La Now Volumes 3 And 4, Chapters 7-9

transportation

198

research

transportation

research

199

transportation

Sacramento 2:10

San Francisco 2:30

Merced

San Jose 2:00 Fresno 1:20

Bakersfield 0:50

L.A. Union Station

Ontario Airport Riverside

Palmdale Victorville

Ontario Union Station

San Bernardino

West L.A. March

LAX Anaheim

Irvine

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

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

railway proposed California high-speed rail

websites: website: cahighspeedrail.ca.gov redline.calmaglev.org igs.berkeley.edu/library/htHighSpeedRail.htm description: the staff of the Institute of Governmental Studies Library, from igs.berkeley.edu/library/htHighSpeedRail.htm

research transportation

railway proposed SCAG Maglev rail

200

description “The issue of transportation in California is a critical one. With the world’s 6th largest economy and an ever-growing population, rapid travel between major cities and population areas is becoming increasingly important. In the 1980s promoters pushed high-speed rail, a concept already in use in Asia and Europe, as a possible alternative to overcrowded highways and expensive air travel. In the 1990s the attention over high-speed rail

led to the creation of the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), a Board charged with designing a high-speed train system for the state. CHSRA introduced a plan in 2000 for a system that would link all of the states major population centers including the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Sacramento, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century was presented to the legislature

in September of 2002 as Senate Bill 1856. The bill would provide for the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds, $9 billion of which would be used in conjunction with available federal funds for funding the planning and construction of a high-speed train system. It is currently slated to go before the voters as a proposition in the November 7, 2006 general election (Initiative Update, California Secretary of State).”

32 minutes 36

35 18 19 33

17 16 13

32 31 30

34

28

29 26 25 23

27

22

24

37

38 minutes 20

Claremont (Gold line Phase II)

15 14

12 11

10 9 21 1 2

3

4

38 39 Santa Monica (Exposition LRT)

6

5

40

7

8

14 minutes

41 42 43 44 45

65 67 68 69

64

66

70

63

62

61

58 46

55 minutes

59 47

60

62 minutes

48

49

50 51

57 56

52 53 54 55

61 minutes Metro commuter rail lines and stations Metro Rail transit lines and stations future Metro Rail transit lines and stations freeways distribution nodes

websites: mta.net/trans_planning/CPD/midcity la-pasblueline.org urbanrail.net/am/lsan/los-angeles.htm

time 00:00 00:02 00:03 00:05 00:08 00:11 00:13 00:14

Gold Line 09 Chinatown 10 Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park 11 Heritage Square/Arroyo 12 Southwest Museum 13 Highland Park 14 Mission 15 Fillmore 16 Del Mar 17 Memorial Park 18 Lake 19 Allen 20 Sierra Madre Villa

time 00:05 00:08 00:10 00:12 00:16 00:21 00:25 00:26 00:27 00:30 00:32 00:38

Red Line 21 Union Station 22 Civic Center/Tom Bradley 23 Pershing Square 24 7th St/Metro Center 25 Westlake/MacArthur Park 26 Wilshire/Vermont 27 Wilshire/Normandie 28 Wilshire/Western 29 Vermont/Beverly 30 Vermont/Santa Monica 31 Vermont/Sunset 32 Hollywood/Western 33 Hollywood/Vine 34 Hollywood/Highland 35 Universal City 36 North Hollywood

time 00:03 00:05 00:06 00:08 00:10 00:12 00:14 00:16 00:14 00:16 00:17 00:19 00:22 00:24 00:28 00:32

Blue Line 37 Pico 38 Grand 39 San Pedro 40 Washington 41 Vemon 42 Slauson 43 Florence 44 Firestone 45 103rd/Kenneth Hahn 46 Imperial/Wilmington Rosa Parks 47 Compton 48 Artesia 49 Del Amo 50 Wardlow 51 Willow 52 Pacific Coast Highway 53 Anaheim 54 5th St 55 1st St 56 Long Beach/Transit Mall 57 Pacific

time 00:10 00:13 00:15 00:18 00:20 00:22 00:23 00:24 00:28 00:30 00:33 00:36 00:39 00:43 00:45

Green Line 58 Long Beach/I-105 59 Lakewood/I-105 60 I-65/I-105 61 Avalon/I-105 62 Harbor Fwy/I-105 63 Vermont/I-105 64 Crenshaw/I-105 65 Hawthorne/I-105 66 Aviation/I-105 67 Mariposa/ Nash 68 El Segundo/Nash 69 Douglas Rosecrans 70 Marine/Redondo Beach

time 00:37 00:50 01:02 00:32 00:34 00:36 00:39 00:42 00:45 00:47 00:49 00:51 00:55

00:52 01:01

research

railway Metro Rail travel distances

Gold Line Extension 01 1st St/Alameda 02 1st St/Utah 03 1st St/Boyle 04 1st St/Soto 05 3rd St/Indiana 06 3rd St/Ford 07 3rd St/Mednik 08 Pomona/Atlantic

description For 50 years, Los Angeles enjoyed an intimate and exclusive relationship with one dominant vehicular transportation system. Large expanses of land allowed miles of highways to be built, fueling a local culture nurtured in climatic and individual freedom. Within two generations, the city faces the limitations of its prosperity and braces for a shift toward an intelligent and integrated approach to public transportation.

In 1963, the last streetcar lines closed in Los Angeles. It would take 30 years for the first line in the city’s new public rail transportation system to begin operations. In 1993, a 59 mile long subway, the Metro Red Line, began operating. Subsequent lines followed with the above-ground/on-grade Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems due to their economic and engineering advantages. The four LRT lines are the two Metro Blue Lines, the Metro Gold Line, and the planned Mid-City/

Exposition Line. They radiate in all cardinal directions to connect vital L.A. neighborhoods and to the cities of Pasadena, Culver City, and Long Beach. The Exposition Line promises to be the first to connect the Westside to the city’s center. Mayor Villaraigosa has also resurrected efforts for the westward expansion of the Red Line, which will ultimately connect the city’s iconic coastline and the city of Santa Monica to the inner city.

transportation

201

distribution to

U.S.

da

Corrid

or

Eurotunnel 1986–1994 31.3 miles 50 trains/day cost $12.5 billion average speed 100–220 mph

Ala

me

Alameda Corridor 1997–2002 20 miles 100 trains/day cost $2.4 billion average speed 40 mph

major truck terminals Alameda Corridor existing freight rail lines truck routes industrial nodes distribution nodes

$

San Pedro Bay Ports cargo value $168.3 billion

railway Alameda Corridor

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

research transportation

$

202

description The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile-long rail cargo expressway linking the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the transcontinental rail network near downtown Los Angeles. It is a series of bridges, underpasses, overpasses and street improvements that separate freight trains from street traffic and passenger trains, facilitating a more efficient transportation network. The project’s centerpiece is the Mid-Corridor Trench, which will carry freight trains in an open

now trench that is 10 miles long, 33 feet deep and 50 feet wide between State Route 91 in Carson and 25th Street in Los Angeles. Construction began in April 1997. Operations begin in April 2002. The Alameda Corridor consolidates four low-speed branch rail lines, eliminating conflicts at more than 200 at-grade crossings, providing a high-speed freight expressway, and minimizing the impact on communities.

