German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseThe case for a Wilshire/Crenshaw station
All photos are by Yours Truly. They can be seen on the MetroRiderLA Flickr pool.
The Harbor Building is one of the landmarks that can be seen from a future subway station at Wilshire and Crenshaw boulevards.
Metro, understandably, is seeing more and more support for a Wilshire Boulevard subway throughout the line between its current terminus in Koreatown to the Westside — as well as a swell of unexpected support for an extension in West Hollywood.
During the last series of scoping meetings, Metro representatives said the board will likely vote on a preliminary line by Fall 2010. This gives the neighborhoods a year to formalize where they want stations and what construction methods should be used to complete the project.
One of the stations along the line is still kept as optional: Wilshire Boulevard and Crenshaw Boulevard. At first appearance, it might seem understandable why this intersection may be poorly suited for a subway station. The first is a sentiment of fierce opposition from the three neighborhoods that the station would serve: Park Mile, Windsor Square and Windsor Village. Second is what is seemingly poor prospects for ridership: a T-intersection where Crenshaw ends, “very low” density, zero retail activity and very limited commercial zoning. Third is zero potential for development of any kind, as the neighborhoods are protected by historic protection overlay zones and specific plans that mandate free parking.
They are challenges, but certainly not insurmountable. In the broad view, though, a station at Crenshaw Boulevard will play a vital role when the Purple Line is fully built. Conversely, the absence of a Crenshaw station will be noticeable, frustrating, and will close the window on a chance for the neighborhood to become a part of the subway. The neighborhood can rise up now and force Metro to remove the subway station, but there’s the very real possibility that in a few years, current residents will reverse themselves or the neighborhood profile changes and residents would be more favorable to a subway station. It happened before … namely along everywhere else on Wilshire.
I think that a Wilshire/Crenshaw station would be appropriate, it would stimulate a respectable level of ridership, and still be respectful of the historic character of the neighborhood.
More than meets the eye
Los Altos Apartments had seen its share of luxury in the early 20th century but went to seed during the last half. Now it is back again to recapture its splendor. The photo on the right is the courtyard seen from Wilshire Boulevard.
The neighborhoods around Wilshire/Crenshaw are multilayered — in more ways than one. The historic preservation zones attempts to impose a density limit and preserve the oldest and more palatial properties. However, the neighborhoods are hardly by the book. Mid-century development allowed a significant amount of density to trickle in. Some of the larger homes were divided up into duplexes, triplexes and quadriplexes, and a lot of homes during that time were knocked down for smaller apartment buildings and condos of 5-15 units. These are all mixed in the residential areas south of Wilshire.
Crenshaw Boulevard is an exception. Crenshaw is virtually all multiunit apartment buildings and condos of 2-4 stories between Wilshire and Olympic boulevards. It also has the connecting bus service of lines 210 and 710, which both connect with the subway in Hollywood or Koreatown, respectively.
As for the rest of the neighborhood, take a virtual walking tour of the neighborhoods surrounding the future station via Google Maps. Oddly enough, Crenshaw Boulevard is the only street the Google car has not motion-captured, but the apartments can be seen from the bird’s-eye view. But move the little man around and you’ll see splendid old homes, multiunits from converted homes and apartment buildings often all neighbors.
Does the neighborhood seem like it’s not dense enough to support heavy rail? Admittedly, this would apply for Windsor Square northwest of Wilshire. Yet most of the ridership is bound to come from south of Wilshire, with a chance of ridership coming from a dense pocket near the northeast as well. The likely ridership would come from an area bounded by Wilton Place to the east and Lucerne Boulevard and Rossmore Avenue to the west. There’s a gated community, Fremont Place, just west of Lucerne.
Perino’s had once been one of L.A.’s most exclusive restaurants, but when it closed, the land sat empty for nearly 20 years until it had been redeveloped into these apartments. The front entrance on Norton incorporates the logo and the awning that used to be on the old restaurant. This apartment tests the restrictions of the Park Mile Specific Plan.
So what do the numbers say? Let’s consult the data from the Census Bureau. The maps use data that will be outdated by next year, but surely the 2010 Census will reveal that the neighborhood has become more populated. The snapshot is the census tracts near Wilshire and Crenshaw, with Wilton Place as the eastern boundary and Olympic Boulevard as the southern boundary. Wilton Place is about equidistant from Crenshaw and Western Avenue, and implicitly, residents east of Wilton are more likely to use the existing Wilshire/Western station.
These condo developments also sprang up in the past few years. The left photo shows the complexes extending on Norton Avenue from Wilshire Boulevard to Ingraham Street. These are across from a new elementary school. These had been built upon what was formerly the midrise building of MetLife. The right view shows the condos as seen on Wilshire at Bronson Avenue. This part of the building had replaced a dance and acting studio.
