For the record, I think LA has one of the better skylines going, with Library Tower as a worthy centerpiece.

That said, do any of you see a still-taller tower in the near future ? I mean, with towers of up to 65 stories nearly underway, is it not possible that we might see a mixed-use tower 0f 80 or even 90 stories in the next few years ?

i think its very possible in the next few years to get a proposal for a 75 - 80 story residential/mixed use in LA. in fact, i would bet on it. As the parking lots disappear, which they are very quickly, and the demand stays high, as it is with waiting list for almost every project, some 3000 people deep, we will see taller and taller proposals. first it was the south project with a 13, 19, and 23 story project, then it moved up to 27 and 32 and 37 with a few stand alones in south park, then Metropolis with a 55 story building along with 46, 42 and 30, then Venture up to 40 stories, zen at 50, the point is its going up and up. the next south project, next to Venture and Staples center is slated for two 34 story towers, and pending land Aquisition a possible 60+ story tower (according to LAB who works at a downtown BID that attracts businesses to DT LA). i think very soon, we will see Trump in LA, and you know he doesnt build small and i think we will see a second peak to our skyline in South Park and eventually it will be just as large as the current CBD.

So in summary, yes we will see a new tallest, perhaps a proposal in the near future.

Yep, there is a decided progression in height going on !

Of course, LA economy was back to 80's when proposed and approved some tallest building.

i think very soon, we will see Trump in LA, and you know he doesnt build small .



its usually not him who decides,for the most part the developer usually just uses his name on the building.

Well according to SSP we did had a couple of new ones taller than Library Tower, but sadly they failed and they got cancelled. But look on the bright side, once LALive, Nokia theater, and the other future projects be finished, will forget about having a new supertall; but it'll be great if we did have one though.

it would be cool to get a taller but i think its just fine if our skyline just expanded.. i love how us bank just like stands in the center and tops them all out

I think that in a hundred years LA will get a Burj Dubai. LOL

I think LA doesn't need very tall buildings (say over 30 stories) the way other mega cities do...walking beside very tall buildings feels threatening since these structures do not relate to the human scale at all. They over-power you to say the least, although I must admit they are great to look at from a distance, a perfect postcard view like Manhattan, Chicago or Hongkong. Maybe buildings at mid-range height of say 12 to 20 floors would be better for us and greater emphasis must be placed on the QUALITY of the design and the urban spaces surrounding the structures. We do not want to end up like Shanghai where they built these gargantuan aesthetically questionable and cartoonish monstrosities! Like Disneyland on steroids!

One of those cancelled super talls looked like a brown version of NYC's WTC and would've been taller than the Empire State Building. What a loss. :O

There was supposed to be a high-rise planned for LA that was suppose to be taller than the Library Tower. The structure had a statue of an angel in it.

But right now, I like the Library Tower's status as the tallest building in LA and it's architecture.

^that angel project was thankfully abandoned a few years back. it was atrocious.

Yeah thats something Europe would have; A supertall statue rather than a supertall building.

can't wait! as the 2nd largest city, LA should really be on the skyscraper height hall of fame... Right now we only got Tallest West of Mississipi, rite?

yea.. west of miss.. it should be like west of like the appalachians or something, or even better, tallest in America.. (all of it, not jz north)

I want a spire :(
but that can never be :(

y not?

Honestly it ill be several years from now before L.A. gets a new supertall. Besides, we got so many other great projects already in construction as we speak. And I don't think L.A. needs a supertall right now because our skyline needs more density and thats what L.A.'s focused on right now with the new residential highrises going up.

y not?

remember....?
10+ stories = no no spire

remember....?
10+ stories = no no spire

What!? Why!? Oh, that's not cool. :(

i had no idea. who made that rule?!

The reason is that with all the earthquakes in LA, the rule syas that all 10+ buildings should have a helipad { is that what is called? }.

Abnother reord for the Lybrary Tower[ US Bank] is that it's the tallest building with a helipad. I can recall 1Wolrd Trade Center having one, but since it's not there it's the US Bank's record.

