Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Joined
·
55,632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
This very large rental development was formerly called "High Line West" .

New Renderings and Name For Hollywood's High Line West



Yesterday, the Los Angeles City Council gave their stamp of approval to the mixed-use development formerly known as the High Line West. PSL Architects, which is designing the project, has now provided some updated renderings and tells Curbed that the project from here forthwith shall never be known as High Line West ever again (as previously mentioned, that rooftop public park idea was nixed in favor of private open space). You may refer to this sexy structure—which will have 280 units and retail space in six stories—as 5550 Hollywood Boulevard in future discussions with loved ones.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,107 Posts
This will be quite a change for that location. I have probably driven or walked by there 1000 times in my life and haven't seen anyone in a suit and tie, and precious few tall and thin and with fashion designs. Forget the Segways; broken-down shopping cart is more like it.

So think of this and 6 more like it replacing vacant lots, adult bookstores, fast food and liquor stores. That's what you lose every time a tall, sterile high rise goes up.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
So think of this and 6 more like it replacing vacant lots, adult bookstores, fast food and liquor stores. That's what you lose every time a tall, sterile high rise goes up.
Wait, I thought you did not agree with the useless exhibitionism of "milq" wanting a 40 story tower to replace every strip mall in the city?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,107 Posts
Wait, I thought you did not agree with the useless exhibitionism of "milq" wanting a 40 story tower to replace every strip mall in the city?
Let me clarify. Every time a high rise goes up, you eliminate the demand for 5-6 smaller developments that would clear out several areas of vacant or rundown business or housing. The high rise would only clear out 1 such area. So building the high rise in effect leaves several decayed areas in place.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
Agree in theory.
 

·
Globalizing LA
Joined
·
880 Posts
Let me clarify. Every time a high rise goes up, you eliminate the demand for 5-6 smaller developments that would clear out several areas of vacant or rundown business or housing. The high rise would only clear out 1 such area. So building the high rise in effect leaves several decayed areas in place.
Like Klamedia says, too much theory. And then you accuse me of too much love of "theory" on my other post... :)

You're treating a high-rise against 5-6 smaller developments as a zero-sum game. In a vacuum tube that might work. In a city, its a lot more dynamic than that.

A high-rise can incubate growth elsewhere, depending on its use, function, and street-level interaction. It's not just a cold hard phallic edifice that fosters decay. It's functional strength would always be one of higher capacity and the placement of density within a central core. Tall buildings can integrate tiered setbacks in its design, incorporate balconies and patios to articulate and reduce mass, thus providing shadow and relief. Street engagement is also key, regardless if its 6 or 60 stories.

Pesto, you really need to expunge your Le Corbusier nightmares out of your urban (or more like suburban) soul. I agree we can't have high-rises everywhere, but I'll also state we shouldn't have short stumpies everywhere either...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,107 Posts
Like Klamedia says, too much theory. And then you accuse me of too much love of "theory" on my other post... :)

You're treating a high-rise against 5-6 smaller developments as a zero-sum game. In a vacuum tube that might work. In a city, its a lot more dynamic than that.

A high-rise can incubate growth elsewhere, depending on its use, function, and street-level interaction. It's not just a cold hard phallic edifice that fosters decay. It's functional strength would always be one of higher capacity and the placement of density within a central core. Tall buildings can integrate tiered setbacks in its design, incorporate balconies and patios to articulate and reduce mass, thus providing shadow and relief. Street engagement is also key, regardless if its 6 or 60 stories.

Pesto, you really need to expunge your Le Corbusier nightmares out of your urban (or more like suburban) soul. I agree we can't have high-rises everywhere, but I'll also state we shouldn't have short stumpies everywhere either...
No theory; just facts. In every city I can think of (NY, SF, London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Istanbul, 100 others) the most popular walkable neighborhoods are filled with low rise. Among the least walkable and appealing are highrises.

Examples. NY: Wall St. vs. Greenwich Village or SoHo. Or London: Chelsea, Picadilly, Mayfair, etc., vs. Canary Wharf and adjacent. Paris: most of the center city vs. La Defense and similar.

Ditto for retail: the highest demand is in areas (Greenwich Village, Upper East Side) with retail on the avenues and quiet tree-lined side streets.

And finally, I have said at least twice just in this thread that high rise is just fine in most of DT, two blocks either side of Wilshire, Hollywood, CC, WLA, Westwood, along some boulevards. But not with a maniacal obsession to put it everywhere, regardless of whether there is any demand for it.
 

