LA Now Volumes 3 and 4, Introduction and Chapter 1

Volume Three and Volume FourA Case for Downtown Living

Five ProposalsUCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

L.A. NOWU

CLA

Departm

ent of Architecture and U

rban Design

L.A. NOW

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

L.A. Now Volumes Three and FourThom Mayne Project Director, Professor, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban DesignEui-Sung Yi Project Coordinator

Board of AdvisorsRobin Blair Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles CountyCon Howe Director, Los Angeles Department of City PlanningJohn Kaliski Principal, Urban Studio, Los AngelesJan Perry Councilwoman, District 9, City of Los Angeles Ian Robertson Robertson Company, Los AngelesDan Rosenfeld Urban Partners, LLC, Los AngelesRichard Weinstein Professor, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban DesignDeborah Weintraub City Architect, City of Los Angeles

L.A. Now JuryDiego Cardoso Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles CountyRobert Espinoza Community Redevelopment Agency, Los AngelesJeffrey Kipnis Professor, Ohio State University, ColumbusMichael Hallmark ConsultantSylvia Lavin Chair, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban DesignMark Mack Professor, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban DesignNicolai Ouroussoff Architecture Critic, New York Times Albert Pope Professor, Rice UniversityRobert Somol Professor, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban DesignDoug Suisman Suisman Urban Design, Santa MonicaGeorge Yu Principal, George Yu Architects, Culver City

Panel Participants, A+D Museum Neil Denari Professor in residence, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban DesignWilliam Fain Principal, Johnson Fain Architects, Los AngelesScott Johnson Principal, Johnson Fain Architects, Los AngelesMerry Norris ConsultantLorcan O'Herlihy Principal, Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects, Culver City Nick Patsaouras President, Polis Builders, Los AngelesRoger Sherman Lecturer, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

Publication EditorEui-Sung Yi

Director of Special Projects, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban DesignCaroline Blackburn

Graphic Design ProductionPakling Chiu Masako Saito Eui-Sung YiKen Ford (Graphic Concept) Myungsoo Suh Publication AssistanceGeoff Aiken David Garnett Jennifer LandauNate Chiappa David Grant Alice Kimm Brian Davis Penny Herscovitch Narineh MirzaeianLiang Feng Jane Hyun Kevin Short

The L.A. Now Volumes Three and Four project and publication are made possible through generous funding provided byAmerican Institute of ArchitectsGraham Foundation Richard Koshalek President, Art Center College of DesignJan Perry Councilwoman, District 9, City of Los AngelesUCLArtsUCLA Department of Architecture and Urban DesignJohn Williams Clark Construction, Bethesda and Costa Mesa

intr

oduc

tion

volu

me

3 : d

ownt

own

Art

s D

istr

ict p

ropo

sal

volu

me

4 : C

have

z R

avin

e pr

opos

alca

se s

tudi

esre

sear

ch

00

14

20

3234

56

7678

94

114

134136

170

184

198

218

232

156

02

end

Diu

rnal

Cit

yEl

asti

Cit

yC

have

z P

ass

Stad

ium

Cit

yEl

ysia

n G

reen

sdo

wnt

own

Art

s D

istr

ict

Cha

vez

Rav

ine

natu

ral h

abit

atpe

ople

& c

ultu

retr

ansp

orta

tion

hous

ing

stad

ium

prop

osal

s

238

TC

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction Thom MayneDilemmas for our Time: Understanding L.A. Now Richard WeinsteinA Case for Downtown Living Eui-Sung YiProposals The Discontents and Pleasures of L.A. Now John Kaliski

Project DescriptionDiurnalCity Pakling Chiu Masako Saito

Myungsoo Suh ElastiCity Raffi Agaian David Garnett

Narineh Mirzaeian Additional Proposals Svyatoslav Gavrilov

Chaitanya Karnik Alexios Fragkiadakis

Costanza Guerrini Jacob Kwan Chavez Pass Geoff Aiken

Liang Feng Karen Lee

Stadium City Nate Chiappa

Jennifer Landau Kevin Short

Elysian Greens Brian Davis

Tyen Masten Nina Yu

Research and Analysis Downtown Arts District Chavez Ravine / Elysian Park Natural Habitat People and Culture TransportationCase Studies High Density Housing American Baseball Stadiums

Volumes Three and FourA Case for Downtown Living

Five Proposals

L.A. NOWUCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

Volu

me

Thre

eP

ropo

sals

Volu

me

Four

Pro

posa

ls

01

15

21

3335

57

7779

95

115

135137

171

185

199

219

233

157

03D

iurnalCity

ElastiCity

Chavez P

assStadium

City

Elysian Greens

downtow

n Arts D

istrictC

havez Ravine

natural habitatpeople &

culturetransportation

housingstadium

proposals

239

introductionvolum

e 3 : downtow

n Arts D

istrict proposalvolum

e 4 : Chavez R

avine proposalcase studies

researchend

TC

TC

intr

oduc

tion

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

02

March 2006

As a frontier for urban experimentation and innovation, Los Angeles has become a paradigm for the twenty-first century global city. Given its influential position, it is essential that the city investigate solutions to large-scale urban issues beyond the current paradigms of planning and critically consider strategies for urban growth that take into account its immense complexity and constant flux. The ideas put forth in L.A. Now: Volumes Three and Four propose new directions and formulate desires for the future of Los Angeles.

