Report: Beverly Center, turning inner-oriented spaces into active public places

Beverly Center, (re)discovering a pedestrian district!

Vicente Romero UP 274 Winter 2013

I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 II. METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................5 Introducing the Beverly Center district and its boundaries......................................................6 A district with a ‘puzzle’ structure...................................................................................................7 Field trips and research, from perception to interpretation......................................................8 A pedestrian perspective.....................................................................................................................8 Structure of the report.......................................................................................................................8 III. ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................................11 1. The kickoff: What is the perceived reality at first sight?........................................................12 PHASE 1: Recognizing the visible land uses..............................................................................12 PHASE 2: Presenting the real land uses......................................................................................16

Table of Contents

2. The third and fourth dimensions: What is the temporal evolution of the district?...........17 PHASE 3: The temporal analysis of the built form..................................................................17 PHASE 4: Decreasing the scale, a focus on Orlando Avenue’s architecture.......................20 3. Analysis of the main users: Who uses the built environment?................................................22 PHASE 5: Identification of the user groups...............................................................................24 PHASE 6: The users “public space”: shopping malls and hospital waiting rooms............28 a) Rest areas in the shopping mall............................................................................................28 b) Hospital waiting rooms........................................................................................................30 c) Shopping mall pedestrian entrances.....................................................................................32 4. Perception analysis: How the users perceive the built environment?.....................................34 PHASE 7: Lynch Analysis...............................................................................................................34 PHASE 8: Two detailed perception analysis: the housing and the boulevards..................36 a) From vertical to horizontal: the American city...................................................................36 b) The Boulevards: from edge to edge.......................................................................................38 5. In search of solutions: How an urban space can become attractive to pedestrians?..........40 PHASE 9: Issues and Opportunities in the Beverly Center district......................................41 IV. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................49 V. BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................................53

GRAPHICS

Graphics

1: Base map............................................................................................................................................9 2: Land Use map.................................................................................................................................13 3: General Plan Land Use map.......................................................................................................15 4: Chronology map.............................................................................................................................19 5: Architecture in Orlando Ave.......................................................................................................21 6: User Groups map...........................................................................................................................25 7: Mall rest areas space dynamics...................................................................................................29 8: Hospital waiting rooms space dynamics..................................................................................31 9: Mall pedestrian entrances observations...................................................................................33 10: Lynch Analysis map....................................................................................................................35 11: From vertical to horizontal: the American city....................................................................37 12: The Boulevards: from edge to edge.........................................................................................39 13: Issues & Opportunities...............................................................................................................43 14: The Burton Promenade..............................................................................................................45 15: A desirable sidewalk....................................................................................................................47

FIGURES

Figures

1: Deserted San Vicente Blvd at 10 am...........................................................................................2 2: Deserted 4th Ave at 3 pm...............................................................................................................3 3: Location from Google Earth.........................................................................................................6 4: Generalized circulation...................................................................................................................7 5: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.......................................................................................................12 6: Beverly Center shopping mall.....................................................................................................12 7: 8500 Burton Way mixed-use building......................................................................................14 8: SLS Hotel in La Cienaga Boulevard..........................................................................................14 9: Active oil wells at the back of the mall....................................................................................17 10: Sherbourne Drive with its palm trees....................................................................................18 11: Residents walking down the street.........................................................................................26 12 The diners at noon.......................................................................................................................27 13: Rest area #1..................................................................................................................................28 14: Rest area #2..................................................................................................................................28 15: La Cienaga entrance....................................................................................................................32 16: La Cienaga Blvd as a path..........................................................................................................34 17: La Cienaga and San Vicente Blvds node................................................................................36 18: Our Lady of Mt Lebanon Church...........................................................................................36 19: Tree at La Cienaga and San Vicente Blvds............................................................................36 20: Pedestrian crossing the Burton Way barrier........................................................................41 21: Point of confusion: San Vicente/La Cienaga........................................................................41 22: The site of the future Burton Promenade.............................................................................42 23: Third Street, clarity vs. chaos...................................................................................................44 24: Who walks on the sidewalk?.....................................................................................................46 25: Hollywood sign from the Beverly Center..............................................................................46

1. INTRODUCTION

1

“It has become common practice among architectural critics to lament the loss of public space”. This is how a book dedicated to “rethink the Beverly Center” shopping mall ten years after its opening starts. Already after only ten years, scholars and professionals related to architecture and urban planning complained on the loss of public space in the area. One could actually say that in certain places shopping is the last remnant of public activity. People don’t walk the street as much as they used to do in previous decades, people don’t use the public squares to meet or to socialize like before, people don’t interact at all in the public space.

Conversely, people seem to prefer enclosed spaces to develop their daily activities. It seems that these enclosed spaces “protect” them from the inclemency of the weather, from other people, or simply from the unknown.

Fig.1 Deserted San Vicente Blvd at 10 am 2

In America, and more often in Europe and other parts of the world, life remains inside buildings, recalling the book from the famous architect Jan Gehl. As it happens with the Islamic city, the private life is developed inside the building so no one can see it or interact with it. Instead, the public life is developed within the zoco, the main market, or the shopping mall. In some cases, artificial and private spaces perform the role of public spaces. In other cases, the real street becomes an open-air shopping mall.

In the case we present here, life develops just in certain areas of the selected neighborhood, and mainly inside buildings. However, it is odd that being prominently a commercial and an institutional node (more than a half of the space), the sensation or perception that a

stranger to the area can perceive is the one of an underused public space where sidewalks are quite empty, and where people appear and disappear without noticing it (see Figs. 1 and 2).

Intelligently, the major activity nodes of our study area have created attractive inner spaces that please the users and provide the amenities that in other cases would be provided by the city in open spaces. However, it must not be dismissed that this “masked” public space is governed by the laws of commerce. As an example, teenagers have changed their meeting place from the street or the neighborhood park to the shopping mall. In this shift, they are not able anymore to run, to play, or to ride a bike, interacting with each other in an open and free space. Instead, they are shut themselves in a private space where the few activities they can develop are chatting or shopping. In fact, shopping malls have become “the only institutions capable of generating the kind of audience and support necessary to create a communal focus” (LAFAUD 1990:3). In this study, we are going to propose changes to neutralize this statement.

In our case, the Beverly Center shopping mall has been constructed around what we can call a “great street”. Inside the building, an “L” form major corridor can be found, where all the stores overlook. There are no other places or nooks, just a simple wide corridor from which all the stores can be reached. To make the shopping experience much more pleasant, several rest areas have been placed along it. At both ends, two sitting areas were placed, each

one with small tables and chairs. Along the corridor, other classier and more comfortable rest areas were placed: colorful and modern couches with plants and lamps. Sometimes, while walking down the corridor, vendors offer their products to taste. Other times, customers prefer to sit in the central part of the corridor where a couple of cafeterias were placed. This is in fact, the attractive of these enclosed spaces and what people are looking for nowadays.

On the other hand, the Beverly Connection mall was actually built to “offer its customers a truly unique urban shopping experience”. We would say instead that it offers a “fake unique urban shopping experience”. In this case, the stores are built around two main streets in the form of a “+”, evoking the ancient urban pattern that Romans used to create their cities: the cardum and decumanum streets.

Lastly, the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, although being split up in many different buildings, the architects cleverly linked all of them from their ground floors to create a sort of “inner city” where the user can find any kind of stores (i.e. cafeterias, newsstand, stores to fix telephones and other technology, grocery stores, etc.). In this sense, the user doesn’t need to go out from the hospital to develop a public life, but it remains inside of the private realm.

Therefore, our major aim in this report is to analyze the space made for the public life in the neighborhood, pointing out what are the urban problems that make the pedestrians not to use it and the possible solutions to those

problems. In this sense, we could state that Los Angeles is a city with almost no tradition in public space. The city has grown from many different urban nodes and the open spaces are just the leftovers between developable areas.

It has been recently common for the city to propose and develop “pocket parks”, green and open spaces in small vacant lots around built areas in the city. Just like LAFAUD (1990:2) explains for shopping malls, these new parks are becoming “places towards which the people of the surrounding communities gravitate to define themselves as a group through communal activities”. In the European case, this function is performed by the many squares of different sizes and scales that were created by the historical and natural intersection of major roads. This is an idea we are going to take into account and adapt to our case study.

Finally, we could also state that not every single street should be walkable. In fact, in every city, there is an uncountable number of streets that are car-oriented and don’t carry a high pedestrian traffic. This fact does not necessarily mean that those streets should remain car-oriented, sometimes not even with sidewalks or crosswalks. Instead, we think that every street has a certain potential to become a walkable street but it is an urban planners’ mission to make them attractive to walk, to make people feel attraction for that street, to make them prefer to walk down the street rather than to drive through. And this can just be achieved by making the walk pleasant. We are also going to take into account this idea and adapt it to our case study.

Fig.2 Deserted 4th Ave at 3 pm 3

4

2. METHODOLOGY

5

Introducing the Beverly district and its boundaries

Center

The Beverly Center district is located in the center of the City of Los Angeles, in the westernmost part of the Mid-City West neighborhood. The district also lies between two of the most renowned (if not important) neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles, making the district composition even more complex if possible. Hence, it is located in the easternmost part of Beverly Hills, and in the western and southernmost part of West Hollywood, both known in part because of the high-income population they host.

The district boundaries have been chosen after a thorough exploration of the area, taking into account this border character and thus, the many urban, economic, social, and even cultural differences it congregates. Therefore, the main feature leading the boundaries demarcation has not been the presence of an inner uniform and homogeneous character, as other districts or neighborhoods may possess.

Aided by the Lynch elements, the attention has been focused on the “paths” that vertebrates the territory, and especially the characteristic of being an area of two paramount crossroads for the City of Los Angeles. The main objective in this analysis, and the reason why we have chosen this area, is thus to evaluate how these roadways serving mainly a higher urban scale (the whole City of Los Angeles) interact or influence a smaller urban scale: a piece of land bordering three different cities (Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Los Angeles– 6

Mid-City West), which are at the same time neighborhoods, and a main transportation node of the City of Los Angeles. We were intrigued by the node character of the area and we aim to assess how all these different streets creating a real urban barrier can also serve to stamp a neighborhood character to the area.