·
Globalizing LA
Joined
·
880 Posts
No theory; just facts. In every city I can think of (NY, SF, London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Istanbul, 100 others) the most popular walkable neighborhoods are filled with low rise. Among the least walkable and appealing are highrises.

Examples. NY: Wall St. vs. Greenwich Village or SoHo. Or London: Chelsea, Picadilly, Mayfair, etc., vs. Canary Wharf and adjacent. Paris: most of the center city vs. La Defense and similar.

Ditto for retail: the highest demand is in areas (Greenwich Village, Upper East Side) with retail on the avenues and quiet tree-lined side streets.

And finally, I have said at least twice just in this thread that high rise is just fine in most of DT, two blocks either side of Wilshire, Hollywood, CC, WLA, Westwood, along some boulevards. But not with a maniacal obsession to put it everywhere, regardless of whether there is any demand for it.
You're really comparing different places at the anatomical (structural) level without really looking deeper at the physiological and psychological levels. I've walked lower Manhattan and I've seen the busy public street life during the day (Battery Park, areas around Staten Island Ferry Station, etc.). Even Wall Street has a bunch of museums, restaurants, and stores. Same for Mid-town. Have you been to Hong Kong and seen the vendor-filled street alleys between hotel towers? Or how about the Greenbelt Mall complex surrounded by towers (like the Residences @ Greenbelt in Makati, Philippines? I see these tower-filled urban areas perhaps different from you.

It's not just about the towers. When I talk about the physiology and psychology of a place, I'm referring to things like the local business climate, land-use zoning, and demographics - facets not always easily discernible by taking a look at bunch of short or tall buildings. Land-use planning in Asian megacities come at a price but make it so much vibrant - things we can learn from. Even lower Manhattan's cavernous towers is what gives the density that helps make the place a GLOBAL city. Lessons learned there was incorporated in Mid-town, like tiered-setbacks.

Agree with your last sentence, although there seems to be a collorary to that with the maniacal obsession being that of ubiquitous 5-7 story boxes even in places like DOWNTOWN...
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
You're really comparing different places at the anatomical (structural) level without really looking deeper at the physiological and psychological levels. I've walked lower Manhattan and I've seen the busy public street life during the day (Battery Park, areas around Staten Island Ferry Station, etc.). Even Wall Street has a bunch of museums, restaurants, and stores. Same for Mid-town. Have you been to Hong Kong and seen the vendor-filled street alleys between hotel towers? Or how about the Greenbelt Mall complex surrounded by towers (like the Residences @ Greenbelt in Makati, Philippines? I see these tower-filled urban areas perhaps different from you.

It's not just about the towers. When I talk about the physiology and psychology of a place, I'm referring to things like the local business climate, land-use zoning, and demographics - facets not always easily discernible by taking a look at bunch of short or tall buildings. Land-use planning in Asian megacities come at a price but make it so much vibrant - things we can learn from. Even lower Manhattan's cavernous towers is what gives the density that helps make the place a GLOBAL city. Lessons learned there was incorporated in Mid-town, like tiered-setbacks.

Agree with your last sentence, although there seems to be a collorary to that with the maniacal obsession being that of ubiquitous 5-7 story boxes even in places like DOWNTOWN...
Like what you're saying and the way that you put it but what is a "collorary"?

If Manhattan didn't have its towers would it still be considered a global place? I think what "pest" is saying is that towers don't necessarily make a place global, perhaps towers are a result of a place already being global but even that isn't a consistent assumption.
 

·
Globalizing LA
Joined
·
880 Posts
Like what you're saying and the way that you put it but what is a "collorary"?

If Manhattan didn't have its towers would it still be considered a global place? I think what "pest" is saying is that towers don't necessarily make a place global, perhaps towers are a result of a place already being global but even that isn't a consistent assumption.
My bad - corollary. Those towers do alot of business for Manhattan and help fuel its global financial status. And I will say that even 5-7 stumpies don't make a place that Pesto makes it seems. Its alot more than just comparing cities from a structural level. Towers also have functional aspects and how they are designed and incorporated within the communities are just as important as the stumpies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,107 Posts
My bad - corollary. Those towers do alot of business for Manhattan and help fuel its global financial status. And I will say that even 5-7 stumpies don't make a place that Pesto makes it seems. Its alot more than just comparing cities from a structural level. Towers also have functional aspects and how they are designed and incorporated within the communities are just as important as the stumpies.
It's funny how you mistake about retail's desirability keeps driving you into more and more bizarre positions.

