LOS ANGELES | Angels Landing Towers | 854 & 542 FT | 64 & 48 FLOORS

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by ozone

I'm not sure why people prefer the MacFarlane/Handel proposal. The plaza looks to be just perpetuating the same problems that the older Bunker Hill development. Plus IMO the tower is an ugly mishmash. And the Lowe/Gensler proposal looks like they mistakingly talked with ASU instead of UCLA.

To me the Omni proposal is the most well-thought-out of the three. Even if you are aren't a fan of the cube stacks there is no denying that it would stand out more that the others. There are other renderings of the Omni proposal that shows that better. Someone complained about the simplicity of the design but that is one of the things I like about it.

Because its everything that people have been complaining about LA for a long time.

"LAs skyline is too boxy"

Oh look, lets literally stack random boxes on top of each other like jenga.

"LA towers cater to cars too much with curb cut outs and driveways"

Literally the entire 4th street side (Minus the station) is a curb cut out/driveway.

"What kills bunker hill is the huge plazas with no vegetation and lack of pedestrian flow"

Now, i will give credit when its due and say Onni gave us the best pedestrian flow out of the three, but, Onni literally gave us concrete with noooooo landscaping. No trees, no bushes, no flowers, no grass (at the base at least) . Which again tells people to keep on walking through, instead of chill and relax for a little while.

Yeah there is the huge staircase that you can sit on, blah, but why ? what for ? who would want to sit in an environment that's full of glass and concrete? its not comfortable or relaxing, and then add in the homeless aspect of it and its a nightmare.

Del Amo mall has the same feature on a smaller scale. BUT. There's plants, bushes, cushions, places to charge your phone AND its climate controlled, its actually pleasant and relaxing. This will not be.

There's nothing wrong with Simplicity, but when its TOO simple, the public space will look REAL public and not connected to the buildings themselves. The other 2 gives the illusion that its still part of the building so homeless will think twice about squatting.... The concrete mess at the base of onnis plan will have security shooing the homeless away on a daily, especially that close to a metro stop.

I'm not totally against Onnis though. Keep the shorter tower and water down the taller one and move it somewhere in south park. Maybe sandwiched between those big parking lots between the Ritz and the car wash site.

P.S.

The Macfarland proposal actually takes a step forward in modernity, Onnis jenga like cubes have been around for at least 2 decades, they get proposed on different scales in most major cities in the world and they rarely get approval. Not to mention LA already has 2 similar jenga like things in the works. 3 if we take that weird thing being proposed on 5th street between Hill and Broadway seriously.

[Doctorboffin]

Hot Take from the other thread:

I feel like people aren’t looking at the Gensler proposal seriously enough. I know that the Onni and MacFarlane proposals have a lot of cool elements that make them standing out, but I am completely convinced that the Gensler one would be better for Downtown.

First off designs can be tweaked. I know that the base is pretty bulky, but there is no reason to assume that will be the final version. However even with the bulk it interacts far better with the street and the metro then the MacFarlane does. People leaving the metro would be greeted to hundreds of stairs and a very open plaza with the buildings being offset. It would not be welcoming, and the assent up would be very cumbersome. It wouldn’t be much better then the knoll is today.

While I will give Onni props for having the best interaction and a simple A-B design with the route, the lack of greenery and shade would be very problematic. I can only imagine how hot it would get down there in the summer.

Gensler’s building has a similar path and while it is smaller and further from the metro it is adjacent to the funicular which I think is a huge plus. It seems to be the only design that actually takes it into account and plays off of it.

In terms of actual design I also think that the Gensler proposal blows the other two out of the water. This is more based around personal opinion, but it just is so much stronger to me.

I’m sick of glass boxes and while i do give credit to the shape of MacFarlane’s design, the cladding looks bad to me. It is the same blue we see everywhere and the cut outs just come off as very cheap. And the little building next to it plus the podium shape facing Bunker Hill look like Circa’s podium without glass. And the park around it looks like a Frank Gehry design, which is cool and all, but horribly impractical. I will however give it huge props for its height however.

The Onni towers come off like a brutalist mess to me, and I do not think they will age well in the slightest. Along with that there are already several Janga buildings like it proposed in this neighborhood alone. I don’t think it’s unconventional design with carry any charm. Plus it is the shortest of the three.

Gensler’s design needs refining in the podium and ideally not block the view completely from the top of the hill, but it is the most unique of the three without being outlandish. The color is unlike any buildings around it and there is a lot of detail put into the podium and the cladding. It is very streamlined and almost Art Deco. It also plays off the color of the funicular and the blue of the surrounding buildings. To me it is very strong and actually considers its context better then the others.

