LAPD headquarters or New Civic Park? [Archive]

View Full Version : LAPD headquarters or New Civic Park?

Pages : [1] 2 3

LosAngelesSportsFan

Mar 7, 2005, 7:04 AM

There is an ongoing battle about which to build on the former Cal Trans Site. I turely beleive that the park will change the area drastically for the better and the LAPD building should be built somewhere else. This is such an important part of the Downtown Revitilization and i hope everyone urges the city council to build the park instead of the LAPD Headquarters.

LABeauty, any updates on which way the council is leaning on this? Maybe you can mention how important this is to people you know.

Here is an Article from the Planning Report about this site as well as a link to LACIVICPARK.ORG

http://lacivicpark.org/

Residents Want Promised Civic Park, Not Police Station for Downtown Los Angeles Site
Concerned citizens say that a new police headquarters downtown would be a detriment to revitalization and on-going cultural initiatives.

On Feb. 3, the LA Cultural Affairs Commission voted against the new Los Angeles Police Department headquarters in Downtown. Continuing our coverage of the proposed police headquarters [See TPR December/January 2005], TPR is pleased to print two memos presented to the Commission before its vote: one from lacivicpark.org, a coalition supporting the use of the land for a park, and another from Adele Yellin, co-chair of a city advisory committee helping to plan the park.

From: lacivicpark.org

To: The LA Cultural AffairsCommission

Re: Hearing on Proposed Police Headquarters, Jan. 20, 2005

The city’s plans to build a new police headquarters on the old Caltrans site and the neighboring block anchored by St. Vibiana’s will undermine the emerging arts and cultural movements downtown and squander the ideal site for a major civic park for Los Angeles.

The city’s abrupt selection of this site for a police headquarters in June 2004 was made without input from the communities most directly affected and disregarded previous plans calling for open space. Hundreds of people have protested this decision at public meetings in August, October and November. More than 1,000 have signed a protest petition. We ask that you not approve this plan – it is short-sighted and short-changes the entire city.

Impact on the arts community would be dramatic.

The block at 1st, 2nd, Spring and Main streets marks the start of Gallery Row, the arts initiative along Main and Spring streets that in less than a year has grown from 4 galleries to 15. Across the street is historic St. Vibiana’s, built in 1876. The former cathedral – narrowly saved from an earlier wrecking ball – has just undergone a $6 million renovation and transformation into an arts center. On the other side of Main, the Linda Lea theater is about to be renovated and re-opened as a film and performance arts venue.

Works of art, art fairs and festivals in the park were to have played a key role in bringing people into the area and supporting these city-backed arts endeavors. Under the city’s current plan, not only would there be no park to showcase artwork and attract crowds, the building on Main where the Gallery Row concept was born -- formerly Inshallah, now MJ Higgins – would be torn down to make space for police parking and a motor pool. The plan leaves virtually no public parking in the area for arts, restaurant and shop patrons.

Allowed to thrive, these important cultural initiatives will help create a lively, authentic arts district that bridges the established art museums just east and west -- MOCA, the Geffen Contemporary and the Japanese American National Museum -- and the Music Center’s performing arts venues up the hill.

The current city plan shows an 11-story, 500,000-square-foot headquarters, an auditorium, parking for 700 police vehicles and a small community park on the old Caltrans site. On the other block, next to St. Vibiana’s, would be parking for another 500 police vehicles and the motor pool where police cars are washed and serviced. This massive project would permanently alter the potential of the area to develop into a commercial and pedestrian friendly zone that would help the arts community and surrounding neighborhoods succeed.

We have a historic opportunity to give the citizens of LA a place in the city’s civic center.

Public parks and civic gathering places are hallmarks of great cities but Los Angeles has grown up with almost none. The old Caltrans block – which is about to become the property of the people of Los Angeles – gives us a rare opportunity to dramatically change that. Urban planners and city officials have repeatedly identified it as ideal for a great public space – the master plan adopted by the City Council in 1997 calls for open space on this block.

At the steps of City Hall, it is the public’s gateway to its government and it is the city’s gateway to its historic core, business districts, and emerging residential and arts corridors. The police building proposed for the site would visually and emotionally close off that connection. Creating a park would nourish it and extend a long-overdue welcome to residents of this far-flung city, so in need of common ground. Bordering the site are LA’s earliest thoroughfares and some of its oldest and newest landmarks – including City Hall, the LA Times, St. Vibiana’s, the new Caltrans building, and, just up the street, Disney Hall. How this block is used will in many ways define the kind of city we become.

Workers, residents and downtown’s children need a healthy, welcoming park.

This site is close to thousands of downtown workers and a growing number of residents who need park space to help them lead healthy lives. In a densely populated area, we have a critical responsibility to ensure that there is park space where people can gather, jog, relax and breath a little easier – and where our children have a safe place to play. Two-thirds of Los Angeles children do not live within walking distance of a public park – the ratio is even worse downtown.

Developing market rate and affordable housing downtown isn’t just a trend, it’s a necessity. Creating a park on this site would radically improve the environment for those who work and live in the surrounding districts and all who come to visit. This is a quality of life and health issue that we can no longer afford to ignore.

A park on this site will foster business and housing development.

Little Tokyo, the Historic Core, Artists, Toy, Broadway, Bunker Hill and Grand Avenue districts will all benefit if pedestrians and other visitors can move easily from one area to another. This site has the unique potential to help bring these interests together in a critical mass of arts venues, restaurants and other businesses. Although banners proclaim downtown as a place to live, work, and play, there is precious little place to meet or play. Human-friendly public spaces will help ensure the success of downtown redevelopment that will generate tax revenue and other benefits for the entire city. Many of the 8,000 new downtown housing units in the pipeline or under consideration are near this site.

A great civic park in downtown LA will be a point of pride for generations to come.

Backers of this park envision a place as extraordinary as this city. The design possibilities have already generated interest around the world. One concept shows it with a great artwork – a palm spiral envisioned by the late artist Robert Smithson. Others show a place where plants transform the space as seasons change, an urban waterscape, a high-tech center for communicating ideas. Most see it with multiple uses, dynamic attractions and an underground parking facility to accommodate visitors. All see it as a place where people from LA’s many and diverse communities can gather and enjoy their city.

All sites are not created equal – and this one is unique.

There are alternative sites that would be suitable for a new police headquarters – and the city needs to redouble efforts to identify them. There is no other site so well suited for a park -- in addition to its keystone location, the old Caltrans site is on level land and is open and welcoming from all sides. The decision to put the LAPD on this site appears to have been made without taking into consideration the impact it would have on the surrounding area – or its value if developed differently. The size and requirements of this project will dominate not just one, but two key blocks in the very heart of the city. The police facility requires security setbacks, there can be no parking underneath the headquarters, access must be tightly controlled, operations must exist in specialized configurations – in short, a defensible space. While these are necessary and important considerations, they preclude other more neighbor-friendly uses.

From wrong location to wrong location: It’s time to find the right site for the LAPD.

The LA City Council listened when residents and businesses in Little Tokyo and the Artists District protested that the police headquarters at 1st and Alameda would disrupt renewal efforts in those communities. But then the council did something stunning: it voted to put the police facility on this even more sensitive site. It is time for city officials to develop a rational plan that gives the LAPD the headquarters it needs and supports rather than disrupts the real yet fragile urban renewal under way downtown. The sooner the city focuses on identifying the right site, the sooner progress can be made.

We ask you, as members of the Cultural Affairs Commission, to help make that happen. And to join us in looking ahead to a new kind of downtown for LA.

Attention: Members of the Cultural Affairs Commission

From: Adele Yellin

Subject: Proposed Police Headquarters at 1st Street: South of City Hall, East of the Los Angeles Times building and West of the new CalTrans headquarters

... Please note my strong objection to the Police Headquarters Project on this site.

Let me explain. My late husband, Ira Yellin helped develop a downtown civic plan that included a public square as its center piece. He was committed to building Los Angeles’ sense of community.

Indeed, Ira was a proponent of a Civic Park, a public green space, opposite City Hall as proposed in the Diamond plan. He was certain that a Civic Square opposite City Hall was important as a gateway between the revitalizing Historic Core and the halls of city government. At the very end of his life he encouraged me and others to make sure the park was created. Ira envisioned the park as a central, gathering place for this city-without-a-center: a place to hold a city gathering for the New Year; a place to protest, a place to celebrate.

