http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/51141bb5f92ea16fcd01821f/A002L.jpg
New render for single tower development.

=========================================================================================================

Previously, as a two tower office/hotel development:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12062157

Developer offers hope to rebirth of downtown LA

By JACOB ADELMAN
04/03/2009

LOS ANGELES—A major developer planned to announce a $1 billion high-rise office and hotel complex Friday, the first new downtown construction project since the real estate spiral largely scuttled dreams of a resurgent city center.

Thomas Property Group's plans call for an 80-story glass-walled building with a slanted profile resembling a ship's sail that would be built on property owned by development partner Korean Air Co.

The design includes a 40-story hotel and condo tower and an 18,000-square-foot public park that would replace the 50-year-old Wilshire Grand hotel.

Company Chairman and Chief Executive James A. Thomas said the city's first major office high-rise in some 20 years will satisfy what he sees as a rising demand for business real estate as downtown grows after the recession.

"There is no place that has the amenities, the attractions that downtown Los Angeles has," he told The Associated Press on Thursday, a day ahead of the official announcement.

The news offers a glimmer of optimism for a downtown rebirth that has suffered in the slumping economy. A Frank Gehry-designed tower complex is stalled, developers have declared bankruptcy and condo prices have plunged.

Some bright spots have emerged in the core of the nation's second-largest city, however, including small businesses cropping up in the area's forgotten storefronts and renewed condo sales in downtown lofts.

The area's long-term hopes are pinned to an emerging nationwide demand for smaller homes in compact, walkable neighborhoods as families shrink and fears of increasing gas prices drive people from their cars.

"I think downtown Los Angeles is going to do quite well when this economy recovers," said Christopher B. Leinberger, a land use strategist and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

Some observers think early boosters' vision of a Manhattan-like metropolis on the Southern California coast was destined to fail in a city where development sprawls and there are several major financial centers in the region.

Downtown "will never be for Los Angeles what midtown Manhattan is for New York or the Loop is for Chicago, because it hasn't been that since the 1920s," said urban scholar Joel Kotkin, author of "The City: A Global History." "There's something called history and it has an odd impact."

The city Building and Safety Department's list of high-rise buildings approved for the permitting process show dozens of downtown projects that have never broken ground.

The stalled projects include Gehry's $3-billion Grand Avenue housing and retail project and the 76-story Park 5th condo complex, which was billed as the tallest residential structure in the West.

The median price for new homes downtown has plummeted from $535,000 in the first quarter of 2008 to about $422,000 in the first quarter of this year, a 21 percent drop, according to tracking firm MDA DataQuick. The median price for all new condos in Southern California dropped about 14 percent during that time.

The slump has forced a growing number of landowners and developers into bankruptcy, including downtown's largest landlord, Meruelo Maddux Properties Inc.

While most construction has halted downtown, smaller businesses are staking a future on streets once largely empty after office workers went home and bordered by Skid Row's massive homeless population.

Japanese convenience-store chain Family Mart—an Itochu Corp. subsidiary known here as Famima!!—now has six stores downtown and plans a seventh one to tap into the growing around-the-clock foot traffic, marketing coordinator Naomi Hotta said.

Downtown newcomers include the headquarters for Herbalife International of America Inc. and the Urth Caffe Inc. chain of coffee shops.

The Nickel Diner, which opened in September and was named one of the best new restaurants last year by Los Angeles magazine, added dinner hours last week.

"We've become kind of the poster child of the new downtown," said co-owner Monica May, who credited the restaurant's signature maple-bacon doughnut for much of its success.

Lower condo prices have lured some bargain-hunting buyers, although overall sales remain sharply down.

"Downtown is fairly small as urban downtowns go but with my income it was as close as I could get to something like London or New York and still stay in Los Angeles," said Hutton Cobb, 52, who rented a home in a nearby suburb for about 25 years before buying a condo in the 24-story Evo building.

Homes have been selling on the far upper end of the scale too, such as the two-story penthouse bought for $9 million on the top floors of the 54-story Ritz-Carlton Residences, where prices start at $1.4 million. The building is part of the LA Live entertainment and retail complex a few blocks from where Thomas plans its new project.

Thomas said the company, working with the A.C. Martin Partners architecture firm, has completed preliminary designs and was preparing to file plans with the city.

Thomas Properties and Korean Air planned to seek financing from lenders and investors on both sides of the Pacific and begin construction in 2011.

Thomas said he expected credit markets to thaw by the time the partners seek construction loans and that the current downtown slump only encourages him to begin the ambitious project there.

"Construction costs are down, material costs are down," Thomas said. "It's ideal to be placing yourself to be ready to ride the wave when the recession turns and the economy moves up."

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2009.03.demoedgoodbye.jpg

_____________

Renderings:

http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/11446_2_ACMP_Wilshire%20Grand%20Day_for%20web.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2009-04/45954935.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2009-04/45954953.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2009-04/45954946.jpg

http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/11446_5_ACMP_Wilshire%20Grand%20Model03_for%20web.jpg

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=i99dGk1gIWQs

Looks great!
:drool:

Very Bank of America-ish (in New York)

Its amazing and will make the skyline way better

This Developer is Korean Enterprise,한진그룹(Hanjin Group),한진중공업(Hanjin Heavy Industry)....
In Recent Korean Development News,Hanjin Group will develop Highrise building in LA.
This building is right!!
thanks....

This Developer is Korean Enterprise,한진그룹(Hanjin Group),한진중공업(Hanjin Heavy Industry)....
In Recent Korean Development News,Hanjin Group will develop Highrise building in LA.
This building is right!!
thanks....

Developmental Partner Korean Air(대한항공) is HanJin Group's self-Company(계열회사).

interesting design. It is magnificent

Terrific news! Would anyone be brave enough to attempt making a wider 'skyline impacted' render? I wouldn't ask if I knew exactly where the towers will be but... I don't.
Good design very BoA-ish when seen from 'behind'. See what I mean with the slanted sides and sharp angles? Still works though :)
One more thing: the article mentions 80 stories but the title of the thread only says 60... Am I missing something?

http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wilshire.jpg

The Red Dot represents the location of this.

http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wilshire.jpg

The Red Dot represents the location of this.

http://images.travelpod.com/cache/accom_maps/Wilshire_Grand_Hotel-Los_Angeles.gif

Now we can see it.

I feel like every time a new article comes out about this project there is a new thread created. Maybe I'm just going crazy, maybe not.

I hope this gets built. I personally think that the Wilshire Grand Hotel is rather ugly.

Terrific news! Would anyone be brave enough to attempt making a wider 'skyline impacted' render? I wouldn't ask if I knew exactly where the towers will be but... I don't.
Good design very BoA-ish when seen from 'behind'. See what I mean with the slanted sides and sharp angles? Still works though :)
One more thing: the article mentions 80 stories but the title of the thread only says 60... Am I missing something?

Yeah, alot of people have realize that both towers looks kinda similiar.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27699373/original.jpghttp://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/11446_5_ACMP_Wilshire%20Grand%20Model03_for%20web.jpg

^^ really like the design and the cluster that will be :cheers:

Another proposed High-rise is going to be built near the Wilshire Grand.
Both projects are backed by Korean groups like Korean Air and Hanjin Group.

Link: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-notebook11-2009apr11,0,7766716.story

I like it! :)

with the spire this might qualify for a supertall. in looking at renders online and at latimes.com it looks about even with the US Bank building which is at 1018ft. or 310 meters.

Awesome news. Another development for LA. LA defenitely needs some new towers.

Wow, very nice tower ! I like it a lot !

Hello LA, greetings from Split, Croatia
I have to say this scraper is so sexy. Everything; from desing through the cluster to skyline; makes better this project.

Wow! and this is in my city, please build it now. Question: How long has it been since we have not seen a new skyscraper? Answer: Too Long.

Wow! and this is in my city, please build it now. Question: How long has it been since we have not seen a new skyscraper? Answer: Too Long.

i know, its been a real long time:lol:
i love bank of america and will definently love this :)

is that second tall tower part of the development or an already built building?
and what is the height of the big one?

Looks so cool, i like! :drove:

Copy and paste, no joke (Bank o' America NYC).

To me, it doesn't seem like it would fit in. I still like it though. Just skeptical...

I don't like this proposal. I would much rather prefer a reclad of the existing hotel over this stupid proposal.

I don't like this proposal. I would much rather prefer a reclad of the existing hotel over this stupid proposal.

you have never seen the hotel in real life have you?
this is alot better than what is standing there now.

is that second tall tower part of the development or an already built building?
and what is the height of the big one?

heights have not been revealed and won't be until the project goes to the land use committee in about a year. to give you an estimate 60 stories times 13.5 equals 810ft. and the spire adds about 200ft. so 1010ft. which would qualify for a super tall. :cheers:

Wow another supertall for California :banana:

you have never seen the hotel in real life have you?
this is alot better than what is standing there now.

I have during the '84 Olympics, and I reject this new tower, and there is nothing you can do to make me like it. The existing hotel has 900 rooms, the new hotel tower has only 700 rooms, so unless they change the plans to match the number of rooms in the current hotel, I don't want this piece of crap tower built. The Wilshire Grand is starting to look like the Hotel Pennsylvania of the West. Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City is also under threat of demolition to make way for a new office tower proposal which is growing stale.

^^ i appreciate your opinion and was not trying to change your mind, just wanted to read your reason behind your thinking. its nice to meet someone who brings opposition to a project, it breaks the boring replies of nice proposal or great building.
time to ruffle some feathers. :)

I have during the '84 Olympics, and I reject this new tower, and there is nothing you can do to make me like it. The existing hotel has 900 rooms, the new hotel tower has only 700 rooms, so unless they change the plans to match the number of rooms in the current hotel, I don't want this piece of crap tower built. The Wilshire Grand is starting to look like the Hotel Pennsylvania of the West. Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City is also under threat of demolition to make way for a new office tower proposal which is growing stale.

i undertsand your objection, but this building, although with less rooms, will spice up the skyline and be more asthetically pleasing than the previous building

Blithely denouncing something as "stupid" and a "piece of crap" won't make anyone on here want to hear your opinions.

Beautiful! The Wiltshire Grand is long over due...

i undertsand your objection, but this building, although with less rooms, will spice up the skyline and be more asthetically pleasing than the previous building

Apparently, there is a portion of the old Wilshire Grand that is used for offices. I have changed my mind. The tower should get built, but increase the number of rooms to less than 900 and its height should be between 850-900 feet.

A great looking building!

Any recent news on this project?

L.A. could use a new devolopment..this project would really stand out imo

Just hurry and get it approved =D

so so so very nice, cant wait

We need more towers in Downtown, this one would be the first with a spire. City ordinance says all buildings MUST have a Helipad for emergency evacuations, that's why L.A. only has flat top buildings, this one will break the mold.

Built now!

Wow! and this is in my city, please build it now. Question: How long has it been since we have not seen a new skyscraper? Answer: Too Long.

You forget the soon to be inaugurated Ritz Carlton (54 stories) Hotel. :)

http://www.snaidero-usa.com/images/articles/main/ritz_carlton.jpg

wow very sexy.

This tower is amazing!! :)

I see I don't have to say it looks like bank of america since already been said nice overall design.

oooh i like this!!!

I love it. Great addition to the skyline.

just to keep you guys informed and that the project is not dead:

From Blogdowntown:



[B]Korean Air Chairman Says City Could Move Faster on Wilshire Grand Project[B]

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Redevelopment of the Wilshire Grand hotel site with a pair of high-rise towers is moving forward, but the head of property-owner Korean Air today told a Downtown audience that the city could be doing more to speed up the project.

"We would like to see the development process go a little quicker," said Y. H. Cho, the airline's Chairman. "We understand that balancing the city budget is a priority at this time. But your city leaders must not let today’s challenges slow down tomorrow’s gains."

Budget issues and the City's early retirement program have left the Planning Department extremely understaffed, with only a few people in key approval positions such as Zoning Administrator.

Cho's remarks at Town Hall L.A. came nearly one year after the project was first announced. The 1952 hotel will be replaced by a pair of high-rises, one a 65-story office tower and the other a 560-room luxury hotel with a condo component.

The design will include a park space, Cho said. He emphasized the towers' green design and promised to exceed Green Building Council standards.

