LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9

8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9

1/46


2/46

198


3/46

transportation

199transportation

research


4/46

The issue of transportation in California is a criti-cal one. With the worlds 6th largest economy and anever-growing population, rapid travel between majorcities and population areas is becoming increasinglyimportant.In the 1980s promoters pushed high-speed rail, a con-cept already in use in Asia and Europe, as a possiblealternative to overcrowded highways and expensive air

descriptionled to the creation of the California High-Speed RailAuthority (CHSRA), a Board charged with designing ahigh-speed train system for the state. CHSRA intro-duced a plan in 2000 for a system that would link allof the states major population centers including theSan Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Sacramento,the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. TheSafe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act

in September of 2002 as Senate Bill 1856. The bill wouldprovide for the issuance of $9.95 billion in general ob-ligation bonds, $9 billion of which would be used inconjunction with available federal funds for funding theplanning and construction of a high-speed train system.It is currently slated to go before the voters as a propo-sition in the November 7, 2006 general election (Initia-tive Update, California Secretary of State).

websites:cahighspeedrail.ca.govigs.berkeley.edu/library/htHighSpeedRail.htmdescription:the staff of the Institute of Governmental Studies Library, from igs.berkeley.edu/library/htHighSpeedRail.htm

railway

proposed California high-speed rail

* estimated travel time based on timetable providedby California High Speed Train Authority

Sacramento 2:10

Merced

San Jose 2:00

San Francisco 2:30

Fresno 1:20

Bakersfield 0:50

L.A. Union Station Ontario AirportRiverside

Palmdale

Victorville

San Bernardino

March

Irvine

Anaheim

LAX

West L.A.

Union Station

Ontario

website:redline.calmaglev.org

railway

proposed SCAG Maglev rail

Southern California Maglev Network(initial operating segment)Southern California Maglev Network

200


5/46

description

websites:mta.net/trans_planning/CPD/midcityla-pasblueline.orgurbanrail.net/am/lsan/los-angeles.htm

railway

Metro Rail travel distances

Red Line21 Union Station22 Civic Center/Tom Bradley23 Pershing Square24 7th St/Metro Center25 Westlake/MacArthur Park26 Wilshire/Vermont27 Wilshire/Normandie28 Wilshire/Western29 Vermont/Beverly30 Vermont/Santa Monica31 Vermont/Sunset32 Hollywood/Western33 Hollywood/Vine34 Hollywood/Highland35 Universal City36 North Hollywood

time00:0300:0500:0600:0800:1000:1200:1400:1600:1400:1600:1700:1900:2200:2400:2800:32

Gold Line Extension01 1st St/Alameda02 1st St/Utah03 1st St/Boyle04 1st St/Soto05 3rd St/Indiana06 3rd St/Ford07 3rd St/Mednik08 Pomona/Atlantic

time00:0000:0200:0300:0500:0800:1100:1300:14

Gold Line09 Chinatown10 Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park

11 Heritage Square/Arroyo12 Southwest Museum13 Highland Park14 Mission15 Fillmore16 Del Mar17 Memorial Park18 Lake19 Allen20 Sierra Madre Villa

time00:0500:08

00:1000:1200:1600:2100:2500:2600:2700:3000:3200:38

Claremont(Gold line Phase II)

Blue Line37 Pico38 Grand39 San Pedro40 Washington41 Vemon42 Slauson43 Florence44 Firestone45 103rd/Kenneth Hahn46 Imperial/Wilmington Rosa Parks47 Compton48 Artesia49 Del Amo50 Wardlow51 Willow52 Pacific Coast Highway53 Anaheim54 5th St55 1st St56 Long Beach/Transit Mall57 Pacific

time00:1000:1300:1500:1800:2000:2200:2300:2400:2800:3000:3300:3600:3900:4300:45

00:52

01:01

Green Line58 Long Beach/I-10559 Lakewood/I-10560 I-65/I-10561 Avalon/I-10562 Harbor Fwy/I-10563 Vermont/I-10564 Crenshaw/I-10565 Hawthorne/I-10566 Aviation/I-10567 Mariposa/ Nash68 El Segundo/Nash69 Douglas Rosecrans70 Marine/Redondo Beach

time00:3700:5001:0200:3200:3400:3600:3900:4200:4500:4700:4900:5100:55

Santa Monica(Exposition LRT)

1 2 34

5 6 7 8 14 minutes

910 11

12

131415

1617

18 19 20

2122

23

24

2526

2728

29

3031

3233

34

35

36

37

3839 40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

5253

545556

57

58

59

61626364

65

666768

69

70

38 minutes

32 minutes

55 minutes

61 minutes

60

62 minutes

Metro commuter rail lines and stations

Metro Rail transit lines and stations

future Metro Rail transit lines andstationsfreeways

distribution nodes

For 50 years, Los Angeles enjoyed an intimate andexclusive relationship with one dominant vehiculartransportation system. Large expanses of land al-lowed miles of highways to be built, fueling a local cul-ture nurtured in climatic and individual freedom.Within two generations, the city faces the limitationsof its prosperity and braces for a shift toward an intel-ligent and integrated approach to public transporta-

In 1963, the last streetcar lines closed in Los Ange-les. It would take 30 years for the first line in the citysnew public rail transportation system to begin opera-tions. In 1993, a 59 mile long subway, the Metro RedLine, began operating. Subsequent lines followed withthe above-ground/on-grade Light Rail Transit (LRT)systems due to their economic and engineering ad-vantages. The four LRT lines are the two Metro Blue

Exposition Line. They radiate in all cardinal directionsto connect vital L.A. neighborhoods and to the cities ofPasadena, Culver City, and Long Beach. The ExpositionLine promises to be the first to connect the Westside tothe citys center. Mayor Villaraigosa has also resurrect-ed efforts for the westward expansion of the Red Line,which will ultimately connect the citys iconic coastlineand the city of Santa Monica to the inner city.

research

transportation

201


6/46

$

The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile-long rail cargoexpressway linking the ports of Long Beach and LosAngeles to the transcontinental rail network neardowntown Los Angeles. It is a series of bridges, un-derpasses, overpasses and street improvements thatseparate freight trains from street traffic and passen-ger trains, facilitating a more efficient transportationnetwork. The projects centerpiece is the Mid-Corri-

description nowtrench that is 10 miles long, 33 feet deep and 50 feetwide between State Route 91 in Carson and 25th Streetin Los Angeles. Construction began in April 1997. Op-erations begin in April 2002.The Alameda Corridor consolidates four low-speedbranch rail lines, eliminating conflicts at more than200 at-grade crossings, providing a high-speed freightexpressway, and minimizing the impact on communi-

San Pedro Bay Ports cargo value$168.3 billion

Alameda Corridor

19972002

20 miles

100 trains/day

cost $2.4 billion

average speed 40 mph

Eurotunnel

19861994

31.3 miles

50 trains/day

cost $12.5 billion

average speed 100220 mph

distribution to

U.S.

