LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

You are citywatch's new BFF!

actually, westsidelife, everyone should consider forumers like districtdirt to be this thread's bff. Ppl who spend time in the hood, & even better yet, live there, help keep this thread interesting. that's even more important cuz all the work that jdrcrash put into updating the new projs list is mostly an exercise in futility right now. That's cuz the economy is so slow that I don't see any new major devlpt occurring for a loooong time to come.

The most anyone can hope for is groundbreaking for the new art museum & maybe, just maybe, the wilshire grand proj. Even the wilshire grand will be mainly just a demolition site for quite awhile, & that isn't even supposed to start until almost next yr.

So updates on the smaller improvements to the hood---like the new shop in districtdirt's apt bldg---are now the main thing to keep track of & help keep this thread going & interesting.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

I was in the Historic Core tonight and it was very lively! It never ceases to amaze me how many people are now walking the streets at night

hearing things like that is about as good as being told that groundbreaking has occurred on the park fifth proj or LA central! Well, almost as good, but good enough. We need to take whatever good news we can get nowadays. So nothing better than hearing about old bldgs in the OBD or on Spring St being cleaned up & revitalized. And spaces on the 1st floor of bldgs finally being used for shops or made way better than before.

I mention the park fifth proj cuz a lack of things like that is one big reason pershing sq died quite awhile ago. IOW, the big difference between pershing Sq & Union Sq is that ppl with $$ never abandoned the hood around Union Sq the way they did DTLA. And you're right about the design of Pershing making a bad situation even worse. Those parking ramps that run parallel to Olive & Hill cause Pershing to be even more isolated from the sidewalks & rest of the hood.

But I don't think the jewelry stores are the big problem in the hood. I think it's still that not enough ppl live & work around there. Ppl like districtdirt, ralossi, colemonkee. And that too many ppl who are around there either are the homeless or ppl struggling to make ends meet & too busy trying to save $$ to worry about the type of things found in cities like SF or NY.

btw, one of the few newer bldgs around Pershing Sq was built exclusively for the jewelry trade back in the 1980s. It's that bldg with the palm trees sitting along the front across Hill St, at the NE corner of 6th & Hill.

[Troubadour]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

galen-frysinger.org

I just don't understand the typical "city park" - a handful of sidewalks going past some patches of manicured lawn with a few scrawny trees beside them. What's the point? There's no there there. It's just a null space. A park should be an experience, packed with towering seasonal trees, streams, big rocks, and terrain. The air should be totally different once you step inside. Trees should not be used as regularly-spaced design elements to break up lawns, they should be packed solid right up to the sidewalk like a wall, creating a wilderness in the middle of a city. Cities really need to learn: A lawn with six trees around the perimeter and a barbecue is not a park.

[SD_Phil]

^Sounds like it would make it a haven for the homeless population which would, in turn, decrease use of the park by any others.

[Troubadour]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

^Sounds like it would make it a haven for the homeless population which would, in turn, decrease use of the park by any others.

First, no - I've been to several parks exactly like I describe, and they're (a)beautiful, (b)invigorate the air, and (c)the people who live around them adore them. Ones that incorporate old-growth trees are the best of all, though of course that's not really possible in LA. I never saw any homeless people in these parks - I'm sure they were there in the really urbanized regions, but I never saw them. But I've seen plenty sitting around on the benches and steps of the typical "city park" areas.

Second, the last time I checked the purpose of a park was not to drive away the homeless - if it was, you might as well just pave it over and have a flat, featureless, Latin American urban square with no foliage whatsoever: The absolute least hospitable environment to vagrants, or anyone for that matter.

Third, if someone is so phobic about running into poor people (gasp!) that they won't venture into an incredibly beautiful space with fresh, invigorating air and a peaceful, nurturing ambiance, then...they should move to a central planned suburb, not live in the downtown of a major city.