The 1952 Statler hotel was Downtown's finest, but Cho said its time has passed.

"For everything there is a season, and this grand hotel’s season has come to an end," he said. "The building’s infrastructure is obsolete and the rooms don’t work anymore."

A timetable for the hotel's closing has not been set, and will depend on the city's permitting process.

http://www.blogdowntown.com/2010/03/5210-korean-air-chairman-says-city-could-move

just to keep you guys informed and that the project is not dead:

From Blogdowntown:



[B]Korean Air Chairman Says City Could Move Faster on Wilshire Grand Project[B]

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Redevelopment of the Wilshire Grand hotel site with a pair of high-rise towers is moving forward, but the head of property-owner Korean Air today told a Downtown audience that the city could be doing more to speed up the project.

"We would like to see the development process go a little quicker," said Y. H. Cho, the airline's Chairman. "We understand that balancing the city budget is a priority at this time. But your city leaders must not let today’s challenges slow down tomorrow’s gains."

Budget issues and the City's early retirement program have left the Planning Department extremely understaffed, with only a few people in key approval positions such as Zoning Administrator.

Cho's remarks at Town Hall L.A. came nearly one year after the project was first announced. The 1952 hotel will be replaced by a pair of high-rises, one a 65-story office tower and the other a 560-room luxury hotel with a condo component.

The design will include a park space, Cho said. He emphasized the towers' green design and promised to exceed Green Building Council standards.

The 1952 Statler hotel was Downtown's finest, but Cho said its time has passed.

"For everything there is a season, and this grand hotel’s season has come to an end," he said. "The building’s infrastructure is obsolete and the rooms don’t work anymore."

A timetable for the hotel's closing has not been set, and will depend on the city's permitting process.

http://www.blogdowntown.com/2010/03/5210-korean-air-chairman-says-city-could-move

Great news.I already saw this related news.Hanjin Group(Korean Developer) will operate Wilshire Grand Redevelopment of the LA in 2011 year.

So this project is scheduled to start in 2011?

So this project is scheduled to start in 2011?

Yeap! I heard Wilshire Grand LA Hotel Redevelopment will operate in 2011 Year via Local Korean Press.

Hanjin Group will invest their Capital to Redevelopment projet.

Has there been any word on the height of this tower? I've only seen the generic "1,000ft." figure bandied about.

Do you know LA Wilshire-Grand Hotel is operated by korean?

through Websites(http://www.wilshiregrand.com/Index.aspx),I knew a part Company of Hanjin Group(Korean Air) manages right of this Hotel's Authority.

So,Developer is Korean-Air based Korean Local Developer.. Recent(one month ago),CEO of Managing Company(Hanjin Group CEO-yang ho Cho) visited LA Wilshire Grand Hotel,he said Redevelopment of this hotel will operate in 2011.

From Radiokorea press(March 26th)

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3/73063603.jpg

이자리에서 조양호 회장은 대한항공의 비전과
LA 국제공항의 중요성 그리고 현재 가장 큰 관심사인
다운타운 윌셔 그랜드 프로젝트를 소개했습니다.

조양호 회장은
현재 LA 다운타운 윌셔와 피겨로아에 재개발될
40층짜리 호텔과 65층짜리 오피스 빌딩이
LA 지역에 경기침체 돌파구가 될 것으로 전망했습니다.

총 10억달러가 투입으로 2016년 완공을 목표로
내년부터 본격적인 공사에 들어갈 윌셔그랜드 프로젝트는
주류사회에 비상한 관심을 끌어모으고 있습니다.

다운타운의 스카이라인을 바꿀 뿐만아니라
건축부문의 일자리 8천개가 새로 생기고,
영구직 일자리가 4천개 창출될 것으로 추산돼
침체된 지역 경제에 탄력을 불어넣을것이란 기대 때문입니다.

In Town Hall LA (Meeting of Korean Air),He said 'LA Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project(40+65 stories Landmark)' will operate in 2011 and complete in 2016 year.
and invest a billion dollars,and will be good Effect in LA's Economy and Lifestyle.

Location-Wilshire-Piguroa Street
Developer-Hanjin Group
Architects-AC Martin Partners-David Martin

Cool. Thanks for the info korea2002.

Cool. Thanks for the info korea2002.


Whlshire Grand Hotel Redevelopment-AC Martin Partners

http://www.acmartin.com/acmartin_WilshireGrand.html

LA and London are two cities that lacked many skyscrapers until recently but are getting lots of amazing ones. This is beautiful.

Ok...getting a bit more excited about this now.

From Curbed:

http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4097/4860993208_0a95ccd5f1_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4139/4860851392_b009e1db4a_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4098/4860231301_ef58e553c5_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4100/4860311889_747023aff7_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4120/4860852034_194b915a13_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4140/4860849046_3a8b9363a1_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4102/4860846316_0a507d5766_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4079/4860230031_e46812b75f_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4100/4860937536_34fa92ebd9_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4140/4860314413_8971e3aae9_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4114/4860223809_a0c0411cdf_o.png
http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4100/4860223187_ac3e5dfc94_o.png

n a move that would dramatically change the downtown skyline, the developers of the proposed AC Martin-designed Wilshire Grand project are asking for the creation of a new sign district in the Financial District, one that would ultimately allow them to swath large parts of their two towers in LA Live-like electronic advertising. Think: Scrolling, blinking and animated images emitting off a 65-story tower and a 45-story tower. Not only would this style of digital advertising on two tall towers be unprecedented in LA, but it would also essentially extend the path of LA Live, bringing the buzz-y style that defines that district towards the Financial District. So what to think? On the one hand, oooh, Tokyo-style animated fun, electronic art lighting up the sky. On the other hand, it's a scenario of giant digital Charmin ads blinking down at drivers stuck in traffic on the 101 Freeway.
Last year, Hanjin International Corporation and Thomas Partners announced their plans to knock down the aging Wilshire Grand hotel. According to the recently published draft EIR for the project, the new Wilshire Grand (no name yet) will offer 560 hotel rooms or condo-hotel rooms, and 1.5 million square of office space in two towers, all in a 65-tower building and a 45-tower building.

Renderings show examples of what this project would look like both with and without digital signs. (Billboards and supergraphics are banned in this section of the city.) From a logistical point of view, the lights would be affixed on sections below each window. Each section of the building would allow for different types of electronic signage (be it animated or scolling, for example). In some ways, the proposal is similar in style to Sonny Astani's proposed Blade Runner wall he wanted to create for his first Concerto project (though this looks to be far more comprehensive in terms of pure signage area).

And here's the definition of what type of signage could be included, per the EIR. "...large-scale animated and static signs designed to convey a business, product, service, profession, commodity, activity, event, person, institution, brand, or any other commercial or noncommercial message, including Changeable Copy Signs (to be utilized for a scrolling news ribbon) and Integral Electronic Display Signs. Architectural lighting could also comprise any part of the signage program."

And the draft EIR acknowledges the radical way the signage transform this neighborhood. From the report: "These elements would change the existing character of the area, creating a significant impact. Therefore, it is conservatively concluded that the change in visual character would be substantial and impacts associated with signage would be significant."

So how will the city react? As for the requested sign district, creating new sign districts is never simple, according to Dennis Hathaway, president of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight. One of the problems the Planning Department has faced is when sign districts are created for single development, says Hathaway. "The Planning Department and members of the Planing Commission have said that they want to make sure to tighten up sign district provisions so sign districts wouldn't be created for a single project. This is completely anti-ethical [to that notion]." With the creation of this new sign district, another developer in the area could request the same type of signage for his or her own building.

In regards to specific questions about the project, Thomas Properties Group issued the following statement: "TPG has submitted a request for a Supplemental Use District for the Wilshire Grand project. An SUD allows the city to approve a comprehensive signage program for a particular geographic area. The TPG proposal includes way finding, tenant and building identification signage as well as advertising signage, though it specifically prohibits super graphics. The program is fully described in the project description section of the DEIR."

Construction on the Wilshire Grand project is anticipated to commence in 2011, with full occupancy to occur by 2020, according to the report. Two days ago, the Downtown News reported the developer is seeking a tax break for this project.

Wow...those proposed skyline shots are great. LA needs these towers. Downtown LA is mostly flat-topped buildings, so the spire will really add some variety. Significant skyscraper development news has been lacking in California for the last few years, so I hope this continues forward.

Can't wait till construction begins. Shouldn't this be in the supertall section? The tower will stand higher than the US bank tower with the spire.

Can't wait till construction begins. Shouldn't this be in the supertall section? The tower will stand higher than the US bank tower with the spire.

No one knows the offical height yet. But rumors put it at exactly 1,000 feet tall (including spire).

This proposal is getting more and more awesome.

Those renderings showing the towers from the north make it look significantly taller than the US Bank Tower... We can only hope!

Wow great looking project lets hope it will get build asap

Has there been any word on the height of this tower? I've only seen the generic "1,000ft." figure bandied about.

they recently released the environmental draft report and its stated that it cant be taller than 1250ft. if that helps.

This needs to be moved. The official height is 1,250 ft for the taller tower and 750 ft for the shorter tower.

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742648.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742649.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742650.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742651-T800600.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742651.jpg


Another look at the renderings...

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742749.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742750.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742751.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742752.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742753.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742754-T800600.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742754.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742755-T800600.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742755.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742756-T800600.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742756.jpg


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742757.jpg

Wow, this is great!
What does that M.S.L. stand for in the hight?

^^ Mean Sea Level. It's the height above the average sea level.

^^
Thanks, Soup! I'm hoping this thing gets off the ground soon !

:cheers:

A supertall? Sounds great!

This would de-throne the US Bank tower as the tallest building in the west, or west of Chicago.

Hope it gets going soon.

About time LA gets a supertall...can't wait :okay:

BTW, this should be in the Super tall section, not here.

About time LA gets a supertall...can't wait :okay:

We already have one. We might be getting another one.

;)

^^ ups sorry got ahead of myself :) well one more supertall won't hurt :)

When the diagrams say "Max Height," does that mean maximum possible (meaning reducible) height for the proposal, or is that the definite proposed height? How close is this project to approval of this proposed height?

Also, with the "helistop" (never heard that word before) proposed at 1090 feet, and facade elements rising past even that point, It looks like the Library Tower would lose the highest helipad title, and be beaten out in rooftop height by more than just a spire, too. Los Angeles could have a new structurally tallest building, not just an aesthetically tallest!

Wow ,Terrific!!
this will be rich Urban-Development Project in LA,Promoting Upgrading of the LA Skylines.

about time we got a new building to top US Bank. better put in a transfer to that building when its built.

This building looks like it would make an excellent addition to Los Angeles skyline from a distance. My only beef is with the giant LA letters on the top floors of the building. I mean, yes, we all know it's LA. If this does get built, I hope those letters aren't there. They scream Vegas tackiness to me.

^^ I think those LA letters on the buildings are just a place marker. They are proposing to have lighted advertisements where the LA is. Not that that is any better.

^^ That would suck. I could see some special lighting scheme at the top to accentuate the angles, but keep the Jumbotrons at the base of the building, if there are any.

^^ :( that's the plan, and most of us are not crazy about it.


When the diagrams say "Max Height," does that mean maximum possible (meaning reducible) height for the proposal, or is that the definite proposed height? How close is this project to approval of this proposed height?

Also, with the "helistop" (never heard that word before) proposed at 1090 feet, and facade elements rising past even that point, It looks like the Library Tower would lose the highest helipad title, and be beaten out in rooftop height by more than just a spire, too. Los Angeles could have a new structurally tallest building, not just an aesthetically tallest!

I believe that that maximum height is what the designer/architect has to work with, meaning yes, thats the maximum possible height, as you said. I hope they don't reduce it.

Los Angeles has a peculiar ordinance that ALL highrises/skyscrapers MUST have a Helipad for emergency evacuations (I suspect it has something to do with the AON Building fire in the '80's).

Therefore, LA lacks edifices with spires and ornate spikes and so forth. Most all are flat topped and boring, till the US Bank Building (Library Tower) came and gave us that wonderful crown. The US Bank Tower measure 1018' I believe, so this new one will surpass it by quite a bit.

^^
I thought that ordinance required flat tops unless there was a helipad.

The skyline will be for ever altered and the "center' focus of downtown shifted drastically.