Alamed

a

C

o

rrid

o

r

website:scbbs.com/alameda/alameda3.htmdescription:acta.org/newsroom_factsheet.htm, used with permission from the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authoritynow:1. Hugo Martin, Alameda Corridor Bridge Gets Go-Ahead, Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2003, sec. B.

truck routes

distribution nodes

Alameda Corridor

existing freight rail lines

major truck terminals

industrial nodes

railway

Alameda Corridor

1. The last phase of the $2.4 billion Alameda Projecthas been approved. It is a $107 million, half-milelong bridge that will carry cargo on the Pacific CoastHighway in Wilmington. This bridge will address roadtraffic at the intersection of the Pacific Coast Highwayand the rail line.

202


7/46

2. Traffic congestion, federal funding, and freight controlwere the three challenges facing the region in a recentcommission. Titled Mobility 21, the local experts andofficials urged the federal funding of an infrastructurethat handles 43% of the nations cargo.

now

website:scbbs.com/alameda/alameda3.htmlnow: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.

railway

Alameda Corridor national impact

Houston

Miami

New York

Boston

Chicago

Atlanta

St. Louis

Kansas City

Salt Lake City

Seattle

Oakland

San PedroBay Ports

Cleveland

Memphis

* line thickness corresponds to intermodal trade volume

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

impact of trade through San Pedro Bay Ports

1. The Alameda Corridor rail line has had a difficultfirst year of operation, as performance expectationswere not meant. Designed to relieve the number oftractor trailers that snarl traffic between Los Angelesand Long Beach, the corridor failed to shift enoughbusiness to its rail system.The performance mark of 100 trains per day carrying50% of the ports cargo is reduced to just 35 trains car-

rying 37% of the cargoabout the same amount beforethe corridor was built. One cause of this unexpecteddownshift in demand is that the economics of freighthas changedcausing tractor trailers to become thepreferred system.

research

transportation

203


8/46

descriptionThe Light Rail Transit (LRT) system adopted by theMTA promises to be the most effective system to inte-grate into future urban planning. An updated versionof the old trolley system, its relatively silent perfor-mance has been engineered to be a sustainable part-ner with automobile traffic, pedestrian integretation,and a positive influx into commercial corridors.The more ambitious vision is the transit parks, whereprimary LRT stations support large community parks

d bli

Metro Red LineWilshire Center/Hollywood/

North Hollywood

Metro Gold LinePasadena

by 2020daily boardings: 2,500+(15.6% of total line)

proposed GoldLine ExtensionLight Rail TransitEast Los AngelesPomona/Atlantic

by 2020total LRT daily boardings: 16,000+operating speed: 2535mphaffected population: 275,000expected users out of 275,000: 55,000

(20% of population,6.5% of entire L.A. County)

cost: $822826 million

Metro Blue LineLong Beach

websites:mta.net/metro_transit/timetables/bus_rail.htmmta.net/trans_planning/CPD/Eastside/Default.htmdescription:mta.net/projects_plans/exposition/light_rail.htm

Grand Station13 minutes

San Pedro Station15 minutes

Pico/Los Angeles ConventionCenter Station10 minutes

7th Street/MetroCenter/JulianDixon Station

8 minutes

PershingSquare Station6 minutes

Civic Center/TomBradley Station

5 minutes

Chinatown

Station6 minutes

Union Station/Gateway Transit Center3 minutes

AlamedaStation Utah

Station18 minutes

BoyleStation32 minutes

railway

metro lines and cultural institutions

theaters

museums

galleries

civic institutions

educational institutions

sports & recreation centers

religious institutions

10 minute walking radius

204


9/46

1. The inaugural journey of the newly constructed LosAngelesPasadena Gold Line, which finally connectsthe cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena throughdowntown Los Angeles and onto Belmont Heights, oc-curs today. The Gold Line is seen as the alternativeto the communitys resistance to the construction ofa new freeway.

Thirteen stations will be served.

now

website:mta.netnow: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.

California High-Speed Railthree site proposals

Union StationRun-ThroughRail Track Extension

Metro Gold Line Extensionthe implemented option

alternative rail proposals

for south end of Union Station

2. The impact and sustainability of Light Rail Transitcontinues to be tested, as voters in Orange County de-feated the CenterLine Project, which would have con-nected John Wayne Airport and UC Irvine. The projectwould also have connected Irvine, Costa Mesa, andSanta Ana.

Despite the lack of support for the CenterLine, votersalso defeated a bill that prohibited any consideration

f li h il i i i f l i l

3. The Red Line subway can be extended westward un-der the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor, a major review bytransportation and tunneling experts. Despite danger-ous underground gases, they deemed a safe tunnelingmethod is possible, paving way to the mayors effort toaddress this subways ultimate destiny.

research

transportation

205


10/46

409

413

419

422423

430

431

437

438

448

nowdescription

websites:ladotransit.com/comexp/index.htmltransit-rider.com/ca.losangeles

bus lines

travel distances by minutes website:mta.net/riding_metro/riders_guide/planning_trip-01.htmnow:

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.

Thousand Oaks76 minutes

Chatsworth85 minutes

Sylmar75 minutes

Van Nuys60 minutes

Westwood50 minutes

Pacific Palisades

55 minutes

Marina del Rey43 minutes

Redondo Beach61 minutes

Rancho PalosVerdes62 minutes

bus lines

destinations and times from site

Orange Line | Metro Liner

The new Orange Line is locatedin San Fernando Valley.30 new advanced buses, each carrying 57 passengers,connect the north terminus of the Red Line at NorthHollywood with the Warner Center in Woodland Hills.

Metro Rapid

25% faster than local bus service:sensors keep traffic lights greenbuses scheduled every 515 minutesstops only at major intersections30 new advanced buses, eachcarrying 57 passengers

The MTA has concluded that a bus is in motion only fif-ty percent of the time. The other fifty percent is spentat red lights or stopped for patrons. To address thisinefficiency, MTA developed the Metro Rapid Programa special fleet of buses designed to maximize transittime. The program, begun in June 2000, has seen a40% increase in ridership.

