Issuu on Google+

-

SCIFI at SCI-Arc

S

SCIFI : Downtown Los Angeles Research Studio Fall 2008

Austin Luckett Sasha Monge Bethsabee Sabbah Avani Sheth Faculty: David Bergman Peter Zellner


TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary

I

PART I HISTORY Los Angeles: A Historic Analysis

4

DEMOGRAPHICS Los Angeles: A Demographic Analysis

26

ECONOMICS Los Angeles: An Economic Analysis

56

ZONING Downtown Los Angeles: Zoning and Planning

86

PART II Site Vicinity Analysis

119

Bibliography and Sources

161


Summary Over the Fall 2008 semester SCI-Arc’s SCIFI program exhaustively analyzed Downtown Los Angeles with the goal of addressing the RFQ issued for Planning Alternatives for the former State Civic Center site at First and Broadway. Topics of study included: the History, Demographics, Economics and Zoning of Downtown Los Angeles. The goal of the research has been to quantify and qualify the physical development of the city within its urban context. Historical maps of Los Angeles have been compared to better appreciate how the city has been physically impacted since it was founded.

From studies conducted by Austin Luckett, Sasha Monge, Bethsabee Sabbah and Avani Sheth, under the guidance of Peter Zellner and David Bergman, it is argued here that downtown Los Angeles does not share the attributes of a traditional North American downtown. In fact, it differs from other Downtowns in terms of its historic growth, demographic patterns, economic development and zoning regulations. Using our findings, provocative statements have been formulated about the future of the city and its downtown in the hope to initiate constructive changes for Los Angeles. As a broader goal, this studio has sought to generate solutions for the current condition of Downtown Los Angeles as well as compelling new realities for the development of the City of Los Angeles.

Demography is the study of human populations, using statistical data to describe conditions of life. L.A. has been compared to Manhattan in order to determine the similarities and differences existing between the two downtowns in terms of demographics. Economics looks at the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind. This has been documented to understand the impact of finance on the city. Zoning commonly is used in urban planning as a system of land-use regulation, which is usually controlled by local governments such as counties or municipalities. The zoning study has revealed important facts about the growth of downtown Los Angeles.

I


PART I


HISTORY ANALYSIS


Los Angeles: A Historic Analysis History of Los Angeles is paradoxical. Los Angeles doesn’t seem to value it’s own history and a lot of history can fade quickly in this city. In comparison to other cities Los Angeles has a relatively short history. From studying different maps of Los Angeles you can begin to imagine what it would have been like in the early years of development. At one time the Los Angeles river would have been attractive and the wildlife would have made it interesting place to explore. Agricultural space next to downtown would have been a quick escape from any over-activity that might have occurred there. Walking around the numerous creeks and up into the hills would have offered amazing views as they still do today. Luckily the city did a fairly good job of protecting beach space for the public good. Of course, there are some very real problems confronting the beach areas today. However, the city has done a poor job of controlling watershed areas, incorporating parks, and planning for large influxes of people.

4


Layers of History


The city of Los Angeles was situated in an area of a low lying valley about 15 miles from the Pacific Ocean and surrounded by chaparral covered foothills. Los Angeles County was one of the original counties of California, created at the time of statehood in 1850. Parts of the county’s territory were given to San Bernardino Co. in 1853, to Kern Co in 1866 and to Orange Co in 1889. Looking at the development of the city we can begin to peel back the layers of history from 1849 to today.

6


Map: 1849


There was tremendous natural beauty surrounding the city. Views towards the Los Angeles river were pleasant. A grid pattern started to emerge out of the layout of the original streets.

8


Map: 1876


The development of the city moved outward from the center and began taking up more and more agricultural space. The grid started to grow.

10


Map: 1906


Many people sought the natural beauty and opportunity that Los Angeles had to offer and the physical development of the city exploded. The original grid was still there, but it too began to change.

12


Map: 2008


Los Angeles has become a city that has been built on speculation and has had a hard time dealing with massive growth and the planning of open spaces including parks, parkways, and public spaces.

14


City within the County


Downtown Los Angeles will continue to be swallowed by the massive growth and development of the county. Los Angeles County now consists of 2,599,040 acres of land.

16


Infrastructure Many of the original streets and thier location still exist today. Most have grown in length and some have changed names. Infrastucture will continue to define the city.


The growing belief of Los Angeles as a land of opportunity will continue bring more people the city and will impact the physical development of the city.

18


Applied Precedent Study: Central Park in LA? Parks and Open Space Parks will continue to become scarce, freeways choked with cars, and public spaces devoid of people.


L.A. has not been able to implement large scale plans for a large city within a large county. L.A. has lacked and will continue to lack the ability to think big when it comes to planning.

20


“Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los Angeles.� Frank Lloyd Wright

22


DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS


Los Angeles: A Demographic Analysis Demography is the study of human populations, using statistical data to describe conditions of life. In my study of Downtown LA and Los Angeles at large, I considered a range of contextual information such as the size and density of populations, economic standing, education level, and race. These characteristics provide important insights for understanding the City and its evolution. Historically, Downtown Los Angeles has been at the center of attention, yet it failed to become the center or heart of the city. If Los Angeles is now regarded as the archetype of the decentralized metropolis, then what is the meaning of Downtown LA as a place? How different is Downtown LA from other North American Metropolitan centers? In an attempt to answer these questions, I decided to compare Los Angeles and New York, more specifically Downtown Los Angeles and Manhattan, and explore their differences and similarities in terms of demographics. Manhattan is the quintessential healthy and vibrant downtown that boosts the economic well-being and quality of life in the city. On the other hand, Downtown LA appears to have lost its functions. The results of my research did not lend provocative new information, but the already-recognized disparity between the two cities. Yet, the trends over time of social and economic characteristics of the population of Downtown LA help frame its singularity as a city center. The main findings relate to: residential population patterns, density, educational attainment, median household income and race. Aside from residential population and race patterns, Downtown LA is diametrically different from Manhattan.

26


Density

LA county

LA city

"Central city" 14,000

13,665

13,345 11,311 10,399

10,420

9,984

7,444 6,024

7,877

8,000

6,357

5,317 4,222

1,023

1950

1960

1970

1980

New York City

2,447

2,345

2,183

1,842

1,732

1,488

1990

2000

2003

Manhattan

89,091 77,182 69,955

26,132

1950

25,768

1960

26,146

1970

64,909

23,417

1980

67,636

24,248

1990

69,873

26,517

2000

70,179

27,110

2003


Historically, Downtown Los Angeles has been the most densely populated area of Los Angeles City and County. Yet, it fails to match the densities of traditional metropolitan centers such as Downtown New York.

28


Income LA county LA city DTLA

$51,315 $45,000

$43,518 $36,687

$34,965 $30,925

$15,900

$10,290

$10,535

$6,896 $3,107 $2,879 $1,593

1950

$12,432

$7,046 $4,033

1960

$12,010

$5,657

1970

1990

New York City Manhattan

2000

$47,030

2003

$48,631 $45,343

$38,293

$32,262 $29,500

$12,000

$8,983 $3,297

$2,347

1950

$5,500

$5,338

1960

1970

1990

2000

2003


Downtown Los Angeles has been home to the lowest median household incomes in the City and County of Los Angeles since the 1950s, whereas Downtown New York continually attracted households earning higher median incomes.

