Bicycle! Bicycle!

EoA back on the set

Did you know that the LA Department of Transit has a bikeways department?
There are over 3,000 bicycle racks owned by the city that needs maintenance and miles and miles of bike paths that need to be kept in top condition. And this year, the bikeways deparment is working on a draft of the Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan. The Plan, once completed, should direct the development of bike lanes throughout the city of Los Angeles for the foreseeable future. If you really feel like reading all 212 pages of it, here you go. It's quite a monster, but that's to be expected with a city as large and as complicated as LA.

Now, there's been some real outcry from the bicycle community in LA about the plan. You can read here, here, here, and here about the plan. The long and short of it (for my lazy readers) is that many bike advocates feel like the plan is doing far too little for the bicycling community. There aren't enough bike lanes, and the most bike routes on the map are sharrows rather than lanes.
Now! This isn't to tweak the nose of the LA bicycle community (well okay, maybe a little - but I'm a bike rider too, so I feel like I can get away with these things), but rather to encourage them to take a more realistic view. If I may, I'd like to point them to the example of Oakland.

that's a whole lotta dotted lines....

Oakland passed their bicycle master plan back in 2007, and while there are a *ton* of bicycle advocacy groups in the area, and far more public and political good will towards bicyclists than in Los Angeles, Oakland has been only able to make the smallest of dents in their overall bicycle master plan. Some sections won't see the light of day until our state and local budget crises pass. And if a city like Oakland is only meeting small success, what about a city like Los Angeles?

Los Angeles is currently running a $1 million a day deficit in their city budget. If you're looking for the city to spring for improvements in bicycle lanes, look again. That means the city will have to look elsewhere when trying to get the funding for new lanes and sharrows. In our current economic situation, there aren't many places to look. A master plan that has feasible goals is far better than a visionary document that no one can implement: That risks losing credibility. Let's keep chipping away at the enormous monolith that is car culture and we'll start to get somewhere. If you try to make everything happen right now, you risk squandering what public and political goodwill you have.

I've always envisioned a city where cars aren't necessary. A place where you can walk to stores that would fulfill your daily needs; A place with vibrant, dense neighborhoods that have adequate open space and a lively street scene. But that vision doesn't just drop out of the sky into your lap. We've got to make it happen ourselves, little bit by little bit. If you want to do your little bit, here's a list of all the public meetings LADOT is going to have for their bicycle master plan:

Harbor Area
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009
Location: Peck Park
Address: 560 North Western Avenue, San Pedro, CA 90732
Time: 5:00pm-7:00pm

Central/South Los Angeles
Date: Saturday, October 24, 2009
Location: Exposition Park - Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Regional Library
Address: 3900 S. Western Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90062
Time: 10:00am-12:00pm

San Fernando Valley
Date: Monday, October 26, 2009
Location: Marvin Braude-San Fernando Valley Constituent Services Center,
Conference Room 1B
Address: 6262 Van Nuys Blvd, Van Nuys, CA 91401
Time: 5:00pm-7:00pm

West Los Angeles
Date: Wednesday October 28, 2009
Location: Felicia Mahood Multi Purpose Center
Address: 11338 Santa Monica Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90037
Time: 5:00pm-7:00pm

Northeast Los Angeles
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Location: Ramona Hall
Address: 4580 N Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042
Time: 6:00pm-8:00pm

And if you've stuck around until the end of this here post, well I've got a present for you.

Pico Union & Pocket Parks

EoA here, taking a break from writing my 15 page paper.