Another record is that the US Bank Towew is the tallest in the entire South America, Cnetral America, and North America as far as 1000 miles inland. Mybad it's kind of hard undersatnding.

Another record that the US Bank Tower used to have was the tallest building in a seismic zone, it slipped in 2004 because of a taller building; Taipei 101...bye bye record.

ohh, haha i see, damn rules and regulations always making things up.. yay! we have the tallest building in in all of America 1000 inland from the Atlantic!!! i feel so complete..

TY FROMLOSANGELES

Another record is that the US Bank Towew is the tallest in the entire South America, Cnetral America, and North America as far as 1000 miles inland. Mybad it's kind of hard undersatnding.

Sadly, that's about to change. :( I think there are 2 +300 meters tower proposed in Panama City. One of them is going to be about 336 meters tall. :(

ehh, how sad panama is like kicking our asses, something needs to be done

We just need several WTBs ... period. Although it's somewhat unlikely.

What's more possible is a WTB within the next 2 decades or so.

We could have something like the Burj Al Arab's helipad though

http://www.arabskeemiraty.com/foto_SAE/big/Burj_Al_Arab.jpg

i was thinking of something like that earlier... y dont we do that??

i was thinking of something like that earlier... y dont we do that??

Because that's not original... :tongue3: We should build the helipad on top of the antenna!!! That's original... and impossible. But still, original. :D

lol

If there is a tallest building, I hope it's in the middle of the skyline. I love the symmetry of LA's skyline. It's beautiful!

What LA needs is an observation deck. The WTC had one, it was the tallest in NY. Library Tower, tallest in LA, and West Coast. They need to have one probably a floor or two under the helipad and that'll be a big tourist attraction. The problem IMO with DTLA right now is that it seems too private. You go there to work, get something to eat, leave. Needs to feel more inviting.

IMO the Library Tower is "perfect" being the tallest and located smack dab in the center of the skyline. LA needs to work on density rather than super-height and not only in downtown but also expanding the clusters all over the county ie Century City, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Long Beach.

IMHO, work on density, yes, but add ONE Super-Tall. And make it at least 1,600 ft. tall! :D ;)

Here is a fun fact: Before the WTC was built in New York City, Arco Plaza was the tallest twin towers in the world.

haha, were they really? hehe, makes LA feel so important

And at least LA beats all the world citys except Hong Kong, NYC, Chicago, ATL, Taipei, I'm not counting Vegas or Toronto because those aren't 'scrapers.

Plus I belive that the LA City Hall was oce the tallest building on the west coast. Cheers for LA. :drunk: :tyty: :nocrook:

What was the tallest building in LA before the City Hall?

^ Learn how to say everything you need to say in one post.

haha, what if he's just trying to improve his post #, you cant blame him

And at least LA beats all the world citys except Hong Kong, NYC, Chicago, ATL, Taipei, I'm not counting Vegas or Toronto because those aren't 'scrapers.

I think LA's skyline is more impressive than Atlanta or even Taipei. Taipei may have the world's tallest building but thats it! they don't have too much high-rises.

The US Bank is the tallest building in LA and is also the tallest in the West Coast. What's better besides it's height and architecture is the tower is located right in the center of LA's skyline. Anyway, I like LA's skyline the way it is now! The city doesn't need a supertall. Also, US Bank Tower is already a distinctive skycraper landmark.

Do you really mind?
orinally posted by Threehundred: ^ learn how to say everything you need to say in one post. Plus, it makes the person who made the thread feel good, since they get more replys.

