Los Angeles | Pedestrians Fill The Streets Once Again!

[pesto]

As sopas says, the history of Berlin explains the lack of ancient neighborhoods and street patterns, as well as the need to revitalize a large part of the core (most European cities never had DT's that got as abandoned and decrepit as DT LA).

The lesson for LA is that you don't need dense high rises to be a beautiful, culturally active, pedestrian oriented city. You CAN have lots of plazas, open spaces, wide boulevards, parks, set-backs, gardens around buildings, etc., as long as people find a reason to live there.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

One thing that will differentiate DTLA from the rest of the metropolitan area is the geographically larger size of its pedestrian-oriented built environment compared relatively to other districts that are pedestrian-oriented (street front retail, zero lot lining, wider sidewalks, etc.) such as Bev Hill's Golden Triangle, DT Santa Monica, DT Pasadena, etc.

Most of LA's (and many many other cities in North America's) built environment is lined with long and linear commercial blvds that have purely residential neighborhoods branching off of them. You, as a pedestrian, are forced to walk along a linear route and are not allowed to veer off course because there would be nothing relevant for most of the pedestrians unless they lived in that residential neighborhood. And the next PARALLEL long commercial blvd is not for miles away, so it's not a practical solution to walk through the residential area either to reach the other linear commercial blvd. Your experience as a pedestrian is therefore diluted and less dynamic as you are forced to stay on a linear course. It's less 3-dimensional.

However, obviously that is not the case with DTLA as it is mixed-use and urban throughout most of its central core through a grid-network akin to other older downtowns through the country built before the prevalence of automobiles influencing land use and public policy. From Brooklyn Ave to the north, to 15th Street to the south, from the City West to the west to the Arts District to the east, DTLA is approximately 2 square miles (almost 10% the size of Manhattan) of potential dense urban walkability IF we can fill in those parking lots with high-density developments as well as a balance of green space like pocket parks.

That is one of the criteria that must be met for an area to become "walkable as a lifestyle" as it must be large enough to have a critical mass of things to do that make life without a car more convenient. The "fish bowl" (we are the fish) must be large enough to provide residents with most of the things they need on a daily basis to walk to. Coupled with the fact that as the Purple Line is extended to UCLA passing through the Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, Century City, etc. and the Expo and Crenshaw lines add more destination to an already decent rail system, people who actually LIVE in DTLA can live without a car and still access MOST of what LA has to offer in a matter of a decade when the 30/10 plan is implemented.

Of course, events like the Art Walk are only glimpses of the future as it proves that as DTLA matures with both neighborhood and visitor serving amenities, it will attract a wider swath of demographics to invest in the real estate, making it even more attractive.

[SpongeG]

don't most people arrive downtown by car or transit?

in vancouver which is failry okay with pedestrian action most of those walking around come by transit or cars cause the people i know who live within walking distance hate the crowds and the people from "the suburbs" who take over "their" streets and make too much noise and mess

people like to get drive downtown and "walk" around - i don't understand the argurment going on in here perhaps

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by pesto

The lesson for LA is that you don't need dense high rises to be a beautiful, culturally active, pedestrian oriented city. You CAN have lots of plazas, open spaces, wide boulevards, parks, set-backs, gardens around buildings, etc., as long as people find a reason to live there.

Yeah, but there are so many gaps (plazas, parking lots/structures, etc) downtown that can be filled.

Does anybody think the Ketchum YMCA building should be torn down?

[XtremeDave]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

don't most people arrive downtown by car or transit?

in vancouver which is failry okay with pedestrian action most of those walking around come by transit or cars cause the people i know who live within walking distance hate the crowds and the people from "the suburbs" who take over "their" streets and make too much noise and mess

people like to get drive downtown and "walk" around - i don't understand the argurment going on in here perhaps

You have to understand the history of Downtown LA. After World War 2, suburbanization in Los Angeles bled Downtown dry until all that remained were the homeless (Downtown LA has the largest concentration of homeless people in the nation). Even when the modern office buildings were built in the 70s and 80s, there still was zero reason for non-residents to be downtown after 5 pm.