Moreover, Ira dreamed of instituting a program in the park similar to the summer program at the Serpentine Gallery in Hyde Park, London. There, each year a famous contemporary architect builds a pavilion for the public to view. This program has been credited with educating the British public on the beauty and creativity of contemporary architecture. While a program such as this could be installed on any site in the city Ira felt this site at the heart of the city was the ideal location.

The problem: The city has decided to build a 500,000 sq. ft. building on the site to house the police headquarters. Parker Center is decrepit and I am committed to making sure the police have a state of the art building for their headquarters. In my view siting the building on this land opposite City Hall is a planning mistake that will be with us into the next century. Not only does it become a physical barrier to the historic core, it is a psychic barrier as well. The message of a heavily fortified police headquarters opposite city hall and next to the LA Times will feel more like a government under siege rather than an open democracy where people can voice their support and/or their objections to one issue or another. I am convinced this is not the message Los Angeles wants to convey to the community and world.

There are a number of other locations that would be ideal for a new LAPD headquarters. The headquarters does not need to occupy the only natural site for a civic square and the gateway to downtown Los Angeles’ historic core. Let me be clear, the placement of the police headquarters building next to the new CalTrans building will create a wall, effectively blocking off the Civic Center from the revitalizing downtown.

I have tried to carry on Ira’s vision. To that end I enlisted the help of the J. Paul Getty Trust; they underwrote a design plan for civic square. I believe this park will make Los Angeles a stronger city. I have emailed to Sharon Paulo the presentation of the Civic Square concept developed by Campbell and Campbell last year. Look at the importance of this open space to anchor, and animate the area; this site is the hinge that connects the civic center with the historic core.

I urge you to object, indeed, to stop this unfortunate planning/building proposal! Preserve this unique site for a Civic Park! ...

About TPR | Print Edition | Email Newsletter | Archive | Contact Us | Home

Copyright © 2003 The Planning Report
David Abel, Publisher, ABL, Inc.

POLA

Mar 7, 2005, 5:37 PM

What can we do to voice our opposistion?

LongBeachUrbanist

Mar 7, 2005, 6:16 PM

The City Council is acting like it's a done deal and is moving forward. There is a public comment period, I believe, right now. But who knows if they're going to care...it seems like a formality to me.

Let's be clear: this isn't simply a few NIMBY's who want a park to raise property values. There is a broader issue of good planning vs. bad planning. Building a Police HQ instead of a park south of City Hall would:

* wall off City Hall from the rest of downtown;
* impose a blockade between Little Tokyo, Grand Avenue and the Historic Core;
* drop a massive, noisy motor pool onto the corner of 3rd/Main, destroying any chance of a community there;
* miss a huge opportunity to build a much needed park in Downtown;
* go back on planning and promises to the neighborhood, causing ill-will while sending property values downward;
* will send a message to developers that LA is not serious about promoting it's downtown's renaissance.

If you live in Los Angeles, write to your Councilperson, and also right to Jan Perry, Downtown's Councilperson. Tell them they are making a huge mistake for the future of Downtown.

colemonkee

Mar 7, 2005, 9:35 PM

J Church

Mar 7, 2005, 9:40 PM

^ there have got to be better sites north of the hollywood freeway.

Wright Concept

Mar 7, 2005, 10:23 PM

I completely agree with putting a park on the former CalTrans site is much better for the longevity of downtown. But let me play devil's advocate. If the former CalTrans site and 1st & Alameda won't work, what site DOES work? The motorcade is going to strip the street life from whatever block it's put on, so where is it appropriate to do so? And how far from City Hall (or downtown, for that matter) do you think LAPD will realistically want their headquarters?

Before it became the headquarters of SBC, The current Mayor wanted to rehab Parker Center and add an auxuilary headquarters at the Transamerica now SBC Tower Complex, it's located near Staples Center and it is North of the 10 freeway, but South of the current location (LAPD would have used one of the smaller Towers) to house operations. I like this idea for three reasons;
1) Preserves the Cal-Trans site for the Civic Square
2) Start the clean up of South Broadway, which in turn, will wind its way north into a revival of the Grand theaters.
3) Merge the Fashion District and South Park areas into a new location for Residential/Mixed use development, since there are acres of surface parking lots that can serve as a location for the LAPD do house its police cars. The small station would serve as a anchor into this new neighborhood with a Supermarket or Elementary school to follow.

LongBeachUrbanist

Jul 6, 2005, 7:13 AM

I just found these pictures on Eric Richardson's website, blogdowntown.com, depicting the future LAPD HQ and motor pool buildings.

Future LAPD HQ building with public plaza:

http://photos9.flickr.com/16989820_43dcc624e4.jpg?v=1117679606 (http://photos9.flickr.com/16989820_43dcc624e4_o.jpg)

Site plan:

http://photos14.flickr.com/16989823_5517e8a232.jpg?v=1117679590 (http://photos14.flickr.com/16989823_5517e8a232_o.jpg)

Another view of future LAPD HQ:

http://photos14.flickr.com/16989821_ca777d9810.jpg?v=0 (http://photos14.flickr.com/16989821_ca777d9810_o.jpg)

Proposed LAPD motor pool next to Vibiana Plaza:

http://photos14.flickr.com/16989825_f4e97da018.jpg?v=0 (http://photos14.flickr.com/16989825_f4e97da018_o.jpg)

DJM19

Jul 6, 2005, 7:27 AM

yeah, I saw that awhile ago...I dont like it...looks like something out of the 70s...

And yet I watched the presentation to the police commission on TV and they were praising it. :no:

EastBayHardCore

Jul 6, 2005, 7:31 AM

ick. That "public plaza" design ain't pretty. That intersection really needs something with a good streetwall workin and less urban wasteland (a.k.a. plazas)

DJM19

Jul 6, 2005, 7:33 AM

Los Angeles is immune to good urban civic buildings now it seems

DaveofCali

Jul 6, 2005, 7:43 AM

The last thing that Downtown L.A. needs is another office building with a large, underused plaza.

LosAngelesSportsFan

Jul 6, 2005, 9:27 AM

How sad. Everyone wants the park except for the lazy ass politicians.

DJM19

Jul 6, 2005, 9:41 AM

with that design, Id take the park in a heart beat.

Im sad the design doesnt resemble the old rendering more. It was so futuristic looking. Like something in 2035...not 1975

Art

Jul 6, 2005, 3:54 PM

I fucken hate LA planning, who are these drones?

I good location, besides the other option jerard highlighted, would be either in that industrial wasteland north of the elevated goldline/east of Chinatown OR in that industrial patch just south of the 101 and east of Alameda. Both those areas are dead and have plenty of empty wharehouse lots, amny already owned by the city. How about that giant flat lot just south of the 101 where the original redline eastside extension was to go underground?

On the subject of bad planning and the area northeast of the esgoldline alignment, I am also terribly disappointed at a new huge fire station being planned for the southeast corner of alameda/temple, right next to the esgoldline LilTokyo station! WTF? does someone not want LA to be planned right, that whole lot is screaming highrise TOD and theyre gonna put a suburban noise factory. Please write to your public officials on this one too, you can sorta see the firestation in those UCLA goldline renderings of Alameda/LTokyo station.

Wright Concept

Jul 6, 2005, 4:01 PM

But at the same time, one has to understand that these services are needed and they need to be housed somewhere. If anything the designs are too large for the area and it's surroundings. A series of smaller headquarters in each district Downtown would and could work just as well as centralizing the facility. The only need to house a central tower that large is for the bureaucratic heads. And again having them in one of the existing towers Downtown could do the job.

On the design factor, it actually works for its location. Keep in mind of what's across Main Street (Caltrans)and how that building is situated and how it's designed and what is on the edge of Spring Street on the opposite side(LA Times) and how that building mirrors that street wall. The only problem is that it looks too tall and the very edge that should be open to City Hall is blocked off.

LAMetroGuy

Jul 6, 2005, 4:24 PM

yeeesh... that is one ugly building. I'm sad and depressed now.

LongBeachUrbanist

Jul 6, 2005, 6:04 PM

Yeah, it looks like it was designed by Mike Brady. Or Greg. Or Cindy.

That half-assed plaza is a bad compromise IMO. Better to just use the whole block and bring the building out to the sidewalk, than create another useless plaza. Nobody uses plazas!!! What are you supposed to do, stand there? No, you're supposed to keep moving.

