LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[caligrad]

So. Here's my thoughts/conclusion. I'll take the towers and landscaping of the Macfarland plan, the pedestrian flow of the Onni plan and maaaaaybe the UCLA component of the first plan. Combine the three and you have a winner.

If Onni isnt picked. I wonder what are the chances they will just move their proposal to another plot of land they own.

[Doctorboffin]

The UCLA has a simple path right next to Angels flight. It also has far more green space the the Onni one and more street interaction.

[caligrad]

^^^ My problem with the UCLA plan is the double decker fortress/podiums it has. The actual tower isn't bad, but the Macys plaza fortress like structures gotta go.

[ThebiteofSuarez]

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

The UCLA has a simple path right next to Angels flight. It also has far more green space the the Onni one and more street interaction.

While UCLA has a lot of green space, it will act like Cal Plaza in that there is an open space that is somewhat open to the public but no one really goes there. There are those escalators on Olive for direct access to the site but it doesn't really do much to bring in traffic, especially since the plaza acts like an elevated fortress overlooking the historic core. Though logistically the staircase in the proposal is right in front of Grand Central Market to take advantage of the potential traffic flow, project wise, it is tucked away in the "back" of the project and is disconnected from the station entrance.

Though I really like that corner plaza at the station entrance, which activates the street, but it needs some sort of direct access to the staircase.

[sopas ej]

From Urbanize LA:

Men's Central Jail Replacement Could Include Two 400-Foot Towers

No renderings, though... but ooooh, a new jail!

[hughfb3]

I find it fascinating that not one person commenting on this forum; or any other site, has referred to the first proposal by the developers’ name. It’s always the “UCLA project” or the “Gensler one,” but the other two are referenced only by their developer, not their tenant or architect.

[black_crow]

McFarland design from a different angle. Found at "DTLA Development" Facebook Group.

[Doctorboffin]

I honestly find it really ugly. That cladding looks like it will age horribly.

[Doctorboffin]

I feel like people aren’t looking at the Gensler proposal seriously enough. I know that the Onni and MacFarlane proposals have a lot of cool elements that make them standing out, but I am completely convinced that the Gensler one would be better for Downtown.

First off designs can be tweaked. I know that the base is pretty bulky, but there is no reason to assume that will be the final version. However even with the bulk it interacts far better with the street and the metro then the MacFarlane does. People leaving the metro would be greeted to hundreds of stairs and a very open plaza with the buildings being offset. It would not be welcoming, and the assent up would be very cumbersome. It wouldn’t be much better then the knoll is today.

While I will give Onni props for having the best interaction and a simple A-B design with the route, the lack of greenery and shade would be very problematic. I can only imagine how hot it would get down there in the summer.

Gensler’s building has a similar path and while it is smaller and further from the metro it is adjacent to the funicular which I think is a huge plus. It seems to be the only design that actually takes it into account and plays off of it.

In terms of actual design I also think that the Gensler proposal blows the other two out of the water. This is more based around personal opinion, but it just is so much stronger to me.

I’m sick of glass boxes and while i do give credit to the shape of MacFarlane’s design, the cladding looks bad to me. It is the same blue we see everywhere and the cut outs just come off as very cheap. And the little building next to it plus the podium shape facing Bunker Hill look like Circa’s podium without glass. And the park around it looks like a Frank Gehry design, which is cool and all, but horribly impractical. I will however give it huge props for its height however.

The Onni towers come off like a brutalist mess to me, and I do not think they will age well in the slightest. Along with that there are already several Janga buildings like it proposed in this neighborhood alone. I don’t think it’s unconventional design with carry any charm. Plus it is the shortest of the three.

Gensler’s design needs refining in the podium and ideally not block the view completely from the top of the hill, but it is the most unique of the three without being outlandish. The color is unlike any buildings around it and there is a lot of detail put into the podium and the cladding. It is very streamlined and almost Art Deco. It also plays off the color of the funicular and the blue of the surrounding buildings. To me it is very strong and actually considers its context better then the others.

However even without any of that people are looking over the biggest fact. It would bring UCLA downtown. This would be thousands of students living here, people who don’t own cars and have to walk around. The effect on the street life would be staggering. Alongside with this it would bring cultural spaces downtown (hence the podium) something that will also be a huge boom for the area. The other two buildings would just put a dent in the housing market while this would cause it to grow meaning even more urbanization and proposals. This building could mean even more skyscrapers going up nearby while also cleaning out that neighborhood. The other buildings would just be homes for more commuters while this could be a micro city inside LA. Think of what NYU did for New York. I think people really need to reconsider this proposal.

[black_crow]

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

I feel like people aren’t looking at the Gensler proposal seriously enough.

That's true, they don't.

We have a voting going on (DTLA Development). Our result so far:

MacFarland: 99 (Votes)
Onni: 32 (Votes)
Gensler: (16 Votes)

I personally like the Gensler one more than the Onni proposal, but MacFarland is my favorite. I think that the Gensler project is absolute average and I don't want average.

I said it many times -> You can't argue taste.

One good and important argument (in your case) would be the UCLA. It would bring more development.
Still, the opinion here is very clear. People prefer MacFarland over the other two projects.

