research

transportation

198
 research
transportation

199
transportation
 Sacramento 2:10

San Francisco 2:30 Merced

San Jose 2:00

Fresno 1:20

Bakersfield 0:50

L.A. Union Station Ontario Airport

Riverside

Palmdale

Victorville

Ontario San Bernardino

Union Station

West L.A.

LAX March

Anaheim

Irvine

* estimated travel time based on timetable provided Southern California Maglev Network
(initial operating segment)
by California High Speed Train Authority Southern California Maglev Network

railway railway
proposed California high-speed rail proposed SCAG Maglev rail
websites: website:
research

cahighspeedrail.ca.gov redline.calmaglev.org
igs.berkeley.edu/library/htHighSpeedRail.htm
description:
the staff of the Institute of Governmental Studies Library, from igs.berkeley.edu/library/htHighSpeedRail.htm

200
transportation

description
“The issue of transportation in California is a criti-
cal one. With the world’s 6th largest economy and an
ever-growing population, rapid travel between major
cities and population areas is becoming increasingly
important.
In the 1980s promoters pushed high-speed rail, a con-
cept already in use in Asia and Europe, as a possible
alternative to overcrowded highways and expensive air
travel. In the 1990s the attention over high-speed rail
led to the creation of the California High-Speed Rail
Authority (CHSRA), a Board charged with designing a
high-speed train system for the state. CHSRA intro-
duced a plan in 2000 for a system that would link all
of the states major population centers including the
San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Sacramento,
the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. The
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act
for the 21st Century was presented to the legislature
in September of 2002 as Senate Bill 1856. The bill would
provide for the issuance of $9.95 billion in general ob-
ligation bonds, $9 billion of which would be used in
conjunction with available federal funds for funding the
planning and construction of a high-speed train system.
It is currently slated to go before the voters as a propo-
sition in the November 7, 2006 general election (Initia-
tive Update, California Secretary of State).”
 Gold Line Extension time
01 1st St/Alameda 00:00
02 1st St/Utah 00:02
03 1st St/Boyle 00:03
04 1st St/Soto 00:05
05 3rd St/Indiana 00:08
06 3rd St/Ford 00:11
07 3rd St/Mednik 00:13
08 Pomona/Atlantic 00:14

Gold Line time

09 Chinatown 00:05
10 Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park 00:08
11 Heritage Square/Arroyo 00:10
12 Southwest Museum 00:12
13 Highland Park 00:16
14 Mission 00:21
15 Fillmore 00:25
16 Del Mar 00:26
17 Memorial Park 00:27
18 Lake 00:30
32 minutes
36
19 Allen 00:32
20 Sierra Madre Villa 00:38

35
Red Line time
38 minutes 21 Union Station 00:03
18 19 20
Claremont 22 Civic Center/Tom Bradley 00:05
33 32 17
16
(Gold line Phase II) 23 Pershing Square 00:06
31
34
30 13
15 24 7th St/Metro Center 00:08
14
12 25 Westlake/MacArthur Park 00:10
29 10
26 25 9
11 26 Wilshire/Vermont 00:12
28
23
22 27 Wilshire/Normandie 00:14
27 21
28 Wilshire/Western 00:16
24 1 2
37 3
4 14 minutes 29 Vermont/Beverly 00:14
38
5 6 7 8 30 Vermont/Santa Monica 00:16
39 40
31 Vermont/Sunset 00:17
Santa Monica
(Exposition LRT) 41 32 Hollywood/Western 00:19
33 Hollywood/Vine 00:22
42
34 Hollywood/Highland 00:24
43 35 Universal City 00:28
44 36 North Hollywood 00:32

45
65
63 62 61 58
Blue Line time
64
67 66
46
37 Pico 00:10
59 60
68 38 Grand 00:13
69 62 minutes
47 39 San Pedro 00:15
70 55 minutes 40 Washington 00:18
41 Vemon 00:20
48
42 Slauson 00:22
43 Florence 00:23
49
44 Firestone 00:24
45 103rd/Kenneth Hahn 00:28
46 Imperial/Wilmington Rosa Parks 00:30
50 47 Compton 00:33
51 48 Artesia 00:36
52
49 Del Amo 00:39
57
53 50 Wardlow 00:43
54 51 Willow 00:45
56 55
52 Pacific Coast Highway
61 minutes 53 Anaheim 00:52
54 5th St
55 1st St
Metro commuter rail lines and stations
56 Long Beach/Transit Mall 01:01
Metro Rail transit lines and stations 57 Pacific
future Metro Rail transit lines and
stations Green Line time
freeways 58 Long Beach/I-105 00:37
distribution nodes 59 Lakewood/I-105 00:50
60 I-65/I-105 01:02
61 Avalon/I-105 00:32
62 Harbor Fwy/I-105 00:34
63 Vermont/I-105 00:36

railway
64 Crenshaw/I-105 00:39
65 Hawthorne/I-105 00:42

Metro Rail travel distances

66 Aviation/I-105 00:45
67 Mariposa/ Nash 00:47
websites: 68 El Segundo/Nash 00:49
research

mta.net/trans_planning/CPD/midcity 69 Douglas Rosecrans 00:51

la-pasblueline.org 70 Marine/Redondo Beach 00:55
urbanrail.net/am/lsan/los-angeles.htm

201
transportation

description
For 50 years, Los Angeles enjoyed an intimate and
exclusive relationship with one dominant vehicular
transportation system. Large expanses of land al-
lowed miles of highways to be built, fueling a local cul-
ture nurtured in climatic and individual freedom.
Within two generations, the city faces the limitations
of its prosperity and braces for a shift toward an intel-
ligent and integrated approach to public transporta-
tion.
In 1963, the last streetcar lines closed in Los Ange- Exposition Line. They radiate in all cardinal directions
les. It would take 30 years for the first line in the city’s to connect vital L.A. neighborhoods and to the cities of
new public rail transportation system to begin opera- Pasadena, Culver City, and Long Beach. The Exposition
tions. In 1993, a 59 mile long subway, the Metro Red Line promises to be the first to connect the Westside to
Line, began operating. Subsequent lines followed with the city’s center. Mayor Villaraigosa has also resurrect-
the above-ground/on-grade Light Rail Transit (LRT) ed efforts for the westward expansion of the Red Line,
systems due to their economic and engineering ad- which will ultimately connect the city’s iconic coastline
vantages. The four LRT lines are the two Metro Blue and the city of Santa Monica to the inner city.
Lines, the Metro Gold Line, and the planned Mid-City/
 distribution to

U.S.
Alameda Corridor Eurotunnel
1997–2002 1986–1994

or
20 miles 31.3 miles

Corrid
100 trains/day 50 trains/day
cost $2.4 billion cost $12.5 billion
average speed 40 mph average speed 100–220 mph
da
me
Ala

major truck terminals

Alameda Corridor
existing freight rail lines
truck routes
$
industrial nodes $
distribution nodes San Pedro Bay Ports cargo value
$168.3 billion

railway
Alameda Corridor
website:
research

scbbs.com/alameda/alameda3.htm
description:
acta.org/newsroom_factsheet.htm, used with permission from the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority
now:
1. Hugo Martin, “Alameda Corridor Bridge Gets Go-Ahead,” Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2003, sec. B.

202
transportation

description
The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile-long rail cargo
expressway linking the ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles to the transcontinental rail network near
downtown Los Angeles. It is a series of bridges, un-
derpasses, overpasses and street improvements that
separate freight trains from street traffic and passen-
ger trains, facilitating a more efficient transportation
network. The project’s centerpiece is the Mid-Corri-
dor Trench, which will carry freight trains in an open
trench that is 10 miles long, 33 feet deep and 50 feet
wide between State Route 91 in Carson and 25th Street
in Los Angeles. Construction began in April 1997. Op-
erations begin in April 2002.
The Alameda Corridor consolidates four low-speed
branch rail lines, eliminating conflicts at more than
200 at-grade crossings, providing a high-speed freight
expressway, and minimizing the impact on communi-
ties.
now
1. The last phase of the $2.4 billion Alameda Project
has been approved. It is a $107 million, half-mile
long bridge that will carry cargo on the Pacific Coast
Highway in Wilmington. This bridge will address road
traffic at the intersection of the Pacific Coast Highway
and the rail line.
 Seattle

Boston

Chicago
Cleveland
New York

Salt Lake City

Oakland Kansas City

St. Louis

San Pedro
Bay Ports
Atlanta
Memphis

Houston

Miami

impact of trade through San Pedro Bay Ports

2003 2010
value of trade $116 billion $253 billion
employment $2.5 million $5.7 million
customs revenue $2.9 billion $5.9 billion
federal income and business taxes $14.2 billion $30.9 billion
state and local tax revenues $5.4 billion $11.6 billion

* line thickness corresponds to intermodal trade volume

railway
Alameda Corridor national impact
website:
research

scbbs.com/alameda/alameda3.html
now:
1. Sharon Bernstein and Deborah Schoch, “Rail Route Falls Short of Potential,” Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2003, sec. B.
2. Caitlin Liu, “Transit Experts Urge Smarter Growth,” Los Angeles Times, November 15, 2005, sec. B.

