L.A. NOW: Volume 3 + 4

L.A. NOW Volume Three and Volume Four A Case for Downtown Living Five Proposals UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

proposals

introduction

00 02

14 20

volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal DiurnalCity ElastiCity

32 34

56

94

114

134 136

156

170

184

198

case studies stadium housing

218

end

Board of Advisors Robin Blair Con Howe John Kaliski Jan Perry Ian Robertson Dan Rosenfeld Richard Weinstein Deborah Weintraub

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles County Director, Los Angeles Department of City Planning Principal, Urban Studio, Los Angeles Councilwoman, District 9, City of Los Angeles Robertson Company, Los Angeles Urban Partners, LLC, Los Angeles Professor, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design City Architect, City of Los Angeles

L.A. Now Jury Diego Cardoso Robert Espinoza Jeffrey Kipnis Michael Hallmark Sylvia Lavin Mark Mack Nicolai Ouroussoff Albert Pope Robert Somol Doug Suisman George Yu

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles County Community Redevelopment Agency, Los Angeles Professor, Ohio State University, Columbus Consultant Chair, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Professor, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Architecture Critic, New York Times Professor, Rice University Professor, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Suisman Urban Design, Santa Monica Principal, George Yu Architects, Culver City

Panel Participants, A+D Museum Neil Denari Professor in residence, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design William Fain Principal, Johnson Fain Architects, Los Angeles Scott Johnson Principal, Johnson Fain Architects, Los Angeles Merry Norris Consultant Lorcan O'Herlihy Principal, Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects, Culver City

Nick Patsaouras President, Polis Builders, Los Angeles Roger Sherman Lecturer, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Publication Editor Eui-Sung Yi

transportation

research people & culture natural habitat

Chavez Ravine

downtown Arts District TC

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Elysian Greens Stadium City Chavez Pass

76 78

L.A. Now Volumes Three and Four Thom Mayne Project Director, Professor, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Eui-Sung Yi Project Coordinator

232 238

Director of Special Projects, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Caroline Blackburn Graphic Design Production Pakling Chiu Ken Ford (Graphic Concept)

Masako Saito Myungsoo Suh

Eui-Sung Yi

Publication Assistance Geoff Aiken Nate Chiappa Brian Davis Liang Feng

David Garnett David Grant Penny Herscovitch Jane Hyun

Jennifer Landau Alice Kimm Narineh Mirzaeian Kevin Short

The L.A. Now Volumes Three and Four project and publication are made possible through generous funding provided by American Institute of Architects Graham Foundation Richard Koshalek President, Art Center College of Design Jan Perry Councilwoman, District 9, City of Los Angeles UCLArts UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design John Williams Clark Construction, Bethesda and Costa Mesa

Volume Three Proposals

57

77 79

95

115

research natural habitat people & culture

185

Chavez Ravine

171

downtown Arts District

157

TC

135 137

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City Elysian Greens

Volume Four Proposals

33 35

Chavez Pass

199 transportation

219

Volumes Three and Four A Case for Downtown Living Five Proposals

233 239

case studies end housing stadium

UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

21

volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal DiurnalCity ElastiCity

L.A. NOW

15

proposals

Introduction

Thom Mayne Dilemmas for our Time: Understanding L.A. Now

Richard Weinstein A Case for Downtown Living

Eui-Sung Yi Proposals

The Discontents and Pleasures of L.A. Now

John Kaliski Project Description DiurnalCity

Pakling Chiu

Masako Saito

Myungsoo Suh

ElastiCity

Raffi Agaian

David Garnett

Narineh Mirzaeian

Additional Proposals

Svyatoslav Gavrilov

Chaitanya Karnik

Alexios Fragkiadakis

Costanza Guerrini

Jacob Kwan

Chavez Pass

Geoff Aiken

Liang Feng

Karen Lee

Stadium City

Nate Chiappa

Jennifer Landau

Kevin Short

Elysian Greens

Brian Davis

Tyen Masten

Nina Yu Research and Analysis

Downtown Arts District

Chavez Ravine / Elysian Park

Natural Habitat

People and Culture

Transportation Case Studies

High Density Housing

American Baseball Stadiums

introduction

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TC

01 03

introduction

02

03

Thom Mayne

March 2006 As a frontier for urban experimentation and innovation, Los Angeles has become a paradigm for the twentyfirst century global city. Given its influential position, it is essential that the city investigate solutions to largescale urban issues beyond the current paradigms of planning and critically consider strategies for urban growth that take into account its immense complexity and constant flux. The ideas put forth in L.A. Now: Volumes Three and Four propose new directions and formulate desires for the future of Los Angeles.

The methodology establishes a middle ground between the spatial, intuitive, and qualitative processes of architecture and the analytical, quantitative procedures of urban planning. The resulting solutions interrogate a broad range of socio-economic, political, cultural, demographic, and infrastructural issues in spatial and architectural terms.

This integrative investigation of alternate solutions responds to the myriad exigencies of the real world, yet remains unburdened by the political and administrative status quo. As a proposition of possibilities and desires, this work is intended to inform subsequent urban planning and development and to change the very nature of the conventional planning process.

Acknowledgments L.A. Now: Volumes Three and Four continues the investigations of my research studio at UCLA ’s Department of Architecture and Urban Design, which grew out of discussions with Art Center College of Design president Richard Koshalek, on developing proposals for downtown Los Angeles. Our initial vision could never have been realized without Eui-Sung Yi’s sustained energy and deep commitment to the project. I would also like to acknowledge UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Chair, Sylvia Lavin for her support, and my students’ vast, masterful and probing efforts in collectively undertaking such an ambitious endeavor.

introduction

INTRODUCTION

introduction

04

05

Richard Weinstein

This third and fourth volume of L.A. Now poses several important dilemmas for architects who want to think about cities. To begin with, most architects of significant talent have focused their energies on singular structures, and the critical debates in theory have largely supported these design investigations and failed to formulate as productive a discussion of the city at a larger scale. The work on L.A. Now and the provocations of Rem Koolhaas are lonely exceptions. The New Urbanists at this point dominate the field with those who promote transit-oriented development. So far, an alternative contemporary urbanism is best at criticizing commodification, theming, sprawl, and New Urbanism, and not so good at formulating a plausible alternative—much less one that is capable of influencing development nationwide.

A second dilemma is the emerging body of information on population growth, inadequate infrastructure, environmental degradation, and traffic. Somehow, the growing urgency of these problems has so far failed to mobilize the best thinkers, but the pressure is mounting, and it is hardly possible or honorable to continue in denial.

A third dilemma is, how does one begin in the face of infinite information? How does one locate the facts around which it is possible to improvise a new theoretical position that could lead to constructive change, or even to a new vision with formal implications? And to what extent would the means of implementing such a vision feed back into its very formulation, or would such an operation undercut the enterprise?

A BEGINNING To make the work on L.A. Now possible, the chair of UCLA’s Department of Architecture and Urban Design, Sylvia Lavin, had to invent a studio format that lasted for a full school year, which she titled the “research studio.” This provided the time to gather information, document the site, attempt to understand it in the context of change in the larger city, and formulate design proposals. The pressure to consider the urban situation as a problem for design came from Thom Mayne; his attention to such issues is rare for an architect who is well established as a creative force.

Whatever shortcomings can be identified in L.A. Now: Volumes Three and Four arise from the clash between high aspirations and the unfamiliar territories that Mayne and his team of students set out to cross. From time to time, the project was reviewed by a “board of advisors” consisting of city officials, real-estate developers, and others familiar with the community and large-scale developments—a reality that rarely intrudes with urgency on the education of an architect. These meetings served to model events as they might occur, identify limits, and make a plausible case for circumventing those limits when necessary. At the same time, the research phase provided an opportunity to define the problem with a quality of information that decision makers are not usually presented with and that may alter the way in which they view an urban situation.

A PROJECT The subject area of the research studio is a large territory, and its future should be taken under serious policy review. The studio has the capacity to “game” the future of the site to explore alternate outcomes freely—but within the limits of plausibility. As such, the resulting designs represent an unexplored middle ground between unconstrained speculation and overdetermined, timorous public urban design.

The L.A. Now project is an emerging model of how the resources of a university, directed by a major architectural talent, can interface with an enlightened business and political establishment to anticipate what could happen if a strategic intervention occurred before vested interests so limited the range of opportunities that optimum change was foreclosed in favor of business-as-usual. And it is business as usual that has brought us to a flash point of urban problems that require exactly the kind of anticipation and innovation represented by L.A. Now: Volumes Three and Four.

introduction

DILEMMAS FOR OUR TIME: UNDERSTANDING L.A. NOW

introduction

06

A CASE FOR DOWNTOWN LIVING Eui-Sung Yi

780 people

move to the Los Angeles metropolitan region daily, according to the results of the 2000 U.S. Census long-form survey. By 2020, the greater metropolis—encompassing Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange Counties—will absorb an estimated increase in population roughly equivalent to the current population of present-day metropolitan Los Angeles. Of the 3.2 million new inhabitants, an estimated 805,000 people (equivalent to present day San Francisco) will call the city of Los Angeles their home. This population increase will place a severe strain on the capacity for all levels of infrastructure—energy, transportation, water, and housing—to service the city and the region.

For decades, the attraction of Los Angeles has been its cultural and geographical position in the world. The city’s enduring mythos continues to attract people from the rest of the United States and the world, especially from Asia and Central America. As a nexus of international traffic and a steward of secure middle class living, “Los Angeles”—the metropolis—is straining under its own image and promise.

The California Department of Finance forecasts that the new population will be distributed evenly over the entire field of the metropolis, with minor concentrations in the secondary cities. This prediction presumes the status quo of horizontal expansion in the form of sprawl, where housing development indolently yet persistently spreads to the next piece of available land. Throughout its history, Los Angeles has taken advantage of its expansive setting, sprawling in every direction until reaching a seemingly insurmountable geological boundary—whether ocean, mountains, or desert—and then proceeding to expand further, often into those inhospitable geographies. The city is ranked in the top five nationally for unconstrained sprawl. As Los Angeles grew by three million people from 1970 to 1990, the city consumed an additional twenty percent of its orchards and farmland—in total 252,160 acres. Yet this development pattern displaces people further from the principal centers of commerce, which mostly remain in major city centers. In order to sustain a viable regional equilibrium, we must investigate alternative development strategies.

For major cities, the strategy of redensification provides a realistic and essential alternative to sprawl and its associated problems. As subdivided housing development reaches a critical impasse and rural fields surrounding cities predictably transform into suburbia, housing must inevitably be developed in city centers; as the population expands and single-family residential units become a limited commodity, there must be a redistribution of housing typologies, in favor of multi-unit housing; and as population density becomes a critical reality, ideals of public transportation, sustainable energy, and public housing must be reexamined.

downtown Los Angeles

07 introduction

metropolitan Los Angeles

population 1. Los Angeles 2. Long Beach/Torrance 3. Anaheim/Garden Grove 4. Pasadena/Glendale/Burbank 5. Riverside 6. San Bernardino 7. rest of the metropolis

2000 14,300,000

2020 (projected) 17,760,000

growth 3,480,000 (or 1 Los Angeles)

3,823,000 605,000 500,000 454,100 255,000 190,000

4,628,400 1,000,000 850,000 750,100 420,000 360,000

805,400 395,000 350,000 296,000 165,000 170,000 170,000

1 4 6 5

3 2 7

4

6

1 7

5

3 2 [ ] = 5000

the greater metropolis projected population growth centers, 2020

Park La Brea

Village Green

introduction

08

City of Los Angeles high density development model (zone R3, R5, CM, MR) websites: factfinder.census.gov (2000 U.S. Census) scag.ca.gov

It is estimated that fifty percent of Los Angeles County’s industrial facilities are obsolete due to their inaccessibility by larger modern trucks and an inability to upgrade to changing market demands. As it becomes increasingly difficult for the city to preserve single-family residential neighborhoods (R-1 zones) due to population increases, the demand rests on these outmoded industrial and commercial zones to absorb new residents. Los Angeles City Council’s Adaptive Reuse incentives continue to rejuvenate dilapidated industrial neighborhoods and contribute to the collateral economic improvement to the community and the region. Concentrated along the traditional fringes of the city, Van Nuys, Long Beach, and downtown Los Angeles have sustained the local manufacturing economy for fifty years.

The zoning maps on the right separate the low density zones of R-1, OS (Open Space), A (Agriculture) from the high density of R-3/5 and commercial manufacturing. The third map proposes a new combined zoning strategy that locates future opportunities for high density housing. As manufacturing types change, future developments can realign to integrate Los Angeles’ traditionally separated uses, such as commercial and high-density housing. The best candidate for this development lies in the eastern half of downtown Los Angeles.

09 introduction

city of Los Angeles general zoning OS A, RA RE, RS, R1, RU, RZ, RW1 R2, RD, RMP, RW2, R3, R4, R5 CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, CW, ADP, LASED, WC P, PB CM, MR, CCS, M1, M2, M3, SL PF HILLSIDE

R1, OS, A only

R3, R5, CM, MR only

introduction

10

Future housing development trends will likely oscillate between suburban sprawl and urban densification. The question becomes: how can seductive amenities and spacious, autonomous lifestyles, inherent in the lure of suburban sprawl, be reconstituted within an urban framework? The projects in this volume further interrogate the problem of urban development in the context of a growing, shifting population, and begin to pose solutions to this question.

500,000 workers – roughly equivalent to the population of Washington, D.C. or Las Vegas – commute daily to downtown Los Angeles.

It is estimated that by 2020, the average freeway speed will be 20 mph for 8 hours daily. (Note that 20 mph is slower than the 25 mph speed limit for most residential streets.) The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) reports that cumulative hours spent in congestion have increased by 60% from 1990. The annual cost of lost time and fuel is currently $129 million. The Commuter Origin diagrams (pg 208) outline the dispersed and decentralized areas where the 500,000 downtown commuters live. Judging from the driving patterns, a critical mass of the population sits amidst gridlock on a daily basis heading to their jobs downtown.

Yet the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) states, “there is very limited ability to add more highway capacity” due to right-of-way, financial, and environmental issues. The city’s recent failure to get approval to expand the 101 freeway and lengthen the 710 freeway is just one recent setback. The current proposal to address the anticipated 30% increase in traffic is to add more High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes: an additional 206 miles to the existing 380 miles. However, HOV is merely a stopgap measure—a method of buying time while commuting culture is re-addressed. Even the miles of HOV lanes may well prove inadequate for the onslaught of over 3 million additional inhabitants. Clearly, commuters need a realistic, viable alternative route to work from the major residential centers of the Metropolis.

Recently, the public transportation infrastructure servicing the greater metropolis has seen a remarkable rise in construction and use. Ridership on the Metrolink has increased annually, and the Blue Line to Long Beach, the new Gold Line to Pasadena, the westbound Exposition LRT and resurrected Redline subway, and the two new Metro Rapid bus lines are all promising. Though no one believes this public transport system will afford a family in Los Angeles complete car-freedom, the elimination of one car (in a typical household of two cars) and/or the reduction of a car’s use during weekdays can substantially reduce the burden on existing freeway infrastructures.

City of San Diego sprawl control Transit Oriented Development Case Study: San Diego From 1990 to 2000, San Diego has undergone a remarkable boom in housing construction and commercial revitalization, as the region grew by 316,000. By 2020, the regional population is projected to increase by 785,000 persons, almost equivalent to the increase for the city of Los Angeles. By 2030, a total of one million additional persons will live in the region, creating a critical population-density crisis.

In anticipation of the population influx, San Diego has implemented an urban development plan, named REGION2020.The strategy will “limit sprawl from 600,000 acres to 200,000 acres by focusing most of the growth in incorporated cities near transit stations and major bus corridors, in mixed-use cores, near employment centers, or in redevelopment or infill areas.”

The San Diego zoning maps (right) have been

amended to match the zoning on the Los Angeles maps, to indicate the concentration of potential high-density housing.

The high-density residential zoning absorbs the commercial and manufacturing districts located along the industrial waterfront. The appropriation of these areas, and their connection to an emerging vibrant commercial downtown, lays the foundation for multi-unit urban housing in San Diego.

Los Angeles

population 1. downtown 2. Van Nuys 3. Northridge 4. Eagle Rock 5. Hollywood 6. San Pedro 7. Venice 8. rest of the city

2000 3,823,000

2020 (projected) 4,628,400

growth 805,400 (or 1 San Francisco)

36,000 163,000 40,750 24,000 222,030 72,150 38,000

250,000 233,000 100,750 79,000 267,030 94,150 50,000

214,000 70,000 60,000 55,000 45,000 24,000 12,000 375,400

2

1

3 5 4

8 7

6

2 3 4 8

5 1

City of San Francisco

7

City of Los Angeles

downtown Los Angeles 250,000 persons

City of Los Angeles projected population growth centers, 2020

R1, OS, A only

6

R3, R5, CM, MR only

introduction

11

introduction

12

Transit oriented development (TOD) serves as a model of a housing strategy that ensures access to the public transit system. Both the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the MTA have encouraged densification as a strategy to address the housing and transit crisis. The public has asked the MTA to review TODs, with the first proposed project located near Long Beach. It is worthwhile to note that the rail companies historically earned their revenues from development along their routes, not from ride fares. As most of the freeways were laid within old existing rail right-of-ways, TODs or “Transit Villages” seem an appropriate return to the union of these two franchises.

L.A. Now projects a maximum population of 35,000 for either the downtown arts district or the Chavez Ravine site —fourteen percent of a potential market of 250,000 downtown residents.

The 500,000 commuters to downtown represent 1 million residents, assuming an average of two persons per household. If housing opportunities can be made attractive, a substantial percentage of these commuters could live within blocks of their workplaces. Assuming that half of these two-person households have alternate workplaces that make moving prohibitive, the other half—250,000—can become a housing force within downtown.

This potential halving of the load of highway commuters to downtown would reduce 7 billion vehicular miles, save 220,000 hours of commute time, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.5 million pounds annually, and save 500,000 gallons of gasoline daily.

As the culture of downtown residential neighborhoods evolves, the infusion of major commercial and retail developers will provide another thrust of investment and growth in the next decade. With new transportation and recreational amenities conveniently located within blocks of the project sites, these sites have the potential to become principle anchors for downtown.

Hancock Park

downtown

population 1. manufacturing 2. South Park 3. Arts District -project site 4. Little Tokyo 5. historical core 6. Bunker Hill 7. financial core 8. Fashion District

2000 36,000

2020 (projected) 250,000

growth 214,000 (or 1 Barstow)

1,700 730 570 7,000 18,000 8,000

45,700 40,300 35,000 41,000 50,000 38,000

44,000 39,570 34,430 34,000 32,000 30,000

3

6

1

7 5

2

4 8

= downtown Los Angeles

Washington D.C.

Project Site +10,000-28,000

6 7

3

4 5

2 1 8

downtown Los Angeles projected population growth centers, 2020

Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw

introduction

13

introduction

14

volume three: downtown Arts District volume four: Chavez Ravine

introduction

15

In a metropolis comprosing multinodal communities, the ability to connect these urban nodes determines the future sustainability of these communities. The twentieth century saw infrastructure grow proportionately with the growth of the urban fabric. But in the first decade of the twenty-first century, infrastructure can no longer accomodate its users by dividing, splicing, splintering and branching. Rather than locate a new footprint and secure land rights, infrastructure has to enhance and exploit untapped or poorly conceived existing connections.

cultural institutions F Walt Disney Concert Hall G Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels H The Museum of Contemporary Art civic institutions C Department of Water and Power D courthouses E U.S. Bank Tower financial districts I office towers commercial and entertainment A Staples Center B department stores / hotels / clubs

E

Gr an d

Flo

St re et

downtown connections core amenities

Av e

we r

St re

et

B

website: A usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles/lawalk/spark/index.html

0 0

100ft

500ft

1000ft

1/3mile

1/2mile

C

F

G D

I

Fi gu ro a

introduction

16

1 mile

H

17

Dodger Stadium 569,069 sq. ft.

0.94% Downtown Los Angeles

Chavez Ravine and Elysian Park 1,932.8 acres 84,194,467 sq. ft.

0.76% metropolitan area

volume four site: Chavez Ravine 323.47 acres 14,089,963 sq. ft.

0.013% metropolitan area

downtown Los Angeles 1,390.3 acres 60,469,042 sq. ft.

0.54% metropolitan area

volume three site: Arts District 227.7 acres 9,916,923 sq. ft.

0.09% metropolitan area

site comparison downtown Arts District and Chavez Ravine

websites: zimas.lacity.org/ navigatela.lacity.org/index01.htm

introduction

The proposals here examine the potential of Flower Street, Grand Avenue and Figueroa Street as connective spines between Chavez Ravine and downtown Los Angeles. A new set of commuters with less than ten minutes of driving can serve downtown and infuse the current cultural and commercial institutions with increased patronage and revenues. This becomes the seed from which a continual co-dependency can build between those living on the hill and the services at the bottom of the hill. Eventually, downtown Los Angeles can shed the stigma of being an empty urban center after work hours and, like all great metropolitan downtowns, become a new nocturnal destination.

introduction

18

Chavez Ravine and Elysian Park, 1958

Bunker Hill downtown Los Angeles

Cesar Chavez Boulevard

Chinatown

Dodger Stadium under construction, 1961

Chavez Ravine

Dodger Stadium top of Chavez Ravine

Elysian Park 110 Pasadena Freeway

introduction

19

proposals

introduction

20

proposals

proposals

introduction

21

introduction proposals

THE DISCONTENTS AND PLEASURES OF L.A. NOW 22

John Kaliski I was a bit surprised to receive Thom Mayne’s invitation to follow the progress and work of the students who participated in L.A. Now; a project Mayne organized and led through his research studio at the UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design. For twenty years, from the perspectives of both the private and public sector, I have argued for and attempted to practice an urban design and architecture that is different than the underlying ideas, forms, and desires of the projects represented in L.A. Now. When I worked as the Principal Architect of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the Ctiy of Los Angeles, I was always struck by vast amount of input from a multitude of voices that each project generated and how that input guided projects towards less density, smaller scales, more open space and greenery, and respect for traditional city forms. In general I believe, based upon this experience and the built evidence of the contemporary city, that when architecture is defined as largescale infrastructure, poor urbanism invariably follows.

In contrast, in the UCLA projects, whatever fascination there might be with the small-scale and organic citymaking is more than overcome by powerful fascinations on the part of both teacher and student with the “XL.” As a corollary, when faced with urban-scale challenges, the protagonists of this studio too often for my tastes responded with building—or buildings as topology—solutions. While the student work was in my opinion attuned to the present program needs of Los Angeles, the relentlessness of the horizontal and vertical carpet of building propositions that were promulgated metabolically obviated any sense of human scale.

I suppose Thom purposely wanted someone contributing to the studio criticisms that would bridge this gap, who was more comfortable with an urban design that grapples with design strategies that grow from understandings of building-by-building incrementalism, typological coding, and landscape urbanism. I also know from his comments during the studio and from his work that for Thom, his interest in the XL does not negate an interest in urban-design tactics grounded in the reshaping of the existing public common, the streets, sidewalks, open spaces, and adjacent envelopes that frame these places. During the course of observing the progress of the L.A. Now work, I even suspected that the students felt that their massing diagrams were in keeping with many of the principles that form the core of my personal belief systems. Still, the emphasis in this studio on big architectural solutions, its consequential costs, need for heavy-handed land acquisition tactics to ensure implementation, and unspoken reliance on now standard joint public-private sector development strategies became too easy a capitulation to a type of real-estate economics that ignores too many of the pressing problems of the American City such as affordable housing, requirements for economic restructuring to assist with job production, and the creation of well-appointed and maintained common spaces.

Yet, despite the critical and intellectual differences I might have with Thom and this studio, I would hardly reject this work as irrelevant to the making of the city and architecture; the opposite is true. The L.A. Now project cannot be dismissed, for it constructively fascinates the mind and the eye of all that see it, and as such attracts critical notice and interest, both negative and positive. It is in essence a productive exploration into the means by which urban design will be practiced in coming years and thus a force for urban contemplation and discussion and change. Why this is the case is worth exploring. I sense that the interest in the fantastical urbanism that is seen here lies in the subliminal optimism of the studio’s design methodology, a reliance on a design as opposed to planning process for the production of urbanism.

Residing within the unimplementable gigantism of the architecture of this design studio is a manifold that realizes brilliant urban design propositions. True, the students raced towards overwrought building ideas, but they also, in the process of generating these ideas, grounded them in acute urban design recommendations. Each project contained an idea that moved me; a linkage of Los Angeles City Hall to the Los Angeles River via a network of open space; a sectional zoning that attends flexibly to emerging patterns of contemporary everyday life; a Figueroa Street parkway that directly connects for the first time downtown with the Golden State Freeway; a residential “Stadium City” placed over the vast parking scrim that mars both Los Angeles’s iconic baseball stadium and its surrounds; a reinvigorated Elysian Park that actively serves and gathers the masses that surround it. The power of a design vision as opposed to planning process is the former’s heightened capacity to synthesize otherwise unmanageable data and social inputs into acute concepts that are easily understood—precisely because they are visual. I believe the L.A. Now project garners continued interest because it well demonstrates the unique capacity of design to generate clear ideas and consequent debate at the earliest stages of planning.

proposals

I tried to contribute to the studio the thought that contemporary urban design must wrestle with the democratic urbanism of the contemporary city, the tussle of community meetings, and the political forces that shape the city to realize both consensus and form. No doubt as a professional expert Thom invited me to make these points, even as he pursued with the students architectural schemas that I was at first glance bound to disagree with. As a critic with a different point of view, I was a poor substitute for the polyglot mix of voices that will inevitably shape the most innovative—in the sense that they are responsive to the voices of everyday life—cities in industrialized countries.

introduction

23

introduction proposals

24

A second aspect of this studio that I think is critical to any discourse regarding the design of cities at this time is its insistent integration of informational databases and new visualization technologies. At each step of the studio, Thom urged the students to fold the data flows that shape contemporary urban life into the techniques of design in a digital age. Whether traffic- and transportation-based, census-based, flood plain-based, open space-based, economic-based, or otherwise-based, the sustained research into the actual conditions of the city produces results that are a reflection of the possibilities of present everyday life seen through the filter of to the range of pressures, fluxes, and opportunities that impact the contemporary city. The City of Los Angeles, under simultaneous demographic, economic, and building restructuring, is seen as needing an architecture and urban design that is hyper-responsive to an immediately present future.

While one can argue with the formal results, for me the L.A. Now process suggests that the architect can place him or herself in a position to tap the broadest range of knowledge systems at work in the city today without resorting to a simplistic and sentimental urbanism of image as opposed to substance. More important, I believe the method and results fascinate a broader public well-versed in the use of I-Pods, Nintendos, Play Stations, and Sim City because they trust that the digital architectural tools of the present, which allow for instantaneous public visualization and discussion of the broadest range of alternative futures, work better and more deeply than the tools of the past and thus lead to a better and more livable future. Unlike normative city planning and urban design that now always looks to a singularly defined and supposedly golden past—and as a result at best realizes an urbanism of quietude—these projects bespeak a progressive optimism about controlling and directing the dynamic forces at work in the city today.

Given Thom’s roots in a late 1970s postmodernism of representation, interest in “dead tech” in the 80s, and his formal and craft-based explorations of the 90s—all pursuits that looked to architectural tradition to realize architectural futures, his interest in projecting present urbanism, as exemplified in the L.A. Now studio, also explains an essential aspect of the vitality of his recent work, which is at times overlooked. Whether at Diamond Ranch High School, the University of Cincinnati Student Recreation Center, the Caltrans District 7 Headquarters, or any of numerous other efforts, Morphosis utilizes a process parallel to that of the UCLA studio. These buildings combine research and advanced visualization to project humanism in contemporary urbanism, and thus realize a critical architecture that at once captures the imagination of both the profession and the public.

Perhaps at times this architecture suffers from the same gigantism and lack of human scale that marks the UCLA projects, but it is always forward-looking and infinitely more satisfying in its complexly ameliorative posture towards the struggles of daily life than any architecture or urbanism that turns its back on the present.

Thom Mayne is always full of questions, transmits his love of critical questioning to co-workers and his students, and through this positive criticality will, I trust, be among the first to both glimpse and realize the inspired and technologically based human-scaled urban incrementalism that the L.A. Now studio does not yet fully realize—yet anticipates with great vigor and delight. Even as this Pritzker Prize-winning architect creates forms that test conventional understandings of architecture and urbanism, and barrels forward with sometimes uncomfortable built propositions, he always takes the time, whether with his colleagues or in the educational design studio, to ponder, absorb, transform, and bridge contrary positions and ideas into new expectations for architecture and urban design.

introduction proposals

25

introduction proposals

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 26

L.A. Now: Volume Three: Downtown Arts District L.A. Now: Volume Four: (Take the Hill!) The Great Switch: Elysian Housing and Dodger Stadium

In the summer of 2000, Richard Koshalek, president of Art Center College of Design, approached Thom Mayne, principal of Morphosis, to direct a study of Los Angeles that would offer suggestions for its future development and growth. During a year-long intensive research studio at UCLA’s Department of Architecture and Urban Design, Mayne and a group of students first undertook the project of analyzing Los Angeles and, subsequently, designing speculative urban proposals for its downtown core.

A large portion of this effort focused on the collection of a substantial amount of data on the Los Angeles region, given the realization that no project could be properly understood in isolation from the larger picture. This initial research was compiled into a book that was published by the University of California Press in January of 2002 as L.A. Now: Volume One. Based on this research and analysis, the students then designed interpretive strategies to accommodate the city’s fragmentation, heterogeneity, emergent orders, and non-linearity. Each of these projects established a basis for working within the broader context of the city and engaging programmatic and spatial adjacencies unearthed in the initial research phase. The academic context of the studio allowed for urban proposals not possible within the strictures of conventional, real-world planning and development. The University of California Press published these projects in January 2002 as L.A. Now: Volume Two. L.A. Now: Volume Three offers a set of proposals based on research and analysis to introduce housing into a specific site in Los Angeles’s downtown core. Bounded by the 101 Freeway, the Los Angeles River, Alameda Steet, and Fourth Street, the Arts District site lies between downtown Los Angeles and East Los Angeles. Taking into account the increasing population and the rising demand for housing in the central district of downtown, Volume Three examines the implications and viability of housing on the fringes as well. The projects take advantage of the area’s adjacency to several culturally rich neighborhoods and the Southern California Institute of Architecture, as well as the planned connection of the Gold Line from Pasadena. Though this neighborhood currently has an underdeveloped identity, it has the potential to evolve into a vital cornerstone of downtown.

L.A. Now: Volume Four continues speculation on Los Angeles’s future, employing the conceptual framework established in the first three volumes while shifting focus to a different geographic node within greater Los Angeles—Chavez Ravine. Volume Four presents new research and proposals for simultaneously relocating Dodgers Stadium to downtown Los Angeles and developing housing in Elysian Park. The projects reclaim Chavez Ravine as a residential area, fusing its identity with Elysian Park and examining the hyper-densification a stadium brings into the city. The polarization of program and site spurs an intense investigation of the role of varied infrastructure systems—nature, culture, and transportation—as critical infusions into urban housing and stadium development plans.

The research studio’s laboratory ethos has resulted in a valuable information base and proposals that encourage the community to rethink Los Angeles and its future. The intent of the L.A. Now series is to invigorate critical interest in Los Angeles, and to spur future ventures and projects.

introduction

1. All projects shall support an integrative policy of space and building making.

All proposals and their programmatic components must react, engage and enter a physical and formal dialogue with all existing and proposed conditions. The spaces and structures should collectively intertwine to frame and enhance the other’s central concept.

2. All projects shall induce development through an infusion of critical mass.

3. All projects shall encourage infrastructure to enter a lateral rather than a hierarchical relationship with each other Infrastructure refer to transportation, service, politics and habitation systems. All infrastructure components will be developed to its final and ultimate deterministic potential.

4. All projects’ boundaries shall exist within a territory of discussions and agendas.

All proposals shall establish a critical relationship with its adjacent districts via the projects’ edges and parameters.

5. All projects shall facilitate alternative modes of movement.

All proposals will examine implications of reducing automobile transportation, intelligent parking and eliminating secondary and tertiary roads on the site. Not only will this promote public transportation and a healthier environment, this mandate will generate attractive real estate opportunities.

6. All projects shall pursue an intelligent use of limited resources.

The project site’s size can substantially affect and contribute to an enhanced natural and environmental living conditions.

7. All projects shall support a broad notion of identity in relation to the various levels of urban scales: metropolis, city, downtown, and neighborhood.

8. All projects shall characterize, enhance and codify quantified regional data.

All proposals’ merits are determined by a foundation of comparable statistics and data (demographics, economics, infrastructure). The data informs critical mass decisions and design strategies, forming the basis for a comparison to an appropriate case study.

9. All projects shall support a flexible, evolutionary and adaptable state of inhabitation and use.

All proposals shall assume users, through an accretional process, will coerce, assimilate and modify given architecture and urban conditions to befit their evolving lifestyle and future demographic patterns.

variables 1. Large Infusion

Stadium-Multi-purpose Public Center / Educational Institution / Cultural Institutions /

Religious institutions / Retail Shopping Center 2. Infrastructure Organization

Maximize local and regional public transport / Minimize parking density / Pedestrian infrastructure / walkways

3. Economic Configuration

Public: Infrastructure / Stadium-public center / Education / Some cultural institutions

Private: Housing / Retail / Hotels / Entertainment / General services / Shopping /

Commercial (Offices + Production + manufacturing) / Technology services 4. Density

High Density

Low Density 5. Demographics

Economic class

Ethnic group 6. Natural Condition / Landscape

River / Green spaces / Energy resources / Park Use / Pollutants

27

proposals

commonalities

introduction proposals

28

ElastiCity

volume three

a new zoning envelope

ElastiCity presumes to augment the traditional planning typological model via a new topological zoning envelope tuned to specific site conditions. The undulating form becomes a skin highly molded to the demands of localized conditions.

population: 35,000 total residential area: 19,000,000 sq. ft. total building area: 26,000,000 sq. ft.

DiurnalCity volume three

24-hour city Commuter evacuation after work has become a primary restriction on the level of activities available in downtown Los Angeles. DiurnalCity proposes a complex shifting of programs and uses to attract, extend and sustain a new lifestyle within downtown Los Angeles, 24 hours a day.

population: 23,000 total residential area: 15,111,000 sq. ft. total building area: 30,670,177 sq. ft.

introduction

L.A. Mall

volume three

a new green heart for downtown The L.A. Mall offers downtown its largest green park which will anchor the master plan of the Los Angeles River’s edge development toward Griffith Park. The buildings that define this green hearth are programmatic extensions of the existing urban fabric.

population: 33,700 total residential area: 18,950,800 sq. ft. total building area: 23,430,300 sq. ft.

Suburban Spill volume three

intersection of four adjacent communites By extending the surrounding neigborhood urban fabric into the site, the resulting collison of east-side suburban residential, north-side transportation, west-side culture and southside manufacturing generates the contextual quiltwork of Suburban Spill.

population: 17,650 total residential are: 8,847,780 sq. ft total building area: 20,319,000 sq. ft.

proposals

29

introduction proposals

30

Stadium City volume four

new village around Dodger Stadium Stadium City proposes to situate an urban community around Dodger Stadium by laying a porous housing mat over an excavated site.

Open space and amenities are extracted from the mat based on programmatic necessities and historical precedents. Stadium City offers over 2,000 condominiums with large private gardens and 160 town squares linked to parks and schools.

population: 21,250 total residential area: 9,860,000 sq. ft. total building area: 18,740,000 sq. ft.

