Page 1

R E V I TA L I Z I N G

THE P U B L I C R E A L M OF DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE NETWORK OF DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES CONNIE CHAUV UP 206 INTRODUCTION TO GIS FINAL PROJECT MARCH 2014


PUBLIC OPEN SPACE NETWORK IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES The City of Los Angeles is home to over 3.8 million residents and 472 Open Space System square miles of land, making it the City of Los Angeles second largest city in the entire United States.

Open Space System Los Angeles is also home to over City of Los Angeles

Designated Open Spaces

Open Space System City of Los Angeles

Legend Open Space System

Designated Open Spaces

City of Los Angeles Pacific Ocean

Major Streets

Freeway

Legend

City of Los Angeles

Designated Open Spaces

Major Streets

Legend

Designated Open Spaces Freeway

California

´

0

2.5

5

10 Miles

City of Los Angeles Major Streets California

´ ´

Freeway 0

2.5City5of Los Angeles 10 Miles California

* Parks and Open Space Shapefiles based on LADCP Zoning Classification, 2013 0

2.5

5

6,500 miles of streets and 800 miles of alleys. In fact, almost onequarter of the land in Los Angeles is dedicated to streets, alleys, and parking. And yet only 5 to 8 percent of land is designated for Legend parks and open space1.

An exhaustive Community Needs Assessment Major wasStreets conducted in 2009 for the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Freeway Parks (DRP) to identify, quantify, City of Los Angeles and prioritize key issues affecting California the city’s park usage. Headed by Mia Lehrer and Associates in collaboration with Pros Consulting and The0 Robert Group, the 2.5 5 10 Miles Community Needs Assessment concluded that the city’s over 15,000 acres of parks were not equally distributed, resulting in a high proportion of communities without a park or open space within a walkable distance from a place of residence or work2 (Department of Recreation and Parks 2009). In fact, the study

found that one-third of the city’s total park acreage was located in less than half a dozen large regional parks, so some areas of the city lacked parks entirely. Through a series of focus groups and interviews with different neighborhood stakeholders, the study identified the need for walking and biking trails to be the most pressing for the City as a whole (1st and 2nd, respectively). In response to the dire state of the city’s open space network, the Community Needs Assessment recommended that the city ensures the creation and implementation of lowmaintenance design standards for a more vibrant and lively public realm.

´

1 Los Angeles Department of City Planning 2 Community Needs Assessment (2009)

10 Miles

2


PUBLIC OPEN SPACE NETWORK OF DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES

Westlake 101 " )

Existing Conditions Downtown Los Angeles Existing Conditions Downtown Los Angeles 101 " ) 101 " )

Central City Designated Parks

Designated Parks

Transit

Southeast Los Angeles Existing Conditions Downtown Los Angeles Existing Conditions 110 " )

Legend Legend Designated Parks

Central City

TransitDesignated Parks North

Line CentralTransit City Red/Purple Central City

10 " )

Transit

10 " )

Red/Purple Line

Red/Purple Line

Blue Line

Blue Line

Exposition Line

Exposition Line

Downtown Los Angeles

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, Gold NAVTEQ, LineTomTom, Intermap, increment P Gold Corp., Line GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Regional Connector Regional Connector swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Transit Stations

Transit Stations

Bikeways

Bikeways

Central City Backbone North

Backbone

Neighborhood

Blue Line Line Red/Purple

Freeway

Blue Line Line Exposition

Focus Area

Neighborhood

Regional Connector Transit Stations

´

0

0.25

Bikeways

NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Backbone Neighborhood

Neighborhood Freeway Focus Area Freeway Focus Area

Legend For instance, the Assessment Parks need for indicatedDesignated an urgent additional Transit pocket parks in Downtown LA. Other Red/Purple Line concerns specific to Central Los Angeles Blue Line was the dire lack of open space Exposition Line opportunities when compared Gold Line against the rest of the city. Regional Connector In fact, there are only 6 open spaces designated Transit Stations as parks in Downtown Bikewaysby the City: • • • • • •

´

Backbone

Grand Park Neighborhood City Hall Lawn Freeway Pershing Square Focus Area Park Grand Hope 6th & Gladys Park San Julian Park 0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

Moreover, the most frequent issues raised during interviews and focus groups included the need for more park spaces, increased safety and security, and more iconic signature parks.

Open space can provide incredible benefits to not only the built environment, but also individual health, social integration, and community well-being1. For this reason, the National Recreation and Parks Association recommends a minimum of 3 acres of park space be provided for every 1,000 residents, though the optimal measure is approximately 10 acres per 1,000 population2. As such, it is necessary to ensure that every place of home or work is within close proximity to a local or neighborhood park or alternative form of urban open space. This is especially important in densely populated urban areas such as Downtown Los Angeles, where even small pockets of public open space can promote physical activity, improve social health and interaction, and produce environmental benefits for the neighborhood3.

Freeway Focus Area

Exposition Gold Line Line Gold LineConnector Regional

Central City North

Legend

Legend

es: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P GEBCO, USGS, FAO,Bikeways NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Transit Stations Sources: TomTom, Intermap, increment P rdnance Survey, Esri Japan, Esri, METI,DeLorme, Esri ChinaNAVTEQ, (Hong Kong), opo, and the GIS Corp., User Community GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Backbone

l City rth l City rth

The 2009 Community Needs Existing Conditions Assessment also indicated Downtown Angeles and a variety of Los concerns recommendations for the Central City area of Los Angeles.