203
transportation

now
1. The Alameda Corridor rail line has had a difficult rying 37% of the cargo—about the same amount before 2. Traffic congestion, federal funding, and freight control
first year of operation, as performance expectations the corridor was built. One cause of this unexpected were the three challenges facing the region in a recent
were not meant. Designed to relieve the number of downshift in demand is that the economics of freight commission. Titled “Mobility 21,” the local experts and
tractor trailers that snarl traffic between Los Angeles has changed–causing tractor trailers to become the officials urged the federal funding of an infrastructure
and Long Beach, the corridor failed to shift enough preferred system. that handles 43% of the nation’s cargo.
business to its rail system.
The performance mark of 100 trains per day carrying
50% of the ports’ cargo is reduced to just 35 trains car-
 by 2020
total LRT daily boardings: 16,000+
operating speed: 25–35mph
affected population: 275,000
expected users out of 275,000: 55,000
(20% of population,
6.5% of entire L.A. County)
cost: $822–826 million

Metro Gold Line

Pasadena

Chinatown
Station
6 minutes

Metro Red Line Union Station/

Wilshire Center/Hollywood/ Gateway Transit Center
North Hollywood 7th Street/Metro 3 minutes
Center/Julian
Dixon Station
8 minutes
Alameda
Station Utah Boyle
Civic Center/Tom Station
Pershing Station
Bradley Station by 2020 18 minutes
Square Station 32 minutes
5 minutes daily boardings: 2,500+
6 minutes (15.6% of total line)

proposed Gold
Line Extension
Light Rail Transit
Pico/Los Angeles Convention East Los Angeles
Center Station Pomona/Atlantic
10 minutes

Grand Station
13 minutes

San Pedro Station

15 minutes

10 minute walking radius

theaters

museums
Metro Blue Line galleries
Long Beach
civic institutions

educational institutions

sports & recreation centers

religious institutions

railway
metro lines and cultural institutions
websites:
research

mta.net/metro_transit/timetables/bus_rail.htm
mta.net/trans_planning/CPD/Eastside/Default.htm
description:
mta.net/projects_plans/exposition/light_rail.htm
transportation

204

description
The Light Rail Transit (LRT) system adopted by the
MTA promises to be the most effective system to inte-
grate into future urban planning. An updated version
of the old trolley system, its relatively silent perfor-
mance has been engineered to be a sustainable part-
ner with automobile traffic, pedestrian integretation,
and a positive influx into commercial corridors.
The more ambitious vision is the transit parks, where
primary LRT stations support large community parks
and public spaces.
 California High-Speed Rail
three site proposals

Union Station
“Run-Through”
Rail Track Extension

Metro Gold Line Extension

the implemented option

alternative rail proposals

for south end of Union Station
website:
research

mta.net
now:
1. Kurt Streeter and Tina Daunt, “Hopes for Urban Revival Ride on L.A.-Pasadena Line,” Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2003, sec. A.
2. Dan Weikel, “$1.4 Billion Light-Rail Plan Loses in Irvine,” Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2003, sec. B.
3. Richard Fausset, “Building Subway Beneath Wilshire Deemed Safe,” Los Angeles Times, October 28, 2005, sec. B.
transportation

205

now
1. The inaugural journey of the newly constructed Los
Angeles–Pasadena Gold Line, which finally connects
the cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena through
downtown Los Angeles and onto Belmont Heights, oc-
curs today. The Gold Line is seen as the alternative
to the community’s resistance to the construction of
a new freeway.
Thirteen stations will be served.
2. The impact and sustainability of Light Rail Transit
continues to be tested, as voters in Orange County de-
feated the CenterLine Project, which would have con-
nected John Wayne Airport and UC Irvine. The project
would also have connected Irvine, Costa Mesa, and
Santa Ana.
Despite the lack of support for the CenterLine, voters
also defeated a bill that prohibited any consideration
of light rail integration in future planning proposals.
3. The Red Line subway can be extended westward un-
der the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor, a major review by
transportation and tunneling experts. Despite danger-
ous underground gases, they deemed a safe tunneling
method is possible, paving way to the mayor’s effort to
address this subway’s ultimate destiny.
 409 Sylmar
75 minutes

419
Chatsworth
85 minutes

Van Nuys 413

60 minutes

423 422
Thousand Oaks
76 minutes

431 Westwood
430 50 minutes

Pacific Palisades
55 minutes
437
Marina del Rey
43 minutes

438
Redondo Beach
61 minutes

448
Rancho Palos
Verdes
62 minutes

bus lines bus lines

travel distances by minutes destinations and times from site
websites: website:
research

ladotransit.com/comexp/index.html mta.net/riding_metro/riders_guide/planning_trip-01.htm
transit-rider.com/ca.losangeles now:
1. Kurt Streeter, “MTA Weighs ‘Hub and Spoke’ Routes,” Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2003, sec. B.
2. Caitlin Liu, “MTA Sees Success in Orange Line,” Los Angeles Times, November 21, 2005, sec. B.
transportation

206

description
The MTA has concluded that a bus is in motion only fif-
ty percent of the time. The other fifty percent is spent
at red lights or stopped for patrons. To address this
inefficiency, MTA developed the Metro Rapid Program
—a special fleet of buses designed to maximize transit
time. The program, begun in June 2000, has seen a
40% increase in ridership.
now
Metro Rapid
25% faster than local bus service:
sensors keep traffic lights green
buses scheduled every 5–15 minutes
stops only at major intersections
30 new advanced buses, each
carrying 57 passengers
Orange Line | Metro Liner
The new Orange Line is located
in San Fernando Valley.
30 new advanced buses, each carrying 57 passengers,
connect the north terminus of the Red Line at North
Hollywood with the Warner Center in Woodland Hills.
 to Sylmar to Glendale
22 minutes (route 603) to Sylmar
105 minutes (routes 90, 91, 94, 394)

to Sylmar
86 minutes (route 92)
to Sherman Oaks
95 minutes (route 96)

d
Blv
le
n da
Gle

Avenue
to Santa Monica/2nd Avenue 5G
old
82 minutes (routes 04 + 304) en
rk St na
to Sunset + Pacific Coast Highway ate
Pa Fr de
96 minutes (routes 02 and 302) o ee sa
Ech wa Pa
y to

Sc
et

ott
tre

Ave
n
S

ue
do
ara
Alv
rth

We
st
No

Su
nse
tB
lvd
101 Hollywood Freeway
to V
ent
ura
Elysian Park Avenue
Elysian Park Avenue
101 St
Hol ad
lyw iu
o od m
Stadium Way Fre
ew W
ay ay
ay
ew
Fre
na
ade
Pas
110

1s
tS
tre
et
e t

3r
re

dS
St

tre
oa

et
er

4t
gu

hS
tre
Fi

Street

5t
Street

et
et

hS
tre

tre
sS

6t et
t

Hewitt
e

hS
re

ele

Vignes

tre
St
ng

et
ain

sA

Alameda Street
M
Lo

1st Street
oa et

9t
ay

hS
Br tre
dw

tre
S

et
ll

Ol
Hi

ym 4t
pic hS
Bl tre
vd et
et
S tre
pe

to downtown (Venice/Grand)
Ho

Pic
oB
lvd 20 minutes (route 96)
to downtown (Venice/Broadway)
to San Pedro 17t 19 minutes (route 603)
research

hS 6th Street
tre
et to downtown (Venice/Main)
19 minutes (routes 81, 90, 91, 92, 94, 381, 394)

to Harbor Freeway to downtown (Grand/Washington) 7th Street

68 minutes (routes 81 + 381) 19 minutes (route 603)

ue

8th Street
en
lAv
ra
nt

14th
Ce

Stre
et
transportation

207
to downtown/USC
36 minutes (route 200)

now 0 100ft 500ft 1000ft

In conjunction with the MTA, which has control over 1. In an effort to update a decade-old bus route sys- 2. MTA0 declares ridership
1/3mile numbers
1/2mile have exceeded
1 mile pro-

transportation issues for the entire Los Angeles
County, the Los Angeles Department of Transporta-
tion operates the second largest fleet of buses in the
county.
400 vehicles serve 30 million passengers per year.
The DASH line serves downtown Los Angeles for a fare
of 25 cents and an average wait of 8 minutes.
tem, MTA has proposed a new “Hub and Spoke” route jection on the new bus-oriented Orange Line. But there
plan. The 10 year federal mandate has produced this are criticisms that the original target numbers were set
new bus grid which aims to attract new riders, in- low as a reaction to past irregularities. Both the Gold
crease ridership, and save money. Line and Green Line failed to meet projections in their
first year of operations by as much as 50%.
The current system is paralyzed, as it is at the mercy
of an the city’s increasingly frequent girdlock and ex-
asperated by a route length that cycles every 20 miles
long and sometimes as much as 40 miles.
 10%

16%
4%
18%
6%
12% 11%
15%

commuter origin
aproximate regional distribution
8%
1. Beverly Hills / Westside 18%
2. Pasadena 16%
3. Santa Monica 15%
4. Los Angeles Mid City 12%
5. Alhambra / Monterey Park 11%
6. Burbank / Glendale 10%
7. Orange County 8%
8. Topanga Canyon / Malibu 6%
9. Highland Park 4%

vehicular commuting patterns

destination–origin (financial and government)
information polled from interviews of randomly selected
financial and governmental institutions located in downtown
Los Angeles

