The federal courthouse at 312 N Spring St could be where county services are relocated to after the new $400 million federal courthouse is completed at First and Broadway in 2016
My interest, passion, and involvement with Downtown LA urban redevelopment began in earnest after I graduated from college and moved back down to LA from the Bay Area. Living and studying in Berkeley and traveling to San Francisco quite often, I became fascinated by urban planning and was excited that Los Angeles was truly beginning its own urban renaissance. In 2004, after moving back to LA, I soon became aware of Downtown LA’s Grand Ave Project and realized its incredible potential for rejuvenating LA’s urban heart. However, I was very concerned about the proposed park that was planned to go along with it, so I voiced my concerns then by speaking at Grand Ave Project meetings and continue to voice my concerns to this day.
The 16-acre Grand Ave Park, which is currently under construction and will be completed this summer, is sandwiched between two monolithic 1950s county office buildings: the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration and the Los Angeles Superior Courthouse. These two elongated and hulking structures restrict both pedestrian and visual connections for the park that lies hidden between them along Temple and First Streets.
One of the cardinal rules for creating a successful urban park is to provide easy access into and out of it so that people are allowed to roam and flow freely within and through it, creating a vibrant cross-flow that activates the park from pedestrian activity. It is only then that a certain percentage of people will decide to linger longer and sit and enjoy people watching. Of course, programming also helps, but in order for the park to be activated daily, it must have high accessibility on all sides.
This is where the twin County Buildings become a damaging and impeding force against the park’s potential urban connective benefits for the Civic Center and its cultural amenities. Because of their large size abutting the park directly, they restrict the potential flow of pedestrian activity by blocking the perimeter of the park on Temple and First Streets. And their towering height within such close proximity to each other, separated by the narrow Grand Ave Park, further limits visual connections within the surrounding area for the people inside the park. For example, instead of being able to see the Walt Disney Concert Hall or the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels–both designed by Pritzker Prize winning architects–a person inside the park will be left with a much less interesting view. And vice versa as anyone walking outside the park may never know it exists because of the County Buildings blocking it.
(Click to enlarge) Removing the county buildings would double the size of the Grand Ave Park as well as drastically improve accessibility for the park, creating stronger pedestrian connections and synergy for the surrounding cultural amenities such as the Music Center, Cathedral, and future Grand Ave Project (Photo: Google Maps)
As you can see, the county buildings block off a significant portion of the future Grand Ave Park, limiting pedestrian access and connections between LA’s most important cultural amenities
The long and blank walls of the Los Angeles Superior Courthouse damage the urban fabric by preventing pedestrian accessibility to the Grand Ave Park behind its foreboding walls
With all that being said, there is likely some hope that one day we will finally get it “right” here in Los Angeles–a city so counterintuitively backward because we never think with our feet (as pedestrians), only with our gas pedals (as drivers). It is said that the County Buildings sustained some expensive damage during the 1994 Northridge earthquake that would obviously cost millions upon millions of dollars to retrofit. It may be cheaper to dismantle than to retrofit these two beasts.
Also, there is a wonderful opportunity right now to reuse the federal courthouse at 312 N Spring Street when it is vacated after a new $400 million federal courthouse is built at First and Broadway. We could essentially relocate most if not all of the services within these two County Buildings into the old federal courthouse. That way we could dismantle the County Buildings and expand the Grand Ave Park all the way to the sidewalks, creating a truly world-class public space that would help transform LA’s reputation from car-town to a sophisticated urban city. Think of the indirect benefits we would have for our economy–attracting global creative capital and talent in an increasingly competitive world–if LA was known more for how livable it was instead of how bad our traffic is on the 405 freeway.
Watch a video I recorded in 2004 of LA Mayor Jim Hahn (sitting by Eli Broad) discussing the Grand Ave Project and the proposed park
Nice idea. Its a shame that its almost politically impossible to do big things these days. What are the current plans for the old Fed court building? Also, you say the twin county buildings need earthquake retrofitting. What the status of that?
Thanks for the great blog!
How can we get these ideas to the politicians and actually make this change? Because I believe you are right. Since there is so little park space in DT, we need all we can get. I wonder if the spring st building and the new one being built would be enough to house everyone, though. We need to start building up, not across, so I hope the new courthouse is high enough.
Great idea! And while we’re at it, let’s add the blocks between grand and hill, 1st and second. We don’t need those parking lots and structure. It’s easy to imagine a nice park spilling down the hill from the Concert Hall, right down to the new courthouse.
What I am picturing is underground parking with parks on top, similar to the parking lots at UCLA. Not hidden underground parks that are a secret. Is that too much to ask for?
Since both buildings are designed by some very prominent architects (including J.E. Stanton, Paul R. Williams, and Adrian Wilson) and both are now over 50 years old (which is usually the point they are considered “historic” and may be nominated for protection) you probably would have a VERY hard time having them removed short of having them fall down by themselves.
I thought of the same idea! Removing one or two of those buildings would be huge in making LA a pedestrian friendly environment. Imagine how much more iconic the Civic Park would be if you could see the Disney Hall from it! Also, tourists, who don’t know much of LA would easily discover and explore the Civic Park if it was visible from the Disney Hall. Great post Brigham!
As one who was born and grew up in Los Angeles I must disagree with Bingham Yen. As blah as the County buildings are they are not encroaching all that much on the park. If they were gone who would accesses the park from 1st or Temple anyway? Now many of the County workers can enjoy this park with easy accesses and have a view of the park from their offices. The building still have many useful years ahead of them and should not be demolished.
If anything the County buildings shield the park goers from having to see the ugly Cathedral and Disney Hall.
If any downtown park needs fixing it is Pushing Square. There is almost no green, it is surround by mammoth walls and accesses is poor. It looks more like a prison than a park.