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742754-T800600.jpg

YES!! BUILD IT!!!!! NOW!:lol:

Some more views,.................


http://www.archicentral.com/wp-content/images/11446_2_acmp_wilshire-grand-day_for-web.jpg

http://www.archicentral.com/wp-content/images/11446_5_acmp_wilshire-grand-model03_for-web.jpg

http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/11446_4_ACMP_Wilshire%20Grand%20Plaza_for%20web.jpg

Dang, I love that base!


I believe that that maximum height is what the designer/architect has to work with, meaning yes, thats the maximum possible height, as you said. I hope they don't reduce it.

Los Angeles has a peculiar ordinance that ALL highrises/skyscrapers MUST have a Helipad for emergency evacuations (I suspect it has something to do with the AON Building fire in the '80's).

Therefore, LA lacks edifices with spires and ornate spikes and so forth. Most all are flat topped and boring, till the US Bank Building (Library Tower) came and gave us that wonderful crown. The US Bank Tower measure 1018' I believe, so this new one will surpass it by quite a bit.

Thanks, Kenni. I absolutely agree- the higher, the better!

I think you're right about the LA Helipad Ordinance being the result of the First Interstate Tower fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fire), but I think it may also have to do with earthquakes, too. I've never seen any really definite info about the ordinance, but I believe it's meant as a general escape alternative to the elevators, whether they're burning, blocked, or otherwise disabled by whatever nature throws at LA. I do know that the fire prompted fire-sprinkler requirements, though (from the article I linked to).

But I also think that the helipad ordinance is less responsible for LA's flat-roofedness than the earthquakes are. I think that LA lacks the graceful spires of New York and other eastern cities because of the older zoning codes that didn't even allow skyscrapers until the late 1960's, when engineers got really good at accommodating seismic stresses, but fashionable architecture meant a modernist box. Most of the spired towers back east, as you know, were built in the 1910's through the 30's, long before helicopters were a consideration.

...If you look at some low-rise LA icons from that era, like Bullocks Wilshire, the Eastern Columbia Building, the Texaco Building, the late and sorely missed Richfield Tower, and of course, City Hall, spires and other decoratve crowns do abound. We just couldn't risk building them very tall yet. Of course, by the time postmodernism made spires popular again in the 80's, the helipads were there for spires to obstruct. Library Tower's crown is a glorious compromise, though. (I hate calling it US Bank Tower! :lol:)

I think that this Wilshire Grand redevelopment project will go a long way toward rectifying the situation. If any city was ever meant to be a city of spires, it is the City of Angels!

Everything you said is absolutely true. The "boxie" design was the "It" thing in the 60's and early 70's when LA lifted the ban on skyscrapers.

Let's hope this proyect gets going soon, as I said before, this building will probably awaken the era of daring designs in LA.

I don't see the big deal about the LED sinage. If done correctly (and not used each and every single night), it could be a tourist destination in it's own right.

It couldn't be any less 'garish' than the Symphony of Lights that happens EVERY NIGHT in Hong Kong.

AHWmFkpondw

Beautiful building. I can't wait to see it rise!

I love the Symphony of Lights. It actually doesn't look good on video, but if you are there in person, it looks amazing. HK's colorful skyline is perfect.
This project will closely resemble the Aurora building
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeod-aFdIc&feature=related

More on the subjetc.

Read More & Photos: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/08/wilshire_grand_hotel_project_may_really_up_the_sign_ante.php

Holy Tokyo, Downtown! Wilshire Grand Hotel Project Could Go Electric

In a move that would dramatically change the downtown skyline, the developers of the proposed AC Martin-designed Wilshire Grand project are asking for the creation of a new sign district in the Financial District, one that would ultimately allow them to swath large parts of their two towers in LA Live-like electronic advertising. Think: Scrolling, blinking and animated images emitting off a 65-story tower and a 45-story tower. Not only would this style of digital advertising on two tall towers be unprecedented in LA, but it would also essentially extend the path of LA Live, bringing the buzz-y style that defines that district towards the Financial District. So what to think? On the one hand, it's a scenario of oooh, Tokyo-style animated fun, electronic art lighting up the sky. On the other hand, it's a scenario of giant digital Charmin ads blinking down at drivers stuck in traffic on the 101 Freeway.

It's a digital ad world. Everything to know about this proposal.>>>
Last year, Hanjin International Corporation and Thomas Partners announced their plans to knock down the aging Wilshire Grand hotel. According to the recently published draft EIR for the project, the new Wilshire Grand (no name yet) will offer 560 hotel rooms or condo-hotel rooms, and 1.5 million square of office space in two towers, all in a 65-story tower building and a 45-story tower building.

Renderings show examples of what this project would look like both with and without digital signs. (Billboards and supergraphics are banned in this section of the city.) From a logistical point of view, the lights would be affixed on sections below each window. Each section of the building would allow for different types of electronic signage (be it animated or scolling, for example). In some ways, the proposal is similar in style to Sonny Astani's proposed "Blade Runner" wall he wanted to create for his first Concerto project (though this looks to be far more comprehensive in terms of pure signage area).

And here's the definition of what type of signage could be included, per the EIR. "...large-scale animated and static signs designed to convey a business, product, service, profession, commodity, activity, event, person, institution, brand, or any other commercial or noncommercial message, including Changeable Copy Signs (to be utilized for a scrolling news ribbon) and Integral Electronic Display Signs. Architectural lighting could also comprise any part of the signage program."

And the draft EIR acknowledges the radical way the signage would transform this neighborhood. From the report: "These elements would change the existing character of the area, creating a significant impact. Therefore, it is conservatively concluded that the change in visual character would be substantial and impacts associated with signage would be significant."

The draft EIR lists alternatives, ranging from no signage to limiting signage to only 150 feet up the buildings, for example.

So how will the city react? As for the requested sign district, creating new sign districts is never simple, according to Dennis Hathaway, president of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight. One of the problems the Planning Department has faced is when sign districts are created for single development, says Hathaway. "The Planning Department and members of the Planing Commission have said that they want to make sure to tighten up sign district provisions so sign districts wouldn't be created for a single project. This is completely antithetical [to that notion]." With the creation of this new sign district, another developer in the area could request the same type of signage for his or her own building.

In regards to specific questions about the project, Thomas Properties Group issued the following statement: "TPG has submitted a request for a Supplemental Use District for the Wilshire Grand project. An SUD allows the city to approve a comprehensive signage program for a particular geographic area. The TPG proposal includes way finding, tenant and building identification signage as well as advertising signage, though it specifically prohibits super graphics. The program is fully described in the project description section of the DEIR."

Construction on the Wilshire Grand project is anticipated to commence in 2011, with full occupancy to occur by 2020, according to the report. Two days ago, the Downtown News reported the developer is seeking a tax break for this project.

http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4097/4860993208_0a95ccd5f1_o.png

http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4100/4860223187_ac3e5dfc94_o.png

http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/4098/4860231301_ef58e553c5_o.png

I want the lights, just because it sounds insanely cool. LA's (potential) new tallest building ought to be an absolutely iconic spectacle of glory! It should be amazingly irrational, but utterly fantastic. Just like the city itself. :cool:

I don't like the idea of those digital "screens"..This is tower, not giant tv or shit like that...It's cool if there will be cool lights like on the US Bank Tower's crown but I don't like the idea of showin' "a business, product, service, profession, commodity, activity, event, person, institution, brand, or any other commercial or noncommercial message"...

I think it's not cool drivin' down the 101 Freeway and when you look up to see a great downtown skyline, you see "new condoms now available in the stores" blinkin' on the tower...Or shit like that...

If they keep doin' this for a few years we'll be watchin' movies on the buildings..

How about this instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tplx2CIuHfc

I want the lights, just because it sounds insanely cool. LA's (potential) new tallest building ought to be an absolutely iconic spectacle of glory! It should be amazingly irrational, but utterly fantastic. Just like the city itself. :cool:

I wasn't sold on the idea, but now that I think of it, maybe it can work.
It's the future!

I wonder what people thought of the first electric traffic light? hmm.

Glad that Los Angeles is getting a new building but Im not convinced of the design. It just seems that the design of instead of having a tall flat rectangle, you have a tall flat rectangle with a triangle thing taken out is kinda dull and boring. Im not really sure if you guys even understand what im really saying, it just doesn't look unique anymore. Oh,well maybe im just focusing on the minutea of the design rather than the height.

I don't like the idea of those digital "screens"..
If they keep doin' this for a few years we'll be watchin' movies on the buildings..

You mean like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm9yb1w7-Lc

I love the digital screens on buildings in Times Square. But this is not being built in Times Square.

I like 7WTC's digital screen on the lower floors. That's slick looking. Although its right in your face at street level, it doesn't foul up the skyline with advertisements.

What better place than LA to have films plying on the walls of a skyscraper?

You mean like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm9yb1w7-Lc

Yes! :) Like spectre000 said, it's cool when it's on the ground level...But I wouldn't like if would be up like it's proposed for those towers...The skyline wouldn't be the same...LA has amazing views of the city and skyline from the hills..This screens would ruin the view...:)

You mean like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm9yb1w7-Lc

if i knew that before i would have went suntec city at night. damn missed it

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742754.jpg

it's nice development, but it could be built on one of the many parking lots in downtown Los Angeles instead of demolition of an existing building

This one and Ritz-Carlton changin' the picture of LA that most of us have in our heads..

really nice development, and those lights on the buildings in hong kong look real good the spot lights in the air look tacky as hell

New renderings.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5084/5259389417_c7e2854776_b.jpg
From Flickr, by lacurbed

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5242/5259736059_fe00fcbcf2_b.jpg
From Flickr, by lacurbed

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5259735277_d1027a5cfc_b.jpg
From Flickr, by lacurbed

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5207/5260342764_d785ca6593_b.jpg
From Flickr, by lacurbed

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5127/5260342240_ed87752b47_b.jpg
From Flickr, by lacurbed

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5168/5259382777_e55db3a198_b.jpg
From Flickr, by lacurbed

Now that's a better rendering and I really hope that it gets built. I read that Korean Air wants to start construction as soon as possible. It would an excellent addition to the L.A. skyline.

Downtown L.A. is looking up!

Sounds like this is getting more serious. I hope this gets built.

Hm, 60 floors, is doubt if that will be a supertall right. More like 250 meters? Bu finally, something new in Downtown La, surely the slowest growing big city skyline on earth :) I hope it will set off a new boom like Londen or Moscow. LA deserves it!

Hm, 60 floors, is doubt if that will be a supertall right. More like 250 meters? Bu finally, something new in Downtown La, surely the slowest growing big city skyline on earth :) I hope it will set off a new boom like Londen or Moscow. LA deserves it!

Erm....

The height of the building is clearly in the title of the thread. It's 1,250ft/381m. And it's 65 floors. And I'll let your dumb comment of LA having the slowest growing skyline on earth because clearly you have no idea what is going on downtown.

Compared to any other model city in the world, it's pretty slow.

I like the height but think the design is a bit uninspired. Maybe if the skyline had 3-4 other towers comparable in height it would be nice to fill in some blank spots. As is, I think it steals the eye's attention away from the U.S. Bank tower. The U.S. Bank Tower has a timeless look while this proposal looks like a tall, slightly tapered glass and steel wall. In profile it looks good, but straight on it is far too fat for its height. The first rendering Soup or Man posted above makes it look most attractive, but again, I think its profile ruins it. Still, in 50 years when LA has a troop of supertalls, it may compliment the overall skyline.

Compared to any other model city in the world, it's pretty slow.

Few commercial office developers have an interest in Downtown. With urban villages scattered across the L.A. region, developers prefer sites closer to where their corporate tennants' employees live. L.A. is too huge and amorphic to cluster all of its development downtown.

381m?? So,Supertalll Landmark? in LA?
Wow... Unbelivable heights...
it will be Landmark of the LA City Landscapes.

So the planning commission approves the tower. But it doesn't want LED lights all over the tower. Now it's onto the city council.

Despite a warning from the City Attorney’s office that creating a new sign district could open up the city to more legal challenges from billboard companies, today the Planning Commission voted to approve the Wilshire Grand hotel/office project, as well as a new sign district for the AC Martin-designed building.

