LOS ANGELES | 333 S. Figueroa Street | 1,108 FT | 77 FLOORS (New Tallest)

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by caligrad

That would require the rewriting of history as we know it almost every "Tallest" building lies about its height. The Empire State Building at the time of its completion without a doubt was the tallest building in the world. However. It lists 102 floors yet most of the floors over 90 don't actually exist. Its recorded at 1,454 to the top of the antenna, 1,250 to the top of the "Roof" but its last actual working floors is right above the 86th floor observation deck which is only 1,050 ft up. Same with the Chrysler, its last actual floor is only 899ft up yet the building with its massive (but Gorgeous and probably the best spire on the planet) takes the height up to 1,046 feet up. Fun fact with the worlds current tallest Burj Khalifa, It lists a height of 2,717ft tall. Yet. Its tallest floor is only 1,918 ft up. So the top 800 ft is literally just a massive spire.

Its dumb and annoying for sure and I still view the US Bank tower as the tallest building in California since it is if we're going off roof height. But if changed now, all the architectural history books will have to be shredded....Imagine

And here lies the problem. Taking away spires would change everything beyond repair. I don’t think anyone wants to live in a world where the Chrysler Building is only 899 feet. At the same time, who’s to say that the spire isn’t part of the height of the building. The only option would be using the width or design of the spire to determine whether it counts. But that’d be far too subjective. Imagine if the Burj Khalifa was suddenly just 2,000 feet and the Shanghai tower was said to be taller. That would seem off too, because the Burj definitely looks taller if they’re put next to each other.

Honestly, if King Kong climbed the Wilshire Grand, he wouldn’t stop till he reached the very top which would be 1100 feet. So who’s to say that it isn’t part of the height of it’s connected to the building? I won’t lie though, I wasn’t happy when they said the Petronas towers and the WTC were taller than the Sears. But I kind of get it. Even if calling the WTC taller seems like a bit of a stretch.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by IMBY

It's mind boggling to see how fast they built an interstate freeway system and high speed rail system in China!

Can we trade our slowpoke, political system for theirs just for 2-3-4-5 years?

Here in NJ, on river road heading towards New Brunswick, there is a stretch of the road that needed expansion. Total length was roughly 150m. Expansion includes adding one extra turning lane, and retrofitting some of the piping below the road, along with adding one more lane.

It took them 3 years!

So I doubt well get to that type of speed anytime soon.

Road construction in the U.S. takes way to long. And its not even being critical, it just takes a ridiculous time.

[jg6544]

There may be a more asinine topic of conversation than how tall one building is vs. another, but I'm damned if I know what it is.

[ozone]

On topic:
Does anyone else think the renderings look totally unrealistic? I realize it's very preliminary but...

Off topic:

Originally Posted by IMBY

It's mind boggling to see how fast they built an interstate freeway system and high speed rail system in China!

Can we trade our slowpoke, political system for theirs just for 2-3-4-5 years?

I've spent some time traveling around China and I would definitely not trade our slow-poke system for theres. Yeah things get down fast but half the time it's a shoddy job. I was surprised by how many relatively new buildings had already looked old and worn. It's a little better in the more "Western" areas but not by much.

[The Best Forumer]

nice. I like it

[Blesha13]

Originally Posted by ozone

On topic:
Does anyone else think the renderings look totally unrealistic? I realize it's very preliminary but...

They're obviously preliminary renderings and I'm sure there will be changes with the design, but I'm actually digging that green facade on the "better" renderings. I don't think there's ever been a project that doesn't tweak their rendering and actually gets completed.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

And here lies the problem. Taking away spires would change everything beyond repair. I don’t think anyone wants to live in a world where the Chrysler Building is only 899 feet. At the same time, who’s to say that the spire isn’t part of the height of the building. The only option would be using the width or design of the spire to determine whether it counts. But that’d be far too subjective. Imagine if the Burj Khalifa was suddenly just 2,000 feet and the Shanghai tower was said to be taller. That would seem off too, because the Burj definitely looks taller if they’re put next to each other.

Honestly, if King Kong climbed the Wilshire Grand, he wouldn’t stop till he reached the very top which would be 1100 feet. So who’s to say that it isn’t part of the height of it’s connected to the building? I won’t lie though, I wasn’t happy when they said the Petronas towers and the WTC were taller than the Sears. But I kind of get it. Even if calling the WTC taller seems like a bit of a stretch.