[DJM19]

Pershing square and Union square are not really urban parks, but rather...well...squares. In the tradition of the squares seen elsewhere in the world, its just a block where people cross between their destinations and perhaps sit and rest. Not really a recreational outing, more of a break from the office or shopping. They aren't always meant to transport you to another place, just to give more pedestrian room than the sidewalk would.

[SD_Phil]

Originally Posted by Troubadour

First, no - I've been to several parks exactly like I describe, and they're (a)beautiful, (b)invigorate the air, and (c)the people who live around them adore them. Ones that incorporate old-growth trees are the best of all, though of course that's not really possible in LA. I never saw any homeless people in these parks - I'm sure they were there in the really urbanized regions, but I never saw them. But I've seen plenty sitting around on the benches and steps of the typical "city park" areas.

Second, the last time I checked the purpose of a park was not to drive away the homeless - if it was, you might as well just pave it over and have a flat, featureless, Latin American urban square with no foliage whatsoever: The absolute least hospitable environment to vagrants, or anyone for that matter.

Third, if someone is so phobic about running into poor people (gasp!) that they won't venture into an incredibly beautiful space with fresh, invigorating air and a peaceful, nurturing ambiance, then...they should move to a central planned suburb, not live in the downtown of a major city.

You sound pretty angry and you're attributing some pretty weird views to me from one sentence I wrote. Let's please not do that.

I don't disagree with you that it is possible, in principle, of having a 'wild' park in a city (San Diego's Balboa Park has sections like this for example) but, in the context of DT LA and its homeless population I think this is far less likely.

This doesn't mean I hate the homeless. This doesn't mean I think parks should be converted into plazas (though I disagree with you that they're inhospitable and inhuman...they can be quite nice).

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by citywatch

actually, westsidelife, everyone should consider forumers like districtdirt to be this thread's bff. Ppl who spend time in the hood, & even better yet, live there, help keep this thread interesting. that's even more important cuz all the work that jdrcrash put into updating the new projs list is mostly an exercise in futility right now. That's cuz the economy is so slow that I don't see any new major devlpt occurring for a loooong time to come.

Well we might not be able to use a time machine to speed things up, but we can prepare for the time when LA rebounds. It WILL come back. It has to. When I first came here now nearly four years ago (still can't believe it), we were entering the recession. I find it hard to believe it can last much longer.

We're already setting the stage for the next cycle. And if we can fix the approval process (like the now dead 12-2 program), expand our transit network, change zoning laws, and start greening up the city (like the River, more parks, etc) LA will be 1,000 times more prepared for the next boom than the previous.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Pershing square and Union square are not really urban parks, but rather...well...squares. In the tradition of the squares seen elsewhere in the world, its just a block where people cross between their destinations and perhaps sit and rest. Not really a recreational outing, more of a break from the office or shopping. They aren't always meant to transport you to another place, just to give more pedestrian room than the sidewalk would.

I agree. Pershing Square and Union Square are more plazas than parks. And I don't really see anything wrong with that. Given their small sizes and proximity to dense neighborhood activity centers, I think they should be plazas. People don't need a place to go hiking or to be 'transported', they just want a place to sit down for 10 minutes where they don't have to breathe in car exhaust. Plazas also lend themselves well to event programming, something Pershing Square would really benefit from having more of.

I don't think one could make an argument that Union Square is anything less than a huge success. For the 'wilderness' experience, there's always Golden Gate Park. While Pershing Square might be less than successful, I think this has more to do with some poor design choices (as LAB pointed out in his illustrations) than with the fact that its a plaza and not a mini Central Park.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by citywatch

actually, westsidelife, everyone should consider forumers like districtdirt to be this thread's bff. Ppl who spend time in the hood, & even better yet, live there, help keep this thread interesting.

I will take that to heart, and post as much as I can now that I'm down here!

