LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 6.0

[CaliNative]

Hi

Originally Posted by hughfb3

I am not sure. Based off of what I've noticed, it is my guess that this is planned. Many towers come and go, are proposed, then adjusted. It is my estimation that a developer proposes something; we see a rendering, then someone (planning commission?) recommends height/visual adjustments based on location and design. We've seen something like this with many proposal adjustments over time.

The Developer's proposal for Angel's Landing; after being selected by the city from a very scrutinous bidding war, got adjusted from two towers of 88/24 floors to 64/46 (was this adjustment visual or economical?). Metropolis, Oceanwide, California Plaza, Grand Ave all cascade in the direction of center. Wilshire Grand's sail reaches inward. Right now we are witnessing the impact the planning commission has with asking Onni to change the look of their Times Mirror Square buildings. Is the height of these Onni buildings coincidence? When looking from the north to the south like in the 3rd picture, those Onni Times Mirror buildings; along with the Tribune tower (which recently got scaled up in height), will fill the cascading void between city hall, Perla, Onni 825 S Hill st 50 story, and the rest of the highrises. Developers rarely think of things like this without guidance.

So I question, is the central peak in our skyline directly from the developers or someone else (planning commission?)?? The art form of curating the visual appearance of a skyline is not practiced in many places around the world. Most places just throw up as many high rises as they can, wherever they can. Is this because we have the most filmed skyline in the world and we want a camera ready cascading skyline with a central rising focal point and a view of a city rising just like the backdrop of Mount Wilson?

However it is happening; I love and appreciate the slope, scale, and pace of our skyline development... and I think we have the best; most visually crafted skyline, in the world

On the SF board, it is claimed and links have been posted that say that the city of San Francisco planning commission also manages the peaks of the skyline. The new tallest peak is around the Salesforce tower in the SOMA district. San Francisco also tries to accentuate the hills by allowing taller buildings on some of them (Rincon Hill for example). But some of the hills like Nob and Russian haven't been allowed to have many new skyscrapers lately (maybe the Nimbys have kept them out).

I'm just wondering, is a uni-peaked skyline like D.T.L.A. (and maybe SF) more pleasing, or is the NYC/Chicago/Toronto/Tokyo multipeaked jumble more interesting? Is symmetry always better? I'm undecided. I guess it is like how some people prefer Hadyn/Mozart classical orderliness over Beethoven romantic unpredictability and wildness and vis versa. The universe is both predictable and wild, Newtonian and Quantum, so maybe the two can coexist. I would love to see that wild condo tower with the hanging infinity pools built north of Pershing Square, but maybe the economic situation will prevent it from happening. One reason I like Gehry is he is rarely boring and often wild. An architectural romantic and rule breaker. Sometimes it doesn't work, but when it does, wow.

[Easy]

I don't know about SF, but I've never seen anything that would indicate that there is anything written or even considered about where the LA skyline should peak. It doesn't sound like a reasonable consideration for city planning.

[badrunner]

It has to be planned. How else would the profile of the skyline so perfectly match the profile of the San Gabriels?


L.A. Winter by Brandon velasco, on Flickr

[MN/WI]

I used to live on the other side of Mt. Baldy. Can you guess the town?

[badrunner]

Crapple Valley? Hysteria? Sphincterville?

[LAsam]

^ That photos is beautiful, badrunner. Now if we could only get Olympia built to fill in the gap between South Park and Bunker Hill!

[bhunsberger]

Originally Posted by LAsam

^ That photos is beautiful, badrunner. Now if we could only get Olympia built to fill in the gap between South Park and Bunker Hill!

Olympia would not fill that gap from this angle. It would be north of the Ritz. Nestled between Metropolis & Ritz. It seems the only project that would contribute to bridging the gap is the Luxe redevelopment and I wouldn't hold your breath since it's mixed up in the huziar corruption probe. I know other projects nearby would be the AEG expansion and the Figueroa Centre which are in the pipeline but they wouldn't close that gap. I'm unsure of any other projects that would be visible in that gap.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

I'll add the two catacorner lots at Olympic/Flower in South Park.

Ah yes, all these parking lots suck.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Not necessarily, We're still seeing things moving right along. Grand ave project, the tower at the 7th and fig plaza, the fig and Pico tower and now what seems to be the 8th and fig tower getting ready for site prep. Developers this time around are banking on a "what will happen in 2 years when these come online in 2 years" type deal.

We STILL have a massive housing shortage, I don't see developers walking away and just for that reason. Long Beach for instance has a lot going on, a place that always seems forgotten when compared to LA, SD and SF.

I think we all need to just breathe. If you want to have a reassurance moment, take a time machine 23 years back when downtown and LA as a whole had NOTHING going on at all. Nothing, nada. zip. And that was during an OK economy.