I would guess these designs come from suburbanites that have no idea how a city functions.

The Motor Pool is even worse. That building will be situated just south of beautiful St. Vibiana Cathedral, just north of the Medallion project.

There are appropriate places for everything - Police HQ, Motor Pool, Fire Station, etc. It's very simple.

* Don't locate a bunker-style police HQ at the intersection of neighborhoods, if you don't want to wall people off from each other.

* Don't locate a police motor pool in the middle of a growing neighborhood, unless you don't want people to live there.

* Don't locate a fire station next to a transit stop, unless you want constant traffic problems and hope to squander a prime opportunity for dense urban development.

LosAngelesBeauty

Jul 6, 2005, 6:05 PM

DJM19

Jul 6, 2005, 6:38 PM

HAHA I am totally the minority viewpoint here, but I actually kinda like it! I think it might be able to blend in well with the civic center. It'll be sandwiched by Caltrans and US Federal Courthouse, which does and will have much more interesting architecture. PLUS, the plaza will open up to the NEW Grand Park which could provide that open space?

OH well, we gotta live with it now...

Well, unfortunately, I think that a lot of civic buildings are ugly, so it will fit right in.

Its already up there with:

The current parker center
http://www.you-are-here.com/architect/parker1.jpg

The superior court
http://anitafried.de/los_angeles/1958_superior_court.jpg

The federal building
http://anitafried.de/los_angeles/1966_federal_building.jpg

And the DWP (maybe the most tolerable)
http://anitafried.de/skyscraper/1964_dwp.jpg

Wright Concept

Jul 6, 2005, 6:47 PM

The DWP is a cool building. I remeber as a kid ( I don't think they do this now), When they have all the interior perimeter lights on the building looks like a glowing cube. In the daytime the overhangs dominate the buildings presence. And the ground level moat that literally looks like clean sheet of paper, all but adds to the simple modernity, yet it was a regenerative cooling the buildings interior. It's one of the only buildings in LA that has that chamellon quality yet is very innovative even 40 years later as an egologically sound building.

DJM19

Jul 6, 2005, 6:49 PM

I have heard it looks best at night with all the lights on.

POLA

Jul 6, 2005, 6:50 PM

DWP rocks!

So, is the LAPD building still pending or is it a go ahead now?

LongBeachUrbanist

Jul 6, 2005, 6:58 PM

It's going to go through a rubber-stamp EIR process, i.e., they will do an EIR, but it'll be understood by most parties that this thing is a done deal.

Some local residents (esp. from the Higgins Building) are fighting this thing hard. If the environmental/mitigation process is obviously prejudiced, I can imagine someone will bring a lawsuit in state court.

colemonkee

Jul 6, 2005, 8:52 PM

^I'll be one of those residents in 28 days, and I'd rather have the park. I'm not too impressed with the design of the building. The plaza will open up access somewhat to the future Grand Park, but having to go through a police headquarters plaza will probably be a deterent for most people. Oh well, at least the area will feel a lot safer.

LosAngelesBeauty

Jul 6, 2005, 9:02 PM

^ Congrats! Welcome to Downtown LA!

colemonkee

Jul 6, 2005, 9:24 PM

Thanks! I'm looking forward to it.

citywatch

Jul 6, 2005, 10:34 PM

And the DWP (maybe the most tolerable)

I think the DWP bldg is far better than "tolerable."

I wish LA had so few raunchy structures that we could nitpick over some of the bldgs you've listed. While almost all of them are admittedly pretty lame, when put in the context of some of the really bad parts of the hood, like all the dives farther south, they at least don't scream "this is a DUMP!!!"

As for the more recent concept of the LAPD bldg, it looks less appealing than an older version, which showed the structure with a curved wing top:

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/577/28losangeles-lapdheadquarters01.jpg

The above reminded me of a less daring version of what the architect of the Olympic stadium in Athens or a new concert hall in Atlanta likes to include in his work:

http://www.arcspace.com/architects/calatrava/atlanta/1atlanta.jpg

As for the site of the old Caltrans bldg eventually having another mostly empty, wind swept plaza? Yea, that's not such a great idea. By the same token, I don't know if another version of the Grand Hope pk, except one that's non gated & larger, at 1st, 2nd, Main & LA Sts would be a good thing either. Certainly if it ends up with the problems that little pocket park at 3rd & Main always seems to attract.

citywatch

Jul 6, 2005, 10:47 PM

I just found these pictures on Eric Richardson's website, blogdowntown.com

Speaking of which, & since this thread mentions the LAPD, which is partly responsible for keeping streets in DT in decent shape, & since there have been other threads where everyone has debated about problems in hoods like Westlake or along Spring St in the OBD, I found this message posted on the blogdowntown site to be of some interest:

Posted by K. Lynn at 07/05/05 11:15AM.......Many years ago, San Diego wanted to rid the streets of the homeless and provide decent living quarters for the homeless. They proceeded to renovate the San Diego Hotel, located in the heart of the downtown area. Once renovated they went around the area and rounded up the homeles, and took them to their new home..the hotel. As soon as the "do-gooders" [well intended] had left the area the transplanted homeless left the building...not to return. We need to keep in mind that many of these people are mentally ill. Some are sick because of drug abuse but many ARE NOT. These people do not look at life the same. Their values are different than ours and many are suspicious of buildings. They do not like rules and are paranoid. As long as we keep trying to force them into "our world" we will not succeed. Some of these people should be pitied but I have found that in their own little world...many are content. As hard as that is to believe...that has been my observation & I live "inside" downtown.

LongBeachUrbanist

Jul 7, 2005, 11:37 PM

^ I agree, from what I have read and witnessed, there are apparently a lot of people on Skid Row "by choice", for many reasons. Some are mentally ill and unable to make the right choices. Others are attracted by drugs. Others are attracted by opportunities to sell drugs/sex. Others are criminals hiding from the law.

The following may sound strange coming from me, to those of you who want to classify me as a liberal "do-gooder", but I think we as a society cannot allow the "by-choice" homeless to do whatever they want in Skid Row. This is the Central Business District of Los Angeles. Much of our food supply is distributed in this area, and the filth is a public health risk IMO.

It's no mystery how to solve this. The solution has two parts, and both parts will cost money. First, we need to start providing the services and beds that the homeless community needs. LA currently spends less per capita than almost any other American city on homeless beds/services. Once that happens, we must then put cops on the street to prevent:

* sleeping on the streets/sidewalks/parks/etc.

* loitering

* doing drugs in public

* verbally/physically harassing people

These are crimes that we cannot turn a blind eye to. Allowing these people to commit such crimes (as we do in LA) only serves to show we are a city that can't be taken too seriously. Social services along with a serious police presence are critical for that area.

Both sides of the services/cops equation will cost money, but the way I see it this is what has to be done. This is what NYC and other cities have done, and it's really the only successful strategy IMO.

DJM19

Jul 8, 2005, 12:53 AM

I think we need to have more services for these homeless all over LA and less in downtown. Downtown has more for the homeless than most other cities in the country. Thats why its so centralized. We need to decentralize and put other areas in LA County on equal footing with downtown.

LosAngelesBeauty

Jul 8, 2005, 1:16 AM

^ How ironic huh? LOL

citywatch

Jul 8, 2005, 3:16 AM

LA currently spends less per capita than almost any other American city on homeless beds/services.
Keep in mind that San Francisco, economically & philosophically, has been bending over backwards to accomodate their homeless. Did both the $$ & policymaking of that city, at least until not too long before Mayor Newsom came into the picture, allow the streets of SF to become the ideal setting in America?

The main thing to focus on is that lawsuits over the yrs have pretty much forced cops & social service agencies to give homeless ppl wide latitude, where their wishes & wants, no matter how crazy, are given priority & must come FIRST, while the needs of the hood come second. That's a situation traceable primarily to judges, lawyers and courts, not govt programs or $$$.

LongBeachUrbanist

Jul 8, 2005, 5:21 AM

^ I didn't say $$$ was all that was necessary. In SF they have spent lots of $$$ on services, but have been very reluctant (politically) to turn up the pressure on dealing with crimes like loitering/vagrancy/sleeping on sidewalks. So I don't think SF is a good example of what I mean.

The main lawsuits I had heard about when I lived there involved things like the police confiscating and destroying personal property of homeless.