206


11/46

now2. MTA declares ridership numbers have exceeded pro-jection on the new bus-oriented Orange Line. But thereare criticisms that the original target numbers were setlow as a reaction to past irregularities. Both the GoldLine and Green Line failed to meet projections in theirfirst year of operations by as much as 50%.

In conjunction with the MTA, which has control overtransportation issues for the entire Los AngelesCounty, the Los Angeles Department of Transporta-tion operates the second largest fleet of buses in thecounty.

400 vehicles serve 30 million passengers per year.The DASH line serves downtown Los Angeles for a fare

f 25 d i f 8 i

1. In an effort to update a decade-old bus route sys-tem, MTA has proposed a new Hub and Spoke routeplan. The 10 year federal mandate has produced thisnew bus grid which aims to attract new riders, in-crease ridership, and save money.

The current system is paralyzed, as it is at the mercyof an the citys increasingly frequent girdlock and ex-asperated by a route length that cycles every 20 milesl d i h 40 il

to Santa Monica/2nd Avenue82 minutes (routes 04 + 304)

to Sunset + Pacific Coast Highway96 minutes (routes 02 and 302)

North

Alv

arado

Str

eet

toVentura

101 Hollywood Freeway

Elysian Park Avenue

Stadium Way

Figu

eroa

Street

1stStreet3rdStreet4thStreet5thStreet6thStreet

9thStreetOlympicBlvd

Hill

Stre

et

Broadw

ay

MainStre

et

LosAn

gele

sStre

et

HewittStr

ee

t

Vig

nes

St

ree

t

Alameda

Street

1stStreet

4thStreet

6thStreet

7thStreet

Hop

eStre

et

PicoBlvd

17thStreet

to downtown (Venice/Grand)20 minutes (route 96)

to downtown (Venice/Broadway)19 minutes (route 603)to downtown (Venice/Main)19 minutes (routes 81, 90, 91, 92, 94, 381, 394)

to downtown (Grand/Washington)19 minutes (route 603)

8th Street

14thStreet

Central

Avenu

e

to Glendale22 minutes (route 603)

to Sylmar86 minutes (route 92)

to Sherman Oaks95 minutes (route 96)

to Sylmar105 minutes (routes 90, 91, 94, 394)

to Sylmar

Gle

ndale

Blvd

5GoldenStateFreeway toPas

adena

Echo

Park

Avenue

ScottAvenue

WestSunsetBlvd

Elysian Park Avenue

StadiumWay

101HollywoodFreeway

110Pa

sadena

Freewa

y

to San Pedro

to Harbor Freeway68 minutes (routes 81 + 381)

to downtown/USC36 minutes (route 200)

research

transportation

207


12/46


13/46

now

websites:cahighways.org/chronlgy.htmldot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/cthist.htmnow: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.

vehicles

historic routes of major motorway system in Los Angeles

1925 1937

1920

major motorwayat 1920

major motorway at 1925major motorway at 1920

major motorway at 1937major motorway at 1925

350 (miles)

0

100

200

300

Reaganelected

asgovernor

LosAngelesTimes,

freewayprogramdying

Brownelected

newmulti-modal

policyannounced

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1966

1970

1973

1974

1975

1980

1985

1990

2. San Fernando residents confronted officials whenpresented with the proposal to widen the 101 Free-way. The $3.4 billion project would demolish homesand stores while adding two carpool lanes in eachdirection between Studio City and Thousand Oaks.The plan projects a savings of 78,000 commutinghours a day.

3. The MTA board, led by County Supervisor GloriaMolina, has canceled the ambitious scope of the 101Widening Project. With escalating public rancor overthe loss of homes, businesses and cultural centers,the MTA was asked to review alternatives for improv-ing freeways without the removal of private property.

In scaling back the 101 Project, similar measureswere mandated for the equally ambitious elevated

k l h 710 F

1. After reviewing several alternatives to improve the101 Freeway, including double decking and a rail linein the center median, the transportation committeehas recommended adding two carpool lanes in eachdirection.

The $36 million project will cover 40 miles along the101 Corridor and can have disastrous consequencesfor homes and business within the projects zone.

research

transportation

209


14/46

website:cahighway.org

vehicles

development of highway and freeway system in Los Angeles

1955

19791965

expanded highways

freeways

major highways

1942

freeway extension

210


15/46

vehicles

freeway traffic

1986

* line thickness corresponds to daily traffic volume

City of Los Angeles

populationarea

street milesmajor/secondary roads

collector/local roadsintersections

freeway miles

3,695,000456 sq. mi.6,400 mi1,4005,00040,000160 mi

2003

website:mobility.tamu.edu/mmp/reports/monitoring_urban_roadways/appendices/PDFs/los_angeles.pdfnow: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

211

According to The Desert Sun, since the 1960s the number of

registered vehicles statewide increased from 9 million to 30 mil-

lion, 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 high-

way lanes have expanded by 6 percent.

According to the Los Angeles Times, plans are in effect to ex-

pand rail lines throughout the state, and with the Los Angeles

b i h 5 h b i i h ld hi il i

would potentially reduce the number of trucks on the highways.

The average freight train, with about 280 cars, takes an equiva-

lent 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 trafc ow in

Los Angeles is to charge tolls. But a rail system can be suc-

cessful if it is paired up with a high-quality public transportation

h i l f b l h h h i

The New York Times states that Los Angeles mayor [Villaraigo-

sa] has added trafc ofcers at 38 choked intersections. He has

sped up plans to synchronize trafc lights at all of the citys 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 citys Red Line subway from downtown to the sea. The exten-

sion would cost nearly $5 billion and take about 20 years.

research

transportation


16/46

website:traffic.tann.net/lartrafficThe Road Atlas 2002now: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.

vehicles

travel times and distances during off-peak hours

60 minutes+

60 minutes

Santa Monica

15.8 miles

UCLA15.6 miles

Hollywood6 miles

Pasadena10.2 miles

Ontario38.6 miles

Orange County25.8 miles

LAX17.8 miles

San Pedro Bay26.3 miles

30 minutes

20 minutes

10 minutes

40 minutes

50 minutes

2. Due to severe impacts on 300 existing homes,homeowners and local officials have asked for aredesign of the 18-mile 710 Long Beach Freewayexpansion.

