LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[ChelseaFC]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Way too much concrete. Too many streets passing through. Too many stairs rather than a gradual slope. Parking ramps. Way too much concrete. Not enough grass.

The fountain is fine. The flags are a nice touch. Love the Starbucks. That isn't much considering everything that's wrong with it. Want to love it, but can't. Anyway, just my opinion.

Frankly, for an urban park, trees are more important than grass. I normally avoid comparisons with other cities, but I'll provide New York as an example. Most of Manhattan’s parks that are widely used have minimal grass, but lots of trees. Urban parks also work well when they have plenty of patio and seating areas. They should serve as gathering spots for people on their way from one place to the other. Gathering spots are more important than lawns.

[BrandonJXN]

Here in Chicago (where the parks are huge and plentiful), all of the parks here have a nice balance between trees and grass and not a lot of concrete (aside from Grant and Millennium Park).

This is Humbolt Park.

http://www.juntosworldwide.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/revive-humbolt-park.jpg

Lots of pretty happy trees says Bob Ross.

LA needs to have some kind of parks standard. I like Grand Park but after seeing the parks here in Chicago and how vast and green they are, LA is lagging tremendously so in park design.

[petescafe]

The green fence is down along the Spring street park.
The playground actually looks pretty cool looking.

[BrandonJXN]

^ See now that doesn't look bad at all.

[Muji]

Nice! Thanks for sharing those. The views from inside the park are going to be awesome.

[SoCalKid]

That looks great! I'm very pleasantly surprised. I still would like to see the fence come down, but that's a minor issue. I hope we can get a few more of these over the next couple years!

[Illithid Dude]

This thread is so bipolar. We've gone from loathing the park to thinking it looks great. I'm personally going to withhold judgement until I'm able to actually walk in it.

[BrandonJXN]

What would really be cool if they could somehow plant some kind of climbing plant (ivy) so that they could cover the blank walls of the Rowan Building. A living wall would be perfect.

[Vangelist]

It's too close to the residential buildings. There's something really voyeuristic about that location, it's unnerving to me. Walking past it last week I again got the sensation that it's private property that will be turning public; hundreds of people can potentially be watching you hang out in that park from the lurid privacy of their bedrooms any time you're there

If I had kids, I would not want them to play in that park alone if this was 2002 and downtown was more zombiefied, more abandoned. Because a child molester living in the El Dorado or the Rowan could easily kidnap and ... yeah you get my point

Vista Hermosa is supposed to be a gorgeous downtown-adjacent park, but I've never been there. And then there's the massive Cornfields next to Chinatown, and more areas being zoned close to the river. But how many people, how many of you ever even go to either of these two? Does DTLA really have that much of a shortage of parks or just does a bad job of marketing the ones it already has? Since it's been cleaned-up relatively speaking I even consider MacArthur Park a successful "downtown" adjacent park. It still just doesn't feature that many white people, so it's considered shady

[LA/OCman]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

What would really be cool if they could somehow plant some kind of climbing plant (ivy) so that they could cover the blank walls of the Rowan Building. A living wall would be perfect.

No way. As a homeowner there, the building looks just fine at 100 plus years old! Plus, it is under the Mills Act which prevents you from exterior changes for the most part.

[blackcat23]

Some Double Marriott construction photos.





http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aAiR8OU5jic/UYf2LtcxkjI/AAAAAAAABJw/6J2C7odVt9c/s1600/04.24.2013.JPG

888 Olive crane

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

This thread is so bipolar. We've gone from loathing the park to thinking it looks great. I'm personally going to withhold judgement until I'm able to actually walk in it.

I'm 100% guilty of this, my bad. You're probably right, I should reserve judgement until I actually see it in person. Funny how two sets of pictures can give me two entirely different impressions of the park.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by ChelseaFC

Frankly, for an urban park, trees are more important than grass. I normally avoid comparisons with other cities, but I'll provide New York as an example. Most of Manhattan’s parks that are widely used have minimal grass, but lots of trees. Urban parks also work well when they have plenty of patio and seating areas. They should serve as gathering spots for people on their way from one place to the other. Gathering spots are more important than lawns.

You make a good point. I'll gladly forfeit the extra grass for simply having less concrete. I don't care if it gets replaced with trees, floral gardens, cacti, wood chips, etc. - there just has to be significantly less concrete.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Vangelist

It's too close to the residential buildings. There's something really voyeuristic about that location, it's unnerving to me. Walking past it last week I again got the sensation that it's private property that will be turning public; hundreds of people can potentially be watching you hang out in that park from the lurid privacy of their bedrooms any time you're there

If I had kids, I would not want them to play in that park alone if this was 2002 and downtown was more zombiefied, more abandoned. Because a child molester living in the El Dorado or the Rowan could easily kidnap and ... yeah you get my point

Virtually every pocket park in every city has windows looking down on it. I think you're overreacting.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by Vangelist

