LOS ANGELES | Wilshire Grand Development | 1,100 FT | 73 FLOORS | U/C

[Valyrian Steel]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLrrKQljXe7/

[DJ1272]

Can someone please tell me which buildings are rendered in this pic? I'm guessing the two in the middle are Metropolis but I'm drawing a blank on the far right.

[Wally West]

Originally Posted by DJ1272

Can someone please tell me which buildings are rendered in this pic? I'm guessing the two in the middle are Metropolis but I'm drawing a blank on the far right.

The buildings on the far right is the Circa project.

The three buildings on its left is known as the Oceanwide project.


Here's a rendering of the two projects together.

[DJ1272]

Thanks! The rendering I posted doesn't seem accurate though. I mean, I'm used to the MacArthur park view, but still.

[NativeOrange]

I believe the Onni 49 story is right behind Oceanwide and the Onni twins are behind Circa.

[ThebiteofSuarez]

Originally Posted by DJ1272

Thanks! The rendering I posted doesn't seem accurate though. I mean, I'm used to the MacArthur park view, but still.

It should be correct based on the original picture. Oceanwide and Circa are relatively far apart from the Ritz-Carlton. The Onni Twins are literally behind Circa, and only the taller tower will be seen. 820 Olive is next to Level and is behind the Oceanwide twin towers.

[cwilly]

I was down in LA this week and I have to say I was underwhelmed by the presence Wilshire Grand has on the skyline. When approaching downtown form various angles it doesn't scream out 'tallest building' by any stretch of the imagination. US Bank still looms much larger. In addition, I went up to the bar at the top of US Bank for a drink and you actually look down on Wilshire Grand (other than the spire). The design of Wilshire Grand is gorgeous in person, but from stricly a size/skyline dominance standpoint I was a little disappointed.

[Rhody]

Not to down talk this great building , but the previous poster is right, the spire doesn't make it the tallest, scale wise. If central park tower in NYC was built close to WTC 1, people wouldn't associate the WTC as the tallest building anymore, spire or no spire.

[Just-In-Cali]

Its quite a striking tower, honestly. These most recent pics really show that. I know people seem to be funneling in here from other places to take a swipe at it, but honestly, we have a great new tower. A real attention catcher. Sorry others need to come an complain, but eh...its a forum.

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by Rhody

Not to down talk this great building , but the previous poster is right, the spire doesn't make it the tallest, scale wise. If central park tower in NYC was built close to WTC 1, people wouldn't associate the WTC as the tallest building anymore, spire or no spire.

The overall structural height counts today. Not the top floor. Peoples opinions are not taken into account.

[Nightsky]

It is a nice building, and nice that LA finally get a new tallest skyscraper, but it doesn't look like the tallest from any angle. The spire issue again..

[J_M_Tungsten]

Originally Posted by sw5710

The overall structural height counts today. Not the top floor. Peoples opinions are not taken into account.

Wasn't it the opinions of people at the CTBUH who decided an architectural spire is to be considered a part of the overall height and not the roof? The fact that they were able to formalize their opinions into a yardstick of measurement does not change the fact that a building with an architectural spire looks noticeably smaller than a building with a taller roof height.

This building is a slick and much appreciated addition to the LA skyline, but no matter the stated height to the tip of the spire, it is visually smaller than the US Bank Tower from most angles.

[black_crow]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Wasn't it the opinions of people at the CTBUH who decided an architectural spire is to be considered a part of the overall height and not the roof? The fact that they were able to formalize their opinions into a yardstick of measurement does not change the fact that a building with an architectural spire looks noticeably smaller than a building with a taller roof height.

This building is a slick and much appreciated addition to the LA skyline, but no matter the stated height to the tip of the spire, it is visually smaller than the US Bank Tower from most angles.

The US Bank tower is still the king, but the Wilshire Grand Center is our new queen.

Today:

Rainy Sunday by Myself, on Flickr

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Wasn't it the opinions of people at the CTBUH who decided an architectural spire is to be considered a part of the overall height and not the roof? The fact that they were able to formalize their opinions into a yardstick of measurement does not change the fact that a building with an architectural spire looks noticeably smaller than a building with a taller roof height.

This building is a slick and much appreciated addition to the LA skyline, but no matter the stated height to the tip of the spire, it is visually smaller than the US Bank Tower from most angles.

Yes it was the CTBUH that came up with the building height definitions. Who else would be doing it if they didn't. The spire looks taller as long as the US bank is at equal distances or behind it. The exception was when i was on Mt Washington several miles to the north and the spire was visible standing over the roof of the US bank. There is a 17' elevation difference at the lobby levels. The US Bank = 303' and the Wilshire Grand = 287'

[ozone]

Originally Posted by sw5710

The overall structural height counts today. Not the top floor. Peoples opinions are not taken into account.

At the end of the day the only thing that really does count is the general public's opinion, not that of a bunch of fan boys or a little-known para-industry org. It's laughable to think people are going to consult that latter when forming their opinions. They are going use their eyes to judge.