Orginally posted by PotatoGuy:
haha, waht about if he's just trying to improve his post #, you can't blame him Yes I am, matter-of-factly, can't blame me for that.

hehe, i knew it.. i do that all the time too

IMO the current skyline isn't too bad for an earthquake zone like LA. But I belive that despite the risk of a killer quake, LA really deserves a new landmark tower some 1,750 feet tall or so, with all the latest earthquake safety technologies. I would reccomend using techniques borrowed from Taipei 101, as well as coming up with a few innovations on-site. The design itself should be something really special, because frankly, the US Bank Tower is a white tube (though it is a rather amazing technical achievement for a building in an earhquake zone). It should ideally have its own metro station, as well as a direct road link to the nearest freeway (more than a standard off-ramp). Indeed, why not build a small elevated freeway from the nearest main freeway to my proposed skyscraper and then have it end in the tower's underground parking lot? This tower should also have a direct maglev link to LAX (come on this is the USA we're talking about here!), and said maglev line should also head up over to Pasadena and the San Fernando Valley (with a stop in En Cino), before finally ending all the way up in Oxnard (Ventura/Oxnard County). The maglev's route shall be as follows, North-to-South:

-->Downtown Oxnard (near the Morgan Stanley building)
-->Encino
-->Downtown Pasadena
-->Downtown LA (in my proposed tower, to be called the Torre Angeles ;) )
-->LAX (with stops in all 8 numbered terminals + Tom Bradley Int'l)

I know it's a little far-fetched (both the tower and the corresponding maglev are a bit out-there), but one must keep in mind that back in the 1950s, LA was one of the most futuristic cities in the world. Remember, this is an 10-point Alpha city we're talking about, and it's the movie capital of the world, as well as the center of the second-largest metropolitan area in the USA (the world's largest economy) after NYC. It's more than feasable-it's an outright requirement for a city of LA's stature (FTR, it kicks ass as-is).

You know, it took me forever to realize wtf En Cino was. You mean Encino.

Anyway, I don't think that the Maglev would work. Why? Well..subways are (somewhat) cheaper. And it took about 50 years to get the freeway system as good as it is now. And a 1,700 some odd tower wouldn't look that good in downtown IMO. LA would look very well with a 1,400 foot tall building downtown (Destroy that Mellon Bank building..perfect site.) And I wouldn't mind seeing an at least a 800 foot tall building in Century City. And a pair of 600 foot tall twins.

And I don't like the name Torre Angeles. I would call it Gabriel Center.

^^
thx for correcting me on that bit with Encino.

I don't like the site of the Mellon Bank because it's to close to the Library Tower. The tower should be called LA Financial World Center or LAFWD. It should be 1455 [to beat Sears], and 111 storys. With external elevators and a 3 story lobby.

It would be better if the skyline got bigger and denser we dont really need a supertall in my opinion

The skyline needs 5 700+ buildings, and 20 300+ buildings. It sounds like a lot but it's not.

well, thats whats proposed as of now,

4 50+ story buildings,
7 40 +,
10 -15 30 +
20 or so 20 +and
5 - 10 10 +

I was about to say that.

Just curious if the future tallest for LA would be mast type skyscraper like The Empire State Building or The Central Plaza, would it look good on LA's skyline?

Maybe in south park it might look good who knows.

Humm, I would like to see a po-mo tower like the US Bank again as LA's tallest.

1 tall tower would look weird in L.A.
look:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b43/samceb/downtownwtalltower2.jpg

hehe :)

You should make Aon, 777, and Sanwa a bit taller. That would make for a interesting looking skyline.

I think L.A. needs more density, I don't think we need another supertall right now. Besides, it would take years for a supertall to be proposed in L.A.

You should make Aon, 777, and Sanwa a bit taller. That would make for a interesting looking skyline.


looks kinda funky though

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b43/samceb/downtownwtalltower5.jpg

What program is that? Nice it the US Bank Towerr was like that. Sadly, it makes the skyline even look smaller.

it looks cool but it makes the skyline look really skinnny

Aon and the library tower would look good together like that.

Aon and the library tower would look good together like that.


aon and library tower:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b43/samceb/downtownwtalltower6.jpg

^^
Naaaah. It makes the skyline look too small and uneven. I like it the way it is.

^^
Naaaah. It makes the skyline look too small and uneven. I like it the way it is.

I believe so! LA's skyline as of today is impressive! I rated it 9/10 in SSC :)

Yeah i agree, too damn funky otherwise.

i agree too

LA will probably get a building like those in 75-100 years.

Make one with Staples being the tallest. I'll look crazy