LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0

[Sodha]

Spend $50 billion to build a comprehensive rail network and we can avoid building these ridiculously large parking garages that take up valuable space and add NOTHING to an urban densified city. Nobody says, "hey, check out that parking garage building". No, they say "oh wow look at that office tower or residential building". Please no more freeway building, I can't stand those 10 - 15 story parking garages (i.e. 1100 Wilshire).

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^^ Expand Rail and maintain but limit the expansion of the freeway system (with the exception of the 710 underneath Alhambra/So.Pas).

We should not be focusing on an inefficient transit means such as roadways because it has a much, much lower capacity to mitigate the large amounts of people who all need to get to places.

Rail (esp. grade-separated) has the kind of capacity to move people around in a more efficient and consistent standard. If you can fit 600 people into a train coming into a station, the train will still zoom away at the same speed almost each and every time. Unlike the roadways...Sure, if there is no one on the road, you could technically go as fast as your car could drive, but will that be the case in 2050 with the millions added to our region? That's a scary thought.

Plus, there are intangible qualitative benefits to rail that is much harder (if not impossible) to reproduce in a system like LA's that relies almost solely on automobiles and parking. Certain areas are actually quite nice like Old Town Pasadena and Downtown Santa Monica, but they are only pocket areas with insubstantial size. If LA wants to be among the ranks of Tokyo and New York and London, well, it better have the subways (and actually used by lotsa people) to create the kind of energy that is immeasurable.

I have realized that LA's only chance of becoming GREAT is with that expanded subway system. Because we can have as many superlatives to this city as you want. The biggest of this, the most of that, the busiest of this, the tallest whatever. But it's about the day-to-day quality of life issues that it truly all boils down to. Sitting on the 405 after work on a Friday evening stuck in traffic instead of walking briskly past street-lined cafes and stores with PEOPLE walking with you will always prevent LA from being great.

So instead of FOCUSING on roadways (it is imperative to maintain our current roadways, don't get me wrong), we now urgently need to switch gears and start focusing on transit-alternatives that have proven their effectiveness in many other cities around the world.


What do we want for the future of LA? A city dominated by streets like this:



Or this?

[Affrojuice]

I read that article in the LAT discussing the MTA's plan/proposal to improve transportation for the year 2050. I was disappointed that they only had two rail projects proposed, the Wilshire Subway extension and the Gold Line extension to Ontario airport. I think with a population increase in LA county up to 31.6 million in 2050 from 19.5 million in 2000, the only way to keep the city from completely getting choked off and becoming a highway parking lot is to provide more alternate forms of transportation, such as rail. With all the new people moving to LA, now is the perfect time to reinvent angeleno's idea of how to get around in this city, assuming that some of the new angelenos wont be tied to the idea of only using there cars, the way the current angelenos are fixated and stuck in that mode of thinking. City officials need to realize the highway experiment of the 50's and 60's is a failure and has since then left us with a sprawling mega-opolis that is disconnected and unpleasant to live in. All that double decking and adding new freeways is going to do is promote more sprawl. Its time to change the approach to transportation and try something new.

If Manhattan can handle a population of 1.5 million people packed into a land area of 22.96 square miles with almost 67,000 residents per square mile, then LA should can handle a much larger and denser population IF done right. I think from Downtown through Mid-City to Santa Monica should develop itself like Manhattan, starting with the Westside subway extension, but also adding north to south rail lines, and another east-west rail on the north side maybe going down sunset or santa monica.

Unfortunately it seems city officials suffer from the same "stay the course" delusion that the president does.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ That area from Downtown LA to Mid-City to Santa Monica definitely is our de facto "center of the city" for the metropolitan area.

We all know it defines much of what LA is today both to residents and tourists alike.

The area is something I've been calling "West Central" for a very long time (I get flak on this board for it), but it's definitely not something we should ignore as the Wilshire Blvd. subway finally connects these disparate areas into one coherant and congruous district. We need one name to designate the area to unify it, although it is quite simply what I would prefer to call as just "LA." But because LA is so much larger, we should have a name for this area tied together by Wilshire Blvd. (and other famous east-west corridors).


West Central or LA? They should be interchangeable.

[unmentioned]

Until today, I was a lurker.

Except on Simtropolis, where I was known as 'socorocks'.

I am so, SO glad that people on this forum understand the concepts of density, walkability, and human scale, unlike on ST, wherein I was really going to shoot myself in the Architecture and Urbanism forum. Wherein someone tried to tell me that for LA to improve it should become LESS dense. wow.

strange introduction, I apologize.

I've been following this thread for quite some time, blah blah blah, noob, etc.

anyways.

I definitely, definitely agree that improved mass transit, especially of the rail variety, is key to reinventing Los Angeles. However, mass transit needs to serve destinations for it to work; you can't try to force transit stops into becoming destinations.

Not saying that what's already in place doesn't serve worthy destinations.

Just trying to reiterate what's been said three times now, I don't know, for emphasis.

Imagine being able to hop in a light rail car and be whisked anywhere in the Basin, and even, after a few quick transfers, southern Orange County, western Riverside County, or Ventura County.

Imagine an end to the age of the Cul-de-Sac, the demise of the automobile-dominated Los Angeles, or rather, Southern California, that we have today.


perhaps I'm a tad idealistic.

-Matthew

[Derek]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

Gross!