The Wilshire Grand is a handsome addition to the skyline whether or not it's the tallest.

[simms3_redux]

^^^The above, except I will say that lay people throughout CA are thinking "tallest" when they think about this tower because there was a big to-do about it and media frenzy (as there should have been) along with an arms race with a building that was going to lay claim to that title up in SF, so this whole state has been on edge and notified about "new tallest" for a while now, and there may be some that feel analogous to the way some people felt about the recent Hurricane Matthew:

The forecasters had it correct, that there was a high chance for an even worse hurricane event than Katrina if the damn eyewall were just 20-40 mi west of its eventual track, inflicting cat 4 damage and surge along a major population center. Instead, highest surge was "only 12 ft and highest gusts were barely above 100 mph" and damnit, the forecasters had it all wrong because a million people didn't lost their home and thousands perish.

In other words, misguided annoyance. Wind might be taken out of some people's sails when they personally abandon the notion of "tallest" when they see the spire, because you're right, most people don't know about the technicalities, but most people are expecting a tallest and they will learn indirectly about that technicality when they see it in person.

I know that Boston Properties/Hines probably have some "locker room talk" about WG because they were going to pitch tallest building west of Mississippi River, which probably has a little greater context/value than "tallest office building" west of said river. They're probably pissed at Comcast, too, for the same reasons. Again, they were going to have "tallest building outside of NYC and Chicago" and two spires came to be.

Whatever, three excellent buildings were/are being built and the public will weigh in on all three over time.

[sw5710]

[QUOTE=ozone;7601818]At the end of the day the only thing that really does count is the general public's opinion, not that of a bunch of fan boys or a little-known para-industry org. It's laughable to think people are going to consult that latter when forming their opinions. They are going use their eyes to judge.


Public opinion is mixed on the WG as per height. The fan boys as you put it created rules to end that. They are just like the ones that post speed limits on the roads that the general public can and does disregard.

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

^^^The above, except I will say that lay people throughout CA are thinking "tallest" when they think about this tower because there was a big to-do about it and media frenzy (as there should have been) along with an arms race with a building that was going to lay claim to that title up in SF, so this whole state has been on edge and notified about "new tallest" for a while now, and there may be some that feel analogous to the way some people felt about the recent Hurricane Matthew:

The forecasters had it correct, that there was a high chance for an even worse hurricane event than Katrina if the damn eyewall were just 20-40 mi west of its eventual track, inflicting cat 4 damage and surge along a major population center. Instead, highest surge was "only 12 ft and highest gusts were barely above 100 mph" and damnit, the forecasters had it all wrong because a million people didn't lost their home and thousands perish.

In other words, misguided annoyance. Wind might be taken out of some people's sails when they personally abandon the notion of "tallest" when they see the spire, because you're right, most people don't know about the technicalities, but most people are expecting a tallest and they will learn indirectly about that technicality when they see it in person.

I know that Boston Properties/Hines probably have some "locker room talk" about WG because they were going to pitch tallest building west of Mississippi River, which probably has a little greater context/value than "tallest office building" west of said river. They're probably pissed at Comcast, too, for the same reasons. Again, they were going to have "tallest building outside of NYC and Chicago" and two spires came to be.

Whatever, three excellent buildings were/are being built and the public will weigh in on all three over time.

What building was the first to be announced as future tallest on the west coast?

[ozone]

[QUOTE=sw5710;7602074]

Originally Posted by ozone

At the end of the day the only thing that really does count is the general public's opinion, not that of a bunch of fan boys or a little-known para-industry org. It's laughable to think people are going to consult that latter when forming their opinions. They are going use their eyes to judge.


Public opinion is mixed on the WG as per height. The fan boys as you put it created rules to end that. They are just like the ones that post speed limits on the roads that the general public can and does disregard.

I'm not sure that's a good analogy at all. The rules of the road were established to ensure public safety and proper control and function of traffic. The rules created by the CTBUH to determine the height of skyscrapers do not have any real value and accepting or rejecting them has no consequences. And considering that there is still quite of bit of disagreement as to what constitutes the "real" height of a building I would say the rules laid down by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat hasn't ended the debate or created any sort of consensus either.

But getting back to the tower itself... Wasn't there supposed to have been large electronic billboards/screen ads attached to it or am I mistaken?

[sw5710]

[QUOTE=ozone;7602776]

Originally Posted by sw5710

I'm not sure that's a good analogy at all. The rules of the road were established to ensure public safety and proper control and function of traffic. The rules created by the CTBUH to determine the height of skyscrapers do not have any real value and accepting or rejecting them has no consequences. And considering that there is still quite of bit of disagreement as to what constitutes the "real" height of a building I would say the rules laid down by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat hasn't ended the debate or created any sort of consensus either.

But getting back to the tower itself... Wasn't there supposed to have been large electronic billboards/screen ads attached to it or am I mistaken?

There will be disagreement no matter what heights are used and who makes them. There still needs to be some sort of guide lines anyway otherwise what then. As for billboards nothing attached to the glass floors. The sail will have some sort of lighting and the logo on it.