LA rehab

Jul 8, 2005, 6:35 AM

In the old days, we had insane asylums for the mentally ill.

Then some lefties got in their heads that these insane peoples' civil rights were being violated by confinement. They cried "oh those poor, poor peeeeeople, they should be given their freedom"

A budget-slashing former actor turned governor then president rightie obliged them. He managed to please constituencies on both the left and the right. What a beautiful and heart-warming piece of bipartisanshit!

History apparently didn't judge so kindly.

Those mental hospitals will cost a pretty penny to rebuild and restaff. Hopefully they'll be something other than gulags with no exit.

DJM19

Jul 8, 2005, 9:29 AM

yeah we need some of those facilites back. No loitering on the streets!

POLA

Jul 8, 2005, 4:13 PM

LongBeachUrbanist

Jul 8, 2005, 5:11 PM

citywatch

Jul 8, 2005, 8:42 PM

You have to be careful saying that because it will come back to bite you when those anti-loitering laws are used to arrest or break up people like kids who have a "hang out" or protests or block parties.
Actually, the city of Chicago several yrs ago tried to enforce an anti loitering law that was directed at street gangs, was sued, & the Supreme Ct ruled against the city. Laws that ban loitering on public property through the yrs have lost a lot of their punch for almost the opposite reason that NIMBYites or the BRU have been able to exert great power over hoods & public policy.

The LAPD used to have paddywagons running around DT a long time ago that picked up homeless ppl. I think around 25 yrs ago one of the wandering, homeless drunks who was picked up sued the city & the court ruled against the LAPD. The legal concept from that day onward was that if ppl wanted to mill about in a hood, their behavior, no matter how bad or incapacitated, was legally protected or permissible.

Even if we reopened every so-called insane asylum or treatment ctr from here to Mars, the wishes of homeless ppl to be homeless still would take precedence over everything else, with ppl like Alice Callahan or the ACLU making sure of that.

DJM19

Jul 8, 2005, 9:23 PM

^Loitering is a double edged knife. You have to be careful saying that because it will come back to bite you when those anti-loitering laws are used to arrest or break up people like kids who have a "hang out" or protests or block parties. Perhaps a no sleeping on the street law. If your tired, go get a bed for the time at a shelter. That's what I have a problem with. I understand people who want to panhandle for a living or don't have a place to go for the day. But I don't think it's right for anyone to "build" a personal shelter on a public street to sleep in. Just thinking out loud here, could be wrong.

Well, you could get permission to hold a protest (I think you have to anyway), and to throw a block party. Police would have to use good judgement to tell who is hanging out and who plans to be there all day. If the person is alone and repeatedly in that area, they are not hanging out. And no panhandling either!

colemonkee

Jul 8, 2005, 9:30 PM

^Panhandling is illegal, and prosecutable, as is disturbing the peace, so it's not as if all types of behavior are permitted or allowed on the street, based on legal precedence. Loitering is also illegal, it is just hardly enforced. LAPD regularly does sweeps of areas in Downtown where they pick people up for loitering (usually homeless), but release them later if they aren't doing anything other than loitering (my friend's dad is an officer who led a midnight sweep of Pershing Square a month or so ago that netted 110 arrests).

Those lawsuits that discouraged these raids don't prevent the cops from picking people up, they just define the manner in which the cops must do them, which is respectful of the detainee's civil rights.

citywatch

Jul 8, 2005, 9:51 PM

The threat of lawsuits is the major counterweight to complaints from others who are unhappy about the nuisances posed by homeless ppl. I'm sure the sweep you described is due to lots of public pressure from ppl like local city officials & the influence of the LAPD captain, interviewed several wks ago by the DT News, in charge of the hood. However, at best, ppl have to released on their own recognizance pretty much ASAP or because their wishes have to take precedence over the needs of a hood.

It's a vicious cycle, & dealing with many homeless ppl is an unpleasant task (I know the smell of urine of one homeless woman I encountered at the post office a few months ago was so bad & strong, I almost wanted to puke), & legally most social workers & cops don't have the legal authority to tell ppl, even if they're really messed up & homeless, what they can or cannot do.

LongBeachUrbanist

Jul 17, 2005, 5:04 PM

I noticed yesterday, the old Caltrans building is finally being demolished. Before yesterday, I had only seen the little buildings being demod.

This may be old news, but it was news to me.

Now if only they'd demo the old State building at First/Hill. That's been wrapped in fencing and ready for demo for ages now.

ozone

Jul 17, 2005, 5:39 PM

In the old days, we had insane asylums for the mentally ill.

Then got in their heads that these insane peoples' civil rights were being violated by confinement. They cried "oh those poor, poor peeeeeople, they should be given their freedom"

A budget-slashing former actor turned governor then president rightie obliged them. He managed to please constituencies on both the left and the right. What a beautiful and heart-warming piece of bipartisanshit!

History apparently didn't judge so kindly.

Those mental hospitals will cost a pretty penny to rebuild and restaff. Hopefully they'll be something other than gulags with no exit.

Oh how I dislike people who don’t get their facts straight. FYI it wasn’t “some lefties” who started calling for the civil rights of the mentally ill but rather it was psychiatric professionals pushing for mental health reform. (Which as you probably don’t understand are not all a bunch of “lefties” anyway. Many are rather conservative or simply apolitical). Of course, some civil liberty groups joined with them as did the anti-tax conservatives who were quick to see the financial advantages of unloading the burden of taking care of these poor souls.

I think the “mental health pros” were wrong here (as they have been on so many issues), but do you know what those facilities where like back then? They were short on actually helping the mentally ill and long on incarceration. So when the problems of mistreatment and forced institutionalization was brought to the attention the civil libertarians they natural took up the cause. But instead of true reform, as you said, the conservatives closed them down. And many “lefties” actually fought against their closure. We’ve come along way in understanding mental illness and how best to treat it. Unfortunately we don’t spend the money needed to help these people. We would rather spend the money to build jails and tanks than to humanely house and treat the mentally ill.

LA rehab

Jul 19, 2005, 7:05 AM

In the old days, we had insane asylums for the mentally ill.

Then got in their heads that these insane peoples' civil rights were being violated by confinement. They cried "oh those poor, poor peeeeeople, they should be given their freedom"

A budget-slashing former actor turned governor then president rightie obliged them. He managed to please constituencies on both the left and the right. What a beautiful and heart-warming piece of bipartisanshit!

History apparently didn't judge so kindly.

Those mental hospitals will cost a pretty penny to rebuild and restaff. Hopefully they'll be something other than gulags with no exit.

Oh how I dislike people who don’t get their facts straight. FYI it wasn’t “some lefties” who started calling for the civil rights of the mentally ill but rather it was psychiatric professionals pushing for mental health reform. (Which as you probably don’t understand are not all a bunch of “lefties” anyway. Many are rather conservative or simply apolitical). Of course, some civil liberty groups joined with them as did the anti-tax conservatives who were quick to see the financial advantages of unloading the burden of taking care of these poor souls.

I remember the hue and cry coming from the left side of the spectrum. I'd argue that a large majority of mental health professionals then and now are to the left of center. In the 70s, I recall that dominant behaviorist paradigms of the day had most in the business of mind mechanics voting left. Not like that has any practical effect on anything, just a historical observation.

I think the “mental health pros” were wrong here (as they have been on so many issues), but do you know what those facilities where like back then? They were short on actually helping the mentally ill and long on incarceration. So when the problems of mistreatment and forced institutionalization was brought to the attention the civil libertarians they natural took up the cause. But instead of true reform, as you said, the conservatives closed them down. And many “lefties” actually fought against their closure. We’ve come along way in understanding mental illness and how best to treat it. Unfortunately we don’t spend the money needed to help these people. We would rather spend the money to build jails and tanks than to humanely house and treat the mentally ill.

can't disagree there.

ryanist

Jul 29, 2005, 6:46 AM

Some better renderings of the proposed LAPD headquarters:

http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/media/4311.jpg

http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/media/4312.jpg

http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/media/4313.jpg

http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/media/4314.jpg

LAMetroGuy

Jul 29, 2005, 7:00 AM

I still don't like it!

ryanist

Jul 29, 2005, 7:15 AM

Agreed.

As a former downtown resident, that building will only block the great things that have happened in the Old Bank District with all the Grand Avenue plans. DTLA is the largest government center outside of Washington, DC. The last thing they need there is another post-9/11 bunker with blank walls facing barren sidewalks.