[surfnspy]

The Gensler is awful. Stop and look closely at how you would experience that building. You'd be pressed up against a monolithic set of walls on all sides. It's a complete urban design pedestrian failure. Disaster really. If you whack the entire podium off, then you have NYC pan am--coincidentally a famous urban design disaster. Google it.

Take the site and draw a line from cal plaza to the subway. That's a line you should not build on. Then draw a branch from that axis to grand central market. Keep that open as well.

Consider the street scape along 4th. How can that be a pleasant walk to Pershing square?

Terraces, tiered steps with interest/shops along the way.

Only Onni has any consideration for Angela flight--but those offset boxes are also pretty brutal.

As far as ucla inhabiting a new billion dollar skyscraper--that is NOT happeneing.

It's wishful thinking on the developer's part. I actually hung out with a bunch ucla folks yesterday and they were all shocked. No way is there funding for this. A dtla "campus" is on the wish list for the future, but something near affordable or potential affordable housing. This would never get political support and maintain something to expensive.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by black_crow

McFarland design from a different angle. Found at "DTLA Development" Facebook Group.

Ok. They all suck maybe its the rendering quality or something but from this angle. This looks like dated SH** as well. So all three suck. But. Change the cladding on this one with that of Whatever the first one is called and you have a winner.

Sorry. I'm just not here for Jenga with a concrete base and Macys plaza 2.0 Imagine being on Broadway or somewhere in the historic core and seeing HUGE podium/blocks ????? INSANE. They all can be fixed and tweaked but I think Macfarland needs the least amount of work. Onni needs an entire new tower and the UCLA, or whoever the hell is developing it, needs to fix the bottom 50% of their proposal before they get any serious attention.

[Doctorboffin]

^^I guess I just have a completely different opinion then you. Walking down fourth against a stair case filled with students seems great and very open, much better then the corporate looking offices of the one above. And on Hill half is open with a shade covered plaza and the other half is lined with shops. Yeah there is a big box above but it is no different then the old buildings surrounding it. A street wall forms. And the bronze color is much more warm and inviting there the others black or blue. And in no way does Onni pay any respect to the Flight, at least this one has a walk way adjacent to it.

As for UCLA we’ll have to see.

^The MacFarlane one looks dated and awful.

[caligrad]

^^^ Oh no, I have no beef with the base of the UCLA or Lowes developers tower or whatever its called, and I also love the color, I just want the 2 boxes to be tweaked (or disappear completely). Have the main tower go all the way down to street level, rotate it and push it up against Angles Flight, create a second tower to make up for the boxes being gone, put it up against 4th or olive (pretty much have the same footprint as Macfarlands towers). and in between the towers, create a new "wing" for all the bigger space that will be needed for halls and etc.

I just completely hate the base for Onnis towers. I think its the worst. Even though it has the best flow. Its still the worst base in terms of landscaping and lack of natural appeal. It just looks really uncomfortable.

[Calicool]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Ok. They all suck maybe its the rendering quality or something but from this angle. This looks like dated SH** as well. So all three suck. But. Change the cladding on this one with that of Whatever the first one is called and you have a winner.

Sorry. I'm just not here for Jenga with a concrete base and Macys plaza 2.0 Imagine being on Broadway or somewhere in the historic core and seeing HUGE podium/blocks ????? INSANE. They all can be fixed and tweaked but I think Macfarland needs the least amount of work. Onni needs an entire new tower and the UCLA, or whoever the hell is developing it, needs to fix the bottom 50% of their proposal before they get any serious attention.

I think this one is the most esthetically balanced of them all. It would do more to make the skyline more balanced with it tapered spine as it would complement Wilshire Grand on the opposite side.

[caligrad]

^^^ True. But that wont last forever. in regards to how it compliments the WG on the other side of downtown. As of right now, Hill is the "Border" of modern downtown and the Historic core, but, that wont last forever, even as this thing begins to start construction, whenever that may be, we'll already have new towers peaking out in the historic core and Onnis 50 story might block the view completely of this tower when viewed from the south so it complimenting the WG wont really matter. Its till my favorite of the three thought. Even though the more I look at it, the more I tear it apart for flaws.

[bhunsberger]

I like the Onni one.. I don't think it will look dated for years to come. Simple, yet interesting to look at. Plus, like someone else said - they get sh*t done!

[ozone]

Originally Posted by black_crow

McFarland design from a different angle. Found at "DTLA Development" Facebook Group.

Cool 1982 proposal. Wonder why it was never built?

[Steve8263]

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

I feel like people aren’t looking at the Gensler proposal seriously enough.

As stated earlier, people aren't taking that proposal seriously because the developer Lowe has never built anything over 4 stories tall and UCLA likely has no interest in a campus downtown. If they need high rise space there's plenty of it in Westwood on the Wilshire corridor.

I have nothing against Lowe, in fact I've spent considerable time in one of their suburban residential developments and it's quite well done. That however doesn't increase the likelihood they will ever get financing for this tower. And unlike Onni I highly doubt they have the staggering cash flow from thousands of condos in Vancouver to self fund it.

[DJM19]

If Gensler modified the whole lower half of the building to not be a hulking box, and added more height at the top, it would easily be my favorite.

The base as it is now is a total non-starter. Its offensive. If they carried the tower design to ground level it would be brilliant.