1 B
Dave Weaver, Mayor Laura Friedman Ara Najarian Frank Quintero Zareh Sinanyan Scott Ochoa, City Manager
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Hassan Haghani, AICP, Director of Community Development Alan Loomis, Principal Urban Designer Michael Nilsson, AICP CTP, Mobility Planner
SUPPORT TEAM
Annette Vartanian, Program Supervisor, Library, Arts, and Culure Emil Tatevosian, Park Planning and Development Administrator Kathryn Engel, Transit Manager Kevin Carter, Engineering Manager
CONSULTANT TEAM
Melani Smith, AICP, Melendrez Amber Hawkes, AICP, Melendrez Shannon Davis, Melendrez David Koo, Melendrez Allyn Rifkin, PE Rifkin Transportation Planning Group Michael Metcalfe, APA, Metcalfe Associates Robert Dannenbrink, FAICP, AIA, Dannenbrink Design and Planning Todd Graham, PE, DPE, KPFF
CREDITS
This study was made possible by a Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Compass Blueprint Grant awarded to the City of Glendale. The City thanks SCAG for their support of the project and other cap parks throughout the region, through their SCAG Cap Parks Coalition.
METCALFE ASSOCIATES Urban Design Development Planning
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction Situating the Study Area Regional Context Policy Context Project Study Area Land Use and Demographics New Development in Downtown Transportation Context Public Transit Congestion and the Frontage Road Option Local Circulation Other Cap Parks Understanding Scale Theme and Brand Process
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15
3
3 3 3 3 3
1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX
and Team
1 F
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The lack of public park space in LA County is notable; it is estimated that almost 2 out of 3 children in the county do not live within walking distance of a park, playground, or open space. Also, many park spaces throughout the county are located away from the urban core and from underserved communities. The Space 134 visioning process looks at the potential for new open space immediately within the Downtown Glendale core and immediately adjacent to many residential communities to the south and north by capping a segment of the 134 Freeway and turning it into a park or cap park over the freeway. The Trust for Public Land (2004), identified the neighborhoods around the Space 134 study area as those with the greatest need for new parks. These neighborhoods were identified because they have high concentrations of residents under the age of 18 and have limited or no parks within walking distance. Countless studies, policies and before-and-after analyses of existing open spaces have shown that when cities add well-designed and well-programmed open space directly into their urban mix, they attract new development and new investment, help improve air quality and reduce pollution clouds, improve their communitys health, and generally improve quality of life for residents. And cap parks have the added benefit of re-linking formerly fragmented areas of the city, by covering freeways with usable park and community space. The Millennial generation of young professionals and emptynester Baby Boomers- the folks who are increasingly coming to central city environments to live, work, and play-- create a powerful marketing demand for central city urban neighborhoods like downtown Glendale. These groups expect open space, multimodal transit options, services, entertainment, and housing, all within walking and biking distance - and they demand a highquality urban environment too. The City of Glendale is embracing these shifting demographics and the potential for their community to integrate creative new open space and community amenities, and with this study begins to investigate the potential for a cap park facility. Chapter 1, the vision plan for Space 134 looks first at the physical context that makes the cap park idea desirable for Glendale and then at the policy context that brought the project about. Background analysis is presented; dissecting the study area in more detail. Chapter 2 presents the complete vision plan, starting with the full build-out 40 year vision and then describing the incremental steps along the way, starting with a 5-10 year vision for a green network of an expanded pedestrian realm. Finally the report discussed the logistics of the cap park in Chapter 3, with a discussion on the funding, costs, benefits, and next steps.
Street Space converted to People Space: Brooklyn saw a 172% increase in retail sales (compared to 18% borough-wide) at locally based businesses after a pedestrian plaza was installed.
(Measuring the Streets, NYDOT)
The High Line generated $2 billion in private investment surrounding the park. The city spent $115 million on the park.
(Mayor Bloomberg in the New York Times)
Parks and green spaces provide economic benefits by increasing property tax revenue and attracting businesses as well as provide health benefits by improving air quality through removal of pollutants improving water quality and reducing runoff, and lowering air temperatures.
(County of Los Angeles Public Health, Preventing Childhood Obesity: the need to create healthy places)
Cities with less open area set aside as parks, recreational area, or wilderness area were more likely to have a higher rate of obesity.
(County of Los Angeles Public Health, Preventing Childhood Obesity: the need to create healthy places)
The park has become the most active space downtown and over $700 million of new development has occurred within a two-block radius of the park.
(Campus Martius Park, Detroit, MI, 2010 Urban Open Space Award Winner, ULI)
The greenbelt added $5.4 million to the total property values of one neighborhood. That generated $500,000 per year in additional potential property taxes, enough to cover the $1.5 million purchase price of the greenbelt in only three years.
(Trust for Public Land, The Benefits of Parks)
1 1
CITY OF GLENDALE
DOWNTOWN CORE
Having parkland and recreational programs nearby significantly reduced childrens risk of overweight and obesity when they reached age 18. Recreational programming affected childrens body mass index much more than parkland.
(University of California, Berkeley)
DOWNTOWN
OPEN/ PARK SPACE SPACE 134 1/4 AND 1/2 MILE RADIUS 134 Freeway
1 2
REGIONAL CONTEXT
In a larger regional context, the City of Glendale is encircled by various riparian systems, natural habitat areas, and public recreational places and finds itself at the center of a series of mountain ranges nearly on all sides, including the Verdugo Mountains, the Santa Monica Mountains and Mount Washington. In fact the name, Glendale means valley in Scottish and Gaelic. The city also sits within the geographical triangle of the Sierra Madre foothills, the Los Angeles River, and the Arroyo Seco. The Verdugo Wash links into the Los Angeles River and the whole city is part of the LA River watershed. At the confluence of all of these amazing natural resources and features, the city center has little open space resources in terms of active and passive park land. Space 134 not only has the potential to add new park space to the downtown core, but also to connect to the broader regional network of water and open space, via the adjacent Verdugo Wash which at some points travels as close as 300 feet from the freeway edge.
er Riv
Griffith Park Verdugo Mountains
LA Ri r ve
NORTH GLENDALE Verdugo Wash
Verdugo Mountains
LA
CENTRAL GLENDALE
Glenoaks Canyon
City of Glendale
LA er Riv
Downtown LA
Regional Context
Research shows that when people have access to parks, they are more likely to exercise, which can reduce obesity and its associated health risks and costs
(Gies, E. (2006). The Health Benefits of Parks, in Lau, C Urban Freeway Cap Parks Policy Briefing Paper, USC).
Glendale Narrows
1 3
POLICY CONTEXT
SUPPORT FROM THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Initial visioning for a Glendale cap park was proposed in the Parks and Open Space Chapter of the Downtown Glendale Specific Plan. The 134 Freeway was capped between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard. The Specific Plan suggests that a cap park could enhance Downtown connectivity and feature a regional transit center. A visualization of what the potential cap park could look like from the Specific Plan is included below. GREENER GLENDALE PLAN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Walking Distance Open Space Policies Provide public open space within walking distance of all Downtown residents and employees.
GENERAL PLAN
Recreation Element Glendale has a deficit of both community and neighborhood park facilities. The city currently has a parkland to resident ratio of approximately 1.4 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents while the Citys park planning standard is 1 acre of neighborhood parks and 5 acres of community parkland per 1,000 residents. Glendale has an extreme shortage of athletic fields which are traditionally located in community parks. Circulation Element Goal #4 Functional and safe streetscapes that are aesthetically pleasing for both pedestrians and vehicular. - Provide and maintain high quality streetscape and pedestrian amenities (i.e. bus shelters, street trees, street furniture, wide sidewalks, etc.). - Support the enhancement of existing and creation of new pedestrian-oriented retail centers.
Urban Nature Objective #4 Ensure there is accessible park and recreational open space to serve residents Strategy A Identify those areas not within 1/3 mile of recreational open space, and develop strategies to provide parks or recreational open space in those areas. Strategy B Take advantage of opportunities to provide parks and open space through greenways and green streets, particularly in areas where park space is not available.
Excellent Design Make the new public parks, plazas and courtyards harmonious, inspirational, and sources of community pride and identity through design excellence.
Goal Maintain and update traffic calming measures in the Glendale Traffic Calming Program
Urban Design Objective #3 Continue to implement Southern California Association of Governments Compass Blueprint Strategies in Glendale to coordinate with regional efforts to increase stainability and liveable environments.
Mobility Policy Maintain, re-establish, and enhance the street grid, to promote exibility of movement through greater street connectivity, capture natural views, and retain the historic relationships between various streets.
Goal Continue expanding the Citys bicycle parking facilities. Include installation of secure parking facilities for downtown or the Glendale Transportation Center.
Goal #5 Land use which can be supported within the capacity constraints of existing and realistic future infrastructure.
Visualization from the Downtown Specific Plan illustrating the potential cap park over the 134 freeway between Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue.
A table of relevant City documents with policies that support aspects of the Space 134 project.
1 4
Rd
SPACE 134
Kenilworth Ave
Columbus Ave
Pacific Ave
Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Jackson St
Louise St
Geneva St
EXISTING CONNECTIONS
Kenilworth Ave
Columbus Ave
Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Jackson St
Pacific Ave
Louise St
Geneva St
Verdugo Wash
1 5
Gl
en
da
le
Av e
Gle
Doran St
nd
ale
Av e
Pioneer Dr
Po
Verdugo Wash
Mo
n te
rey
r to
la
Av e
LAND USE
The Downtown Specific Plan runs south from the Freeway and includes Special District Zoning along the core downtown streets, Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue. The community commercial area continues to the west along Glenoaks and there is another node of commercial activity at where Glendale Avenue crosses the 134 freeway. This eastern node of downtown activity indicates a major opportunity for Glendale to expand pedestrian-friendly commercial uses to the east. High and medium density residential neighborhoods surround the study area, with a low-density residential neighborhood, Rossmoyne, to the northeast of the freeway.
PACIFIC AVE
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
GLENOAKS BLVD
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
134
FREEWAY
COLUMBUS AVE
CENTRAL AVE
BRAND BLVD
JACKSON ST
GL
DEMOGRAPHICS
The makeup of residents living in the zip code areas adjacent to Space 134 is similar to that of the city as a whole, in terms of race and age, as well as household occupancy and commute mode. The average income in these areas however is less than the city as a whole.
GENEVA ST
LOUISE ST
EA VE
Study Area
Total Population
City of Glendale
Total Population
48,537
193,111
20,000
3010 3012.04 3018.01 3019 3018.02 3020.02 3020 3020 .04 .03 3011
COMMUTER MODES
SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE CARPOOL VEHICLE PUBLIC TRANSIT WALKING BIKING OTHER MEANS
$67,500
Avg. Income
Children Population (Age 0-19)
$78,393
Avg. Income Children Population (Age 0-19)
EN
DA L
3021.04
RACE
9,730
Household Occupancy
40,328
Household Occupancy
BLACK - %2 OTHER - %5
2.17
2.63
*All Data from 2012 Community Survey, US Census.gov *Study area includes census tracts depicted right
1 6
Pipeline Projects
1: Verdugo Gardens 2 at 610 N Central
6-story, 220-unit residential (Stage II.rev May 17 2012)
GLENOAKS
ARDEN
MONTEREY
A NOTE ON PARKING
One of the major strategies that the City has been pursuing is to manage parking supply and demand in the Downtown. During a field visit with staff of the study area; parking spillover into the residential neighborhood from the commercial district was noted. Much of the parking on the bridges over the 134 freeway currently serves Downtown employees. Space 134 should consider parking consolidation and sharing, rather than new parking development to support the park. This is especially true, in light of the large amount of new development coming to Downtown. A comprehensive strategy when it comes to planning for and requiring new parking should be pursued.
5: 301 N Central
6-story, 84-unit mixed-use (Stage II Mar 12 2013)
PIONEER
1 2 3
DORAN
DORAN
8: Cental + Wilson
6-story, 153-unit residential (Stage 1 Mar 19 2013)
MILFORD
9: Orange + Wilson
6-story, 166-unit residential (Stage II Oct 30 2012)
LEXINGTON
10: Brand+Wilson
6 story, 235-unit mixed-use (Stage II Sept 11 2012)
MRYTLE
4 5
CENTRAL
6
MARYLAND KENWOOD JACKSON
ORANGE
BRAND
LOUISE
7
WILSON
12 9 10 13 14
BROADWAY
BID BOUNDARY
16: Bloomingdales
120,000sf department store (Under Construction)
16 15
17 18
HARVARD
20 19 23
ELK
ORANGE GROVE
21
COLORADO
22
1 7
0 150 300 600
GLE
SALEM
11
ISABEL
NDA
LE
VA
LV D
EL E
EV
N BEACHWOOD DR
EB
VICTORY BLVD !
! ! ! !
IA
VI ST A
LIV
LIN
HER
PA LM
EL M W
O LG
ED
CH
ST
!
AV
ST
! !
TE R
AV
AV
S
!
AV
EL M
ER
VA LE N
VE
ED
AV
RR
EN
AL AM
ROBIN GLEN DR
AR
CALEB ST
LY N
RE ST
VI D
M PS O
AV
OLD PH
PR
SP AZ IE
DR
EEVI N AV
AV
SU
MOND
PA CIF IC
AV
D AV
EC
EN
W OO
BEN LO
HIGHL AN
STONE
ARD
AM
CARNARVON DR
PR
IA
IDLE
RT A
ST
R CLA
NS
AV
AV
AH
ET
JU
AV
EN
AV
JU
RD
TE R
IA AV
AS H
HILLCREST AV
RL AN
D RD
VE
AV IS TA
G EL EN
NONAME
W VALENCIA AV
AV
SA
M PS
MB E
WY
AN
LO M
AY M
BASSO TER CU
EN
AV
AR
ST
LN
AV
AV
ARDM ORE
W O
D RD
BRUC
D AV
AL LE
AV
W IN
AR
HIGHL AN
WOO
NOLD
ED
ED
AV
HR
N CENTRAL AV
CT
AV
IDLE
O R
EL M
AV LIN
SO
OL ST
D RD
N MARYLAND AV
EN
C AR ME ND R SIN ALO AD R LO RE TO DR
BRUC
AV IS
GLEN
OV AA V
AV
ER WV
EL M
IA
! !
