Guest on July 01, 2010, at 12:31PM – #2

This project along with the LA River Revitalization, the Cornfields, the New Green Corridor, HSR, development in Chinatown and The Grand have a tremendous chance to reshape this side of Downtown LA. I wish i had 3 billion to throw at this right now to get all of them done asap.

D

Guest on July 02, 2010, at 02:49AM – #6

I still have problems with this proposal on many levels.

First, LA may be a "park poor" city, but this part of Downtown most certainly isn't. A park is also not the best way to reconnect both sides of the freeway; pedestrians are NOT LIKELY to walk along a park in the evening or at night because it is dead space. I would much rather see a series of caps that include retail, office or residential, and maybe one segment that is a small park (up between Hill and Grand).

Secondly, I have a problem with the numbers. $387 to build, with only $408 in anticipated private development? That's barely a gain of $20 million, or 5.4%. Even assuming a conservative 10% cost overrun puts the total cost at over $425 million. The $408 in private investment also seems pretty optimistic, and again doesn't make sense with even a modest cost overrun. What if private investment doesn't materialize as planned?

Third, what will maintenance cost, who will be responsible, and how will maintenance be funded?

The numbers just don't make sense here. I want to cap the freeway and heal the rift in the community like everyone else, but building a long park isn't the answer. Storefronts facilitate pedestrian traffic, provide activity centers, and therefore increase movement and safety. A mixed-use freeway cap with a combination of retail, residences and offices has the best chance of bridging the divide between both sides of the 101. Not only will the public benefit from the sale to developers, but income will be generated through both property taxes and sales taxes, and that guarantees that eventually the project would pay for itself. Maintenance is also shifted to the private sector, eliminating a recurring liability from our increasingly shoestring budgets.

Make part of it a park, but not the vast majority of it. A project of this magnitude must be able to support itself at least fractionally; anything else is grossly fiscally irresponsible.

Guest on July 02, 2010, at 08:55AM – #7

Will this park be facilitaed by the Department of Recreation and Parks? I ask because I'm still waiting for Pershing Square to get a fence so that the homeless won't poop in the dog walk. My point can R& P really take care of something this big if they can't care for a square mile.

Guest on July 02, 2010, at 10:47PM – #9

Guest numero six: this landscape architect says RIGHT ON! You're right on the money. it is not only store fronts that are critical, but imaginative programming in general and the recent obsession with simply having more green space in the center of the metropolis reminds me of a bunch of Encino suburbanites with Pet Rocks for brains. They haven't a clue as to how to generate genuine urban vitality. But you gotta give them some degree of credit. The sort of people with by far the least imagination on these matters are politicians and bureaucrats. Especially in L.A. San Francisco is so much different. Downtown is in such an acute need of encapsulating novelty, charm and a wee bit of witty commentary into it's built form.

Guest on August 25, 2010, at 04:30PM – #10

Retail and commercial buildings above a freeway? This may seem like the ultimate solution by mending the urban void by reconnecting with new development and density. However, this will never happen, have you ever seen a building over the freeway in the state of California. No. Because Caltrans owns the air space above the freeways and a building built over a freeway is a major liability and create a maintenance problem. True downtown need more density but more then that it needs residents. This park could kick start residential development in downtown LA.