The study area is a 0.5 miles square area or a 10-minute walk from one end to the other (see Figs. 3 and 4). It is limited from the North by the Beverly Boulevard, which runs in eastwest direction, from downtown’s 1st street in the East and ending in its intersection with the Santa Monica Boulevard in the West. It is a 6 lanes’ road, two east to west bounded (downtown outbound) and four west to east bounded (towards downtown). This fact denotes the importance of this road for traveling towards the city center. From the East, it is limited

by Orlando Avenue, a minor street passing a

medium-high quality residential area in northsouth direction, beginning at its intersection with the Santa Monica Boulevard in the north and ending at the very south end of our study area, in San Vicente Boulevard. The Southern boundary is represented by Clifton Way, a short street going from San Vicente Boulevard in the east and ending one mile to the west, at Canon Drive, very close to Wilshire Boulevard and Beverly Drive, and passing through a high quality residential area. Finally, the West boundary is Robertson Boulevard, which runs in north-south direction, from Santa Monica Blvd in the north and ending at Washington Blvd, at the southern part of the I-10 freeway.

It links thus two main road arteries in the city through three lanes, one towards the north and two towards the I-10.

However, the most important characteristic to bear in mind are the arteries Fig.3 Location from Google Earth

crossing the zone, and creating two big crossroads which influence the character of our study area. Parallel, and east to Robertson Boulevard, runs La Cienaga Boulevard, which links both Santa Monica Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard to the north and the I-10 freeway, 405 freeway, and El Segundo Boulevard to the south of the city. Therefore, this is a very busy street with a lot of road traffic, passing through but not stopping at our study area.

The other road, running north-west to southeast direction, is San Vicente Boulevard, beginning at Venice Boulevard, in Mid-City, and going to end in a northwesterly direction in Sunset Boulevard. This first intersection (La Cienaga-San Vicente) is the main node affecting locally our study area, especially because at this point San Vicente Boulevard splits into another “great street” branch going east-west: Burton Way. This street is particularly interesting because it is a very wide roadway (170 feet) with three lanes plus a parking lane in each direction and a wide median with grass and trees (45 feet wide). Parallel, and north of it, Third Street runs east-west from Santa Monica Boulevard to downtown, creating a double traffic node in its intersection with both La Cienaga and San Vicente Boulevard, at both sides of the same block (which hosts the Beverly Center mall and nucleus of the study area).

West Hollywood in its northern side and MidCity West in its southern side. Meanwhile, Clifton Way makes the division between MidCity West in the north and Beverly Hills in the south. This fact is key to the quality of the urban space we can find in this border zone. In fact, the citizen can easily find the sign posts making reference to the city the street belongs to, as an active demonstrative action by the two city councils to claim the area they own.

A district with a ‘puzzle’ structure

the east. The latter has a better urban quality, with the hospital area to the north, the multi and single family housing areas at the center and to the south, and the retail street to the west. With a naked eye, it seems to host a higher income population than the eastern part. The area left between La Cienaga and San Vicente Boulevards is dedicated to the Beverly Center mall, creating a north-south retail and commercial axis together with other big retail stores and two 5-star hotels (Sofitel to the north and SLS Hotel to the south).

In this sense, it is not difficult to imagine that the district is structured by all these roadways. The north-south axis formed

by La Cienaga-San Vicente Boulevards divide the area into two parts, East and West.

The former has a more suburban landscape character, due in part to the fact of being part of a larger residential area which spreads to

The east-west axis is represented by both Third Street and Burton Way, dividing the western part of the study area into three parts: the hospital to the north, and the multi and single family housing to the south. Both are highly trafficked streets but to the eye, Third Street seems to be even more due to its narrowness in comparison to Burton Way. Fig.4 Generalized circulation

Finally, it must to be mentioned that both the north and south inner boundaries (Beverly Boulevard and Clifton Way) are also external boundaries to the city and neighborhoods where the study area is located.

The Beverly Boulevard is the division between 7

Field trips and research, perception to interpretation

from

In a first stage, we have visited the area twice in order to take notes, pictures and to make a draft of the area’s structure. The visits were made in two different days and at a two different times. The first visit was made on Monday, January 14, from 10 am to 12 pm; while the second visit was made on Tuesday, January 15, from 2 pm to 4 pm. Once the information was collected, a base map has been created using the raster graphics editor Adobe Photoshop CS4. This map has been used along the present report to build every different graphic (see Graphic 1).

In a second stage, in order to understand how the district is perceived by the people using it we have undergone another set of observations, studies, and analyses carried out after four other visits to the study area in four different days: Monday, January 28, from 10am to 1pm; Tuesday, January 29, from 2 to 6pm; Wednesday, January 30, from 6 to 9pm; and Thursday, January 31, from 2 to 6pm.

To complement our observations, we have consulted some important bibliographic references as we moved in our study. We have found of paramount importance the review of planning and design policy data from documents and published resources for the land use analysis. The work done by Kevin Lynch on “the image of the city” helped us to interpret and convey the very different perceptions citizens can have of a same public space.

8

A pedestrian perspective It must be taken into account that the chosen approach for the development of the observations and analyses is the pedestrian point of view; the human being, the first step (or the last) in the urban hierarchy of users in a city predominantly dominated by automobiles.

It has been difficult to dismiss the car traffic focusing just on the pedestrian perspective. By doing this, we don’t mean that car traffic should be forgotten when studying this district. On the contrary, we propose this issue as an extension of the present report.

Structure of the report The present report is divided in three blocks. The previous introduction on the specific topic that frames our analysis is followed by a short explanation of the methodology followed along this thorough research. Then, the main body of the report presents the different analysis that have made possible to study the topic. Firstly, in order to put in contact with the study area, the real and perceived built environment is presented. Secondly, once we know what we have, we investigate the temporal stages the study area has undergone to reach the current situation. Thirdly, we analyze the people utilizing the built form and how they use it. Fourthly, we focus the analysis on how the users perceive the different parts of the study area and how interact with them.

Finally, in light of the low walkability level, we propose some ideas to promote the area as a good environment to walk and as a good open and public space to live.

GRAPHIC 1 9

10

3. ANALYSIS

11

1.

The kickoff: What is perceived reality at first sight?

the

The first analysis undergoes a double analysis of what can be found in the horizontal plan: the land uses. We develop firstly an analysis of what can be perceived just from visiting and having a walk on the study area.

In fact, this should be a mandatory analysis whenever starting any urban project. Then, our perception must be compared to reality by doing research on the relevant zoning and community plans that help us to check our previous observations with official planning documents.

PHASE 1: Recognizing the visible land uses After visiting the area we have produced a detailed map in order to show the more details as possible due to the complexity of the area.

The purpose of this map is to challenge the urban planner to identify different land uses through observation. As we have represented in our map, the study area can be subdivided into four different main areas, but we can differentiate 10 different categories of land uses in total (see Graphic 2): ◊

Medical clinics First, the medical area is represented mainly by the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, a non-profit and multi-specialty hospital (see Fig.5), but also by many medical-related stores like test centers, massage places, optician’s shops, rheumatology centers, etc. The hospital 12

the stretch of Beverly Boulevard between the intersections with Robertson and La Cienaga Boulevards, and the stretch of La Cienaga Boulevard next to the Beverly Center mall are known as being part of “La Cienaga Design Quarter”, housing many antiques, furniture, rugs, accessories, and art. ◊

Fig.5 Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

occupies 3 entire big blocks plus 2 half blocks devoted to the hospital’s parking next to the intersection in Beverly Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard, and bounded in its south and west limits by Third Street and Robertson Boulevard. ◊

Retail / Commercial Second, the retail area is led by the Beverly Center shopping mall and surrounded by other type of retail stores. The Beverly Center (see Fig.6) is an 8-story shopping mall, half of them being dedicated to parking. It is a typical 80’s mall with very few windows, offering only the view of good landscapes like the Hollywood sign, for instance. In front of it, to the east, there is the open-air Beverly Connection discount shopping mall. To the south, all along San Vicente and La Cienaga Boulevards, there are other retail shops, and Robertson Boulevard is a livable tree-lined shopping street. It is remarkable that the two first northern blocks of Robertson Boulevard,

Residential – Multi family Third, the multi-family residential area is located on both sides of Burton Way. Being a very wide street it allows the possibility of building higher, usually 4 or 5 floors. It is an extremely trafficked and noisy street, while the adjacent streets are very quiet and they are used mainly by residents. All these blocks are surrounded by magnificent old trees and well conserved sidewalks. Another minor multi-family residential area is found to the northeast of the study area, between Beverly Boulevard and Third Street. This is also due to the closeness of these two important and wide streets which allows building denser.

Fig.6 Beverly Center shopping mall

GRAPHIC 2 13

◊

Residential – Single family Fourth, the single-family residential area is located next to the previous residential areas and always farther from boulevards. They are extremely quiet streets with trees and curbs dedicated to parking. Traffic in these streets is mainly generated by residents. The housing type in this area is a one-floor detached house with front and rear yards. Especially remarkable is Sherbourne Drive, south of Colgate Ave, because of the two lines of very tall palm trees along the street. Palm trees stamp a high urban quality character to the street. ◊

Mixed uses (residential and retail) The only block in this category is to be found at the La Cienaga and San Vicente Boulevards intersection: the 8500 Burton Way (see Fig.7). It is a new 8-story luxury apartments building with a big supermarket in the ground floor. The architectural design and the location at the intersection, and next to other multi-family housing and to a hotel, make the mixed-use building an urban success.

Fig.7 8500 Burton Way mixed-use building 14

◊

Office There are just two lots under the office land use, both of them located on Third Street, east of the San Vicente and La Cienaga crossroads. The one located in the north side was for rent. The second one corresponds with the Joseph C. Youngerman building hosting a pension and health plans firm. ◊

Hotel There are two hotels in the area. The first one (Sofitel) is located next to the Beverly Center mall, at the northern side of Beverly Boulevard. The rationale of this 5-star hotel is the closeness to the mall, but especially the hospital. It also serves tourists, who find close to them many tourist attractions like Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Hollywood neighborhoods. The second hotel (SLS; see Fig.8) is located three blocks south of the mall.

It is also a 5-star hotel serving mainly tourists.