17% 18%

4% 5%
10% 11%

8%
4%
commuter origin
aproximate regional distribution
10%

12% 1. Pasadena 18%

6% 2. Burbank / Glendale 17%
3. Torrance 12%
Los Angeles Ventura 4. Alhambra / Monterey Park 11%
County County 5. Los Angeles Mid City 10%
freeway miles 528 88 6. Orange County 10%
highway miles 354 184 7. Santa Monica / 8%
West Los Angeles
average vehicle miles 101.1 9.5
traveled per day 8. Garden Grove 6%
(in millions) 9. Highland Park 5%
10. Hollywood 4%
11. South Los Angeles 4%

vehicular commuting patterns

destination–origin (retail, wholesale and manufacturing)
information polled from interviews of randomly selected
research

financial and commercial companies located in downtown Los Angeles

now:
1. Scott Martelle and Dan Weikel, “Census Data on Traffic Questioned,” Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2003.
transportation

208

description
Destination–origin studies examine the commuting
patterns of workers entering and exiting a specified
outlined zone of study. Typically, the studies are con-
ducted at a county level and, therefore, data on smaller
urban sections is virtually non-existent.
The informal study for these diagrams were conducted
by calling a variety of businesses in the downtown area
and asking the staff’s or owner’s commuting origin.
now
1. Discrepancies in commuter patterns have been dis-
covered in comparing established well-studied com-
muter patterns by regional specialists and the results
of the recent census data. As a result, concerns are
raised if this might apply to other census estimates.
Though the census correctly outlines an increase in
each county’s economic independency, other data
conflicts with other calculations.
 350 (miles)

300

200

100

0
1945

1950

1955

1960

1965
Reagan elected 1966

1970

“freeway program dying” 1973

Brown elected 1974
1975

1980

1985

1990
as governor

Los Angeles Times ,

new multi-modal
policy announced major motorway
at 1920

1920

major motorway at 1925 major motorway at 1937

major motorway at 1920 major motorway at 1925

1925 1937

vehicles
historic routes of major motorway system in Los Angeles
websites:
research

cahighways.org/chronlgy.html
dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/cthist.htm
now:
1. Caitlin Liu, “Houses Could Fall to Widen the 101,” Los Angeles Times, April 30, 2003, sec. B.
2. Caitlin Liu, “Ventura Freeway Plan Sparks Outcry in Valley,” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2003, sec. B.
3. Caitlin Liu and Deborah Schoch, “Efforts to Expand Freeways Lose Favor,” Los Angeles Times, May 15, 2003, sec. B.
transportation

209

now
1. After reviewing several alternatives to improve the
101 Freeway, including double decking and a rail line
in the center median, the transportation committee
has recommended adding two carpool lanes in each
direction.
The $36 million project will cover 40 miles along the
101 Corridor and can have disastrous consequences
for homes and business within the project’s zone.
2. San Fernando residents confronted officials when
presented with the proposal to widen the 101 Free-
way. The $3.4 billion project would demolish homes
and stores while adding two carpool lanes in each
direction between Studio City and Thousand Oaks.
The plan projects a savings of 78,000 commuting
hours a day.
3. The MTA board, led by County Supervisor Gloria
Molina, has canceled the ambitious scope of the 101
Widening Project. With escalating public rancor over
the loss of homes, businesses and cultural centers,
the MTA was asked to review alternatives for improv-
ing freeways without the removal of private property.
In scaling back the 101 Project, similar measures
were mandated for the equally ambitious elevated
truck lanes on the 710 Freeway.
 1942 1955

major highways
expanded highways
freeways
freeway extension
1979
1965

vehicles
development of highway and freeway system in Los Angeles
website:
research

cahighway.org
transportation

210
 City of Los Angeles
population 3,695,000
area 456 sq. mi.
street miles 6,400 mi
major/secondary roads 1,400
collector/local roads 5,000
intersections 40,000
freeway miles 160 mi

* line thickness corresponds to daily traffic volume

1986 2003

vehicles
freeway traffic
website:
research

mobility.tamu.edu/mmp/reports/monitoring_urban_roadways/appendices/PDFs/los_angeles.pdf
now:
“Gov.’s Plan is a Boon to Area Rail,” Los Angeles Times, February 26, 2006.
“Derail Trains and Ding Drivers,” Los Angeles Times, April 17, 2005.
“In Land of Freeways, Mass Transit Makes Nary a Dent,” New York Times, February 24, 2006.
transportation

211

now
According to The Desert Sun, since the 1960s the number of
registered vehicles statewide increased from 9 million to 30 mil-
lion, and vehicle-miles traveled annually have increased from
33.3 billion to 183.7 billion. Between 1980 and 2000, the miles
driven on the state highways increased 87 percent while high-
way lanes have expanded by 6 percent.
According to the Los Angeles Times, plans are in effect to ex-
pand rail lines throughout the state, and with the Los Angeles
seaport being the 5th busiest in the world, this rail expansion
would potentially reduce the number of trucks on the highways.
The average freight train, with about 280 cars, takes an equiva-
lent number of trucks off freeways and environmentally is three
to four times cleaner. But others argue that Los Angeles is too
dispersed for a rail system to succeed. The Los Angeles Times
claims that “the only way to dramatically improve traffic flow in
Los Angeles is to charge tolls.” But a rail system can be suc-
cessful if it is paired up with a high-quality public transportation
system that is not only fast, but travels throughout the region.
The New York Times states that Los Angeles “mayor [Villaraigo-
sa] has added traffic officers at 38 choked intersections. He has
sped up plans to synchronize traffic lights at all of the city’s 4,300
intersections. And he promises to double the number of left-turn
signals in four years.” But the biggest proposal so far is to extend
the city’s Red Line subway from downtown to the sea. The exten-
sion would cost nearly $5 billion and take about 20 years.
 60 minutes+

60 minutes

50 minutes

40 minutes

30 minutes
Pasadena
20 minutes 10.2 miles

Hollywood
6 miles 10 minutes
Ontario
UCLA
38.6 miles
15.6 miles

Santa Monica
15.8 miles

Orange County
25.8 miles

LAX
17.8 miles

San Pedro Bay

26.3 miles

vehicles
travel times and distances during off-peak hours
website:
research

traffic.tann.net/lartraffic
The Road Atlas 2002
now:
1. Amanda Covarrubias, “Slow Progress on 101 Bottleneck,” Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2003, sec. B.
2. Deborah Schoch, “Groups Ask for 710 Freeway Revision,” Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2003, sec. B.
3. Hugo Martin, “Sounding Off on Noise,” Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2003, sec. B.
transportation

212
now
1. The 4-year-long anticipated $112 million
construction of an overpass between Oxnard
Boulevard and the Ventura Freeway and the addition
of 5 new lanes to the bridge will cause one of the
worst bottlenecks in North Los Angeles.
2. Due to severe impacts on 300 existing homes,
homeowners and local officials have asked for a
redesign of the 18-mile 710 Long Beach Freeway
expansion.
3. A dramatic increase in mental and physical health
problems caused by traffic noise has been noted in
Southern California in the past ten years. Problems have
been detected in residents who live near older freeways,
which lack modern acoustic sound barriers. Current
remedies are limited to lowering truck noise through
braking alternatives. Long-term planning includes
reviewing housing development along freeways.
 70 minutes+

70 minutes

60 minutes

50 minutes Pasadena
10.2 miles
40 minutes
30 minutes
Hollywood
6 miles 20 minutes
UCLA Ontario
10 minutes
15.6 miles 38.6 miles

Santa Monica
15.8 miles

Orange County
25.8 miles

LAX
17.8 miles

San Pedro Bay

26.3 miles

vehicles
travel times and distances during peak hours peak hours 7:30–9:30am, 5:00–8:30pm
website:
research

traffic.tann.net/lartraffic
The Road Atlas 2002
now:
1. Jim Mateja, “Owner’s cost more than just the payment,” Los Angeles Times, April 23, 2003, sec. G.
transportation

213
now
1. In AAA ‘s national study on the cost of operating a
vehicle, they concluded that it costs 64.2 cents a mile
for gas, oil, and maintenance, and tires, or $6,420 a
year for every 10,000 miles of driving.

For a full-size SUV, the study concluded it costs 78.64

cents a mile, or $7,864 per year for every 10,000 miles
of driving.
 From downtown Los Angeles, Chavez Ravine/
Echo Park can be made accessible through local
roads. Urban housing will provide opportunities to

to glendale
sy
for people to live within close proximity to work. lm
ar

n
Local transportation can provide residents and
visitors the convenience and the connective
tissue between Chavez Ravine and downtown
Los Angeles. Proposed are three possible
methods of connection, including the extension
of the 2 Glendale Freeway to the 101 Santa Ana
Freeway, the extension of North Alameda Street

d
to the site, and the introduction of a modern

blv
light-rail transit system linking Metro stations

ale
nd
to the site. In effect, this will help reduce traffic

gle
congestion in the greater Los Angeles area and
alleviate housing shortage.