The methodology establishes a middle ground between the spatial, intuitive, and qualitative processes of ar-chitecture and the analytical, quantitative procedures of urban planning. The resulting solutions interrogate a broad range of socio-economic, political, cultural, demographic, and infrastructural issues in spatial and architectural terms.

This integrative investigation of alternate solutions responds to the myriad exigencies of the real world, yet remains unburdened by the political and administrative status quo. As a proposition of possibilities and de-sires, this work is intended to inform subsequent urban planning and development and to change the very nature of the conventional planning process.

INTRODUCTIONThom Mayne

Acknowledgments

L.A. Now: Volumes Three and Four continues the investigations of my research studio at UCLA ’s Department of Architecture and Urban Design, which grew out of discussions with Art Center College of Design president Richard Koshalek, on developing proposals for downtown Los Angeles. Our initial vision could never have been realized without Eui-Sung Yi’s sustained energy and deep commitment to the project. I would also like to acknowledge UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Chair, Sylvia Lavin for her support, and my students’ vast, masterful and probing efforts in collectively undertaking such an ambitious endeavor.

introduction

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

03

intr

oduc

tion

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

04

This third and fourth volume of L.A. Now poses several important dilemmas for architects who want to think about cities. To begin with, most architects of significant talent have focused their energies on singular struc-tures, and the critical debates in theory have largely supported these design investigations and failed to formu-late as productive a discussion of the city at a larger scale. The work on L.A. Now and the provocations of Rem Koolhaas are lonely exceptions. The New Urbanists at this point dominate the field with those who promote transit-oriented development. So far, an alternative contemporary urbanism is best at criticizing commodifica-tion, theming, sprawl, and New Urbanism, and not so good at formulating a plausible alternative—much less one that is capable of influencing development nationwide.

A second dilemma is the emerging body of information on population growth, inadequate infrastructure, en-vironmental degradation, and traffic. Somehow, the growing urgency of these problems has so far failed to mobilize the best thinkers, but the pressure is mounting, and it is hardly possible or honorable to continue in denial.

A third dilemma is, how does one begin in the face of infinite information? How does one locate the facts around which it is possible to improvise a new theoretical position that could lead to constructive change, or even to a new vision with formal implications? And to what extent would the means of implementing such a vision feed back into its very formulation, or would such an operation undercut the enterprise?

A BEGINNINGTo make the work on L.A. Now possible, the chair of UCLA’s Department of Architecture and Urban Design, Sylvia Lavin, had to invent a studio format that lasted for a full school year, which she titled the “research stu-dio.” This provided the time to gather information, document the site, attempt to understand it in the context of change in the larger city, and formulate design proposals. The pressure to consider the urban situation as a problem for design came from Thom Mayne; his attention to such issues is rare for an architect who is well established as a creative force.

Whatever shortcomings can be identified in L.A. Now: Volumes Three and Four arise from the clash between high aspirations and the unfamiliar territories that Mayne and his team of students set out to cross. From time to time, the project was reviewed by a “board of advisors” consisting of city officials, real-estate developers, and others familiar with the community and large-scale developments—a reality that rarely intrudes with urgency on the education of an architect. These meetings served to model events as they might occur, identify limits, and make a plausible case for circumventing those limits when necessary. At the same time, the research phase provided an opportunity to define the problem with a quality of information that decision makers are not usually presented with and that may alter the way in which they view an urban situation.

A PROJECTThe subject area of the research studio is a large territory, and its future should be taken under serious policy review. The studio has the capacity to “game” the future of the site to explore alternate outcomes freely—but within the limits of plausibility. As such, the resulting designs represent an unexplored middle ground between unconstrained speculation and overdetermined, timorous public urban design.

The L.A. Now project is an emerging model of how the resources of a university, directed by a major architec-tural talent, can interface with an enlightened business and political establishment to anticipate what could happen if a strategic intervention occurred before vested interests so limited the range of opportunities that optimum change was foreclosed in favor of business-as-usual. And it is business as usual that has brought us to a flash point of urban problems that require exactly the kind of anticipation and innovation represented by L.A. Now: Volumes Three and Four.

DILEMMAS FOR OUR TIME: UNDERSTANDING L.A. NOWRichard Weinstein

introduction

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

05

A CASE FOR DOWNTOWN LIVINGEui-Sung Yi

780 people move to the Los Angeles metropolitan region daily, according to the results of the 2000 U.S. Census long-form survey. By 2020, the greater metropolis—encompassing Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange Counties—will absorb an estimated increase in population roughly equivalent to the current population of present-day metropolitan Los Angeles. Of the 3.2 million new inhabitants, an estimated 805,000 people (equivalent to present day San Francisco) will call the city of Los Angeles their home. This popu-lation increase will place a severe strain on the capacity for all levels of infrastructure—energy, transportation, water, and housing—to service the city and the region.

