LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0 - Page 230

Just-In-Cali · #**4581** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 4:05 PM**

Most of these posters were geared up to not like it before they saw anything, so are we surprised with the mindless critiques of a simple massing plan model. I work in the design field and have worked with architects and have worked with plans like this. The colors are only typically used to make the elements pop to the eye, and the planting areas are general layouts, not including the more detailed shrubs and flora.
Im sure had it been a giant green space full of trees from end to end, they would be complaining about that too..."no creative elements"

I will pose the question to all the would be architects in this forum.

WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE?
That is a serious question. What would you do if you could sit at your lil desk and take a sharpie and go to town, hm?

JDRCRASH · #**4582** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

I will pose the question to all the would be architects in this forum.

WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE?
That is a serious question. What would you do if you could sit at your lil desk and take a sharpie and go to town, hm?

Child's play!

We could use some more fountains here and there.

Oh, alot more trees would do, along with a better looking elevated pedestrian walkway with walls made of glass, perhaps?

And people need to sit on benches, drink from a water fountain, go to a bathroom, and maybe use a trash can or recycling unit thats nearby.

Quixote · #**4583** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 4:44 PM**

Most of it is still conceptual.

BrandonJXN · #**4584** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Most of it is still conceptual.

Most if not all.

DJM19 · #**4585** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 5:12 PM**

That would be its saving grace. I actually think I like the balance between plaza-like concrete area, and grass area. I just think they cheaped out with the idea of keeping the ramp, and I'll reserve judgment on the ped bridge.

Just-In-Cali · #**4586** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 5:27 PM**

Thank you for the commentors above!!! It is almost entirely conceptual and nothing about it is finalized. It would have to have the detail of an actual plan view before we can even assume this is the final design. Its a massing and basic layout plan.
But dont say that to some others...they wouldnt have anything to complain about.

JDRCRASH · #**4587** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Thank you for the commentors above!!! It is almost entirely conceptual and nothing about it is finalized. It would have to have the detail of an actual plan view before we can even assume this is the final design. Its a massing and basic layout plan.
But dont say that to some others...they wouldnt have anything to complain about.

So did you like my ideas?

Echo Park · #**4588** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Most of these posters were geared up to not like it before they saw anything, so are we surprised with the mindless critiques of a simple massing plan model. I work in the design field and have worked with architects and have worked with plans like this. The colors are only typically used to make the elements pop to the eye, and the planting areas are general layouts, not including the more detailed shrubs and flora.
Im sure had it been a giant green space full of trees from end to end, they would be complaining about that too..."no creative elements"

I will pose the question to all the would be architects in this forum.

WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE?
That is a serious question. What would you do if you could sit at your lil desk and take a sharpie and go to town, hm?

Don't get defensive about the plan. No shit it's a massing. What my criticism was about was the clear dominance of concrete over green as well as the parking ramp that remains (two things that efficiently make Pershing Square useless). I have high hopes and expectations for this project. The Grand Avenue project is the one that got me into the whole DTLA developmenet several years ago. I think the Gehry building is beautiful, and if a beautiful park went with it ti would finally get the monkey off my back with DTLA feeling generic and all. I just feel like LA, in terms of design and architecutre and urbanism, is so behind the pack of other cities like Vancouver, Malmo, Chicago, that are diving head first into the 21st century with enthusiasm while LA is stuck in the 60s. this park is supposed to be a saving grace. i want it to be better than millenium park in chicago, so if i'm quick to criticise its because i have very high standards

vodila · #**4589** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 6:30 PM**

This was posted @ SSC:

flickr view from a loft

flickr view from a loft

Looks like the first two depict the "enhanced version" and the bottom two show the "basic version"

LongBeachUrbanist · #**4590** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 6:44 PM**

I gave my critique at the public comment last night (although it came out pretty muddled). Given the initial funding of $56 million, they didn't have a lot to work with. I feel like they took care of some pretty important things.

The big expenses were (1) improved parking ramps, and (2) infrastructure improvements. The parking ramp improvements are to minimize their impact on the park and the street. To me, this is a very good thing. Infrastructure improvements include fixing the fountain's water and control mechanisms, as well as upgrades to the park's access to electricity, network, water/sewer, etc. As much as these are unglamorous and largely invisible, I think they are prerequisites for any well-designed park.

As for the park's design, I thought it was a mixed bag. As I made clear during public comment: please no yellow and orange. (It was later explained that these were only placeholders for the display...I sure hope so!).

It was very important to me that they make the park feel unified and expansive. Fortunately, that seemed to be a priority for the designers, as well. They spent a lot of time on creating continuous paths and sight lines throughout the park. The Irvine-style barriers that you see throughout the current parks will be removed, and the feel of the new park will be more expansive.

Having said that, I disagree with the need for the trellis at Hill Street, since I feel like it will separate the west section of the park from the eastern sections. I generally felt like more should be done to connect the various pieces of the park. The pieces, separated by streets, will feel like separate parks unless something else is done.

My hope lies in the foundation they will be forming to run and improve the park. Historically, these foundations are critical for creating great parks. Parks like NYC's Bryant Park and Central Park, SF's Yerba Buena, etc. benefit from having a foundation responsible for raising money, making improvements, and advocating for policies that favor the park.

The new park will definitely be an improvement over the crap that's there now. Once more funds are raised, they will be able to make it even better. And once the county buildings are eventually torn down, the potential is there for a truly great park.