30


Per Capita Income, 2006 Downtown Los Angeles min: $0 max: $74,571 mean: $14,950 median: $12,022

Legend 0 1- $10,000 10,001- $15,000 15,001- $20,000 $20,001 +

source: ESRI


Manhattan

USA

DTLA $50,740 $47,030 $48,631 $32,262

$41,994

$30,925

$11,419 $4,237 $2,347

$1,593 1950

$5,620 $5,338

$8,983

$4,033

$5,657

1960

1970

$12,432 1990

$12,010 2000

$15,900

2003

32


Education

High School Graduates

Total population

College Graduates

2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Educational attainment for the residents of Downtown Los Angeles has been low since 1940s; an average of 20% of its residents are high school graduates and less than 5% are college graduates. On the other hand, Downtown New York has been a magnet for graduates, forming one of the highest concentrations of highly educated people in any North American downtown.

34


High School Graduates

Manhattan

USA

DTLA 84% 76%

79% 80.4% 75.2%

53% 41.1% 35% 28%

1940

52.3%

41%

34.3%

24.5%

12.0%

66.5%

19.8%

19%

18.2%

17.2%

18.0%

14.0%

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000


College Graduates

USA

Manhattan

DTLA 57% 54%

42%

24.4%

21% 20.3% 16% 11% 8% 4.6%

6.2%

4.5%

6%

1940

1950

16.2% 10.7%

7.7%

7.3%

7.7%

1960

1970

9.3%

1980

11.0%

1990

13.7%

2000

36


Ethnicity

Los Angeles City other 0.3%

other 0.1%

black asian 2.7% 2.2%

black asian 3.1% 2.2%

black 13.5%

asian 3.0%

white 83.2%

white 94.6%

white 94.8%

1940

other 0.3%

1960

1980

New York City asian 0.2% other black 0.1% 1.0%

white 98.7%

1900

asian 0.2% other 0.1% black 4.6%

asian 0.6% other 0.1% black 14.0%

white 85.3%

white 95.1%

1930

1960


Los Angeles, as well as its downtown are becoming more diverse. It is also the case for New York and Manhattan.

other 23.4% white 52.8%

other 32.7%

white 47.1%

asian 9.8% asian 10.6%

black 14.0%

black 9.6%

2006

1990

other 12.0% other 18.8%

asian 7.0%

white 52.3%

white 44.7%

asian 9.9%

black 28.7% black 26.6%

1990

2006

38


Downtown Los Angeles

black 4.0%

asian 7.1%

asian 14.7%

other 1.7%

white 39.2%

other 43.7%

black 9.7%

white 88.9%

white 73.9% asian 5.6%

1940

1960

black 11.5%

1980

Manhattan asian 1.5%

asian 0.7% other 0.1%

other 0.2%

black 15.7%

other 14.3%

black 23.4%

asian 5.1%

black 21.7%

1940

white 58.9%

white 74.9%

white 83.5%

1960

1980


other 32.6%

white 29.9%

white 24.6%

other 34.4%

black 16.6% asian 18.8%

black 18.7%

asian 24.4%

2006

1990

other 12.3%

other 16.9%

asian 7.4% asian 9.4%

white 58.3%

black 22.0%

white 56.3%

black 17.4%

1990

2006

40


Residential Patterns

128,946

119,922 97,330 82,654

80,435 69,138

56,030 41,578

Downtown Los Angeles 1940

2,332

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2003

2,284 1,867

1,890

1,960 1,698

1,539

1,428

1,488

1,537

1,612

Manhattan (x1,000) 1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000


A comparable pattern of depopulation and repopulation defines the history of Downtown Los Angeles, Manhattan as well as any prototypical North American Downtown. However, Downtown L.A. has never reached Manhattan’s level of residential inhabitation historically.

According to Robert Fogelson in Downtown: its rise and fall, 1880-1950, as New York City grew and its economy expanded, the structure of the city was transformed: beginning in the 1850s, downtown meant “the business district and uptown the residential” (11). The depopulation of downtown, which started by the end of the 19th century in New York, “was a function of the basic laws of economics”, meaning that as businesses grounded themselves in downtown, land values increased and forced residents to relocate (20).

42


Density: Projection

2003 Site L.A. County L.A. City Downtown L.A. San Francisco New York City 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

30000

35000

50000

30000

35000

50000 +

2015 Site L.A. County L.A. City Downtown L.A. San Francisco New York City 0

5000

10000

15000

2030 Site L.A. County L.A. City Downtown L.A. San Francisco New York City 0

5000

10000

15000


What would happen if the density of Downtown L.A. were to reach by 2030 the actual density of New York City? Zoning changes will have to be made to allow affordable high density housing to develop.

44


Income Parity

Per Capita Income, 2006 Downtown Los Angeles min: $0 max: $74,571 mean: $14,950 median: $12,022

Legend: 0 1- $10,000 10,001- $15,000 15,001- $20,000 20,001 + source: ESRI


Median household income is reflective of the economic well-being of a city. In order to revitalize Downtown L.A., measures have to be adapted to attract a wide range of individuals by affecting housing, work, shopping, culture, entertainment, etc. Per Capita Income, 2015 Downtown Los Angeles min: $0 max: $100,000 mean: $20,950 median: $17,315

Legend: 0 1- $10,000 10,001- $20,000 20,001- $30,000 30,001- $100,000 source: ESRI

46


Per Capita Income, 2030 Downtown Los Angeles min: $0 max: $400,000 mean: $102,950 median: $98,315

Legend: 0 1- $30,000 30,001- $50,000 50,001- $70,000 70,001- $400,000

source: ESRI


$64,433 Westside

$57,260 Downtown L.A $46,800 Mid-City/ Hollywood $43,980 Long Beach $37,039 East L.A.-Eagle Rock $29,677 South L.A. $43,066 L.A. County

0 Avg. Annual Wage by Region, 2006

$108,433

Downtown L.A

$87,260 Westside $76,800 Mid-City/ Hollywood $63,980 Long Beach $57,039 East L.A.-Eagle Rock $49,677 South L.A. $63,066 L.A. County

0 Avg. Annual Wage by Region, 2030 48


Educational Attainment

23,894 residents

28,878 residents

13.5% hold undergraduate or graduate degree

76.5% hold undergraduate or graduate degree

46.1% work in DT

55.1% work in DT

50 % are single

60 % are single

median age: 39 6 out of 10 residents are men

median age: 30-39 6 out of 10 residents are men

source: Downtown L.A. Market Report, 2007. Downtown Center Business Improvement District


Residents of Downtown Los Angeles are increasingly educated; a 400% increase was measured from 2000 to 2006. In the future, educational levels will remain high.

55,878 residents

150,000 residents

79.5% hold undergraduate or graduate degree

84.5% hold undergraduate or graduate degree

75.1% work in DT

87.5% work in DT

65 % are single

70 % are single

median age: 30-39 6 out of 10 residents are men

median age: 20-35 5 out of 10 residents are women

50


Residential Population: Projection

Population (Block Groups), 2000 Downtown Los Angeles Total Population: 23,894

Legend: 1 dot= 50

Source: ESRI


Residential patterns in Downtown will stabilize and rise in the future as efforts to encourage pedestrian activities and public gatherings are promoted through the development of public spaces.

Population (Block Groups), 2030 Downtown Los Angeles Total Population: 148,894

Legend: 1 dot= 50

Source: ESRI

52


Conclusion

Los Angeles, 1890s

New York, 1890s

Los Angeles, 1930s

New York, 1930s


In terms of demographics, Downtown Los Angeles does not share the characteristics of the archetypal North American Downtown; in fact historically, Downtown Los Angeles and Manhattan appear to have had dissimilar patterns of density, income, education, etc. Thus, is Downtown L.A. really a Downtown?

Los Angeles, 1960s

New York, 1960s

54


ECONOMIC ANALYSIS


Los Angeles: An Economic Analysis Los Angeles’ economy has undergone many changes in the past century. Between 1900 and 2008, it went from being L.A. County’s central, focal point for finance and economic development, to sharing the spot light with other economic centers such as Wilshire district and Culver City. The decentralization of Downtown L.A. as the center of L.A. County has made it suffer many ups and downs. Downtown L.A. is currently undergoing a great effort to refocus economic attention to itself so that the economy is centered in one place and so that there can be a true downtown.