For decades, the attraction of Los Angeles has been its cultural and geographical position in the world. The city’s enduring mythos continues to attract people from the rest of the United States and the world, especially from Asia and Central America. As a nexus of international traffic and a steward of secure middle class living, “Los Angeles”—the metropolis—is straining under its own image and promise.

The California Department of Finance forecasts that the new population will be distributed evenly over the entire field of the metropolis, with minor concentrations in the secondary cities. This prediction presumes the status quo of horizontal expansion in the form of sprawl, where housing development indolently yet persistently spreads to the next piece of available land. Throughout its history, Los Angeles has taken advantage of its expansive setting, sprawling in every direction until reaching a seemingly insurmountable geological bound-ary—whether ocean, mountains, or desert—and then proceeding to expand further, often into those inhospi-table geographies. The city is ranked in the top five nationally for unconstrained sprawl. As Los Angeles grew by three million people from 1970 to 1990, the city consumed an additional twenty percent of its orchards and farmland—in total 252,160 acres. Yet this development pattern displaces people further from the principal cen-ters of commerce, which mostly remain in major city centers. In order to sustain a viable regional equilibrium, we must investigate alternative development strategies.

For major cities, the strategy of redensification provides a realistic and essential alternative to sprawl and its associated problems. As subdivided housing development reaches a critical impasse and rural fields surround-ing cities predictably transform into suburbia, housing must inevitably be developed in city centers; as the popu-lation expands and single-family residential units become a limited commodity, there must be a redistribution of housing typologies, in favor of multi-unit housing; and as population density becomes a critical reality, ideals of public transportation, sustainable energy, and public housing must be reexamined.

downtown Los Angeles

intr

oduc

tion

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

06

[ ] = 5000

metropolitan Los Angeles

population1. Los Angeles2. Long Beach/Torrance 3. Anaheim/Garden Grove 4. Pasadena/Glendale/Burbank5. Riverside6. San Bernardino7. rest of the metropolis

200014,300,000

3,823,000605,000500,000454,100255,000190,000

2020 (projected)17,760,000

4,628,4001,000,000

850,000750,100420,000360,000

growth3,480,000

(or 1 Los Angeles)

805,400395,000350,000296,000165,000170,000170,000

1

4

2

1

2

3

4 6

5

3

6

5

7

7

Park La Brea Village Green

introduction

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

thegreatermetropolisprojectedpopulationgrowthcenters,2020

07

It is estimated that fifty percent of Los Angeles County’s industrial facilities are obsolete due to their inaccessi-bility by larger modern trucks and an inability to upgrade to changing market demands. As it becomes increas-ingly difficult for the city to preserve single-family residential neighborhoods (R-1 zones) due to population increases, the demand rests on these outmoded industrial and commercial zones to absorb new residents. Los Angeles City Council’s Adaptive Reuse incentives continue to rejuvenate dilapidated industrial neighborhoods and contribute to the collateral economic improvement to the community and the region. Concentrated along the traditional fringes of the city, Van Nuys, Long Beach, and downtown Los Angeles have sustained the local manufacturing economy for fifty years.The zoning maps on the right separate the low density zones of R-1, OS (Open Space), A (Agriculture) from the high density of R-3/5 and commercial manufacturing. The third map proposes a new combined zoning strategy that locates future opportunities for high density housing. As manufacturing types change, future develop-ments can realign to integrate Los Angeles’ traditionally separated uses, such as commercial and high-density housing. The best candidate for this development lies in the eastern half of downtown Los Angeles.

CityofLosAngeleshighdensitydevelopmentmodel(zoneR3,R5,CM,MR)

websites:factfinder.census.gov (2000 U.S. Census)scag.ca.gov

intr

oduc

tion

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

08

city of Los Angelesgeneral zoning

R1, OS, A only

R3, R5, CM, MR only

OSA, RARE, RS, R1, RU, RZ, RW1R2, RD, RMP, RW2, R3, R4, R5CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, CW, ADP, LASED, WCP, PBCM, MR, CCS, M1, M2, M3, SLPFHILLSIDE

introduction

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

09

Transit Oriented Development Case Study: San Diego

From 1990 to 2000, San Diego has undergone a remarkable boom in housing construction and commercial revitalization, as the region grew by 316,000. By 2020, the regional population is projected to increase by 785,000 persons, al-most equivalent to the increase for the city of Los Angeles. By 2030, a total of one million ad-ditional persons will live in the region, creating a critical population-density crisis.

In anticipation of the population influx, San Diego has implemented an urban develop-ment plan, named REGION2020.The strat-egy will “limit sprawl from 600,000 acres to 200,000 acres by focusing most of the growth in incorporated cities near transit stations and major bus corridors, in mixed-use cores, near employment centers, or in redevelop-ment or infill areas.”

The San Diego zoning maps (right) have been

Future housing development trends will likely oscillate between suburban sprawl and urban densification. The question becomes: how can seductive amenities and spacious, autonomous lifestyles, inherent in the lure of suburban sprawl, be reconstituted within an urban framework? The projects in this volume further interrogate the problem of urban development in the context of a growing, shifting population, and begin to pose solutions to this question.