First, you have to argue that Wall St. is as walkable and desirable a place to live or hang as Greenwich Village or the UES. Then you glorify the hideously over-crowded streets in HK. Finally, it turns out that the high rises are what caused people to come those places (they built the high rises and THEN people decided it was a good place to move to?).

As Klam hints, you might want to think about cause and effect. Did the high rises create the financial center or did the financial center create the demand for high rises? If your theory is correct, then we can replicate NY by just putting up a couple of hundred high rises and becoming the financial capital of the world; in fact, make them 2000 footers so no one can even challenge us.

And how do you explain London, Paris, etc., who were world centers without a single high rise (Paris still has none in any significant walkable area).
 

·
Globalizing LA
Joined
·
880 Posts
It's funny how you mistake about retail's desirability keeps driving you into more and more bizarre positions.

First, you have to argue that Wall St. is as walkable and desirable a place to live or hang as Greenwich Village or the UES. Then you glorify the hideously over-crowded streets in HK. Finally, it turns out that the high rises are what caused people to come those places (they built the high rises and THEN people decided it was a good place to move to?).

As Klam hints, you might want to think about cause and effect. Did the high rises create the financial center or did the financial center create the demand for high rises? If your theory is correct, then we can replicate NY by just putting up a couple of hundred high rises and becoming the financial capital of the world; in fact, make them 2000 footers so no one can even challenge us.

And how do you explain London, Paris, etc., who were world centers without a single high rise (Paris still has none in any significant walkable area).
Don't see anything bizarre but if that's what your head thinks then let it be.

Wall St. may not be a Greenwich village but it is often jammed-packed with workers, tourists, and locals. Even residential towers such as Gehry's tower on 8 Spruce St. has risen to mark its place as an area to live and not only work and play. In Hong Kong, I wasn't "glorifying" the vendor-filled streets - It was more to contrast your statement of "Among the least walkable and appealing are highrises." In addition, I walked inside one high-rise in Beijing where the first 7 floors comprised of a busy shopping mall with office spaces on higher floors. In Makati, I've seen how high-rise towers can be integrated into various urban environments such as shopping malls and green space through unique designs and elevated walkways (unlike here in LA where we fight over things like Palmer's Da Vinci skybridge). I'm not saying towers are our salvation, but I just want to balance out what you're saying about stumpy 5-7 boxes and your perspective on towers.

Interesting now that your referring to Klams "hints" while Klams is suggesting to me what you were thinking. Hmm...is Milq speaking the truth? :shifty: :)

Your cause and effect question is too narrowly focused. Yes, maybe we can expand on that but I was making a general statement for what Manhattan is today and how other elements such as zoning and shifting demographics need to be factored in. Also, those other places you mention where founded and developed before the automobile with much more comprehensive mass transit networks. Towers in Los Angeles may have their own important functional uses where concentricity and clogged freeways are already characteristic of our polycentric nature. However, I'm also glad to see how Metro is expanding our light-rail network and improving regional connections within our county - this will have impact on future development patterns. All these are important factors when you compare the unique DNA of Los Angeles.

Again, towers don't need to be everywhere. However, when developers do see a market opportunity, it gets squashed by NIMBYs - sometimes its really not about the market as you state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,107 Posts
Don't see anything bizarre but if that's what your head thinks then let it be.

Wall St. may not be a Greenwich village but it is often jammed-packed with workers, tourists, and locals. Even residential towers such as Gehry's tower on 8 Spruce St. has risen to mark its place as an area to live and not only work and play. In Hong Kong, I wasn't "glorifying" the vendor-filled streets - It was more to contrast your statement of "Among the least walkable and appealing are highrises." In addition, I walked inside one high-rise in Beijing where the first 7 floors comprised of a busy shopping mall with office spaces on higher floors. In Makati, I've seen how high-rise towers can be integrated into various urban environments such as shopping malls and green space through unique designs and elevated walkways (unlike here in LA where we fight over things like Palmer's Da Vinci skybridge). I'm not saying towers are our salvation, but I just want to balance out what you're saying about stumpy 5-7 boxes and your perspective on towers.

