LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by Quixote

https://la.curbed.com/2019/2/7/18215797/rain-los-angeles-drought-weather

Has anyone ever played Let's Imagine with this skyline? A big what if, high rise office buildings wouldn't have been permitted outside the downtown area? Don't know if it's even possible to "paste" all the office buildings to the West and plucked them into the downtown skyline and what it would have looked like. More like Chicago? Can't really recall any high rise office buildings outside the loop.

It's disconcerting that it took so damn long for the L.A. skyline to flourish. If only this renaissance had started sooner!

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by IMBY

Has anyone ever played Let's Imagine with this skyline? A big what if, high rise office buildings wouldn't have been permitted outside the downtown area? Don't know if it's even possible to "paste" all the office buildings to the West and plucked them into the downtown skyline and what it would have looked like. More like Chicago? Can't really recall any high rise office buildings outside the loop.

It's disconcerting that it took so damn long for the L.A. skyline to flourish. If only this renaissance had started sooner!

The biggest "what if" for the DTLA skyline in my opinion is the 150 foot height limit that persisted until the late 1950s (with a few exceptions, most notably City Hall in the late 1920s that was exempted from the limit). Imagine if more taller buildings had been allowed in the 1920s building boom! How many 20-40 story art deco towers and neo-gothic towers would L.A. have had? Not as many as NYC or Chicago of course (L.A.'s population only surpassed 500,000 in 1920, and 1,000,000 in 1930), but probably several at least. L.A. missed out. There were some gorgeous art decos, like the Eastern Columbia, Richfield tower and Bullocks Wilshire tower, but the height limit truncated them to mini versions of what they might have been.

A taller, grander Richfield tower--say 35 stories and 600 feet tall with the spire--would probably have been too beautiful, majestic and costly to demolish, which it sadly was in 1968 to make way for the ARCO project. The 52 story twins are fine, but they could have been built on an adjacent block to preserve a more majestic and towering Richfield tower. Height matters. Taller buildings are more likely to be preserved as landmarks, and re-purposed (as hotels or condos), especially if they are architectural gems.

The 1920s boom--L.A.'s missing skyscraper decade (unless you consider the numerous squat 10-12 story office buildings of the decade to be skyscrapers) when other cities, including smaller ones, threw a deco and gothic skyscraper wild party that only wound down in the Great Depression hangover. L.A. sat by and watched the binge, like a shy wallflower, and can now only ask with regret "WHAT IF?"

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Quixote

https://la.curbed.com/2019/2/7/18215797/rain-los-angeles-drought-weather

Wonderful! So clear you can see the snow blowing off the top of Baldy! Imagine the majesty if a few taller 1920s art deco & gothic towers also graced the skyline along with the numerous moderns (apart from City Hall). Perfection.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

So happy we are getting our very own slice of Australian architecture. Visiting Melbourne is a downright magical experience. Of course, I'll be shocked if this ever actually breaks ground...

In light of the Oceanwide plaza proj, & other places....

• Video Link

Work stops on one of L.A.’s biggest construction projects
January 28, 2019

Construction on one of the largest projects under construction in Downtown Los Angeles, Oceanwide Plaza, has ground to a halt, according to The Los Angeles Times. The unexpected stoppage comes as the three-tower, CallisonRTKL-designed hotel, shopping, and residential complex was heading toward a mid-2019 completion date. According to The Times, the developer, a publicly-traded Chinese conglomerate known as Oceanwide Holdings, has indicated that financing troubles are behind the construction delay.

According to a statement, Oceanwide is currently working to shore up the project’s finances and expects to start construction again in one month.

• Video Link


• Video Link


Right now, although it's nice to dream about redwood inspired apt towers in dtla, the area in the next few yrs may be lucky if it gets at least old bldgs & parking lots cleared out....

[citywatch]

My last post was such a downer, I think this recent change to dt....decades in the making & long overdue....should be posted here.

A Downtown Waterfall Is Flowing for the First Time in 42 Years


Downtown News

The sight may not seem special at first glance, but those who walk or drive by a stretch of Hill Street connecting Chinatown and the Civic Center will witness something that has not appeared for 42 years: a waterfall.

On Dec. 13, members of the Los Angeles County Arts Commission quietly flipped a switch and the water began flowing at the Fort Moore Pioneer Memorial in Downtown Los Angeles. The move received little fanfare, but it marked the first liquid activity since a drought prompted officials to turn off the water in 1977.

Located at 451 N. Hill St., across the street from the under-construction LA Plaza Village apartment complex, the Fort Moore monument was dedicated on July 3, 1958. The project, which took 10 years to design, plan and build, commemorates the Mormon Battalion and the New York Volunteer American military forces that first raised the United States flag in the recently acquired California territory on July 4, 1847. The monument is one of 10 memorials across the country dedicated to the battalion.

