LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

You're very fixated on height.

DTLA isn't enough of a premium market yet to warrant really tall buildings, unless it's for a prominent location. I would rather we fill out our DT with buildings in the 100-500' range.

While I share your and caligrad's sentiment of wanting to fill in LA (which it probably needs more than some very tall buildings atm), it would be amazing to have a signature tower. I never implied that it should be 1500' either, someone else did.

I wouldn't say fixated but height does matter, as it's what makes a building a skyscraper. 500 foot buildings are great in large quantity but nowadays a skyscraper is probably more like 700+ feet.


The prominent location part is true though, that's why I said sometime this decade (or next). DTLA needs to urbanize more and become a more pleasant place before supertalls start popping up.


...

[Quixote]

^ The signature skyscraper is the US Bank Tower (although I take it you mean the skyline needs a new one), which people will recognize as one of the three main structures destroyed by alien spaceships in the film Independence Day—the other two are the Empire State Building and the White House. And in terms of architecture, it’s fairly unique. The closest resemblance is tower one of Brookfield Place in Toronto, but that building is shorter and its overall silhouette much less elegant.

500’ is the threshold for making an impact on the skyline from far away, although a bunch of 500-footers would create a Toronto-effect where the skyline has a small core of tall office skyscrapers from the 20th century surrounded by a bunch of much shorter buildings. What we really need is 3-4 towers around 800-900’ in South Park to balance the skyline. Here’s one such proposal:

https://urbanize.city/la/post/fresh-...45-olive-tower

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ The signature skyscraper is the US Bank Tower (although I take it you mean the skyline needs a new one), which people will recognize as one of the three main structures destroyed by alien spaceships in the film Independence Day—the other two are the Empire State Building and the White House. And in terms of architecture, it’s fairly unique. The closest resemblance is tower one of Brookfield Place in Toronto, but that building is shorter and its overall silhouette much less elegant.

500’ is the threshold for making an impact on the skyline from far away, although a bunch of 500-footers would create a Toronto-effect where the skyline has a small core of tall office skyscrapers from the 20th century surrounded by a bunch of much shorter buildings. What we really need is 3-4 towers around 800-900’ in South Park to balance the skyline. Here’s one such proposal:

https://urbanize.city/la/post/fresh-...45-olive-tower

I mean either a new one or one that's much taller than anything on the skyline. US Bank is ~85' higher than Wilshire's roof.

1045 Olive is an awesome project. I wonder if it's still in play, Crescent Heights looks legit, which gives me hope.



Olympia is Chinese money I think so I don't have hope for that project given the current state of things. Angel's landing is delayed but I guess could be another 800+ building in the near future.

[Niftybox]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ The signature skyscraper is the US Bank Tower (although I take it you mean the skyline needs a new one), which people will recognize as one of the three main structures destroyed by alien spaceships in the film Independence Day—the other two are the Empire State Building and the White House. And in terms of architecture, it’s fairly unique. The closest resemblance is tower one of Brookfield Place in Toronto, but that building is shorter and its overall silhouette much less elegant.

500’ is the threshold for making an impact on the skyline from far away, although a bunch of 500-footers would create a Toronto-effect where the skyline has a small core of tall office skyscrapers from the 20th century surrounded by a bunch of much shorter buildings. What we really need is 3-4 towers around 800-900’ in South Park to balance the skyline. Here’s one such proposal:

https://urbanize.city/la/post/fresh-...45-olive-tower

A high-rise much shorter than 500' can make a noticeable impact in DTLA, it mostly comes down to location, something in the AD or nearby City Hall can get away with being 30 stories (roughly 300 feet) but that's about the limit to making an impact from afar. I agree that something located in Bunker Hill must be massive or at the very least unique to the surrounding architecture. And I agree South Park requires what you have prescribed to give LA the nice sloped skyline, perhaps not 800-900' but at least 600'ers with one 750'+.

[JerellO]

I think downtown needs a cluster going East/West... as of now, the skyline is so linear. San Diego has a smaller skyline than LA, but if you’ve ever driven down on the 5 south you’ll notice how the freeway literally wraps around downtown SD... therefore SD’s skyline is viewed East/West and North/South and it doesn’t change in size because you have high rises built in all directions making it look huge than it actually is hahaha

I’ve noticed LA’s skyline shrinks viewing it from the north/south even though it is huge even extending outside the freeways

[Quixote]

delete

[headcheckjj]

How is COVID affecting the construction sites downtown? Have the Grand or the Westfield tower sites had any outbreaks? Are they testing workers daily? How does it all work?

