Tag Archives: Union Station

How Many Parks Does a Civic Center Need?

In previous posts, I laid out some reasons for focusing some attention on the area between 2nd St and Union Station, and presented an option for improving the 101 in a way that would help restore the urban fabric between downtown and Chinatown. I was originally going to do two more posts, one on land use and one on parks, but they’re so connected that it makes sense to address them at the same time.

Concerning land use, by far the biggest problem in this area is the monolithic area of government buildings, and the accompanying parking uses. In the image below, based on the city’s excellent ZIMAS service, land zoned for public facilities (PF, i.e. government buildings, freeways, schools, fire stations, and so on) is colored blue-green. Other uses per the generalized zoning legend.

2nd-Union Zoning

The heavy concentration of a particular type of employment, while it creates agglomeration effects, results in inefficient use of infrastructure and land. Infrastructure use is heavy during peak travel periods, and businesses are crowded during  workweek lunch times, but the area is practically a ghost town at other times – try hanging out on Temple on a Saturday night, for example. In fact, the blue-green area pretty much corresponds to the district in question.

This is an important thing to keep in mind when it comes to the parks in this area, because the biggest determinant of a park’s success or failure is everything around it. The parks are shown in dark green in the ZIMAS image above.

Grand Park

As one can see, Grand Park is entirely surrounded by government buildings. Some hope that it will become “LA’s Central Park”. Personally, I think trying to make something “our city’s [insert landmark from another city]” is a bad idea, because it sets us up to try to imitate the features of another city and ignore local context. If Grand Park becomes truly grand, there will be no need to promote it by invoking the image of another city. To their credit, the people running the park have done well at programming events and drawing interest in the park.

Their job would be much easier if the land uses surrounding the park contributed a steady stream of passers-by, people for whom the park was a pleasant way between destinations, not a destination unto itself. This is pretty much straight out of Jane Jacobs writing about Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia – and wouldn’t you know it, Rittenhouse Square’s 8 acres are not a bad comparison for Grand Park’s 12 acres, much better than Central Park’s 840 acre sprawl.

This means that over time, we need to encourage a greater mix of land uses around the park. There are three blocks between 2nd and 1st, from Grand to Broadway that are currently pretty empty. One is a vacant lot that is slated to become a new courthouse, one is a mishmash of parking lots, and one is a steel-frame parking garage that looks like it had no business surviving both Sylmar and Northridge. The first is zoned PF, the other two commercial. After Regional Connector is complete, there will be subway stops at 2nd/Hope and 2nd/Broadway, in addition to the existing Civic Center stop at 1st/Hill.

This is going to create market pressure to redevelop the lots. The parking lots should be upzoned to allow residential, commercial, and retail, with no parking minimums. LA Curbed reports that the GSA is hoping to find a developer to build a new office building next to the new courthouse. Realistically, the downtown office market is already flooded with vacant space. Why not allow residential, for which there is a big demand downtown, to be built here as well? This, along with other proposed developments in the area, will help pull the downtown building boom towards Grand Park.

The government buildings surrounding Grand Park should not be doomed for no reason other than trying to satisfy these urban design goals. Over time, agencies will likely decide to build new, modern facilities and at that time the parcels will become available for reuse or redevelopment. For example, when the new courthouse at 1st/Broadway is complete, the existing courthouse on Temple between Spring and Broadway can be redeveloped. Conveniently, LA Downtown News has a good look at this issue today.

Graffiti Pit

There’s currently one vacant parcel fronting Grand Park – the shattered remains of a state government building that was terminally wounded by the Sylmar earthquake, colloquially known as the graffiti pit. For reasons I cannot comprehend, the powers that be have decided that solution for this lot is More Open Space – this, despite the fact that the lot already borders Grand Park and City Hall Park. The last thing we need here is more green space.

Before you jump on me, I would implore you to think about how parks work. If that’s not enough, reread the parks chapter of Jane Jacobs. In every article I’ve linked to above, parks are “venerated in an amazingly uncritical fashion”, as she put it. Practically no attention is paid to the land uses around the park that will actually determine if the park succeeds.