1. The last phase of the $2.4 billion Alameda Project has been approved. It is a $107 million, half-mile long bridge that will carry cargo on the Pacific Coast Highway in Wilmington. This bridge will address road traffic at the intersection of the Pacific Coast Highway and the rail line.

Seattle

Boston Chicago Cleveland

New York

Salt Lake City Oakland

Kansas City

St. Louis

San Pedro Bay Ports Memphis

Atlanta

Houston Miami

impact of trade through San Pedro Bay Ports 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

* line thickness corresponds to intermodal trade volume

railway Alameda Corridor national impact

research

website: scbbs.com/alameda/alameda3.html now: 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.

now 1. The Alameda Corridor rail line has had a difficult first year of operation, as performance expectations were not meant. Designed to relieve the number of tractor trailers that snarl traffic between Los Angeles and Long Beach, the corridor failed to shift enough business to its rail system. The performance mark of 100 trains per day carrying 50% of the ports’ cargo is reduced to just 35 trains car-

rying 37% of the cargo—about the same amount before the corridor was built. One cause of this unexpected downshift in demand is that the economics of freight has changed–causing tractor trailers to become the preferred system.

2. Traffic congestion, federal funding, and freight control were the three challenges facing the region in a recent commission. Titled “Mobility 21,” the local experts and officials urged the federal funding of an infrastructure that handles 43% of the nation’s cargo.

transportation

203

by 2020 total LRT daily boardings: 16,000+ operating speed: 25–35mph affected population: 275,000 expected users out of 275,000: 55,000 (20% of population, 6.5% of entire L.A. County) cost: $822–826 million Metro Gold Line Pasadena

Chinatown Station 6 minutes

Metro Red Line

Wilshire Center/Hollywood/ North Hollywood

Union Station/ Gateway Transit Center 3 minutes

7th Street/Metro Center/Julian Dixon Station 8 minutes Civic Center/Tom Bradley Station 5 minutes

Alameda Station Pershing Square Station 6 minutes

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

Utah Station 18 minutes

Boyle Station 32 minutes

proposed Gold Line Extension Light Rail Transit

Pico/Los Angeles Convention Center Station 10 minutes

East Los Angeles Pomona/Atlantic

Grand Station 13 minutes

San Pedro Station 15 minutes

10 minute walking radius theaters

Metro Blue Line

Long Beach

museums galleries civic institutions educational institutions sports & recreation centers religious institutions

railway metro lines and cultural institutions

transportation

research

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

204

description The Light Rail Transit (LRT) system adopted by the MTA promises to be the most effective system to integrate into future urban planning. An updated version of the old trolley system, its relatively silent performance has been engineered to be a sustainable partner with automobile traffic, pedestrian integretation, and a positive influx into commercial corridors. The more ambitious vision is the transit parks, where primary LRT stations support large community parks and public spaces.

California High-Speed Rail three site proposals

Union Station “Run-Through” Rail Track Extension

Metro Gold Line Extension the implemented option

alternative rail proposals for south end of Union Station

research

website: mta.net now: 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.

now 1. The inaugural journey of the newly constructed Los Angeles–Pasadena Gold Line, which finally connects the cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena through downtown Los Angeles and onto Belmont Heights, occurs today. The Gold Line is seen as the alternative to the community’s resistance to the construction of a new freeway. Thirteen stations will be served.

2. The impact and sustainability of Light Rail Transit continues to be tested, as voters in Orange County defeated the CenterLine Project, which would have connected John Wayne Airport and UC Irvine. The project would also have connected Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Santa Ana. Despite the lack of support for the CenterLine, voters also defeated a bill that prohibited any consideration of light rail integration in future planning proposals.

3. The Red Line subway can be extended westward under the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor, a major review by transportation and tunneling experts. Despite dangerous underground gases, they deemed a safe tunneling method is possible, paving way to the mayor’s effort to address this subway’s ultimate destiny.

transportation

205

409 Sylmar

75 minutes

Chatsworth 85 minutes

419

Van Nuys 413 60 minutes

423 422 Thousand Oaks 76 minutes

431 Westwood

430

50 minutes

Pacific Palisades 55 minutes

437 Marina del Rey 43 minutes

438 Redondo Beach 61 minutes

448 Rancho Palos Verdes 62 minutes

bus lines travel distances by minutes

transportation

research

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

bus lines destinations and times from site

website: mta.net/riding_metro/riders_guide/planning_trip-01.htm now: 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.

206

description

now

The MTA has concluded that a bus is in motion only fifty percent of the time. The other fifty percent is spent at red lights or stopped for patrons. To address this inefficiency, MTA developed the Metro Rapid Program —a special fleet of buses designed to maximize transit time. The program, begun in June 2000, has seen a 40% increase in ridership.

Metro Rapid

Orange Line | Metro Liner

25% faster than local bus service: sensors keep traffic lights green buses scheduled every 5–15 minutes stops only at major intersections 30 new advanced buses, each carrying 57 passengers

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

to Glendale

to Sylmar

to Sylmar

22 minutes (route 603)

105 minutes (routes 90, 91, 94, 394)

to Sylmar

86 minutes (route 92)

to Sherman Oaks

Avenue

Gle n

da

le Blv d

95 minutes (route 96)

to Santa Monica/2nd Avenue 82 minutes (routes 04 + 304)

to Sunset + Pacific Coast Highway

o ch

96 minutes (routes 02 and 302)

5G

old

en

rk Pa

St ate

E

do S

tre

et

Sc ott

na

de

Fr ee wa

y

to

sa Pa

Ave n

rth

Alv ara

ue

No

We st

to V ent

ura

nse

tB

lvd

Elysian Park Avenue

od

St ad

iu

Fre ew

m

ay

110

1s tS t re e St

et

t re e

ele

St

ng

ain M

sA

et

sS

tre

et

et

et

Bl vd

1st Street

4t

hS

tre

et

Ho

pe S

tre

et

pic

tre

S Br tre oa et dw ay

Ol ym

tre

et

tre

ll

hS

et

Hi

9t

hS

tre

Pas

Lo

er oa gu Fi

hS

ay

ew Fre

tre

4t

5t

na ade

tre

3r dS

hS

6t

W ay

Street

lyw o

Vignes

Hol

Stadium Way

Street

101

Hewitt

Elysian Park Avenue

Alameda Street

101 Hollywood Freeway

Su

Pic oB

lvd

hS

20 minutes (route 96)

to downtown (Venice/Broadway) 19 minutes (route 603)

tre

et

to Harbor Freeway

6th Street

to downtown (Venice/Main)

19 minutes (routes 81, 90, 91, 92, 94, 381, 394)

to downtown (Grand/Washington)

7th Street

19 minutes (route 603)

ue

68 minutes (routes 81 + 381)

research

to San Pedro

17t

to downtown (Venice/Grand)

14th

Stre

et

207

to downtown/USC 36 minutes (route 200)

now

0

In conjunction with the MTA, which has control over transportation issues for the entire Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation operates the second largest fleet of buses in the county.

1. In an effort to update a decade-old bus route system, MTA has proposed a new “Hub and Spoke” route plan. The 10 year federal mandate has produced this new bus grid which aims to attract new riders, increase ridership, and save money.

400 vehicles serve 30 million passengers per year.

The current system is paralyzed, as it is at the mercy of an the city’s increasingly frequent girdlock and exasperated by a route length that cycles every 20 miles long and sometimes as much as 40 miles.

