LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown)

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by Sodha

If you read the preliminary analysis I posted for the Crenshaw - Wilshire LRT plan, you'd notice that Metro is already planning to go underground north of Exposition on the Crenshaw Line. The only place where at-grade could work north of Exposition is the San Vicente Pico blvd to Wilshire blvd segment. Also, Metro noted that West Hollywood deserves "underground light rail transit". Metro did not say they are going on surface.

If Metro were to go north on Fairfax or La Brea (which I seriously doubt, I think the San Vicente - La Cienega route will be the winner), it would be fully underground. Otherwise, with San Vicente - La Cienega expect it to be underground starting south of Wilshire blvd all the way to Hollywood/Highland.

It should then follow the original Pink Line route down Santa Monica Blvd.

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

It should then follow the original Pink Line route down Santa Monica Blvd.

It most likely will. With a connection to the Purple Line at either Fairfax or La Cienega. The good thing with the elimination of the Pink Line from further consideration for the westside subway extension, is that the La Cienega station will now be built between La Cienega and San Vicente. Previously, it was going to be west of La Cienega for a connection structure, however, that's further away from the businesses clustered at La Cienega.

Personally, I would rather see this train go north on Fairfax to connect with Museum Row, CBS, Melrose, and West Hollywood. Then, divert east via Santa Monica boulevard (a station at La Brea/Santa Monica) and connect with Hollywood/Highland. If we go to La Cienega, we connect with the Beverly Center and Ceders Sinai. Either Fairfax or La Cienega makes sense. La Brea will be a cheap cop-out for the westside.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by Sodha

It most likely will. With a connection to the Purple Line at either Fairfax or La Cienega. The good thing with the elimination of the Pink Line from further consideration for the westside subway extension, is that the La Cienega station will now be built between La Cienega and San Vicente. Previously, it was going to be west of La Cienega for a connection structure, however, that's further away from the businesses clustered at La Cienega.

Personally, I would rather see this train go north on Fairfax to connect with Museum Row, CBS, Melrose, and West Hollywood. Then, divert east via Santa Monica boulevard (a station at La Brea/Santa Monica) and connect with Hollywood/Highland. If we go to La Cienega, we connect with the Beverly Center and Ceders Sinai. Either Fairfax or La Cienega makes sense. La Brea will be a cheap cop-out for the westside.

Yeah I really like the idea of the Crenshaw Line going up Fairfax because of the Farmers' Market/The Grove/CBS, and Melrose.

However, I feel like so much of West Hollywood would not be served where the bulk of activity happens on Santa Monica Blvd. between Robertson and La Cienega (even a bit east of La Cienega actually to Crescent Heights).

Ideally, I'd like both served, but I'm currently leaning toward Cedars/Beverly Center route up La Cienega...

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I shot this video in Manhattan last week and thought it might be something we could discuss since there is such a lack of good urban parks in LA, and especially the recent interest from the community to revitalize Pershing Square in DTLA.

I think the fundamental concepts seen here could be applied to just about anywhere:


• Video Link

[pesto]

The problem with Pershing Sq. is not the park: it has tables, sitting areas, grass, open space, statues, art work.

The problem is the people. What it does not have is shoppers, business people having lunch, strollers, people walking through. They don't go there because the park is full of homeless people who make their "right" to be there evident to anyone passing through. Oh, and there are the security guards, who look like they are afraid of the derelicts.

Don't know why, but in NY the homeless don't hang-out in mid-town, SoHo and other trendy areas. Anyone know why?

[Steve2726]

Originally Posted by pesto

Don't know why, but in NY the homeless don't hang-out in mid-town, SoHo and other trendy areas. Anyone know why?

Because (unlike downtown LA) those neighborhoods don't have an entrenched, pro-homeless "support" system that relies on a steady stream of down and out people for maintaining their jobs. If you remove the homeless agencies, they go elsewhere.

/Flame suit on.

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by pesto

The problem with Pershing Sq. is not the park: it has tables, sitting areas, grass, open space, statues, art work.

The problem is the people. What it does not have is shoppers, business people having lunch, strollers, people walking through. They don't go there because the park is full of homeless people who make their "right" to be there evident to anyone passing through. Oh, and there are the security guards, who look like they are afraid of the derelicts.

Don't know why, but in NY the homeless don't hang-out in mid-town, SoHo and other trendy areas. Anyone know why?

Because it's not freezing temperatures at night?

LA has the largest homeless population in the US..and that won't change. Watch the South Park episode about homelessness and you'll know why (short story: we have better weather and you can actually live on the streets here without dying from extreme humidity or extreme coldness).

The problem is not the people. There's homeless people in Santa Monica parks, but you don't see people running away. The problem is the park itself. It's full of cement. Put some grass and people will bring their dogs/kids to play and have fun. It will create a social vibe. Look at the LAPD park or the Grand Hope park. We need more grass at Pershing Square.

[pesto]

Steve: correct. Pass the flame suit; I'll need it too.

Sodha: part credit. But you don't explain why they are in DT and not in, say, BH, Glendale, or 50 other plaes with equally good weather. Also, NY has a much larger homeless community; they just aren't in the neighborhoods I mentioned. They are other places.

In any event, there is grass in Pershing Sq. Unfortunately it is covered with homeless people with an attitude of "we belong here and you're not welcome".

[Muji]

Although Pershing Square does have a decent amount of grass, it's pretty awkwardly placed in a way that doesn't quite encourage lounging about, since it's in the center of the park and feels somehow too exposed.