If this building is built (and I'm assuming it will be), they need to tear down the City Hall extension to the east and implode the LA Mall. Send out an RFP to build housing/retail with context sensitive architecture.

...and please destroy that Tomorrowland bell tower/light brite thing. Or at least remove it, restore it and ship it to SF as a "gift."

ryanist

Jul 29, 2005, 7:31 AM

Oh here it is -- the Triforium. Enjoy!

http://you-are-here.com/sculpture/triforium.jpg

POLA

Jul 29, 2005, 8:16 AM

Holly shit! Did they go back in time to 1985 to design the LAPD building? Look at that wall! Terrible! Is in the constitution that all Gov. buildings be ugly? Oh well, at least it's got company.

DJM19

Jul 29, 2005, 8:30 AM

God, I just cant believe what poor taste the people who approved this have. I happened to catch the presentation on TV to the police commissioners. They were very happy with the design and thought it looked great. Im just not seeing it.

The building has Mike Brady written all over it.

Its like they TRY to waste the most amount of space possible. With that huge plaza area and that gigantic window-less wall. And whats with the windows. Someone is gunna get pissed off if they end up with a sliver of a window and the guy next door has a whole wall of a window

colemonkee

Jul 29, 2005, 6:52 PM

That big windowless wall is where the interrogation rooms will go. Apparently, they need a lot of them...

yeah215

Aug 4, 2005, 3:48 PM

From the LA Times today.

-----------------------------

LAPD Project Adds Green Space

In a nod to residents, officials create a more open design for the block where the new headquarters is planned.

By Cara Mia DiMassa, Times Staff Writer

In a victory for downtown Los Angeles' fledging residential community, the LAPD said this week that it was acceding to residents' demands and including more green space and adding retail areas to the massive new police headquarters slated to be built across the street from City Hall.

The new 11-story headquarters will rise on a block bordered by 1st, 2nd, Spring and Main streets — just south of the Civic Center. A master plan for downtown created in 1997 called for turning the block, occupied by the old Caltrans headquarters, into a public park.

So when the City Council decided in June 2004 to place the police complex there, downtown residents protested.

The block is at the heart of a growing loft and condo community, and the battle came to symbolize the efforts of residents to flex their political muscle and demand one neighborhood amenity now largely lacking downtown: open space.

"This is not a question of people not wanting LAPD downtown," said Cheryl McDonald, a downtown resident who helped lead the effort to get the parkland. "We'd love it. But this particular block is a gateway from the historic core to Little Tokyo to City Hall and the Civic Center."

After months of talks with residents, Yvette Sanchez-Owens, commanding officer of the LAPD's Facilities Management Division, said this week that planners had "overcome most of the public concerns."

Among the items that have been added are a swath of lawn about 130 by 200 feet along 2nd that will be bordered by trees and shrubbery; an outdoor cafe at Main and 2nd; a semi-public auditorium; and a retail space along Main that Sanchez-Owens said could be occupied by a flower store or newsstand. In addition, an open plaza along 1st will be larger than previously planned.

Officials hope that these spaces will provide residents and office workers with spaces for walking dogs, picnicking and other outdoor activities.

The design of the building itself was also altered to provide more open areas on the property and better views of City Hall. The original design called for a boxy building that covered half the block. Under the new plan, Sanchez-Owens said in an interview Wednesday, the building would be more triangular "so you get the open view from 2nd Street up to City Hall."

The structure's look was influenced in part by strict homeland security rules that govern the design of such elements as entrances, public spaces and parking. The building would be set back from the street but would still dominate the streetscape.

Jonathan Haynal, a senior associate at DMJM Design, which is designing the new headquarters in partnership with Roth + Sheppard Architects, said the building's angle "responds to the view" toward the former St. Vibiana's Cathedral," on the southeast corner of 2nd and Main. Haynal said the landscape along 2nd Street "very much feels like a park-like atmosphere."

Councilwoman Jan Perry, whose district includes the headquarters site, said the changes were a result of a series of public meetings "particularly focusing on residents in the immediate area."

"While some people have continued to be displeased," she said, "I think overall we have been very, very, very responsive to incorporating their comments, recommendations and desires into the overall design. And I think it's made it a better project. Much more of a human scale."

Some familiar with the process say criticism of the police headquarters proposal has died down a bit as plans move forward to create a 16-acre civic park or mall between City Hall and the Music Center. That is part of the Grand Avenue project, which will also include high-rise buildings, retail space and entertainment venues around Walt Disney Concert Hall.

But opponents of the LAPD project say those plans have only strengthened their resolve. In late June, the grass-roots group lacivicpark.org sent a letter to then-Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa asking him to reevaluate the plans for the police headquarters.

"The fact that we are talking about plans now for this grand mall and Grand Avenue doesn't negate the significance of the block here," said McDonald, a leader of lacivicpark.org.

The plans "have changed substantially over the course of this dispute," she said. "We do appreciate the fact that the architects have been very considerate, listening, doing what they can…. However, if you look at the current plan, that 'green space' is a long lawn. And that's it."

Downtown has seen a boom in residential development over the last five years, as thousands of people have moved into converted historic lofts as well as new condominiums and apartments.

But despite the sudden popularity of downtown living, some residents have complained about a lack of park space and shopping. The LAPD headquarters touched a nerve, because some residents feared that it would prevent the block from sprouting retailers.

Downtown has very little park space. The biggest, Pershing Square, is mostly concrete.

Critics of the headquarters have denounced the LAPD for choosing to spend city money on acquiring new property — which it has had to do for a portion of the plan — while facing other budget challenges, including putting more officers on the street.

The 500,000-square-foot building, which has been in the planning stages for a decade, was originally estimated to cost $295 million to $311 million. Last year, the council approved a construction budget of about $303 million.

Sanchez-Owens said current cost estimates put the construction at 20% over budget. She said city officials were working to determine how they could contain those costs.

Opponents of the police plan have also cited problems with the proposed location of the LAPD's motor pool, which would be more than a block away, just south of the old St. Vibiana's, which is being converted into an arts facility.

They have said that building the LAPD garage, and its requisite carwash and gas station, could require tearing down the 1896 brick building on the site that houses the MJ Higgins Gallery and would quell the creative spirit of the area.

An environmental impact report on the entire police headquarters project is due at the end of September, said Cora Jackson-Fossett, a spokeswoman for the city Bureau of Engineering, which is shepherding the project in partnership with the LAPD. After that, she said, members of the public will have 45 days to comment on the report.

The building is expected to open in late 2009.

Sanchez-Owens called the process of creating a new headquarters "a balancing act between what the Police Department requires to operate efficiently and what the public wants to see…. You walk a tightrope and try to appease both sides and try to produce a building that is functional."

colemonkee

Aug 4, 2005, 4:58 PM

^Ha! I met Cheryl last weekend. She lives in my building and was very adamant about stopping the HQ. From my brief conversation with her, she had almost conceded that it was a losing fight, but that she planned to keep on fighting regardless.

On another note, I'm glad that they are adding retail to the corner of 2nd and Main. An outdoor cafe right there would be great. It will be right across the street from Pitfire Pizza, which opens up in a few weeks.

LAMetroGuy

Aug 4, 2005, 5:28 PM

http://www.rothsheppard.com/images/boards/boardsD.jpg

colemonkee

Aug 4, 2005, 7:29 PM

^ I think it will look more like this, which better fits the description that Jonathan Haynal gave:

Some better renderings of the proposed LAPD headquarters:

http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/media/4311.jpg

http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/media/4312.jpg

http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/media/4313.jpg

http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/media/4314.jpg

LosAngelesBeauty

Aug 5, 2005, 7:19 AM

I think it looks pretty good

DJM19

Aug 5, 2005, 8:46 AM

well the one LAMetroGuy posted does look a little better (better use of space and less of a wall)

edluva

Aug 5, 2005, 9:09 AM

i find myself much more interested in this proposal than the original one.

cookiejarvis

Aug 5, 2005, 4:45 PM

Personally I hate both proposals. They're just trying too hard to juxtapose all these competing shapes and angles. The one that LAMG posted looks like neo-classic "Wedding Cake" architecture that was popular in the late 60's/early 70's. The other one looks like they picked up L.A. County Museums' bad 80s facade makeover and plopped it downtown next to the civic center. Do we need a police headquarters that challenges our assumptions about architecture? Something much more subtle and graceful would have worked here....

