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 February 22nd, 2014, 03:05 PM   #1361
Melb_SuperTall
Registered User
 
Melb_SuperTall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 634
Likes (Received): 24

Why not just change the codes to allow for higher buildings if they take all reasonable steps to make the building withstand earthquakes?
Melb_SuperTall no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 23rd, 2014, 04:22 AM   #1362
Kenni
What?
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melb_SuperTall View Post
Why not just change the codes to allow for higher buildings if they take all reasonable steps to make the building withstand earthquakes?
It's the "steps" that bare the costs, not exactly the codes. The same building in New York or Chicago would be considerably cheaper to construct, but here, there's considerable costs to build high so as to resist earthquakes. It's the price to pay in California, Japan, and other earthquake prone areas.

Look at the cement pour, ENORMOUS, in New York it wouldn't have been that big...they also have shallow bedrock, luck.
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2014, 05:26 AM   #1363
DFDalton
Banished from SSP
 
DFDalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Suburban Chicago
Posts: 487
Likes (Received): 127

In an earthquake, I'd rather be in a well-designed tall building than a well-designed midrise. Taller buildings are generally safer because they oscillate more slowly with the ground movement and are more efficient at safely absorbing the energy from an earthquake without structural damage. I doubt the seismic code requirements for a 400m building would be much more costly per square foot than for a 300m building.

But aside from economic considerations which generally have prohibited the construction of supertalls throughout America (outside of New York, and to a lesser extent Chicago), the developers may be bowing to psychological concerns of the general public. Do they really want to push the height envelope and fight what may very well be unwarranted speculation as to the seismic safety of the building? Why not build the #2 in height instead and not have to deal with that? Also, do they really want to become the new #1 terrorist target in the city? (And don't tell me this isn't a concern. Chicago's Trump Tower, originally envisioned as the country's tallest, was scaled back for just this concern.)

Last edited by DFDalton; February 23rd, 2014 at 05:39 AM.
DFDalton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2014, 06:04 PM   #1364
oliver999
starwar
 
oliver999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,136
Likes (Received): 1134

neat !!!
__________________
项羽问:怎么样?
骑兵们敬佩地回答:和大王说的一样!
oliver999 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2014, 08:32 AM   #1365
mdiederi
Artist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Downtown
Posts: 1,058
Likes (Received): 162

A couple of views from the east side.


Adapted from andybandi at panoramio.com


Adapted from tripplan.com
__________________
mdiederi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2014, 12:16 AM   #1366
Kenni
What?
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,208

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFDalton View Post
In an earthquake, I'd rather be in a well-designed tall building than a well-designed midrise. Taller buildings are generally safer because they oscillate more slowly with the ground movement and are more efficient at safely absorbing the energy from an earthquake without structural damage. I doubt the seismic code requirements for a 400m building would be much more costly per square foot than for a 300m building.

But aside from economic considerations which generally have prohibited the construction of supertalls throughout America (outside of New York, and to a lesser extent Chicago), the developers may be bowing to psychological concerns of the general public. Do they really want to push the height envelope and fight what may very well be unwarranted speculation as to the seismic safety of the building? Why not build the #2 in height instead and not have to deal with that? Also, do they really want to become the new #1 terrorist target in the city? (And don't tell me this isn't a concern. Chicago's Trump Tower, originally envisioned as the country's tallest, was scaled back for just this concern.)
LA has always been a target in one way or another. Famous airport, landmarks etc.
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 04:07 AM   #1367
Glidescube
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 224
Likes (Received): 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenni View Post
LA has always been a target in one way or another. Famous airport, landmarks etc.

China is very seismically active and they have the most of the 2-10 tallest in the world. All those buildings are generally American designed. So if they can build them there why not here?
Glidescube no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 04:12 AM   #1368
Glidescube
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 224
Likes (Received): 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdiederi View Post
A couple of views from the east side.


Adapted from andybandi at panoramio.com


Adapted from tripplan.com
just north of skid row by the arts district?
Glidescube no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 04:25 AM   #1369
CITYofDREAMS
The Place
 
CITYofDREAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,136
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glidescube View Post
China is very seismically active and they have the most of the 2-10 tallest in the world. All those buildings are generally American designed. So if they can build them there why not here?
Is less expensive to build in China; also the approval process for a project like this is shorter and I'm sure there is very little community involvement.
__________________
'Los Angeles is raw, uncouth and bizarre, but it's a place of substance. It has more new horizons than any other place." - Werner Herzog
CITYofDREAMS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 05:15 AM   #1370
Kenni
What?
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,208

That.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glidescube View Post
China is very seismically active and they have the most of the 2-10 tallest in the world. All those buildings are generally American designed. So if they can build them there why not here?
Do you think they do environmental studies (serious ones) in China? Community involvement, cheap labor, relaxed laws etc.

Plus they didn't go through a serious recession, and they now have money to spare.

