Tim on March 12, 2009, at 11:54AM – #1

Mostly like it. Wish they could do away with the parking ramps on the west side of Hill Street. Parking ramps at the top of Grand and on the east side of Hill Street are to the sides of the park. The parking ramps on the west side of Hill are in the middle of the park and cut the park in half.

But since they are not going to move those ramps, I might as well keep dreaming. Wouldn't it be great to get rid of the County Courthouse and Hall of records. Sit in the park, look around, and see the Music Center, the Cathedral, City Hall. Something about the juxtoposition of art, religion and politics seems really cool. Oh well, enough dreaming.

ubrayj02 on March 12, 2009, at 12:12PM – #3

The stretch adjacent City Hall makes sense - a large open field with a rim of trees.

The staircase at the Spring St. crossing is a failure, as is the massive cement walkway. What, exactly will take place here in the noon-day sun? It looks like a section of freeway.

Above that, the massive water fountain behind two parking garage ramps ... WTF? This isn't a continuous park at all once you cross Broadway. The crossing should try and open up, as much as possible, the interstitial space between the court house and the hall of records. This design continues the jungle-like atmosphere that currently exists when you walk into this space. How about a two wide, open, walkways with a place that calls people towards it where the Starbucks exists now? The baffling of pedestrians with multiple paths into darkly shaded , planter-box lined, paths makes the whole place feel insecure and foreboding.

Westsidelife on March 12, 2009, at 01:11PM – #5

The previous design had the parking ramps nowhere to be found. What was the reason for putting them back in?

David Kennedy on March 12, 2009, at 01:47PM – #6

I agree with Mr. Hawthorne's assessment. The park doesn't have a strong aesthetic identity. The notion the space will be animated by performances indicates this very weakness. A good park should be an attractive location on its own merits. What I'm looking for in a park is somewhere to hang out, have a picnic and let the kids (or dog) run around. Despite its size, I get no sense that this space has these kinds of simple ambitions. My hunch is the place will attract a crowd periodically, but languish the rest of the time because it isn't a lovely place.

Also, why does a performance venue need to be part of the design at all? Ain't there plenty of these at the Music Center with the various stages, including Disney Hall? The raison d'etre of the park should be a relaxing place for local residents to kick back.

Oh yeah, definitely blow-up the adjacent court house and administrative building. Total eye-sores. Alas, that will be the task of future generations.

timothy Quinn on March 12, 2009, at 01:48PM – #7

"The previous design had the parking ramps nowhere to be found. What was the reason for putting them back in?"

Analysis showed it would cost $13 million to move the ramps. Too much considering the whole budget is $50 million.

It is a tragedy, but an unavoidable one. Oh wait, maybe there is stimulus money to be had . . .

sarah bennett on March 12, 2009, at 01:56PM – #8

I'm disappointed that despite stating their attempt to bridge the cultural and political centers of the city, the design itself is a statement of bureaucratic overload. Everything is rigid and concrete. Where is the influence of the free-flow of art or the incorporation of the cultural community's message?

Steve Marks on March 12, 2009, at 02:24PM – #9

Waaay too much concrete. Not nearly enough grass, trees, and "green stuff". And I agree that the performance space is unnecessary and a poor use of space. How about simple jogging paths, benches, and loads of trees?

Westsidelife on March 12, 2009, at 02:33PM – #10

Timothy Quinn: My bad; the parking ramps were always there. They were just camouflaged with a vine trellis of some sort. Still, I'd rather have that than exposed parking ramps. Why not camp them and build more park space over them?

Westsidelife on March 12, 2009, at 02:47PM – #11

All of you guys have valid points, but I think some of you are forgetting that this is meant to be a civic space. Thus, it'll be less like an urban forest and more plaza-like. I do agree, however, with the consensual sentiment that the current design isn't very viable and that it lacks the "simple ambitions" that David Kennedy is talking about.

Perhaps talks of demolishing the surrounding civic structures (which insulate the park and limit its accessibility) and subsequently providing for more green space will bear more relevance once more money comes our way.

Joel on March 12, 2009, at 04:45PM – #12

"All of you guys have valid points, but I think some of you are forgetting that this is meant to be a civic space."

It won't be a park or a civic space unless people use it. I predict this will be nearly as dead as the current colletion of plazas.

JDRCRASH on March 13, 2009, at 01:48AM – #14

Westsidelife, I thought you and everyone else at SSP wanted it to be lush and green with less of a plaza setting?

John Crandell on March 13, 2009, at 02:10AM – #15

As questions continue regards a new federal courthouse, the function or inner working of the O.J. Courthouse remains a rancid mess. Of course, the building is an urban design wonder, as are the two large county buildings west of Hill Street. Then there is the county law library, whose function could easily be incorporated into a larger, multi-use structure. The only desirable element in the whole ensemble is Neutra's hall of records.

Use the money to concentrate on improving everything east of Hill Street. All of those sorry structures need to be replaced with blocks that are sensitive to the ground plane. Instead of landscape design, how about urban artistry instead?

Put this project on hold and wait till Related Companies throws in the towel. Then have Frank do up something for the ages, give us a basic reprograming of the entire area bounded by Spring, Second, Grand and Temple. Remember, the Times block is up for sale...