VA LE N
W OO
AV
LIN
! !
AL E
AV
IA AV
IDLE
CO RD
! !
SCHO
BL VD
AV
EM EN
W Y
BL VD
E AV
AV
DU
GO
CA VA N
W O
AV
TO
VIRG IN
RY
CO SM IC
GRAY
DE
BE
V IC
AG
LN
RT A
EN
O SE D
AV
IA AV
ER
AV
LN
AS
JU
GL
OLMS
TED
DR
OA
KS
HILLCROFT
TO R
RD
RE
WOO
! !
D RD
TOLL
MS
ST CONCORD
HHS
!
SPEN
CLEME
CER ST
E MOUNTAIN ST
ROSS ST
SD
O ALAM
DR
R
DEL MONTE DR
CIR
CLE
!
DR
NT DR
O SE D
AV
CAMPBELL ST
AV
EL M
NORT ON AV
M PS O
M AU
AV
TG
AV
W IL
N ISABE L ST
AV
EN
TH
LU
N BRAND BLVD
AV
R ST
AV
SAN RAFAEL AV
FOXKIRK
MELROSE AV
ST
TE R
AN
LA
PA U
N CENTRAL AV
LLE AV
AV I
!D E
LE
ESTE
LB OA AV
LA
*****
*****
CANYON
N LOUISE ST
HOWARD ST
N ISABEL ST
COMMERCIAL ST
N EVERETT ST
STATE ST
GL E
N BRAND BLVD
N MARYLAND AV
PL
CHESTER ST
N KENWOOD ST
*****
N PACIFIC AV
N CENTRAL AV
NS
CONCORD ST
WESTERN HERITAGE WY
SINCLAIR AV
TA LN
N ORANGE ST
N EVERETT ST
*****
VIS
*****
N COLUMBUS AV
VA L
YD
UE
ME M
S CEDAR ST N CEDAR ST
N ADAMS ST
LOW
DR
EVERGREEN
DR
CRYSTAL LN
S KENWOOD ST
S PACIFIC AV
CARR DR
*****
AMERICANA
*****
WAM ED
W TE R CE DA RE DG CA EA ND V AC E PL HIL LM W O AL NT D AV O PL
HIGHLAND VIEW AV
CAMPUS ST
ILL AD
MN E
S CENTRAL AV
AV E
*****
AV
*****
IEW
SU
IEW
VIE
AL
KH
NE
GRISWOLD ST
S ADAMS ST
EL RIO AV
S LOUISE ST
S KENILWORTH AV
S CHEVY CHASE DR
S BELMONT ST
LE
GRANADA ST
ONTEORA WY
*****
S BRAND BLVD
MA IS
WING ST
PORTER ST
SHEARIN AV
FISCHER ST
HAVE N AV
S CENTRAL AV
VINCENT AV
MARIPOSA ST
DR
FISCHER ST
PEPPER WY
GU
IX
DR
W WINDSOR RD
VERD
WIO TA S
FIRE RD
EAST TR
! ! !
OAKS
DR
VIEW AV
AR
PL
ND
COLL EGE
DR
TO P
RO UN
ROUND TOP DR
BEMIS ST
TYLER ST
ELLE NWO OD
VINCENT AV
BOYNTON ST
PROSPECT DR
S ORANGE ST
DR
S GL EN
SE
REM
MA R
CORO NA
ND
RA
DE
NA VE
BE
NA
LE VA N
W AW O
HO LL YR
DD
WY
MISSI ON R
COLBY DR
NU
OW HEA
TR E
ILL IP
ARR
PH
LO WA V LY TE LL EP L
TOLEDO
47
N AVENUE 55
ENUE
N AV
ENUE
TL AK ED
PL
NA VE NU
LH A
ON
35
DO ST
PE
ICK
UE
MA
VE
BA
ST
VD BL
5. Increase the percentage of trips made by walking and biking through infrastructure improvement and new programs and policies that make walking and biking downtown easy, safe, and enjoyable. 6. Manage right of way to improve movement of people rather than just moving vehicles. 7. Develop financing strategies that allocate the cost of improvements appropriately to new and existing development and to the people who live, work, and visit downtown.
Caltrans is responsible for the operation and planning for the Freeway as a link in the statewide and regional highway network. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) provides coordinated funding for future improvements to the transportation network including the Freeway system and both of these regional agencies must be consistent with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan to maintain eligibility for federal transportation funding. Policy documents for all three of these agencies were reviewed to determine the regional transportation context. The Caltrans 2002 Transportation Concept Report (TCR) represents the
1 8
PL
4. Improve the coordination of Glendales on-street and off-street parking policies with its transportation demand management strategies.
NV ERM ON
PR EST W
**** TA * V
N DU
DE
RY RD LOW
AN
CH ET FL
U RG
ER
O RDUG
VIEW
DR
YK RR
NO
DR
ST
BUCH
ANAN
ELG
IN S T
NS
AV E
ED
JUNTOS
ER
D LL
HUB
TOLE
DR
WA VE N
GLEN HO LLY
NR
E IT
SCAN
PTO
NU
SH
AN
NO
DR
ITA
ST
DR
ST
DIA
WY
PA S
PL
ST
ST
RE
BUCH
ANAN
FAYE TT
E ST
GARVANZA
DS
66
TO N
DR
GLEN OA K
BER T PL LO CK SL EY
GREE
K N OA
DR
DR
DR
B TY
E TR !
EW
ST
D RO
EL
EA
N AV
ES
LAM
DR
TO
FLETCHER!DR !
N AV
CR
Route 4
DR
N AV
BELDEN DR
CARO
LUS
Metro Routes
CA
DM AN
AP
PO
CK
RN
ST
FIE
W AD
L EL
IC ER
KR
AV
M O
NT
AR TE
N AV
E PL
A CH
U EN
CH
ENUE
ST
RR
ST
PM
PA
CAN
HAZE
E6 4
N TO
N AVENU
L TO
ENUE
AN
TER
LN AV
N AVENUE 54
52
ST
53
ST
AN
LINCO
ENUE
SS RO!
LA R
ST
YR B UR
L TO 3 E4
M IN
! !
51
DP
E 65
C LE
50
HN
LN
LO DO
N LY
AN
DW
COOPER AV
NOLDEN ST
ER
RE
FREEDOM WY
YORK
3. Manage Route parking supply and demand downtown to ensure Route 3/31/32 12 that a growing downtown does not impact residential Route 3 Saturday LCF Shuttle 33/34 neighborhoods and to generate revenue for downtown area improvements.
D H
N CA
HIGHGATE AV
N AVENUE 56
WY
MEMORY LN
OD AV
NO
VAL LEY
45
CYPRESS LN
ENUE
N AV
ENUE
ALE AV
N AV
BY LA N
LWOO D AV HAZE
*****
N AV
PL
ARMAD
VE DO
R CA
BA
ST
BAY LN
ST
E TR
W EL
N AV
AC AC ST
DE
RD
N AV
COOL IDG
PL
L ME
ST
IA
LN
BIRCH LN
A RO RLIN DE G RIC TO DO K NR N PL D AV
N VA LE
DR TA VIS E T LL RC VA NO A M
*****
ENUE
R VE DO
AC
49
LWO
! ! !! CERRITOS
DR
BE
AV
54
ST
GL
E VIEW
N DR
FALLSTON ST
PHI DEL
ST
N AVENUE 65
ENUE
D AD
RANG
ALMA DE
PHIL LIPS WY
ENUE
RA
STRA TFOR D
RANGE VIEW AV
SPRING
VALE
DR
ROY ST
IN LN SAYL
PIC
KW
ICK
ST
BLVD !
!
MERI
DIAN ST
STRATFORD RD
MYOS
RUBY
! !
D EL
ST ER
RUTLAND AV
YO
N AVENUE 55
51
!!!
LD
46
YORK
ME D
EN
PL
CH
ADELANTE AV
D ! BLV
UR
EA
SY
FORTUNE WY
NS
! W
RA
***
A DR
LARKER AV
DR
LO
ED
AV
**
ALU
MN
CORI NG
EATON TER
W!CERRITOS AV
I AV
TEHAMA ST
CH
ST
ST
L GO DP L
GL E
RS
FAYE TT
MERIDIAN ST
AV
E ST
BALT IMOR E
PO
LLA R
EN AV
UE
67
ARATINA ST
FE
** *
! LIZ
CA TH
AGUILAR ST
**
4 5 !
The DMS suggests that an east-west transit connection to the adjacent cities of Pasadena and Burbank along the 134 Freeway corridor is an important strategy to meet future mobility needs. The Caltrans TCR, consistent with planning documents of both SCAG and Metro does not contemplate rail transit in this corridor. Instead the TCR acknowledged the potential for bus rapid transit (BRT) in the median of the freeway to complete a regional transit network. BRT in the median of the 134 Freeway is mentioned and is the basis for the ultimate transit concept (UTC) governing the Caltrans desire to maintain enough right of way for double HOV lanes in each direction.
BIR
E6
R LLE WE
PAU
RD
LANTANA DR
VE
SE
SOMERS AV
Route 2
LED
HW
Route 11 Afternoon
RD
!!
N UR ICT
N LHA
N LUM
ST
! LIC
W EULALIA ST
ST
NU
AV
I AV
EATO N
RABER ST
RO M
AV E
AV E
V HA
WY
NT
DE
MEMORIAL
CUN
ARD
NE
ST
COR
E LAUREL ST
S LIS
DR
52
ID
Route 1
HEATHER DR
DR
RK
* ****
The 134 Freeway is significant to the Downtown access program as it v 180/181 90 serves as the780 major automobile access for employees and shoppers. 91 Conversely, the Freeways limited access points (Pacific Avenue, Central/ Brand Boulevard and Glendale Avenue) have become the most heavily congested sections of the City street system. A related condition 92 to the congestion is the high volume of traffic on adjacent residential neighborhood streets deal with commuter traffic seeking to c which must bypass the congested freeway ramps. In particular, complaints about traffic volumes and speeds on Doran Street during the commuter hours are a recurring issue for the City (see additional discussion below). The current freeway east bound ramp system at Glendale Avenue represents a major impediment to completing a potential parallel frontage roadway that could mitigate the residential impacts.
DR
!
ST
RIG
V IA AL! !
ELE
NW Y
CANTERBURY ST
O AX
DR
NU
ISO
**
EG LL CO
VIE
AV
WOOD DR
the quantity and quality of transit service: making transit a fast, Route 11 Morning reliable, and attractive option.
VIS D TA EL L VA
RO
P CY
603
R GA DE
MA D
*** *** **
** *
* ****
E5 1
WESTDALE AV
COR
WY ANNAN ! !
LISS
ST
ST
* ***
NORDYKE ST
K LA POPP RIC LN ST GTON FARRIN AV OD WO BUR CIR R AK R ! ! LE D O D T LE NDA EA DA GR HILLA AN L HIL WY ST ST ADA CRE K LA PR A O
AK Y PE
DR
AV ND
BU
EIG RL
DR
SAN
YD
BU
ST
NG
RE
! !
**
E SS
SA
WY GAMORE
EN
FIRE
YO
RD
201
S SS
EC
RD
DR
YPR
ER YL
LANGDA
CAMP US
YALE
DR
CAMBRIDGE DR
School
MARIPOSA
LOLETA AV
DALE AV
TE R
DD
W Y
VERDA
NT ST
12
W PALMER AV
PALMER
OAKRIDGE
BRIER LN
GREEN ST
! !
IT E
WO O
TA
MAGNOLIA AV
! !
STA ! SHA
!
O RD
GREEN ST PL REEVES
685
CIR N
L FY
ER
PL
ST
NORWALK AV
LAS COLINAS AV
HEPN
ER AV
K OA
LAKEVIEW RD
ST
TYRO
TOWNSEND AV
AVEN
DR LE AN
183 780
E PALMER AV
KO
RESTHA VEN DR
V RO
DR
PO PIN PPY E G ST RO VE AV
DR
JUNIPER DR
GLEN HO
EAG
ORILLA AV !
DR
NE
UE 64
CHEVY CHASE DR
!!
PARK AV
LLY
CHEVY CHASE
W CHEVY CHASE DR
!!
! !
! !
PALM
LE R
*****
E CHEVY CHASE DR
183
VISTA CT
ER DR
A AV
NORW ALK AV
ADDI SON
CHE
AL ED
OCK
LAVE RN
WY
FAIR PARK AV
IR FA
R PA
V KA
AV ! V LE RA DA BO CK AR RO EN GL
TAM ARA
NORTH ATWATER
*****
W ACACIA AV
ROMULUS DR
DY
LN
YOSE
! !
GLE N
****
E ACACIA AV
LA WN D
CIN
MITE DR
NEO
T LA S
CD
LANARK/SHELBY
RRY DR SE QU OIA DR
KE
RE
HILDA AV
*****
NEOLA PL
BAYWOOD ST
BLVD
! !
! !
