Los Angeles Highrise Construction Trends

[rst22]

The last major highrise boom in LA was in the 1980's. Than during the 1990's few highrises were built. Despise a worse economy the last decade saw more hihgrise contruction than the 1990's. Last year 2010 about 3 highrises were constructed but the current year 2011 as far as I know there are no highrises under construction. What trends do you see in the next decade and are there any highrises planned to start next year in 2012?

[Mojeda101]

Ever heard of that one building that is going to be 1250 feet high that is going to be built next year?

Sarcasm obviously.

[milquetoast]

IS there going to be a 1250 foot tower built in 2012? Is there .......... is there .....?

[milquetoast]

Is there? (Now that's sarcasm.)

[Illithid Dude]

Well, one of the Wilshire Grand towers is 1250 feet...

[milquetoast]

... built I'm sure it will be built. Right?

Right?

This thread is about

construction trends

but the trends are economical first,

so we must take these factors of human

interest in the location and the economic factors into consideration.

.

Here's an optimistic video.

.

<iframe width="960" height="720" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S5eWYf367io" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

.

But, I haven't seen any confirmation on this structure yet

and I tend to believe others here when they say that the lessor of the two towers has the better chance.

[tanzirian]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

Ever heard of that one building that is going to be 1250 feet high that is going to be built next year?

Sarcasm obviously.

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Well, one of the Wilshire Grand towers is 1250 feet...

In case you guys don't know...only the shorter of the two towers is likely to begin construction in 2012. The 1250 footer won't be built until after the shorter one is complete, and won't be built unless economic conditions improve...in other words, there is at least a good chance it won't be built at all. Even if it is built, it wouldn't start until sometime after 2015 at the earliest.

Still, one tower is better than none, and I'm still hoping the shorter one does in fact go up. It won't add much height-wise to the skyline, but it will contribute to density.

[Mojeda101]

Originally Posted by tanzirian

In case you guys don't know...only the shorter of the two towers is likely to begin construction in 2012. The 1250 footer won't be built until after the shorter one is complete, and won't be built unless economic conditions improve...in other words, there is at least a good chance it won't be built at all. Even if it is built, it wouldn't start until sometime after 2015 at the earliest.

Still, one tower is better than none, and I'm still hoping the shorter one does in fact go up. It won't add much height-wise to the skyline, but it will contribute to density.

The shorter one...Will it still have that light show? When would it be slated for complete?

[tanzirian]

Originally Posted by Mojeda101

The shorter one...Will it still have that light show? When would it be slated for complete?

It's hard to say whether the shorter tower will have significant light effects. And, before we can say when it will be complete, we have to wait and see when (and if) construction begins. IF construction starts in 2012, then it's reasonable to expect completion around 2015 or 2016. There is, at least, one positive indication that the project is moving forward...the closure of the current Wilshire Grand hotel. The next step will be the demolition of the current hotel...so we'll just have to wait and see when that transpires.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by tanzirian

In case you guys don't know...only the shorter of the two towers is likely to begin construction in 2012. The 1250 footer won't be built until after the shorter one is complete, and won't be built unless economic conditions improve...in other words, there is at least a good chance it won't be built at all. Even if it is built, it wouldn't start until sometime after 2015 at the earliest.

Still, one tower is better than none, and I'm still hoping the shorter one does in fact go up. It won't add much height-wise to the skyline, but it will contribute to density.

Technically, the big tower could start at any time. 2012 is just as likely as 2015.

[tanzirian]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Technically, the big tower could start at any time. 2012 is just as likely as 2015.

A lot of things are likely to happen in 2012. According to the Mayans, the world is likely to come to an end. The big tower starting construction, equally likely.

[kubabh]

i don't think they gonne finish in 2012

[k25150]

The only place in the US that is putting up scrapers in NYC. That's where all the sideline money is. Once this statist administration is thrown out and economic, tax and over-regulation uncertainly is replaced by pro market, pro earning, pro development and pro investment psychology, the sideline money will flow to other cities. The new American era will commence.

[unmentioned]

Oh good God. Let's talk about just how many of DTLA's skyscrapers went up with significant public subsidies of multiple kinds (hint: a whole lot). Brush up on your history.

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by k25150

The only place in the US that is putting up scrapers in NYC. That's where all the sideline money is.

That's where all of the bailout money went in 2009.
It really helps, when your key industries fail completely,
to have Washington come in with over a Trillion of others
taxpayer dollars, and rescue them completely.

That was an event that can never be rectified unfortunately.

[milquetoast]

Here's a hint: Construction is huge in D.C. right now

[pesto]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

Here's a hint: Construction is huge in D.C. right now

And London and Berlin, etc.

The non-productive elites almost always take from the rest of the country.

[ParadiseLost]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

That's where all of the bailout money went in 2009.
It really helps, when your key industries fail completely,
to have Washington come in with over a Trillion of others
taxpayer dollars, and rescue them completely.

That was an event that can never be rectified unfortunately.

We already know what the alternative would have been, and that was Lehman brothers. We are still feeling the effects of that mistake today. The only problem is that Washington and the tea party nutters are too stupid to properly regulate Wall Street. That should have been their 'punishment' after the bailout, not that punishments is the goal of such a thing. It's to fix the moral hazard that is inherent in the guarantees the government HAS to make to the financial world as a result of the huge inherent systemic risk in the financial world.

[milquetoast]

Lovin' that Delft!
But I'm a big Vermeer fan!

[pesto]

Originally Posted by ParadiseLost

We already know what the alternative would have been, and that was Lehman brothers. We are still feeling the effects of that mistake today. The only problem is that Washington and the tea party nutters are too stupid to properly regulate Wall Street. That should have been their 'punishment' after the bailout, not that punishments is the goal of such a thing. It's to fix the moral hazard that is inherent in the guarantees the government HAS to make to the financial world as a result of the huge inherent systemic risk in the financial world.

This is fiction. The govt. doesn't have to do any of that: they desperately WANT to do it.

Did you notice that JPMorgan lost 2B and the govt. says the fix is to regulate more; the oil companies or banks make too much and the govt. says the right fix is to regulate more. I think even the most unsophisticated analyst can see that this just means "Keep the contributions to my campaign coming or we'll pour regulations and auditors on you 24/7."