1. The 4-year-long anticipated $112 millionconstruction of an overpass between OxnardBoulevard and the Ventura Freeway and the additionof 5 new lanes to the bridge will cause one of theworst bottlenecks in North Los Angeles.

3. A dramatic increase in mental and physical healthproblems caused by traffic noise has been noted inSouthern California in the past ten years. Problems havebeen detected in residents who live near older freeways,which lack modern acoustic sound barriers. Currentremedies are limited to lowering truck noise throughbraking alternatives. Long-term planning includesreviewing housing development along freeways.

now

212


17/46

70 minutes+

60 minutes

Santa Monica15.8 miles

UCLA15.6 miles

Hollywood6 miles

Pasadena10.2 miles

Ontario38.6 miles

Orange County25.8 miles

LAX17.8 miles

San Pedro Bay26.3 miles

30 minutes

20 minutes

10 minutes

40 minutes

50 minutes

website:traffic.tann.net/lartrafficThe Road Atlas 2002now:1. Jim Mateja, Owners cost more than just the payment, Los Angeles Times, April 23, 2003, sec. G.

vehicles

travel times and distances during peak hourspeak hours 7:309:30am, 5:008:30pm

70 minutes

1. In AAA s national study on the cost of operating avehicle, they concluded that it costs 64.2 cents a milefor gas, oil, and maintenance, and tires, or $6,420 ayear for every 10,000 miles of driving.

For a full-size SUV, the study concluded it costs 78.64cents a mile, or $7,864 per year for every 10,000 milesof driving.

now

213

research

transportation


18/46

5goldenstatefreeway

glendale

blv

d

ech

opark

scottavenue

westsunsetblvdnorth

alv

arado

str

eet

101santaanafreeway

110pa

sadena

freew

ay

elysian park avenue

stadiumw

ay

av

enu

e

figuero

astr

eet

1ststreet3rdstreet4thstreet5thstreet6thstreet

9thstreetolympicblvd

picoblvd

17thstreet

al am

e d as tre e t

14thstreet

8th street

7thstreet

6th street

4th street

1ststreet

hewitt

str

eet

vig

nesstr

eet

los

angele

sstr

eet

mainstre

et

broadw

aystre

et

hill

stre

ethop

estre

et

centr

alavenue

to San Diego

topas

adena

to san pedro

tosylmar

to

gle

nd

ale

proposal 1a proposal 1b

prop

osal1a

The Rampart and Alvarado exits off the 101 Freeway remain the most congestedwithin the site. Currently, Alvarado and Rampart Streets function as through waysfor commuters connecting to the 5 Freeway and downtown.

The proposed extension of the Glendale Freeway south to the 101 Freeway willgreatly alleviate the traffic congestion at the Alvarado and Rampart exits by keep-ing commuting on freeways. Local congestion will lessen significantly in theseresidential areas.

Currently, there are no major local vehicular arteries that connect downtown L.A. tothe Echo Park/Solano Canyon residential area. Due to their dependency on the 110or 101 Freeways as their only access points, the communities are choked off from atransparent open connection with the rest of the city.

The proposed extension of Alameda Street north to Stadium Way will provide a majorsymbolic and local traffic connection between downtown L.A. and the Echo Park/So-lano Canyon area.

proposal 1a and 1b

extension of 2 Glendale Fwy and North Alameda Streetwebsite:trafficinfo.lacity.org

propo

sa

l1b

From downtown Los Angeles, Chavez Ravine/Echo Park can be made accessible through localroads. Urban housing will provide opportunitiesfor people to live within close proximity to work.Local transportation can provide residents andvisitors the convenience and the connectivetissue between Chavez Ravine and downtownLos Angeles. Proposed are three possiblemethods of connection, including the extensionof the 2 Glendale Freeway to the 101 Santa AnaFreeway, the extension of North Alameda Streetto the site, and the introduction of a modernlight-rail transit system linking Metro stations

to the site. In effect, this will help reduce trafficcongestion in the greater Los Angeles area andalleviate housing shortage.

214


19/46

0 5 00 ft 1 00 0f t

1 mile1/2mile1/3mile0

100ft

5goldenstatefreeway

gle

ndale

blv

d

ech

opark

scottavenue

westsunsetblvdnorth

alv

arado

str

eet

101santaanafreeway

110pa

sadena

free

way

elysian park avenue

stadiumway

av

enu

e

figuero

astr

eet

1ststreet

3rdstreet4thstreet

5thstreet

6thstreet

9thstreet

olympicblvd

picoblvd17thstreet

alame d as t re e t

14thstreet

8th street

7thstreet

6th street

4th street

1ststreet

hewitt

str

eet

vig

nes

str

eet

los

angele

sstr

eet

mainstre

et

broadw

aystreet

hill

stre

et

ho

pestreet

centr

alavenue

to San Diego

topas

adena

toventura

to san pedro

tosylmar

to

glen

dal e

website:trafcinfo.lacity.org/

proposal 2Utilizing the three public transportation systems, the proposal outlines light railtransit that will supplement the Gold Line. This will run along Figueroa Street andconnect 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 effectivelycarry all passengers interested in the entertainment cutlural corridor.

projection

distance 3.0 miles

time from one end to the other 9 minutesweekday riders 10,000

LRT to be parallel to Grand Avenue and Stadium Way

high schools

junior high schools

elementary schools

civic

library

recreation

churches

Strategically, Dodger Stadium should be in alocation that is more easily accessible to thepublic, such as downtown Los Angeles. Existingtransportation networks and parking structuresalready provides the necessary access andsupporting infrastructure. A significantpopulation of people would be going to theballgame after working in downtown duringthe day. Locating the stadium within walkingdistance from work eliminates the hassleof driving and prevents unnecessary trafficcongestions. For the rest of the population whoare not familiar with sports, it becomes another

everyday after-work social hangout activity withcoworkers. The shortened distance from workto the stadium means requiring less effort toattend games, which will induce more people toparticipate in these sporting events. This willincrease the popularity of sport and ticket sales.Perhaps the turnabout will be so effective thatthe owner of Dodger Stadium, or any sportsteam, will start making positive profits.

research

transportation

proposal 2

modern light-rail transit system

215


20/46

The city can no longer build highways without incit-ing significant resistance from the community. Theshort-term shock and impact of erasing neighbor-hoods three blocks wide by several miles long out-weighs engineers and policymakers desire for long-term efficiency.