◊

Church This land use makes reference to the Our Lady of Mt Lebanon Church. It is located right in the confluence of Burton Way and La Cienaga and San Vicente Boulevards, and one block away from Beverly Center. The church, which is just 1-floor high and has its own parking lot, strongly calls attention because it shares the block with a 10-floor multi-family housing. It is thus surprising to find such a small church in the middle of three large streets and surrounded by such high buildings. ◊

Open Space The only open space in the 0.5 square mile area is to be found along the Burton Way: the median. It is a green space of 0.30 miles long and 45 feet wide. At each side it has three lanes plus a parking lane, so it is quite unreachable. The only use we have observed is that of serving as an area for the residents to walk their dogs. ◊

Vacant Because of its location in the middle of the City of Los Angeles, the study area is completely built up. The only vacant lot in the entire area is located in the confluence of Burton Way and Robertson Boulevard. It is adjacent to a retirement living house and in the area where other multi-family residences are located.

Fig.8 SLS Hotel in La Cienaga Boulevard

GRAPHIC 3 15

PHASE 2: Presenting the real land uses The Wilshire Community Plan (as of September 12, 2012) has been consulted to develop an overlay for the land use map (see Graphic 3). In general, we can conclude positively that the majority of our observations made beforehand were correct. Sometimes, the reality observed on the field differed from that on the general plan and use map.

Firstly, the commercial land matches completely with our observations. The only exceptions are some land uses that we considered not to be commercial in the observations but finally they are. Here, our “European” point of view played a dirty trick on us because we wouldn’t have ever thought that a hospital (even if it is private) could be under “commercial” use. Hotel and office uses are also under this use. In fact, according to the “Generalized Summary of Zoning Regulations” of the City of Los Angeles, commercial uses (C2) also comprises “offices, hotels, hospitals and/or clinics” (C1 zones).

The discrepancy between the map and the real world is to be found in the central block that hosts the church and the apartment tower. In the map, the first is a high-tomedium residential use, while the second is a commercial use. In reality, it should be right the opposite, because churches are also under commercial use. Therefore, the actual commercial use expands along every single block overlooking the important boulevards: 16

Robertson, San Vicente, La Cienaga, Beverly, and Third Street. In this area, it is included the several parcels belonging to the private hospital, and the Beverly Center and Beverly Connection shopping malls.

The remaining lots, as if they were three islands separated by corridors of commercial use, host residential uses. The closer to the important boulevards the higher the intensity of residential uses is. The progressive gradient in intensity can be perfectly observed on either sides of Burton Way. Along the “streetfront”, high-tomedium residential uses (R4, “multiple dwelling”) are found in the form of two parallel lines of big residential buildings with 4 floors and several apartments in each and a big parking space in the ground floor. Even if they have been built in different periods of time, the built form remains the same.

Secondly, the rear part of those same blocks is dedicated to medium residential uses (R3, “multiple dwelling”). Sometimes, the same built form can also be found here, though inserted and adapted to smaller parcels. Other times, smaller apartment houses (one-family dwelling) are found.

Finally, two areas of low residential uses (R1, “one-family dwelling”) with single-family housing are found next to the previous zone: one south of Burton Way and one southeast of San Vicente Boulevard.

2.

The third and fourth dimensions: What is the temporal evolution of the district?

The second analysis undergoes the study of the built form: what do we find in the fourth dimension? In order to answer this question we firstly study the urban chronology of the district to understand the history of urbanization of the area. We then focus on the third dimension: what forms do we find in height? In this case, we focus on a street to study its architecture styles more in detail.

PHASE 3: The temporal analysis of the built form Once analyzed the matches and discrepancies of the observed and real land uses in the district, we carried out two related analysis on the built form. The first one is a chronology analysis. Due to the confirmation of the two well defined land use zones (commercial and residential) we wanted to investigate whether both areas are effectively homogenous or they differentiate in any aspect.

Therefore, we decided to analyze when the current buildings were built in time.

Previously, we checked the Sanborn maps available online through the UCLA library for 1926 and 1950. This would be a previous development stage.

In 1926, we could confirm that the area was in an early development stage, with the terrain already divided in lots and blocks but with very few buildings on it. The most important discoveries are the following:

• The whole district was already divided in blocks and streets. The main boulevards seem to follow past important routes from downtown Los Angeles to the different surrounding ranches.

• The whole block where the Beverly Center mall stands nowadays, it was once (and it’s still today) an oil-wells field property of “Niles Lease of California Petroleum Co. • The block where the Beverly Connection mall stands was another oil-wells field property of “Garbutt Lease of Union Oil Co.” • The northern block where the hospital locates was the “Los Angeles Riding Academy”, an equestrian center.

• The southern block was the “Sanitary Gold Seal Dairy Barns”.

• The current intersection at San Vicente Boulevard, Burton Way, and La Cienaga Boulevard was the fork where the “Pacific Electric Railway” line running from La Cienaga Boulevard subdivided in two different branches: San Vicente Boulevard and Burton Way. • Therefore, both roadways had a “Pacific Electric Railway” line on their respective right sides of the street. This is the reason why both streets are so wide nowadays. In the following decades, both lines were dismantled and converted into a normal road.

• Beverly Boulevard was the limit between the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County.

Regarding the 1950 situation, the most important discoveries are the following: • The Beverly Center oil-wells block changed property to “Beverly Oil Co.”

• The block where the Beverly Connection mall stands ends the oil production and a big square building is built. It hosts the “United Rexall Drug Company”, having four inner yards and the main entrance in Beverly Boulevard. It operated drug stores at the national level.

• The current hospital block to the west of the previous block started to operate also oil wells, belonging to the “Pacific Oil Co. of California”.

• The northern block where the hospital locates changes use from the “Los Angeles Riding Academy” to “Buzza & Cardozo” greeting card firm.

• The southern block changes also use from the “Sanitary Gold Seal Dairy Barns” to “Bert M. Morris Co.” a manufacturing firm related to petroleum transformation (plastic and plastic products).

• The church emerges under the name of “St. Peters Catholic Church” (the current name is “Our Lady of Mount Lebanon Church”).

Fig.9 Active oil wells at the back of the mall 17

The following stage of our chronological analysis was to check the historic aerial photographs of our district that can be found online. Aiming to show the building evolution we checked four different periods of time: 1948, 1972, 1980, and 2004.

From the photographs (and Graphic 4) observation we can see that the southern and eastern R1 one-family dwelling zones were already built in 1948. In the first case, each block is composed by 8 detached houses in each long side (east and west) and 6 detached houses in the short side. None of the houses overlooks the north side, Colgate Avenue, seemingly because this street is not the important one, but a quiet street which serves more like an access street for the houses in the blocks. We also observe two cases of mansionization in Clifton Way. These 4-floors apartment buildings were made out of the fusion of two normal parcels during the 60’s. All the parcels have a very small front yard and a bigger rear yard with a small detached dwelling unit or garage for storage or cars. Sometimes, this piece has been replaced by a pool. Therefore, the typical parcel structure from this period of time is composed by several units. Usually, one half of it is occupied by the house and the other half is a rear garden with one or two detached units, either a garage or a small dwelling unit. Throughout the whole district, dispersed houses of this time period can be currently pointed out by just recognizing this structure of “1-floor house + rear garden + garage”.

In the subsequent year (1972), parcels overlooking Burton Way, Third Street, and Robertson Boulevard suffered demolition and 18

Fig.10 Sherbourne Drive with its palm trees

rebuilding as multiple apartment buildings in the first two cases, or as stores in the last case.

This time though, the whole parcel surface has been built without any kind of yard or free space.

This period of time (1950’s to 1970’s) there has been a period of strong reconversion from housing to commercial around the easternmost part of Third Street and in Blackburn Avenue, too. In this latter case, the dwelling parcels were built completely into narrow and long industrial or commercial units.

The third period, during the 1970’s, the main operations in the district was the construction of the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the Beverly Center shopping mall, the largest structures in the district.

The last stage has been during the 1990’s and 2000’s. Along the La Cienaga and San Vicente Boulevards, and Third Street, some parcels have been reconverted into more modern structures like small office towers and longitudinal small restaurants and other stores along these streets. The two hotels in the area, the Beverly Connection mall, and the hospital extension in several blocks around the district were built. All of them characterized for being the largest buildings in the district (after the hospital and the Beverly Center mall).

Therefore, there seems to be a correlation between time and size of the building: the smaller the building the older is, and vice versa.

We also discovered that the only open space, the empty space in Burton Way and Robertson Boulevard was built in the past by a square big residential building with a square yard in the center. It was demolished between the 80’s and the 90’s.

GRAPHIC 4 19

PHASE 4: Decreasing the scale, a focus on Orlando Avenue’s architecture Orlando Avenue is located at the northwestern edge of our district. As we can observe in the previous graphic, the chosen stretch is quite interesting in terms of the diversity and history these 11 houses possess.

Therefore, we have decided to carry out a more detailed analysis on them (see Graphic 5). The Orlando Ave stretch is surrounded by four blocks with a mix of housing. Each block is subdivided in lots of equal surface, but some of the lots have been merged to construct larger buildings. This is the case of buildings number 1 and 7, the first merged 2 lots and the second merged 3 lots. Since each of the single lots are of the same surface (5,502 sq ft), the first “mansionization” process gave room for a 4 floor’s building, each floor 5,247 sq ft (a building square footage of 20,988 sq ft), so 95% of the parcel is occupied by the building, being the rest used for the accesses and the open perimeter around it. Even if the second case is one lot bigger than the other, the fact of constructing a 3-story building equalizes the building footage to that of the first case (22,146 sq ft). Each floor has 7,382 sq ft, and four homes 1,845 sq ft each.

We have divided the 11 houses in 4 groups according to their period of construction which, by chance, are separated by a 20-year period: the 1930’s, the 1950’s, the 1970’s, and the 2000’s. Surprisingly (or not), we have found connections in architectural style among the houses built in the same period.

20

◊ Houses built during the 30’s (# 3, 4 and 9): • 1 or 2 floors, a rear garden and a garage or a storage room in it • Building square footage of houses 3 and 9 is 3,000 sq ft because of the two floors, while house 4 has one floor and 1,600 sq ft.

• House 3 architectural style is “Colonial Revival” with gable roof, double-hung windows, rectangular volumes, metal railing, and front staircase.

• Houses 4 and 9 are “Spanish Colonial Revival” style with low-pitched tile roof, plaster walls, recessed small windows, and formal gardens. ◊ Houses built during the 50’s (# 5, 6 and 11): • 1 or 2 floors, a smaller rear garden, and the garage or storage room.

• Building square footage is larger: around 4,000 sq ft, except for house number 5, which is the smallest with 1,300 sq ft.