Planners often get too complacent with process. That is to say, there's a known and accepted way to interface with the public, get public input, and use it for future plans that the city is trying to put together. The only problem with that is it often gets stale.
I've been to too many public planning meetings set up in the rec room of a church or an auxiliary room in city hall with a slideshow or powerpoint presentation up at the front of the room. Usually question/answer or public input on a big sheet of paper happens next, and usually it's just the same old people who go to every meeting. They then commence stubbornly banging heads with equally stubborn planners and city staff. Sometimes the stuff they bang heads over has nothing to do with the project at hand.
They're just so used to the same old meeting format, they've got their axe to grind, and they can do it because no one else bothers to show up. On the other end of this equation are the planners who end up barely paying attention to what these people are saying because they can probably recite these people's talking points from memory anyhow. Clearly, something's not working; but we keep using this process anyways because we don't know what else to do.

Well, today I saw something new. It was amazing. I was invited by my friend James Rojas to a planning exercise that he was doing at a high school in the Pico-Union/Westlake neighborhood of Los Angeles. James is a planner for Metro, but he's also an artist and owns a gallery space downtown.

The project we were working on with these high schoolers was what they thought their neighborhood should look like in the future. But instead of asking for ideas and writing them up on a big board, or taking a map and having them put little pre-made buildings where they thought new buildings should go, James took a new and creative approach: let them build it themselves. James has collected lots of little trinkets - wooden beads, buttons, mahjong tiles, Stratego pieces, strangely cut wooden blocks, things like that - and he dumped them all out on a big table. He then gave each of the kids a 1 foot by 1 foot cardboard square and had them go pick stuff out from the pile of trinkets and build the city themselves.
And these kids came up with some amazing stuff. They were challenged to use their creativity. Nothing was provided for them. They got to start from scratch and build their world up around them. This is an imagined business center with a overhead rail line, kinda like Chigaco's L train.
This guy imagined a great public space for people to meet and relax in. Restaurants and activities would be in the middle and it would be surrounded by dense housing and business. He really stressed that buildings should have interesting shapes because he was "tired of everything looking like a rectangle".
This guy had a ton of stuff going on in his really dense city, but I loved that he chose this crazy polygon shape on the left to be his museum.
This girl simply wanted more parks in her neighborhood. I wouldn't mind going here.
After everybody got to explain their project, we had each table combine their communities to make one big city. We got some cool results.
But what really struck me again and again about all these cities was the desire for more open space. Whether it was parks, areas for skateboarding, civic plazas, or just breaks between buildings, almost everybody talked about wanting more open space in their neighborhood. And that's important, because the Pico Union/Westlake neighborhood is not only one of the densest neighborhoods in LA, it is also one of the most park-starved neighborhoods in LA. Seeing this in the projects and the words of these kids was far more powerful than the jargon-filled talking points thrown about by city planners and neighborhood activists. Even better, these kids demonstrated what kind of parks and open space they want. Remember, a park can quickly become blight if no one uses it. There are efforts to remedy this problem, but we've still got a long way to go.

But these are young people that you would never see at a strategic planning meeting. Planners need to focus more on ways to engage people that wouldn't otherwise bother. These high schoolers are going to inherit this neighborhood over the next 20 years, and they need to be a part of how its future is planned. The more people you involve, the better the overall vision you will receive, and the more you will minimize the disproportionate effect those who do go to these meetings currently have. Conversely, the more people you involve, the harder it will be for city staff to simply write off the feedback they receive when doing planning.

But really, the best part of all came at the end. When everyone was finished and feeling good about themselves and ready to forget about the whole thing once they stepped out the door, the teacher stood up in front of class and said "Okay, now how are we going to make this happen? I want a group of you to work on a project about the vision we've created today". Bravo, teacher.

Bravo.

Double Duty

EoA back on the set.

So I've got a bunch of crazy projects to do over the coming week, so there won't be too much posting on Industrianism. I'll leave you with a project I had done earlier this semester for my History of City Planning class. It's the history of the 6th Street Viaduct in downtown LA (and just a block away from my apartment). Sorry for the smaller size. I still can't figure out how to make the video pop out into another window so you can actually read the text...

Enjoy!

Good Idea, Bad Idea

EoA back again!