[pesto]

A little confused by the parking issue: Union Sq. has marked off lanes that are actually or effectively dedicated to parking lot entry. The effect is essentially the same as Pershing Sq. In addition, the south side of Union Sq (Geary) has very large double parking entries that make the sidewalk very inconvenient for foot traffic and basically force everyone onto the other side of the street (in fact, it's seems obvious that all sides of Union Sq. were designed to force people onto the other side of the street so as to be in front of commercial windows). The edges are clearly detached from the square itself.

As was noted above, each park is almost entirely designed to push the homeless out and have areas for moderate sized groups to congregate. The rest of the difference is the absence of middle and upscale shoppers, which gives Pershing Sq. a look of being dominated by the homeless, who congregate in the few green areas.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Troubadour

First, no - I've been to several parks exactly like I describe...

Digging the MegaMan II avatar.

[yeah215]

Couple of thoughts on this issue of ramps and the differences between Union Square and Pershing Square.

The first thing I would say is that Pershing Square has an advantage over Union square in the garage is further underground. The reason for Union Square's steps is that the garage ramps and all are at grade. These steps are done as well as could be, but they are also an impediment to the rest of the park. The change in grade matters and I for one, would think that a completely flat Union Square would be even more engaging.

That leaves us with Pershing Square where it would be difficult have perpendicular ramps without either raising the park, or cutting deeply into park. Cars need to travel down a level.

I propose something a bit different, and I know it would take much longer. I think the ramps for Pershing square should be totally shut and rebuilt into the new buildings that are developed around the square. If Park 5th, or a project on that parcel ever gets off the ground and/or the Metro parcel right across the street (I don't know enough about where the Metro Station is and where the tube runs, so this may not be possible.) The pedestrian parking entrance/exit could still be at the park.

This would all of the ramp space to be recaptured. With a gradual stair case or sloped lawn, without the ramps, Pershing Square could really open up to the street.

As for the shops around Pershing Square, I think higher end shops would be nice. My understanding though, was that was some of the thought for the Grand Ave. project. Those shops in would be high end shops. There is space for a vibrant shopping district that could have some of the spill over, from the high end shops at the Grand Ave and Park 5th and also include mid range and specialty shops.

I would push back on the notion that there aren't well to do people in Downtown. They may not live there (yet), but there are hundreds of thousands of them there during the day, any given work day. The issue isn't so much that they aren't there, but how to make a neighborhood where they would shop a bit a lunch or after work, or head back to that neighborhood for their shopping on the weekend. The issue is making it a regional shopping center where people are willing to travel to get there. I think there is lots of opportunity for that because downtown i so centrally located.

[pesto]

yeah 215: agree completely; moving the entrances away would improve each square.

Union Sq. is actually on a slope so some concession to levels had to be made. Otherwise, there are no significant differences between them other than those caused by local demand. Put 100k people making 100k or more within 2-3 miles of Pershing Sq. and they would be surprisingly similar. People at work don't really count; they aren't there on the weekends or evenings and are at work during the day. But even if they do, DT SF has huge numbers of workers as well who add to the totals.

[StethJeff]

Why did pesto get banned ^^? He always contributed to the forum and never seemed like one to ruffle feathers to the point of getting banned. Maybe I missed something.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Why did pesto get banned ^^? He always contributed to the forum and never seemed like one to ruffle feathers to the point of getting banned. Maybe I missed something.

Huh. He got banned. How strange. He never did anything wrong in my eyes. Oh, well.

[dktshb]

Wow, new thread here and Pesto is banned. Has it been that long since I checked out city compilations??? Anyway, great job JDR. New year new thread.

[LAsam]

Yeah, kinda weird Pesto got banned... he didn't seem the type.

[StethJeff]

i'd go so far to say that he was one of my favorites. lotsa good stuff in the short time that he was a part of the forums.

also, great job jdr. never got around to thanking you for putting that first post together so well.

[colemonkee]

^ It must have been something he did on another forum. I'm just as surprised as the rest of you.