LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0 - Page 283

ocman · #**5641** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 5:10 AM**

There needs to be a mix of modernity and history. NYC is beautiful and vibrant because of that mix, not because it’s preserved in a time capsule. Modern buildings help to punctuate the history that’s already there.

The color is really off. It’s just a rendering, but the color needs to be toned down a little. And I wish the roof was more slanted or interesting. I don’t see any real ideas behind the design, but at least there’s ambition to try to something.

Having said that, I think this firm is a minor player (not even a website), and this is too ambitious for a firm that seems like they’ve never built anything. This firm seems to get rejected left and right by LA with a history of dashed dreams. My guess is that they’re not going to find the money to build it.

NativeOrange · #**5642** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 5:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocman

There needs to be a mix of modernity and history. NYC is beautiful and vibrant because of that mix, not because it’s preserved in a time capsule. Modern buildings help to punctuate the history that’s already there.

The color is really off. It’s just a rendering, but the color needs to be toned down a little. And I wish the roof was more slanted or interesting. I don’t see any real ideas behind the design, but at least there’s ambition to try to something.

Having said that, I think this firm is a minor player (not even a website), and this is too ambitious for a firm that seems like they’ve never built anything. This firm seems to get rejected left and right by LA with a history of dashed dreams. My guess is that they’re not going to find the money to build it.

It's the same firm behind the Lizard Hotel on Spring St, and they do have a site:

http://asap.pro

King Kill 'em · #**5643** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 5:39 AM**

In the historic core, new buildings should line up with the old ones next to it. No front setback (for the first 150 ft. in height) and no side setbacks. The facade can be anything though. idgaf. I love architectural juxtaposition. If this new proposal did that I'd be all for it. It doesn't though, that's why the previous version was much better.

caligrad · #**5644** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 9:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

YES. Build it naooo.

This needs to happen NOW, someone fund it before they change their minds. I've always been the main one on here screaming "The Broadway/historic core barrier needs to be BROKEN !"

I'm totally against this idea that the historic core should be off limits to modern developments like this. We don't need setbacks, height restrictions, leveling with surrounding buildings or anything like that. Its not necessary and borderline nimby sounding.

Its very confusing on here sometimes. One minute some people are like "LA needs to be more like *Insert random city here*" and under the same breathe they are saying "The historic core should be off limits to newer developments or have insane restrictions" . ....Well last I checked, every other city in the world is building modern buildings right next to buildings that are older than the city of LA itself....What makes LA any different????

If anything. The juxtaposition will actually make the historic core a whole lot more interesting, denser, more appealing AND more of a 24hr neighborhood..... We cant cram all of our new developments along the fig corridor forever. Believe it or not. We will eventually run out of space and will need to start spreading developments eastward...which seems to have already started to happen.

CaliNative · #**5645** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 9:50 AM**

Quote:

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.

Can't agree with that. I love the historic district, but not all the buildings are distinguished. If this interesting new tower replaces an undistinguished building, or better a vacant lot or parking lot, by all means BUILD IT. A building like this would bring people to the district, and liven it up. Besides, in "The City" in London & New York, for example, old and new buildings mix. Nothing wrong with that as long as the best old buildings are preserved. THis is why I favor some nod to the old styles, for example a "neo art deco" or "neo gothic" for some of the new buildings in the historic core, but this new design is very interesting. Build it!!!

BrandonJXN · #**5646** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 2:31 PM**

Quote:

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.

What do you mean not fitting? Here in Chicago, Legacy, one of my favorite buildings (on earth) sits right in between Michigan Ave and Wabash (it sits in the middle of the block) and on either side surrounded by early 20th century buildings and it sits just fine. Pic by me.

You can have modern buildings in a older part of a downtown fit in nicely. The University Club was built in 1909. Legacy adds a lot to it as well as it's surrounding buildings despite it being almost 100 years younger. I'm all for this Spring Street tower.

ocman · #**5647** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NativeOrange

It's the same firm behind the Lizard Hotel on Spring St, and they do have a site:

http://asap.pro

That's the architectural firm, not the developer which I was referring to.

cesar90 · #**5648** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 3:34 PM**

• Video Link

SoCalKid · #**5649** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 4:08 PM**

Interesting interview with Dan Savage about Seattle on The Urbanist. I won't post it here because it's not directly related to Downtown development and it has some political things that should not be discussed here, but I thought this quote was particularly relevant to LA, and was a good rebuttal to the measure S folks:

