This would be a major boost to the area, encouraging urban revitalization on and around Hollywood, Sunset, and Santa Monica. Do you think this will be LA's next great urban enclave? Will this area be pedestrian friendly and walkable since the Metro is only a short distance away? Will we trade bungalows and single family homes for dense apartment buildings? Overall, how will the Hollywood Central Park affect this neighborhood in a positive way?

Before:

http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/before.jpg

After:

http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/after.jpg

That's an outdated photo. The plan now stretches as south as Santa Monica Blvd.

http://lh6.google.com/image/militantangeleno/RnnI3DzQMNI/AAAAAAAAABQ/_Y42Bz9fQQc/Hollywood_Central_Park.jpg


I've been attending the community meetings for this (see my blog :))...

I saw your blog. It got me interested in this project again.

You live in that area don't you? So what do you think the park would bring to your community?

I saw your blog. It got me interested in this project again.

You live in that area don't you? So what do you think the park would bring to your community?

Yeah, I live nearly a mile from the park site. It's going to bring a lot of opportunities and really re-shape the neighborhood, mainly re-claiming the neighborhood that was divided when the freeway was built. Currently the majority of the properties that front the freeway are some of the most decrepit in the area as the freeway was something people didn't want to live by. With a park there, that would change the situation 180 degrees, as properties that directly front the park would be prime real estate.

There's a small example of a freeway park up over the 210 in La Crescenta - it's really more of a wide bridge that's got grass and landscaping. This is a whole different scale.

You mentioned the Metro station's proximity; another community member who was at the meeting told me it's a 10-minute walk from the station to the freeway. I brought up a need for a pedestrian/bike "greenway" to link the Metro stop with the park along both Hollywood Blvd. and Western Ave.

According to the Portland-based consultants, the area *already* has European-style density figures to support something like this, but it lacks amenities like sidewalk cafes and other pedestrian-oriented developments. Certainly everything would be designed to lead people into the park.

... Nah don't likes!!!

The funds should be used for a more worthy cause. Like double decking the 101 corridor from Hollywood to Downtown. Not a silly park that only benefits a hand full of communities. As for the FWY everyone uses them daily.....

... Nah don't likes!!!

The funds should be used for a more worthy cause. Like double decking the 101 corridor from Hollywood to Downtown.

If that happens, Al Quaeda just found a new terrorist target for Los Angeles.
Excellent thinking, Mr. Habib.

If that happens, Al Quaeda just found a new terrorist target for Los Angeles.
Excellent thinking, Mr. Habib.


No need to get upset now...

Is it safe to have a park over a freeway for that large a distance? Seems like a quake could really cause havoc. More parkland is always good. I read somewhere that Hollywood has the least out of all LA?

Is it safe to have a park over a freeway for that large a distance? Seems like a quake could really cause havoc. More parkland is always good. I read somewhere that Hollywood has the least out of all LA?

If it's engineered right, it'll work. This is not the Big Dig in Boston where water pressure and leaks make it dangerous. The decking structure will be relatively light and best of all it will include a filtered ventilation system that takes air/emissions from the tunnel and outputs much cleaner air to the outside.

no no ferny let this be. if people see that not everything above a freeway will collapse then they will be more likely to accept a double decked freeway and not instantly think of SF


but back on subject i love this project to death!

... Nah don't likes!!!

The funds should be used for a more worthy cause. Like double decking the 101 corridor from Hollywood to Downtown. Not a silly park that only benefits a hand full of communities. As for the FWY everyone uses them daily.....

Are you kidding me? You would rather "double deck" a freakin' freeway, increasing the smog output for the region (and Downtown esp.), and encourage auto-use? ...Instead of creating more green-space where hardly any exist?

Plus, it is pretty obvious that the 101 from Alameda to the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels will eventually be capped with a beautiful park, finally connecting El Pueblo/Chinatown/Union Station to the rest of Downtown LA/Civic Center. :)

... Nah don't likes!!!

The funds should be used for a more worthy cause. Like double decking the 101 corridor from Hollywood to Downtown. Not a silly park that only benefits a hand full of communities. As for the FWY everyone uses them daily.....

San Francisco had a double decker freeway once...

http://www.vibrationdata.com/earthquakes/lp.gif

... Nah don't likes!!!

The funds should be used for a more worthy cause. Like double decking the 101 corridor from Hollywood to Downtown. Not a silly park that only benefits a hand full of communities. As for the FWY everyone uses them daily.....

You'd fail as an urban planner. No offense.

You'd fail as an urban planner. No offense.