The DASH line serves downtown Los Angeles for a fare of 25 cents and an average wait of 8 minutes.

100ft

500ft

1000ft

2. MTA0 declares ridership numbers have exceeded 1/3mile 1/2mile 1 mile projection on the new bus-oriented Orange Line. But there are criticisms that the original target numbers were set low as a reaction to past irregularities. Both the Gold Line and Green Line failed to meet projections in their first year of operations by as much as 50%.

transportation

Ce

nt

ra l

Av en

8th Street

10% 16% 4% 18%

6%

12%

11%

15% commuter origin aproximate regional distribution 8%

1. Beverly Hills / Westside 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Pasadena Santa Monica Los Angeles Mid City Alhambra / Monterey Park Burbank / Glendale Orange County Topanga Canyon / Malibu Highland Park

18% 16% 15% 12% 11% 10% 8% 6% 4%

vehicular commuting patterns destination–origin (financial and government)

information polled from interviews of randomly selected financial and governmental institutions located in downtown Los Angeles

17% 4% 10% 8%

18% 5% 11% 4% commuter origin aproximate regional distribution 10%

12% 6% Los Angeles County freeway miles highway miles average vehicle miles traveled per day (in millions)

Torrance Alhambra / Monterey Park Los Angeles Mid City Orange County Santa Monica / West Los Angeles 8. Garden Grove 9. Highland Park 10. Hollywood 11. South Los Angeles

88 184

101.1

9.5

vehicular commuting patterns destination–origin (retail, wholesale and manufacturing)

information polled from interviews of randomly selected financial and commercial companies located in downtown Los Angeles now: 1. Scott Martelle and Dan Weikel, “Census Data on Traffic Questioned,” Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2003.

research transportation

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Ventura County

528 354

1. Pasadena 2. Burbank / Glendale

208 description

now

Destination–origin studies examine the commuting patterns of workers entering and exiting a specified outlined zone of study. Typically, the studies are conducted at a county level and, therefore, data on smaller urban sections is virtually non-existent. The informal study for these diagrams were conducted by calling a variety of businesses in the downtown area and asking the staff’s or owner’s commuting origin.

1. Discrepancies in commuter patterns have been discovered in comparing established well-studied commuter patterns by regional specialists and the results of the recent census data. As a result, concerns are raised if this might apply to other census estimates. Though the census correctly outlines an increase in each county’s economic independency, other data conflicts with other calculations.

18% 17% 12% 11% 10% 10% 8% 6% 5% 4% 4%

350 (miles) 300

200

100

1990

1985

1980

1970

Los Angeles Times , “freeway program dying” 1973 Brown elected 1974 1975 new multi-modal policy announced

1965

Reagan elected 1966 as governor

1960

1955

1950

1945

0

major motorway at 1920

1920

major motorway at 1937 major motorway at 1925

major motorway at 1925 major motorway at 1920

1937

1925

vehicles historic routes of major motorway system in Los Angeles

research

websites: cahighways.org/chronlgy.html dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/cthist.htm now: 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.

now 1. After reviewing several alternatives to improve the 101 Freeway, including double decking and a rail line in the center median, the transportation committee has recommended adding two carpool lanes in each direction. The $36 million project will cover 40 miles along the 101 Corridor and can have disastrous consequences for homes and business within the project’s zone.

2. San Fernando residents confronted officials when presented with the proposal to widen the 101 Freeway. The $3.4 billion project would demolish homes and stores while adding two carpool lanes in each direction between Studio City and Thousand Oaks. The plan projects a savings of 78,000 commuting hours a day.

3. The MTA board, led by County Supervisor Gloria Molina, has canceled the ambitious scope of the 101 Widening Project. With escalating public rancor over the loss of homes, businesses and cultural centers, the MTA was asked to review alternatives for improving freeways without the removal of private property. In scaling back the 101 Project, similar measures were mandated for the equally ambitious elevated truck lanes on the 710 Freeway.

transportation

209

1942

major highways expanded highways freeways freeway extension

1965

vehicles development of highway and freeway system in Los Angeles

transportation

research

website: cahighway.org

210

1955

1979

City of Los Angeles population area street miles major/secondary roads collector/local roads intersections freeway miles

3,695,000 456 sq. mi. 6,400 mi 1,400 5,000 40,000 160 mi

* line thickness corresponds to daily traffic volume

1986

2003

vehicles freeway traffic

research

website: mobility.tamu.edu/mmp/reports/monitoring_urban_roadways/appendices/PDFs/los_angeles.pdf now: “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 According to The Desert Sun, since the 1960s the number of registered vehicles statewide increased from 9 million to 30 million, 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 highway lanes have expanded by 6 percent. According to the Los Angeles Times, plans are in effect to expand rail lines throughout the state, and with the Los Angeles seaport being the 5th busiest in the world, this rail expansion

would potentially reduce the number of trucks on the highways. The average freight train, with about 280 cars, takes an equivalent 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 traffic flow in Los Angeles is to charge tolls.” But a rail system can be successful if it is paired up with a high-quality public transportation system that is not only fast, but travels throughout the region.

The New York Times states that Los Angeles “mayor [Villaraigosa] has added traffic officers at 38 choked intersections. He has sped up plans to synchronize traffic lights at all of the city’s 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 city’s Red Line subway from downtown to the sea. The extension would cost nearly $5 billion and take about 20 years.

transportation

211

60 minutes+ 60 minutes

50 minutes 40 minutes

30 minutes 20 minutes Hollywood 6 miles

Pasadena 10.2 miles

10 minutes Ontario 38.6 miles

UCLA 15.6 miles

Santa Monica 15.8 miles

Orange County 25.8 miles

LAX 17.8 miles

San Pedro Bay 26.3 miles

vehicles travel times and distances during off-peak hours

transportation

research

website: traffic.tann.net/lartraffic The Road Atlas 2002 now: 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.

212 now 1. The 4-year-long anticipated $112 million construction of an overpass between Oxnard Boulevard and the Ventura Freeway and the addition of 5 new lanes to the bridge will cause one of the worst bottlenecks in North Los Angeles.

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

3. A dramatic increase in mental and physical health problems caused by traffic noise has been noted in Southern California in the past ten years. Problems have been detected in residents who live near older freeways, which lack modern acoustic sound barriers. Current remedies are limited to lowering truck noise through braking alternatives. Long-term planning includes reviewing housing development along freeways.