L.A.Live/Elysian Housing volume three

stadiums + convention center + Union Station This scheme proposes swapping housing wtih Dodger Stadium and recognizing the enhanced benefits of these new locations. The housing sits on the last great single site in Los Angeles and the stadium poses to challenge and contribute to the emerging vibrancy of downtown.

population: 24,000 total residential area: 21,000,000 sq. ft. total building area: 81,000,000 sq. ft.

introduction proposals

31

Elysian Greens

volume four

housing on ravine edge doubles Elysian Park By concentrating the housing development on the edges of Chavez Ravine, Elysian Greens returns most of the site back to green space, thereby doubling Elysian Park. The housing concentration along the cliff affords more units with city views and provides an urban front to the city. Elysian Greens engages the Chinatown and Solano Canyon communities by extending a connective infrastructural bar and relocating the Stadium near the new Los Angeles State Historic Park, respectively.

population: 16,000 total residential area: 7,153,890 sq. ft. total building area: 8,623,390 sq. ft.

Chavez Pass

volume four

new Figueroa Express Corridor Chavez Pass integrates the grid of downtown and the topology of Elysian Park with the infrastructural thoroughfare of the new Figueroa connection. The new Figueroa extension begins with a newly re-located Dodger Stadium next to Staples Center and continues uninterrupted through Chavez Ravine and Elysian Park to connect with the 5 Freeway and the communities north of Elysian Park. population: 35,000 total residential area: 10,000,000 sq. ft. total building area:11,000,000 sq. ft.

volume 3: downtown Arts District proposal

32

33

volume 3: downtown Arts District proposal

downtown Arts District proposals

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

34

35

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

DiurnalCity

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

project scope 36

total residential: 15,110,927 sq. ft. total residents: 28,000 total development: 32,993,500 sq. ft. total building space: 30,670,177 sq. ft. total open space: 2,323,323 sq. ft. floor area ratio: 6.2

site plan (downtown Los Angeles)

target study area

project site

Los Angeles’ downtown currently stands as an unattractive, underutilized, and largely symbolic center of the city. The residential population remains low, yet everyday over 500,000 urban nomads commute into and out of downtown. The huge influx and outflow of people occurs at approximately the same time daily, and there are few attractions to keep people downtown after business hours. This situation exacerbates the burden on an already congested freeway system; yet, a neverending expansion of the freeway system is an unproductive solution.

Housing, an integral part of the proposal, would accommodate an additional 28,000 residents-one-third of the projected downtown population growth by the year 2020—beyond the current downtown population of 36,000. The project’s target residents would be downtown office workers, and the enhanced connectivity to the Financial District would encourage walking and public transportation, further reducing freeway and street traffic.

The key to realizing the concept of a twenty-four-hour city lies in the intensification along First Street, a vibrant activity corridor that connects the living and working areas. Intensification involves creating a wide variety of amenities to fit a range of schedules, which would ultimately enrich urban life and transform downtown into a walkable, lively city twenty-four hours a day.

37

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

The goal of DiurnalCity is to transform an underused downtown into a twenty-four-hour city, extending the time that people stay in downtown. First, this will help to reactivate downtown and turn it into an attractive urban center. Second, the traffic congestion problem will be alleviated by spreading the number of people entering and leaving downtown over a longer time span.

30 min.

20 min.

30 min.

10 min.

7

20 min.

5 min.

10 8

9

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

1

1

2

13

5 min.

3

12

9

10 min.

7

2

14

5

10

8

5

4

6

11

38

6

3

13 11

4 12

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

destination soccer fields MOCA Little Tokyo SCI-Arc. Artist District Utah Station City Hall

miles 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.54 0.63

time (min.)

6 7 8 9 9 14 16

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Union Station Disney Concert Music Center Broadway Pershing Square Central Library Staple Center

0.67 1.02

1.15 1.32 1.45 2.41

17 26

28 33 36 60

destination 1. City Hall 2. Central Library 3. Civic CenterRed Line Station 4. Pershing Square 5. Little Tokyo 6. J. A. N. Museum

walking distance

miles 0.50 0.50 0.54

time (min.)

10 10 11

0.65 0.78 0.90

13 16 18

Chinatown rapid train station Union Station occer fields SCI-Arc. Staples Center Utah Station

0.93 1.00 1.04 1.29 1.30 1.38 1.52

19 20 21 26 26 28 30

walking distance

from project site

from Walt Disney Concert Hall

Union Station/ Gateway Transit Pomona Center Brea San Francisco/ Sacramento Financial District/ Staple Center

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

China town

Staples Center Wilshire Century City Financial District Redondo Beach San Pedro Bay Wilshire Center/ Downtown (Olive st.) Hollywood La Trade Tech Rendondo Beach College San Pedro Bay LAX Century City

San Francisco/ Sacramento

Union Station Pasadena Pomona Sierra Madre El Monte East L.A. Monterey Park

Pico-Rimpau Transit Center

rapid train station bus terminal rapid train new bus line proposed Metro Gold Line Station

proposed public transportation

Metro Gold Line Station Metro Gold Line MTA bus line Dash bus line

existing and officially approved public transportation

Monterey Park

San Diego

San Diego

public transportation

public transportation

daily 06:00–23:00

daily 23:00–06:00

urban connectivity

First Street’s existing cultural institutions and proximity to many key downtown areas make it a loops and importing new programs, First Street will become an activity corridor that connects the working

act

office buildings

id orr yc

ivit

activity-generating buildings proposed development

or ng

livi

activity corridor

Music Center

L.A. Cathedral

Disney Concert Hall

MOCA

Civic Center Station City Hall

MOCA Geffen Contemporary Little Tokyo

Japanese American National Museum proposed station

Alameda Station

SCI-Arc

proposed open area proposed development area MTA station active area (existing) offices

The existing land use pattern provides the conditions and potential to create an activity corridor along First Street by filling in the “time gap.”

This insertion of additional programs—which were lacking—results in a 24-hour activity corridor.

theater museum public/community educational religious clubs retail/entertainment collective space offices

existing condition

program importation strategy

compelling potential attraction for downtown Los Angeles By providing additional transportation Financial District with the proposed residential area. offices public transportation Financial District

retail/market

project site

entertainment

morning

bookstore/ library cafe restaurant

Financial District

project site

bar/club concert hall

afternoon

Financial District

movie theater/ theater art gallery/ student exhibit art school/ business school/ trade school

project site

temple/church community center

evening

housing grocery/ supermarket Financial District

gym

project site

sporting fields

night

jogging track park

activity pattern along First Street

program working pattern

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

39 Grand Central Market

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

West Hollywood

40

Culver City

total land area: total population: population density:

1,210 acres 35,716 29.51 persons/acre

toal land area: total population: population density:

3,200 acres 38,816 12.13 persons/acre

recreational parks: area per person:

4 (16.97 acres) 20.69 sq. ft./person

recreational parks: area per person:

13 (88 acres) 98.75 sq. ft./person

cultural museums: auditoriums: studios/fine arts: art galleries:

0 0 4 34

cultural museums: auditoriums: studios/fine arts: art galleries:

1 2 16 0

retail department stores: clothing: books: records/CDs: sporting goods:

3 8 8 12 3

retail department stores: clothing: books: records/CDs: sporting goods:

6 27 7 8 10

entertainment restaurants: cafes/bakeries: bars/clubs: amusement places: movie theaters: video rental:

59 16 45 0 0 3

entertainment restaurants: cafes/bakeries: bars/clubs: amusement places: movie theaters: video rental:

38 22 10 1 1 (4) 2

domestic retail grocery stores: major supermarkets: banks: gas/service stations: laundry/dry cleaners: pharmacies: gyms/health clubs:

30 5 10 5 23 9 9

domestic retail grocery stores: major supermarkets: banks: gas/service stations: laundry/dry cleaners: pharmacies: gyms/health clubs:

19 3 20 14 13 8 3

educational art/music: preschool: K–12: college/university: business/vocational: computer training: language: tutoring/test preparation:

6 4 2 1 1 0 0 0

educational art/music: preschool: K–12: college/university: business/vocational: computer training: language: tutoring/test preparation:

5 9 9 4 4 4 0 0

programmatic research on cities in Los Angeles County

program / intensification

Creating a population density equivalent to that of West Hollywood or Culver City in the downtown site. The integration of diverse programs with transportation systems and pedestrian oriented site to Harajuku Shinjuku

ds: department stores mt: movie theaters

ds

ds

ds

ds mt

ds

ds

ds mt ds ds

subway Hanzomo Linemt Shibuya Station Subway Ginza Line

to Daikanyama/ Sakuragaoka (Yokohama)

case study: Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan

Tokyo Line

west bus terminal

to Akasaka/ Nihonbashi

to Akasaka/ Ginza east bus terminal

Japan Railroad Line

to Ebisu/ Shinagawa

proposed

proposed on site

612.6 acress 35,000 57.13 persons/acre

60.5 acre 18,063 298.56 persons/acre

total land area: total population: population density:

612.6 acres 6,998 11.42 persons/acre

recreational parks: area per person:

17.15 acres 106.7 sq. ft./person

70.5 acres 87.7 sq. ft./person

44.05 acres 106.23 sq. ft./person

cultural museums: auditoriums: studios/fine arts: art galleries:

4 2 0 5

4 5 10 35

0 0 10 30

retail department stores: clothing: books: records/CDs: sporting goods:

1 1 6 8 2

5 45 10 12 5

4 34 4 4 3

entertainment restaurants: cafes/bakeries: bars/clubs: amusement places: movie theaters: video rental:

16 13 3 0 0 0

60 20 40 2 2 3

44 7 30 2 2 2

domestic retail grocery stores: major supermarkets: banks: gas/service stations: laundry/dry cleaners: pharmacies: gyms/health clubs:

12 0 0 1 6 4 1

20 3 10 8 15 10 4

8 2 8 6 9 6 3

educational art/music: preschool: K–12: college/university: business/vocational: computer training: language: tutoring/test preparation:

2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

5 3 2 1 2 2 2 0

3 1 0 0 2 2 0 0

41

Culver City 3,210 acres 38,616 people 12.13 persons/acre

program importation

downtown target study area 612.6 acres 6,998 people 11.42 persons/acre intensification

proposed 612.6 acres 35,000 people 57.13 persons/acre

site 60.5 acres 18,063 people 298.56 persons/acre

intensification and program importation

study area will increase the density five-fold within the target area and thirty-fold within the project strategies will help create a twenty-hour, hyperactive urban community, much like Shibuya in Tokyo. to San Francisco/ Sacramento Union Station

MOCA Japanese American Museum

rapid train station Alameda Atation (Metro Gold Line)

proposed station (Metro Gold Line)

Little Tokyo

to East L.A. Artist District

SCI-Arc.

to San Diego

DiurnalCity

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

downtown study area

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

42

figure-ground plans

| 30 ft.

| 50 ft.

| 70 ft.

site boundaries

target study area plan site plan

| 100 ft.

| 120 ft.

| 250 ft.

| 350’

the site The project’s development intensifies along First Street, reinforcing its role as the connective spine between downtown and the DiurnalCity. While a majority of the development occurs withi site boundaries, some components extend offsite, merging with and negotiating existing conditions.

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

43

off-site development extension of development from site connecting to Financial District

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

residential: other: open space:

44

overall development

4,639,440 sq. ft.

5,532,176 sq. ft.

404,464 sq. ft.

on-site development residential: retail / entertainment: domestic retail: cultural: educational: indoor flexible space: parking: parks and open space: residential park:

10,471,487 sq. ft.

1,938,489 sq. ft.

476,515 sq. ft.

743,529 sq. ft.

847,222 sq. ft.

136,644 sq. ft.

5,884,675 sq. ft.

1,513,655 sq. ft.

405,204 sq. ft.

program distribution Carefully analyzed typologies of different programs are arrayed in an unconventional three-dimensional organization, inducing unexpected and vibrant spatial relationships. These resultant urban events occur at different levels and times within DiurnalCity.

residential

indoor flexible spaces

total area: 10,471,487 sq. ft. total residential population: 18,063

Versatile indoor spaces adapt to different functions (exhibition spaces, community spaces, gyms, theaters, etc.) throughout the day. total area: 136,644 sq. ft. auditorium: 5 multi-use spaces: 2

retail / entertainment

domestic retail

A combination of traditional shopping-mall typology and fragments of small buildings along First Street act as a strong urban attraction for the downtown area during the day and evening.

To provide easy access for residents, domestic retail spaces are located on the mid-levels of residential towers connected to the vertical circulation cores and residential park area.

total area: 1,938,489 sq. ft. department stores: 4 clothing: 34 books: 4 records/CDs: 4 sporting goods: 3

total area: 476,515 sq. sf. restaurants: cafes/bakeries: bars/clubs: amusement places: movie theaters: video rental:

44 7 30 2 2 2

grocery stores: major super markets: banks: gas stations:

8 2 8 6

laundry/dry cleaners: pharmacy: gyms/health clubs:

9 6 3

a

b

c

educational

cultural

Different schools share the same spaces at different times of the day (morning/afternoon: art, evening: business/computer, late night: vocational).

A cultural pedestrian network connects different functions at different levels, allowing cross-programming (cultural-educational, cultural-entertainment, cultural-retail, cultural-housing).

total area: 847,222 sq. f.t.

total area: 743,529 sq. ft. studios/fine arts: 10 art galleries: 30

art/music: preschool: business/vocational: computer training:

3 1 2 2

a: classrooms b: admin, library, common area c: studios and workshop

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

45

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

46

parking

residential pedestrian circulation

Underground parking areas reduce the impact on ground level activities while maintaining accessibility to the site.

public and private pedestrian network on high level

- total area: 5,884,675 sq. ft.

- total number of parking spaces: 25,745 parking for residents: 13,000 parking for visitors: 12,700

vehicular circulation

public pedestrian circulation

While First Street will be restricted to public transportation to create a pedestrian friendly street, other streets will be configured for easy accessibility to the site and parking areas.

public pedestrian network on lower level

b d

a

c

public transportation

combined pedestrian circulation

A combination of rail, light-rail, and different bus systems will provide easy connection to downtown and the rest of the city.

combined pedestrian circulation creates a three-dimensional labyrinthine network

a: proposed rapid train station b: Alameda Metro Gold Line station c: proposed Metro Gold Line station d. bus lines (existing and proposed)

the cultural pedestrian network

easy accessibility from residential area to all traffic system

symbiotic relationship between educational, cultural facilities, and indoor flexibile space induced by careful design of paths

all vehicular circulation in relation to residences

cultural, educational, and indoor flexible space

movement An expanded transportation system offers convenient access to the site and downtown. The integrative circulation system also includes a labyrinthine pedestrian network, which cuts through the various programs at different levels.

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

47

acessibility to transportation

housing programmed park surface

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

domestic retail

circulatory park surface housing

48

vertical circulation core

the neighborhood

residential park and domestic retail The park surface and domestic retail area on the mid-level of residential towers provide a secondary pedestrian street exclusively for the residents.

open spaces Active and passive open spaces with different sizes, degrees of privacy, and levels provide over 100 sq. ft. of open space per person—5 times the open-space ratio of West Hollywood, twice that of Santa Monica, and a comparable ratio to Culver City.

c c

b

a b

parks and open spaces in relation to residences

total area: 405,204 sq. ft. a: tennis court b: sky garden c: playground

Open spaces per resident ratio is in proximity to space that would be available in private yards of a suburban houses which characterize Los Angeles.

d c e

b

g

a f h

parks and open spaces Active and passive open spaces foster a variety of activities, allowing flexibility in use throughout the day. total area: 1,513,655 sq. ft. a: sports field e: arena b: sports field f: outdoor cafe c: sports field g: park d: plaza h: farmers market

parks and open spaces in relation to retail and entertainment

Multi-functional collective open spaces change in function and character with different activities throughout the day.

49

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

residential park

bathroom kitchen

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

bedroom

living room

type 1 50

1 bedroom 900 sq. ft. total floor area: total units: persons/unit: total residents:

5,095,800 sq. ft.

5,662 1.8 10,192 bathroom

bedroom

kitchen

bedroom

living room

type 2 2 bedroom 1,500 sq. ft. total floor area: total units: persons/unit: total residents:

3,382,500 sq. ft.

2,255 2.3 5,186 bedroom bathroom

bedroom bedroom

family room

type 3 3 bedroom 2,300 s.f. total floor area: total units: persons/unit: total residents:

kitchen 2,288,500 sq. ft.

995 2.7 5,186

housing typology bedrooms living room and kitchen

living room

type 2 2 bedroom 1,500 sq. ft. unit targets young professionals and couples

3 bedroom 2,300 sq. ft. unit targets families

type 1 1 bedroom 900 sq. ft. unit targets students and young professionals

housing DiurnalCity offers a variety of housing types, targeting different demographic groups from students to families. The majority of the units are designed for young professionals working in downtown and seeking a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, social, and urban lifestyle.

51

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

type 3

housing

tennis courts supermarket

dry cleaner

housing Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

theater school movie theatre

museum

art gallery

cafe

bowling alley restaurant ground level

soccer field

shopping mall

train station

farmers market

park

parking

52

programmatic collision

twenty-four-hour operation

The overlapping organization of vertical programs and alternating horizontal flexible spaces affords elements, the flexible spaces attract people to the downtown site.

08:00

intensity of space use versus time low intensity medium intensity high intensity

12:00

16:00

0 (h)

6

12

18

24

educational cultural retail / domestic retail 0.0 (million sq. ft.)

entertainment

flexible space

amount of space use infrastructural lines

extension of infrastructural lines 0 (h)

6

12

18

24

theater

53

lecture hall

exhibition hall

outdoor space

view lines

generation of pedestrian corridors

flexible space

hours of operation educational cultural entertainment retail/domestic retail

a

b

a

a

b

c c

d

d

c

d

view

interconnected collective spaces

pattern A 0% of flexible space in use

strategy locating flexible space

flexible space

pattern B 50% of flexible space in use

pattern C 75% of flexible space in use

use pattern

flexible space

continuous activity throughout the site, day and night through their arrays of visual and programmatic

20:00

00:00

04:00

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

1.0

10% 4% 6%

4

12%

11%

15%

commuter population: downtown Los Angeles 500,000 (or 1 New Orleans) 200,000 (private) 300,000 (government)

2 5 3

8

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

16%

18%

8%

commuter origin aproximate regional distribution:

1 7

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

54 Downtown Los Angeles +80,000 (or 1 Newport Beach)

Beverly Hills/Westside Pasadena Santa Monica Los Angeles Midcity Alhambra/Montery Park Burbank/Glendale Orange County Topanga Canyon/Malibu Los Angeles Highland Park

18% 16% 15% 12% 11% 10% 8% 6% 4%

destination–origin survey map

6

financial and government sector Los Angeles

2000 3,823,000

2020 4,628,400

growth 805,400 (or 1 san francisco)

17%

18%

4% 10%

projected distribution 1. downtown 2. Van Nuys 3. Hollywood 4. Northridge 5. Eagle Rock 6. San pedro 7. Venice 8. rest of the city

36,000 163,000 222,030 40,750 24,000 72,150 38,000

121,000 213,000 267,030 70,750 50,000 92,150 47,000

85,000 50,000 45,000 30,000 26,000 20,000 9,000 335,400

2020 projected population City of Los Angeles

commuter origin aproximate regional distribution: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Pasadena Burbank /Glendale Torrance Alhambra /Montery Park Los Angeles Mid city Orange County Santa Monica / West Los Angeles 8. Garden Grove 9. Los Angeles Highland park 10. Los Angeles Hollywood 11. South Los Angeles

8%

5%

11%

4% 10%

18% 17% 12% 11% 10% 10% 8%

12%

6%

6% 5% 4% 4%

destination–origin survey map

retail, wholesale, manufacturing sector

DiurnalCity

Rather than spending money to expand the existing freeway system to support an ever-increasing ing and augmented attractions, which will extend the active hours of downtown, will combine to

existing 08:00

12:00

16:00

proposed 08:00

12:00

16:00

intensity versus time downtown

0

6

12

18

24h

6

12

18

24h

off-downtown offices school residence eating shopping market entertainment

existing downtown

0 off-downtown offices school residence eating shopping market entertainment cultural sports/gym

proposed downtown merchant tourist student

business person (downtown resident) business person government employee

activity pattern versus time 0

6

12

18

24h

0

threshold

threshold

number of cars

number of cars

traffic versus time

6

12

18

24h

traffic versus time

existing downtown

proposed downtown

number of automobiles, funding should be reallocated to subsidize downtown developments. New houssignificantly reduce the population that travels on the freeways during rush hour.

20:00

00:00

04:00

20:00

00:00

04:00

55

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal Diurnalcity

cultural sports/gym

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

56

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

ElastiCity

57

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

In creating a dense residential environment to support and foster the inevitable growth of downtown, ElastiCity investigates alternative strategies for zoning, seeking systematic methods that are adaptable to local conditions. The objective is to be methodical without being oppressive or cookiecutter, hopefully avoiding the pitfalls of both the Modernists and the New Urbanists. Strategies employed will work within established planning processes and simultaneously subvert them. In this way, ElastiCity attempts to contribute to the dialogue to establish alternative models for large-scale residential planning within urban environments.

The area sandwiched between the Los Angeles river and Alameda Street provides for unique conditions relative to other areas of Los Angeles, but not unlike those found in other urban environments, such as the Rust Belt cities of Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis. Located adjacent to downtown, the 227-acre industrialized site provides the possibility for higher residential densities, immediate connections to regional transportation infrastructures, multiple hubs of economic activity, diverse cultural linkages, jarring social juxtapositions, the “natural” ecologies of the river, and subtle shifts of topography. It is a confluence of environmental and human factors: urbanism in its glory and grit.

58

Much of the heavily industrialized area has the potential for higher use value. At the same time, many existing elements are rich, raw and unfortunately easily dispensable. creative enclaves of local artists and students tenuously holds onto converted live-work spaces, SCI-Arc grapples with its lease on a historic building, and the homeless and the drug-addicted wander from the adjacent Skid Row containment area looking for safe shelter.

There exists something undeniably edgy that gives the area an inimitable character. To the north, east, and west are strong local adjacencies—Union Station, the Los Angeles river, and Little Tokyo, respectively. Interestingly, all three of these have regional connections and implications. The project is informed by and takes advantage of such dualities of scale.

Battery Park, New York, serves this project as a model of urban density at seventy-five units per acre which translates into 17,000 housing units, accommodating a significant portion of the expected downtown housing growth and providing housing for five percent of the downtown workforce, eliminating millions of vehicle miles traveled. As a means to address high density, ElastiCity borrows from the hyper-rational housing models from Modernist planner Ludwig Hilberseimer and mixes with it the flexibility of sectional zoning and networked circulation. Vertical zoning envelopes are established based on local conditions, adjacencies and desired density. Programmatic envelopes are based on issues of direct solar access, with residential units requiring the most (minimally four hours per day); commercial, office and institutional space requiring less; and infrastructural requiring none at all. An above-ground circulation network is established to connect residential blocks and define areas of residential support services. The variegated ground surface is based on circulation patterns, the river, brownfield excavation and subterranean infrastructure. The shape of the development over time could vary based on a host of local factors such as political and developmental will, economics, desired population densities, and changing social conditions.

The rendered scheme represents only one of an infinite number of possible topological variations. It illustrates an intensification of existing site conditions and their potentialities‑high density around Union Station and the river’s edge, moderate density around the existing Arts District to the south, and open park space linking the river to the rest of the downtown community at First Street, providing ample recreation space and a social “mixing bowl.” At the micro-scale, this scheme provides for housing at multiple scales for the area’s diverse lifestyle constituencies and engages with the local context. At a macro-scale, it creates and connects to regional infrastructures (recreation space, subterranean parking for downtown, local and interstate transportation), helping to create a healthy and vibrant downtown community.

infrastructure

The program for site is fundamentally infrastructural. The project supports human activities on multiple levels: housing to support the worker population, transportation hubs for regional connectivity, auto parking with shuttles for the continued growth of the downtown worker population, recreational amenities and river access, local and regional educational facilities, and places for public gathering.

59

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

A unique nature of this site lies in its ability to be a strategic contributor towards its immediate context, greater downtown, and regionally throughout Los Angeles. Located amidst the rapidly evolving plans of downtown Los Angeles development, this site can begin to benefit multiple areas.

With a projected 35% population increase by the year 2025, the city is in need of revisiting the issue of infrastructure and its adequacy to sustain its citizens’ lifestyles. Furthermore, the issue of infrastructure is not only a notion to be tackled by Los Angeles, but rather one that will span cultural, economic and social boundaries, mandating attention from cities and countries worldwide as urban populations increase.

workforce housing 450,000 workers

35,000 residents

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

25,000 workers 10,000 artists/students/other

5% 60

* providing housing for 5% of the daily downtown workforce would each day: eliminate 19,000 automobiles on roads and freeways eliminate 700,000 million vehicle miles traveled save 22,000 hours of commute time save 30,000 gallons of gasoline remove 150,000 pounds of carbon from the atmosphere

housing and Modernism with a projected 90,000 new units necessary each year to accommodate population growth, the housing situation in Los Angeles draws parallels to the post-War crisis in Europe. While many areas of the city can not accommodate a hyper-dense environment, downtown Los Angeles has both the precedent and the infrastructure to do so.

ElastiCity began with a reconsideration of early Modernist utopian proposals: Le Corbusier’s Plan Voisin, Richard Neutra’s Rush City, and the rigorous planning devices of Ludwig Hilberseimer, the ultimate model of housing efficiency. Taking the basic premise of densification and relentless efficiency explored by these models, our goal is to suggest an alternative to current development strategies. While Los Angeles’s condition as a sprawling, networked, multi-nodal city introduces its own benefits and complexities, the notion that growth and development in the region can happen by increasing density and limiting sprawl has been largely underexplored.

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

61

ElastiCity vs. Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach

clustered model

• • •

•

• • •

• •

The city of Hermosa Beach provides an interesting comparative study with ElastiCity since both are primarily residential environments. Both are linear waterfront communitites with a heavy orientation toward regional-scale activity and both have a perpendicular axis that bisects the community. While ElastiCity has 500% more population, the much smaller land area results in significantly increased density. Rather than cluster services in a traditional manner along arterials, services are distributed more evenly across the field of development.

•

832 acres 19,175 23 persons/acre [11 units/acre]

total land area: total population: population density:

leisure parks: gyms/health clubs: culture museums: auditoriums: studios/fine arts: art galleries: education schools: libraries: shopping department stores: clothing: books: records/cds: sporting goods: entertainment restaurants: cafes/bakeries: amusement places: movie theaters: video rentals: essentials grocery shops: major super markets: banks: gas/service stations: laundry/dry cleaners: pharmacies:

227 acres 35,000 152 persons/acre [70 units/acre]

20 7 2 1 0 0 3 1 1 12 3 2 24 97 0 0 1 3 5 4 4 0 2 2

•

ElastiCity

•

•

•

•

•

•

distributed model

•

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

•

62

total land area: total population: population density:

leisure parks: gyms/health clubs: culture museums: auditoriums: studios/fine arts: art galleries: education schools: libraries: shopping department stores: clothing: books: records/cds: sporting goods: entertainment restaurants: cafes/bakeries: amusement places: movie theaters: video rentals: essentials grocery shops: major super markets: banks: gas/service stations: laundry/dry cleaners: pharmacies:

1 10 1 2 21 16 2 0 1 15 5 3 12 86 8 3 2 5 7 6 6 0 3 2

zoning typologies centralized

traditional downtown

random dispersion Houston Shenzhen, China

horizontal mat Paris suburbia

topological layers ElastiCity

63

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

linear Las Vegas Wilshire Blvd., LA

individual topologies

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

topological envelopes responding to singular influences

64

original site

solar orientation for housing

rail extension

population density: high density river edge

solar access for adjacent properties

population density: existing

population density: seniors

Bunker Hill distribution

soil contamination erosion

population density: dual nodes

population density: visitors

existing distribution

water retention/channelization

population density: low-density river edge

population density: students/artists

education: existing

freeway noise barrier

population density: First Street

views to city

education: new

condensed topologies schemes combine several individual zoning topologies into one high-density edge primarily residential

#23

high-density edge predominantly residential

high-density river edge

low-density river access city views Little Tokyo cultural district existing fabric Arts District

rail line commercial and housing river views moderate- to high-density

Little Tokyo cultural district existing fabric Arts District

height envelope

height envelope

area of coincident surfaces drainage channels

#507

contamination erosion

ground envelope

area of coincident surfaces

contamination erosion

ground envelope

integration of the Los Angeles river normal

average annual rainstorm

proposed topology non-residential to north

high-density edge

#82

high-density with sun access Union Station and commercial

city views

low-density river access moderate-density edge

height envelope

contamination erosion

65

topology and topography On a superficial level, treating the project topologically is a symbolic unification of the diverse and disparate parts of the downtown community, creating the image of a cohesive, undulating landscape.

Performatively, treating program and circulation as interconnected and seamless elements encourages very real continuities, transitions and encounters that are often missing in current planning scenarios.

Because the site struggles intensely between regional and local dynamics, the approach taken is to respond to localized variables within a larger, defined envelope resulting in a series of innate relationships rather than the creation of isolated centers devoid of connections. Depending on the combination of the localized social, political, and/or cultural forces operative at any moment in time, the envelope may conceivably shift or expand to accommodate them. Varied combinations result in varying topographies.

The project’s zoning envelope evolves in ‘real time,’ reflecting the changes occuring in and around it.

ground envelope

Solar access for adjacent properties

Soil contamination erosion

In the case of ElastiCity, the final combination of envelopes selected is one which responds to existing local conditions and provides a topological/topographical organization, uniting various constituencies and allowing for the integration and coexistence of the new and the existing fabrics.

25-year storm

100-year storm

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

Little Tokyo cultural district existing fabric Arts District

programmatic components

1 5

• •

4

2a

2b

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

3 3 2

existing

48 buildings: primarily in Arts Distict

66

residential

35,000 persons 15,900 units 75 units/acre

1

public transit infrastructure

educational arts education corridor 1. trade school (L.A. Trade Tech extension) 2. SCI-Arc 3. fine arts school (Chouinard, Otis extension) 4. elementary arts magnet school (400 children)

5. digital arts or music academy

4

35,000 sq. ft.

12,000 sq. ft.

15,000 sq. ft.

20,000 sq. ft.

1. Union Station extension - Amtrak, high-speed rail 2. Gold Line extension a. Little Tokyo station b. Arts District station 3. DASH routes A and D 4. Proposed DASH route G: commuter loop

regional commercial

local commercial/services

offices

4 levels of semi-underground parking at north 3.97 million sq. ft. of residential parking (1 space/unit)

shopping center

shopping and services 800,000 sq. ft. (see Hermosa Beach study)

Catellus Development at Union Station

2.5 million sq. ft.

3.5 million sq. ft.

67

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

auto infrastructure

time lapse development

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

The project area represents a nexus of flows, both regional and local, from transportation to commerce and people to culture.

The flows are most active at the area of the site above First Street. Total redevelopment is proposed for the site above First Street, focusing on establishing the infrastructure for this area first, then adding the housing component. Below First Street, the largely residential area is stabilized through light infill and stitched together through a series of common spaces (e.g., market, park, festival space, post office, etc.).

68

Thus this project proposes a densification of the existing infrastructural networks by adding complementary methods of transportation.

phase 1

phase 2

phase 3

phase 4

phase 5

phase 6

phase 7

organization and infrastructure open space

river parks The site acts as a key access point fromdowntown to the L.A. River and the system of linked parks to the north, allowing for numerous recreational activities.

brownfield remediation The site contains a number of brownfields, the most significant of which is the railroad corridor and rail yards at the river edge.

Erosion of the river edge as part of the remediation process returns the river to the public as a recreational amenity.

water retention Naturalizing the river edge not only allows public access but provides significant environmental benefits. With 60% of L.A. paved, only 15% of an average rainfall is absorbed into the ground.

cultural festival plaza Located at the nexus of First and Alameda Streets, the plaza provides the space to celebrate regional and cultural events and marks an entrance to the arts/cultural district.

Large events may overflow into the park along First Street.

Griffith Park

35 min.

15 min.

Elysian Park 35 min.

15 min.

The plaza accommodates an attendance equivalent to Little Tokyo’s annual Tofu Festival, which serves tens of thousands of people

regional commercial

captive transit market (persons/day)

shopping centers

retail leakage in Central City and South Los Angeles

Union Station 50,000

transit infrastructure

high-speed rail station 25,000 anticipated

Pasadena San Francisco/Sacramento

23

(by distance from downtown)

24

14 9 4

3 6

21

2

8 A B

10 18

20

1

5

7 12 13

11

16 15

17

1/4 0

1/2

1

2

3

4

5 MILES

22

19

A B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

7 & Fig (downtown) Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw Plaza Macy’s Plaza (downtown) The Grove Hollywood and Highland Glendale Galleria Montebello Town Center Beverly Center Fox Hills Century City Paseo Colorado Westside Pavilion Stonewood Center The Bridge Santa Fe Springs Mall Fashion Square Galleria at South Bay Westfield Shopping Town Southbay Pavilion Third Street Promenade Lakewood Center Puente Hills Mall Plaza at West Mall Del Amo Fashion Center Northridge Center Topanga Plaza

CA 101 50,000

streets

public transportation

Westlake

co m

East L.A.

mu

ter

loo

p

San Diego South LA proposed shuttle Amtrak and high-speed rail DASH line (A) DASH line (B) light rail

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

69

program

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

-30’

+10’

-10’

70

June 21

topological/topographical envelopes

building envelope (max. height)

residential non-residential infrastructural ground

Zoning: Local Residential Amenities Retail Services Educational

Zoning: Regional Civic Cultural Entertainment Commercial Hospitality Infrastructure

December 21

programmatic envelope (min. four hours sunlight)

residential: housing hotel support non-residential: retail office entertainment recreation parking

Los Angeles (34° latitude)

+150’ +100’ +30’

400’

300’

200’

100’

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

71

ownership distribution new APN site divisions

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

original APN site divisions

1 6

7

2

8

3 9

10 11 12

16

14

13

17

18

4

5

15

19

20

21 23

24

25

22 27

26

29 28

31

33

35

32

30

34

37

36

38

39 40

41

43

42

45

44

46

47

49 50

54

51

48

56

52

58 55

53

72

62

63 65

57

59 60 61

71

68

74 75

70

64 66

72

69

76 67 77 78

82 83

81

80

84 85

79

86

88 89

87

90

93 91 92

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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

517-300-3009 517-301-8001 517-301-9006 507-301-9001 507-301-9009 517-300-1024 517-300-1017 517-300-1900 517-300-2010 517-300-3010 517-300-3002 517-300-3001 517-301-7006 517-301-7008 517-302-0010 NA NA 517-301-7006 517-301-6008 517-302-1001 517-300-4015 517-300-4902 517-301-5011 517-301-5006 517-301-5003 517-302-2002 517-300-8001 517-300-8019 517-300-8017 517-300-8018 517-300-9004 517-300-9005 517-300-9002 517-301-0009 517-301-0003 517-301-1011 517-301-4900 517-302-2004 517-301-1020 517-301-1021 517-301-2025 517-301-2027 517-301-3018 517-301-3014 517-301-3020 517-301-3016 517-302-3001 516-300-1002 516-300-2023 516-300-2009 516-300-2026 516-300-3012 516-300-4005 516-300-4008 516-300-4007 516-300-5006 516-300-5005 516-300-5007 516-300-5001 516-300-5013 516-300-5003 516-300-9901 516-300-8001 516-300-8004 516-300-8003

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

516-300-8005 516-300-8012 516-300-7013 516-300-7010 516-300-6013 516-300-6016 516-300-6017 NA 516-300-6012 516-300-6027 516-300-9005 516-300-9001 516-301-2015 516-301-2900 516-301-2004 516-301-5028 516-301-5029 516-301-5022 516-301-5006 516-301-5007 516-301-5002 516-301-5003 516-301-3001 516-301-3009 516-301-3900 516-301-4011 516-301-4009 NA 516-400-5002

1 6

7

2

8

3 9

10 14

11 12 16

4

15

13

17

18

19

20

21 23

24

25

22 27

26

29 28

31 32

30

33

35 37 34

39 40

36

38

41

43 44 42

45

49 50

54

51

48

47

56

52

58 53

46

55

57

59 61 60

62

63 65

68

71

75 70

64 66

72 74

69

76 67 77 78

82

81

80 79

83

84 85

88

86

89

87

85

90

93 91 92 92

5

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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

517-300-3009 517-301-8001 517-301-9006 507-301-9001 507-301-9009 517-300-1024 517-300-1017 517-300-1900 517-300-2010 517-300-3010 517-300-3002 517-300-3001 517-301-7006 517-301-7008 517-302-0010 NA NA 517-301-7006 517-301-6008 517-302-1001 517-300-4015 517-300-4902 517-301-5011 517-301-5006 517-301-5003 517-302-2002 517-300-8001 517-300-8019 517-300-8017 517-300-8018 517-300-9004 517-300-9005 517-300-9002 517-301-0009 517-301-0003 517-301-1011 517-301-4900 517-302-2004 517-301-1020 517-301-1021 517-301-2025 517-301-2027 517-301-3018 517-301-3014 517-301-3020 517-301-3016 517-302-3001 516-300-1002 516-300-2023 516-300-2009 516-300-2026 516-300-3012 516-300-4005 516-300-4008 516-300-4007 516-300-5006 516-300-5005 516-300-5007 516-300-5001 516-300-5013 516-300-5003 516-300-9901 516-300-8001 516-300-8004 516-300-8003

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

516-300-8005 516-300-8012 516-300-7013 516-300-7010 516-300-6013 516-300-6016 516-300-6017 NA 516-300-6012 516-300-6027 516-300-9005 516-300-9001 516-301-2015 516-301-2900 516-301-2004 516-301-5028 516-301-5029 516-301-5022 516-301-5006 516-301-5007 516-301-5002 516-301-5003 516-301-3001 516-301-3009 516-301-3900 516-301-4011 516-301-4009 NA 516-400-5002

1a 2a 2b 3a 4a 5a 6a 6b 6c

517-300-3009 517-301-8001 517-301-8001 517-301-9006 507-301-9001 507-301-9009 517-300-1024 517-300-1024 517-300-1024

7a 517-300-1017 8a 517-300-1900 9a 517-300-2010 10a 517-300-3010 11a 517-300-3002 12a 517-300-3001 13a 517-301-7006 14a 517-301-7008 15a 517-302-0010 16a NA 17a NA 18a 517-301-7006 18b 517-301-7006 19a 517-301-6008 19b 517-301-6008 20a 517-302-1001 21a 517-300-4015 22a 517-300-4902 23a 517-301-5011 24a 517-301-5006 25a 517-301-5003 26a 517-302-2002 27a 517-300-8001 28a 517-300-8019 29a 517-300-8017 30a 517-300-8018 31a 517-300-9004

32a 33a 34a 35a 36a 37a 37b 37c 38a 39a 40a 41a 42a 43a 44a 44b 45a 46a 47a 48a 49a 50a 51a 52a 53a 54a 55a 56a 56b 56c 56d

517-300-9005 517-300-9002 517-301-0009 517-301-0003 517-301-1011 517-301-4900 517-301-4900 517-301-4900 517-302-2004 517-301-1020 517-301-1021 517-301-2025 517-301-2027 517-301-3018 517-301-3014 517-301-3014 517-301-3020 517-301-3016 517-302-3001 516-300-1002 516-300-2023 516-300-2009 516-300-2026 516-300-3012 516-300-4005 516-300-4008 516-300-4007 516-300-5006 516-300-5006 516-300-5006 516-300-5006

57a 58a 59a 60a 61a 62a 63a 64a 65a 65b 65c 65d

516-300-5005 516-300-5007 516-300-5001 516-300-5013 516-300-5003 516-300-9901 516-300-8001 516-300-8004 516-300-8003 516-300-8003 516-300-8003 516-300-8003

94

94

105 acres open space (46%)

combination type D

further density zone possibilities type D density zone I density II

density III

Bunker Hill +175’

density IV

Old Downtown +25’

use: location: density: total sq. ft.: # of units: unit sq. ft.: housing type:

housing located at northern portion of site zone I 210,000 sq. ft.