5g
old

avenue
en
sta
te
fre
ew na

rk
ay de

pa
a
as

ho
p
to

ec
sco
t

tt a
ee

ven
str

ue
alv l 1a
do
ara
sa
po

we
st s
pro

un
rth

set
no

blv
d

elysian park avenue

101 st
san ad
ta a iu
na m
free wa
wa y
y
ay
fr eew
d ena
p asa
110 sal 1b
propo

1s
ts
tre
et
et
re

3r
st

ds
a

tre
ro

4th et
ue

str
fig

street

ee
et

5th t
et

s stre

str
e

ee
str

6th
t
ee

t
hewitt
les

str
vigne
str

ee
ge

t
in
an
ma

alameda street
t
ee

los

1st stre
str

et
pe

9th
t
ho

ee
ay et

str
str
dw tre

oly ee
t
oa ill s

mp
ic
h

proposal 1a and 1b d
blv
br

extension of 2 Glendale
pic
o
Fwy and North Alameda Street 4th street
website:
research

blv
trafficinfo.lacity.org d
6th street
17
to san pedro th
str
ee
t
7th street

8th street
e
nu
ve
transportation

la
ra
nt

14th to San Diego

ce

stre
et

214
proposal 1a proposal 1b
The Rampart and Alvarado exits off the 101 Freeway remain the most congested Currently, there are no major local vehicular arteries that connect downtown L.A. to
within the site. Currently, Alvarado and Rampart Streets function as through ways the Echo Park/Solano Canyon residential
0
area. Due to their dependency on the 110100ft 500ft 1000ft

for commuters connecting to the 5 Freeway and downtown. or 101 Freeways as their only access points, the communities are choked off from a
1/3mile 1/2mile 1 mile
transparent open connection with the rest of the city.
0

The proposed extension of the Glendale Freeway south to the 101 Freeway will
greatly alleviate the traffic congestion at the Alvarado and Rampart exits by keep- The proposed extension of Alameda Street north to Stadium Way will provide a major
ing commuting on freeways. Local congestion will lessen significantly in these symbolic and local traffic connection between downtown L.A. and the Echo Park/So-
residential areas. lano Canyon area.

areas being alleviated from traffic congestation

Strategically, Dodger Stadium should be in a
location that is more easily accessible to the
public, such as downtown Los Angeles. Existing to churches

to glendale
sy
transportation networks and parking structures lm
ar recreation
already provides the necessary access and
supporting infrastructure. A significant library
population of people would be going to the civic
ballgame after working in downtown during
the day. Locating the stadium within walking elementary schools
distance from work eliminates the hassle
junior high schools
of driving and prevents unnecessary traffic

d
congestions. For the rest of the population who high schools

blv
ale
are not familiar with sports, it becomes another

nd
everyday after-work social hangout activity with

gl e
coworkers. The shortened distance from work
to the stadium means requiring less effort to
attend games, which will induce more people to
participate in these sporting events. This will 5g
old

avenue
increase the popularity of sport and ticket sales. en
Perhaps the turnabout will be so effective that sta
te
the owner of Dodger Stadium, or any sports fre
ew na

rk
team, will start making positive profits. ay de

pa
a
as

ho
p
to

sco ec
et

tt a
ven
e
str

ue
do
ara

we
alv

st s
un
rth

set
no

blv
d
to v
ent
ura elysian park avenue
101
san
st

ta a
ad

na
iu

free
m

wa
y
wa
y

projection

distance 3.0 miles ay

e w
time from one end to the other 9 minutes fre
na
a de
weekday riders 10,000 pas
0
LRT to be parallel to Grand Avenue and Stadium Way 11
3r 1s
ds ts
tre
et

tre et
4th
re

et
st

str
t
a

street

ee
ee

et
ro

t
str
ue

s stre
ee
fig

in

str

6th
ma

hewitt
les

str
vigne

ee
ge

t 5th
an

str
alameda street

ee
los

t 1st stre
ee et

et
str stre

9th
t
ay hill

str
ee
t
dw

proposal 2
oa

oly
br
t
ee

mp
modern light-rail transit system
str

ic 4th street
blv
pe

d
ho

website:
research

trafficinfo.lacity.org/
pic
ob 6th street
17 lvd
to san pedro th
str
ee
t
7th street
ue
en

8th street
av

transportation
l
ra
nt
ce

14th
stre to San Diego
et

215
proposal 2
Utilizing the three public transportation systems, the proposal outlines light rail
transit that will supplement the Gold Line. This will run along Figueroa Street and 0 100ft 500ft 1000ft

connect the Staples Center and the L.A. Live development with Chavez Ravine. 1/3mile 1/2mile 1 mile
En route, the line will underscore Grand Avenue as a vital axis and will effectively
0

carry all passengers interested in the entertainment cutlural corridor.

 1,000 (kcal/km/person)

car and 1 rider (60 mph)

car and 1 rider (30 mph)
swimmer (1.5 mph)

horse rider (10 mph)

car and 5 riders (60 mph)

car and 5 riders (30 mph)
train rider (30 mph)
moped rider (20 mph)
runner (10 mph)
walker (4 mph)

bicycle rider (15 mph)

bicycle rider (10 mph)

0
bicycle rider (4 mph)

1 bus with 7 passengers = 1 auto

1 full bus = 6 autos
1 full rail car = 15 autos

1 full bus = a line of moving automobiles stretching 6

city blocks
(with traffic operating at 25 mph)

annual gasoline savings possible

from transit use:
00 gallons for each person
switching from driving alone;
85 million gallons from a 10% nationwide
increase in transit ridership

1 person using mass transit for a year

instead of driving to work
saves the environment:
9.1 pounds of hydrocarbons
62.5 pounds of carbon monoxide
4.9 pounds of nitrogen oxides

all transportation systems

energy cost comparison
website:
research

exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html
now:
Caitlin Liu, “Gov.’s Plan Targets Southland Traffic Hot Spots,” Los Angeles Times, February 13, 2006, sec. B.
transportation

216 now
The city can no longer build highways without incit- ing High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (carpool lanes). Fwy. This plan forecasts a reduction from 580,000
ing significant resistance from the community. The From 2003, several proposals to resolve congestion down to 454,000 daily hours– an estimated 22% drop.
short-term shock and impact of erasing neighbor- via new highways was introduced only to be defeated The comprehensive funding measures has been re-
hoods three blocks wide by several miles long out- by strong grass-roots opposition. ceived with mixed reactions. Orange County welcomes
weighs engineers’ and policymakers’ desire for long- the $320 million targeting the 91 Freeway. In contrast,
term efficiency. The beginning of 2006 saw a resurgence in transpor- Los Angeles County hoped partial funding will go to-
tation funding. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed ward public mass transit—a long term strategic solu-
Without a comprehensive plan, the state and county investing $107 billion over the next ten years. $5.6 tion—rather than continuously expand the short term
can offer expansion and amendments to the current billion will target regional projects including adding a problems of freeway capacity.
infrastructure in the form of additonal lanes, includ- northbound High Occupancy Vehicle Lane on the 405
 freeway (elevated)
Los Angeles
$45 million/mile (construction)
$45–$50 million/mile (land acquisition)

$90–140m/mile

freeway (on grade)

Los Angeles
$30 million/mile (construction)
$30 million/mile (land acquisition)

$40–60m/mile

monorail (elevated)
Los Angeles
$40 million/mile (construction)
$60 million/mile (land acquisition)

$100m/mile

light-rail transit
Los Angeles
$65 million/mile (Mid-City-Westside LRT)
$120 million/mile (Gold Line LRT)

le
$75–120m/mile
1 mi

rapid bus—Mid-City Westside

Los Angeles
15 stations
97 vehicles

$180m/mile

subway
Los Angeles
all transportation systems
construction cost comparison $ $180 million/mile (construction)

MTA $200m/mile
research

Caltrans
transportation

now 217
Public outcry and resistance has suspended Caltrans 710 Freeway Plan 101 Freeway Expansion Plan
plans to add two addtional lanes each way on the 101 benefit: save 78,000 hours of driving time cost: $3.4 billion
Freeway between Studio City and Thousand Oaks. sacrifice: 900 structures benefit: save 78,000 hours of driving time
sacrifice: 1000 businesses
700 residential / 250 commercial structures
11 schools and churches /
12 medical buildings
8 parks and recreational areas
8 cultural sites
 Battery Park City

World Trade Center

Shiodome

Potzdamer Platz

218
housing
case studies

Chavez Ravine
Elysian Heights Housing

case studies

downtown Arts District

Kowloon
Walled City

Playa Vista

219
housing
case studies
 Elysian Park Heights Playa Vista Battery Park City

220
housing
case studies
Shiodome Potzdamer Platz World Trade Center Kowloon Walled City

o n e m i l e

221
housing
case studies
 % L Y S I A N Þ 0 A R K Þ ( E I G H T S 0 L A Y A Þ 6 I S T A " A T T E R Y Þ 0 A R K Þ # I T Y
WITHÞOPENÞSPACEÞ
TOTALÞBUILTÞAREA
WITHÞUSAGEÞ