70 minutes+ 70 minutes 60 minutes 50 minutes 40 minutes Hollywood 6 miles UCLA 15.6 miles

Pasadena 10.2 miles

30 minutes 20 minutes 10 minutes

Ontario 38.6 miles

Santa Monica 15.8 miles

Orange County 25.8 miles

LAX 17.8 miles

San Pedro Bay 26.3 miles

vehicles travel times and distances during peak hours

peak hours 7:30–9:30am, 5:00–8:30pm research

website: traffic.tann.net/lartraffic The Road Atlas 2002 now: 1. Jim Mateja, “Owner’s cost more than just the payment,” Los Angeles Times, April 23, 2003, sec. G.

now 1. In AAA ‘s national study on the cost of operating a vehicle, they concluded that it costs 64.2 cents a mile for gas, oil, and maintenance, and tires, or $6,420 a year for every 10,000 miles of driving. For a full-size SUV, the study concluded it costs 78.64 cents a mile, or $7,864 per year for every 10,000 miles of driving.

transportation

213

to

sy

to glendale n

From downtown Los Angeles, Chavez Ravine/ Echo Park can be made accessible through local roads. Urban housing will provide opportunities for people to live within close proximity to work. Local transportation can provide residents and visitors the convenience and the connective tissue between Chavez Ravine and downtown Los Angeles. Proposed are three possible methods of connection, including the extension of the 2 Glendale Freeway to the 101 Santa Ana Freeway, the extension of North Alameda Street to the site, and the introduction of a modern light-rail transit system linking Metro stations to the site. In effect, this will help reduce traffic congestion in the greater Los Angeles area and alleviate housing shortage.

lm

gle

nd

ale

blv d

ar

5g

en

sta

te

fre

ew

ho

pa

rk

avenue

old

to

ec t

sco

a as

p

ven

ue

we

rth

st s

un

no

pro

po

sa

alv l 1a ara do str

ee

tt a

na

de

ay

set

blv

d

elysian park avenue

101

san

st

ta a

na

ad

free

iu

m

wa

wa

y

y

ay

eew

fr ena

d

asa

1s re

et

ts

ee

t

et s stre vigne

alameda street

ic

hewitt

t ee in

los

ee mp

str

h oa ill s dw tre ay et str ee t

str oly

ho pe

9th

les

t

t

str e

et

t

street

et

ee

ee

ee

tre

str

str

str

et

ma

str

t

6th

tre

ge

fig

ue

4th

5th

ds

an

ro

a

st

3r

propo

sal 1b

p 110

research

website: trafficinfo.lacity.org

to san pedro

et

br

d proposal 1a and 1b extension of 2 Glendale Fwy and North Alameda Street pic o blv

1st stre

4th street

blv

d

6th street

17

th

str

ee

t 7th street

ve la ra nt ce

transportation

nu

e

8th street

214

14th

to San Diego

stre

et

proposal 1a

proposal 1b

The Rampart and Alvarado exits off the 101 Freeway remain the most congested within the site. Currently, Alvarado and Rampart Streets function as through ways for commuters connecting to the 5 Freeway and downtown. The proposed extension of the Glendale Freeway south to the 101 Freeway will greatly alleviate the traffic congestion at the Alvarado and Rampart exits by keeping commuting on freeways. Local congestion will lessen significantly in these residential areas.

Currently, there are no major local vehicular arteries that connect downtown L.A. to the Echo Park/Solano Canyon residential area. Due to their dependency on the 110 0 or 101 Freeways as their only access points, the communities are choked off from a 1/3mile 1/2mile 1 mile 0 transparent open connection with the rest of the city. 100ft

500ft

1000ft

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

areas being alleviated from traffic congestation

to

sy

churches

to glendale

Strategically, Dodger Stadium should be in a location that is more easily accessible to the public, such as downtown Los Angeles. Existing transportation networks and parking structures already provides the necessary access and supporting infrastructure. A significant population of people would be going to the ballgame after working in downtown during the day. Locating the stadium within walking distance from work eliminates the hassle of driving and prevents unnecessary traffic congestions. For the rest of the population who are not familiar with sports, it becomes another everyday after-work social hangout activity with coworkers. The shortened distance from work to the stadium means requiring less effort to attend games, which will induce more people to participate in these sporting events. This will increase the popularity of sport and ticket sales. Perhaps the turnabout will be so effective that the owner of Dodger Stadium, or any sports team, will start making positive profits.

lm

ar

recreation library civic elementary schools

blv d

junior high schools

gl e

nd

ale

high schools

5g

en

sta

te

fre

ew

ho

pa

rk

avenue

old

to

ec et

sco

alv ara

we

rth

st s

ent

ura

p

ue

un

no

to v

a as

ven

do

str e

tt a

na

de

ay

set

blv

d

elysian park avenue

free

m

na

iu

ta a

ad

san

st

101

wa

wa

y

y

projection ay w

str

ts

et

t

ee

t

5th

str

ee

t

et

ee

tre

s stre

str

et

les

str

ee

t

1s

tre

br oa dw

9th

ds

ay hill str stre ee et t

6th

3r

ma in

fig

ue

ro

a

st

re

4th

vigne

et

p

street

0 11

LRT to be parallel to Grand Avenue and Stadium Way

hewitt

10,000

alameda street

weekday riders

na

de

a as

str ee t str ee t

9 minutes

ge

time from one end to the other

e fre

an

3.0 miles

los

distance

1st stre

et

str

ee t

proposal 2 oly mp ic blv modern light-rail transit system d website: trafficinfo.lacity.org/

to san pedro

pic

17

th

6th street

ob

str

ee

research

ho

pe

4th street

lvd

t

av en

ue

7th street

nt ce

14th

to San Diego

stre

et

215

proposal 2 Utilizing the three public transportation systems, the proposal outlines light rail transit that will supplement the Gold Line. This will run along Figueroa Street and connect 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 effectively carry all passengers interested in the entertainment cutlural corridor.

0 0

100ft

500ft

1000ft

1/3mile

1/2mile

1 mile

transportation

ra l

8th street

car and 1 rider (60 mph) car and 5 riders (60 mph)

car and 1 rider (30 mph) car and 5 riders (30 mph)

train rider (30 mph)

moped rider (20 mph)

bicycle rider (15 mph)

horse rider (10 mph)

runner (10 mph)

bicycle rider (10 mph)

walker (4 mph)

0

bicycle rider (4 mph)

swimmer (1.5 mph)

1,000 (kcal/km/person)

1 bus with 7 passengers = 1 auto 1 full bus = 6 autos 1 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 possible from transit use: 00 gallons for each person switching from driving alone; 85 million gallons from a 10% nationwide increase in transit ridership 1 person using mass transit for a year instead of driving to work saves the environment: 9.1 pounds of hydrocarbons 62.5 pounds of carbon monoxide 4.9 pounds of nitrogen oxides

all transportation systems energy cost comparison

transportation

research

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

216

now The city can no longer build highways without inciting significant resistance from the community. The short-term shock and impact of erasing neighborhoods three blocks wide by several miles long outweighs engineers’ and policymakers’ desire for longterm efficiency. Without a comprehensive plan, the state and county can offer expansion and amendments to the current infrastructure in the form of additonal lanes, includ-

ing High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (carpool lanes). From 2003, several proposals to resolve congestion via new highways was introduced only to be defeated by strong grass-roots opposition. The beginning of 2006 saw a resurgence in transportation funding. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed investing $107 billion over the next ten years. $5.6 billion will target regional projects including adding a northbound High Occupancy Vehicle Lane on the 405

Fwy. This plan forecasts a reduction from 580,000 down to 454,000 daily hours– an estimated 22% drop. The comprehensive funding measures has been received with mixed reactions. Orange County welcomes the $320 million targeting the 91 Freeway. In contrast, Los Angeles County hoped partial funding will go toward public mass transit—a long term strategic solution—rather than continuously expand the short term problems of freeway capacity.

freeway (elevated)

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

$90–140m/mile freeway (on grade)

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

$40–60m/mile monorail (elevated)

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

$100m/mile light-rail transit

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

$75–120m/mile

le

1 mi

rapid bus—Mid-City Westside Los Angeles 15 stations 97 vehicles

$180m/mile $

MTA Caltrans

Los Angeles $180 million/mile (construction)