The Census maps allow for inspection by census tract, block group and block. The Wilshire/Crenshaw station encompasses three zip codes: 90005, 90010 and 90020. The table below provides links to each data set.
| Census tract | 90005 | 90010 | 90020 |
| Block group | 90005 | 90010 | 90020 |
| Block | 90005 | 90010 | 90020 |
When you examine census tract data and tabulate those to a map, you’ll see mostly pale squares under the default census tract category. There isn’t a single rectangle of the two darkest green shades. However, the key shows a tremendous variation of persons per square mile for each shade. The lowest density shade represents density of 4,233 to 12,342 persons per square mile. And the neighborhoods within a half-mile of Wilshire and Crenshaw tend to the higher end of that range. It rises somewhat east of Bronson, where the yellow boxes have 23,576 to 30,029 persons per square mile. And that divot of green south of 8th Street? That’s 35,000 and up.
The block group and block data reveal where the dense pockets of the area are, in finer detail.
So even if a subway station is put in a neighborhood frozen in time with no prospects of up-zoning, the community has the density to support a station with moderate passenger activity. Other census data indicate other factors that reveal a high degree of transit use in the neighborhood as of 2000, far stronger than the city and county as a whole. (Note: Data from 2005-2007 are available for the city and county, but not for the zip codes. Even with the newer figures, they don’t alter the outcomes of the community statistics.)
| Factors, in percentages | 90005 | 90010 | 90020 | L.A. City | L.A. County |
| Transit as a share of work trips | 34.2 | 11.4 | 21.0 | 10.2 | 6.6 |
| Walking as a share of work trips | 4.9 | 5.6 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 2.9 |
| Renter occupied units | 92.9 | 75.1 | 91.3 | 61.4 | 52.1 |
| Individuals below poverty level | 34.6 | 16.4 | 28.5 | 22.1 | 17.9 |
| Households with access to 0 or 1 vehicles | 79 | 64.9 | 76.1 | 56.8 | 49.6 |
The neighborhoods have access to a few very frequent bus lines with Rapid and/or limited-stop service on all but one line. Here is the number of buses in each direction per hour for midday service (numbers have been rounded up to the next integer):
| Weekdays | Saturdays | Sundays | |
| 16/316 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| 20, 720 | up to 21 | up to 15 | up to 14 |
| 28, 728 | 8 | 7 | 6 |
| 209 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 210, 710 | 7 | 7 | 5 |
The mansion dwellers northwest of Wilshire/Crenshaw may not have much use for a subway, but the supply of rentals and condos south of Wilshire are attractive neighborhoods for professional downtown or Westside workers who would want someplace quiet and architecturally stunning to live in and take the train to the job while using the car on weekends.
It’s bound to be a large market, and one that the subway can fulfill without having to turn every square inch of Windsor Village into condos. And these statistics are from what the area around the station looked like close to 10 years ago!
What Metro and the residents near the proposed station should expect, and plan for, is something similar to a suburban BART station sans parking. BART is legendary for inspiring anti-development movements in the Bay Area, as residents militate against moving density anywhere from existing levels. The rallying cry is almost always to prevent the San Francisco-bound train to prevent turning San Mateo or Contra Costa County into another San Francisco.
That’s fine, but the more residents fight density, the more housing prices rise. As prices rise — particularly among the rentals and condos — the more people will need to take on roommates or house guests to pay the lease or mortgage. So density finds a way to creep in. This is what is likely happening now in the neighborhood, explaining the census numbers.
So what else is there?
Three office buildings within a block of the subway portal:
4311 Wilshire Boulevard, between Windsor Street and Plymouth Boulevard
4221 Wilshire Boulevard, between Lorraine Boulevard and Windsor Street
Wilshire Boulevard between Crenshaw Boulevard and Bronson Avenue
Wilshire/Crenshaw will pose a challenge as its ridership base would be from riders of the three connecting buses and nearby residents within walking distance — presumably mostly from south of Wilshire. Metro will also have nothing better than a station mouth, as the specific plan for the station neighborhood is geared to getting nothing built. Is this station in the middle of nowhere? No.
The Wilshire linear office corridor continues in Park Mile. These are some of the office buildings within a quarter mile walk of Wilshire and Crenshaw. The noticeable difference here is the deadness of activity. Unlike complexes in the adjacent Wilshire Center and Miracle Mile, there is zero ground floor retail activity. The only retail businesses between Wilton Place and Highland Avenue are a Chase bank branch at Plymouth Boulevard and across the street, the Dunes Motor Lodge.