• All the three houses are built in the “Craftsman” architectural style: gable roof, plaster or wood walls, double-hung and large windows, simple boxlike shapes (especially houses 6 and 11), informality, and exposed rafters.

• Houses 6 and 11 are quite symmetric, while house 5 is asymmetric.

◊ Houses built during the 70’s (# 1, 7, 8 and 10): • They are much larger houses, seemingly because of the higher needs of housing after the “Baby boom” period in the 50’s. They use the entire parcel and don’t have garden at all.

• Houses 1 and 7 are multiple dwelling buildings, as we already mentioned before.

Their architectural style is “International”, very simple and straightforward: flat roof, smooth plaster walls, closed eaves, cantilevers, walls in plane, machine image, and horizontality. They are robust rectangular and boxlike buildings with a building square footage of around 21,000 sq ft.

• Houses 8 and 10 have similar characteristics and architectural styles but they are around 5,000 sq ft each among the two floors. These houses have the parking entry in the rear, but cars are also parked on the street or in small open spaces on the ground floor. ◊ House built during the 2000’s (# 2): • It simulates the previous two houses. It should be the first house in the street stretch built under a general plan, so it was probably mandatory to follow the architectural styles that could be found in the area, in this case, the “International” style.

• To follow a general plan also means to fulfill the parking requirement. Thus, the parking ground floor is half buried and has the entry at the front side of the parcel. This is also the reason why the main entrance of the house has been moved to the left (and sunniest) side of the house.

GRAPHIC 5 21

3.

Analysis of the main users: Who uses the built environment?

A neighborhood can be several different neighborhoods depending on the eyes of the observer. Perceptions, feelings, and assessments done by the citizens are usually different. The city or the urban space conceived is not the same as the city perceived, and let alone the same as the city lived. A place is not only its physical features, the different buildings and land uses that it agglomerates. This analysis aims to study the “soul” of the built environment, the people using it, and tries to analyze how, who, and when they use it.

Therefore, in a first step, our purpose is to understand what kind of people use our built environment, and to understand how these different groups of people interact with the space they find. We distinguished seven main user groups by the activity they perform in the study area: the shoppers, the hospital users, the suppliers, the residents, the diners, the lodgers, and the homeless people. All of them are also spatially located in different places, which

22

helped us to define and locate them. Each of them use the urban space in a different way, some more extensively than others, some can be observed at every time walking on the street or having lunch at the many terraces populating (or invading) the pedestrian sidewalks, some others can just be inferred or imagined taking into account the built environment they are supposed to use. But all of them live the same physical space in their own different forms, with different perceptions, making the same space many different ones at the same time.

Since the residential areas are so much underused and lack of outdoor human activity (except, of course, of the driving one), we decided to focus on two special user groups and their respective spaces or artifacts housing them, both as a representation of a single entity and under our pedestrian point of view. First, the shopping mall, just the space delimited by its walls, since the surrounding space are highly trafficked streets. In this case, we were interested on the inner sitting and rest spaces, so we have depicted the situation and dynamics of the tables, chairs and people that make use

of the two rest areas located on the 6th floor of the mall. Thus, we were able to understand how two different sitting areas inside of a same building (and floor) are utilized by the users of the building. We concluded that the semifixedfeature elements (mainly chairs) in the Beverly escalators (north) rest area are used and moved with more freedom to fulfill the desires of the users. However, a more restricted space in the La Cienaga escalators rest area results in a more constrained movement of chairs, like it happens at the hospital.

Second, in order to make a comparison, we carried out the same analysis in all of the 5 waiting rooms at the hospital, each one on a different floor. Following Hall text on “The Hidden Dimension” (1969), all of them have exactly the same fixed-feature space (they are located vertically in the same building space but on different floors), but different semifixedfeature space (they have different configurations of chairs, tables, and plants). In this sense, our aim here is double: (1) to understand the different space dynamics and interpretation that different furniture configurations can stamp in

exactly the same room; and (2) to understand how different kind of users (shoppers and hospital users) utilize a sitting space conceived for them, and hence what were the needs the architects took into account when thinking of these different sitting spaces. Unlike with the mall, the hospital is distributed in 5 different blocks (excluding other buildings scattered nearby), so the goal of this second analysis was to compare the users’ space dynamics of two different single entities, the former located in a unique enclosed space and the latter in different buildings. We have come to the conclusion that due to the nature of the different activities, sitting areas in the mall are frequented by much more different and diverse people (in quantity and in quality) than hospital ones.

Lastly, we were also interested in the relation of the inner built space and the external street space, and the interactions in between both. In order to tackle this question, we have undergone three different observations of the men and women using the two tiny and imperceptible pedestrian entrances to the

shopping mall. While doing an observation at one entrance, we were once even asked by a couple where was the main entrance to the mall. Since the first 5 floors are dedicated to parking, there are no windows or big entrances to the shopping mall. Instead, there are two different pedestrian entrances (in Beverly Boulevard and in La Cienaga Boulevard) with 5 escalators to reach the upper entrances to the 6th, 7th, and 8th mall floors. Unlike Lindheim’s hospital example (1985), the fact of the mall with no windows to the outside creates an inner atmosphere where the shopper loses the time consciousness so he/she can shop in the same physical conditions. We concluded that there is one entrance way more preferred than the other one: the eastern entrance attracts 75% of entries and exits of the pedestrian users, while the northern one is much less used. In both of them, the majority of people walked towards the bus stop locations, deducing that pedestrian users reach the mall mainly by bus.

23

PHASE 5: Identification of the user groups It has not been easy to identify the different user groups that utilize the Beverly Center district. After a thorough study of our zone, we have come to the conclusion that a classification of users by ethnicity was not relevant because it won’t say much on the use of the urban space. This is a major node in the City of Los Angeles and therefore, a wide mix of citizens uses it. However, a classification of users by what they do in the area and how they make use of this piece of city has been considered (see Graphic 6). We develop a thorough description of all the groups by preponderance of use. ◊

The shoppers We can distinguish three different types of shoppers, spatially located in four different areas too. Firstly, the high-income shoppers locate at the intersection of Robertson and Beverly Boulevards and along the two blocks south and east of them, respectively. They don’t use to walk down the area, but we have observed they reach it on their (mainly luxurious) cars to the stores they want to visit, and leave in the same way right after the shopping. Actually, some of the stores have a space in their lots reserved to a valet parking service. Some of them, though, have been observed walking from one store to the other carrying bags from these expensive stores, and also wearing expensive clothes. The stores sell very expensive products, especially haute 24

couture and ready-to-wear clothes, luxury goods, and fashion accessories (i.e. Ralph Lauren, Chanel, Tommy Hilfiger, Armani, Reiss, Dolce & Gabbana, etc.). Directly related to this population, we can also find expensive restaurants nearby.

South of Robertson Boulevard we find the medium-to-low-income shoppers also related to the kind of stores we find in the street stretch, which can also be found all along La Cienaga Boulevard. This latter retail space is populated by several department stores (i.e. Macy’s or Loehmann’s) and the openair Beverly Connection discount shopping mall. This mall “offers its customers a truly unique urban shopping experience”, which is interesting considering that it is already placed in an urban environment. It is a real misfortune they have to recreate it in an enclosed space instead of building it in the “real urban way”, as in a city center. Some of these shoppers reach the area by car, since there are a lot of parking spaces surrounding it, especially at the Beverly Connection mall. They use to visit several stores each time, so they make use of the wide sidewalks are built for them. There can be crowded sidewalks during certain hours of the day.

Finally, the Beverly Center shopping mall lodges a mix of the two abovementioned users. The “luxury” stores attract the former, while the anchor stores (i.e. Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, XXI Forever, and H&M) attract the latter. The Beverly Center is an 8-story shopping mall, the first 5 floors of which are dedicated to parking. The 6th floor is dedicated to smaller and general stores, the 7th floor

lodges “luxury” stores, and the 8th floor has the food court and two anchor stores. In this way, the high-income shoppers can observe the lower class shoppers purchasing downstairs.

The former are just “disturbed” around the escalators to the food court. Actually, on the 7th floor, the more luxury stores are located far from the escalator areas. In these places, general stores are located so medium-to-lowincome shoppers can also be attracted by them. ◊

The hospital users The medical center is (world) known by the high quality and competence of its doctors.

Bearing this in mind and after the different observations carried out, it can be inferred that the patients are medium-to-high income.

The first group users in the hospital area are then the patients, who don’t make an extensive use of the external space, except for the space they use at the numerous parking lots. They use though the inner space: the patient rooms, corridors, examination and surgery rooms, etc. We weren’t able to investigate more about the patients since they are not visible in the corridors or waiting rooms open to the public.

Secondly, the visitors were our target in the analysis because they are the main users of the waiting rooms, in the same way as shoppers using the rest areas. They seem to belong to the same medium-to-high income range as the patients. In terms of ethnicity, we have not observed any particular dominance, though we have heard many visitors speaking in Hebrew.

Finally, the medical employees (i.e. doctors and nurses) can be seen all around the

GRAPHIC 6 25

hospital area. They move from one side of the floor to the other, from one floor to another, from one tower to another, from one building to another… They have complete freedom of movement and everyone can observe it. Since the hospital is distributed in different buildings they walk outside of one building to go to another or they use the many walkways linking them from the inside. They dress the typical white coat and usually walk in a hurry or talk to other colleagues, or to the visitors. ◊

The suppliers The shopping areas are usually supplied during the mornings; so many truck suppliers have been observed on Monday morning all around the Beverly Connection mall, on the 4 receiving zones at the Beverly Center mall, and all around the different hospital buildings. They use the space in a very extensive way, since the trucks are usually large. They obstruct the mall and hospital views to the point of even blocking the pedestrian entrances at the Beverly Connection mall.

It also has to be mentioned the fruit stands on the streets. They locate mainly around the hospital, at the intersections of Third Street and George Burms Road, and Robertson Boulevard and Gracie Allen Drive.

They use almost all the sidewalk corner with their carts. The fact that the three of them dress similarly and have the same cart (with the same rainbow sun umbrella) give them homogeneity and a certain status of “official” fruit stands, which gives the customers confidence on their products.