If anything, the headquarters needs to play off the new Caltrans building. And if that's what the architects of this project intended to do, I'm not seeing it.

Wright Concept

Aug 5, 2005, 4:56 PM

They are trying but if you criticizing the latest design which I think does a good job of playing off (of the Deathstar metallic Monster) of the CalTrans building AND the LA Times on the Spring Street Side. Notice how the plaza and cut out virtually mimics the raised plaza of the Cal Trans building. Even the glass and window offsets are vertical to contrast the Horizontal linear movement of the Cal Trans building.

If anything the what they should do is lower the height of the building by 5 floors so it isn't as imposing. Place some of those offices an interregation rooms underground which are currently walled off.

Personally I'd like them not to even go through with this charade and just take the two small towers at the Transamerica Center. acres of parking lots still exist and is the perfect location to have direct foot-patrol access to mass pedestrian areas such as Broadway, Fashion District and in the Future LA Live/Convention Center.

DJM19

Aug 5, 2005, 8:20 PM

the worst part is still the facade

cookiejarvis

Aug 5, 2005, 8:33 PM

I'm a big fan of the Caltrans Deathstar... But I don't think an LAPD building could or should try something as imposing. I don't mind the height so much as I do the pie slice wall that attempts to preserve the sight lines between old St. Vib and the Mall. But all it really says to me is "big prison wall." Isn't the new federal courthouse also designed to have a triangular wedge of glass jutting out from it as well?

You can take this with a grain of salt. After all, it's like just my opinion, man.

ocman

Aug 5, 2005, 8:41 PM

The new design is definitely more conscious of the streetscape than the other design. But is there no other available place to build the HQ?

cookiejarvis

Aug 5, 2005, 8:50 PM

Well, the existing site could serve the purpose...but the LAPD would need to find a temporary location until the old department building was razed and rebuilt.

SSLL

Aug 6, 2005, 5:52 PM

Definitely. I think a new civic park would do wonders for LA's downtown. Can't they just build a new police HQ on the existing site?

LosAngelesSportsFan

Aug 13, 2005, 12:27 AM

every time i read about the HQ i get even more pissed off. they are ruining three neighborhoods. Cant they put this somewhere near the Twin Towers? why go into the middle of the city? i just dont get it.

his Hippo Needs More Than a Tutu

LAPD's Proposed New Headquarters Is a Bad Fit for Civic Square

by Sam Hall Kaplan

Envision a ballerina's tutu wrapped around the hips of a hippo. That is how it appears the Los Angeles Police Department has dressed up its proposed new headquarters on a block Downtown that had been previously and enthusiastically approved as a public park.
Eight years ago there were plans to put a park on the lot south of City Hall, where the former Caltrans building is being razed. Now, the replacement for Parker Center is scheduled to rise there. Photo by Gary Leonard.

Bounded by First, Second, Main and Spring streets, the so-called Civic Square, when designated eight years ago, was applauded as a key ingredient and focal point of a heralded Civic Center development plan. It seemed an appropriate portal to the city's Historic Core.

So much for the plan's inspired vision of an emergent, distinctive Downtown Los Angeles, and a welcoming public presence on a critical site directly south of City Hall. So much for an expedient solution to the admittedly difficult challenge of finding a new location for a police headquarters. No doubt in the distant future urban historians will ask why such a facility was placed in such a location.

The hard truth is that this is a city of soft memories. How quickly the Civic Square plan has been all but forgotten, and how silent have become the consultants who fashioned it and the conscientious civic and community groups that supported it.

There is really nothing to recommend the site other than that it is publicly owned, vacant and a short walk from the current headquarters, Parker Center. And when is the last time you saw a police officer walking in L.A.?

Adding a swath of landscaped greenery along Second Street and a cafe and a few stores on Main Street, as recommended recently by the Police Commission, unfortunately will not mitigate the impact of the proposed 11-story, 500,000-square-foot headquarters on both the fragile streetscape and fledgling skyline.

Also, one cannot be confident in this day and age of security concerns. It seems possible, even likely, that when the project nears completion (now scheduled for 2009) some public safety consultant or pandering politician will recommend that the headquarters would be better protected if the public places and spaces were eliminated. One can already hear the calls for replacing the landscaping with anti-bomb bollards.

On the subject of safety issues, the headquarters is sure to exacerbate traffic in an already impacted area, as police cars zip in and out, and TV micro vans joust for illegal parking spaces.

The problem will not be solved by placing the motor pool, with its gas storage facilities, nearby on the St. Vibiana's block as now proposed, at the cost of condemning several businesses. Also harmed will be the adjoining fledgling cultural center, as well as the prospects there for private residential and commercial development.

No doubt also affected will be the recently announced and welcomed plans to reclaim the historic Linda Lea Theatre as a film and arts center. Mooning it from across the street will be a police carwash.

The LAPD and uncharacteristically compliant City Councilwoman Jan Perry are calling the glabrous attempt a victory for the Downtown residential community. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if they drape a nefarious "Mission Accomplished" banner on the former Caltrans headquarters site.

That aged structure has been replaced a block east by the striking new Caltrans headquarters, which was sited and designed - some would say over-scaled and over-designed - under the assumption that the adjoining block would be a park.

Now instead of being a singular iconic structure set off by an open space affording arresting views, the building designed by Pritzker Award winning Thom Mayne will have an awkward twin and anchor a questionable architectural composition.

Think of two Humpty Dumptys sitting on a wall compromising any hope of making First Street pedestrian friendly. Neither will the new headquarters provide a welcoming gateway to the Old Bank District and its flurry of adaptive reuse projects.

It is bad enough that this critical stretch of the street fronting the landmark City Hall, and begging a prominent public presence, already is degraded by a hard edged, insular Los Angeles Times building to the west.

One would hope before it is too late that the public-private consortium Project Restore, which directed the $300 million restoration of City Hall, comes forward to voice its concern for what the hulking new headquarters will do to the civic setting.

More public debate is needed, certainly more than when the City Council railroaded the site through without entertaining any substantive alternatives.

Where in all this is the city's commitment to a modicum of planning principles? Why bother to have such protracted exercises that produced the Civic Center Master Plan if they are to be so easily compromised. No wonder L.A. looks the way it does: It is a city shaped and misshaped by expediencies.

Sam Hall Kaplan is the author of L.A. Lost and Found. He is the former design critic for the Los Angeles Times and a former Emmy Award-winning reporter for FOX 11.

colemonkee

Aug 13, 2005, 12:58 AM

The problem will not be solved by placing the motor pool, with its gas storage facilities, nearby on the St. Vibiana's block as now proposed, at the cost of condemning several businesses. Also harmed will be the adjoining fledgling cultural center, as well as the prospects there for private residential and commercial development.

I would bet that if the motor pool is built on that location, it completely kills the Vibiana Place development, and possibly the Medallion, which would be right across 3rd. I would also bet that Tom Gillmore (who owns the land around St. Vibiana's) is waiting for the outcome to move forward. Marketing condo units directly abutting a motor pool will be close to impossible.

That aged structure has been replaced a block east by the striking new Caltrans headquarters, which was sited and designed - some would say over-scaled and over-designed - under the assumption that the adjoining block would be a park.

Now instead of being a singular iconic structure set off by an open space affording arresting views, the building designed by Pritzker Award winning Thom Mayne will have an awkward twin and anchor a questionable architectural composition.

I never knew that the CalTrans headquarters were designed with having the park right in front of it. Now that design makes so much more sense. The view of CalTrans would be great from a park right there.

LosAngelesSportsFan

Aug 20, 2005, 1:15 AM

meeting on aug 25.
Grand Ave. and Motor Pool Meetings This Week

Downtowners this week get the opportunity to weigh in on two significant projects. The Grand Avenue Committee is holding a public meeting Monday, Aug. 22 to gauge reaction to the Grand Avenue Project, a $1.8 billion effort by developer Related Cos. to transform a portion of Grand Avenue into a collection of high-rise housing, hotels, offices, cafes and clubs. The 6-8 p.m. event is at the Los Angeles Theatre Center, 514 S. Spring St. Call (213) 452-6219 or grandavenuecommittee.com.