ROOSEVELT MS
ROSA
ULLE
PLUMAS ST
AV
LINDA
A AV
DW O
PA RK
GLEN AYLS
GLA C
RW IN
W GARFIELD AV
MITE DR
MOUNT ROYAL DR
E GARFIELD AV
YOSE
SEQUOIA ST
E GARFIELD AV
RIDGEVIEW AV
DR
VIS
RE SAGAMO
WY
AV
most current focused planning document for the 134 Freeway with an c EAGLE emphasis on determining the ROCK ultimate need for freeway right of way. While the report acknowledges recurring congestion on the segment approaching the interchange of the Freeway with the I-5 Freeway (just to the west of the study area) the report does not contemplate further highway capacity enhancements beyond the recently completed high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and four mixed flow lanes in each direction.
IER
BR
GRANDOLA AV
!
PA RK
AV
! !
TO N
92
SD
LOCK
FAIR
OAK TREE DR
LIN
DA
*****
*****
2 Further discussion of some of the DMS mobility strategies as they relate 180/181 to the study area follow.
S COLUMBUS AV
PORTER ST
S LO
GOODWIN AV
!
EL REPOSO DR WAWONA ST
Legend
1. Manage traffic congestion and parking demand downtown through a combination of infrastructure improvements and Bus Stop Route 5 policies that encourage the use of alternative modes for travel to and within downtown. Point of Interest Route 6
D DR
0.25
0.5
1 Miles
603 201
E WINDSOR RD
E GARFIELD AV
RO
RD
W MAPLE ST
W MAPLE ST
RALEIGH ST
11
LOY LN
MERT ON AV
MERTON AV
WALDRAN AV
HARTWICK ST
MAPLE
GLEN IRIS AV
MOUNT ROYAL DR
ST E MAPLE
90 91
KE
NT PL
WARD ST LA RODA AV
H RT NO
TR
W LOMITA AV
E CHESTNUT ST
E MAPLE ST
12
!!
DR RIVERDALE !
183 685
! ! !
KIP
LIN
ON
FIG
EA
AV W LOMITA
DAY
ROCK GLEN AV
ROCK GLEN AV
WY
AV
! ! !
E MAPLE ST
EL ROBLE DR
! ! !
! !
! !
COLORADO BLVD !
!
! ! !
! !
AV
*****
CHICKASAW AV
CHICKASAW AV
LB HO
RO
OK
ST
L CO
! ! !
A OR
DO
VD BL
E GL NG
AR
RY
RD
*** *
SA
AV
RAFAEL
SA
AN NA
CLU
UE
E LOMITA AV
CASPAR AV
VINE ST
N MAYWOOD AV
EDISON PL
LO CO
ARA
HILL
DR
RO
*****
BR
VIS
RA
HARTWICK ST
DO
LOLETA AV
*****
HOLY FAMILY
TA
WC
OL
E ELK AV
DIXON ST
AS
BLV
W ELK AV
W ELK AV
E ELK AV
FIRST LUTHERAN
ROCKLAND AV
DAHLIA DR
DR
EAGLE ROCK
E ELK AV
WINDERMER
****
ELLENWOOD DR
LIV E
!!
LINCOLN AV
CO LL EG
SIE
OA K LN
! !
E AV
! !
183
! !
OA
W COLORADO ST
! !
183
! !
! !
! !
EV
RR
RO CK
LO C
FIRE RD
E COLORADO ST
KV
*****
OAK ST
S EVERETT ST
ORANGE GROVE AV
DR
603
AV
CARR
MOUN
NA V
W HARVARD ST
AV
W AY
HERMOSA AV
LN
! !
RA V
BLUE BELL
MEMO
ELECTRONICS PL
HAWTHORNE ST
GLENDALE GALLERIA
E HARVARD ST
TOBIN WORLD
BR
T HELE
RY LN
94 794
WS AN
GHS
S VE
KIN
CH
A AV
LS TR
MAYNARD ST
EL
IVY ST
EL
EH ILL R
FERN DR
GRIFFTH PARK
S ISABEL ST
NA AV
OE
DA
MAGNOL
IA DR
The transportation system context for this project is summarized best by the recently adopted 2007 Downtown Mobility Study (DMS), which, in support of the Downtown Specific Plan, describes the Citys vision for a comprehensive mobility program. The DMS outlines the following broad goals to balance mobility needs for a growing Downtown:
!
RA
! ! !
LW
!E
BROADWAY ! !
! ! ! ! !
LA MIRA
HL IA
MIN E
HAR
BRAZIL ST
W BROADWAY
201
180/181 780
b
!
*****
NT VE
DA RD
GPD
LUKENS PL
RD
N EVERETT ST
DR
DR
IO
HA
*****
! W !
WILSON AV
! ! !
E WILSON AV
! !
OW PL SLEE PY HOLL
VALLE VISTA DR
FIG
RV E
OR
IA L
LE Y
DR
CE
SALEM ST
NS
FASHION CENTER
*****
SPERRY ST
BYW OOD
DR
LOS AL TOS DR
VA L
AS
MOUN
T SI
! !
DR
HO
STANLEY AV
LLO WD R
RO AS
NAI DR
CUTTER ST
ALEX THEATRE
N JACKSON ST
TRYO N
* LE *** Y * D R
W CALIFORNIA AV
E CALIFORNIA AV
MOUN
ZOO DR
685
ADVENTIST
LL
SLE
E PY
CIVIC CENTER
UR
A
DR
134
*****
BLU
AD
TUSTIN
RD
HILL DR
ES ST
RD
PA TR IC
IAN
WY
LIN
DA
VIS
AV TA
****
COVENANT WY
A AV E CALIFORNI
PL
HOLL YD
LIN
DA
VIS
TA
! !
O AD OR! !
BLV
D
LN SAN RAFAEL
LOWE
***** ELMWOOD DR
HS NIT
DA
R LE
AV
T KS LIC
HE
OS RM
AR
KAW EAH
LAG
AR UNIT
LA LOMA R
LA
L OM
CRES
D WY TWOO
AR
D
!
SA
LE AV
RD
TIP
TON WY
ON TIPT
WY
POPP
RA
Y PE
AK DR
FA E
LA V
LA G
MESA VERDE RD
UN
AR
SA
S PA
CU
AL
AV
ARR
ARROYO GOLF CO
RD
T CA
ION
*****
NO RT HT R
MYRTLE ST
! ! !
W O
MC HENRY RD
CE
MA N
AS
E GLEN OA
! !
RMEL
ID DR KING DAV
ZION LUTHERAN
201
KS BL VD !
! SC HO
FO
W LEXINGTON DR
DC
*****
W LEXINGTON DR
! !
E LEXINGTON DR
201
A RD
DR
AV
GLENOAKS !
RD
G AR
A VISTA
VESPE R DR
SKYLINE TR
11
ORC H
TE R
P AK
LI FF E
! D
DN
W MILFORD ST
N AV
HOLLI STER
W Y
B! LV
EDE
RD
ER
W MILFORD ST
GENEVA ST
FOREST LAWN DR
LA MIL
RD
EC
OA KS
PEN
NER
PASO ALTO
****
M IR
W DORAN ST ! !
ALEXANDER ST
! ! ! !
! HE
EG
LE N
TON
ER IST LL HO
CA
E DORAN ST
NARANJA DR
CA
W DORAN ST
PL
N LY
E GL
NE
183
VY
CH
AS
RL SO
NO
DEVONSHIR
SON
*****
! W DORAN ST !
R ED
P
DR
K ER
DO
CALVARY GA LE CHRISTIAN R
IN
AK
DR
11
****
! !
R TRE ND
DR
RIV
E LN
PL
! !
ZOO
WOODBURY RD
ON NT
CIR
R TE
SB
PIONEER DR
BA
ER
SID
PIONEER DR
LV D
PH
LB OA
N ZOO DR
DR LUTON DR
DR
A GR
NG
AV
T ES
SANCHEZ DR
****
SID W RIV ER
VALLE
Y HEAR T DR
N AV
BA
E DR
DR
134
PATTER SO
FAIRMONT AV
FREMONT
VA L
W MORNING SIDE
PA U
LE
AV
PO
ST
BURCHETT ST
GOODE AV
MONTEREY RD
GL EN
IDE
RA
IR
E GLENOAKS BLVD !
!
WILSON MS
O AV
NO
AK
TE
VIS
DE
AV
PA R
AV
KS
MOUNTAIN VIEW
NC
RS T
HAHN AV
TA
HO
GA R
OM A
ON
AV
BURCHETT
ST
BE
AH UL
ARDEN AV
! !
INA
DR
ARDEN AV
RT OL AA N GL V EN DA LE NA AV DA MS ST
V AA
AV
AV
SE VE N
!!
RS
ST
RO CO
NA
! !
TW Y
RIV
ID RS
G R
DR
DE
ST
LD
ST
! !
AN EL
!
! ! !
GLENOAKS BLVD
!
!
PAT TE
ARDEN AV
92
The 2007 Downtown Mobility Study helps to establish the 7 background transportation policies and programs that are critical RIVERSIDE RANCHO for Space 134. Other recently adopted policy documents including the 2006 Beeline Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and the 2012 Glendale134 Bicycle Transportation Plan (GBTP) are also critical policy background documents when it comes to designing Space 134 within its transportation context.
AZ EL
GESELL ST
AY M
IR VI N
W IN
DA VI S
AV
FIE
LE EG
CAMERON PL
A KS NO
DO
DR
ED
IN
BU
H RG
ON AV
GLENMORE BLVD
GA R
VIE
LS
AL MA
AL
AV
FA IR
ST
N CO
V IA
E FAIRVIEW AV
BLV
ETH
C AS
JE S
*****
PITMAN AV
BA R
RANCHO MARKETPLACE
ES
O R
AV
SE
AV
IT T
!!
ST
12
EL
GROVE PL
LN
OA
TE
W CT ALLER CT
CT
RIV
RA
ND
TR U
LA V
W DRYDEN ST
W DRYD
EN ST
ST
NF LO
C AD
ET T
ERS
AV
! !
TO N
AV
IDE
!ST W DRYDEN
E DRYDEN ST
DR
ST
ST
RA
! !
PALM DR
PALM DR
IA D
NT
PALM
AV
AV
DR
ALLEY
VISCA
OLY MPIC
ER
CE
N CEDA
N EVER
W ES
GENE
AL LE N
! !
BL VD
LA K
ND
SOUTH ST
DR
FL OW
AIR
PALM DR
CORDOV A
GR A
CORTEZ DR
!!
NO DR
ST
TO RY
ALMA ST
LIN
AY M
TE
! ! !
RD
! !
ETT ST
PELANCONI
VA ST
AV E
RU
VIC
! !! !
! !
E STOCKER ST
KENNINGTO
W STOCKER ST
HOWA RD
CH
IR VI N
BE RT A
LA R
ST
NIBLEY
ST
AZ UL
N DR
AV
WO
****
AV
IN
VIRG IN
SP AZ
AK
EW BY
AV
ST
AV
IE
*****
TONONI
AV
W LORAINE ST
SALEM LUTHERAN
MONC
ADO DR
ST
31 32
LA CAR
AL E
OM
ST
LI N
! !
M O
ST
ST
NNET H RD
GR A
UC
ST IN
EL
AV
AV
AV
! !
NORT ON AV
BR
CE
PH
! !
MO S
NA
! !
5T H
NT O
! !
RD
MONT E VIST A AV
W KE
BOHLIG
RD
DR
OROS
LIN
AV
VICTORY CT
DA
ST HA AN LE DA ST RD AV
EN
AZ BE
E AV
MAJE
AV
PU E
ES
EA
OO D
TY MIS
AT E
LA N
32
EDGEWICK RD
AS
RD
SA
GRANDVIEW LIBRARY
TH
EL M
TE R
NW
ISLE
DR
EN
MO R
ED
AV
NT
DR
GL E
STIC
AV
PL
W Y
OA K
BLA DR CO DR
! !
ST
****
AV
TH
UG
LAWS ON
UB
DU
CL
CO RN
IDLE W OO
RD
DR
ST
5T H
GRANDVIEW MEMORIAL
R LA
DR
LF
NS
CO
GE
RD
*****
RD
DR
LIDA LN
VE
LI
RID
LAS FLORES
GEORGE IZAY
Beyond its placemaking aspects, Space 134 may also help the c 5 need to establish a central city transit hub city to respond to the for east-west commuter light rail or bus rapid transit, which may 12 be planned along the 134 Freeway in the future. Because the 134 Freeway is significant to the Citys mobility and 94 access needs, the 183 92 Space 134 project must consider the transportation context for the 794 area surrounding it.
G
EN
N COLUMBUS AV
AN
AV
CLEV ELAN D
RIDGEWAY DR
VIRGIN
LI N
TA
PR
LA K
! !
RL AN
R D RA D
BO
AT H
IR VI
ER
BR
DR
IA
DR
VERDUGO
KIR KB !
DR
AV
AV
CRESTSHIRE DR
RD
ES
GO
TA TE S
ONTARIO AV
VI
CU
MB E
R RD
HE
EN
LD
THUR
LE NE
SPIRSA
TU
WK
GF AIR
LINDA VISTA AV
VE R
RD
P EM
IN
ER LN
LIN
AV
GR E
IT A
BE
AL CA
ARVIN DR
BELL
EAU
RD
PE
LA N
LOMAY PL
PARKVIE
AV
V KA
SU
*** *
N TO
RO YA ALC L B ALD EW LV D
AV
SHER
AV
SP
PL
AV
NR D
WA LINDA VISTA LL DR RD ME RE RD
RD
c
DR
DR
OO D
DR
W AV
ST
AY M
WO
EL M
AV
RA
D RD
GR GE
VA R
NE
! !
! !
PLEA SA
NT VIE
RL AN DR W TER D
VIEW
CRES
SH
AV
ALM WP
AV
E OV
AV
CU
LA
MB E
T RD
RIM
MOOR
IN
TH
AV
GRA ND
AV
CRES
AL
DR
! !