[JerellO]

Originally Posted by Quixote

delete

Why? I’m just pointing out my observation and what I think should happen in DTLA.. obviously you can’t just tell people to build that way, but I think it would look nice for the area. It’s a forum for people to talk about development.. and I think that’s how the city should develop whether or not it happens that way.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by JerellO

Why? I’m just pointing out my observation and what I think should happen in DTLA.. obviously you can’t just tell people to build that way, but I think it would look nice for the area. It’s a forum for people to talk about development.. and I think that’s how the city should develop whether or not it happens that way.

AFAIK, when a forumer does that, he's basically saying "Nevermind".

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by JerellO

Why? I’m just pointing out my observation and what I think should happen in DTLA.. obviously you can’t just tell people to build that way, but I think it would look nice for the area. It’s a forum for people to talk about development.. and I think that’s how the city should develop whether or not it happens that way.

I meant to post in a different thread.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

People on here are finally starting to get it...

WHHAAAAAATTTTTT I've been saying this lol never argued against it.

Originally Posted by JerellO

I think another reason those smaller cities feel very easy coast is because they don’t build podiums and are build towers themselves.. or their older buildings, just like LA, are built wall to wall with no height restriction.

And that's another myth that needs to end. I used to think the same thing, early 2000s I felt podiums were the death of LA and its not fair how so many buildings proposed had podiums. Fast forward to 2 decades of traveling this country and You'll see downtowns with podiums in the north west, Mid west, east coast and back to the bay area but how they are executed is what's different. LA is FINALLY getting podiums that are masked with units and other things. We can scream that we want parking requirements to be slashed in half or non existent. But, until i'm able to get to all corners of LA county Via rail, its just not going to happen.

[hughfb3]

https://www.macfarlanepartners.com/2...onomic-future/

ANGELS LANDING PARTNERS REAFFIRMS COMMITMENT TO $2 BILLION BUNKER HILL LUXURY HOTEL PROJECT TO CREATE MORE THAN 9,000 NEW JOBS, EXPRESSES OPTIMISM ABOUT L.A.’S ECONOMIC FUTURE
September 14, 2020

The principals of Angels Landing Partners, LLC today reaffirmed their commitment to move forward with Angels Landing, their $2 billion luxury hotel high-rise development in downtown Los Angeles. Angels Landing is a project of Angels Landing Partners, LLC, a venture between MacFarlane Partners, The Peebles Corporation and Claridge Properties, LLC. The project’s environmental impact report (EIR) is presently being reviewed by L.A. City’s land use and planning officials.

Victor B. MacFarlane, chairman and CEO, MacFarlane Partners, said, “We have high confidence in the City of Angels. We are looking forward to solidifying our investment in L.A.’s future. We know the financial and economic challenges ahead will be great, but we remain optimistic about the journey ahead in the second-largest city in the nation. We have already spent, all costs factored, close to $10 million to move our Angels Landing development project forward. We intend to stay the course to seek project entitlement approval from city leaders and we are committed to spending millions of dollars more to commence construction of Angels Landing as soon as possible.”

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by pwright1

My excitement is the old rundown historic buildings being brought back to their glory. The Merritt Building revealed more this week and imo it is turning out so beautiful.

^ Cleaning up old sites like that is way more important than figuring out what parts of a sim city game will best improve the look of dtla's skyline, as seen from miles away.

I get why ppl want a more big time skyline, but when I'm actually in dt the first thing that stands out to me is not that there aren't more super talls or more highrises...what hits me is that there are too many vacant or rundown bldgs, parking lots, empty lots, swapmeet stores.

dtla would be in fairly good shape if its biggest problem were not enough towers over 900 ft tall....instead of other things....like homeless camps & mean streets...trash, graffiti, human waste.

Another thing is that dtla has been listed as having too much vacant office space for over 30 yrs. the pandemic is not going to help that....As for apt projs, the park fifth apt proj hasn't been able to fill up most of its new units since the start of the yr. I've never seen a major proj in dtla take that long to book up before 2020 started.