%LYSIAN ÞACRESÞ ÞACRESÞ ÞACRESÞ

TOTALÞLANDÞ

0ARK ÞSFÞ ÞSQÞFT ÞSQÞFT ÞSQÞFT
ÞSFÞ ÞSFÞ ÞSFÞ
ÞPUBLIC ÞPUBLIC ÞPUBLIC ÞPUBLIC
ÞACRESÞ ÞRETAIL ÞRETAIL ÞÞRETAIL ÞÞRETAIL
ÞSQÞFT Þ
ÞCOMMERCIAL Þ ÞCOMMERCIAL Þ ÞCOMMERCIAL  ÞCOMMERCIAL
ÞÞ
ÞACRES ÞACRES ÞACRES
ACRES
ÞRESIDENTIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

ÞÞMILLIONÞ ÞBILLIONÞ ÞBILLIONÞ

TOTALÞCOST

COSTÞPERÞSQÞFT   

TOTALÞNUMBERÞOFÞBUILDINGS   

COSTÞPERÞBUILDING ÞMILLION ÞMILLION ÞMILLION

NUMBERÞOFÞHOUSINGÞUNITS   

RESIDENTIALÞCOST ÞMILLION ÞBILLION ÞBILLION

HOUSINGÞUNITSÞPERÞACREÞ
  
TOTALÞACREAGE

HOUSINGÞUNITSÞPERÞACREÞ   
EXCLUDINGÞOPENÞSPACE

RESIDENTIALÞOCCUPANTS   

OCCUPANTSÞPERÞUNIT   

RESIDENTIALÞSQÞFTÞPERÞUNIT
ÞAVERAGE ÞSQÞFT ÞSQÞFT ÞSQÞFT

SQÞFTÞPERÞRESIDENT
Þ   

SQÞFTÞOPENÞSPACEÞPERÞRESIDENT   

ÞÞSQÞFTÞPERÞRESIDENTÞ
SQÞFTÞOPENÞSPACEÞPERÞRESIDENT   

OFFICEÞOCCUPANTSÞÞSTUDENTS NA NA 

SQÞFTÞPERÞOFFICEÞANDÞSTUDENT NA NA 

PARKINGÞSPACES  ÞPARKINGÞFACILITIES

AMENITIES THREEÞSCHOOLS COMMUNITYÞCENTER ÞMUSEUMS UNDERGRO

KINDERGARTENSÞANDÞNURSURIES PUBLICÞLIBRARY MARINA
THREEÞCHURCHES ELEMENTARYÞSCHOOL CINEMA
COMMUNITYÞHALLÞÞSQÞFT FIREÞSTATION LIBRARY
ACTIVITYÞROOMS ÞCHURCH
INDOORÞÞOUTDOORÞAUDITORIUMÞFORÞ ÞSYNAGOGUE
COMMERCIALÞSECTIONÞORÞTRADINGÞCENTER COMMUNITYÞCENTER
ÞMAGNETÞHIGHÞSCHOOL
FITNESSÞCENTER

ÞBASEDÞONÞBUILTÞSQUAREÞFOOTAGE

ÞTOÞCOMPENSATEÞINHABITANTS

222
housing
case studies
 3 H I O D O M E 0 O T Z D A M E R Þ 0 L A T Z 7 O R L D Þ 4 R A D E Þ # E N T E R + O W L O O N Þ 7 A L L E D Þ # I T Y

ÞACRESÞ ÞACRESÞ ÞACRESÞ ÞACRESÞ

T ÞSQÞFT ÞSQÞFT ÞSQÞFT ÞSQÞFT
ÞSFÞ ÞSFÞ ÞSFÞ ÞSFÞ
ÞPUBLIC ÞPUBLIC ÞPUBLIC ÞPUBLIC
ÞÞRETAIL  ÞÞRETAIL Þ ÞÞRETAIL Þ ÞÞRETAIL 
ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞACRES ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞACRES ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞACRES ÞCOMMERCIAL ÞACRES
ÞRESIDENTIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL ÞRESIDENTIAL

ÞBILLIONÞ ÞBILLIONÞ ÞBILLIONÞ ÞBILLION

   

   

ÞMILLION ÞMILLION ÞBILLION ÞMILLION

   

ÞMILLION ÞMILLION  ÞBILLION

   

   

   

   

ÞSQÞFT ÞSQÞFT  ÞSQÞFT

   

   

   

   NA

   NA

   

UNDERGROUNDÞSHOPPINGÞMALLS ÞCINEMAÞSCREENS ÞCHAPELS ÞBUSINESSES

CINEMAS Þ)-!8ÞSCREENS  STOREÞMALL ÞRESTAURANTSÞANDÞSHOPS
RESTAURANTS HOTELS ÞELEVATORS ÞDENTISTS
TRAINÞMUSEUM SHOPS  ROOMÞHOTEL ÞDOCTORS
HOTELS &ILMHAUSÞ-USEUM EXHIBITIONÞPAVILIONS ÞTEMPLES
HALLS ÞCHURCH
ÞKINDERGARTEN
ÞSCHOOL
ÞGAMBLINGÞHALLS
ÞOPIUMÞDENS
ÞHEROINÞDENS
ÞSTRIPÞJOINTS
ÞBROTHELS
ÞMAHJONGÞPARLORS
ÞDOG MEATÞSTANDS
ÞPORNÞCINEMAS

ÞENTRANCES

223
housing
case studies
 With urban sprawl covering vast acres, Los Angeles’ attempts to produce mixed-use, large-scale housing
projects have been rare and often futile. This chapter focuses on seven case studies of large-scale building
projects around the world, all varied in their amenities and use. Comparisons were made between them,
including building cost, residential units per acre, and open space per resident. These comparisons allowed
clear assessment of their success or failure as communities. Same scale comparisons of each precedent to
either the Arts District or Chavez Ravine site distilled which aspects of each case study would be relevant
for housing in the respective sites. Keeping in mind the sites’ context, their proximity to downtown and the
cultural corridor, the surrounding communities, and their controversial past, the case studies attempted to
contribute information that will be useful for the successful design of a new mixed-use community.

The case studies represent vastly different approaches to mixed-use projects. Despite the differences in mass
and program, all of the projects sought to continue the scale and density of their surrounding built urban en-
vironments, but varied in their preservation of open space. Both Los Angeles projects (Elysian Park Heights
and Playa Vista) contain mostly low-rise residential units with minimal commercial or office space. New York
City’s Battery Park City and Tokyo’s Shiodome–both dense high-rise projects–and Berlin’s mid-rise
Potzdamer Platz have evenly distributed residential, commercial, and retail program.

The master plan for each project (except Kowloon Walled City) called for integration into existing infrastruc-
ture and amenities. In return for the use of power, sewage, water, and roads, these projects transformed
previously under-used land by providing retail and housing opportunities, increasing tax revenue, and offer-
ing valuable open space to the surrounding communities. Most of these projects followed a singuler master
plan but were developed by multiple architects. This allowed for cohesive plans, that avoided the potential for
homogeneity in design.

Each master plan solved the problem of open space by considering the surrounding urban context. Both
Playa Vista and Battery Park City–though radically different in scale, mass, and density–reserved a significant
amount of public/open space. The design for Potzdamer Platz and Shiodome, on the other hand, relied on
having large public parks nearby. Because of its extreme density, the residents of Kowloon Walled City found
open space in the landscape of the roof.

Each of the seven case studies foregrounds design opportunities for bringing a residential community to the
downtown Arts District and Chavez Ravine. The Elysian Park Heights and Playa Vista models are representa-
tive of a distinctly Los Angeles, low-rise, low-density approach to urban residential development. If grafted
onto such a geographically isolated site such as Chavez Ravine, these heavily residential communities would
be stranded from urban amenities and in essence become “gated communities.” The World Trade Center
model of high-density, high-rise office space can be found on Bunker Hill, and would be an interesting com-
plement for the Arts District site, and a complex addition for Chavez Ravine due to its isolation and singularity
of program. The increase in commuters to either site would tax an already saturated infrastructure. These
two unacceptable extremes suggest a mixed-use solution. Potzdamer Platz, Battery Park City, and to some
extent Shiodome, each with varying degrees of hybridity, would pose as better prototypes. Chavez Ravine
ideally demands a self-catalytic community, with its strong connections to Chinatown, the cultural corridor,
Elysian Park, Echo Park, and downtown.
housing
case studies

224
 total project cost: $800 million

total land area: 315 acres or 13,721,400 sq. ft.

total building area: 4,802,920 sq. ft.
total exterior space area: 80 acres or 3,484,800 sq. ft.

max height of buildings: 160 ft.

floors per building: 5 floors for lowrises, 13 floors for
highrises
F.A.R. : 0.35

population
residents: 17,000
workers: n/a
students: n/a
visitors: n/a

97% residential
total area: 4,658,832 sq. ft.
average unit size: 1,300 sq. ft.
number of units: 3,364

0% commercial
total area: 0 sq. ft.

0% retail
total area: 0 sq. ft.