A parcel that is bordered by two parks, LA City Hall, the LA County Law Library, and the LA Times should not be a park. It would seem to be a strange use of limited public funds to build yet more open space here. Instead, why not demo the graffiti pit and mitigate any environmental hazards, and then auction off the lot (or lots) to the highest bidders, as I suggested in my post on the 101 in the area? Given current market conditions, residential is probably the most viable use, though this lot is a little bit further from the active areas of downtown and Little Tokyo, which would reduce the desirability.

Unfortunately, we may too far down the open space path to change plans now. Because the virtue of open space is accepted as self-evident, people tend to look askance when you say that a park is a bad idea, and once the park is built, it is very difficult to go back. Nevertheless, I’m still going to try. We really don’t need another park here.

Park 101

To the north of Grand Park, Temple is lined with government buildings on both sides, along with the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. To the west of Figueroa, GH Palmer is building one of its Italian-series buildings, the Da Vinci. North of Temple is the 101 freeway trench, about which I’ve previously written in the context of rationalizing the ramps and improving the street grid. Now let’s look at the Park 101 proposal, which in addition to reconfiguring the ramps would build a deck over the freeway trench with new parks.

Obviously, I prefer my ramp configuration. I’m not sure exactly what Park 101 is proposing, since the “Alternative A” shown in the phasing video looks different than the “Preferred Concept” in the study. But any concept is going to require further study anyway, and the most important thing is to get the ball rolling on a rationalization of the ramps that includes getting rid of the loop ramps that chew up an entire city block. That sets the stage for some selling some property that can help pay for improvements. Park 101 overplans the type of development for my liking; as I’ve said before, we should let the market decide the best use.

Principles for Freeway Cap Parks

To my surprise, the Park 101 Study makes only passing reference to Boston, in the context of increasing property values from the Big Dig. I lived in Boston during the opening of the parks that replaced the 93 freeway elevated structure after the Big Dig tunnels were complete, and there are many lessons to learn about linear parks above freeways from that project:

  • The park has to end somewhere, and that location is likely to be unpleasant because it is going to be subject to freeway noise and fumes. No one really wants to hang out at Portal Park. This suggests that the ends of the park should terminate at a building, not a freeway portal. Clearly, in the case of Portal Park, there’s an extenuating circumstance – the desire to provide a view of the bridge – but that’s not the case with the 101.
  • Don’t overplan the land uses. It is now almost ten years since the 93 freeway elevated structure was demolished, and precisely one of the designated parcels has been developed – a mixed use block between Causeway and North Washington. On all the remaining parcels, viable development plans have been repeatedly rejected, while the preferred plans have proven untenable.
  • Don’t hold the park corridor sacred. In Boston, fanatical NIMBYism has resulted in demands that new development not even cast shadows on the park, which makes it practically impossible to capitalize on the increased land values on the corridor.
  • The development is just as important as the open space. The parts of the Central Artery corridor that work well – the North End Parks, the fountain by the aquarium – have strong generators of interest on both sides. The weaker parts – from High St to Congress St – have weak generators on the east side (because there is only one block to a wide expanse of water) and single-use generators on the west side (offices). When the Big Dig started in the 80s, the environmental reviewers arbitrarily decided that 75% of the corridor should be parks because, well, because MOAR OPEN SPACE. Other architects and planners submitted proposals that the corridor should become more like a series of Copley Squares, bounded by development on all sides. In retrospect, these proposals would have made the parks better.

Now, there’s actually another facility in Boston that’s just as instructive: the Massachusetts Turnpike between South Station and Kenmore Square. Like the 101, the Mass Pike is trenched just below street level  along this corridor, and the city would like to cap the freeway with development and parks. Unfortunately, since the construction of Copley Place in 1983, no progress has been made. The Fenway Center might start construction next year, but don’t hold your breath – the Columbus Center actually started construction in 2008, but then withered. A proposed overbuild at South Station seems moribund as well.

The take away here is that air rights have negative value relative to regular vacant lots, due to the need for unusual structural designs and restricted work hours. If there are benefits to the city at large, this may be a rare case where I would make an exception about giving subsidies to developers.