For the past two decades, there has been an effort in revitalizing and re-centralizing Downtown L.A. Old empty buildings are being converted into residences, public amenities are opening up, places of entertainment are being built, and public transportation is being renovated. Downtown is being given a face lift in the hopes that it will regain it’s position as a true center and downtown. This way it is not a dead city of waste and decay.

When L.A. was first founded in 1781, its economy depended on the trade of hide, cattle and raw goods. Later on, thanks to the availability of water, agriculture became very popular, specially citrus goods. The discovery of oil in L.A. in 1892 and the establishment of the Los Angeles port in 1907, transformed L.A. from a predominantly agricultural community to a multifunctional, industrial city. The extension of the transcontinental railroad in 1876 also changed L.A.’s day to day dynamic. L.A. could now be reached by anyone in the East and Midwest. The railroad facilitated trade and carried products from the port to Downtown to be stored or manufactured right in the center of the city. By 1890’s, Downtown was developing as the center of finance and economy, where all the money and important people would go. Banking centers started opening up their businesses as early as 1871 exclusively in Downtown. Even during and after the World Wars, L.A. was not heavily affected by the war like other cities were. On the contrary, it experienced “one of the most rapid industrial growths of the nation” due to its oil, aircraft and war supplier industries. In the 1950’s and 1960’s the suburbs started to flourish and the construction of highways made it easy to move from one suburb to the next and to Downtown. As quickly as Downtown had risen, it fell as people, banks, commerce, money, and power moved westward and outward. Downtown was no longer the center or the place to be. It was just a temporary location where people went only for a few hours a day and only if necessary. Overnight, Downtown was empty and lonely and would continue to be for several decades.

58


Banking Centers Over the Years

10 1 TE E

PL M

1S T

0

11

2N D

FIG

UE

RO A

3R D 4T H 5T H

W

ILS

RE

6T H

D

HO

PE

FL OW

ER

H

E BR SP

RI NG

9T H

Internet & New York

Encino

OA D

HI

8T H

W AY

LL

OL

IV

GR

AN

7T H

IN MA


The internal migration of the banking center from Spring St. to the New Financial District and other western cities caused a decentralization of banking. This decentralization is the death of banking for Downtown L.A New Downtown = New Financial District

1967 Union Bank 1971 Arco Plaza - Citi National Bank Paul Hastings Bank 1972 (Former) First Interstate 1974 Bank of America 1983 Wells Fargo 1985 Citi Corp Late 1980’s Pacific Stock Exchange 1989 Home Savings Tower, U.S. Bank Tower, Sanwa Bank

“The Wall Street of the West” : Banks from 1871 to 1959 1871 Farmers & Merchants Bank 1904 Continental Building 1910 Trust and Savings Bank Secutity 1st National Bank 1914 Citizen National Bank (Crocker Bank) 1918 Barclay’s Bank 1920 Security Trust and Savings Bank 1923 California Canadian Bank National City Bank Bartlett Bank Van Nuys Bank 1930 Bank of America 1931 L.A. Stock Exchange Fidelity Building and Loan Co. 1959 California United Bank 60


Public Investments: Approximately $3.4 Billion Public Investment Note: Size and shape of symbol is representative of investment amount and place of investment. Million Tree Iniciative

10

Distributed Investment

E

PL

M

TE

9

2N D

FIG

UE

RO A

3R D

1 5T H

W

ILS

4T H

5 2

ER

HI

RE 6T H

D

HO

PE

FL OW

7

1

1S T

3 4

10

E

6

OA D BR

8

HI

8T H

W AY

LL

OL IV

GR

AN

7T H

SP RI NG

9T H

IN MA

2


Public investments in Downtown are generally directed towards public transportation, infrastructure, general maintenance and public use buildings. The city has a lot of good ideas but has had trouble executing their many public projects which is the cause of Downtown’s slow transformation into a hub. 1. Pacific Electric Railway - $1.25 Mill. Subway Terminal Bldg. 1925 2. Measure R - $700,000 in 1994 $1.1 Million in 2003 Alameda Corridor 3. Related Cos. for Grand Avenue $1.8 Billion, First Phase 2004 4. DCBDID - $4,682,695 Invested in 2007 in public safety, maintenance community services, economic development and special projects. 5. L.A. Conservatory - $1 Million 2007 Restoration of facades for Broadway Initiative 6. Metro Gold Line - $859 Million 6 mile extension, 2009 7. Exposition Blvd. Light Rail $555 Million, DT to Culver City 8. Convention Center Hotel Complex $300 Million with public money 9. Million Tree Iniciative - Volunteer Public-Private Non-profit 10. LAUSD - $230 Million High School 2009 62


Private Investments: Approximately $15.2 Billion Private Investment Note: Size and shape of symbol is representative of investment amount and place of investment.

10 1 TE E

PL M

9 1S T 2N D

FIG

UE

RO A

3R D 4T H

GR

AN

D

3 W

E IV

5T H

OL

RE

6T H

PE

ER

HI

HO

7T H

5 W AY

OA D BR

8T H

HI LL

5

9T H RI

NG

IN MA

SP

FL OW

1

ILS

6

7

8

9


Private investments provide a much larger monetary input but alot of the revenue goes back to private hands instead of Downtown. Post-occupancy of the buildings, the projects don’t necessarily generate any profit for the city. In example, the Staples Center costs the city $30 million a year. 1. Staples Center - $ 375 Million AEG, 1999 2. $17 Million in Private Investments 1999 3. AEG - $2.5 Billion L.A. Live, 2004 4. Morgan Stanley - $80 Million 2004 5. Residences - $12 Billion 2005 6. L.A. Fashion Center - $80 Million Jade Enterprises, 2008 7. Stanford Wholesale Mart - $64 Mill. Falcon, CA 2008 8. Stanford Regency Plaza - $80 Mill. KI Group, 2009 9. 135 more projects approved for construction

64


Unemployment in L.A. County

L.A.C. Unemployment

Manufacturing

U.S. Unemployment

50% 41% 36%

8.8%

14.84% 14%

9%

8.9%

8% 8.5% 7.7%

5.5%

5.7%

7.1% 7.2% 7%

6%

8.1%

6.5%

5.8%

5.8%

6%

5.4% 5.6%

5.3%

4.9%

5.1% 4.6%

4.5% 4%

1960 1965 1970 1975 1976 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2008

Ralph’s Closes

1950 Airspace Market

SUBURB SPRAWL Commercial/Banking Center moves Westward Dept. Stores Move Away

RECESSION, UNEMPLOYMENT increases

1980 1970 1960 Banks Discriminate Globalization 50% Manufacturing Stressfull Economic Time

2000 1990 Downtown Subway lines added Day home for the commuter Multifaceted Development


Despite being the largest manufacturing center in the West, manufacturing as a viable source of employment has been decreasing for years. As manufacturing decreases, unemployment increases. Outsourcing is taken over the manufacturing industry where labor is cheaper and more readily available.

Unemployment in L.A. County is constantly fluctuating. It has gone from a low 5.5% in 1960 to a high 9% in 1976. Comparatively, United States has had a low of 4% unemployment rate to a high 8.5%. Both fluctuate at a similar rhythm, when L.A. County has a low unemployment rate, so does the United States, which goes to show that the nation’s economy affects L.A. as it does other cities. However, there have been other factors that have made L.A.’s unemploymnet rate be overall significantly higher than the nation’s. Los Angeles is the largest manufacturing center in the West and has one of the biggest ports in the U.S., serving not only the U.S. but also the international markets.