26

◊

The residents The residents’ areas are characterized by being extremely quiet spaces. It doesn’t matter the time you walk down these streets, you will find empty sidewalks and an unexpected silence all the way down. Sometimes you run into some neighbor going for a walk (see Fig.11), sometimes it’s a couple of women conversing, other times it’s an older neighbor coming back from the grocery store walking slowly, and some other times it’s a man taking his dog out. The atmosphere is surprisingly suburban taking into account the actual location of the district. However, as expected, visits during rush hours resulted in a slightly higher traffic charge, especially in Clifton Way (the southern border) and Orlando Avenue (the eastern border).

Special mention must be made to Burton Way which, even if it is mainly a residents’ area it is also a rather trafficked street resulting in a strange mix of cars passing through and residents walking on it. Due to its closeness to the medical center, it has also been observed some patients accompanied by relatives enjoying a walk on the “green street” (apart from the tree and grass-covered median, there is a line of old and big trees all along each sidewalk). As we have already mentioned, the median is also used by residents to walk their dogs. It is somehow funny seeing the owners walking their dogs on a leash on that “urban island” surrounded by non-stopping fearsome automobiles. It must also be mentioned that residents pour out onto the median to cross the street, since there are just three crosswalks (at Robertson Boulevard, Wilaman Drive, and Le

Fig.11 Residents walking down the street

Doux Road, separated 0.20 miles each). They wait right on the curb the cars to be stopped by the red light so they can traverse “safely”.

Therefore, the cars –and the street medianrepresent an actual and perceived barrier.

The same type of barrier is to be found in San Vicente Boulevard before its confluence with La Cienaga Boulevard. From here until the intersection of San Vicente with the southern end of Orlando Avenue (0.30 miles) there are no crosswalks whatsoever. This case is even worse because the median is narrower and there is no sense of “green and safe”. Therefore, residents and hospital users (Mark Goodson Building, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center) must traverse when cars and red lights allow them, or walk 0.15 miles to reach a crosswalk. ◊

Fig.12 The diners at noon

The diners This is an extremely wide user group.

They are from any kind of ethnicity or income level. They concentrate just in two spaces, both in Third Street. Diners eating at the many restaurants in the 5 blocks right in front of the hospital are usually related to it: patients, visitors, medical employees, etc. They are also associated to the many medical-related stores around the hospital like test centers, massage places, optician’s shops, rheumatology centers, etc. Diners eating at the restaurants in the 2 blocks right in front of the two malls (Beverly Center and Beverly Connection) are also related to them so they seem to belong to a wider variety of social classes and ethnicities. We can also find here more fast-food restaurants. Both of them use extensively the public space when

it comes to lunch or dinner, so we can see them waiting, talking or smoking at the restaurant entrances (see Fig.12). Some of the restaurants use also part of the sidewalk (sometimes even 50% of them) to set up their terraces. ◊

The lodgers There are two 5-star hotels in our study area, one next to the north border of the shopping mall and another one three blocks south of it. We haven’t observed much movement of this kind of user groups, but considering the high level of hierarchy the hotels possess we can infer that the lodgers are high-income users which interfere very little on the public space, since they reach the hotel either by their own car or by taxi. They could though be seen on their way to the shopping areas or to the hospital. We have observed though the porters and the valets at the hotel entrances. ◊

Homeless people We have observed just a few homeless people. Some of them were begging or walking around the Beverly Center mall and some others were sleeping or standing at the main intersections: Beverly and San Vicente Boulevards (at Levine Park, next to the hospital and some bus stops), and Burton Way and San Vicente Boulevard (next to the church).

27

PHASE 6: The users “public space”: the shopping malls and the hospital waiting rooms A. Rest areas in the shopping mall This analysis aims to understand how some of the abovementioned user groups interact with the public-private space at their disposal. We have carried out 4 different observations: at 3pm, at 3:30pm, at 7pm, and at 7:30pm. The first and third observations depict the situation at different hours of the day. We didn’t consider to pick morning hours because we detected the mall is quite empty at these hours. The second and fourth observations depict the very changing situation of the rest areas, since shoppers tend to have a short break.

Rest areas are extremely important for shopping malls as they help to make more pleasant the shopping experience.

Usually, malls are big and house many stores, sometimes dispersed in different floors. In this way, shoppers must walk a lot to go around all the stores and they need a more or less pleasant space to have a rest and be able to continue their visit. There are two rest areas in our mall located on the 6th floor, right next to the entrance escalators, a place of confluence of people coming out and getting into the mall.

The reason of this location can be found in the William H. Whyte words in “The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces” (1988): “What attracts people most, it would appear, is other people”.

The first rest area (see Fig.13) is located next to the Beverly escalators (north). It is a very wide space surrounded by important stores 28

as Apple, Ferrari or Macy’s. It is composed by 10 small circular metal tables, each one with 2 simple metal chairs. Next to them there are two “green spots”, each one with two plants and a bin. Due to its ampleness, after the four observations, a high level of movement of the chairs has been observed, but not of the tables (see Graphic 7). Apparently, the existence of more space gives more freedom to the user to move the chairs from one table to another. It also shows that more groups (three or more than three people) use this space to relax.

less used because they are farther to the stores.

The main activities carried out in these tables were checking the phone or calling (for leisure or to work), conversing, and waiting. It has also been observed that whenever people is with other people on the tables they prefer to chat, while whenever they are alone they prefer to be on the phone. Either way, they could also be eating or drinking at the same time, and just waiting some other times. Finally, in terms of gender, 18 men and 12 women used the tables.

Females used them in couples to chat with other females.

The second rest area (see Fig.14) is located next to the La Cienaga escalators (east). The space is composed by 9 tables with 2 chairs each surrounded by 4 elevated tables and chairs. The space is also constricted by three plants and two bins in each corner. This is a narrower area, mainly because the space is shared with a coffee shop. This fact and the squared floor subdivided by black and white strips, both make the level of movement of the chairs much lower than in the first area.

Fig.13 Rest area #1

Regarding the chair usage, there are certain chairs that are way more preferred by users, especially the northern, central, and eastern ones. The former was observed to be used for work reasons, since the people using it wore suit and were either conversing having papers in their hands or talking to the phone.

The central table was also used to work during all the four observations, every time by one different male. The latter ones were used to talk or to wait, since they are closer to the stores.

The southern and western tables were much

Fig.14 Rest area #2

GRAPHIC 7 29

In fact, during the first observation the chairs were moved to their original location at their respective tables, seemingly by the mall or the coffee shop employees. These movements covered less distance than in the first rest area due to space restrictions.

Since they are closer to the stores, the northern tables were used to wait and to talk (in couples). The table closer to the coffee shop was used to wait for the orders, while the central table was used to wait or to work. In this case, as in the first rest area, central tables (or tables close to “shield objects” like plants or bins) are used to develop activities where the person (always a single person) has to be more concentrated on it. This is so because since they are protected by other tables around or plants they feel “safe” from other people’s attention so they can concentrate on their activities. In the same way, the four elevated tables on the southern and western perimeters are mainly used to work: we have observed the same quantity of men and women flicking through some work papers or checking their mails on their phones. Some of them have been also used to chat in couples. In terms of gender, 14 men and 12 women used the tables. Females again used them in couples, but there were also more single women in this case.

B. Hospital waiting rooms Using the same point of view as in the previous analysis, our aim here is to analyze the space dynamics of these sitting places.

Waiting rooms are also extremely important for hospitals, much more than in the mall case.

Unlike the mall rest areas, hospital waiting 30

rooms are usually used longer periods of time, where relatives and friends can wait until they are able to visit the patient. Therefore, we decided to carry out only two observations on weekdays, depicting the fixed and semifixedfeature spaces in each room: Wednesday 30th from 8 to 8:30pm, and Thursday 31st from 2 to 2:30pm. As side information, the general visiting hours are between 10am and 9pm.

Although the hospital’s main building has 8 floors, just 5 of them have waiting rooms, located in the same vertical space, one above the other. These plants are the numbers 3 (maternity), 5 (cardiology), 6 (pulmonary service), 7 (endourology & lithotripsy), and 8 (surgery).

The fixed feature space is exactly the same in all the 5 waiting rooms (see Graphic 8): three walls, the central one with two doors on it, and the two laterals with two corridors in each side; and the fourth wall is entirely windowed, overlooking the hospital center towards the west. The semifixed feature space changes in every floor: the chairs are the same (non-movable) but are disposed in different configurations. Each room is also furnished with an information counter desk, a vending machine, and a television. The fact that on the third floor the windowed wall is furnished with non-fixed chairs make the space more dynamic, since some chairs can be moved close to other fixed chairs forming groups. This is so because maternity is one of the few happy reasons to attend a hospital and it is usually done by big groups of people. Having movable chairs, they can all sit and wait together.

In all of them, the two lateral spaces

are completely furnished by chairs in a “U” configuration, creating a central space which sometimes is filled by a table with magazines on it. In some of these groups there are also tables on the “U” corners to fill the empty spaces left by the chairs. Some other times, these lateral spaces are furnished instead with plants in order to connect the visitor and the place to a natural environment (Lindheim 1985). To reinforce this idea, other plants (between a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5) are distributed in the rooms. The central space is the same for the three upper floors (6, 7 and 8): another “U” chairs’ composition with a table in the middle, overlooking the information counter desk and the two doors. As a personal thought, if the composition would overlook the window the hospital experience would be more “relaxed” for the visitors or patients.

On the third floor, the central space is furnished by 4 groups of 3 chairs each, and each group overlooking a different wall and linked together by a central table, so people cannot interact. On the 5th floor, the central space is furnished by two lines of six chairs, one overlooking the information desk and the other one overlooking the window. We have observed here that, and according to Hall (1969), chairs in line are sociofugal spaces because just 2 men used them (surprisingly to chat). Finally, the windowed wall is the most preferable place to sit, even if the chairs are disposed in line. The simple reason of this fact can be exemplified by three women that arrived to the 8th floor waiting room, one of them saying: “Let’s sit here, by the sun”. The view through the window reinforces this reason.

GRAPHIC 8 31

In general, we can say that the waiting rooms are used in a similar way by men (54) and women (63), even by floors. There is one more male than females in floors 3 and 5 (maternity and cardiology), four more females than males in floors 6 and 7 (pulmonary and endourology services), and three more females than males in floor 8 (surgery). By time, we have come to the conclusion that during the morning people prefer to be on the phone, while during the evening they prefer to chat. In terms of activity, apart from the fact that they are actually waiting, people prefer to spend their time there talking, just waiting without doing anything, and on the phone. On the third floor, half of the people prefer to wait (for the newborn), while on the 6th and 8th floors half of the people prefer to converse. It is interesting to mention that on the 7th floor half of the visitors prefer to read, while on the 8th floor half of them prefer to watch TV. Both floors have surgery rooms, so it seems that visitors prefer to pass this “difficult” time doing activities that evade them from reality.