Maybe we should use a second category, roof height above last occupied (or potentially occupied vacant) floor (RHALF) as a better measure of building height, since that is true functional height rather than decorative height--crowns and spires are decorative features. So we can have two columns in building height--spire/crown height (SCH) and roof height above last floor (RHALF). By this measure, USBank remains the tallest building in the west, with a taller RHALF than Salesforce and Wilshire Grand. But most experts value SCH more than RHALF as a measure of height. Should things like the Eiffel Tower and the TV Tower in San Francisco that looms over the city on a hill near Twin Peaks/Mt. Davidson even be counted? Not sure, but the World Almanac lists the SF TV tower, along with the Stratosphere tower, Eiffel Tower and Space Needle in the list of tall buildings. At least Stratosphere, Eiffel Tower and Space Needle have people in it, but does the TV tower??? Maybe this is nitpickng.

[Blesha13]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Maybe we should use a second category, roof height above last occupied (or potentially occupied vacant) floor (RHALF) as a better measure of building height, since that is true functional height rather than decorative height--crowns and spires are decorative features. So we can have two columns in building height--spire/crown height (SCH) and roof height above last floor (RHALF). By this measure, USBank remains the tallest building in the west, with a taller RHALF than Salesforce and Wilshire Grand. But most experts value SCH more than RHALF as a measure of height. Should things like the Eiffel Tower and the TV Tower in San Francisco that looms over the city on a hill near Twin Peaks/Mt. Davidson even be counted? Not sure, but the World Almanac lists the SF TV tower, along with the Stratosphere tower, Eiffel Tower and Space Needle in the list of tall buildings. At least Stratosphere, Eiffel Tower and Space Needle have people in it, but does the TV tower??? Maybe this is nitpickng.

Counting the full height of SCH is much easier and visually appealing to pinpoint which is the tallest building than actually counting occupied roof heights as its official height measurement. I'd take SCH any day.

[Blesha13]

I think I mentioned this before, but can someone do a mockup of how this tower will look in the skyline from different vantage points, please? THANK YOU

[Blesha13]

Any news on this project?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Blesha13

Any news on this project?

No, it'll be here when there is.

I don't know much about Shenzhen New World Group though (who are behind this). If anyone has any insight that could be helpful.

[pianowizard]

Being the second most populous city and metropolitan area in the US, L.A. deserves many more supertalls. Hopefully this will get built! Last March I was in L.A. for a week and had such a great time. I went to the restaurants and bars near the top of both Wilshire Grand and U.S. Bank Tower.

[SLO]

I love the design of this tower, just now how they turn the building at an angle to the street grid. They just kill any street interaction, which maybe what they want...

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

Being the second most populous city and metropolitan area in the US, L.A. deserves many more supertalls. Hopefully this will get built! Last March I was in L.A. for a week and had such a great time. I went to the restaurants and bars near the top of both Wilshire Grand and U.S. Bank Tower.

Deserves? No city "deserves" highrises unless there's a market for them.

[prageethSL]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Deserves? No city "deserves" highrises unless there's a market for them.

Except Dubai

[liat91]

Wow, great for LA.
Would nicely complement the skyline.

As for spires. I would count Empire State to the roof.
The design at the top really is intertwined with the
building design, unlike 1WTC and LA’s current tallest.

[chris08876]

I hope this rises. I'm tired of the East Coast getting all of the love. I wanna see the West Coast eclipse us in the development game.

[Totojuice]

It evokes the spotlights of a movie premiere shooting up into the stars.... understated elegance Hope to see it rise soon!

Originally Posted by NYguy

I like the height. The design needs work, especially if it will be the tallest in LA.

Reminds me of this older proposal in Queens...










https://ny.curbed.com/2016/2/9/10953...llest-building

[pianowizard]

Saw this article yesterday:

https://www.businessinsider.com/los-...skyline-2019-2

Apparently they designed it to be just tall enough to surpass the Wilshire Grand in height. But of course if it's built, it will look much taller than Wilshire, which relies on a very skinny spire to reach 1100 ft.

[chris08876]

Fingers crossed. I believe there are other near super talls in the pipeline. LA is overdue for a nice super tall boom.