LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown)

[202_Cyclist]

BrighamYen:

That's the issue with all of LA's suburban linear commercial blvds. You would literally have to infill the shit out of them and connect the entire length with convenient bus-only lanes or streetcars to make them pedestrian conducive. Otherwise, you get what is there today, which are blvds that lack pedestrian activity.

Instead of six lanes, these cities could add curbside parking on each side of the streets. Perhaps bike lanes where there is room for them. Add some trees and plant boxes on the side walk, and sections of the corridor will become more walkable and pedestrian-oriented.

I forget where it was but someone posted time-lapsed images of what LA's corridors could look like if oriented towards pedestrians and not vehicles.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I think Hawthorne could have given more attention to the Atlantic Times Square in Monterey Park given the fact it is probably the largest mixed-use project on Atlantic Blvd. The thing is ugly and huge, but says something about the changing nature of Downtown Monterey Park, which is also prepping construction on another large mixed-use project at Garvey/Garfield.

The problem with many of these mixed-use projects is their lack of synergy with anything else surrounding them. They're expected to be a slice of urbanity, but obviously that's not possible given their limited size and scope, which depends on working synergistically with other mixed-use projects in close/dense proximity.

That's the issue with all of LA's suburban linear commercial blvds. You would literally have to infill the shit out of them and connect the entire length with convenient bus-only lanes or streetcars to make them pedestrian conducive. Otherwise, you get what is there today, which are blvds that lack pedestrian activity.

True. But you could say the same about linearity in SF outside of downtown: look at Fillmore, California, Chestnut, Grove, Haight, Clement, Union and 50 other streets that are nice urban walking streets for 5-10 blocks, but often with no retail right off of the main street. And the Upper East Side has avenues with great retail but very little on the residential cross streets.

In SF in general there is very little retail on the side streets. Mostly just 2-4 story sfh's and apartments. The most pleasant neighborhoods do not in general have retail on the first floor; but they do have it within walking distance. The big difference from LA is NOT having retail, it's reasonable density and livability and convenience to interesting things.

Given the history of these places the way to go is to leave them as is and encourage moderate development around the historic (often linear) cores. A plaza area that opens to the street is good as well (Americana in Glendale), SM Place, smaller ones in Pasadena.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I don't believe you can have a very fulfilling life as a pedestrian when all you have is a linear commercial blvd flanked by huge residential swaths of apartments and SFRs. It's too restrictive and doesn't allow for much dynamic experience when you can only walk up and down a street without veering off. You can walk in residential neighborhoods for recreation, like walking your dog or jogging, but it's not walking on a practical level like shopping, going to work, visiting friends, etc.

My expectations are a bit higher because I enjoy the expansive commercial grids and networks of mature urban centers that allow pedestrians to roam in 4-D (4 directional) not in 2-D (linearly). Transforming to a pedestrian ORIENTED city (not just friendly) depends on centering commercial activity in a commercial grid like Downtown LA. From Figueroa to Los Angeles (and beyond), from Chinatown to South Park, Downtown LA is the largest commercial grid with the greatest potential to becoming the pedestrian's paradise here in Los Angeles.

Other areas just fail at becoming much bigger than a few square blocks. Connecting these nodes by transit still doesn't solve anything if there isn't a place that you can exist as a pedestrian for more than a few hours without having to jump back into your car (or train) to get somewhere else. Downtown LA is physically large enough to play that role as a center of activity as more and more transit lines will funnel people INTO THE CITY.

Wilshire Blvd and others will continue to play its role as a linear extension of Downtown LA, but it will never be the same as a fully 4-D commercial mixed-use center.

[all of the trash]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I don't believe you can have a very fulfilling life as a pedestrian when all you have is a linear commercial blvd flanked by huge residential swaths of apartments and SFRs. It's too restrictive and doesn't allow for much dynamic experience when you can only walk up and down a street without veering off. You can walk in residential neighborhoods for recreation, like walking your dog or jogging, but it's not walking on a practical level like shopping, going to work, visiting friends, etc.

My expectations are a bit higher because I enjoy the expansive commercial grids and networks of mature urban centers that allow pedestrians to roam in 4-D (4 directional) not in 2-D (linearly). Transforming to a pedestrian ORIENTED city (not just friendly) depends on centering commercial activity in a commercial grid like Downtown LA. From Figueroa to Los Angeles (and beyond), from Chinatown to South Park, Downtown LA is the largest commercial grid with the greatest potential to becoming the pedestrian's paradise here in Los Angeles.

