DOWNTOWN LA | Angels Landing | 854ft | 64 fl | 542ft | 48fl | Pro

Wow. Three superb concepts; hard to see how you can ask for more. Eye-catching, good looks, good circulation.

In a crowded environment it's only the first 15-20 floors of a building that makes any difference as to how it looks at ground level and how it makes life more or less convenient. The rest is fluff for the big dck contests.

VZN said:

I like the McFarland proposal, mainly because of the plaza and overall design.

Click to expand...

I'm partial to it as well because of the greenery and pedestrian underpass. But it would be nice to see others working on modifying there projects to include such features. No one project seems to blow away the others.

unmentioned said:

ALDP's tower design would be my favorite were it not hampered by 1) a comically overscale podium and 2) being too short both in proportion to its base and in context with its surroundings. So McFarlane is the winner for me as well.

Click to expand...

The designs all look OK...they are perhaps lacking a certain wow factor...but they make good use of a space that is currently sitting empty. The Gensler and Omni proposals look more cohesive, though I do like McFarland's (possibly) greater height.

It seems the UCLA thing is real. Are they trying to compete with USC? That would factor into my decision (favorably since I am all for schools) but I hate the design. However the 88 story design (McFarland) should make it the tallest in the city would it not? If that is the case then it definitely gets my vote.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/devel...cle_229dded8-b8dc-11e7-9aba-a3ce1086a0b1.html

MacFarlane Partners, I agree. I like the design and it would be another supertall skyscraper.

Too bad that the Onni Group didn't work with Handel Architects and Olin. They would get it done in no time.
It would be a disappointment if Gensler or Kilograph make it.

We will know more in November.

The UCLA connection is time waster unless they have something specific.

First, UCLA can be put in any of the buildings or in its own buildings at some other site (e.g., somewhere with more affordable housing and an actual campus, not an elevator ride between cubbyhole offices). Why in high cost tower space when there are a hundred acres of unused warehouses all over the AD and south of there? That would actually activate a whole new area of DT and even into Boyle Heights.

In any event the developer states that if UCLA isn't interested they will find another university. To me that just means delays, rethinking and a muddled process.

Otherwise, I'm still hopeful that the proposals can improve by looking at each other's ideas under the city's guidance and that the final version will be better than any of the current ones.

McFarland design from a different angel.


DTLA development

milquetoast said:

I'd have to go with McFarland too .. somewhat ..
The UCLA one seems to be perched on a massive podium
sacrificing height needed to poke out from the Cal developments.
And the Omni proposition represents this chaos design seen in
various concepts recently, and it makes me nervous.
Looks like boxes stacked on moving day.

But there's something very 70s about McFarland ...
... I don't know if it's the color scheme or the fact
it resembles the building in The Towering Inferno.

Click to expand...

Yes, the taper was a late 20th century look. And the lines are pretty conservative otherwise.

I wouldn't worry too much about these falling over. Even the funny blocks and overhangs have the same basic skeleton underneath as do the monolithic blocks. It's only some funny non-structural items that make for the odd-shapes.

anunnaki said:

McFarland design from a different angel.

DTLA development

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess this one's the winner. I don't like the smaller building tho.....it should be added to the larger one and increase it's height....go for the stars.

With just over an acre of land and a Metro Station on it.....they should maximize the open air plaza and terraced open spaces as a "continuation" of the Grand Central Market ambiance.

Kenni said:

Yeah, I guess this one's the winner. I don't like the smaller building tho.....it should be added to the larger one and increase it's height....go for the stars.

With just over an acre of land and a Metro Station on it.....they should maximize the open air plaza and terraced open spaces as a "continuation" of the Grand Central Market ambiance.

Click to expand...

No! Removing the short building would be like removing a scrotm from a pens. :lol:

But maybe make it rounder like the Oscar Museum....

Kenni said:

Yeah, I guess this one's the winner. I don't like the smaller building tho.....it should be added to the larger one and increase it's height....go for the stars.

Click to expand...

Increasing it's height of the building would be great and it'll be the the new tallest building in Los Angeles and surpass the Wilshire Grand Tower's height.

A few more thoughts on second look...

McFarland - a supertall or near-supertall is of course catnip for this skyscraper fan. But otherwise the design appears somewhat dated in regards to the main tower itself, and somewhat schizophrenic in regards to the jumble of buildings near the base.

Gensler - of the three, the treatment of surfaces in this design appears the most forward looking, the most "21st century" of the bunch. The overall massing is not aspirational however. Also, riding up Angel's flight will be a more claustrophobic experience with that vast ochre wall right next to it.

Omni - in the latter regard, the terraces and glass surfaces of Omni would make for more pleasant scenery for riders of the funicular (since the only way I myself am likely to experience the building is on the funicular, I do take that into consideration in how I view the proposals). While the design of offset boxes is a bit gimmicky, it doesn't stray into the realm of bad taste, and could be a unique feature in LA's skyline.

Summary: pros and cons in each case, no clear favorite for me, but I would be happy if any of the three actually got built. This project could compensate for some of the lost potential at Park 5th nearby.