500,000 workers – roughly equivalent to the population of Washington, D.C. or Las Vegas – commute daily to downtown Los Angeles.

It is estimated that by 2020, the average freeway speed will be 20 mph for 8 hours daily. (Note that 20 mph is slower than the 25 mph speed limit for most residential streets.) The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) reports that cumulative hours spent in congestion have increased by 60% from 1990. The annual cost of lost time and fuel is currently $129 million. The Commuter Origin diagrams (pg 208) outline the dispersed and decentralized areas where the 500,000 downtown commuters live. Judging from the driving patterns, a critical mass of the population sits amidst gridlock on a daily basis heading to their jobs downtown.

Yet the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) states, “there is very limited ability to add more highway capacity” due to right-of-way, financial, and environmental issues. The city’s recent failure to get approval to expand the 101 freeway and lengthen the 710 freeway is just one recent setback. The current proposal to address the anticipated 30% increase in traffic is to add more High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes: an additional 206 miles to the existing 380 miles. However, HOV is merely a stopgap measure—a method of buying time while commuting culture is re-addressed. Even the miles of HOV lanes may well prove inadequate for the onslaught of over 3 million additional inhabitants. Clearly, commuters need a realistic, viable alternative route to work from the major residential centers of the Metropolis.

Recently, the public transportation infrastructure servicing the greater metropolis has seen a remarkable rise in construction and use. Ridership on the Metrolink has increased annually, and the Blue Line to Long Beach, the new Gold Line to Pasadena, the westbound Exposition LRT and resurrected Redline subway, and the two new Metro Rapid bus lines are all promising. Though no one believes this public transport system will afford a family in Los Angeles complete car-freedom, the elimination of one car (in a typical household of two cars) and/or the reduction of a car’s use during weekdays can substantially reduce the burden on existing freeway infrastructures.

amended to match the zoning on the Los Angeles maps, to indicate the concen-tration of potential high-density housing. The high-density residential zoning ab-sorbs the commercial and manufactur-ing districts located along the industrial waterfront. The appropriation of these areas, and their connection to an emerg-ing vibrant commercial downtown, lays the foundation for multi-unit urban housing in San Diego.

intr

oduc

tion

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

CityofSanDiegosprawlcontrol

10

City of San Francisco City of Los Angeles

Los Angeles

population1. downtown2. Van Nuys 3. Northridge4. Eagle Rock5. Hollywood6. San Pedro7. Venice8. rest of the city

20003,823,000

36,000163,000

40,75024,000

222,03072,15038,000

2020 (projected)4,628,400

250,000233,000100,750

79,000267,030

94,15050,000

growth805,400

(or 1 San Francisco)

214,00070,00060,00055,00045,00024,00012,000

375,400

1

4

23

6

5

7

8

downtown Los Angeles250,000 persons

2

4

3

5

1

8

7

6

R1, OS, A only R3, R5, CM, MR only

introduction

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

CityofLosAngelesprojectedpopulationgrowthcenters,2020

11

Transit oriented development (TOD) serves as a model of a housing strategy that ensures access to the public transit system. Both the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the MTA have encouraged densification as a strategy to address the housing and transit crisis. The public has asked the MTA to review TODs, with the first proposed project located near Long Beach. It is worthwhile to note that the rail companies historically earned their revenues from development along their routes, not from ride fares. As most of the freeways were laid within old existing rail right-of-ways, TODs or “Transit Villages” seem an appropriate return to the union of these two franchises.

L.A. Now projects a maximum population of 35,000 for either the downtown arts district or the Chavez Ravine site —fourteen percent of a potential mar-ket of 250,000 downtown residents.

The 500,000 commuters to downtown represent 1 million residents, assuming an average of two persons per household. If housing opportunities can be made attractive, a substantial percentage of these commuters could live within blocks of their workplaces. Assuming that half of these two-person households have alternate work-places that make moving prohibitive, the other half—250,000—can become a housing force within downtown. This potential halving of the load of highway commuters to downtown would reduce 7 billion vehicular miles, save 220,000 hours of commute time, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.5 million pounds annually, and save 500,000 gallons of gasoline daily.

As the culture of downtown residential neighborhoods evolves, the infusion of major commercial and retail de-velopers will provide another thrust of investment and growth in the next decade. With new transportation and recreational amenities conveniently located within blocks of the project sites, these sites have the potential to become principle anchors for downtown.

Hancock Park

intr

oduc

tion

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

12

Project Site+10,000-28,000

downtownLosAngelesprojectedpopulationgrowthcenters,2020

downtown

population1. manufacturing2. South Park3. Arts District -project site4. Little Tokyo5. historical core 6. Bunker Hill7. financial core8. Fashion District

200036,000

1,700730570

7,00018,000

8,000

2020 (projected)250,000

45,70040,30035,00041,00050,00038,000

growth214,000

(or 1 Barstow)

44,00039,57034,43034,00032,00030,000

1

42

3

6

5

1

34

2

5

6

8

7

7

8

Washington D.C.downtown Los Angeles

Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw

=

introduction

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

13

intr

oduc

tion

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

14

volume three:downtown Arts District

volume four:Chavez Ravine

introduction

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

15

0 500ft 1000ft

1 mile1/2mile1/3mile0

100ft

I - Office Towers

Office District Proposed Connection

Proposed Office Development Zone

F - Disney Concert Hall F - Disney Concert Hall G - Cathedral of Our Lady of the AngelsG - Cathedral of Our Lady of the AngelsH - MOCAH - MOCA

Cultural InstitutionsCultural Institutions Proposed ConnectionProposed Connection

Proposed Cultural Development Zone

Civic Institutions Proposed Connection

C- DWP D - CourthousesE - Library Towers

Proposed Civic Development Zone

A - Staple Center B - Department Stores, Hotels, Clubs... etc

Commercial and Entertainment Proposed Connection

Proposed Commercial Development Zone

C

A

D

E

F

I

G

H

B

Figu

roa S

treet Flow

er S

treet

Grand

Ave

16

commercial and entertainmentA Staples CenterB department stores / hotels / clubs

civic institutions C Department of Water and PowerD courthouses E U.S. Bank Tower

cultural institutions F Walt Disney Concert HallG Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels H The Museum of Contemporary Art

financial districts I office towers

In a metropolis comprosing multi-nodal communities, the ability to con-nect these urban nodes determines the future sustainability of these communities. The twentieth century saw infrastructure grow proportion-ately with the growth of the urban fabric. But in the first decade of the twenty-first century, infrastructure can no longer accomodate its us-ers by dividing, splicing, splintering and branching. Rather than locate a new footprint and secure land rights, infrastructure has to enhance and exploit untapped or poorly conceived existing connections.

intr

oduc

tion

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

website:usc.edu/dept/geography/losangeles/lawalk/spark/index.html

downtownconnectionscoreamenities

0 500ft 1000ft

1 mile1/2mile1/3mile0

100ft

17

downtown Los Angeles1,390.3 acres60,469,042 sq. ft.0.54% metropolitan area

Chavez Ravine and Elysian Park1,932.8 acres84,194,467 sq. ft.0.76% metropolitan area

volume three site: Arts District227.7 acres9,916,923 sq. ft.0.09% metropolitan area

Dodger Stadium569,069 sq. ft.0.94% Downtown Los Angeles

volume four site: Chavez Ravine323.47 acres14,089,963 sq. ft.0.013% metropolitan area

The proposals here examine the potential of Flower Street, Grand Avenue and Figueroa Street as connective spines between Chavez Ravine and downtown Los Ange-les. A new set of commuters with less than ten minutes of driving can serve downtown and infuse the cur-rent cultural and commercial insti-tutions with increased patronage and revenues. This becomes the seed from which a continual co-de-pendency can build between those living on the hill and the services at the bottom of the hill. Eventually, downtown Los Angeles can shed the stigma of being an empty urban center after work hours and, like all great metropolitan downtowns, be-come a new nocturnal destination.

introduction

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

websites:zimas.lacity.org/navigatela.lacity.org/index01.htm

sitecomparisondowntownArtsDistrictandChavezRavine

18

intr

oduc

tion

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

ChavezRavineandElysianPark,1958

Bunker Hilldowntown Los Angeles

Cesar Chavez Boulevard Chinatown

19

introduction

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

DodgerStadiumunderconstruction,1961

Chavez Ravine Dodger Stadiumtop of Chavez Ravine

Elysian Park110 Pasadena Freeway

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

intr

oduc

tion

prop

osal

s

20

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

proposals

proposalsintroduction21

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

I was a bit surprised to receive Thom Mayne’s invitation to follow the progress and work of the students who par-ticipated in L.A. Now; a project Mayne organized and led through his research studio at the UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design. For twenty years, from the perspectives of both the private and public sector, I have argued for and attempted to practice an urban design and architecture that is different than the underlying ideas, forms, and desires of the projects represented in L.A. Now. When I worked as the Principal Architect of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the Ctiy of Los Angeles, I was always struck by vast amount of input from a multitude of voices that each project generated and how that input guided projects towards less density, smaller scales, more open space and greenery, and respect for traditional city forms. In general I believe, based upon this experience and the built evidence of the contemporary city, that when architecture is defined as large-scale infrastructure, poor urbanism invariably follows.

In contrast, in the UCLA projects, whatever fascination there might be with the small-scale and organic city-making is more than overcome by powerful fascinations on the part of both teacher and student with the “XL.” As a corollary, when faced with urban-scale challenges, the protagonists of this studio too often for my tastes responded with building—or buildings as topology—solutions. While the student work was in my opinion at-tuned to the present program needs of Los Angeles, the relentlessness of the horizontal and vertical carpet of building propositions that were promulgated metabolically obviated any sense of human scale.

I suppose Thom purposely wanted someone contributing to the studio criticisms that would bridge this gap, who was more comfortable with an urban design that grapples with design strategies that grow from understand-ings of building-by-building incrementalism, typological coding, and landscape urbanism. I also know from his comments during the studio and from his work that for Thom, his interest in the XL does not negate an interest in urban-design tactics grounded in the reshaping of the existing public common, the streets, sidewalks, open spaces, and adjacent envelopes that frame these places. During the course of observing the progress of the L.A. Now work, I even suspected that the students felt that their massing diagrams were in keeping with many of the principles that form the core of my personal belief systems. Still, the emphasis in this studio on big architectur-al solutions, its consequential costs, need for heavy-handed land acquisition tactics to ensure implementation, and unspoken reliance on now standard joint public-private sector development strategies became too easy a capitulation to a type of real-estate economics that ignores too many of the pressing problems of the American City such as affordable housing, requirements for economic restructuring to assist with job production, and the creation of well-appointed and maintained common spaces.

THE DISCONTENTS AND PLEASURES OF L.A. NOWJohn Kaliskiin

trod

ucti

onpr

opos

als 22

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

I tried to contribute to the studio the thought that contemporary urban design must wrestle with the democratic urbanism of the contemporary city, the tussle of community meetings, and the political forces that shape the city to realize both consensus and form. No doubt as a professional expert Thom invited me to make these points, even as he pursued with the students architectural schemas that I was at first glance bound to disagree with. As a critic with a different point of view, I was a poor substitute for the polyglot mix of voices that will in-evitably shape the most innovative—in the sense that they are responsive to the voices of everyday life—cities in industrialized countries.

Yet, despite the critical and intellectual differences I might have with Thom and this studio, I would hardly reject this work as irrelevant to the making of the city and architecture; the opposite is true. The L.A. Now project cannot be dismissed, for it constructively fascinates the mind and the eye of all that see it, and as such attracts critical notice and interest, both negative and positive. It is in essence a productive exploration into the means by which urban design will be practiced in coming years and thus a force for urban contemplation and discussion and change. Why this is the case is worth exploring. I sense that the interest in the fantastical urbanism that is seen here lies in the subliminal optimism of the studio’s design methodology, a reliance on a design as opposed to planning process for the production of urbanism.Residing within the unimplementable gigantism of the architecture of this design studio is a manifold that real-izes brilliant urban design propositions. True, the students raced towards overwrought building ideas, but they also, in the process of generating these ideas, grounded them in acute urban design recommendations. Each project contained an idea that moved me; a linkage of Los Angeles City Hall to the Los Angeles River via a net-work of open space; a sectional zoning that attends flexibly to emerging patterns of contemporary everyday life; a Figueroa Street parkway that directly connects for the first time downtown with the Golden State Freeway; a residential “Stadium City” placed over the vast parking scrim that mars both Los Angeles’s iconic baseball sta-dium and its surrounds; a reinvigorated Elysian Park that actively serves and gathers the masses that surround it. The power of a design vision as opposed to planning process is the former’s heightened capacity to synthesize otherwise unmanageable data and social inputs into acute concepts that are easily understood—precisely be-cause they are visual. I believe the L.A. Now project garners continued interest because it well demonstrates the unique capacity of design to generate clear ideas and consequent debate at the earliest stages of planning.

proposalsintroduction

23

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

A second aspect of this studio that I think is critical to any discourse regarding the design of cities at this time is its insistent integration of informational databases and new visualization technologies. At each step of the studio, Thom urged the students to fold the data flows that shape contemporary urban life into the techniques of design in a digital age. Whether traffic- and transportation-based, census-based, flood plain-based, open space-based, economic-based, or otherwise-based, the sustained research into the actual conditions of the city produces results that are a reflection of the possibilities of present everyday life seen through the filter of to the range of pressures, fluxes, and opportunities that impact the contemporary city. The City of Los Angeles, under simultaneous demographic, economic, and building restructuring, is seen as needing an architecture and urban design that is hyper-responsive to an immediately present future.While one can argue with the formal results, for me the L.A. Now process suggests that the architect can place him or herself in a position to tap the broadest range of knowledge systems at work in the city today without resorting to a simplistic and sentimental urbanism of image as opposed to substance. More important, I believe the method and results fascinate a broader public well-versed in the use of I-Pods, Nintendos, Play Stations, and Sim City because they trust that the digital architectural tools of the present, which allow for instantaneous public visualization and discussion of the broadest range of alternative futures, work better and more deeply than the tools of the past and thus lead to a better and more livable future. Unlike normative city planning and urban design that now always looks to a singularly defined and supposedly golden past—and as a result at best realizes an urbanism of quietude—these projects bespeak a progressive optimism about controlling and direct-ing the dynamic forces at work in the city today.