We should also realize that for cap parks design is restricted by structure depth. This restricts the types of landscaping and park features that can be installed. Also, since you’re on a bridge, at some point you’ll probably have to rip everything out to rebuild the structure.

Finally, if you cap a freeway over a long enough distance, it’s functionally a tunnel, which means you need to provide expensive things like tunnel ventilation (far more costly for freeways than for transit), emergency egress points, fire standpipes, and so on. Therefore, to be cost effective, we should keep the freeway cap sections short enough that they don’t trigger tunnel reviews.

Note that as is often the case with urban design goals, sometimes there is synergy between goals, and sometimes goals are in competition. There are trade-offs to be made. For example, the desire to terminate the park with a building is in conflict with the fact that air rights have negative value. The desire to connect the city to the greatest extent possible is in conflict with trying to keep the cap sections short. These trade-offs can be a question of how much money we want to spend. It’s easy to say we should have more freeway caps, but recognize that public funds are not unlimited. Every dollar we spend here is a dollar we can’t spend on improvements somewhere else.

Alameda to Broadway

The need for a better connection between Union Station and downtown is the most acute between Alameda and Broadway, and it’s no coincidence that in this stretch Park 101 makes the most sense. Logically, this is also proposed to be the first phase of the project.

With the principles outlined above in mind, I think we can get the benefits of Park 101 without capping as much of the freeway or spending as much money. I agree with the Park 101 study that the logical first piece of the cap is the block between Los Angeles and Main. That suggests that the blocks to the north and south should be covered with air rights developments. In the interest of reducing tunnel ventilation and egress costs, I would consider the leaving the center portion of the block open to the air, especially on the large block between Alameda and Los Angeles where the freeway is abutted by onramps that make overbuild difficult anyway.

Note that while public subsidies might be required to induce air rights development on these parcels, the public contribution would hopefully be less than what would be needed to build the cap park. The air rights development would also be beneficial because it would create tax-paying properties and generate more users for the cap parks. More users close to the parks means more successful parks.

With the block between Main and Spring used for air rights development, it’s logical for the next block to the north to be another cap park, between Spring and Broadway. I’ve updated the crappy MS Paint graphic from my post on the 101 to show this concept. Click to enlarge.

101-cap-alt1

Broadway to Grand

As you can see from the graphic, I didn’t do much to cap the freeway between Broadway and Grand, because the value of doing so is lower in this area. Between Alameda and Broadway, the 101 is spanned by 5 bridges with spacing between 350 and 550 feet. It’s over 1,200 feet from Broadway to Grand, with no side streets. In addition, this area is bounded by the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels and the Cortines School, both of which have logically turned their backs to the freeway.

With no side streets and little prospect of redevelopment on the abutting properties, there will be very few generators of park users for this quarter-mile stretch. Therefore, in this area I think it makes sense to terminate the park with an air rights building between Broadway and Hill. This building could provide a way to bridge the grade difference between Broadway and Hill to help integrate Hill into the street network.

If anything is to be done at Grand, I’d favor an air rights building on both sides of the street, which would reconnect the street façade from Temple to Chavez.

Alameda to LA River

In this area, I disagree with the Park 101 approach. This area is industrial, and there are overhead transportation facilities (the Gold Line and the El Monte Busway). If the Union Station run through tracks and the CAHSR project are constructed, there will be even more overhead transportation facilities. Those facilities are noisy, and the railroad tracks have sharp curves, which makes them noisier. It’s not going to be very pleasant to hang out underneath these bridges, and not many people are going to want to live or work in expensive high-rises adjacent to them.

In this area, Park 101 would also require taking a large amount of property by eminent domain. Progressives seem to have this weird MO where they worry about the loss of industrial and manufacturing jobs in cities in theory, but promote plans that eliminate those jobs in practice (see the Cornfield for example). Now, maybe industry won’t be the best use of this land when Regional Connector is complete and Little Tokyo and the Arts District keep growing, but that can be addressed by upzoning and letting property owners decide what to do. That puts money into city coffers rather than draining them.