[Quixote]

^Obviously that's photoshopped. Let's not start the same sh*t that took place at SSC. No trolls allowed.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ That may be photoshopped, but the future in store for LA may not be too far from that exaggerated image. The way Los Angeles deals with mitigating our traffic and transit-means is by widening freeways and adding more lanes. This is similar to grand vision in Houston to widen one of their own highways to something ridiculously large (like 20 lanes or something).

I fear LA, unless we have more supporters of rail actively lobbying for more rail, will end up like that very picture!

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

^ That may be photoshopped, but the future in store for LA may not be too far from that exaggerated image. The way Los Angeles deals with mitigating our traffic and transit-means is by widening freeways and adding more lanes. This is similar to grand vision in Houston to widen one of their own highways to something ridiculously large (like 20 lanes or something).

I fear LA, unless we have more supporters of rail actively lobbying for more rail, will end up like that very picture!

^ Burbank circa 2020.

In the Times yesterday, there was an article saying that California's population is slated to explode to around 60 million by 2050. All of SoCal needs to really think about how we are going to move these people. Freeways are not doing their job anymore. A good example is out here in Riverside where they are reconstructing the 60/91/215 interchange (from a cloverleaf to a flyover style). Construction on that started in 2004 and is expected to end later this year. The whole point is too help regulate traffic but Riverside's population grew from 265,000 in 2004, to over 300,000 today. So even when that opens, it really won't help. Espically seeing as how Riverside County is slated to become the second most populated county in California in 2050 (after LA county). It doesn't make much sense that much smaller cities like Washington D.C. or even Sacramento could have a better transit system than LA.

Oh...and unmentioned. Another IE person. Hi2u.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

It was a pretty decent article. Front page too. Short on discussion of specific projects, but really good in the sense of raising the alarm that we had better start doing things differently, now.

[KarLarRec1]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

We need one name to designate the area to unify it ...

I've suggested "Central LA" a few times over the past couple of years -- not sure why it hasn't caught on! The term "central London" is quite popular London, and it refers to the area of London comparable to the area of LA you have aimed to designate with a single moniker.

It certainly is less controversial than "West Central."

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

The area is something I've been calling "West Central" for a very long time (I get flak on this board for it), but it's definitely not something we should ignore as the Wilshire Blvd. subway finally connects these disparate areas into one coherant and congruous district. We need one name to designate the area to unify it, although it is quite simply what I would prefer to call as just "LA." But because LA is so much larger, we should have a name for this area tied together by Wilshire Blvd. (and other famous east-west corridors).

And what the hell would be the point of this again?

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I like "Central L.A." as well. It is both simple and fairly accurate. Also, it suggests that the zone is a focal point of the entire region.

[BrandonJXN]

Just leave it as West LA. We already have East LA, and South LA. And everyone knows that North LA is the Valley.

Oh..and btw..MTV's The Real World might be filming in Hollywood starting in 2008. The Real World LA first took place in 1993 in a house on Venice Beach.

[Quixote]

There's West LA, East LA, North LA, and South LA. How about we call the region bounded by La Cienega Blvd., LA River, Santa Monica Mountains, and 10 Freeway "Central LA."

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

Oh..and btw..MTV's The Real World might be filming in Hollywood starting in 2008. The Real World LA first took place in 1993 in a house on Venice Beach.

Source? I'm a huge fan of The Real World!

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Source? I'm a huge fan of The Real World!

A wikipedia article. Sydney is the next season so Hollywood might be the 20th season.

Here:

The nineteenth season started filming in February 2007 in Sydney, Australia, and is slated to premiere August 8th, 2007. The show is now casting for the twentieth season of the show, said to be in Hollywood, California and to premiere on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, the same date the very first season of The Real World premiered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_World

[fridayinla]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

There's West LA, East LA, North LA, and South LA. How about we call the region bounded by La Cienega Blvd., LA River, Santa Monica Mountains, and 10 Freeway "Central LA."

In the commercial real estate world, that area is already considered the "central LA" market. I suppose the idea is there (especially when you consider the whole 5-county region), but not widespread. This city does need to find a way to unify its central communities. Right now every area is so disjointed, like a patchwork quilt. "Central LA" works and makes sense to me.

[edluva]

i like "central la", although it connotates the image of south central a bit. how about "wilshire corridor" or just "the corridor"? that way it doesn't risk exempting bevhils, samo, and weho as integral parts of the "city". in fact, i really like the name "wilshire center", but that's already being used for a smaller area.

btw, the real world la cast was the worst bunch - they were probably the most out-of-touch, least attractive (male or female), least interesting group of people to do reality tv in a single house. i took it to represent our city's general lameness, even though they were from all over the country. because whenever anything sets foot in la, it officially takes on this air of lameness, as though it were hit by a sack of suburban energy (wrapped in a pair of mom-jeans), or a minivan, and drained of all its edginess and originality. la has a tendency of doing this to outsiders. it's really hard to explain...picture shaquille doing a rap video with kids dancing in the background...yeah

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I like Central LA as well. I think whatever moniker people decide to use in their vernacular to describe an area is the main goal for me (to unify LA tied together by Wilshire Blvd.). I like the parallel with "Central London" and having the name "central" included really gives people who live and visit LA a strong idea that there is actually a "Central LA." A core. A heart of the city.

Nevertheless, the reason why I thought West Central was appropriate was for two reasons: 1) It actually describes the geographical location of the area because it is the western part of the region and centralized as well. It is on the MTA website listed as "West/Central."




2) I think it would give naming power to two strong communities, The Westside and Central City area.

Westside+Central City = West Central.