It wasnt until about 2000 when both the construction of Staples Center and the passage of adaptive reuse laws in the Historic Core, which began the conversions of old abandoned buildings to residential lofts, started the revitalization of Downtown LA.

It is only very recently that Downtown LA is a place where people from the suburbs want to visit, and people want to live in. That is what is being celebrated in this thread.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Yeah, but there are so many gaps (plazas, parking lots/structures, etc) downtown that can be filled.

Does anybody think the Ketchum YMCA building should be torn down?

No I don't think it should be torn down, but I do think they should fix their pool. There are a lot of other empty lots and crappier buildings that should get the ax before the YMCA building.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by XtremeDave

It is only very recently that Downtown LA is a place where people from the suburbs want to visit, and people want to live in. That is what is being celebrated in this thread.

no, actually that's not what's being celebrated. what's being celebrated is the false notion that la is somehow more "pedestrian oriented" on account of a large number of suburbanites who chose to drive to the art walk in LAB's video, and then walk around broadway for a couple hours before driving back to the valley, south bay, and orange county. oh what a comedy

[miketoronto]

These photos are from a weekday afternoon when I was in Los Angeles, in December.

A good amount of people were walking around on Broadway and 7th Street. The only place I found devoid of people was around the skyscraper financial district.

[ametz]

Is it fair to say that LA is 'densely sprawled'? It seems like there's a decent amount of foot traffic. Last time I was there, I was visiting friends in Manhattan Beach & Hollywood, and we did a good bit of walking in both neighborhoods, and there were definitely people out and about. The problem is getting from one place to another.....it's rarely a quick subway or cab ride. My friends who live there tend to stick to their immediate neighborhoods.

[pesto]

miketoronto: correct. Please disregard those who say that DT is deserted or has just a few people from the burbs. It is growing in population and streetlife, tourists, locals, etc., although admitedly from a low base. Tourists can easily spend two or three days just in DT and not hit it all.

ametz: also correct; "densely sprawled" applies nicely to Westlake, Ktown, E. Hollywood and many other "near westside" districts. And there are probably 50 smaller areas which have a local density greater than suburbs (several beach cities, Hollywood, WeHo and much of the westside, parts of LB, Pasadena, etc.). Eventually these will fill-in, especially around transit, and LA will have an enormous pedestrian oriented area, but not at the density level of Manhattan.

Aside from the perception that LA is hopeless (held by a small minority) the only real discussion is whether the general pattern for LA should be NY style high-rise, density, zero lot lines, etc. This is probably the future of most of DT. But others of us view set-backs, plazas and such mixed with high-rise or medium rise to be perferable in many areas. Greater density than Century City but not Wall St. either.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by ametz

Is it fair to say that LA is 'densely sprawled'? It seems like there's a decent amount of foot traffic. Last time I was there, I was visiting friends in Manhattan Beach & Hollywood, and we did a good bit of walking in both neighborhoods, and there were definitely people out and about. The problem is getting from one place to another.....it's rarely a quick subway or cab ride. My friends who live there tend to stick to their immediate neighborhoods.

You hit it there. I live in Hollywood and stick to the immediate neighborhood and don't drive since it is convenient and easier to walk everywhere. If I go downtown like I did yesterday I catch the subway because it is convenient and quick. I am not saying it is a pedestrian utopia but it seems like some forum members need people movers on the sidewalks before they forgo their cars.

[J. Will]

Downtown L.A. has a good bit of retail, but the retailers that don't have a single location read like a who's who of famous national/international chains. Some people will say that's good, and they prefer independents, but a large city's downtown (esp. a city that's as large as L.A.) should have lots of local AND national/international chains, not either-or. Last I checked The Gap didn't even have a single location there, and they're based in California.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by edluva

based on your use of county ridserhip data to represent city public transit usage i'd probably put you into the over-promotion camp.

that figure you quoted is for the entire mta system, which covers a population of 10 million (la county). not so great after all is it? that trasnlates to roughly 14% of the county (probably sustantially less because it measures total boardings, not unique riders) - the majority of whom are latino immigrants and blacks, not the suburban hipsters you see in that video.

i'm positive your numbers for LAB's art walk patrons are optimistic by a similar degree.

so yeah, i'm here to bring this thread back to earth. you're welcome.