For now, this area is a functioning industrial zone, so I think we should let it be. I put in one air rights development on the east side of Alameda to help reconnect the street façade with Union Station.

Main to Spring Option

As another option, I would consider making the block between Main and Spring a park instead of air rights development. This would create a three-block long park between Aliso and Arcadia from Los Angeles to Broadway. With development on Aliso and Arcadia, and air rights development to terminate the view at Broadway and Los Angeles, this would work pretty well too. It would cost a little more in terms of structure and ventilation. Click to enlarge.

101-cap-alt2

Freeway Widening

The Park 101 Study assumes that the 101 would be widened by at least one lane. The conceptual section on page 45 appears to show a clear span of about 100’ on the 101 north and about 85’ on the 101 south. In contrast, most of what I’ve shown assumes a clear span of about 65’-80’. This is a big difference, because the costs do not scale linearly. Long spans require deeper structures and are considerably more costly; this is the reason that air rights have negative relative value.

District 7 may not want to hear it, but the 101 is wide enough here. Much of the congestion northbound is spilling back from the merge at the Four-Level, which means unless they’re planning to build a fifth lane all the way to the Hollywood Split, widening here won’t do too much. Southbound, the congestion builds back from the East LA Interchange and is related to merging, weaving, and capacity issues on the 60 east and the 5 south. Again, those issues are not going away anytime soon. Personally, I wouldn’t feel too bad about locking the 101 into its current number of through lanes here, and this isn’t even an anti-freeway blog.

Summary

Both of these options create considerably less open space than Park 101, but I think the open space created would be more valuable. These options would also allow more development, which generates more revenue for the city. I don’t think the area is at a loss for open space; Grand Park is close and the Cornfield and Elysian Park aren’t too far to the north. I think these options would be more affordable, which means they could be implemented sooner and would have less of an impact on our ability to improve parks elsewhere in the city.

No one should interpret this as an attack on the Park 101 concept; I’m sure a lot of work has gone into the project. The point here is to realize that there are many options beyond just capping the freeway with parks, and we should look at a wide range of alternatives and realize the trade-offs between them.

From 2nd to Union

That about wraps it up for my look at this area for the time being. If I could emphasize one point above all else, it would be the thing that makes a park great is the city around it. Planning in this area needs to start with that fact as the central premise.

The 101 – San Bernardino Split to the Four-Level

In a previous post, I provided some setup for studying the area between 2nd and Union Station. In this post, let’s look at the 101. In another post, I set some ground rules for improving urban freeways, the main gist being that freeway projects and urban improvement are not necessarily mutually exclusive goals. So let’s see those principles in use on the 101.

There’s a lot of attention focused on the area between Union Station and 2nd St lately, and why not? With the development boom downtown, the popularity of Little Tokyo, Grand Park, and transit improvements all over the place, there’s a lot to be excited about. Slicing through the area, first west by north, then northwest, is the iconic 101 freeway – symbol of LA freeways, of LA traffic, of LA growth and sprawl, of LA in general. The Four-Level Interchange even appears on book covers and postcards.

The 101 is the prototypical 1950s freeway, showing the lessons that highway engineers learned from their first attempts. The 101 wasn’t even in the same class as freeways like the 110 north of downtown, which was (and is) a disaster of sharp curves and contorted 5 mph ramps. However, the 101 shows typical 1950s flaws, the biggest being interchanges that are too close together. Engineers eventually figured that out too – check out the 210 between the 57 and the 15 for example.

The 101 between the San Bernardino Split and the Four-Level (i.e. from the 10 to the 110) is one of the most congested freeways in the city. I’m writing this at about 10:30pm and I just opened Google Maps and – yep – it’s yellow. It’s also a considerable barrier between Union Station and downtown. So it’s the perfect place to demonstrate these principles. Let’s run through an option for making things better here, from south to north.

Note: you might want to open up Google Earth or another tab to look at how the images below compare to today. The biggest benefits, from an urban form perspective, are on the north side of the freeway between Alameda and Broadway, on Grand on the north side of the freeway, and at Temple and Hope.