Without a comprehensive plan, the state and countycan offer expansion and amendments to the currenti f i h f f ddi l l i l d

ing High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (carpool lanes).From 2003, several proposals to resolve congestionvia new highways was introduced only to be defeatedby strong grass-roots opposition.

The beginning of 2006 saw a resurgence in transpor-tation funding. Governor Schwarzenegger proposedinvesting $107 billion over the next ten years. $5.6billion will target regional projects including adding a

hb d Hi h O V hi l L h 405

Fwy. This plan forecasts a reduction from 580,000down to 454,000 daily hours an estimated 22% drop.The comprehensive funding measures has been re-ceived with mixed reactions. Orange County welcomesthe $320 million targeting the 91 Freeway. In contrast,Los Angeles County hoped partial funding will go to-ward public mass transita long term strategic solu-tionrather than continuously expand the short termproblems of freeway capacity.

website:exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.htmlnow:Caitlin Liu, Gov.s Plan Targets Southland Traffic Hot Spots, Los Angeles Times, February 13, 2006, sec. B.

swimmer(1.5mph)

bicyclerider(4mph)

walker(4mph)

bicyclerider(10mph)

runner(10mph)

horserider(10mph)

bicyclerider(15mph)

mopedrider(20mph)

trainrider(30mph)

carand5riders(30mph)

carand1rid

er(30mph)

carand5riders(60mph)

carand1rider(60mph)1,000 (kcal/km/person)

0

all transportation systems

energy cost comparison

1 bus with 7 passengers = 1 auto1 full bus = 6 autos1 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 possiblefrom transit use:

00 gallons for each personswitching from driving alone;85 million gallons from a 10% nationwideincrease in transit ridership

1 person using mass transit for a yearinstead of driving to worksaves the environment:

9.1 pounds of hydrocarbons62.5 pounds of carbon monoxide4.9 pounds of nitrogen oxides

now216


21/46

$

1mile

all transportation systems

construction cost comparison

freeway (elevated)Los Angeles$45 million/mile (construction)$45$50 million/mile (land acquisition)

$90140m/mile

freeway (on grade)Los Angeles$30 million/mile (construction)$30 million/mile (land acquisition)

$4060m/mile

rapid busMid-City WestsideLos Angeles15 stations97 vehicles

$180m/mile

monorail (elevated)

Los Angeles$40 million/mile (construction)$60 million/mile (land acquisition)

$100m/mile

light-rail transitLos Angeles$65 million/mile (Mid-City-Westside LRT)$120 million/mile (Gold Line LRT)

$75120m/mile

MTACaltrans

subwayLos Angeles$180 million/mile (construction)

$200m/mile

Public outcry and resistance has suspended Caltransplans to add two addtional lanes each way on the 101Freeway between Studio City and Thousand Oaks.

101 Freeway Expansion Plancost: $3.4 billionbenefit: save 78,000 hours of driving timesacrifice: 1000 businesses700 residential / 250 commercial structures11 schools and churches /12 medical buildings8 parks and recreational areas8 lt l it

710 Freeway Planbenefit: save 78,000 hours of driving timesacrifice: 900 structures

now

research

transportation

217


22/46

Battery Park City

Potzdamer Platz

Shiodome

World Trade Center

Chavez Ravine

218


23/46

case studies

downtown Arts District

KowloonWalled City

Elysian Heights Housing

Playa Vista

219housing

casestudies


24/46

Elysian Park Heights Playa Vista Battery Park City

220


25/46

o n e m i l e

Shiodome Potzdamer Platz World Trade Center Kowloon Walled City

housing

casestudies

221


26/46

222


27/46

housing

casestudies

223


28/46

With urban sprawl covering vast acres, Los Angeles attempts to produce mixed-use, large-scale housingprojects have been rare and often futile. This chapter focuses on seven case studies of large-scale buildingprojects 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 allowedclear assessment of their success or failure as communities. Same scale comparisons of each precedent toeither 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 thecultural corridor, the surrounding communities, and their controversial past, the case studies attempted tocontribute 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 massand program, all of the projects sought to continue the scale and density of their surrounding built urban en-vironments, but varied in their preservation of open space. Both Los Angeles projects (Elysian Park Heightsand Playa Vista) contain mostly low-rise residential units with minimal commercial or office space. New YorkCitys Battery Park City and Tokyos Shiodomeboth dense high-rise projectsand Berlins mid-risePotzdamer Platz have evenly distributed residential, commercial, and retail program.

The master plan for each project (except Kowloon Walled City) called for integration into existing infrastruc-ture 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 offer-ing valuable open space to the surrounding communities. Most of these projects followed a singuler masterplan but were developed by multiple architects. This allowed for cohesive plans, that avoided the potential forhomogeneity in design.

Each master plan solved the problem of open space by considering the surrounding urban context. BothPlaya Vista and Battery Park Citythough radically different in scale, mass, and densityreserved a significantamount of public/open space. The design for Potzdamer Platz and Shiodome, on the other hand, relied onhaving large public parks nearby. Because of its extreme density, the residents of Kowloon Walled City foundopen space in the landscape of the roof.

Each of the seven case studies foregrounds design opportunities for bringing a residential community to thedowntown Arts District and Chavez Ravine. The Elysian Park Heights and Playa Vista models are representa-

tive of a distinctly Los Angeles, low-rise, low-density approach to urban residential development. If graftedonto such a geographically isolated site such as Chavez Ravine, these heavily residential communities wouldbe stranded from urban amenities and in essence become gated communities. The World Trade Centermodel of high-density, high-rise office space can be found on Bunker Hill, and would be an interesting com-plement for the Arts District site, and a complex addition for Chavez Ravine due to its isolation and singularityof program. The increase in commuters to either site would tax an already saturated infrastructure. Thesetwo unacceptable extremes suggest a mixed-use solution. Potzdamer Platz, Battery Park City, and to someextent Shiodome, each with varying degrees of hybridity, would pose as better prototypes. Chavez Ravineideally demands a self-catalytic community, with its strong connections to Chinatown, the cultural corridor,Elysian Park, Echo Park, and downtown.

