LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[Quixote]

On a much lighter, more positive note, I stumbled upon a quality rendering of the development proposed at Palmetto/Colyton. This is actually one of my favorite projects on the table, but I'm keeping my excitement contained until I actually see it break ground.


http://www.bolourassociates.com/what/development/

[black_crow]

Originally Posted by Quixote

On a much lighter, more positive note, I stumbled upon a quality rendering of the development proposed at Palmetto/Colyton. This is actually one of my favorite projects on the table, but I'm keeping my excitement contained until I actually see it break ground.

With all due respect.. that one looks pretty average to me.
Better than the buildings next to it? Yes.

But far from being one of my favorite "top 20" buildings.
There's no accounting for taste I guess.

[bhunsberger]

Originally Posted by black_crow

With all due respect.. that one looks pretty average to me.
Better than the buildings next to it? Yes.

But far from being one of my favorite "top 20" buildings.
There's no accounting for taste I guess.

It does looks nice, but sometimes the renderings look so much better than the real thing.

[headcheckjj]

What do we think of Richard Florida's solution?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc1Ds0G32wo

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by black_crow

With all due respect.. that one looks pretty average to me.
Better than the buildings next to it? Yes.

But far from being one of my favorite "top 20" buildings.
There's no accounting for taste I guess.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." -- Leonardo da Vinci

I like the 12-13-story, 150-foot scale of the design... it matches the height of the Historic Core buildings. It's mid-to-high-rise density -- tall enough to be considered a skyscraper, yet short enough where it's still relatively human scale.

Design-wise, it looks very Portland-ish. I like how it's broken up so that it doesn't appear visually monolithic.

[black_crow]

Originally Posted by Quixote

It's mid-to-high-rise density -- tall enough to be considered a skyscraper

That one is by no means a skyscraper.
Like you said..it's a mid-to-high-rise.

But anyway -> I get your point.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by black_crow

That one is by no means a skyscraper.
Like you said..it's a mid-to-high-rise.

But anyway -> I get your point.

Chicago's Home Insurance Building (pictured below) is widely considered to have been the world's first modern skyscraper.

SSP defines 'skyscraper' as 115+ feet.


http://www.american-historama.org/images/home-insurance-building-first-skyscraper.jpg

[black_crow]

I went to the Spire 73 (Tuesday) and there is a small line around 4:30 pm. It's not even crowded, but people have to wait 30 minutes to go up.

Many bad Yelp reviews are based on that matter. It's still a good place to get some construction pictures and it is free. If you are just coming for the pictures try the Lobby Lounge..

PS:

I got a room tour for a suit and it was gorgeous.
.. might upload some pictures over the weekend.

Originally Posted by Quixote

Chicago's Home Insurance Building (pictured below) is widely considered to have been the world's first modern skyscraper.

SSP defines 'skyscraper' as 115+ feet.

I guess there is no official definition, but we don't live in the in the 1880s anymore.

The definition changed over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper


Most people would say 150m/500ft and others say 100m/300ft.
Well it doesn't really matter to me. I just thought it's funny plus a bit confusing to use mid-rise and skyscraper for the same building.

I am glad you like the rendering.

[scania]

Originally Posted by black_crow

I went to the Spire 73 (Tuesday) and there is a small line around 4:30 pm. It's not even crowded, but people have to wait 30 minutes to go up.

Many bad Yelp reviews are based on that matter. It's still a good place to get some construction pictures and it is free. If you are just coming for the pictures try the Lobby Lounge..

I didn't write a review, but I had some friends visiting from NYC and Chicago last weekend and not only was it a 40 minute wait to get in...it wasn't packed once we got up AND a section was closed off. We were like there is no way they didn't have staffing on a Saturday night. Then the lights were not on as far as the LED lights on the building and though it was new and pretty, we were all underwhelmed. They actually preferred The Perch and The Standard rooftops more.