However even without any of that people are looking over the biggest fact. It would bring UCLA downtown. This would be thousands of students living here, people who don’t own cars and have to walk around. The effect on the street life would be staggering. Alongside with this it would bring cultural spaces downtown (hence the podium) something that will also be a huge boom for the area. The other two buildings would just put a dent in the housing market while this would cause it to grow meaning even more urbanization and proposals. This building could mean even more skyscrapers going up nearby while also cleaning out that neighborhood. The other buildings would just be homes for more commuters while this could be a micro city inside LA. Think of what NYU did for New York. I think people really need to reconsider this proposal.

[Totojuice]

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

Hot Take from the other thread:

I feel like people aren’t looking at the Gensler proposal seriously enough. .....

However even without any of that people are looking over the biggest fact. It would bring UCLA downtown. This would be thousands of students living here, people who don’t own cars and have to walk around. The effect on the street life would be staggering. Alongside with this it would bring cultural spaces downtown (hence the podium) something that will also be a huge boom for the area. The other two buildings would just put a dent in the housing market while this would cause it to grow meaning even more urbanization and proposals. This building could mean even more skyscrapers going up nearby while also cleaning out that neighborhood. The other buildings would just be homes for more commuters while this could be a micro city inside LA. Think of what NYU did for New York. I think people really need to reconsider this proposal.

UCLA is not part of the Gensler bid and has explicitly said they do not have a preference between the three designs, so we should take that argument of the table. They could in theory partner with whoever is awarded the project.

[Doctorboffin]

I didn’t know that. Even then though the others would have to be tweaked to fit in a cultural center which would mean a bulkier base.

[caligrad]

And also....with the UCLA argument. Will they really consider moving downtown and dishing out all the extra money when their funds are being cut yearly it seems? feel bad for anyone planning on attending UCLA in the future if they do move attach themselves to either plan, sounds like their tuitions will be doubling or tripling soon. If not to the point that US students get priced out and Foreign students, who most of the time are rich kids from around the world, will be the only ones attending UCLA. And Also.....there's no student housing in the first plan right ? just faculty housing. So....Would students actually feel the need to pay double to live downtown or would they just stick with dorms ? if this actually did happen.

I remember my college days, only 7 short years ago haha, my dorm roomie was from South Korea. His dad not only paid for his tuition and other school related dues, but he also gave him 25k in spending cash each semester. MUST BE NICE!, meanwhile I worked at Starbucks. Haven't stepped inside one since the day I quit. Traumatic to say the least. But I cant complain. He would slip me 2-4k here and there because he felt bad for me. I gladly accepted

[Thefigman]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Needs more height, time for LA to embrace its bigness. But mostly because I want a new signature tower for LA, something I think the Grand doesn't quite do. I would like to see this in the 1,200 ft range, but if not, it will still be a big addition.

Let's be fair to the Grand. They were the first to tackle the issue of not having a flat box roof. I think considering that they did very well in getting something that looks unlike any other building in downtown LA.

Point taken about the height and look, but the buildings that follow will have an easier time with unique designs because of what they did.

[ucla_student]

Sorry caligrad, I think you're missing some things about UCLA's involvement in this project, but also UCLA operations in general.

And also....with the UCLA argument. Will they really consider moving downtown

The whole campus wouldn't move downtown (into one building). UCLA would simply own office space downtown, to be used for various purposes. They already do this with various medical and athletic buildings in Santa Monica and parts of LA outside of Westwood.

dishing out all the extra money when their funds are being cut yearly it seems?

UCLA is increasingly independent of state funding, and the top UCs aren't really in any financial danger. Currently, UCLA is investing extremely heavily in major projects. There's about a dozen new buildings on the campus (Luskin Conference Center and Hotel, costing roughly $160 million leads the way).

That said, the heavy investment in new buildings on the main campus might prevent UCLA from being interested in a really expensive project elsewhere.

sounds like their tuitions will be doubling or tripling soon

Capital projects aren't paid for through tuition - tuition only covers student costs. Tuition has gone up, but smoothly. There's no scenario where tuition would randomly double or triple.

US students get priced out and Foreign students, who most of the time are rich kids from around the world, will be the only ones attending UCLA

Tuition is determined by California residency, not international status. Students from outside of California pay the same tuition as international students. In practice there are far more wealthy US students (outside of California) compared to international students, though there's heavy competition for these students, so UCLA does target international students as well.

The US remains by far the wealthiest country in the world, so barring a total national collapse, it's not really possible for US students to ever be priced out of anything.

Would students actually feel the need to pay double to live downtown or would they just stick with dorms ?

Dorm costs and Westwood housing is already more expensive than downtown. I speak from personal experience - even with the increase in downtown rents, it's still cheaper than Westwood Village.

