Solutions to LA's Park Shortage: Country Clubs

[rst22]

The one I have in mind that would mae a great park is the Los Angeles Country Club West of Beverly Hills and North of Century City. Its so huge that a third of it could be left as a country club but I personally feel that country clubs are fine in the suburbs but are a tremendoes waste of space in the City and are only used by the top 1%.

[Kenny]

Well, when it was built that WAS the suburb. Isn't that around where Howard Huges crashed a test plane?

Anyways, on another thread here, Milque said he would develop Griffith Park from a wilderness park to an urban park, I think I agree with him, but I'd probably half of it and leave the reast the way it is.

[CITYofDREAMS]

I would never touch Griffith Park... cap the freeways and we'll have plenty of parks.

[rst22]

Originally Posted by CITYofDREAMS

I would never touch Griffith Park... cap the freeways and we'll have plenty of parks.

I agree with the first poster that Griffith Park should stay a wilderness park. I am all for Freeway caps but they will be narrow and nothing close to the great parks that cities like London have such as Hyde Park, Holland Park, and Green Park. Orange County is making a great park out of an old air space base but LA doesn't have anything like that. Los Angeles Country Club is huge and is surrounded by Beverly Hills and Century City. Maybe Avenue of the Stars can be expanded to Whilsire and build highrises along the way to help fund the park.

[Kenny]

The reason Griffith is an option for me is because it is underused. I would develope a third or half of it as an urban park; leave the rest. We already have the Santa Monica Mountains, Elysian and more as wilderness parks.

[pesto]

That's a good one. Put a park in BH, where density is low and the average house already has substantial front and back yards. btw, BH already has nice parks and they are pretty much empty most of the time.

A real "central" park would be between El Pueblo and City Hall, including a cap. Other parks should be local to neighborhoods. For geographic reasons, 5-10 medium sized parks scattered around town makes more sense in LA than does one huge park.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by pesto

That's a good one. Put a park in BH, where density is low and the average house already has substantial front and back yards. btw, BH already has nice parks and they are pretty much empty most of the time.

A real "central" park would be between El Pueblo and City Hall, including a cap. Other parks should be local to neighborhoods. For geographic reasons, 5-10 medium sized parks scattered around town makes more sense in LA than does one huge park.

Agreed!

i think the best bet for LA would be when the 101 is capped in downtown and somehow connected to the civic park. also, when the courthouses are removed, it will be that much larger. lots of potential.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by Kenni

The reason Griffith is an option for me is because it is underused. I would develope a third or half of it as an urban park; leave the rest. We already have the Santa Monica Mountains, Elysian and more as wilderness parks.

What #'s do you have that Griffith is underused? You must not go there on a regular basis. The park is full of hikers and coyotes! The Observatory is full most times even during the week. There are always people on the trails everytime that I go. The park is used from the very early morning hours til dusk.....Griffith is awesome! Never touch it.

[milquetoast]

The Griffith Observatory lawn was packed this morning and that was an

awesome sight to see! So many people congregating in the cold just for the eclipse!

The park is not awesome.

The park is just a reserve of land that hasn't changed much since it was

given over for the intent of being a central meeting place for the people of the city.

"Hikers" just doesn't do it for me. I think it has much greater potential!

All it needs is about 4 billion dollars.

.

image hosted on flickr
P1040295 by Michael R Perry, on Flickr

.

image hosted on flickr
P1040267 by Michael R Perry, on Flickr

.

image hosted on flickr
Lunar Eclipse Over Hollywood Sign 1 by Michael R Perry, on Flickr

.

image hosted on flickr
Lunar Eclipse Over Hollywood Sign 3 by Michael R Perry, on Flickr

.

image hosted on flickr
P1040315 by Michael R Perry, on Flickr

.

image hosted on flickr
P1040321 by Michael R Perry, on Flickr

.

image hosted on flickr
P1040324 by Michael R Perry, on Flickr

.

image hosted on flickr
City of Los Angeles at Sunrise by Michael R Perry, on Flickr

.

MICHAEL R PERRY

[pesto]

Thanks, milqy. It just doesn't seem possible to take pictures from the Observatory that aren't spectacular.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

The park is not awesome.

The park is just a reserve of land that hasn't changed much since it was

given over for the intent of being a central meeting place for the people of the city.

Griffith J. Griffith commissioned the park be largely unchanged from the time that he bequeathed to the city and into eternity. The park remains largely unchanged and is awesome. The End.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

exactly. the park is awesome. all it needs is a little maintenance

[pwright1]

I love GP too just the way it is. Definately my favorite park in LA.

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by klamedia

Griffith J. Griffith commissioned the park be largely unchanged from the time that he bequeathed to the city and into eternity. The park remains largely unchanged and is awesome. The End.

I guess I'll deffer. If the old man wanted that way then let's comply.
It's a GREAT park, they used to take me pony riding every month (and I have the embarrassing pictures) or just to play, since we on Yuca St and Gower in those years, it was out closest park.

I just tought we could make it a little better.

[elrusodan]

No parks? What about Westlake McArthur and Echo Park? Those are nice parks. And Westlake McArthur is quite central...