ED
T DR
OR
LOM
BALM
COLINA DR
W ES T
TRANSPORTATION CONTEXT
AV
E
O RD
IR VI N
M W
ILLIPS
HIL LC
ST
AV
VIEW AV
AV
IA
EN
RO HR
N VERDUG
ED
CUMBERLAND RD
SIDE DR
! !
CRES
! !
TMON
T CT
MAYORS BICENTENNIAL
SH
ER
CHEVY KNOLL DR
BUCKINGHAM RD
KN
IDA
OL LW
LA VIST A PL
VA LE N
*****
HINE DR
NIODRARA
AR
ER
!!
HIGH LAND AV
AV
EL
ST
BL VD
RD
KILDONAN DR
SUNS
KA
DR
LA K
* ***
AV
IA
AD
RE
ST
! !
DO
ET H
HILLSIDE ! DR
!
A VIST A DR
AN
RD
NT
AV
FR O
LIN
RN
ST
KE
ED
EL
NN
MATILIJA RD
WOND
SIE
AV
AV
FE
CH
IR
D AN
PL
ST
SA
W IN
DR
1S T
5T H
AD
ERVIE
KIL MA
W DR
PO
RY LN
BONITA DR
LE R
OO D
RD
AV
! !
AP
D BLV
UG
AV
! !
NN
AV
IA
ES
BO
! !
5T H
183
BE
LA
LDIVA
IR
ST
DR
* ***
*
BRAN TA DR
YW
DUBLIN DR
! !
BA
RA
EMERALD ISLE
ERIN
WA LD O
VIA SE
BE
SP AZ IE
1S T
! !
3R D
BL VD
****
VIA SA
DR
JUNE LN
RW IC
AR
NE
OPECHEE WY
COR
R O TE RD
RS
TO N
ED
RRAN
AV
N EST
KS
IN
! !
BRAND LIBRARY
DE
KIR
ME
AV
LE NO
UT
OA
CALA
KD
LE E
ST
AV
EN
ST
CANADA BLVD
RE
O VA D AV LE N C IA AV
AL AM
MO S
GL
DE
PL
! !
AN
CAPISTRANO AV
FIA
ST
KH
AM
DR
ID
ISA
BE L
ED
6T H
SE
AV
ST
ITA D
ST
AV
VE
ST
****
AV
VA LE N
TW
5T H
ED
R BER WICK DR
AV
POLICE STATION
! !
VU
JOAQUIN MILLER
M PT O
RA
AV
DEL VALLE ! AV
!
LN
OU
NT AIN
RIS
LN
PL
*** *
NG
ST
DR
IE
UR
7T H
RD
IR
EA LA
BA
! !
CH
LL E
AN
LI
BE
LVA S
EL RI TO AV
EL RITO AV
FERN
KIN
RID
WY GE
A M
DIS
RD
HAVERS
ILT ON
DR
HA
BR
AN
DL
E AT
RA
DON CARLOS AV
3 31
ALLANJAY PL ISLE L DE
TR FLIN
IDG
R ED
WINDERMERE PL
KE
SW
INV
ER
NE
SS
TOCK RD
OAK GROVE DR
YU
WO O
CC
DB
AL
UR YR
D
! ! AV
DR
N MO
AR
DR CH
EU NP STO
NW EIM AR
PA L
UPPER ARROYO
*****
*****
RF
CRESTVIEW AV
LA R
90 91
! !
DR
D RR
WABASSO WY
ROSITA DR
HAV
T NS
FULL
MOO
N DR
IS
DR
CO LIN
OAKMONT TER
SA
AU
S GU
TIN
DR
DOVE WEN
N
RM NO AN DY CT
VD
ST
TH
LA
GLENDALE
*****
RW VE DO
LE VA AR ST
LN
CT
PA
ICK
DR
LN
LN
LN
CORONA
***
O FO IL TH LD R
**
AD RIS
CH
DR
E AK NL ST
EA
AD
P TE GA ST
NE
C AR
SY AN LV
YD
RIE
ER EM
NT
NG
SE
NV
LN
ST
D AL
ICT YB OR LVD
NM
N AR NV ST EY
ISL ED R
U FIG ER O
S OS
ON DR ASHINGT
AS
BRAEMA
N AR
NM
NG
*****
ST
WY
D EV
RO Y
NG W LEN OO L DP
EDGEHIL
L PL
PU
E TN
YR
R RD
ON RD
OB
LVD
ARD EEV
TH CA
R KD AR HP FIT RIF DR OD WO
ST AY
IN AV
**** *
M DEER
FALG TRA
O D O
RD
NO RC RD HA DR
AM NL ER PL ST AR NP ISH NM YE RS ST INC SL
M LO
LN VISTA
PAR KS ST
DR
ARROYO VIEW
ONT
ST ITA
ER
RO
S CA CEN IC SH DR IR E PL
RD
NG M LEN ON
DR
ARBOLE
CIE O LIT DR
CA MIN O
WELLINGTON AV
LIDA ST
S DR
DR
SA N RA
R BU LLY HO
PARKVIE
NONAME
LAUREL ST
BRYANT ST
E FA L
LW ME
MERRIMAN DR
TD
NE
RD VIEW VALLEY
N COLU
THY DORO
W AV
PE IM
CHAMB ERLAIN RD
BANYAN ST
OM SL
CT
OO
SG
SV
****
IA
LEN
IRG
RIDGE
MTWY
DRAGONFLY ST
WICKS RD
MOUNTAIN
2
RID
LE AL
DU
LC
E
E SIR NA
CA
LLE
E GR
IC NW
RD
ON AFT
O AFT T NS
SA LV AFTON ST IA ST CA NY ON RD
DR
S ITA
MBUS
U FIG
SM
INIA
O WO
DR
SS PAR KS ST
S AIN
ERO
AV
AV
DP
SR E EES PL
ER AM SL
AS
LE AL
CA
SO
LLE
CALLE BE
SM
EL
MIR
CA
AD
LL E
OR
DR
BA WA
CALL
E AM AB LE
RA
DIO
TE LA
RA
ST SH
CH
AR
LE S
ST ARLE S CH
PASAD
ST
*****
N R IS
CA
LA
TH DORO
LE AL D EL C PA
E LL
PR VE IMA
LIN
TRAM
CA
DA
LLA
A NT
VIS
Y DR
L RD MEL
N COLU
RA
IC SM CO
ON HELT SS
TA
***
IC IF
W MT
**
EN EM
MBUS
Y W
TH OR W NIL KE
DR RD HA RC SO PL ISH AR SP
SM RS YE
K RT W STUA
ST
W Y
AV
GL E
E GLENOAKS BLVD
N STO EY SK
EAC SB
ZO
RIG SB
ST
DR
EN MAYGRE
IT LE
RD
DR LN URY
RAN
CHE
RO S
CH
P RD TA VIS ULA
AV
ST
NS OL T
SR
GE
ON HT ST
OO HW
EE SE
DR
KELLOGG AV
T ES
PL
DD
*****
T DR WES
FAY DR
O AC
SO S AY LW
RN PL
LINDA
RIDGE
RD
SB UE NA VIS S TA T
L MU HO A LL ND Y
AV
HE
H AT
ER
SID
ER
NS D ATKI
* ***
AVONG
LE DA
AV
PIN
EO
AK
LN
LEN TER
LIL AC LN
BR
LIN
EN GL
N VE RDUG O RD
DA EN GL
E GL
CT
HILL DR
OA
SCHOLL CANYON
SE
DR
KS
MOORESQUE DR
VD BL
GROVE PL
N ZOO DR
SC HO LL CA
SCHOLL CANYON RD
NY O
*****
O ZO DR
N RD
ZERR CT
SA NF
H TR NORT
HOLLYVISTA
ER NA ND OR D
LA C UMB RE D
DR
BE LD
FIRE
AY
ASCE
R FE
* ***
RD
NSION
AV
RD
N SA
CRY
*****
N RA
STA
TOWNSEND AV
E FA
ARGUS DR
L SP
R FE
V LA
MOUNT ROYA
AV HIGHLAND VIEW
VINCENT AV
HERMOSA AV
RIN
NA ND
RDUG
L IL
GS
SHEARIN AV
OR
DR
O RD
S SAN
L DR
LOY LN
SIERR
RAFAEL
OU M
NM
DR MONTE BONITO
LE EL
E GL
FLORISTAN AV
NT HO OO YW LL
A VIEW
IG
ND AL ER
NS
UE
AV
ME UM
LR
CH
RD
ER D RY
R RD
C MAL
AN
GE
ALG
OLM
S LE
ER
*****
AD ANIT
ST
DR
MOUNT LEE
ST
JANE
FI GRIF
RUTH AV
T PL
W AVENU
CA
TH PA
PIN
AVOCA ST
RAY CT
DR
ER
RK
OD
ALG
E 40
DR
LSID HIL
W AVENUE 42
ER ST
NYCRES
CALEDO
E ET
SA DA S MS T
T DR
NIA WY
AN
NA
W AVENU
WAWONA ST
ER NT
VERDUG
SILVERWOOD
DR
BA
RE DO
S RD COON
ON EMM
E 42
IO MAR
ER
O RD
LU CO
RD
AR ON
S MU
SA
N AVEN
S RD
N DR
PE
DA
RD
BIA
AV ITA RL
R GA
GA
LN
S MS
NA
DR
AV
UE 57
DE
****
AVE
AV
RANO
*****
V NA
YO R K
NU
AN OLE
VEN NA
NS AV
W AVEN
W AVEN
*****
EASTVIE
D LE
L IL P L
CHURCH
DR
DER
UE
UE 40
UE 41
GEW
45
W DR
DR
IO FIL
DD OO
R RD
E AV
DURAND
VE WA
NU
BR
ST
ED
3 E4
UN
BO
TAL CRYS
EN
RE
NU
IC SW
YC
DR
SE
HU
VE
ID MER
2 E4
NE
MM CO
AV
RS
RE
S VA
OO W
RVATORY E OBSE
A PL NEV
CA
M ALDA
VE LI O
AV
V TA
LEGION
AV
SA
SPRING
VE
AV
IAN
DH
ON
AR G
RM
LN
VALLEY BRINK RD
AV
E AV
GRIFFITH VIEW DR
A WE
TER
A ST
ON
ES
EN
LN
S DR
R TA
TC
H LT
AV
NEWLAND ST
AN YO
E GL
CA NY
AV
N AVEN
BURY AMES
AS
BRANCH ST
C LA
RD
AS IT
IZ B EL NF
N RD
D LE
ON
AV
UE 45
DR
AV
LVD
RD
PUBLIC TRANSIT
Public transit service in Glendale is very good and is a key part of the Downtown Mobility strategy. Transit in Downtown Glendale is served by Beeline local routes operated by the City and regional transit bus services operated by Metro. In addition, LADOT runs a commuter express service along the 134 Freeway with stops at Sanchez Drive at Brand Boulevard and Goode Avenue at Brand Boulevard. The DMS makes an important point that to keep the vibrancy of the Downtown the planned transit system must connect the local transit buses to the regional system. Currently, Beeline transit routes focus on the Larry Zarian Transit Center, an Amtrak/ Metrolink station to the south of Downtown Glendale, and to a Bus Rapid Transit link at the hub of Brand Boulevard and Broadway but there is potential to link the local system into the regional system at Space 134.
GOODE SANCHEZ
GL
2 2
EN
WOODROW WILSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
MONTEREY
1 1
RD WHITE ELEMENTARY
1 2
Bike Sharrows
Sidewalk Varies
Median 8
Platform 8 Min.
1 9
DA L
GLENOAKS
BRAND
LOUISE
Extend Orange Street north to Goode Avenue, including right-of-way acquisition (currently a 1,000-space parking garage is on this site).
There are various options for Sanchez Drive which remain under consideration and will require further study:
Extend Sanchez Drive east to Maryland Avenue as an eastbound one-way Extend Sanchez Drive further east as a two-way street to Geneva Street, including right-of-way acquisition. Extend Sanchez Drive to Geneva Street as an eastbound one-way and convert Monterey Road to one-way westbound between Geneva Street and Brand Boulevard.
Another option in the long term for improving Freeway access is to extend Monterey Road over the Verdugo Wash with a bridge to connect to Glenoaks Boulevard. This would require right-of-way acquisition as well as a partial street closure on Glenoaks Boulevard. The project team was asked to look at a frontage road option in light of a new park space atop the greenway, specifically on how the road would function, how it would contribute to a wellfunctioning park, and how it should be designed to best respond to the needs of Space 134. The concept designs for this frontage road option are included in Chapter 2.
1 10
LOCAL CIRCULATION
Currently, access to the project area is primarily by vehicular travel, as well as pedestrian travel to a lesser extent. However, proposed bike facilities, street enhancements, and public transportation amenities will increasingly provide connectivity opportunities for cyclists and pedestrians.
KEY CONNECTIONS
E Stocker St
TRAFFIC FLOW
E Dryden St
7
ROSSMOYNE
Geneva St
E Dryden St
Several new bike facilities are proposed under Glendales recently adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. Within the Space 134 study area, these facilities are sharrows rather than painted lanes or separated tracks. Monterey Road and Doran Street are major east west connectors through the study area, carrying heavy amounts of cut through, commuter, and local traffic. The Beeline bus will travel along Brand and through the Downtown core as a local bus circulator. The entire length of Geneva Street is a critical north south neighborhood linkage from the Rossmoyne neighborhood to RD White Elementary and is already identified by the City as a safe-routes-to-school route, with new improvements installed at Doran Street and Geneva Street, including bulbouts and enhanced crossings. A segment was previously identified by the city for a road diet or street narrowing and traffic calming along Glenoaks Boulevard between Geneva Street and Louise Street.