I am not promoting the statistic just saying if 1.4 million people depend on mass transit every day in this metropolitan area the city better provide for the pedestrian and it does... as a pedestrian I can attest to that. And as you pointed out most the riders are not "hipsters" coming from the suburbs but rather riders that live in the urban center of Los Angeles.

I am not extolling Downtown to be a pedestrian paradise. Yes, people in mass numbers come to Downtown in their cars to go to art shows, museums and sporting events, but I am sure there are plenty of (most likely most) people who live Downtown that traverse their neighborhood on foot rather than drive.

If I chose to go to the art walk I would walk to the subway get on it and go downtown but somehow my experience is discounted as superficial and irrelevant, right? LAB who lives in Pasadena most likely took the Gold Line Downtown to the art walk but I am sure his experience was superficial and irrelevant because he is not a "hipster" from orange county.

[edluva]

good for you dkthsb. you and labeauty are urban pioneers. there's probably a reason you're extolling the virtues of your lifestyle here on ssp.

fact is though, i'm focusing on reality. the mean. those people in labeauty's video are most likely drivers who unlike you, did not take mass transit to get downtown.

that's not to discount the admirable choice you made for yourself in living an auto-free lifestyle, but the fact remains, you are on the fringe not the mainstream, so no offense, but i could care less how you get around. there are people like you in houston and jacksonville too. outliers and anecdotes don't count for much when speaking in generalities.

so yeah, his experience is irrelevant because it is the product of his wishful imagination. he is not an suburban hipster, but he is projecting his experience upon the hoards of doubtless suburban hipsters in his video. downtown is still a bombed out ghost town without parking lots for people who come by car. let's be realistic and stop perpetuating the same kind of ignorance that has led los angeles astray for so many decades.

and this thread is labeauty's naively disingenuous attempt to generalize a little about downtown la's supposed progress as far as pedestrian oriented lifestyle is concerned. i'm hear to pop your overinflated collective bubble, cheerleaders.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by dktshb

I am not promoting the statistic just saying if 1.4 million people depend on mass transit every day in this metropolitan area the city better provide for the pedestrian and it does... as a pedestrian I can attest to that. And as you pointed out most the riders are not "hipsters" coming from the suburbs but rather riders that live in the urban center of Los Angeles.

I am not extolling Downtown to be a pedestrian paradise. Yes, people in mass numbers come to Downtown in their cars to go to art shows, museums and sporting events, but I am sure there are plenty of (most likely most) people who live Downtown that traverse their neighborhood on foot rather than drive.

If I chose to go to the art walk I would walk to the subway get on it and go downtown but somehow my experience is discounted as superficial and irrelevant, right? LAB who lives in Pasadena most likely took the Gold Line Downtown to the art walk but I am sure his experience was superficial and irrelevant because he is not a "hipster" from orange county.

Yup I did take the Gold Line to the Red Line to the Art Walk. And so did my partner and the friend we took there who also lives in Pasadena. And I got to the art walk enough that on our way back to Pasadena, the platform at Union Station is usually packed with people where at least a few must have gone to the art walk as well.

[miketoronto]

I actually found ridership on the LA subway(Red Line) to be very mixed when I was there.

Even well into the evening, there were very well dressed people taking the subway into downtown LA from Hollywood, etc.

It had much more of a mix with middle class people on it, than other subways I have been to in American cities.

So a little at a time I think LA is turning the page on transit.

[pesto]

miketoronto: interesting. In the US, I only take the subway regularly in NY and LA (I exclude Caltrain as being mostly suburban) and my impression was that LA ridership was more downmarket than NY. I assume this will be changing since the Purple Line ("Subway to the Sea") will hit mostly upsacle 'hoods (BH, Century City, Westwood, WLA, SM) and make the westside folks more comfortable with the system as a whole.