140 dwelling units 1,138 sq. ft. single-loaded corridor

use: location: density: total sq. ft.: # of floors: floor sq. ft.: building type:

commercial located at northern portion of site zone I 50,750 sq. ft.

3.5 stories of commercial and services 14,500 sq. ft.

100’ x 145’ ft. building

use: location: density: total sq. ft.: # of units: unit sq. ft.: housing type:

housing located at northern portion of site zone I 68,000 sq. ft.

48 dwelling units 1,138 sq. ft. single-loaded corridor

Skid Row +10’

Little Tok +10’

single owner single use

type B

type E

type G

two owners multiple use

single owner single use

type F single owner single use

single owner multiple use

type C

type H

single owner single use

type I

two owners multiple use

two owners single use

single owner single use

type D

73

multiple owners multiple use

ownership

program bar connector bar

single owner

two owners

multiple owners

housing commercial and servies housing

Zoning: Local Residential Amenities Retail Services Educational

Zoning: Regional Civic Cultural Entertainment Commercial Hospitality Infrastructure 400’ 300’ 200’ 100’

Arts District 0’

Los Angeles River -35’

Boyle Heights +25’

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

kyo Little Tokyo +10’

type A

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

design process

housing bars

74

existing buildings

extension of existing infrastructural grid

cross-connections: circulation and program

ElastiCity

housing typologies a diversity of living units accommodates a variety of user groups and lifestyles

Volume 3 : downtown Arts District proposal ElastiCity

combination type D use: housing location: northern portion of site density: zone I total sq. ft.: 210,000 sq. ft. # of units: 140 dwelling units unit sq. ft.: 1,100-3,000 sq. ft. housing type: single loaded corridor building commercial connector/support

corporate suites

artists’ live/work lofts

combination type F use: housing location: southwest corner of site Arts District density: zone III total sq. ft.: 82,856 sq. ft. # of units: 30 dwelling units unit sq. ft.: 1,400 sq. ft. housing type: lofts

combination type H housing bar use: mid portion of site, First Street location: zone III density: 29,120 sq. ft. total sq. ft.: 20 dwelling units # of units: 1,000 sq. ft. unit sq. ft.: housing type: student housing, centrally organized

student housing

combination type G use: housing location: west portion of site adjacent to cultural plaza density: zone II total sq. ft.: 80,580 sq. ft. # of units: 40 dwelling units unit sq. ft.: 1,200 sq. ft. housing type: double-loaded corridor

young professional units combination type C use: housing location: mid portion of site, First Street density: zone II total sq. ft.: 27,935 sq. ft. # of units: 20 dwelling units unit sq. ft.: 1,350 sq. ft. housing type: single-loaded corridor townhouse units

family townhome apartments

use: location: density: total sq. ft.:

courtyard connector/recreation mid portion of site, First Street zone II 7,250 sq. ft.

combination Type B use: housing location: northern part of site density: zone I total sq. ft.: 425,000 sq. ft. # of units: 476 dwelling units unit sq. ft.: 680 sq. ft. housing type: double-loaded corridor

hotel/tourism

use: location: density: total sq. ft.:

commercial and services northern part of site zone I 29,000 sq. ft. / 14,500 sq. ft.

75

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

76

Chavez Ravine proposals

77

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Chavez Pass

78

Chavez Pass

79

Chavez Pass

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

Volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Chavez Pass

80 stadium

parks

housing

conceptual planning

urban context

sections

problem Downtown Los Angeles, a major pulse of the city, houses the art community, the cultural corridor, the convention center, the financial center, the business district, the civic powerhouse, and the manufacturing district. Even with such an intense urban fabric, the city lacks the housing thread that binds a city together. The heavily charged city at day turns into a desolated ghost town for the homeless and crime. The lack of housing units in downtown is driving people out into the outskirt of the city to live.

When the entire workforce of a city tries to discharge itself through its limited infrastructure within a relatively small window of time, it is inevitable that traffic congestion would take place. The existing capacity of road infrastructures is not large enough to handle the extreme volume of cars without delays.

It is quite evident that within a few years, Los Angeles will have to increase housing levels to match the projected population growth. Our proposal for the placement of new housing complexes in Chavez Ravine and the relocation of Dodger Stadium to downtown Los Angeles will not only solve the housing crunch but will also help ease traffic congestion; two major problems that have been placed on the side for too long.

The research proposes new urban housing, Chavez Pass, to both rejuvenate downtown Los Angeles and alleviate traffic conditions on the freeways.

This research takes an alternative look at urban planning. The process includes the investigation of modes of adaptation and the mediation of organizational structure that give rise to emergent forms. The emergent flows provide for a predominance of fluid space over static location. Furthermore, these flows provide the networked urban links and interdependencies and imply the capability of change over time.

The idea of temporal urbanization networks multiple linkages generating overlapping. Through the overlapping, it forges new collaborative groupings and zones of interrelated modes of adaptation.

proposal Major components of the proposal include 10,000 units of housing for 35,000 people, a comprehensive school, a retail/commercial center, the activation of Elysian Park, and the extension of Figueroa Street.

The most influential flows of the site include the Spanish grid of downtown, the greens of Elysian Park, the topography of the site and the freeway system. The first emergent flow of line generated was the extension of Figueroa Street from downtown through the site, linking to the Freeway.

The Figueroa connection provides the urban link and interdependency for site. The infrastructure grid then fuses with Elysian Park and the Spanish grid.

On the infrastructure grid are the housing components. The two housing typologies include a curvilinear ribbon typology [fifteen stories] and a linear bar typology [one-four stories]. The ribbon typology emerging from Elysian Park take dominates the north end and slowly dissipates moving south. The ribbon typology also bridges residential blocks to serve as a connection mechanism. The bar typology is derived from the Spanish grid system. While it dominates the downtown edge, it slowly dissolves into the landscape. The bar typology also projects into the park to serve as a connection between the residential community and the park. This strata system of two housing typologies creates overlapping of zones that reveal pockets of open space.

The park is a gift to the city, as it reactivates Elysian Park by providing an additional of 3,700,000 square feet of active park. The park is threaded with zones of activity passage, gathering, focus, tranquility, and learning and interlaced with zones of game/leisure.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

Continuous change is the only thing constant in contemporary urban culture. However, current urban planning involves the prescriptive method of predictability and determinable control, implying the control of space and time. With ongoing changes and multiple futures, this method seems inept.

81

Chavez Pass

process

urban context

Chavez Pass concept

Los Angeles Downtown

Volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

Chavez Pass

Figueroa Express

82

2004

Los Angeles

3,912,200

people 11.5 persons / acre

2002 2000

1990

3,798,981 people 3,694,820 people

new Dodger Stadium

3,485,398 people

1980

2,966,850 people

1970

1960

2,816,061 people

1950

2,479,015 people

1,970,358 people

1940

1,504,277 people

1930

1,238,048 people

1920

576,700 people

1900

102,500 people

1850 1800

population (top 5 North America) Los Angeles – Long Beach – Santa Ana 11,789,487 people >> 7,068.3 persons/sq. mi.

Toronto 366,508 people

proposal:

>> 6,835.2 persons/sq. mi.

San Francisco – Oakland 3,228,605 people >> 6,130.4 persons/sq. mi.

San Jose 1,538,312 people >> 5,914.1 persons/sq. mi.

New York – Newark 17,799,861 people >> 5,309.3 persons/sq. mi.

1,610 people 315 people

10,000 public housing for downtwon L.A.

case studies Culver City population

West Hollywood

38,816

35,716

land area 3200 acres population density 12.13 persons/acre

1210 acres 29.51 persons/acre

park 13 (88 acres) area/person 98.75 sq. ft./person

4(16.97 acres) 20.69 sq. ft./person

total amenities

212 (100%)

248 (100%)

stores

61 (28.8%)

114 (45.9%)

eateries

50 (23.6%)

75 (30.3%)

main supermarkets

3

5

case study

city case study

urban context

city case study

Elysian Park

Chavez Pass residential 35,000 people 10,000 families 133 persons/acre

proposal:

junction to 5 Freeway proposal:

83

Chavez Pass

Figueroa Bridge

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

proposal:

Chinatown Bridge

proposal:

tunnel

Chinatown

and Solano Canyon

Echo Park

Park La brea

Chavez Pass

25,006

30,577

7,722

35,000

215.8 acres 115.9 persons/acre

233.9 acres 130.7 persons/acre

160 acres48.26 persons/acre

263 acres 133 persons/acre

1 -

1 (31 acres) 51 sq. ft./person

1 (28.26 acres) 159.4 sq. ft./person

255 (100%)

235 (100%)

137 (100%)

New Elysian (705 acres) 877 sq. ft./person

232 (91%)

131(56%)

130 (94.9%)

71 (27%)

95 (42%)

48 (35%)

1

1

2

neighbor community residential project

160 (26,200 sq.ft) 29 (18%) 71 (35%) 3

site

figure-ground map

84

Volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

Chavez Pass

urban context

0 0

100ft

500ft

1000f

1/3mile

1/2mile

1 mile

urban context

zoning connections diagram

Figueroa Street: the connective spline

Elysian Park

Chavez Pass

85

Cultural Corridor Financial Core

housing area

Civic Center Arts District

Jewelry District

Chavez Ravine Figueroa Terrace Solano Canyon Alpine Hill

entertainment district

Flower District

Toy District

active area Elysian park West Village East Village

South Park Fashion District

Warehouse District

Chinatown Civic Center Cultural Corridor Financial Core Sport City

These two maps of downtown give a brief overview of the larger context of the given problem. The map on the left is a figure-ground view which shows how the project transitions from the hills of Elysian Park into the Chavez Pass development, then continues to downtown Los Angeles via the proposed Figueroa Bridge connection. Finally, the scope of the design terminates at the new Dodger Stadium location in the Entertainment District, which is within the residential area of South Park. The map above illustrates the different parts of downtown and adjacent areas of Elysian Park that the Chavez Pass project has to incorporate and ultimately connect.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

Chinatown

Chavez Pass

F i g u e ro a Terrace

urban context

grid dynamics

5F

ree

wa

y

Sc

ott

W. S

Extension

Bend Elysian Park

86

st

ad

iu

m

wa

y

ee

Elysian Park

in

Fr

wa

Ma

1

g

rin

Sp

Hill

N.

10

y

W. C o

llege

Alp

ine

new grid Ord

pedestrian grid

Ces

ar C

Sp

rin

g

Figueroa Express

Alameda

city grid tunnel

Te m

bridge

1s

y

freeway 0 11

freeway exit

a ew

t

e

Fr

5th 6th

ay

10 Freew

9th

Ol

ym

Fi gu er o Fl ow a e r Ho Gr pe an d Br oa Hi l dw l a Ma y in

Volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

City Grids

set

no Sola

Chavez Pass

un

pic

Pi

co

17

th

To create the framework for the new development at Elysian Park, the site pulls in the existing urban fabric from adjacent districts. To the east, the site incorporates Solano Canyon and Chinatown, not only by using the existing grid but also constructing new connections over the 101 Freeway. To the south, the most important connection is made with Figueroa Street, connecting the site directly to downtown through Alpine Hill.

To the west, connection is made to the everyday amenities of Echo Park.

4th

ple

hav

ez

Broadway

conceptual planning

programming and open space

parking: 4,750,000 sq. ft. = 19,000 stalls residential parking commercial parking park parking

school 800,000 sq. ft. activity center 9000 sq. ft. business center - 3 jogging path 2.1 mile sport grounds

12-15 Stories

ribbon housing

amenities

5 Stories 4 Stories 3 Stories 2 Stories

Residential west: 9,000 sq. ft. east: 225,000 sq. ft.

surface parking housing parking: 4,750,000 sq. ft. = 19,000 stalls amenities parking: 450,000 sq. ft. = 1,800 stalls

general public retail and commercial Center: 3,000 sq. ft. park amenities: 25,000 sq. ft.

87

commercial

underground parking

active park

open space type 1:

open space type 2:

open spacetype 3:

open space type 4:

open space type 5:

3,700,00 sq. ft. open spaces

public garden

private garden

landscape area

hardscape

parks and sports fields

The diagrams above show the complexity of the site’s zones and uses. The goal of this project was not only to create a self-sustaining community, but also to offer the greater population the amenity of Elysian Park by making Chavez Pass a destination and helping to rejuvenate the downtown area by giving residents quick access to nature and active parks. In addition to the active parks, the site planning also introduces a series of retail and commercial nodes within Chavez Pass. This is once again to provide amenities to the residents and daily commuters of Chavez Pass, but also to residents of nearby downtown Los Angeles with a secondary amenity structure. The diagram also depicts the use of infrastructure to develop a secondary framework (the first being the existing city grids) for the design of the project. The first in this series are larger residential blocks that also house retail and follow the topography to traverse the site.

The second system are medium sized residential buildings the branch out from the larger buildings helping to create smaller neighborhoods.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

bar housing

Chavez Pass

double bay for 3+ stories buildings single bay for 1-2 stories buildings

housing

housing sections

step1: Figueroa Express divides the site into three parts

step 3: housing density switches from urban to natural

88

Volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

Chavez Pass

step1: maximum housing with city grid

park 5400 ft

4500 ft

3600 ft

2700 ft

1800 ft

900 ft 0 ft

urban

downtown L.A.

housing

housing process

step 4: topology

step 5: hillside high-rise housing

step 6: combination

bar housing

central park

ribbon housing

school

bar housing

Figueroa Bridge

West Village

Chinatown Complex

Central Park

Chavez Pass residential

East Village

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

ribbon housing

Chavez Pass

89

park

new Elysian park

active Zone

active zone 90

Volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

Chavez Pass

active zone

central park activezone

active zone

activity center

active zone

school

Cornfield Art Project

park+landscape active zone: open space for activity softscape: landscape hardscape: playgrounds, yards, courses and parking buildings: schools & activity center

new Elysian Park

current Elysian Park

new Elysian

active zone 214.3 acres

area active zone families people area/person bike trail jogging way parking

705 acres 214.3 acres 10,000 35,000 877 sq. ft./person 2.7 miles 2.2 miles 1,800

=2.9 current Elysian

active zone 73.2 acres

area active zone jogging path bike trail families

705 acres 73.2 acres 0 0 288

park

Chavez Pass central park

pedestrian promenade yards pedestrian pathways parks pedestrian pathways bike path jogging path pedestrian bridges

vehicular access and parking Local entrance Vehicular paths Public parking Vehicular bridges

current Elysian Park softscape active zone public park parking stadium Cornfield Art Project

central park zoning zone of game/leisure: play, compete, and entertain zone of passage: course movement zone of gathering: meeting, crossing and intersection zone of focus: gathering zone of tranquility: serenity, peace, and silence zone of learning: educational centers

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

91

Chavez Pass

Freeway connections

stadium

new Dodger Stadium

110 Freeway

F

Dash route F collects passengers from Chavez Pass, Exposition, and USC.

C

Dash route C collects passengers from adjacent surface lots.

D

Dash route D collects passengers from Union Station, which serves Pasadena (Gold Line), San Fernando Valley (Red Line), and MetroLink lines running from Simi Valley to Orange County.

F

1

2

3

C

Volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

Chavez Pass

1

1

2

1

4 6

92

The grey represents large existing surface lots within walking distance of the stadium or Dash lines to the area.

The new public park becomes integrated with the ballpark, retail, and residential buildings to serve the immediate downtown area.

Downtown Dodger Stadium Transit Hub would combine the Blue Line’s Pico Station with multiple bus routes at street level.

Long Beach passengersarrive on the Blue Line & South Bay/Inglewood residents via the Green Line.

8 7 2

2 1

1

1

3

9

1

1

D

4 5

10 Freeway

0 0

100ft

500ft

1000f

1/3mile

1/2mile

1 mile

The placement of the stadium in the South Park area of downtown was chosen for several reasons: Accessibility by multiple modes of transit, adjacency to similar functions for shared use, and placement with minor disruption to existing infrastructure.

As the diagram shows above, the stadium can now be accessed from a greater distance through multiple modes of transportation. The Metro Rail system will now bring people from Long Beach and the South Bay via the Blue and Green lines as well as from Montclair and Pasadena via the Gold Line. Additionally, the MetroLink system, which serves from Simi Valley and Ventura County to Orange County, can be utilized though Union Station connections.

On a more local scale, the location of the new stadium takes advantage of the downtown Dash shuttle system, connecting the stadium to nearby surface lots, Union Station for long–distance connections, and the new Chavez Pass development at Elysian Park.

5

Grand Avenue Station

6

existing Grand Hope Park

7

downtown Dodger Stadium: capacity 35,000

8

Staples Center capacity: 20,000/18,500

9

Los Angeles Convention Center 720,000 sq. ft. of exhibition space

110 Freeway

new stadium programming 10 Freeway Transit

Stadium

Park Offices

Retail

Eat/Drink

Eat/Drink

Retail

Living

Parking

Offices

P

Eat/Drink

Park

Park

Eat/Drink

Retail

Living

Living

Parking

P

Living

Offices

Eat/Drink

Chavez Pass

D 3

2

7

C

F

8

6

110 Freeway

As the ballpark investigates the Entertainment District of downtown Los Angeles, the stadium is also able to share uses with the adjacent Staples Center and Convention Center by providing parking structures and a transit hub which organizes the transit routes to and from the new district.

The end location of the ballpark was refined by the proximity of different downtown infrastructure such as gas stations, DASH routes, traffic patterns, and the rail line. Institutional buildings in South Park, such as the Methodist Church or the Museum of Neon Art, were also considered when making the decision.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal

93

The lights come up on the outfield as the sun sets behind the silhouette of Los Angeles. The crowd cheers for the home team. Friends and neighbors surround you. You take your kids here. This is the place where they grew up. You can look down to the fields past the outfield and remember their soccer games on Saturday mornings. You’re a moment’s commute via light rail to the place where you work. You can walk to buy groceries. You don’t have to wait in line to leave the game. You don’t have to fight traffic to get home. This isn’t just your home team. It’s your home town. Welcome to a redefined Los Angeles. Welcome to Stadium City.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

94

As Los Angeles continues to evolve, the need to provide adequate housing is even more essential. With an opportunity to explore new housing solutions for Chavez Ravine, this proposal looks to the site’s controversial past. Previous research suggested that the most appropriate solution to the deserted hilltop would be a mixed-use community that is self-sufficient but with strong connections to its surroundings. To augment the al-

ready spectacular views from the site and alleviate difficult access to the site, this proposal regrades the terraced parking lots closer to the site’s original (pre-1960s) topography. Because the site is already a regional destination with an iconic sense of place, Stadium City capitalizes on this strong identity by offering a rejuvenating urbanity that could define a new community.

This housing proposal takes into consideration the evolution

of Los Angeles’ density in the last hundred years and its historically additive nature. This trajectory of increasing population density throughout Los Angeles points to a more radical solution to low-lying urbanity—one found in successful city centers from around the globe at the same latitude (thirty four degrees north and south) and climatic zone—cities with a similar iconic center and density.

This proposal begins by cov-

ering the entire site with a mat, or blanket, of housing. This blanket responds to the topography of the site by thinning and thickening, thus producing different densities of housing. The types of housing are generated by open space, which varies based on the slope and density of the site. These open spaces, along with other program such as schools and commercial and retail spaces, took the form of voids, which cut into the housing mat.

Stadium City

This approach is not only historically radical in its subtractive versus additive nature, but formally radical as well, in that the result is a reversal of the traditional figure/ ground. By building out to the edges and bringing the open space into the center of the city block in the form of courtyards, this proposal captures under utilized open space from the periphery of a block and makes it usable once again. The resulting courtyards are linked to

one another, creating a pedestrian network that can function independently of roads and traffic.

Adding tens-of-thousands of additional people to a difficult site requires series of accessiblity solutions that would ease traffic in and out of the site, satisfy parking needs, and stitch the previously disenfranchised site back to its surrounding communities.

The proposal is to create two separate but concurrent systems that func-

tion autonomously but are also inextricably linked. That is, a housing system with its own infrastructure and services (retail and public) and a stadium with its own amenities and a road and rail network. The housing community would benefit from the site’s views and proximity to Elysian Park and downtown without being burdened by stadium traffic and game-goers.

These two systems are linked to each other as well as to sur-

rounding communities with infrastructure and schools. The mixed use of the stadium outfield and its overlap with school fields creates an entity that will serve as the city center. The combination of Los Angeles’ urban density with the stadium in a community that is linked by pedestrian green spaces gets us what we call Stadium City.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

95

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

Stadium City

96

MAT

VOIDS

CASE STUDIES

PROGRAM

HOUSING

AMENITIES

MOVEMENT

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

97

MAT

After bringing back topography similar to that of pre-stadium Chavez Ravine, this proposal begins by testing how much of the site would be covered if it housed 30,000 people. This housing blanket over the site (targeting an urban, 33-unit-per-acre density) is gridded to half the size of downtown’s grid, and aligned with Figueroa Street and Dodger Stadium. Large programmatic elements—the stadium, retail promenade, and schools—carve tabulated voids into this gridded mat and are later incorporated in the form of the figure/ground. A study of connections and an “optimal” neighborhood walking distance leads to the distribution of neighborhoods.

CHAVEZ RAVINE SITE WORK THROUGHOUT TIME

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

1928 SURVEY

1969 SURVEY

CUT FILL

THICKENED MAT

APPROPRIATED GRID

PROPOSED (2006)

CUT FILL

93 BLOCKS ON SITE

CL

98

1

24

32

68 77

60 69

85

61 70

79 86

92

62 71

80 87

72 81

88

89

56

64 73

82

47

55

65 74

83 90

30

38

46

54 63

22 29

37

45

53

21 28

36

44

52

27

35

43

51

78

34

42

50 59

15

20

26

9

14

19

25

33

41

8

13

18

4

7

12

17

3

6

11

16 23

2

5

10

HOUSING MAT

39 48

57 66

75 84

31 40

49 58

67 76

91 93

100 UNITS 600 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT

CL

DOWNTOWN GRID

50%

+

50%

VILLAGE GREEN

60,000 SQ. FT.

68 ACRES 629 UNITS 9.25 UNITS / ACRE

PHOTOS BY N. CHIAPPA

OPEN SPACE / INFRASTRUCTURE

=

400’ 300’

120,000 SQ. FT.

60,000 SQ. FT.

PARK LA BREA

166 ACRES 4,200 UNITS 25 UNITS / ACRE

HOUSING MAT

SMALL VOIDS

HOUSING MAT (312.5 ACRES)

50 x 50 FT. VOIDS (125 FT. O.C.)

25 x 20 FT. VOIDS (50 FT. O.C.)

SITE ACCESS

FORMATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS 99

PRIMARY ACCESS SECONDARY ACCESS 1/8 MILE RADIUS 1/4 MILE RADIUS

DODGER STADIUM (15 ACRES): HIGH SCHOOL (15 ACRES): MIDDLE SCHOOL (9 ACRES): ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (3 ACRES): ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (3 ACRES):

STADIUM CITY

258 ACRES 8,500 UNITS 33 UNITS / ACRE

NORMANDIE / VERMONT / THIRD ST. / FIFTH ST.

77 ACRES 4,100 UNITS (LOS ANGELES’S DENSEST CENSUS TRACT) 53 UNITS / ACRE

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

MAJOR VOIDS

MEDIUM VOIDS

LARGE VOIDS

SLOPES

HOUSING DENSITY

VOIDS volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

95 x 100 FT. VOIDS (225 FT. O.C.)

0 - 8.5 DEGREES 8.5 -14 DEGREES 14 - 25 DEGREES

2 STORIES 3 STORIES 4 STORIES

100

The complex shape of the figure/ ground is a result of a systematic subtractive approach.

Green spaces are formed by three systems of voids overlaid on the mat and subtracted based on various factors. The sizes and distribution of the

voids were determined by intended program—small voids serving private functions and larger voids for public use and circulation. The medium-sized voids serve the denser areas where the mat was thickened (in the newly excavated valleys); the

COMBINED TEMPLATE

EXTRACTED FIGURES

FIGURE / GROUND

LARGE VOIDS—MEDIUM VOIDS

HIGH SLOPE —LOW DENSITY

SMALL VOIDS—MEDIUM VOIDS

LIGHT DENSITY—HIGH SLOPE

smaller voids are arrayed on the sloped surfaces to accommodate terrace housing and larger homes. As the housing approaches Elysian Park the solid form begins to fray, increasing the surface area and therefore the number of homes

SMALL VOIDS

with direct access to the park.

Idiosyncrasies formed in the system, as arterial streets cut through the site to connect to existing traffic flows and as hillside streets disappear or curve to accommodate the excessive slope.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

101 HIGH DENSITY—MODERATE SLOPE

LOS ANGELES, USA

SANTIAGO, CHILE PLAZA DE ARMAS

CÓRDOBA, SPAIN

ISFAHAN, IRAN

LA MEZQUITA

MAIDAN-I-SHAN

ALTERNATE BUILDING TYPE

HOUSING MAT

SHOPPING PASAJES

PLAZA CRACKS

SOUK

CARTESIAN GRID

ALLEYS

HAUSSMANNIAN CUTS

MONUMENTAL VOID

FOUND OBJECT

MONUMENTAL VOID

RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL COMUNES

MOVEMENT

102

ANCHOR

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

HOUSING

CASE STUDIES

FIGURE / GROUND

STADIUM CITY

34° N

Other cities of similar latitude and climate, suggest powerful precedents for a particular type of housing that aggregates within cities as over time. With similar weather patterns and geographical environments, these cities serve as important examples of outdoor and 34° S

pedestrian-oriented planning—the ultimate goal of Stadium City. For this study we chose Santiago (Chile), Córdoba (Spain), and Isfahan (Iran) and attempted to seek what makes these cities successful and apply that logic to Stadium City.

These precedent studies emphasize key el-

LEGEND:

CHAPARRAL CLIMATIC ZONE

ements in planning Stadium City: housing, retail, vehicular/pedestrian access, green spaces, and iconographic objects/monumental voids. The study shows how each of these elements is incorporated into our city in a same-scale comparison.

TEN-DEGREE LATITUDINAL BAND

1900s

The notion of a housing mat that is then cut, or carved out, by programmatic voids is not a new one. Rather it follows the examples of European and Middle Eastern city models represented here.

They are a fitting models for a city like

1920s

1960s

Los Angeles. A suburban/urban trend of an increasing built-to-lot-size ratio has pushed the remaining minimal open space to the perimeter, making its use less practical. This proposal suggests a move toward a more effec-

1990s

STADIUM CITY

tive “courtyard housing� model, which allows construction to go to the perimeter, and in turn brings open spaces into the interior of the lot.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

103

PARKS AND PUBLIC SPACE

PROGRAM

• Elysian Park: 551 acres (127 acres active open space) • 14.5 acre city park • 2.9 acre promenade • 65 commercial plazas

NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARES • 160 pedestrian oriented public squares (approx.

10,000 sq. ft. each) • 13 acres of public school open space

SHARED COURTYARDS

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

• 140 semi-private courtyards (approx. 2,500 sq. ft. each)

REGIONAL PROGRAMING • Includes private outdoor retail promenade, stadium, parking garages, and lightrail station • See later pages for more information

LOCAL PROGRAMING • Includes private local retail properties and public school facilities • See later pages for more information

APARTMENTS • Three and four stories • 2,100 units (800 sq. ft., 1 bedroom) • 2,300 units (1,000 sq. ft., 2 bedrooms) • 1,900 units (1,200 sq. ft., 3 bedrooms)

104

PRIVATE GARDENS •1,557 private gardens (500 sq. ft. each)

PRIVATE TERRACES • 521 private terraces (approx. 750 sq. ft. each)

TOTAL GREEN SPACE

CONDOMINIUM (TYPE A) • Two stories • 440 units (1,200 sq. ft., 2 bedrooms) • 440 units (1,800 sq. ft., 3 bedrooms) • 320 units (2,000 sq. ft., 4 bedrooms)

CONDOMINIUM (TYPE B) • Two stories • 360 units (1,200 sq. ft., 2 bedrooms) • 360 units (1,800 sq. ft., 3 bedrooms) • 280 units (2,000 sq. ft., 4 bedrooms)

TOTAL PROGRAM

ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION

COMMUNITY SPACE

COURTYARD HOUSING • 6,300 total rental units • 74% of total proposed units

GARDEN HOUSING • 1,200 units for sale • 500 sq. ft. private, enclosed garden each unit

TERRACE HOUSING • 1,000 units for sale • 750 sq. ft. private terrace • City or park views

URBAN COMPLEXITY

The subtractive quality of desired green spaces leaves a built footprint of approximately 50% of the site. The voids created become the programmatic drivers and dictate what type of program is associated with them. Green spaces are broken down into five types (public spaces/parks, neighborhood squares, shared courtyards, private terraces, and private gardens). The matrix above shows the associated program and housing that are paired up with each type of green space and the resultant product of these.

Public spaces include the stadium outfield and fields associated with schools. The public shopping promenade will link the stadium with parking and the light

rail station. Neighborhood squares tie together the four neighboring schools and communities. This creates a completely pedestrian network devoid of vehicular traffic.

Looking back at the housing density diagram, one can see how the densest apartment housing falls within the areas of shared courtyards, which congregate along main local roads and flat areas. Finally, private gardens and terraces are the result of the smallest voids perforating the mat or the space remaining between voids that are sitting on top of the mat—creating terrace housing in the steepest sloped areas.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

105

HOUSING TERRACE HOUSING

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

Private terraces take advantage of the highest sloped areas. These are created where the voids can’t cut into the mat due to slope and dense housing areas.

106

COURTYARD HOUSING These semi-private courtyards are shared by a group of apartments and typically occur in the densest housing areas. These are near local retail streets and are located on the flattest areas of our site.

’

GARDEN HOUSING These private gardens are based on the smallest voids cutting the housing mat. They take place throughout the site, particularly on the edges toward Elysian Park and away from the main pedestrian circulation.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

107

AMENITIES

NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • 900 seats for the newly established north neighborhood • Approximately 70,000 sq. ft.

ES

ES

NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL • 1,300 seats for Stadium City and surrounding neighborhoods • Approximately 150,000 sq. ft.

MONTECITO DEL LIO POLITTI REC. CENTER

NEW HIGH SCHOOL

POLICE ACADEMY

• 1,400 seats for Stadium City and surrounding neighborhoods • Approximately 240,000 sq. ft.

ELYSIAN PARK REC CENTER

ES ES

CITY PARK / ATHLETIC FIELDS • Full size soccer pitch, 8-lane running track, football field, and amphitheater • 14.5 acres

BARLOW SANATORIUM

HS ES

CHAVEZ RAVINE ARBORETUM

MS

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

NEW DODGER STADIUM • Reduced seating capacity (56,000 to 45,000) via removed bleacher seating and improved amenities • Outfield bleachers replaced with sloping amphitheater / picnic area ES

NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • 900 seats for the newly established south

DECOMMISIONED US NAVAL RESERVE

108neighborhood

RS

THE CORNFIELDS

• Approximately 70,000 sq. ft.

LEGEND ES

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

MS

MIDDLE SCHOOL

HS RS

HIGH SCHOOL RELIGIOUS SCHOOL RECREATIONAL SPORTS / ENTERTAINMENT

?

RESIDENTIAL (LOW DENSITY)

ES

ES

RESIDENTIAL (MEDIUM DENSITY)

HS

COMMERCIAL

ALPINE REC. CENTER

INDUSTRIAL

RS

EVANS ADULT SCHOOL

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

LA COUNTY JAIL

CHINATOWN BRANCH LIBRARY

HILLSIDE

LAUSD HEADQUARTERS DOROTHY CHANDLER PAVILION

CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

?

LIBRARIES

DISNEY CONCERT HALL

?

CHURCHES ?

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

MAIN POST OFFICE

?