The Freeway represents a physical barrier between the residential districts to the north of and south of the Freeway. Other than the vehicular arteries serving the freeway ramp system, Louise, Jackson and Geneva Avenues are the only local road bridges over the Freeway. The Freeway connections at Pacific Avenue, Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard and Glendale Avenue are so heavily congested that it is difficult to provide for good pedestrian and bicycle access. The few local street connections across the Freeway may require physical improvements to provide the desired pedestrian and bicycle access in the context of the requisite automobile access. The City of Glendale has notable Safe Routes to School programs for its schools. Connectivity between local schools and the attending students is also impeded by the Freeway in this corridor. Students from R.D. White Elementary and Woodrow Wilson Middle Schools have to take circuitous routes to travel between their respective homes and schools.
Arden Ave
Gle
noa
ks B
1
Burchett St Goode Ave Sanchez Dr Pioneer Dr
2
Monterey Rd
Burchett St
Geneva St
lvd
Maryland Pl
Jackson Pl
Maurita Pl
Sanchez Dr
Maryland Pl
Jackson Pl
134-SR
M
Maurita Pl
E Doran St
E Doran St
Geneva St
Everette St
Maryland Ave
Central Ave
Louise St
Columbus Ave
Kenwood St
Pacic Ave
Brand Blvd
Jackson St
Columbus Ave
Maryland Ave
Pacific Ave
Kenwood St
Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Jackson St
Orange St
Louise St
Isabel St
11
Howard St
E Lexington Dr
Howard St
Orange St
Isabel St
Geneva St
400 40
dale
Glen
E California Ave
E California Ave
3
HARVARD MINI PARK GALLERIA/ AMERICANA CENTRAL PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY
CHESS PARK
E Wilson Ave
E Wilson Ave 11
Legend Legend
0 0
400 40
800 80
E Broadway
LegendLegend
Higher Vehicular Flow
0 0
Gle
800 80
E Broadway
Bus Facilities
1 2 3 5 7
Colored Bike Lane (Class II) Road Diet Area Bike Lane (Class II) Critical Linkages and Paths Bike Lane (Class II) B-Type Sharrow (Class III) Safe-Routes-to-School Sharrow (Class III) Path of Travel for Students to RD White Intersection Sharrow (Class III)Along Verdugo Bike Path: c Treatment Substantial Cut-Through Tr Wash (Class I) Bike Path (Class I) Ped and Vehicular Connectors Across 134 Proposed Freeway Access 1/2 Mile and 1/4 Mile, (5- and Ped Only Connectors Across 134 10-Minute) Walk Radii Improvements Beeline Route 1 Beeline Route 2 Beeline Route 3 Beeline Route 5 Beeline Route 7 Beeline Route 11 (AM) Beeline Route 11 (PM) Metro Bus 92 Community Gardens
Critical Linkages and Paths
Proposed Freeway Enhancement Areas 1/2 Mile and 1/4 Mile, (5- and 10-Minute) Walk Radii
1/2 Mile and 1/4 Mile, (5- and 10-Minute) Walk Radii
Path of Travel for Students to RD White Substantial Cut-Through Traffic Pedestrian and Vehicular Bridge Across 134 Pedestrian Only Bridge Across 134
11 11
92
After the 134 Freeway, which carries the highest amount of vehicular traffic the major north-south streets, Glendale Avenue, Central Avenue, and Brand Boulevard have the highest volumes of traffic throughout the day. Glenoaks Boulevard, Monterey Road, and Doran Street also have substantial volumes of traffic and are used by commuters as freeway bypasses.
Community Facilities
1 11
nda
le A ve
Ave
La Canada Flintridge, CA
San Diego, CA
Mercer Island, WA
Ventura, CA
Dallas, TX
Atlanta, GA
1 12
UNDERSTANDING SCALE
The Space 134 study area covers a large swath of Downtown, with approximately 36 acres from Central Avenue in the west to Glendale Avenue in the east and spans anywhere between 470ft and 270ft wide north to south. It is about seven city blocks from one end to another. To put this in context, this is 12 acres larger than Millennium Park in Chicago (approximately 24 acres). In terms of spatial requirements, Space 134 can accommodate Nokia Plaza, Maguire Union Square, SFLA Yerba BuenaGardens, Gardens,LA SF Gilbert Lindsay Plaza, LA active courts and fields, basketball, volley ball, bocce, little league 3 AC baseball, even Size: one regulation size soccer field, although Size: AC Size: the soccer 1.1 Size: 3.5 .8 AC Size: 4.5 ACAC (incl. street) Hardscape: Hardscape: 45% 85% Hardscape: 35% Hardscape: 35% field would leave little room for spectators. Other programmable Hardscape: 90% Softscape: 15% Softscape: 50% Softscape: 20% Softscape: 40% spaces can also fit, such8% as multi-purpose / outdoor yoga fields, Softscape: Amenities: 00% Amenities: 15% Amenities: 35% Amenities: 25% Amenities: 2% convention tents, concert arenas and a farmers market.
soft soft soft soft
Yerba Union Buena Square, Gardens, SF SF Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softscape: Amenities: Amenities:
soft soft
Jameson Square, Portland Yerba Buena Gardens, SF Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softcape: Amenities: Amenities:
soft soft
Pioneer Square, Portland Jameson Square, Portland Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softcape: Amenities: Amenities:
amenity soft
Pioneer Martius, Square, Portland Campus Detroit Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softscape: Amenities: Amenities:
amenity soft
Bryant PM Campus
ha
rd
ha
rd
p.1
LA Events Center Open space Investigations 06.20.11
LA Events Center Open space Investigations 06.20.11
p.2
Amenities
p.2
What Fits?
Arden Ave
Gilbert Lindsay Plaza, LA Nokia Plaza, LA Maguire Gardens, LA Pershing Square, LA One Colorado, Pasadena .25 0.8 1.1
Burchett St
10
Sanchez Dr
Maryland Pl
Jackson Pl
Bryant Park, NY
1 2 3
6 7 8
Full court / 5 on 5 basketball tournament 8 - 50 x 100 courts (with 20 buffer) Convention / event tent 140x300 Concert in the park
Outdoor Yoga 60x100 = 100 ppl. Farmers Market Booths or art in the park 80 - 10x10 booths (4 rows with 20 per row) Little League baseball Field 1 Field
0 0 200 40 400 80
widths that may be capped: 4 40,000 sf open lawn seating with Stage
5
1
In order to get a feel for the size and scale of the area and
9
(2,700 spectators) half court /3 on 3 space basketball tournament Large garden event 8 - 50x50 courts (with 20 buffer) 10,000 sf (7001,000 ppl.)
10
Regulation soccer small movie in the park 1 Full size Field 1,500 blankets = 2,500+ ppl, screen 30 ft. wide
outdoor yoga 60x100 = 100 ppl. Farmers Market Booths or art in the park 80 - 10x10 booths (4 rows with 20 per row) Little League baseball 1 Field
Maryland Ave
kenwood St
Small movie in the park 1,500 blankets = 2,500+ ppl, screen 30 ft. wide
Jackson St
1 13 9
ha
rd
ha
rd
rd Truly Space 134 provides a unique opportunity to host various ha enity m a cultural, artistic, and civic activities in the heart of Glendale. Imagine an open air ethnic food festival, local music fair, animation exhibition, a regular farmers market, or a movie night in the park.
soft am e ha nity rd
soft
ame
nity
amen
ity
amenity
amenity hard
rd ard ha h
ity en am amenity
ha
rd
ha
am
hard
rd
en ity
en ity
p.2
3
4.3
1 AC
2 AC
3 AC
4 AC
5 AC
6 AC
FIGURE x
Glendale is Southern California community full of character where imaginations and visionary minds create and animate films, neighborhoods, and some of the worlds most recognizable brands. (City of Glendale, Branding Report)
Look for ways to create and market being space/third places in downtown. (City of Glendale, Branding Report)
1 14
PROCESS
This Vision Plan represents the culmination of the year-long concept process led by the City funded by a SCAG Compass Blueprint grant. As discussed previously in the Policy Background section, the seed of the idea came from the Downtown Specific Plan as a way to accommodate a northern transit hub for Downtown Glendale and also relink north and south Glendale in the critical block between Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue. The next Chapter develops the visions and themes for Space 134 and discusses implementation over a short-, mid-, and long-term timeframe. The intent is to design the project in bite-sized pieces that the city can pursue as realistic over time. Chapter 3 then discusses costs and benefits for Space 134 and funding options. Future studies should delve more deeply into project feasibility, economic impact, and perhaps most importantly public outreach. As we have seen with other cap park precedents and even large infrastructural public benefits projects such as the Highline in Manhattan, buy-in and ownership by the community will be critical. This Vision Plan can only go so far without community advocates to carry it forward. See the Space 134 website for the growing community of supporters: http://www. space134.net. The vision presented in this document should be verified with, critiqued by, and built upon by community advocates to make it a truly- community built and community envisioned project.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL, 2013
IDEA IS HATCHED
1. Glendale Downtown Specific Plan 2. Compatibility with City brand, parks needs assessments, and other policy documents established
CONCEPTS DEVELOPED
1. Vision and Themes 2. Implementation: Short-Term Mid-Term Long Term 3. Alternatives 4. Design Development
PROS/CONS WEIGHED
1. Cost/Benefit Analysis 2. Funding Analysis
VISION IS PRESENTED
1. Three Phases 2. Structural Concepts
DETAILED ANALYSIS
1. Feasibility Study 2. Economic Analysis 3. Public Outreach 4. Next Phase Design
FUTURE STUDY
PLANNING GOALS
The City planning team narrowed down a series of planning priorities for Space 134 to those that were the most relevant for the Downtown community. Priorities include:
Make Connections! Create Green Open Space! Put the Environment First! Grow Glendales Economy! Prioritize Mobility!
Verdugo Wash
Space 134 should respond to local needs and local priorities rather than catering to out-of-towners and drawing people regionally. It should be a park for Glendalians providing amenities that the community particularly desires, such as recreational spaces, sports courts, places to gather and meet up, multi-use field areas, and programmable indoor and outdoor event space. It should not only provide these new open spaces, but also help to link north and south Glendale together with safe passageways and connections across the Freeway. Space 134 should emphasize a greener Glendale, with landscaping chosen to filter pollution through soils and bio-swales, cleaning the air, and requiring less water and maintenance. A greener Glendale also means one that embraces opportunities for outdoor fitness. The park should also help to grow Glendales economy, by catalyzing new development around its edges or providing income generating uses within the park. Finally, the park should prioritize all alternative forms of mobility, from bike, to transit, pedestrian, car share, bike share, etc. The overall goal is to transform car-space into people-space, to transform concrete into green, to provide Downtown with a setting for great things to happen, a backdrop for a livable community. Space 134 should also link in to the larger green network, both locally and regionally, including the Verdugo Wash, and the LA River watershed.
Existing Space: Freeway, chainlink. Car-Space Proposed Space 134: Active spaces, comfort, interest, and People-Space
The overall goal for Space 134 is to transform car-space into people-space, to transform concrete into green, to provide Downtown with a setting for great things to happen, a backdrop for a livable community.
Existing Verdugo Wash: Concrete channel. All backs turned to the waterway
Proposed Verdugo Wash and Green Loop: Waterway celebrated as a major asset
2 1
400
800
2 2
THE LOOP
Central to the Space 134 concept is The Loop. The Loop is a set of physical elements in the park and even in adjacent streets that draw the user through the space and tie it together along a main spine path with stops along the way where people can move, interact, innovate, engage, and learn. These stations may include interactive public art, fitness stations, innovative technology displays, and outdoor musical instruments. They should happen every 300 500 ft along the main path network and will be linked with the overall signage program. They will help to break the space down into human-scaled, manageable increments. A continuous visual element such as a linear, winding bench may pop up in places to reinforce the loop, or may manifest in a reoccurring color or signage elements. This main park loop should be linked into the bigger green loop that is discussed in the short-term vision later on in this section, that is to say the green loop of enhanced overpasses and streets to link Space 134 to the Verdugo Wash and the regional greenspace network.
Digital Studios
Ferris Wheel
Playelds
Cell Phone Booth Bike Station / Amenity
Music Place
2 3
AREA 1
Due to its close proximity to the Glendale Central Business District this area is more civic/commercial in character and denser in building typologies. Space 134 in this area should reflect a bustling, 18-hour Downtown environment, with programmable spaces, more hardscaping and spaces that respond in size and scale to the Downtown milieu.
AREA 2
Area 2 is much more residential in character. Multi-family residential units are located to both the north and south of the 134 Freeway, with scattered single-family dwellings as well, some of which are historically relevant. Streets are smaller in scale, as are buildings. Space 134 should have a more neighborhood-oriented recreational identity in this area, providing residents with areas to gather, play, and exercise on a small-scale.
AREA 3
The defining characteristic of Area 3 has to do with its potential for redevelopment and its current land use classification, as well as its proximity to Downtown. This area is currently dominated by a collection of auto-oriented commercial uses, which suggest great potential for redevelopment into a more pedestrian- and bicyclist-friendly eastern node, with a more dynamic mix of uses. Space 134 should respond to this potential in the eastern segment.
