Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JesseSaenz said:

Even Chicago without the Sears Tower and Hancock would not stand out.

The truth is, most cities are only recognizable by one or two buildings that make them just different enough to tell them apart. That or their location. 

No city is an exception to this except for maybe NYC which is in a league of its own.

Going by that logic, then that would even apply to New York City. Take out the Freedom Tower, the Chrysler building & the Empire State Building, & you're pretty much looking at another ordinary skyline. But the thing about New York & Chicago (which I mentioned earlier), is that their skylines have much more DENSITY, meaning that the buildings are very clustered together & there's A LOT more of them, making the landscape appear very much more urban. Something L.A. does not have, hence the "intentional sprawl". 

1 hour ago, JesseSaenz said:

LA's skyline without city hall and without the US Bank Tower would make it stand out less. I agree that it would look like many other American cities.

The truth is, most cities are only recognizable by one or two buildings that make them just different enough to tell them apart. That or their location. 

For example Without the Transamerica Pyramid in SF, the SF Skyline looks a lot like San Diego's, Boston's or Vancouvers, a shimery city by the water.

Totally inaccurate. Even without the TransAmerica building, San Francisco's skyline is still very much dense looking, so UNLIKE Boston (& even San Diego).

And as a matter of fact, compared to Boston's, L.A.'s skyline actually appears much more rich. Boston is actually a good example that for a major city on the northeast coast, their skyline really is boring. Even smaller size cities than Boston, like Seattle & Minneapolis have more interesting skylines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aesthetically, it didn't help, either, that from the early or mid-1970s until just a few years ago, all high-rises in the City of LA had to have a helipad on the roof, hence all of the flat-roofed skyscrapers in LA.  That was fine during the Modern/Late Modern period, when all skyscrapers were designed like boxes or large stereo speakers and had flat roofs anyway, but then in the 1980s with the dawn of Post-Modernism, while other cities started designing buildings again with ornamental tops and crowns, LA skyscrapers required the helipads.  I think the most distinctive skyscraper in LA with a helipad is the US Bank Tower; I've always liked it.  It's always reminded me of a lighthouse, with shoulders.  It's a Post-Modern skyscraper with a crown element, but it still was able to meet the helipad requirement.  

Because of new firefighting techniques and updated building designs, the helipad requirement has been removed.  That's why the new Wilshire Grand tower is significant, because it's the first skyscraper in LA to not have a flat roof, and it even has a spire, albeit a toothpicky one.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

Aesthetically, it didn't help, either, that from the early or mid-1970s until just a few years ago, all high-rises in the City of LA had to have a helipad on the roof, hence all of the flat-roofed skyscrapers in LA.  That was fine during the Modern/Late Modern period, when all skyscrapers were designed like boxes or large stereo speakers and had flat roofs anyway, but then in the 1980s with the dawn of Post-Modernism, while other cities started designing buildings again with ornamental tops and crowns, LA skyscrapers required the helipads.  I think the most distinctive skyscraper in LA with a helipad is the US Bank Tower; I've always liked it.  It's always reminded me of a lighthouse, with shoulders.  It's a Post-Modern skyscraper with a crown element, but it still was able to meet the helipad requirement.  

Because of new firefighting techniques and updated building designs, the helipad requirement has been removed.  That's why the new Wilshire Grand tower is significant, because it's the first skyscraper in LA to not have a flat roof, and it even has a spire, albeit a toothpicky one.  

Yup. I get the whole reasoning behind the flat roofs, but it made for some very uninspiring designs. Glad the new Wilshire Grand decided to finally shake things up a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

"Olympic Tower" directly across from LA Live/Staples Center Complex looks pretty neat too.

It's going up on the corner of Olympic and Figueroa in Downtown LA (also going up independent of the bid)

12391957_972459166160627_5927188695970793608_n.jpg?itok=jHEJqRKB

I really hope this does get built!  A number of other downtown projects have fallen through the cracks, but I think this one would be great.  It's badass!

Check out these other renderings:

9_2.JPG?itok=UjJGtO6T

7_4.JPG?itok=h4qsqJjT

5_3.JPG?itok=Y5FlHouB

4_7.JPG?itok=SI9Gip8S

2_9.JPG?itok=evYngMfg

3_7.JPG?itok=RRb1IZxw

1_10.JPG?itok=5gyKhg__

6_4.JPG?itok=rV1Zty2x

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really love that middle, open-air rendering. That would be so cool! Yeah, let's see if it goes through. Was really disappointed when construction of the new Spire Tower in Chicago got scuppered when the Great Recession was getting started back in 2008. Trying to post a picture of it, but with the new forum format, how do you do it from your damn phone! But do love that slate-type design of 'Olympic Tower'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

LA2024's Official Statement on Rome withdrawing its 2024 bid.

I can see why LA could be worried. European bids dropping left and right is scary **** for the IOC.


