HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1861  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 8:30 AM
ConstructDTLA's Avatar
ConstructDTLA ConstructDTLA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: DTLA
Posts: 1,452
July 2015

Metropolis by Hunter, on Flickr

Today
Metropolis by Hunter, on Flickr

Metropolis by Hunter, on Flickr

12th & Grand Mack Urban by Hunter, on Flickr

Ten50 by Hunter, on Flickr

Ten50 by Hunter, on Flickr

Ten50 by Hunter, on Flickr

Ten50 by Hunter, on Flickr

Oceanwide Plaza & Circa by Hunter, on Flickr

Oceanwide Plaza & Circa by Hunter, on Flickr

Apex 2 by Hunter, on Flickr

Apex 2 by Hunter, on Flickr

Apex 2 by Hunter, on Flickr

Apex 2 by Hunter, on Flickr

Apex 2 by Hunter, on Flickr

888 S Hope by Hunter, on Flickr

888 S Hope by Hunter, on Flickr

820 S Olive by Hunter, on Flickr

South Park from Historic Core by Hunter, on Flickr

More to come next page...
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1862  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 9:08 AM
Mojeda101's Avatar
Mojeda101 Mojeda101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: DTLA
Posts: 1,464
Incredible. It's hard to imagine just how different DTLA was only a few years ago. The gaps are being filled.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1863  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 12:58 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,411
If nothing else, this boom is plugging up the most noticeable deadzones in all of DTLA. Really exciting times.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1864  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 2:19 PM
circuitfiend circuitfiend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 115
Great pix, as always, Hunter. One of the only reasons to view this thread.

Thx!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1865  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 2:56 PM
Easy's Avatar
Easy Easy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,585
Fantastic update Hunter. Looking forward to the next page.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonJXN View Post
If nothing else, this boom is plugging up the most noticeable deadzones in all of DTLA. Really exciting times.
Agreed. So many being filled yet so many left.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1866  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 3:05 PM
black_crow's Avatar
black_crow black_crow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonJXN View Post
If nothing else, this boom is plugging up the most noticeable deadzones in all of DTLA. Really exciting times.
This is the biggest boom Downtown ever saw.

- highest number of new towers (400+ feet 2014-2019)
- highest population growth over the next 2-3 years

You guys can count the high rises, but I gave you the numbers a few month ago.
__________________

Real DTLA Development Group
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1867  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 4:48 PM
King Kill 'em King Kill 'em is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pyongyang
Posts: 1,230
I imagine we'll being seeing glass on Metropolis Tower 3 any day now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1868  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 5:01 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojeda101 View Post
It's hard to imagine just how different DTLA was only a few years ago. The gaps are being filled.
that's one of the reason hunter's pics or similar photos posted here by other forumers are so important & helpful. They give a better understanding of where dt has been, of where dt is going.

As Easy notes....& which are made clearer in pics like the ones taken by hunter....there remains a variety of very visible parking lots that need to be filled in. I always keep that in mind when the finer points of architectural design of new projs are being discussed here, or when forumers are aiming the concepts of urbanism 101 like a laser beam at dt to the degree that the other issues....which I think the average person is more likely to notice & be bothered by.....are lost in the shuffle

but dtla has come a long way. From this....



etsy.com


to this....which was posted 3 yrs ago & now doesn't include more recent changes, including start of work on the 2 new apts towers filling in former parking lots on spring st near 8th......


Quote:
A Los Angeles Primer: Spring Street

Walking the length of Spring Street one morning, I counted 22 surface parking lots. I do this not out of a "Rain Man"-style numerical compulsion, but a no less distracting desire to feel out the progress of a city's urbanism. The surface parking lot test gives you a sense of density, for one thing -- obviously, the denser a neighborhood, the less of itself it can devote to idle cars -- but it also lets you gauge its state of flux. "This'll be a great town," New Yorkers have for over a century said of their home and its constant construction, "as soon as they get it finished." Manhattan's perpetual unfinishedness, of course, defines it as a "great town," and its developers know they can always and everywhere put up or tear down something more ambitious than a square of paint-lined concrete. Spring Street, which still boasts a formidable collection of architectural monuments to Los Angeles' grandly aspirant early twentieth century, now offers a window onto downtown's modern revival, and the view from it often looks exciting indeed.

