LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[Easy]

No offense intended, but what started as a misunderstanding and misstatement of what air rights are has morphed into additional statements regarding the desire of LA city government to preserve sight lines to specific private/public buildings along with a concurrent desire to have LA's overall skyline match the outline of mountain backgrounds from various views. It all sounds like skyscraper fantasy to me and there's been no proof for any of it.

[BaldwinDPB]

Originally Posted by Rocha091370

Love the pics awesome!

I really like the first picture. The crane gives the illusion that there is a very tall spire coming out of the top of the Grand.

[Yackemflaber69]

I want to shout out ModernMan thanks for working on the LA diagram great work keep it up!

[BillinGlendaleCA]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

GREAT shot, Bill!

Thanks.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Easy

No offense intended, but what started as a misunderstanding and misstatement of what air rights are has morphed into additional statements regarding the desire of LA city government to preserve sight lines to specific private/public buildings along with a concurrent desire to have LA's overall skyline match the outline of mountain backgrounds from various views. It all sounds like skyscraper fantasy to me and there's been no proof for any of it.

WOW!!!

Pages 25-32 of the Downtown Los Angeles 2040 plan crafted and placed on THE official website of the City of Los Angeles for everyone to see and participate in

https://planning.lacity.org/odocumen..._Fall_2020.pdf

...and it's not just L.A. This is a link to 2008; when San Francisco was literally trying get a visual idea on how the skyline would look from 17 different vantage points with the addition of their new Transbay district, and there are 4 different mockups showcasing varying heights and shapes to their skyline. After careful planning and community outreach, The City and People chose a mix between options 2 and 3

http://socketsite.com/archives/2008/...n_form_si.html

Originally Posted by ^^First_Paragraph^^

"...providing points of orientation and visual interest within the region."

"Read article IV-I-A-2" above and Look at those building masses lean and shrink back from city hall so as to not get too close to that elliptical


The very next year; San Francisco showcases downtown plan [2009], telling developers desired heights measured in feet for specific plots of land. And yes, the city specifically planned for the creation of Salesforce tower and its other tall neighbors because they wanted a new peak tower district with a crown jewel next to its shiny new train station/bus terminal. You will see the future Salesforce tower annotated in the diagram as a dark blue box with 1000' (ft)

http://socketsite.com/archives/2009/...rict_plan.html






^Study on SF building height's effect on shadows in the city


As much as we like to talk about skyscrapers and skylines on this site; we have an opportunity to be not just spectators to what someone else is doing in developing parcels..., but active in the game! Creating our future! Shaping a skyline is an art that has been dying as of late with fast developing cities around the world allowing whatever, wherever. I am excited that Los Angeles and San Francisco are still in the practice and art form of shaping their skylines; and I will continue to geek out about it on this site because,.... well... this is the SKYSCRAPERPAGE FORUUM!!!

Get a degree in urban planning, participate in neighborhood council and city council meetings. Get into the Conversation. The world needs more people passionate about spacial awareness in cities. We also need more urban growth boundaries and less light pollution... but that’s another topic. And if my posting inspires one person to take new action to create a new future for all of us, I know that this was all worth it

None of this information is hard to find... just gotta look

[Easy]

Thanks for the links hughfb3. You've really done your homework.

I'll let others judge for themselves, but in my opinion there's nothing in these links that substantiates that the city would like the views of existing tall buildings to be maintained and certainly nothing that suggests that the city wants the skyline to mimic the mountain background.

What they do show is that the city wants the developers of tall buildings (over 150') to consider that it may be impactful on the skyline, so make it look good, both at the top and for pedestrians at the bottom. They say that flat roofs aren't recommended, but obviously that's not a requirement given that the design of nearly every recent tower has a flat roof.

The one exception is they do want buildings built on city-owned property adjacent to city hall, to not be taller than city hall and to promote views of city hall. But that only applies to city-owned property, not private.

I'm not an expert, but I feel pretty secure with my reading comprehension. If others read the docs and come to a different opinion, then ok. But to use these docs as proof that the city wants the skyline to be framed by the mountains or that 8th/fig was required to be placed in a way that protects the views of 7th/fig...I just don't see that.

