Aaron on April 23, 2008, at 12:30AM – #1

Eric,

I agree about needing to do something a bit more organized about the busses routing through Downtown. But one thing that Metro will have to do, which they probably aren't keen to do, is to bring back the transfer. That works in New York or San Francisco because in those cities, a ticket is basically a 2-hour unlimited ride pass and you can hop onto the subway/Muni. But in a city like LA, where monthly passes probably don't penetrate (to use the marketing term) as much as they would in more transit-oriented cities, asking people to pay a second fare will probably be a deterrent, especially if you're asking people to take a bus from, say, the Toy District, only to pay to transfer to the LRT or streetcar.

Given that LA can't seem to coordinate with its big toe, let alone other agencies, I don't feel confident about that happening. The City/County "rivalry" is extremely harmful to the Southland, not to mention the fact that Metro and the Supervisors seem to have an acrimonious relationship, despite the fact that the Country has such large control over Metro.

I absolutely agree with your premise. I just worry that we won't be able to get people to make the requisite changes to make it work.

John Crandell on April 23, 2008, at 01:28AM – #2

This project, as constrained as it is - "tucked away" among government buildings, has become the typical L.A. pig in a poke. If she had enough gumption, Supervisor Molina would have nailed the hammer on the head, so to speak, if she had said let's call the whole deal off. Instead, we're going to save face with a peremptory warning about nice is nice, but Pershing Square II will have to suffice.

Take a good look at the last two of Eric's pics of the model. Of course there's no getting around those parking ramps (just like Pershing). So we'll cover them over, plant hedges and hence, that portion of the mall becomes more isolated from the street. What about those touted "open views?"

Step back a minute: the surrounding function of ground floor government uses (weekend/evening shutdown) remains the same. As Mr. Kennedy says, it'll end up being another Pershing. The foremost issue here is architectural programming remaining static, that no one in county government will grab the bull by the horns. And in this light, I'd say spend the money east of Hill Street. Forget the portion west of Hill. Let that be resolved whenever the two county buildings are torn down.

The Grand Avenue Committee ought to have included the county buildings in the original competition. And if he'd been invited to that party, think of the urban design that Gehry might have produced, instead of the re-landscaped train wreck that lies ahead. Baseline: $55 million. The wondrous Pershing In A Poke cost only $12 million and the northeast corner serves as a pissoir. Police tape rules the day.

Bert Green on April 23, 2008, at 10:00AM – #3

"But in a city like LA, where monthly passes probably don't penetrate (to use the marketing term) as much as they would in more transit-oriented cities, asking people to pay a second fare will probably be a deterrent"

Not true. The vast majority of riders on LACMTA are pass holders. In SF and NYC the proportion of day riders is actually higher, because of visitors and tourists who are not brainwashed to believe that you must have a car to visit those cities. Ride the system regularly, and you will see that most people getting on the MTA buses and trains do not pay the fare upon entering.

This park design fails to make good use of the Metro Red Line entrance on Hill Street (in the middle of the block), losing an opportunity to make the park a fully transit oriented place.

Tim on April 23, 2008, at 10:52AM – #4

"But in a city like LA, where monthly passes probably don't penetrate (to use the marketing term) as much as they would in more transit-oriented cities, asking people to pay a second fare will probably be a deterrent"

Absolutely. Just had a friend come down from Pasadena and we went to Langer's for lunch. He said he thought of taking the gold line to the red line until he realized that it would cost him 4 fares there and back. Instead he drove and parked in Langers lot, where they offer free validated parking.

Once you board the rail system, your ticket should take you anywhere the trains go.

Bert Green on April 23, 2008, at 01:23PM – #6

The multiple fare system is designed to create a disincentive to pay as you go, and to steer people to the day pass, or other longer passes.

Once the fare gates get installed on the rail system they will probably switch to a single fare for each trip.

David on April 23, 2008, at 02:06PM – #7

wheres the green!!! there is way to much concrete. what would be cool would be to expand the water fountain as a starting point for a stream winding its way down by gravity from the top to the bottom, having benches, and trees and areas to sit and enjoy the sights, sounds, and our gorgeous weather.

Bert Green on April 23, 2008, at 02:35PM – #9

There us a lot of green in all the plans. It's hard to see it with the type of models that they are using, but the aerial views show it best. What I like about the plans is that there is a lot of both green space and programmable areas. It's a good balance.

Jon on April 23, 2008, at 02:44PM – #10

This park will never be at its best until the two hideous government buildings are removed, the County Hall of Admin and the Courthouse.

Another incredible idea that I wish I heard more about and maybe has been mentioned on this blog is to place a park over the 101 freeway between the Cathedral and the new high school by covering the freeway. What an awesome idea that is and maybe there is a way to get private money involved as well. Covering a freeway with a park has been done successfully before such as in La Canada Flintridge over the 210 freeway.

Shawn on April 23, 2008, at 06:26PM – #12

I think that Metro prefers that the regional connector be at-grade from the bottom of Bunker Hill continuing down 2nd street so I think that's what we're going to get.

Dan in LA on April 23, 2008, at 09:16PM – #13

Jon said... "Covering a freeway with a park has been done successfully before such as in La Canada Flintridge over the 210 freeway."

Altho I absolutely love this idea, in the 1970s the construction of the 210 freeway was held up in the senate by Senator Frank Lanterman until the plan included a plan to go underground to keep from tearing down his family church, the church of the lighted window. Our state/county/city can hardly afford to pay attention, I can't imagine them being willing to pay for that.

Wad on April 23, 2008, at 11:37PM – #14

Metro still has not decided on what path the Regional Connector would take or whether it will be grade separated. It's too early to say anything.

Metro itself would be more inclined to prefer an underground option. The connector is needed because of the bottleneck that will be created at 7th Street/Metro Center, and Metro has to model for maximum train traffic, which would be at frequencies of 60-90 seconds. Even at existing frequencies and ridership levels on the Blue Line without Expo running yet, there needs to be grade separations on the above-ground parts.

The study does include a few straw-men alternatives, solutions that have no chance of being picked but need to be added for baseline comparisons. Think about the BRT options. The only plausible alternatives are going to be the ones that allow for the hookup of the Gold lines to the Blue and Expo Line.

Fred on April 28, 2008, at 10:53PM – #15

What are the plans for Pershing Square after this buiding is up and running. Pershing Square should be a marketing tool now for this structure. The park has a fat bank account why isn't it being used to creat programing to bring people into downtown?