Still, enthusiast though I am, a snarkier sentiment roils within me: if your downtown still has surface parking lots, then you, my friend, do not have a downtown. Yet they have nowhere to go but away. I make bets with downtown-dwelling friends about when the last surface parking lot will have vanished. Twenty years from now, certainly. Ten years, maybe. Five years -- dare we hope? Out-of-downtowners, or at least those who live far enough away from downtown, tend to respond with an interestingly point-missing question: "But then where will people park?"

An absence of parking indicates not just a demand for actual buildings but no need to stash vehicles in the first place: you'll either live downtown already, or in a place connected by rapid transit. Granted, this all sounds a tad implausible to Angelenos of thirty, forty, fifty years' standing who came to know downtown Los Angeles as the locus classicus of the sad postwar fate of the American inner city. Recall "A Note on Downtown", Reyner Banham's brief chapter in "Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies", which opens with the words, " ...because that is all downtown Los Angeles deserves."

Downtown did indeed function as the center of Los Angeles up through the thirties, back in the years that earned the then-finance-heavy Spring Street the label "the Wall Street of the West." That era leaves us a legacy in the form of a surprising number of distinguished old Beaux Arts buildings along Spring's mile and a half, many of which fell into disuse before 1999's Adaptive Reuse Ordinance allowed their conversion into retail spaces, apartments, and condominiums. Downtown now looks well on its way to becoming a kind of center again -- a population center, in any case, especially of the young --

Reality, however, vindicates neither the optimists nor the pessimists, especially in Los Angeles. The very existence on the corner of Spring and Fifth of The Last Bookstore, a two-story, 10,000-square-foot cavern of not just new and used volumes but vinyl bins and small-scale art spaces as well, makes me believe we live in at least one of the better possible worlds. Old-fashioned though it may sound, I check for the presence of a vast destination of a bookstore -- compare the Strand in Manhattan, or Powell's in Portland -- as another test of urban viability. Angelenos disagree about such an operation's long-term prospects amid the accelerating process that few dare call gentrification, but if The Last Bookstore has them, downtown Los Angeles has them.

By the same token, I watch closely whether Spring Street's existing independent coffee shops can thrive alongside newly arrived branches of national coffee chains, a coexistence that signals a healthily diverse urban ecosystem. That said, I spent another morning looking forward to a cappuccino from CoffeeBar, near the corner of Sixth, only to find it had shut down permanently just the day before. "This is why we can't have nice things, Los Angeles," I muttered, sitting bitterly at the window of the Starbucks recently opened across the street. Still, having heard complaints about CoffeeBar's prices and strangely limited hours, I didn't take its demise as that of the canary in downtown's coal mine. I could, after all, just as easily have gone to Spring for Coffee up the street, but other customers had, at the middle of a weekday, already filled all of their seats.


flickr.com


^ If ppl ever feel a need to complain about some improvement in dtla of today or the recent past, they should get into a time machine & travel back to the yrs when pics like that were taken. Or the time when that british architectural critic, Reyner Banham, who loved LA, wrote about the city in the 1970s. He died in 1988. I think if he got into a time machine back then & traveled to dtla in 2016, he'd feel a need to revise his comment of 'that is all downtown Los Angeles deserves.'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1869  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 5:13 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,749
^^^ I've always hated that stupid interchange. Talk about knowing how to make people cry with that sad photo lol.

I think the best thing about this boom is that the biggest and most noticeable parking lots ( at least west of Broadway) are nearly all gone.

Meaning we'll see less of the giant city block sized monoliths and more of the Onnis, CIM tower and Carmel Partners sized towers.

