|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 11, 2010 9:02:11 GMT -8
The final design of the Venice LRT bridge is underway now, and the preliminary-engineering drawings and bridge-type selection is being reviewed by Caltrans, Venice Boulevard being State Route 187. Once Caltrans approves the PE drawings and bridge-type selection next month, Expo will send us the PE drawings and then we will know what type of bridge is being built.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 11, 2010 9:41:36 GMT -8
Here is my prediction. The City of L.A. won't get involved in redesigning that area until the station opens and the Venice Bridge is being built. At that point it will finally dawn on somebody that the area represents a real opportunity for the city, and that maybe they should do something with it.
IOW, the city will be reactive, rather than proactive. Business as usual.
I don't frankly see Willits/Hoke alleys being converted into a pedestrian passage to Downtown Culver City. That's thinking outside the box, which the L.A. city government isn't too good at.
More likely, like rajacobs suggested, the city would use eminent domain to take over the strip mall block, bulldoze it, and create a linear park along Venice Boulevard. This would have trees, walking paths and bike path connections, and may have some small pedestrian-oriented retail incorporated as well.
The big difficulty is the political one. L.A. really has no an incentive to funnel people into Culver City's downtown. So L.A. is only going to do this if (1) its constituents nearby demand it, and (2) they see some redevelopment opportunity for the area nearby within its own borders.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Aug 11, 2010 12:21:05 GMT -8
I agree that the BIG difficulty will be political. Hence, I think the ball is in Culver City Council's court to press the issue with L.A., sooner[/b] rather than later!
I can just see transit riders trying to "trek" the distance to Culver City Dowtown while construction vehicles belatedly clear out the strip mall along that stretch. The headline could be "Culver City & the New Expoline Terminus: Not Ready for Prime-time!"
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Aug 13, 2010 13:00:18 GMT -8
I agree that the BIG difficulty will be political. Hence, I think the ball is in Culver City Council's court to press the issue with L.A., sooner[/b] rather than later! I can just see transit riders trying to "trek" the distance to Culver City Dowtown while construction vehicles belatedly clear out the strip mall along that stretch. The headline could be "Culver City & the New Expoline Terminus: Not Ready for Prime-time!"[/quote] This is a rough conceptual map of what the joint LA/Culver City development area might look like. There is some parking retained on the north (metered/2 hours max, so no transit parking). The red area is the patio dining area. The blue area is a pond or fountain area. The lighter green area is supposed to be landscaping to provide a pleasing buffer to the Honda building. All street crossings would feature extra wide crosswalks. (Wendy's and Del Taco have been removed. All green areas are pedestrian only. (I haven't uploaded any images before, so hope this works!)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 13, 2010 13:13:40 GMT -8
JPEG, PNG or GIF would be better formats to use. PSD is only viewable if you have Photoshop installed.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Aug 13, 2010 13:25:47 GMT -8
JPEG, PNG or GIF would be better formats to use. PSD is only viewable if you have Photoshop installed. Thanks for the advice...! Is this better?
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Aug 14, 2010 0:43:48 GMT -8
Wow! Nice conceptual. You've entirely opened the area by knocking out Wendy's, Del Taco, and the Willat structures. I don't see the red area, but then again, I'm a bit red-green challenged!
Despite the open area, I think the issue remains making the pedestrian context "whole." The Hoke alley remains, the back of the strip mall remains--these aren't aesthetic. Additionally, the requirement to cross in front of the auto dealership's service entrance remains. It's hard to imagine how to make these elements "pedestrian-friendly."
Nonetheless, functionally this may provide the "walk-widths" necessary for enabling pedestrians to get to the downtown area.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Aug 14, 2010 6:52:41 GMT -8
Wow! Nice conceptual. You've entirely opened the area by knocking out Wendy's, Del Taco, and the Willat structures. I don't see the red area, but then again, I'm a bit red-green challenged! Despite the open area, I think the issue remains making the pedestrian context "whole." The Hoke alley remains, the back of the strip mall remains--these aren't aesthetic. Additionally, the requirement to cross in front of the auto dealership's service entrance remains. It's hard to imagine how to make these elements "pedestrian-friendly." Nonetheless, functionally this may provide the "walk-widths" necessary for enabling pedestrians to get to the downtown area. Transforming the whole triangle from scratch into a park or mixed-use pedestrian-inviting project would be ideal, but probably unrealistic (however, dreams are cheap, so we might as well put them on paper!). This compromise retains some retail, mostly in LA, to entice them to see the revenue potential. The remaining buildings in the strip mall need to be a) replaced or b) remodeled and spruced up, with north AND south entrances and facades to be attractive from both sides. (The red patio dining area is on the south side of the buildings in the former Hoke alley, keeping the retail serving areas inside LA.) There is no realistic solution to the auto dealer driveways on Culver, so the best idea is to entice pedestrians to cross over to Media Park for the more-friendly northside journey to downtown (which also avoids the busy Washington/Culver intersection, and the parking structure for Trader Joe's).
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Aug 14, 2010 8:45:31 GMT -8
I see your points; I agree that patio dining in the Hoke alley, that would accompany dual-facing stores, would be desirable--serving the purpose of commuters hanging out just before going or coming from a train, as well as taking advantages of the goods and services availableto them there. Additionally, retaining the strip mall holds the advantage of providing a sound-buffer to the pedestrian walk area, shielding it from the high-decibels of Venice traffic.
