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 December 18th, 2010, 08:47 PM   #121
MackMan
Registered User
 
MackMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Breda
Posts: 30
Likes (Received): 0

Thats just what LA need after such a long time of silence !!!
MackMan no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 19th, 2010, 08:53 PM   #122
im_from_zw038
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,987
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by soup or man View Post
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.
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.
im_from_zw038 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2010, 03:20 AM   #123
chjbolton
chjbolton
 
chjbolton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Munich
Posts: 796
Likes (Received): 75

Quote:
Originally Posted by im_from_zw038 View Post
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!?).
__________________
B O L T O N
chjbolton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2010, 06:06 PM   #124
soup or man
Avant Garde
 
soup or man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,758
Likes (Received): 864

Quote:
Originally Posted by chjbolton View Post
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.





__________________
Far from basic.
soup or man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2010, 06:46 PM   #125
unmentioned
Registered User
 
unmentioned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southland
Posts: 1,448
Likes (Received): 526

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.
unmentioned no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2010, 08:05 PM   #126
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,341
Likes (Received): 8235

i like this tower a lot i totally can imagine seeing this in a lot of shows and movies when its under construction
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2010, 08:54 PM   #127
Scrapernab2
Registered User
 
Scrapernab2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 896
Likes (Received): 96

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/vid...ake&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?

Last edited by Scrapernab2; December 20th, 2010 at 09:07 PM.
Scrapernab2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2010, 10:00 PM   #128
soup or man
Avant Garde
 
soup or man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,758
Likes (Received): 864

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapernab2 View Post
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/vid...ake&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.


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.






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.
__________________
Far from basic.
soup or man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2010, 02:33 AM   #129
chjbolton
chjbolton
 
chjbolton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Munich
Posts: 796
Likes (Received): 75

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

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.
__________________
B O L T O N
chjbolton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2010, 03:57 AM   #130
soup or man
Avant Garde
 
soup or man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,758
Likes (Received): 864

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


Wilshire Center (Koreatown)


Glendale


Century City


The Wilshire Corridor (The Golden Triangle/Millionare's Mile)


Westwood


Santa Monica


Burbank


Warner Center


Hollywood


Long Beach
__________________
Far from basic.

Last edited by soup or man; December 21st, 2010 at 04:03 AM.
soup or man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2010, 06:17 AM   #131
Botswana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 266
Likes (Received): 30

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.
Botswana no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2010, 08:25 AM   #132
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,906
Likes (Received): 5170

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.
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2010, 03:00 PM   #133
im_from_zw038
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,987
Likes (Received): 38

You first say this:

Quote:
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

Quote:



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

Quote:

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.
im_from_zw038 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2010, 06:36 PM   #134
soup or man
Avant Garde
 
soup or man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,758
Likes (Received): 864

The tallest building in Koreatown is Equatiable Plaza. It's 453 feet tall.
__________________
Far from basic.
soup or man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2010, 07:36 PM   #135
leo_MG
Registered User
 
leo_MG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Belo Horizonte
Posts: 1,889
Likes (Received): 51

Very good. LA is very slow in buildings.
leo_MG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2010, 09:36 PM   #136
soup or man
Avant Garde
 
soup or man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,758
Likes (Received): 864

Quote:
Originally Posted by leo_MG View Post
Very good. LA is very slow in buildings.
The last tall building LA (downtown) built was the Ritz which opened last Feburary.

__________________
Far from basic.
soup or man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2010, 05:55 PM   #137
im_from_zw038
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,987
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
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
im_from_zw038 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2010, 10:20 PM   #138
soup or man
Avant Garde
 
soup or man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,758
Likes (Received): 864

Quote:
Originally Posted by im_from_zw038 View Post
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
So what's your ******* point? That LA should build skyscrapers just for the sake of building them?
__________________
Far from basic.
soup or man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2010, 10:59 PM   #139
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,663
Likes (Received): 2617

Quote:
Originally Posted by soup or man View Post
So what's your ******* point? That LA should build skyscrapers just for the sake of building them?
Here's what we call a textbook strawman.
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2010, 06:39 AM   #140
QuarterMileSidewalk
Laissez-Faire Forever!
 
QuarterMileSidewalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fontana, California
Posts: 261
Likes (Received): 11

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). 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) 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... 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.
QuarterMileSidewalk 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