Following an exhaustive seven-hour meeting on the topic, the Commission approved the project, but rejected the large-scale signage proposed by developer Thomas Properties/Hanjin, instead adopting the recommendations of Planning Department, a proposal that dramatically scaled back the signage. But the Commission nixed the Planning Dept's suggestion of so-called "architectural lighting," (non-advertising but LED lights) that would have covered the upper part of the tower. "At this point, I’m not convinced by what I have seen," said Bill Roschen, President of the Planning Commission, adding later: “This is changing the skyline in LA, and for us to make a decision [on the upper LED lighting] in one day? I am not prepared to do that.”
Commission also voted to consider expanding sign district.>>>

Overall, the Commission repeatedly praised the architecture and landscaping of the project, which drew dozens and dozens of supporters to the hearing, held at Van Nuys City Hall. And supporters liked the signage: Shiraz Tangri, a member of the Downtown Neighborhood Council said signage is right for the commercial corridor of Figueroa, while downtown developer Hamid Behdad urged approval of the project, calling the signage "elegant" and appropriate for the area.

If the creation of a new sign district didn't generate much debate among Planning Commission members, the sign issue did get the attention of the city group at the forefront of the issue. At the start of the meeting, Chief Deputy City Atty. Bill Carter told the Planning Commission his office received the Planning Department’s recommendations and the developer’s proposal just last Friday, and hadn't had time to review how it could impact the city's oft-challenged sign code.

“We’re rushing this through without having the city attorney review it,” said Carter, noting the Wilshire Grand sign district has already been seized upon by one sign company in litigation with the city as an example of LA’s “unfettered approval” of signage. (The case is with Vanguard Outdoor, according to Carter.)

But Mitch Menzer, lobbyist for the developer, said he didn’t believe the legal threat to the city's sign laws was quite as dire as Carter made it seem, ointing out that the "remaining issues regarding legality can be resolved at the next stop," referring to anticipated hearings on the project at the Planning and Land Use Committee or the City Council.

And Mark Mullen, Senior Advisor to Mayor Villaraigosa and COO of the Office of Economic & Business, also urged the City Attorney’s office to help see the project through. But his comments irked Carter. "It's not my job to approve projects, it's my job to see that it's legal," Carter said later.

Meanwhile, today the Planning Commission also put forward a motion to study possibly creating a bigger sign district for the area. While the approval of the Wilshire Grand looked like a cart before the horse move following that proposal, the Commission said a more comprehensive sign district in this neighborhood may be appropriate.

“This project is going to encourage a larger sign district, maybe to the reach of LA Live,” theorized Planning Commissioner Matt Epstein.

Compared to any other model city in the world, it's pretty slow.

Again with the dumb statements.

Do you realize that downtown LA built a majority of it's office towers in the 80s? From 1980 to 1992 saw the completion of Cal Plaza 1 and 2, US Bank Tower, Wells Fargo Plaza, KPMG Tower, 777 Tower, Figueroa @ Wilshire, and the Gas Company Tower? Basically, Los Angeles over saturated itself with office towers. That was the main reason why 1100 Wilshire was never more then 10% occupied. There was so much office space that it wasn't until 2002 that vacancy levels finally dropped. A few major skyscrapers were cancelled as a result. Cal Plaza 3, 9th and Figueroa Tower, Watt City Center, and a few others.The last office building built in downtown was Cal Plaza 2 and that was because there was no need.

Im not totally sure about the design, but a supertall like this is big news for LA!

So the planning commission approves the tower. But it doesn't want LED lights all over the tower. Now it's onto the city council.

Good call I think. Too much lighting all over it would've looked a bit tacky.

But there will be LED lighting on the base as well as a 'Wall Street style news ticker.' Still, the project is progressing and if all goes smoothly, destruction of the Wilshire Grand Hotel will start sometime next year, construction of the buildings in 2012, and completion in 2015. 2015 is going to be a HUGE year in Los Angeles in terms of development.

I like the idea of lighting at the bottom, similar to 7WTC.

Will the top of the tower be all spire? Or will there be room for a helicopter pad? I was under the impression that all tall buildings in LA needed one for evacuation purposes. Or is that just urban legend.

Again with the dumb statements.

Do you realize that downtown LA built a majority of it's office towers in the 80s? From 1980 to 1992 saw the completion of Cal Plaza 1 and 2, US Bank Tower, Wells Fargo Plaza, KPMG Tower, 777 Tower, Figueroa @ Wilshire, and the Gas Company Tower? Basically, Los Angeles over saturated itself with office towers. That was the main reason why 1100 Wilshire was never more then 10% occupied. There was so much office space that it wasn't until 2002 that vacancy levels finally dropped. A few major skyscrapers were cancelled as a result. Cal Plaza 3, 9th and Figueroa Tower, Watt City Center, and a few others.The last office building built in downtown was Cal Plaza 2 and that was because there was no need.

And like most major US cities, it was consolidations and mergers in banking and energy firms that emptied a lot of those buildings leaving a glut of office space on the market. A lot of emerging markets have yet to experience that merger phase in their economies and when they do, they will see empty towers and plummeting rents too.

Again with the dumb statements.

Hey "Soup dude"... Stop being such a smart ass and cut it with the language, will ya?
Downtown LA hasn't changed much since the early 90s and you know it. So if someone displays 'ignorance' as to why, then simply enlighten us all with your divine knowledge in a friendly manner and we'll all be happy.
Don't be a douche... :ohno:

Hey "Soup dude"... Stop being such a smart ass and cut it with the language, will ya?
Downtown LA hasn't changed much since the early 90s and you know it. So if someone displays 'ignorance' as to why, then simply enlighten us all with your divine knowledge in a friendly manner and we'll all be happy.
Don't be a douche... :ohno:

Oh..you so are going to tell me what I know? Downtown hasn't changed since the 90's? You DO realize that is a horribly untrue statement right? People from all over the world seem to know more about Los Angeles than the people who actually live in Los Angeles. 42,000 people live in DTLA. DTLA is second only to WASHINGTON DC in regards to government employees. Bunker Hill has more culture on a few blocks than some cities do in their entire city limits. Walt Disney Concert Hall, Dorthy Chandler Pavillion, Mark Taper Forum, Ahmanson Theatre, Colburn School for the Arts, MOCA, The Watercourts at Cal Plaza, Angel's Flight, Our Lady of the Angels. And that is JUST on Bunker Hill.

And what do you mean 'downtown hasn't changed much since the 90?' What because we haven't built skyscrapers everywhere? Do you know WHY? Downtown Los Angeles has the largest collection of pre World War 2 buildings in the US. A majority of which are empty. But a lot of them have been converted into lofts, condos, apartments, and office space. Some examples:

Eastern Columbia Building
http://www.you-are-here.com/broadway/eastern_columbia.jpg

Title Guarantee Building
http://ic2.pbase.com/u38/alon/upload/24989587.DSC08197s1203.jpg

The Roosevelt
http://you-are-here.com/downtown/roosevelt.jpg

Also: Almost on a weekly basis, downtown LA is opening up a new restaurant, bar, club, cafe, or other retail spot. Why would you want to build tall buildings everywhere and not have anything on the bottom of them to not only encourage people to VISIT downtown but to STAY downtown? Just because you can't see the change happening doesn't mean that change is NOT happening.

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/26279634.jpg

"People from all over the world seem to know more about Los Angeles than the people who actually live in Los Angeles."

There's a reason why most angelenos don't really care to go there anyway. Most of downtown is not really that attractive. With these mega scale projects like this, bring back broadway, LA Live, the reconstruction of Little Tokyo, etc, Downtown is beginning to look more attractive.

Thats just what LA need after such a long time of silence !!!

Erm....

The height of the building is clearly in the title of the thread. It's 1,250ft/381m. And it's 65 floors. And I'll let your dumb comment of LA having the slowest growing skyline on earth because clearly you have no idea what is going on downtown.

:lol: So each floor will be close to 6 meters??? And LA, a city that big, really has a very slow growing downtown, ok. London, for example, is going way faster these days, and that's also a major city with quite a small skyline.

:lol: So each floor will be close to 6 meters??? And LA, a city that big, really has a very slow growing downtown, ok. London, for example, is going way faster these days, and that's also a major city with quite a small skyline.

I think bringing London or any other city into this won't bring you anywhere with this guy; anything you say besides "L.A. ROCKS!!!" will sound insulting to him it seems. Let it slide ;)

Regarding the height, I reckon the pretty big spire is included in the number mentioned above so... 65fl is still doable if you consider a restaurant or two and possibly a gallery or some kind of 'event facility'; which the tower may very well have so... Let's just wait and see what the details are.

I like this tower anyway, and I think it'll make the L.A. skyline seriously cool once it's built (though it already ROCKS!!!, right Soup!?).

I think bringing London or any other city into this won't bring you anywhere with this guy; anything you say besides "L.A. ROCKS!!!" will sound insulting to him it seems. Let it slide ;)

Regarding the height, I reckon the pretty big spire is included in the number mentioned above so... 65fl is still doable if you consider a restaurant or two and possibly a gallery or some kind of 'event facility'; which the tower may very well have so... Let's just wait and see what the details are.

I like this tower anyway, and I think it'll make the L.A. skyline seriously cool once it's built (though it already ROCKS!!!, right Soup!?).

I have never said the LA skyline rocks. I gave you plenty of reasons as to why LA hasn't exploded in terms of skyscrapers but if you didn't read any of it then that's your problem not mine.

Anyway, this diagram should help out those who are a bit confused with it's height.

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742651.jpg
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742752.jpg
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742754.jpg
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742756.jpg
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742757.jpg

And here I thought this was an intelligent forum.

chjbolton, I would also agree that comparing Los Angeles' ongoing urban development to other major cities is fruitless, but not for the ignorant personal reasons you propose. It's fruitless because Los Angeles is too different from a city like London or Shanghai or New York or wherever for it to grow at a comparable pace or form, but grow it is still doing, and significantly.

i like this tower a lot i totally can imagine seeing this in a lot of shows and movies when its under construction :D

I'll bet Bank of America will move its' LA offices to this building and add the BOA neon letters to the top.

I see LA as a slow growing skyscraper city (nothing to do with population or regular building growth) because it sits in an earthquake hotspot. Just like Tokyo. Besides, just about everyone saw the 70's movies "Earthquake", http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/earthquake-the-movie-trailer/351739b792d8707f7032351739b792d8707f7032-294610534474?q=trailer+earthquake&FORM=VIRE1
and "The Towering Inferno". http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3724214553/
and finally the more recent "10.5" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3sWmixQjIs

Because of these movies, (It may be real, or imagined) but do you think people tend to shy away from the thought of being trapped in a supertall in LA?

I'll bet Bank of America will move its' LA offices to this building and add the BOA neon letters to the top.

I see LA as a slow growing skyscraper city (nothing to do with population or regular building growth) because it sits in an earthquake hotspot. Just like Tokyo. Besides, just about everyone saw the 70's movies "Earthquake", http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/earthquake-the-movie-trailer/351739b792d8707f7032351739b792d8707f7032-294610534474?q=trailer+earthquake&FORM=VIRE1
and "The Towering Inferno". http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3724214553/
and finally the more recent "10.5" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3sWmixQjIs

Because of these movies, (It may be real, or imagined) but do you think people tend to shy away from the thought of being trapped in a supertall in LA?

Just to clarify...

Downtown already has a Bank of America tower.
http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/Images/US/CA/LosAngeles/200801/BankofAmericaPlaza-Oct08-006a.jpg

It might not look like much in terms of architecture but it's a very nice building. It sits on a large base with very pretty gardens, waterfalls, and large open plazas.

The Towering Inferno took place in San Francisco.

And while it would be scary to be in a skyscraper during an earthquake, you would most likely survive. In 2008, LA was hit by a moderate (5.4) earthquake. It was the first earthquake that hit LA during the 'Youtube era' so there are hundreds of videos of it. It also helped that it happened right around noon. Aside from lots of things flying off of shelves and a brick building collapsing, it didn't do a tremendous amount of damage.

Eef2NWJthmU
_5t_p6Adu8E
iyP-BuOHaJM
wyV1U6MKAlo

People who were in downtown called CNN to say that the buildings they were in swayed back and fourth but nothing was damaged. Buildings are designed to sway in earthquakes and the wind. If they didn't, they would be rocked to pieces.