Hey, did you guys ever watch the cartoon Animaniacs when you were little? I watched it all the time.
That show was genius. The older I get, the more I appreciate all the jokes they put into it that really were meant for adults. Despite all those jokes, it's amazing that they were still able to make it such a hit with kids. It's one of those show that was truly inter-generational, like Pee-Wee's Playhouse. But! I digress....

One of my favorite bits from the show was "Good Idea, Bad Idea"
It was generaly a quick sketch where they'd have Tom Bodett from the "Motel Six" commercial do a voice over on something that was a good idea, and something similar that was a really bad idea. Here's a sample of what I'm talking about.

So along those lines, I wanted to go all Urban Planner on 'good idea, bad idea'. A few weeks ago, I went to an outdoor movie screening in Hollywood held by Cinespia at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery. The movie shown was Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, one of the only films to every get a 100% rating on the website Rotten Tomatoes.

Pee-Wee Herman: truly, a bicycle-oriented urbanist before his time

I could go on and on about how much that movie rocked, but I've got something else I'd rather nerd out about. And so begins: Good Idea, Bad Idea.

Mixed-Use Good Idea:
Reusing a low-intensity single purpose plot of land (like a cemetery) for something like outdoor movie screenings.

And there were tons of people there! Way more than you'd probably find 'paying respects' on any given Sunday. This isn't to denigrate people respecting the dead, but we need to think of ways to integrate mixed uses into our cities and lives. The less space we can take up for activities and the more activities we can fit into the spaces we have, the more compact and vibrant our cities will be. I mean, check this out:

That's a lot of people...

Mixed-Use Bad Idea:
Putting a factory right next to a cemetery. I'm all for mixed-use, but let's think about why people invented zoning in the first place. It was primarly a tool to protect us from the harmful effects of pollution and industry. I'm not sure how much peace and serenity you can get at a cemetery when there's a manufacturing plant right next to you.

That's not very peaceful...

Good Idea, Bad Idea. Sometimes, you just need to listen to the Animaincs. I've heard that they're zany. To the max.

Crooks, Crews, and horribly mixed metaphors

*Before I get started, I just wanted to apologize to anyone who reads Industrianism (anyone? Bueler? Bueler?) for taking so long between posts. I've had a lot of personal crap come up all at once along with transitioning into grad school. Let's just say it was ... an unpleasant ... two weeks. But! I'm back, hopefully to post more stuff for the 3 people who read this here blog. Hi, mom!*

Ready to stretch our metaphor muscles? After reading this post, you'll feel like you just did a session of Bikram Yoga.

In the sport of rowing, the fastest boat around is the eight-oared shell. It's got the most guys in it and they can beat any other configuration in the sport.
But the problem with an 8-oared shell is that you need 8 guys (and a coxswain) to row it at top speed. If you only have 6 guys in the boat, you'll probably get beat by a smaller boat that's full, like a 4-oared shell.
Now! "EoA, what the hell does this have to do with industry, urbanism, or LA?" is probably what you're saying to yourself right about now. I hope you all took the time to stretch like I suggested earlier in the post. We're about make some crazy connections.

Everybody and their mom likes to talk about how awesome "transit oriented development" is. If you don't know, now you know. But TOD isn't just something you plop down on the street. Magical transit fairies won't stream out the doors and turn cars into playground for kids or something. You need a lot of factors working together in order to make TOD successful. If they aren't all present, you'll end up spinning your wheels while smaller, more car oriented businesses and housing units pass you by. You could almost say it's like ... needing 8 guys in your 8-oared shell!!

