daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 28th, 2016, 02:53 PM   #3401
Oasis-Bangkok
From Zero to Hero !!
 
Oasis-Bangkok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 15,702
Likes (Received): 50750



sand fire from los angeles freeway by Karol Franks, on Flickr



Griffith Observatory - Los Angeles by Michael Schaaf, on Flickr
__________________
Oasis-Bangkok no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 28th, 2016, 10:20 PM   #3402
immunology
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 11
Likes (Received): 11

I have to say that this is the most underwhelming "tallest building west of the Mississippi" I could have ever conceived. I can't believe it's topped out (minus the spire). I see the crown and every time on my way to work I think "THAT'S IT??? Why couldn't they make it at least 5 stories taller????" From the east and southeast it looks shorter than the Aon building! I guarantee you the US Bank Tower is STILL going to be the defining feature in the skyline.
immunology no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2016, 11:51 PM   #3403
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

Tallest building is a statement of fact, not of perception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by immunology View Post
I have to say that this is the most underwhelming "tallest building west of the Mississippi" I could have ever conceived. I can't believe it's topped out (minus the spire). I see the crown and every time on my way to work I think "THAT'S IT??? Why couldn't they make it at least 5 stories taller????" From the east and southeast it looks shorter than the Aon building! I guarantee you the US Bank Tower is STILL going to be the defining feature in the skyline.
__________________

aquaticko liked this post
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 03:07 AM   #3404
Amecurty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 278
Likes (Received): 241

I believe it will be a great looking building.. but yeah.. it could've been taller. Not talking about a spire extension xD..
The initial proposal height would've been amazing.. but oh well.. at least, as I said, it's going to look great.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Amecurty no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 03:23 AM   #3405
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,342
Likes (Received): 3588

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuwanda View Post
Tallest building is a statement of fact, not of perception.
Here's a fun hypothetical: Let's say you have two friends. One is 6'3" and bald. The other is 5'10" guy with an 8" mohawk. Which one do you consider taller?

If you said the 6'3" guy, why didn't you count the 8" mohawk in the other guy's total height? Hair is a part of the same organism as the guy it's growing out of, after all.

...see why some people don't consider this quite so cut and dried?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 03:37 AM   #3406
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

You're still talking about perception, not facts.

The mohawk will certainly affect your perception of who is taller, but it won't change the fact of who is taller. We don't measure a person's height to the top of their hairdo or from the bottom of their platform shoes. We arrive at the fact by applying a standard. The standard sane folks use to arrive at height is from the bottom of the unshod foot to the top of the head.

That from different angles or using different lengths of lens, one building is perceived to be taller than the other, doesn't change the fact that one actually is taller than the other according to an objective measurement and agreed standard.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Here's a fun hypothetical: Let's say you have two friends. One is 6'3" and bald. The other is 5'10" guy with an 8" mohawk. Which one do you consider taller?

If you said the 6'3" guy, why didn't you count the 8" mohawk in the other guy's total height? Hair is a part of the same organism as the guy it's growing out of, after all.

...see why some people don't consider this quite so cut and dried?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 05:02 AM   #3407
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,342
Likes (Received): 3588

And what I'm saying is, there are a number of different ways to measure that are all factually correct. That's why we have categories like "height to roof," "height to architectural tip" and "height to highest occupied floor." They're all true, but mean different things.

The way I see it, "height to roof" is most comparable to measuring a person's height from their soles to the top of their cranium, since the top of someone's skull is their uppermost structurally integral body part. "Height to architectural tip" aka spire height, is much more comparable to measuring to the top of their funky hairdo (which is undoubtedly a part of their body, but not an essential, structural component that could be removed with no ill effects.)
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 05:22 AM   #3408
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

But now you're talking about different standards by which we measure. Fine, but that was not immunology's original problem with the building, which was that he perceived it to be shorter due to his angle, location, whatever. But that doesn't change its actual physical dimensions. It is, in fact, the tallest building west of the Mississippi, regardless of one's subjective appreciation of it.

That there are a number of different ways of assessing building height doesn't change the fact that we have agreed-upon standards for determining these things. Is it spire or roof? Doesn't actually matter as long as the same standard is used in all cases. If it's not, contentions as to which is taller become meaningless.

