Okay, I keep forgetting where the news about this tower is, so I'm starting a thread. I think we should start threads for any tower that is actually a skyscraper, don't you all agree?

ANYWAY--Here is the latest from the L.A. Times, 4/11/09:

And if someone wants to post the picture from the article, please do. It is at this link:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-notebook11-2009apr11,0,6742380,print.story

The pic will give you a much better understanding of what the tower will look like than previous renderings.

High-rises dwarf options for downtown L.A.
Mega-projects have their place, but two new Figueroa Corridor proposals spotlight the city's all-or-nothing planning mind-set.
By CHRISTOPHER HAWTHORNE
Architecture Critic

April 11, 2009

A pair of high-rise projects planned for the Figueroa Corridor downtown jumped into the headlines this week, as if out of nowhere. The first, set to replace the Wilshire Grand hotel and office complex at Figueroa Street and Wilshire Boulevard, will be designed by AC Martin Partners, the big local firm. It has an estimated budget of more than $1 billion. The other, proposed for a site near the southern edge of South Park, across from the Los Angeles Convention Center, is by Daniel Libeskind, best known for his Jewish Museum in Berlin and his much-altered master plan for the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan.

Both projects are backed by Korean groups. Korean Air, and the larger Hanjin Group of which it is a part, owns the Wilshire Grand property, where it wants to build a mixed-use complex crowned by two towers, the taller one 60 stories high. CA Human Technologies, a joint venture of two Korean firms, is behind the 43-story Libeskind tower, which would include 273 residential units stacked atop an eight-level podium containing parking, restaurants and a spa. If completed, it would be Libeskind's first Los Angeles building.

The sudden appearance of these designs, even in provisional form, in the middle of a deep recession prompts a couple of questions. Why now? And why -- when the last thing downtown needs, from an urban-planning point of view, is another stand-alone super-block high-rise, standing aloof from the street and its neighbors -- might we be getting two more?

The first question is relatively easy to answer. The entitlement process in Los Angeles is lengthy, bordering on Byzantine. Developers who want to be first out of the gate when the economy improves would be wise to begin that process now, particularly if it gives them the chance to take advantage of low construction and materials costs that will likely prevail for another couple of years.

A more cynical version of the same answer might go this way: Developers who feel prepared to move forward on the approval front, even if their financing remains iffy, can take advantage of a climate in which the city is desperate to support any signs of new real-estate activity downtown.

The second question is trickier. But it is also crucial, since it goes to the heart of how planning happens in downtown Los Angeles -- and why, despite so much new energy and investment in recent years, the area retains at ground level an extreme split personality, with massive towers mixed in with huge, empty parcels.

The Figueroa Corridor, which city planners have long envisioned as a key connector downtown -- linking the USC campus, on its southern end, with Dodger Stadium to the north -- is a key case study in how that split personality is developed and exacerbated. It is a natural place for high-rise development, given its existing skyscrapers and links to mass transit. It will soon be getting at least two new residential towers: the first phase of the Concerto, a 30-story high-rise designed by DeStefano + Partners, and a 54-story hotel and condo building at L.A. Live, by Gensler.

But certain pockets of it remain filled by the same surface parking lots that dot much of downtown. Particularly south of L.A. Live, the area suffers from an extreme version of the all-or-nothing development approach that city leaders and most developers have long favored. There is almost no middle ground to be found between high-rise towers that take up full blocks at street level and empty swaths of land reserved for cars.

This approach prevents the emergence of the smaller-scale projects that can bring fresh vitality to a block -- and that may move forward even in a downturn, since they require drastically less financing. Such modest projects are also more likely to go to younger and more innovative architects.

The Libeskind tower is the latest example of how downtown moves from one extreme to another. In land-use terms, it is a process that takes us immediately from zero to 60, from emptiness to high-rise density. The site where the tower is set to rise, covering 57,000 square feet, is actually two separate pieces of land that are, in turn, made up of a total of seven parcels. Most of downtown, of course, was originally sliced up the same way, which is why its older sections retain a vital diversity of building forms, architectural styles and uses.

But the presence of a surface parking lot changes that dynamic -- not only for the obvious reason that it trades vitality for emptiness. A parking lot also smooths the way for high-rise developments like the Libeskind tower. It tends to pave over the visual -- and sometimes the legal -- divisions between one small parcel and the next, making it almost a foregone conclusion that the property will remain empty until a mega-project comes along to fill it on a massive scale.

