Earlier this week we removed a reader’s comment that actually broke the news of the L.A. Times headline real estate story (the “Park Fifth,” a proposed 76-story/820 foot condo tower in LA) a day before it was published. Mea Culpa. And yes, we only mention it as it’s “expected to be tallest building west of Chicago.”
∙ Comment: The SocketSite Scoop On That Short Sale In Rincon Hill [SocketSite]
∙ 76-story condo tower planned for downtown L.A. [LA Times]
Nice towers! We finally get to see a residential high rise design that INCLUDES large balconies and does not look like an 80’s edge city office tower or a Ramada Inn. Just returning from Los Angeles myself, I was driving along Wilshire between Westwood and Beverly Hills admiring all of the residential towers and wishing San Francisco could have a stretch of Market or Van Ness that could have that type of scale and density (Or Lombard or Geary for that matter). If you know that 3 mile corridor of Wilshire, you can experience a residential density we still do not have in this city, and yet those buidings seem to go out of their way to offer amenities, motor courts with fountains, large lobbies open to the street of interesting design, and units that average over 1,500 sq. ft. Of course a Wilshire condo is around a $1,000 a sq. ft., but then so is a condo in Mission Bay these days!
ACStripes: The new generation here does not have the crippling fear of height as in the past 30 years. If you can wait 20 years we’re actually becoming. The current tall buildings are only tokens. Yes, think Geary, Van Ness, others.
As for design of this 76-story – proof that you can building something tall which is airy, light, indoor and out — and which engages. Especially in comparison to the already dated and tired 1 Rincon.
In my opinion.
Never having lived in a high rise I have a question about those balconies. Doesn’t the wind reduce their utility? Especially in SF with our daily 20mph (at ground level) sea breeze?
Bummer that this is a building slated for LA, not SF. I do like the design, and to me seems to fit in with the whole Wilshire/Westwood/Beverly Hills comments made by ACS. I think it would work in SF as well, but that’s just me.
Diemos, living in a high rise in South Beach with a balcony, yes, there are a number of days that its windy enough (ripples in my martini) to keep me off my balcony. But, even I was surprised that there are several days that the balcony is quite livable.
I just wouldn’t make hard plans to use the balcony since you never know what the weather would be like. Consider it a pleasent surprise when its usable, even on some of the more dreary days when you would think it would not be fun outside…
“Nice towers! We finally get to see a residential high rise design that INCLUDES large balconies and does not look like an 80’s edge city office tower or a Ramada Inn. Just returning from Los Angeles myself, I was driving along Wilshire between Westwood and Beverly Hills admiring all of the residential towers and wishing San Francisco could have a stretch of Market or Van Ness that could have that type of scale and density (Or Lombard or Geary for that matter). If you know that 3 mile corridor of Wilshire, you can experience a residential density we still do not have in this city, and yet those buidings seem to go out of their way to offer amenities, motor courts with fountains, large lobbies open to the street of interesting design, and units that average over 1,500 sq. ft. Of course a Wilshire condo is around a $1,000 a sq. ft., but then so is a condo in Mission Bay these days!”
Oh how fast we all forget.
First off, you can’t tell anything from this rendering. I remember a bunch of posts with people complaining the renderings of some of our “current” developments looked better than the actual buildings going up. That the renderings were misleading. Why could that not be the case here?
Second, with all those amenities, you are paying HUGE HOA fees. I priced a smaller unit down there 5 years ago and the HOA was over $1200 dollars.
The buildings on Wilshire do look nice though!
I understand that there are days that balconies cannot be used, but as a former high rise dweller myself, I cannot begin to explain the difference in just “knowing the balcony is there”. Even if it was for a minute, I just liked to be able to step outside, and without a balcony, I would have felt I was living in a hotel instead of a condo.
I never used the balcony as living space, but ALL of my guests would always immediatly want to go out on the balcony to look at the view as soon as they arrived.
And yes, I guess you can tell, I don’t like candy stripes on high rise buildings.
Ah, the balcony. Like a fireplace on the outside of your apartment. The most use it gets is being written about in a list of features when you are desperately tryin gto rent the place out.
I love my balcony and can’t imagine living in a unit without one. The glass walls are high enough that it blocks out a huge percentage of the wind if I am seated. Also the placement of the balcony on the building (height, side) makes a big difference. And surprisingly I have never seen a rule in any CCRs that you can’t have a heat lamp.
Anti Candi Stripes:
Even more important: My CAT just knowing the balcony is there.
As support, I never realized how much I used a balcony until I moved into a place without one. Storing bikes, drying clothes, lounge for guests who smoke, checking weather before I leave the house, etc. Lots of balcony uses.
I’ve had a few highrise condos in SF, some with and some without balconies. Although it’s nice to be able to step outside every so often, I’ve found baloconies in SF mostly useless. The extra interior square footage is more valuable. When I have had balconies, I’ve fixed them up so they blend with the interior and visually expand the living space. The most I’ve ever hoped for is nice to look at from the inside, but not very functional.
Dude and seehsee are right. I lived in the Met, worked nearby, and ran all over SoBe. NEVER saw anyone at Watermark using a balcony, maybe one person at Portside, none @ the Harrison condos, and no one at the Lansing appears to use even their roofdeck. At the Met, other than the smokers next door, I only ever saw two other people use their balcony (one time each, btw!) during the time I lived there. Like ACS said, it’s mostly used for wow factor for your guests who don’t live in the city or in a highrise. That’s not to say that there aren’t many times during the day (before the fog rolls in) that it is perfectly warm to go out on a balcony if it’s in the sun.
Most important use for SF balconies: A place for visitors who are smokers to light up. (There are fewer and fewer tobacco smokers these days– but don’t forget cannabis!)