It's too close to the residential buildings. There's something really voyeuristic about that location, it's unnerving to me. Walking past it last week I again got the sensation that it's private property that will be turning public; hundreds of people can potentially be watching you hang out in that park from the lurid privacy of their bedrooms any time you're there

If I had kids, I would not want them to play in that park alone if this was 2002 and downtown was more zombiefied, more abandoned. Because a child molester living in the El Dorado or the Rowan could easily kidnap and ... yeah you get my point

Vista Hermosa is supposed to be a gorgeous downtown-adjacent park, but I've never been there. And then there's the massive Cornfields next to Chinatown, and more areas being zoned close to the river. But how many people, how many of you ever even go to either of these two? Does DTLA really have that much of a shortage of parks or just does a bad job of marketing the ones it already has? Since it's been cleaned-up relatively speaking I even consider MacArthur Park a successful "downtown" adjacent park. It still just doesn't feature that many white people, so it's considered shady

I go to Vista Hermosa 2-3 times a week. It is an unbelievable park and should be used as a model for others. You forget you're in a city. I also go the cornfields/State Historic Park several times a week. And yes DTLA has a shortage of small pocket parks/green space.

As to a park in the city and privacy - it's a park in the freakin city. That's what cities are about. If you want total privacy, move out. While I personally don't like the design that much (those photos show the best of it), it will be a decent place to sit and hang out or read.

[brudy]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

I'm 100% guilty of this, my bad. You're probably right, I should reserve judgement until I actually see it in person. Funny how two sets of pictures can give me two entirely different impressions of the park.

The northern end of the park has all the grass, the southern end is mostly hardscape and this weird running track looking design. So the park can easily appear dichotomous.

[Gram3000]

I don't mind the design of the park either, just seems kinda contrite like they were trying to do too much kind of when you sometimes view it. Yea the lawn is good but could there be more grass or softness? Of course! However, my BIGGEST gripe is the lack of canopy trees..yea there are a few trees but on a hot summer day there is nowhere to seek shelter as these trees will probably take 10-15 years to form a decent canopy, probably up to 20 or 25 yrs for full canopy. I also like the idea of ivy climbing the surrounding bldgs as it creates a "green box" that allows visitors to be fully surrounded in greenery forming an oasis from the outside world. All in all, we'll just have to see what comes of it. I must say the best greenspace in all of DTLA, one that got it right was the Maguire Gardens @ Central library...definitely wish it were bigger though!

[LA/OCman]

Originally Posted by brudy

I go to Vista Hermosa 2-3 times a week. It is an unbelievable park and should be used as a model for others. You forget you're in a city. I also go the cornfields/State Historic Park several times a week. And yes DTLA has a shortage of small pocket parks/green space.

As to a park in the city and privacy - it's a park in the freakin city. That's what cities are about. If you want total privacy, move out. While I personally don't like the design that much (those photos show the best of it), it will be a decent place to sit and hang out or read.

Well said. Vista Hermosa is awesome. It is run by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and with an official "Ranger". It is not very walkable however, especially if you are taking a dog there on a hot day from the Historic Core. Cornfields is a work in progress but it is nice to have a lot of open space. I also prefer the second largest city park in LA, Elysian Park for dog walking. It is so close and has over 600 acres with hiking trails. Maguire Gardens is perfect. The biggest miss in DTLA is Pershing Square.

Spring St. Park will be a great addition to this park deprived neighborhood. The fountain on the northwest corner has blue glass mosaic tiles but I haven't seen it turned on yet. Also, the surrounding buildings provide shade as well, unlike Grand Park.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I hate to say it, but the Law Library is going nowhere fast. They just pumped a ton of money into an exterior retrofit, along with some serious upgrades to the grounds/entrances/landscaping along 1st Street.

A peek inside the LA Law Library's vast collection (the second largest law library in the country) along with renovation details:

http://bit.ly/YDrjm4

[brudy]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

Well said. Vista Hermosa is awesome. It is run by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and with an official "Ranger". It is not very walkable however, especially if you are taking a dog there on a hot day from the Historic Core. Cornfields is a work in progress but it is nice to have a lot of open space. I also prefer the second largest city park in LA, Elysian Park for dog walking. It is so close and has over 600 acres with hiking trails. Maguire Gardens is perfect. The biggest miss in DTLA is Pershing Square.

Spring St. Park will be a great addition to this park deprived neighborhood. The fountain on the northwest corner has blue glass mosaic tiles but I haven't seen it turned on yet. Also, the surrounding buildings provide shade as well, unlike Grand Park.

I use these parks to walk with my dog as well. I do like Elysian a lot, but the number of off leash dog incidents I've seen there has led me to go there a lot less. I have a small dog and it just isn't worth it.

Cornfields/State Historic will be closing for a year starting in early 2014 for renovations. I hope they don't overdesign it like Spring St. They made it all too complicated. If you look to NYC for inspiration on small parks, the best pocket parks are just benches and trees.