LA DWP

WATER

CITY, COUNTY, STATE, & FEDERAL OFFICES FEDERAL COURTS

COLBURN SCHOOL OF PERFORMING ARTS MOCA

UNION STATION METROPOLITAN WATER

LA CITY HALL

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS YMCA

LA CITY COLLEGE

LA CENTRAL LIBRARY

GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY

A new community of this size requires infrastructure and amenities to make it function. The zoning diagram places Stadium City within its context and shows how muchneeded amenities are proposed for the site and aid its surrounding neighborhoods. Stadium City is not only connected to the larger L.A. infrastructure by way of a new bridge, LA CONVENTION CENTER

light rail stations, and buses, but it is an integral part of the LA urban fabric. Dodger Stadium and the retail promenade serve as destination points within the city, but Stadium City as a community is stitched tightly with its neighboring communities, attempting to blur the lines between neighborhoods.

NEW GLENDALE STATION

GLENDALE STATION

MOVEMENT

• Connects to Gateway Station and downtown

NEW NORTH PARKING GARAGE • Overflow parking for sporting events and retail promenade • Park n’ Ride facility for downtown commuters

NEW PURPLE LIGHT RAIL LINE • Connects new Glendale Station and Elysian Park to downtown

NEW PURPLE DASH ROUTE • Connects Silver Lake to Union Station via Gateway Station

NEW METRO BUS ROUTES • Connects to existing Sunset Boulevard and 110 Freeway routes

TO PASADENA

STADIUM CITY

NEW GATEWAY STATION

GATEWAY STATION

NEW SOUTH PARKING GARAGE • Connects to new Glendale Station and Downtown via light rail • Connects to Silver Lake and Union Station via Dash

109

EXISTING DASH ROUTE EXISTING METRO GOLD LINE CHINATOWN STATION EXISTING METRO BUS ROUTES

CHINATOWN

EXISTING DASH ROUTE

UNION STATION

EXISTING DASH ROUTE

CIVIC CENTER

TO NORTH HOLLYWOOD

EXISTING METRO RED LINE EXISTING DASH ROUTE

7TH ST STATION

PERSHING SQUARE

EXISTING METRO BLUE LINE

HISTORIC DOWNTOWN

PICO/LA CONVENTION CENTER

TO USC

This proposal provides two large parking facilities (accommodating 7,500 cars each), on the periphery and near our site, which would keep stadium-related vehicular traffic completely offsite. These patrons would then arrive at the stadium by foot or light rail. The proposed Purple Line would link the Blue Line in downtown and a proposed Gateway Station.

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

• Connects to new Glendale Station and downtown via light rail • Connects to Silver Lake and Union Station via Dash

AMENITIES

STADIUM

• Reduced seats (56,000 to 45,000) • Improved amenities associated with new promenade • Over three million yearly visitors • Estimated $118m yearly revenue

AMPHITHEATER

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

Removed outfield bleachers open the stadium to the new city park beyond and the newly mounded earth creates a sloped picnic area to watch games.

GATEWAY 110

The new light rail station and grand staircase serve as the new site gateway. All non-local visitors coming from the parking garages and light rail must pass through this point to enter the retail promenade and stadium.

PROMONTORY The two arms of the promontory feature spectacular downtown views.

Bars, cafes, and restaurants line the walk to offset the heavy pre- and post-game traffic and promote onsite nightlife.

RETAIL PROMENADE

• 1.25 million sq. ft. retail space • 125 stores • Estimated 15+ million visitors • Estimated $45 million yearly lease income

LAND AND STADIUM

Frank McCourt’s purchase of Dodgers franchise and property

Purchase of new land

Improvements to Dodger Stadium INFRASTRUCTURE

Above ground parking structures (15,000 spaces total)

22 lane miles of new road construction ($600,000/lane miles)

Figueroa Street Bridge

Earth moving ($2.42/cu. yd. x 2 million cubic yards) SHOPPING

1.25 million sq. ft. regional shopping center (construction cost) PUBLIC AMENITIES

Schools (construction cost: 1 high school, 1 middle school, 2 elementary schools) HOUSING

Condominiums (construction cost: 2,200 units @ $200/SF)

Apartments (construction cost: 6,300 units @ $180/SF) TOTAL EXPENDITURES

COST 430 million 4 million 35 million 338 million 14 million 40 million 5 million 415 million 158 million 665 million 1,126 million 3,193 million

1,400-seat high school • 1,300-seat middle school • Two 900-seat elementary schools •

SCHOOLS DESTINATION AMENITIES The highest-capacity stadium in Major League Baseball, Dodger Stadium should be brought up to speed with the type of stadium model that has been profitable in the last decade—a smaller capacity stadium, with plenty of amenities for before and after games. This activity-centric stadium aids in dispersing the large numbers of people that attend a game throughout a longer period of time, therefore alleviating parking and traffic congestion.

The stadium is renovated to accommodate 46,000 people (about 10,000 less than it does now). It is enhanced with skyboxes and other key amenities. Linking it to the parking structure is a shopping promenade filled with restaurants and cafes. The promenade culminates with the new Gateway Station and will link the parking with the stadium.

1.4 million sq. ft. retail space • 200 stores •

LOCAL RETAIL

REVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE

Corporate parking revenue ($2/car x 3,000 cars/weekday) SHOPPING

Yearly net operating income:

(1.06 million leasable sq. ft. x $50/sq. ft. per year) x .85 operating expenses HOUSING

Condominium sales

Apartment rentals TOTAL REVENUE 5 years

10 years

15 years

2 million

45 million 1,520 million 106 million 2,285 million 3,050 million 3,815 million

* estimated costs and revenues based on similar studies at the time of the project (2004)

BACKGROUND PHOTO BY N. CHIAPPA

111

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

LOCAL AMENITIES Schools are strategically placed to take full advantage of open space behind the stadium. This space becomes a community amenity where activities and gatherings can happen. The schools are also located so that they are within an optimal walking distance of five to ten minutes from most surrounding areas and are accessible from the pedestrian network. Local retail includes approximately 200 stores (restaurants, pharmacies, bars, supermarkets, bookstores, dry cleaners, entertainment stores). This total was gathered from studying similarly sized communities and their percentage breakdown of types of stores (based on an estimated seven stores per 1,000 people).

MOVEMENT

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION

NEW FREEWAY ACCESS This new high-speed ramp to the 110 Freeway sits on the hillside above Solano Canyon and connects the site’s arterial roads to the larger downtown network.

FIGUEROA BRIDGE

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

This new bridge extends Figueroa Street directly on to the site, enhancing the connection between the site and downtown.

112 ELYSIAN PARK ACCESS The pedestrian circulation grid connects to Elysian Park and its recreational amenities at various points.

AMENITIES ACCESS The pedestrian circulation grid connects to the various site amenities— stadium, promenade, park, schools, and retail—at many points, promoting pedestrian interaction.

SEPARATE SYSTEMS The pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems have been separated as much as possible to enhance the walking experience throughout the site.

CHINATOWN ACCESS The pedestrian circulation system connects to an existing bridge over the 110 Freeway to Yale Street and Chinatown.

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

PROGRAMMATIC STACKING

LOCAL PARKING

HOUSING PARKING RETAIL PARKING

NORTH / SOUTH SECTION SOLANO CANYON

MIDDLE SCHOOL

PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESS NORTH GARAGE This massive ten-story, 7,500-car parking garage serves as overflow parking for the stadium and retail promenade and with easy access to both the 5 and 2 Freeways, as a Park n’ Ride facility for downtown commuters.

GARAGE LINK This new light rail connects the North Garage (via the new Glendale Station) to the South Garage and the new Gateway Station.

SOUTH GARAGE This massive ten-story, 7,500-car garage serves as primary parking for the stadium and promenade. It (like the North Garage) tucks into a natural indentation of the hillside.

GATEWAY STATION This new light-rail station serves as the primary entry point to the site and as a circulation nexus for public transit, vehicular, and pedestrian traffic.

DOWNTOWN LINK This new light-rail line connects to downtown, terminating at the Seventh Street Station.

VEHICULAR HIERARCHY FREEWAYS ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL

PEDESTRIAN DENSITY HEAVY MEDIUM LIGHT

MOVEMENT HIERARCHY

ACCESS SEPARATION

UTILIZATION OF SLOPE

PROMENADE

TERRACE HOUSING

FIGUEROA TUNNEL

AMPHITHEATER

STADIUM

SHOPPING PROMENADE

STATION

FIGUEROA BRIDGE

113

volume 4 : Chavez Ravine proposal Stadium City

SEPARATE SYSTEMS Vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation are purposely kept separate to alleviate the complexity of a community engaging a main entertainment destination. After studying scenarios of numbers of people on the site at different times of the day, it was necessary to create a system that would keep game-goers on foot and non-residential traffic offsite. This is achieved by new access points and parking garages, as well as by an efficient light-rail connector. A closer study of the vehicular hierarchy of and around our site and an estimated pedestrian use/ density of our site further supports the potential success of separating both of these systems.

134 136

156

170

184

198

transportation

research people & culture natural habitat

Chavez Ravine

downtown site

TC

end

case studies stadium housing

218

232 238

downtown Arts District site

Chavez Ravine / Elysian Park

natural habitat

zoning and planning city districts housing and office rates development housing 2003 housing 2020 site area and boundaries site description zoning and government land maps manmade habitat and building use building condition and material finishes APN site division building database 1 building database 2

site description history of Chavez Ravine grading begins grading finishes site area and boundaries general zoning general-plan land use council districts area planning site boundary APN site division building parcel data

Los Angeles River infrastructure Los Angeles River historic routes and timeline flood plains: city and rainfall flood region: metro and water infrastructure total residential yard arceage beaches in Los Angeles downtown Los Angeles -parks and open spaces -topography Chavez Ravine/Elysian Park water consumption and energy consumption air pollution, landslides and faultlines Arts District bedrock level Arts District site contamination Arts District water table map Arts District liquefaction zone

Research tabl

TC

people and culture

transportation

case study: housing

downtown population downtown population downtown population density downtown ethnic density income and downtown festivals cultural institutions -theaters and concert venues -museums and galleries -educational institutions -civic institutions -sports centers -religious institutions

rail California High-Speed rail SCAG Maglev Metro Rail travel dIstance Alameda Corridor Alameda Corridor national impact metro lines and cultural institutions alternative rail proposals for south end of Union Station bus lines travel distance by minutes destinations and time from site vehicles destination origin commuter maps roadway development history freeway development history freeway traffic travel time distance at normal time travel time distance at peak hours proposal 1a and 1b -extension of 2 Glendale Fwy and North Alameda Street proposal 2 -modern light rail transit system all transportation systems energy cost comparison construction cost comparison

plan comparison statistical comparison Elysian Heights Playa Vista Battery Park Euralille Shiodome Potzdamer Platz World Trade Center Kowloon Walled City

case study: stadium stadium comparisons downtown site location candidates

TC

downtown site

157

185

research natural habitat people & culture

171

Chavez Ravine

e of contents

135 137

199 transportation

219

233 239

case studies end housing stadium

descriptions, comments, and pertinent news

research

136

site: 5,500 ft. (1.04 miles)

downtown: 13,650 ft. (2.58 miles)

downtown site

downtown:

18,220 ft. (3.45 miles) site: 2,680 ft. (0.5 mile)

downtown Los Angeles Arts District

137 downtown site research

regional commerce R2, RD, RMP, RW2, R3, R4, R5

neighborhood commerce

high-density housing

CM, MR, CCS, M1, M2, M3, SL

PF

heavy industry

medium-density housing

CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, CW, ADP, LASED, WC

OS

light industry

open space / public and quasi-public lands

general zoning

websites: cityplanning.lacity.org zimas.lacity.org

use zoning

websites: cityplanning.lacity.org zimas.lacity.org

research

downtown site

138

Central City

Central City

Central City North

Central City North

neighborhood council districts

department of planning

websites: websites: cityplanning.lacity.org cityplanning.lacity.org navigatela.lacity.org navigatela.lacity.org now: 1. Hilda Munoz, Glendale Envisions a New Urban Village,” Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2003, sec. B. 2. Susan Carrier, “What’s green and well educated? Claremont,” Los Angeles Times, June 29, 2003, sec. K. 3. Daniel Hernandez and Janet Wilson, “4 Cities on U.S. List of Fastest Growing,” Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2003, sec. B.

now 1. The City of Glendale has voted to rezone twelve blocks of a major commercial boulevard to allow for a mixed-use housing and retail development. The development plan calls for five stories of both affordable and upscale housing to sit atop restaurants, markets, cafes, and shops. The project will follow the example of similar mixed-use facilities built in recent years in other Southern California cities, including Pasadena’s Paseo Colorado and Burbank’s Media Village.

2. Claremont is that rare city with both beauty and brains: 10,000 of its 36,000 residents hold advanced university degrees, and it boasts 23,500 trees located on public land. The seven Claremont Colleges occupy the center of town, and nine public K–12 schools, eight of which have been designated “distinguished schools” by the California School Recognition Program, sit next to twenty-one parks. The city also preserves 1,200 acres of foothills as a wilderness park.

3. The Inland Empire cities of Irvine, Rancho Cucamonga, Chula Vista, and Fontana grew more than 11% in two years, reflecting a strong demand for new housing in the area. ‑Other revitalization efforts are following fast: In Fontana, for example, $60 million to $80 million worth of civic development projects are in the works, including new roads which should attract commercial and retail developments to accompany increased housing.

district 9, Councilwoman Jan Perry district 14, Councilman Jose Huizar

business-improvement districts

city council districts

websites: cityplanning.lacity.org navigatela.lacity.org

websites: cityplanning.lacity.org navigatela.lacity.org

Amended Little Tokyo

City Center

Bunker Hill

Central Industrial

Little Tokyo

central business

community redevelopment agencies

research

website: ci.la.us/CRA now: 1. Patrick McGreevy, “State Agency Rejects Proposal for a New City at L.A. Harbor,” Los Angeles Times, July 24, 2003, sec. B. 2. Caitlin Liu, “Sprawl Tied to Higher Transportation Costs,” Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2003, sec. A.

now 1. LAFCO, a state agency, rejected a proposal to transform San Pedro and Wilmington into an independent municipality. A financial study by the agency concluded that the harbor area could not generate enough revenue to sustain the proposed city. Despite accusations that it wrongly excluded a major tax generating industrial area, LAFCO will not conduct a new study, maintaining that to do would constitute an inappropriate use of public funds.

2. As another effect of urban spawl, a recent study finds that families who live in spread out metropolitan areas with weak pubic transit networks spend more of their household budgets on transportation than people in denser regions. San Diego was ranked fourth nationally in expenses; the densely populated and transit-friendly New York City came in last. The Ctiy of San Diego was not surprised by the results of

downtown site

139

the study and is taking steps to mitigate the problem; it plans to spend $42 billion over the next 27 years to increase public transit and build more carpool lanes.

The report may draw attention to congressional debates over a federal transportation bill that will provide highway and transit funding over the next six years.

8,502

20%

7,000

15%

vacancy rates

8,000

10%

5,000

5%

4,000

0% 1996

1997

1998

residential space

1999

2000

2001

office space

3,350

housing unit construction

5,452

6,000

3,000

1,386

1,914

2,000

1,000

office rental rates / sq. ft.

$1.90 $1.80 $1.70 $1.60 $1.50

research

affordable units

downtown housing rates

website: downtownla.com

market units

$

Southeast Los Angeles

Mid-Wilshire

Mid-City

downtown

205

planned 2005 and beyond

planned 2003–2004

0

0

under construction

140

existing

downtown site

138

$0

The industrial vacancy in downtown was 2.6% in 2001.

The average net weighted rental rate in downtown is

$0.47 per square foot per month.

downtown office rates

website: downtownla.com

recreation education residential

13

infrastructure / civic

9

services / commercial

6 12

>$300 million <$300 million <$100 million

3 2 5 4 10 1415 7 11

8

<$50 million <$20 million 1

cost

address

1 L.A. Live 2 Grand Avenue Development 3 Gold Line Eastside Extension 4 Federal Courthouse 5 Police Headquarters 6 Walt Disney Concert Hall 7 Block 8/ Little Tokyo 8 South Village/Ralphs 9 Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels 10 Caltrans District 7 Headquarters 11 Santee Village 12 Colburn School of Performing Arts 13 California Endowment 14 Vibiana Place 15 Little Tokyo Branch Library

$2 billion $1.8 billion $899 million $314 million $303 million $274 million $250 million $220 million $190 million $172 million $130 million $120 million $62 million $8 million $3 million

Figueroa Ave. and 11th St. Grand Ave 1st and Los Angeles 1st and Spring St. 111 South Grand Ave. 2nd and Los Angeles 8th and Flower Temple and Grand Ave. 1st and Main Los Angeles St. and 7th St. 200 S. Grand Ave. Alameda and Main St. 2nd and Main St. 2nd and Los Angeles

size

architect/developer

3.8 million sq. f.t 6 miles/8 stations 1,000,000 sq. ft. 500,000 sq. ft. 293,000 sq.ft.

1500 units 550 units+60,000 sq. ft.

8,000 sq. ft.

1,000,000 sq. ft.

300,000 sq. ft.

780,000 sq. ft.

12,500 sq. ft.

Anschutz Entertainment Group Frank Gehry & Partners MTA Perkins and Will DMJM Frank Gehry & Partners Thomas P. Cox Architects CIM Group Rafael Moneo Morphosis MJW Investments Pfeiffer Partners 141 Rios Clementi Hale Studios Gilmore and Weintraub Anthony J. Lumsden

website: downtownnews.com Grand Avenue Committee press release, grandavenuecommittee.org/press_release_2005may23.pdf#search=’Grand%20plans%20for%20Grand%20Avenue%20move%20forward’ John Dale,”The Battle of Bunker Hill or Grand Avenue Revisited,” laforum.org/issues/more.php?id=77_0_14_0_C Sam Hall Kaplan, “Grand Concerns,” ladowntownnews.com/articles/2005/08/01/news/opinion/edit01.txt

Grand Avenue, once the centerpiece of a thriving downtown residential neighborhood has seemingly failed the expectations bestowed upon its CRA revival of the sixties and seventies. Leveled to construct a major urban center, it had largely remained an empty and desolate few blocks, active mainly during the day time. In the last few years; however, the downtown boom has encouraged a steady shift. With a slue of apartment and loft conversions, the arrival of the Disney Concert Hall and the establishment of a cultural

nexus, the intervention has gained momentum.

The latest of the Grand Avenue revitalization efforts has quickly become the most publicized of recent restoration plans intended for downtown Los Angeles.

The reclamation of 3.5 million square feet as a mixed use development is set to yield 400,000 square feet of retail, a 275 room boutique hotel and up to 2,600 residential units. The development promises to generate 5,300 jobs and produce $28 million in annual revenues for the city, county and state.

The $1.8 billion allocated for the development is expected to usher in a project that will engage a re-emerging downtown Los Angeles. With a dire need for affordable housing and public recreational space, the goals of the development as set by the Grand Avenue Committee aim to address these very concerns in hopes of cultivating a thriving downtown. As demand increases in the downtown housing market so does the importance of this new development geared towards supporting a growing residential community.

research

downtown development

downtown site

# development

2

Staples Center, phase III market-rate units: 800

3

research

downtown site

Hayward Manor 206 W. 6th St. affordable-rate units: 600

142

downtown housing, 2003

website: downtownla.com/economic/index.html

top five housing developments (ranked by total number of units) All housing developments share a common 10,000 sq. ft. footprint.

Height of diagrams determined by number of units.

5

Bunker Hill Towers 222â&#x20AC;&#x201C;234 South Figueroa St. market-rate units: 456

1

Angelus Plaza 200â&#x20AC;&#x201C;300 S. Olive St. affordable-rate units: 1,093

number of units affordable rate market rate TOTAL

4

Promenade Towers 123 South Figueroa St. market-rate units: 506 affordable-rate units: 89

existing as of 4th Quarter 2002

8,502

5,452

13,954

under construction

20

1,938

1,958

planned / proposed 2003â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2004

199

2,344

2,543

planned / proposed 2005 and beyond

59

3,387

3,446

GRAND TOTAL

8,780

13,121

21,901

proposed existing market rate existing affordable rate

downtown site

143

research

downtown site research

144

downtown housing, 2020

website: downtownla.com/economic/index.html

anticipated (additional 105,000 units) proposed (6,000 units) existing market rate existing affordable rate

downtown site

145

research

3,145ft

Union Station

northern part

Santa An

a Freewa

Edward R. Roybal Federal Building & Detention Center

production facilities civic institutions

y

semi-poro

us 2,830 ft

iver

Japanese Catholic Center

96

0

SCI-Arc

ft

emergent retail area

eable

2,

Department of Public Social Services

E.

4t

imperm

total land value $347 million

Los An

0.09% of L.A. metropolitan area 16.4% of downtown area

total building value $240 million

E. 1st Str eet

Zen Temple

geles R

9,916,923 sq. ft.

921,282 sq. mi.

Buddhist Temple

hS

tre

et

production facilities civic institutions cultural institutions housing

E. 6th Street

146

3,320 ft

650 ft

southern part downtown site

1,980 ft

porous

site area 228 acres

MOCA Geffen Contemporary Japanese American National Museum

Alameda Street

LAPD

580 ft

northern part: 41 buildings 0’

500’

750’

1000’

site area and boundaries

websites: zimas.com cityplanning.lacity.org

North Alameda Blvd

research

southern part: 67 buildings

E Commercial Street

photography: building elevations

Duocommun Street

description The site is bounded north and south by the 101 Freeway and 4th Street respectively and Alameda Street to the west. The concrete lining of the Los Angeles River defines the site’s east edge. The river and the network of rail tracks along it, together with the constantly busy 101 Freeway, form the most impermeable edge of the site. The degree of porosity of two other boundaries is dependent upon the amount and density of traffic on 4th and Alameda Street. Also, porosity depends upon the presence of extensive fenced-off parking buffers that discourage loitering.

In addition to the aforementioned four boundary constraints, East 1st

Street divides the site into two distinctive parts, each with their own set of focalizing processes that contribute to the definition of the site. For the southern half, these focal centers are the Department of Public Social Services, the recently situated educational institution of SCI-Arc, and two temples serving the JapaneseAmerican community. The focal centers of the northern half are two museums—Japanese American National Museum and MOCA Geffen Contemporary. The distinc-

E Temple Street

tion between the two parts of the site is reinforced by different components that form urban infill. Whereas the majority of the buildings in the northern half serve industry, artistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lofts are gradually overtaking remodeled warehouses in the southern half of the site.

The layout of the territory provides for side-by-side interactions along the Alameda Streetâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;East 4th Street edge. In fact, two Buddhist temples and the Japanese Catholic Center are the results of the interaction with

research

site, looking west, 1951

downtown site

147

Turner Street

Banning Sreet

the adjacent area of Little Tokyo. However, the current state of the site is very fragile. There are few emergent characteristics that affect the site.

Dilapidated former commercial manufacturing and storage areas have become spaces for artistic production. The ongoing conversion of old warehouses into lofts brings new residents into an area formerly occupied mostly by the urban poor and homeless. Along Traction Avenue, a bookstore, cafĂŠ, sushi bar and a

little theater have opened and rely on new clientele with disposable income. Though they are few in number, they very likely will multiply. This gentrification of space is furthered by the presence of SCI-Arc, spurring concerns of the residents over affordability and diversity in their neighborhood.

A

0’

500’

1000’

0’

PF

federal/municipal property

CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, CW, ADP, LASED, WC

transportation facilities

500’

1000’

CM, MR, CCS, M1, M2, M3

29%

research

downtown site

PF public facilities zone CR limited commercial zone C1 limited commercial zone C1.5 limited commercial zone C2 commercial zone C4 commercial zone C5 commercial zone CW Central City West Specific Plan zone ADP Alameda District Specific Plan zone LASED Los Angeles Sports and Entertainment District WC Warner Center Specific Plan zone

148

55% 16%

A

CM commercial zone MR restricted City South Studio Zone CCS Century City South Studio Zone M1 limited industrial zone M2 light industrial zone M3 heavy industrial zone SL ocean-submerged land zone

zoning

websites: zimas.com cityplanning.lacity.org

site area: 9,916,923 sq. ft. (100%) transportation facilities: 2,834,570 sq. ft. (29%) city-owned land: 1,640,097 sq. ft. (16%) This site is targeted for the following proposed facilities: new LAPD headquarters 500,000 sq. ft.

EOC/POC Fire Dispatch 100,000 sq. ft.

50,000 sq. ft. max. footprint metro jail 179,000 sq. ft.

50,000 sq. ft. per floor metro bomb facility 21,000 sq. ft. fire/paramedic station 15,000 sq. ft. standard facility 12,000 sq. ft. max. footprint

government land map

websites: zimas.com cityplanning.lacity.org

East 2nd Street

0’

500’

1000’

0’

500’

1000’

building footprints

fenced-off areas

cultural

residential

civic

mixed

parking

railroad

service

production

retail

undetermined/ none 6% 9%

13% 14%

9%

27%

31% 10%

29%

10%

19 %

17%

13% 12%

Housing

site area: 9,916,923 sq. ft. (100%) fenced-off areas: 1,308,008 sq. ft. (13%) building footprint area: 1,386,217 sq. ft. (14%) parking: 1,687,116 sq. ft. (17%) railway: 2,819,900 sq. ft. (29%) roads/open space: 2,674,012 sq. ft. (27%)

average value = $35 per sq. ft. (estimated) total open space = 5,669,136 sq. ft. (57%) building footprint area = 1,427,887 sq. ft. (14%) total building area = 3,427,887 sq. ft. (35%) average number of stories = 2.1

Traction Street

building use

websites: zimas.com cityplanning.lacity.org

East 1st Street

research

man-made habitat

websites: zimas.com cityplanning.lacity.org

149

downtown site

total improvement area: 1,346,179 sq. ft. (estimated for 70% of site) total improvement value: $32,969,159 (estimated for 70% of site)

East 3rd Street East 4th Street

0’

500’

1000’

0’

poor

good fair

brick

concrete/CMU

stucco

stucco/brick

9%

6% 9%

46%

38%

15%

48%

150

building condition

building-material finishes

Field Research + Analysis

Field Research + Analysis

East 1st Street

research

downtown site

32%

North Alameda Sreet

500’

1000’

metal/glass

#

1

6

7

2

8

3

10

9

11 12 16

17

14

13 18

21

23

22

5

15

19 24

4

20

25 26

37 38 43 45 44

49 48

62

50

51

63 65

54 52

53

68

76 77 78

81

80 79

88

56

71

74 75 72

69

67

47

57 58 55 59 60 61

70

64 66

46

82 83 84 85 86

89

87

90 91 92

93

0’

500’

# 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

APN # 516-300-2026 516-300-3012 516-300-4005 516-300-4008 516-300-4007 516-300-5006 516-300-5005 516-300-5007 516-300-5001 516-300-5013 516-300-5003 516-300-9901 516-300-8001 516-300-8004 516-300-8003 516-300-8005 516-300-8012 516-300-7013 516-300-7010 516-300-6013 516-300-6016 516-300-6017 NA 516-300-6012 516-300-6027 516-300-9005 516-300-9001 516-301-2015 516-301-2900 516-301-2004 516-301-5028 516-301-5029 516-301-5022 516-301-5006 516-301-5007 516-301-5002 516-301-5003 516-301-3001 516-301-3009 516-301-3900 516-301-4011 516-301-4009 NA 516-400-5002

151

1000’

research

accessor parcel number (APN) site division

website: zimas.com

APN # 517-300-3009 517-301-8001 517-301-9006 507-301-9001 507-301-9009 517-300-1024 517-300-1017 517-300-1900 517-300-2010 517-300-3010 517-300-3002 517-300-3001 517-301-7006 517-301-7008 517-302-0010 NA NA 517-301-7006 517-301-6008 517-302-1001 517-300-4015 517-300-4902 517-301-5011 517-301-5006 517-301-5003 517-302-2002 517-300-8001 517-300-8019 517-300-8017 517-300-8018 517-300-9004 517-300-9005 517-300-9002 517-301-0009 517-301-0003 517-301-1011 517-301-4900 517-302-2004 517-301-1020 517-301-1021 517-301-2025 517-301-2027 517-301-3018 517-301-3014 517-301-3020 517-301-3016 517-302-3001 516-300-1002 516-300-2023 516-300-2009

downtown site

94

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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

site #

3

5

6

4

7

1

8

1

8 8 9

12 13

10 18

16

14

22

15

20

17 23

19

24 25

26

36 37

43

46

44

47 52 50 51 48

45

49

60

63 79

65

80 81 83 82

61 64 66 88

38

53

27

28

33

34

39 41 40

56

54 62

21 29

32

42

2

55

57 58 59

67 68

71 73

69

72 74

70 89 90

75

77 78

76

84 87 85 86 91 92

93 94 97 95 102 98 96 99 103 101 100

105

104

downtown site

106

108 107

152

research

0’

500’

1000’

building database 1

street

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Center Commercial Alameda Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Garey Ducommon Ducommon Ducommon Ducommon Ducommon Temple Temple Jackson

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Ducommon

Center Center Jackson Jackson Jackson Center Temple Center Jackson Temple Temple Temple Temple Center Center 1st Vinges 1st 1st Santa Fe Santa Fe Center 1st 1st Hewitt Hewitt Hewitt 1st 1st 1st Hewitt Hewitt 1st 1st 2nd 2nd

street #

837 520 412 414 462 500 615 711 444 444 444 433 433

706 710 410 410 612 700 710 729 707 749 820 815 432 610 700 210 210 815 124 901 915 120 100 120 604, 606, 610 618/620 123 123 106 712 704 120 130 810 905 923

stories

original use

2 1 1 2 7 1 1 2 2 2 5 2 3 1 2 1

current use factory/storage factory/storage gas station/shop offices parking truck depot factory storage factory fleet main. facility parking fleet main. Facility DWP DWP office/storage factory/office

2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2

storage

storage

warehouse retail/storage retail/storage retail/storage mortuary photo lab storage/office processing retail/storage offices offices factory religious institution offices restaurant office/storage factory/mill factory/mill lofts retail/art studio residence Japanese temple residences studio/residential offices offices artist lofts/warehouse

toy warehouse studio/lofts

website: zimas.com

North Vignes Street

finish

color

remarks

condition

white white grey pink natural white/red grey blue/grey pink white grey natural grey brown brown light brown

good fair good good good poor fair fair fair good good good good good good good

Friedman Bag bakery/noodle Mobile station immigration bonds

concrete brick concrete brick brick concrete block brick concrete block brick brick/stucco brick brick brick/stucco concrete block brick stucco brick concrete concrete block concrete block stucco concrete brick brick brick brick/stucco brick/stucco brick/CMU brick/stucco brick

white natural grey/brown natural natural grey grey natural natural natural/white natural natural cream white natural grey white white white/brown natural white grey/white grey grey white white white golden/grey white/red natural

good fair good fair fair fair fair fair fair good fair good poor fair good good fair fair good good good good fair fair good fair fair good fair good

Friedman Bag Luggage Co.

concrete block brick brick concrete stucco/CMU concrete block concrete concrete

grey red/white red/gold white grey/earth grey white/red grey

good good good fair good under const. fair fair

improvement value

improvement sq. ft.

not listed $754,543 not listed $102,221 $400,000 $1,896,106 $149,359 not listed

not listed $2,673,467 not listed $110,027 $300,000 $36,812 $416,566 not listed

not listed

not listed not listed not listed not listed

not listed not listed not listed not listed

not listed not listed not listed not listed

$209,105

$435,255

38,780

$657,000

$1,580,612

39,759

not listed $541,008 $537,714 see 25 $1,245,000

not listed $346,453 $259,134 see 25 $828,000

not listed 27,600 16,692 see 25 69,597

Woodland Inc. National Cold Storage Co.

$1,402,508 see 21 $106,805

$2,103,765 see 21 $220,504

56,302 see 21 19,564

L.A. Personnel Department National Cold Storage Co.

not listed

not listed

138,460

$336,901 $170,000 $26,041 $950,000 $652,359 see 28 $898,698 $156,823 $113,227 $107,530

$3,225,519 $500,000 $42,309 $1,290,000 $199,042 see 28 $845,832 $29,525 $151,585 $604,112

40,767 5,905 not listed 34,418 19,520 see 28 88,105 14,040 3,600 17,940

$40,000 see 39 $317,181 $634,373 $210,000 $864,960

$420,000 see 39 $435,484 $356,833 $286,000 $0.00

12,362 see 39 19,200 19,200 6,622 0

$476,370

$2,069,178

44,547

equipment repair

Friedman Bag City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles

LAUSD Services/Maintenance

Key Co. Key Co. fabric company

Temple Medical Center Mexican Restaurant

S.K., UYEDA bldg. zen shudi 60s-70s

POMO art deco art deco

not listed 13,800 41,410 29,218 not listed

downtown site

concrete brick brick stucco concrete stucco steel/concrete block concrete concrete block concrete glass/steel concrete glass/steel concrete block concrete block stucco

land value

153

art deco research

First Street Bridge

3

5

6

4

7

1

8

1

8 8 9

12 13

10 18

16

14

20

17

22

15

23

19 21

24 25

27

26

36 37

46

44

47 52 50 51 48

42 45

49

62 63

79

65

80 81 83 82

61 64 66 88

38

53

33

34

39 41 40

56

54 60

28 29

32 43

2

55

57 58 59

67 68

71 73

69

72 74

70 89 90

75

77 78

76

84 87 85 86 91 92

93 94 97 95 102 98 96 99 103 101 100

105

104

106

downtown site

108 107

154 500’

1000’

building database 2

website: zimas.com

East 4th Street

research

0’

North Alameda Street

street #

stories

site #

street

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

1st Vignes 2nd Santa Fe 2nd 2nd Garey Hewitt Garey Hewitt 3rd 2nd Garey 3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd Santa Fe Santa Fe

900 120

923 923 940 941 948 953 201 215

2 4 1

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

Alameda 3rd 4th Hewitt Hewitt Traction Traction Traction 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd Traction Traction Avery Traction Traction Traction Traction Traction Traction Traction

216 701 707 231 734 704 708 716 800/808 820 822 912 805 811 300 821 837 837 800 810/812 830

3 4 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 6 2 4 4 5 2 3 1

4th 4th 4th 3rd 4th

801 813 963 960

284 510 720 209 222

833 290 901

original use

3 bakery 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2

3 2 3 3

3 2 3, 5, 3 2 3 1 2

train depot train depot

current use artist lofts artist lofts warehouse transportation art studio/warehouse production art

Japanese Catholic Cntr. business abandoned warehouse art studio abandoned commercial/lofts commercial/lofts activity center studio studio/comm. architecture studio business/comm. retail/residential

toy wholesalers public library retail art studio/restaurant art studio/residences entertainment sevice/residential loft/retail lofts warehouse furniture production/lofts business cafe/lofts storage lofts lofts/artist residence lofts/artist business residences/studios warehouse warehouse

Coca-Cola train depot warehouse warehouse

social sevices, municipal retail/warehouse SCI-Arc transportation facility filming filming

finish

color

condition

brick stucco brick/stucco concrete/CMU concrete block brick concrete brick cream/red brick brick/stucco brick concrete stucco brick brick/stucco brick brick brick stucco stucco/brick concrete brick

natural grey yellow/grey grey white natural blue white

blue/grey natural

good fair fair good good fair fair good fair good fair poor poor fair poor good good fair fair good good fair good

brick stucco corr.metal/conc.block concrete brick/stucco metal sheetes brick brick brick/concrete concrete brick concrete concrete block stucco concrete concrete block brick stucco brick brick stucco brick

natural grey green/grey off-white red/blue silver natural white brown brown/blue natural grey grey red grey grey natural grey white/red natural grey white

fair fair fair fair fair good good fair fair fair fair fair good fair poor good good good fair fair fair fair

brick concrete block/stucco brick concrete metal sheets brick/stucco brick

yellow grey red/white grey natural grey natural

fair good good fair good fair fair

white red/sandy

white dusty/sandy red/grey natural natural natural red/white

remarks

vines on facade art deco

land value

improvement value

improvement sq. ft.