´

0.5

1 Miles

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

* Parks and Open Space Shapefiles based on LADCP Zoning Classification, 2013 * Transit Shapefiles from METRO GIS Data Portal, 2013 * Bikeways is original data created by tracing satellite imagery

1 Environmental Health Research Foundation 2001; Sullivan, Kuo, & Depooter 2004) 2 National Recreation & Parks Association 2013 3 Davison & Lawson 2006

3


rement P N, Kadaster Kong), P rement

N, Kadaster Kong),

A GROWING AND BOOMING DOWNTOWN While the NRPA recommends 3 Daytime acres of parkPopulation space per 1,000 Combined and residents, it Residential fails to acknowledge Worker Population of Downtown the worker population that occupies a city center for the majority of the workday.

Daytime Population 101 " )

Combined Residential and Worker Population of Downtown

Legend

A more accurate depiction of the need for open space, especially in an urban city center, is to evaluate demand based on “Daytime Population”, which Legend combines both the residential1 andDaytime worker2Population groups. This new population is calculated as 500 metric or less follows: 501 - 1000

Daytime Population

- 5,000 • DAY =1,001 (RES/2) + (WORK)

101 " )

Daytime Population Combined Residential and Daytime Population

5,001 - 10,000

500 or less

Worker Population of Downtown Combined Residential and Worker Population of Downtown

501 - 1000 1,001 - 5,000

" )

5,001 - 10,000

10 " )

110

10,001 or more Designated Parks

" ) 10

Legend Legend Daytime Population Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Focus Area Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster 500 or less Daytime Population NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

´

0

0.25

0.5

10,001here, or moreDowntown is As depicted comprised of a very Designated Parks strong and dense daytime population of Focus Area 273,633 individuals, demonstrating a much stronger demand for open space than generally 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles accepted.

´

1 Miles

501 500 -or1000 less

1,001 - 5,000 501 - 1000 5,001 - 5,000 10,000 1,001

1 Residential population data from U.S. Census Bureau as cited by American Fact Finder 2010 Census SF 1 by Census Block 2 Worker population data from U.S. Census Bureau as cited by OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2011

10,001- or more 5,001 10,000 Designated Parks 10,001 or more Focus Area Parks Designated Focus Area

´´

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

Moreover, Downtown LA is in the process of an impressive makeover in its built and social environment. Since 2000, Downtown has seen an impressive $15 billion investment in redevelopment efforts, $10 billion of which was invested in the production of mixed-use and residential development projects3. The addition of over 200,000 new residences has more than doubled the neighborhood’s residential population and supply of housing units. Combined with other large-scale development projects, the planned return of the historic streetcar, increased social programming, this upsurge in both residential and worker populations beg for a new image for the city center. In the current context, public open spaces in Downtown Los Angeles are few and, in the areas where they do exist, are often barely functional. And yet with increasing residential development in the urban core, there is a strong demand for truly public neighborhood parks, replete with lawns, trails, and seating.

3 Cushman III, 2011

4


MODEL INITIATIVES IN EXPANDING PUBLIC SPACES IN OTHER CITIES

! . ! .

Seattle

Portland

! . ! .

Chicago

New York

! .

San Francisco

! .

Los Angeles

! .

Dallas

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

CASE CITIES CaseSTUDY Study Cities

´

0

250

! . ! . ! .

! .

! . ! . ! .

! . ! . ! . ! .

! . ! ! . . ! .

! .

. ! . !

! . ! . ! . . ! .!

Clinton

! . ! . ! . Central

! . . !! .

. !! .

! . ! .

! .

! . ! .

! . ! . Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

DALLAS, Dallas,TXTX

´

0

0.25

0.5

* Dallas shapefiles from FourSquare map of Downtown plazas, by Jorge E.

1 Miles

´

0

0.25

0.5

* New York shapefiles from official POPS map by APOPS & MASNYC

1 Miles

North Beach

Marina

! . ! . Lenox

! . ! . . ! .! ! .. ! ! .! .! ! . . ! . ! . ! ! . . ! . ! .! ! .! . . ! . ! ! . ! . ! . .! . . ! .! ! . .! . ! ! .! . .! ! . ! . ! . ! ! . .! .! . ! .! ! . ! . ! . . . ! ! .! . . ! ! . ! . ! ! ! . ! . ! . . ! . . .! Sutton ! ! . . ! . ! .! ! . ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! ! . ! .! . ! ! . . ! .! . ! .! . .! . ! .! ! . ! ! ! . ! . . .! . . ! ! . ! ! . ! . ! ! . . . ! . ! . . ! . ! ! .! ! ! . .! ! . . . ! ! . .! .. Midtown ! . ! .! . ! ! . ! ! . . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! ! .!! .! ! . . ..! ! ! . . . ! .Turtle ! ! . .! . ! . ! .! ! ! . . . ! . . ! . ! .! ! . ! . ! . ! . Midtown ! . ! .! Murray . .NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, . ! Sources: Esri, DeLorme, . ! ! ! . ! . Tudor ! . FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri ! . ! . China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community ! ! ! . ..

NEW NYNY NewYORK, York,

A popular initiative is taking advantage of density bonuses previously awarded to skyscraper and corporate office developments and revisiting them with expanded, strengthened, and more rigorous guidelines. In short, these cities are in the process of improving the existing open spaces on privately-owned land through improved seating opportunities, landscaping, signage, and retail opportunities.

! . ! .

! . . ! .!

! .

Integral to these visions are the realization that the public realm is among the topmost priorities. Many cities are taking strides to ensure proper growth and evolution of public open spaces to sustain a growing user population.

1,000 Miles

. !! .

! . ! .

500

Many urban cities across the United States are seeing a similar return to the city center. For instance, in many major rk, Seattle, and San Francisco, there is a shifted emphasis from the suburbs to the central downtown core of the city. Downtowns are at the heart of many large-scale and expensive development projects, where we see an impressive growth in both residential and worker populations throughout their respective cities. In response to the changing demographics of the Downtown, many of these cities have or are in the process of implementing standards and guidelines for the strategic growth and development of these city centers.

Belltown

Pike-Market

Russian Hill

! .

! .

! . ! .

! .

! . ! . ! .

! . . .! ! . ! .! . ! ! . ! . .! .! ! .! . .! ! .! .! .! . ! .! . ! . ! . .! . ! .! .! . ! .! Financial District! ! . ! .! ! . ! . .. ! ! . ! .! . .! ! .! .. . ! . ! .! . ! .! ! . ! . ! ! . ! .! . ! .! .! .! . ! . .! ! ..! . ! . ! . ! .

Chinatown

Pacific Heights

! .! .

Nob Hill

! . First Hill

! ! . . ! .

! . ! .Central Business District ! . ! . ! . ! .! . ! . . ! . ! . ! . ! .!

! .! ! . . ! . ! .

! .

! .

Downtown/Civic Center

Western Addition

! . ! . South of Market

Yesler Terrace Pioneer Square Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, International District FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

SEATTLE, Seattle,WA WA

´

0

0.25

0.5

* Seattle shapefiles from official POPS map, by City of Seattle

1 Miles

! .

SAN SanFRANCISCO, Francisco,CA CA

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

´

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

* San Francisco shapefiles from official POPOS map, by SF Dept of Planning

5


ADDING TO DOWNTOWN’S PUBLIC OPEN SPACE NETWORK

! . ! . ! .! .! !! . .! ! .! .. . ! .! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! .

! .

! . ! . ! " . 101 ) ! . ! . . ! . ! ! . ! . ! . .! ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! . ! ! .! . ! . ! . ! .! . ! . . ! . ! . ! ! . ! . Alternative ! . Network ! . Public Open Space

Alternative Revitalizing Existing Public Open Space ! . Network Open Spaces for Public Use ! . ! . Revitalizing ! . Existing! . " ! . 1 01 ) ! . Open Spaces for! Public Use . . ! Legend . ! . ! ! . Alternative ! . ! ! . . Legend ! . ! Public Open Spaces .! . Public Open Space ! .. ! Network .! ! ! .Public .! .Spaces! ! ! . ! .! ! . ..Open ! . ! . . ! . ! .! . ! ! . . Revitalizing Existing ! .! ! . . Open Spaces ! . . Open Spaces for ! PublicDesignated Use ! . ! . . Designated Open Spaces ! . ! ! . " ! . 1 01 . ! . . ! ) ! . Alternative Open Spaces ! .! ! . ! . 10 ! 10 Alternative .1) " ) . ! . " ! Legend .! Alternative Open Spaces .! .! ! . ! . Public Open Space Network Transit ! . ! . .! Transit Alternative ! ! .! . Public Open Spaces .! .! . ! .! ! . Revitalizing Existing ! ! . . . ! .! .! . ! ! . ! .! . . Public ! . ! ! . . ! . Open Spaces for Public Use Open Space Network Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P ! .! . ! ! . . Red/Purple Line ! .

. ! .!

! .

! . Line ! . Red/Purple Revitalizing Existing ! . Legend Blue Line ! . . ! .Open Spaces ! for ! . Public Use ! . Exposition Line Public Open Spaces ! . Legend ! . Line Gold Public Open Spaces Open Spaces Regional Connector ! . Designated Alternative Stations ! . Transit ! . Open Spaces Open Spaces ! . Designated Freeway Transit Alternative . Focus Area Open Spaces 10 !

! . ! .

´

Gold Line

Red/Purple Line

Regional Connector

Blue Line

Transit Stations

Exposition Line

Freeway

Gold Line

TransitRed/Purple Line

10 " )

Exposition Line

Transit

" )

ement P , Kadaster Kong),

Corp., GEBCO, USGS, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Designated Open FAO, Spaces NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Blue Line swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Alternative Open Spaces

Blue Line

Transit Stations

´

Red/Purple Line Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P 0 0.25 0.5Line 1 Miles Exposition Freeway Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Blue Line NL, Ordnance Gold Survey, Line Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Focus Area swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Exposition Line Regional Connector

Gold Line Transit Stations

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Regional Connector NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriFreeway Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Transit Stations Focus Area Freeway

Focus Area

Regional Connector

´

0

0.25

0.5

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

Los Angeles should adopt a Alternative similar program to take better Public Open Space Network advantage of and revitalizing these existing open spaces to Revitalizing Existing betterOpen accommodate social Spaces for Public Use interaction and the greater public Legend realm. Public Open Spaces

As an alternative to the common “parks systems” concept, the Open Spaces ! . Designated “public realm” is comprised of Alternative Open Spaces . the ! network of pockets of open Transit space within the built environment that are accessible to the public and reserved Red/Purple Line for social interaction, play and recreation, Blue Line passive relaxation, and Exposition Line movement and circulation1. These Gold Line public open spaces help to shape Connector the flowRegional of social interaction and exchange inStations urban cities, forming Transit an essential counterpart in daily Freeway urban lives. Focus Area Through coordinated research involving on-site observations, 0 0.25 0.5 surveying 1 Miles online research, from satellite imagery, and correspondence with city planners and those familiar with Downtown, an additional 46 existing spaces were added to the public open space network. These spaces exist on privatelyowned land and are managed and operated by private interests. However, they were originally created as on-site open spaces

´

upon planning and construction. This privatization of public spaces was a cornerstone of the “urban renaissance” of Downtown Los Angeles in the 1960s through the 1990s. While originally conceived as open spaces for public use, a combination of poor negotiation and oversight by the City has rendered these spaces completely under the control of the private developer. However, it is precisely for this very same reason that these spaces may be retrofitted for greater use and enjoyment by the public realm. Improved design, programming, and management of these spaces carry the opportunity to truly catalyze the realm and invite local residents, workers, or simply passersby to sit, eat, read, chat, or lounge. Moreover, many of these existing spaces are already situated within close proximity to local transit stations, making them ever more valuable to house transit users as they seek places to sit and relax before hopping onto the train.

1 Carr et al, 1995 1 Miles

6


ADDING TO DOWNTOWN’S PUBLIC OPEN SPACE NETWORK These additional 46 spaces prompt the expansion of the traditional definition of “public open space” to include alternative typologies of spaces. These spaces may fall into a variety of categories, as depicted on the following page: • Civic park or square • Corporate plaza • Office courtyard • Garden • Atrium • Paseo • Seating areas Many of these existing spaces are well-known by locals; others are more hidden and nondescript. Some are visible from the streets by passersby, yet are ignored as the spaces seem intimidating or uncomfortable for users. It is also important to note that, with an exception of the Central Industrial and City Markets neighborhoods, these spaces are sprinkled throughout Downtown. The spaces are more prominent throughout the urban landscapes of the Financial Core, Bunker Hill, Civic Center, and Little Tokyo, with fewer spaces throughout South Park and the Historic Core, as shown on the following page.

7


PUBLIC OPEN SPACE NETWORK BY NEIGHBORHOOD & CLASSIFICATION Open Space Distribution Across Neighborhoods ! . ! . ! " . 101 ) ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! ! . Bunker Hill ! . ! . .! ! . ! .! ! . ! . ! ! . . ! .! .! . ! . ! .! . .. ! . ! ! .! .! . ! .! . ! . ! . ! .! ! . . ! . Little Tokyo ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . . Distribution ! . Open Space! . Financial Core ! ! . Historic Core Across Neighborhoods ! . ! . ! . ! . Convention . Civic Center ! Center

! . ! . ! " . ! . 101 ) ! . ! . South Park . ! . . ! ! ! . Bunker Hill ! . ! . .! Center ! . Civic! .! ! . ! . ! . ! ! . . . ! . ! . ! ! !! .. . Civic Center ! ! . . ! . 101 ! . ! ! .! " ) ! . . . ! . ! . . ! . ! . .! .! . ) ! .! . ! .. ! 101 .! ! . ! . ! " . ! ! . ! . ! Bunker Hill Little Tokyo ! .. . ! . ! ! . ! ! . .! ! . . . Bunker . ! ! .! Hill ! ! . ! . . ! .! .! .! .! .! .! ! . 10 ! .! ! .! .! . 1" ! . ! .! .! ) ! .. ! ! .Core . . ! .! . ! ncial! . . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! . ! ! . . ! . ! . ! .! .! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! ! ! . . ! . ! .! . ! .Core Open Space . LittleDistribution Historic ! Tokyo .! ! . ! ! . . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! .! ! . Open ! . ! . . ! Across Neighborhoods Space Distribution . Little Tokyo ! . . ! . re ! ! . Neighborhoods ! . ! . ! . Public Across . ! . Open ! Spaces . Historic Core re ! ! .! . ! Based on Location ! . . ! . Public Open Spaces ! ! . . Historic CoreLegend . ! . on Location! Based

rk

Public Open Spaces Based on Location

Civic Center

Legend Neighborhoods ! . City Markets Neighborhoods ! . Arts District! .

! .

Public Open Spaces Based on Location

Open Space Distribution ! . Legend Open Space Distribution Across Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Across PublicNeighborhoods Open Spaces ! . City Markets Arts BasedOpen on ! Location . Public Spaces ! . District ! . ) 101 ! ! . . " ! . Legend Based on! Location ! . ! . " ! . Bunker Hill .! 101 . ! . ) ! . . ! . Legend ! .! . Neighborhoods ! ! .! .Industrial Central .! ! .City! Markets ! ! . . ! . .! . .! ! .! ! .! .! Neighborhoods .! ! . . Arts District ! . ! ! . . . ! ! . . .! ! .! ! .! ! . Civic Center ! .! . ! . . ! . . ! . ! . ! ! . ! . ! . . Arts District . ! ! ! 10 . .! ! .! . .! ! .! Bunker .Hill ! . . ! . " ) .! ! .! . ! ! .! .! . . ! . ! . ! ! . Convention Center . ! . ! . ! ! .! Hill! . . Bunker .! . City Markets ! .! ! . ! . . ! . ! .! ! .! . ! El Pueblo . ! . ! . City Markets ! . . Civic Center ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! .! ! . Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P ! .Civic Fashion District Center ! ! . . ! ! . Kadaster . IGN, Center Corp.,Convention GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, . ! .! ! . GeoBase, ! . NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), ! . Convention . Financial ! .! El Pueblo ! ! .Center .District ! . swisstopo, and the GIS User Community ! . PuebloDistrict Historic Core ! . Fashion ! . El ! . ! . ! . ! . FinancialDistrict District ! . Fashion . ! . Little Tokyo !

" )

´´

Neighborhoods Freeway

Neighborhoods

´

0

´

0.25

0.5

! .

1 Miles

Legend Legend Classification

! . ! District . Historic Core ! . Financial Neighborhoods Historic Core ! . ! . Little Tokyo Neighborhoods ! . Little Tokyo Neighborhoods

" )

! . ! . ! " . 101 ) ! . ! . . ! ! . . ! ! . ! . ! . .! ! . ! . ! . ! .! ! .! ! . ! ! ..! .. . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! ! . ! . !! . . . ! . ! .! ! . . ! ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! ! . ! . ! . Classification! . of Spaces ! . Public Open Spaces ! . ! .

! . Arts District ! . Bunker Hill ! . City Markets ! . Civic Center ! . Convention Center ! . El Pueblo ! . Fashion District ! .Classification ! .of Spaces ! . Financial District ! .Classification of Public ! Open Spaces . ! . Spaces 101 ! . " ) Serving Functions ! . PublicVarying Open Spaces ! . Historic Core ! . ! ! . Functions . ! .Varying Serving ! . ! . ! ! . Little Tokyo . .! ! . ! . ! . ! . ! ! . . Neighborhoods . ! ! .! .! . ! . ! .! . .! . ! ! .! .! . ! .! . ! ! . . .! Neighborhoods ! ! . . ! . ! . Freeway ! . ! ! . ! . . ! . ! . 1" 10 ! . ) Focus Area ! . ! . ! . ! .

District Bunker Hill ! . Arts City Markets Central Industrial Bunker Hill City Markets ! . City Markets Freeway City CivicMarkets Center ! . Central Neighborhoods Neighborhoods 110 Industrial 10 Focus Area Civic Center Convention Center Neighborhoods ! 10 . Central 1" Industrial Freeway " )10 ) 10 10 1" El Pueblo Center " Freeway ) ! . Convention " )10 ) Focus Area 10 " ) El Pueblo Fashion District Focus Area ! . Esri, Sources: DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Corp., GEBCO, USGS, Kadaster 0 0.25 FAO, NPS, 0.5 NRCAN, GeoBase, 1IGN, Miles Fashion District Financial District ! . NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, increment NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri Intermap, China (Hong Kong), P swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, Community NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster swisstopo, and the GIS User Financial District 0 0.25 NL, Ordnance 0.5 1 Miles Historic Core ! . Esri Sources: Esri, Survey, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, increment NL, Ordnance Japan, METI, Esri Intermap, China (Hong Kong), P Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, Community NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster swisstopo, and the GIS User 0 0.25 swisstopo, 0.5 and the GIS User1Community Miles Historic CoreEsri China (Hong Kong), NL, Ordnance Survey, Japan, METI, Little Tokyo ! . Esri swisstopo, and the GIS User Community ! Neighborhoods . Little Tokyo Neighborhoods Neighborhoods

Legend

C

Serving Varying Functions

Cl

! . ! . ! . 10 " )

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Legend

Classification

! . ! . ! .

Classification ! . Garden

10 " )

! . ! . ! .

Garden Park Park Plaza

Freeway

0.25

0.5

Park Plaza Freeway

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,0Ordnance Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), 0.25Survey,0.5 1 Miles swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

0

Garden

Focus Area

Plaza Focus Area Focus Area Freeway

´´

Le

! .

1 Miles

´

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

8

´

0


DATA ASSEMBLY & MODELING FOR PUBLIC OPEN SPACES These 54 public open spaces were further analyzed based on the existing conditions, levels of use, and design elements1: • Scale (Local vs. Regional) • Use (Popular vs. Empty) • Elevation (Above/Below Ground) • Enclosure (Fenced or Open) • Seating (Benches/Chairs) • Focal (Public Art/Water) • Food (On-site or Local Food) • Landscaping (Plants) • Bicycle (Nearby bikeway) • Transit (Nearby station) Each space was then assigned a score based on the accumulation of the aforementioned qualities: • SCORE = [2*SCALE] + [2*USE] + [ELEVATION] + [ENCLOSED] + [SEATING] + [FOCAL] + [F00D] + [LANDSCAPE] + [BIKE] + [TRANSIT] • 1/4 and 1/8 mile radius buffer for public open spaces + transit stations

• Creating new field in service area metadata for daytime population captured

• Intersecting service areas with daytime population based on census blocks

• Calculating daytime population captured based on service area

Service areas were also drawn for each public open space and transit station. These were calculated based on a 1/4 or 1/8 mile buffer and the local daytime population within that radius.

1 Each space was ranked on a 0-2 scale, with a score of 2 representing the most favorable qualities.

9


SERVICE AREAS OF CURRENT PUBLIC OPEN SPACES

! .

! .

! .

! . ! . ! .

101 " ) ! .

! . ! . ! " . 101 ) ! . ! . . ! . . ! ! ! . ! . ! . .! ! . ! .! ! . ! .! ! . .! . ! ! .! .! . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! .! . . ! . ! .! ! . . ! ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! ! . ! . ! . Refined ! . Public Open Space ! . Network ! . ! . Refined Current Conditions and Opportunities Public Open SpaceforNetwork Refined Public Open Spaces ! . Current Conditions and Opportunities Public Open Space Network Legend ! . for Public Open Spaces

. . ! ! .! . ! ! . ! . ! . " 101 ! . ! ) . .! ! . ! . ! . ! . . ! ! .! . ! ! .! ! . " ! . .! ! . 101 ! . . . ) ! ! . .! . .! ! . ! .! . ! .! . ! .! ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! . ! . .! ! .! . ! ! . . ! .! ! .! ! .! ! . ! . ! .! ! .. ! .. .! . !! ! . . .. ! .. ! . ! ! .! . ! . ! . ! .! .! ! ! .!! ! . .. ! .! .! . . ! . !! !! ! ! . .! .. 1" 10 . ! .. ! . . . .! ! ! .! . ) ! . Refined . ! . . ! . ! . ! . ! ! . ! . ! . ! ! . . Refined Public Open ! . Space Network ! . ! . ! . ! . Network ! .and Opportunities ! Refined . Conditions ! . ! . Public Open Current ! . Space ! .Spaces ! . Public Open .for Public Open Space Network Current! Conditions and Opportunities ! .Spaces for Public Open Current Opportunities ! .Conditions and Legend ! . ! . for Public Open Spaces Legend ! . Classification Legend Classification ! . ! Garden . Classification Garden ! . Park ! . ! . Park Plaza ! . Garden Park ! . Plaza Service Area Effective Plaza ! Effective Service Area . 10 Poor " )

" ) " )

Current Conditions and Opportunities Classification for Public Open Spaces Legend

! . Garden Legend Classification ! . Park ! . Garden Classification ! . Plaza Park ! . Garden Effective Service Area 10 Park Plaza ! . " ) Poor Service Area Effective ! . Plaza Poor Service Area Effective

Transit

Excellent Transit

Transit Lines

Transit Lines Transit

Transit Stations

Stations Transit Lines Bikeways

Transit Stations Bikeways Bikeways Bikeways

´´

Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, ources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, Esri China (Hong Kong), orp., GEBCO, USGS,NL, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,METI, Kadaster Excellent 0 0.25 swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Transit Lines L, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), ources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P wisstopo, and the GIS User orp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, Community NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Transit Lines 0 0.25 Transit Stations L, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), wisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Transit Transit Lines Stations Bikeways Transit Stations Bikeways Bikeways Bikeways Bikeways Focus Area

´

0.5 0.5

Bikeways Focus Area

Bikeways Focus Area

Service Area Effective Poor Decent Focus Area Freeway Poor Decent Excellent Freeway Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Decent Excellent

Transit Transit Transit

Decent

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Excellent Poor Decent Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Decent Excellent swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Freeway

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

The scoring and service area Refined system indicate that many Public Open Space Network portions of Downtown are wellCurrent by Conditions and Opportunities served this alternative public for Public Open Spaces open space network. Legend The service areas of each space Classification as shown here are based on ! . Garden 1/8 mile radius, highlighting the ! . Park portions of Downtown that are Plaza ! . an within immediate walking Effective Service Area space. distance to an open Poor

However, as previously Decent mentioned, not all of these Excellent spaces were created equal. Transit Many are elevated or sunken, Transit Lines rendering them invisible to the Transitor Stations pedestrian, lack any seating or Bikeways food options, rendering them useless for any potential user. Bikeways Therefore, the service areas have Focus Area also been drawn to highlight Freeway the better public open spaces against those in desperate need of repair or improvement.

´

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

Basic improvements such as inclusion of seating, umbrella shade structures, potted plants, food vendor, or even basic signage, can have drastic improvements on the appeal and vibrancy of a space.

Collectively, all of these elements can help to humanize any vacant or abandoned hardscaped plazas. By bringing seating and umbrellas to the space, a property owner is indicating to passersby that they are welcome to stop by, sit, and comfortably relax in the space. The addition of landscaping or central public art or water features helps to make the space more attractive and aesthetically pleasing for those interested in a calming and more pleasant stay. Signage, of course, is to publicize the space, making it known that the space is available for public use and enjoyment. Therefore, through the implementation of seating, signage, landscaping, and even a few retailer kiosks, property owners can make their courtyards and front lawns ever more attractive and publicized to the greater community.

1 Miles

1 Miles

10


! .