:lol:

Oh please peeps, I failed absolutely nada!!!!!!

I've never claimed to be an Urban Planner and pro~Transit Advocate in the first place. As a native A~N~G~E~L~I~N~O, I'm looking for the the best and realistic answers to solve our city problems. Without trying to turn my beloved CITY OF ANGELS into a Wanna~BE NY....:bash:

Bottom line if your looking for subways and shops and density crap, move to NY and pronto. I pretty enjoy Cali just the way it is, with the exception of small gridlock, potholes, homeless, graffity, compact parking, expensive insurance, etc...etc..etc... which are being worked on as we speak, you catch my drift.

So I'm sure theirs a whole lot more Angelinos out there who would totally agree with me. That they would rather live in a house than a crowded apartment. They can do weekends landscaping and outdoor BBQ's on Sunday and blast the plasma with soround sound and no one would complaint. Pay a mortgage w/ insurance/taxes included and don't have to deal with stupid HOA fees. When that money can be put in a CD and earn some interest instead.

So basically what I'm trying to say is I like my current Los Angeles lifestyle instead of trying to hard to convert this magical place into a Little NY...:righton:

So wanting to be more of a transit-friendly city equals wanting to be more like NYC? That's stupid.

Having a double deck freeway would create MORE traffic problems and would WORSEN the air quality. Your reasoning and your solution to the problem are both lame. No offense (again).

So wanting to be more of a transit-friendly city equals wanting to be more like NYC?

That's stupid.


Oh cut the shit.... is not just transit!!!

to me most here are more interested into making LA to be similar to NY. Maybe you don't see since your riding the Urban Planner wave to realize anything. So ****~***!!!!

Density and transit are two urban qualities that are NOT exclusive to NYC! By advocating transit and density as the wave of the future we are asking for a city that's more livable, NOT a city that looks more like NYC. There's a huge difference!

Of all the nonsensical shit you've said on this forum thus far, that is BY FAR your stupidest post! Take the car-humping attitude and move to Phoenix!

Density and transit are two urban qualities that are NOT exclusive to NYC! By advocating transit and density as the wave of the future we are asking for a city that's more livable, NOT a city that looks more like NYC. There's a huge difference!

Of all the nonsensical shit you've said on this forum thus far, that is BY FAR your stupidest post! Take the car-humping attitude and move to Phoenix!

Oh go fuck yourself in the first place you piece of shit. I'm entitle to my opinion and if you don't agree, well you know where to go.

That's the kind of answer I would have expected on this forum, since everyone here thinks alike. That's fine cause there's the ral world out here that likes it just the way it is....

One more thing, if your such an urban believer why do you live in Pasadena and not Downtown/Koreatown!!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Since you are a major car humper, you could at least have the decency of humping the right ones (i.e. hybrids and electric cars). So which part do you like humping the most? The rear?

So lets see what is the more logical step.

1. Making the segment of the 101 freeway from Hollywood to downtown LA (roughly 10 miles give or take) and turn it into a double decker freeway adding MORE cars to a already congested freeway, also adding MORE polloution, and in the long run (or in LA's case, within 5 minutes of opening, unforgivinig gridlock), ALSO a chance of the second level collapsing on the first level resulting in loss of life AND a MAJOR freeway closed for months on end....

OR

2. Covering at least 5 miles of the 101 in Hollywood with much needed parkspace. Hollywood is a very densely populated neighboorhood with many different types of people. A community garden with plays, meets, or a quiet summer walk will be the norm. Look at the Cornfield. Even for being there in it's present state for a short while, people walk their dogs, jog, read, practice yoga, and whatnot. It creates a sense of home. Not only will the park be visably pleasing and helpful to the enviorment, property value of homes near the park will rise, and the sucess of the park will spearhead other over-the-freeway parks not only in LA, but in SoCal and ultimetly, across the country.

Seriously..the double decker freeway sounds AWESOME. Awesome like tits on a bull.

So lets see what is the more logical step.

1. Making the segment of the 101 freeway from Hollywood to downtown LA (roughly 10 miles give or take) and turn it into a double decker freeway adding MORE cars to a already congested freeway, also adding MORE polloution, and in the long run (or in LA's case, within 5 minutes of opening, unforgivinig gridlock), ALSO a chance of the second level collapsing on the first level resulting in loss of life AND a MAJOR freeway closed for months on end....