Who will access the park from 1st st? Everybody who lives south of 1st, that’s who. And that’s probably the majority of people who live downtown. This park is not just for county workers, but for people who live in the neighborhood.
And by saying that the existing buildings block views of the Disney concert hall is a good thing pretty much disavows anything else you wrote. It’s a gorgeous, world-class structure. I do agree about Pershing Sq though.
@ Interurbans – as one who was also born and raised in Los Angeles (not even sure why that’s relevant) I agree with Brigham. These buildings need to go! Aside from being monolithic structures, they’re also structurally compromised by an earthquake that happened almost 20 years ago. One more sizable tremblor and their down for the count.
As Brudy mentioned, everyone who lives south of 1st street would be using this park, which is a large chunk of the downtown community. The goal here should be to create a great public space for all of downtown to use, not just pretty scenery for county workers to enjoy from their cubicles. The key to a great space is access, which the county buildings currently prevent. Also – most architecture critics and visitors would beg to differ with you on the merit of the Disney Hall and Cathedral. Countless visitors come downtown everyday to admire both structures. How many come to look at these hulking county buildings? Few if any.
I also agree that Pershing Square is in desperate need of help. It suffers not only from poor access, but also from a horrid design. That’s one space that needs to be bulldozed and re-thought completely. When it comes to effective parks and space simplicity goes a long way. Pershing Square in it’s current form is a visually loud, complicated mass of ugly!
Another great article! Thanks for your insight, Mr. Yen. You think about livability, public spaces, and how residents will actually interact with their environment in a way that organizations with vested interests in revitalizing downtown commercially seem to miss. A renewed downtown LA is a great vision, but it needs to be more than just a larger Universal City Walk, which is what developers seem to want.
Good article Brigham but I do feel that accessibility is only one facet of many symbiotic networks that give vitality to a park. However, I will agree with you that taking out those 2 old county buildings will improve the park.
In addition, I will have to agree with Interurbans on one point, where “The building still have many useful years ahead of them and should not be demolished.” I feel that taking down these buildings might be a bit premature at this point. This area still needs to develop with higher density to allow best use (utilization) of the extra green space. I think most visitors of this park will be local. The dissecting streets that cut up the park doesn’t help either and with a nearby fwy (101), this area will be overlooked by hundreds of commuters passing through. Until there is a much higher density mix, perhaps we can keep these buildings and utilize them. If these structures can help incubate the local economy with symbiotic establishments (depending on their use), we should keep them for now and destroy them later when, hopefully, taller structures will be around to absorb any displaced densities around the local area.
I agree that density is key in addition to a well designed park with great accessibility. However, it’s not every day that a large building like the federal courthouse will be vacated in the Civic Center that would be perfect to house county services. Relocating those services to the federal building is easy and probably less expensive than building a new structure.
Further food for thought. Here is a video about Greeley Square in Manhattan NYC regarding the activation of urban parks where density is the key.
Greeley Square in NYC: http://brighamyen.com/2010/11/08/video-what-makes-an-urban-park-successful-in-pasadena/
Thanks for sharing that video Brigham.
Yes, you are right about accessibility and density. I feel the same way. The idea is further expanded in Jane Jacobs book – The Death and Life of Great American cities. Here, she expands the concept of primary and secondary uses (work, home, market, church, etc.) and how their spatial relationships around a park creates or destroys pedestrian life in that park. I’ve walked on Temple and the nearby areas and I can tell you those are long streets with very little life in them compared to other areas. This park is still surrounded by too many commercial/government buildings and parking lots with hardly no street life. No high-density residential or mixed-use structures. As you mentioned, that will change though with new projects.
For now, those two county buildings can perhaps be configured for adaptive resuse. I was thinking they would be the best positioned structures to create primary/secondary uses adjacent to other buildings (and future ones) as the area develops. However, if those buildings truly have very limited uses, then I would agree and support them being removed.
@John You’re right about little life in that area. Once you get above second it’s pretty quiet at night (outside of the concert hall area). It feels a lot like any other governmental and financial district – dead in the evening. There needs to be more residential up that way. I walked up Grand last night and you really can’t see the park at all until you’re right in front of it. The view from the fountain at the dorothy chandler will be amazing though.
I’d love to see it more like Columbus Circle or Rittenhouse Sq in Philly; surrounded by shops and restaurants, where people filter in and out of the park. I was in Munich over the summer and there as a small park (I think around Gartnerplatz) that was just filled with people at night having picnics, hanging out, and the whole area was a beehive of small restaurants, bars, and cafes. I’d love to see that level of life and activity here.
+1!
I agree that the Civic Center really suffers for having little to no residential or ground-floor retail activity. This should be taken into account when repurposing and/or building new structures in this neighborhood.
As a moderately new father, I wish I had had the foresight back during Grand Ave Park public comment to request kids’ play area(s) in the park. Though there is precious little park space in DTLA, there is even less in the way of playgrounds for we Downtowners that are raising little ones. The FIDM park offers a nice, newly remodeled playground, but it serves primarily the South Park area and is not even a public park.
Perhaps a playground could be tastefully added after the park opens to the public.
I recall reading about the grand ave project when I lived at Grand Towers back in 07. There are great point’s and arguments here; how ever it’s easier said then done. It’s easier to spend someone else’s money & suggest what should be built in everyone’s own eyes. Would I like to see high end boutiques & restaurant’s? Sure, would I spend the money to keep the businesses afloat? sure. It’s just not that simple in today’s economy, especially with the budget cut’s and state employee’s weighing down on finances. I say convert state building’s into Hotel’s,Lofts, Department store’s & start bringing in more money into our city. Move the state,city,county employees into warehouses, god knows how many abandoned warehouses and building’s are vacant east of Downtown.