Onnis "Level" tower cost roughly 100 million. Oceanwide and Metropolis both cost roughly a billion.

Not saying its going to happen this way but picture that billion being split up between 9-10 different towers through out downtown. Different heights, shapes, glass and etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1870  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 5:31 PM
King Kill 'em King Kill 'em is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pyongyang
Posts: 1,230
^Are you sure it only cost $100 mil? Most 7 storys cost that much
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1871  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 6:02 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,749
^^^ here's a link of where it was mentioned but its been mentioned in other places as well.
http://www.ladowntownnews.com/develo...a4bcf887a.html

Well when the news first broke, and even after, the price tag was always mentioned to be around 100 million. Cheap by some standards. Some of the new towers of similar height (those within the 25-35 floor range) proposed lately have similar price tags of 100-200 million . That's why I said "Roughly around 100 million" because I'm sure when it was all done, with costs overruns, the price was probably 110-120 million.

You have to remember. How many 7 story buildings do we see sitting on podiums ? Zero. Because most dig deep underground for parking. Its true that Subterranean parking adds a huge price tag. Reason why most of our towers are going the podium route.

Never ending debate. Do we accept the tower knowing we're stuck with a podium base? or do we accept a 7 story with the same amount of units just to have subterranean parking? OR do we revolt and say to hell with parking requirements, even though our transit network isn't nearly as widespread and robust as it needs to be?

(Before people jump on me for that last sentence, I'm well aware that a lot of us could easily live in LA without a car, but with our current network, most of us still cant)

Last edited by caligrad; Jul 10, 2016 at 8:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1872  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 6:17 PM
King Kill 'em King Kill 'em is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pyongyang
Posts: 1,230
^I remember there was some code that would have allowed developments downtown within 1/2 mile of transit have .9 spaces per 1 bed/studio unit instead of 1.1. and something similar for 2 beds and up. I don't remember the exact numbers but they still didn't go far enough IMO. I think the Onyx development on Pico took advantage of this. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

And maybe we're not ready for no parking in new developments downtown yet but retail and guest parking requirements should definitely be eliminated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1873  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 7:57 PM
Mojeda101's Avatar
Mojeda101 Mojeda101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: DTLA
Posts: 1,464
I don't understand if the price tag is similar why not just build towers with podiums than 6 story boxes with underground parking? Remember that initiative Huizar introduced to prevent the boxes? I understand we've seen a sharp decline in them but I wish it would've happened a lot sooner. Granted they're great for pedestrian interaction but they're going to be a boil on our city skyline for the next half century.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1874  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 8:03 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojeda101 View Post
I don't understand if the price tag is similar why not just build towers with podiums than 6 story boxes with underground parking? Remember that initiative Huizar introduced to prevent the boxes? I understand we've seen a sharp decline in them but I wish it would've happened a lot sooner. Granted they're great for pedestrian interaction but they're going to be a boil on our city skyline for the next half century.
Who gives a shit about the skyline? Pedestrian interaction is what matters. The only people who can see the skyline are people outside of downtown anyways.

From an urbanist perspective the obsession with skylines seems perverse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1875  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 8:25 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: all over
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spantik View Post
http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/a...46ea7064b.html

I thought this was a nice article for any lurkers like myself who have no clue how downtown's bike sharing system works.
good news! 1000 bikes (for DT) is a strong start, should be a rousing success. Def gonna join soon
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1876  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 8:27 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
From an urbanist perspective the obsession with skylines seems perverse.
I admit to being somewhat guilty of that, at least when it comes to certain projs like the wilshire grand.

For the past yr or so, I notice that whenever I've looked at dt from a distance or looked at pics of it, I keep hoping that the wg tower will eventually look taller. I hope that it still looks noticeably shorter than the US bank tower only because the steel framing at the top isn't complete.

however, when it comes to most projs in general throughout dt, I can't relate to the feeling of disappointment when a new bldg isn't taller, even more so when it's located in the outskirts of dt, which I consider much of south pk or the arts dist, or little tokyo, to be.