$200m/mile

research

all transportation systems construction cost comparison

subway

transportation

217

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

710 Freeway Plan benefit: save 78,000 hours of driving time sacrifice: 900 structures

101 Freeway Expansion Plan cost: $3.4 billion benefit: save 78,000 hours of driving time sacrifice: 1000 businesses 700 residential / 250 commercial structures 11 schools and churches / 12 medical buildings 8 parks and recreational areas 8 cultural sites

Battery Park City

World Trade Center

Shiodome

Potzdamer Platz

case studies housing

218

Chavez Ravine

Elysian Heights Housing

case studies

downtown Arts District

Kowloon Walled City

Playa Vista

219 case studies housing

case studies housing

Elysian Park Heights

220

Playa Vista

Battery Park City

Shiodome

Potzdamer Platz

World Trade Center

o

n

e

Kowloon Walled City

m

i

l

e

case studies housing

221

%LYSIAN 0ARK ÞACRESÞ

TOTALÞLANDÞ WITHÞOPENÞSPACEÞ

TOTALÞBUILTÞAREA WITHÞUSAGEÞ

% L Y S I A N Þ 0 A R K Þ ( E I G H T S

  ÞSQÞFT Þ ÞÞ ACRES

ÞACRESÞ

  ÞSFÞ

  ÞSQÞFT

ÞPUBLIC ÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

Þ ÞACRES

COSTÞPERÞSQÞFT

Þ ÞACRES

ÞACRESÞ   ÞSFÞ ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL









ÞMILLION

ÞMILLION

ÞMILLION

 

 

 

ÞMILLION

ÞBILLION

ÞBILLION

HOUSINGÞUNITSÞPERÞACREÞ TOTALÞACREAGE







HOUSINGÞUNITSÞPERÞACREÞ EXCLUDINGÞOPENÞSPACE







 

 

 







 ÞSQÞFT

 ÞSQÞFT

 ÞSQÞFT

COSTÞPERÞBUILDING

RESIDENTIALÞCOST

RESIDENTIALÞOCCUPANTS OCCUPANTSÞPERÞUNIT

RESIDENTIALÞSQÞFTÞPERÞUNIT ÞAVERAGE SQÞFTÞPERÞRESIDENT Þ







SQÞFTÞOPENÞSPACEÞPERÞRESIDENT







ÞÞSQÞFTÞPERÞRESIDENTÞ SQÞFTÞOPENÞSPACEÞPERÞRESIDENT







OFFICEÞOCCUPANTSÞÞSTUDENTS

NA

NA

 

SQÞFTÞPERÞOFFICEÞANDÞSTUDENT

NA

NA



 

ÞPARKINGÞFACILITIES

PARKINGÞSPACES AMENITIES

THREEÞSCHOOLS KINDERGARTENSÞANDÞNURSURIES THREEÞCHURCHES COMMUNITYÞHALLÞÞSQÞFT ACTIVITYÞROOMS INDOORÞÞOUTDOORÞAUDITORIUMÞFORÞ COMMERCIALÞSECTIONÞORÞTRADINGÞCENTER

ÞBASEDÞONÞBUILTÞSQUAREÞFOOTAGE

ÞTOÞCOMPENSATEÞINHABITANTS

  ÞSQÞFT

  ÞSFÞ

 ÞACRES

ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

ÞBILLIONÞ



NUMBERÞOFÞHOUSINGÞUNITS

case studies housing

  ÞSQÞFT

ÞPUBLIC ÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL



TOTALÞNUMBERÞOFÞBUILDINGS

222

" A T T E R Y Þ 0 A R K Þ # I T Y

ÞACRESÞ   ÞSFÞ

ÞBILLIONÞ

ÞÞMILLIONÞ

TOTALÞCOST

0 L A Y A Þ 6 I S T A

COMMUNITYÞCENTER PUBLICÞLIBRARY ELEMENTARYÞSCHOOL FIREÞSTATION

ÞMUSEUMS MARINA CINEMA LIBRARY ÞCHURCH ÞSYNAGOGUE COMMUNITYÞCENTER ÞMAGNETÞHIGHÞSCHOOL FITNESSÞCENTER

UNDERGRO

T

3 H I O D O M E

0 O T Z D A M E R Þ 0 L A T Z

ÞACRESÞ   ÞSQÞFT

  ÞSFÞ ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

 ÞACRES

ÞBILLIONÞ

7 O R L D Þ 4 R A D E Þ # E N T E R

ÞACRESÞ   ÞSFÞ

ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

ÞACRESÞ

  ÞSQÞFT

  ÞSFÞ

 ÞSQÞFT

Þ ÞACRES

ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

Þ ÞACRES

ÞACRESÞ  ÞSQÞFT

  ÞSFÞ

ÞPUBLIC ÞÞRETAIL ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

 ÞACRES

ÞBILLION

ÞBILLIONÞ

ÞBILLIONÞ

+ O W L O O N Þ 7 A L L E D Þ # I T Y

















ÞMILLION

ÞMILLION

ÞBILLION

ÞMILLION

 

 



 

ÞMILLION

ÞMILLION



ÞBILLION







 







 

 

 



 









 ÞSQÞFT

ÞSQÞFT



ÞSQÞFT

























 

 

 

NA







NA

 

 

 



UNDERGROUNDÞSHOPPINGÞMALLS CINEMAS RESTAURANTS TRAINÞMUSEUM HOTELS HALLS

ÞCINEMAÞSCREENS Þ)-!8ÞSCREENS HOTELS SHOPS &ILMHAUSÞ-USEUM

ÞCHAPELS  STOREÞMALL ÞELEVATORS  ROOMÞHOTEL EXHIBITIONÞPAVILIONS

ÞBUSINESSES ÞRESTAURANTSÞANDÞSHOPS ÞDENTISTS ÞDOCTORS ÞTEMPLES ÞCHURCH ÞKINDERGARTEN ÞSCHOOL ÞGAMBLINGÞHALLS ÞOPIUMÞDENS ÞHEROINÞDENS ÞSTRIPÞJOINTS ÞBROTHELS ÞMAHJONGÞPARLORS ÞDOG MEATÞSTANDS ÞPORNÞCINEMAS

ÞENTRANCES

case studies housing

223

With urban sprawl covering vast acres, Los Angeles’ attempts to produce mixed-use, large-scale housing projects have been rare and often futile. This chapter focuses on seven case studies of large-scale building projects 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 allowed clear assessment of their success or failure as communities. Same scale comparisons of each precedent to either 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 the cultural corridor, the surrounding communities, and their controversial past, the case studies attempted to contribute 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 mass and program, all of the projects sought to continue the scale and density of their surrounding built urban environments, but varied in their preservation of open space. Both Los Angeles projects (Elysian Park Heights and Playa Vista) contain mostly low-rise residential units with minimal commercial or office space. New York City’s Battery Park City and Tokyo’s Shiodome–both dense high-rise projects–and Berlin’s mid-rise Potzdamer Platz have evenly distributed residential, commercial, and retail program. The master plan for each project (except Kowloon Walled City) called for integration into existing infrastructure 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 offering valuable open space to the surrounding communities. Most of these projects followed a singuler master plan but were developed by multiple architects. This allowed for cohesive plans, that avoided the potential for homogeneity in design. Each master plan solved the problem of open space by considering the surrounding urban context. Both Playa Vista and Battery Park City–though radically different in scale, mass, and density–reserved a significant amount of public/open space. The design for Potzdamer Platz and Shiodome, on the other hand, relied on having large public parks nearby. Because of its extreme density, the residents of Kowloon Walled City found open space in the landscape of the roof.