San Bernardino Split

This interchange has undergone modifications in the past. There used to be a ramp from the 10 west to the 101 south, which made redundant when the 5 was constructed, because the ramp from the 10 west to the 5 south serves the same movement. This ramp was removed when the El Monte Busway was built. However, the opposite move, from the 101 north to the 10 east, still has a ramp, and it’s just as redundant.

This ramp should be repurposed into an exit from the 101 north to Chavez and an entrance from Chavez to the 10 east. The utility of this interchange will become apparent shortly. Concurrently, the slip ramps to and from Kearney St should be eliminated, removing freeway traffic from local streets in Boyle Heights.  These ramps would also give traffic coming east on Chavez an entrance to the 10 east without going through Boyle Heights.

101-Chavez-Kearney

Mission Interchange

The ramp from the 10 west, to the 10 east, and to the 101 south are relatively benign, so they should be left alone. The ramps from the 101 south to Mission and from Mission to the 101 north are theoretically too close to interchanges to the north. However, they should also be retained, since they provide access to and from industry on the east bank of the river without sending traffic through Boyle Heights. (Issues on the 101 between the 10 and the East LA Interchange will be addressed in a separate post.) Considering the congestion on the 101 north here, you’d be a fool to get on at Mission anyway, and I don’t think many people do so.

Vignes/Garey Interchange

I like to call this style of interchange a “kiss interchange” since the ramp termini look like puckered lips in plan view, making it look like the freeway is kissing the other road. Since they’re cheap to build, these are plunked down all over the place on 50s-era freeways. The ramps at Vignes and Garey are all much too close to the preceding and following interchanges, and they’re redundant anyway, so they should all go. Northbound traffic would get off at the new Chavez ramp I mentioned above or at Alameda; southbound traffic would get off at Los Angeles. Traffic entering northbound should enter further north; traffic entering southbound should enter at Los Angeles or from Mission.

101-Vignes-Garey

Alameda/Los Angeles Interchange

The ramp from the 101 north to Alameda should be retained and become one of the primary exits to the downtown area. It takes up little ROW, provides access to Alameda and Union Station, and provides access to other north-south arterials via Arcadia.

The ramp from the 101 south to Los Angeles should be retained and reconfigured to also provide access to Aliso eastbound. Access to Los Angeles northbound is not critical because there is a left from Aliso to Alameda northbound. This allows this ramp to serve the functions of the eliminated Garey St offramp.

The ramp from Los Angeles to the 101 south should be retained and lefts should be permitted from Los Angeles southbound onto this ramp. This ramp becomes one of the main southbound entrance points and assumes the functions of the eliminated Garey St onramp.

The ramp from Los Angeles and Alameda to the 101 north takes up an entire city block, directly across from Union Station. This ramp should be configured as a slip ramp from the intersection of Aliso and Alameda onto the 101 north.

101-Alameda-LA

Spring/Broadway Interchange

The ramp from the 101 south to Broadway is way too close to the onramp from the Four-Level. It should be eliminated and replaced by an extension of Aliso north to Grand and improvements further north. Due to the crazy grade changes in this area, it’s not possible to have the extension of Aliso intersect Hill – it’s too high up.

The ramps from the 101 north to Spring and from Broadway to the 101 north take up an entire city block, have terrible geometry, and are too close to adjacent interchanges. These ramps? Gone. Arcadia should then be extended north to Grand. Again, the grade differences make it impossible for the extension of Arcadia to intersect Hill.

101-Spring-Broadway

Grand/Hope Interchange

It would be nice to turn the loop ramp from the 101 north to Grand into a slip ramp on the south side of Grand, but the severity of the topography in that area would push the ramp too far south, close to the Alameda onramp. Instead, the ramp should duck under the onramps  and in a slightly larger loop and terminate at Grand where the onramps currently start. The onramps to the 101 north should be moved to the west and square up with the extension of Arcadia. I considered sending the offramp to turn right onto Bunker Hill and come out at the intersection with Chavez, but that would add a ton of traffic turning right from Bunker Hill to Chavez and then Chavez to Grand, so I nixed that. I also thought about sending this ramp to the left under the 101 to come out at the intersection of Hope and Temple, where the ramp from the 101 south currently ends, but I don’t think that grading would work.