Area 1: Critical to the concept are street frontages that activate the street. Pictured here: Brand Avenue at the new Animation Studio and mixed-use building
E D R Y D E N S T
E Dryden St
Geneva St
ST
A R D E N
A V E
Arden Ave
G LE N O A K S
B Blvd LV D Glenoaks
B U R C H E T T
S T
Burchett St
GOOD E
M O N TE R E Y
Monterey R D Rd
GENEVA
GL E N OA K S
B L V D
Glenoaks Blvd
u Verd
ash go W
Goode Ave A V E
SSanchez A N C H E Dr Z D R
AREA 1
M A R Y LA N D P L JMaryland A C K S O Pl N P L
Jackson Pl M A U R I TA
AREA 2
P L
Maurita Pl
AREA 3
E Doran St
A V E Columbus Ave LV D Central B Ave A V E Orange St
E I S A B E L St S T Kenwood
D O R A N
S T
Maryland Ave S T
L O U I SBlvd E S T Brand
Louise St S T
S T
M A R Y LA N D
K E N W O O D
C E N T R A L
JA C K S O N
O R A N G E
H O W A R D
B R A N D
T JacksonSSt
Area 1
LE ND AL E
AV E
DOWNTOWN GLENDALE
Area 2
Area 3
2 4
GENEVA
LOUISE
GENEVA
MONTEREy
134 Freeway
134 Freeway
134 Freeway
MO NT
GL
ERE
FRONTAGE
EN
DA L
y
BURCHETT
MARyLAND
North
PIONEER
DORAN
VONS
DORAN
DORAN
POTENTIAL FOR:
Conference facility / outdoor amphitheater uses and / or rentable, occupiable pavilions, multi-purpose space, or buildings. Other revenuegenerating uses such as an art museum, etc. True 18-hour activation and creative programming that supports the creative Glendale brand. Memorable and Imaginable major art attraction, central attraction hub, eyecatching element visible from the Freeway and iconic to Glendale. Regional transit plaza, node, or station. Enhanced crossings and north-south linkages. Linkages to the existing adjacent corporate plaza and corporate uses. Corporate sponsorships. Bike-share, bike station, or car share. Shared parking with adjacent uses on nights and weekends. Infill of adjacent parcels with hotels as mutually-supporting with Space 134.
POTENTIAL FOR:
Passive open space areas, such as multipurpose fields, picnic areas, courtyards, plazas, and walking trails, including art walks and art fields. Active open space that is neighborhoodscaled, such as basketball, volleyball, bocce, tetherball, or giant chessboard. Tot lots and playgrounds to work in tandem with safe routes to school improvements in the area. New pedestrian connections north-south through Space 134 at existing cul-de-sac streets and along key desire lines. Eventual redevelopment of parcels along the Space 134 edge for park-oriented development and eyes-on-the-park. New woonerf or neighborhood street east-west along the edge of Space 134 for maximum access, improved circulation, and eyes-on-the-park. Supportive uses such as cafe(s), bike facilities, bike share, bathrooms for park users.
POTENTIAL FOR:
A wider cap park with a mix of built areas and open space areas for a new Glendale eastern node. A civic-scaled green space surrounded by new residential, mixed-use, and live-work development. New pedestrian connections north-south to reconnect streets, especially those that help to link to the new commercial core and to the schools to the north and south. Incorporation of the large shopping center property into the cap in terms of its design, new development, etc. Consolidation of on- and off-ramps to accomplish a more substantial capping. An iconic design for the Glendale overpass bridge as an eye-catching element visible from the Freeway to brand the space and announce the city from those traveling from the east.
2 5
DESIGN THEMES
INTRODUCTION
A series of design concepts have been identified to unify Space 134 and provide themes which designers and planners can refer to and get inspiration from in future phases. The roles of these themes are to:
tie the Space together, guiding the design and arrangement of the Space inform the programming of the areas within the park Link the Space into the larger Glendale context and the Glendale brand market and sell it to constituents get people excited so they can see the potential of what Space 134 can become
NATURAL GLENDALE
The natural theme celebrates Glendales nature story, its proximity to the mountains, the Verdugo Wash, natural habitat, and it brings touches of nature into the heart of Downtown. Get connected to nature while being in the heart of Glendale Views to the mountains / bringing the mountains closer Chaparral, birds, local planting Water play for children Learning moments Celebrate the transect of mountains, water, valley, through design and programming. Symbolic transect: Mountains, Arroyo, Citrus Groves as link to agricultural past Link open-space-rich north Glendale, with more urban south Glendale
LOCAL GLENDALE
The local theme celebrates Glendales rich ethnic panoply through food, cultures, music, and design.
Places for independent businesses Local cuisines and cultures / A Taste of Glendale Work with the Americana at Brand not against Places for food trucks Occupiable flexible structure Rentable space for weddings Iconic design of pavilion by local designer Art in the Park
The themes are not mutually exclusive and several can be used at the same time to brand and identify the space.
2 6
ACTIVE GLENDALE
The active theme is focused on encouraging sports, walking, jogging, bicycling, etc., At Space 134, especially a walking and biking circuit or green loop link to Verdugo Wash and Fremont Park and to the larger LA River, Glendale Narrows, and the regional park network.
GLENDALE. ANIMATED.
This final theme celebrates Glendales tie to the animation community and to its creative industries. This theme could manifest in a variety of ways from screened and framed moments and playful installations using light and sound to programmable outdoor space for plays, movies, and related events.
Glendale-specific active recreation Mobility hub Links to bikeways and existing parks Health stats and exercise circuit Sports fields and courts Pollution-screening trees and vegetation Given the adjacency to the Verdugo Wash, Space 134 can be conceived of as a green loop with enhanced streetscaping, active recreation trails, and green improvements to the Wash
Viewing portals to the Freeway Outdoor movies and shows Connection to animation studios Interactive public art Shadows and light play Potential for corporate sponsorship to link theme and brand of city
Glass portals through cap to Freeway below Guadalupe River Park and Gardens, San Jose, CA Westminster, CO
Multi-age recreation
2 7
Bike Share/Station
400
800
65 134 Freeway
A series of navigable green loops through the Space 134 enhancement area
Illustrative section through green loop trail on south edge of Freeway, east of Louise Street.
2 8
12 12
IN IST EX
74 11
SB E IV DR
12 11
NB E IV DR
11
SB E IV DR
10
SB FT LE
98 ROW 10 10
NB NB RN TU FT LE RN TU FT LE
11
NB E IV DR
12
IN IST EX
A PHASED APPROACH: 5-yEAR VISION FOR A GROWING PARK SECTION A - CENTRAL AVENUE BRIDGE
As mentioned on the previous page, central to the 5-year vision is the re-visioning of the overpass bridge structures over the 134 Freeway. Proposed modifications to the Central Avenue bridge and the Geneva bridge are illustrated to the right. In both cases a widened sidewalk on one side makes for a more comfortable pedestrian realm. Incremental improvements also include introduction of new street trees in raised planters, continuous wayfinding and branding/ signage elements, shade structures and landscaped setback areas to soften the experience of the Freeway beneath (Geneva Avenue), and iconic entry art on the eastern most and western most fence faces (Central Avenue and Glendale Avenue) as visible from the Freeway beneath. The goal is not only to create a more comfortable environment for people walking and biking over the Freeway, but also to establish a memorable visual cue from the Freeway that they are traveling through the heart of Glendale.
G K AL EW SID
R TU
K AL EW SID
LA NE
LA NE
NE LA
NE LA
N NE LA
N LA E
N LA E
ExISTING
PROPOSED
12 12
IN IST EX G SID AL EW K
74 11
SB DR E IV LA NE
12 11
NB E IV DR
22 22 11
SB DR
74 11
SB
12 11
NB E IV DR
11
SB DR E IV LA NE
10
SB FT LE R TU N
98 ROW 10 10
NB T FT LE N UR N LA E NE LA NB T FT LE N UR N LA
11
NB E IV DR NE LA NE LA
12
IN IST EX G SID AL EW K
7 7 9
R PA KIN
52
DR E IV
10
SB FT LE
108 ROW 10 10
NB NB T FT LE
7
T FT LE
11
NB E IV DR
12
IN IST EX
T EX
66 ROW 17
SB
EN
17
N
9
GNE NA KIL
E IV
NE E LA LAN E RN RIV TU B D
SID
LA
LA NE
NE LA
NE LA
R PAN UR
NE
AL EW
DR E IV
LA
TUNNEL ENHANCEMENTS
Enhancements to the existing tunnel beneath the Freeway at Kenilworth Avenue are included in the green loop enhancements. The current tunnel does not provide adequate clear width for the safe passage of pedestrians and bikes. Widening the existing tunnel would likely be expensive, difficult, and generally impractical. Constructing a new tunnel would also present a number of challenges. In order to avoid significant impacts to Freeway traffic, the tunnel would likely need to be constructed completely from below the road. Tunneling techniques to consider might include jack and bore, pipe arch canopy, soil grouting, lattice girder and shotcrete, and boring with a tunneling machine. Note that all of these options are relatively expensive and have more potential risk when compared to an above grade crossing alternative. Good subsurface information is important when deciding which tunnel method to select. In order to obtain competitive pricing it will be important to develop tunnel requirements that will allow for different tunnel technologies to bid on the project (for example, allow either a rectangular or arched tunnel cross section).
NE
PROPOSED
LK
7 22 22
T EX EN DE D
52 66 ROW 9
R PA
7 74 9 17 108 ROW 10 10
NB E IV DR
7
EX IN IST G
17
SB
7
EX
12 11
NB
K AL EW
17 17
EX ED ND TE
52 86 ROW 9
R PA KIN
17 12
NB E IV DR
R PA
11
11
SB DR
10
SB
LA NE
11
12
IN IST EX
5
SB BI KE
12
SB DR E IV
5
NB E BIK
9
R PA KIN
17
EX ED ND TE
IN IST
DR
KIN
KIN G
E IV
NB
NB
E IV DR K SB WAL E LA
NB
SID
SID
LA NE
FT LE
E IV DR
E IV DR
T FT LE
T FT LE
E IV LA
LA
N LA
LA
LA
NE
R TU
SID
SID
SID
NE
E(
NE
NE LA
NE LA
N UR
N UR
(1
17
SECTION A
SECTION B
17
EX ED ND TE SID K AL EW
Location Key
SID K AL EW
K AL EW
K AL EW
1 B
NE
NE
52 86 ROW 9
R PA KIN G
N NE LA
AL EW
F BU
UF
LA
LA NE
FE
FE
NE
R)
R)
17 12
NB E IV DR
5
SB BI KE N LA E (1
12
SB DR E IV LA NE F BU FE R)
5
NB E BIK N LA
NE LA
9
R PA KIN G UF FE R) E( 1 B
17
EX ED ND TE SID K AL EW
Atlanta, GA
2 9
400
800
2 10
Focal Point: Conference Facility Rentable Animation/Sound Studio Space with Retail on Street Focal Point: Outdoor Plaza Focal Point: Great Lawn Cafe Running Bench Clear North / South Connections (Mid-block controlled pedestrian crossing at Goode Avenue / Sanchez Drive) Signage Family Helps Brand the Space New Development Automated Parking / Shared Parking Opportunity Boutique Hotel Opportunity Enhanced Sidewalk, Gateway Art Feature, & Vista Overlook Verdugo Trail Loop Shared Parking Opportunity Beginning of the Green Loop Multi-Use Trail Transit Station Location Options Transit Option 1 (Freeway Alignment) Transit Option 2 (Glenoaks Alignment / Surface Streets) The Moment Art or Attraction Bike Station / Amenity
13
14
14
7 6 12 5 4 3 8 1
C ENTRAL AVE
BLVD BRAN D
15
10
11
200
400
Location Key
2 11
Section Location
Visualization location
Visualization of the new conference facility and grand civic plaza Location Map
Wind Turbines
Potential Office / Mixed Use / Residential Bus Rapid Transit Shelter Potential Boutique Hotel
GOODE AVENUE
SANCHEZ DRIVE
134 Freeway
2 12
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
CENTRAL AVENUE
EXISTING BUILDING
BRAND BOULEVARD
134 Freeway
Illustrative Section - Central Avenue to Brand Boulevard (not to scale)
This central core area of Space 134 lies in the heart of Downtown Glendale, between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard. The multistory buildings on either side of the park embrace the space and provide eyes on the park for safety. This block is unique in that there is a frontage road on either side of the Freeway. This means that buildings actually face the park, rather than turning their back or side to it, as is the case in other areas of the park. The vision for this park is an urban park with a plaza, hardscape, water feature, cafe, and a conference/events facility of two to three stories. A large central green space can accommodate picnics and impromptu gatherings, as well as organized community events, meet-ups, group yoga, and outdoor movies. Adjacent to this green space, a cafe building anchors the west side of the park. Visually porous and light on the ground, the cafe looks out onto the park and has outdoor cafe tables and chairs. The first of two bike share stations can sit along Central Avenue, easily-accessible from the street. Walking from the cafe east through a shaded grove and main pathway you arrive at the conference facility and main plaza with interactive fountain, public art and places to sit and people watch. The east side of the space can accommodate transit stations and is designed with active street-fronting uses along the conference facility edge, such as a cafe, or retail uses. A deep sidewalk and setback allows for a double row of trees along Brand Boulevard,
with enhanced streetscaping, signage, and paving. The Space 134 signage system weaves throughout the park, with a series of wayfinding pylons and directional cues. The Freeway edge on Central Avenue is designed with an eye-catching public art display on or adjacent to the overpass fence, to be visible from passing vehicles beneath. The street edge along Brand Boulevard is embraced with active use along the east side, with a new animation studio and mixed-use building. The north-south transition is thus eased and most pedestrians would be unaware that they are traveling over the Freeway as it is no longer visible or audible. North and south Glendale are rejoined. Pollution-screening trees are drawn into the main green space area and wind-turbines and solar roof panels help to tell the healthy Glendale story. Bioswales pick their way along the main pathway spine. Public art stopping points and interactive stations dot the park along the main pathway and showcase Glendale creativity, telling the animated Glendale story.
