8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
1/46
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
2/46
198
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
3/46
transportation
199transportation
research
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
12/46
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
22/46
Battery Park City
Potzdamer Platz
Shiodome
World Trade Center
Chavez Ravine
218
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
23/46
case studies
downtown Arts District
KowloonWalled City
Elysian Heights Housing
Playa Vista
219housing
casestudies
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
24/46
Elysian Park Heights Playa Vista Battery Park City
220
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
25/46
o n e m i l e
Shiodome Potzdamer Platz World Trade Center Kowloon Walled City
housing
casestudies
221
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
26/46
222
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
27/46
housing
casestudies
223
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
29/46
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
36/46232
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
37/46
case studies:
stadiums
233stadium
casestudies
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
38/46
Oriole Park at Camden YardsBaltimore, Maryland
1992capacity: 48,262cost: $100 million
Jacobs FieldCleveland, Ohio
1994capacity: 43,345cost: $175 million
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
1962capacity: 56,000cost: $23 million
Comerica ParkDetroit, Michigan
2000capacity: 40,000cost: $300 million
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
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
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
45/46
8/14/2019 LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Chapters 7-9
46/46
.
.