Given Thom’s roots in a late 1970s postmodernism of representation, interest in “dead tech” in the 80s, and his formal and craft-based explorations of the 90s—all pursuits that looked to architectural tradition to realize architectural futures, his interest in projecting present urbanism, as exemplified in the L.A. Now studio, also explains an essential aspect of the vitality of his recent work, which is at times overlooked. Whether at Diamond Ranch High School, the University of Cincinnati Student Recreation Center, the Caltrans District 7 Headquar-ters, or any of numerous other efforts, Morphosis utilizes a process parallel to that of the UCLA studio. These buildings combine research and advanced visualization to project humanism in contemporary urbanism, and thus realize a critical architecture that at once captures the imagination of both the profession and the public. Perhaps at times this architecture suffers from the same gigantism and lack of human scale that marks the UCLA projects, but it is always forward-looking and infinitely more satisfying in its complexly ameliorative pos-ture towards the struggles of daily life than any architecture or urbanism that turns its back on the present.

Thom Mayne is always full of questions, transmits his love of critical questioning to co-workers and his stu-dents, and through this positive criticality will, I trust, be among the first to both glimpse and realize the in-spired and technologically based human-scaled urban incrementalism that the L.A. Now studio does not yet fully realize—yet anticipates with great vigor and delight. Even as this Pritzker Prize-winning architect creates forms that test conventional understandings of architecture and urbanism, and barrels forward with sometimes uncomfortable built propositions, he always takes the time, whether with his colleagues or in the educational design studio, to ponder, absorb, transform, and bridge contrary positions and ideas into new expectations for architecture and urban design.

intr

oduc

tion

prop

osal

s

24

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

proposalsintroduction

25

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

L.A. Now: Volume Three: Downtown Arts DistrictL.A. Now: Volume Four: (Take the Hill!) The Great Switch: Elysian Housing and Dodger Stadium

In the summer of 2000, Richard Koshalek, president of Art Center College of Design, approached Thom Mayne, principal of Morphosis, to direct a study of Los Angeles that would offer suggestions for its future development and growth. During a year-long intensive research studio at UCLA’s Department of Architecture and Urban Design, Mayne and a group of students first undertook the project of analyzing Los Angeles and, subsequently, designing speculative urban proposals for its downtown core.

A large portion of this effort focused on the collection of a substantial amount of data on the Los Angeles region, given the realization that no project could be properly understood in isolation from the larger picture. This initial research was compiled into a book that was published by the University of California Press in January of 2002 as L.A. Now: Volume One.

Based on this research and analysis, the students then designed interpretive strategies to accommodate the city’s fragmentation, heterogeneity, emergent orders, and non-linearity. Each of these projects established a basis for working within the broader context of the city and engaging programmatic and spatial adjacencies unearthed in the initial research phase. The academic context of the studio allowed for urban proposals not possible within the strictures of conventional, real-world planning and development. The University of California Press published these projects in January 2002 as L.A. Now: Volume Two.

L.A. Now: Volume Three offers a set of proposals based on research and analysis to introduce housing into a specific site in Los Angeles’s downtown core. Bounded by the 101 Freeway, the Los Angeles River, Alameda Steet, and Fourth Street, the Arts District site lies between downtown Los Angeles and East Los Angeles. Taking into account the increasing population and the rising demand for housing in the central district of downtown, Volume Three examines the implications and viability of housing on the fringes as well. The projects take advantage of the area’s adjacency to several culturally rich neighborhoods and the Southern California Institute of Architecture, as well as the planned connection of the Gold Line from Pasadena. Though this neighborhood currently has an underdeveloped identity, it has the potential to evolve into a vital cornerstone of downtown.

L.A. Now: Volume Four continues speculation on Los Angeles’s future, employing the conceptual framework established in the first three volumes while shifting focus to a different geographic node within greater Los Angeles—Chavez Ravine. Volume Four presents new research and proposals for simultaneously relocating Dodgers Stadium to downtown Los Angeles and developing housing in Elysian Park. The projects reclaim Chavez Ravine as a residential area, fusing its identity with Elysian Park and examining the hyper-densification a stadium brings into the city. The polarization of program and site spurs an intense investigation of the role of varied infrastructure systems—nature, culture, and transportation—as critical infusions into urban housing and stadium development plans.

The research studio’s laboratory ethos has resulted in a valuable information base and proposals that encourage the community to rethink Los Angeles and its future. The intent of the L.A. Now series is to invigorate critical interest in Los Angeles, and to spur future ventures and projects.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

intr

oduc

tion

prop

osal

s

26

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

variables

commonalities1. All projects shall support an integrative policy of space and building making.

All proposals and their programmatic components must react, engage and enter a physical and formal dialogue with all existing and proposed conditions. The spaces and structures should collectively intertwine to frame and enhance the other’s central concept.

2. All projects shall induce development through an infusion of critical mass.

3. All projects shall encourage infrastructure to enter a lateral rather than a hierarchical relationship with each otherInfrastructure refer to transportation, service, politics and habitation systems. All infrastructure components will be developed to its final and ultimate deterministic potential.

4. All projects’ boundaries shall exist within a territory of discussions and agendas.All proposals shall establish a critical relationship with its adjacent districts via the projects’ edges and parameters.

5. All projects shall facilitate alternative modes of movement.All proposals will examine implications of reducing automobile transportation, intelligent parking and eliminating secondary and tertiary roads on the site. Not only will this promote public transportation and a healthier environment, this mandate will generate attractive real estate opportunities.