• Video Link

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

The biggest "what if" for the DTLA skyline in my opinion is the 150 foot height limit that persisted until the late 1950s (with a few exceptions, most notably City Hall in the late 1920s that was exempted from the limit). Imagine if more taller buildings had been allowed in the 1920s building boom! How many 20-40 story art deco towers and neo-gothic towers would L.A. have had? Not as many as NYC or Chicago of course (L.A.'s population only surpassed 500,000 in 1920, and 1,000,000 in 1930), but probably several at least. L.A. missed out. There were some gorgeous art decos, like the Eastern Columbia, Richfield tower and Bullocks Wilshire tower, but the height limit truncated them to mini versions of what they might have been.

A taller, grander Richfield tower--say 35 stories and 600 feet tall with the spire--would probably have been too beautiful, majestic and costly to demolish, which it sadly was in 1968 to make way for the ARCO project. The 52 story twins are fine, but they could have been built on an adjacent block to preserve a more majestic and towering Richfield tower. Height matters. Taller buildings are more likely to be preserved as landmarks, and re-purposed (as hotels or condos), especially if they are architectural gems.

The 1920s boom--L.A.'s missing skyscraper decade (unless you consider the numerous squat 10-12 story office buildings of the decade to be skyscrapers) when other cities, including smaller ones, threw a deco and gothic skyscraper wild party that only wound down in the Great Depression hangover. L.A. sat by and watched the binge, like a shy wallflower, and can now only ask with regret "WHAT IF?"

That blows me away, 150 foot height restrictions until the late 1950's. The only reason I can think of as to the why of it, was the potential for earthquakes, or Nimbyism? Residents didn't want their views of the mountains impeded by high rises?

Right here in my neighborhood in Tucson, catty corner from my 55+ community, Tucson Medical wanted to build a tower some years ago, but it was voted down, Nimy'd down, due to the fact it would block resident's views of the Catalina Mountains, and only 4 stories were allowed, and now the complex spreads out for blocks!

[WonderlandPark2]

Site prep pics for Grand Ave

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by IMBY

That blows me away, 150 foot height restrictions until the late 1950's. The only reason I can think of as to the why of it, was the potential for earthquakes, or Nimbyism? Residents didn't want their views of the mountains impeded by high rises?

Right here in my neighborhood in Tucson, catty corner from my 55+ community, Tucson Medical wanted to build a tower some years ago, but it was voted down, Nimy'd down, due to the fact it would block resident's views of the Catalina Mountains, and only 4 stories were allowed, and now the complex spreads out for blocks!

I doubt fear of earthquakes was the REAL reason for the 150 foot limit (although it may have been publically stated to be that), since waivers were granted for a few buildings--e.g. City Hall (454'), Federal Courthouse (250'), Richfield tower (about 380' with the spire--although highest functional floor was at 150') etc. The reason as I understand it was the city leaders wanted to keep a mostly low rise profile to enhance the sprawling develoment model for L.A., and perhaps help suburban land developers prosper (especially in the San Fernando Valley--see "Chinatown"). So, it seems possible suburban real estate interests were pushing the height limit, which the pols agreed to. The city fathers didn't want dark skyscraper canyons and high density like eastern cities, at least not above 150' which was considered acceptable downtown. So, as a result the decades before the 1950s were lowrise-low density-suburban sprawl decades. Not good imho. L.A. missed out on some great skyscrapers (especially in the "roaring '20s") because of the limit as I said in my post above. Others can correct me if I'm wrong on the reason for the height limit.

[BillinGlendaleCA]

I went back up to Hahn on Sunday evening with the local photography group, the mountains weren't visible, but the skyline looks close enough to touch due to the clear air from the rain earlier in the day.

_2100174.jpg by BillinGlendaleCA, on Flickr

[Blesha13]

Can someone get a night skyline shot of DTLA with Aven's crown lights?

[Illithid Dude]

They really about to use stucco on the ground floor of The Grand smh

[citywatch]

The Grand, a Major Mixed-use Development by Frank Gehry, Breaks Ground in Downtown LA


designboom.com


designboom.com


designboom.com


designboom.com


designboom.com

A major mixed-use development by architect frank gehry has broken ground in downtown los angeles. named after its location on LA’s grand avenue, ‘the grand’ is situated in close proximity to the DS+R-designed broad museum and walt disney concert hall, designed by gehry himself. construction is now underway on the project, which, once complete, will bring shops, restaurants, residences, and a new hotel to the neighborhood.

The groundbreaking was celebrated by government officials, philanthropist eli broad, frank gehry, and the downtown los angeles community alongside the project’s developers — related companies and its partner CORE USA. the grand will include over 176,000 square feet of retail space anchored by a collection of restaurants and shops and a movie theater complex. the development will also include an equinox hotel and more than 400 luxury residences, of which 20% will be deemed ‘affordable’. meanwhile, a large public plaza will feature a series of landscaped terraces.

‘With the grand, we’re not just building buildings, we’re building places,’ says architect frank gehry. ‘we are trying to make a place for people not only to live, but also to gather after concerts or performances, and my hope is that it will spawn other growth in the neighborhood. my dream is that from time-to-time, we will be able to close grand avenue and have street parties with projections on walt disney concert hall. the project is meant to complement and enhance the walt disney concert hall, the colburn, the broad and the other buildings that make up the rich and exciting cultural district that is emerging on grand avenue.’