66


Home Ownership Compared to Population of L.A. County

L.A. County Home Ownership

Population

West Coast Home Ownership

10,275,914 9,519,338 8,863,164 7,477,657 7,032,075 60%

61.25% 6,039,834 4,151,687 58.4% 2,785,643 2,208,492

60.6% 54.9%

63.5%

63.5%

58% 55.6%

52.3% 47.9%

55.9%

54.3%

936,455 43.4% 504,131 46.1% 170,298 49.5% 46.3% 43.7% 1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1950 Ralph’s Closes

1960 Banks Discriminate Globalization

2007

RECESSION UNEMPLOYMENT increases

SUBURB SPRAWL Commercial/Banking Center moves Westward

1940 Death of the Railway Airspace Market

2000

1980 Stressful Economic Time

1990 Subway lines added


The growth of homeownership is parallel to the population growth for the first 60 years. Starting around 1960, there is an increasing disperity between homeonwership and population which suggests that cost of homeownership has gone up and mortgages are harder to keep.

In 1930, the banks offered 30 year mortgages which allowed families to buy homes in the city. Around the 1950’s and 60’s there was a fast outward movement towards the suburbs of the city. The suburbs meant lower mortgages and more reasonable prices for bigger homes. Homeownership Rate: Number of households that are lived in by owners divided by total number of households.

68


Car Ownership and L.A. County Population

Population

L.A.C. Car Ownership

18,654,930

10,275,914

9,948,081 9,519,338

10,363,850

9,191,251

5,850,140 4,825,512

2,208,492 936,455 170,298

1,200,000

101,454 403,000 1 1897

1,600 1904 1923

1876 Railroad in Greater L A. & 1st Ralph’s opens in Downtown

1930

1998

2000

1st Car

PRIVATE CARS

1897

1920 L.A. Boom

2005

2006

2007

1930 Banking Market on the rise

2008

DEATH of the RAILWAY

SUBURB SPRAWL

1940

1960


Car ownership in L.A. County is growing exponentially compared to the population to the point that sitting traffic, smog, parking nightmares are part of the L.A. culture. New freeway construction is almost null which just adds to traffic congestion. L.A. car owners are emotionally attached to their cars and they have a complete disregard to the negative consequences of traffic jams and air and noise pollution.

Specific Freeways and Miles 101 134 210 116mi

5 117mi Miles of Freeway

14 118mi

87 2mi

462.5 mi

90 22 91 57 60 75mi 605 70mi 10 66mi 62mi

405 72mi

345 mi 10 46mi

110 710 49mi

110 26mi

17 mi 1940- 19601959 1979

19801999

20 mi 20002008

Year Construction Started

110 6mi

10 12mi

47 3mi

40 43 45 47 52 55 57 58

210 71 105 20mi 16mi 17mi

61 63 64 65 66 68 70 71

93

03

Year Construction Started 70


Decentralized Banking

San Francisco

1S T 2N D 3R D

Beverly Hills 4T

H

A

0 11

FI

G

UE

RO

5T H

ER

W

IL

HI LL BR O AD W AY

PE

8T H

RE

G RA ND

HO

FL

O

W

SH

7T H


If migration describes the past development of banking in Downtown, then in the future there will be the evacuation of the banking center from Downtown. Decentralization, consolidation, and internet banking will leave Downtown with one or two banks at the most and with no Financial district.

Decentralized Banking Bank of America Wells Fargo 1996 Union Bank merges into UnionBanCal Corp. Headquarter’s in San Francisco City National Bank Headquarter’s in Beverly Hills 1996 First Interstate merges with Wells Fargo

72


Public & Private Investments Landscape Investments

Public Investment Private Investment

Present

10 1 TE

Future

E

PL M

1S T 2N D

FIG

UE

RO A

3R D

GR

AN

D

4T H

W

5T H

OL IV

ER

H

RE

6T H

HO PE

OA D

HI BR

8T H

W AY

LL

7T H

9T H SP RI NG

FL OW

E

ILS

IN MA

Disperesed Investments


Public investments need to match private investments to positively impact Downtown and generate profits with which Downtown can benefit from. Downtown needs more money to stay within the city so that it can be re-invested in the city. Downtown would benefit from more privatepublic investments because these have some of the benefits of private investments but with the public welfare in mind.

74


Employment in L.A. County: Top Industry Markets

2000

2008

2016 19.64 18.96 18.25

14.57

14.84 13.14 11.51

11.60 10.77 9.86

8.00 5.52

Manufacturing

Education

Professinal - Scientific

9.86%

5.52%

8%

10.77%

Health & Social Services

11.6%

14.84% 14.57% 13.14% 18.25%

11.51%

2000

Manufacturing

18.96%

19.64%

2008

Professinal - Scientific

2016

Education

Health & Social Services


Los Angeles will cease to exist as the largest manufacturing center in the West. Outsourcing’s popularity will continue to grow and unemployment will continue to rise with the lack of manufacturing jobs. People will have to change their way of life to adapt to the changing job market.

The Los Angeles Port will continue to be the point of connection between the Far East markets and their American clients. The Port will continue to generate economic activity and jobs for years to come. At the rate manufacturing is decreasing as a source of employment, manufacting will be close to 1% by 2030. Other markets such as technology, science and aircraft will continue to provide jobs, but this will mean that people will be expected to have higher education levels.

76


L.A. City of Renters

Rent or Own Residences - 2006 Rent

Own

Primary Residence - 2006

Other

62.6% 89.1%

30.2%

3.7%

4.5% 1.2%

0.8% Own by Own by Rent Rent Self Other Apartment Condo

2.1%

0.8%

Company Other Provided

DT

3.4% 0.6%

1%

L.A.C. Orange, San Diego Other Outside Riverside, County CA CA San Bernardino, Ventura Counties

Downtown Multifaceted Development

Adaptive Reuse Ordinance

1999

2000 Day home for the commuter

2006 +7,500 Residential Units under construction

Downtown RESIDENSES increase

2007 Change in Zoning Ralph’s re-opens

2008 “Employment Protection Zones”

2009 Arts High School


L.A. will be a city of renters. Rental living will rise as an alternate to the rise in homeownership cost. The life of the renter is more public and open to sharing and therefore, public life in Downtown will flourish as renters move in to the area. The American Dream will be redefined where living in an apartment, having rooftop access and having breakfast with your neighbor at the downstairs coffee shop will be the new ideal.

78


Life Expressed Through Cars

Yearly Cost of Car Ownership

Cars Per Person

$23,000

Freeway Construction

4

$19,000 3

$15,000

$10,604

1.8

1.9

2

$7,853

2000 2006 2008 2010 2020

2008 2010 2020 2030 2040

2008 2010 2020 2030 2040


By 2040, there will be 4 cars per person in Los Angeles. People in L.A. will continue buying cars despite traffic congestion and despite the increasing cost of car ownership. L.A. will very soon be a city of unnecessary and selfish car surplus.

Car ownership costs are the second largest household expense. Los Angeles is third in costliest car ownership cities. Detroit and Philadelphia are first and second respectively. Los Angeles has fewer lane-miles per capita. It ranks 31st our of 39 metroplitan areas in the study. In 1999, it had approximately 0.419 lane-miles per 1,000 people. Instead of new freeway construction, freeways will be renovated, upgraded and extended. What to do in the face of a pending nightmare? Invest in upgrading public transportation, expanding the railway system, providing more bike lanes, building less parking structures and forcing the people to use public and shared transportation.