Now for good things....the 'shoe' of the lucas museum is starting to take shape:


• Video Link

[caligrad]

If Covid wasnt a factor, I'm sure Park Fifth would have leased faster.

In regards to Office space. I think we have all chimed in on this conversation. We have office towers that were built in the 90s. Totally against the way office space is used todays "Creative workspace" as compared to 1900s corporate cubicles. Unless bunker hill owners pump millions into reconfiguring floor plans, I doubt they will, they will continue to sit empty. They best reassurance to my statement? Office space is still being built everywhere else, like the office tower being built in the arts district I believe, Why not just lease space downtown ? because the new building will most likely have big open spaces and feel less corporate, less dungeon, less prison.

Originally Posted by hughfb3

https://www.macfarlanepartners.com/2...onomic-future/

ANGELS LANDING PARTNERS REAFFIRMS COMMITMENT TO $2 BILLION BUNKER HILL LUXURY HOTEL PROJECT TO CREATE MORE THAN 9,000 NEW JOBS, EXPRESSES OPTIMISM ABOUT L.A.’S ECONOMIC FUTURE
September 14, 2020

The principals of Angels Landing Partners, LLC today reaffirmed their commitment to move forward with Angels Landing, their $2 billion luxury hotel high-rise development in downtown Los Angeles. Angels Landing is a project of Angels Landing Partners, LLC, a venture between MacFarlane Partners, The Peebles Corporation and Claridge Properties, LLC. The project’s environmental impact report (EIR) is presently being reviewed by L.A. City’s land use and planning officials.

Victor B. MacFarlane, chairman and CEO, MacFarlane Partners, said, “We have high confidence in the City of Angels. We are looking forward to solidifying our investment in L.A.’s future. We know the financial and economic challenges ahead will be great, but we remain optimistic about the journey ahead in the second-largest city in the nation. We have already spent, all costs factored, close to $10 million to move our Angels Landing development project forward. We intend to stay the course to seek project entitlement approval from city leaders and we are committed to spending millions of dollars more to commence construction of Angels Landing as soon as possible.”

that's cool and all but do we have to wait 4 more years ? Anything can happen in that time. I say they should break ground now. I'll grab a shovel to help them dig.

[Niftybox]

Man, Angel's Landing going through ahead of schedule, ala before 2022 would be awesome! Those towers and the street level improvements along with the pedestrian bridge will be major.

[Radio5]

Originally Posted by Niftybox

Man, Angel's Landing going through ahead of schedule, ala before 2022 would be awesome! Those towers and the street level improvements along with the pedestrian bridge will be major.

It's not, received an email from someone working on the project...

"Angels Landing Partners, LLC hopes to have the project built and open to the public in time for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games."

So probably starting construction in '24,'25

[Niftybox]

Originally Posted by Radio5

It's not, received an email from someone working on the project...

"Angels Landing Partners, LLC hopes to have the project built and open to the public in time for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games."

So probably starting construction in '24,'25

Wasn't that news old? I mean prior to the September 14 20' statement?

[JerellO]

You guys think there’s a good chance that Angels Landing design and heights might change down the road? Seems to happen a lot and something tells me design will change.. probably for the better

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by JerellO

You guys think there’s a good chance that Angels Landing design and heights might change down the road? Seems to happen a lot and something tells me design will change.. probably for the better

What makes you think that? I like it as is but nice changes are also welcomed.

Angels landing will take up the whole park though right? That's kind of a bummer.



Here's to hoping 1045 Olive and 1111 Hill Street survive the pandemic, those are beautiful.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

What makes you think that? I like it as is but nice changes are also welcomed.

I can't speak for that poster, but reading between the lines, something has likely changed. The original project was based on an old environmental report that was later judged to be outdated. The project was then delayed to allow time for a new environmental report to be prepared. MacFarlane partners has some sort of new environmental report in the hands of the city and for some reason felt the need to publicly "reaffirm their commitment" to completing the project. That tells me that something may be changing and that it may impact the previous design/timeline. I would go so far as to predict that it could potentially be dead as previously proposed. MacFarlane's statement is intended to say that even with the necessary changes, that they are still on board.

Someone please tell me that none of that makes sense and that I'm being worrier.