Students Offer Ideas for Future of Pico

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Eighty percent of the development rights around Pico Boulevard in South Park remain unbuilt, according to a presentation Monday evening by students from USC's School of Policy, Planning and Development. The session was the result of a project done in the spring, which produced three proposals for a master-planned redevelopment centered on the street.

While South Park has seen a good deal of new development, almost all of it has occurred above Pico. The students' proposals took a wide-ranging look at the neighborhood, considering existing infrastructure and uses while looking at different ideas for the future of the street. The group produced a 120-page report laying out current conditions and the three development proposals.

The Pico Village proposal laid out a mix of uses along the street, with mixed-income housing, a museum and connections to the Metro station on Flower. The Manhattan West proposal focused on density, but set out to avoid typical urban canyons by stepping back building heights. The first thirty feet in from the street would be limited to approximately two stories, with buildings rising to full height back from the street. The Park offered a heavy focus on green space, encouraging multi-family housing in dense but shorter buildings.

South Park Stakeholders Group head Mike Pfeiffer, who helped organize and oversee the project, said that while the proposals may not be buildable as presented, they play an important role in helping to create ideas that might be implemented in the neighborhood. The proposals are the "grains of sand to get the pearl finally to come forward," Pfeiffer said.

At the end of the evening, the students offered suggestions for first steps to move Pico forward. They promoted a focus on infrastructure and public improvements and a reworked approval process that would make development and business growth easier.

Would you support the plans of the students or would you do something completely different with the area?

i don't know what is right for the station at this moment. but i like the industrial look of the area AND the place actually gets good business once you hit the shops. we know what to do about empty lots (fill em in).

the existing structures should be renovated if salvageable. the streets there are not wide, but i like it... there's an intimate feel about the neighborhood in the mornings through early evenings. needs night lighting on the sidewalks.

i like the industrial look and i think the south group development blends in nicely with the surroundings. but affordable housing will keep the neighborhood's better part of it's identity intact. this is one place in all downtown i don't want to see a Macy's or $25 per person restaurant like LA LIVE has all over itself.

The Manhattan West proposal focused on density, but set out to avoid typical urban canyons by stepping back building heights. The first thirty feet in from the street would be limited to approximately two stories, with buildings rising to full height back from the street.

This shows that LA is not ready to accommodate heavy density.

^^ we are, just gotta put it one place so we don't have all these sprawling semi-dense areas. i think they got the right idea... it forces density to go more toward the center of downtown... something needs to be done by CA plaza for example. tall properties, but it doesn't even feel a little dense there.

oh now that i think about it... in the future, pico station just has to be put underground. elevated is a little extreme since it's barely out of the tunnel as it is. entrances should be placed at least one on the north west corner and one on the south side (doesn't matter if it's east or west there, for now).

The area south of Pico, between Figueroa and Grand, is where the extension of the Convention Centre would go. A mirror of what already exists west of that property. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/ericj-1.jpg photo Eric Richardson

This shows that LA is not ready to accommodate heavy density.

Are you saying that simply because the buildings would be stepped back?

With the smaller streets, I think a combination of Pico Village and Manhattan West could work. I'm thinking something looking like Lower Manhattan with more mid-rise buildings, trees, and mixed-use. I think it'd be nicer if the building heights were staggered a bit to make the skyline more interesting... the current downtown skyline should expand and fill in between AT&T and the FiDi.

My theory is that if we want all this inmense parcels of land to be filled up, we can't depend of high rises or even mid rises to serve the purpose. It is simply too much land to be developed. The area around Pico can be developed like Pico Village, vert dense two to five story lofts.
I also dislike Metropolis over this issue. Metropolis should be between Fig and Grand somewhere, where skyscrapers are very suitable and in need. The plot where in about 35665464 years it will built is too off the beaten path. I picture this area, and anything north of LA Live and west of Fig, pratically as very dense, NY style brownstowes with every groundfloor with retail and restaurants, it could become our So-HO.
It will take another 50 to 100 years to actually build up South Park at this pace if all we focus on are mid and high rises.

Oh please NO BROWNSTONES IN LA! BROWNSTONES AND PALM TREES!!! YUCK!!

Are you saying that simply because the buildings would be stepped back?

And what's the purpose of stepping back the buildings?

^^ height isn't as important in this area of downtown. what's the purpose of building building tall when the more central area is one that needs taller buildings?

that parking lot by pershing square for instance... hell, there's 3 parking lots within 2 blocks from 7th/metro that needs filling in. there's 8 parking lots between la live and the 777 tower that need something for God's sake. downtown is really divided into north and south, now that the la live hotel is nearly TO. building up the pico area would distinguish the divide even more obviously.

renovated and small, useful developments is what's needed. and in 30-50 years we can build taller once the height starts becoming necessary. it'll be easier to replace a short building than a taller one.

what are you gonna do, build 40-story skyscrapers all over pico? the area is probably only in demand for south group (evo, etc...) as it is. you would finish one 200ft project then we'll have to wait another 8 years for anyone else to build anything nearby

And what's the purpose of stepping back the buildings?

To let in light and air. This mention of Manhattan west reminds me of the 1916 Zoning Resolution of New York which limited the height and setback of new buildings in order to allow the penetration of sunlight to street level. As the buildings get higher the angle necessary is made up of setbacks in the upper floors providing the classic tapered look. I don't think we necessarily need our towers right on top of each other, as we have more than enough room.

And what's the purpose of stepping back the buildings?^^^^^^
Thanx "Milq". Saved me some typing.

Manhattan's buildings don't taper off after the second floor.

Oh please NO BROWNSTONES IN LA! BROWNSTONES AND PALM TREES!!! YUCK!!

They can be Sunstones, where it's of various surface veneers, like brick, tile and slate on the first two floors and textured stucco or concrete panels on the upper floors.

I agree with most of the comments of simply infilling these empty lots first before going hyper aggressive in placing high-rises when you barely have a mid-rise demand.

Another thing that needs to be considered is creating a Phase 2 of the Broadway Streetcar to go down Pico linking Pico-Union with Fashion District. So that the entire Pico Corridor is tied together.

^^ very good. and yeah we don't need a sprawled out downtown and have to skip parking lots to get to the next big thing. tie it all closely together

Highrises and a supertall or two on all the Avenues and lowrise rowhomes and midrises on all the streets.

we need a subway stop first (a line to go there for that matter) before anything like that happens.

back to the pico station: i think if the blue/expo line ran underground till it passed the freeway, the station should be placed a block north (entrances at chickhearne and pico) of it's current location and another station between there and the expo/blue line split.

I think we need to tie downtown to USC and Exposition park better. We should really take a look at south Figueroa. There are some gems there like Saint Vincent's church, the AAA building, the Galen Center, and the Shrine as well as a lot of underused auto lots and fast food ugliness. I would like to see a plan to revive the area between Staples and USC and the transformation of South Figueroa into a walkable boulavard..

Expo Line will be a big anchor and stimulus to that effect of linking the two.

Yup. Just w*it for Expo.