Opportunities gone with the wind

losangeles.urbdezine.com/2013/06/29/swung-on-and-missed/

Hello Everyone:

Los Angeles Plaza
kcet.org

I hope you all had a lovely weekend and enjoyed the visual tour through some of America's iconic images.  I was just thinking today that I should add a few more places on the pinterest board I created (http://www.pinterest.com/glamtroy).  It's sometimes pretty easy to forget that a country this young and this vast has so many wonderful places that forever stick in the consciousness of those who encounter it.

Map of Los Angeles c. 1935
scresources.com

Today's topic is about the four big planning mistakes the city of Los Angeles has made throughout its modern and contemporary history.  In an interview on April 11, 2012, University of Southern California Planning and Development History Professor David Sloane (a former professor of mine), was asked to explain the perception of Los Angeles as an unplanned city.  Professor Sloane states, "People now realize how horizontally dense Los Angeles is, and that sort defies what everybody thinks of L.A...I think the primary reason people view L.A. unplanned is because they have a standard model of the the city which is a city that emerged in the late 18th century.  (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/04/unplanned-I-think-again/1731)  By this, Professor Sloane is referring to the classical rectilinear gridded urban plan.  The fact that Los Angeles is a horizontal city, by that I mean we spread out not up, has allowed smaller communities to develop independently of the center.  However, Michael Russell, in a baseball metaphor titled article "Swung on and Missed," published on June 29, 2013 in UrbDezine Los Angeles, points out four major mistakes that city planners have made over the years that have contributed to the perception that Los Angeles is one big urban planning mess.

Boston, Massachusetts
braco.net

To be certain, Los Angeles urban planners and developers have made plenty of miscalculations, miscues, self-inflicted injuries, and just plain bad decisions over the years.  According to Mr. Russell, the most obvious mistake was situating the city twenty miles from the ocean.  This is urban planning 101.  This, Mr. Russell points out, set the tone for the myriad of decisions about planning over the years.  Cities such as San Francisco, California and Boston, Massachusetts have been founded near bodies of water.  From what I remember of my time with the eminent Professor Sloane, situating a city by a body of water means the residents could have access to a continuous source of water for agriculture and coastal trade.  The cities of

San Francisco Bay
storify.com

Boston and San Francisco, as well
as London, England have historically used their advantageous site to become world class cities while Los Angeles missed a splendid opportunity to take advantage its proximity a very long coast line and natural harbors.

Aside from ignoring city planning 101, Los Angeles urban planners have, over the years, really missed some golden opportunities to create a city that's on par with the genuinely great cities of the world.  The first missed opportunity by city planners was not implementing the

Olmstead Plan for Los Angeles
cityprojectca.org

Olmstead Plan for Los Angeles.  In 1930, the landscape architecture firm started by the sons of Central Park architect Frederick Law Olmstead proposed a comprehensive network of parks, playgrounds, beaches, forests, parkways, and so on in order to promote the social, economic, and environmental vitality of the city.  For a more in depth analysis on this subject, I would recommend the book Eden By Design by USC Professors William Deverall and Greg Hise with Laurie Olin.  The Olmstead Report suggested 71,000 acres of parkland and an additional 92,000 acres in the outlying areas with 440 miles of parkway along the Los Angeles River (http://www.cityprojectca.org/ourwork/olmstead.html).  Having read the book myself, I can tell that failure to implement this plan was an epic failure.  Like a lot of great and beneficial ideas, the Olmstead Plan was killed by bureaucracy, politics, and private landowner greed.  Typical.  If the Olmstead Plan was put into motion, it would made Los Angeles one of the most beautiful and livable cities in the world.  Instead, civic leaders, citing lack of vision and organization, left Los Angeles a "park poor" city.  Currently, Los Angeles ranks thirty-fourth out of fifty American cities in land use by the Trust for Public Land Use.

The Los Angeles River
thelariver.com

Dovetailing on this lack of vision and foresight by civic leaders is the Los Angeles River.  As previously stated, the Olmstead Report called for 440 miles of parkway along the Los Angeles River.  However, due to a history of devastating floods between 1825 and the 1930s, culminating in the disastrous flood of 1938, the forty-eight mile "river" was turned into a concrete channel stretching from Simi Valley to Long Beach.  On the positive side, this prevented property damage and saved lives.  The channelization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did succeed in controlling flooding during heavy winter storms.  On the negative side, most of the river and surrounding land is an eyesore.  Further, the water trapped in the concrete channels is below ground or freeways just waiting for disaster to strike.  Yeah!  After thirty years of channelization the river was renamed the Los Angeles River Flood Control Channel, forget horse with no name, this was a river with no name.  In an effort to remedy this, a master plan was prepared by a team of consultants and adopted by the City Council.  The master plan includes 240 projects and three levels of governance: the River Revitalization Committee, founded in 2009 as the "entrepreneurial" tier.  The River Cooperation Committee, founded in 2010, as the "governmental" tier and the River Foundation, founded in 2011 as the "philanthropic" tier.  Sounds like too many cooks in the kitchen.  Typical of Los Angeles.

South Park, Los Angeles
en.wikipedia.org

Finally, the last major misguided planning effort by civic leaders called out by Mr. Russell is South Park.  South Park is an area near LA Live and the Staples Center in Downtown Los Angeles.  According to Mr. Russell, "there is no park in South Park."  In 1970, the Central City Association of Los Angeles asked Wallace McHarg Roberts and Todd to prepare a General Development Plan for downtown which recognized the limitations of public and private project-by-project decisions, calling for a comprehensive approach.  The area around the Staples Center was be surrounded by badly needed housing.  Additionally, the Plan offered specific ways for downtown to move away from the automobile to pedestrian and mass transit.  Sounds great.  Off course, city planners found a way to mess that up.

LA Live
aehospitality.com

The Ginza
worldofstock.com

Most of the downtown, including South Park, was to be included in the project area.  Since it was in a redevelopment area, eminent domain ruled.  Damn that clause in the Fourteenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  When the Plan was adopted, land prices in the area was a bargain less than $20/square foot for parking lots and the existing mixed use buildings.  Off course, following form, the City and LA Redevelopment  Agency didn't execute the McHarg, Roberts, Todd plan, naturally.  Therefore, there is no park in South Park.  Instead we the West Coast version of the Ginza, LA Live/Staples Center.  LA Live/Staples Center took off after the crash in the LA real estate market in 2008, when land prices in South Park declined dramatically.  Out of the residential units built in downtown, the City Parks and Recreation Department collected $120 million in Quimby Park fee from developers.  Land prices were down from a peak $100 per square foot.  You would think that the City and LA/CRA would take advantage of the fire sale prices and consider acquiring land for South Park and other parts of downtown. NOOOO.  After five years, the City and LA/CRA bought and built a park on 10,000 square feet of land.  Unfortunately, Governor Brown and the California state legislature, in their infinite wisdom killed redevelopment agencies and took the money.  Thus another opportunity gone with the wind.

So what have we learned from all this "brilliant" planning?  First, smart planning and land use decisions or lack of have long term consequences.  Second, communities need a clear vision to act boldly.  Third, we need civic leaders with bold visions and the willingness to implement them.  Fourth, civic leaders need the authority to execute the vision.  Fifth, we need to give the person in charge of the finances and other necessary resources the ability to implement them in a timely manner.  Finally, if we create a place where vision is being executed in a timely and smart manner, the private and non-profit sector will join us.

http://www.pinterest.com/glamtroy.com