[At least not until you find a way to fit those buildings inside Schrodinger's cat box.]

But even if you had two buildings with flat roofs of exactly the same height, other features of the buildings, their positioning relative to other landmarks and your own angle on the scene, would make one look taller than the other, or shorter, as those factors changed.




Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
And what I'm saying is, there are a number of different ways to measure that are all factually correct. That's why we have categories like "height to roof," "height to architectural tip" and "height to highest occupied floor." They're all true, but mean different things.

The way I see it, "height to roof" is most comparable to measuring a person's height from their soles to the top of their cranium, since the top of someone's skull is their uppermost structurally integral body part. "Height to architectural tip" aka spire height, is much more comparable to measuring to the top of their funky hairdo (which is undoubtedly a part of their body, but not an essential, structural component that could be removed with no ill effects.)
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 05:46 AM   #3409
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,342
Likes (Received): 3588

All fair. I think the larger point was that the WG's roof height is so much lower than that of the US Bank Tower that there's virtually no angle from which it doesn't appear shorter. Hence, underwhelming, especially as it's being lavished with superlatives. That frustration is compounded when you realize any other building could stick a slightly taller pole on top and seize the "official" crown.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 06:12 AM   #3410
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

Firstly, we should do it the justice of allowing it to be completed. Secondly, a building is lauded not just for its height, but for the overall impression it makes, which in the case of the WG, for my money, is quite lovely. Even sans spire, it's holding its own.

Below, the Aon looks as tall as either the WG or the USB, when in fact it's a whopping 50 metres below the USB building and 75 below the WG. There's no accounting for perspective. Well, there is: it distorts. So using this viewpoint as a guide, the WG would have had to have been, what?, 100? 120 meters taller to make any significant impression? It gets kinda nuts.

The real shame is that it's boxed in by other significant buildings.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
All fair. I think the larger point was that the WG's roof height is so much lower than that of the US Bank Tower that there's virtually no angle from which it doesn't appear shorter. Hence, underwhelming, especially as it's being lavished with superlatives. That frustration is compounded when you realize any other building could stick a slightly taller pole on top and seize the "official" crown.
__________________
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 05:53 PM   #3412
PinPeat
Registered User
 
PinPeat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 40,644
Likes (Received): 184478

Thursday July 28th, 2016

Los angeles by Ed Miller, on Flickr
__________________
PinPeat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 12:22 AM   #3413
immunology
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 11
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
All fair. I think the larger point was that the WG's roof height is so much lower than that of the US Bank Tower that there's virtually no angle from which it doesn't appear shorter. Hence, underwhelming, especially as it's being lavished with superlatives. That frustration is compounded when you realize any other building could stick a slightly taller pole on top and seize the "official" crown.
Thanks marhsall, this was exactly my point!
__________________
immunology no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 12:39 AM   #3414
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
That frustration is compounded when you realize any other building could stick a slightly taller pole on top and seize the "official" crown.
That applies to many building projects. And the "frustration" increases relative to your dislike of the building in question. But we all know why we measure to the spire, not the roof; because the roof is often a nebulous concept in itself. The only thing for sure is that the top of the spire is the vertical limit of the building. It's an old debate, and actually, I think it's a distracting debate and misses the point which should be the design and aesthetics of the building itself, not its technical height.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 12:52 AM   #3415
JuanPaulo
Guayaquil Vive Por Ti!
 
JuanPaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawai'i
Posts: 20,783
Likes (Received): 31730

Is this the first tower in LA without a flat roof?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
JuanPaulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 01:06 AM   #3416
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

That's a very good question related to something I was thinking about just before: western states seem to eschew spired designs.

Look at the skylines of LA, SF, Seattle, Denver for starters. A couple of exceptions aside, the buildings all have crew cuts. Chicago, too, where what appear to be spires are usually antennas.