Section Location
Location Map
2 13
Focal Point: Water Play Running Bench Main Bike, Walk Loop Path Clear North/South Connection Bocce Focal Point: Great Lawn Move Station: Workout Equipment Branded Signage Volleyball Focal Point: Art Infill Development Play Station: Playground Parking Basketball Focal Point: Verdugo Wash as People Space Redeveloped Lots Future Park-Oriented Development Potential Bike Station / Amenity
ST
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 17 10 11 13
J ACKSON
L OUI SE
S T
14 15
Location Key
200
400
2 14
Basketball Courts
134 FREEWAY
Illustrative Section - Jackson Street to Geneva Street (not to scale)
Between Jackson Street and Geneva Street the character of the park morphs to reflect the residential adjacencies. Space 134 here is softer in design, more landscaped, with more passive recreation opportunities and a smaller scale of spaces. At Jackson Street a bike-share facility along the street edge and the Space 134 signage pylon announce the park, describing the uses within. The main east-west spine is the green loop multi-use trail, with a two-way bike path and a decomposed granite walking and running path next to it, separated by a low landscaping strip. Occasionally along the path there are fitness stations and bench nooks for resting or working out. Bike racks are along this path at key nodes, allowing people to park and enter the park. The running bench element is carried along the green loop pathway, manifesting as a continuous bench, tables, even a slide or interactive play element for children. East-west across Jackson Street and Geneva Street, new continental crosswalks and flashing warning lights facilitate the movement of people along the multipurpose trail. This section of the park has volleyball courts and basketball courts, along with bocce courts with viewing areas and team meeting areas. Interspersed with these active recreational uses are passive open spaces/greens for picnics, barbecues, and small community or neighbor events. A tot lot or playground area near Isabel Street or Howard Street is cited for easy community access. Critical to this segment of the park are new north-south connections at the existing cul-de-sac streets of Isabel Street and Howard Street. These new pedestrian pathways connect down to the multi-purpose green loop trail.
At Geneva Street, a critical safe-routes-to-school connection, a tot lot or playground on the east side of the street (not shown in section) provide a place to stop and play for families and children traveling along the street. Geneva Street which is a bike enhanced street in the Citys Bicycle Transportation Plan, contains another bike share facility and bike racks along the park edge. Public restrooms near the basketball courts and street edge serve the park west and east of Geneva Street. Pollution-screening trees are drawn into the main green space area and wind-turbines help to tell the healthy Glendale story. Bioswales pick their way along the main pathway spine. Public art stopping points and interactive stations dot the park along the main pathway and showcase Glendale creativity, telling the animated Glendale story.
Location Map
Section Location
2 15
Poly-carbonate Bench
Poly-carbonate Bench
2 16
Shared Street
Woonerf
2 17
New Village Center Civic Park Focal Point: Pavilion Cafe Retail or Mixed Use Residential Consolidated Parking Shoppers Plaza Enhanced Sidewalk and Gateway Art Feature Focal Point: Community Pavilion Cafe/Bike Station Play Station: Tot Lot Innovation Station: Cell Phone Booth Open Lawn New Pedestrian / Bike Connection Relocated On-Ramp Shared Streetspace Development Potential Bike Station / Amenity
AKS GLENO
BLVD
11
12 10
13 5 15
ON TE RE Y 5
RD
4
1 3
AV
14
0
NOTE: This iteration shows removal of the east-bound and westbound off ramps and relocation of the eastbound on ramp.
4 7
DO
RA N
ST
LE ND AL E
E
8
200
Location Key
400
2 18
GOODE
SANCHEZ
CENTRAL
Walk, Bike, Run: Green Loop Primary Pedestrian Path Secondary Pedestrian Path
LOUIS E
BRAND
Bicycle Circulation from Citys Bike Plan New Space 134 Bicycle Circulation Bike Station or Amenity
JACKSON
Bike Parking, Bike Station, & Bike Share: Space 134 will be equipped for multiple types of facilities
2 19
GENEVA
for cars between Brand and Louise Street. At the eastern end of the frontage road, the development of the connection to Glendale Avenue would depend upon potential redevelopment of the existing shopping center and relocation of the Freeway east bound ramps. Further study of this concept is required. Civil infrastructure improvements associated with the proposed frontage road require new utilities, and street improvements including; sidewalks, crosswalks, striping, and curb/gutters.
FRONTAGE
15 15
Si de w
PACIFIC
CENTRAL
JACKSON
GENEVA
LOUISE
BRAND
DA L
GL
EN
50 8
Pa rk in g k
15 5
Bi ke
5
Bi ke La
80 ROW 12 12
D riv e La D riv e La
8
Pa rk in
15
Si de al w
La
al
ne
ne
ne W B
ne EB
SECTION A
Property Line
400
800
2 20
ELEVATION 1
Scale 1 = 50
ELEVATION 2
Location Key
Scale 1 = 50
Scale 1 = 12.5
2 21
Cantilevering a new light-weight structure off of the existing bridge, or; Constructing a new superstructure independently supported. and substructure
A summary of key elements, along with advantages and disadvantages of each approach is provided below. Note that the bridge widening concepts assume that storm drainage for the added surface area will be collected and piped under the structure, via a hanger system, to existing storm drain lines beyond the bridge abutments for further conveyance.
Key Issue #1: This approach should be less costly to construct than other options. Assuming limited upgrades are required to the existing structure, this approach should be less expensive and disruptive to construct than constructing a completely new and independent structure. Key Issue #2: This approach could be constructed with minimal impact to traffic. The widening work could primarily be completed from deck level, with limited temporary impacts to Freeway traffic. Work on the deck could also be staged so that at least one existing sidewalk remains open throughout construction. Similarly, vehicular traffic across the bridge could likely be maintained during the work. The result would be lower temporary traffic control costs and fewer impacts to motorist and pedestrian mobility. Key Issue #3: This approach imparts new and additional loads to the existing bridge. Additional analyses would be required during the design phase for the widening to determine if the existing structure would need to be strengthened. The scope of these modifications could be relatively small such as strengthening local portions of the deck or girders, or the modifications could be larger in scale such as for strengthening the substructure or foundations. An effective strategy for mitigating these impacts and avoiding substantial modifications to the existing structure would be to use light-weight materials such as steel and fiber reinforced
2 22
Key Issue #4: This approach would require approval by Caltrans. Many transportation agencies are obligated to upgrade existing facilities to meet current seismic design codes if significant modifications are planned. It would be important to understand Caltranss position on this issue during preliminary widening design so that the required level of technical analysis and stakeholder responsibilities are well-defined and understood. Seismic retrofits for bridges can be complex and costly. This add-on type widening would also likely impact the bridges aesthetics and long-term inspection and maintenance needs. Caltrans would need to be consulted and their approval gained.
In the near-term vision concept, new retaining walls are being considered along the outside of the Freeway as a means to regain more usable space along the frontage roads. Currently, this space consists of steep cut slopes and shorter walls, neither of which can support build-out up to frontage road level without significant modifications. An important consideration with building any new retaining walls along an existing Freeway right-of-way would be ensuring that future Freeway widening or ramp modifications would not be impeded. Transportation agencies are frequently reluctant to allow permanent restrictions on their facilities due to the uncertainty of how these installations might box them in later on. Therefore, establishing acceptable setbacks from the Freeway for the walls would be a key step. All potential retaining wall design options would need to consider accommodations for future Freeway cap structures. This may include designing for future bridge load allowances or ensuring the walls can accommodate a range of potential future bridge foundations. Two structurally feasible options for constructing walls between the Freeway and frontage roads are presented to the right and described in more detail below. Option 1 is believed to be the more cost-effective alternative.
For this approach, the widening would be supported with a new substructure and foundation and be seismically isolated from the existing bridge. See the previous page for a sketch of this option.
WALL OPTION #1
Key Issue #1: This approach should not impart additional loads to the existing bridge. By isolating the new widening structure from the existing, it should be possible to avoid having to upgrade or strengthen the existing bridge. Key Issue #2: This approach could accommodate more widening width and heavier loadings. The new structure could be designed to support more widening and higher live loads than the cantilever option. This approach may integrate better with the long-term vision of capping the entire Freeway since it could be designed to accommodate those potential heavier future loads and therefore would not restrict future uses and access as much as the cantilever option. Key Issue #3: This approach should facilitate approvals by Caltrans. Since direct impacts to the existing bridge would be minimal, this should be a cleaner approach than building off of the existing bridge and improve the odds of receiving Caltrans approval. Likewise, the aesthetics for the new widening structure could be better matched up to those of the existing bridges. This should help with local buy-in as well as help with gaining Caltrans approvals. Key Issue #4: This approach would likely have significant impacts to Freeway traffic and cost more to construct. This approach would require significant work in the center Freeway median to construct the intermediate pier. This could result in lane closures or lane shifts lasting several weeks.
Also, setting new girders or installing falsework could negatively affect Freeway mobility. Overall costs to construct this type of widening would likely be between $400 and $500 per square foot of widening.
Option 1 consists of a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall with precast concrete facing panels. This is a conventional and effective wall type widely-used to support roadway fills. The general steps to construct this type wall would include: 1. Drive temporary sheet piles behind the planned wall location. The line of sheets would be located behind the planned permanent wall a distance approximately 0.8 x the wall height to allow for the subsequent installation of soil reinforcing. 2. Excavate the existing toe of the slope from in front of the sheets. 3. Construct the lower portion of the MSE wall including soil reinforcing strips, backfill, and pre-cast facing panels. 4. Continue building up the MSE wall and backfilling to a level even with the top of the sheet piles. 5. Extract the temporary sheets. 6. Continue constructing the wall and backfill up to the frontage road elevation. 7. Construct roadway pavements or landscaping on the fill, as required.
WALL OPTION #2
Option 2 consists of a tied-back, steel soldier pile wall with a cast-in-place concrete facing. These walls are typically more expensive to construct than MSE walls and do not offer significant advantages. The wedgeshaped backfill between the existing slope and the back of the walls, as well as the staged installation of the permanent tie-back anchors may be challenging to construct. This option is likely more expensive than Option 1 with MSE walls.
2 23
La Roche-sur-Yon, France
2 24
LOOKING FORWARD
Space 134 would likely positively impact retail sales and jobs in the area. NYDOTs Measuring the Streets, a helpful summary of the impact of street improvements and urban design interventions throughout New York, described how the borough of Brooklyn saw a 172% increase in retail sales (compared to 18% borough-wide) at locally-based businesses after a pedestrian plaza was installed there. The same report indicated that there was a 14% increase in sales at fronting businesses after a pedestrian seating area was installed in Manhattan. Both of these examples point to the power that cities have when converting under-utilized space into people space to bring economic benefits to their communities. Space 134 would likely bring new jobs, both directly and indirectly to Glendale, including new permanent jobs. It will also likely attract tourists and visitors and bring increased earnings for hotels. Reports the ULI, regarding its 2011 Amanda Burden Open Space Award winner, Citygarden in St Louis, Hotel bookings are 18% ahead of the ten-year average, and local shops and ground-floor retail establishments have benefitted from the increased foot traffic that Citygarden is producing. Chicagos Millennium Park sees 3 million visitors a year resulting in $1.9 2.6 billion in visitor spending over 10 years (Park 101 District Freeway Cap Feasibility Study)
NEW DEVELOPMENT
Space 134 would likely create a demand for new development and redevelopment around its edges. As described by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), regarding their 2010 Urban Open Space Award Winner, Campus Martius Park in Detroit Michigan, the areas around the park have become the most active space downtown and over $700 million of new development has occurred within a two-block radius of the park. Park 101, a cap project proposed in Downtown Los Angeles, expects that construction of the park will attract 600-800 new residential units, with $490 million to the area.
PROPERTY VALUES
Introduction of new park space in central city environments has been shown to Increase rental and property values. According to the Downtown Los Angeles Park 101 Feasibility Report, there is a premium of 10%-40% for commercial rent in park adjacent buildings. Several examples of the impact of new park space on rental and property values are included in this study. For example, 2 years after Bryant Park in New York City opened, leasing activity on the adjacent street increased by 60% in the first 8 months and in the 10 years after park opened, rents for nearby commercial space around the park increased 115% to 315 %, while surrounding markets saw a much smaller increase (41% to 73% in similar commercial properties). Similar adjacency to Millennium Park in Chicago created a 33% increase in overall residential property value. This price premium was also noted in: Philadelphia, PA where city wide residential units with park proximity are 5% higher than others; Boulder, CO where the value of properties adjacent to a greenbelt are 32% higher than those located 3,200 feet away; and Austin, TX, where premiums for properties adjacent to a greenbelt and wilderness park there range from 6% to 20%. Director of the New York City Department of City Planning and Chair of the City Planning Commission, Amanda Burden reported that after the High Line was constructed, the price of apartments adjacent to the park has doubled (New York Times, 6/6/11). The Benefits of Parks by the Trust for Public Land noted that in Boulder, Colorado the addition of a new greenbelt added $5.4 million to the total property values of the neighborhood and generated $500,000 per year in additional potential property taxes, enough to cover the $1.5 million purchase price of the greenbelt in only three years.
COSTS
Initial costs outlays are high and include planning, design, environmental review, coordination, acquisitions, land lease, and construction. While ongoing costs include operations, programming, and maintenance. As a point of reference, Millennium Park spends about $13 million per year on operations. (Park 101 District Freeway Cap Feasibility Study) Dollar costs estimates for construction for Space 134 are summarized on the following page, along with a matrix presenting comparison costs for our sister cap park projects already constructed or in the planning stage both locally and nationally as points of comparison.