Other areas just fail at becoming much bigger than a few square blocks. Connecting these nodes by transit still doesn't solve anything if there isn't a place that you can exist as a pedestrian for more than a few hours without having to jump back into your car (or train) to get somewhere else. Downtown LA is physically large enough to play that role as a center of activity as more and more transit lines will funnel people INTO THE CITY.

Wilshire Blvd and others will continue to play its role as a linear extension of Downtown LA, but it will never be the same as a fully 4-D commercial mixed-use center.

I think even K-Town is more "3-D" than you're giving it credit for. Wilshire is where the high rises are, but streets like Olympic, 8th, 6th and 3rd have commercial activity and there's lots of cool restaurants/bars on these busy but unassuming streets. And between these streets are some of the densest/most diverse neighborhoods in L.A. If Ktown continues to revitalize, and gentrification spreads into westlake from Ktown in the west and downtown in the east, then you have one of the largest continuous area of urbanism in the western US outside of SF.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by all of the trash

I think even K-Town is more "3-D" than you're giving it credit for. Wilshire is where the high rises are, but streets like Olympic, 8th, 6th and 3rd have commercial activity and there's lots of cool restaurants/bars on these busy but unassuming streets. And between these streets are some of the densest/most diverse neighborhoods in L.A. If Ktown continues to revitalize, and gentrification spreads into westlake from Ktown in the west and downtown in the east, then you have one of the largest continuous area of urbanism in the western US outside of SF.

I agree. Since moving to K-town, I've discovered a lot of gems on the streets you mentioned. Amenities definitely extend past Wilshire.

My main beef with urbanism in K-town is the fact that the roads are so wide and the traffic moves so damn fast. I can't imagine eating at a sidewalk cafe on 6th or 8th or Western the way you can on Spring or Main or 7th in DTLA. I hope they redo the streets at some point with wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and reduced traffic lanes, but I don't see it happening anytime soon- especially with K-town so underrepresented in terms of city council districts. The redistricting they just did leaves it as chopped up as it was previously. There's no single councilmember to hold accountable.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I think areas like K-Town and Hollywood have potential at becoming great if we can change a lot of things DD mentioned such as widening sidewalks, building a shit load of mixed use developments along major streets like Vermont, Normandie, Western, etc.

But none of them are built the same way as Downtown LA which is commercialized throughout on almost every street so that every street is relevant and walkable.

I think it would be great if City West became very dense and melded together with MacArthur Park and then Ktown forming that large urban center.

But even so, Downtown LA will still always be the most walkable because it's got the largest commercial grid in the entire region.

[edluva]

this is a useless discussion. every place near a metro stop could be walkable if we had a rail network that was accessible for daily life, rather than a network built to serve imaginary commutes from azusa to culver city at 25mph

go to tokyo. do you think that city needs wide sidewalks and dedicated mixed use developments to be walkable? sure enormous tod's dot the landscape but they're tod's because of transit. still much of the city flat out lacks sidewalks altogether and yet it's plenty "4d".

it's the transit, stupid. the fact remains, the average angeleno could not build their daily life around our pathetic rail "network"; hence our city is not truly walkable.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by edluva

this is a useless discussion. every place near a metro stop could be walkable if we had a rail network that was accessible for daily life, rather than a network built to serve imaginary commutes from azusa to culver city at 25mph

go to tokyo. do you think that city needs wide sidewalks and dedicated mixed use developments to be walkable? sure enormous tod's dot the landscape but they're tod's because of transit. still much of the city flat out lacks sidewalks altogether and yet it's plenty "4d".

it's the transit, stupid. the fact remains, the average angeleno could not build their daily life around our pathetic rail "network"; hence our city is not truly walkable.

I have never been to Tokyo, but I assume it's very similar to Taipei no? Density and commercialized blvds are the key to walkability, IMO. Even before the MRT was completed, you would still have vibrant streets.

Also, if a place is walkable, you don't need transit to actually WALK. I can walk from Midtown to Brooklyn because it's dense and commercialized mostly all the way through without ever stepping in a subway. I would NEVER walk the same distance in LA because it's not 4-D and it's not dynamic or interesting given its huge homogeneous suburban zoning oriented obviously for cars. It's always 2-D, which doesn't work without dedicated transit (like bus lanes or streetcars) along those linear stretches to take a pedestrian further ahead or back where they started from.