The 101 south ramp that currently goes to the intersection of Temple and Hope should be reconfigured to square up with the extension of Aliso, and Hope should be extended to that intersection. The offramp to Temple from the Four-Level ramp that heads to the 101 south should be reconfigured to square up with the intersection of Hope and Temple (taking the place of the current ramp from the 101 south).

101-Grand-FL

Another option would be to get rid of the fork of the onramp from Grand that goes to the Four-Level and just let that traffic use Figueroa to the 110. The offramp to Temple and Hope from the Four-Level ramp could be eliminated too, and replaced by a better configuration of the offramp from the 110 south to Figueroa. However, I decided against this option because the ramp from Figueroa to the 110 north and from the 110 south to Figueroa should probably be eliminated as part of rationalizing the ramps on the 110 (more on that another time).

Four-Level Interchange

I’m a little gunshy about going after the Four-Level. After all, it’s basically where freeway engineering was born – the  first high-speed semi-direct interchange ever. But LA ain’t a museum, just ask the people in Beverly Hills buying $10m teardowns. Nostalgia is for chumps. The Four-Level was fully opened in 1953, before the 10 and the 5 were complete. At that time, it was necessary to provide all the movements. But at this point all four movements to the 101 south and from the 101 north may be redundant.

I started looking at options for eliminating and reconfiguring ramps at the Four-Level, but you know what? Any changes to the Four-Level are only about eliminating short weaving distances and redundant ramps on the 101 and the 110. They’re not about improving the streets downtown for pedestrians or cyclists, and they’re not about reducing ROW footprints and opening up land for redevelopment. Now, maybe it’s worth doing some improvements at the Four-Level, but they’re a separate issue from what I’m trying to get with this series of posts, which is better connections from the Union Station area to downtown. So let’s leave the Four-Level alone for the time being.

Other Options Abound

This is, of course, just one option, and there are plenty of other ways you could configure things. Come up with your own, and let’s get to work on convincing the city and Caltrans to do an analysis.

Now We Have Real Estate to Work With

The land vacated by these ramps should be redeveloped. And instead of doing the normal deal where we have a design competition, give the developer unreasonable subsidies, and end up with vacant lots for years, how ‘bout this: zone the land for any residential or commercial use (and industrial for the piece on Commercial St), no parking minimums, no tax abatements or subsidies, no FAR/height limits, no nothing. We just auction it off to the highest bidder with two conditions: no surface parking, and you gotta build something there within 5 years. We should also break up some of the larger blocks into a few different parcels and auction them off separately. You want to buy the whole block, ok, but you have to win the bid for each piece.  It’ll be a fun experiment.

This project really is an all-around win. It opens up new land for urban development, which unlike any of the proposed parks in the area, actually helps connect Union Station and downtown. It fixes dangerous conditions on the freeway that waste capacity. It makes things better for pedestrians and bikes by getting rid of loop ramps and improving the street grid. And the ROW sale would help fund the project. What’s not to like?

Note: you used to be able to import Google Earth images and topographic data into AutoCAD, which was pretty sweet, because you could draw real engineering stuff and then export it back to Google Earth. As part of Google’s continuing campaign to make its products worse, this feature is no longer available. This leaves several crappy options for trying to share this kind of work:

  • Find the best aerial you can get in AutoCAD (often way out of date) and work with that (but then it’s a static picture other people can’t look at in Google Earth).
  • Draw with polygons in Google Earth and hope that the geometry isn’t insane.
  • Draw it in SketchUp, which is basically like trying to cut down a tree with a jackhammer: it’s not that it’s a bad tool, but it’s clearly not designed for this type of work. I could write an entire post on how bad SketchUp is for civil engineering, if I was looking for exercises in futility.

Therefore, for now, I’ve gone for the fast route with questionable accuracy – drawing Google Earth polygons. I’m going to try to update this using SketchUp to verify the geometry and give others the ability to edit, but I’m not making any promises.

