Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy
The large majority of parks in LA are manicured and I don’t think that we’re getting many more Griffith Parks or parks in a natural setting. Since the discussion is about having more parks, Central Park seems a much more appropriate comparison.
Griffith Park only has two bus lines afaik. One is hourly and the other only goes to the Observatory. I don’t consider that easily accessible by many people.
We certainly disagree on (manicured) park access but yours is obviously the prevalent opinion. Otherwise we’d have more.
|
I'm all in favor of more access to Griffith Park by public transportation, however since it is a wilderness area, there are limited options: the Observatory(I use the DASH bus during normal times) and the line that goes by Travel Town, The Zoo, the Autry, and the Merry-Go-Round area/Old Zoo. Unless you opened up Mt. Hollywood Drive and Vista Del Val for transit, I'm not sure how else you'd increase access. You can't look at the amount of parks in the urban part of LA without looking at the history, specifically the 1940's to the 1970's, the trend was folk leaving the downtown area and razing buildings to create parking. We've seen reversals in that trend in the past 30 years. We have seen some new parks in the downtown area, but since the area is already built up, it's difficult to put in any parks of any size. The only place that it has been possible to do so is the converted railroad yard that is now LA Historical Park. I've seen proposals to convert the piggyback yard to parkland. There are also several parcels along the river that have been converted to smaller parks. But in downtown itself, the best you're going to do is efforts like San Julian Park, or Spring Street Mini Park or the addition to Grand Park on the side of the old State Building. I should also note that there are other parks in the eastern Santa Monica Mountains, Runyon Canyon, Franklin Canyon and others.