Indeed, the city's planning department has rubber-stamped CA Human Technologies' effort to consolidate the various properties into a single massive development, even though that effort flies in the face of recommendations in new guidelines developed by the same department's Urban Design Studio. Following the department's recommendation, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 Thursday to approve zoning and other variances for the property.

Architecturally, of course, there are lots of ways to make mega-projects successful along the street, including opening them up fully to the sidewalk and designing them to contain a diversity of retail outlets at ground level. Libeskind's scheme, which is not among his finest, tries hard to do this, although the effort is undermined by the slashing forms that cross its podium section. These gashes are his formal trademark, but in this case they bring the massive scale of the tower down to the sidewalk level instead of helping to break it up.

The AC Martin design for Korean Air is even less developed architecturally. It is a sleek marker for a development whose viability is far from certain.

The enemy in this is certainly not the high-rise form itself, which can add immeasurably to the vitality of any city and has long been a vehicle for architectural innovation. It is a process that all but rules out other kinds of development in certain pockets of downtown.

are you sure this approved? I only saw where the zoning was approved 6-0 but nothing about the tower itself. And this lol...

"The other, proposed for a site near the southern edge of South Park, across from the Los Angeles Convention Center, is by Daniel Libeskind, best known for his Jewish Museum in Berlin and his much-altered master plan for the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan."

Does anyone else think that this is an ugly building?

^^ no

I don't think it's ugly, I don't think it's pretty.

it's better than ugly. very detailed for a modern sleek structure. the angled framework reminds me of old hollywood spotlights. very classy and modern looking

Not very feng shui, but once you see it with your own eyes, it might be a better presence than you think :)

It's not bad, its a little "out there" but the final rendering might make it a bit more conservative.

But why do we want "more" conservative in L.A.? We don't even get to have buildings with spires!



http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2009-04/46153291.jpg

I'm not a fan, but I've seen worse.

This building reminds me of 2 cancelled buildings Libeskind proposed a few years ago in Sacramento.

Epic
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a343/enigma99a/epic_render.jpg

Aura
http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/Images/US/CA/Sacramento/Aura-001.jpg

I like it. LA needs more edgy towers downtown.

Libeskind is the coolest architect of the 80's. These all look like set pieces from The Last Starfighter.

epic looks like a swollen thumb

epic looks like a,.......not a swollen thumb but a,.....a,.. I've seen it before but I just can't put my finger on it,....a big fat...... (sensored)

Well, that dick ain't gonna be built in the metro area anytime soon.

http://archpaper.com/uploads/image/LA_LiebTower.jpg

http://archpaper.com/uploads/Podium.jpg
http://archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3427

APPROVED TODAY BY THE CITY COUNCIL http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/LA_LiebTower-1.jpg ZACH BEHRENS LAIST

:banana::banana::banana: When is it supposed to break ground?!

YAY FOR L.A.!

This is great, time to get some people back to work building some towers!

So where exactly is this going to be?

^^HIGH-RISES DWARF OPTIONS FOR L. A. http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6953/libeskind3n.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/i/libeskind3n.jpg/)

Mega-projects have their place but two new Figueroa Corridor proposals spotlight the city's all-or-nothing planning mind-set . A pair of high-rise projects planned for the Figueroa Corridor downtown jumped into the headlines this week, as if out of nowhere. . The first, set to replace the Wilshire Grand hotel and office complex at Figueroa Street and Wilshire Boulevard, will be designed by AC Martin Partners, the big local firm. It has an estimated budget of more than $1 billion. The other, proposed for a site near the southern edge of South Park (1340 South Figueroa Street), across from the Los Angeles Convention Center, is by Daniel Libeskind, best known for his Jewish Museum in Berlin and his much-altered master plan for the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan.
Both projects are backed by Korean groups. Korean Air, and the larger Hanjin Group of which it is a part, owns the Wilshire Grand property, where it wants to build a mixed-use complex crowned by two towers, the taller one 60 stories high. CA Human Technologies, a joint venture of two Korean firms, is behind the 43-story Libeskind tower, which would include 273 residential units stacked atop an eight-level podium containing parking, restaurants and a spa. If completed, it would be Libeskind's first Los Angeles building. . ..............................http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/1572/libeskind2.jpg (http://img189.imageshack.us/i/libeskind2.jpg/) . “I am thrilled at the possibility of realizing my first building in Los Angeles in an area which needs great revitalization and a denser, more mixed-use urban fabric. Our work with CA Human Technologies has been focused and fun and we are both excited to contribute to the future of LA.” ..................................................Daniel Libeskind