224


29/46


30/46

Playa Vista

Westwebsite:wlaxmdrchamber.com/history/pv.html

total project cost: $2.7 billiontotal 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: 2-5F.A.R. : 0.66

populationresidents: 13,500workers: n/a

92% residentialtotal area: 4,310,200 sq. ft.

average unit size: 1,658 sq. ft.number of units: 2600

3% commercialtotal area: 140,550 sq. ft.office: n/aproduction/manufacturing: n/a

3% retailtotal area: 140,550 sq. ft.hotel: n/aentertainment: n/a

2% public / parks & plazastotal area: 93,700 sq. ft.civic institution: n/acultural institution: n/aeducational: n/a

infrastructureparking: 3,900 cars

rail: nobus: yes

Playa Vista is bordered by Marina del Rey to the north, the communities of Westchester and Playa del Rey to thesouth, the 405 to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Initially proposed as a 10,000 plus unit village onHoward Hughess 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 de-velopment. Its developers claim that these luxury single family homes are in the style of 1940s West Los Angelesand Mediterranean architectures, and that new condominiums were influenced by classical European, SpanishColonial, Art Deco, and Frank Lloyd Wright designs. The development, situated along the Ballona Creek wetlandstwo miles from the shore, lies just west of an artificial lake. Criticism has arisen from concerned environmental-ists regarding the sites exposure to methane. According to the Chamber of Commerce, Playa Vista was selectedby President Bill Clinton as one of five P.A.T.H. (Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing) communities inthe United States for its commitment to sustainable development under the leadership of the U.S. Department ofEnergys Building America program. Playa Vista recently received a coveted Ahwahnee Award for recognition asa model smart growth project.

Playa Vista,California

1989present

Duany Plater-Zyberk,Ricardo Legorreta

Laurie OlinMoore Ruble Yudell

Moule and Polyzoides

226


31/46

New York, New York

19681980

Charles MooreDavis, Brody and AssociatesPolshek and Partners

Conklin RossantMitchell/Giurgola

Bond Ryder JamesHardy Holzman Pfeiffer

Begun in 1968 using landfill generated by the excavations for the World Trade Center, Battery Park City adds ninety-two acres to the tip of lower Manhattan. Though the planning went through various iterations, in its final form thestreet grid and visual corridors of the financial district are extended to the waters edge. Four towers housing cor-porate headquarters sit in the middle of the site, across from the former World Trade Center site. To the north andsouth 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 siteis left open as public space, with sculpture gardens and monuments dispersed throughout.

The developments success may be directly related to its restricted program and elite users. Housing in BatteryPark City consists solely of luxury units. The office spaces are dominated by large financial institutions and the highschool accepts only the brightest of the citys students. This restriction of the public conflicts with the success of thedevelopment in terms of its public financing. In order to offset criticism, the higher revenues from the developmentare routed to the revitalization of low and middle-income housing in other parts of the city. This, however, does notaddress 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 re-turned to grade level and made an extension of Manhattans grid (as had been done in all earlier landfill expansionsof lower Manhattan). This yielded conventional development blocks, which, in turn, yielded conventional buildingforms. Each block could be parceled out to different developers at different times, according to market demand. Thecommercial center was moved from the southern end of the site up to the middle, tying it to the former World TradeCenter site.

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 floorsF.A.R. : 4.1

populationresidents: 12,700workers: 40,000students: 2,300visitors: 1,500

51% residentialtotal area: 8,468,725.4 sq. ft.average unit size: 1,366 sq. ft.number of units: 6,200

36% commercialtotal area: 5,977,923.8 sq. ft.office: n/aproduction/manufacturing: n/a

5% retailtotal area: 830,267.2 sq. ft.hotel: 1,070,000 sq. ft.entertainment: n/a

8% public / parks & plazastotal area: 1,328,427.5 sq. ft.civic institution: n/acultural institution: 29,300 sq. ft.religious: n/a

educational: 717,544 sq. ft.

infrastructureparking: 8 facilitiesrail: yesbus: yesboat: yes

Battery Park

Citywebsites:bpcparks.org/bpcp/history/history.phpbatteryparkcityonline.comen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_Park_City

housing

casestudies

227


32/46

Tokyo, Japan

1995 - current

Richard RogersJohn NouvelKevin Roche

Jon JerdeKajima Design

Nihon SekkeiNikken Sekkei

Takenaka Construction

Located on the southern half of central Tokyo, Shiodome is currently going through a major transformation. En-compassing 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 datesback to 1990. In 1997, when land owned by the former Japanese National Railways was auctioned off, major de-

velopments began in the area. With three railway stations nearby and a community-oriented management of thedistrict, 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 residentialspaces and house Japans largest advertising agency, Dentsu; broadcasting station Nippon Television Network;Kyoto News; and many other big corporate offices. Considering the infrastructure, company headquaters, resi-dents, and hotels, it is highly likely that this area will host an influx of people, especially from nearby businesscenters such as Marunouchi and Otemachi, as well as a line of government offices in Kasumigaseki. Expertsalso predict that the success of Shiodome will also contribute to the vitalization of pehripheral areas includingShinbashi and Hamamatsucho, where small restaurants and bars are concentrated.

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 ftfloors per building: maximum 56 floorsF.A.R. : 5.16

populationresidents: 6,000workers/students: 60,000visitors: n/a

14% residential

total area: 2,411,500 sq. ft.average unit size: 1,240 sq. ft.number of units: 1940 units

80% commercialtotal area: 13,780,000 sq. ft.office: n/a

2% retailtotal area: 344,500 sq. ft.hotel: 134,733 sq. ft. (0.8%)

4% public / parks & plazastotal area: 689,000 sq. ft.civic institution: n/acultural institution: n/areligious: n/aeducational:n/a

infrastructureparking: 1,540

rail: yesbus:yesboat: no

Shiodomewebsites:metropolis.japantoday.com/tokyo/471/feature.aspYuro Nishikawa, Redevelopment of Shiodome, jrtr.net/jrtr35/f48_nis.html

228


33/46

Berlin, Germany

1992 - 2000

Piano/KohlbeckerBuro KollhoffLauber + Wohr

Rafael MoneoRichard Rogers

Arata IsozakiMurphy/Jahn

Once the busiest transportation nexus of a growing modern metropolis, Potzdamer Platz became disconnected fromthe rest of Berlin with the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Potzdamer Platz effectively became a fringe conditionin a dissected city. Redevelopment effort began in 1989 when the Berlin wall fell. Though predominantly owned bycorporate interests, the area was envisioned as a mixed-use development. Adjacent to the site is the Kulturforum

which includes Scharouns Philharmonie and Biblioteque. A civic master plan competition was held in 1991. HeinzHilmer 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 oneof 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 witha design that related to the Hilmer/Sattler plan in general scale and massing but departed in several significantways. 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 thebuildings are 4-5 stories, several near-skyscrapers pierce the sky at 20+ stories. Ground floors were required to besemi-permeable, allowing public movement across the site. Six international architects were chosen to develop 19buildings according to the guidelines established in the Piano/Kohlbecker plan. Ten new streets were constructedalong with underground space for parking, delivery, storage and refuse collection. The site is served by regionalrail, urban rail and bus.