My guess is that western cities, having more room, tend not to need to compete for attention as happens in the very dense cities like NY. But that's just a theory; it could be related to cultural outlook, or even a desire not to be ostentatious.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanPaulo View Post
Is this the first tower in LA without a flat roof?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 02:04 AM   #3417
PinkFloyd
R.I.P. Chris Cornell
 
PinkFloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fontana, California
Posts: 881
Likes (Received): 3454

The only other high rise in LA without a flat roof is City Hall.

image hosted on flickr

Los Angeles City Hall by Nightsky86, on Flickr
__________________
PinkFloyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 06:22 AM   #3418
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,342
Likes (Received): 3588

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanPaulo View Post
Is this the first tower in LA without a flat roof?
Basically. LA highrises over a certain height are required by law to have a helipad for the purposes of emergency evacuation by air and therefore a flat roof. The developers of the WG were able to work out a compromise with LAFD because of their incredibly well-protected emergency elevators, although as of the early stages of the project at least, there were plans for a cursory helipad on top of the crown (you can see it here):



As PinkFloyd points out, City Hall has a peaked roof. The Wilshire Condominiums in Westwood nearly tricked me because from street level it appears to have a peaked roof, but lo and behold, there's the helipad:



Glad this rule is changing, although I still suspect we'll see plenty of flat roofs for all but the most high profile projects.
__________________
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 06:23 AM   #3419
CCs77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,113
Likes (Received): 2436

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuwanda View Post
That's a very good question related to something I was thinking about just before: western states seem to eschew spired designs.

Look at the skylines of LA, SF, Seattle, Denver for starters. A couple of exceptions aside, the buildings all have crew cuts. Chicago, too, where what appear to be spires are usually antennas.

My guess is that western cities, having more room, tend not to need to compete for attention as happens in the very dense cities like NY. But that's just a theory; it could be related to cultural outlook, or even a desire not to be ostentatious.
No, it doesn't have to do with that (being more or less dense) it has more to do with trends in architecture at the time the buildings were built.

Many NY skyscrapers, were built during the 30's. At that time, almost every building had a spire or a crown. During that time they build some buildings that are prominent in the skyline even now, such as the ESB and Chrysler. In that period, Chicago also build many skyscrapers, but they were short relative to the ones built in NY, but the buildings of that time did had spires or crowns, similar as the ones in NY. But the most prominent buildings in Chicago, today, were built after the thirties, AON, Sears and Hancock, the three more prominent buildings in Chicago Skyline, along with Trump Tower, were built during the 70's when nobody made spires. In NY, the twins and other buildings of that time, didn't had spires either. In the particular case of LA, there were laws that limited the construction of skyscrapers until the sixties, after that, skyscrapers were allowed, but they need a helipad on top, together with the architectonic trend in that time, made a flat-roof skyline. In most cities in the US, the skylines were built after the sixties, meaning they didn't use spires. Recently there is a trend of making antenna like spires, such as Chicago Trump Tower, Comcast ITC in Philadelphia, this one in LA or 1WTC or BofA Tower in NY.


Regarding the Mohawk hair cut, I always cringe when I read that comparison. It is not a good comparison, because that is not a permanent fixture in some person body, as a matter of fact, it must have to be redone every morning after waking up or taking a shower. In any case a better comparison would be horns, since those would be permanent fixtures in the body (if humans had them) Spires are permanent architectonic fixtures in a building. Antennas are not, because they could be added or removed, lengthned or shortned according to broadcasting needs.

That said, it is indeed true that this building looks much shorter in the skyline than the US Bank Tower. But that discussion about flat roof vs spire is pretty much boring.
__________________
CCs77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 06:39 AM   #3420
PinkFloyd
R.I.P. Chris Cornell
 
PinkFloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fontana, California
Posts: 881
Likes (Received): 3454

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Basically. LA highrises over a certain height are required by law to have a helipad for the purposes of emergency evacuation by air and therefore a flat roof. The developers of the WG were able to work out a compromise with LAFD because of their incredibly well-protected emergency elevators, although as of the early stages of the project at least, there were plans for a cursory helipad on top of the crown (you can see it here):
FYI, the helipad ordinance was tossed almost 2 years ago.

Quote:
...


On Monday, city leaders heralded a code change that allows builders to forego the helipads so long as they put in extra safety features. The change, they say, could remake that boxy skyline, unshackle architects and elevate the look of Los Angeles' cityscape.

..
http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhal...930-story.html
__________________
PinkFloyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
dtla, korean air group, los angeles, south figueroa street, wilshire boulevard, wilshire grand center, wilshire grand tower

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu