Cognitive Mapping Catalogue Outreach Workshop #1 Show Us Your Neighborhood!
Overview This document is the result of a mapping workshop held at Pico community outreach event hosted by Pico Great Streets Collaborative on Sunday April 23, 2017. The participants were presented with five maps that each contained two questions—each to be answered in the form of a line drawn on the map or a small dot sticker to mark a point. The answers were digitized and processed for further analysis, along with entries from an online mapping application that we set up for the event. In total, we counted over 300 answers, distributed among the ten questions. A approximated 40-50 people participated in the mapping exercise. In this analysis we see the emergent shapes that arise from compiling these answers as we sharpen the focus on the collective perception of the neighborhood—the individual responses were never of particular interest, although we included a few quotes on the title spread of each section in this document to provide some context to the maps. Each quote was an interesting or characteristic comment from one of our participants. Please remember that this is not a quantitative study, and that the results presented are not based on statistical calculations or social science. Instead, we have focused on meaningful public participation, and the inclusion of multiple social values in decisionmaking. It is meant to be a tool that highlights problems and potentials in the Pico neighborhood, while also serving as a catalyst for further discussion about the community and the city.
p. 3 / 28
Theme : Belonging 1. Which landmark makes you feel at home? 2. What is the outer boundary of your neighborhood?
“My driveway is my own personal landmark…” —Pico Resident p. 4 / 28
Landmarks We started out by asking the community about the landmarks that makes them feel at home, and give a sense of neighborhood identity. Not surprisingly, many were situated on Pico Blvd, but a lot of responses also showed significant landmark identifiers on the perimeter.
Landmark Significance The buffer drawn around each landmark indicates their weight in terms of popularity among respondents, based on each point’s rough distance to other answers, and shows a clear density of landmarks along Pico Blvd. The map shows us a collection of landmarks that were plotted down alone—or far away from clusters of landmarks. The DWP building and oil tower on Pico Blvd and Genesee Ave came out as a primary identifier, but the less registered landmarks gives us a hint about the extent of the perceived neighborhood.
p. 5 / 28
Pico’s landmarks are many and diverse: A lot of them are placed along Pico Blvd but some of them are situated out on the boundary, such as the Carthay Center Elementary School among others. Some are both, as in the case of the art deco Chase building on La Cienega and Pico or Lucy’s Drive-In at the other end of the neighborhood.
p. 6 / 28
Neighborhood Extents To get a better sense of the perimeter, we asked the community to outline what they think of as “The Pico Neighborhood”. A lot of responses showed the boulevard as the full extent but most of the participants outlined vast areas that we can overlay to get a sense of the core of the Pico community. The dashed line shows an approximation of what we could consider the ‘neighborhood core’ based on these answers.
Pico Blvd As Neighborhood Seam The map above takes the neighborhood boundary responses and shows us only the outline as overlay. The dark line along the western part of Pico Blvd gives us a hint about how many people think of their neighborhood as a section of the residential area—with a northern or southern boundary on Pico itself. This could be interpreted as Pico being a divider, while also hinting at the potential of improving Pico as a seam that connects vast parts of the community on both sides of the boulevard.
p. 7 / 28
p. 8 / 28
Opposite page: The manifold of responses give us a view into the mindsets of the participants—some people only think of the boulevard as their neighborhood, while some outlined their own block and nothing else. This is a range of neighborhood scale perceptions that we can work with as we move forward and strengthen the community.
Below: In this image we see the actual outline of the Pico Neighborhood Council area. Notice how the shape and extent can encompass most of the answers, while its great size is not reflected in the workshop responses. Which areas are left out of the collective consciousness?
p. 9 / 28
Theme: Destination 3. Where do you like to hang out? 4. What is your favorite area?
“Why is The Grove or LACMA not on here? That’s where I usually go.” —Pico Resident p. 10 / 28
Hanging Out The responses to hangout places in the Pico neighborhood shows us that Pico Blvd is already a destination when it comes to hanging out in the public realm. Some of the responses show us a different approach—A total of 5 responses show us the preference towards hanging out in private homes.
Hangout Spot Significance The buffer drawn around each hangout spot once more indicates the rough distance to other answers, and shows a clear density of hangout activity along Pico Blvd. The dashed line shows us the neighborhood core. One answer points to the Pickford Ave street crossing at the Sierra Bonita knoll which is evidence of a different kind of quality than the cafes and restaurants of Pico Blvd. Clearly, the elevation at this location plays an important role as we will see later in the analysis.
p. 11 / 28
Popularity of Areas The above maps shows an overlay of all the respondents’ favorite areas. Interestingly there’s an overweight that fits almost perfectly with what the City of LA has designated as a Great Streets corridor.
Hangout Spots and Area Popularity If we juxtapose the hangout spots onto this overlay map, we see that the density of favorite areas is not a coincidence. This is indeed where the people of the Pico community like to go and hang out—and possibly also where the experiences are had that people associate with being part of the community.
p. 12 / 28
Many of Pico’s hangout spots are placed within the favorite stretch of the boulevard—and most of them are cafes and restaurants, probably serving as important spaces for members of the community to relax, work and socialize, i.e. as meetup spaces and community nodes.
p. 13 / 28
Theme: Free To Roam 5. Show us your best leisure walk? 6. Where would you wish there was a footpath shortcut you could take?
“I feel at home when I see those green medians. Green medians are characteristic of my neighborhood.” —Pico Resident
Leisurely Walk Routes The responses to the favorite walk question shows the magnificent street grid beyond Pico boulevard as a network of not only transportation, but also leisure and exercise. Notice that this overlay of routes once again shows high activity along the Great Streets corridor—indicating the boulevard as an excellent promenade walk. Additionally we also see high popularity of packard street, parallel to Pico Blvd to the north. Perhaps the pedestrians like to walk a different route back, or maybe Packard has something that Pico hasn’t?
Key Crossings on the Boulevard Due to the relatively modest number of responses, pointing out the most popular crossing points at Pico Blvd is a bit tricky—but perhaps we could use this feedback to see where people do not cross? From the map above it is evident that none of the respondents would cross pico at Fairfax, Spaulding, Carmona or Cloverdale Ave on their best leisure walk. These spots have all been highlighted with dashed circles on the map above.
p. 15 / 28
If we compare the characteristic shapes of the walks we see how differently the street grid is used for leisure walking. The above illustration is a reminder of the great diversity in perceptions as to what makes for something as universal as a nice little walk. p. 16 / 28
Desired Shortcuts We also asked the participants to mark out where in the neighborhood they’d wish there was a footpath shortcut they could take. Not surprisingly, a lot of crossing spots on Pico Blvd were marked—on the map we see 11 in total. Outside of the Pico corridor we see two examples of alleyway connections that the community members were also wishing for, as well as many shortcuts suggested right at the boundary of our ‘core neighborhood’.
Shortcuts at Key Crossings If we take the walk map and compare the assumed need for crossings with the desire for footpath shortcuts on Pico Blvd it is shown that the assumed need does actually overlap with the request for more footpath crossings, or ‘shortcuts’. This could be an indicator that a more thorough study needs to be done, in order to determine the present need—but also the needs of a future Pico Blvd that is more active and more interconnected with the neighborhood beyond.
p. 17 / 28
It is evident that Pico needs more safe and frequent pedestrian crossings—a fact that we’ve heard in a lot of testimonies throughout the communities in the past. But we also see examples of lacking connectivity in the alleyway network behind Pico. Perhaps it is time for the community to turn its attention to these alleys and see them as more than a gritty backside, and more as a support structure to the destination that is Pico Blvd.
p. 18 / 28
Theme: Concerns 9. What is your least favorite area to have to go to? 10. Where in the neighborhood would you rather live?
“Pico is not really a neighborhood to me—it’s just a street.“ —Pico Resident p. 20 / 28
Dreaded Areas In an attempt to address broader neighborhood concerns, we asked participants to mark out their least favorite areas of their the Pico neighborhood. In the map above, we see how a dreaded zone forms to the west, around the intersection of Pico Blvd and Fairfax Ave. To the east the overlay shows us a stretched out zone along Pico Blvd from Hauser to La Brea Ave.
A Limiter of the Neighborhood If we condense the two dreaded zones to their cores (shown in red dashed lines on the map above) and compare it to our defined ‘core neighborhood’ we get a hint at what could be a limiter to the street life on Pico Blvd. The question is whether these dreaded zones are undesirable because of the presence or absence of something specific?
p. 21 / 28
The area around Vons at Pico Blvd and Fairfax Avenue was pointed out by several people to be the worst place in the neighborhood. It’s a busy intersection but also features alienating spaces such as Walgreens or the parking lot itself. On the opposite side of the neighborhood core, the area is full of auto body shops which often features heaps of scrapped cars and barb wire fences. This stretch of the boulevard actually has interesting and historical architecture as well but there are many empty storefronts or poorly maintained properties that signal hostility through barred windows or worn signage.
p. 22 / 28
Home Potential The last question shows us a different perspective on the community’s perception of their neighborhood. If we include the outline of the ‘core neighborhood’, we see that many people actually choose to live within this delineation if they were free to choose. There are also a few scattered answers located around the avenues just west of Crescent Heights Blvd. Once more, a localized cluster on top of the Sierra Bonita knoll confirms the attraction of this elevation feature.
Home Desires Far From the Boulevard On the previous map, it seemed curious that so few answers were localized around Pico Blvd. On the map directly above, we have included the buffer circles from the hangouts responses in order to show how few people want to live closer to these attractive public spaces. Is it the lack of greenery that drags down livability on Pico Blvd or is it something else? Note that only one answer is expressing desire to live on Pico Blvd—even though these boulevard-adjacent properties are zoned for multi story retail and housing. This subtle hint reveals one of the main challenges when we envision the kind of neighborhood we want Pico to be in the future. p. 23 / 28
Theme: Quality of Life 7. In which area do you miss nature the most? 8. Where would you take a guest from out of town?
“Where do I like to hang out? In my backyard.”
Lack of Nature After asking about the lack of footpath shortcuts, we gave participant a chance to also point out where the miss nature the most in their neighborhood, or where more plants and greenery is needed. The overlay of these responses show an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the level of greenscape on Pico Blvd. Sidestreets such as Fairfax, Stanley and Ridgeley Ave also has some problems according to our participants.
Walking and Nature Many of the side streets to Pico Blvd have large and beautiful trees, but other streets might have problems. If we impose the map of walks onto the previous map of longing for nature, we get a pretty good idea of how we could improve the walkability of the neighborhood—not only by making footpath crossings, but also by investing in trees and plants along the neighborhood’s avenues. It could be useful to make a prioritized plan for the neighborhood beyond the Pico corridor. After all, these side streets are the connectors that feed the streetlife on pico from both directions.
p. 25 / 28
Visitor Sights and Hangout Spots The public realm seems to be the preferred place to bring a visitor and a lot of answers point to Pico Blvd: Most of the answers point to cafe’s and restaurants such as Paper or Plastik, Bloom or CJ’s and a few responses also pointed to spots in Little Ethiopia on Fairfax Ave. Interestingly, several responses point to the Sierra Bonita knoll as a good place to take visitors from out of town. This is a good reminder that Pico as a destination is indeed a network of smaller destinations—with little satellites of curiosity bound to the gravity of Pico Blvd.
Visitor Spots and Popularity of Areas If we overlay the favorite areas from earlier responses, it is clear that there is a connection between these visitor-destinations and the fondness of a given area. This might not be a surprise, but it could serve to build up understanding of what makes a good neighborhood. How to we create cool spots and spaces that people are fond of—and even proud of?
p. 26 / 28
This analysis, and the workshop from which its conclusions were drawn, was funded by Pico Great Streets Collaborative (PGSC). The cognitive mapping project was developed through discussion and collaboration a number of key figures the PGSC executive and urban design committees: Ric Abramson Penina S. Finger Nancy Hanover Gerardo Reyes Oren Hadar The workshop and analysis document was realized by Anders Bjerregaard-Andersen of 3314 Urban Consulting.
Color #5bbfda
c58 m5 y10 k0
p. 28 / 28