playing catch up in the tower dept in relation to other comparable cities, so every tower get scrutiny...in a way all the truly average towers in NY or Chi don't, and the wish is that each should make some kind of grand impact. Most cities have huge supplies of boring residential towers, with a few standouts. We're slowly getting there. These broad criticisms that take up half pages seem a bit overkill for a non descript tower, which serves more for creating density than beauty, but isn't the enemy of it.

[Wilcal]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

LOL. So, as a mental health professional, you could interpret my mood by me asking for examples in text, on a forum? And as for opinions, that's exactly what I asked for. Not getting where the diatribe was needed, but eh...
I know you feel backed into a corner, but no need to lash out, we're all friends here.
My point is, Im going to reserve my disdain for truly prominent structures that are skyline defining and streetscape altering. A common residential tower among others isn't going to hurt my feelings if it isn't a work of art. Ill await your next dismissive comeback with baited breath!
That's all.

No dismissive comeback needed. I (or try to) understand opinions on this forum. Perhaps may perspective and taste is somewhat different (I think that that is the true meaning of a forum).

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by Wilcal

No dismissive comeback needed. I (or try to) understand opinions on this forum. Perhaps may perspective and taste is somewhat different (I think that that is the true meaning of a forum).

Fair enough. I have no ill will. You have presented plenty of sage opinions in the past, so you aren't like others that literally have nothing to say but "its in LA therefore I hate it."

Its a decent tower. No one will notice it outright...for being great or being terrible.

[LAMetroGuy]

Figueroa Centre proposed 66 story, 975-foot tower! This will actually look taller than Wilshire Grand!



Image Source: Urbanize LA

http://urbanize.la/post/new-renderings-las-future-3rd-tallest-building

[blackcat23]

http://urbanize.la/post/new-renderings-las-future-3rd-tallest-building

Originally Posted by LAMetroGuy

Figueroa Centre proposed 66 story, 975-foot tower! This will actually look taller than Wilshire Grand!



Image Source: Urbanize LA

[Illithid Dude]

Insane. A totally fine design, but that height... Damn.