If the current 55 million dollar effort goes forward, it will cast the civic center into stasis for many decades to come. Basic issues are not being grappled with. We need a symbolic rebirth in this area.

mac on March 13, 2009, at 12:33PM – #17

I agree with the sentiment that there's too much concrete. It might look appealingly sparce and modern now but concrete cracks and buckles and gets ugly over time (look at Pershing Square). More grass, please! Or at least something more sustainable and organic.

ubrayj02 on March 13, 2009, at 01:37PM – #18

I think the criticisms about this not needing to be a civic space are off the mark.

During the massive "La Gran Marcha" protests against anti-immigration bills in the House of Representatives a few years ago, there was a need for a Washington Monument-style space for large crowds to hold their rallies, and for photographers and journalists to get their defining photos of the crowd.

That being said, this design doesn't allow for that. If this is meant to be a "civic space" then it is designed not for a republic but for an oligarchy that doesn't want to hear from its people.

Jason Saunders on March 14, 2009, at 11:50AM – #19

I'm sure there are many considerations that we are not privy to in the design of this park and it must be difficult having so many clients (County, City and various boards) but Mr. Clementi my advise to you is to tactfully ignore all those clients and consider who your real client is: The people of the City of Los Angeles.

What would the people who live here like to have? Here is a hint. Most of us are very liberal and fancy ourselves to be environmentally aware. (wither we are not is another question) Our city is an overgrown maze of asphalt and concrete. We are frankly borred of it. We want to take our city in different direction. We want a refuge from the hustle and bustle of our chaotic lives. We want a green park not an overblown container garden.

• Strip out a little more of the concrete.

Remove some of the retainer walls around trees and green areas. Loose some of of the concrete paths. Reduce the size of your concrete plaza.

• Do something with those parking portals. They are the bane of your design. I know you have to work with them BUT work with them.

Put a roof on them, a hill, trees, a trellis whatever. Re-orientate them. Eliminate one or two (if you can)

• It seems like you have three different parks. Bring them together.

I know you have $50 million to play with here. Take the savings you would get by loosing all that concrete and use it to cover the portals.

Sometimes less is more.

Juanito on March 14, 2009, at 05:47PM – #20

David has this to say: "The raison d'etre of the park should be a relaxing place for local residents to kick back." O.K. So let's take a walk thru the mall from Hill on up to Grand. We can see a lot of very large, mature trees and lawn and no dearth of shrubbery. The plaza and it's coffee shop is well populated on working days.

If this isn't a relaxing place, then Lordy, what is?????

Yes, it is isolated from the street and one does not feel safe during after hours or on weekends. As well, there is the need for a boatload of imagination to eliminate the barrier that isolates the mall from Grand Avenue. I as only one feel confident that Mr. Gehry could employ the right sort of urban artistry and urban design to eliminate this barrier. It would be expensive but it is necessary to the basic nature of the problem. Said basic problem mainly revolves around this barrier and the two existing county buildings.

It is a waste of money to spend capital on improving the mall without eliminating those buildings. Spend the fifty five million on redoing the mall east of Hill instead. The two county buildings need to be replaced by four midrise towers and the base of each of these towers needs to accentuate pedestrian activity on the ground plane.

The mall suffers from mono-nucleosis: one single use and that is government. The entire area bounded by Second, Grand, Temple and Spring needs to be reprogrammed into a vibrant (if not symbolic) mix of retail, residential, office and government. Explode the concentration of single use and a thousand flowers will bloom. Symbolize Los Angeles and symbolize all of our aspirations.

MarkB on March 14, 2009, at 10:36PM – #21

1. It seems like the park is telling me what to do, or channeling me into certain activities. My subjective experience is that successful parks are those that allow the users to mold the park the users' own desires.

2. Everything is an "event space." Huh?

3. Since there are no residents overlooking the park, people would have to travel there, even if only from other parts of dt. Absent the "programming," why would someone spontaneously decide to make the effort to spend time there? (Lunch hour M-F excepted)

4. Not enough bathrooms. Security and vandalism have to be accounted for, but if you were a parent with children, would you want to take your kids to a park where the closest bathroom/wash sink was two blocks away?

Urban Trojan on March 15, 2009, at 05:52PM – #22

"Symbolize Los Angeles." How could we possibly do that?

nerf on March 15, 2009, at 07:49PM – #23

where's the taco trucks. and all the other street vendors. that's all that will use that 'park'. wont be a place like chicago at all, where people of all types feel welcome. downtown la is Tijuana north....

Juanito on March 17, 2009, at 10:12PM – #24

At this point in time we need brazen idealism, rather than stultifying timidity!

Oscar on March 18, 2009, at 01:07PM – #25

Can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use the grass that when eaten kills you? This to avoid all those people that take their friggin dogs out for a walk in the grass and the dogs sht aaaaaall over the grass and make it impossible to sit or lay there, they also pee all over the place, I hate those new yuppi kids with their dumb dogs pissin' and shttin all over downtow, yes, the homeless are not doing it anymore, they've been substituted by dogs! Disclaimer: The above comment it's only a joke and should be taken as such.... (One of those things that is funny cause it's true).

green on March 18, 2009, at 11:43PM – #26

Like everyone, why all of the concrete and artifical materials?? We can get concrete anywhere. The park should be filled with grass - that's the beauty of LA; it won't rain, so the paths will be fine to walk on. If there are concrete pathways, they should be narrow ones and tree lined like those gorgeous ones found in London. More trees are needed, as LA is blistering in the summer and needs shade. At least both the north and south ends of the park should have a shaded path that one can walk from Spring to Grand without having to go in the sun.