Fig.15 La Cienaga entrance 32

C. Shopping mall pedestrian entrances The third analysis aims to evaluate the public of each main pedestrian entrance at the Beverly Center shopping mall. Since the beginning we were aware of the vast majority of users reaching the mall by car, either because we knew of the existence of 5 parking floors or because of the high number of cars getting in and coming out at the three parking entrances the mall possess. However, we wanted to focus on the pedestrian perspective, and on the questions of how pedestrians used the two entrances, which one was more used, which one was preferred to get in or to come out, and which one was chosen by men and by women.

In order to do so, we have carried out three different groups of observations at both entrances: from 2 to 3pm, from 4 to 5pm, and from 6 to 7pm. We have counted men and women getting in and coming out in periods of 10 minutes, so each of the three hours entrances were checked twice with the total outcome of six observations. Like in the first analysis, we have dismissed the morning hours because the mall was quite empty at those hours.

We can conclude the following statements (see Graphic 9): • La Cienaga entrance (east; see Fig.15) is preferred in 75% out of the total exits and entries, while Beverly entrance (north) is preferred the rest 25%. This is so because there is much more economic activity surrounding

this area (Beverly Connection mall and other stores and restaurants nearby) and there are more important bus stops: in La Cienaga Boulevard there are buses running from north to south of the City of Los Angeles, from Sunset Blvd at the north to the LAX airport at the south; while in Third Street there are buses running directly to downtown L.A. • According to the total figures, 367 people came out and 286 people got into the mall during the three observations. Taking into account the observation hours (from 2 to 7pm) and the center hours (from 10am to 9pm), we could infer that the people not recorded getting in could have done it at the very end of the day, after doing other shopping outside of the mall elsewhere nearby. Therefore, people could be using the parking mall as a general parking for the neighborhood use.

• When it comes to entrance preference, time is a determinant variable: there seems to be a decrease in exits and entries at the La Cienaga entrance at 4pm, while at the same time there is an increase at the Beverly entrance. At the La Cienaga entrance there are more entries than exits (both from men and women) at 2:30pm and 4:30pm; while it is the opposite at 4pm and 6pm.

• When comparing the gender preference of the entrances, there is no difference whatsoever when choosing one entrance or the other. Men and women use both the same way and in the same proportion.

GRAPHIC 9 33

4.

Perception analysis: How the users perceive the built environment?

A place is not only its physical features, the different buildings and land uses that it agglomerates. A place it is neither just the people using it. When studying an urban space, it must to be added a third perspective: the perception or apparency analysis. A place is shaped by all those visible elements, but also by those small, sometimes even considered “insignificant”, details that make the place a good urban space.

What Lynch calls “imageability analysis” is especially significant in order to “learn to see the hidden forms in (the vast sprawl of) our cities”. In this section, we are going to apply Lynch’s findings to our study area, and we are going to develop two detailed analysis on the housing pattern and the crossing boulevards.

PHASE 7: Lynch Analysis

pedestrians or by drivers (residents or not).

The major paths are hence the large and wide boulevards, namely: La Cienaga, San Vicente, Beverly and Robertson. The first three, with in between 5 and 6 lanes, have much more traffic than the last one, having just 4 lanes. Burton Way, even if it’s represented on the map as a major path, it is so only for drivers. Pedestrians don’t seem to like this street because they find a physical barrier to cross it: the median. The only crosswalks along our stretch are to be found at the intersections with Robertson and San Vicente Boulevards. Other minor paths are Orlando Avenue, which is a north-south alternative to La Cienaga Boulevard; Gracie Allen Drive, which mainly serves internally the hospital; and Third Street, which is a secondary narrow and crowded street. In the latter case, the wider and livable Burton Way or Beverly Boulevard are to be preferred whenever traveling east-west, or vice versa.

According to Lynch, “there seems to be a public image of any given city which is the overlap of many individual images”. The present section and the corresponding Graphic 10 aim both to analyze these city images by pointing out the physical features representing Lynch five elements. ◊

Paths “Paths are the channels along which the observer customarily, occasionally, or potentially moves”. In our case, paths are streets and/or boulevards. We make this distinction because effectively there are differences on the way a street or a boulevard is used either by 34

Fig.16 La Cienaga Blvd as a path

◊

Edges “Edges are the linear elements not used or considered as paths by the observer”. After a thorough study of our zone, we have come to the conclusion that there are no borders in the zone. As already said, the confluence of some “great streets” confers a special character to our study area. However, if we are to extend the area towards any cardinal point, we can easily find the same items and structures as in the borders of the study area. North of Beverly Boulevard, east of Orlando Avenue, and south of Clifton Way we still find high quality single-family housing agglomerations. In the same way, west of Robertson Boulevard multifamily housing can also be found. The special case of the Burton Way’s median cannot be considered as an edge, because it doesn’t “close one region off from another”, but it is instead in the middle of one district. ◊

Districts Even though we have not found any edge, we can consider different districts “the medium-to-large sections of the city … which are recognizable as having some common, identifying character”. In this sense, we consider uniform districts the Robertson shopping street, the La Cienaga retail street, the hospital complex, and the four residential areas (two of each type). Beverly Boulevard is not considered a district in itself because it takes elements from each of the close districts, being a multiface street: shopping stores close to Robertson, medical stores close to the hospital, big retail and lodging uses close to the mall, and more small and/or suburban retail to the east.

GRAPHIC 10 35

Nodes “Nodes are points, the strategic spots in a city into which an observer can enter, and which are the intensive foci to and from which he is traveling”. Both the intersections along San Vicente Boulevard with La Cienaga (see Fig.17) and Burton Way firstly, and Beverly Boulevard secondly, are to be considered main transportation and concentration nodes for both drivers and pedestrians. In the same sense, minor nodes can be found at the intersections of La Cienaga and San Vicente with Burton Way, and La Cienaga with Beverly Boulevard.

Finally, the mall is also considered a major node, since it is a place of concentration, a core of attraction of both shoppers and workers.

PHASE 8: Two detailed perception analysis: the housing and the boulevards

◊

Landmarks Regarding landmarks, these elements are “another type of point-reference”, but external this time. We can find two major landmarks: the mall and the church in the confluence of San Vicente and Burton Way (see Fig.18). Both of them (the outside part) have been observed as a pedestrian meeting place. We have also noticed two minor landmarks which confer identity and structure to the place they are surrounded by: a big tree at the intersection of La Cienaga and San Vicente Boulevards (see Fig.19)and a Moses’ statue located right in the core of the hospital complex. Both of them are used as a reference point and meeting place.

Fig.17 La Cienaga and San Vicente Blvds node

◊

36

Fig.18 Our Lady of Mt Lebanon Church

Fig.19 Tree at La Cienaga and San Vicente Blvds

A. From vertical to horizontal: the American city As a next step in our perception study, two sets of perception ranges attributable to the built form are analyzed. For the first one, we have decided to decrease the scale of analysis to a single building that captured our attention already in the first field visit: Westbury Terrace, the apartment tower next to the church and at the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Burton Way. After visiting the districts many times, we realized that it was the only high-rise residential building among singlefamily or low multiple dwellings. We were thus interested on the comparison of the two most important urban patterns in the history of urban development: the Anglo-Saxon and the Mediterranean urban pattern, that is, the low density and dispersed and the high density a compact urban patterns.

In order to do so, we have constructed and deconstructed our apartment tower in SketchUp (see Graphic 11). First, we have depicted the plan view of the building and erected the 11 floors it has (in green in the graphic). In this week’s field visit we could notice that the building has 11 floors, 10 of them have 8 apartments each and the ground floor has 3 apartments plus the required parking space. Then, we have deconstructed it into the two dwelling forms we have noticed in the district. The medium residential intensity

GRAPHIC 11 37

has been represented by joining together 4 homes. The low residential intensity has been represented by separating each of the 83 homes plus the parking space.

As a result, 3 different kind of land occupation can be characterized: a) The current compact dwelling has a building footprint of 12,800 sq ft, without taking into account the surrounding open space in the parcel.

If we imagine that in each apartment live an average of 2 people, a total of 166 residents could live in this space. b) Under the medium residential intensity, the same 166 residents would need a higher building footprint: 70,400 sq ft, still without taking into account the open space surrounding them.

Homes are regrouped in 4 but they just use the space of the two bottom ones. c) If the apartment tower had been built under the American sprawled way, like the majority of the residential lots in the neighborhood, the 166 residents would have occupied 132,800 sq ft of land. This is the same space required to build 10 apartment towers like ours, which could host 1,660 residents.

B. The Boulevards: from edge to edge Due to the paramount importance of the boulevards, or “great streets” in Allan Jacobs words (1995), in our district, we decided to focus the last perception analysis on them.

In this case, we were intrigued on the way the inner boulevards were seen from the edge of the district. Therefore, we present a set of double pictures showing both one end and the 38

other of the boulevards crossing the district (see Graphic 12). In general, we observe a very different boulevard from one end to the other.

It is quite shocking that being the same street we could assign each picture to a very different street in any city.

• At the north end of La Cienaga Boulevard we observe the Beverly Center in one side and the Beverly Connection at the other side. The scale relationships between both urban spaces are notable: the first building is 8 floors high, it has completely blind walls, and the parking space can be seen on the first 5 floors. On the contrary, the second building is 2 floors high, it has storefronts, and the parking can be seen in the front of them. In addition, the old lamp posts and cables can still be seen at the left side. Right at the other side of the boulevard, the same scale dualism can be noticed: the 8-floors hotel at one side and the auto repair shop at the other. However, it is a greener stretch with a line of trees and palm trees along the sidewalks. This fact, and the bigger separation of the buildings from the sidewalk, makes people to perceive a wider street at this side.

• At the north end of San Vicente Boulevard the same occurs as in the previous case: the height of both the Beverly Center and the hospital and the absence of trees enclose the street, perceived narrower than it is. At the other end, the street is actually wider because it hosts several lanes for each direction and a concrete median. There are though more green in the view, and the intersection with La Cienaga Boulevard makes this corridor view much more open than the other end.