I ride down Central quite a lot on my bike, and it's got a lot going on. I recently passed two big 'ole TOD-style projects there while biking home one day. Now, I'm all for TOD and all the concepts behind it. Density, transit, mixed use, all of that.
But when I got closer, I started seeing some troubling signs. None of it was open. The stores were empty, the rooms were unoccupied. It was clear that this building had been completed for some time now.
There was another TOD style development even older than this one, but all they had managed to secure was a "coming soon" Subway. When all you can get is a Subway, you know you're doing something wrong.
And just down the street from both of these ghostly behemoths, a lively and full street scene was unfolding.
These little shops are like the 4-oared shell that is shooting past our big, lumbering 8-oared boat, manned by only 5 rowers. This isn't to say that one neighborhood or store layout is better than another. It's just that if we're going to commit ourselves to TOD living, we need to do a lot more than just plop down 5 story modernist-blah style buildings with storefronts on the street. We need to focus them in areas where there's a large amount of transit. We need to focus them in areas that already have high rates of density to support the businesses they'll add to the neighborhood. We need to work with cities to redesign streets that TOD is being built on so they will be more oriented towards pedestrians. If we can't line all of these things up, TOD will be left at a huge disadvantage to more traditional, car oriented businesses. But when we DO get all those things lined up, nobody can beat us.

Now, I understand there are plenty of people out there who have never seen crew or rowing. Metaphors aren't for everybody. But to put it in different terms (and show off my super whiteness), I'm going to take a quote from the late, great Biggie Smalls: "There ain't no such thing as half-way crooks". We can't change our cities by doing things halfway.

More Bears

EoA here

I'm going to have a really kick-ass post up later on this week about the history of 6th Street Viaduct (Viaduct = bridge. I don't know why they called it that). But in the meantime, I found some more sweet, sweet bears hanging around my neighborhood. And really, what would you prefer: hear about a bridge or look at some cool bears? Amirite?

Oh, hey bear. I didn't see you standing there on that stump.
....yeah. I already said 'hi'. You're starting to creep me out, bear.
AAAAHHHH!!! Scary negative-imprint bear! Also, you're getting a little close. Why don't you back off a little, huh?.
Woah, costume change? I can tell you're a little confused too.
I don't know where the bear went, but I sure don't like the way that Elephant is eyeing me.

Weekend Whimsy

So I don't really feel like doing some in-depth urban analysis today. It's time for more weekend whimsy! Here's some cool stuff.



Have a great weekend, everyone!

Diversity, both in form and use

When reading Jane Jacobs, one of the things that struck me the most was her focus on diversity of building use and type in order to create a successful neighborhood. Her example was what she called the "monoculture of use" on Wall Street in the New York City of the 1960's. All the bankers would come rush in during the morning, go out for lunch, and rush back home after the markets closed. The tragedy of this situation, in her eyes, was that the area Wall Street occupied was left empty and without beneficial use in any other time of day than the ones listed above. Wall Street was so successful that any use other than "financial activities" had been priced out, and this pricing out was hurting the viability of Wall Street as a vibrant neighborhood. The same type of pattern has followed in many American downtowns during the 20th century, as they were designed to accommodate car commuters coming in from the suburbs and tended to shun the downtown residents that could make such an area be a thriving, 24-hour neighborhood. In short, these neighborhoods lacked diversity of use.

What's missing here? People! (well, other than officer Pepe, at least)

Another example Mrs. Jacobs sites is the dangerous playground in the solely residential neighborhood in urban Baltimore. This is a park that is surrounded by almost carbon-copy homes that are occupied by people who all fit into a very thin slice of the economic spectrum. Since most of these people lead similar lives, their schedules often mirror each other. These similar schedules then tended to leave the neighborhood park mostly empty for much of the day. This lack of attention and usage of the park led to it becoming the haunt of drug dealers and other dangerous elements. If there were a range of people with different living and working situations within this neighborhood, there would have been more usage of the park at different hours and a better chance that it would have been policed effectively. Again, these neighborhoods lacked diversity.

The diversity I'm describing is contained in the form of the buildings, in the types of people whom are found in the neighborhood, and the types of activities that go on there.

When I bike around the Industrial & Arts Districts, I find a wealth of people, buildings, and uses. It may not look the way you think a good neighborhood should, but it works pretty well as one.