[edluva]

before taipei built its now envious metro, taipei was not unlike los angeles in that there were many isolated pedestrian strips with lots of commercial activity.

but if you haven't figured out by now, walkability is more than the mere act of walking down a pre-designated strip of sidewalk (especially after parking your car).

it's a lifestyle - and when applied to a city, it is a lifestyle that defines that city's urbanism. and that didn't reliably apply to pre-transit taipei, as it doesn't to present day los angeles.

but i agree that you don't need transit for walkablity, if you live in a small-town or village.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by edluva

this is a useless discussion. every place near a metro stop could be walkable if we had a rail network that was accessible for daily life, rather than a network built to serve imaginary commutes from azusa to culver city at 25mph

go to tokyo. do you think that city needs wide sidewalks and dedicated mixed use developments to be walkable? sure enormous tod's dot the landscape but they're tod's because of transit. still much of the city flat out lacks sidewalks altogether and yet it's plenty "4d".

it's the transit, stupid. the fact remains, the average angeleno could not build their daily life around our pathetic rail "network"; hence our city is not truly walkable.

I disagree. Yes, we need more transit. But good urban design is just as important. Give people places where the sidewalk is wide, where traffic is calmed and not rushing by, and where there are plenty of storefronts curbside, where there's a pocket park or two, and people will walk around the area. The success of places like Old Town Pasadena, 3rd Street Promanade, not to mention the "fake" but well-urban-designed (at least from the inside) places like the Americana and the Grove shows the massive demand these walkable places in LA. And last time I checked, with the exception of Pasadena, the places I listed do not yet have nearby Metro stations. The benefit that a fully-built-out Metro system brings is that many people would be riding the train to these places rather than driving there.

Downtown has it all- good urban design (although some of those sidewalks could be wider), lots of Metro stations (and plans for many more), and increasing number of active storefronts that give people a reason to want to walk around. But plenty of other places in LA have the potential to be smaller, but just as walkable places if the city could just get its shit together with street design. Silverlake and Echo Park for example, would be much more appealing places if Sunset wasn't a 5-lane mini freeway, and if the sidewalks more more than the narrow strips they currently are.

[edluva]

^noone is saying urban design is unimportant. but it's not the source of walkablility. LA has enough sidewalk space to be five times as walkable as it already is, regardless of how deplorably you choose to characterize it.

my point was, transit is the ultimate decider of a city's walkability. because it decides everything else - the political viability of limited parking ratios, the attendant commercial density which can be developed as a result, and ultimately, the market for pedestrian spaces (the market for good urban design). good transit renders the potential walkability of neighborhoods limitless. good urban design by itself, on the other hand, only makes limited portions of cityscape (eg downtown, 3rd st) more appealing for drivers. absent the appropriate mass transit, the extent to which such nabes can be commercialized is ultimately limited by the scarcity of parking space, regardless of how "inviting" urban design might be.

don't forget to see the big picture. angelenos have a particularly difficult time keeping perspective on their vast, center-less city.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

The big picture is LA's economic/commercial activities are too spread out, which has made it a difficult place to navigate and access, which makes it the dysfunctional traffic nightmare it is today. Everything about LA is spread out, from the macro to the micro level. And yes, the lack of transit also handicaps the region even more.

From a macro level, the many "nodes" that make up LA (Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Hollywood, etc.) are separated by vast residential seas of SFRs and apt/condos that make walking between these nodes impossible. Have you tried walking from Westwood to Beverly Hills before? Or Santa Monica to Century City? So connecting these nodes with HIGH SPEED transit will be important. Not an Expo Line that waits for 6 minutes at the Washington junction!

Then on a micro level, it's spread out as well, even in commercialized areas. There are huge blocks generally speaking and not enough density to pack more into less space, which makes walking at 2-3 mph efficient and effortless.

The issue here is not having ONE CONTINUOUS urban area that is walkable throughout without being forced to go to "another node." How much time can you really spend in Santa Monica or Pasadena? In Manhattan, it is an "entire world" crammed on a small island the size of Santa Monica (24 sq mi) comprised of dozens of geographically small neighborhoods. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts because there is SYNERGY between the neighborhoods. It's like putting downtown Santa Monica next to downtown Pasadena next to downtown Beverly Hills next to Venice next to Hollywood next to Downtown LA in ONE concentrated area. With LA, it's like taking Manhattan and spreading out Chelsea from Meatpacking from Midtown etc. That negates their synergy and dilutes their power as accessibility is hampered tremendously by distance (waste of time).