[Razqal]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

Yup I did take the Gold Line to the Red Line to the Art Walk. And so did my partner and the friend we took there who also lives in Pasadena. And I got to the art walk enough that on our way back to Pasadena, the platform at Union Station is usually packed with people where at least a few must have gone to the art walk as well.

i lived in pasadena and only took the metro like....hmmm...twice, three times the most over...hmmm....8 years i lived there. it just took forever to ride it especially when transferring to other lines. one time i went to the convention center and i had to transfer twice and take 3 lines from pasadena - gold from pasadena to red at union station to blue at some other stop. i couldnt believe it - it's not even that far from pasadena!! only like a 15-20 min car ride!! and it moves soooo slooowwww as it goes thru neighborhoods. they really should've built the lines either underground or above ground. yea it would've been more expensive but well worth the costs. public transit in LA really has a LONG way to go. new york has the best system. dirty, but efficient and 24 hours.

hey labeauty where in pasadena do you live? i lived in old town across from city hall. it's a little too boring and suburban for my taste as i prefer living in downtown (i'm originally from nyc, the greatest city on earth!!), but i moved there to go to art center. (so do you still go to the abby? havent been there in a while. )

[pesto]

That's my problem with Gold, especially as it gets longer. Too many stops, which makes driving much quicker. Fine for DT, but not for beyond that.

If you want serious use of rail for commuting, you need HSR from Riverside (3 stops) to Union Station. This allows connections to Blue, Red, Purple, Expo without taking all day.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by edluva

good for you dkthsb. you and labeauty are urban pioneers. there's probably a reason you're extolling the virtues of your lifestyle here on ssp.

fact is though, i'm focusing on reality. the mean. those people in labeauty's video are most likely drivers who unlike you, did not take mass transit to get downtown.

that's not to discount the admirable choice you made for yourself in living an auto-free lifestyle, but the fact remains, you are on the fringe not the mainstream, so no offense, but i could care less how you get around. there are people like you in houston and jacksonville too. outliers and anecdotes don't count for much when speaking in generalities.

so yeah, his experience is irrelevant because it is the product of his wishful imagination. he is not an suburban hipster, but he is projecting his experience upon the hoards of doubtless suburban hipsters in his video. downtown is still a bombed out ghost town without parking lots for people who come by car. let's be realistic and stop perpetuating the same kind of ignorance that has led los angeles astray for so many decades.

and this thread is labeauty's naively disingenuous attempt to generalize a little about downtown la's supposed progress as far as pedestrian oriented lifestyle is concerned. i'm hear to pop your overinflated collective bubble, cheerleaders.

I am not cheerleading and you're selling the city awfully short by refusing to acknowledge that a substantial number of people that live in this city get around without a car. I never start threads about these types of issues but will always comment when I see comments that are just as far from reality as the cheerleading and boosterism. I agree that this video is a poor example and shouldn't be used to promote the "LA pedestrian life" but your insistance that it does not exist and your comparisons to Houston or Jacksonville is probably even more naively disingenuous than this video. Sure Downtown has lots of parking lots that need to be filled but that doesn't mean the people who call downtown home use their car to get around the neighborhood. So what if a lot of people got to the art walk in their automobile... this is what happens in most all cities around the country but at least they are coming downtown and maybe some are thinking of moving there. We know that in 2010 (or was it 2009) over 8,000 new units opened up downtown. Whether you like it or not this city that tries so hard to accommodate the automobile has a secret and that is it has a large pedestrian population that no matter how often you like to discount it as negligible is thriving. I guess because I, like many others, get around on foot and use the transit realize how convenient it is.

I am not giving the city leaders kudos becasue they tend to still make concessions to the automobile like with parking requirements, etc. Sure I bang my head about certain things this city does but it has also been very ambitious with its public transportation improvements.

This came right from another thread here:

Research conducted in the Chicago, LA, and San Francisco regions shows that households in high-density urban centers drive one-fourth as much as typical urban neighborhoods and one-twelfth as much as most suburban locations, with commensurate costs savings in auto related expenses.

http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opin...-affordability

Your bubble is the one that needs to burst. I tend to agree with a lot of things you say but you also tend to go way overboard never acknowledging certain aspects of reality here.