Not long after the Northridge earthquake in 1994 which did a lot of damage and was much much stronger (6.9), LA City Hall spend about 3 years retrofitting the entire building so when a earthquake hits, the building pretty much absorbs the force of the quake by floating.

I say that to say that you will be fine if you are in a high rise in an earthquake. LA has extremely high building codes and will not build a building unless it's reinforced.

^^ I actually agree with you on this one.
"Earthquakes scare people away from downtown" :nuts:

I'm not sure how this thread about a great, and indeed, much needed supertall in downtown L.A. turned into a somewhat heated conversation about the skyline's slow development but let's make something clear: L.A. is BIG!! I doubt people realize just how ginormous this city is.

Soup would surely know the names better than me and ad a couple of names to the following 'list' but between Downtown, Century City and the close-by Whilshire bd... Those are three different skylines right there already. If they where put together they would resemble something like... San Francisco ish; not a perfect comparison but you get the idea.

So again, saying that downtown has grown slowly in the last 15 years is:
1) merely stating a fact if compared to the usual bad boys around the world
2) not quite doing justice to the rest of L.A. and it's obscenely large area as a whole

I think everyone can pretty much agree with the above.

If Los Angeles *JUST* had downtown LA as it's main skyscraper cluster, then I would agree that Los Angeles has a small skyline for it's population. But that's far from the case. A lot of people seem to think that Los Angeles is just downtown LA and nothing more in terms of skyscrapers. And a lot of times those same people say something like 'Well..Los Angeles has such a small skyline/no skyscrapers.' LA has a slew of skylines with quite a few tall buildings:

Downtown
http://www.capaoa.org/publicalbum/James%20Bu/AACIT%20time%202002%20to%202005/Downtown%20LA.JPG

Wilshire Center (Koreatown)
http://www.cnsm.csulb.edu/departments/geology/people/bperry//GrantPhotos/PtConcep1Oct06/088WilshireCenterHollywoodSantaMonicaMtnsOct06S.jpg

Glendale
http://www.phonebookoftheworld.com/usa/california/city/city-of-glendale.jpg

Century City
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Century_City_2006-02-19.jpg

The Wilshire Corridor (The Golden Triangle/Millionare's Mile)
http://www.wildnatureimages.com/images%202/060308-105..jpg

Westwood
http://siggy.chem.ucla.edu/Around_UCLA/Westwood%20view%20high.JPG

Santa Monica
http://www.socalbeachmag.net/images/2005_05_24__santa_monica_laguna-beaches_164-resize-logo.jpg

Burbank
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Burbankeast.jpg

Warner Center
http://activerain.com/image_store/uploads/2/1/8/1/6/ar122063869861812.jpg

Hollywood
http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2008-07-skyline-hwood.jpg

Long Beach
http://www.you-are-here.com/aerial/long_beach.jpg

I don't think people realize just how gigantic Los Angeles is. It's one of the biggest cities in the entire world, and its sprawl is massive. Much like Phoenix, which also doesn't have that much of a skyline.

LA is not really a skyscraper city, and never has been.

Nice pictures soup or man. LA is definitely sprawlsville. But that's okay. This tower is great. Very "1 Bryant Park". A new tallest for LA is a good thing.

You first say this:

If Los Angeles *JUST* had downtown LA as it's main skyscraper cluster, then I would agree that Los Angeles has a small skyline for it's population. But that's far from the case. A lot of people seem to think that Los Angeles is just downtown LA and nothing more in terms of skyscrapers. And a lot of times those same people say something like 'Well..Los Angeles has such a small skyline/no skyscrapers.' LA has a slew of skylines with quite a few tall buildings:


and than back it up with these pictures as an example to back up your story?.....rofl

http://www.cnsm.csulb.edu/departments/geology/people/bperry//GrantPhotos/PtConcep1Oct06/088WilshireCenterHollywoodSantaMonicaMtnsOct06S.jpg
http://www.phonebookoftheworld.com/usa/california/city/city-of-glendale.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Burbankeast.jpg


the only one we could consider a 'skyline' is this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Century_City_2006-02-19.jpg


So, once again, LA has a good looking, but relatively small downtown skyline, wich is growing very slow, either so when you don't compare it with other big cities.

The tallest building in Koreatown is Equatiable Plaza. It's 453 feet tall.

Very good. LA is very slow in buildings.

Very good. LA is very slow in buildings.

The last tall building LA (downtown) built was the Ritz which opened last Feburary.

http://ogrouphk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Ritz-LA-Live1.jpg

The last tall building LA (downtown) built was the Ritz which opened last Feburary.

So? There are about 50 just as tall or taller UC in >you name the city<. Not in LA though...



ps, you are amusing so i keep replying to your silly statements:lol:

So? There are about 50 just as tall or taller UC in >you name the city<. Not in LA though...



ps, you are amusing so i keep replying to your silly statements:lol:

So what's your fucking point? That LA should build skyscrapers just for the sake of building them?

So what's your fucking point? That LA should build skyscrapers just for the sake of building them?

^^ Here's what we call a textbook strawman.

Geez, folks. Ok,

Point One: Yes, LA has fewer major skyscrapers than other cities of comparable size. This is because we couldn't engineer them well enough against earthquakes until the sixties. Which is why LA does not look pointy like New York.

Point Two: STOP citing Los Angeles as the archetypal example of what we call "sprawl." The urbanized areas of greater Los Angeles are generally significantly denser than most other cities in the United States. Of the top twenty most densely populated municipalities in the U.S., Five are Los Angeles suburbs (link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density). Los Angeles is not like Kansas City, where it's almost all single-family homes for twenty miles outside of downtown. In LA, you don't see that until you're twenty miles out. The single-family homes closer in are often used by multiple families. A simple drive through the West Side will reveal that Los Angeles is dense, and very urban. Yes, the urban area spreads over a huge area, but that's because there are ten million people in LA County. Throw in Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Ventura counties, and you're pushing eighteen million. Furthermore, modern "sprawl" in America was largely fueled by growth in automobile usage, and the installation of freeways. What most people don't understand about LA is that most of its horizontal expansion was driven by effective mass transit (!!!) in the form of towns springing up along Pacific Electric Railway lines, decades before the freeways were carved into the resulting urban landscape! (link) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Relief_map_Pacific_Electric_Railway.jpg) Greater Los Angeles is on average, denser than Greater New York, even including Manhattan. In short, Los Angeles is NOT sprawl. It's just huge.

Point Three:
That was really, really off-topic... :blahblah: So, anyway, I think that this design for the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment is not awesome, like, say Shanghai Tower is, but I do think it will look very good when completed. I think it won't be quite as notable of a skyline-capper as Library Tower is with its distinctive crown, because it is a much more simple and generic design. But I suspect it will be a good advertising point for the city, nonetheless, with its sheer height and novelty, much in the same manner as the simple, but massive Twin Towers became just as symbolically important to New York City as the highly unique Empire State Building.

Just my unsolicited two hundred cents.

Point One just as easily describes Tokyo, yet Tokyo's CBD is far more developed than LA's in terms of buildings above 150m.

Point Two describes not only Tokyo but also pretty much every major city in China, yet again they are far more developed in terms of buildings above 150m. It also describes much of London, which has multi-family homes stretching far into the suburbs.

To add my own point, I don't quite understand why people here so vigorously want to defend LA against the accusation that for a city its size it has a tiny skyline by straying far off topic. There's simply no denying it in any way, and most people I know who are from LA do not try to deny it at all. A project like this one is overdue, because quite frankly, a city its size, where as much business is conducted as there is conducted in LA, should have a decent CBD.

Tokyo has what...12 million people in it? LA has 4 million. Of course Tokyo is taller than LA.

Los Angeles is a big village. That's it.

Tokyo has what...12 million people in it? LA has 4 million. Of course Tokyo is taller than LA.

Uh...well it doesn't work like that and (actually) L.A. is taller than Tokyo (for a little while longer anyway) if you don't consider monuments or transmission towers of one form or another .
Tokyo is actually the biggest city on Earth . By a certain logic , it should follow that Tokyo also has the greatest skyline on Earth . It's really about economics and for both Tokyo and L.A. actually , seismic considerations.

Anyway , the point of this is to simply point out that the size of the city has virtually no bearing whatsoever on how tall (or even densely) its skyline ends up being . The greatest example of this today would be Dubai . Tallest buildings on the planet and about the same size as Las Vegas . Of course , of that population , most people are foreign nationals which , in a way , makes Dubai considerably smaller even than most people realize . If the economy tanked across the globe (a global depression) Dubai would probably be cut in half within a couple of years . Eventually it might recover but it's impossible to say . But that's the point ... the economics of Dubai only work because it has money to throw away . Some of that money that gets "thrown away" ends up funding dream projects that are designed to make economic sense years from now . It's a giant risk ... not a sound economic investment from a conventional standpoint . It's working but it's also very fragile .

L.A. has a much more mature economy and a plurality of developers competing with each other . That means that there is no single pool of money under the control of just one person who can funnel it all into dream projects . It gets left up to the individual developers and they dream on a much smaller scale than the government Dubai . For them , every project has to make a return in a much shorter period of time than what Dubai is banking on . That , basically , makes super towers unlikely .

You first say this:



and than back it up with these pictures as an example to back up your story?.....rofl




the only one we could consider a 'skyline' is this one:




So, once again, LA has a good looking, but relatively small downtown skyline, wich is growing very slow, either so when you don't compare it with other big cities.

Unlike New York or Chicago, LA developed various building centers, so if you're looking for a concentrated Downtown, LA isn't it. Downtown LA still is the "main" one, but you'd have to consider LA's nature.

Just the Wilshire Corridor has enough buildings to rival any other mid-city.



Century City, was developed as a "Downtown West" for folks living in the westside. And yes, it is still LA City.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/342896371_550b476c5b_b.jpg


Century City with Downtown LA in the backround.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u263/jessemh431/CCandDT.jpg


Wilshire Blvd Corridor.

http://www.heliphoto.net/i/Wilshire_Blvd_Westwood_stockart.jpg

Looking West...

http://www.wildnatureimages.com/search/gallery/photos_4/060308-105.jpg

I guess if we combined all of these centers it would be a formidable downtown, but for now, yes, LA's Downtown has some growing to do. We didn't get going till the mid 60's, others have had a lifetime to develope their downtowns.

To clarify my point, droneriot, I didn't mean to suggest that LA's skyline is not smaller than equivalently sized cities, nor that it ought to be. I think LA ought to have tens of thousands of high-rises, so we can keep some of that increasingly rare open space out here in the Inland Empire. Anytime I see a skyscraper proposal of any sort, anywhere in Southern California, I'm happy. Also, people tend to forget that there is still a considerable amount of office and residential space (old though it may be) in the low-rise Historic Core, and the fact that LA already has the largest concentration of government buildings in the US outside of DC, in its civic center. I suspect that these factors make new skyscrapers somewhat less necessary. I do think that replacing this aging hotel with a pair of far more voluminous and technologically advanced high-rises is a nice idea all around, regardless of what we think of the design.

(Also, I did think about Tokyo... I suspect that its bigger skyline can probably be explained by historic cultural and economic differences between the US and Japan over the last 50 years, plus, Tokyo's more advanced mass transit system and its higher degree of decentralization probably just make skyscrapers more economically feasible in more parts of the city.)

The best part of the LA skyline is it size. Compact and beautiful, please don't change, Oh wonderful skyline.

Is this is a serious proposal? If so I cant wait! :D

I think we all remember the San Fransisco Transbay Area Towers? Lets not have this one go that route :)

^It is, and amen.

http://www.wilshiresquare.com/

Here is the new website for the project...

From SSP

Here are a couple of pics I found from the meeting that took place on the Wilshire Grand project. The model really shows the soaring height of the towers and how much they will impact the skyline. Its more accurate of the height of the towers than the previously seen models. One weird part, it looks like the helipad on the roof is perched on some kind of narrow pylon that overhangs the side of the tower. Different.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs604.ash2/155645_140606819326320_104762176244118_213675_5630385_n.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs600.ash2/155232_140606992659636_104762176244118_213683_7658182_n.jpg

Man, that tower is going to be massive in so many ways. i cant wait.