But I mean no harm and wish the best.

[Niftybox]

I find it coincidental that the skyline looks 'like' the San Gabriel mountains, many skylines have a mountainous appearance to them. One could say Seattle has theirs styled after Rainier from specific angles.

[a9l8e7n]

Originally Posted by Niftybox

I find it coincidental that the skyline looks 'like' the San Gabriel mountains, many skylines have a mountainous appearance to them. One could say Seattle has theirs styled after Rainier from specific angles.

I highly doubt there is any intention there. I think its like looking into the sky and trying to make the shape of the clouds into something familiar.

[CaliNative]

I have mixed feelings about central planning of skylines. I believe in zoning, but within the bounds of DTLA and the financial core, limiting heghts on some parcels seems to infringe on property rights. A developer not allowed to have a 50 story building on his land because of some subjective view of a planner or commision seems to have a court case. Why does some central planner get to arbitrarily dictate the "correct" shape of a skyline? Sounds all very subjective. Maybe developers should have the right to appeal these restrictions to the City Council. Maybe the skyline should be allowed some freedom to evolve on economic and free market grounds within the bounds of DTLA. The market can decide where the tallest buildings can be. A central peak to a skyline doesn't need to be a straightjacket, just a guideline. Why not multiple peaks? On the other hand, I am completely on board with preserving historic buildings and districts. The preservation of the Broadway historic district, for example. The rule that new buildings must have a lower level that stops at 150', the old height ceiling, and anything taller must be set back from the 150' lower floors seems like a good plan to keep the character of the area.

[DownTown Giant]

Exactly: The classic Lower Manhattan '1930 to 1980 skyline came about naturally, and that's what has made it genuinely cool. A city planner deciding how things look is a bit like Irvine. Definitely not urban.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by DownTown Giant

Exactly: The classic Lower Manhattan '1930 to 1980 skyline came about naturally, and that's what has made it genuinely cool. A city planner deciding how things look is a bit like Irvine. Definitely not urban.

I don't think that he's doing any such thing, but LA's Chief Design Officer and former LAT architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne would do a pretty good job if ever asked. He has really good ideas about how LA can look.

[Doctorboffin]

Originally Posted by Yackemflaber69

I want to shout out ModernMan thanks for working on the LA diagram great work keep it up!

Hey, that's me! Thanks! I'm going to have to slow down a bit because classes are getting time-consuming, but it's been good fun!

Changing the subject, what's the status of 520 Mateo? I know they were pushing dirt for it like a year ago, but then the whole scandal + COVID happened. I don't live in LA, so I can't check out the site myself, but is there any activity there?

[ChelseaFC]

Proper Hotel opens June 1 (about two years late)

https://www.properhotel.com/downtown-la/

[scania]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

Proper Hotel opens June 1 (about two years late)

https://www.properhotel.com/downtown-la/

This is great!

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Took these in Downtown today. Sorry for Facebook destroying the quality.

Wow. Looking at that pic I think that building would look amazing with a spire.

[LAsam]

^ Looks good with our "Hong Kong" apartment in the foreground!

[LA/OCman]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

Proper Hotel opens June 1 (about two years late)

https://www.properhotel.com/downtown-la/

So we have the Proper, the Hoxton and Ace Hotel south of 9th Street on Broadway. Boutique Hotel row. I have stayed at both the Hoxton and Ace. The Proper looks like it will be amazing.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by LAsam

^ Looks good with our "Hong Kong" apartment in the foreground!

Those are ugly and should be redeveloped but it's senior housing so I don't think it's going anywhere.

[Niftybox]

Something pretty substantial needs to go between The Grand and Bunker Hill's towers to close that skyline gap, something between 40-50 stories. Some of those old weathered buildings in that area are prime real estate. Earlier I thought Times Mirror was closing that gap but I realize those towers will be below & behind The Grand from the common skyline angle (Griffith Observatory). Also, I actually don't mind those 'commie blocks' that much, they have a kind of retro futurist/brutalist charm to them.

[ChelseaFC]

Street level interaction is much more important than filling skyline gaps, and those senior housing towers do very little in the way of activating the street.