I'm even more puzzled when ppl who respond that way either live in dt or spend lots of time there.

Whenever I'm visiting dt, & seeing it up close & directly, I find the last thing on my mind is whether a new proj....with a few exceptions like the WG tower...is tall enough. I'm far more likely to notice things like how quiet or busy the sidewalks are, or whether restaurants or stores have alot of customers or not, or whether a swapmeet....which I keep hoping will finally close down....is still open, or whether an old bldg needs paint or has graffiti all over it. I definitely do notice whether a parking lot still exists & the way it lowers the appeal of its immediate surroundings.


Quote:
The reimagination of downtown Los Angeles

Los Angeles has long been a city associated with the common ills of urban excess: sprawl, homelessness, and congestion. More charitable descriptions paint it as West Coast paradise, boasting sunshine and celebrities in equal measure.

A three-day visit to downtown Los Angeles exposed the nuances behind these stereotypes. Hosted by the Los Angeles Downtown Center Business Improvement District, which is focused on strengthening downtown as an innovation district, our visit began as a real estate tour but quickly revealed regeneration and innovation activity that confounded our expectations.

Downtown LA (DTLA)’s innovation district focuses not just on tech firms but also on historic LA industry strengths like fashion, design, and real estate. LA may have sat in the shadow of the Silicon Valley tech boom, but it appears to be revitalizing in time for the convergence economy, in which tech is no longer a separate sector but ingrained in all forms of economic and creative activity.

And at a time where firms are revaluing proximity, vibrancy, and authenticity, DTLA could not be in a better place. While a number of U.S. cities subjected their downtowns to a range of urban renewal initiatives, the urban fabric of DTLA is largely intact. Vibrant areas like South Broadway feature boutique hotels, a dozen theatres, and clothing stores and bars that exist in historic infrastructure like reclaimed theatres. There is an urban feel that is authentically LA.

Since 1999, the residential population and housing units have tripled. With new bars and restaurants springing up on every corner, it is no surprise that three-quarters of DTLA’s current residents are aged between 23 and 44.

DTLA office space has not always been an easy sell. Employers balk at the prospect of subjecting their workforce to the punishing commute. And Bunker Hill and the adjacent Financial District, the epicenter of the central business district, offers little more than unpopulated plazas and cubicled office space.

DTLA has worked to serve its newfound residential population and attract more workers and companies by retrofitting buildings to modern aesthetic standards. The exposed brickwork and ceiling equipment of many DTLA offices like those of Nationbuilder, an online platform used for political and civic campaigns, is not just a statement of style but a conscious decision to make downtown office buildings feel hospitable to creative firms.

While downtown’s office blocks are a fantastic asset in attracting innovation activity, the area also boasts a vast amount of warehouse space. These larger footprints, most often used for textile or food production, are attracting a range of activities that require space or, in the case of Tesla’s Hyperloop, secrecy. Such industrial firms are interspersed with new art galleries and a historic knitting mill, proof of the area’s artistic heritage.

These efforts and LA’s distinctive industry strengths are combatting one of the biggest challenges to attracting businesses downtown: the strength of competing areas like Silicon Beach, which includes Santa Monica and Playa del Rey and offers an established tech ecosystem alongside an attractive location
.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1877  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 8:35 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojeda101 View Post
I don't understand if the price tag is similar why not just build towers with podiums than 6 story boxes with underground parking? Remember that initiative Huizar introduced to prevent the boxes? I understand we've seen a sharp decline in them but I wish it would've happened a lot sooner. Granted they're great for pedestrian interaction but they're going to be a boil on our city skyline for the next half century.
Makes you wonder huh. Podiums, if done properly and to a lesser extent, can work. I would say our current podiums are massive failures though. Carmel partners for example. Beautiful tower, sitting on a literal and obvious concrete parking garage. Onnis "The Level", although have masked theirs a little better, it still sucks because its clearly sitting on a podium, The Vermont twins, Glass Tower "ten 50" all failed with their podiums plus others.