case studies housing

Each of the seven case studies foregrounds design opportunities for bringing a residential community to the downtown Arts District and Chavez Ravine. The Elysian Park Heights and Playa Vista models are representative of a distinctly Los Angeles, low-rise, low-density approach to urban residential development. If grafted onto such a geographically isolated site such as Chavez Ravine, these heavily residential communities would be stranded from urban amenities and in essence become “gated communities.” The World Trade Center model of high-density, high-rise office space can be found on Bunker Hill, and would be an interesting complement for the Arts District site, and a complex addition for Chavez Ravine due to its isolation and singularity of program. The increase in commuters to either site would tax an already saturated infrastructure. These two unacceptable extremes suggest a mixed-use solution. Potzdamer Platz, Battery Park City, and to some extent Shiodome, each with varying degrees of hybridity, would pose as better prototypes. Chavez Ravine ideally demands a self-catalytic community, with its strong connections to Chinatown, the cultural corridor, Elysian Park, Echo Park, and downtown.

224

total project cost: $800 million total land area: 315 acres or 13,721,400 sq. ft. total building area: 4,802,920 sq. ft. total exterior space area: 80 acres or 3,484,800 sq. ft. max height of buildings: 160 ft. floors per building: 5 floors for lowrises, 13 floors for highrises F.A.R. : 0.35 population residents: 17,000 workers: n/a students: n/a visitors: n/a 97% residential total area: 4,658,832 sq. ft. average unit size: 1,300 sq. ft. number of units: 3,364 0% commercial total area: 0 sq. ft. 0% retail total area: 0 sq. ft. 3% public/parks & plazas total area: 144,088 sq. ft. civic: n/a cultural: n/a religious: n/a educational: n/a public infrastructure parking: yes railway: no bus: yes

Los Angeles, California 1949-1952 Neutra and Alexander

Elysian Park Heights (EPH) is the name given to the unbuilt public housing project designed by Richard Neutra and Robert Alexander for Chavez Ravine. Started in 1949 in response to the postwar Federal Housing Act, EPH was to house 3,300 of the 10,000 total units slated for Los Angeles. Consisting of primarily one- and two-story apartment buildings and thirteen-story high-rise towers, EPH was to be a completely self-sufficient community consisting of schools, services, and businesses. Neutra and Alexander situated the buildings so as to optimize the views of Elysian Park to the north and downtown to the south. The lower apartments were intended to be long buildings sited with ample green space between them—much like the extant Village Green in Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles. Long avenues with street parking and parking lots ran along the valley floors. The project, intended for the 1,100 families already living in Chavez Ravine and 3,200 additional families in a rapidly expanding Los Angeles, was immediately controversial. Initially, the forced eviction of the existing tightly knit community posed legal and ethical problems for the Housing Authority. Moreover, mired in the anti-Communist craze of the early 1950s, the public housing project fell into political disrepute after some members of the Los Angeles Housing Authority were alleged to be Communists. With little support from the City of Los Angeles, the federal government sold the empty 315 acres back to the city, who four years later sold it to Walter O’Malley of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Elysian Park Heights

Hines, Thomas S. Richard Neutra and the Search for Modern Architecture. University of California Press, 1994. Cuff, Dana. The Provisional City. MIT Press, 2001.

case studies housing

225

total project cost: $2.7 billion total 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: 2-5 F.A.R. : 0.66 population residents: 13,500 workers: n/a 92% residential total area: 4,310,200 sq. ft. average unit size: 1,658 sq. ft. number of units: 2600 3% commercial total area: 140,550 sq. ft. office: n/a production/manufacturing: n/a 3% retail total area: 140,550 sq. ft. hotel: n/a entertainment: n/a 2% public / parks & plazas total area: 93,700 sq. ft. civic institution: n/a cultural institution: n/a educational: n/a infrastructure parking: 3,900 cars rail: no bus: yes

Playa Vista, California 1989–present Duany Plater-Zyberk, Ricardo Legorreta Laurie Olin Moore Ruble Yudell Moule and Polyzoides

Playa Vista West website:

case studies housing

wlaxmdrchamber.com/history/pv.html

226

Playa Vista is bordered by Marina del Rey to the north, the communities of Westchester and Playa del Rey to the south, the 405 to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Initially proposed as a 10,000 plus unit village on Howard Hughes’s 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 development. Its developers claim that these luxury single family homes are in the style of 1940s West Los Angeles and Mediterranean architectures, and that new condominiums were influenced by classical European, Spanish Colonial, Art Deco, and Frank Lloyd Wright designs. The development, situated along the Ballona Creek wetlands two miles from the shore, lies just west of an artificial lake. Criticism has arisen from concerned environmentalists regarding the site’s exposure to methane. According to the Chamber of Commerce, “Playa Vista was selected by President Bill Clinton as one of five P.A.T.H. (Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing) communities in the United States for its commitment to sustainable development under the leadership of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America program. Playa Vista recently received a coveted Ahwahnee Award for recognition as a model ‘smart growth’ project.”

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 floors F.A.R. : 4.1 population residents: 12,700 workers: 40,000 students: 2,300 visitors: 1,500 51% residential total area: 8,468,725.4 sq. ft. average unit size: 1,366 sq. ft. number of units: 6,200 36% commercial total area: 5,977,923.8 sq. ft. office: n/a production/manufacturing: n/a 5% retail total area: 830,267.2 sq. ft. hotel: 1,070,000 sq. ft. entertainment: n/a 8% public / parks & plazas total area: 1,328,427.5 sq. ft. civic institution: n/a cultural institution: 29,300 sq. ft. religious: n/a educational: 717,544 sq. ft. infrastructure parking: 8 facilities rail: yes bus: yes boat: yes

New York, New York 1968–1980 Charles Moore Davis, Brody and Associates Polshek and Partners Conklin Rossant Mitchell/Giurgola Bond Ryder James Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer

Battery Park City

Begun in 1968 using landfill generated by the excavations for the World Trade Center, Battery Park City adds ninetytwo acres to the tip of lower Manhattan. Though the planning went through various iterations, in its final form the street grid and visual corridors of the financial district are extended to the water’s edge. Four towers housing corporate headquarters sit in the middle of the site, across from the former World Trade Center site. To the north and south 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 site is left open as public space, with sculpture gardens and monuments dispersed throughout. The development’s success may be directly related to its restricted program and elite users. Housing in Battery Park City consists solely of luxury units. The office spaces are dominated by large financial institutions and the high school accepts only the brightest of the city’s students. This restriction of the public conflicts with the success of the development in terms of its public financing. In order to offset criticism, the higher revenues from the development are routed to the revitalization of low and middle-income housing in other parts of the city. This, however, does not address 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 returned to grade level and made an extension of Manhattan´s grid (as had been done in all earlier landfill expansions of lower Manhattan). This yielded conventional development blocks, which, in turn, yielded conventional building forms. Each block could be parceled out to different developers at different times, according to market demand. The commercial center was moved from the southern end of the site up to the middle, tying it to the former World Trade Center site.