Also I'm not so sure if homeless people feel welcome in Pershing Square - their presence there is definitely exaggerated here. I've witnessed homeless people being forced out of the park on a few occasions.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I think it's pretty clear that the issue with Pershing Square is twofold:

1) The area directly surrounding the park — big time — (it's the EXACT opposite of what surrounds Union Square in SF, meaning: SF Union Square = and LA Pershing Square = )

2) The park is so poorly designed, it wouldn't work even if it was thriving and wonderful all around it. If you watch my video about what makes a park successful, part of the reason I think makes it work is when people can traverse through the park easily and conveniently in a normal pedestrian-oriented environment, meaning access into the park must be increased, take down those walls, reconfigure those underground parking entrances/exits, and get rid of the grotesque LA Lakers purple and yellow — color theme! Then, out of the many who are just traversing through casually, some may STOP in casually/non-chalantly to take in some sun and respite, etc. Watch my video and you'll see what I mean.

Urban maturity entails effortless functionality. If the area works, it'll work. Currently, the area surrounding Pershing Square doesn't work (can we relocate the damn Jewelry District south of 7th Street yet?).

In conclusion, Pershing Square — because the area around it — and the park itself —, period.

[Kingofthehill]

came across this mega-LAUSD school in a super sketchy part of south la (hoover/60th):

[SD_Phil]

^Never heard of it. Any other information on it? Looks, as you say, HUGE.

[Kingofthehill]

Hmm, looks like a good four city blocks were demolished to make way for its construction. Kind of sad, as rather surprisingly, South LA is LA's Craftsman homeland; intact block after block of beautiful Craftsman houses, that could all use a bit of TLC. Also, here's a render. Lastly, a bit of information on how it was designed, and how it will alleviate nearby high schools. Can't say that I'll know when I'll be in the area again for "updates," but I hope that helped answer some of your questions!

[SD_Phil]

Thanks for the info. The only odd thing is that all the renders in the pdf you supplied are for clusters of buildings all four storeys tall or less. The pic above looks to have more floors than that?

[dktshb]

Why is there so much talk of Pershing Square in the Los Angeles Metro Non- Downtown thread?

[circuitfiend]

Cladding is going up on the Red Building at the PDC, Woo-Hoo!

[Steve2726]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

came across this mega-LAUSD school in a super sketchy part of south la (hoover/60th):

I believe this is it-

http://www.laschools.org/project-status/one-project?project_number=55.98047



More info from the architects here-

http://www.csdarchitects.com/prj_edu_lahs3_nf.html

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by pesto

Steve: correct. Pass the flame suit; I'll need it too.

Sodha: part credit. But you don't explain why they are in DT and not in, say, BH, Glendale, or 50 other plaes with equally good weather. Also, NY has a much larger homeless community; they just aren't in the neighborhoods I mentioned. They are other places.

In any event, there is grass in Pershing Sq. Unfortunately it is covered with homeless people with an attitude of "we belong here and you're not welcome".

During the Great White Flight of post WW-II, the suburbs didn't want to house homeless shelters and LA was being abandoned by the thrones. So, all those nice buildings around the old Pacific Electric stations in today's Skid Row bounded by Los Angeles Alameda 7th and 3rd were given new use as abandoned shelters. Cities like Glendale, Pasadena, Diamond Bar, etc.. instead of setting up homeless shelters as required by the County; would give the money to the city of LA. LA, since it had little residents and was getting hogwashed in cash for homeless shelters, used the existing urban buildings as Skid Row. Hence, we have the largest homeless concentration in the US. Now, we have tons of mental services and homeless providers in LA. For every development in LA county, the cities had the option of either creating homeless shelter with x% of the development funds or send it to LA. What do you think they preferred to do?

Recently, the County is now fighing back this law and will be requiring the other LA cities to set up their own homeless shelters thus relieving pressure from downtown LA.

[pesto]

sodha: all more or less true; we are moving forward. So what are the implications?

1. We should turn downtown Glendale, BH, Century City, etc., into mini-versions of DT LA?

2. We should move all services for the homeless to parts of town that are not as desirable as DT now is? Say, former industrial areas around Vernon.

3. We should cut back on state and county services and stop encouraging the homeless to move to SoCal? (As is, we have a swap going on with Texas: we send them our businesses and professionals and they send their unemployable.)

4. Other ideas?

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by pesto

sodha: all more or less true; we are moving forward. So what are the implications?

1. We should turn downtown Glendale, BH, Century City, etc., into mini-versions of DT LA?

2. We should move all services for the homeless to parts of town that are not as desirable as DT now is? Say, former industrial areas around Vernon.

3. We should cut back on state and county services and stop encouraging the homeless to move to SoCal? (As is, we have a swap going on with Texas: we send them our businesses and professionals and they send their unemployable.)

4. Other ideas?

I don't understand why we're even talking about this. Fact is: LA's weather is awesome and homeless people can live here without worrying about extreme conditions. Fact: there are more homeless shelters in world-class urban areas (Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, London, Paris, etc...) than in second tier cities (Glendale, Scottsdale, AZ, Austin, TX, Orlando, FL)...so I don't see why you keep comparing LA to 2nd tier cities. Have you ever been to European cities? There's tons of homeless people..usually bumming around the main train stations to get the tourists. This is not a LA thing........it's a human thing around the world.

A's to your Q's

1. Each suburb should set up their own homeless shelters. Yes. LA's will still be the biggest just due to sheer population and density factors. That won't go away.

2. What if Vernon becomes the next "loft explosion" like downtown LA? No. These things like homeless shelters should be in the central city. It's normal to be in the downtown area so that people can have relatively easy access. Just as same as other world-class cities like NY, Chicago, SF, etc...

3. I don't know how you stop encouraging homeless to move to LA. We have probably the best facilities nationwide (you may dispute this but you don't know the truth about other facilities and neither do I...but having the largest homeless population center means something), nice weather, and in a central area. Nothing will stop. Do you want to push to ban on homeless services? Talk to your elected representatives.

4. (see first paragraph)