• Robertson Boulevard is a much more homogeneous corridor: well-trimmed trees can be seen along both sidewalks, and low buildings at both sides create a sense of localism, a perception of being in a human scale environment, without the feeling of being “small” and inside of a “great street”.

Even though, the traffic charge is as high as in the two previous cases.

• The Beverly Boulevard, one of the most important east-west roadways in our district, presents a radical difference from one side to the other. At the west side, the perception is the one of being in a high quality street with a wide street, trees and palm trees at both sidewalks, and stores selling very expensive products. In the background, a classy glazed building (the hospital) can be seen, reflecting the bright sun and the blue sky.

At the east side, the view belongs to that of a more suburban environment with low height stores, selling much cheaper products, and too many billboards and parked cars along the street. In the background, the walled shopping mall bulk can be seen, giving the impression of a shadowy and dead-end boulevard.

• Third Street, even if it has not the “title” of boulevard, we have decided to use it for our analysis because it is in fact an important street where the traffic charge (both for cars and pedestrians) is high. At first sight, the lamp posts and cables everywhere transmit the image of a depressed street. The gas station at the left side and the many different billboards move us to a suburban environment. At the other side, the perception is similar though the higher buildings better the visual street image.

GRAPHIC 12 39

5.

In search of solutions: How an urban space can become attractive to pedestrians?

The Beverly Center district is part of the Beverly Grove neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles, and a tiny piece of the much broader Wilshire Community Plan. North and south boundaries (Beverly Boulevard and Clifton Way) are also the borders between the City of Los Angeles and West Hollywood in the north and Beverly Hills in the south.

This “peripheral” location could be one of the reasons why this district is not part of any Specific Plans or any other kind of plans (i.e. Historic Preservation, Pedestrian/ Neighborhood Oriented Districts, Streetscape, Business Improvement Districts, etc.).

The Wilshire Community Plan opens up the possibility of creating Transit-Oriented Districts, (TODs), Community Design Overlay Districts (CDOs), or Pedestrian-Oriented Districts (PODs). However, none of them are being developed in our district. It is quite surprising that being designated as a Regional Commercial Center within the Community Plan there are no plans to improve functioning or redevelopment whatsoever. As we know, the “Beverly Center-Cedars Sinai Regional Commercial Center” is a commercial area with major activity centers (two big shopping malls and a private hospital) that are in need of a specific attention.

The only direct mentions of our area are two. Firstly, for establishing “primary entry and individual commercial area identity improvements […] on San Vicente Boulevard and 40

Burton Way at the southern entry, and at Beverly Boulevard at the northern entry”. This “entryway improvement” tackles definitively the problem that we have been arising along our report: the ambiguity and confusion that the La CienagaSan Vicente-Burton Way intersection presents.

Although the Community Plan was adopted jointly when the General Plan did in 2001, this problem has not been solved yet, and we have to admit that it is a difficult one.

The second time our district is mentioned on the plan is for “develop(ing) additional public transit services which improve mobility with efficient, reliable, safe, convenient alternatives to automobile travel”. As we also mentioned several times, car traffic is very high in our area because of the existence of important boulevards, but especially at the abovementioned triple intersection. Providing “feeder services for public transit among residential areas along collector streets and local streets; and providing convenient access to bus services” would certainly improve traffic and mobility in our district. It would also help to develop a sense of community that the area desperately lacks.

As the photographer Robbert Flick mentions in “Representing Los Angeles” (1996), when we started to work on our study area, we thought it to be one without history and without a sense of community. Along the work done in the report we have discovered that the first assumption was not true at all.

The Beverly Center district has a history, and it is rich in different aspects. However, we still don’t see the sense of community that other neighborhoods in Los Angeles could have. We

could guess that much of the blame for this is due to the traffic charge it has, that in part is due to the major boulevards crossing and dividing it up, and the major regional activity centers that can be found in it, which serve not only “local” residents but people from all around the city-region of Los Angeles.

In this sense, the fact of not having a specific plan and being on the far edge of two cities implies that the neighborhood lacks of homogeneity and special character. Usually, the open and public spaces express the meaning of the surrounding community. What we have come to call “life inside buildings” in the introduction encloses what the individual is, what he/she represents, and his/her preferences. It is a personal decision to choose whether to set up carpet or parquet in your property and no one would stop you.

However, the public space is an “agreed space”, it is the space of everyone, conceived, perceived, and lived by the whole community, and as so, it shows the character of the people populating it. In our case, being a neighborhood with so much “foreign” influence and with so many open wounds in the form of boulevards the local character get wasted and diluted all over the city. Our users don’t feel to belong to the neighborhood. If ever asked they would just say they are from the Westside, Beverly Hills, or even West Hollywood. We have detected a lack of social cohesion, a lack of commitment with the neighborhood, and detachment to the territory.

In this last section, we are going to develop on the different issues and historically problems we have detected in our different

field trips and researches, and we are going to propose some possible solutions that could be implemented if there were a Specific Plan or design guidelines in place.

PHASE 9: Issues and Opportunities in the Beverly Center district

Fig.20 Pedestrians crossing the Burton Way barrier

Fig.21 Point of confusion: San Vicente/La Cienaga

The lack of urban design in our district leads to serious structural problems that are difficult to solve over time. As a starting point, Kevin Lynch’s findings have been applied in our study area, allowing us to point out five different perception or image problems (see Graphic 10): • Isolation: the public streets serving the hospital complex are object of isolation, since they are mainly used by hospital users and not so much by the general citizens. The crossroad in Gracie Allen Drive and George Burms road is also used by many ambulances which interfere in the normal functioning of a public street.

• Barrier: the median in Burton Way is considered a physical, though not mental, barrier. People perceive the homogeneity of the district, but cannot move freely from one side to the other. Moreover, the median is reached without a crosswalk by the neighbors to walk their dogs (see Fig.20).

• Ambiguous Branch: the double junction to go to either San Vicente or to Burton Way (driving from the south) is an ambiguous branch because of the lack of visibility created by the triangular block in between La Cienaga and San Vicente.

• Point of Confusion: the triple

intersection La Cienaga-San Vicente-Burton Way (see Fig.21) is an extremely ambiguous urban node which creates confusion (for both drivers and pedestrians) because of the lack of sign posts or their wrong use, as well as the difficulty to find the crosswalks to go from one side to another of the intersection.

• Topless Tower: we have decided to call this way the entire Beverly Center mall. The lack of windows and the endless “blind wall” closing this private space makes the bulk a real tower without a top once you are either on the main entrances or even at the front sidewalk.

All these problems lead to a poor perception and general understanding of the whole area by residents and people from outside it. Hunter (2010) points out that “good architectural wayfinding design is important to universal design because it facilitates user access, increases satisfaction, and reduces stigma and isolation of users with disabilities.

It reduces the confusion of visitors and mistakes by employees, saving time and money and preventing accidents. It also reduces stress, boosting health, and productivity”.

Following Hunter’s analysis, the main obstacles to a good wayfinding in our area are (1) the spatial layout, which brings ambiguity to the area’s automobile traffic; (2) poor identification of building entrances, in both the shopping malls and the hospital, which entails a pedestrian confusion of where to walk to enter the buildings in order to make use of the space; and (3) repetitive architectural features, which leads to a poor wayfinding performance since all the streets seem to be the same.

41

Consequently, public spaces and the built form should be important and taken into account when planning or studying any urban space.

For this section, we are going to turn to the Wilshire Community Plan, where the residents, property owners, and business owners have identified planning and land use issues and opportunities that we are going to debate (see Graphic 13). Although the plan does not mention directly our study area, the urban problems that an area may have are perfectly transferable to any other area within the same community plan or city.

Fig.22 The site of the future Burton Promenade 42

Within the residential realm: • Need to maintain low density character of single family neighborhoods, avoiding encroachment from other uses, commercial off-street parking, and “spillover” traffic from adjacent development.

Indeed, neighbors recently complained on a 7-story mixed-use building that was planning to be developed right at the northeastern side of Beverly Center in La Cienaga Boulevard.

The project had to be reduced to 5-story building and will be recessed towards the rear to fit with the lower-level homes and apartment buildings on Alfred Street, which runs parallel to La Cienega Boulevard behind the proposed project. The situation was different in the new 6-story mixed-use building north of the SLS Hotel. In this case, the building is isolated by different streets from all of its sides so there was no problem with the nearby residents.

• Improved land use transitions in scale, density and character are needed between multiple family and adjacent single family neighborhoods, and between commercial and residential uses. This is exactly what it happens around Burton Way, as we have explained before. In fact, zoning is well implemented in our district, where the residential areas are separated from the commercial ones. In addition, the highest density of commercial use is to be found in the center (Beverly Center), decreasing then as we move from it.

• Increased off-street parking areas and facilities, open space, and recreational facilities are needed, particularly in multiple family residential areas. This objective has not been achieved whatsoever. The area outrageously lacks of

green and open space. In this way, we propose the reconversion of the wide Burton Way into a green boulevard by closing and retrofitting one of the ways into a longitudinal park (see Graphic 14). This long promenade would serve the local population as well as the hospital users and shoppers to enjoy of a beautiful and green walk. The loss of driving lanes could be reallocated to the other lanes, which would be reconverted into a two-way lane and by diversifying some traffic towards San Vicente and La Cienaga Boulevards. In addition, due to their recent success in the City of Los Angeles, a “pocket park” can also be developed in the only vacant space we find in the area, at the intersection of Burton Way and Robertson Boulevard. In this way, the longitudinal promenade would fall into this pocket park of 11,000 sq. ft. that will include a playground for the children living in the area, picnic facilities, and native plants. The total promenade surface adds up 212,000 sq. ft., more than enough to meet the neighborhood needs. The park would be divided in two separated parts since we consider that the Wilaman Drive north-south link is important for the circulation network.

However, pedestrians would always have preference in the crosswalk. Finally, it must to be mentioned that we have decided to create the park in the northern lanes, instead on the southern, because those are the sunniest ones.

• Potential for additional mixed-use commercial and residential boulevards, along Beverly, Olympic, Pico, Robertson, and La Cienega Boulevards, and along Third Street, Fairfax, Vermont and Western Avenues. This idea largely contradicts the opinion of neighbors next to

GRAPHIC 13 43

La Cienaga 5-story project. In the Graphic 12, we have designated the surroundings of La Cienaga Boulevard and the southern part of San Vicente Boulevard as a mixed-use potential development. Neighbors and zoning laws protect residential areas against high density developments, but we consider that La Cienaga Boulevard must be able to articulate a high density and mixed-use axis, becoming an attractive and livable urban “great street” like in downtown New York or Chicago, for instance.