Downtown LA, as a bona fide commercial GRID, is the only area in the region that could play that role as one large contiguous urban walkable area because it is actually quite large from a pedestrian's standpoint when you're walking 2-3 mph. DTLA has many layers of commercial streets unlike anywhere else in the region. Back to back to back commercial streets uninterrupted by residential SFRs (Fig, Flower, Hope, Grand, Olive, Hill, Broadway, Spring, Main, Los Angeles are all back to back). From Temple down to Pico. You have the largest commercialized grid in the region with the most access to transit, funneling in pedestrians from the suburbs and smaller nodes.

Once you hit the sidewalks of DTLA, it is automatically more natural to walk. I've given at least a hundred walking tours of DTLA (both professionally and for pleasure) and 99% of people who do not walk anywhere else in LA (i.e., car dependent) are utterly amazed they don't find walking in Downtown LA to be unpleasant. Well, as DTLA continues to be revitalized, it will be the largest 4-Directional (north, south, east, and west) urban center in the region. That will attract a fair amount of people who will sense that without having to be analytical urbanists!

And transit plays a key role here because it will FUNNEL people into Downtown LA since all rail and buses lead to DTLA making it the most vibrant urban part of LA.

[edluva]

^downtown la at maybe 3-4 sq miles and tens of thousands in population will never play the role that manhattan at 23 square miles and 1.6 million will. never. furthermore, LA will never be a single-centered metropolis.

regarding your requirement for uninterrupted pedestrianism, barely anyone in tokyo would ever need to walk from shibuya to neighboring shinjuku, or in manhattan's case, uptown to downtown. in either case, metro networks serve their respective built environments exactly as required. linear in manhattan's case, and webbed in tokyo's.

contrary to your post above, contiguous uninterrupted pedestrianism is not a requirement for walkability when you've got good metro and feeder coverage between nodes. with LA, areas between nodes can remain residential or lightly mixed, so long as they are adequately served by feeders.

transit-connected nodes. that's our best hope of finding any sort of cohesion. you really should experience tokyo or mexico city in person, brigham. it'll give you some perspective about LA.

[202_Cyclist]

edluva:

transit-connected nodes. that's our best hope of finding any sort of cohesion.

I couldn't agree more. This is what you essentially have in DC. Downtown here is essentially dull and lifeless most the time in the evenings except for a few areas. Washington is a city of neighborhoods, both within the District and the surrounding counties. These different nodes are all pretty walkable-- I think Chris Leinberger identified something like 25 or 30 distinct walkable urban areas in the DC region-- and connected by (at times) decent transit.

I would like to see downtown LA be successful and from this forum, it looks like there have been great improvements over the past decade but the DC model of a multi-nodal urban area connected by transit is what the LA region should strive for instead of trying to be Hong Kong or New York.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Downtown LA is the largest node in this region -- by far. No other node comes close to its size. That means more things will be crammed into DTLA if the economic development continues down the same path as it has been for the last 5 years. All that economic activity concentrated into DTLA equals a higher pedestrian urban energy in a larger area, which a lot of people will prefer because it feels more "big city." A feeling you could NEVER get in DT Santa Monica or Pasadena or Beverly Hills.

Plus, you cannot refute that Downtown LA is the HUB of the fledgling rail network. More and more people are taking the train to DTLA. Once the Regional Connector, Expo Line 2, and Purple Line to Westwood is completed, DTLA will still be the largest node and benefiting the most from the new more robust rail network as it will still be the center of the rail network.

Obviously not everyone can live downtown, but a lot of people will be able to go downtown when they want their urban fix.

[edluva]

yes DC's model is more what LA should aspire toward. it's ridership is also no slouch by north american standards.

i'd love to see downtown LA densify, but can't help but know that it's also limited by transit access. especially if one is to hope that surface lots (and valuable parking space currently used by patrons) might one day give way to more development.

brigham - you seem to be fixated on downtown LA. yes it is the largest hub. noone said tokyo or new york don't have hubs that serve more passengers than others. but are you really trying to make the case that downtown LA can be the manhattan of LA? hate to brake it to you, but reality cannot be warped to fit your imaginary view of what you wish it could be. this isn't sim city.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by edluva

yes DC's model is more what LA should aspire toward. it's ridership is also no slouch by north american standards.

i'd love to see downtown LA densify, but can't help but know that it's also limited by transit access. especially if one is to hope that surface lots (and valuable parking space currently used by patrons) might one day give way to more development.

brigham - you seem to be fixated on downtown LA. yes it is the largest hub. noone said tokyo or new york don't have hubs that serve more passengers than others. but are you really trying to make the case that downtown LA can be the manhattan of LA? hate to brake it to you, but reality cannot be warped to fit your imaginary view of what you wish it could be. this isn't sim city.