The sudden appearance of these designs, even in provisional form, in the middle of a deep recession prompts a couple of questions. Why now? And why -- when the last thing downtown needs, from an urban-planning point of view, is another stand-alone super-block high-rise, standing aloof from the street and its neighbors -- might we be getting two more?
The first question is relatively easy to answer. The entitlement process in Los Angeles is lengthy, bordering on Byzantine. Developers who want to be first out of the gate when the economy improves would be wise to begin that process now, particularly if it gives them the chance to take advantage of low construction and materials costs that will likely prevail for another couple of years.
A more cynical version of the same answer might go this way: Developers who feel prepared to move forward on the approval front, even if their financing remains iffy, can take advantage of a climate in which the city is desperate to support any signs of new real-estate activity downtown.
The second question is trickier. But it is also crucial, since it goes to the heart of how planning happens in downtown Los Angeles -- and why, despite so much new energy and investment in recent years, the area retains at ground level an extreme split personality, with massive towers mixed in with huge, empty parcels.
. The Figueroa Corridor, which city planners have long envisioned as a key connector downtown -- linking the USC campus, on its southern end, with Dodger Stadium to the north -- is a key case study in how that split personality is developed and exacerbated. It is a natural place for high-rise development, given its existing skyscrapers and links to mass transit. It will soon be getting at least two new residential towers: the first phase of the Concerto, a 30-story high-rise designed by DeStefano + Partners, and a 54-story hotel and condo building at L.A. Live, by Gensler.
. But certain pockets of it remain filled by the same surface parking lots that dot much of downtown. Particularly south of L.A. Live, the area suffers from an extreme version of the all-or-nothing development approach that city leaders and most developers have long favored. There is almost no middle ground to be found between high-rise towers that take up full blocks at street level and empty swaths of land reserved for cars.
This approach prevents the emergence of the smaller-scale projects that can bring fresh vitality to a block -- and that may move forward even in a downturn, since they require drastically less financing. Such modest projects are also more likely to go to younger and more innovative architects.
The Libeskind tower is the latest example of how downtown moves from one extreme to another. In land-use terms, it is a process that takes us immediately from zero to 60, from emptiness to high-rise density. The site where the tower is set to rise, covering 57,000 square feet, is actually two separate pieces of land that are, in turn, made up of a total of seven parcels. Most of downtown, of course, was originally sliced up the same way, which is why its older sections retain a vital diversity of building forms, architectural styles and uses.
But the presence of a surface parking lot changes that dynamic -- not only for the obvious reason that it trades vitality for emptiness. A parking lot also smooths the way for high-rise developments like the Libeskind tower. It tends to pave over the visual -- and sometimes the legal -- divisions between one small parcel and the next, making it almost a foregone conclusion that the property will remain empty until a mega-project comes along to fill it on a massive scale.
. http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3149/libeskind5.jpg (http://img229.imageshack.us/i/libeskind5.jpg/) . Indeed, the city's planning department has rubber-stamped CA Human Technologies' effort to consolidate the various properties into a single massive development, even though that effort flies in the face of recommendations in new guidelines developed by the same department's Urban Design Studio. Following the department's recommendation, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 Thursday to approve zoning and other variances for the property.
Architecturally, of course, there are lots of ways to make mega-projects successful along the street, including opening them up fully to the sidewalk and designing them to contain a diversity of retail outlets at ground level. Libeskind's scheme, which is not among his finest, tries hard to do this, although the effort is undermined by the slashing forms that cross its podium section. These gashes are his formal trademark, but in this case they bring the massive scale of the tower down to the sidewalk level instead of helping to break it up. . http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/6437/libeskind4.jpg (http://img189.imageshack.us/i/libeskind4.jpg/) . The AC Martin design for Korean Air is even less developed architecturally. It is a sleek marker for a development whose viability is far from certain.
The enemy in this is certainly not the high-rise form itself, which can add immeasurably to the vitality of any city and has long been a vehicle for architectural innovation. It is a process that all but rules out other kinds of development in certain pockets of downtown.
christopher.hawthorne@latimes.com . ARCHTRACKER.COM CHRISTOPHER HAWTHORNE LATIMES

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3149/libeskind5.jpg

Bad angle?

I just guess the sides of the base is going to have an adjacent building cover it, so they did not bother to do anything with it. That is what you are referring to?

^^ Ah...
From that angle it looks like they didn't put much into the building

nice tower.

Although, i thin Libeskind should stick to designing cultural buildings and not towers.

Not bad, better than other proposals. So when's ground-breaking supposed to be?

When the first renders of this tower came out I thought it was awful, but the design is slowly growing on me. I still don't love it, but I kind of like it now, assuming that the part of the podium that has no design will be up against another building and out of sight.