Is there some kind of boom in LA, I don't know about?

Wait I forget. how far are the two skylines?

Is there some kind of boom in LA, I don't know about?

Wait I forget. how far are the two skylines?


There are so many things you don't know about King! ;)

No there's not to much, I don't know about. So I guest there isn't any boom to bad.

this is not the kind of project that will revive downtown LA. Unless the base creates all kinds of sunny, sheltered spaces for people hang out in and drink and shop and live, then it will just add to the deathliness of downtown LA. This will look ace from far away. or from a helicopter, but at the human scale, its just going to be horrible.

I just love how the renders show thousands of happy people hanging out in the landscaping at the bottom of the tower, drinking lattes and buying flowers.... its gonna be windy and dark down there, next to a road... who in their right mind is going to want to sit there. I hate renders

http://gehlarchitects.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/gehl-architects-in-los-angeles/

http://gehlarchitects.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/jan-gehl-speaking-in-london/

Its talle then US bank tower i think so the spire isnt that tall.

A spire, and a helipad? Bad combo.

^Having a spire and a helipad works alright on the Burj-al-Arab...

I just love how the renders show thousands of happy people hanging out in the landscaping at the bottom of the tower, drinking lattes and buying flowers.... its gonna be windy and dark down there, next to a road... who in their right mind is going to want to sit there. I hate renders

Clearly you don't know enough about what's going on downtown to say that. Almost every skyscraper downtown has some sort of retail on the bottom (be it a restaraunt or whatever else). Besides which, this will be smack in the middle of the financial district so there will be people running around all the time. And, as evident by LA Live, large scale projects have a radius effect that pretty much force other buildings around it to upgrade.

Unlike New York or Chicago, LA developed various building centers, so if you're looking for a concentrated Downtown, LA isn't it. Downtown LA still is the "main" one, but you'd have to consider LA's nature.

Just the Wilshire Corridor has enough buildings to rival any other mid-city.


But even in NY it's downtown or CBDs aren't actually centralized. You have Financial District and Midtown Manhattan plus Downtown Brooklyn and Jersey City.

I have mixed feeling with this tower. For one, doe LA need another supertall? The US Bank Tower is already iconic enough to be the tallest building in the city.

Design-wise, this one looks inferior compared to the current tallest.

Its talle then US bank tower i think so the spire isnt that tall.

It is taller then BOA

A spire, and a helipad? Bad combo.

Better keep the Goodyear Blimp away lol

But even in NY it's downtown or CBDs aren't actually centralized. You have Financial District and Midtown Manhattan plus Downtown Brooklyn and Jersey City.

Technically, that's correct, but it's sort of just a geographical accident that they are. Midtown and Lower Manhattan are separated mostly because the underlying bedrock in the low-rise area between them is so much further under the surface, that it makes skyscraper foundations more challenging and expensive. Jersey City and Downtown Brooklyn, however, are just across the water from Lower Manhattan, so they're as close as possible. Los Angeles is still a significantly different style of city, outside of Downtown itself.

I have mixed feeling with this tower. For one, doe LA need another supertall? The US Bank Tower is already iconic enough to be the tallest building in the city.

What's wrong with having more supertalls? Again, look at New York: The Empire State Building was "iconic enough" to be the tallest building forever, and now it's about to be surpassed again. Look how Comcast Center surpassed Liberty Place in Philadelphia. Look how Shanghai Centre is about to exceed the already enormous Shanghai WFC, just as SWFC passed up Jin Mao Tower. What about when Library Tower passed up AON Center? When LA City hall was first overtopped in the mid-60's after over 30 years as the tallest building in California? I think it's good to let the present architecture exceed the heights and technologies of the past. It's just progress. I can't wait to learn how this proposal is going to be engineered for the potential seismic stresses!

Design-wise, this one looks inferior compared to the current tallest.

You may have a valid point here. I do think that this proposal is really awesome, but Library Tower is always going to be our Chrysler Building.

I was thinking more Woolworth then Chryslar. But either one is good.

CurbedLA (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/03/the_ac_martindesigned_wilshire_grand.php)


Wilshire Grand Cleared for More Wattage, Tower Lights
Tuesday, March 1, 2011, by Dakota Smith

http://cdn.cstatic.net/cache/gallery/5041/5259451033_c5fa9b49eb_o.jpg

Get out your sunglasses because the AC Martin-designed Wilshire Grand office and hotel project—and the downtown skyline—just got brighter. Rejecting the sign-lite recommendation made by the Planning Commission late last year, today the Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved architectural lighting on the 45-story and 65-story towers of the building, and approved larger digital signs on the bottom of the project.

The move by the Committee restores some of digital signage originally sought by Thomas Properties/Hanjin International, which is developing the project at Wilshire Boulevard and Figueroa Street, replacing the existing hotel with this new office and hotel project.

In explaining why the Committee chose to restore the architectural lighting--defined as LED lights, but no advertising--rather than follow the Planning Commission's recommendations, City Councilman Ed Reyes, who chairs the Planning and Land Use Management Committee, said the lighting would “add character to the skyline," and show off the outline of the building. "It will be artistic in nature," said Reyes.

Brookfield Properties may still have some issues with those lights.

To some watching today’s approval, there's little understanding about what the architectural lighting will look like. The renderings in the EIR show the requested LED signage area--originally, Thomas Properties/Hanjin sought digital advertising on the towers, a move which was shot down by the city--but renderings don't show the recently approved architectural lighting, which will rise on the upper part of the towers.

“The building is going to be changing colors and at different rates and different times," said Dennis Hathaway, who runs the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight. “There should be a simulation, there should be a model." The Planning and Land Use Management Committee, he added, "was remiss in its obligation" to the public by approving the project without calling for more explanation of what the lighting will look like.

Neighboring property owners have also expressed concerns about the project. Specifically, Brookfield Properties, which appealed the Planning Commission project’s decision, continues to contest the signage of the project, saying the brightness of the signs will affect the ability to lease out their neighboring commercial properties.

As recently as yesterday, Brookfield submitted documents to the city showing comparative candela levels of various signage in the downtown area, and expressing their own preference for the candela levels on the project. Attorneys for Brookfield Properties present at today's meeting refused to comment after the vote.

But clearing another obstacle of opposition, a deal is close to being reached with the owner of 1000 Wilshire, the Wedbush building, and another neighbor that had expressed concerns about the development. Attorney Ben Reznick, who represents 1000 Wilshire, said a "handshake" deal with the developer over traffic mitigation issues had been reached.

Following today's vote, the City Council will consider the Wilshire Grand hotel by March 9th. Developer Thomas Properties/Korean Air want to start demoing the existing hotel by the end of the year, a deadline that City Councilwoman Jan Perry, who represents this part of downtown, has tried to help the developer reach. Perry appeared at today's meeting, urging the Committee to approve the development, as well as the architectural lighting.

And today's approval wasn't just for the building, but a new sign district as well, one likely to grow bigger.

As part of the development agreement with the city, the developer will put $400,000 toward the study of new sign district--the Figueroa Corridor Supplemental Use District--that will extend from Wilshire Boulevard to LA Live. “[The Wilshire Grand] could be viewed as one of the anchors of a proposed sign district, LA Live being another anchor,” Reyes told planning staff during the meeting.

“The building is going to be changing colors and at different rates and different times,"

Like this? Duke Energy Voltron! in Charlotte

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tplx2CIuHfc

my sis lives near here..

Oficial Site.

http://www.wilshiresquare.com/index.shtml
Here is a website of this project.. Really nice and had some nice videos of it

Nice! Thanks Kenni

Love both towers! It would be great additional to LA skyline! :)

I actualy think LA's skyline is okay but I didn't realize it had so many highrises in other areas. But LA's downtown dould look even better with this tower it looks pretty damn good.

I actualy think LA's skyline is okay but I didn't realize it had so many highrises in other areas. But LA's downtown dould look even better with this tower it looks pretty damn good.

Yup, if we combined all the high rises in the city in Downtown it would be a formidable skyline.

THE AC MARTIN DESIGNED WILSHIRE GRAND PROJECT IS HALFWAY THERE - CURBEDLA . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/2011_wilshiregrandok.jpg ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVAL FOR 1 BILLION DOWNTOWN PROJECT . A proposal for a $1-billion hotel development in downtown Los Angeles passed a major hurdle Wednesday when the City Council signed off on the project’s massive environmental impact report.

The council unanimously granted a series of entitlements for the proposed 560 room Wilshire Grand Hotel, including permission to sell alcohol at 21 restaurants, bars and other venues, installation of a rooftop helicopter landing pad and a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 2,375 to 1,900.

Korean Air, the developer of the project, plans to demolish the existing hotel at Wilshire Boulevard and Figueroa Street and replace it with two towers, a 65 story hotel with residences and a 45-story office building.

Wednesday’s vote paves the way for a flurry of other decisions on the project March 29, when council members are scheduled to consider a proposed tax rebate for the hotel and a development agreement for the entire site.

The council must also decide whether to create a sign district to allow various forms of digital advertising. . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/742651.jpg . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/wilshire_grand_01.jpg LOSANGELESTIMES

That is great news. Is there any opposition against this project? :)

Awesome! I can't wait to see this one start. LA could use a new tallest skyscraper.

awesome, at first I wasn't too keen on the design but it's grown on me

it's a beautiful tower, and it's great for LA to have another super tall building, but it will be weird to see a skyscraper much taller than library tower.

it's a beautiful tower, and it's great for LA to have another super tall building, but it will be weird to see a skyscraper much taller than library tower.

It shouldn't appear too much taller than the library tower. The highest couple hundred feet are just a spire, so it won't have a huge impact.

App! :)

And now the tallest buildings in America shake with excitment, for they will soon have another member upon them... :)

Does this project have finance?

Does this project have finance?

Korean Airlines.

i thought the shorter tower was to be hotel-only?

i thought the shorter tower was to be hotel-only?

The smaller tower will be an office building.

Well, since this is approved, looks like I'll have to get some keepsake shots of Los Angeles before this is built. I like this building, I really do. I just prefer the elegant, almost intimidating presence of Library Tower as tallest instead. Still, congratulations, LA!

The smaller tower will be an office building.

Well, what will the taller tower be? I'm starting to hate this project.

Hey Jim856796, where exactly are you from?

Hey Jim856796, where exactly are you from?

i would like to know that too

Hey Jim856796, where exactly are you from?

hahah, here you go "Classified, I don't want to be asked or answer where I am from ever, so do not ask me such questions"

Well, what will the taller tower be? I'm starting to hate this project.

I'm sorry. It's the other way around. The Tall one is the office building and the short one will be a Hotel/Condo combination.

http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/11446_5_ACMP_Wilshire%20Grand%20Model03_for%20web.jpg

I'm starting to hate smaller hotels. I hope LA ends up getting a taller building than this (1,450 ft) after the Wilshire Grand building gets completed.

Beautiful design! Will this be LA's tallest? Any updates as to when construction will begin?

Yes with the pinneacle not from me.....

What does that mean.. ''not from me'' ?

What does that mean.. ''not from me'' ?

Couldnt find news or updates about this tower:)

Right..

It's kinda hard to understand your english this way. You should probably use punctuation and capital letters to make yourself a little bit more understandable.

I really like the design.

I really like the design.

yeah, me too!.. to be honest, i prefer the library tower as the tallest, but it have more than 20 years being the tallest on the west coast, so she needs some competition ;)

yeah, me too!.. to be honest, i prefer the library tower as the tallest, but it have more than 20 years being the tallest on the west coast, so she needs some competition ;)

I love the US Bank Building aka Library Tower, and it will always have a special spot in Agelenos tickers. But it's time to move on and expand, this complex will for ever change the dynamics of Downtown Los Angeles.

OMG... it is beautiful ... but it seems like BofA and it's owners are putting their stamps on every city on this planet that does count, are they making a statement? or is it a sign?

I don't know, but I love this one for sure and visiting LA from time to time, being it my most favorite city across North America, I really want to see this one being built.

^^I don't believe BofA has anything to do with this building.

I love the US Bank Building aka Library Tower, and it will always have a special spot in Agelenos tickers. But it's time to move on and expand, this complex will for ever change the dynamics of Downtown Los Angeles.

totally agree with you!. :cheers:

It shouldn't appear too much taller than the library tower. The highest couple hundred feet are just a spire, so it won't have a huge impact.