AN IMPROVED NETWORK OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACES Service Areas Service of Area of Public Open Space System 6th & Gladys Park 1,271 Network Public Open Space Gil Lindsay Plaza

. Transit ! . Spaces and from Red/Purple WalkableLine Service Areas ! . 1/4 Mile ! . ! . ! . Spaces from Transit . Legend Blue Line and !

! .

Red/Purple Line Gold Line

" )´

Exposition Line Transit Stations

Freeway Open Space Service Areas Transit Lines

Gold Line

Focus Area Transit Lines Transit Lines

Regional Connector

10 " ) TransitRed/Purple Lines Line 0

Regional Connector

Blue Line

Transit Stations Open Space Service Service AreasAreas

10

Exposition Line

Transit Lines

Blue Line Red/Purple 0.25 0.5 Line

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Transit Stations Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Regional Connector NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Freeway Transit Stations

Focus Area Freeway

´

4,700

Union Bank Plaza

Angels Knoll Public Open Spaces

! .

8,937 12,624

Pershing Square

13,519

PublicCourtyard Open Spaces Fig@7th

13,700

City National Plaza

15,562

Transit Service Areas Bonaventure Hotel Plaza

15,722

Maguire Gardens Open Space Service Areas California Plaza

LADOT Plaza Transit Lines

16,176 16,393 24,285

Blue Ribbon Garden & Park

27,045

Transit LinesLA Mall

34,646

Grand Park Red/Purple Line

Blue Line

0

58,446 10,000

20,000

Exposition Line

Focus Area

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Local Population

Gold Line Regional Connector

If properly implemented, on-site Transit Stations improvements will have drastic effects onFreeway the “feel” and “look” Focus Area of a space, transforming it from a dreary dead space into one that is vibrant and bursting with 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles energy.

´

away. Adding on-site retail that is unique or memorable will attract people even more so, inherently expanding the service area to a 1/4 mile walking distance. Improved public open spaces will therefore capture an even greater potential user population. The chart above demonstrates the daytime population within this new expanded service area, better highlighting the exact demand and need for a more robust public open space network.

Freeway

1 Miles

Exposition Blue Line Line Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster Gold Line Exposition Line NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Regional Gold LineConnector

Freeway

Transit Stations

3,764

Spring Street Park Legend

These improvements will also naturally be made more attractive to locals and passersby. As such, the spaces may be visited by, not only individuals who work immediately adjacent to the space, but locals who work down the street or even further

Blue Line

Transit Lines

. ! . ! Legend Line PublicExposition Open Spaces ! . ! . Line Public Open Spaces ! . Gold Public Open Spaces Connector TransitOpen Service Areas Public Spaces ! . Regional ! .

! .

ement P Kadaster Kong),

Red/Purple Line

swisstopo, Open and theSpace GIS User Community Service Areas

Biddy Mason Park

Public Open Space

! . ! . ! " . 101 ) ! . ! . ! . ! . . ! ! . ! . ! . .! ! . ! .! ! . ! . ! ! . . . ! ! .! .. . ! . ! !! . . . ! . ! ! . ! . !! . . ! . ! . ! .! ! . . ! . ! . ! . . ! . ! . ! ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . Service Areas of Public Open Space Network ! . of Service Areas ! . Service Areas 1/4 Mile Walkable Public Open Space Network ! . from Spaces and Transit ! . Areas 1/4 Mile Walkable Service ! . ! . ) 101 from Spaces and Transit" ! . ServiceLegend Areas of ! . ! . ! . ! . ! . Legend Public Open Space Network Public Open Spaces ! . ! . .! ! . Public ! . 1/4 Mile Walkable Service Areas ! ! .. . ! . Public Open Spaces .! . Open ! ! .! .! . Spaces ! ! . ! .! ! . .! ! . Open from Spaces and Transit ! .! .! . Spaces ! .! . Public . ! ! ! . . Transit Service Areas . ! .! ! . . 10 ! 1" .10 ! .! 101 " ." ) ) Legend ) Transit Service ! . Areas ! . ! . Open Space Service Areas ! .! . ! . ! .Service ! . Areas . ! .! of ! .Areas Open Space ! . Public Open Spaces ! . ! . Service ! . ! . ! . Transit Lines ! . Public ! . Open Space ! .! Service Areas of ! .Network ! .! Public Open Spaces Transit Lines ! . Esri, .! .! . Sources: DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P ! ! .! .! . ! ! . . . Transit Lines ! . ! . Mile ! .Space ! . ! . Service Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO,Areas NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster ! . ! .! ! 1/4 Walkable Areas . Network .. Public ! Transit Lines ! . Transit Service . Open ! .! ! NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), .

1,633

Plaza Service 2,780 1/4 Mile Noguchi Walkable Areas 3,136 fromMedallion SpacesPark and Transit

´

0

0

Focus Area

0.25

0.5

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

1 Miles

11


A TRULY WALKABLE & LIVEABLE DOWNTOWN

110 " ) 110 " )

Many Vibrant Public Open Spaces Within Walkable Distance

Increased Opportunities for Public Life Increased Opportunities Increased Opportunities Many Vibrant Public Open Spaces for Public Life Within Distance forWalkable Public Life Increased Opportunities Many Vibrant Public Open Spaces Within Distance Many Vibrant Public Open Spaces forWalkable Public Life

" )0

talGlobe, id, IGN,

talGlobe, id, IGN, talGlobe, id, IGN, talGlobe, id, IGN,

Increased Opportunities for Public Life

Within Walkable Distance Many Vibrant Public Open Spaces Within Walkable Distance

Legend Classification

! . Garden Park HERE, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, ! . DeLorme, Copyright: ©2014 Esri, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and! the GISPlaza User Community .