Also the 35 story building the Arts District.

Yea, people keep forgetting LA is in a bad spot with housing. Its going to be playing catch up for years, if not decades. I don't think these high-rises are going to stop. I've said before, wait until the Purple Line gets closer to completing stations. You're going to see a TON of new high-rise proposals. I bet developers have been licking their lips at this for a long time.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by bhunsberger

Olympia would not fill that gap from this angle. It would be north of the Ritz. Nestled between Metropolis & Ritz. It seems the only project that would contribute to bridging the gap is the Luxe redevelopment and I wouldn't hold your breath since it's mixed up in the huziar corruption probe. I know other projects nearby would be the AEG expansion and the Figueroa Centre which are in the pipeline but they wouldn't close that gap. I'm unsure of any other projects that would be visible in that gap.

You're correct! What about the Morrison Hotel redevelopment?

[edale]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Also the 35 story building the Arts District.

Yea, people keep forgetting LA is in a bad spot with housing. Its going to be playing catch up for years, if not decades. I don't think these high-rises are going to stop. I've said before, wait until the Purple Line gets closer to completing stations. You're going to see a TON of new high-rise proposals. I bet developers have been licking their lips at this for a long time.

I hope the purple line will have this effect, but it's not a given. We have very poor land uses around many of our red line stops, and it's been operational for what...30 years? Driving down Vermont, you wouldn't really know there are 4 subway stops just based on urban form/intensity. Still lots and lots of strip malls, drive-thrus, parking lots, etc.

It's slowly getting better, and the amount of TOD that the Expo line is spinning off is truly impressive. I think the Purple Line is going to be a game changer for LA, but the city has to be intentional about it to make it so. The expansion is going through the heart of NIMBYville, so high rises are far from a given.

[Jun]

Not sure if this has been posted already:
https://omgivning.com/projects/rendon-hotel/

[Doctorboffin]

^ Wow! I love that!

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Love it! Perfect

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by edale

I hope the purple line will have this effect, but it's not a given. We have very poor land uses around many of our red line stops, and it's been operational for what...30 years? Driving down Vermont, you wouldn't really know there are 4 subway stops just based on urban form/intensity. Still lots and lots of strip malls, drive-thrus, parking lots, etc.

It's slowly getting better, and the amount of TOD that the Expo line is spinning off is truly impressive. I think the Purple Line is going to be a game changer for LA, but the city has to be intentional about it to make it so. The expansion is going through the heart of NIMBYville, so high rises are far from a given.

You can't compare the Redline to the purple line. And isn't there some weird plan in place along Vermont to keep low density and to discourage big development?
Also, Vermont goes into some low income areas that aren't as attractive as the purple line. Honestly, that part of Vermont sucks. It's not a place I want to spend time
in, until they make some drastic changes. It's nothing like Wilshire. But they need to ditch that stupid plan, as it doesn't help anything.

We've already seen some huge proposals for Koreatown and the Miracle Mile. I think this will intensify because of the job corridor and better areas connecting to places like downtown and beyond.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Just an FYI, 8th and Figueroa had started grading the lot

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by badrunner

It has to be planned. How else would the profile of the skyline so perfectly match the profile of the San Gabriels?


L.A. Winter by Brandon velasco, on Flickr

This shot is EPIC!!!!!!

Also, Grand Avenue is now visible in Hollywood. Saw it yesterday when walking the hills

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

This shot is EPIC!!!!!!

Also, Grand Avenue is now visible in Hollywood. Saw it yesterday when walking the hills

If this were Central or South America there'd be high rises on the tops of some of those hills. How would that change this picture, for the better or worse? Picture Mulholland Drive with a big row of high rises!

If you come into Tijuana some time, you'll see a high rise perched on top of one of those high hills, and, I suspect, views to kill for, views right down to downtown San Diego.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by IMBY

If this were Central or South America there'd be high rises on the tops of some of those hills. How would that change this picture, for the better or worse? Picture Mulholland Drive with a big row of high rises!

If you come into Tijuana some time, you'll see a high rise perched on top of one of those high hills, and, I suspect, views to kill for, views right down to downtown San Diego.

Would be horrible in my opinion

[Blesha13]

Originally Posted by IMBY

If this were Central or South America there'd be high rises on the tops of some of those hills. How would that change this picture, for the better or worse? Picture Mulholland Drive with a big row of high rises!

If you come into Tijuana some time, you'll see a high rise perched on top of one of those high hills, and, I suspect, views to kill for, views right down to downtown San Diego.

I’m glad you pointed that out because that’s something I’ve thought about many years ago and I’m few of those who would kill to see high rises atop of our LA hills West Hollywood comes close to that.