$918,000 $144,476 $339,586

$2,422,500 $1,009,071 $403,259

65,925 32,504 24,300

not listed

not listed

not listed

$22,391 $131,432

$80,647 $170,932

5,107 26,980

$104,020

$765,566

7,160

see 10 $720,981

see 10 $661,741

see 10 37,627

$496,713 not listed

$372,963 not listed

46,863 not listed

$116,732 not listed $48,111

$175,099 not listed $132,445

4,722 not listed 9,090

not listed $200,000

not listed $800,000

not listed 21,938

$137,957 $380,000 $171,193

$100,814 $2,035,000 $92,333

4,956 59,885 5,163

$958,406

$537,305

104,982

$189,685 $263,724 $96,585 $89,668 $418,325 $208,080

$1,055,979 $1,656,926 $567,752 $261,539 $219,845 $62,424

27,792 43,600 47,500 18,058 31,500 7,000

not listed

not listed

39,855

not listed

not listed

not listed

$1,762,900 see 107

not listed see 107

not listed see 107

DWP testing lab

church/school St. Frances Xavier Chapel Charled Cerbe design, art deco grafitti graffiti grafitti, lart-breaux graffiti

90s

art deco commercial L.A.P.L. Little Tokyo parking for social services

general store/rest./hotel art deco

American Self-Storage 90s

Art Share LA Dept. of Public Social Services TT Toys

downtown site

Crazy Gideons

155

research

South Hewitt Sreet

research Chavez Ravine

156

Chavez Ravine / Elysian Park

Chavez Ravine

157

research

Chavez Ravine reconsidered Downtown Los Angeles, a major pulse of the city, houses the art community, cultural corridor, convention center, financial center, business district, civic powerhouse, and manufacturing district. Even with such an intense urban fabric, the city lacks the housing thread that binds the city together. The heavily charged city by day turns into a desolated ghost town for the homeless and crime at night. The lack of housing units in downtown drives people to the skirts of the city to live. When the entire workforce of a city tries to discharge itself through its limited infrastructure within a relatively small window of time, it is inevitable that traffic congestion would take place. The existing capacity of road infrastructures is not large enough to handle the extreme volume of cars without experiencing delays.

This proposal for urban housing will both rejuvenate downtown Los Angeles and alleviate traffic conditions.

research

Chavez Ravine

Looking for possible locations for urban housing, one realizes that Dodger Stadium in Chavez Ravine is the single largest remaining under-utilized land in downtown Los Angeles. Perched on a hill with panoramic views of the downtown cityscape, the site of Dodger Stadium offers serenity and seclusion from its neighboring communities. The present usage of the land as a stadium, with its main function of directing peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attention inward toward the sporting field, negates the uniqueness of the site.

158

Currently, any green space in the city is hard to come by, let alone a vast green space such as Elysian Park. This unimaginable treasure holds the potential to bind different neighborhoods together. It has been shown that Elysian Park has a higher concentration of recreational facilities and sporting centers than any parks nearby. Furthermore, Elysian Park services several ethnic communities providing a diverse cross section of Los Angeles. However, the living standards of these neighborhoods are lower than the rest of Los Angeles. As a result, important civil amenities, such as hospitals, libraries, and fire stations are lacking. Amenities have to cover a greater radius of distance when compared to the average of the city. The introduction of higher income residents as another demographic component will serve as a catalyst to raise the living standards of the surrounding neighborhood. The higher tax revenues will provide higher quality and quantity of amenities. The potential high buying power of these new residents will attract commercial/retail developments to the site, which in turn will increase the land value and raise the net worth of the residential properties.

Chavez Ravine photographic timeline

1949 Unpaved roads and distressed houses define the neighborhood community of Chavez Ravine. Despite the physical condition of the structures, the community has a deep and rich legacy.

1949 View of housing on Chavez Ravine before the eviction notices.

June 1951 Homeowners from Chavez Ravine protest to the City Council against a plan to relocate them to a low rent alternative housing development. Eventually, the $100,000 development from the Los Angeles Housing Authority faced a more powerful opposition: the eraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s anti-communist fervor.

Less that two miles north of downtown Los Angeles, Chavez Ravine, until the late 1949s, was home to three villages of some 1,100 mostly poor, mostly Mexican American families. Tucked into the rolling, picturesque ravines, inhabitants of La Loma, Bishop, and Palo Verde ran their own churches and schools, and grew their own food, living up to the nickname, a “poor man’s Shangri La.” Non-residents, however, saw Chavez Ravine as an eyesore in the middle of a burgeoning Los Angeles. Coinciding with the end of World War II, the Federal Housing Act of 1949 earmarked 10,000 new units to be built in Los Angeles. Los Angeles mayor Fletcher Bowron saw the 315 acres of “shanty town” as a prime location for thousands of these units.

In July of the next year, the residents of Chavez Ravine received letters telling them to sell their homes or lose them to eminent domain. After demolition, the residents would then have first choice of a newly designed Elysian Park Heights home.

Elysian Park Heights, designed by Richard Neutra and Robert E. Alexander, was to be a combination of 13-story highrises and two-story bar buildings. Optimized for views of Elysian Park and downtown, the more than 3,300-unit project included a school and recreation center. Within two years, other than a few holdouts, Chavez Ravine had been cleared of its inhabitants and made ready for public housing.

In the early 50s, however, public housing, became another Cold War front. Immediately the Los Angeles Times and downtown business interests attacked the project as abject socialism. Frank Wilkinson, an assistant to the director of the Los Angeles Housing Authority and a proponent of Elysian Park Heights, failed to answer under oath if he was a communist and was hauled before the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was fired and spent a year in jail.

The Los Angeles City Council attempted to block the construction of the project, and the final blow came from the newly elected mayor, Norris Poulson, who ran on a platform of stopping “un-American” spending.

The City Council and Poulson then offered to buy back the land from the federal government, promising that it would be spent for public use. Sensing that by 1953 no public housing would be built in Chavez Ravine, the federal government sold the property back to Los Angeles at a reduced rate with the “public use” stipulation attached.

By the late 50s, Los Angeles was quickly gaining population and confidence and was seeking a major league baseball team. Walter O’Malley’s Brooklyn Dodgers were successful on the field but unprofitable in the overly small Ebbets Field, and so after being denied a new field by New York City, he took his team west. In 1957, he struck a deal with Los Angeles to purchase the 315 acres of Chavez Ravine and a minor league team (Los Angeles Angels) and its ballpark, with the promise that a new stadium and youth recreation center would be built. The total deal cost O’Malley $500,000 initially, annual payments of $60,000 for 20 years, and $345,000 in property taxes starting in 1962.

This controversial new deal, ostensibly fulfilling the “public use” stipulation of the federal land sale, was approved in 1958 by a city-wide referendum after garnering 52% of the vote. Subsequent court cases ruled in favor of O’Malley, and so the last family to be removed—squatting on site for over seven years—was evicted on May 8, 1959 to make way for the ceremonial groundbreaking four months later. The 56,000-seat Dodger Stadium, surrounded by 21 terraced parking lots, opened on April 10, 1962.

Chavez Ravine the evictions

1951 In the face of eviction notices, many residents begin the exodus out of Chavez Ravine. It would be another eight years before the last of the residents were evicted from their homes.

research

websites: pbs.org/independentlens/chavezravine/cr.html Los Angeles Times, Mike Boehm, 05.18.03 pbs.org losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com ballparks.com

Chavez Ravine

159

1952 One of the three housing projects for Elysian Park as envisioned by the Los Angeles Housing Authority.

The projects offered a comprehensive community sustaining a variety of housing types with schools, shops, and hospitals.

May 1959 The media is on location as movers vacate belongings of the Vargas-Arechiga family.

One of the last holdouts, in a few months this property would become part of the ballpark development.

Chavez Ravine research

160

Chavez Ravine grading begins, 1960

May 1959 Many residents, including Ms. Vargas (above), resisted eviction to the very end. They were forcibly removed as the groundbreaking for the stadium loomed four months away.

June 1959 Walter Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Malley (seated left) shakes the hand of Council President John S. Gibson Jr. after signing the contract allowing the Dodgers to build their stadium on Chavez Ravine.

Standing left to right: Councilman Ransom Callicott and City Attorney Roger Arneberg.

May 1960 Dodger Stadium takes shape as the pastoral topography of Chavez Ravine metamorphosizes into terraces of concrete and asphalt for $23 million.

present Panoramic view of the Los Angeles downtown skyline from Dodger Stadium.

Dodger Stadium’s approximate 260 acres—200 acres of hardscaping—caps Chavez Ravine.

research

Chavez Ravine grading finished, 1961

Chavez Ravine

161

project site In the site area, most of the land was defined as Agriculture Zone. But, in actuality all the lands around Dodger Stadium in the site area serve as a parking lot for 16,000 automobiles.

site commercial zone: CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, CW, ADP, LASED, WC dwelling zone: R2, RD, RMP, R2, R3, RAS3, R4, RAS4, R5 single-family zone: RE, RS, R1, RU, RZ, RW1 agriculture zone: A, RA open space: OS commercial manufacturing zone: CM, MR, CCS, M1, M2, M3, SL public facilities zone automobile parking zone: P, PB

research

Chavez Ravine

in fact......

P 162

......16,000 Cars

zoning: general zoning

website: zimas.lacity.org/

0 0

description Zoning is locally regulated law that is used as a guideline for land management control by establishing specific policy that must be followed in the use of land and buildings. Zoning asserts explicit uses that are permitted under varying circumstances. It dictates reasonable development by protecting property from detrimental uses on nearby properties. Zoning also standardizes the size of lots, building set-backs from

roads or adjoining property, maximum height of buildings, population density, and other land-use issues.

100ft

500ft

1000ft

1/3mile

1/2mile

1 mile

Cu

In the of the la

Zone. the Dod th p Ac area s Park

site

low-density housing medium-density housing open space / public and quasi-public lands light industry regional commerce

zoning: general plan land use

research

website: zimas.lacity.org/

0

100ft

500ft

0

description The General Plan is the fundamental land-use policy document of the City of Los Angeles. It defines the framework by which the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s physical and economic resources are to be managed and utilized over time.

Decisions by the city with regard to the use of land; design and character of buildings and open space; conservation of existing housing and provision for new housing; provisions for the continued updating of infrastructure; protection of environmental resources;

Chavez Ravine

163

protection of residents from natural and man-made hazards; and allocation of fiscal resources are guided by the plan.

1000ft

1/3mile

1/2mile

1 mile

research

Chavez Ravine

project site The Elysian Park area is divided into two council districts: CD1 and CD13.

The park and stadium in the eastern part belong to CD1, which enjoys a different budget model than the western part.

164

zoning: council districts

0

100ft

500ft

1000ft

0

1/3mile

1/2mile

1 mile

website: zimas.lacity.org

description Council Districts are political boundaries, created as required by the charter of the City of Los Angeles that acts as the governing body of the city, except as otherwise provided in the charter, and enacts ordinances subject to the approval or veto of the mayor. It orders elections, levies taxes, authorizes public improve-

ments, approves contracts, and adopts traffic regulations. The council adopts or modifies the budget proposed by the mayor and provides the necessary funds, equipment, and supplies for the budgetary departments. The council confirms or rejects appointments proposed by the mayor and prescribes duties of boards and

officers not defined by charter. There are fifteen council districts in the city. By charter rule, council district boundaries must be redrawn every ten years. New boundaries are based on the most recent census and must be in place no later than the end of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fiscal year.

project site The Elysian Park area has two parts that belong to different area-planning commissions.

Dodger Stadium and Elysian Park belong to the same one in the north.

site Central Los Angeles: Silver Lake / Echo Park Central Los Angeles: Central City North

Elysian Park

Dodger Stadium Echo Park

Chavez Ravine

chinatown

zoning: area planning

downtown

0 0

100ft

500ft

165

1000ft

1/3mile

1/2mile

description Area Planning Commissions exercise the power to: (a) hear and determine appeals where it is alleged there is error or abuse of discretion in any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or other determination made by a Zoning Administrator; (b) hear and make determinations on any matter normally under the jurisdic-

1 mile

research

website: zimas.lacity.org

Chavez Ravine

Chinatown down town

tion of a Zoning Administrator when that matter has been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Area Planning Commission because the Zoning Administrator has failed to act within the time limits prescribed by ordinance; (c) hear and determine applications for, or appeals related to, conditional use permits and other similar

quasi-judicial approvals, in accordance with procedures prescribed by ordinance; (d) make recommendations with respect to zone changes or similar matters referred to it from the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 562; and (e) hear and determine other matters delegated to it by ordinance.

buildings Dodger Stadium area Solano Canyon Community

stadium area 263.11 acres 11,460,876 sq. ft.

1,064,750 sq. mi.

Solano Canyon neighborhood 60.36 acres 2,629,087 sq. ft.

244,250 sq. mi.

21 buildings land value: $55,175,069 buildings: $57,889,945 total value: $113,065,014 value/sq. ft.: $9.87/sq. ft.

270 buildings land value: $20,553,886 buildings: $21,578,361 total value: $41,232,247 value/sq. ft.: $16.1/sq. ft. site mixed site 323.47 acres 14,089,963 sq. ft.

1,309,000 sq. mi.

Elysian Park

291 buildings land value: $75,728,955 buildings: $79,468,306 total value: $155,197,261

FR EE W AY

Solano Ave Shcool

RES

PA S

AD

EN A

Dodger Stadium

Elysian Park

Elysian Park Ave

Elysian Park

Elysian Park

Va 60

2,62 244

0

100ft

500ft

research

Chavez Ravine

100m

166

1000ft 200m

500m

S 2

site boundary

11 1,

2 L B T V

website: zimas.lacity.org/ now: 1. Sharon Bernstein, “Getting to the Ballpark -- or Around It -- Can Be Daunting,” Los Angeles Times, April, 29 2003, sec. B. 2. Roger Vincent; “Dodger Bidder Would Raze Stadium, Put One Downtown,” Los Angeles Times, July 11, 2003, sec. A

1. Commuting routes within striking distance of major stadiums suffer from major traffic jams. Dodger Stadium accommodates 19,000 cars and wreaks havoc on commuting times for Echo Park residents as well as those who live in nearby Atwater Village, Eagle Rock, Glendale, Pasadena, and Silver Lake. Other problems are caused by a shortage of stadium parking, such as at Edison Field, which only has 12,000 spaces for 45,000 seats.

27 La Bu Tot Va

2. If wealthy developer Alan Casden can successfully acquire the Los Angeles Dodgers, he will seek to embark upon the relocation of Dodger Stadium from its current home in Chavez Ravine to a new one downtown, a few miles south on the 110 Freeway. Casden believes that this will contribute to the renaissance of downtown Los Angeles, as well as provide a better experience for baseball fans. At the same time, he

sees a wide range of new homes being built in Chavez Ravine, surrounded by the green of Elysian Park. Locals are skeptical as to whether Casden’s plan would succeed, and what his true motives are. Casden says he has positive interests at heart: While growing up in L.A., he would take the bus and trolley to see the Dodgers play in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. He collected baseball cards and sold programs before games to earn pocket money.

A1-1XL Agriculture Zone A1-1XL Agriculture Zone R1-1VL One Family Zone R2-1VL Two Family Zone 0

C2 Commerccial Zone

100ft

500ft

P Automobile Parking Zone PF Public Facilites Zone

100m

1000ft 200m

500m

site

GENERAL ZONING + KEY NUMBER

2 40 41 42 43 4445

6

4

9

FR EE W AY

5

3

1

222

PA S

AD

EN A

Dodger Stadium

259

A1-1XL Agriculture Zone

Key

1.

2.

3.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Apn

P Automobile Parking Zone PF Public Facilites Zone

Street 5415-018-012 5415-021-014 5415-018-900 5415-018-009 5415-018-009 5415-019-003 5415-019-004 5415-019-005 5415-019-006 5415-019-007 5415-019-008 5415-019-009 5415-019-010 5415-019-011 5415-019-012 5415-019-013 5415-019-014 5415-019-015 5415-019-016

Street#

Elysian P Ave 1000 Elysian P Ave 1000 Elysian P Ave Brooks Ave Brooks Ave Brooks Ave Shoreland Dr 1657 Shoreland Dr 1663 Shoreland Dr 1618 Shoreland Dr 1610 Shoreland Dr 1606 Shoreland Dr 1600 Shoreland Dr 1548 Shoreland Dr 1544 Shoreland Dr 1538 Shoreland Dr 1532 Shoreland Dr 1528 Shoreland Dr 1522 Shoreland Dr 1518

Property

C/ I $47,407,052 C/ I $5,630,390 other v $389,176 v v $28,042 S $94,662 S $22,498 S $9,628 S $23,517 S $144,974 S $56,090 S $83,787 S $158,683 S $111,495 S $23,517 S $60,299 S $109,990 S $164,853

$263,644

2,527

$16,065

976

$127,334

1,440

$97,465

1,174

$20,945

792

$46,977

865

$44,776

1,709

$57,783

1,662

$118,333

2,196

$82,492

1,172

$47,301

1,328

292

Street#

5415-018-012 Elysian P Ave 1000 5415-021-014 Elysian P Ave 1000 5415-018-900 Elysian P Ave 5415-018-009 Brooks Ave 5415-018-009 Brooks Ave 5415-019-003 Brooks Ave 5415-019-004 Shoreland Dr 1657 5415-019-005 Shoreland Dr 1663 5415-019-006 Shoreland Dr 1618 5415-019-007 Shoreland Dr 1610 5415-019-008 Shoreland Dr 1606 0 100ft 500ft 1000ft 5415-019-009 Shoreland Dr 1600 5415-019-010 Shoreland Dr 1548 100m 200m 5415-019-011 Shoreland Dr 1544 5415-019-012 Shoreland Dr 1538 5415-019-013 Shoreland Dr 1532 5415-019-014 Shoreland Dr 1528 5415-019-015 Shoreland Dr 1522 5415-019-016 Shoreland Dr 1518 5415-019-017 Shoreland Dr 1512 5415-019-018 Shoreland Dr 1508 5415-019-019 Shoreland Dr 1502 5415-019-020 Shoreland Dr 1452 5415-019-021 Shoreland Dr 1448

Total

Property

C/ I $47,407,052 C/ I $5,630,390 other v $389,176 v v $28,042 S $94,662 S $22,498 S $9,628 S $23,517 S $144,974 S $56,090 S $83,787 S 500m $158,683 S $111,495 S $23,517 S $60,299 S $109,990 S $164,853 S $145,525 S $163,200 S $164,295 S $25,547 S $157,849 $55,175,069

263.11 acres 11,460,876 sq. ft.

1,064,750 sq. mi.

Land Value

$56,312,511

773,585

$311,248

75,600

$45,572

1,628

$17,924

976

$263,644

2,527

$16,065

976

$127,334

1,440

$97,465

1,174

$20,945

792

$46,977

865

$44,776

1,709

$57,783

1,662

$118,333

2,196

$82,492

1,172

$47,301

1,328

$36,380

1,184

$40,800

742

$56,326

2,068

$69,938

2,188

$86,131

1,629

$57,899,945 875,441

21 buildings value (2002): land: $55,175,069 buildings: $57,889,945 total: $113,065,014 value/sq. ft.: $9.87/sq. ft.

167

research

website: zimas.lacity.org/

Street

Chavez Ravine

site R1-1VL One Family Zone R2-1VL Two Family Zone general zoning C2 Commerccial Zone

Building Area

Apn 280 8 279 26 7 278 26 6 277 4 26 26 276 5 3 26 275 26 62 2 61 4 2 0 27 3 26 27 72 2 1 27 70 2 9 26

A1-1XL Agriculture Zone

1.

2.

3.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Building Area 16.

Land Value 17.

18.

19.

20. $56,312,511 773,585 21. $311,248 75,600 22.

23.

24.

25.

26. $45,572 1,628 27. $17,924 976

258

Key

257 2565 25 254 253 252 251 250 249

224

Chavez Ravine research

168

4.

5.

6.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

5415-018-008 5415-018-004 5415-018-007 5415-023-001 5415-023-002 5415-023-003 5415-023-004 5415-023-005 5415-023-006 5415-023-007 5415-023-008 5415-023-009 5415-023-010 5415-023-011 5415-023-012 5415-023-013 5415-023-014 5415-023-015 5415-023-020 5415-023-018 5415-023-019 5415-024-001 5415-024-002 5415-024-003 5415-024-004 5415-024-005 5415-024-006 5415-024-007 5415-024-008 5415-024-009 5415-024-012 5415-024-013 5415-024-031 5415-024-014 5415-024-015 5415-024-016 5415-024-017 5415-024-018 5415-024-019 5415-024-020 5415-024-032 5415-024-023 5415-024-029 5415-024-025 5415-024-26 5415-024-027 5415-024-028 5415-025-001 5415-025-002 5415-025-003 5415-025-004 5415-025-005 5415-025-006 5415-025-007 5415-025-008 5415-025-009 5415-025-010 5415-025-011 5415-025-012 5415-025-013 5415-025-014 5415-025-015 5415-026-001 5415-026-002 5415-026-003 5415-026-004 5415-026-005

Brooks Ave Brooks Ave Brooks Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Boutee St Brooks Ave Brooks Ave Brooks Ave Boutee St Boutee St Boutee St Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Amador St Boutee St Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Boutee St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St

1200 v v v 815 S 801 S 834 S 832 S 828 S 826 S 820 S 816 S 812 S 806 S 804 S 1827 S 1814 S 1808 M 1809 S 1809 v 1819 S 1821 M 743 S v v 729 S 725 S 721 S 717 v 711 M v v 701 S v v M 749 S 745 S 741 S 737 M 733 S 725 M 721 S 717 713 M 709 S 705 S 702 M 753 S 1832 S 748 S 744 S 740 M 736 S 732 S 728 M 724 S 720 M 716 M 712 S 708 S 705 S 701 S 1802 other 750 S 748 S v 742 S

$680,234 $153 $29,103 $102,830

$113,654

2,068

$23,517

$16,065

1,872

$23,343

$28,257

3,084

$19,451

$10,478

854

$157,585

$109,124

2,204

$19,451

$6,417

952

$150,960

$37,740

832

$19,623

$13,695

1500

$70,118

$63,106

1458

$21,652

$7,436

642

$107,181

$28,651

1216

$42,456

$78,852

1176

$17,589

$8,620

1280

$110,160

$10,815

1288

$19,623

$53,648

2653

$35,715

$67,397

560

$13,526

$10,815

1288

$26,509

$12,100

450

$16,575

$8,573 $13,783 $11,436

$173,891

4509

$22,488

$90,000

2015

$52,115

$38,320

970

$32,213 $42,920

$49,050

1945

$33,695 $31,836 $56,285

$31,674

916

$19,483 $19,483 $19,483 $88,804

$38,055

884

$200,235

$1,215

952

$130,316

$32,578

1316

$19,451

$11,666

740

$56,038

$123,314

1752

$151,660

$168,156

1714

$19,623

$6,753

1260

$80,969

$66,097

1194

$19,451

$9,974

1564

$19,623

$14,202

1832

$122,098

$30,523

1164

$131,669

$8,375

2106

$135,660

$42,840

1056

$78,030

$52,020

1,101

$19,623

$7,094

1032

$19,623

$28,506

1191

$144,000

$71,000

1430

$55,944

$33,470

984

$58,617

$39,077

864

$129,890

$54,121

1695

$126,991

$31,775

1332

$111,838

$54,048

2014

$57,879

$107,308

2082

$94,356

$15,494

1218

$112,463

$28,142

1964

$35,154

$52,668

838

$82,146

$152,560

2203

$24,362

$169,102

7420

$71,968

$33,734

880

$122,094

$48,834

1300

$14,710

769

$1,845 $12,678

Solano Canyon parcel data website: zimas.lacity.org

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

5415-026-006 5415-026-007 5415-026-008 5415-026-009 5415-026-010 5415-026-011 5415-026-012 5415-026-013

Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St

736 732 726 724 718 716 710 708

S M M S M S S S

$105,836

$26,456

1248

$145,292

$1,215

1338

$19,451

$17,415

2412

$19,623

$6,753

798

$143,263

$22,815

2064

$18,406

$8,285

864

$14,423

$41,061

1595

$56,090

$19,627

432

91.

5415-026-005 Amador St

742 S

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

169.

170.

171.

5415-026-006 5415-026-007 5415-026-008 5415-026-009 5415-026-010 5415-026-011 5415-026-012 5415-026-013 5415-026-014 5415-026-015 5415-026-016 5415-026-017 5415-026-018 5415-026-019 5415-026-020 5415-026-021 5415-026-022 5415-028-001 5415-028-002 5415-028-003 5415-028-004 5415-028-005 5415-028-006 5415-028-007 5415-028-008 5415-028-009 5415-028-010 5415-028-011 5415-028-012 5415-028-013 5415-028-014 5415-028-015 5415-029-016 5415-029-008 5415-029-009 5415-029-010 5415-029-011 5415-029-012 5415-029-013 5415-029-014 5415-029-015 5415-029-902 5415-029-001 5415-029-002 5415-029-003 5415-029-004 5415-029-005 5415-029-006 5415-029-900 5415-030-001 5415-030-002 5415-030-003 5415-030-004 5415-030-005 5415-030-006 5415-030-007 5415-030-008 5415-030-009 5415-030-010 5415-030-011 5415-030-012 5415-030-013 5415-030-014 5415-030-015 5415-030-016 5415-030-017 5414-023-001 5414-023-002 5414-023-003 5414-023-004 5414-023-005 5414-023-006 5414-023-007 5414-023-008 5414-023-009 5414-023-032 5414-023-010 5414-023-011 5414-023-012 5414-023-013

736 732 726 724 718 716 710 708

Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Amador St Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Park Row Dr Academy Dr Park Row Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Park Row Dr Park Row Dr Academy Dr Academy Dr Park Row Dr Park Row Dr Park Row Dr Park Row Dr Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave

S M M S M S S S v

$12,678

$14,710

769

$105,836

$26,456

1248

$145,292

$1,215

1338

$19,451

$17,415

2412

$19,623

$6,753

798

$143,263

$22,815

2064

$18,406

$8,285

864

$14,423

$41,061

1595

$56,090

$19,627

432

$15,918

595

$15,300 $63,672 $617

704 S 702 S v v v 662 S 658 M 654 S 652 S v 648 M v 642 v v v v v 656 S 652 S 648 M 644 M 640 M 636 S 632 S 628 S 624 M other 655 M 651 S 647 M 643 S 639 S 635 M other 647 S v 643 S v 628 M 635 M 620 M 631 S 627 S 616 M 612 M 623 S 617 S 608 M v v v 540 M 532 S 528 S 524 S 520 M 516 S 512 M 510 M 506 S v 429 M 490 S 482 S 480 S

$63,672

$15,918

595

$13,695

$3,874

522

$617 $49,846 $34,527 $109,242

$10,404

978

$132,600

$71,400

4412

$41,616

$10,404

360

$152,428

$13,333

728

$31,572

1580

$31,400

686

$74,242

$1,365

1040

$37,797

$69,038

1856

$19,451

$13,021

1792

$19,623

$127,066

2628

$19,623

$137,629

3369

$136,043

$90,694

1703

$179,520

$44,880

1477

$156,476

$39,119

1371

$125,772

$109,159

2152

$19,451

$22,141

1926

$88,415

$29,466

1004

$224,165

$36,111

1668

$31,105

$16,094

1144

$6,346 $115,434 $1,845 $125,600 $18,360 $18,654 $18,654 $153 $1,339

$19,623

$12,344

1404

$114,444

$75,949

1536

$41,638

$24,997

704

$28,042

824

$3,874 $54,688 $30,600 $93,666

$62,441

2066

$108,242

$84,429

1784

$120,673

$84,736

1716

$132,600

$30,600

676

$68,978

$10,612

676

$17,851

$20,404

1530

$132,600

$122,400

1760

$153,380

$40,248

1410

$90,611

$1,145

672

$16,575

$20,636

1960

$49,073

$318,247

13306

$33,841

$11,498

1103

$134,600

$64,400

878

$47,497

$10,640

1812 3412

$26,203 $12,905 $12,905

$33,841

$60,417

$107,844

$30,180

1257

$63,500

$270,500

4394

$30,454

$124,920

4,354

$100,572

$43,860

1154

$70,836

$44,090

2372

$33,841

$21,316

1876

$97,173

$40,304

1710

$32,529

$22,274

1980

$1,020

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

169.

170.

171.

172.

173.

174.

Solano Canyon parcel data

532 528 524 520 516 512 510 506 429 490 482 480 476 472 470 466 460 456 452 448 444 436 432 428 424 1373 541 533 537 523 519 515 511 507 505 501 491 487 483 479 475 469 467 540 542 534 530 526 522 518 514 512 506 504 500 492 486 482 478 474 470 466

463 461 455 451 449 445 441 435 431 427 425 419 462 458

S S S M S M M S v M S S S S M M M M M M M M M M S S v M M S S M S M S S S M S M M S M S S S S M M M M M S S M M S S S M M M M other other M M M M M M M M M M M M S M

$33,841

$11,498

1,103

$134,600

$64,400

878

$47,497

$10,640

1,812

$33,841

$60,417

3,412

$107,844

$30,180

1,257

$63,500

$270,500

4,394

$30,454

$124,920

4,354

$100,572

$43,860

1,154

$1,020 $70,836

$44,090

2,372

$33,841

$21,316

1,876

$97,173

$40,304

1,710

$32,529

$22,274

1,980

$134,000

$45,000

1,158

$133,171

$262,180

3,213

$102,519

$84,247

2,400

$114,813

$69,967

2,983

$33,841

$78,701

3,684

$249,502

$178,217

5,131

$154,736

$262,315

5,131

$36,214

$30,115

3,216

$70,624

$27,195

2,184

$72,773

$341,945

14,276

$126,928

$120,166

3,482

$33,841

$21,316

2,209

$33,841

$17,924

1,388

$242,461

$102,722

24,633

$74,468

$365,648

14,813

$114,500

$217,500

4,372

$133,776

$1,491

1,162

$148,278

$15,494

1,070

$85,823

$42,907

3,023

$34,855

$20,805

1,858

$37,411

$27,645

3,152

$90,356

$45,277

1,134

$103,114

$29,954

1,111

$34,855

$79,532

2,442

$69,553

$104,330

1,264

$36,378

$113,715

$27,886

991

$34,855

$85,136

4,048

$102,132

$51,062

1,511

$140,824

$35,202

1,178

$63,750

$63,750

1,823

$93,710

$44,097

1,300

$79,526

$13,471

886

$71,257

$12,950

768

$26,223

$10,313

1,208

$27,071

$103,758

4,232

$127,700

$51,300

1,926

$134,388

$26,166

1,491

$29,274

$231,088

3,849

$73,624

$123,545

2,068

$25,375

$9,974

824

$108,700

$49,500

768

$113,220

$177,480

2,694

$27,071

$103,758

4,232

$104,040

$31,212

968

$90,694

$36,274

780

$93,251

$23,741

1,116

$66,400

$203,600

3,250

$142,300

$189,700

3,772

$76,158

$233,666

3,250

$24,529

$23,343

2,794

$112,200

$47,940

1,498

$105,300

$223,700

3,328

$116,732

$140,610

2,152

$34,855

$159,395

3,710

$92,600

$82,400

1,878

$78,860

$118,291

2,312

$115,972

$96,256

4,285 1,763

$34,855

$15,563

$108,500

$328,363

4,820

$34,855

$86,831

4,630

$118,725

$5,710

2,198

$35,531

$58,894

4,261

$24,529

$10,478

1,626

$80,000

$310,000

6,260

Total

60.36 acres 2,629,087 sq. ft.

244,250 sq. mi.

Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Elysian Park Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway Cansanova St Cansanova St N Broadway Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St Savoy St N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway N Broadway Elysian Park

474 M 470 M 466 M other other 463 M 461 M 455 M 451 M 449 M 445 M 441 M 435 M 431 M 427 M 425 M 419 M 462 S 458 M 454 M 448 M 444 M 442 M 438 S 432 M 430 M 426 M 422 M 418 M 1041 C 1411 C 1415 M 1417 M 1412 C 1425 S v v v 433 M 433 M 1201 C 438 M 434 M 430 S 418 C 1201 C 1217 C C 1231 C other 445 M 451 S 449 S 441 M 437 M 435 S 431 S 427 M 425 S 419 S 417 M 1301 C 1305 other 1311 M 1319 M 1323 C 1327 other 1335 M other other v 1357 C other

$142,300

$189,700

3,772

$76,158

$233,666

3,250

$24,529

$23,343

2,794

$112,200

$47,940

1,498

$105,300

$223,700

3,328

$116,732

$140,610

2,152

$34,855

$159,395

3,710

$92,600

$82,400

1,878

$78,860

$118,291

2,312

$115,972

$96,256

4,285

$34,855

$15,563

1,763

$108,500

$328,363

4,820

$34,855

$86,831

4,630

$118,725

$5,710

2,198

$35,531

$58,894

4,261

$24,529

$10,478

1,626

$80,000

$310,000

6,260

$89,288

$377,570

5,020

$69,448

$75,423

2,250

$23,686

$73,651

2,168

$23,686

234,043

3,712

$94,860

$42,840

688

$78,092

$198,239

3,412

$105,622

$219,495

4,424

$107,100

$46,920

1,826

$27,071

$66,511

2,956

$27,071

$109,007

5,087

$412,329

$120,606

5,952

$49,584

$23,517

6,624

$32,148

$4,555

1,028

$28,762

$86,831

5,580

$30,454

$13,864

3,040

$31,518

$8,285

389

$581,947

$2,316,759

25,966

$581,947

$2,316,759

25,966

$60,081

$20,128

4,000

$22,329

$80,730

4,127

$25,038

$15,049

2,040

$24,195

$8,955

789

$122,000

$1,000

7,453

$255,607

$201,776

22,353

$61,605

$1,845

5,600

$44,000

$1,340

4,000

$208,000

$219,000

6,859

$97,920

$299,880

3,544

$28,762

$10,140

1,495

$8,788 $6,417 $5,744

$48,470

$7,808

900

$28,764

$73,790

3,810

$207,500

$141,500

4,594

$33,841

$23,346

1,500

$111,469

$25,321

1,114

$20,128

$21,990

1,936

$139,300

$40,400

1,207

$124,400

$60,600

984

$36,380

$42,984

3,432

$274,659

$404,843

7,939

$220,496

$149,500

2,730

$319,700

$906,300

15,920

$37,226

$15,563

2,824

$178,801

$49,230

1,200

$199,531

$84,215

3,686

$115,923

$99,746

2,183

$98,166

$624,110

3,587

$63,106

$142

$11,789

$781

2,800

$20,553,886 $21,578,361 623,877

270 Buildings land value: $20,553,886 buildings: $21,578,361 total value: $41,232,247 value/sq. ft.: $16.1/sq. ft.

169

research

Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave N Broadway Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Casanova St Elysian Park Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Solano Ave Casanova St

5414-024-034 5414-024-035 5414-024-036 5414-027-900 5414-027-901 5414-025-001 5414-025-002 5414-025-003 5414-025-004 5414-025-005 5414-025-006 5414-025-007 5414-025-008 5414-025-009 5414-025-010 5414-025-011 5414-025-012 5414-025-013 5414-025-014 5414-025-015 5414-025-016 5414-025-017 5414-025-018 5414-025-019 5414-025-020 5414-025-021 5414-025-022 5414-025-023 5414-025-024 5414-025-025 5414-025-026 5414-025-027 5414-025-028 5414-025-029 5414-025-030 5414-025-019 5414-026-020 5414-026-021 5414-026-022 5414-026-023 5414-021-001 5414-021-002 5414-021-003 5414-021-004 5414-021-020 5414-021-007 5414-021-008 5414-021-021 5414-021-011 5414-021-900 5414-021-012 5414-021-013 5414-021-014 5414-021-015 5414-021-016 5414-021-017 5414-021-018 5414-021-019 5414-022-001 5414-022-002 5414-022-003 5414-022-004 5414-022-005 5414-022-016 5414-022-008 5414-022-009 5414-022-010 5414-022-014 5414-022-900 5414-022-013 5414-022-012 5414-022-011 5414-020-900

Chavez Ravine

5414-023-002 5414-023-003 5414-023-004 5414-023-005 5414-023-006 5414-023-007 5414-023-008 5414-023-009 5414-023-032 5414-023-010 5414-023-011 5414-023-012 5414-023-013 5414-023-014 5414-023-015 5414-023-016 175. 5414-023-017 176. 5414-023-018 177. 5414-023-019 178. 5414-023-020 179. 5414-023-021 180. 5414-023-022 181. 5414-023-023 182. 5414-023-024 183. 5414-023-025 184. 5414-023-026 185. 5414-023-027 186. 5414-023-031 187. 5414-024-041 188. 5414-024-003 189. 5414-024-004 190. 5414-024-005 191. 5414-024-006 192. 5414-024-007 193. 5414-024-008 194. 5414-024-009 195. 5414-024-010 196. 5414-024-011 197. 5414-024-012 198. 5414-024-013 199. 5414-024-014 200. 5414-024-015 201. 5414-024-016 202. 5414-024-017 203. 5414-024-018 204. 5414-024-019 205. 5414-024-020 206. 5414-024-021 207. 5414-024-022 208. 5414-024-023 209. 5414-024-024 210. 5414-024-025 211. 5414-024-026 212. 5414-024-027 213. 5414-024-028 214. 5414-024-039 215. 5414-024-040 216. 5414-024-031 217. 5414-024-042 218. 5414-024-043 219. 5414-024-033 220. 5414-024-034 221. 5414-024-035 222. 5414-024-036 223. 5414-027-900 224. 5414-027-901 225. 5414-025-001 226. 5414-025-002 227. 5414-025-003 228. 5414-025-004 229. 5414-025-005 website: 230. 5414-025-006 zimas.lacity.org/ 231 5414-025-007 232. 5414-025-008 233. 5414-025-009 234. 5414-025-010 235. 5414-025-011 236. 5414-025-012 237. 5414-025-013 238. 5414-025-014

220.