Legend Legend Classification Legend ! . Garden Classification Legend Classification Park ! . Garden ! . Classification Plaza Park ! . Garden Park ! . Transit Plaza ! . Garden Plaza ! . Park Transit Lines Transit Transit ! . Plaza Stations Transit Lines

Transit

Classification Overall, the revitalization of Garden spaces in Downtown ! . open public carries strong benefits that Park ! . many strengthen the social, economic, ! . Plaza and built urban fabric of the city Transit center. Generating foot traffic is Transit Lines key to increasing business and Transit Stations enhancing revenues. Similarly, the public realm and creating Bikeways opportunities Bikewaysfor constant social interaction and mingling can help Freeway contribute to a more vibrant and liveable city.

´

0

0.0625

0.125

Coordinated implementation of such simple measures as signage, seating, and retail will undoubtedly better accommodate for the evergrowing public realm. If effectively accomplished, we can create an entire of network of public open spaces, with several spaces available for public use within immediate walking distance of any cultural, social, or employment destination of the Downtown neighborhood. And as such, the collective improved programming of these spaces will make Downtown Los Angeles an even better place to live, work, and play.

0.25 Miles

Transit Lines Transit Stations

Bikeways Bikeways Freeway

Transit Transit Bikeways Transit Lines Stations Transit Lines Stations Bikeways Bikeways Transit Stations Bikeways Freeway Bikeways

Copyright: ©2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,

GeoEye,Bikeways i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, Bikeways Freeway

´´ ´

Many iconic skyscrapers and Increased Opportunities towers have been developed for Public Life over the history of Downtown Many Vibrant Public Open Spaces from the 1960s onward, housing Within Walkable Distance the corporate and cultural heart of the modern economy. It is now the time to begin paying attention to the spaces inbetween, ensuring that the urban fabric comprising these buildings is similarly rich and vibrant. Legend

IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Bikeways Freeway

0

0.0625 0.125 Freeway

0.25 Miles

0

0.0625

0.125

0.25 Miles

0

0.0625

0.125

0.25 Miles

0

0.0625

0.125

0.25 Miles

´

0

0.0625

0.125

0.25 Miles

12


PROJECT NOTES TASKS SUMMARY:

DATA SOURCES:

Original Data: Creating new features by tracing from satellite imagery DTLA Public Open Spaces, Bikeways

Parks and Open Space Shapefiles based on LADCP Zoning Classification, 2013

Metadata: Creating descriptive inventory of DTLA Public Open Spaces, based on service area scale, levels of use, and design/programming elements (landscaping, elevation, enclosure, seating, water/art feature)

Residential population data from U.S. Census Bureau from American Fact Finder 2010 Census SF 1 by Census Block

Worker population data from U.S. Bureau as cited by OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2011

Modeling: Creating Buffers around Public Open Space and Calculating Daytime Population Field

Transit Shapefiles from METRO GIS Data Portal, 2013

Bikeways is original data created by Google Mash-Up

Extracting Information from Buffer: Daytime Population within 1/4 mile radius of Public Open Space

Charts/Graphics/Images: Graphic Representation of Conditions of Public Open Spaces

7-Layer Map: Public Open Space + Refined Service Area + Transit Lines + Transit Stations + Bikeways + Focus Area + Freeways

Case study shapefiles obtained from respective cities • Dallas, TX: “Downtown Dallas Parks and Plazas: Parks, plazas, trails and other public spaces in Downtown Dallas” FourSquare Map, prepared by Jorge E. on 05/11/2012 • New York, NY: Official Privately-Owned Public Spaces map, prepared by the Advocates for Privately-Owned Public Space in coordination with Municipal Art Society of New York, available through Google • Seattle, WA: Official Privately-Owned Public Spaces map available through Google, prepared by Louis Caditz-Peck for the City of Seattle • San Francisco, CA: Official Privately-Owned Public Open Space and Public Art Map available through Google, prepared by the San Francisco Planning Department

Downtown Los Angeles Public Open Space Shapefiles developed by the author through the following process: • Inventory of spaces based on past experience, on-site observations, online research, and insight from other staff planners of the Los Angeles Department of City Planning • Evaluation of each space based on existing conditions and amenities provided • Ranking of each space based on accumulating an overall score based on existing conditions • Service areas gathered through 1/4 and 1/8 mile radius

LITERARY SOURCES: • • • • • •

Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., and Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. New York: Cambridge University Press. City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks (2009). 2009 Citywide Community Needs Assessment. Prepared by Mia Lehrer + Associates, Pros Consulting, and The Robert Group. Cushman, John C. III (2011). Downtown LA’s urban renaissance. Urban Land Institute Los Angeles. Davison, K. and Lawson, C. (2006). Do attributes in the physical environment influence children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 3 (19). Environmental Health Research Foundation (2001) National Recreation & Parks Association (2013)

13

Revitalizing the Public Realm  

An analysis of the existing public open space network in Downtown LA

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you