When One Floor Doesn't Always Equal Another

right, i think the only way that it would be taller is with a spire. that would be a nice addition! Lot of buzz the last few days, i love it!

Holy taller towers, Batman… that’s quite a bold plan. 76 floors of residential would be one of the tallest all-residential buildings anywhere in the world - and while I think it’s a cool idea, I don’t think LA is up for much over 40 or 50 stories of residential. Hmmm. Maybe Houk will prove me wrong.

The good thing is that this is another confirmation (whether it gets built or not) that LA is starting to really take its place as one of the world’s truly great cities. The bad thing is that it is going to be tough on the Metro 417 residents for a while.

Another thought just came to mind - yes, the floor to floor height might be less on Houk’s building, yet there’s another thing to consider. In terms of ultimate height (looking at the skyline from a distance), Park Fifth’s base is quite a bit lower in elevation than US Bank’s. The lot at 5th & Hill is downhill from 5th & Grand… by several stories at least. So, even if the two buildings were otherwise the same height, US Bank would still claim the highest point of the skyline.

Thought the same thing. The Library/US Bank Tower is on the left-over grade of Bunker Hill. The new project would have to commit a few more floors before it would peak over the LA skyline.

Considering the work it would take to engineer a foundation around the Pershing Square Metro station below this lot, I wonder how much of the lower portion of this building’s above ground floors would need to be dedicated to parking which then might hamper the hotel development and/or retail at street level.

The plus would be direct access to and from the Red Line.

Eric, do you know if the building on the SE corner is a historic landmark which cannot be torn down? (I haven’t read the article to see if this is mentioned.)

Benjamin (and all):

I know you asked Eric the question, but I “think” you are talking about the building on the SE corner of 5th and Hill, which is the Title Guarantee Building - and it is being redone as lofts currently. I am not sure of the landmark status, but it is very unlikely that it will come down. Besides, IMHO it is one of Downtown’s most attractive buildings to begin with.

Parking would most likely be in the form of either a separate multi-level garage or a remote garage (LA is encouraging the construction of off-site garages around the edge of the Downtown core such as the new garage at 6th and Maple). In this age of security concerns, allowing vehicles to enter a tall tower is not very preferable, as evidenced by newer high-rises in LA and elsewhere. There are some older high-rises built above parking (the WTC was one such development - and it was attacked in 1993 by a truck bomb in the garage), but I wouldn’t expect a new high rise to be built that way. I’m not being ‘paranoid’, as an architect these are things I think of as part of my work.

I was skeptical that such a development would ever be taken seriously in LA, but you are right - it is very close to the Red Line subway and across from Pershing Square. Actually, extending the larger scale downtown high rise core east a bit might be a very good thing… as long as there are setbacks as the buildings rise. Being sensitive to the existing cityscape is not an easy task for a huge building or building complex. I’d hate to see this totally dominate the Pershing Square and Historic Core area, but with some very careful architectural planning it could be an excellent step forward for Downtown.

Approximately twenty years ago, the L.A. Conservancy raised a stink over the proposed height of Houk’s endeavour. The proposed height then was nowhere near as high as what now is on the table. I can’t remember if there was a lawsuit at that time, or a settlement. One thing is clear; the CRA no longer it appears is concerned over the heights of proposed development in or on the edges of the Historic Core. It should be remembered that the uniform height of the Beaux Arts era structures are the result of the nation’s City Beautiful movement. Many assume that the height limit was due to fear of earthquakes. Not so. Following the completion of the Braly Block at Fourth and Spring, the Municipal Arts Commission and the City Council enacted a 150 ft. limit. Only exceptions to this were City Hall and the towers of the Eastern Columbia, Title Insurance and Title Guarantee buildings. K, P & F’s previous buildings here in L.A. have been the 1000 Wilshire and the slanting facades of the still fascinating highrise at the southeast corner of Wilshire and Gayley out Westwood way.

Having a height limit encourages buildings to build all the way up to that height. What I mean is, it limits supply of rentable space, meaning that you wind up with fewer lots lying undeveloped.

Conversely, when there is no height limit, you get a more pronounced boom-bust cycle for the real estate market.

BTW, I’m not arguing for height limits. I don’t think they make sense for L.A. in 2007. But, I do think they would have allowed Downtown L.A. to have a more steady growth from the 1950’s forward.

BRAVO!

I was just walking by Fifth and Olive yesterday and commented to a friend how that corner has been an ugly parking lot for so long (it was a huge mistake to tear down the architecturally splendid Philharmonic Auditorium)– and when would an upscale project go in there…so, this is GREAT news for all of Downtown–and especially great news for sad Pershing Square.

Now, I hope that the SE corner of Fifth & Hill will get a luxury mixed-use tower as well. And buildings adjacent to subway stations do not need commercial parking.

THEN, maybe we can start talking about making some much-needed design changes to Pershing Square to make it a better urban square for ALL Angelenos.

I’m skeptical this project can deliver units in 2010 as the article states (of course I know very little about construction so this is pure conjecture) but I like the various proposed additions to the Downtown skyline.

Consideration will need to be given to the impact all of these tall structures may have on sunlight reaching neighboring buildings.

This same issue of the Downtown News has an article: “Next Chapter: Angry Neighbors: South Park Finds First Case of Resident Opposition, Which Some Call Nimbyism, to New Development”.