websites: bpcparks.org/bpcp/history/history.php batteryparkcityonline.com en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_Park_City

case studies housing

227

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 ft floors per building: maximum 56 floors F.A.R. : 5.16 population residents: 6,000 workers/students: 60,000 visitors: n/a 14% residential total area: 2,411,500 sq. ft. average unit size: 1,240 sq. ft. number of units: 1940 units 80% commercial total area: 13,780,000 sq. ft. office: n/a 2% retail total area: 344,500 sq. ft. hotel: 134,733 sq. ft. (0.8%) 4% public / parks & plazas total area: 689,000 sq. ft. civic institution: n/a cultural institution: n/a religious: n/a educational:n/a infrastructure parking: 1,540 rail: yes bus:yes boat: no

Tokyo, Japan 1995 - current Richard Rogers John Nouvel Kevin Roche Jon Jerde Kajima Design Nihon Sekkei Nikken Sekkei Takenaka Construction

Located on the southern half of central Tokyo, Shiodome is currently going through a major transformation. Encompassing 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 dates back to 1990. In 1997, when land owned by the former Japanese National Railways was auctioned off, major developments began in the area. With three railway stations nearby and a community-oriented management of the district, 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 residential spaces and house Japan’s largest advertising agency, Dentsu; broadcasting station Nippon Television Network; Kyoto News; and many other big corporate offices. Considering the infrastructure, company headquaters, residents, and hotels, it is highly likely that this area will host an influx of people, especially from nearby business centers such as Marunouchi and Otemachi, as well as a line of government offices in Kasumigaseki. Experts also predict that the success of Shiodome will also contribute to the vitalization of pehripheral areas including Shinbashi and Hamamatsucho, where small restaurants and bars are concentrated.

Shiodome

case studies housing

websites: metropolis.japantoday.com/tokyo/471/feature.asp Yuro Nishikawa, “Redevelopment of Shiodome, ” jrtr.net/jrtr35/f48_nis.html

228

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 acres Sony: 6 acres total 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: 3,300 workers/students: 6,700 visitors: 70,000/day weekdays; 100,000/day weekends = 500,000/week 20% residential total area: 980,000 sq. ft. average unit size: 890 sq. ft. number of units: 1100 units 57% commercial total area: 2,793,000 sq. ft. office: n/a 18% retail total area: 882,000 sq. ft. hotel: 8% entertainment: 5% 5% public / parks & plazas total area: 245,000 sq. ft. civic institution: n/a cultural institution: n/a educational: n/a infrastructure parking: 3,400 underground parking spaces rail: yes bus: yes

Berlin, Germany 1992 - 2000 Piano/Kohlbecker Buro Kollhoff Lauber + Wohr Rafael Moneo Richard Rogers Arata Isozaki Murphy/Jahn

Potzdamer Platz

Once the busiest transportation nexus of a growing modern metropolis, Potzdamer Platz became disconnected from the rest of Berlin with the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Potzdamer Platz effectively became a fringe condition in a dissected city. Redevelopment effort began in 1989 when the Berlin wall fell. Though predominantly owned by corporate interests, the area was envisioned as a mixed-use development. Adjacent to the site is the Kulturforum which includes Scharoun’s Philharmonie and Biblioteque. A civic master plan competition was held in 1991. Heinz Hilmer 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 one of 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 with a design that related to the Hilmer/Sattler plan in general scale and massing but departed in several significant ways. 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 the buildings are 4-5 stories, several near-skyscrapers pierce the sky at 20+ stories. Ground floors were required to be semi-permeable, allowing public movement across the site. Six international architects were chosen to develop 19 buildings according to the guidelines established in the Piano/Kohlbecker plan. Ten new streets were constructed along with underground space for parking, delivery, storage and refuse collection. The site is served by regional rail, urban rail and bus.

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

case studies housing

229

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 floors F.A.R. : 15.6 population residents: none workers/students: 50,000 workers visitors: 72.8 million per year = 1,400,000 per week 0% residential total area: 0 sq.ft. average unit size: 0 sq. ft. number of units: 0 units 80% commercial total area: 10,000,000 sq. ft. office: 10,000,000 sq. ft. production/manufacturing: n/a 13% retail total area: 1,650,000 sq. ft. hotel: 350,000 sq. ft. entertainment: n/a services: 200,000 sq. ft. 7% public / parks & plazas total area: 875,000 sq. f.t civic institution: n/a cultural institution: n/a educational: n/a infrastructure parking: 2000 rail:yes bus: yes boat: yes

New York, New York 1966-1977 destroyed in 2001 Minoru Yamasaki

World Trade Center

Before its destruction on September 11, 2001 by terrorist attacks, New York’s World Trade Center consisted of two 110-story office towers, which contain 9 million square feet of office space. The entire complex attempted to bring together public and private enterprise engaged in international commerce by combining the towers with additional 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 truss joists, 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 connections—all with a budget of 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 office space per floor—almost an acre. Yamasaki’s choice to use a combination of express and local elevator banks allowed for the use of approximately 75 percent of the total floor area for occupancy; had a conventional elevator arrangement been adopted, only approximately 50 percent would have been available. The open plaza allows one to get a sense of the scale of the towers upon approach.

case studies housing

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

230

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 floors F.A.R.: 12 population residents/ workers: 33,000 41% residential total area: 1,393,048.8 sq. ft. average unit size: 160 sq. ft. number of units: 8,494 22% commercial total area: 747,489.6 sq. ft. production/manufacturing: n/a 22% retail total area: 747,489.6 sq. ft. entertainment: n/a services: n/a 15% public / parks & plazas (rooftop) total area: 509,652 sq. ft. civic: n/a cultural: n/a religious: n/a educational: n/a infrastructure parking: no rail: no bus: yes

Hong Kong, China 1960s -1980s destroyed in 1993

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 Kowloon society. The ambigious legal treatise protected the city’s domain by serving no one specific government and enabling a comprehensive program of illegal and marginalized business to exist. Its ability to grow organically-structured by a daily tactical response to an ever changing evironment has created a rich, inaccessible quilt of the human capacity to adapt and survive. Every type of social and retail enterprise exist to offer its residents a complementary level 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 on so little land. The population of 50,000 was equivalent to a density ratio of 1.9 million residents per one square kilometer. Pipes and other service conduits run everywhere, exposed and vulnerable. Walls and partitions suddenly materialize to address immediate adjacent needs. As a self sustaining enterprise, Kowloon Walled City garnered a respectable niche in modern Chinese history. In the late 1980s, the Hong Kong government reluctantly recognized the reality of the Walled City as a critical demographic and cultural mass and allowed the police to patrol the city and offer a minimum semblence of security and connection with the governance outside the city’s boundaries.