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 acresSony: 6 acrestotal 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: 3,300workers/students: 6,700visitors: 70,000/day weekdays;100,000/day weekends = 500,000/week

20% residentialtotal area: 980,000 sq. ft.average unit size: 890 sq. ft.number of units: 1100 units

57% commercialtotal area: 2,793,000 sq. ft.office: n/a

18% retailtotal area: 882,000 sq. ft.hotel: 8%entertainment: 5%

5% public / parks & plazastotal area: 245,000 sq. ft.

civic institution: n/acultural institution: n/aeducational: n/a

infrastructureparking: 3,400 underground parking spacesrail: yesbus: yes

Potzdamer

PlatzPeter Davey, Potsdamer preview-Potsdamer Platz development in Berlin, Germany. The Architectural Review, Jan. 1998.

housing

casestudies

229


34/46

World Trade

Center

New York, New York

1966-1977destroyed in 2001

Minoru Yamasaki

Before its destruction on September 11, 2001 by terrorist attacks, New Yorks World Trade Center consisted oftwo 110-story office towers, which contain 9 million square feet of office space. The entire complex attempted tobring together public and private enterprise engaged in international commerce by combining the towers withadditional 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 trussjoists, 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 connectionsall with a budgetof 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 officespace per flooralmost an acre. Yamasakis choice to use a combination of express and local elevator banksallowed for the use of approximately 75 percent of the total floor area for occupancy; had a conventional elevatorarrangement been adopted, only approximately 50 percent would have been available. The open plaza allows oneto get a sense of the scale of the towers upon approach.

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 floorsF.A.R. : 15.6

populationresidents: noneworkers/students: 50,000 workersvisitors: 72.8 million per year = 1,400,000 per week

0% residentialtotal area: 0 sq.ft.

average unit size: 0 sq. ft.number of units: 0 units

80% commercialtotal area: 10,000,000 sq. ft.office: 10,000,000 sq. ft.production/manufacturing: n/a

13% retailtotal area: 1,650,000 sq. ft.hotel: 350,000 sq. ft.entertainment: n/aservices: 200,000 sq. ft.

7% public / parks & plazastotal area: 875,000 sq. f.tcivic institution: n/acultural institution: n/aeducational: n/a

infrastructure

parking: 2000rail:yesbus: yesboat: yes

Heyer, Paul. Architects on Architecture: New Directions in America. Walker, 1978. p194-195.website:skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

230


35/46

Hong Kong, China

1960s -1980sdestroyed in 1993

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 floorsF.A.R.: 12

populationresidents/ workers: 33,000

41% residentialtotal area: 1,393,048.8 sq. ft.average unit size: 160 sq. ft.number of units: 8,494

22% commercialtotal area: 747,489.6 sq. ft.production/manufacturing: n/a

22% retailtotal area: 747,489.6 sq. ft.entertainment: n/aservices: n/a

15% public / parks & plazas (rooftop)total area: 509,652 sq. ft.civic: n/acultural: n/areligious: n/aeducational: n/a

infrastructureparking: norail: nobus: yes

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 Kowloonsociety. The ambigious legal treatise protected the citys domain by serving no one specific government and en-abling a comprehensive program of illegal and marginalized business to exist. Its ability to grow organically-struc-

tured by a daily tactical response to an ever changing evironment has created a rich, inaccessible quilt of the humancapacity to adapt and survive. Every type of social and retail enterprise exist to offer its residents a complementarylevel 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 onso little land. The population of 50,000 was equivalent to a density ratio of 1.9 million residents per one square ki-lometer. Pipes and other service conduits run everywhere, exposed and vulnerable. Walls and partitions suddenlymaterialize to address immediate adjacent needs. As a self sustaining enterprise, Kowloon Walled City garnered arespectable niche in modern Chinese history. In the late 1980s, the Hong Kong government reluctantly recognizedthe reality of the Walled City as a critical demographic and cultural mass and allowed the police to patrol the city andoffer a minimum semblence of security and connection with the governance outside the citys boundaries.

In 1991, the evacuation of Kowloon Walled City began. With Hong Kong $3 billion, the government relocated 50,000residents and completed demoliton of the city in 1993. Today, the Kowloon Walled City Park occupies the site of theWalled City.

Kowloon

Walled Citywebsites:flex.co.jp/kowloon/twenty4.co.uk/on-line/issue001/project02/KWC/wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_Cityritklara.com/emerging/coexisting.html1

housing

casestudies231


36/46232


37/46

case studies:

stadiums

233stadium

casestudies


38/46

Oriole Park at Camden YardsBaltimore, Maryland

1992capacity: 48,262cost: $100 million

Jacobs FieldCleveland, Ohio


Coors FieldDenver, Colorado

1995capacity: 50,200 (1995), 50,381 (1999)cost: $215 million

Minute Maid ParkHouston, Texas

2000capacity: 42,000 (March 2000), 40,950 (April 2000)cost: $250 million

stadium comparisonwebsites:ballparksofbaseball.comballparks.com/baseball/index.htmbaltimore.orioles.mlb.comcleveland.indians.mlb.comcolorado.rockies.mlb.comhouston.astros.mlb.com

Nostalgia pervades a day at the ballpark as families spend several hoursmunching 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 spe-cial family activity sections. As cities grow and demographics diversify,stadium designs adapt to include more complex programs to attract awider range of patrons. In rekindling the passion for the game, introduc-ing it to a new generation, or reintroducing it to an audience long ab-sent, the stadiums and the teams that inhabit them generate communityamongst a stratified populace.