Not Manhattan for heaven's sake. I'm not crazy. Midtown alone has more commercial office space than all of LA and OC combined. That kind of commercial concentration/density is not possible here.

Nevertheless, DTLA will stand out as the largest node in this region, period. No other node as one contiguous urban district will be larger and more energetic on the street level through an expansive 4-D area. That's all I'm saying. It will be unique in terms of its expansive urban commercial grid built environment since no other node in the region is very expansive at all. A few square blocks and sometimes just one street!

And for those who enjoy the feeling of that urban energy, they may choose to move downtown (as we're seeing more and more of) or they may choose to come downtown to shop/play. And obviously it is still the largest single employment center in the region with 31 million square feet. It won't be Manhattan, but it will be the most energetic and largest walkable district in LA. Everyone will decide on their own what that means to them. And if there's a common thread among those opinions, then it will start to form a "new reality" for DTLA in the future -- whatever that may be for Angelenos who are yearning for a place to be pedestrians (as DD mentioned).

[pesto]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I don't believe you can have a very fulfilling life as a pedestrian when all you have is a linear commercial blvd flanked by huge residential swaths of apartments and SFRs. It's too restrictive and doesn't allow for much dynamic experience when you can only walk up and down a street without veering off. You can walk in residential neighborhoods for recreation, like walking your dog or jogging, but it's not walking on a practical level like shopping, going to work, visiting friends, etc.

My expectations are a bit higher because I enjoy the expansive commercial grids and networks of mature urban centers that allow pedestrians to roam in 4-D (4 directional) not in 2-D (linearly). Transforming to a pedestrian ORIENTED city (not just friendly) depends on centering commercial activity in a commercial grid like Downtown LA. From Figueroa to Los Angeles (and beyond), from Chinatown to South Park, Downtown LA is the largest commercial grid with the greatest potential to becoming the pedestrian's paradise here in Los Angeles.

Other areas just fail at becoming much bigger than a few square blocks. Connecting these nodes by transit still doesn't solve anything if there isn't a place that you can exist as a pedestrian for more than a few hours without having to jump back into your car (or train) to get somewhere else. Downtown LA is physically large enough to play that role as a center of activity as more and more transit lines will funnel people INTO THE CITY.

Wilshire Blvd and others will continue to play its role as a linear extension of Downtown LA, but it will never be the same as a fully 4-D commercial mixed-use center.

And yet the SF streets I mention are the proof to the contrary. I doubt that anyone would object to the walkability of these neighborhoods and the high demand they are in. They are certainly much more in demand than living in the "all retail" areas of Union Sq. and surroundings. These are for commerce and tourism.

Generally speaking the nicer residential areas of NY do not have retail, except on the avenues. Midtown is a partial exception, but not known as a place to live. Even in Greenwich Village, Gramercy Park, etc., the residential streets are in huge demand and the commercial ones far less so. And the Upper East and West Side have very little commerce off the avenues.

As a practical matter, DT is set and so are most other areas. Westlake and Ktown will become more multi-story, but I would not expect the residential streets to become retail on the first floor, nor would I expect that kind of development further west on the streets surrounding La Brea, Fairfax, etc. This would be in no way desirable, and would not reflect the way that most of SF or NY are.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

edluva:


I couldn't agree more. This is what you essentially have in DC. Downtown here is essentially dull and lifeless most the time in the evenings except for a few areas. Washington is a city of neighborhoods, both within the District and the surrounding counties. These different nodes are all pretty walkable-- I think Chris Leinberger identified something like 25 or 30 distinct walkable urban areas in the DC region-- and connected by (at times) decent transit.

I would like to see downtown LA be successful and from this forum, it looks like there have been great improvements over the past decade but the DC model of a multi-nodal urban area connected by transit is what the LA region should strive for instead of trying to be Hong Kong or New York.

I'm from the DC area. There are more urban walkable districts in LA metro, easily. Places like Rossyln and Ballston in Alrington have alot of TOD, but they're very bland. And if you walk off the main drag, you're in nowheresville. You don't see many people walking around those areas outside of rush hour periods. I was just in Ballston last fall and it was completely dead on a Saturday afternoon. The streets, the restaurants etc. Same goes for Crystal City, CourtHouse etc..
I think DC's TOD nodes are overrated on these forums.

[Illithid Dude]

Curbed L.A. is reporting that work is set to begin at the Wilshire/Vermont apartments. It isn't a perfect project by any means- note the little 'driveway' thing- but it's great density (464 apartments) and much better then what is there now. Also, new render.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/0...ont_towers.php