Kowloon Walled City

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

websites: flex.co.jp/kowloon/ twenty4.co.uk/on-line/issue001/project02/KWC/ wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City ritklara.com/emerging/coexisting.html1

case studies housing

231

case studies stadium

232

case studies: stadiums

case studies stadium

233

Oriole Park at Camden Yards

Jacobs Field

1992 capacity: 48,262 cost: $100 million

1994 capacity: 43,345 cost: $175 million

100%

52%

Coors Field

Minute Maid Park

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

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

22%

19.6%

Baltimore, Maryland

Denver, Colorado

78%

Cleveland, Ohio

48%

Houston, Texas

12.5% 67.9%

stadium comparison websites: ballparksofbaseball.com ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm baltimore.orioles.mlb.com cleveland.indians.mlb.com colorado.rockies.mlb.com houston.astros.mlb.com

case studies stadium

Nostalgia pervades a day at the ballpark as families spend several hours munching 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 special family activity sections. As cities grow and demographics diversify, stadium designs adapt to include more complex programs to attract a wider range of patrons. In rekindling the passion for the game, introducing it to a new generation, or reintroducing it to an audience long absent, the stadiums and the teams that inhabit them generate community amongst a stratified populace.

234

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 events—hosting football and baseball games or transitioning into concert venues. However, in a desire to be everything for everyone, the stadiums succumbed to mediocrity, providing venues that are less intimate and involved than their predecessors. These stadiums often have entire sections empty and deflate the excitement of the game.

private capital

levied tax revenue

low interest loans

naming rights

district funding

project generated redevelopment funds

Viewing stadiums as economic linchpins, many baseball teams or their new owners have expressed a desire for new stadiums. City planners and officials entertain their demands in hopes of revitalizing their inner cities. Over the past ten years, both developers and cities have contributed more capital towards sporting venues, currently spending on average 30% more than ten years prior. Examples such as Jacobs Field in Cleveland and Coors Field in Denver have shown cities and investors the potential 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 physically and functionally separate from the life of Los Angeles. Completed in 1962, Dodger Stadium with a seating capacity of 56,000 is much larger than newly constructed ballparks that average 42,000 seats. With a per game attendance of only 38,558 people, 31% of the stadium remains empty at game time. Though the Dodgers maintain a large fanbase, its geographic location atop Chavez Ravine surrounded by freeways severs this sporting venue from its fans below. Also, the surrounding parking lot buffers the stadium and further alienates visitors and locals alike. In

SBC Park

Comerica Park

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

2000 capacity: 40,000 cost: $300 million

56.8%

62%

San Francisco, California

4%

Detroit, Michigan

39.2%

38%

PETCO Park

Dodger Stadium

2004 capacity: 46,000 cost: $456.8 million

1962 capacity: 56,000 cost: $23 million

San Diego, California

33.7%

33.7%

4.5%

Los Angeles, California

49.2%

95%

5%

stadium comparison websites: ballparksofbaseball.com ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm sf.giants.mlb.com detroit.tigers.mlb.com sandiego.padres.mlb.com losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com

an era where stadiums have been diversifying their program and packing facilities with amenities to attract families, corporate sponsors, and a new audience, Dodger Stadium’s paltry offerings leave little to bring in patrons or retain attendants after game’s end. Moving Dodger Stadium into the downtown area can benefit both the baseball team and the surrounding community. The stadium can utilize existing infrastructure, including public transportation systems and shared parking facilities to facilitate large groups of people. Likewise, a new stadium catalyzes urban redevelopment by attracting new businesses or drumming up new clientele for pre-existing businesses. case studies stadium

235

85,000

85,000

80,000 75,000 75,000

70,000

65,000

62,500

62,500

60,000 56,000 55,000 50,381 50,000

48,262 46,000

45,000 45,000

43,345 40,000

40,000

40,950

41,256

41,059

40,000

37,500 35,000

30,000

30,000

30,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

18,000

20,000

16,500

16,000

15,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

3,800

3,800

stadium parking trends websites: ballparksofbaseball.com ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm baltimore.orioles.mlb.com cleveland.indians.mlb.com colorado.rockies.mlb.com houston.astros.mlb.com

case studies stadium

Dodger Stadium

236

websites: sf.giants.mlb.com detroit.tigers.mlb.com sandiego.padres.mlb.com losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com

Stadium City

Dodger Stadium

PETCO Park

SBC Park

Minute Maid Park

Comerica Park

Coors Field

Jacobs Field

Oriole Park at Camden Yards

0

Sports District Site gains: -adjacent to freeway -links entertainment center with central 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 adjacent districts -possible restored residential component losses: -re-routes Olive Street -reduces potential parking spaces

Arts District Site gains: -adjacent to Union Station and freeways -adjacent to Los Angeles River -revitalization of area -civic center adjacent losses: -farthest from any existing downtown economic centers

metro bus line metro train stop 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

stadium relocation candidate sites, Los Angeles

Chavez Pass

Flower District Site gains: -avoids major roads -revitalization of area loss: -possible isolation east of project

L.A. Live/Elysian Housing case studies stadium

237

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 Yi Mun Ho Yi YoonKyoung Yi Christopher Waterman Richard Weinstein

end

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

UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Faculty and Visiting Critics, 1998-2006 Mark Mack Marta Malé Thom Mayne Rose Mendez Murray Miline Farshid, Moussavi, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2001 Glen Murcutt, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2000 Barton Myers Tim Murphy Enrique Norten, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2003 Jason Payne René Peralta Barton Phelps Martin Paull Wolf Prix, S. Charles Lee Chair, 1999 George Rand Hani Rashid, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2003 Ben Refuerzo Dagmar Richter Heather Roberge Michaele Saee Richard Schoen Roger Sherman Paulette Singley Robert E. Somol Michael Speaks Randolph Stout Carlos Tejeda Kostas Terzidis Bernard Tschumi, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2000 Billie Tsien, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2001 Anthony Vidler Richard Weinstein Buzz Yudel Alejandro Zaera Polo, S. Charles Lee Visiting Professor, 2001 Andrew Zago

239

end

Sylvia Lavin, Chair Hadley Soutter Arnold Peter Arnold Ann Bergren Ben van Berkel, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2002 Aaron Betsky, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002 Johan Bettum Petra Blaisse, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2004 Caroline Bos, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2002 Bernard Cache Preston Scott Cohen, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002 John Cordic Dana Cuff Julia Czerniak Kevin Daly Julie Eizenberg Neil Denari David Erdman Diane Favro Eva Forgacs Michelle Fornabai Helene Furján Robert Garlipp Chris Genik Bruce Gibbons Joseph Giovannini Marcelyn Gow Zaha Hadid, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 1998 Thomas S. Hines Craig Hodgetts Randolph Jefferson Charles Jencks Sharon Johnston Victor Jones Wes Jones Ulrika Karlsson Jeff Kipnis, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002 Amy Kulper Jurg Lang Clover Lee Mark Lee Thomas Levin Robin Liggett Mark Linder Alan Locke Greg Lynn

© 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 90095 310.825.7857 THE UCLA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN PURSUES ISSUES CONFRONTING CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM THROUGH FOUR DIFFERENT DEGREE PROGRAMS OFFERING TWO PROFESSIONAL DEGREES (THE MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE I AND II) AS WELL AS THE M.A. AND PH.D IN ARCHITECTURE. OUR PRIMARY FOCUS ON ADVANCED DESIGN IS ACCOMPANIED BY CONCENTRATIONS IN TECHNOLOGY AND CRITICAL STUDIES OF ARCHITECTURAL CULTURE.

end

UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design 1317 Perloff Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095 T: 310.825.7857 F: 310.825.8959 www.aud.ucla.edu

240

end

L.A. NOW Volume Three and Volume Four A Case for Downtown Living Five Proposals UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

L.A. NOW