Thursday, Aug. 25 brings a community meeting to discuss plans for a proposed Los Angeles Police Department facility at Main and Second streets. The forum will focus on Main Street parking and the motor pool elements of the project, part of the replacement for Parker Center. Ninth District City Councilwoman Jan Perry will appear and there will be presentations from architects DMJM Design, Roth + Sheppard and John Friedman Alice Kimm. The meeting is at 5:30 p.m. in Room 1010 of City Hall, 200 N. Spring St. Call (213) 473-2309.

LosAngelesBeauty

Aug 20, 2005, 4:29 AM

^ Cool I'll be there...

POLA

Aug 26, 2005, 5:39 AM

The City of Los Angeles Council District 9 Offices of Jan Perry, the
Los Angeles Police Department and the Department of Public Works,
Bureau of Engineering invite you to attend a design community
meeting for the Main Street Parking (MSP) and Motor Transport
Division Facility (MTD) components of the New Police Headquarters
Facility (PHF).
COMMUNITY MEETING
for the
MAIN STREET PARKING
and
MOTOR TRANSPORT DIVISION FACILITY
components of the
NEW POLICE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY
THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 2005
5:30 p.m. at CITY HALL
200 North Spring Street, 10th Floor
ROOM 1010
The Council Office of District 9 and City Officials will present the
design for the new Motor Transport Division Facility for the New
Police Headquarters Facility located at Main Street and 2nd Street
for community comments and feedback.
MEETING AGENDA
Welcome and Introduction "Councilmember Jan Perry Presentation of
Design Concept " DMJM/Roth + Sheppard Architects and John Friedman
Alice Kimm Architects, Inc.
Questions and Comments

For more information please contact Marie Rumsey, Council District 9,
(213)
473-2309 or email mrumsey@council.lacity.org
The City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of
disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodations
to ensure equal access to all.

citywatch

Aug 28, 2005, 6:43 PM

I would bet that if the motor pool is built on that location, it completely kills the Vibiana Place development, and possibly the Medallion, which would be right across 3rd. I would also bet that Tom Gillmore (who owns the land around St. Vibiana's) is waiting for the outcome to move forward. Marketing condo units directly abutting a motor pool will be close to impossible.

Since you live in the hood, Colemonkee, you see everything from a close angle & so I want to defer to your observations. However, whenever I've driven around the hood the thing that hits me like a ton of bricks is how raunchy everything seems to be, from the deadzone parking lots all around the Higgins to the shack type bldgs & hole in the walls. Then, of course, there's that pocket park at 3rd & Main, often full of homeless ppl.

In the order of things, I'd say what's been in your hood for yrs & yrs, inc shopping cart ladies, drifters & boozers, hurts the credibility of the place way more than even that LAPD hdqrts bldg or motor pool will do.

yeah215

Aug 28, 2005, 9:04 PM

Why not locate this somewhere in the Industrail Core? I think it fits a lot better than and its really not that far away. Or perhaps place some of it there and some facilities underground bellow the Police Station, its auditorium or even the park. If the park really is a lot of grass, than there is no reason why some of the parking for the police cars for instance, or even the carwash part, can't be underneath. I understand there still is the traffic issue, and the expense issue, but it eliminates the visual blight and some of the noise issues.

colemonkee

Aug 31, 2005, 6:46 PM

Since you live in the hood, Colemonkee, you see everything from a close angle & so I want to defer to your observations. However, whenever I've driven around the hood the thing that hits me like a ton of bricks is how raunchy everything seems to be, from the deadzone parking lots all around the Higgins to the shack type bldgs & hole in the walls. Then, of course, there's that pocket park at 3rd & Main, often full of homeless ppl.

In the order of things, I'd say what's been in your hood for yrs & yrs, inc shopping cart ladies, drifters & boozers, hurts the credibility of the place way more than even that LAPD hdqrts bldg or motor pool will do.

The neighorhood is hit or miss, depending on where you are. For example, Main street between 2nd and 3rd is pretty desolate, so you have a lot of homeless people around, and it is "raunchy." However, it's not unwalkable.

But there are pockets of areas that are nice (4th Street between Broadway and Main) that have shops, cafes and people. Almost all of these "nice" pockets are at or near recent residential developments or conversions. If we can get the blighted pockets of old, run-down buildings and parking lots developed into residential buildings with ground floor retail, those "nice" pockets will spread into a nice "neighborhood".

My beef with the motor pool is that it takes a key parcel that would block this neighborhood from connecting 4th and Main (Pete's Cafe and Bar) to the Higgins Building and Little Tokyo. The Medallion and St. Vibiana's place are already planned for Main Street. That would go right in between those two. Unless it has ground level retail, it will create another "dead zone" on the street. The Headquarters building I actually suppport because it doesn't break up the future neighborhood, although a park would be pretty damn sweet.

Did anyone go to the meeting on the 25th about the Motor Pool? I'd be interested to see what they presented and what the community feedback was like. I'm pretty sure that a group of people from my building went to protest it.

LongBeachUrbanist

Aug 31, 2005, 7:21 PM

^ Yes, the issue isn't what is there now but the neighborhood that is finally about to together.

That area has great potential for tying together Bunker Hill/Grand Avenue, Little Tokyo and the Historic Core. The Old Bank District is expanding, and the Higgins, Douglas, Pan American and Irvine Byrne Buildings are either already open or being readied. In the pipeline are Medallion, Vibiana, the Related project, Zen, and potentially several other potential projects could glue the area together and turn it into a really wonderful neighborhood. The Midnight Mission has finally moved out, thus removing that area from Skid Row status.

And where do they decide to build the LAPD HQ and Motor Pool? Right in the middle of this neighborhood. Not only will there be no park as was promised, but the residents can look forward to the wonderful smell of idling police cars ready to be washed next door.

Fucking planning geniuses.

I wouldn't be surprised if Medallion cancels their project. Who wants to develop in an area with zero potential?

colemonkee

Aug 31, 2005, 8:41 PM

^ I certainly hope it doesn't kill the Medallion.

LAB, did you get a chance to go to the meeting on the 25th?

colemonkee

Sep 1, 2005, 8:25 PM

As of this morning, the white concrete building is completely gone - kaput! - and they have knocked all of the exterior walls out of the former blue four story building, leaving only the steel columns and floorplates. So in a month or so, we should have a completely empty lot. I wonder how long it will stay that way until they start work on either the LAPD Headquarters building or the park. Hopefully something will be underway by the end of the year. The last thing I want is another dead block.

LongBeachUrbanist

Sep 3, 2005, 8:41 AM

Made by an angry local, here is that artists' depiction of the future LAPD Motor Pool:

http://static.flickr.com/32/37408488_aa509c1a23.jpg?v=0

sbocguy

Sep 3, 2005, 5:30 PM

^LOL... the helicopters smack of NIMBY hyperbole, but I can totally imagine them coming up with some half-assed PoMo/deconstructivist building like that. Needless to say, I don't like the prospect of the motor pool on Main, either (don't believe I've given my opinion of it on this forum before)...

colemonkee

Sep 5, 2005, 5:57 AM

^ ^ That's fucking hilarious! I love the 70's cop cars and the Gallery Row epitaph.

colemonkee

Dec 2, 2005, 6:58 AM

I attended the Draft EIR Public Comment meeting tonight and there were good arguments made on both sides. The architects came up and made a pretty good demonstration of the entire project, which I must say was better than I thought. They explained all of the project parameters, then outlined plans for each portion of the project, and based on the parameters, I think the designs are pretty good (with the exception of the Motor Pool design, which is actually somewhat close to the rendering LBU posted above, but one story taller - ugh!).

They will have to revise the EIR, I'm sure, due to a lot of Higgins residents protests about not being recognized as "sensitive receptors" of noise or vibration.

Overall, the project received support from Little Tokyo residents, partly because they don't want the HQ on the 1st and Alameda site, and partly because the City has a thinly-veiled but non-binding promise to include the Little Tokyo Recreation Center as a very vague last phase of the project as currently proposed.

The project recieved quite a bit of opposition from Higgins residents, based on traffic concerns, noise concerns (for the construction period), and general city planning concerns (there were a lot of arguments about the benefits of a civic park on the site and the detriment of the planned Motor Pool on the future of the Main Street corridor).