Just-In-Cali · #**4591** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echo Park

Don't get defensive about the plan. No shit it's a massing. What my criticism was about was the clear dominance of concrete over green as well as the parking ramp that remains (two things that efficiently make Pershing Square useless). I have high hopes and expectations for this project. The Grand Avenue project is the one that got me into the whole DTLA developmenet several years ago. I think the Gehry building is beautiful, and if a beautiful park went with it ti would finally get the monkey off my back with DTLA feeling generic and all. I just feel like LA, in terms of design and architecutre and urbanism, is so behind the pack of other cities like Vancouver, Malmo, Chicago, that are diving head first into the 21st century with enthusiasm while LA is stuck in the 60s. this park is supposed to be a saving grace. i want it to be better than millenium park in chicago, so if i'm quick to criticise its because i have very high standards

Okay, first, no one mentioned you, and second, I totally agree with your opinions on how this project should develop. My only complaint is that people in here tend to jump to judgment and declare things "trash" and "cheap" after only a glimpse of an incomplete plan. Its like seeing one window frame from the Empire State Building and saying the whole thing is "tacky" and gawdy.
So just to clue you in, Im not defensive...there is nothing in this forum worth my wasting energy getting defensive...its just frustrating that people are always on this hair trigger to complain...thats why I asked what they would want done.

And before a moderator swoops in to chastise, there are no personal attacks here, just debate.

DJM19 · #**4592** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 7:04 PM**

I definitely appreciate that they tried to keep a straight sight line clear across the park. and didnt obstruct it with a bunch of bariers. They should try and make it as inviting from the sides as possible

DowntownCharlieBrown · #**4593** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Child's play!

We could use some more fountains here and there.

Oh, alot more trees would do, along with a better looking elevated pedestrian walkway with walls made of glass, perhaps?

And people need to sit on benches, drink from a water fountain, go to a bathroom, and maybe use a trash can or recycling unit thats nearby.

Keep studying, kid. Massing models are not going to show you trash cans, drinking fountains, and benches. But you have my curiosity. Tell us more about this "glass wall". Where does it start, where does it end, and how does it help improve the park design?

So, were there two full scale models at the presentation. One that represents the park built with the money they have, and one with the completed park? I'll be glad to see the huge parking lot in front of City Hall go, but correct me if I'm wrong, that appears to be the only advantage in the "budget available version" over what is currently there. I understand budget constraints, and I'm all for moving forward now with what is available and adding to a pre-determined plan as funds become available. In the first phase, I'm assuming all the streets that cut through are still at grade, and the ramps stay, and of course the County Buildings aren't moving. So first phase is cleaning up what is already there and getting rid of one parking lot? That, I have to say, is disappointing. Let's hope those additional funds come in a hurry!

Edit:

I see some additional posts that answer my questions have come in. Yes, there were two models.

LongBeachUrbanist · #**4594** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

My only complaint is that people in here tend to jump to judgment and declare things "trash" and "cheap" after only a glimpse of an incomplete plan.

No question, it's a mixed bag. Nobody's going to be happy with everything. But with what they had to work with, the results aren't that bad.

LongBeachUrbanist · #**4595** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 8:26 PM**

Oh, almost forgot. Part of the fountain upgrade was to make it more "interactive". Frankly, I'm not interested. How many interactive fountains does this city need? And really, are interactive fountains really that great?

There was a big focus on programming. I'm not against programming, but IMO, a park should first fulfill the basic functions of a park. IOW, it should give people a place to stroll, jog, eat lunch, play, relax. It should be able to stand alone, even in the absence of gimmicky events.

DowntownCharlieBrown · #**4596** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vodila

This was posted @ SSC:

flickr view from a loft

"

This shot of the final version is exciting! I see the open green space used a lot for play and weekend sun tanning. And the covered area (is that stained glass?) used a lot during the week by office workers having their lunch. And what a great view of City Hall they will have looking back the other way.

Quote:

flickr view from a loft

And the combined sections are a great place for rallies, concerts, etc, with one major drawback... that damn street is still at grade. I hope, at very least, it is closed off all weekends.

I'm often sarcastic in my writing, but I tend to point out the positives over the negatives. However, while I think this design will greatly improve what is there, I don't see this as the "Grand Park" that is expected and here's why:

1: The streets cut through the park and chop it up. The streets, while shown in plain white in the models so they are not so prevalent, will certainly stand out in reality and compromise the design. There will be issues with kids crossing the street, noise from cars and buses, and over peacefulness lost.

2: Not shown on the models are the surrounding buildings. Look at a satellite view and you will see the perceived openness of the park is greatly reduced, as well as its accessibility.

Both these items are fixable.

JRinSoCal · #**4597** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 10:01 PM**

They just don't make parks like they used to.

photoLith · #**4598** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 10:10 PM**

That park is way too open to allow for an intimate expierence for park patrons. People will feel way too out in the open.

Quixote · #**4599** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 10:43 PM**

Some more photos of the park model...

From Flickr, by alossix

From Flickr, by alossix

And here are some photos of the Grand Avenue project model...

From Flickr, by alossix

blogdowntown · #**4600** Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DowntownCharlieBrown

I'll be glad to see the huge parking lot in front of City Hall go, but correct me if I'm wrong, that appears to be the only advantage in the "budget available version" over what is currently there. I understand budget constraints, and I'm all for moving forward now with what is available and adding to a pre-determined plan as funds become available. In the first phase, I'm assuming all the streets that cut through are still at grade, and the ramps stay, and of course the County Buildings aren't moving. So first phase is cleaning up what is already there and getting rid of one parking lot? That, I have to say, is disappointing. Let's hope those additional funds come in a hurry!

The Grand Avenue side is also a major improvement in the base design, removing the wall at Grand and letting that edge of the park flow up to street level. Right now getting into the park from Grand is way too complicated.