 

And I look forward to the official IOC statement, where the IOC takes zero responsibility, shows a completely lake of understanding, and blames Rome for being too stupid to understand how great the IOC is. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where badminton is now the sole event set for the Galen Center. Is a 10,000+ arena really necessary for badminton? Seems like it would make more sense to move badminton to the L.A. Convention Center and relocate handball to the Galen Center and volleyball to the Long Beach Arena. It'd be a more compact plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stryker said:

I see where badminton is now the sole event set for the Galen Center. Is a 10,000+ arena really necessary for badminton? Seems like it would make more sense to move badminton to the L.A. Convention Center and relocate handball to the Galen Center and volleyball to the Long Beach Arena. It'd be a more compact plan.

 

You're in Texas and you're purporting to know more than the LA 2024 people who are actually on site there?  :rolleyes: 

Keeping volleyball at the Long Beach Arena would be the same as 1984; therefore not in keeping with a renewed Games plan.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Keeping volleyball at the Long Beach Arena would be the same as 1984; therefore not in keeping with a renewed Games plan.  

That's what I thought too; I think a more high-profile sport like indoor volleyball would be more fitting (in LA2024's mind) at Honda Center, a newer arena and one obviously not used in 1984.  

I also find it somehow ironic, too, that StubHub will NOT be hosting soccer, but rugby instead.

large_111813_StubHubCenter_GA_0044-14611

http://assets.internationalchampionscup.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Isn't the LAFC hosting Soccer Preliminaries and the Rosebowl the actual games?

Yes, but I just thought it was kinda funny that StubHub, a stadium built specifically for soccer, won't be a soccer venue for the 2024 Olympics---should LA get the Games, of course.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

Yes, but I just thought it was kinda funny that StubHub, a stadium built specifically for soccer, won't be a soccer venue for the 2024 Olympics---should LA get the Games, of course.  

Well not that surprising though. Soccer would be a sport that can easily fill up a stadium so I'm sure they were aiming for large capacity venues to host major ticket selling matches. StubHub Center has a capacity of 27,000 which isn't bad for a group stage match, but more than enough for rugby sevens. And who knows if sevens' popularity greatly increases in Tokyo, LA may even consider moving it to a larger stadium should it win the right to host the Olympics in 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, stryker said:

and volleyball to the Long Beach Arena. 

 

Another reason they're giving Indoor Volleyball to the Honda Center in Anaheim is that Anaheim is the training base and host city of the USA Men's and Women's Indoor Volleyball teams starting in the last quadrennium, and probably moving forward ad infinitum.  Thus, LA 2024 is only rewarding Anaheim for their support for the two national teams.  It's a VERY APPROPRIATE choice IMHO.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Well not that surprising though. Soccer would be a sport that can easily fill up a stadium so I'm sure they were aiming for large capacity venues to host major ticket selling matches. StubHub Center has a capacity of 27,000 which isn't bad for a group stage match, but more than enough for rugby sevens. And who knows if sevens' popularity greatly increases in Tokyo, LA may even consider moving it to a larger stadium should it win the right to host the Olympics in 2024.

There's a bit of a paradox there, because what matters more than stadium size is field size. A rugby pitch is supposed to be up to 70 metres wide. An American Football pitch is only supposed to be 49 metres wide, whereas a professional "soccer" pitch should be 64 metres wide, so it's really the only sensible choice for temporary rugby use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JMarkSnow2012 said:

There's a bit of a paradox there, because what matters more than stadium size is field size. A rugby pitch is supposed to be up to 70 metres wide. An American Football pitch is only supposed to be 49 metres wide, whereas a professional "soccer" pitch should be 64 metres wide, so it's really the only sensible choice for temporary rugby use.

The figures you've given are for the playing area only though. Bear in mind NFL requires a far larger space to the sides of the playing area for their huge benches. It'll depend on the stadium, but I expect many NFL fields are as wide as soccer ones, or not far off.

This quirk is why my club, Tottenham, is able to build a stadium with a retractable pitch to encompass both football codes (click here for nifty animation showing how this will work). It's also the reason why Soldier Field in Chicago was recently able to host Rugby. The photo below with both Rugby and NFL lines painted shows what I mean. Obviously it'll depend on the exact dimensions of LA's existing (and future) NFL fields, but Rugby in NFL stadiums is not an impossibility.

DSC_7849.jpg

 

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob. said:

The figures you've given are for the playing area only though. Bear in mind NFL requires a far larger space to the sides of the playing area for their huge benches. It'll depend on the stadium, but I expect many NFL fields are as wide as soccer ones, or not far off.

This quirk is why my club, Tottenham, is able to build a stadium with a retractable pitch to encompass both football codes (click here for nifty animation showing how this will work). It's also the reason why Soldier Field in Chicago was recently able to host Rugby. The photo below with both Rugby and NFL lines painted shows what I mean. Obviously it'll depend on the exact dimensions of LA's existing (and future) NFL fields, but Rugby in NFL stadiums is not an impossibility.

DSC_7849.jpg

 

Quite a few NFL fields seem to have adopted that "superellipse" shape for the field of play. Rugby players, just don't try a flying tackle anywhere near the corners ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...