221.

222.

223.

224.

225.

226.

227.

228.

229.

230.

231 232.

233.

234.

235.

236.

237.

238.

239.

240.

241.

242.

243.

244.

245.

246.

247.

248.

249.

250.

251.

252.

253.

254.

255.

256.

257.

258.

259.

260.

261.

262.

263.

264 265.

266.

267.

268.

269.

270.

271.

272.

273.

274.

275.

276.

277.

278.

279.

280.

281.

282.

283.

284.

285.

286.

287.

288.

289.

290.

291.

292.

research natural habitat

170

natural habitat

research natural habitat

171

unlined stretch: Sepulveda Flood Control Basin

Chavez Ravine site

Los An

geles R

iver

downtown

unlined stretch: Glendale Narrows

unlined stretch:

Los Angeles River unlined

south of Willow Street, Long Beach

Los Angeles River channelized dams and reservoirs

research natural habitat

debris basin

172

Los Angeles River infrastructure

websites: lalc.k12.ca.us/target/units/river/riverweb.html lacity.org/councilcmte/lariver organizations.oxy.edu/lariver folar.org

river length: 51 miles channelized river length: 47.9 miles

description The 48 miles of the concrete viaduct that stands in for the Los Angeles River was once a thriving natural body of water capable of sustaining a population of 250,000 â&#x20AC;&#x201D;about 6.25% of the current population. Discovered and settled by colonists from Mexico in 1781, the river continued to nurture and feed a growing Los Angeles from its early colonial period to its days as an emerging metropolis.

As the city grew exponentially, the Department of Water and Power viewed the river as an insufficient source and tapped and built the famous aqueducts to the High Sierras.

Additionally, in the 1930s the river flooded, killing 50 people and damaging huge swaths of property. It was apparent the river had neither the ability to sustain or control its water capacity.

As a result, in the late 1930s local politicians with the Army Corps of Engineers initiated the bold decision to control and revise the purpose of the Los Angeles River.

It became a flood-control channel, an urban amenity.

This industrial usage begat similar development along its banks, negating any potential for it becoming an ecologically sound and green recreational destination.

1880

earliest documentation of the L.A. River

1900

1914

1815–1825

downtown Los Angeles

1825–1889

1938

Rapid urbanization of Los Angeles conflicts with the ecology of the river. City begins to receive water remotely from 200 miles north.

Army Corps of Engineers complete the channelization of the river.

modern flooding

1889–1930 (pre-channelization)

1938 (channelized)–today 1995

0 1 2

4

6

8

2003

10 miles

1/2

Los Angeles River timeline

websites: website: lalc.k12.ca.us/target/units/river/riverweb.html deliriousla.net/lariver organizations.oxy.edu/lariver folar.org now: 1. lacity.org/councilcmte/lariver 2. Jose Cardenas, “Bureaucratic Shoals Slow River Effort, Multiple Jurisdictions Complicate Efforts to Revitalize the 51-mile Los Angeles River,” Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2003, sec. B.

now 1. A resurging interest in revitalizing the Los Angeles River as a natural and cultural amenity in the city has emerged. Various academic and non-profit groups have initiated a grass-roots effort to open discussion with policy makers and developers on a viable, ecological, and economically sound model for the river.

The Los Angeles City Council has formed the Ad Hoc Committee on the L.A. River: “The Ad Hoc River Committee will focus on major re-

vitalization efforts on our historic river; opportunities for parks, trails, recreation, nature, neighborhood identity, jobs, community development, tourism, civic pride and much more.”

The following are the Committee’s case studies: Guadalupe River, San Jose, California Platte River, Denver, Colorado Rio Salado, Tempe, Arizona San Antonio River, San Antonio, Texas

2. Attempts to revitalize the Los Angeles River are hampered by too many agencies with jurisdiction, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Northeast Trees, and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. Ironically, these agencies are not responsible for preventing or cleaning the graffiti and other eyesores that plague the river.

Sound visions may emanate from politicians, but the river’s immediate needs are maintenance and security.

173

research natural habitat

Los Angeles River historic routes

project site

Chavez Ravine

Los Angeles River watershed

downtown

site

land coverage: 834 sq. mi.

eles R iver

northern watershed: 360 sq. mi. (forest or open spaces)

Los An g

southern watershed: 474 sq. mi. (urban development) 200-year flood plain

flood plain: city

websites: ladpw.org/wmd/watershed/LA lalc.k12.ca.us/target/units/river/riverweb.html lacity.org/councilcmte/lariver organizations.oxy.edu/lariver folar.org average year 0 inches 1880

10

20

30

40

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

research natural habitat

1990

174

rainfall: 1880–2000

2000

Los Angeles Times, 2003 description: Ingersoll, Raymond. Bringing Water to Los Angeles: A Guidebook to the Los Angeles Aqueduct and the Sierra Nevada (UCLA, 1996). now: 1. Louis Sahagun, “Cutback Allows Aqueduct Overhaul,” Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2003, sec. B.

now

description The original aqueduct intercepted the Owens River within the Owens Valley and brought water, driven only by gravity, 231 miles south to L.A. In 1970, a second L.A. Aqueduct was constructed south of Haiwee Reservoir in the Owens Valley; this increased water delivery by 50%, so that the combined L.A. Aqueduct today supplies approximately 70% of L.A.’s water. The remainder comes from the California aqueduct (State Water Project; completed in 1973), the Colorado River

Aqueduct (completed in 1941), and local groundwater sources. Complex ecological and societal consequences have resulted from this human intervention of the landscape. The most obvious include the desertification of parts of the Owens Valley, the complete dryingup of Owens Lake, the lowering of Mono Lake, and the rapid development of the Los Angeles area.

1. The Colorado River Aqueduct saw its most extensive overhaul by the Metropolitan Water District in fifty years. Today they began refilling the entire system after shut down and draining.

Colorado River Aqueduct performance: capacity: 1 billion gallons / day population: 10 million people length: 242 miles cost: $8.2 million

Riv er

filtration plant

L.A. R iver

California Aqueduct

Colorado River Aqueduct

ta A

na

aqueduct

San

watershed boundary river / creek groundwater basin / sub-basin lake

water infrastructure

river

San ta A

dam

na

Riv er

L.A. R

iver

websites: lalc.k12.ca.us/target/units/river/riverweb.html lacity.org/councilcmte/lariver organizations.oxy.edu/lariver folar.org deliriousla.net/lariver

100-year flood plain 200-year flood plain historical flood plain

now 1. A 15% drop in water coming from the Colorado River has resulted in a new proposal to review how Southern California can receive more water. Part of the project involves altering existing infrastructural systems in Northern California that will free up more water for Los Angeles and San Diego. The operation is a joint effort by the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project.

2. A local artist has generated buzz with his idea to create an artificial lake in downtown Los Angeles using giant inflatable rubber dams strung along the Los Angeles River. Politicians are attracted by the notion; it could form the centerpiece for an urban renewal plan that would unite neighborhoods currently disconnected by rail yards and warehouses.

3. Initiated by a search for a missing girl, public attention focused on the continually stagnant murky quality of the Echo Park lake water. The girl was located but concerns over water quality persisted. To address the concern, biofilters will be used to clear the water in Echo, Machao, MacArthur, Debs, and Reseda Parks.

Biofilters utilize live wetlands plants and air pumps below the surface to aerate and oxygenate the water.

The lake cleanup will cost $1 million.

175

research natural habitat

flood region: metro

websites: organizations.oxy.edu/lariver deliriousla.net/lariver now: 1. Tim Quinn, “Plan Alters Water Flow to L.A.,” Los Angeles Times, August 9, 2003, sec. B. 2. Miguel Bustillo, “Giant inflatable rubber dams would create an artificial lake downtown that could serve as a centerpiece for urban renewal,” Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2003, sec. B. 3. George Ramos, “Cleaner Water on Tap at City’s Echo Park Lake,” Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2003, sec. B.

1,200 sq. ft.

average size of yard per single family house (R1 zone)

x 1,287,679 homes = 34,482 acres in City of Los Angeles

total size of residential front and back yards

research natural habitat

= 41

Central Parks in New York City

total residential yard acreage City of Los Angeles

176

websites: factfinder.census.gov (2000 U.S. Census) Los Angeles Almanac, 2001 lacity.org/lahd/curriculum/gettingfacts/infrastructure/parks.html

Central Park, New York City 843 acres

Griffith Park, City of Los Angeles 4,217 acre

The City of Los Angeles has 15,600 acres of parkland, including the largest municipal park in the United Statesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Griffith Park description New Yorkers champion Central Park as the cultural heart and physical lung of Manhattan. Its location and design serves as the perfect antidote to the hyperdense urbanity that envelopes every individual.. It is everyoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s yard and collective shared space.

Los Angelesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s geological response is Griffith Park.

Centrally located and offering a more rugged and hilly exodus from the metropolis, it represents a piece of

found nature rather than a designed piece of landscape. Unfortunately, many residents bypass the largest municipal park in the United States serving instead as a more visual and acoustic backdrop for freeways and the neighborhoods that encircle it. Griffith Park also suffers from a less exportable mythological identity than its more popular local rival, the beach.

One has to recalibrate an understanding of green

space per person. As with automobiles and transportation, the individual trumps the collective. Rather than a collective enterprise, the green spaces are the actual back and front yards of each resident, their own slice of the public park pie.

In Los Angeles, the average single residential plot is 5,000 sq. ft. offering aproximately 1,200 sq. ft. of green landscape to tend, enjoy, and hold dominion over.

Malibu Point

Las Tunas County Beach

Topanga Beach

Will Rogers State Beach

Santa Monica State Beach low tide

high tide

Venice City Beach

155 feet

average depth of beach

x

45 miles

approx . length of beach Dockweiler State Beach

= 845 acres total beach surface Manhattan Beach

=

aproximately 1 Central Park in New York City

Hermosa Beach

Redondo Beach

177

now city Los Angeles River Basin (non-mountain area) Los Angeles Chicago Boston New York City Minneapolis

park ratio 152 sq. ft. per person 130 sq. ft. per person 115 sq. ft. per person 166 sq. ft. per person 300 sq. ft. per person 756 sq. ft. per person

City of Los Angeles

382 public parks 123 recreation centers 52 centers 52 pools

28 senior citizen centers 13 golf courses 18 child care centers 7 camps

research natural habitat

beaches in Los Angeles

websites: usc.edu/org/seagrant/beach/beach.html beaches.co.la.ca.us/BandH/Beaches/Main.htm

97.61 acres total acreage of downtown parks and open spaces

9

14

10

400 380 360

11

7

340 320 300 280

13

+400

4

12

5

15

6

3

8

260 2

16

240

1

220

+225 parks and open spaces

area (approx.)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

162,863 sq. ft.

Grand Hope Park 225,002 sq. ft.

Pershing Square 76,686 sq. ft.

Central Library 17,786 sq. ft.

Bunker Hill steps 264,997 sq. ft.

California Plaza 108,267 sq. ft.

Angels Flight 432,681 sq. ft.

MOCA Grand Avenue 41,469 sq. ft.

Biddy Mason Park 59,255 sq. ft.

Music Center 236,806 sq. ft.

Paseo de los pobladores 101,434 sq. ft.

Court of Flags 116,864 sq. ft.

Criminal Courts Building 339,413 sq. ft.

Los Angeles City Hall 592,757 sq. ft.

El Pueblo Historic Park 87,770 sq. ft.

MOCA Geffen Contemporary and Japanese American National Museum 16. Little Tokyo 83,314 sq. ft.

17. other 1,304,596 sq. ft.

Bunker Hill

Financial District

research natural habitat

total green space 4,251,960 sq. ft.

(97.61 acres)

parks and open spaces downtown Los Angeles

178

topography downtown Los Angeles

websites: websites: navigatela.org navigatela.org nationalmap.gov laparks.org/info.htm now: 1. interenvironment.org/pa/trzyna-smmc.ht 2. Martha Groves, “Making Parks Work So People Can Relax,” Los Angeles Times, July 20, 2003, sec. E. 3. Li Fellers, “244-Acre Development Dies,” Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2003, sec. B.

=

now 1. “Los Angeles has . . . the least accessible park system of any major city in America. Only 30 percent of Angelenos live within a quarter mile [0.4 km] of a park, compared with between 80 percent and 90 percent in Boston and New York. Here in Los Angeles more than 700,000 children do not live within walking distance of a park,” Mayor Villaraigosa, 2005

2. Edwin Schlossberg, disciple of Buckminster Fuller and reknowned advocate of interactive projects, plans a $2.7 billion communal spirit in Playa Vista with “a number of ceremonial rituals throughout the year.”

The project is supported by Steve Soboroff and promotes empowering ideas such as competitive gardening. Schlossberg says, “It’s such a great opportunity to create tools for a woven, integrated community.

There’s something epic about it.”

3. 244 acres of vibrant nature with 2,300 trees were slated for a secluded luxury housing development.

After 10 years of community and environmental opposition by a Glendale group, the developer sold the land for $25 million to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, City of Glendale, and the State of California to be converted into a park. The purchase of this park came through Governor Davis’s Urban Parks Initiative.

parks and open spaces

area (approx.)

1. Taylor Yards

30 acres

2. Elysian Park

575 acres

3. The Los Angeles State Historic Park

33.2 acres

1

2

3

warehouse district

Los Angeles River 0

100ft

500ft

0

1000ft

1/3mile

1/2mile

1 mile

websites: navigatela.org laparks.org/info.htm Los Angeles Almanac, 2001 nationalmap.gov description: Elysian Park Master Plan. City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation & Parks. August 2005. downloadable from laparks.org

179

description Elysian Park: Originally part of the Spanish land grant

from King Carlos III of Spain to El Pueblo de Los Angeles in the late 18th century and officially declared a park in 1886, Elysian Park is the city’s oldest park. The park’s 604 acres comprise urban trails, panoramic overlooks, picnic spots, and green recreation areas.

Elysian Park is bounded by Dodger Stadium to the south, the Los Angeles River to the east, the 5 Freeway to the north, and residential neighborhoods to

the west. Bisected by narrow neighborhood and park roads, as well as wide arterial streets including Stadium Way, Academy Road, and Elysian Park Avenue, the park is accessible from local neighborhoods and downtown Los Angeles.

In 2005, the Department of Recreation & Parks drafted a new Master Plan to revitalize the park, based on the desires of the community and the city to preserve and

protect the natural resource. According to the Master Plan, “revitalization of Elysian Park is a key component in the city’s strategy to create and maintain a desirable quality of life in Los Angeles.”

research natural habitat

parks and open spaces Chavez Ravine and Elysian Park

= 1,273 x

project site

metropolitan Los Angeles

5,958,581,000 gallons/day

4,680,739 gallons/day

(9 Silver Lake Reservoirs)

(1% of Silver Lake Reservoir)

water consumption

website: mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/ywater01.html lacity.org/ead/EADWeb-WNR/drinking_water.htm Los Angeles Almanac, 2001

electricity generated

by DWP plants coal 50%

3

natural gas 25%

1

nuclear 12%

7

6

2

hydroelectric 11% 8

green 2% (solar and landfill gas facilities)

13

= 1,270 x

4

5

11 9 10

metropolitan Los Angeles

project site

12

10.54 quadrillion BTUs/day

.0083 quadrillion BTUs/day

power plants power plants

research natural habitat

local power plants

energy consumption and sources

180

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Big Creek Hydroelectric System Castaic Power Plant Columbia River Power System, Oregon Harbor Station Haynes Generating Station Hoover Dam, Nevada Intermountain Power Project, Utah

websites: factfinder.census.gov (2000 U.S. Census) Los Angeles Almanac, 2001 now: 1. Nancy Rivera Brooks, “Setting Up a Windmill in County Is Almost Quixotic, Builders Say,” Los Angeles Times, February 11, 2003, sec. C. 2. Penelope Grenoble O’Malley, “Ex-Builder Now Battles ‘Killer Sprawl’,” Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2003, sec. B.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Mojave Generating Station, Nevada Navajo Generating Station, Arizona Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Arizona San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Scattergood Station Valley Station

now 1. Los Angeles County’s conservative approval process is at odds with state law that supports backyard wind turbines. Many homeowners and builders complain of the regulatory difficulties in installing turbines in backyards. County officials defend their approach as they regulate the proliferation of turbines relative to the density of a region’s population. Turbines are banned in the City of San Francisco and other environmentally sensitive areas.

One homeowner in Acton cut his power bills in half by installing three windmills on his five acre property.

However, it took him nine months to gain approval from the county.

2. The Nature Conservancy hired E. J. Remson three years ago to create a parkway along the Santa Clara River in Ventura County. Using money provided by the Coastal Conservancy, Remson and his team identify and acquire the biological and strategically significant land parcels needed to execute the project. The Nature Conservancy’s seeks to find a balance between burgeoning development and preservation concerns, and to successfully combat what it calls “killer sprawl.”

more than 1,000 400–1,000 100–400 fewer than 100 chances of getting cancer from toxic air pollution

air pollution

website: losangelesalmanac.com

1

number of acres moved

5

10 + acres 100 + acres 1,000 + acres moderate landslide event high landslide event agglomeration high ground agglomeration

3 major landslides 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

La Canada debris flow (1,920 acres),1983 Portuguese Bend slide (270 acres),1956 Big Rock Mesa slide (200 acres), 1983 Anaheim Hills slide (60 acres), 1993 Northridge slides (2,560 acres), 1994

2 4

landslides

Michael Dear and Heidi Sommer, eds., Atlas of Southern California, vol. 2 (Los Angeles: Southern California Studies Center, University of Southern California, 1998).

San Andreas fault zone Santa Suzanna fault zone Northridge fault

fault line magnitude 1–6 magnitude 6.1–7 magnitude 7.1+ agglomeration high ground agglomeration

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

3

San Gabriel fault

1

San Antonio fault Verdugo fault Chatsworth fault 5 Sierra Madre fault zone Stoddard Canyon fault Hollywood fault Clamshell-Sawpit Canyon fault Eagle Rock fault San Fernando fault zone Red-Hill fault Beverly Hills fault Raymond fault Cucamonga fault San Jacinto fault Puente Hills fault Malibu Coast fault SanJose fault Santa Monica fault Whittier fault Newport-Inglewood fault zone major earthquakes 4 Chino fault Los Alamitos fault San Juan Capistrano-Wrightwood (7.5), 1812 Peralta Hills fault Redondo Canyon fault El Mondeno fault Long Beach (6.4), 1933 Ensinore fault zone Sylmar (6.6), 1971 Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone Cabrillo fault Whittier Narrows (5.9), 1987 Northridge (6.7), 1994 2 Palos Verdes fault zone

websites: geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs110-99 Southern California Earthquake Data Center (scecdc.org) now: 1. Gary Polakovic, “Smog Fighters Out of Weapons,” Los Angeles Times, July 16, 2003, sec. B. 2. Miguel Bustillo, “Californians Are Willing to Pay for Cleaner Air, Poll Finds,” Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2003, sec. B. 3. Usha Lee McFarling, “Major Threat Seen in L.A. Quake Fault,” Los Angeles Times, April 4, 2003, sec. A.

181

now 1. Supplemental smog-control measures are under review as California still struggles. Despite vehicular regulations controlling smog, other sources emerge as culprits. Though vehicular exhaust accounts for 75% of emissions, household consumer products, including anti-perspirants and perfume, rank second. Additional measures range from saving 2 tons of emissions daily from idling diesel trucks electrically to a 30 cent tax on California processed oil.

2. Environmental issues and lifestyle preferences have come to a head when it comes to Californians and their attitude toward cleaner air. In a poll taken by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Hewlett, Irvine, and Packard Foundations, Californians will sacrifice for air polllution but not with their vehicles. The biggest culprits are the SUVs owned by smog-concerned drivers.

3. Downtown Los Angeles sits on the Puente Hills system, which has the capacity to be 15 times stronger than the Northridge earthquake. Capable of a 7.5 earthquake, this faultline is more dangerous due to the basin’s soft silt and its ability to magnify and orient the energy towards downtown. The ground will thrust upwards between three to eight feet. But the fault can remain inert for another 1,000 years.

research natural habitat

faultlines

47 29

15

47 50

24 32

30

150

50

100

100

145 approximate depth to bedrock

100

actual depth below surface to bedrock measured via boring

145

125

* approximate depth to bedrock measured in feet below ground surface

Arts District bedrock level Amended Little Tokyo Redevelopment Plan Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles

157

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

numerous drums with unknown contents observed underground storage tank observed tank pit and processing equipment observed processing equipment observed possible underground storage tank observed former gasoline service station and industrial site oil and grease storage vista ern site- hydraulic oil spill 2000 former Lockheed Aircraft Company site former City of Los Angeles auto service repair site former Moline Alley

8

6

6

10

6 11 6

3 6

9 4

5

6

6

drilling hole 6

completed oil well 2

research natural habitat

plugged and abandoned dry hole

Arts District site contamination

Amended Little Tokyo Redevelopment Plan Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles

182

7 1

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 approximate historically highest ground water contours (measured in feet)

Arts District water table map Amended Little Tokyo Redevelopment Plan Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles

L L PL PL

LL liquefaction zones L

liquefiable: ground water to <40 ft. below ground

PL

potentially liquefiable: ground water to 40 to 50 ft. below ground

LL

low liquefaction potential: ground water to >50 ft. below ground

LL

Amended Little Tokyo Redevelopment Plan Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles

183

research natural habitat

Arts District liquefaction zone (liquefaction potential map)

people & culture

184

research

people and culture

research

people & culture

185

518,296 persons

3,668–10,000 homeless*

ain

201,000 private

3r d

M

Skid Row 2 nd

Alameda

500,000

400,000

more people sleep on the streets each night than the combined capacity of Los Angeles Cathedral (3,000 seats) and Walt Disney Concert Hall (2,265 seats) 300,000 * Reports on the number of homeless have varied from a one-night “official” count of 3,668 by LAHSA to informal estimates of 7-10,000

Downtown

downtown daily homeless population

249,734 government

Donald R. Spivack, History of Skid Row Series, Paper 1, weingart.org/institute/research/colloquia/pdf/HistoryofSkidRow.pdf 2005 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count Steve Lopez, Los Angeles Times, Points West motherjones.com

200,000

40,000 visitors 50 40 thousands of people

100,000

40,000

3,668

Disneyland

downtown daily visitors population

downtown

Sea World

Los Angeles Zoo

* Based on estimate of 14.6 million per year

residents

workers

downtown daily population

Universal Citywalk

0 visitors *

homeless

20 10

23,894

The Los Angeles Downtown Center Business Improvement District The Downtown Los Angeles Market Report & Demographic Survey Of New Downtown Residents, California Employment Development Department ES202 Data January 2005 The Downtown Los Angeles Market Report & Demographic Survey Of New Downtown Residents, website: January 2005 themeparkinsider.com 2004 Downtown Economic Overview and Forecast, Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

research people & culture

30

186

Skid Row, also known as Central City East and “The Nickel” because it centers on Fifth Street, is a 52block area that houses some of the city’s most destitute residents. It is the largest skid row in the nation.

Each night, thousands sleep on the streets in tents and cardboard boxes, while others are able to take refuge in emergency beds managed by a multitude of social service organizations. Drug use, prostitution, and other illicit activities are commonplace on the streets, as

are deaths by overdose and murder.

The history of this area began as downtown Los Angeles segued from a predominantly agricultural to an industrial based economy. With the advent of the railroad on Main Street, a large, mostly male, transient population began arrivng looking for work and their future. The area surrouding the railroad station—the main entry point to Los Angeles—quickly became a place of transition, embracing those who sought but

ultimately failed to obtain the prosperity and good life that Southern California seemingly promised. This attraction was exasperated during the Great Depression.

In response to the rising population, the area developed an array of Single Resident Occupancy (SRO) hotels and social services to help those in need. In the 1970s, as part of the urban renewal process, the city devised a “policy of containment” that defined the boundaries of Skid Row and concentrated on improving the SRO hous-

23,894 residents

450,734 workers

15,929 households

249,734 goverment 201,000 private

6 out of 10 residents are men

50% 40% 30% 20%

sex

10%

residents occupation

0

other

manufacturing

retail

wholesale

fire

service

downtown

10

50–59

40–49

30–39

10–19

20–29

distribution of business 0–9

% of population

20

L.A. County

0%

30

age

450450 400400

20

Downtown

% of population

40 30

thousands of workers

LA County

50

number of employees

350350 300300 250250 200200 150150 100 100 5050

race / ethnicity

private sector

downtown residential population

2004 2004

2003 2003

2002 2002

2001 2001

2000 2000

1999 1999

1998 1998

1997 1997

1996 1996

0%

1995 1995

00 1994 1994

Latino

Asian

black

white

0

government sector

downtown daily worker population The Downtown Los Angeles Market Report & Demographic Survey Of New Downtown Residents, January 2005 California Employment Development Dept., Labor Market Information Div. ES202 website: factfinder.gov (2000 U.S. Census)

research

The Downtown Los Angeles Market Report & Demographic Survey Of New Downtown Residents, January 2005 website: factfinder.gov (2000 U.S. Census)

ing stock, stabilizing social services, and encouraging industrial development within the area.

The concentration of development has had the adverse effect of attracting even more people and making Skid Row a human dumping ground. Recently released criminals from the county jail just a few blocks away easily make their way to the Nickel. In late 2005, several hospitals admitted to dropping off mentally ill patients in the area and, over the years, there have been

unconfirmed reports of police from other jurisdictions doing the same.

As downtown continues to resurge, the problem of what to do with Skid Row and the homeless population remains one of the most difficult and pressing issues facing developers and the city.

people & culture

187

site downtown Los Angeles Pasadena Los Angeles agglomeration San Francisco

20 minute walking distance

New York

census track

persons/sq. mi.

people & culture

research

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

The Downtown Los Angeles Market Report & Demographic Survey Of New Downtown Residents, January 2005 California Employment Development Dept., Labor Market Information Div. ES202 websites: factfinder.census.gov (2000 U.S. Census) Los Angeles Almanac, 2001

188

Downtown Los Angeles, like many other downtowns, sees an enormous influx of people during the workday.

Nearly half a million workers converge daily; more than half are government employees. In the evenings the streets are sparse, but that has begun to change.

All neighborhoods throughout downtown are experiencing an explosion of development.

New cultural, commercial, and entertainment venues attract diverse visitors at all times of day. An estimated 14.6 million people visit downtown each year.

5,000

10,000

15,000

persons/sq. mi.

1,000

downtown population density

0

Vital to the continuous “after hours” activity is a slowly burgeoning residential population. In 2004 (latest data), 3,500 units were under construction; almost 5,000 were permitted or planned. A recent survey conducted by the DCBID reveals the demographics of the newest residential developments (market rate and affordable). Occupants are generally young, white, professional, and have high incomes—the median household income is $90,000; nearly half work downtown.

20,000

25,000

Burbank

Pasadena

Pasadena

Hollywood

Latino population (17,500 people)

West Adams

10

white population (10,300 people)

m

ileMontebello ra di us

Beverly Hills

Silver Lake

10 Palms

Olympic Village

m

ile

ra d

iu

s

Inglewood Lynwood

Glendale

Pasadena Hollywood

African American population (6,600 people)

10

Palms

Asian population (6,400 people)

m

Florence

ile

ra d

Pasadena

Hollywood

10

m

Monterey Park

ile

ra d

iu

iu

s

s

Compton

20,000

15,000

10,000

1,000

population density by ethnicity

5,000

persons/sq. mi.

research

The Downtown Los Angeles Market Report & Demographic Survey Of New Downtown Residents, January 2005 California Employment Development Dept., Labor Market Information Div. ES202 websites: factfinder.census.gov (2000 U.S. Census) scag.ca.gov

downtown residents:

53.8% males

49.8% between the ages of 23 and 34

56.8% single

46.1% work downtown

50.5% executives and professionals

57.9% Caucasian

11.0% writers/artists/entertainers

17.1% Asian/Pacific Islander

15.3% students

people & culture

189

Los Angeles County $43,066

January

South Los Angeles $29,169 East Los Angeles-Eagle Rock $33,358 Antelope Valley $33,358 Santa Clara/Valencia $33,453

March

West San Fernardo Valley $43,828 East San Fernardo Valley $45,234 South Bay/LAX $45,143

central/downtown Los Angeles $52,332 West Los Angeles $57,086

30K

40K

Chinese New Year Festival Dinosaur Day Symphony for Youth, the Evolution of the Orchestra

Feburary

North Gateway $35,507 San Gabriel Valley $36,543 Long Beach/Lakewood S Gateway $39,102 Crenshaw/Mid-City/Hollywood $43,192

20K

Oshogatsu Festival – Celebrating Japanese New Year Downtown on Ice, Winter Wonderland

50K

average annual wage

60K

April Pershing Square Summer Concert Series Blue Four Festival, Queer History Festival Asian & Pacific Islander Older Adult Festival Family FunFest and annual Kodomo-no-Hi, Children’s Day Celebration Performing Arts Concert Series, Very Special Arts Festival Cinco de Mayo Celebration May Grand Performances Pershing Square Summer Concert Series Los Angeles Kids Read Festival ArtWallah Festival of South Asian Arts Macy’s Plaza Presents Kid’s Club

<$150K 4% $100K–$150K 6% $75K–$100K 8%

June

$50K–$75K 13%

Shakespeare in the Square, Los Angeles’s Romeo and Juliet Grand Performances Pershing Square Summer Concert Series Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival

$35K–$50K 14% $25K–$35K 7%

0-25K 48%

0

10

20 30 percentage of households

40

July ALSO SWISS Arts Festival Los Angeles Tofu Festival Pershing Square Summer Concert Series Grand Performances

household income August

Los Angeles County

thousands $

downtown L.A.

Grand Performances Pershing Square Summer Concert Series

September Grand Performances

income

per capita income

$

websites: downtownla.com artscenecal.com csun.edu usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles

research people & culture

families

households

October November

Feria de Los Ninos Festival, Los Angeles Mariachi Festival Downtown on Ice, Winter Wonderland Outdoor Skating Rink Downtown on Ice, Winter Wonderland Outdoor Skating Rink

December

downtown festival and events, 2003 websites: downtownla.com artscenecal.com csun.edu usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles

190

L.A. Live is a 4 million square foot, multi-billion dollar sports and entertainment complex under development in downtown Los Angeles, adjoining the Staples Center and the Convention Center. Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), the company that owns the Staples Center, is developing the complex with additional private partners and public financing. The complex will be built on 28 acres of parking lots surrounding Staples Center. The first phase of the project broke ground in September 2005, and construction is estimated to be complete by 2014.

Mayor Villaraigosa has called complex’s four star, 50story, 1,100-room Convention Center hotel the linchpin of downtown’s revitalization. The city hopes that the hotel, estimated at $600 million, will bring significant business to the ailing Convention Center and has offered nearly $300 million in public financing, including a loan, tax breaks, and fee waivers.

Other components of the L.A. Live complex will include a 40,000 square foot outdoor plaza; ESPN broadcast and restaurant facilities; a 14-screen cineplex; a 2,200 capacity live music venue; a 7,100-seat state-of-the-art live theater; and other entertainment, restaurant, residential, retail, and office spaces.

theaters

educational institutions

museums

sports and recreation centers

galleries

religious institutions

civic centers

20 minute walking distance

cultural institutions research

websites: Automobile Club of Southern California Street Map downtownla.com artscenecal.com csun.edu usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles

people & culture

191

20 minute walking distance 1 Dodger Stadium 2 Ahmanson Theater 3 Mark Taper Forum 4 Dorothy Chandler Pavilion 5 Walt Disney Concert Hall 6 Laemmle Grande 7 East-West Players 8 Japanese American Cultural and Community Center 9 Million Dollar Theater 10 Los Angeles Theatre Center 11 Palace Theater 12 Loweâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s State Theater 13 Orpheum Theater 14 Shrine Auditorium 15 Imax Theater

1

2 4

3 5

6

7 9 10

11 12

theaters and concert venues

people & culture

research

websites: Automobile Club of Southern California Street Map downtownla.com artscenecal.com csun.edu usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles

192

14

15

13

8

20 minutes walking distance 1 The Brewery Arts Colony 2 MOCA Grand Avenue 3 MOCA Geffen Contemporary 4 Japanese American National Museum 5 Museum of Science and Industry 6 Natural History Museum 7 California African American Museum 8 California Science Center 9 INMO Gallery 10 China Art Objects 11 Instituto Cultural Mexicano 12 El Pueblo Gallery 13 Wells Fargo History Museum 14 Los Angeles Artcore Center 15 4th St. Gallery 16 Art Share 17 The Project 18 Cirrus 19 Gallery 835 20 Museum of Neon Art 21 Lindhurst Gallery

1

9 10

11 13

12 2

3 14 16

museums and galleries

17 20

research

19 18

193

22 5 6 7 8

people & culture

websites: Automobile Club of Southern California Street Map downtownla.com artscenecal.com csun.edu usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles

21

4

1

20 minute walking distance 1 primary 2 2 primary 3 primary 4 primary 4 5 primary 6 secondary 7 primary 8 primary 9 primary 7 10 secondary 11 primary 12 primary 8 13 secondary 14 secondary 15 Evans Community Adult School 16 secondary 17 secondary 18 Colburn School of Performing Arts 19 primary 20 primary 21 Golden Gate University 22 Los Angeles City College 23 primary 24 primary 25 primary 26 primary 27 SCI-Arc 28 secondary 29 primary 30 Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising 19 31 Loyola Law School 32 primary 33 secondary 34 Mount St. Maryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s College 35 Los Angeles Trade Tech College 20 36 University of Southern California 37 primary 38 primary 31

3

5

6

9

10

11 13

12

15

16

14 17

18

23 22

21

32

educational institutions

27

websites: Automobile Club of Southern California Street Map downtownla.com artscenecal.com csun.edu usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles

research people & culture

24 30

25

33

194

29 28 36

26

34 35 37

38

20 minute walking distance 1 Cypress Park Branch Library 2 La Biblioteca de Lincoln Heights 3 Los Angeles Police Academy 4 Chavez Ravine Arboretum 5 U.S. Naval Reserve/Armory 6 Echo Park Branch Library 7 Chinatown Branch Library 8 Los Angeles County Jail 9 Metropolitan Transit Authority 10 Metropolitan Detention Center 11 Federal Building 12 Los Angeles Police Department Parker Center 13 Federal Courthouse 14 Hall of Justice 15 Hall of Records 16 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 17 Department of Water and Power 18 county courts 19 law library 20 City Hall 21 Caltrans District 7 Headquarters 6 22 (new) Los Angeles Police headquarters 23 state offices 24 Central Library 25 Ronald Reagan State Building 26 Central Police Station

1

3

4 2

5

7 17

8 16

15

18

14 19 23

20

9

13 12

10 11

22 21

24 25

civic institutions

26

research

websites: Automobile Club of Southern California Street Map downtownla.com artscenecal.com csun.edu usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles

people & culture

195

1

20 minute walking distance 1 Elysian Valley Recreation Center 2 Cypress Recreation Center 3 Montecito del Lio Politti 4 Elysian Park Therapeutic Recreation 5 Los Angeles Youth Athletic Club Center 6 Dodger Stadium 7 Alpine Recreation Center 8 YMCA 9 Staples Center 10 recreation center 11 recreation center 12 recreation center 13 Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum

2 3

4

The Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles is a multipurpose, state-of-theart sports arena that also hosts entertainment events, concerts, and awards shows, including the Grammys. The arena is located adjacent to the Los Angeles Convention Center complex, near the intersection of the 10 and 110 Freeways.

