LOS ANGELES | Wilshire Grand Development | 335m | 1100ft | 73 fl | Demo

[boss-ton]

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

[soup or man]

New renderings.

image hosted on flickr

From Flickr, by lacurbed

image hosted on flickr

From Flickr, by lacurbed

image hosted on flickr

From Flickr, by lacurbed

image hosted on flickr

From Flickr, by lacurbed

image hosted on flickr

From Flickr, by lacurbed

image hosted on flickr

From Flickr, by lacurbed

[LANative]

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!

[spectre000]

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

[im_from_zw038]

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!

[soup or man]

Originally Posted by im_from_zw038

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.

[Calsonic]

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

[chromebowler]

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.

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by Calsonic

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.

[korea2002]

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

[soup or man]

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.

[soup or man]

Originally Posted by Calsonic

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.

[Ekumenopolis]

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

[spectre000]

Originally Posted by soup or man

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.

[soup or man]

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.

[spectre000]

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.

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by soup or man

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.

[chjbolton]

Originally Posted by soup or man

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...

[soup or man]

Originally Posted by chjbolton

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...

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


Title Guarantee Building


The Roosevelt


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.

[Calsonic]

"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.