This is a courtyard down an alleyway behind a converted industrial space. It really reminds me of Florence, but I think that's just from the yellow awnings and the vespas parked outside. Just so you know, the outside of the building looks like this:
So we've got non-traditional housing. We're talking about people who may or may not be "artists", but we can certainly say that, compared to the population at large, you have a large percentage of people that work on non-traditional schedules and often work where they live. Just a few blocks away, we find this:
Cool! But more importantly, it's a religious institution that might have a different schedule than working people. Then there's industrial workspace.
This brings a lot of people into the neighborhood in the middle of the day. You get sustained activity throughout the daytime hours. Another source of daytime activity is governmental work:
Do not mess with LA Water and Power: they will break you.
And of course, a vibrant neighborhood needs some good old fashioned upwardly mobile middle class folks.
But those are the tricky gentrifying folks that bear watching. Don't get over-eager, yuppie pioneers. We wouldn't want to create another monoculture. But for right now, you're just another slice of diversity.

Articulation

EoA here with a mid-week entry,

Articulation is one of those planner-y terms that gets thrown around quite a bit. Worse than that, it can get thrown around without people really understanding what they're saying. To that issue, let's let Wikipedia drop some knowledge.

What I wanted to talk about today is called "Rooftop Articulation". Whenever you see a building where the top few floors have got something interesting going on, that's rooftop articulation. There are some cities and schools of planning thought that like to make rooftop articulation mandatory in new construction, especially in business districts and downtowns. Opposing viewpoints call these types of zoning restrictions silly. They claim such requirements are a dictation of design from the city planner's office and stifle the innate creativity of architects. Other people claim that it can create a "wedding cake" effect where you'll end up with a bunch of weird stuff on the upper floors of buildings and a monoculture of rooftop articulations.

Sometimes it can be awesome:

Other times, not so much....

But! This isn't the "be bitchy about architects" blog, this is Industrianism. To that end, I wanted to talk about the rooftop articulations that I've found in and around my neighborhood. Now, these weren't regulated and required articulations, but rather go back to an earlier era when greater stock and pride was placed in the industrial spaces created within a city. Too often, new industrial space is cheaply constructed cubes made of cinder-block. Too often, new residential urban units are a mishmash of modernist architectural styles that comes out looking like crap. Planners and developers should take notice of the wealth of examples around them and try to incorporate that beauty into new developments.
This rooftop articulation, placed on the tower of the building, overlooks a large intersection. The tower on the corner, and the articulation on it that demands attention, helps to put an otherwise wide-open intersection, that would be extremely pedestrian unfriendly, into better perspective. Imagine, an old industrial site that happens to have modern sound planning principles! Maybe we should just look around a bit more...

Weekend Funzies!

EoA here.

Soooooo, I broke my camera a few days back, which will understandably stunt the posting I can do on Industrianism (it being a photo-blog and all...). But! I've got some photos left over from my first jaunt around the neighborhood and seeing its the weekend, I don't see why we can't insert some whimsy into this here blog. Maybe whimsy will be a weekend theme for Industrianism. We'll see - everything's pretty much in flux right now.

Anyhow! These are some cool things you could only find in side-alleys in my neighborhood. You've always gotta explore - and not with a car.

I'm pretty sure my spare parts are cooler than yours. This was waaaay down a side alley between a towed car lot and a manufacturing warehouse. There was also a sweet Jimi Hendrix mural on the wall. It's something you wouldn't be able to see from a car, much less from the roadway. Little gems everywhere.

I call this one "Bad Dog". Original, right? It was down another alley and was the back entrance to a small manufacturing outfit. I've seen plenty of "Guard Dog" or "Attack Dog" or "Police Dog" signs, but "Bad Dog"? That's so sad. It's like the owners are telling you "not only will this guard dog bite you, it will also steal your wallet and ruin your credit. He's just a bad dog. We'd rather have another, but he's all we've got. Anyways, you've been warned".

Have a great weekend, all!