3 1
Freeway Park, Seattle, WA $2.7 million / acre (1970s) $14 million, 5.2 acres
Hollywood Central Park, Los Angeles, CA $22 million/acre $950 million, 44 acres
Margaret T Hance Park, Phoenix, AZ $4 million / acre (1990s) $105 million, 29 acres
South River Walk Park, Trenton, NJ $23 million / acre (2004) $150 million, 6.5 acres
NEAR-TERM
$50.00 million
MID-TERM
@ 15 acres
Park 101, Los Angeles, CA: $24 million / acre $825 million over 25 years/34 acres
(Includes cap park, land acquisition, streetscape)
$230.13 million
(In addition to costs of previous phase)
LONG-TERM
@ 25 acres
Klyde Warren Park, Dallas, TX $22 million / acre $110 million, 5 acres
Downtown Cap Park, Ventura, CA $57 million / acre $330 million, 5.7 acres
$337.90 million
(In addition to costs of previous phases)
The estimated costs for the above projects have been extracted from the Park 101 Feasibility Study, the Hollywood Central Park Feasibility Study, the Ventura Beach and Town Project White Paper and the Urban Freeway Cap Parks Policy Briefing Paper by Clement Lau, USC. See references at the end of this document.
3 2
FUNDING
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Best practices and review of similar projects indicate a set of guiding principles when it comes to funding Space 134: Build and nurture a relationship between city leaders and the philanthropic community. Identify a Steering Committee and/or a Friends of Space 134 group. Identify potential public-private partnerships and naming rights opportunities. Clearly identify a lead agency or developer to apply for, administer, monitor, and evaluate grants and funding. Special Events. May include conference events in the facility on the cap, rentable events space, farmers markets, etc. Generates revenue for operations and maintenance. Transfer of Development Rights. Transfer development rights (TDR) from one site to another and using the economic benefit from the increased density, to finance portions of the Park. Local TDR examples include: Burbank, Irvine, Pasadena (non-cap related). Typically used to finance capital improvements or land acquisitions, rather than maintenance or operations. Glendales Urban Art Fund
GOVERNANCE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
As with lessons-learned from the funding of cap parks, there are important takeaways from how the parks are governed and managed. Guiding principles for governance include: Cooperation between public and private entities is key. Initial fund-raising should include endowments for maintenance. Private funds and public funds should be kept distinct from one another to give private donors more control, accountability, and incentive. Consider using MOU, MOA, Inter-agency Development Agreement, and/or Joint-Use Maintenance Agreement
Regional / State Caltrans Environmental Justice and Transportation Planning Grants Carbon Reduction Mitigation Funds Measure R funds Metro funds Prop 1B Funds Prop 1C Funds Prop 84, Urban Greening Grants Public Health funds Safe Routes to Schools State Transportation Improvement Fund (STIP) Transportation Development Act (Bike and Pedestrian Funds) Federal Federal funding is an essential component of these projects. As an example the Margaret T Hance cap park in Phoenix, AZ used 92% FHWA funding for the freeway and deck (100% City funds for the park itself). CDBG funds Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program FHWA assistance program HUD Funding New Market Tax Credits Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Surface Transportation Program (STP) Sustainable Communities Grants Transit Enhancement Funds TIGER Grants
GOVERNANCE MODELS
1. Lead Agency. As with funding management and administration, identify one leader to oversee the management of the park. This entity can be a private foundation or a public agency. 2. Committee as Leader. This may include a Joint Powers Authority and is a system by which resources are shared. 3. Public-Private Partnership 4. A Hybrid Approach. Using a combination of governance options.
3 3
NEXT STEPS...
More detailed feasibility study and economic analysis will help the city and its residents to more fully understand the pros and cons of constructing Space 134. Economic and feasibility analysis would look in detail at impact to surrounding communities from an economic, environmental, and development standpoint. Additional study would quantify these impacts both at park construction and over time, including the operations and maintenance requirements of the park.
IDEA IS HATCHED
1. Glendale Downtown Specific Plan 2. Compatibility with City brand, parks needs assessments, and other policy documents established
CONCEPTS DEVELOPED
1. Vision and Themes 2. Implementation: Short-Term Mid-Term Long Term 3. Alternatives 4. Design Development
PROS/CONS WEIGHED
1. Cost/Benefit Analysis 2. Funding Analysis
VISION IS PRESENTED
1. Three Phases 2. Structural Concepts
DETAILED ANALYSIS
1. Feasibility Study 2. Economic Analysis 3. Public Outreach 4. Next Phase Design
FUTURE STUDY
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Resources used during the Space 134 study and the compilation of the final report are listed to the right. Several are useful research documents presenting compelling information specifically about cap parks and urban parks in general. CAP PARK CASE STUDIES AND RELATED RESEARCH Creating Sustainable Air Rights Development Over Highway Corridors: Lessons from the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston Bonnie E. Campbell. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning. 2004. Hollywood Freeway Central Park Feasibility Report EDAW/AECOM. October, 2008. Klyde Warren Park Klyde Warren Park Press Kit. Dallas, TX. List of Structures Built on Top of Freeways. Wikipedia. Park 101 District Feasibility Study AECOM. August 2012. Park 101 District Governance Analysis White Paper Iteris, SCAG. May, 2012. Urban Freeway Cap Parks Policy Briefing Paper, Considering the Barriers and Opportunities for More Park Space in Los Angeles Clement Lau, AICP Candidate, Doctor of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California. 2010. Ventura Beach + Town Project White Paper Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc, Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc., Economic Planning Systems, Inc., Van Atta Associates. June 2012. SPACE 134 BACKGROUND INFO Base Maps General Plan Land Use Map Glendale Zoning Map
BENEFITS OF PARKS AND OPEN/CIVIC SPACE The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space Paul M Sherer. The Trust for Public Land. 2006. The Health Benefits of Parks, how parks help keep Americans and their communities fit and healthy Erica Gies. The Trust for Public Land. 2006. Preventing Childhood Obesity: The Need to Create Healthy Places - Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology County of Los Angeles Public Health. October, 2007. Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets New York Department of Transportation. 2012
Land Use/Land Value Downtown Specific Plan Projects Map Downtown Specific Plan Project Spreadsheet
Mobility 2005 Traffic Counts 2009 / 2010 Bike and Pedestrian Count Report 2030 Traffic Counts Beeline System Map City of Glendale Bicycle Transportation Plan. May, 2012. City of Glendale Public Works Department Study. State Route 134 East On-ramp at Brand Boulevard, 2008 Downtown Mobility Study. 2007. Downtown Specific Plan. July, 2012. Downtown Specific Plan Projects Map. Glendale Safe & Heathy Streets Plan. 2011. OLDA- Orangeline High Speed Rail Take back the burbs: A Case Study, the Glendale Experiment Sunset Magazine. June, 2012.
Other Glendale Urban Art Program Guidelines. December, 2010. Greener Glendale 2010 Report. Greener Glendale Plan - Community Activities. 2012. Greener Glendale Plan - Municipal Operations. 2011. Comprehensive Design Guidelines- City of Glendale, 2011. Glendale, CA BrandAMP Report. July 2011.
3 5
APPENDIX
i- I
i II
CONCEPT 1: NEAR-TERM
TIMEFRAME: 1-5 YRS NEW OPEN SPACE: 5 ACRES
COLUMBUS
11
400
800
Line Items
Replacement of existing fence Installation of iconic art on fence New special paving Street trees in planters Bridge drainage (drains and pipe system)
Subtotal
Total
and Team
Line Items
Replacement of existing fence Installation of iconic art on fence New special paving Street trees in planters Landscape between guard rail and walk Planter wall Seat Wall Arcade over sidewalk Widen bridge 10 each side (20 total) Bridge drainage (drains and pipe system)
Subtotal (1 bridge)
Total
and Team
Line Items
Installation of new pedestrian / bicycle bridge New special paving Pedestrian lighting Public art (1.5%) Landscape at bridge entry Paving at bridge entry Directional signage Subtotal (1 bridge)
Total
and Team
$48,000 $45,000 $108,000 $100,000 $450,000 $60,000 $105,000 $150,000 $2,700,000 $70,000 $3,836,000 $19,180,000
Subtotal (2 bridges)
Subtotal (5 bridges)
i - III
Project D
Project E
Project F
Green Loop B: Walk / Bike Path, Southern Edge of the 134 Freeway, over Existing Embankment Total
$90,000 $86,250 $105,000 $50,000 $1,020,000 $50,000 $550,000 $15,000 $15,000 $30,000
Line Items
Continuous loop line paint Bike striping / buffer Identification pole signage Exercise station Streetscaping Additional landscape enhancement Pedestrian lighting - pedestrian level Informational health signage Bike station Bike signage Subtotal
Line Items
New paving - pedestrian path New paving - Bike path Landscape buffer Pedestrian lighting Trees Signage Exercise station Seating nodes Retaining walls along freeway edge Utilities Subtotal
Total
$504,000 $268,800 $910,000 $517,000 $61,100 $52,500 $40,000 $30,000 $8,040,000 $585,000 $11,008,400
Line Items
Public art 1.5% Pole mounted pedestrian lights New enhanced paving Signage
Subtotal
Total
$15,000 $66,000 $72,000 $15,000 $168,000
$2,011,250
i IV
Project G
Project H
Project I
Line Items
Special paving Public art 1.5% Wall mounted pedestrian lighting Lighting at entry Special paving at two entries Landscape at two entries Site furnishings Signage Construct replacement tunnel Subtotal
Total
$62,400 $1,900 $25,000 $33,000 $28,800 $20,000 $10,000 $15,000 $1,560,000 $1,756,100
Line Items
Special paving New landscape Trees Pedestrian lighting Seating nooks Tot- Lot (3-5 yr.) with resilient surface Signage Paving demolition Utilities Cul de sac
Total
$171,000 $1,068,750 $39,000 $165,000 $45,000 $60,000 $45,000 $285,000 $123,000 $250,000
Line Items
Vegetative swales Vegetative swale trees New planting in parking Landscape renovation of existing planters in parking New shade trees in parking Asphalt concrete and base demolition Base material for permeable paving Flush concrete header Striping
Total
$216,000 $26,000 $136,000 $20,000 $22,100 $34,500 $20,400 $19,500 $1,500
Subtotal
$2,251,750
Subtotal
$496,000
i-V
Line Items
Cap structure Street landscape Screen landscape Hardscape Pedestrian lighting Amenities (furniture, signage, art) Crosswalks Utilities Multiuse facility/ office (2 story, 59,300SF) Retail (7,000SF) Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under cap park Subtotal
Total
$31,540,000 $3,900 $25,000 $498,000 $30,000 $30,000 $240,000 $955,000 $9,488,000 $1,120,000 $1,245,000 $374,000 $45,548,900
Total
$29,050,000 $249,000 $498,000 $1,867,500 $27,200 $200,000 $15,000 $110,000 $30,000 $45,000 $780,000 $84,375 $21,600 $1,245,000 $374,000 $34,596,675
Pedestrian paving / sports courts Planting on structure On-site trees Planter walls Seating areas Pedestrian lighting Sports court equipment Sports court lighting Utilities Restrooms (775SF) Management office (180 SF) Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under cap park Subtotal
Water feature - passive Water feature - interactive Plaza site furnishings Civic scale art 2% Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under CAP Crosswalks Utilities Conference / multi-use facility (2 levels, 94,000SF, shell cost only) Caf (9,900SF) Subtotal
$111,221,700
i VI
Project D
Project E
Project F
Interactive Stations
Line Items
Cap structure Site landscape Pedestrian paving Planter walls Tot-lot playground Pedestrian lighting Site furnishings Fountain -interactive Utilities Caf (4,700SF) Full service bike station (3,600SF) Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under cap park Subtotal
Total
$30,800,000 $2,082,500 $499,800 $220,000 $90,000 $302,500 $25,000 $425,000 $780,000 $1,010,500 $450,000 $1,320,000 $396,000 $38,401,300
Line Items
Pedestrian paving Site furnishings Bus pullout Subtotal
Total
$24,000 $60,000 $100,000
Line Items
Interactive stations (location TBD) Bike stations Subtotal
Total
$125,000 $50,000 $175,000
$184,000
i - VII
Cap Park 6: Glendale East (New Village Center, Includes Main Development Sites over the Freeway)
Line Items
Cap structure On-site landscape Hardscape Enhanced roadway paving Pedestrian lighting Seat walls / built site seating Planter walls On-site trees Specimen trees Water feature - passive Plaza Site furnishings Civic Scale Art 1% Enhanced Crosswalks Cafs (two in park) (3,600SF) Full service bike station (3,600SF) Utilities Roadway Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under cap New mixed use residential - Site 1 (3 floors, 30 du/flr, 86,000 SF) New mixed use residential - Site 2 (3 floors, 30 du/flr, 86,000 SF) New mixed use residential - Site 3 (3 floors, 30 du/flr, 86,000 SF) Subtotal
Total
$105,000,000 $3,600,000 $864,000 $720,000 $440,000 $245,000 $375,000 $64,000 $80,000 $350,000 $50,000 $1,220,000 $10,000 $774,000 $450,000 $2,700,000 $4,500,000 $2,010,000 $1,347,500 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $184,799,500
Line Items
Interactive stations (location TBD) Bike stations Subtotal
Total
$125,000 $50,000 $175,000
Planting on structure Hardscape Pedestrian lighting Seat walls / built site seating Planter walls On-site trees Specimen trees Water feature - passive Water feature - interactive Plaza site furnishings Civic scale art 1% Utilities Caf (6,700SF) Restrooms (675SF) Full service bike station (3,600SF) Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under cap
CONCEPT 3: LONG-TERM
TIMEFRAME: 20+ YRS OPEN SPACE / CAP: 28 ACRES
400
800
15
and Team
Total
$1,835,000 $3,055,000 Subtotal $4,890,000
i VIII