3% public/parks & plazas

total area: 144,088 sq. ft.
civic: n/a
cultural: n/a
religious: n/a
educational: n/a

public infrastructure
parking: yes
railway: no
bus: yes

Los Angeles, California
1949-1952
Neutra and Alexander
Elysian Park Heights (EPH) is the name given to the unbuilt public housing project designed by Richard Neutra and
Robert Alexander for Chavez Ravine. Started in 1949 in response to the postwar Federal Housing Act, EPH was to
house 3,300 of the 10,000 total units slated for Los Angeles. Consisting of primarily one- and two-story apartment
buildings and thirteen-story high-rise towers, EPH was to be a completely self-sufficient community consisting
of schools, services, and businesses. Neutra and Alexander situated the buildings so as to optimize the views of
Elysian Park to the north and downtown to the south. The lower apartments were intended to be long buildings
sited with ample green space between them—much like the extant Village Green in Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles.
Long avenues with street parking and parking lots ran along the valley floors.

The project, intended for the 1,100 families already living in Chavez Ravine and 3,200 additional families in a rap-
idly expanding Los Angeles, was immediately controversial. Initially, the forced eviction of the existing tightly knit
community posed legal and ethical problems for the Housing Authority. Moreover, mired in the anti-Communist
craze of the early 1950s, the public housing project fell into political disrepute after some members of the Los
Angeles Housing Authority were alleged to be Communists. With little support from the City of Los Angeles, the
federal government sold the empty 315 acres back to the city, who four years later sold it to Walter O’Malley of the
Brooklyn Dodgers.

Elysian Park
Heights
Hines, Thomas S. Richard Neutra and the Search for Modern Architecture. University of California Press, 1994.
Cuff, Dana. The Provisional City. MIT Press, 2001.
housing
case studies

225
 total project cost: $2.7 billion

total land area: 162.5 acres or 7,078,500 sq. ft.

total building area: 4,685,000 sq. ft.
total exterior space area: 70.1 acres or 3,053,556 sq. ft.

max height of buildings: aproximately 60 ft.

floors per building: 2-5
F.A.R. : 0.66

population
residents: 13,500
workers: n/a

92% residential
total area: 4,310,200 sq. ft.
average unit size: 1,658 sq. ft.
number of units: 2600

3% commercial
total area: 140,550 sq. ft.
office: n/a
production/manufacturing: n/a

3% retail
total area: 140,550 sq. ft.
hotel: n/a
entertainment: n/a

2% public / parks & plazas

total area: 93,700 sq. ft.
civic institution: n/a
cultural institution: n/a
educational: n/a

infrastructure
parking: 3,900 cars
rail: no
bus: yes

Playa Vista, Playa Vista is bordered by Marina del Rey to the north, the communities of Westchester and Playa del Rey to the
California south, the 405 to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Initially proposed as a 10,000 plus unit village on
Howard Hughes’s obsolete 1,087-acre airport, Playa Vista has since been scaled back, due to local opposition,
1989–present to its more modest size, yet it still has its own zip code: Playa Vista, CA 90094. The master plan of Playa Vista
exemplifies the hybridized, village-centered New Urbanist agenda of low-rise, medium-density residential de-
Duany Plater-Zyberk, velopment. Its developers claim that these luxury single family homes are in the style of 1940s West Los Angeles
Ricardo Legorreta and Mediterranean architectures, and that new condominiums were influenced by classical European, Spanish
Laurie Olin Colonial, Art Deco, and Frank Lloyd Wright designs. The development, situated along the Ballona Creek wetlands
Moore Ruble Yudell two miles from the shore, lies just west of an artificial lake. Criticism has arisen from concerned environmental-
Moule and Polyzoides ists regarding the site’s exposure to methane. According to the Chamber of Commerce, “Playa Vista was selected
by President Bill Clinton as one of five P.A.T.H. (Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing) communities in
the United States for its commitment to sustainable development under the leadership of the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Building America program. Playa Vista recently received a coveted Ahwahnee Award for recognition as
a model ‘smart growth’ project.”

Playa Vista
West
website:
wlaxmdrchamber.com/history/pv.html
housing
case studies

226
 total project cost: $4 billion

total land area: 92 acres or 4,007,520 sq. ft.

total building area: 16,605,344 sq. ft.
total exterior space area: 32 acres or 1,393,920 sq. ft.
landscape area: 24,7 acres or 1,076,368 sq. ft.

max height of buildings: aproximately 650 ft.

floors per building: maximum 54 floors
F.A.R. : 4.1

population
residents: 12,700
workers: 40,000
students: 2,300
visitors: 1,500

51% residential
total area: 8,468,725.4 sq. ft.
average unit size: 1,366 sq. ft.
number of units: 6,200

36% commercial
total area: 5,977,923.8 sq. ft.
office: n/a
production/manufacturing: n/a

5% retail
total area: 830,267.2 sq. ft.
hotel: 1,070,000 sq. ft.
entertainment: n/a

8% public / parks & plazas

total area: 1,328,427.5 sq. ft.
civic institution: n/a
cultural institution: 29,300 sq. ft.
religious: n/a
educational: 717,544 sq. ft.

infrastructure
parking: 8 facilities
rail: yes
bus: yes
boat: yes

New York, New York
1968–1980
Charles Moore
Davis, Brody and Associates
Polshek and Partners
Conklin Rossant
Mitchell/Giurgola
Bond Ryder James
Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer
Begun in 1968 using landfill generated by the excavations for the World Trade Center, Battery Park City adds ninety-
two acres to the tip of lower Manhattan. Though the planning went through various iterations, in its final form the
street grid and visual corridors of the financial district are extended to the water’s edge. Four towers housing cor-
porate headquarters sit in the middle of the site, across from the former World Trade Center site. To the north and
south lies a residential district, architecturally rendered to mimic the neighborhoods found on the Upper East Side.
An elementary school, magnet high school, and retail area complete the architectural program. One third of the site
is left open as public space, with sculpture gardens and monuments dispersed throughout.
The development’s success may be directly related to its restricted program and elite users. Housing in Battery
Park City consists solely of luxury units. The office spaces are dominated by large financial institutions and the high
school accepts only the brightest of the city’s students. This restriction of the public conflicts with the success of the
development in terms of its public financing. In order to offset criticism, the higher revenues from the development
are routed to the revitalization of low and middle-income housing in other parts of the city. This, however, does not
address the issue of the resulting social segregation.

The plan was a product of the hard-nosed, practical realism of the end of the 1970s. Streets and sidewalks were re-
turned to grade level and made an extension of Manhattan´s grid (as had been done in all earlier landfill expansions
of lower Manhattan). This yielded conventional development blocks, which, in turn, yielded conventional building
forms. Each block could be parceled out to different developers at different times, according to market demand. The
Battery Park commercial center was moved from the southern end of the site up to the middle, tying it to the former World Trade
Center site.
City
websites:
bpcparks.org/bpcp/history/history.php
batteryparkcityonline.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_Park_City
housing
case studies

227
 total project cost: $1.2 billion

total land area: 76.6 acres or 3,336,696 sq. ft.

total building area: 17,225,000 sq. ft.
total exterior space area: 4.5 acres or 196,020 sq. ft.

max height of buildings: 710 ft

floors per building: maximum 56 floors
F.A.R. : 5.16

population
residents: 6,000
workers/students: 60,000
visitors: n/a

14% residential
total area: 2,411,500 sq. ft.
average unit size: 1,240 sq. ft.
number of units: 1940 units

80% commercial
total area: 13,780,000 sq. ft.
office: n/a

2% retail
total area: 344,500 sq. ft.
hotel: 134,733 sq. ft. (0.8%)

4% public / parks & plazas

total area: 689,000 sq. ft.
civic institution: n/a
cultural institution: n/a
religious: n/a
educational:n/a

infrastructure
parking: 1,540
rail: yes
bus:yes
boat: no

Tokyo, Japan Located on the southern half of central Tokyo, Shiodome is currently going through a major transformation. En-
compassing over seventy acres of land, the Shiodome redevelopment project is the largest development in Japan,
1995 - current and experts predict that this will be the last major development in central Tokyo. The launch of the project dates
back to 1990. In 1997, when land owned by the former Japanese National Railways was auctioned off, major de-
Richard Rogers velopments began in the area. With three railway stations nearby and a community-oriented management of the
John Nouvel district, developers expect Shiodome to outshine other Tokyo redevelopment projects in Marunouchi, Sinagawa,
Kevin Roche and Roppongi.
Jon Jerde
Kajima Design The development comprises twelve high-rise towers that will provide over two million square feet of residential
Nihon Sekkei spaces and house Japan’s largest advertising agency, Dentsu; broadcasting station Nippon Television Network;
Nikken Sekkei Kyoto News; and many other big corporate offices. Considering the infrastructure, company headquaters, resi-
Takenaka Construction
dents, and hotels, it is highly likely that this area will host an influx of people, especially from nearby business
centers such as Marunouchi and Otemachi, as well as a line of government offices in Kasumigaseki. Experts
also predict that the success of Shiodome will also contribute to the vitalization of pehripheral areas including
Shinbashi and Hamamatsucho, where small restaurants and bars are concentrated.

Shiodome
websites:
metropolis.japantoday.com/tokyo/471/feature.asp
Yuro Nishikawa, “Redevelopment of Shiodome, ” jrtr.net/jrtr35/f48_nis.html
housing
case studies

228
 total project cost:
Daimler Benz: 4 billionDeutschemarks ($2.2 billion)
Sony: 2 billion Deutsche marks ($1.1 billion)

total land area: 23 acres or 1,001,880 sq. ft.