6. All projects shall pursue an intelligent use of limited resources.The project site’s size can substantially affect and contribute to an enhanced natural and environmental living conditions.

7. All projects shall support a broad notion of identity in relation to the various levels of urban scales: metropolis, city, downtown, and neighborhood.

8. All projects shall characterize, enhance and codify quantified regional data.All proposals’ merits are determined by a foundation of comparable statistics and data (demographics, economics, infrastructure). The data informs critical mass decisions and design strategies, forming the basis for a comparison to an appropriate case study.

9. All projects shall support a flexible, evolutionary and adaptable state of inhabitation and use.All proposals shall assume users, through an accretional process, will coerce, assimilate and modify given architecture and urban conditions to befit their evolving lifestyle and future demographic patterns.

1. Large Infusion Stadium-Multi-purpose Public Center / Educational Institution / Cultural Institutions / Religious institutions / Retail Shopping Center

2. Infrastructure Organization Maximize local and regional public transport / Minimize parking density / Pedestrian infrastructure / walkways 3. Economic Configuration Public: Infrastructure / Stadium-public center / Education / Some cultural institutions Private: Housing / Retail / Hotels / Entertainment / General services / Shopping / Commercial (Offices + Production + manufacturing) / Technology services

4. Density High Density Low Density

5. Demographics Economic class Ethnic group

6. Natural Condition / Landscape River / Green spaces / Energy resources / Park Use / Pollutants

proposalsintroduction

27

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

ElastiCity volume three

a new zoning envelopeElastiCity presumes to augment the traditional planning typological model via a new topological zoning envelope tuned to specific site conditions. The undulating form becomes a skin highly molded to the demands of localized conditions.

population: 35,000total residential area: 19,000,000 sq. ft. total building area: 26,000,000 sq. ft.

DiurnalCityvolume three

24-hour cityCommuter evacuation after work has become a primary restriction on the level of activities available in downtown Los Angeles. DiurnalCity proposes a complex shifting of programs and uses to attract, extend and sustain a new lifestyle within downtown Los Angeles, 24 hours a day.

population: 23,000total residential area: 15,111,000 sq. ft.total building area: 30,670,177 sq. ft.

intr

oduc

tion

prop

osal

s

28

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

L.A. Mallvolume three

a new green heart for downtownThe L.A. Mall offers downtown its largest green park which will anchor the master plan of the Los Angeles River’s edge development toward Griffith Park. The buildings that define this green hearth are programmatic extensions of the existing urban fabric.

population: 33,700total residential area: 18,950,800 sq. ft.

total building area: 23,430,300 sq. ft.

Suburban Spillvolume three

intersection of four adjacent communitesBy extending the surrounding neigborhood urban fabric into the site, the resulting collison of east-side suburban residential, north-side transportation, west-side culture and south-side manufacturing generates the contextual quiltwork of Suburban Spill.

population: 17,650total residential are: 8,847,780 sq. ft total building area: 20,319,000 sq. ft.

proposalsintroduction

29

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

Stadium Cityvolume four

new village around Dodger StadiumStadium City proposes to situate an urban community around Dodger Stadium by laying a porous housing mat over an excavated site. Open space and amenities are extracted from the mat based on programmatic necessities and historical precedents. Stadium City offers over 2,000 condominiums with large private gardens and 160 town squares linked to parks and schools.

population: 21,250total residential area: 9,860,000 sq. ft. total building area: 18,740,000 sq. ft.

L.A.Live/Elysian Housingvolume three

stadiums + convention center + Union StationThis scheme proposes swapping housing wtih Dodger Stadium and recognizing the enhanced benefits of these new locations. The housing sits on the last great single site in Los Angeles and the stadium poses to challenge and contribute to the emerging vibrancy of downtown.

population: 24,000total residential area: 21,000,000 sq. ft. total building area: 81,000,000 sq. ft.

intr

oduc

tion

prop

osal

s

30

OGP 2006-02-130BCMYK E-2540-175L-029SWOP

Elysian Greensvolume four

housing on ravine edge doubles Elysian ParkBy concentrating the housing development on the edges of Chavez Ravine, Elysian Greens returns most of the site back to green space, thereby doubling Elysian Park. The housing concentration along the cliff affords more units with city views and provides an urban front to the city. Elysian Greens engages the Chinatown and Solano Canyon communities by extending a connective infrastructural bar and relocating the Stadium near the new Los Angeles State Historic Park, respectively.

population: 16,000total residential area: 7,153,890 sq. ft.

total building area: 8,623,390 sq. ft.

Chavez Passvolume four

new Figueroa Express Corridor Chavez Pass integrates the grid of downtown and the topology of Elysian Park with the infra-structural thoroughfare of the new Figueroa connection. The new Figueroa extension begins with a newly re-located Dodger Stadium next to Staples Center and continues uninterrupted through Chavez Ravine and Elysian Park to connect with the 5 Freeway and the communities north of Elysian Park.

population: 35,000total residential area: 10,000,000 sq. ft.

total building area:11,000,000 sq. ft.

proposalsintroduction

31