In this way, this axis could become the focal point of attraction in the neighborhood. There exists already some high buildings and a strong urban potential: two hotels, the Beverly Center and Beverly Connection shopping malls, the two mixed-use buildings (one still in project), and many other small stores. We consider that the boulevard could concentrate several mixed-use projects that could bring residents, pedestrians, diversity, potential shoppers, new businesses, etc.

Within the commercial realm:

Fig.23 Third Street, clarity vs. chaos 44

• The most repeated circulation conflicts have to do with car preference over pedestrians.

According to the “Walkability Checklist” adopted by the City of Los Angeles in 2007, white markings, signage, and lighting must be revised in the area so that the pedestrian could be seen at every moment. In the same way, crosswalks should also be reconstructed in certain cases to accommodate accessibility measures.

As Graphic 13 shows, there are a myriad of places where automobiles have preference

over pedestrians. Especially remarkable are the north-south and east-west crossings of Burton Way and San Vicente Boulevard, respectively.

As we already mentioned, the existence of the median prevent pedestrians to cross from one side to the other, creating a barrier, stronger in San Vicente because the median is elevated and made of concrete. In the first case, the proposed solution is the creation of the Burton Promenade and the establishment of several crosswalks over the new double-way Burton Way. In the second case, due to its more narrowness, the solution is the dismantling of the elevated median and the creation of several crosswalks to allow pedestrian cross the boulevard. In the cases surrounding both shopping malls, the preference over pedestrians is given to the numerous truck suppliers having to cut the sidewalk traffic because the receiving zones are right in the main facades, not in the rear. The same location is given to the parking entrances. There is no other envisioned solution to this problem but the reconfiguration of parking entrances. This is a problem architects didn’t think about when designing the “wonderful” buildings.

• Out-of-scale, cluttered signs including billboards, very large murals, wall signs, and flashing signs have proliferated. Signage is perceived by residents as visually blighting.

This is an important issue in our study area.

In special, Third Street should undergo a deep grid planning, since all the cables convey an extremely negative image (see Fig.23). In addition, the future mixed-use project next to Beverly Center will also replace the 47-feet tall billboard in that intersection.

GRAPHIC 14 45

Fig.24 Who walks on the sidewalk?

Fig.25 Hollywood sign from the Beverly Center 46

• Adequate street furniture, lighting, and street trees, as well as extensive repairs to City sidewalks, parking strips, curbs and gutters, and driveways, are needed to promote a more pedestrian friendly environment. This issue is completely abandoned in our study area, in part because of the absence of specific and detailed design guidelines. In fact, the community plan itself states that “urban design policies and standards are needed to visually improve” the neighborhoods. Aesthetic improvements are an objective especially within the commercial area.

Sidewalks appear to the user’s eye without a character whatsoever. The pedestrian right-ofway is just composed of the straight concretemade ground and limited by the building wall in one side and the curb in the other side. The image in some sidewalks is distressing, not inviting at all to walk through (see Fig.24). It is thus understandable that even if the route is short, people drive to their destination. To promote walkability is to make desirable and inviting the route to destination, it is to make people stop by an interesting new store on the way, to suddenly stop to watch a dress or a mobile phone displayed on the store window, or even to wait the dog does his business in the small nearby park provided to him. Therefore, recalling the “Walkability Checklist”, we propose small changes in characterless sidewalks: newspaper racks, pedestrian information kiosks, bicycle racks, shadeproducing street trees, parkways with ground cover, etc. This is to be taken into account especially in the commercial realm, along Third Street and the eastern part of Beverly Boulevard. The same discourse should be taken

into account along the potential commercial axis in Robertson Boulevard.

As an example, Graphic 15 shows an intervention done in one side of Beverly Center.

Firstly, we put the facade in value: considering that the parking requirement cannot be avoid, parking is maintained in the first floors of the mall but facades are covered in glass, serving as a store window. As can be seen, perception from the outside is way more inviting after the intervention. In addition, the whole ground floor is also put in value getting rid of the parking and reconverting it for commercial uses (i.e. restaurants, cafeterias, stores, etc.).

Receiving zones, of course, are all relocated to the rear part of the mall: San Vicente Boulevard.

The wide and empty sidewalk is now furnished with green and robust trees, flower pots and other plants wherever is possible, benches, sun umbrellas, terraces, etc. In addition, the last floor of the 8-story building is reconverted in its northeastern part into a luxury restaurant with views over the Hollywood Sign and hills (see Fig.25). In the same way, a part of the roof top is opened to the general public as a tourist attraction: a spectacular viewpoint over the City of Los Angeles.

GRAPHIC 15 47

48

4. CONCLUSIONS

49

The lack and/or loss of public space in American culture may be a remarkable fact showing population decision to remain closed to themselves. This could be a solid decision made from thousands of years of history where everything this nation possesses has been achieved by their own means and they don’t want to lose. It is a verifiable and visible truth that American cities do not have open spaces every now and then. Small squares, nooks, alleys, plazas, neighborhood street markets, are the small details that make a city attractive.

People are in need of a natural environment around them to socialize with other people and to build their personal viewpoints. Private environments prevent the development of a public sense of community, a very strong and paramount value that American society is in lack. It is not the same to walk to work through streets full of stores, people walking and shopping, trees and flowers along the sidewalk, human-scale street lights, benches or terraces to have a sit, crosswalks every now and then, low-to-medium height buildings with large windows and balconies, etc.

The set of analysis developed here aim to follow Lynch definition of how a same place can be defined in a very diverse way by different individuals. Usually, when dealing with physical planning, the first contact with the territory is its image: the classic case of a social questionable reputation neighborhood hosting instead a very livable and economically thriving urban space. Lynch aimed to “consider the visual quality of the American city by studying the mental image of that city which 50

is held by its citizens”. In order to do so, he concentrates on 5 visual qualities that have been present throughout this entire report.

Lynch uses the term “legibility” to define “the ease with which its parts can be recognized and can be organized into a coherent pattern”.

When walking down our streets, one can easily find legible the residential spaces; they are well recognized as a place with detached houses and front and rear yards, and quiet and safe streets.

Whenever we approach a “great street” or boulevard, the individual can start feeling the urban change: higher buildings, more noise, crowed urban spaces (cars and people), more activity, etc. Within the hospital complex, people recognize without a problem a quieter place, with patients, doctors and nurses getting in and coming out of the medical buildings. In the same way, shoppers and workers recognize the mall and its shopping surroundings. There are though more legibility problems when it comes of a big intersection like La Cienaga-San Vicente-Burton Way. Since it is a huge meeting place, there is a mix of elements belonging to the different surroundings, and make both drivers and pedestrians, without any kind of distinction, become lost when entering this urban space.

The disadvantage of our study area is actually this one. Since we have a zone characterized by being a “border” of different urban spaces, the element of “identity” is difficult to point out. However, such a border character, at the same time, makes the area identifiable. People recognize the study area

as being a big transportation node, either for cars, buses, or pedestrians. The Beverly Center district is also identified as a shopping and a health care center, and therefore as a point of attraction and travel generator. The three things (the mall, the hospital, and the transportation node) are interrelated and can coexist, creating a neighborhood full of “meaning”. At the same time, the main arteries crossing the study area give a very clear “structure” to the zone: shopping and retail at the west, north and center spaces, medical on the northwest side, and all that surrounded on the east and south sides by housing. Nothing is mixed, nothing interferes with other things, and all is well structured in smaller zoning districts.

The Beverly Center area has always been a remarkable urban space inside of the City of Los Angeles. It is in fact a place that has been accumulating new artifacts over time, the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the Beverly Center shopping mall, the big and small shops and stores surrounding them, the two modern and 5-star hotels, or the Pacific Theater at the intersection of Beverly and Robertson Boulevards. The physical division that all the boulevards create on the neighborhood help positively to give and transmit a sense of structure, identity and meaning to each of its different districts. Moreover, the anchor and unifying feature of these “differences” is symbolized by the Beverly Center.

Lynch finally introduces a new term: “imageability”, making reference to “that quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer”. In our case, the feature giving that imageability to our study area, and also the name, is the Beverly Center shopping mall, a “warship” building surrounded by three boulevards with many road lanes, car and pedestrian traffic: La Cienaga, San Vicente and Beverly Boulevards. From whichever close point (sometimes even farther) in those three roadways can the building be seen, creating the image of approaching “that” point in the city surrounded by a very well-known hospital and some well-frequented shopping streets.

Effectively, in Lynch words, the Beverly Center is “that shape … which facilitates the making of vividly identified, powerfully structured, highly useful mental images of the environment”.

In conclusion, this approach to the study area has resulted exceptionally revealing.

Physical planning projects, once solely related to the physical and “touchable” character of the study area, are now overlooking a new perspective that complements that one.

Perception perspective, often not taken into account, reveals to be important in this kind of analysis. Firstly, perceived land uses and temporal analysis helped us to notice that current reality was not the same some decades or even years ago, as well as to recognize that official documents (i.e. community plan) become obsolete from the first day are published. Lastly, user groups and Lynch perception analysis represent a new approach and attitude towards user needs and behavioral design; because every single foot of space is different to the rest and depending on the people using it should be designed and built with a different perspective.

51

52

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

53

Dear et al. (1996): “Representing Los Angeles�. In: Rethinking Los Angeles, SAGE, 278 pages.

Hall, Edward T. (1969): The Hidden Dimension. Garden City Doubleday. Pp. 101-129.

Hunter, S. (2010): Architectural Wayfinding. DESIGN RESOURCES. Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, University at Buffalo.

Jacobs, A. B. (1995): Great Streets. The MIT Press, 344 pages.

Lindheim, R. (1985): New Design Parameters for Healthy Places. Places, Vol. 2(4), pp. 17-27.

Lynch, K. (1960): The Image of The City. MIT Press, 194 pages.

Whyte, William H. (1988): The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces - The Street Corner on Vimeo. Accessible on http://vimeo.com/6821934 (1/29/2013).

Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design (LAFAUD) (1990): Proposals 33 D6 E6: Rethinking the Beverly Center. Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design, 59 pages.

Department of City Planning L.A. (2007): Walkability Checklist. Guidance for Entitlement Review. City of Los Angeles.

54

55

Vicente Romero UP 274 Winter 2013