80


Continental Building, 1904

Wall Street of the West, 1924

Inauguration of Santa Monica Freeway, 1943

Bunker Hill, 1890

South on Main St., c. 1917

South on Spring St., c. 1904

Farmers and Merchants Bank, 1905


Inauguration of Pasadena Freeway, 1940 82


ZONING ANALYSIS


Downtown Los Angeles: Zoning & Planning This study is concerned with how zoning and land use regulations have played an important role in the development of downtown Los Angeles. It focuses on a comparative study of historic zoning patterns, comparing it with the present conditions and delivering projective statements that can change the definition of ‘a downtown’ for Los Angeles. The project takes into account only the broad classification of land use for downtown Los Angeles for its experiments. In the development of this study, a preliminary research about the history of Los Angeles helped to build the theoretical hypothesis. Compiling data and Translating it into graphical representations was the primary task followed by drawing conclusions from it. The project aims to assert varied hypothesis by simulating imaginative scenarios for the future.

What is Zoning? Zoning is a term used in urban planning for a system of landuse regulation in various parts of the world. Zoning is commonly controlled by local governments such as counties or municipalities, though the nature of zoning regime may be determined or limited by state or national planning authorities. Why do we need Zoning? (General level) The practice of zoning designates permitted use of land based on mapped zones which separate one set of land use from another. In practice, zoning is also used as a permitting system to prevent new development from harming existing residents or businesses and to preserve the “character” of a community/ city. Zoning sets development standards for various parts/districts of a city. (Site level) Zoning may be use-based (regulating the uses to which land may be put), or it may regulate building height, lot coverage, setbacks and similar characteristics, or some combination of these. Zoning ordinances can be used to suggest a working program which fits the needs of the site with respect to the city as a whole.

86


District Map Of Downtown L.A.


What is a Downtown? ‘Downtown’ primarily refers to a city’s core, usually in a geographical, commercial, and community sense. It generally refers to a cities oldest/historic part from where it first originated as a town and grew into a city. Also referred to as the ‘inner core’, It is a densely integrated part of a city where social, political, commercial and economical activities are performed together. Downtown Los Angeles Today Los Angeles downtown boundary (as considered today) - 101 to the North - 10 Santa Monica freeway to the South - 110 harbor freeway to the West - Los Angeles river to the East The downtown of Los Angeles today comprises of 14 different districts -

Arts District Central City East Chinatown El Pueblo Figueroa Corridor Financial District Little Tokyo Civic Center Bunker Hill Historic Downtown Old Bank District Jewellery District Fashion District South Park

88


Detailed Land Use Map Of Downtown L.A.


‘Land use’ is also often used to refer to the distinct land use types in Zoning. Land use refers to the manner in which portions of land or the structures on them are used, such as commercial, residential, industrial, etc. A land use plan is a plan that establishes strategies for the use of land to meet identified community needs.

Legend High Medium High Light Heavy Community Regional Open Space Public Facility Other Open Spaces

90


Floor Area Ratio Map Of Downtown L.A.


The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the total floor area of buildings on a certain location to the size of the land of that location, or the limit imposed on such a ratio. The Floor Area Ratio is the total building square footage (bldg area) divided by the site size square footage (site area). As a formula: FAR = (Total covered area on all floors of all buildings on a certain plot)/(Area of the plot)

Legend 6:1 FAR except with transfer of floor area permitted by the los angeles municipla code and the CRA redevelopment plan. 6:1 FAR except as may be permitted by the CRA redevelopment plan. 3:1 FAR except with transfer of floor area as permitted by the los angeles minicipal code and the CRA redevelopment plan. 3:1 FAR except as may be permitted by the CRA redevelopment plan. 3:1 FAR 3:1 FAR not to exceed 6:1 FAR with city planning commission and CRA board approval.

92


Specific Area Plan Of Downtown L.A.


Specific area plan districts are the type of development planned for a specific area than is typically found in a comprehensive plan, zone map, or public facilities plan. The area covered by a specific plan can include multiple parcels and land owners, or a single large parcel. Specific plans usually focus on some unique feature of the site, such as natural resources, economic activity, or desired neighborhood character. Specific plans may be used for large undeveloped areas, or partially developed areas with potential for in fill and redevelopment.

Legend Los Angeles sports and entertainment district

94


Generalized Circulation Map Of Downtown L.A.


The purpose of the circulation plan is to establish a standard for the development and improvement of the transportation network and a long-range plan which ensures the community vision. Goals, policies, and programs established in the plan are implemented to ensure the orderly development of effective circulation systems. This circulation plan shows the various road networks within the downtown region.

Legend Freeway Major Highway Class II Secondary Collector Local

96


Historic events affecting zoning and land use patterns in Downtown L.A.


Zoning Legend The zoning legend diagram is formulated to understand categories and sub-categories of various zones that fall under the zoning and planning regulations of Los Angeles planning dept. The outer circle shows four major zones broadly classified as commercial, residential, industrial and public facilities which are each color coded. Then each successive circle shows the sub-categories that fall under the respective zones.

98


Comparative Study


The zoning in downtown Los Angeles has not been consistent over the years and it fluctuates each year. The planning and zoning pattern in downtown L.A. is reactive. It has not led to social development but has been led by the social development. Zoning in the past 100 years of history has failed to produce integrity of land use. Instead it has segregated the various land uses in downtown L.A. There are no links between each of the land uses. There has been a drift of residential from north to south along Broadway, the commercial has grown towards the east. The public facilities have shown a significant development in the recent years, though, the growth of commercial, residential and public facilities has led to the detriment of industrial areas

100


Comparative Downtown Maps


Comparative Zone Breakdown Maps

102


Comparative Data Analysis


Overall Data Analysis

104


Democratic Zoning


What if zoning and planning in downtown Los Angeles was democratic? Is zoning and planning limiting the development of downtown Los Angeles instead of promoting it?

106


Creating a Core for Downtown L.A.


What would happen if all the public/institutional/cultural and historically important buildings were not concentrated in one part of the city, but spread out in the periphery of downtown. Would they be able to generate a core for downtown L.A.?

108


Connecting Public Spaces


Why do public spaces not function in downtown Los Angeles? Are public spaces disconnecting downtown L.A., instead of connecting it?

110


A Shrinking Industrial Zone


What would happen if the industrial zone shrinks in Downtown? What happens to a city when its manufacturing area is eliminated?

112


Is Downtown Los Angeles really a True Downtown? Downtown LA is not geographically the city’s core, as it was not the originating point of Los Angeles. Unlike most other cities, Los Angeles developed from many surrounding cores and spread to the center.

A typical downtown has a core from where the city grows and spreads outwards, making the centre more and more denser.

Los Angeles does not have a core. Infact it orginated from many centres that spread across to form a city that does not really have a centre.


Politically, Los Angeles claims to be a democracy. But fundamentally, it believes in individuality.

In politics, individuality and democracy can not co-exist

114


Though L.A. has a short, fast-moving, revealing past, it also has a history of elimination. A system gets razed and another one is built upon. The city is built on speculation, with few traces of history.

Los Angeles, Pershing square, 1950

Manhattan, 1950

Los Angeles, Pershing square, 2008

Manhattan, 2008


Los Angeles’ social structure constitutes of divisions and separations. The extent to which L.A. is socially integrated is questionable.

The social structure of downtown Los Angeles needs to be interwoven so that it forms an integrated social fabric like seen in a typical downtown

116


PART II


Site Vicinity


Site vicinity area: - 101 to the North - 4th Ave. to the South - Figueroa to the West - Los Angeles street to the East This site vicinity was chosen as: -It incorporates the Grand Ave. project, all Civic Center buildings and the cultural revival area of downtown L.A. -It also includes the school and the LAWPD as they lie on the grand ave and the school will effect the day time population of the area. -101 is a natural barrier on the northern side. -Los Angeles street is the end of the civic district. Legend Site Site Vicinity The total Site Vicinity Area is 191 acres approximately. That is equivalent to 8340633.5 sq. ft.