Daimler-Benz: 17 acres
Sony: 6 acres
total building area: 4,900,00 sq. ft.
total exterior space area: 1.15 acres or 50,094 sq. ft.

max height of buildings: Varies from 60 ft. to 300 ft.;

average is about 100 ft. (see diagram)
floors per building: Varies from 6 to 20+ (see diagram)
F.A.R.: 5.1

population
residents: 3,300
workers/students: 6,700
visitors: 70,000/day weekdays;
100,000/day weekends = 500,000/week

20% residential
total area: 980,000 sq. ft.
average unit size: 890 sq. ft.
number of units: 1100 units

57% commercial
total area: 2,793,000 sq. ft.
office: n/a

18% retail
total area: 882,000 sq. ft.
hotel: 8%
entertainment: 5%

5% public / parks & plazas

total area: 245,000 sq. ft.
civic institution: n/a
cultural institution: n/a
educational: n/a

infrastructure
parking: 3,400 underground parking spaces
rail: yes
bus: yes

Berlin, Germany Once the busiest transportation nexus of a growing modern metropolis, Potzdamer Platz became disconnected from
the rest of Berlin with the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Potzdamer Platz effectively became a fringe condition
1992 - 2000 in a dissected city. Redevelopment effort began in 1989 when the Berlin wall fell. Though predominantly owned by
corporate interests, the area was envisioned as a mixed-use development. Adjacent to the site is the Kulturforum
Piano/Kohlbecker which includes Scharoun’s Philharmonie and Biblioteque. A civic master plan competition was held in 1991. Heinz
Buro Kollhoff Hilmer and Christoph Sattler won with a plan which was based on the traditional European compact, low-rise city.
Lauber + Wohr The conservative, traditional nature of the plan raised heated debates in the design press - Rem Koolhaas was one
Rafael Moneo of the initial reactionaries to the jury decision. Nevertheless, the overall plan held.
Richard Rogers
Arata Isozaki A second competition was held two years later to develop the largest portion of the site belonging to Daimler-Benz.
Murphy/Jahn (Sony, ABB and Hertie own other parcels) Renzo Piano and Christoph Kohlbecker crafted the winning scheme with
a design that related to the Hilmer/Sattler plan in general scale and massing but departed in several significant
ways. The plan established a new central hub at the juncture between the Kulturforum and the new development;
here the cultural, commercial and residential programs intersect giving the development focus. While most of the
buildings are 4-5 stories, several near-skyscrapers pierce the sky at 20+ stories. Ground floors were required to be
semi-permeable, allowing public movement across the site. Six international architects were chosen to develop 19
buildings according to the guidelines established in the Piano/Kohlbecker plan. Ten new streets were constructed
Potzdamer along with underground space for parking, delivery, storage and refuse collection. The site is served by regional
rail, urban rail and bus.
Platz
Peter Davey, “Potsdamer preview-Potsdamer Platz development in Berlin, Germany.” The Architectural Review, Jan. 1998.
housing
case studies

229
 total project cost: $8 billion

total land area: 18.3 acres or 800,000 sq. ft.

total building area: 12,500,500 sq. ft.
total exterior space area: 5 acres or 217,800 sq. ft.

max height of buildings:1368 ft.

floors per building: 110 floors
F.A.R. : 15.6

population
residents: none
workers/students: 50,000 workers
visitors: 72.8 million per year = 1,400,000 per week

0% residential
total area: 0 sq.ft.
average unit size: 0 sq. ft.
number of units: 0 units

80% commercial
total area: 10,000,000 sq. ft.
office: 10,000,000 sq. ft.
production/manufacturing: n/a

13% retail
total area: 1,650,000 sq. ft.
hotel: 350,000 sq. ft.
entertainment: n/a
services: 200,000 sq. ft.

7% public / parks & plazas

total area: 875,000 sq. f.t
civic institution: n/a
cultural institution: n/a
educational: n/a

infrastructure
parking: 2000
rail:yes
bus: yes
boat: yes

New York, New York
1966-1977
destroyed in 2001
Minoru Yamasaki
Before its destruction on September 11, 2001 by terrorist attacks, New York’s World Trade Center consisted of
two 110-story office towers, which contain 9 million square feet of office space. The entire complex attempted to
bring together public and private enterprise engaged in international commerce by combining the towers with
additional mid-rise office towers each at 9 stories, a 22-story hotel, the U.S. Customs House, and a subterranean
superstructure of retail and city infrastructure. Composed of steel frame, glass, concrete slabs on steel truss
joists, this modern-style financial icon housed twelve million square feet of floor area on a sixteen acre site,
which also had to accommodate new facilities for the Hudson tubes and subway connections—all with a budget
of under $500 million. Standing at 1,353 feet high, the towers were at one point the tallest in the world.
Office spaces had no interior columns. In the upper floors there was as much as 40,000 square feet of office
space per floor—almost an acre. Yamasaki’s choice to use a combination of express and local elevator banks
allowed for the use of approximately 75 percent of the total floor area for occupancy; had a conventional elevator
arrangement been adopted, only approximately 50 percent would have been available. The open plaza allows one
to get a sense of the scale of the towers upon approach.

World Trade
Center
Heyer, Paul. Architects on Architecture: New Directions in America. Walker, 1978. p194-195.
website:
skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm
housing
case studies

230
 total project cost: $2.76 billion

total land area: 6.5 acres or 283,140 sq. ft.

total building area: 3,397,680 sq. ft.
total exterior space area: 2 acres or 87,120 sq. ft.

max height of buildings: aproximately 100 ft.

floors per building: 6-10 floors
F.A.R.: 12

population
residents/ workers: 33,000

41% residential
total area: 1,393,048.8 sq. ft.
average unit size: 160 sq. ft.
number of units: 8,494

22% commercial
total area: 747,489.6 sq. ft.
production/manufacturing: n/a

22% retail
total area: 747,489.6 sq. ft.
entertainment: n/a
services: n/a

15% public / parks & plazas (rooftop)

total area: 509,652 sq. ft.
civic: n/a
cultural: n/a
religious: n/a
educational: n/a

infrastructure
parking: no
rail: no
bus: yes

Hong Kong, China An aberrant by product of the vague language in the 1898 agreement between Great Britain and the China,
Kowloon Walled City evolved into a real estate curiosity and social refuge for the fringes of Hong Kong and Kowloon
1960s -1980s society. The ambigious legal treatise protected the city’s domain by serving no one specific government and en-
destroyed in 1993 abling a comprehensive program of illegal and marginalized business to exist. Its ability to grow organically-struc-
tured by a daily tactical response to an ever changing evironment has created a rich, inaccessible quilt of the human
capacity to adapt and survive. Every type of social and retail enterprise exist to offer its residents a complementary
level of stewardship and service found outside the Walled City.

Eschewing all building and safety codes, Kowloon Walled City remains unrivaled in its ability to house so many on
so little land. The population of 50,000 was equivalent to a density ratio of 1.9 million residents per one square ki-
lometer. Pipes and other service conduits run everywhere, exposed and vulnerable. Walls and partitions suddenly
materialize to address immediate adjacent needs. As a self sustaining enterprise, Kowloon Walled City garnered a
respectable niche in modern Chinese history. In the late 1980s, the Hong Kong government reluctantly recognized
the reality of the Walled City as a critical demographic and cultural mass and allowed the police to patrol the city and
offer a minimum semblence of security and connection with the governance outside the city’s boundaries.

In 1991, the evacuation of Kowloon Walled City began. With Hong Kong $3 billion, the government relocated 50,000
Kowloon residents and completed demoliton of the city in 1993. Today, the Kowloon Walled City Park occupies the site of the
Walled City.
Walled City
websites:
flex.co.jp/kowloon/
twenty4.co.uk/on-line/issue001/project02/KWC/
wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
ritklara.com/emerging/coexisting.html1
housing
case studies

231
 case studies
stadium

232
case studies:
stadiums

case studies
stadium

233
 Oriole Park at Camden Yards Jacobs Field
Baltimore, Maryland Cleveland, Ohio
1992 1994
capacity: 48,262 capacity: 43,345
cost: $100 million cost: $175 million

100% 52% 48%

Coors Field Minute Maid Park

Denver, Colorado Houston, Texas
1995 2000
capacity: 50,200 (1995), 50,381 (1999) capacity: 42,000 (March 2000), 40,950 (April 2000)
cost: $215 million cost: $250 million

22% 78% 19.6% 12.5% 67.9%

stadium comparison
websites:
ballparksofbaseball.com
ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm private levied tax low naming district project
baltimore.orioles.mlb.com capital revenue interest rights funding generated
cleveland.indians.mlb.com loans redevelopment
colorado.rockies.mlb.com funds
houston.astros.mlb.com
Nostalgia pervades a day at the ballpark as families spend several hours Viewing stadiums as economic linchpins, many baseball teams or their
munching on peanuts, dollar dogs, and rooting for the home team. new owners have expressed a desire for new stadiums. City planners
Baseball organizations recognize the benefits of catering to families, and officials entertain their demands in hopes of revitalizing their inner
providing their patrons with family tickets, box seats, and providing spe- cities. Over the past ten years, both developers and cities have contrib-
cial family activity sections. As cities grow and demographics diversify, uted more capital towards sporting venues, currently spending on aver-
stadium designs adapt to include more complex programs to attract a age 30% more than ten years prior. Examples such as Jacobs Field in
wider range of patrons. In rekindling the passion for the game, introduc- Cleveland and Coors Field in Denver have shown cities and investors the
ing it to a new generation, or reintroducing it to an audience long ab- potential of stadiums to raise property values, induce new businesses,
sent, the stadiums and the teams that inhabit them generate community and reinvigorate depressed areas of the city.
amongst a stratified populace.
In contrast, Dodger Stadium, although close to downtown, remains phys-
In the 1970s and 80s, many stadiums abandoned downtown for suburbia. ically and functionally separate from the life of Los Angeles. Completed
Auto-mobility and affordable land attracted development to the suburbs. in 1962, Dodger Stadium with a seating capacity of 56,000 is much larger
case studies

