LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[SoCalKid]

I for the life of me cannot understand why anyone cares what anyone else thinks about what is the tallest. I'm a huge urban nerd and I put literally zero thought into this. It just doesn't matter.

[mousquet]

^ People usually take height as an ultimate symbol of dynamism and economic health and power. That's about it. It's almost unconscious as an instinctive feeling.

It doesn't matter so much anyway. But I agree that, for instance, density figures are more relevant than anyone's tallest prick.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Naw...this is about bitching. The posters whom are constantly complaining about WG tend to be the same that complain about virtually anything. The contrarian mind of the attention needing internet poster dictates that they must dwell on a detail that has been settled...but they need to be at the center of a convo...so they bring it up.
Add in SF and their perpetual complex about playing second fiddle to LA on the west coast...
You have a perfect storm of people challenging a complete structure.
WG has its stats...its holds its title according to whom gives the title....done deal.

After living in Chicago for almost 5 years, I don't care how tall a building is as long as the architecture is good. A lot of times, people care about having the tallest building this side of the Mississippi but no one (sans us skyscraper nerds) cares about such records. No one in Denver will care that the Wilshire Grand is the tallest building in the west. Spire or not. In the grand scheme of things, there's plenty of buildings (3 in Chicago alone) that are taller than anything in the west. It's such a non record that no one (aside from a few San Franciscans) care about.

[LDVArch]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

After living in Chicago for almost 5 years, I don't care how tall a building is as long as the architecture is good.

It is rare that a tall building can match the architectural merit of a much smaller building.

The WG is nice, but neither it nor Salesforce are as significant architecturally as Piano's Academy Museum, Zumthor's LACMA rebuild, or even the new Rams Stadium.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by LDVArch

It is rare that a tall building can match the architectural merit of a much smaller building.

The WG is nice, but neither it nor Salesforce are as significant architecturally as Piano's Academy Museum, Zumthor's LACMA rebuild, or even the new Rams Stadium.

Those will far surpass Wilshire Grand in importance to Los Angeles. Sure WG is a hotel (and DTLA needs lots more rooms) but museums and especially the Inglewood Stadium are hugely more important in my opinion. The Olympics are going to be LA's reintroduction to the world.

[WonderlandPark2]

Aerial view of the finished Carlos Cruz-Diez crosswalk painting in front of the Broad.

[colemonkee]

Cut the City vs. City shit out, people, or I will hand out suspensions. You know who you are.

[caligrad]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies...ica/ar-AArrWqI?li=AA4Zoy&ocid=spartandhp

Amazon is looking to build a new "Secondary headquarters" But i assume that LA is automatically taken out of the running? Hell any city in California is taken out of the running. The Ceo has a certain criteria for what city/region he wants and LA meets ALL of them except one. "Business Friendly Environment"....Now its no surprise that California as a whole has a meh reltationship with big businesses with High taxes and regulations but is it still that bad that Amazon would skip passed LA and California in general ? even though we meet alll the other criterias?... 50,000 "High Paying Jobs" will come to whatever city/region is picked. I would love to see an Amazon HQ somewhere along the river in downtown.

[Prahaboheme]

Proximity is probably not working in LAs favor for Amazon either. I suspect they'll want to cover another coast or farther away region.

[DJM19]

When they say business friendly, what they mean is they know they have a big proposition here and they want to see which city and state will combine to provide the biggest incentive package. That's all. And probably that will not be California and Los Angeles.

LA probably qualifies in every other area more than any other city, but the incentive package is 50% at least of what they desire, the rest they will accept minimum expectations.

[yakumoto]

Its not "taxes and regulations" or any other nonsense conservative talking points; its the cost of living and this is a case where its directly impacting our economic competitiveness.

[yeah215]

So I think that's true. This would be an uphill battle for LA. I think Amazon will probably go somewhere like Pittsburgh or Austin.

That said, let's dream a bit. Where do you think something this size could even go?

Here are a couple of thoughts:

Next phase of Grand Ave. Could potentially extend down Hill toward 3rd.

Cal Plaza 3. Could expand into Cal Plaza 1 & 2, across 4th to 4th and Olive, Equity Parters site on 4th and Hill

Skid Row. There's still lots of surface parking there, but this would be highly controversial.

