Boondoggle Alert: Hollywood Freeway Park?
This has got to be the dumbest idea I have heard yet.A bunch of folks in Hollywood with apparently not much else to do have proposed building a City Park over the Hollywood Freeway.
If we're going to double deck freeways, it needs to be for adding capacity to freeways for the traffic we already have. Though the supporters of this mega-boondoggle insist there is no formal opposition to the plan, I am certain most of the folks who sit in traffic on that freeway on their way to work every day would find it similarly preposterous.
A park similar to this was built in Seattle over Interstate 5 in the 70s. It eventually became a haven for drug dealers and crime.
Lets not even get into all the other reasons why the park project could be potentially dangerous.
This $200 million project is not solving any societal need; nor is there any great mass of people calling for it. Apparently the people pushing this are completely out of touch with reality.
Yes, there is a need for parks and open space. Los Angeles actually has more than many cities. But this is just absolutely ridiculous. The truth is the program is corporate welfare for developers in Hollywood who want to spike up the value of their developments. Well you can do that, but not on my dime.
Labels: boodoggle, city parks, hollywood freeway
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 5/16/2007 12:19:00 AM
13 Comments:
Higby ---
Find a list of the supporters than find a list of the opposition. AND PLEASE TELL ME THAT LA DOESN'T NEED PARKS! You're a friggin moron if you think LA is better than most cities in terms of parks per the population/density (especially in the Hollywood area)
If the Freeway Park will become "a haven for drug dealers and crime," how would it "spike up the value" of new development? I'm a little confused.
It's really easy for you snobs in the Valley to say that poor people in Hollywood and other areas south of the hills don't need any more parkland.
You well know that probably half the supporters are well meaning and mis-guided; the other half are somehow going to earn some benefit$ from this boondoggle.
LA has over 15,000 acres of parks, one of the largest for a city of it's size. That doesn't mean it couldn't or shouldn't build more parks. However needing more parks also doesn't mean its required to do something as silly as building a park over a freeway. Indeed, Walter Moore's idea of putting parks on top of parking structures is a good one (and far less costly with more bang for the buck). We should even look at building small farms and community gardens on top of buildings (and these need not be done with public funds).
Hollywood MAY need more parks, but quite frankly its right next door to the biggest city park in the world. The Valley might have more parks than some parts of LA, but its no reason to build a park over the freeway, even in the Valley.
And in addition to the parks of LA City Rec and Parks there are county parks and acres and acres of parks under the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. And those serve both sides of the hill.
We have some very significant needs in terms of public safety and transportation infrastruture. When we have those settled, we can think about a $200 million park. Until then, its a poor decision.
So Walter ---
You'd rather people jump in their cars (because this IS LA) and drive to a park to enjoy a beautiful day than simply walk outside their doors and take a stroll? Come on man...even the NIMBY's want this park!
Oops..not Walter...I meant Higby
It was a late night last night celebrating in Pacoima
This must be stopped. It has very little to do with open space and very much to do with an agenda against the automobile.
Constructing this park over the freeway ensures that we will never expand the 101.
That's the goal.
And whats wrong with not expanding the 101 and creating an infrastructure around mass transit?
We need to double-deck 101 and expand mass transit infrastructure if we ever expect to reduce congestion. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Double decking freeways? Come on now...like NIMBYs are going to let that happen. MASS TRANSIT is the future of Los Angeles transportation...not freeways.
I agree it won't be easy, but the only way to solve this problem is with more freeway capacity, redesigned surface streets (one way streets), and mass transit.
The best we can hope for is that mass transit will eventually get people to and from work efficiently.
No amount of mass transit will replace the need for additional freeway capacity.
Good luck pushing additional freeway capacity, Mr. Antonio Watch. Everyone wants it, except when it's in their backyards. There's a reason the 101 double deck was shot down in the Valley.
We're only talking a few blocks worth of freeway being covered by this proposed park, so your argument about double-decking freeways to add capacity seems a bit bogus since a few hundred yards of double-decked freeway would do nothing.
And while I'm not sure a park would solve any societal need, I'm positive it could serve societal needs.
Yeah, LA has a lot of parkland, but it's not distributed evenly. It was only last week I was reminded that nearly a third of the 15,000 acres you refer to are in one park. Being able to see the park when you get home from work is a lot different than being able to walk to it.
And the whole drug dealing and crime thing smacks a bit of "they aren't good enough for a park". If opening a park attracts crime, is the park really the problem?
And BTW, we don't need to go to Seattle to see a nice park built over a freeway.
Doran,
We need 25 miles of double-decked freeway, from Calabasas to downtown. There is a much greater societal need for a decongested 101 than a park in Hollywood.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home