"Sometimes it feels like... activists are doing it wrong, shaking their fist and demanding an end to gentrification and displacement. The solution to gentrification and the solution to displacement is more, more housing. People are prescribing the wrong medicine. They’re reading the symptoms correctly — people are being forced out. Then they’re associating that they’re being pushed out with development pushing them out. It’s not development pushing them out, but scarcity that’s pushing people out. There’s always been and will always be a certain amount of development. Right now it’s a lot. But it’s not development, it’s scarcity. If there was an abundance of housing and just as much development, there wouldn’t be this kind of displacement. If you want to fight displacement, you should be fighting for more housing at all levels. More Richy Rich housing that draws Richy Rich people out of the housing they’re in now, then that becomes second-rung Richy Rich housing and that pops on down the line. "

202_Cyclist · #**5650** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 5:51 PM**

Thank you for posting this-- Dan Savage is great.

bhunsberger · #**5651** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

What do you mean not fitting? Here in Chicago, Legacy, one of my favorite buildings (on earth) sits right in between Michigan Ave and Wabash (it sits in the middle of the block) and on either side surrounded by early 20th century buildings and it sits just fine. Pic by me.

You can have modern buildings in a older part of a downtown fit in nicely. The University Club was built in 1909. Legacy adds a lot to it as well as it's surrounding buildings despite it being almost 100 years younger. I'm all for this Spring Street tower.

I guess I feel like Broadway in particular has this look that is very historic and I want there to be an area you can go to that 'seems' practically untouched from the early 1900's. A throwback corridor, if you will. It needs a lot of work and restoration but I think it could be cleaned up and made to be really beautiful. I guess having that opinion is just somehow so atrocious.

bzcat · #**5652** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

YES. Build it naooo.

I don't see any parking podium

Serious question because I don't know: I see some people mention setback... does Historical Core have different requirements? Both setback and parking minimums?

caligrad · #**5653** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 8:20 PM**

^^^ I think the bottom portion may in fact be a well hidden parking podium. I always thought the historic core had a setback requirement and needed an "Alignment" with the buildings with its surroundings for all new developments but this one has neither so idk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quixote

Um, hell yes:

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

Wait. I just realized Joseph Hellen is somehow attached to this.....Isn't he just like Barry Shy? Proposes these crazy developments to give us all a wet dream.. just to sit on them forever and blames the city when they are never built? I know there are 3 downtown developers that seem to get everyone angry when mentioned on here. isn't he one of them ?

If so. Let my turn down the hype just a tad bit for a building that may never happen.

Bwin517 · #**5654** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 8:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caligrad

Wait. I just realized Joseph Hellen is somehow attached to this.....Isn't he just like Barry Shy? Proposes these crazy developments to give us all a wet dream.. just to sit on them forever and blames the city when they are never built? I know there are 3 downtown developers that seem to get everyone angry when mentioned on here. isn't he one of them ?

If so. Let my turn down the hype just a tad bit for a building that may never happen.

I think the three developers you are referring to are Hellen, Shy and Izak Shomoff. This project is up there with the carwash tower in terms of odds of being built. Don't get your hopes up people!! At least we still have the future Onni/Carmel/Crescent Heights towers to look forward to

caligrad · #**5655** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 9:17 PM**

^^^ Yeah thanks. I knew something was off with this one. Its been proposed four different ways in less than 6 years. Seems like more hype from somebody trying to get attention.

Bwin517 · #**5656** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 12:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caligrad

^^^ Yeah thanks. I knew something was off with this one. Its been proposed four different ways in less than 6 years. Seems like more hype from somebody trying to get attention.

I think the end goal of all these faux developers is to get that land entitled and sell to a Chinese or Canadian developer with the resources to actually build out the development. It's what happened at 1133 S Hope, Apex II, etc

Mojeda101 · #**5657** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 12:45 AM**

I love the height, but I hate the shape. It just looks so strange to me. I liked the old design better. Does it even follow the design guidelines? The old design did:

I would like it a lot more if it had a base that lined up with the adjacent towers to the 150 foot mark, and then did it's own thing. I hate that gap at the bottom with the Trade center.

LAsam · #**5658** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bwin517

I think the end goal of all these faux developers is to get that land entitled and sell to a Chinese or Canadian developer with the resources to actually build out the development. It's what happened at 1133 S Hope, Apex II, etc

I don't know about that... I hear there's real interest from Saruman in the penthouse.

black_crow · #**5659** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 4:54 PM**

Hellen is all talk and no action.

It's just another unrealistic rendering without any further information.
It won't happen, but we might see another rendering in two or three years.

ocman · #**5660** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caligrad

^^^ Yeah thanks. I knew something was off with this one. Its been proposed four different ways in less than 6 years. Seems like more hype from somebody trying to get attention.

It's basically Metropolis until it gets sold to someone who will actually do something. You can spot these "ne'er do well" projects a mile away. The final designs are always architecturally showy because you don't need to work out how feasible the costs/engineering will be if you don't intend on actually building it.