OR

2. Covering at least 5 miles of the 101 in Hollywood with much needed parkspace. Hollywood is a very densely populated neighboorhood with many different types of people. A community garden with plays, meets, or a quiet summer walk will be the norm. Look at the Cornfield. Even for being there in it's present state for a short while, people walk their dogs, jog, read, practice yoga, and whatnot. It creates a sense of home. Not only will the park be visably pleasing and helpful to the enviorment, property value of homes near the park will rise, and the sucess of the park will spearhead other over-the-freeway parks not only in LA, but in SoCal and ultimetly, across the country.

Seriously..the double decker freeway sounds AWESOME. Awesome like tits on a bull.

The proposed freeway park isn't 5 miles but more like 1+ miles.
I'm sure that once built it would start a big trend in building cap parks on below-grade level freeways. Because you know, all trends start in Hollywood :)

The proposed freeway park isn't 5 miles but more like 1+ miles.
I'm sure that once built it would start a big trend in building cap parks on below-grade level freeways. Because you know, all trends start in Hollywood :)

I'd like to see the idea expand beyond parks to maybe small buildings that can be built on top of the freeway.

Of course, parks are nice too.

buildings need foundation, so that'd be kinda hard.

but the park idea is great. I only hope that they actually have the budget for the ongoing upkeep and not let it end up as another hooker/bum haven :-( Let's not kid ourselves that area isn't the nicest around right now.

^^I'm not talking about skyscrapers. I'm talking about small little buildings that will at least add to the urban feel. It's the kind of thing that we need around the Lake Station in Pasadena (and possibly even on the 105 for all of the Green Line Station). We need parks and maybe small shops around those areas.

I don't know if this would do anything, but if you raised the cap a little, then you have extra room for some dirt to add some more foundation so that you can get a little taller buildings. I'm no engineer so I don't even know if that would do anything, but it's just an idea I had. I really should draw it out so you can see what I mean.

buildings need foundation, so that'd be kinda hard.

but the park idea is great. I only hope that they actually have the budget for the ongoing upkeep and not let it end up as another hooker/bum haven :-( Let's not kid ourselves that area isn't the nicest around right now.

And some people live in that area, like me.

That areas is a lot better than it used to be...but one of the reasons why it's not up to your standards is BECAUSE there is a lack of park space. Learn the facts, get educated about this city, and you will be set free from the shackles of ignorance.

^^I'm not talking about skyscrapers. I'm talking about small little buildings that will at least add to the urban feel. It's the kind of thing that we need around the Lake Station in Pasadena (and possibly even on the 105 for all of the Green Line Station). We need parks and maybe small shops around those areas.

I don't know if this would do anything, but if you raised the cap a little, then you have extra room for some dirt to add some more foundation so that you can get a little taller buildings. I'm no engineer so I don't even know if that would do anything, but it's just an idea I had. I really should draw it out so you can see what I mean.

You're totally defeating the purpose of the park. Buildings are private property and those have taken over any land used for public use, such as parks. That is why a freeway cap park is important, BECAUSE there is no other land to be found for a parks. To build commercial structures over it is defeating its purpose. Also "increasing the cap" would add more weight to the cap structure making it far more dangerous to the motorists below. The problem with you is that you don't think. If you weren't a young, uneducated kid, I'd fuckin pound your head against a concrete wall.

But you're just a kid, you still have a lot of learning to do.

I'd like to see the idea expand beyond parks to maybe small buildings that can be built on top of the freeway.

Of course, parks are nice too.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a PARK?

Why is everyone on edge?
"Ferney" chill.......Capping the freeway leaves your beloved roadway while the rest of us are able to have a park on top of it......These things can co-exist.

[QUOTE=klamedia;13932390]Why is everyone on edge?



^ There's been a full moon for the last couple of days!!!

I'm not talking about this one. It's going to be a park, and I'm fine with that. And don't tell me that I don't think, what the fuck is that about? I have an idea and suddenly I don't think. Just look at the 210, there's a huge gap right in the downtown area because of the freeway. Pasadena has plenty of open space, it wouldn't need a park on top of the freeway.

What the fuck is up with people being so bitchy lately?

^^ Such a potty mouth...:ohno:

^^I just needed to vent some anger of what Elson said about me.

^^I just needed to vent some anger of what Elson said about me.


^ Elson means no harm.... everything would be alright! :pet:

Blame the heat. Ferney is just happy that everyone has stopped attacking his doubledeck snafu. I'm waiting until he shows us renderings for a Quadradeck 101 through Hollywood. :lol:

Lol, I'll take the heat for Ferny. I still don't understand why putting small buildings wouldn't work. If you can get freight trains over freeways, why not little shops or something like that?