With the nearby Pico Metro Rail Station on the Blue Line, many Metro bus routes, and 8,900 parking spaces within four city blocks, the arena is easily accessible by car and public transit.

5

6

Designed by the architecture firm NBBJ, the 950,000 square foot, 20,000-seat arena was completed in 1999 at a cost of $375 million. Staples, the office-supply chain, paid $100,000,000 for twenty years of naming rights. Owned and operated by Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), the Staples Center is part of the planned 4-million square foot L.A. Live entertainment, retail, and residential development.

7

The Staples Center is the home of five professional sports franchises: the NBA’s Los Angeles Lakers and Los Angeles Clippers, the NHL’s Los Angeles Kings, the AFL’s Los Angeles Avengers, and the WNBA’s Los Angeles Sparks.

In 2003 the city controller released a report that declares the Staples Center a successful and positive contributor to both the South Park business and to the city. The city receives more than $3 million annually from business generated by the Staples Center.

8

10

sports centers

people & culture

research

9 website: Automobile Club of Southern California Street Map downtownla.com artscenecal.com csun.edu usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles

196

12

11 13

20 min walking distance 1 Sung Ji Korean Baptist Church 1 2 Khandakapala Buddhist Temple 3 Brosnan John St. Ann Catholic Church 4 Unity Church of Truth 5 San Conrado Catholic Mission 6 Golden West Christian Church 7. Ukranian Orthodox Church of St. Andrew 8 Holy Hill Community Church 9 Chinese Catholic Church 10 St. Peter 11 First Chinese Baptist Church 12 Chinese United Methodist Church 6 13 Croatian St. Anthony Catholic Church 14 Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels 15 Mission Church 16 Higashi Honganji Buddhist Temple 17 Japanese Catholic Center 18 St. Vibianaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 19 United Church

2

3

3

4 4

5 7

9 10

11

8 12

13

15

14

18 16 17

religious institutions research

19 website: Automobile Club of Southern California Street Map downtownla.com artscenecal.com csun.edu usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles

people & culture

197

transportation

198

research

transportation

research

199

transportation

Sacramento 2:10

San Francisco 2:30

Merced

San Jose 2:00 Fresno 1:20

Bakersfield 0:50

L.A. Union Station

Ontario Airport Riverside

Palmdale Victorville

Ontario Union Station

San Bernardino

West L.A. March

LAX Anaheim

Irvine

Southern California Maglev Network (initial operating segment) Southern California Maglev Network

* estimated travel time based on timetable provided

by California High Speed Train Authority

railway proposed California high-speed rail

websites: website: cahighspeedrail.ca.gov redline.calmaglev.org igs.berkeley.edu/library/htHighSpeedRail.htm description: the staff of the Institute of Governmental Studies Library, from igs.berkeley.edu/library/htHighSpeedRail.htm

research transportation

railway proposed SCAG Maglev rail

200

description “The issue of transportation in California is a critical one. With the world’s 6th largest economy and an ever-growing population, rapid travel between major cities and population areas is becoming increasingly important.

In the 1980s promoters pushed high-speed rail, a concept already in use in Asia and Europe, as a possible alternative to overcrowded highways and expensive air travel. In the 1990s the attention over high-speed rail

led to the creation of the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), a Board charged with designing a high-speed train system for the state. CHSRA introduced a plan in 2000 for a system that would link all of the states major population centers including the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Sacramento, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century was presented to the legislature

in September of 2002 as Senate Bill 1856. The bill would provide for the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds, $9 billion of which would be used in conjunction with available federal funds for funding the planning and construction of a high-speed train system.

It is currently slated to go before the voters as a proposition in the November 7, 2006 general election (Initiative Update, California Secretary of State).”

32 minutes 36

35 18 19 33

17 16 13

32 31 30

34

28

29 26 25 23

27

22

24

37

38 minutes 20

Claremont (Gold line Phase II)

15 14

12 11

10 9 21 1 2

3

4

38 39 Santa Monica (Exposition LRT)

6

5

40

7

8

14 minutes

41 42 43 44 45

65 67 68 69

64

66

70

63

62

61

58 46

55 minutes

59 47

60

62 minutes

48

49

50 51

57 56

52 53 54 55

61 minutes Metro commuter rail lines and stations Metro Rail transit lines and stations future Metro Rail transit lines and stations freeways distribution nodes

websites: mta.net/trans_planning/CPD/midcity la-pasblueline.org urbanrail.net/am/lsan/los-angeles.htm

time 00:00 00:02 00:03 00:05 00:08 00:11 00:13 00:14

Gold Line 09 Chinatown 10 Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park 11 Heritage Square/Arroyo 12 Southwest Museum 13 Highland Park 14 Mission 15 Fillmore 16 Del Mar 17 Memorial Park 18 Lake 19 Allen 20 Sierra Madre Villa

time 00:05 00:08 00:10 00:12 00:16 00:21 00:25 00:26 00:27 00:30 00:32 00:38

Red Line 21 Union Station 22 Civic Center/Tom Bradley 23 Pershing Square 24 7th St/Metro Center 25 Westlake/MacArthur Park 26 Wilshire/Vermont 27 Wilshire/Normandie 28 Wilshire/Western 29 Vermont/Beverly 30 Vermont/Santa Monica 31 Vermont/Sunset 32 Hollywood/Western 33 Hollywood/Vine 34 Hollywood/Highland 35 Universal City 36 North Hollywood

time 00:03 00:05 00:06 00:08 00:10 00:12 00:14 00:16 00:14 00:16 00:17 00:19 00:22 00:24 00:28 00:32

Blue Line 37 Pico 38 Grand 39 San Pedro 40 Washington 41 Vemon 42 Slauson 43 Florence 44 Firestone 45 103rd/Kenneth Hahn 46 Imperial/Wilmington Rosa Parks 47 Compton 48 Artesia 49 Del Amo 50 Wardlow 51 Willow 52 Pacific Coast Highway 53 Anaheim 54 5th St 55 1st St 56 Long Beach/Transit Mall 57 Pacific

time 00:10 00:13 00:15 00:18 00:20 00:22 00:23 00:24 00:28 00:30 00:33 00:36 00:39 00:43 00:45

Green Line 58 Long Beach/I-105 59 Lakewood/I-105 60 I-65/I-105 61 Avalon/I-105 62 Harbor Fwy/I-105 63 Vermont/I-105 64 Crenshaw/I-105 65 Hawthorne/I-105 66 Aviation/I-105 67 Mariposa/ Nash 68 El Segundo/Nash 69 Douglas Rosecrans 70 Marine/Redondo Beach

time 00:37 00:50 01:02 00:32 00:34 00:36 00:39 00:42 00:45 00:47 00:49 00:51 00:55

00:52 01:01

research

railway Metro Rail travel distances

Gold Line Extension 01 1st St/Alameda 02 1st St/Utah 03 1st St/Boyle 04 1st St/Soto 05 3rd St/Indiana 06 3rd St/Ford 07 3rd St/Mednik 08 Pomona/Atlantic

description For 50 years, Los Angeles enjoyed an intimate and exclusive relationship with one dominant vehicular transportation system. Large expanses of land allowed miles of highways to be built, fueling a local culture nurtured in climatic and individual freedom.

Within two generations, the city faces the limitations of its prosperity and braces for a shift toward an intelligent and integrated approach to public transportation.

In 1963, the last streetcar lines closed in Los Angeles. It would take 30 years for the first line in the city’s new public rail transportation system to begin operations. In 1993, a 59 mile long subway, the Metro Red Line, began operating. Subsequent lines followed with the above-ground/on-grade Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems due to their economic and engineering advantages. The four LRT lines are the two Metro Blue Lines, the Metro Gold Line, and the planned Mid-City/

Exposition Line. They radiate in all cardinal directions to connect vital L.A. neighborhoods and to the cities of Pasadena, Culver City, and Long Beach. The Exposition Line promises to be the first to connect the Westside to the city’s center. Mayor Villaraigosa has also resurrected efforts for the westward expansion of the Red Line, which will ultimately connect the city’s iconic coastline and the city of Santa Monica to the inner city.

transportation

201

distribution to

U.S.

da

Corrid

or

Eurotunnel 1986–1994 31.3 miles 50 trains/day cost $12.5 billion average speed 100–220 mph

Ala

me

Alameda Corridor 1997–2002 20 miles 100 trains/day cost $2.4 billion average speed 40 mph

major truck terminals Alameda Corridor existing freight rail lines truck routes industrial nodes distribution nodes

$

San Pedro Bay Ports cargo value $168.3 billion

railway Alameda Corridor

website: scbbs.com/alameda/alameda3.htm description: acta.org/newsroom_factsheet.htm, used with permission from the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority now: 1. Hugo Martin, “Alameda Corridor Bridge Gets Go-Ahead,” Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2003, sec. B.

research transportation

$

202

description The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile-long rail cargo expressway linking the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the transcontinental rail network near downtown Los Angeles. It is a series of bridges, underpasses, overpasses and street improvements that separate freight trains from street traffic and passenger trains, facilitating a more efficient transportation network. The project’s centerpiece is the Mid-Corridor Trench, which will carry freight trains in an open

now trench that is 10 miles long, 33 feet deep and 50 feet wide between State Route 91 in Carson and 25th Street in Los Angeles. Construction began in April 1997. Operations begin in April 2002.

The Alameda Corridor consolidates four low-speed branch rail lines, eliminating conflicts at more than 200 at-grade crossings, providing a high-speed freight expressway, and minimizing the impact on communities.

1. The last phase of the $2.4 billion Alameda Project has been approved. It is a $107 million, half-mile long bridge that will carry cargo on the Pacific Coast Highway in Wilmington. This bridge will address road traffic at the intersection of the Pacific Coast Highway and the rail line.

Seattle

Boston Chicago Cleveland

New York

Salt Lake City Oakland

Kansas City

St. Louis

San Pedro Bay Ports Memphis

Atlanta

Houston Miami

impact of trade through San Pedro Bay Ports value of trade employment customs revenue federal income and business taxes state and local tax revenues

2003 $116 billion $2.5 million $2.9 billion $14.2 billion $5.4 billion

2010 $253 billion $5.7 million $5.9 billion $30.9 billion $11.6 billion

* line thickness corresponds to intermodal trade volume

railway Alameda Corridor national impact

research

website: scbbs.com/alameda/alameda3.html now: 1. Sharon Bernstein and Deborah Schoch, “Rail Route Falls Short of Potential,” Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2003, sec. B. 2. Caitlin Liu, “Transit Experts Urge Smarter Growth,” Los Angeles Times, November 15, 2005, sec. B.

now 1. The Alameda Corridor rail line has had a difficult first year of operation, as performance expectations were not meant. Designed to relieve the number of tractor trailers that snarl traffic between Los Angeles and Long Beach, the corridor failed to shift enough business to its rail system.

The performance mark of 100 trains per day carrying 50% of the ports’ cargo is reduced to just 35 trains car-

rying 37% of the cargo—about the same amount before the corridor was built. One cause of this unexpected downshift in demand is that the economics of freight has changed–causing tractor trailers to become the preferred system.

2. Traffic congestion, federal funding, and freight control were the three challenges facing the region in a recent commission. Titled “Mobility 21,” the local experts and officials urged the federal funding of an infrastructure that handles 43% of the nation’s cargo.

transportation

203

by 2020 total LRT daily boardings: 16,000+ operating speed: 25â&#x20AC;&#x201C;35mph affected population: 275,000 expected users out of 275,000: 55,000 (20% of population, 6.5% of entire L.A. County) cost: $822â&#x20AC;&#x201C;826 million Metro Gold Line Pasadena

Chinatown Station 6 minutes

Metro Red Line

Wilshire Center/Hollywood/ North Hollywood

Union Station/ Gateway Transit Center 3 minutes

7th Street/Metro Center/Julian Dixon Station 8 minutes Civic Center/Tom Bradley Station 5 minutes

Alameda Station Pershing Square Station 6 minutes

by 2020 daily boardings: 2,500+ (15.6% of total line)

Utah Station 18 minutes

Boyle Station 32 minutes

proposed Gold Line Extension Light Rail Transit

Pico/Los Angeles Convention Center Station 10 minutes

East Los Angeles Pomona/Atlantic

Grand Station 13 minutes

San Pedro Station 15 minutes

10 minute walking radius theaters

Metro Blue Line

Long Beach

museums galleries civic institutions educational institutions sports & recreation centers religious institutions

railway metro lines and cultural institutions

transportation

research

websites: mta.net/metro_transit/timetables/bus_rail.htm mta.net/trans_planning/CPD/Eastside/Default.htm description: mta.net/projects_plans/exposition/light_rail.htm

204

description The Light Rail Transit (LRT) system adopted by the MTA promises to be the most effective system to integrate into future urban planning. An updated version of the old trolley system, its relatively silent performance has been engineered to be a sustainable partner with automobile traffic, pedestrian integretation, and a positive influx into commercial corridors.

The more ambitious vision is the transit parks, where primary LRT stations support large community parks and public spaces.

California High-Speed Rail three site proposals

Union Station “Run-Through” Rail Track Extension

Metro Gold Line Extension the implemented option

alternative rail proposals for south end of Union Station

research

website: mta.net now: 1. Kurt Streeter and Tina Daunt, “Hopes for Urban Revival Ride on L.A.-Pasadena Line,” Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2003, sec. A. 2. Dan Weikel, “$1.4 Billion Light-Rail Plan Loses in Irvine,” Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2003, sec. B. 3. Richard Fausset, “Building Subway Beneath Wilshire Deemed Safe,” Los Angeles Times, October 28, 2005, sec. B.

now 1. The inaugural journey of the newly constructed Los Angeles–Pasadena Gold Line, which finally connects the cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena through downtown Los Angeles and onto Belmont Heights, occurs today. The Gold Line is seen as the alternative to the community’s resistance to the construction of a new freeway.

Thirteen stations will be served.

2. The impact and sustainability of Light Rail Transit continues to be tested, as voters in Orange County defeated the CenterLine Project, which would have connected John Wayne Airport and UC Irvine. The project would also have connected Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Santa Ana. Despite the lack of support for the CenterLine, voters also defeated a bill that prohibited any consideration of light rail integration in future planning proposals.

3. The Red Line subway can be extended westward under the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor, a major review by transportation and tunneling experts. Despite dangerous underground gases, they deemed a safe tunneling method is possible, paving way to the mayor’s effort to address this subway’s ultimate destiny.

transportation

205

409 Sylmar

75 minutes

Chatsworth 85 minutes

419

Van Nuys 413 60 minutes

423 422 Thousand Oaks 76 minutes

431 Westwood

50 minutes

430 Pacific Palisades 55 minutes

437 Marina del Rey 43 minutes

438 Redondo Beach 61 minutes

448 Rancho Palos Verdes 62 minutes

bus lines travel distances by minutes

transportation

research

websites: ladotransit.com/comexp/index.html transit-rider.com/ca.losangeles

bus lines destinations and times from site

website: mta.net/riding_metro/riders_guide/planning_trip-01.htm now: 1. Kurt Streeter, “MTA Weighs ‘Hub and Spoke’ Routes,” Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2003, sec. B. 2. Caitlin Liu, “MTA Sees Success in Orange Line,” Los Angeles Times, November 21, 2005, sec. B.

206

description

now

The MTA has concluded that a bus is in motion only fifty percent of the time. The other fifty percent is spent at red lights or stopped for patrons. To address this inefficiency, MTA developed the Metro Rapid Program —a special fleet of buses designed to maximize transit time. The program, begun in June 2000, has seen a 40% increase in ridership.

Metro Rapid

Orange Line | Metro Liner

25% faster than local bus service: sensors keep traffic lights green buses scheduled every 5–15 minutes stops only at major intersections 30 new advanced buses, each carrying 57 passengers

The new Orange Line is located in San Fernando Valley.

30 new advanced buses, each carrying 57 passengers, connect the north terminus of the Red Line at North Hollywood with the Warner Center in Woodland Hills.

to Glendale

to Sylmar

to Sylmar

22 minutes (route 603)

105 minutes (routes 90, 91, 94, 394)

to Sylmar

86 minutes (route 92)

to Sherman Oaks

Avenue

Gle n

da

le Blv d

95 minutes (route 96)

to Santa Monica/2nd Avenue 82 minutes (routes 04 + 304)

to Sunset + Pacific Coast Highway

o ch

96 minutes (routes 02 and 302)

5G

old

en

rk Pa

St ate

E

do S

tre

et

Sc ott

na

de

Fr ee wa

y

to

sa Pa

Ave n

rth

Alv ara

ue

No

We st

to V ent

ura

nse

tB

lvd

Elysian Park Avenue

od

St ad

iu

Fre ew

m

ay

110

1s tS t re e St

et

t re e

ele

St

ng

ain M

sA

et

sS

tre

et

et

et

Bl vd

1st Street

4t

hS

tre

et

Ho

pe S

tre

et

pic

tre

S Br tre oa et dw ay

Ol ym

tre

et

tre

ll

hS

et

Hi

9t

hS

tre

Pas

Lo

er oa gu Fi

hS

ay

ew Fre

tre

4t

5t

na ade

tre

3r dS

hS

6t

W ay

Street

lyw o

Vignes

Hol

Stadium Way

Street

101

Hewitt

Elysian Park Avenue

Alameda Street

101 Hollywood Freeway

Su

Pic oB

lvd

hS

20 minutes (route 96)

to downtown (Venice/Broadway) 19 minutes (route 603)

tre

et

to Harbor Freeway

6th Street

to downtown (Venice/Main)

19 minutes (routes 81, 90, 91, 92, 94, 381, 394)

to downtown (Grand/Washington)

7th Street

19 minutes (route 603)

ue

68 minutes (routes 81 + 381)

research

to San Pedro

17t

to downtown (Venice/Grand)

14th

Stre

et

207

to downtown/USC 36 minutes (route 200)

now

0

In conjunction with the MTA, which has control over transportation issues for the entire Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation operates the second largest fleet of buses in the county.

1. In an effort to update a decade-old bus route system, MTA has proposed a new “Hub and Spoke” route plan. The 10 year federal mandate has produced this new bus grid which aims to attract new riders, increase ridership, and save money.

400 vehicles serve 30 million passengers per year.

The current system is paralyzed, as it is at the mercy of an the city’s increasingly frequent girdlock and exasperated by a route length that cycles every 20 miles long and sometimes as much as 40 miles.

The DASH line serves downtown Los Angeles for a fare of 25 cents and an average wait of 8 minutes.

100ft

500ft

1000ft

2. MTA0 declares ridership numbers have exceeded 1/3mile 1/2mile 1 mile projection on the new bus-oriented Orange Line. But there are criticisms that the original target numbers were set low as a reaction to past irregularities. Both the Gold Line and Green Line failed to meet projections in their first year of operations by as much as 50%.

transportation

Ce

nt

ra l

Av en

8th Street

10% 16% 4% 18%

6%

12%

11%

15% commuter origin aproximate regional distribution 8%

1. Beverly Hills / Westside 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Pasadena Santa Monica Los Angeles Mid City Alhambra / Monterey Park Burbank / Glendale Orange County Topanga Canyon / Malibu Highland Park

18% 16% 15% 12% 11% 10% 8% 6% 4%

vehicular commuting patterns destination–origin (financial and government)

information polled from interviews of randomly selected financial and governmental institutions located in downtown Los Angeles

17% 4% 10% 8%

18% 5% 11% 4% commuter origin aproximate regional distribution 10%

12% 6% Los Angeles County freeway miles highway miles average vehicle miles traveled per day (in millions)

Torrance Alhambra / Monterey Park Los Angeles Mid City Orange County Santa Monica / West Los Angeles 8. Garden Grove 9. Highland Park 10. Hollywood 11. South Los Angeles

88 184

101.1

9.5

vehicular commuting patterns destination–origin (retail, wholesale and manufacturing)

information polled from interviews of randomly selected financial and commercial companies located in downtown Los Angeles now: 1. Scott Martelle and Dan Weikel, “Census Data on Traffic Questioned,” Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2003.

research transportation

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Ventura County

528 354

1. Pasadena 2. Burbank / Glendale

208 description

now

Destination–origin studies examine the commuting patterns of workers entering and exiting a specified outlined zone of study. Typically, the studies are conducted at a county level and, therefore, data on smaller urban sections is virtually non-existent.

The informal study for these diagrams were conducted by calling a variety of businesses in the downtown area and asking the staff’s or owner’s commuting origin.

1. Discrepancies in commuter patterns have been discovered in comparing established well-studied commuter patterns by regional specialists and the results of the recent census data. As a result, concerns are raised if this might apply to other census estimates.

Though the census correctly outlines an increase in each county’s economic independency, other data conflicts with other calculations.

18% 17% 12% 11% 10% 10% 8% 6% 5% 4% 4%

350 (miles) 300

200

100

1990

1985

1980

1970

Los Angeles Times , “freeway program dying” 1973 Brown elected 1974 1975 new multi-modal policy announced

1965

Reagan elected 1966 as governor

1960

1955

1950

1945

0

major motorway at 1920

1920

major motorway at 1937 major motorway at 1925

major motorway at 1925 major motorway at 1920

1937

1925

vehicles historic routes of major motorway system in Los Angeles

research

websites: cahighways.org/chronlgy.html dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/cthist.htm now: 1. Caitlin Liu, “Houses Could Fall to Widen the 101,” Los Angeles Times, April 30, 2003, sec. B. 2. Caitlin Liu, “Ventura Freeway Plan Sparks Outcry in Valley,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2003, sec. B. 3. Caitlin Liu and Deborah Schoch, “Efforts to Expand Freeways Lose Favor,” Los Angeles Times, May 15, 2003, sec. B.

now 1. After reviewing several alternatives to improve the 101 Freeway, including double decking and a rail line in the center median, the transportation committee has recommended adding two carpool lanes in each direction.

The $36 million project will cover 40 miles along the 101 Corridor and can have disastrous consequences for homes and business within the project’s zone.

2. San Fernando residents confronted officials when presented with the proposal to widen the 101 Freeway. The $3.4 billion project would demolish homes and stores while adding two carpool lanes in each direction between Studio City and Thousand Oaks.

The plan projects a savings of 78,000 commuting hours a day.

3. The MTA board, led by County Supervisor Gloria Molina, has canceled the ambitious scope of the 101 Widening Project. With escalating public rancor over the loss of homes, businesses and cultural centers, the MTA was asked to review alternatives for improving freeways without the removal of private property.

In scaling back the 101 Project, similar measures were mandated for the equally ambitious elevated truck lanes on the 710 Freeway.

transportation

209

1942

major highways expanded highways freeways freeway extension

1965

vehicles development of highway and freeway system in Los Angeles

transportation

research

website: cahighway.org

210

1955

1979

City of Los Angeles population area street miles major/secondary roads collector/local roads intersections freeway miles

3,695,000 456 sq. mi.

6,400 mi 1,400 5,000 40,000 160 mi

* line thickness corresponds to daily traffic volume

1986

2003

vehicles freeway traffic

research

website: mobility.tamu.edu/mmp/reports/monitoring_urban_roadways/appendices/PDFs/los_angeles.pdf now: “Gov.’s Plan is a Boon to Area Rail,” Los Angeles Times, February 26, 2006.

“Derail Trains and Ding Drivers,” Los Angeles Times, April 17, 2005.

“In Land of Freeways, Mass Transit Makes Nary a Dent,” New York Times, February 24, 2006.

now According to The Desert Sun, since the 1960s the number of registered vehicles statewide increased from 9 million to 30 million, and vehicle-miles traveled annually have increased from 33.3 billion to 183.7 billion. Between 1980 and 2000, the miles driven on the state highways increased 87 percent while highway lanes have expanded by 6 percent.

According to the Los Angeles Times, plans are in effect to expand rail lines throughout the state, and with the Los Angeles seaport being the 5th busiest in the world, this rail expansion

would potentially reduce the number of trucks on the highways.

The average freight train, with about 280 cars, takes an equivalent number of trucks off freeways and environmentally is three to four times cleaner. But others argue that Los Angeles is too dispersed for a rail system to succeed. The Los Angeles Times claims that “the only way to dramatically improve traffic flow in Los Angeles is to charge tolls.” But a rail system can be successful if it is paired up with a high-quality public transportation system that is not only fast, but travels throughout the region.

The New York Times states that Los Angeles “mayor [Villaraigosa] has added traffic officers at 38 choked intersections. He has sped up plans to synchronize traffic lights at all of the city’s 4,300 intersections. And he promises to double the number of left-turn signals in four years.” But the biggest proposal so far is to extend the city’s Red Line subway from downtown to the sea. The extension would cost nearly $5 billion and take about 20 years.

transportation

211

60 minutes+ 60 minutes

50 minutes 40 minutes

30 minutes 20 minutes Hollywood 6 miles

Pasadena 10.2 miles

10 minutes Ontario 38.6 miles

UCLA 15.6 miles

Santa Monica 15.8 miles

Orange County 25.8 miles

LAX 17.8 miles

San Pedro Bay 26.3 miles

vehicles travel times and distances during off-peak hours

transportation

research

website: traffic.tann.net/lartraffic The Road Atlas 2002 now: 1. Amanda Covarrubias, “Slow Progress on 101 Bottleneck,” Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2003, sec. B. 2. Deborah Schoch, “Groups Ask for 710 Freeway Revision,” Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2003, sec. B. 3. Hugo Martin, “Sounding Off on Noise,” Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2003, sec. B.

212 now 1. The 4-year-long anticipated $112 million construction of an overpass between Oxnard Boulevard and the Ventura Freeway and the addition of 5 new lanes to the bridge will cause one of the worst bottlenecks in North Los Angeles.

2. Due to severe impacts on 300 existing homes, homeowners and local officials have asked for a redesign of the 18-mile 710 Long Beach Freeway expansion.

3. A dramatic increase in mental and physical health problems caused by traffic noise has been noted in Southern California in the past ten years. Problems have been detected in residents who live near older freeways, which lack modern acoustic sound barriers. Current remedies are limited to lowering truck noise through braking alternatives. Long-term planning includes reviewing housing development along freeways.

70 minutes+ 70 minutes 60 minutes 50 minutes 40 minutes Hollywood 6 miles UCLA 15.6 miles

Pasadena 10.2 miles

30 minutes 20 minutes 10 minutes

Ontario 38.6 miles

Santa Monica 15.8 miles

Orange County 25.8 miles

LAX 17.8 miles

San Pedro Bay 26.3 miles

vehicles travel times and distances during peak hours

peak hours 7:30–9:30am, 5:00–8:30pm research

website: traffic.tann.net/lartraffic The Road Atlas 2002 now: 1. Jim Mateja, “Owner’s cost more than just the payment,” Los Angeles Times, April 23, 2003, sec. G.

now 1. In AAA ‘s national study on the cost of operating a vehicle, they concluded that it costs 64.2 cents a mile for gas, oil, and maintenance, and tires, or $6,420 a year for every 10,000 miles of driving.

For a full-size SUV, the study concluded it costs 78.64 cents a mile, or $7,864 per year for every 10,000 miles of driving.

transportation

213

to

sy

to glendale n

From downtown Los Angeles, Chavez Ravine/ Echo Park can be made accessible through local roads. Urban housing will provide opportunities for people to live within close proximity to work.

Local transportation can provide residents and visitors the convenience and the connective tissue between Chavez Ravine and downtown Los Angeles. Proposed are three possible methods of connection, including the extension of the 2 Glendale Freeway to the 101 Santa Ana Freeway, the extension of North Alameda Street to the site, and the introduction of a modern light-rail transit system linking Metro stations to the site. In effect, this will help reduce traffic congestion in the greater Los Angeles area and alleviate housing shortage.

lm

gle

nd

ale

blv d

ar

5g

en

sta

te

fre

ew

ho

pa

rk

avenue

old

to

ec t

sco

a as

p

ven

ue

we

rth

st s

un

no

pro

po

sa

alv l 1a ara do str

ee

tt a

na

de

ay

set

blv

d

elysian park avenue

101

san

st

ta a

na

ad

free

iu

m

wa

wa

y

y

ay

eew

fr ena

d

asa

1s re

et

ts

ee

t

et s stre vigne

alameda street

ic

hewitt

t ee in

los

ee mp

str

h oa ill s dw tre ay et str ee t

str oly

ho pe

9th

les

t

t

str e

et

t

street

et

ee

ee

ee

tre

str

str

str

et

ma

str

t

6th

tre

ge

fig

ue

4th

5th

ds

an

ro

a

st

3r

propo

sal 1b

p 110

research

website: trafficinfo.lacity.org

to san pedro

et

br

d proposal 1a and 1b extension of 2 Glendale Fwy and North Alameda Street pic o blv

1st stre

4th street

blv

d

6th street

17

th

str

ee

t 7th street

ve la ra nt ce

transportation

nu

e

8th street

214

14th

to San Diego

stre

et

proposal 1a

proposal 1b

The Rampart and Alvarado exits off the 101 Freeway remain the most congested within the site. Currently, Alvarado and Rampart Streets function as through ways for commuters connecting to the 5 Freeway and downtown.

The proposed extension of the Glendale Freeway south to the 101 Freeway will greatly alleviate the traffic congestion at the Alvarado and Rampart exits by keeping commuting on freeways. Local congestion will lessen significantly in these residential areas.

Currently, there are no major local vehicular arteries that connect downtown L.A. to the Echo Park/Solano Canyon residential area. Due to their dependency on the 110 0 or 101 Freeways as their only access points, the communities are choked off from a 1/3mile 1/2mile 1 mile 0 transparent open connection with the rest of the city.

100ft

500ft

1000ft

The proposed extension of Alameda Street north to Stadium Way will provide a major symbolic and local traffic connection between downtown L.A. and the Echo Park/Solano Canyon area.

areas being alleviated from traffic congestation

to

sy

churches

to glendale

Strategically, Dodger Stadium should be in a location that is more easily accessible to the public, such as downtown Los Angeles. Existing transportation networks and parking structures already provides the necessary access and supporting infrastructure. A significant population of people would be going to the ballgame after working in downtown during the day. Locating the stadium within walking distance from work eliminates the hassle of driving and prevents unnecessary traffic congestions. For the rest of the population who are not familiar with sports, it becomes another everyday after-work social hangout activity with coworkers. The shortened distance from work to the stadium means requiring less effort to attend games, which will induce more people to participate in these sporting events. This will increase the popularity of sport and ticket sales.

Perhaps the turnabout will be so effective that the owner of Dodger Stadium, or any sports team, will start making positive profits.

lm

ar

recreation library civic elementary schools

blv d

junior high schools

gl e

nd

ale

high schools

5g

en

sta

te

fre

ew

ho

pa

rk

avenue

old

to

ec et

sco

alv ara

we

rth

st s

ent

ura

p

ue

un

no

to v

a as

ven

do

str e

tt a

na

de

ay

set

blv

d

elysian park avenue

free

m

na

iu

ta a

ad

san

st

101

wa

wa

y

y

projection ay w

str

ts

et

t

ee

t

5th

str

ee

t

et

ee

tre

s stre

str

et

les

str

ee

t

1s

tre

br oa dw

9th

ds

ay hill str stre ee et t

6th

3r

ma in

fig

ue

ro

a

st

re

4th

vigne

et

p

street

0 11

LRT to be parallel to Grand Avenue and Stadium Way

hewitt

10,000

alameda street

weekday riders

na

de

a as

str ee t str ee t

9 minutes

ge

time from one end to the other

e fre

an

3.0 miles

los

distance

1st stre

et

str

ee t

proposal 2 oly mp ic blv modern light-rail transit system d website: trafficinfo.lacity.org/

to san pedro

pic

17

th

6th street

ob

str

ee

research

ho

pe

4th street

lvd

t

av en

ue

7th street

nt ce

14th

to San Diego

stre

et

215

proposal 2 Utilizing the three public transportation systems, the proposal outlines light rail transit that will supplement the Gold Line. This will run along Figueroa Street and connect the Staples Center and the L.A. Live development with Chavez Ravine.

En route, the line will underscore Grand Avenue as a vital axis and will effectively carry all passengers interested in the entertainment cutlural corridor.

0 0

100ft

500ft

1000ft

1/3mile

1/2mile

1 mile

transportation

ra l

8th street

car and 1 rider (60 mph) car and 5 riders (60 mph)

car and 1 rider (30 mph) car and 5 riders (30 mph)

train rider (30 mph)

moped rider (20 mph)

bicycle rider (15 mph)

horse rider (10 mph)

runner (10 mph)

bicycle rider (10 mph)

walker (4 mph)

0

bicycle rider (4 mph)

swimmer (1.5 mph)

1,000 (kcal/km/person)

1 bus with 7 passengers = 1 auto 1 full bus = 6 autos 1 full rail car = 15 autos 1 full bus = a line of moving automobiles stretching 6 city blocks (with traffic operating at 25 mph) annual gasoline savings possible from transit use:

00 gallons for each person

switching from driving alone;

85 million gallons from a 10% nationwide

increase in transit ridership 1 person using mass transit for a year instead of driving to work saves the environment:

9.1 pounds of hydrocarbons

62.5 pounds of carbon monoxide

4.9 pounds of nitrogen oxides

all transportation systems energy cost comparison

transportation

research

website: exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html now: Caitlin Liu, “Gov.’s Plan Targets Southland Traffic Hot Spots,” Los Angeles Times, February 13, 2006, sec. B.

216

now The city can no longer build highways without inciting significant resistance from the community. The short-term shock and impact of erasing neighborhoods three blocks wide by several miles long outweighs engineers’ and policymakers’ desire for longterm efficiency.

Without a comprehensive plan, the state and county can offer expansion and amendments to the current infrastructure in the form of additonal lanes, includ-

ing High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (carpool lanes).

From 2003, several proposals to resolve congestion via new highways was introduced only to be defeated by strong grass-roots opposition.

The beginning of 2006 saw a resurgence in transportation funding. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed investing $107 billion over the next ten years. $5.6 billion will target regional projects including adding a northbound High Occupancy Vehicle Lane on the 405

Fwy. This plan forecasts a reduction from 580,000 down to 454,000 daily hours– an estimated 22% drop.