120


Buildings Located within the Site Vicinity

8

20

7

1

19 6

18

5

24

4

22

3

10 9

31

27

15

2

28

23

17

35

16 14 13

12

26

21

30

25

11

34 33

29 32


Sr. no

Building Name

Year built

Architect

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

L.A. Dept. of Water and Power Grand Tower Parking Walt Disney Concert Hall Dorothy Chandler Pavilion Mark Taper Forum Ahmanson Theatre Music Centre Annex Two California Plaza One California Plaza Omni Hotel Colburn School Extention MOCA Collburn School Parcel Q future development site Parcel W future development site Stanley Mosle L. A.County Courthouse Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration The Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels High School 9 Vacant Plot Law Library Hall of Records

1963-64 1988

Albert C. Martin and Associates Nadel Architects

1988-2003 1964-69 1964-69 1964-69 1964-69 1985-92 1985-92 1991 2007 1973-74 1998

Frank O. Gehry and Associates Welton Becket, Cornell, Bridges & Troller landscape arch. Welton Becket and Associates Welton Becket and Associates Welton Becket Arthur Ericson Arthur Ericson Flatow, Moore, Bryan, Fairburn

1958 1956-61 2002 2007-08

Stanton, Paul Williams, Adrain Wilson, Austin, Field & Fry Stanton, Stockwell, William and Wilson, Austin, Field & Fry Jose Rafael Moneo’s Coop Himmelb

24.

County of LA Central Heating & Refrigeration Plant Times mirror square Site (Former State Building) Criminal Courthouse Hall of Justice LAPD Headquarters L.A. City Hall US Federal Courthouse Caltrans district 7 headquarters City Hall South City Hall East L.A. Mall

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

1981 1961-62

1930 1931-35 1931 1933 1925 2008-09 1926-28 1938-40 2004 1960-70 1960-70 1973-74

Arata Isozaki; Gruen Associates

Richard J. Neutra & Robert Alexander & Honnold & Rex, Herman Charles Light and James Friend

Gordon B. Kaufmann Adrian Wilson associates Allied Architects of L.A. DMJM J.Austin, John & D.Parkinson, A. Martin, Austin Whittlesey Louis A Simon, Gilbert Stanley Underwood Morphosis

Welton Becket, Cornell,Troller& Hazlett, landscape arch.

122


Buildings Located within the Site Vicinity

8

20

7

1

19 6

18

5

24

4

22

3

10 9

31

27

15

2

28

23

17

35

16 14 13

12

26

21

30

25

11

34 33

29 32


Sr. no 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

Building Name

Estimate # Employees/ Peak population

L.A. Dept of Water and Power Grand Tower Parking Walt Disney Concert Hall Dorothy Chandler Pavilion Mark Taper Forum Ahmanson Theatre Music Centre Annex Two California Plaza One California Plaza Omni Hotel Colburn School Extention MOCA Collburn School Parcel Q future development site Parcel W future development site Stanley Mosle L. A.County Courthouse Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration The Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels High School 9 Vacant Plot Law Library Hall of Records County of LA Central Heating & Refrigeration Plant Times mirror square Site (Former State Building) Criminal Courthouse Hall of Justice LAPD Headquarters L.A. City Hall US Federal Courthouse Caltranz district 7 headquarters City Hall South City Hall East L.A. Mall

Building Age

Building Type

Sustainability Index

600 500 N/A 2,600 3,200 750 2,000 60 4,500 4,500 1,200 100 1,000 500 N/A N/A 13,400 3,000 3,000 1,800 N/A 50 300 50

45 20 N/A 5 44 44 44 44 23 23 17 1 35 10 N/A N/A 50 52 6 0 N/A 27 48 78

Tower- Offices Tower- Offices Parking Lot Concert Hall Music Center Music Center Music Center Offices Tower- Offices Tower- Offices Tower- Offices Educational facility Museum Educational facility Parking structure Parking structure Government Facility Government Facility Religious building Educational facility Vacant Plot Library Tower- Offices Service building

High Medium N/A High Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High High High High High High High N/A N/A Low Low High High N/A Medium Medium- Low Low

1,300 N/A 800 N/A 1,000 2,000 400 2,400 450 450 200

77 77 75 83 0 82 70 4 48 48 35

Tower- Offices Vacant Plot Government facility Tower- Offices Tower- Offices Tower- City Hall Government facility Tower- Offices Tower- Offices Tower- Offices Underground Structure

Medium Low Medium- Low Low High Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium-Low

Total Estimate Daytime / Nightime Population in Site Vicinity: 52,000 124


Building Typologies within the Site Vicinity Tower Cuboidal Mass Pavillion


Sr. no 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

Building Name L.A. Dept of Water and Power Grand Tower Parking Walt Disney Concert Hall Dorothy Chandler Pavilion Mark Taper Forum Ahmanson Theatre Music Centre Annex Two California Plaza One California Plaza Omni Hotel Colburn School Extention MOCA Collburn School Parcel Q future development site Parcel W future development site Stanley Mosle L. A.County Courthouse Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration The Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels High School 9 Vacant Plot Law Library Hall of Records County of LA Central Heating & Refrigeration Plant Times mirror square Site (Former State Building) Criminal Courthouse Hall of Justice LAPD Headquarters L.A. City Hall US Federal Courthouse Caltranz district 7 headquarters City Hall South City Hall East L.A. Mall

zone

Land use

PF CR PF PF PF PF PF PF CR CR CR CR CR CR C C PF PF CR PF PF PF PF PF

Public Facility Regional Commercial Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Commercial Regional Commercial Regional Commercial Public Facility Public Facility Regional Commercial Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility

3:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1

16

C PF PF PF PF PF PF PF PF PF PF

Regional Commercial Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility Public Facility

6:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 6:1 3:1 3:1 3:1

12

F.A.R No. of floors

8 5 4 1 52 42 17 13 3

6 6 6 5 3 12 6

21 14 11 28 15 12 7 20 16

Typology Cuboidal Mass Tower Cuboidal Mass Pavilion Pavilion Pavilion Tower Tower Cuboidal Mass Cuboidal Mass Cuboidal Mass Cuboidal Mass Pavilion Pavilion Pavilion Cuboidal Mass Pavilion Cuboidal Mass Cuboidal Mass Pavilion Cuboidal Mass Cuboidal Mass Cuboidal Mass Tower Cuboidal Mass Cuboidal Mass Cuboidal Mass Cuboidal Mass Pavilion

126


Programatic Elements: Existing Buildings VI SU AL

in

th

ou

Li Law br ar y

Fe Co dera ur l t LA BA TI M P HD O L I E S QT CE RS CA TR L CI AN TY S HA CI TY LL H EA A ST LL LA

PR KG

OL

PR KG

se

H Re all co of rd s Cr Co i ya urt Co min rd a Co urt l u Fl of rt ag s

Fe Co dera ur l t M AL L

EY

ur

.

H Ju all st of ic e

m

OL t

Co ur ty ar d

Ad

AR TS

an

of

Co

SN DI US M IC OC SC A HO

ll

PE RF .

Pl

CE NT ER

M US IC

Ha

&

HO

L RA ED TH CA

M

SC

THEATER

DW P

CITY County STATE Federal CULTURAL, REILIGIOUS, PRIVATE

STATE


cultural

Insti

Instit

ution

erci al

c

ic

Servi c Serv es ices Servi C ces i C vi

cultu ral

.