[Just-In-Cali]

Well I also went to Spire73 a couple of weeks ago. We had to wait in the lower lobby for maybe 15-20 mins. We then were ferried up to the lobby floor, where we waited as a group for them to send us to the roof. Once there, we wandered a bit, sat at the bar and hung for a while. I can see why they don't let everyone up at once. There were no sitting areas when we first arrived. (this was about 5:30pm on a Friday)
I'm guessing logistics of possibly evacuating a crowded roofdeck play into that. They seem to still be figuring out the best ways to manage the comings and goings. They have that glass elevator on the inside of the western side of the tower that runs from 69 to 73 that isn't operating yet. I'm guessing that may be the primary method for getting to the roof in the future. The attendants were very helpful and nice however, as well as all of the wait staff.
The northern roof deck we were told was for private events. The overall impression was that this is still a new operation working out the kinks. They need an organized entrance in the ground level lobby clearly marking how to get to each part of the hotel, a line queue in the lobby so guests can check in without backing up into the elevator lobby (we saw this on our first trip a week before this one) And they will probably have to open up that northern deck to guests unless a party is actually booked.
Ive seen this in many new establishments that are still feeling out their setup. Skyspace feels very different now than it did when I went opening weekend.
I want to go back in like December and see what its like.
It was still overall enjoyable. I've been to the Standard as well. It was ok...the view was more spectacular only because its so short you could really feel the city around you...but it was pleasant. I'd say give it time while they work out the details. For a complicated operation like this, it may take a while. Don't be surprised if the lower lobby gets much more functional in the near future. Its only been 6 weeks.

[Quixote]

Um, hell yes:

https://urbanize.la/post/downtown-developer-considers-reviving-proposed-spring-street-tower

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Love it. Its perfect

[bhunsberger]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Um, hell yes:

https://urbanize.la/post/downtown-developer-considers-reviving-proposed-spring-street-tower

Hate the location. I don't think any new skyscrapers should be going up in the historic core. It's just not fitting. Keep the new stuff from Figueroa to Hill. Continuing to connect the Financial District with South Park is a noble endeavor.

[Blesha13]

Originally Posted by bhunsberger

Hate the location. I don't think any new skyscrapers should be going up in the historic core. It's just not fitting. Keep the new stuff from Figueroa to Hill. Continuing to connect the Financial District with South Park is a noble endeavor.

NYC says otherwise. Historic Core has another proposed Jenga-like skyscraper and Angel Knoll site is prime for a supertall. Only thing I dislike about this tower is the facade.

[BrandonJXN]

YES. Build it naooo.

[llamaorama]

Ugly...

What are we actually looking at in the rendering? Are some rooms going to have random second pieces of glass offset inward or outward? It's like a weird piece of solid plastic used as a paperweight or a funky vinyl shower curtain from bed bath and beyond, not a real building with interior spaces that make sense and have windows you can see out

I think if it was a concert hall or the skin of a modern arena the design would be ok.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by bhunsberger

Hate the location. I don't think any new skyscrapers should be going up in the historic core. It's just not fitting. Keep the new stuff from Figueroa to Hill. Continuing to connect the Financial District with South Park is a noble endeavor.

Could not disagree with you more. I think there needs to be more skyscrapers built outside of this corridor you mention. There are plenty of surface lots and nondescript buildings in the historic core that could be to be filled with modern high-rises. It would make for a more dynamic core and more interesting skyline.

[Valyrian Steel]

Originally Posted by Blesha13

NYC says otherwise. Historic Core has another proposed Jenga-like skyscraper and Angel Knoll site is prime for a supertall. Only thing I dislike about this tower is the facade.

Yeah, I see no problem with the location one bit. As you mention, NYC has nice juxtapositions of stumpy historic buildings and modern skyscrapers. This one should be built, and there will be more.

[Prahaboheme]

LA needs to build up for so many reasons. Imposing arbitrary height restrictions for the sake of maintaining unity isn't the answer. At one time those historic buildings were taller than what came before them, so I consider this in keeping with tradition.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by bhunsberger

Hate the location. I don't think any new skyscrapers should be going up in the historic core. It's just not fitting. Keep the new stuff from Figueroa to Hill. Continuing to connect the Financial District with South Park is a noble endeavor.

Couldn't disagree more. Great cities have a mix of old and new right next to each other. They don't detract, they add to each other