I like to think that Liebeskind's involvement means that there is at least one thoughtful yet bold voice involved in the project, which is always a good thing. Of course, their are other voices, including accountants.

More importantly, this says that somebody believes that South Park can extend south of Olympic in a big way. I am guessing that Korean investors will be investing all the way to SC, hopefully in mid-rises and businesses as well as signature high-rises.

i hate that podium. :mad:

If they were more adept at involving ground level retail, masking the awful effects of multi-story parking by bringing the design of the structure over the podium (Like they tried to but more seamlessly) then it would be ok. These towers from now on should have ground retail as a priority- per civic instruction.

I guess the one positive about podiums is that they add a lot of height.

But they in no way encourage the use of public transportation.

I guess the one positive about podiums is that they add a lot of height.
i think we should have the height without the podiums.
developers, get on it!

How about charging the c**p out of everyone who wishes to park there to pay for transit improvements? The Flower Street Station needs some serious upgrading.

I hate the parking podiums too but I can't imagine a builder is going to sell any units if there is no parking. Are there any 40 story residential buildings anywhere without parking for tenants? We're trying to develop DT not scare people away.

BTW, University Gateway is taking a half-way position with on-site parking and off-site space at university parking structures.

As someone else noted, ground level retail and disguised parking helps.

As someone else noted, ground level retail and disguised parking helps.

ME! That someone was ME!!

:applause: good job milq

What happened to underground parking? Is it way too many spaces to fit subterranean? As long as the ground floor is welcoming and public friendly then this project a good thing. Just think of what that area was like just 12 years ago.

i wonder if some of these parking structures would be renovated in the future for mall style retail/restaurants. you know a lot of the spaces don't get filled. they could even put in gyms and indoor pools on the top parking levels. there would be some time before L.A. becomes more foot-travel on a regular basis rather than car-travel. these parking podiums will be mostly useless in our future, or they can be used for public parking as long as no more podiums go up.

Wasn't a parking structure around 4th and Main or Spring converted into retail, at least partly? I vaguely remember this from a walk awhile ago.

Conversion seems like a good idea because for the short-term parking spaces seem to be a critical concern, but maybe not over time. Even in NY and SF, where owning a car is a real liability, people kill for housing units with parking spaces.

What happened to underground parking? Is it way too many spaces to fit subterranean? As long as the ground floor is welcoming and public friendly then this project a good thing. Just think of what that area was like just 12 years ago.

Underground is expensive and pretty much aborts many buildings from making financial sense. Remember people, developers don't even want to build massive amounts of parking because it's just too expensive. The city forces a developer to set aside nearly 2 spaces per residential unit in this city. So if you have a simple 40 unit building you need to find someplace to fit 80 parking spaces. Undergrounding these spaces drive up the cost of the project enormously so you do the cheap thing and build an ugly ass podium. We must must must #1 mission, change our minimum parking requirements and the glacier between a city that forced to take transit (NYC, SF) and one that motors-about happily will begin to melt away.

*When a developer does sub these parking spots they just add it to the price of the unit, pricing out most of us.

Two per unit? That's ridiculous, that should be changed, atleast in dense areas such as DT.

i guess they figure everyone has at least one carpooling family from out of the area to come visit residents once in a while

Aren't they just so kind? I think lowering the price of the unit so that I could afford to live in it in the first place would be better though. But they can't lower the price of the unit because an extra $40,000 has been added to my unit to pay for the parking space that I'll never use. Gee, thanx LA!!

Only in L.A.

what are NYC's (sorry milq) laws on parking?
there should be a ".8 parking spaces MAXIMUM" law here in L.A. (or at least in DT.)

would something like that work? im still fairly ignorant about all this.

But they can't lower the price of the unit because an extra $40,000 has been added to my unit to pay for the parking space that I'll never use. Gee, thanx LA!!

Dude! You park your bike there :ohno: (People are so silly)

what are NYC's (sorry milq) laws on parking?
there should be a ".8 parking spaces MAXIMUM" law here in L.A. (or at least in DT.)

would something like that work? im still fairly ignorant about all this.

Not sure and good question. I'll begin to look into what other cities parking minimums are if they even have any compared to ours. If anyone else wants to help that'll be cool too. But these are how things get changed. Question. Research. Advocacy. Change.

Aren't they just so kind? I think lowering the price of the unit so that I could afford to live in it in the first place would be better though. But they can't lower the price of the unit because an extra $40,000 has been added to my unit to pay for the parking space that I'll never use. Gee, thanx LA!!