Personally, I would like to study the third option in the EIR, which suggests tearing down the current Parker Center and rebuilding the new headquarters building on the same site. Does anyone know someone (preferrably a professional) who could offer services to conduct an economic survey complete with cost and revenue projections of building a Police HQ on the site of the current Parker Center? I could probably raise the money for a comprehensive study, but would need someone who could put together realistic, objective numbers.

Art

Dec 2, 2005, 4:40 PM

What about all those city owned lots across the freeway from Union Station. You know that dead area of industry and yards east of alameda abutting the freeway. That is dead space with no residents at all.

colemonkee

Dec 2, 2005, 8:48 PM

I'm pretty sure they're dead set on having it inside or directly adjacent to the Civic Center.

sbocguy

Dec 2, 2005, 9:39 PM

I like the idea building the HQ on the current Parker Center site. It could be placed along Temple, on the northern side of that block, so as to make room for expansion of Little Tokyo along 1st... the motor pool could be built on top of Fletcher Bowron Square and the LA Mall... that plaza is utterly worthless, and the Caltrans site would make a much better public gathering space and lunch spot for the Civic Center crowd.

citywatch

Dec 5, 2005, 8:07 AM

I clicked on a photo album owned by someone named Jim Winstead & was reminded all over again why I often get really annoyed after visiting DT. That's cuz I still see too much of this....

http://static.flickr.com/30/44401799_979f378955.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/29/44401913_0c0aeed53b.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/26/44402042_030c9e4329.jpg?v=0

If a lot of pressure is going to be applied on the ppl responsible for the LAPD hdqrts & motor pool bldgs, how about also aiming a lot of pressure at the slobs who own all the crap in the hood, such as the sites directly south of the Higgins? IOW, everyone in DT (inc at the DCBID) should start asking: HEY, to you ppl who own & manage deadzone parking lots, how about at least making them more presentable? How about you at least not being so cheap & lazy that you have rusty light fixtures connected with extension cords strung over your lots, & absolutely no landscaping whatsoever as a buffer?

And to you ppl who own all the dives in DT, such as what's all around, & still includes, the Linda Lea theater. How about allowing your bldgs be used as practice sites for new bulldozer operators?

DJM19

Dec 5, 2005, 2:44 PM

is that the tour of Main Street? I hate deadzones like that with those tiny, awful buildings (or no buildings at all)

LongBeachUrbanist

Dec 5, 2005, 4:38 PM

^ It's the former core of Skid Row. As bad as that street looks now, you can imagine what it used to look like. At least now there's some hope for this area.

RAlossi

Dec 5, 2005, 10:30 PM

2nd Street needs some pedestrian-friendly development. From the old abandoned Federal Court House to the old Caltrans, LA Times, New Caltrans, New Otani Hotel, and Weller Court -- none of those areas are ped. friendly at all -- it's just not going to do well unless something's done. Hopefully the LAPD will make its 2nd/Main development friendly, and I also hope that the Feds will demolish/rebuild the Court House.

citywatch

Dec 6, 2005, 1:16 AM

This is a good photo album of Broadway (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimwinstead/sets/713522/). It shows why the ratio of bad to good in the hood still isn't gonna make a lot of ppl say, WOW, this town is really nice!

Here's another photo album of most major sites on Spring St (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimwinstead/sets/797374/?page=2). It too shows there's still a lot more work needed to give this part of DT less of a deadzone zombie atmosphere. For every bldg that's helping the street, there remain far too many others that are hole in the walls.

This photo album of Main St (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimwinstead/sets/971639/) shows that ppl who are trying to turn around DT still have a lot more work to do.

Again, I think the owners of the hood's various deadzones deserve to be yelled at, no less than what devlprs of proposed highrises get from NIMBYites in places like west LA or the valley, the devlpr of the Medallion got from the operators of that woman's shelter, what the MTA has been getting from the BRU or anti Gold Line ppl in south Pasadena, or what planners & city pols involved with the LAPD hdqrts bldg have been receiving from various ppl in DT.

Easy

Dec 6, 2005, 1:31 AM

was reminded all over again why I often get really annoyed

Do you realize that you say this or something similar in many of your posts? We all know that DTLA has lots of deadzones, higher office vacancies, project delays, etc. Why do you feel the need to remind us over and over again?

citywatch

Dec 6, 2005, 1:53 AM

^ If you need an explanation, read this thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92393), esp my last few postings about Detroit & urban experts like the one I mentioned, who talk about & nitpick over almost everything except what you're referring to. Or like a former director of the CRA, who with a finger up his nose, claimed several yrs ago that the era of big projs no longer was relevant or necessary to turning around the hood.

colemonkee

Dec 6, 2005, 2:56 AM

Obviously that attitude at the CRA has shifted for the better.

To speak to RAlossi's comments, there are two planned developments that should greatly improve 2nd Street from a pedestrian point of view: Vibiana Place and Little Tokyo Block 8. Vibiana Place includes a boutique hotel and restaurant on 2nd Street, and if I'm not mistaken, Block 8 has retail along 2nd as well. Those two projects will make that entire stretch of 2nd street on the south side a really nice walkable street.

As for the planned LAPD HQ building, it will be set back 150 ft (75 ft minumum for security requirements) from the street with a pocket park along second, a little wider than the space on the south side of the Cal Trans HQ. If that pocket park is mostly green space, as opposed to the usual concrete plazas we're so blessed with in LA, it might be nice. Other than that, it's big wall along 2nd Street (with windows).

citywatch

Dec 6, 2005, 3:42 AM

Obviously that attitude at the CRA has shifted for the better.

Another thing that's driven me up the wall over the yrs is all the ppl who'd complain about the CRA ripping down old bldgs & houses a long time ago, making it sound like almost ALL of those sites were historic or great & worth preserving, &, at the same time, say absolutely nothing about all the crap, inc wasteland car lots & dives, they had yet to touch & clean up. I think some of that is a reason city hall & others in the hood started to buy into a do-little, do-nothing, go slow approach to turning around DT.

RAlossi

Dec 6, 2005, 7:47 AM

^^ Yeah, Block 8 and Vibiana Place are going to be great for 2nd Street. It seems like the only real hope we have for 2nd Street (referring to pedestrian-friendliness) is going to be on the south side of the street -- Higgins, Vibiana, Block 8..

edluva

Dec 6, 2005, 9:59 AM

LongBeachUrbanist

Dec 6, 2005, 7:50 PM

^ Cut paste cut paste. Do a search on "annoyed" or esp. "deadzone"! Hee hee! :)

citywatch

Dec 6, 2005, 8:30 PM

HA ha!

When I think of that urban planner I've mentioned before who wrote articles for the LA Times several yrs ago, & who promoted the idea that LA should keep it real (IOW, he bought into the idea that a street like Broadway is gritty but it's an authentic kind of gritty, & so the rest of the hood will be way better off if it also had more of that authentic kind of grit), or that big new projs were a sell out to big devlprs or were so passe, & who'd point out that DT was too far from the ocean or that it was bad mainly because of fwys, &, at the same time, say nothing about all its DEADZONES, I think his tude & way of thinking were closer to edluva's than mine. :D

POLA

Dec 6, 2005, 8:37 PM

Now that's a run on sentence.

edluva

Dec 6, 2005, 8:47 PM

^ Cut paste cut paste. Do a search on "annoyed" or esp. "deadzone"! Hee hee! :)

or "IOW" or "ppl" or "&" or "tude" or "powerlines". oh wait, minimum 4 characters. so elusive, that citywatch ;)

citywatch

Dec 6, 2005, 8:53 PM

^ OK, I should've put it in a bullet point form:

When I think of that urban planner I've mentioned before who wrote articles for the LA Times several yrs ago, & who....

1) promoted the idea that LA should keep it real

2) (IOW, he bought into the idea that a street like Broadway is gritty but it's an authentic kind of gritty,

3) & so the rest of the hood will be way better off if it also had more of that authentic kind of grit),

4) or that big new projs were a sell out to big devlprs or were so passe,

5) & who'd point out that DT was too far from the ocean or that it was bad mainly because of fwys,

6) &, at the same time, say nothing about all its DEADZONES,

....I think his tude & way of thinking were closer to edluva's than mine.

And I should've added:

7) & who'd point out, unhappily & disapprovingly, that old bldgs & houses had been torn down in the past,

8) but would say NOTHING about junk like this:

http://static.flickr.com/29/44401372_e376b546ef.jpg?v=0

edluva

Dec 6, 2005, 8:59 PM