Stadiums were designed to accommodate multiple events—hosting than newly constructed ballparks that average 42,000 seats. With a per
football and baseball games or transitioning into concert venues. How- game attendance of only 38,558 people, 31% of the stadium remains
ever, in a desire to be everything for everyone, the stadiums succumbed empty at game time. Though the Dodgers maintain a large fanbase, its
stadium

234 to mediocrity, providing venues that are less intimate and involved than geographic location atop Chavez Ravine surrounded by freeways severs
their predecessors. These stadiums often have entire sections empty this sporting venue from its fans below. Also, the surrounding parking
and deflate the excitement of the game. lot buffers the stadium and further alienates visitors and locals alike. In
SBC Park Comerica Park
San Francisco, California Detroit, Michigan

2000 2000
capacity: 40,930 (2000), 41,059 (2001) capacity: 40,000
cost: $255 million cost: $300 million

56.8% 4% 39.2% 62% 38%

PETCO Park Dodger Stadium

San Diego, California Los Angeles, California

2004 1962
capacity: 46,000 capacity: 56,000
cost: $456.8 million cost: $23 million

33.7% 33.7% 4.5% 49.2% 95% 5%

stadium comparison
websites:
ballparksofbaseball.com
ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm
sf.giants.mlb.com
detroit.tigers.mlb.com
sandiego.padres.mlb.com
losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com
an era where stadiums have been diversifying their program and pack-
ing facilities with amenities to attract families, corporate sponsors, and
a new audience, Dodger Stadium’s paltry offerings leave little to bring in
patrons or retain attendants after game’s end.

Moving Dodger Stadium into the downtown area can benefit both the
baseball team and the surrounding community. The stadium can uti-
lize existing infrastructure, including public transportation systems and
shared parking facilities to facilitate large groups of people. Likewise,
a new stadium catalyzes urban redevelopment by attracting new busi-
nesses or drumming up new clientele for pre-existing businesses.
case studies
stadium

235
 85,000
85,000

80,000

75,000
75,000

70,000

65,000
62,500 62,500

60,000

56,000
55,000

50,381
50,000
48,262
46,000
45,000
45,000
43,345
41,059 41,256
40,000 40,950 40,000
40,000
37,500

35,000

30,000 30,000
30,000

25,000 25,000
25,000

20,000 18,000

16,500
16,000
15,000
15,000

10,000

5,000 5,000 5,000

5,000
3,800 3,800

0
Coors Field

SBC Park

Dodger
Stadium
Minute Maid
Comerica
Jacobs Field

Park

Park

PETCO Park
Oriole Park
at Camden Yards

stadium parking trends

websites: websites:
ballparksofbaseball.com sf.giants.mlb.com
ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm detroit.tigers.mlb.com
baltimore.orioles.mlb.com sandiego.padres.mlb.com
cleveland.indians.mlb.com losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com
colorado.rockies.mlb.com
houston.astros.mlb.com

Dodger Stadium Stadium City

case studies
stadium

236
 Sports District Site
gains:
-adjacent to freeway
-links entertainment center with cen-
tral city
-close to the red and blue line
losses:
-planned for development,
little opportunity for further planning
metro bus line
metro train stop
cultural and historical site
police station
fire station
health center
special school facility
City Hall
historic district
high density residential zoning
medium density residential zoning
stadium relocation
candidate sites, Los Angeles
Chavez Pass
Stadium Town Site
gains:
-maximum spill-over from adjacent
districts
-possible restored
residential component
losses:
-re-routes Olive Street
-reduces potential parking spaces
Flower District Site
gains:
-avoids major roads
-revitalization of area
loss:
-possible isolation east of project
L.A. Live/Elysian Housing
Arts District Site
gains:
-adjacent to Union Station
and freeways
-adjacent to Los Angeles River
-revitalization of area
-civic center adjacent
losses:
-farthest from any existing
downtown economic centers
case studies
stadium
237
 A special thanks to:

Pat Baxter
Anne Marie Burke
Carolyn Cole
Maurice Cox
Teddy Cruz
Roger Duffy
Maxine Griffith
Brian Healy
Dana Hutt
Richard Koshalek
Sylvia Lavin
Blythe Allison Mayne
Julianna Morais
Kenneth Schwartz
Ji Youn Yi
Mun Ho Yi
YoonKyoung Yi
Christopher Waterman
Richard Weinstein

Photography credits:
All photographs by Eui-Sung Yi except for the following:
Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (203, 204)
Nate Chiappa (110, 111)
Christine Phung (135, 136)
Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection, Herald Examiner Collection (158-160, 173, 175)
photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp (181)
nationalmap.gov (10-15, 136-137, 158, 167, 178, 179)
Marla Rutherford (184,185)
Masako Saito (134, 135, 138-141, 146,155 (building elevations), 180, 186-189, 204-206, 216, 217.
Gerardo Rivera (25-27)
UCLA Department of Geography, The Benjamin and Gladys Thomas Air Photo Archives, Fairchilds Collection (20-21,
147)
UCLA Department of Geography, The Benjamin and Gladys Thomas Air Photo Archives, Spence Collection (2, 18-19,
160-161, 232-233)
en.wikipedia.org (200, 230, 231)
YoonKyoung Yi (227)

238
end
UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design Faculty and Visiting Critics, 1998-2006

Sylvia Lavin, Chair Mark Mack

Hadley Soutter Arnold Marta Malé
Peter Arnold Thom Mayne
Ann Bergren Rose Mendez
Ben van Berkel, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2002 Murray Miline
Aaron Betsky, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002 Farshid, Moussavi, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2001
Johan Bettum Glen Murcutt, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2000
Petra Blaisse, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2004 Barton Myers
Caroline Bos, S. Charles Lee Chair, 2002 Tim Murphy
Bernard Cache Enrique Norten, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2003
Preston Scott Cohen, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002 Jason Payne
John Cordic René Peralta
Dana Cuff Barton Phelps
Julia Czerniak Martin Paull
Kevin Daly Wolf Prix, S. Charles Lee Chair, 1999
Julie Eizenberg George Rand
Neil Denari Hani Rashid, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2003
David Erdman Ben Refuerzo
Diane Favro Dagmar Richter
Eva Forgacs Heather Roberge
Michelle Fornabai Michaele Saee
Helene Furján Richard Schoen
Robert Garlipp Roger Sherman
Chris Genik Paulette Singley
Bruce Gibbons Robert E. Somol
Joseph Giovannini Michael Speaks
Marcelyn Gow Randolph Stout
Zaha Hadid, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 1998 Carlos Tejeda
Thomas S. Hines Kostas Terzidis
Craig Hodgetts Bernard Tschumi, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2000
Randolph Jefferson Billie Tsien, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2001
Charles Jencks Anthony Vidler
Sharon Johnston Richard Weinstein
Victor Jones Buzz Yudel
Wes Jones Alejandro Zaera Polo, S. Charles Lee Visiting Professor, 2001
Ulrika Karlsson Andrew Zago
Jeff Kipnis, Harvey S. Perloff Chair, 2002
Amy Kulper
Jurg Lang
Clover Lee
Mark Lee
Thomas Levin
Robin Liggett
Mark Linder
Alan Locke
Greg Lynn

239
end
 © 2006 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
LOS ANGELES

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED
WITHOUT PERMISSION

ISBN: 0-9771945-1-5

PUBLISHED BY THE UCLA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN

PRINTED IN CHINA

L.A. NOW: VOLUME THREE AND VOLUME FOUR

IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM:

UCLA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN

BOOK ORDERS
1317 PERLOFF HALL
LOS ANGELES, CA 90095
310.825.7857

THE UCLA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN PURSUES ISSUES CONFRONTING
CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM THROUGH FOUR DIFFERENT DEGREE PROGRAMS
OFFERING TWO PROFESSIONAL DEGREES (THE MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE I AND II) AS WELL AS THE
M.A. AND PH.D IN ARCHITECTURE. OUR PRIMARY FOCUS ON ADVANCED DESIGN IS ACCOMPANIED BY
CONCENTRATIONS IN TECHNOLOGY AND CRITICAL STUDIES OF ARCHITECTURAL CULTURE.

UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

1317 Perloff Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90095
T: 310.825.7857
F: 310.825.8959
www.aud.ucla.edu
end

240
end
 L.A. NOW
UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design

L.A. NOW Volume Three and Volume Four

A Case for Downtown Living
Five Proposals
UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design