LA's brightest time was the late 80's and the nineties...we hope the recovery brings that again, since Downtown is the "it" place right now. Even through hard times some important things got done, like the Ritz, Evo, etc. etc.

Also, it is so vast that many buildings are built in other areas, Century City, Mid-Wilshire, Korea Town etc.
__________________

Honolulu liked this post
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 04:33 PM   #1371
ABQ_X-PAT
A passion for Skyscrapers
 
ABQ_X-PAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Francisco California USA
Posts: 211
Likes (Received): 115

I read somewhere (wish I could find it) that construction lenders and also insurer's are not keen to becoming involved in 300m+ skyscrapers in the United States... hence the reason you do not see many of them here. This could explain the lack of 300m+ towers in downtown Los Angeles (except one). However, some of the other reasons outlined also make sense. Lastly, realizing that significant mass transit exists in the downtown area but commuting there by car is challenging (and that is putting it mildly)...
ABQ_X-PAT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2014, 11:54 PM   #1372
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQ_X-PAT View Post
I read somewhere (wish I could find it) that construction lenders and also insurer's are not keen to becoming involved in 300m+ skyscrapers in the United States... hence the reason you do not see many of them here. This could explain the lack of 300m+ towers in downtown Los Angeles (except one). However, some of the other reasons outlined also make sense. Lastly, realizing that significant mass transit exists in the downtown area but commuting there by car is challenging (and that is putting it mildly)...
Which is exactly why the US has more 300 meter buildings than any other country except China and just maybe UAE
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2014, 07:03 AM   #1373
WonderlandPark
nomadist
 
WonderlandPark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,950
Likes (Received): 478

And TONS of 300m building U/C and proposed...not just the 10+ that fall into this category in NYC, but also in NJ, Miami, San Francisco, probably Houston, Seattle, Chicago and almost certainly Philly, too. When a place like Oklahoma City just built an 800 footer and tiny Midland Texas is also likely to get one...well, I believe that the US has gotten well over any phobia of building tall...
__________________
Images of travel, cities and architecture on pixelmap
WonderlandPark no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2014, 11:30 AM   #1374
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,425
Likes (Received): 10272

Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark View Post
And TONS of 300m building U/C and proposed...not just the 10+ that fall into this category in NYC, but also in NJ, Miami, San Francisco, probably Houston, Seattle, Chicago and almost certainly Philly, too. When a place like Oklahoma City just built an 800 footer and tiny Midland Texas is also likely to get one...well, I believe that the US has gotten well over any phobia of building tall...
Here's my running count of American supertalls:

ATLANTA
1) Bank of America Plaza 1,023ft/312m (Com-1992)

BOSTON
1) 115 Federal Street 984ft/300m (Pro)

CHICAGO
1) 625 West Monroe 75fl (Pro)
2) Aon Center 1,136ft/346m (Com-1973)
3) Chicago Spire 2,000ft/610m (Pro)
4) Franklin Center 1,007ft/307m (Com-1989)
5) John Hancock Center 1,127ft/344m (Com-1969)
6) Post Office Redevelopment 2,000ft/610m + 1,001ft/305m x2 (App)
7) Sears Tower 1,451ft/442m (Com-1974)
8) Trump International Hotel and Tower 1,389ft/423m (Com-2009)
9) Two Prudential Plaza 995ft/303m (Com-1990)

HOUSTON
1) JPMorgan Chase Tower 1,002ft/305m (Com-1982)
2) Wells Fargo Plaza 992ft/302m (Com-1983)

JACKSONVILLE
1) Seaglass Tower 1,000ft/305m (Pro)-Not Building

LOS ANGELES
1) U.S. Bank Tower 1,018ft/310m (Com-1989)
2) Wilshire Grand Development 1,100ft/335m (U/C)

MIAMI
1) One Bayfront Plaza 1,005ft/306m (App)
2) One Brickell – 444 Brickell 984ft+/300m+ (Pro)
3) One Brickell City Center 1,102ft/336m (Pro)
4) Skyrise Miami 990ft/302m (App)-Not Building