• Video Link


• Video Link

[scania]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

They really about to use stucco on the ground floor of The Grand smh

Why are you the one that always has something negative to say about this project. Looking at the big picture, this is going to be great, not just from DTLA, but to have in LA period. I know sometimes we agree and sometimes we don’t.

[JerellO]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I doubt fear of earthquakes was the REAL reason for the 150 foot limit (although it may have been publically stated to be that), since waivers were granted for a few buildings--e.g. City Hall (454'), Federal Courthouse (250'), Richfield tower (about 380' with the spire--although highest functional floor was at 150') etc. The reason as I understand it was the city leaders wanted to keep a mostly low rise profile to enhance the sprawling develoment model for L.A., and perhaps help suburban land developers prosper (especially in the San Fernando Valley--see "Chinatown"). So, it seems possible suburban real estate interests were pushing the height limit, which the pols agreed to. The city fathers didn't want dark skyscraper canyons and high density like eastern cities, at least not above 150' which was considered acceptable downtown. So, as a result the decades before the 1950s were lowrise-low density-suburban sprawl decades. Not good imho. L.A. missed out on some great skyscrapers (especially in the "roaring '20s") because of the limit as I said in my post above. Others can correct me if I'm wrong on the reason for the height limit.

I don’t think it had anything to do with views, or having a suburban plan at all, but you’re correct about LA not wanting to be like the east coast. At the time, east coast cities had a bad rep for being dirty, full of crime, dark, etc. Los Angeles leaders wanted to stay away from recreating another New York or Chicago and to keep the sunshine and have a uniformed look with the height, it was considered more European and harmonious to have a height limit that didn’t tower over the streets.. I believe Washington, DC followed the same plan and kept it. That’s why you don’t see any high rises to this day along with buildings not being allowed to surpass the Washington monument.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by scania

Why are you the one that always has something negative to say about this project. Looking at the big picture, this is going to be great, not just from DTLA, but to have in LA period. I know sometimes we agree and sometimes we don’t.

I talk shit about this project because, at the end of the day, we are getting mediocre architecture with shoddy urban design across the street from arguably Los Angeles's most iconic example of modern architecture all so Los Angeles City Council can feel happy about having 'Designed by Frank Gehry' stamped across the front. Let us not forget the cheaper and just as good Robert AM Stern building planned for the same spot a few years back. Imagine what a local firm like LARGE Architecture could have done, at a fraction of the cost. Alas. Here are the new renderings.











Note the plaster being used for the facade of the retail podium. What is this, a strip mall in Covina? A cheap retail renovation around Palms and Centinela? We deserve far better. At least continue the limestone motif found behind the Disney Concert Hall, and featured throughout the entire facade of the original The Grand designs. I'm fine with cost-savings, but does it have to look so cheap? This is arguably the premier development in Los Angeles after all. But then again, we get the buildings we deserve. And considering the absolute monstrosities I've seen sprouting up all over the city, perhaps this development perfectly embodies the best of the current state of LA architecture.

[Quixote]

It’s likely just the rendering. My guess is they’ll probably use fiber cement panels or stone.

[Illithid Dude]

Let us celebrate ten years of downgrades.

The original, and the best, from the halcyon years of 2007.



To this R AM Stern iteration, one I always had a soft spot for.











Note the full 360 degree activation of the R AM Stern design, with no blank walls unlike the current and final iteration.

Next we have, my subjective favorite, the shorter yet beautifully designed and fully limestone clad second Gehry design.





Look how beautiful the detailing is, how extreme the geometry would be. I don't mind that the newest iteration has a taller southern tower, but would have prefer this high level of architectural quality instead if that was what the trade off would have been. This could have been a truly monumental work of art. But alas.

You all know what we have now.

[ocman]

To be fair, the layout is very similar from architect to architect, which tells me the blame is more on Related Co trying to squeeze out, maximize, and monopolize as much retail as possible. This is double, even triple the amount of retail/restaurants that the space calls for. Par for the course as Related has always been terrified of actually realizing this project. I hope to God this doesn’t turn out to be another Hollywood and Highland, a place that’s a complete visual assault on the senses. LA invented the retail theme park, but we’ve gotten very few that hasn’t damaged the urban experience of the city.

[colemonkee]

Bill, fantastic shot of the skyline!!

Illithid, how do we know the base is going to be plaster? Has the developer published that in article or elevation form?

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I talk shit about this project because, at the end of the day, we are getting mediocre architecture with shoddy urban design across the street from arguably Los Angeles's most iconic example of modern architecture all so Los Angeles City Council can feel happy about having 'Designed by Frank Gehry' stamped across the front.

Thanks for bringing forth these older renderings. I forgot how the first Gehry and the RAMSA proposals looked.

BTW. This parcel is governed by the County of Los Angeles and the LAC supervisors. Los Angeles City Council and the mayor were not calling the shots.