Interesting now that your referring to Klams "hints" while Klams is suggesting to me what you were thinking. Hmm...is Milq speaking the truth? :shifty: :)

Your cause and effect question is too narrowly focused. Yes, maybe we can expand on that but I was making a general statement for what Manhattan is today and how other elements such as zoning and shifting demographics need to be factored in. Also, those other places you mention where founded and developed before the automobile with much more comprehensive mass transit networks. Towers in Los Angeles may have their own important functional uses where concentricity and clogged freeways are already characteristic of our polycentric nature. However, I'm also glad to see how Metro is expanding our light-rail network and improving regional connections within our county - this will have impact on future development patterns. All these are important factors when you compare the unique DNA of Los Angeles.

Again, towers don't need to be everywhere. However, when developers do see a market opportunity, it gets squashed by NIMBYs - sometimes its really not about the market as you state.
OK, you party in La Defense, Bunker Hill and Wall St; maybe hit the City of London on your way home (you won't even get retail, much less cafes and clubs, especially after 5:00 or on weekends).

I agree that towers don't need to be everywhere, especially in the middle of functioning, low-rise 'hoods where no one who actually lives there wants them.

I have already listed a dozen places where they are fine. But you are focusing specifically on existing, sfh 'hoods away from main streets and insisting that these be zoned for retail (and now high rise?). Like I said, you just keep getting goofier and goofier to support an idea that was wrong to begin with.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
Towers in Los Angeles may have their own important functional uses where concentricity and clogged freeways are already characteristic of our polycentric nature. However, I'm also glad to see how Metro is expanding our light-rail network and improving regional connections within our county - this will have impact on future development patterns. All these are important factors when you compare the unique DNA of Los Angeles.
What exactly does "concentricity...already characteristic of our polycentric nature" mean?

Just my pet peeve, Metro is not just expanding LRT (Crenshaw, Expo, Foothill), HRT (Purple Line) is also being expanded.

What is the "unique DNA" of LA in your opinion...briefly?
 

·
Globalizing LA
Joined
·
880 Posts
What exactly does "concentricity...already characteristic of our polycentric nature" mean?

Just my pet peeve, Metro is not just expanding LRT (Crenshaw, Expo, Foothill), HRT (Purple Line) is also being expanded.

What is the "unique DNA" of LA in your opinion...briefly?
Multiple concentricities, hence "poly". As stated, referring to concentricity as a characteristic.

Purple line is integrated with light-rail. Its part of the network.

Unique in that we are auto-centric with a downtown that didn't really flourish until around the 1920s (after the introduction of the automobile).
 

·
L O S A N G E L E S
Joined
·
6,590 Posts

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
Multiple concentricities, hence "poly". As stated, referring to concentricity as a characteristic.

Purple line is integrated with light-rail. Its part of the network.

Unique in that we are auto-centric with a downtown that didn't really flourish until around the 1920s (after the introduction of the automobile).
Polycentricity already denotes that you have multiple concentric centers so it's superfluous to announce this again.

Purple Line is part of and integrated into our HRT and LRT network. We do not have just an LRT network, we have a rail network when referring to our LRT and HRT alignments.

I hope that you are not suggesting that the "car" made our downtown area. That's as specious as that old wives tale that LA was built for and by the car. If anything "made" our downtown it would be the streetcar network that used Downtown LA as a hub for the largest LRT network in the world.
 

·
Globalizing LA
Joined
·
880 Posts
Polycentricity already denotes that you have multiple concentric centers so it's superfluous to announce this again.

Purple Line is part of and integrated into our HRT and LRT network. We do not have just an LRT network, we have a rail network when referring to our LRT and HRT alignments.

I hope that you are not suggesting that the "car" made our downtown area. That's as specious as that old wives tale that LA was built for and by the car. If anything "made" our downtown it would be the streetcar network that used Downtown LA as a hub for the largest LRT network in the world.
Klams, no need to talk in circles here. I wasn't being superfluous, just denoting the characteristics and how towers have their uses as concentric hubs. You'll have to excuse me if I wasn't being clear to you.

Yes, understand your points about light/heavy networks but I was specifically highlighting the light-rail network and the recent expansions/developments we have been experiencing here in Los Angeles. Really Klams, do you really think I was ignoring the Purple Line. Its part of the network. I understand a pet peeve is a pet peeve, but man, maybe some more Zen courses might help? :)

And no, I wasn't suggesting that the car made our downtown. Agree with you on the streetcar network. As we debated before, I'm sure you'll make your claim that the streetcars also sprawled Los Angeles. True it stretched to far flung locations, but when you consider other undeveloped areas at the time (and here I won't consider city borders but geographic regions), cars did their part in sprawling the Los Angeles region.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top