Some of the city services area in Little Tokyo.

World Trade Center and The LA Hotel Downtown and then potentially up Fig to that other low rise center.

Piggyback yards

One of the mega blocks in Warner Center (maybe redevelop the Anthem building)

Chinatown. There are lots of big open parking lots near the metro station.

Cap over 110 through downtown (something like Capitol Crossing in DC but bigger)

Other ideas?

[Steve8263]

Originally Posted by yakumoto

Its not "taxes and regulations" or any other nonsense conservative talking points; its the cost of living and this is a case where its directly impacting our economic competitiveness.

I'm pretty sure taxes factor into "cost of living".

[Quixote]

LA's chances are virtually nil, although it's certainly worth a shot. Always the bridesmaid, but never the bride.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Quixote

LA's chances are virtually nil, although it's certainly worth a shot. Always the bridesmaid, but never the bride.

I think LA is one of maybe 9 cities that could have it. In order of likely hood, I'd rank them like this:
1. Chicago
2. Los Angeles
3. New York
4. Boston
5. Philadelphia
6. San Francisco
7. DC
8. Atlanta
9. Dallas

If it were to come to LA, I think the best location would be a large swath of the Industrial District in the southeast quadrant of Downtown.

[JerellO]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

I think LA is one of maybe 9 cities that could have it. In order of likely hood, I'd rank them like this:
1. Chicago
2. Los Angeles
3. New York
4. Boston
5. Philadelphia
6. San Francisco
7. DC
8. Atlanta
9. Dallas

I'd throw San Diego and Austin in there also, take out DC and San Francisco.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

I think LA is one of maybe 9 cities that could have it. In order of likely hood, I'd rank them like this:

...

What's your justification for ranking LA #2? We have a high cost of living, a business-unfriendly climate, terrible traffic, and limited quality transit infrastructure.

There's a thread dedicated to this very topic in the City Discussions sub-forum; no one has even mentioned LA as a possibility... but Miami, Memphis, and Milwaukee have been. Think about that for a second.

In the end, LA doesn't absolutely NEED this... but it would definitely take a lot of the sting out of having lost so many corporate headquarters throughout the years.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by yakumoto

Its not "taxes and regulations" or any other nonsense conservative talking points; its the cost of living and this is a case where its directly impacting our economic competitiveness.

New York and San Fran both have the highest cost of living in the nation. Seattle isn't tooo far behind LA in the cost of living department. Last I checked, NYC has a lot of fortune 500 companies HQ in Manhattan...Silicone Valley is growing and getting bigger and spurring the bay as a whole..... Sooooo cost of living isn't the MAIN concern with these billion dollar corporations who cant really care less if their employees can afford to live in *insert random city/state here*, its all about location, prestige and profits.

If corporations really did care about the cost of living for their employees, which is a funny thought by the way, then all of the billion dollar companies should be setting up shop in Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Idaho and the Dakotas where housing is a fraction of the cost of their counterparts on the coast, but they aren't.

Toyota left LA a few years back and its biggest reason was "TAXES and REGULATIONS" Towards the very bottom of their list of reasons was cost of living which means NOTHING. Just a talking point to pretend they actually care about their employees.

Leave the political talk on the political forums, know your audience. Doesn't matter what party is doing or saying what. If everyday people are complaining about high taxes, what makes it absurd when corporations do as well?

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

I think LA is one of maybe 9 cities that could have it. In order of likely hood, I'd rank them like this:
1. Chicago
2. Los Angeles
3. New York
4. Boston
5. Philadelphia
6. San Francisco
7. DC
8. Atlanta
9. Dallas

If it were to come to LA, I think the best location would be a large swath of the Industrial District in the southeast quadrant of Downtown.

I Agree with your location of where it should go. But I don't think LA is any where near the top.

[Quixote]

^ They're considering both urban and suburban locations. I think for LA, the best locations that would meet their criteria are El Segundo and Torrance -- close to LAX, close to transit (the Green Line will eventually reach Torrance), skilled workforce, and nice weather (not one of their criteria, but it can't hurt).

LA's probably not in the running though, and that sucks. We already got the Olympics and Lucas Museum, but landing Amazon is unlikely. *sigh*