[Just-In-Cali]

I think all three could be improved with refining, but my opinion goes as follows.
Prop 1's hulking mass, giant base and slab-like profile make it look so heavy and foreboding, it brings to mind the Pan Am building in NY. Especially with it sitting on the edge of the mass of the skyline. That base interaction feel like a fortress.
Prop 2's stack of boxes has become so redundant in design as of late, I literally cannot stomach another take on it. There are at least three proposals in DTLA right now that look like a front porch after a UPS delivery. If they made the taller tower different, but kept the materials, it can be saved.
Prop 3 is my favorite, but still needs work. The crown needs a feature...like a multifaceted series of glass shards...and they need to rework the façade a bit. I like that they plan it to not be standard blue tint glass, but they need to make it cleaner in integration with the other elements. Its lush greenery makes me like the base the best...an homage to the Angel's Knoll park.

Id like them all to be min of 1000 to 1050 feet in height.
But these are all the early releases of the concepts. We'll see what changes once something is picked.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Thefigman

Let's be fair to the Grand. They were the first to tackle the issue of not having a flat box roof. I think considering that they did very well in getting something that looks unlike any other building in downtown LA.

Point taken about the height and look, but the buildings that follow will have an easier time with unique designs because of what they did.

Not saying that it has to be a really unique or special design. I'm saying that it needs to go tall to really stand out as the signature tower, the tower that is unarguably and visually LA's tallest. It should be a nice design as well, but it really should be LA's skyscraper icon, apart from all of the others.

[Prezrezc]

It should stand out visually, yes...and this proposal's location certainly makes that possible

But IMHO in taking adavantage of no height restrictions, LA has a real golden opportunity to "unbox" the skyline in a more definitive manner.

As I said before, all #3 needs is to have the top fins go at some sort of noticeable angle and badda bing there you have it.

I'm surprised that LA is still behind the curve when it comes to at least creating the illusion of a non-flat roof. I think Metropolis's tallest at...what?...647'?...not bad at all BTW...will stand out in that regard.

The other nearby stuff UC fail to inspire me with the same banal "horizontality".

2¢.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by ucla_student

Sorry caligrad, I think you're missing some things about UCLA's involvement in this project, but also UCLA operations in general.



The whole campus wouldn't move downtown (into one building). UCLA would simply own office space downtown, to be used for various purposes. They already do this with various medical and athletic buildings in Santa Monica and parts of LA outside of Westwood.



UCLA is increasingly independent of state funding, and the top UCs aren't really in any financial danger. Currently, UCLA is investing extremely heavily in major projects. There's about a dozen new buildings on the campus (Luskin Conference Center and Hotel, costing roughly $160 million leads the way).

That said, the heavy investment in new buildings on the main campus might prevent UCLA from being interested in a really expensive project elsewhere.


Capital projects aren't paid for through tuition - tuition only covers student costs. Tuition has gone up, but smoothly. There's no scenario where tuition would randomly double or triple.



Tuition is determined by California residency, not international status. Students from outside of California pay the same tuition as international students. In practice there are far more wealthy US students (outside of California) compared to international students, though there's heavy competition for these students, so UCLA does target international students as well.

The US remains by far the wealthiest country in the world, so barring a total national collapse, it's not really possible for US students to ever be priced out of anything.



Dorm costs and Westwood housing is already more expensive than downtown. I speak from personal experience - even with the increase in downtown rents, it's still cheaper than Westwood Village.

LOL as a former student and spouse of a current employee. There is a LOT wrong with this but I'll leave it alone for the sake of not derailing the thread

Anyone know when in November will the city pick a design ? I know its only the first of the month but I seriously need to know which one is picked. Not because I like one more than the other, but to see where our city leaders heads are. Tall? Gimmicky ? More of the same of LA?

[blackcat23]

Staff recommendation for Angels Landing is MacFarlane/Peebles

[Prezrezc]

Start digging.

If they yahoo-seriously run with the no-height-restrictions ball, this will be fabulous.

On the CTBUH website there's a series of height calculators for differently purposed towers.

Using the amount of floors slated for this one in particular, we're looking at a bit over 1,070' (about 1.072.4').

Design elements can change that, of course.

[Blesha13]

This looks a whole lot like The Shard without the crown of course.

[KevinFromTexas]

I like the tower design of the Handel proposal, but the base of the Gensler one really is great. I like how it adapts to the topography of the site. I'm thinking the facade of the Gensler one could look dated later on. It looks like wood window blinds from 1985.

[Totojuice]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Staff recommendation for Angels Landing is MacFarlane/Peebles

This is AWESOME. Hands down the best design. 24 month design period, followed by 41 months of construction. Hope to see height added with a more graceful peak!

[jd3189]

If this has no height restrictions, it could easily be the tallest outside of NYC and Chicago. It would be interesting.

[SLO]

Excellent, I think it was the easy choice all along. The base and crown are key, lets hope they are very strong.

[chris08876]

Staff recommendation for Angels Landing is MacFarlane/Peebles

The staff made the right choice!

[CaliNative]

Does the project have financing, or is it just a proposal at this point?