The comprehensive funding measures has been received with mixed reactions. Orange County welcomes the $320 million targeting the 91 Freeway. In contrast, Los Angeles County hoped partial funding will go toward public mass transit—a long term strategic solution—rather than continuously expand the short term problems of freeway capacity.

freeway (elevated)

Los Angeles $45 million/mile (construction) $45–$50 million/mile (land acquisition)

$90–140m/mile freeway (on grade)

Los Angeles $30 million/mile (construction) $30 million/mile (land acquisition)

$40–60m/mile monorail (elevated)

Los Angeles $40 million/mile (construction) $60 million/mile (land acquisition)

$100m/mile light-rail transit

Los Angeles $65 million/mile (Mid-City-Westside LRT) $120 million/mile (Gold Line LRT)

$75–120m/mile

le

1 mi

rapid bus—Mid-City Westside Los Angeles 15 stations 97 vehicles

$180m/mile $

MTA Caltrans

Los Angeles $180 million/mile (construction)

$200m/mile

research

all transportation systems construction cost comparison

subway

transportation

217

now Public outcry and resistance has suspended Caltrans plans to add two addtional lanes each way on the 101 Freeway between Studio City and Thousand Oaks.

710 Freeway Plan benefit: save 78,000 hours of driving time sacrifice: 900 structures

101 Freeway Expansion Plan cost: $3.4 billion benefit: save 78,000 hours of driving time sacrifice: 1000 businesses 700 residential / 250 commercial structures 11 schools and churches / 12 medical buildings 8 parks and recreational areas 8 cultural sites

Battery Park City

World Trade Center

Shiodome

Potzdamer Platz

case studies housing

218

Chavez Ravine

Elysian Heights Housing

case studies

downtown Arts District

Kowloon Walled City

Playa Vista

219 case studies housing

case studies housing

Elysian Park Heights

220

Playa Vista

Battery Park City

Shiodome

Potzdamer Platz

World Trade Center

o

n

e

Kowloon Walled City

m

i

l

e

case studies housing

221

%LYSIAN 0ARK ÞACRESÞ

TOTALÞLANDÞ WITHÞOPENÞSPACEÞ

TOTALÞBUILTÞAREA WITHÞUSAGEÞ

% L Y S I A N Þ 0 A R K Þ ( E I G H T S

ÞSQ ÞFT Þ ÞÞ ACRES

ÞACRESÞ

ÞSFÞ

ÞSQ ÞFT

ÞPUBLIC ÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

Þ ÞACRES

COSTÞPERÞSQ ÞFT

Þ ÞACRES

ÞACRESÞ

ÞSFÞ ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

ÞMILLION

ÞMILLION

ÞMILLION

ÞMILLION

ÞBILLION

ÞBILLION

HOUSINGÞUNITSÞPERÞACREÞ TOTALÞACREAGE

HOUSINGÞUNITSÞPERÞACREÞ EXCLUDINGÞOPENÞSPACE

ÞSQ ÞFT

ÞSQ ÞFT

ÞSQ ÞFT

COSTÞPERÞBUILDING

RESIDENTIALÞCOST

RESIDENTIALÞOCCUPANTS OCCUPANTSÞPERÞUNIT

RESIDENTIALÞSQ ÞFT ÞPERÞUNIT Þ AVERAGE SQ ÞFT ÞPERÞRESIDENT Þ

SQ ÞFT ÞOPENÞSPACEÞPERÞRESIDENT

ÞÞSQ ÞFT ÞPERÞRESIDENTÞ SQ ÞFT ÞOPENÞSPACEÞPERÞRESIDENT

OFFICEÞOCCUPANTSÞ ÞSTUDENTS

N A

N A

SQ ÞFT ÞPERÞOFFICEÞANDÞSTUDENT

N A

N A

ÞPARKINGÞFACILITIES

PARKINGÞSPACES AMENITIES

THREEÞSCHOOLS KINDERGARTENSÞANDÞNURSURIES THREEÞCHURCHES COMMUNITYÞHALLÞ ÞSQ ÞFT ACTIVITYÞROOMS INDOORÞ ÞOUTDOORÞAUDITORIUMÞFORÞ COMMERCIALÞSECTIONÞORÞTRADINGÞCENTER

ÞBASEDÞONÞBUILTÞSQUAREÞFOOTAGE

ÞTOÞCOMPENSATEÞINHABITANTS

ÞSQ ÞFT

ÞSFÞ

ÞACRES

ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

ÞBILLIONÞ

NUMBERÞOFÞHOUSINGÞUNITS

case studies housing

ÞSQ ÞFT

ÞPUBLIC ÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

TOTALÞNUMBERÞOFÞBUILDINGS

222

" A T T E R Y Þ 0 A R K Þ # I T Y

ÞACRESÞ

ÞSFÞ

ÞBILLIONÞ

Þ ÞMILLIONÞ

TOTALÞCOST

0 L A Y A Þ 6 I S T A

COMMUNITYÞCENTER PUBLICÞLIBRARY ELEMENTARYÞSCHOOL FIREÞSTATION

ÞMUSEUMS MARINA CINEMA LIBRARY ÞCHURCH ÞSYNAGOGUE COMMUNITYÞCENTER ÞMAGNETÞHIGHÞSCHOOL FITNESSÞCENTER

UNDERGRO

T

3 H I O D O M E

0 O T Z D A M E R Þ 0 L A T Z

ÞACRESÞ

ÞSQ ÞFT

ÞSFÞ ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

ÞACRES

ÞBILLIONÞ

7 O R L D Þ 4 R A D E Þ # E N T E R

ÞACRESÞ

ÞSFÞ

ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

ÞACRESÞ

ÞSQ ÞFT

ÞSFÞ

ÞSQ ÞFT

Þ ÞACRES

ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

Þ ÞACRES

ÞACRESÞ

ÞSQ ÞFT

ÞSFÞ

ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

ÞACRES

ÞBILLION

ÞBILLIONÞ

ÞBILLIONÞ

+ O W L O O N Þ 7 A L L E D Þ # I T Y

ÞMILLION

ÞMILLION

ÞBILLION

ÞMILLION

ÞMILLION

ÞMILLION

ÞBILLION

ÞSQ ÞFT

ÞSQ ÞFT

ÞSQ ÞFT

N A

N A

UNDERGROUNDÞSHOPPINGÞMALLS CINEMAS RESTAURANTS TRAINÞMUSEUM HOTELS HALLS

ÞCINEMAÞSCREENS Þ)-!8ÞSCREENS HOTELS SHOPS &ILMHAUSÞ-USEUM

ÞCHAPELS STOREÞMALL ÞELEVATORS ROOMÞHOTEL EXHIBITIONÞPAVILIONS

ÞBUSINESSES ÞRESTAURANTSÞANDÞSHOPS ÞDENTISTS ÞDOCTORS ÞTEMPLES ÞCHURCH ÞKINDERGARTEN ÞSCHOOL ÞGAMBLINGÞHALLS ÞOPIUMÞDENS ÞHEROINÞDENS ÞSTRIPÞJOINTS ÞBROTHELS ÞMAHJONGÞPARLORS ÞDOG MEATÞSTANDS ÞPORNÞCINEMAS

ÞENTRANCES

case studies housing

223

With urban sprawl covering vast acres, Los Angeles’ attempts to produce mixed-use, large-scale housing projects have been rare and often futile. This chapter focuses on seven case studies of large-scale building projects around the world, all varied in their amenities and use. Comparisons were made between them, including building cost, residential units per acre, and open space per resident. These comparisons allowed clear assessment of their success or failure as communities. Same scale comparisons of each precedent to either the Arts District or Chavez Ravine site distilled which aspects of each case study would be relevant for housing in the respective sites. Keeping in mind the sites’ context, their proximity to downtown and the cultural corridor, the surrounding communities, and their controversial past, the case studies attempted to contribute information that will be useful for the successful design of a new mixed-use community.

The case studies represent vastly different approaches to mixed-use projects. Despite the differences in mass and program, all of the projects sought to continue the scale and density of their surrounding built urban environments, but varied in their preservation of open space. Both Los Angeles projects (Elysian Park Heights and Playa Vista) contain mostly low-rise residential units with minimal commercial or office space. New York City’s Battery Park City and Tokyo’s Shiodome–both dense high-rise projects–and Berlin’s mid-rise Potzdamer Platz have evenly distributed residential, commercial, and retail program.

The master plan for each project (except Kowloon Walled City) called for integration into existing infrastructure and amenities. In return for the use of power, sewage, water, and roads, these projects transformed previously under-used land by providing retail and housing opportunities, increasing tax revenue, and offering valuable open space to the surrounding communities. Most of these projects followed a singuler master plan but were developed by multiple architects. This allowed for cohesive plans, that avoided the potential for homogeneity in design.

Each master plan solved the problem of open space by considering the surrounding urban context. Both Playa Vista and Battery Park City–though radically different in scale, mass, and density–reserved a significant amount of public/open space. The design for Potzdamer Platz and Shiodome, on the other hand, relied on having large public parks nearby. Because of its extreme density, the residents of Kowloon Walled City found open space in the landscape of the roof.

case studies housing

Each of the seven case studies foregrounds design opportunities for bringing a residential community to the downtown Arts District and Chavez Ravine. The Elysian Park Heights and Playa Vista models are representative of a distinctly Los Angeles, low-rise, low-density approach to urban residential development. If grafted onto such a geographically isolated site such as Chavez Ravine, these heavily residential communities would be stranded from urban amenities and in essence become “gated communities.” The World Trade Center model of high-density, high-rise office space can be found on Bunker Hill, and would be an interesting complement for the Arts District site, and a complex addition for Chavez Ravine due to its isolation and singularity of program. The increase in commuters to either site would tax an already saturated infrastructure. These two unacceptable extremes suggest a mixed-use solution. Potzdamer Platz, Battery Park City, and to some extent Shiodome, each with varying degrees of hybridity, would pose as better prototypes. Chavez Ravine ideally demands a self-catalytic community, with its strong connections to Chinatown, the cultural corridor, Elysian Park, Echo Park, and downtown.

224

total project cost: $800 million total land area: 315 acres or 13,721,400 sq. ft. total building area: 4,802,920 sq. ft. total exterior space area: 80 acres or 3,484,800 sq. ft. max height of buildings: 160 ft. floors per building: 5 floors for lowrises, 13 floors for highrises F.A.R. : 0.35 population residents: 17,000 workers: n/a students: n/a visitors: n/a 97% residential total area: 4,658,832 sq. ft. average unit size: 1,300 sq. ft. number of units: 3,364 0% commercial total area: 0 sq. ft.

0% retail total area: 0 sq. ft.

3% public/parks & plazas total area: 144,088 sq. ft. civic: n/a cultural: n/a religious: n/a educational: n/a public infrastructure parking: yes railway: no bus: yes

Los Angeles, California 1949-1952 Neutra and Alexander

Elysian Park Heights (EPH) is the name given to the unbuilt public housing project designed by Richard Neutra and Robert Alexander for Chavez Ravine. Started in 1949 in response to the postwar Federal Housing Act, EPH was to house 3,300 of the 10,000 total units slated for Los Angeles. Consisting of primarily one- and two-story apartment buildings and thirteen-story high-rise towers, EPH was to be a completely self-sufficient community consisting of schools, services, and businesses. Neutra and Alexander situated the buildings so as to optimize the views of Elysian Park to the north and downtown to the south. The lower apartments were intended to be long buildings sited with ample green space between themâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;much like the extant Village Green in Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles.

Long avenues with street parking and parking lots ran along the valley floors.

The project, intended for the 1,100 families already living in Chavez Ravine and 3,200 additional families in a rapidly expanding Los Angeles, was immediately controversial. Initially, the forced eviction of the existing tightly knit community posed legal and ethical problems for the Housing Authority. Moreover, mired in the anti-Communist craze of the early 1950s, the public housing project fell into political disrepute after some members of the Los Angeles Housing Authority were alleged to be Communists. With little support from the City of Los Angeles, the federal government sold the empty 315 acres back to the city, who four years later sold it to Walter Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Malley of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Elysian Park Heights

Hines, Thomas S. Richard Neutra and the Search for Modern Architecture. University of California Press, 1994.

Cuff, Dana. The Provisional City. MIT Press, 2001.

case studies housing

225

total project cost: $2.7 billion total land area: 162.5 acres or 7,078,500 sq. ft. total building area: 4,685,000 sq. ft. total exterior space area: 70.1 acres or 3,053,556 sq. ft. max height of buildings: aproximately 60 ft. floors per building: 2-5 F.A.R. : 0.66 population residents: 13,500 workers: n/a 92% residential total area: 4,310,200 sq. ft. average unit size: 1,658 sq. ft. number of units: 2600 3% commercial total area: 140,550 sq. ft. office: n/a production/manufacturing: n/a 3% retail total area: 140,550 sq. ft. hotel: n/a entertainment: n/a 2% public / parks & plazas total area: 93,700 sq. ft. civic institution: n/a cultural institution: n/a educational: n/a infrastructure parking: 3,900 cars rail: no bus: yes

Playa Vista, California 1989–present Duany Plater-Zyberk, Ricardo Legorreta Laurie Olin Moore Ruble Yudell Moule and Polyzoides

Playa Vista West website:

case studies housing

wlaxmdrchamber.com/history/pv.html

226

Playa Vista is bordered by Marina del Rey to the north, the communities of Westchester and Playa del Rey to the south, the 405 to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Initially proposed as a 10,000 plus unit village on Howard Hughes’s obsolete 1,087-acre airport, Playa Vista has since been scaled back, due to local opposition, to its more modest size, yet it still has its own zip code: Playa Vista, CA 90094. The master plan of Playa Vista exemplifies the hybridized, village-centered New Urbanist agenda of low-rise, medium-density residential development. Its developers claim that these luxury single family homes are in the style of 1940s West Los Angeles and Mediterranean architectures, and that new condominiums were influenced by classical European, Spanish Colonial, Art Deco, and Frank Lloyd Wright designs. The development, situated along the Ballona Creek wetlands two miles from the shore, lies just west of an artificial lake. Criticism has arisen from concerned environmentalists regarding the site’s exposure to methane. According to the Chamber of Commerce, “Playa Vista was selected

by President Bill Clinton as one of five P.A.T.H. (Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing) communities in the United States for its commitment to sustainable development under the leadership of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America program. Playa Vista recently received a coveted Ahwahnee Award for recognition as a model ‘smart growth’ project.”

total project cost: $4 billion total land area: 92 acres or 4,007,520 sq. ft. total building area: 16,605,344 sq. ft. total exterior space area: 32 acres or 1,393,920 sq. ft. landscape area: 24,7 acres or 1,076,368 sq. ft. max height of buildings: aproximately 650 ft. floors per building: maximum 54 floors F.A.R. : 4.1 population residents: 12,700 workers: 40,000 students: 2,300 visitors: 1,500 51% residential total area: 8,468,725.4 sq. ft. average unit size: 1,366 sq. ft. number of units: 6,200 36% commercial total area: 5,977,923.8 sq. ft. office: n/a production/manufacturing: n/a 5% retail total area: 830,267.2 sq. ft. hotel: 1,070,000 sq. ft. entertainment: n/a 8% public / parks & plazas total area: 1,328,427.5 sq. ft. civic institution: n/a cultural institution: 29,300 sq. ft. religious: n/a educational: 717,544 sq. ft. infrastructure parking: 8 facilities rail: yes bus: yes boat: yes

New York, New York 1968–1980 Charles Moore Davis, Brody and Associates Polshek and Partners Conklin Rossant Mitchell/Giurgola Bond Ryder James Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer

Battery Park City

Begun in 1968 using landfill generated by the excavations for the World Trade Center, Battery Park City adds ninetytwo acres to the tip of lower Manhattan. Though the planning went through various iterations, in its final form the street grid and visual corridors of the financial district are extended to the water’s edge. Four towers housing corporate headquarters sit in the middle of the site, across from the former World Trade Center site. To the north and south lies a residential district, architecturally rendered to mimic the neighborhoods found on the Upper East Side.

An elementary school, magnet high school, and retail area complete the architectural program. One third of the site is left open as public space, with sculpture gardens and monuments dispersed throughout.

The development’s success may be directly related to its restricted program and elite users. Housing in Battery Park City consists solely of luxury units. The office spaces are dominated by large financial institutions and the high school accepts only the brightest of the city’s students. This restriction of the public conflicts with the success of the development in terms of its public financing. In order to offset criticism, the higher revenues from the development are routed to the revitalization of low and middle-income housing in other parts of the city. This, however, does not address the issue of the resulting social segregation.

The plan was a product of the hard-nosed, practical realism of the end of the 1970s. Streets and sidewalks were returned to grade level and made an extension of Manhattan´s grid (as had been done in all earlier landfill expansions of lower Manhattan). This yielded conventional development blocks, which, in turn, yielded conventional building forms. Each block could be parceled out to different developers at different times, according to market demand. The commercial center was moved from the southern end of the site up to the middle, tying it to the former World Trade Center site.

websites: bpcparks.org/bpcp/history/history.php batteryparkcityonline.com en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_Park_City

case studies housing

227

total project cost: $1.2 billion total land area: 76.6 acres or 3,336,696 sq. ft. total building area: 17,225,000 sq. ft. total exterior space area: 4.5 acres or 196,020 sq. ft. max height of buildings: 710 ft floors per building: maximum 56 floors F.A.R. : 5.16 population residents: 6,000 workers/students: 60,000 visitors: n/a 14% residential total area: 2,411,500 sq. ft. average unit size: 1,240 sq. ft. number of units: 1940 units 80% commercial total area: 13,780,000 sq. ft. office: n/a 2% retail total area: 344,500 sq. ft. hotel: 134,733 sq. ft. (0.8%) 4% public / parks & plazas total area: 689,000 sq. ft. civic institution: n/a cultural institution: n/a religious: n/a educational:n/a infrastructure parking: 1,540 rail: yes bus:yes boat: no

Tokyo, Japan 1995 - current Richard Rogers John Nouvel Kevin Roche Jon Jerde Kajima Design Nihon Sekkei Nikken Sekkei Takenaka Construction

Located on the southern half of central Tokyo, Shiodome is currently going through a major transformation. Encompassing over seventy acres of land, the Shiodome redevelopment project is the largest development in Japan, and experts predict that this will be the last major development in central Tokyo. The launch of the project dates back to 1990. In 1997, when land owned by the former Japanese National Railways was auctioned off, major developments began in the area. With three railway stations nearby and a community-oriented management of the district, developers expect Shiodome to outshine other Tokyo redevelopment projects in Marunouchi, Sinagawa, and Roppongi.

The development comprises twelve high-rise towers that will provide over two million square feet of residential spaces and house Japan’s largest advertising agency, Dentsu; broadcasting station Nippon Television Network; Kyoto News; and many other big corporate offices. Considering the infrastructure, company headquaters, residents, and hotels, it is highly likely that this area will host an influx of people, especially from nearby business centers such as Marunouchi and Otemachi, as well as a line of government offices in Kasumigaseki. Experts also predict that the success of Shiodome will also contribute to the vitalization of pehripheral areas including Shinbashi and Hamamatsucho, where small restaurants and bars are concentrated.

Shiodome

case studies housing

websites: metropolis.japantoday.com/tokyo/471/feature.asp Yuro Nishikawa, “Redevelopment of Shiodome, ” jrtr.net/jrtr35/f48_nis.html

228

total project cost: Daimler Benz: 4 billionDeutschemarks ($2.2 billion) Sony: 2 billion Deutsche marks ($1.1 billion) total land area: 23 acres or 1,001,880 sq. ft.

Daimler-Benz: 17 acres Sony: 6 acres total building area: 4,900,00 sq. ft. total exterior space area: 1.15 acres or 50,094 sq. ft. max height of buildings: Varies from 60 ft. to 300 ft.; average is about 100 ft. (see diagram) floors per building: Varies from 6 to 20+ (see diagram) F.A.R.: 5.1 population residents: 3,300 workers/students: 6,700 visitors: 70,000/day weekdays; 100,000/day weekends = 500,000/week 20% residential total area: 980,000 sq. ft. average unit size: 890 sq. ft. number of units: 1100 units 57% commercial total area: 2,793,000 sq. ft. office: n/a 18% retail total area: 882,000 sq. ft. hotel: 8% entertainment: 5% 5% public / parks & plazas total area: 245,000 sq. ft. civic institution: n/a cultural institution: n/a educational: n/a infrastructure parking: 3,400 underground parking spaces rail: yes bus: yes

Berlin, Germany 1992 - 2000 Piano/Kohlbecker Buro Kollhoff Lauber + Wohr Rafael Moneo Richard Rogers Arata Isozaki Murphy/Jahn

Potzdamer Platz

Once the busiest transportation nexus of a growing modern metropolis, Potzdamer Platz became disconnected from the rest of Berlin with the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Potzdamer Platz effectively became a fringe condition in a dissected city. Redevelopment effort began in 1989 when the Berlin wall fell. Though predominantly owned by corporate interests, the area was envisioned as a mixed-use development. Adjacent to the site is the Kulturforum which includes Scharoun’s Philharmonie and Biblioteque. A civic master plan competition was held in 1991. Heinz Hilmer and Christoph Sattler won with a plan which was based on the traditional European compact, low-rise city.

The conservative, traditional nature of the plan raised heated debates in the design press - Rem Koolhaas was one of the initial reactionaries to the jury decision. Nevertheless, the overall plan held.

A second competition was held two years later to develop the largest portion of the site belonging to Daimler-Benz.

(Sony, ABB and Hertie own other parcels) Renzo Piano and Christoph Kohlbecker crafted the winning scheme with a design that related to the Hilmer/Sattler plan in general scale and massing but departed in several significant ways. The plan established a new central hub at the juncture between the Kulturforum and the new development; here the cultural, commercial and residential programs intersect giving the development focus. While most of the buildings are 4-5 stories, several near-skyscrapers pierce the sky at 20+ stories. Ground floors were required to be semi-permeable, allowing public movement across the site. Six international architects were chosen to develop 19 buildings according to the guidelines established in the Piano/Kohlbecker plan. Ten new streets were constructed along with underground space for parking, delivery, storage and refuse collection. The site is served by regional rail, urban rail and bus.

Peter Davey, “Potsdamer preview-Potsdamer Platz development in Berlin, Germany.” The Architectural Review, Jan. 1998.

case studies housing

229

total project cost: $8 billion total land area: 18.3 acres or 800,000 sq. ft. total building area: 12,500,500 sq. ft. total exterior space area: 5 acres or 217,800 sq. ft. max height of buildings:1368 ft. floors per building: 110 floors F.A.R. : 15.6 population residents: none workers/students: 50,000 workers visitors: 72.8 million per year = 1,400,000 per week 0% residential total area: 0 sq.ft. average unit size: 0 sq. ft. number of units: 0 units 80% commercial total area: 10,000,000 sq. ft. office: 10,000,000 sq. ft. production/manufacturing: n/a 13% retail total area: 1,650,000 sq. ft. hotel: 350,000 sq. ft. entertainment: n/a services: 200,000 sq. ft.

7% public / parks & plazas total area: 875,000 sq. f.t civic institution: n/a cultural institution: n/a educational: n/a infrastructure parking: 2000 rail:yes bus: yes boat: yes

New York, New York 1966-1977 destroyed in 2001 Minoru Yamasaki

World Trade Center

Before its destruction on September 11, 2001 by terrorist attacks, New York’s World Trade Center consisted of two 110-story office towers, which contain 9 million square feet of office space. The entire complex attempted to bring together public and private enterprise engaged in international commerce by combining the towers with additional mid-rise office towers each at 9 stories, a 22-story hotel, the U.S. Customs House, and a subterranean superstructure of retail and city infrastructure. Composed of steel frame, glass, concrete slabs on steel truss joists, this modern-style financial icon housed twelve million square feet of floor area on a sixteen acre site, which also had to accommodate new facilities for the Hudson tubes and subway connections—all with a budget of under $500 million. Standing at 1,353 feet high, the towers were at one point the tallest in the world.

Office spaces had no interior columns. In the upper floors there was as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor—almost an acre. Yamasaki’s choice to use a combination of express and local elevator banks allowed for the use of approximately 75 percent of the total floor area for occupancy; had a conventional elevator arrangement been adopted, only approximately 50 percent would have been available. The open plaza allows one to get a sense of the scale of the towers upon approach.

case studies housing

Heyer, Paul. Architects on Architecture: New Directions in America. Walker, 1978. p194-195. website: skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

230

total project cost: $2.76 billion total land area: 6.5 acres or 283,140 sq. ft. total building area: 3,397,680 sq. ft. total exterior space area: 2 acres or 87,120 sq. ft. max height of buildings: aproximately 100 ft. floors per building: 6-10 floors F.A.R.: 12 population residents/ workers: 33,000 41% residential total area: 1,393,048.8 sq. ft. average unit size: 160 sq. ft. number of units: 8,494 22% commercial total area: 747,489.6 sq. ft. production/manufacturing: n/a 22% retail total area: 747,489.6 sq. ft. entertainment: n/a services: n/a 15% public / parks & plazas (rooftop) total area: 509,652 sq. ft. civic: n/a cultural: n/a religious: n/a educational: n/a infrastructure parking: no rail: no bus: yes

Hong Kong, China 1960s -1980s destroyed in 1993

An aberrant by product of the vague language in the 1898 agreement between Great Britain and the China, Kowloon Walled City evolved into a real estate curiosity and social refuge for the fringes of Hong Kong and Kowloon society. The ambigious legal treatise protected the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s domain by serving no one specific government and enabling a comprehensive program of illegal and marginalized business to exist. Its ability to grow organically-structured by a daily tactical response to an ever changing evironment has created a rich, inaccessible quilt of the human capacity to adapt and survive. Every type of social and retail enterprise exist to offer its residents a complementary level of stewardship and service found outside the Walled City.

Eschewing all building and safety codes, Kowloon Walled City remains unrivaled in its ability to house so many on so little land. The population of 50,000 was equivalent to a density ratio of 1.9 million residents per one square kilometer. Pipes and other service conduits run everywhere, exposed and vulnerable. Walls and partitions suddenly materialize to address immediate adjacent needs. As a self sustaining enterprise, Kowloon Walled City garnered a respectable niche in modern Chinese history. In the late 1980s, the Hong Kong government reluctantly recognized the reality of the Walled City as a critical demographic and cultural mass and allowed the police to patrol the city and offer a minimum semblence of security and connection with the governance outside the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s boundaries.

Kowloon Walled City

In 1991, the evacuation of Kowloon Walled City began. With Hong Kong $3 billion, the government relocated 50,000 residents and completed demoliton of the city in 1993. Today, the Kowloon Walled City Park occupies the site of the Walled City.

websites: flex.co.jp/kowloon/ twenty4.co.uk/on-line/issue001/project02/KWC/ wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City ritklara.com/emerging/coexisting.html1

case studies housing

231

case studies stadium

232

case studies: stadiums

case studies stadium

233

Oriole Park at Camden Yards

Jacobs Field

1992 capacity: 48,262 cost: $100 million

1994 capacity: 43,345 cost: $175 million

100%

52%

Coors Field

Minute Maid Park

1995 capacity: 50,200 (1995), 50,381 (1999) cost: $215 million

2000 capacity: 42,000 (March 2000), 40,950 (April 2000) cost: $250 million

22%

19.6%

Baltimore, Maryland

Denver, Colorado

78%

Cleveland, Ohio

48%

Houston, Texas

12.5% 67.9%

stadium comparison websites: ballparksofbaseball.com ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm baltimore.orioles.mlb.com cleveland.indians.mlb.com colorado.rockies.mlb.com houston.astros.mlb.com

case studies stadium

Nostalgia pervades a day at the ballpark as families spend several hours munching on peanuts, dollar dogs, and rooting for the home team.

Baseball organizations recognize the benefits of catering to families, providing their patrons with family tickets, box seats, and providing special family activity sections. As cities grow and demographics diversify, stadium designs adapt to include more complex programs to attract a wider range of patrons. In rekindling the passion for the game, introducing it to a new generation, or reintroducing it to an audience long absent, the stadiums and the teams that inhabit them generate community amongst a stratified populace.

234

In the 1970s and 80s, many stadiums abandoned downtown for suburbia.

Auto-mobility and affordable land attracted development to the suburbs.

Stadiums were designed to accommodate multiple eventsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;hosting football and baseball games or transitioning into concert venues. However, in a desire to be everything for everyone, the stadiums succumbed to mediocrity, providing venues that are less intimate and involved than their predecessors. These stadiums often have entire sections empty and deflate the excitement of the game.

private capital

levied tax revenue

low interest loans

naming rights

district funding

project generated redevelopment funds

Viewing stadiums as economic linchpins, many baseball teams or their new owners have expressed a desire for new stadiums. City planners and officials entertain their demands in hopes of revitalizing their inner cities. Over the past ten years, both developers and cities have contributed more capital towards sporting venues, currently spending on average 30% more than ten years prior. Examples such as Jacobs Field in Cleveland and Coors Field in Denver have shown cities and investors the potential of stadiums to raise property values, induce new businesses, and reinvigorate depressed areas of the city.

In contrast, Dodger Stadium, although close to downtown, remains physically and functionally separate from the life of Los Angeles. Completed in 1962, Dodger Stadium with a seating capacity of 56,000 is much larger than newly constructed ballparks that average 42,000 seats. With a per game attendance of only 38,558 people, 31% of the stadium remains empty at game time. Though the Dodgers maintain a large fanbase, its geographic location atop Chavez Ravine surrounded by freeways severs this sporting venue from its fans below. Also, the surrounding parking lot buffers the stadium and further alienates visitors and locals alike. In

SBC Park

Comerica Park

2000 capacity: 40,930 (2000), 41,059 (2001) cost: $255 million

2000 capacity: 40,000 cost: $300 million

56.8%

62%

San Francisco, California

4%

Detroit, Michigan

39.2%

38%

PETCO Park

Dodger Stadium

2004 capacity: 46,000 cost: $456.8 million

1962 capacity: 56,000 cost: $23 million

San Diego, California

33.7%

33.7%

4.5%

Los Angeles, California

49.2%

95%

5%

stadium comparison websites: ballparksofbaseball.com ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm sf.giants.mlb.com detroit.tigers.mlb.com sandiego.padres.mlb.com losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com

an era where stadiums have been diversifying their program and packing facilities with amenities to attract families, corporate sponsors, and a new audience, Dodger Stadiumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s paltry offerings leave little to bring in patrons or retain attendants after gameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s end.

Moving Dodger Stadium into the downtown area can benefit both the baseball team and the surrounding community. The stadium can utilize existing infrastructure, including public transportation systems and shared parking facilities to facilitate large groups of people. Likewise, a new stadium catalyzes urban redevelopment by attracting new businesses or drumming up new clientele for pre-existing businesses. case studies stadium

235

85,000

85,000

80,000 75,000 75,000

70,000

65,000

62,500

62,500

60,000 56,000 55,000 50,381 50,000

48,262 46,000

45,000 45,000

43,345 40,000

40,000

40,950

41,256

41,059

40,000

37,500 35,000

30,000

30,000

30,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

18,000

20,000

16,500

16,000

15,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

3,800

3,800

stadium parking trends websites: ballparksofbaseball.com ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm baltimore.orioles.mlb.com cleveland.indians.mlb.com colorado.rockies.mlb.com houston.astros.mlb.com

case studies stadium

Dodger Stadium

236

websites: sf.giants.mlb.com detroit.tigers.mlb.com sandiego.padres.mlb.com losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com

Stadium City

Dodger Stadium

PETCO Park

SBC Park

Minute Maid Park

Comerica Park

Coors Field

Jacobs Field

Oriole Park at Camden Yards

0

Sports District Site gains: -adjacent to freeway -links entertainment center with central city -close to the red and blue line losses: -planned for development, little opportunity for further planning

Stadium Town Site gains: -maximum spill-over from adjacent districts -possible restored residential component losses: -re-routes Olive Street -reduces potential parking spaces

Arts District Site gains: -adjacent to Union Station and freeways -adjacent to Los Angeles River -revitalization of area -civic center adjacent losses: -farthest from any existing downtown economic centers

metro bus line metro train stop cultural and historical site police station fire station health center special school facility City Hall historic district high density residential zoning medium density residential zoning

stadium relocation candidate sites, Los Angeles

Chavez Pass

Flower District Site gains: -avoids major roads -revitalization of area loss: -possible isolation east of project

L.A. Live/Elysian Housing case studies stadium

237

A special thanks to: Pat Baxter Anne Marie Burke Carolyn Cole Maurice Cox Teddy Cruz Roger Duffy Maxine Griffith Brian Healy Dana Hutt Richard Koshalek Sylvia Lavin Blythe Allison Mayne Julianna Morais Kenneth Schwartz Ji Youn Yi Mun Ho Yi YoonKyoung Yi Christopher Waterman Richard Weinstein

end

Photography credits: All photographs by Eui-Sung Yi except for the following: Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (203, 204) Nate Chiappa (110, 111) Christine Phung (135, 136) Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection, Herald Examiner Collection (158-160, 173, 175) photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp (181) nationalmap.gov (10-15, 136-137, 158, 167, 178, 179) Marla Rutherford (184,185) Masako Saito (134, 135, 138-141, 146,155 (building elevations), 180, 186-189, 204-206, 216, 217.

Gerardo Rivera (25-27) UCLA Department of Geography, The Benjamin and Gladys Thomas Air Photo Archives, Fairchilds Collection (20-21, 147) UCLA Department of Geography, The Benjamin and Gladys Thomas Air Photo Archives, Spence Collection (2, 18-19, 160-161, 232-233) en.wikipedia.org (200, 230, 231) YoonKyoung Yi (227)

238

UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Faculty and Visiting Critics, 1998-2006 Mark Mack Marta Malé Thom Mayne Rose Mendez Murray Miline Farshid, Moussavi, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2001 Glen Murcutt, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2000 Barton Myers Tim Murphy Enrique Norten, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2003 Jason Payne René Peralta Barton Phelps Martin Paull Wolf Prix, S. Charles Lee Chair, 1999 George Rand Hani Rashid, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2003 Ben Refuerzo Dagmar Richter Heather Roberge Michaele Saee Richard Schoen Roger Sherman Paulette Singley Robert E. Somol Michael Speaks Randolph Stout Carlos Tejeda Kostas Terzidis Bernard Tschumi, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2000 Billie Tsien, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2001 Anthony Vidler Richard Weinstein Buzz Yudel Alejandro Zaera Polo, S. Charles Lee Visiting Professor, 2001 Andrew Zago

239

end

Sylvia Lavin, Chair Hadley Soutter Arnold Peter Arnold Ann Bergren Ben van Berkel, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2002 Aaron Betsky, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002 Johan Bettum Petra Blaisse, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2004 Caroline Bos, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2002 Bernard Cache Preston Scott Cohen, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002 John Cordic Dana Cuff Julia Czerniak Kevin Daly Julie Eizenberg Neil Denari David Erdman Diane Favro Eva Forgacs Michelle Fornabai Helene Furján Robert Garlipp Chris Genik Bruce Gibbons Joseph Giovannini Marcelyn Gow Zaha Hadid, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 1998 Thomas S. Hines Craig Hodgetts Randolph Jefferson Charles Jencks Sharon Johnston Victor Jones Wes Jones Ulrika Karlsson Jeff Kipnis, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002 Amy Kulper Jurg Lang Clover Lee Mark Lee Thomas Levin Robin Liggett Mark Linder Alan Locke Greg Lynn

© 2006 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION ISBN: 0-9771945-1-5 PUBLISHED BY THE UCLA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN PRINTED IN CHINA L.A. NOW: VOLUME THREE AND VOLUME FOUR IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM: UCLA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN BOOK ORDERS 1317 PERLOFF HALL LOS ANGELES, CA 90095 310.825.7857 THE UCLA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN PURSUES ISSUES CONFRONTING CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM THROUGH FOUR DIFFERENT DEGREE PROGRAMS OFFERING TWO PROFESSIONAL DEGREES (THE MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE I AND II) AS WELL AS THE M.A. AND PH.D IN ARCHITECTURE. OUR PRIMARY FOCUS ON ADVANCED DESIGN IS ACCOMPANIED BY CONCENTRATIONS IN TECHNOLOGY AND CRITICAL STUDIES OF ARCHITECTURAL CULTURE.

end

UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design 1317 Perloff Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095 T: 310.825.7857 F: 310.825.8959 www.aud.ucla.edu

240

end

L.A. NOW Volume Three and Volume Four A Case for Downtown Living Five Proposals UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

L.A. NOW