Couldn't you find a large family living there or post fliers around the building advertising that you want to rent your parking spaces out?

I have a niece and friends living in high-rises SOMA and the Embarcadero areas and as a practical matter that's what happens. Someone will rent one of your spaces month-to-month or will buy them for parties. Units without parking are typically much cheaper.

But I don't know what the law is regarding mandated spaces.

Not sure and good question. I'll begin to look into what other cities parking minimums are if they even have any compared to ours. If anyone else wants to help that'll be cool too. But these are how things get changed. Question. Research. Advocacy. Change.

I'll look also...let us know what you find. Maybe we can set up an e-mail advocacy group and let the people in charge know how the general public feels. :)

I will continue my parking minimums research in the LA transit forum.

~ This 43 Story Tower Is Now Officially Dead ~

Curbed (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/11/downtown_libeskind_tower_replaced_with_two_seven_story_apartment_buildings.php)


Downtown Libeskind Tower Replaced With Two Seven Story Apartment Buildings

http://cypressequity.com/images/Cypress-Equity-Investments-News-Figueroa-02.jpg

http://cypressequity.com/images/Cypress-Equity-Investments-News-Figueroa-01.jpg

Remember January 2009 when you first caught a glimpse of that fellow on the left--Daniel Libeskind's rendering for a 43 story condo building in South Park--and you were like "Really? That? For Downtown? In 2009?" And then you found out it had also been planned for New Jersey in 2005 and São Paulo in 2010? Well, it's dead. Good luck with that, Brazil. The building's site on Figueroa, across from the Convention Center, went up for sale in May, and blogdowntown reports today that it was snapped up in September by a joint venture of Cypress Equity Investments and Fifield Companies, who plan to put up two seven story apartment towers

i know we all would like another iconic tower in the LA Skyline, but i was never a big fan of this tower, its 10 story parking podium and the fact that the lot facing flower was going to stay a parking lot. 7 stories, dense with retail in that area isnt the worst thing. yes, ideally it would be 15 - 25 stories or more, but i think its appropriate as long as it ties in correctly with the myfigueroa project.

I actually prefer something like this for that area. If downtown filled up a lot of it's parking lots with buildings like this (alongside skyscrapers), then the overall feel of DTLA will be much different.

Still, one does wonder about the fuckifization of L. A.'s more importantly located parcels. This isn't the first time. I'm worried it has become its own movement: Fuckify and settle for less. Much less. What's next? . (lol) This isn't called IFC (InFillCity)

In-fill is nice, certainly better than a parking lot. But if we don't get highrise on Flower and Fig, where will we?

In-fill is nice, certainly better than a parking lot. But if we don't get highrise on Flower and Fig, where will we?

well to be fair, this is flower and fig at 12th street, not exactly the hot bed of activity right now or any time in the near future.

well to be fair, this is flower and fig at 12th street, not exactly the hot bed of activity right now or any time in the near future.

The city could courteously have suggested that for low-rise they consider going further east, say, Hill and 12th or Bway and Olympic, or west of the 110. The theory behind South Park was medium rise residential; and for Flower and Fig, highrise. This is neither. Seems like the builder wants to cash-in on the neighborhood without bringing much to the party.

But, you're right. If you don't think there will be demand for anything better in this area for some years, then take what you can get.

btw, gotta change the name of the thread.

The banks are lending big for rentals now and this glassy condo proposal in San Francisco got reworked as rentals and will go up: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1456245

The problem with the Libeskind concept is that starchitecture is just too expensive for rentals in most markets plus Cypress obviously didn't have the stomach for a skyscraper. But other developers in LA may be reworking their old condo tower plans as rentals and there may be some interesting news ahead. Of course if Downtown was in West LA, there would be a forest of cranes right now. :)

Of course if Downtown was in West LA, there would be a forest of cranes right now. :)

I agree...since 1960 or so, Downtown has become detached from the centers of wealth. The main center of that wealth around LA (aside from the OC coast) is the greater westside. If Downtown LA were located there...many more people with the money to buy highrise condos would consider buying one. As things stand, despite signifcant improvements over the past decade, Downtown is still a bit of a tough sell to those used to the cleaner, safer, prettier West.

that SF project looks great! we could use 15 or so of those in LA

I agree that downtown can only sell to those who like looking over their shoulder. I do whenever I'm downtown. (Actually ... whenever I'm in L. A. but, downtown is for people who want to live on the edge.)

That's becaus in Henderson you only have one-armed bandits.

Pest, that's mighty funny :)