Civi

Servi c Civ es

Service s cu ltural cu Servi c l e tur s Servi ces a l Civ

a t l u t i Ci onal vic Ci Civi cC vic ivic

Inst

Services Civic Institutional Cultural Commercial

ivi c C ic c Co ivic mm

Serv ices

Programatic Elements: Program Categories

128


Figure Ground Plan


Nolli Map

130


Generalized Land use within Site Vicinity Regional Commercial CR, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, R3, R4, R5, RAS3, RAS4

22 %

Open Space

8%

Public Facility 70 %


Detailed Land within Site Vicinity OS

8%

R2, RD, RMP, RW2, R3, RAS3, R4, RAS4, R5 C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, CR, CW

5% 17 %

PF 70 %

132


Floor Area Ratio within Site Vicinity 6:1 FAR

5%

15 %

6:1 FAR 3:1 FAR 3:1 FAR

28 % 54 %


Buffers within Site Vicinity Existing Schools/Parks Proposed school Inside 500ft Buffer Outside 500ft Buffer

134


Local Infrastructure Major Streets


State-wide Infrastructure Freeway

136


Circulation within Site Vicinity Freeway

32 % Roads

Major Highway Class II Secondary road

68 % Plots


Transportation Map Metro Liner Service Metro Express Line Metro Rapid Dash Metro Rail

CE CIVIC NT ER

138


Energy Energy/ Co-generation


Parking Facilities Parkings Lots/ Structures Underground Parking

140


Parking Facilities Located within the Site Vicinity

5 11

1 10 4

15

9 3

19 14

8 2

7 6

13

17 22

12

16

21 18 20


No.

Facility

Garage/ Lot

Location

No. of Spaces

Users

1 2 3

DWP Parking Prestige/ 5 Star Lot Walt Disney Concert Hall (County Lot) Music Center (County Lot)

Garage Surface lot Garage Underground

Hope GTK Way Lower Grand Avenue

600 400 2,288

Public & Employees Public Jurors, Public, Concert

Garage Underground

Grand Avenue

1,203

5 6

Music Center Annex California Plaza California Plaza and MOCA

Grand Avenue Lower Grand/ Olive Lower Grand/ Olive

30 1,300

7

Surface Lot Garage Underground Garage Underground

8

Parking Structure (County Lot) Mall Garage (County Lot) Cathedral of our Lady of the Angels LAUSD School County Lot st Hill St at 1 Street

Garage- Above grade Garage Underground Garage Underground Garage Surface Lot Garage Above ground Garage Underground

Corner of Grand and 1st Grand/ Hill Avenue Temple

1,062 (849 usable) 1,274

Public, Events, Visitors to County bldg and courthouse Employees Public, Office employees and visitors Public, MOCA, Office employees and visitors. Omni hotel Jurors, public

Grand Olive and1st Hill

Not available 370 42

Hill/ Broadway

646

Surface lot Garage Above ground Surface Lot

Hill 2nd street

10 350

Spring/ Broadway

600

Garage Underground Surface Lot

2nd street

700

Main

70

Garage Underground Garage underground Garage Underground

Los Angeles

1,142

Main/ Los Angeles Temple

1,500

4

9 10 11 12 13 14

Court of the Flags (County Lot)

15 16

Central Heating Times

17

County Mall at Spring Street

18

Police Building

19 20

US Federal Courthouse CalTrans

21

City Hall East

22

L.A. Mall

1,170

750

600

Permit Only. County and Court employees, judges Public, Cathedral employees and visitors Students and Faculty Public Public Permit. Registered use by employees, law enforcement, Grand Jurors Employees Public, Employees Public, County criminal courts building employees and visitors Employees Court employees, Grand Jurors Employees, visitors Visitors and Permit Only for employees Public 142

Total

14,600 parking spaces


Public Safety: Site Lighting Light Poles

Building Lights


Public Safety: Security Cameras / Barriers Security Camera 1 Security Camera 2 Fences / Bollards

144


Public Safety: Heat Map


Public safety in the site vicinity is, in general, sparce. The major civic institutions such as City Hall and Hall of Administration seem to be the most secure areas. However, the public spaces are by far the least secure. The lack of appropriate lighting, of security personal, security cameras and call boxes are more than lackly some of the major reasons why these park areas are not used after dusk. If the security and safety factor were increased in the area as a whole, people would be more inclined to enjoy the public spaces at all times of the day. Highest Level of Safety Medium Level of Safety Low Level of Safety Lowest Level of Safety

146


L.A. Assessor: Land Value $0.00 - $1,428,000.00 $1,428,000.01 - $4,954,573.00 $4,954,573.01 - $10,321,602.00 $10,321,602.01 - $17,186,024.00 $17,186,024.01 - $65,544,887.00


L.A. Assessor: Land Value Per Square Foot $9 - $39 /sq.ft. $40 - $79 /sq.ft $80 - $119 /sq.ft. $120 - $159 /sq.ft $160 - $199 /sq.ft $200 - $550 /sq.ft

148


Glendale

m

ho Bis

iu ad

er ly

2006

St

Be v

2007

Sunset

Properties Sold in Downtown in the Past 5 Years

ps

2005

3r d

ing Spr Main

V U 110

2004

Alp i

2003

ne

d 2n h

h 8t

ym Ol

h 4t

y wa ad o Br

h 6t

7t

1s t

h

ic mp Oly

nd

Pe dr o

9t h

ice Sa n

G ra

ym Ol pic op

er

l

t 16

ra nt Ce

n to ng hi

Pe d

ro

h as W

Sa n

Ho

ai n

§ ¨ ¦

Alam eda

7th

M

§ ¨ ¦ Kearney

3r d

n Ve

§ ¨ ¦

pic

Los Angeles

ter

d

ez

nA is o

5t

oo

Ch av

Jo h

W

Ce sa rE

e

M

ing

Ju dg

co

es

r Sp

le

Pi

oa er

h 4t

Ja m

mp Te

8th

gu Fi

l Hil

Cen

re

es gn Vi

hi

set Sun

i ls

4th

W


Properties Sold in Project Area in the Past 5 Years Sold before 2003

2003

2006

2004 2006

2007

2004

2006 2004

2007

150


Commercial Properties for Sale in 2008 1

548 S Main St.:

$5,450,000 22,000 SqFt $242 / SqFt

2

1611 Hope St.:

$18,500,000 75,358 SqFt $246 / SqFt

3

Project Site: Sale Potential:

85,955 SqFt $21,488,750 $250 / SqFt

10 1

1s t 2n d HO PE

Commercial Properties for Sale

3r d 4t

7t

h

8t

h

2

BR O AD SP W RI AY NG M AI N

h

1

3


Office Spaces For Rent: November - December 2008 Project Site - Potential Rental for Office Space: $20 - $25 /SF $18 /SF / Yr @ Wilshire/Grand $21.96 /SF / Yr @ U.S. Bank Tower $23 /SF / Yr @ 433 Spring St.

10 1

$26.04 - $30 /SF /Yr @ 601 W 5th St. $27 - $30 /SF /Yr @ 200 S. San Pedro $27.96 /SF /Yr @ 818 W 7th St. $30.24 /SF /Yr @ 108 W 2nd St.

1s t 2n d HO PE

$39 /SF /Yr @ Broadway and 2nd

3r d 4t

7t

h

8t

BR O AD SP W RI AY NG M AI N

h

h

152


Site Analysis: Site use, Landscape and Urban Envelope   

   

                 

 


Open Space

Circulation

Concrete

Water 154


Open Space Open Space


Accessibility to Park Future Civic Park Main Entry Doors Secondary Access No Access

156


Walkability Map

10 minutes

5 minutes


Disability Map ADA accessible Accessible path

158


Sun and Shade Study Winter Solstice - December 21

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

4:00 PM

Summer Solstice - June 21


Autumn Equinox - September 22

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

4:00 PM

160


Bibliography and Sources HISTORY Ord. Map. 1849, Plan de Ciudad de Los Angeles Stevenson. Map. 1876, City of Los Angeles

- Population Density: Population and housing unit density are computed by dividing the total population or number of housing units within a geographic entity (for example, United States, state, county, place) by the land area of that entity measured in square kilometers or square miles.

