Have Your Say on the New Design for Civic Center Park

3_13_09_richardson.jpgPhoto: Eric Richardson at Blogdowntown

Yesterday morning, the LA Times unveiled Rios Clementi Hale’s new design for the Civic Center Park, which will be under construction in the spring of 2010.  Reaction to the plan, be it from the LA Times architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne or downtowners at Blogdowntown has been more negative than positive.  Before jumping into your own analysis, make sure to read this synposis of changes at Curbed, the story going over the basics at the Times and the collection of images at Blogdowntown.

Personally, I’m torn between being excited that funding for the park is in place and construction should begin by the Spring of next year, and sharing some of the concerns others have expressed with the park.  While I wouldn’t go as far as Hawthorne who says the park has no identity or some of the readers at Curbed who believe it’s just going to be a glorified dog park that’s taken over by the homeless.  Our downtown desperately needs green space, and personally this is something for which I can’t wait.

So what do you think Streetsbloggers?  What’s right or wrong with the plan for Civic Center Park, and what changes would you make if you could?

  • Peter

    fund the building of a park without adequately addressing the horrible and worsening homelessness problem. hmmmm…

    do livable streets people get to care about people living on the streets and in parks, or do we get to just worry about bike lanes and crosswalks?

  • Erik

    Yes, but where am I going to store my 2-ton personal property and will there be any ugly chain-link fence in the landscape architecture of this park?

    Calling Frank Gehry!

  • Oh whatever Peter.

    Do you go to environmentalist web-sites and complain about animal rights?

    Regarding this design (thank god Eric from blogdowntown photographed the whole mock-up):

    As a “civic space” it fails. It is a poor fit for large public performances taking place at the footsteps to (what used to be) the entrance to City Hall. The park is chunked up into pieces that make it … well it isn’t a contiguous park at all really. It is also a crappy spot design due to a lack of amenities (like bathrooms and places to sit).

    As a “park” it fails as well, with the exception of the lawn behind City Hall between Spring St. and Broadway. Who would be able to walk through this park to get to City Hall or the courts instead of walking up 1st St. or Temple? Few people would, as the path would be visually baffled by planter arrangements, a large fountain, and crazy steps (made for tripping people up it looks like).

    As for homelessness … sigh.

  • Spokker

    “fund the building of a park without adequately addressing the horrible and worsening homelessness problem. hmmmm…”

    Ship ’em to Ontario!

    (It was a joke, by the way.)