I'm not really sure about this statement. Not many people realize that downtown LA is quite hilly. Not only that but when it was redeveloped in the 70's, Bunker Hill (where a majority of DTLA's skyscrapers are built) was chopped in weird ways. Which is why Grand Ave is a VERY long and VERY steep hill and the next block over (Hill Street I want to say) is nice and level.

Cal Plaza 2 is the third tallest building in LA but due to it's position on Bunker Hill, appears nearly level with the US Bank Tower despite it being about 200 feet shorter.

http://www.cvent.com/en/destination-guide/los-angeles/images/los-angeles-downtown.jpg

Wilshire Grand sits at the base of a long sloping hill so depending on how you look at it, the redevelopment could appear to TOWER over US Bank or be just a few feet taller.

I'm not really sure about this statement. Not many people realize that downtown LA is quite hilly. Not only that but when it was redeveloped in the 70's, Bunker Hill (where a majority of DTLA's skyscrapers are built) was chopped in weird ways. Which is why Grand Ave is a VERY long and VERY steep hill and the next block over (Hill Street I want to say) is nice and level.

Cal Plaza 2 is the third tallest building in LA but due to it's position on Bunker Hill, appears nearly level with the US Bank Tower despite it being about 200 feet shorter.

Wilshire Grand sits at the base of a long sloping hill so depending on how you look at it, the redevelopment could appear to TOWER over US Bank or be just a few feet taller.

Sure Cal Plaza 2 appears nearly level with the US bank tower when you are standing on Bunker hill, but from a distance it does not look anywhere close.

The location of the Wilshire Grand is actually lower in elevation than that of US bank which only adds to my statement that it will not appear much taller than US bank.

Looks like 20m shoter as the us bank tower.

From Curbed LA:

http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2011.newrenderingwg.jpg

Story updated, 9:48 pm: Less than a week before the City Council is scheduled to vote on the Wilshire Grand hotel and office project, developer Hanjin/Thomas Properties released a rendering showing the nebulous-sounding "architectural lighting," the changing, LED lights planned for the upper portion of the two-tower skyscraper. According to Alix Wisner, project manager for the developer Thomas Properties, the release of the rendering, sent to reporters earlier this week, comes in response to questions from the media about what the architectural lighting will look like. The rendering was also released because of issues raised at last December's Planning Commission meeting (commissioners were stumped by how the architectural lighting would work, and rejected it (a decision that was later overturned).

For now, the "flowering vines" image seen on this rendering, is "just a concept," said Wisner. Yes, the upper part of towers are tentatively cleared for LED images (no logos, text, or advertising are allowed), but nothing is finalized in terms of a design. Might the Wilshire Grand get Stay Puft Marshmallow Man? Lightning bolts? Baby polar bears? Beyond promising that the images would be "artistic," Wisner couldn't say. “The technology is developing so quickly," she said, adding that decisions on graphics and imagery will come later, as will decisions on how the large digital advertising "skin" will play out on the bottom of the skyscraper (one inspiration for the lower advertisements is the Chanel building in Tokyo, says Wisner, but the ad on the Wilshire Grand would be less dense due to the larger spacing of the lights).

I cant decide if I like the design or not.. It looks good in some renders and bad in others. The SSP Diagram looks terrible. I do know that I like how it is the same height as the ESB :D

Another super-tall would be a nice addition to the LA skyline, hope that this will spice up the areas around downtown; it is time for an upgrade.

But imo, this project will be no where as iconic as the Library Tower.

Council OKs elaborate digital light zone at Wilshire Grand
The rebuilt 45-story Wilshire Grand Hotel and 65-story office tower can have digital ads, scrolling text and non-commercial graphics that the developer says are 'the wave of the future' and a councilman calls 'art.'

By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times
March 29, 2011, 7:15 p.m.

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday approved an elaborate package of new flashing signs, illuminated graphics and moving text for two planned downtown skyscrapers, ignoring critics who warned that such brightly lighted images would degrade the look of the city.

On a 12-0 vote, the council unanimously created a new one-block sign district for the planned 45-story rebuilding of the Wilshire Grand Hotel and accompanying 65-story office tower.

That district will allow various kinds of digital advertising on the first 10 floors of the two towers. The tops of the two skyscrapers will feature digital signs promoting the buildings' owner and major tenants. And on dozens of stories in between, LED lights would display noncommercial images such as flowers and vines that would fade in and out.

Councilman Ed Reyes praised the "architectural lighting" on the upper floors, saying it should not be confused with other brightly lighted billboards. "It is art. And I believe it adds more culture" to Los Angeles, he said.

Added Councilman Dennis Zine: "I am amazed at how anyone could be opposed to this."

The sign district is the first approved since the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the city's ban on new billboards last year. That law allows sections of the city to be carved out as exceptions to the ban.

Councilman Bill Rosendahl initially cast an opposing vote, saying the city should have found a way to share in the financial proceeds of the new digital advertising. But he essentially rescinded it minutes later to speed the project's approval. The council had already agreed to give developer Korean Air and its subsidiary, Hanjin International Corp., a tax break of up to $79 million for the two towers over the next 25 years. On Tuesday, council members also agreed to sell the developers more than $25 million in "floor area rights," which will allow the proposed office tower to be taller than the zoning allows.

Union members who packed the council chamber praised the hotel proposal, saying it would create roughly 7,300 construction jobs at a time of high unemployment. "This project is going to bring a lot of hope to a lot of members in our community," said David Kersh, spokesman for the Carpenters Contractors Cooperation Committee, a construction trade group.

Opponents of the sign district said they did not oppose the hotel's redevelopment, but argued that new flashing signs would barrage the public and, in some cases, distract motorists. "Digital billboards do not solve the unemployment in the city. Digital billboards will not increase tourism in our city," said Marina del Rey resident Jan Book, who voiced exasperation with the digital signs near her home.

The Wilshire Grand sign district is so complicated that it is divided into four vertical levels and three geographic subsections. Some lighted signs will change every eight seconds, others every four minutes. Still others will feature scrolling text.

The hotel proposal was backed enthusiastically by Councilwoman Jan Perry, a 2013 mayoral candidate who pushed hard for approval of the signs and images sought by Korean Air and its partner, Thomas Properties Group.

Perry persuaded her colleagues to double the size of the scrolling news ribbons that would be displayed on the first three floors of the towers. She and her colleagues tripled the amount of signage allowed by the Planning Commission, from 7,100 square feet to 30,900 square feet, between the fourth and 10th floors.

Perry also won approval of the noncommercial architectural lighting on the upper floors that had been opposed by the Planning Commission. Without those lights, the hotel would quickly become "dated," said Jim Thomas, chief executive of Thomas Properties Group.

"The signs we are talking about are the wave of the future," he said. "There will be no major building built in the future that does not take advantage of this new technology."

The smaller tower will be an office building.



no the smaller tower is the hotel and the taller one is the office building.

they will start demolishing the current hotel by the end of the year. the goal is to have the hotel completed by 2015 and the office tower by 2017.

Thats great news i like that caint of things. Only the 10 lowest floor is disappointing.

I wonder if this could lead to more skyscraper being retrofitted for lighting shows.

no the smaller tower is the hotel and the taller one is the office building.

they will start demolishing the current hotel by the end of the year. the goal is to have the hotel completed by 2015 and the office tower by 2017.

Yup, quick brain lapse. I Corrected myself right after.

I'm sorry. It's the other way around. The Tall one is the office building and the short one will be a Hotel/Condo combination.

http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/11446_5_ACMP_Wilshire%20Grand%20Model03_for%20web.jpg

I like how this is going to be really close to the freeway, and its going to light up. This is going to make LA look pretty impressive

How tall is the roof?

Does any one have renders of this view with the new building?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4110/4997638153_e133718d8c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/eric5dmark2/4997638153/)city of angels (http://www.flickr.com/photos/eric5dmark2/4997638153/) by Eric 5D Mark II (http://www.flickr.com/people/eric5dmark2/), on Flickr

Council OKs elaborate digital light zone at Wilshire Grand
The rebuilt 45-story Wilshire Grand Hotel and 65-story office tower can have digital ads, scrolling text and non-commercial graphics that the developer says are 'the wave of the future' and a councilman calls 'art.'

By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times
March 29, 2011, 7:15 p.m.

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday approved an elaborate package of new flashing signs, illuminated graphics and moving text for two planned downtown skyscrapers, ignoring critics who warned that such brightly lighted images would degrade the look of the city.

On a 12-0 vote, the council unanimously created a new one-block sign district for the planned 45-story rebuilding of the Wilshire Grand Hotel and accompanying 65-story office tower.

That district will allow various kinds of digital advertising on the first 10 floors of the two towers. The tops of the two skyscrapers will feature digital signs promoting the buildings' owner and major tenants. And on dozens of stories in between, LED lights would display noncommercial images such as flowers and vines that would fade in and out.

Councilman Ed Reyes praised the "architectural lighting" on the upper floors, saying it should not be confused with other brightly lighted billboards. "It is art. And I believe it adds more culture" to Los Angeles, he said.

Added Councilman Dennis Zine: "I am amazed at how anyone could be opposed to this."

The sign district is the first approved since the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the city's ban on new billboards last year. That law allows sections of the city to be carved out as exceptions to the ban.

Councilman Bill Rosendahl initially cast an opposing vote, saying the city should have found a way to share in the financial proceeds of the new digital advertising. But he essentially rescinded it minutes later to speed the project's approval. The council had already agreed to give developer Korean Air and its subsidiary, Hanjin International Corp., a tax break of up to $79 million for the two towers over the next 25 years. On Tuesday, council members also agreed to sell the developers more than $25 million in "floor area rights," which will allow the proposed office tower to be taller than the zoning allows.

Union members who packed the council chamber praised the hotel proposal, saying it would create roughly 7,300 construction jobs at a time of high unemployment. "This project is going to bring a lot of hope to a lot of members in our community," said David Kersh, spokesman for the Carpenters Contractors Cooperation Committee, a construction trade group.

Opponents of the sign district said they did not oppose the hotel's redevelopment, but argued that new flashing signs would barrage the public and, in some cases, distract motorists. "Digital billboards do not solve the unemployment in the city. Digital billboards will not increase tourism in our city," said Marina del Rey resident Jan Book, who voiced exasperation with the digital signs near her home.

The Wilshire Grand sign district is so complicated that it is divided into four vertical levels and three geographic subsections. Some lighted signs will change every eight seconds, others every four minutes. Still others will feature scrolling text.

The hotel proposal was backed enthusiastically by Councilwoman Jan Perry, a 2013 mayoral candidate who pushed hard for approval of the signs and images sought by Korean Air and its partner, Thomas Properties Group.

Perry persuaded her colleagues to double the size of the scrolling news ribbons that would be displayed on the first three floors of the towers. She and her colleagues tripled the amount of signage allowed by the Planning Commission, from 7,100 square feet to 30,900 square feet, between the fourth and 10th floors.

Perry also won approval of the noncommercial architectural lighting on the upper floors that had been opposed by the Planning Commission. Without those lights, the hotel would quickly become "dated," said Jim Thomas, chief executive of Thomas Properties Group.

"The signs we are talking about are the wave of the future," he said. "There will be no major building built in the future that does not take advantage of this new technology."

Very very very interesting, it will be an instant landmark due to things like that. If it were being built in Europe, the speech would be exactly the opposite, waving the flag of economy and environment.

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742651.jpg
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742752.jpg
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742754.jpg
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742756.jpg
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18598/742757.jpg

This is going to completely change the skyline!

Sweet renders. I'm really excited for this one to take off!

yay skyscrapers in surbrbia.:banana:i will put this in sim city 5 as la tower.

Suburbia?

Yea in a suburb of la. not really.

This is separate from the main tall cluster right? I hope future projects if possible stretch the skyline out a bit, america's second city deserves more! :)

Yes it is. It will come

This is separate from the main tall cluster right? I hope future projects if possible stretch the skyline out a bit, america's second city deserves more! :)

Not at all. This is the site.

http://www.developerimplode.com/images/Wilshire-Grand-450.jpg

If anything, it pushes the skyline a bit to the west.