Whitlock. Map. 1906, City of Los Angeles “Los Angeles, CA.” Map. “http://maps.google. com/”http://maps.google.com/” “Central Park, NY.” Map. “http://maps.google. com/”http://maps.google.com/” “Proposed Orange County Great Park: Irvine, CA.” Map. http://www.ocgp.org/flashpaper/cmp/OCGP_ CMP_Map.swf” “Bunker Hill, CA. Image. “http://upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/en/8/8f/Downtown-LA-1900.jpg” DEMOGRAPHICS US Census Bureau Books, 1940-2000 Census. R- 317. 3U53 LA Public Libary U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990-2000-2006. http://www.census.gov. September/October 2008 Fogelson, Robert. 2001. Downtown: its Rise and Fall, 1880-1950. Terms for US Census Glossary: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc-2-a.pdf - Enumeration rules: Each person whose usual residence was in the United States was to be included in the census, without regard to the person’s legal status or citizenship.

- Educational Attainment: Data on educational attainment are tabulated for the population 25 years old and over. People are classified according to the highest degree or level of school completed. - Hispanic or Latino: Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race. - Household: A household includes all of the people who occupy a housing unit. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.) A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied (or if vacant, intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. - Median income: The median divides the income distribution into two equal parts: one-half of the cases falling below the median income and one-half above the median. For households and families, the median income is based on the distribution of the total number of households and families including those with no income. The median income for individuals is based on individuals 15 years old and over with income. Median income for households, families, and individuals is computed on the basis of a standard distribution (see the ‘‘Standard Distributions’’ section under ‘‘Derived Measures’’). 161


ECONOMICS Banking Centers Davis, Mike. City of Quartz. Chapter 2. Verso: 1990. Dear, Michael J. Rethinking Los Angeles. Sage Publications: 1996. “List of Bank Mergers in the United States.” Wikipedia. http://www.en.wikipedia.org Payne, James H.The Heat of Los Angeles Map. LA, CA: 1931 Roseman, Curtis C. The Historic Core of Los Angeles. Arcadia Publishing: 2004.

Kotkin, Joel. “Don’t feed the white elephant.” Los Angeles Times. July 9, 2006. http://articles.latimes. com/2006/jul/09/opinion/op-kotkin9 Los Angeles Downtown News.Com. http://www.ladowntownnews.com Unemployment and Manufacturing Dear, Michael. Post-Recession Southern California: Economy & Community. USC Studies Center: February 10, 1998. 21 Facts in 60 Years Report & Recommendations of the California State Unemployment Commission. H. Hammond Publisher: November 1932

Roseman, Curtis C. and DeVerteuil Geoffrey. Housing “Downtown Los Angeles Walking Tour.” USC Geography. http://www.college.usc.edu/geography/ la_walking_tour/ Investments 07 Annual Report: The Renaissance Continues. Downtown Center Business Improvement District. 2007.

Case, Frederick E. Inner-city Housing and Private Enterprise. New York. Praeger Publisher: 1972. “Los Angeles County, California.” City Data. http:// www.city-data.com Sitton, Tom and Deverell, William. Metropolis in the Making: Los Angeles in the 1920’s. University of California Press: 2001

2008-2009 Mid-year Update: Economic Forecast and Industry Outlook. Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. July 2008.

Hymon, Steve. “ L.A. Limits rezoning of industrial land downtown. L.A. Times. Friday, January 4, 2008.

“Downtown Los Angeles Goes Upscale.” National Real Estate Investor. December 1, 2007. http:// nreionline.com/property/office/downtown_la_upscale/

Profile of the Los Angeles Metropolis: Its People and its Homes. University of California Los Angeles: 19631965.

162


Car Ownership and Freeway Construction Conversations with Caltrans. Caltrans: September October 2008. “Costliest car-ownership cities.” CNN Money. September 5, 2006. http://money.cnn. com/2006/09/01/autos/costliest_car_ownership_ cities/index.htm “Policy Information: Highway Statistics.” U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov The Historic Arroyo Seco Parkway. Caltrans. April 17, 2008 “The Real Cost of Car Ownership Calculator.” Bikes at Work Inc. http://www.bikesatwork.com/carfree/costof-car-ownership.html

Eisenman, Peter. Diagram Diaries. Universe Publishing: 1999. Tufte, Edward R. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press: April 1998 Tufte, Edward R. Envisioning Information. Graphics Press LLC: August 1999. Tufte, Edward, Beautiful Evidence. Graphics Press LLC: May 2006. Tufte, Edward. Visual Explanations. Graphics Press LLC: May 2006. Mau, Bruce and the Institute without boundaries. Massive Change. Phaidon Press Limited: 2004. Shane, David Grahame. Recombinant Urbanism, Conceptual Modelling in Architecture. Urban Design and City Theory. Wiley Academy London: 2005.

Miscellaneous Economy Los Angeles Almanac. http://www.laalmanac.com The Downtown Los Angeles Market Report and 2006 Demographic Survey of New Downtown Residents. Downtown CBID: February 2007.

Steffen, Alex. World Changing, Users Guide to the 21st Century. Abrams: 2006 Abrams, Janet and Petre Hall, Else/Where Mapping. University of Minnesota Design Institute: 1988. KM3, MVRDV, Excursions on Capacities. Actar: 2005

U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/ ZONING AND PLANNING

“The zoning and planning in downtown Los Angeles”, http://www.cityplanning.lapl.org

Allen, Stan. Points+Lines, diagrams and projects for the city. Princton Architectural Press: 1999.

“Changes in zoning proposed in Los Angeles”, http:// www.downtownnews.com/dtvg/welcome.html

Van Berkel, Ban and Cardine Bos. Unstudio Design Models. Thames and Hudson Ltd.: 2006

http://www.edf.org/article.cfm “Piecharts, Graphs, diagrams”, 163


http://www.juiceanalytics.com/chartchooser/ http://www.lapl.org “Historic maps of Los Angeles”, http://www.livemaps. com “Zoning and planning Information”, http://www.zimas. lacity.org/map http://www.nextamericancity.com

164


Overview: The Fall 2008 SCIFI studio introduced incoming SCIFI students to the core ambitions of the program, its tools and a grounding in historical city formation by working for one semester on the ground in Los Angeles, the paradigmatic global city. This book, the first in a series of SCIFI at SCI-Arc research publications, presents the program’s initial findings. SCIFI students investigated and developed potential new urban uses for the former State Civic Center site at First and Broadway in Downtown Los Angeles. Responding to a request for Planning Alternatives issued by the Department of General Services, Real Estate Services Division, Asset Management Branch of the State of California in association with the City and the County of Los Angeles, the SCIFI Studio examined and assessed the baseline Planning Alternatives issued by the State and then created five alternatives to the alternatives by looking at the broader historical, demographic, economic and zoning trends in Downtown Los Angeles. The parcel, which was originally the site of the former State Office Building (demolished in 1977) was declared surplus in 1982. Using the site as a case study, students tackled Land Use and Entitlement processes, government relations, transportation and infrastructure studies, environmental impact analysis, land residual evaluation and highest and best use economic analysis. Using Los Angeles as a context for research, students examined fundamental concepts related to history of the city, urban and regional development methods, and city planning and city management policies. The consequences of state based urban planning and policy on the development of Los Angeles are understood and presented here in terms of real impacts on buildings, infrastructure, open spaces, economies and landscapes.

David Bergman Peter Zellner



Downtown Los Angeles Research Studio