LAs best "potential" podiums haven't even broken ground yet. 4th and Hill, 4th and Broadway, SB Omega (SCREW YOU BARRY SHY ! I HOPE YOU READ THIS!). Best meaning, parking reduced just so that the podium can be covered and wrapped with residential studios/one bedrooms with these units being rented/sold for a cheaper price. For the untrained eye, most wont even notice behind the residential units is a parking garage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1878  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 9:16 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
Who gives a shit about the skyline? Pedestrian interaction is what matters. The only people who can see the skyline are people outside of downtown anyways.

From an urbanist perspective the obsession with skylines seems perverse.
Well to put it in this perspective. The Skyline is the added bonus. The density is the main goal.

8th and grand is so massive that it sits on land large enough to hold 5 towers easily.

Meaning.

if you were to stand it up on its 8th street side, it would be a modest 30-40 story building, with the same amount of units if not more, with room for more towers on the land it currently squats on. That lands density potential has easily been slashed for the next 50-100 years.

Everyone is whining about density and street level activity but are willing to accept a 7 story building that has double the parking of towers (sometimes), takes up the foot print of multiple potential buildings (lost density) and somehow manages to charge the same amount for rent as towers do (thought the whole point of wood frame buildings were to be built cheaper for cheaper rents?). If you were to stand up all of those wood framed buildings on their small footprint sides you would see how much land has been lost from an aerial point of view.

Example. Vibiana lofts. 238 units. Easily sits on land for 2 towers. Stand her up and that's easily 2 buildings with 238 units EACH.

11th and hill, being built behind the Herald Examiner building with 177 units, ITS SO FREAKING LONG. Stand it up and you could easily have 2-3 towers where it squats. 177 + units EACH.

The thing about doing this is, yes, the amount of ground floor retail wouldn't increase, it would stay the same, but with the added density, the businesses will do way better.

Just a different perspective but I get what you're saying.

Last edited by caligrad; Jul 10, 2016 at 9:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1879  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 10:08 PM
jgacis jgacis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
Who gives a shit about the skyline? Pedestrian interaction is what matters. The only people who can see the skyline are people outside of downtown anyways.

From an urbanist perspective the obsession with skylines seems perverse.
Totally disagree. If that's the case, then New York's obsession almost a century ago with their skyline would have been inconsequential today, which is totally untrue. I mention NYC only as an example because you seem to say all "skylines" are perverse in the general sense. Don't forget that TALLER towers, (even though they've been argued here many times that they can have the same density as shorter ones) take up LESS land footprint for the same given amount of density/square footage as a shorter one. Added to that complexity are the floor area ratios that determine how much green space could also be available at the street (and pedestrian) level. So yes, SKYLINES do matter, even if in an indirect way because in many ways a building's form is intertwined with its function in an urban setting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1880  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2016, 10:15 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgacis View Post
Totally disagree. If that's the case, then New York's obsession almost a century ago with their skyline would have been inconsequential today, which is totally untrue. I mention NYC only as an example because you seem to say all "skylines" are perverse in the general sense. Don't forget that TALLER towers, (even though they've been argued here many times that they can have the same density as shorter ones) take up LESS land footprint for the same given amount of density/square footage as a shorter one. Added to that complexity are the floor area ratios that determine how much green space could also be available at the street (and pedestrian) level. So yes, SKYLINES do matter, even if in an indirect way because in many ways a building's form is intertwined with its function in an urban setting.
If your argument is that a certain building isn't using land efficiently, then fine. I have no problems with that whatsoever.

But if the tradeoff is more height/less pedestrian friendly but the same density per land use, then I'm not going to side with that.

For example, Pudong may look nice in Beijing but I would take Tokyo's uninspiring skyline but superb pedestrian experience over it any day. One looks great on a post card, the other is actually great to live and work in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:25 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.