NEW YORK
1) 15 Penn Plaza 1,216ft/371m (Stale Pro)
2) 30 Hudson Yards 1,227ft/374m (Prep)
3) 31 West 57th Street (Rizzoli Site) 1,000ft+/305m+ (Pro)
4) 35 Hudson Yards (Equinox Tower) 1,000ft/305m (Pro)
5) 50 Hudson Yards 1,000ft+/305m+ (Pro)
6) 80 South Street 1,018ft/310m (Pro)
7) 111 West 57th Street 1,350ft/412m (Prep)
8) 138 East 50th Street 984ft+/300m+ (Pro)
9) 217 West 57th Street 1,424ft/434m (Prep)
10) 432 Park Avenue 1,398ft/426m (U/C)
11) 447 10th Avenue (Sherwood Tower) 984ft+/300m+ (Pro)
12) Bank of America Tower 1,200ft/366m (Com-2009)
13) Brookfield One Manhattan West 1,216ft/371m (Prep)
14) Central Park Tower Shvo 984ft+/300m+ (Pro)
15) Chrysler Building 1,046ft/319m (Com-1930)
16) Empire State Building 1,250ft/381m (Com-1931)
17) Hudson Spire 1,800ft/549m (Pro)
18) New York Times Building 1,046ft/319m (Com-2007)
19) One57 1,004ft/306m (T/O-2013)
20) One Vanderbilt (51 East 42nd Street) 984ft+/300m+ (Pro)
21) One World Trade Center 1,776ft/541m (T/O-2013)
22) Park Lane Tower 1,000ft+/305m+ (Pro)
23) Three Hudson Boulevard (Girasole) 1,034ft/315m (App)
24) Three World Trade Center 1,170ft/357m (On Hold)
25) Two World Trade Center 1,350ft/411m (On Hold)
26) Verre Tower 1,050ft/320m (Prep)

PHILADELPHIA
1) Comcast Innovation and Technology Center 1,121ft/341m (Pro)

SAN FRANCISCO
1) Transbay Tower 1,070ft/326m (Prep)

SEATTLE
1) 820 2nd Avenue 984ft+/300m+ (Pro)

That's 47 Supertalls either completed or proposed for the US, unless I'm missing any.
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2014, 11:41 AM   #1375
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
Which is exactly why the US has more 300 meter buildings than any other country except China and just maybe UAE
Didn't he mean California when he said ''here''?
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2014, 09:41 PM   #1376
BlueBright
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 94
Likes (Received): 55

houston and dallas rumored supertalls too
BlueBright no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2014, 10:04 PM   #1377
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim1807 View Post
Didn't he mean California when he said ''here''?
...

Quote:
I read somewhere (wish I could find it) that construction lenders and also insurer's are not keen to becoming involved in 300m+ skyscrapers in the United States... hence the reason you do not see many of them here
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2014, 12:46 AM   #1378
PinkFloyd
R.I.P. Chris Cornell
 
PinkFloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fontana, California
Posts: 881
Likes (Received): 3454

Here's an instagram pic I found from last Thursday.


http://distilleryimage0.ak.instagram...1cd1b15c_8.jpg
__________________

-Corey- liked this post
PinkFloyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2014, 05:18 AM   #1379
ABQ_X-PAT
A passion for Skyscrapers
 
ABQ_X-PAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Francisco California USA
Posts: 211
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
...
Ok to be clear I was not criticizing 300m+ towers in the United States. Far from it. I was simply participating in the discussion in general as to why there are not more 300m+ towers here in Los Angeles/US. I only said that I "read somewhere" (long ago) about lenders and insurers not especially keen on these supertalls in the US (post 911 risk factors/jitters?). I could be right... I could be wrong... It is true that more are coming to reality though --- far and above the 16 completed that I counted up via Wikipedia.

Five cities in the US have completed 300m+ towers: New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston (by 2 ft), and Los Angeles (with another beauty under construction). San Francisco will soon be added to this list... I counted (via Wikipedia) thirty 250-300m completed towers.

The dynamic in the US is different than other places where supertalls go up for prestige (and yes economic and market factors too) again my opinion only)) --- China, Moscow, Dubai come to mind... You'd think Tokyo with it's congestion would have more earthquake resistant supertalls?... In my opinion it will be a very long time before San Francisco sees another supertall. Way too many NIMBY's.

Back on topic to Wilshire Grand specifically. Is the "towering billboard" going to happen or even allowed? Will other DT buildings follow suit for the ad dollars? Will downtown LA look like a mini Hong Kong or Shanghai with groovy lights? I kind of hope that it does (I like the lights)...
ABQ_X-PAT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2014, 08:42 AM   #1380
jgacis
Globalizing LA
 
jgacis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 776

I was also wondering about the lights. Back when this project was two towers, there were renderings and even a video of the lights that would illuminate on the building facades.

From LA Downtown News, back in Feb. 2013,

Quote:
"The project will include high-tech LED lighting embedded in the building’s glass “skin,” but AC Martin has not finalized plans on how to incorporate the lights, Martin said.

According to the project’s city approvals, the lights can broadcast advertisements on the lower podium and upper levels, but only non-commercial artistic imagery can be used in between. At question is where to place the lights in the tower — the denser the bulbs, the sharper the imagery, but more lights means a greater expense for a technology that could become outdated quite soon, Martin said."
http://m.ladowntownnews.com/news/new....html?mode=jqm

Perhaps someone can provide updates. I hope they keep the artistic imagery in between the upper/lower lights.
__________________
Boeing builds planes. We are in the business of building cities. - Yan Jiehe

We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us. - Winston Churchill
jgacis 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 12:29 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