I am starting to worry as not much news is coming out, I really hope that this won't be another dead skyscraper project from LA.

lol it got approved two weeks ago, how fast do you want them to move? demolition starts in december

Just put a "Yard Sale" sign on that building and that thing will be gone in no time.

beutiful tower, but it's too close to the other main tower.

anyway I hope you can build it and stop sprawl!(if ain't stopped yet)

beutiful tower, but it's too close to the other main tower.

anyway I hope you can build it and stop sprawl!(if ain't stopped yet)

I think sprawl in LA has stopped (or drastically slowed down). We are starting to build up not out.

Keep in mind that DTLA has this tendency to change. And by change I mean DRAMATICALLY ALTER IT'S GEOGRAPHY. I'm glad DTLA looks the way it does NOW as opposed to the nuclear aftermath it resembeled during the 1960's and 1970's. Literally it looked like a bomb hit it.

1956
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/whit-m427/DW-C1-11-6-ISLA?v=hr

1959
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/whit-m309/DW-1C-1-6-ISLA?v=hr

1962
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/whit-m239/DW-22-1-2-ISLA?v=hr

1964
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/whit-m235/DW-412-115-42-ISLA?v=hr

1971
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/whit-m359/DW-110-14-1-ISLA?v=hr

1959 (top) 1986 (bottom) Note the streetlamps
http://helios.library.ca.gov/soca/reagh/1990-1510.jpg
http://helios.library.ca.gov/soca/reagh/1990-1511.jpg

1965 (top) 1988 (bottom)
http://helios.library.ca.gov/soca/reagh/1990-1380.jpg
http://helios.library.ca.gov/soca/reagh/1990-1381.jpg

1967 (top) 1989 (bottom)
http://helios.library.ca.gov/soca/reagh/1990-1292.jpg
http://helios.library.ca.gov/soca/reagh/1990-1395.jpg

Oh, thanks for the correction guys. So it'll join the main cluster hm? That's pretty cool. It's hard to think of LA's skyline any different from how it currently is- the 310 meter tower is almost a centrepiece, completing the skyline, so it will be interesting to see how this changes things.

Yeah. It'll rise between these two buildings.

Figueroa @ Wilshire to the north (tall building looming behind the Wilshire Grand Hotel which will be destroyed).
http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/large/a2ed90c7-ee5a-4786-9c02-293566193525.jpg

Ernst & Young Plaza across the street to the south. You can barely see Wilshire Grand peeking in the corner.
http://skyscraperphotos.com/photos/00181.jpg

Oh my gosh, ... OMG!!!! WOW WOW WOW WOW ...

Soup or Man, you are amazing ... I truly deeply much enjoyed watching these old pics of my most most most most fave city on this planet, the beautiful city of Los Angeles.

For those of you who don't know me, I have been travelling to many cities and places across Europe and also visit US and Canada from time to time, my fave cities in USA are Chicago and Los Angeles, and also NYC, but sure the number for me, is LA!

ONLY LA!

my best friend ever lives in LA and it is the only city that you can really feel free! be free, be beautiful and be happy even when you work hard! That city truly lives!

I can say that NYC "survives" but not "lives", but Los Angeles, has a soul, has a certain fun spirit that lives in and through all its citizens and I 've witnessed that many times being an outsider.

I love Los Angeles and its charm, even its super busy highways are charming! I shall not say: see Napels and die, but I shall say See Los Angeles and die!

Thank you so much for sharing these amazing pics and wow ... love these kind of pics and from a beautiful past. California may be bankrupt, but Los Angeles shall always live on and move on!

I know that.

Big hugs to all Los Angelesers! ;)

p.s.: Los Angeles's skyline is truly one that is so unique nobody can copy!

As unique and pretty as Paris is, so is Los Angeles!

Unfortunately, sprawl in LA haven't been stopped yet... There are still many suburban developments in Orange, Riverside, and Ventura countries going on by now. Last time I heard that they're on recovery and few cities in Ventura country just approved few proposed huge developments (more than a couple thousands of new homes plus some new strip malls).

Unfortunately, sprawl in LA haven't been stopped yet... There are still many suburban developments in Orange, Riverside, and Ventura countries going on by now. Last time I heard that they're on recovery and few cities in Ventura country just approved few proposed huge developments (more than a couple thousands of new homes plus some new strip malls).

Those are in Orange, Riverside, and Ventura Counties. Not LA County. And even then a few of those cities are trying to improve their own downtowns. Downtown Riverside, the Platinum Triangle in Anaheim (the area between Honda Center and Angel Stadium) and a few other areas are starting to build upward. Not skyscrapers mind you but more high density.

But in LA, for the most part, sprawl has slowed down. Probably because there is no more room to grow out. Unlike other sprawly cities like Houston (which is almost exactly like Los Angeles in many many ways), LA has natural boundries (mountains, and the ocean). Aside from cities in the High Desert like Lancaster and Palmdale, sprawl has indeed dramatically slowed down.

^^ But saying that sprawl has stopped in LA county itself isn't saying much. LA county has been mostly built up for a while. The surrounding counties are part and parcel of greater LA, and that's where one would expect sprawl...on edges of the metropolitan area. That having been said, the current recession has likely put the brakes on the pace of sprawl. But that's likely to be temporary.

Any news or updates on this project?

Still on track to start destruction of the Wilshire Grand Hotel in the fall.

Soup, as another Angelino, I'd like to hear what you think this project is going to do to auto traffic Downtown by the time construction tops out in 2015. Don't you think attracting new tenants and tourists on that sort of scale to the general LA Live area is just going to make the city's already infamous congestion problems even worse? I mean... I'm all for vertical construction in LA, and this particular design is gorgeous, plus the sprawl is getting heinous. But convincing the entire basin and its suburbs to start using alternative transportation en masse to get about town seems unrealistic, no?

It will be nice to watch some demo/clean up/excavation/build in the city of Angels!!

Soup, as another Angelino, I'd like to hear what you think this project is going to do to auto traffic Downtown by the time construction tops out in 2015. Don't you think attracting new tenants and tourists on that sort of scale to the general LA Live area is just going to make the city's already infamous congestion problems even worse? I mean... I'm all for vertical construction in LA, and this particular design is gorgeous, plus the sprawl is getting heinous. But convincing the entire basin and its suburbs to start using alternative transportation en masse to get about town seems unrealistic, no?

the one area ready to handle these types of buildings and development is downtown. I live in downtown and let me be the first to tell you that the traffic is not as bad as its made out to be. the main reason for congestion on the 110 freeway is the 101 connector. anyways, auto traffic has not increased in the last 20 years. wanna know why? cause thats when the metro started to operate. there are 350,000 boardings a day and the number is only going up. Bring it on and plenty more projects like this all over Downtown LA.

also, LA stopped sprawling long ago. Now, if you are including the Inland Empire as LA, then i see what you mean, but that is a different county altogether. Last point i would like to make... traffic is not a bad thing. all major cities have traffic and what it means is that there is demand for that area.

Soup, as another Angelino, I'd like to hear what you think this project is going to do to auto traffic Downtown by the time construction tops out in 2015. Don't you think attracting new tenants and tourists on that sort of scale to the general LA Live area is just going to make the city's already infamous congestion problems even worse? I mean... I'm all for vertical construction in LA, and this particular design is gorgeous, plus the sprawl is getting heinous. But convincing the entire basin and its suburbs to start using alternative transportation en masse to get about town seems unrealistic, no?

Not really. I mean LA Live is connected to the Blue Line which will also be connected with the Expo Line. Then of course is the 7th and Metro Station which is right across from the Wilshire Grand so I don't see a problem with people getting in and out of downtown. The only time when downtown is ever fully congested is during events at Staples/LA Live and people will adapt.

also, LA stopped sprawling long ago. Now, if you are including the Inland Empire as LA, then i see what you mean, but that is a different county altogether. Last point i would like to make... traffic is not a bad thing. all major cities have traffic and what it means is that there is demand for that area.

The only reason L.A. "stopped" sprawling was because it ran out of room . That's just dabbling in semantics really because the exact same thing is still going on today but now that it's outside of L.A. county we get this idea that the problem has somehow been solved . It hasn't . As long as any area in the I.E. continues to sprawl , L.A. continues to sprawl .

As for the effect of mass transit on L.A. traffic woes , the truth is that it's negligible . The peole who took the bus fifteen years ago are the same people taking the train today . It's not buses that make traffic unbearable , it's cars so other than making the bus system slightly less profitable , we've moved the costs to another public system . I'm not saying that it's a bad thing but you seriously can't make an argument that mass transit developments in L.A. have had any notable effect on traffic congestion . Remember , L.A. has NOT added significant amounts of office space to the downtown in twenty years . In other words , the real reason that traffic hasn't increased is because nothing has really changed .

Lastly , traffic congestion says nothing at all about how much demand there is in any given area . It tells you a lot about commuting patterns , destination points (what you're actually referring to) and transportation infrastructure deficiencies but little about demand . Traffic is fine to a point but you need to make a big distinction between pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic . Just because a hundred thousand people drive by a store doesn't mean even one of them will (or even can) stop in and buy something .

Now , how much will this development affect traffic ? It will of course have some effect but , for the time being at least , the impact would be relatively small. Should it spur further large-scale developments then things will change dramatically but by itself , it's unlikely to cause any serious changes .

also, LA stopped sprawling long ago. Now, if you are including the Inland Empire as LA, then i see what you mean, but that is a different county altogether. Last point i would like to make... traffic is not a bad thing. all major cities have traffic and what it means is that there is demand for that area.

The only reason L.A. "stopped" sprawling was because it ran out of room . That's just dabbling in semantics really because the exact same thing is still going on today but now that it's outside of L.A. county we get this idea that the problem has somehow been solved . It hasn't . As long as any area in the I.E. continues to sprawl , L.A. continues to sprawl .

As for the effect of mass transit on L.A. traffic woes , the truth is that it's negligible . The peole who took the bus fifteen years ago are the same people taking the train today . It's not buses that make traffic unbearable , it's cars so other than making the bus system slightly less profitable , we've moved the costs to another public system . I'm not saying that it's a bad thing but you seriously can't make an argument that mass transit developments in L.A. have had any notable effect on traffic congestion . Remember , L.A. has NOT added significant amounts of office space to the downtown in twenty years . In other words , the real reason that traffic hasn't increased is because nothing has really changed .

Lastly , traffic congestion says nothing at all about how much demand there is in any given area . It tells you a lot about commuting patterns , destination points (what you're actually referring to) and transportation infrastructure deficiencies but little about demand . Traffic is fine to a point but you need to make a big distinction between pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic . Just because a hundred thousand people drive by a store doesn't mean even one of them will (or even can) stop in and buy something .

Now , how much will this development affect traffic ? It will of course have some effect but , for the time being at least , the impact would be relatively small. Should it spur further large-scale developments then things will change dramatically but by itself , it's unlikely to cause any serious changes .

Ran out of room? You're kidding me right? I've seen countless proposals for buildings that are set and ready to go such as the sister hotel to LA Live and the Wilshire project with room for their projects. There are countless abandoned buildings that are just sitting there, could easily be demolished and be replaced, room isn't the issue, it's investors. Face it, LA's downtown isn't a New York, although it could be, all it takes is production and the increase of the downtown area.

Personally, I'm all for Farmers Field, it would bring thousands to downtown during match days and would bring a nice stadium in the skyline. I believe midtown should receive heavy production. It hardly has any skyscrapers. LA's downtown should be easily connectible with Century City. All it takes is a couple dozen towers and a nice wide Blvd to connect them.

Another thing, take a look at bunker hill, it has large spaces used for parking, a building could easily use that space, LA really needs to invest in underground parking structures.

Ran out of room? You're kidding me right? I've seen countless proposals for buildings that are set and ready to go such as the sister hotel to LA Live and the Wilshire project with room for their projects. There are countless abandoned buildings that are just sitting there, could easily be demolished and be replaced, room isn't the issue, it's investors. Face it, LA's downtown isn't a New York, although it could be, all it takes is production and the increase of the downtown area.



Of course I'm not kidding . Really , the question is why you would think that I was .
You're talking about adding density and developing brownfield sites . That's not the same as sprawl which is what I'm talking about (and should have been obvious from my post) There is nowhere else for L.A. proper to sprawl out to because it's already been developed .