In all the years I’ve been reading about LA’s original height limit, I’ve never seen any mention about the reason for that law being anything other because of the earthquake-prone nature of the city. If it actually was for design or aesthetic reasons, then city planners should have been more worried about other issues. I mean New York City, as one example, has never had such severe height restrictions placed on its buildings, and yet when comparing Manhattan Island with downtown Los Angeles, which of the two areas has long been more vibrant and highly regarded?

You move into downtown not for sunlight. When I signed the papers on my condo, I was made very well aware that is this a CRA assigned redevelopment area. Those people at South Park Lofts can only negotiate, but they have no legal barring to stop a development. And to all other neighbors, tough. You want urban living, this is what you got. I live in the Skyline, and under construction near me is 717 Flower (35 stories) and Concerto (20+ stories). I may lost my view but it adds residents and street facing retail. This is urban living.

The current emergency planning consensus is when, not if, an 8.0 earthquake hits Los Angeles there will be 8-10 foot high piles of window glass and facade from skyscrapers on the ground in the Financial District.

The streets will be impossible to navigate with emergency vehicles and hostile to pedestrians unprepared to scramble over broken glass and building skin which buckles out and falls down as the buildings’ superstructures sway and flex to release the energy of the quake.

Thus, the fear with tall buildings clustered together and earthquakes in modern times is not if they will stand, but what’s the post-incident reality.

Incidentally, an earthquake in the Greater New York area would be even more devastating as buildings are not engineered to withstand seismic events (although there really is no reason to believe, other than the number of ‘active fault lines’, a major earthquake could not happen on the East Coast).

And while the people moving Downtown, myself included, may not be sun worshipers, large buildings have large impacts not always foreseen in the rush of development in the name of progress.

Aesthetics aside, as builders and buyers look for more ways to utilize renewable resources like solar power, issues like blocking out another building’s sun will become topics of discussion as plans for projects are floating for public debate.

This is urban living.

If the builder can build up to 76 stories high, without purchasing additional air rights, then what purpose does the recent Air Rights Sale initiative serve ? The one that the City Council has so aggressively touted. I hear there are several projects being built over 50 stories high, like the convention center hotel, Zen Tower, and Hanover tower. Did they purchase “Air Rights” before ?

Whitman: “Park Fifth does not have to acquire “air rights” to exceed zoning height limits because Houk has already done so. In the 1980s, Houk was one of the first developers to purchase air rights for a high-density building Downtown as part of the Pershing Square Center plan.”

What i find exciting about the project is its innovative architecture - each unit will include a large outdoor balcony that extends the living space into the outdoors. Inspired by the modernist hollywood hills homes of the 50s, this approach capitalizes on the sunnny socal weather, and offers the urban dweller outdoor living possibilities. Nice.

And.. I hope this project might spur re-thinking pershing square itself. Currently, a sorry purple concrete jungle, it seems desolate and unused really. But it is in a prime location downtown, and holds so much potential. You can see its potential when you look at the old photographs, when the place was green with beautiful landscaping and filled with people strolling thru the popular park. It could be once again…

 Indeed, the height limit WAS instituted for esthetic reasons. In the early years of the twentieth century, the city's architects as well as Joseph Mesmer, an influential businessman who had been schooled in Paris all became enthralled with the Beaux Arts movement. That movement concerned more than the design of civic and commercial buildings. Most essentially it concerned city design, what we now call urban design, the whole enchilada (objects AND voids).
The city's Municipal Arts Commission was first organized in the fall of 1903 under the direction of architect John Parkinson. The initial height limit was set at 130 feet, was raised to 150 feet in 1909 and in the fall of 1910 a major developer proposed that the city council abolish the limit and hinged his proposal for a 220 foot high tower at Eighth and Broadway to the council acting favorably on his request. He threatened to build his tower in Portland if the council did not follow his bidding. The city's architects got their act together. Speaking on behalf of the local chapter of the AIA, Frank Hudson challenged the developer's proposal and as well, challenged the council to reaffirm the ideals of the City Beautifull Movement. The developer got shot down.
During his early residence in Pacific Palisades,

Henry Miller (and his main gal, Anais) often visited artist friends who resided on the top of old Bunker Hill. He loved the view from their balcony out over what we now call the Historic Core. It reminded him of Paris, where he had literally lived on the street begging to support his bohemian lifestyle in the years prior to his first success: Tropic of Cancer. If we’re bent on becoming so enthralled with height, why oh why doesn’t a civic benefactor purchase our local ‘World Trade Center’ which without a doubt remains the city’s ugliest office structure. And please tear the damned thing down and replace it with something to rise high in our firmament, overshadow that adjoining pile of circles which some consider to be the progenitor of deconstructivism - hotel Bonaventure.

Benjamin,

I’ve seen the prospectus of the project at the architecture firm of Leo A.Daly and they have the building on the SE Corner on the model.

http://www.leoadaly.com/Home.aspx

Kanner:

Manhattan may not have had height limits, but they did impose mandatory setbacks on skyscrapers to minimize the “urban canyon wall” effect on the streetscape. I’m not sure if these are still in effect, but many of the modern “glass box” type of buildings are notably set back from the sidewalk quite a ways. The WTC had a huge several block empty plaza surrounding it.

Thank you, Urban Bruin, for the response.

And while the WTC (R.I.P.) had a large plaza around it, it also cast a shadow over nearly every part of Lower Manhattan at one time of day or another depending upon the season.

No one need look further than the tight streets of Manhattan’s Financial District and the robber-baron buildings there to see the net result of building to high, too close.

since los angeles is america’s 2nd largest city it should have at a couple of buildings over 1000 feet. It will be cool if the new park 5th tower supass library tower in height by 50 feet or more