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 eventshostingfootball and baseball games or transitioning into concert venues. How-ever, in a desire to be everything for everyone, the stadiums succumbedto mediocrity, providing venues that are less intimate and involved thantheir predecessors. These stadiums often have entire sections empty

Viewing stadiums as economic linchpins, many baseball teams or theirnew owners have expressed a desire for new stadiums. City plannersand officials entertain their demands in hopes of revitalizing their innercities. Over the past ten years, both developers and cities have contrib-uted more capital towards sporting venues, currently spending on aver-age 30% more than ten years prior. Examples such as Jacobs Field inCleveland and Coors Field in Denver have shown cities and investors thepotential 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 phys-ically and functionally separate from the life of Los Angeles. Completedin 1962, Dodger Stadium with a seating capacity of 56,000 is much largerthan newly constructed ballparks that average 42,000 seats. With a pergame attendance of only 38,558 people, 31% of the stadium remainsempty at game time. Though the Dodgers maintain a large fanbase, itsgeographic location atop Chavez Ravine surrounded by freeways seversthis sporting venue from its fans below. Also, the surrounding parking

100%

22% 78%

52% 48%

19.6% 12.5% 67.9%

privatecapital

levied taxrevenue

lowinterestloans

namingrights

districtfunding

projectgeneratedredevelopmentfunds

234


39/46

PETCO ParkSan Diego, California

2004capacity: 46,000cost: $456.8 million

SBC ParkSan Francisco, California

2000capacity: 40,930 (2000), 41,059 (2001)cost: $255 million

Dodger StadiumLos Angeles, California


Comerica ParkDetroit, Michigan


stadium comparison

an era where stadiums have been diversifying their program and pack-ing facilities with amenities to attract families, corporate sponsors, anda new audience, Dodger Stadiums paltry offerings leave little to bring inpatrons or retain attendants after games end.

Moving Dodger Stadium into the downtown area can benefit both thebaseball team and the surrounding community. The stadium can uti-lize existing infrastructure, including public transportation systems andshared parking facilities to facilitate large groups of people. Likewise,a new stadium catalyzes urban redevelopment by attracting new busi-

nesses or drumming up new clientele for pre-existing businesses.

39.2%4%56.8% 62%

5%95%

38%

49.2%4.5%33.7% 33.7%

websites:ballparksofbaseball.comballparks.com/baseball/index.htmsf.giants.mlb.comdetroit.tigers.mlb.comsandiego.padres.mlb.comlosangeles.dodgers.mlb.com

stadium

casestudies

235


40/46

PETCOPark

MinuteMaid

Park

Dodger

Stadium

Comerica

Park

CoorsField

SBCPark

OriolePark

atCamdenYards

JacobsField

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

85,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

41,05940,000

48,262

30,000 30,000

18,000

25,000 25,000

15,000

16,500

3,800 3,800

5,000 5,000 5,000

16,000

43,345

50,381

40,950

46,000

56,000

37,500

62,500

75,000

85,000

45,000

62,500

41,256

40,000

Dodger Stadium

stadium parking trendswebsites:ballparksofbaseball.comballparks.com/baseball/index.htmbaltimore.orioles.mlb.comcleveland.indians.mlb.comcolorado.rockies.mlb.comhouston.astros.mlb.com

websites:sf.giants.mlb.comdetroit.tigers.mlb.comsandiego.padres.mlb.comlosangeles.dodgers.mlb.com

Stadium City

236


41/46

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

metro train stop

metro bus line

stadium relocationcandidate sites, Los Angeles

Arts District Site

gains:

-adjacent to Union Stationand freeways

-adjacent to Los Angeles River-revitalization of area-civic center adjacent

losses:

-farthest from any existingdowntown economic centers

Sports District Site

gains:

-adjacent to freeway-links entertainment center with cen-

tral 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 adjacentdistricts

-possible restoredresidential component

losses:

-re-routes Olive Street-reduces potential parking spaces

Flower District Site

gains:

-avoids major roads-revitalization of arealoss:

-possible isolation east of project

Chavez Pass L.A. Live/Elysian Housing

stadium

casestudies

237


42/46

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 YiMun Ho Yi

YoonKyoung Yi

Christopher Waterman

Richard Weinstein

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


43/46

Sylvia Lavin, ChairHadley Soutter ArnoldPeter ArnoldAnn Bergren

Ben van Berkel, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2002Aaron Betsky, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002Johan BettumPetra Blaisse, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2004Caroline Bos, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2002Bernard CachePreston Scott Cohen, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002John CordicDana CuffJulia CzerniakKevin DalyJulie EizenbergNeil Denari

David ErdmanDiane FavroEva ForgacsMichelle FornabaiHelene FurjnRobert GarlippChris GenikBruce GibbonsJoseph GiovanniniMarcelyn GowZaha Hadid, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 1998Thomas S. HinesCraig Hodgetts

Randolph JeffersonCharles JencksSharon JohnstonVictor JonesWes JonesUlrika KarlssonJeff Kipnis, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002Amy KulperJurg LangClover LeeMark LeeThomas Levin

Robin LiggettMark LinderAlan LockeGreg Lynn

UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Faculty and Visiting Critics, 1998-2006

Mark MackMarta MalThom MayneRose Mendez

Murray MilineFarshid, Moussavi, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2001Glen Murcutt, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2000Barton MyersTim MurphyEnrique Norten, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2003Jason PayneRen PeraltaBarton PhelpsMartin PaullWolf Prix, S. Charles Lee Chair, 1999George RandHani Rashid, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2003

Ben RefuerzoDagmar RichterHeather RobergeMichaele SaeeRichard SchoenRoger ShermanPaulette SingleyRobert E. SomolMichael SpeaksRandolph StoutCarlos TejedaKostas TerzidisBernard Tschumi, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2000

Billie Tsien, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2001Anthony VidlerRichard WeinsteinBuzz YudelAlejandro Zaera Polo, S. Charles Lee Visiting Professor, 2001Andrew Zago

239


44/46

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 90095310.825.7857

THE UCLA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN PURSUES ISSUES CONFRONTINGCONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM THROUGH FOUR DIFFERENT DEGREE PROGRAMSOFFERING TWO PROFESSIONAL DEGREES (THE MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE I AND II) AS WELL AS THEM.A. AND PH.D IN ARCHITECTURE. OUR PRIMARY FOCUS ON ADVANCED DESIGN IS ACCOMPANIED BYCONCENTRATIONS IN TECHNOLOGY AND CRITICAL STUDIES OF ARCHITECTURAL CULTURE.

UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

1317 Perloff Hall

Los Angeles, CA 90095

T: 310.825.7857

F: 310.825.8959www.aud.ucla.edu


45/46


46/46

.

.

LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9

Documents

Transcript of LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9