Contact me if you want the Google Earth shape files.

Update

At Kenny Easwaran’s suggestion, here is an image of the whole corridor. Click to enlarge. Again, apologies for the low quality, but Google Earth and MS Paint is the fastest way to get it done.

101-all2Going north on the 101, after First St, your exits would be Chavez, Alameda, Grand and the Four-Level. Going south on the 101, after the Four-Level, your exits would be Grand, Los Angeles, and Mission. Your entrances to the 101 north would be Mission, Alameda, and Grand; to the 101 south, Temple/Hope, Los Angeles, and Mission.

Downtown Wanderings

This is a short setup post with some background ideas and information that will be useful for a few posts that I have on my mind.

Jane Jacobs wrote about the forces that cause downtowns to drift, like self-destruction of diversity, and offered some ideas on how city planners could work to stop those forces. Lately, I’m not entirely sure that it’s a bad thing for downtown to wander as economic agglomerations come and go. When downtown shifts, it leaves behind an interest and coherent, and perhaps most importantly, cheap district that will eventually be discovered and put to use in ways no one thought of before. See, for example, the industrial buildings of Soho that became artist spaces, or the SROs and boarded-up hotels of Downtown LA that are turning into fancy lofts.

The original Downtown LA was, of course, the pueblo. By the late 1800s, it migrated south to the area around First and Broadway, though the vestiges of this downtown are basically gone. In the early 1900s, downtown was centered between Main and Hope, from maybe 3rd to 7th. This area has been booming recently; old-timers will tell you about people living in tents on the sidewalk on Spring St and long vacant buildings, but now Skid Row has moved east and the empty buildings are being renovated. LA’s first skyscraper boom moved things west, to the “new downtown” between 1st and 7th, from the 110 to Grand. Now that area seems a little tired, and all the action has moved south again, from Wilshire to Pico, the 110 to Broadway. But who knows, in 20 years, we could be talking about unforeseen redevelopment and action springing up in what used to be the “new downtown”. Predicting the future is hard!

For the most part, we shouldn’t worry too much about downtown wandering. The goal of public policy is to create a solid framework for the city (transpo, utilities, schools, public safety, recreation, etc.) and let the private sector figure out the rest. Sometimes, though, we need to dig a little deeper and figure out what might be holding back the development of a neighborhood. Right now, we have a lot of transportation money being invested in the area between 2nd and Union Station, to the north of downtown, but downtown keeps shifting south. Why?

Union Station already has the Red/Purple Lines, the Gold Line, Metrolink, and Amtrak. It’s got a lot of Metro bus routes and LAX Flyaway. Before long, Regional Connector will bring the Blue/Expo Lines in to connect, and drop three new stations along 2nd at Hope, Broadway, and Central. Metrolink may build through-running tracks, and hopefully before too much longer CAHSR will come to Union Station. Despite the “7th/Metro Center” moniker (a confusing name that should be replaced with “7th/Flower” anyway), Union Station is pretty clearly the transportation hub. But downtown keeps shifting south. Why?

The appeal of the area between Wilshire and Pico is pretty obvious. It’s got a good mix of old buildings that can be renovated, new construction, and parking lots that are cheap to redevelop. It’s close to many restaurants, bars, and LA Live, and it’s got a Ralph’s on 9th, a Target on Figueroa, and a Walgreens and a Rite-Aid on 7th. It’s pretty close to the Blue/Expo Lines and it’s easier to get to the 10 west and the 110 south. I don’t want to suggest taking anything away from this area; its development should be promoted too.

However, given all the money going into transportation between 2nd and Union Station, we ought to take a hard look at why development there has been somewhat muted. Focus on the framework or “bones” of the city, and I see three main issues:

  • The 101, which creates an unpleasant traffic corridor that separates Union Station from downtown.
  • An excessive amount of park space that increases the distance between different land uses.
  • Zoning and an associated concentration of government buildings filled with people who have pretty much the same schedules and types of trips, which impedes the formation of a customer base large and diverse enough to support a wide range of business establishments.

I’ll explore each of these in a more detailed post.