Yes, I too can see no good solution to the auto service driveways, however a cross to "Media Park" at the Culver and Venice light can be a long wait and it's a broad intersection. ...I'd probably choose to walk past TJ's to avoid the noise of Venice traffic.
Regarding the park area concept to the south of Hoke--it's a nice concept; Miller's high walls would make on feel rather closed in--some treatment there, including breaks in the monotony, maybe even a few kiosks are required.
Overall some good, imaginative redesign in your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Oct 10, 2010 22:23:34 GMT -8
Downtown Culver City has come a long way since 1996 when I lived in the neighborhood for about six months. There are many more restaurants as well as a few bars, and the Culver Hotel is back in operation. They offer live music in the evening, as well as Sunday afternoon teas and their own restaurant added to the mix.
But Culver City's Downtown still rolls up the sidewalks too early. Back in 1996 it was at about 8pm, now it seems to be 10. You can see "legitimate" theater at the Kirk Douglas Theater, but then you can't even get a cup of coffee, because the close-by Starbucks' closes at 9. It's a shame because it's one of the more interesting Starbucks locations, occupying the triangular ground floor space at the NE end of the Washington Building.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 10, 2010 22:38:02 GMT -8
If there's any place to complain about closing shop too early, it's certainly Downtown LA. Hopefully that will change as more people move into the area.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 23, 2010 4:47:35 GMT -8
If there's any place to complain about closing shop too early, it's certainly Downtown LA. Hopefully that will change as more people move into the area. It has changed, big time. Even a lot of Financial District places are staying open until 10-11 p.m.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 5, 2010 10:52:46 GMT -8
It seems that a longer term solution to the lack of access would be a transit line (streetcar, light rail, etc.) along Venice Blvd. Presuming the Crenshaw line gets extended north, at least to the purple line if not the red line, it would be very natural to create a transit line at least from around Venice/San Vicente to the beach, with a connection to Expo at Venice/Robertson. The line could have a stop at Overland, in addition to a connection to the 405/West Valley line around Sepulveda. This is too far off for current planning, but I think it's what a long term solution should look like.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 14, 2011 10:12:47 GMT -8
It appears that the "business improvement district" for now will exist only for the purpose of providing bus-transportation among the central business district (CBD), the Helms area and the Culver Station. At issue remains physically linking the CBD with the station through a ribbon of storefronts and then doing the same to Helms.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Apr 14, 2011 11:46:37 GMT -8
It appears that the "business improvement district" for now will exist only to tax the local businesses for the purpose of providing bus-transportation among the central business district (CBD), the Helms area and the Culver Station. At issue remains physically linking the CBD with the station through a ribbon of storefronts and then doing the same to Helms. The source material actually mentions the Hayden Tract, not the Helms area. Do you think it is a misprint? The Helms area makes more sense to me, but maybe the Hayden Tract is a smarter destination....
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 14, 2011 12:38:26 GMT -8
Thanks for the correction! ...Apparently there's more planning to be done. If I worked in the Hayden tract, not sure I'd take the time to travel into the central business district (Culver downtown) for lunch. As for morning and evening commutes, how many would work and live in the immediate area?
...So transport between Helms and the central business district also makes more sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 14, 2011 13:58:02 GMT -8
I think they mean Helm's Bakery instead of Hayden Tract in the Curbed article. There are no restaurants or furniture store on the Hayden Tract, it's a bunch of office buildings. The Hayden Tract is closer to the LaCienega Expo Station anyway.(http://m.la.curbed.com/archives/2011/04/no_need_to_break_a_heel.php)
Hey Culver City, steal this idea: Long Beach Passport. Create a short hop free shuttle for your downtown area until it is fully redeveloped, and keep it when it's done! Start out with a shuttle that has 4 simple simple stops: Washington/LaCienega Art District, Helm's Bakery, Culver City Expo Line Station, Downtown Culver City.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 14, 2011 16:56:48 GMT -8
According to Culver Patch: "The council established an agreement between itself and its corresponding redevelopment agency to utilize $59,750 to establish a business improvement district that would finance a shuttle service connecting the Hayden Tract, the Culver City Light Rail Station and downtown." culvercity.patch.com/articles/city-awards-construction-bids-sponsors-festivalThis makes sense to me. The offices in the Hayden Tract are a little too far to walk (though an easy bike ride), and the Downtown Culver City area is also a little far from the "Culver Junction" station. You can take the 33 bus to Culver city, if you are willing to still walk another 2 blocks from Venice, but the Hayden Tract doesn't seem to have ANY transit service, and it's up to a 1.0 mile walk from either the La Cienega or Culver station to south end of the Hayden area.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 14, 2011 17:32:15 GMT -8
I guess I don't see the "business connection" between Culver's central business district and the Hayden Tract. If I were working in the Tract, I'd rather be able to to walk or bike to Washington and gain access to the Helms area for lunch and window shopping--through a tunnel under the rails that would also enable access to the walk/bike path that will parallel the tracks.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 18, 2011 23:15:26 GMT -8
I think it's a good idea to provide some local access to Culver City. The city has a station at its center-northern edge (Culver City Station) and another just beyond its eastern edge (La Cienega Station) with the tourist destinations sprinkled between. The case is there as the city expects to continue growing and between these commuter-derived stations. Yeah a streetcar would be cuter, but it's a great idea to spring for a free shuttle to connect Culver City's pearls into a necklace. Something like the Muni F-Line only on a much smaller scale.
|
|