These low-and-mid-rise complexes are a blessing in disguise. While city codes mandate free parking and place strict caps on density here, these buildings are easily adaptable to pedestrianism. Wilshire Boulevard had always been planned as a monument to the car, yet fortuitously the architectural design still insisted that buildings touch the street and that parking must be hidden underground or in the back. While Wilshire Boulevard may be dead, at least there is no moat of parking separating the entrances from the sidewalk.
The Park Mile land use plan has helped paint this stretch of Wilshire Boulevard into a corner. At first glance, the specific plan is inherently anti-transit. However, time and traffic have chipped away at Park Mile becoming an attractive auto commuting destination. Wilshire Boulevard is far from any freeways, and any access to them is limited and severely congested. Interstate 10 is two miles away, and US 101 is three miles away. When a worker arrives or leaves during rush hour, those 2-3 miles can feel like another work shift.
Then, of course, there’s the third rush hour. Since there are no pedestrians in Park Mile, there are no retail businesses. What do the workers in this area do? They drive to lunch in Wilshire Center or the Miracle Mile, where there are plenty of places to eat.
It’s really sad to go on about the troubles plaguing this stretch of Wilshire. Yet this is not a result of bad planning. Former planner and land use blogger Mitch Glaser liked to say that this failure was a result of following regulations to the letter; in other words, good planning caused this mess.
The more this stretch of Wilshire shows its myriad flaws, the more it seems a Crenshaw station would be a bad idea. Look, this piece is already 1,500 words long and the high concept is right in the title. The commercial corridor solidifies the case for the station, because a subway would set right all the problems caused by “good planning.”
For one, the subway parallels the 10 and 101, the two closest freeways that workers would drive. This would at least give these workers an alternative to the car, or a less stressful drive at the least. It also solves the third rush hour problem. Workers could take the Purple Line to Wilshire Center or the Miracle Mile for their lunch breaks.
Good for the mind and soul
Wilshire Park Elementary at the southeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Norton Avenue had replaced a mid-rise tower that was used and later abandoned by MetLife. Next to it is a 4-story office building. At the end of the block at Wilton Place is a Social Security office.
Besides the “hostile” residences and funereal Wilshire Boulevard office buildings that would make a Wilshire/Crenshaw station more of a benefit than a burden, what else can help boost ridership? Try schools and churches.
There are two elementary schools within walking distance: Wilshire Park, just a block away from a subway portal; and Wilton Place, about five blocks from the station. There are also faith-based schools tied to the major churches in the area.
One, of course, has been the site of most of the subway scoping meetings: Wilshire United Methodist Church. There are also two Catholic churches within a half-mile walk: St. Gregory Nazianzen, at Norton Avenue and 9th Street; and St. Brendan, at Wilton Place and 3rd Street.
These churches wouldn’t just provide a slight ridership bump during Sunday services; these establishments also provide schools, child care and host social and community functions on the other six days as well. These churches even have served as polling places, which despite the implications of crossing church and state is quite routine for the Wilshire neighborhoods.
One more institution of note is the Ebell of Los Angeles, which would be three blocks away on Lucerne Boulevard. This long-standing women’s organization hosts events and runs a performing arts theater.
Where to put it
Three leading candidates in a beauty pageant of ugliness:
Site 1: Wilshire Boulevard and Crenshaw Boulevard, southwest corner, stretching from Crenshaw to Lorraine Boulevard
Site 2: Another Wilshire/Crenshaw parking lot, a smaller parcel on the southeast corner
Site 3: An empty lot northeast of Crenshaw on Wilshire Boulevard between Irving Drive and Bronson Avenue
The Wilshire subway has been a project decades in the making. Metro’s predecessor, the Southern California Rapid Transit District, had already begun acquiring properties around Wilshire and Crenshaw in the 1970s. And it looks now just as it had then. Dead then, dead now.
At least, though, land has been banked for a subway station. There are three sites at the corner that allow for a quick and easy subway portal. That is also all that would be needed. That’s certainly all that would be allowed, if the community doesn’t use legal or extra-legal methods to kill a station.
None of these stations, though, would be suitable for a park & ride or an off-street bus layover zone. The NIMBYism speaks for itself, but aside from that, there are practical problems to each of these locations. The traffic flow is lousy in the area, even for the big lot. Buses certainly cannot navigate in and out of an off-street lot, and Wilshire/Western is a much stronger anchor terminal. Granted that any change in land use will require a flood of parking, all Metro would give this neighborhood is a subway portal and empty concrete. If space must be wasted, the two smaller parcels would be less wasteful.
Next stop, Wilshire/Crenshaw station
In this recession, few people are willing to spend it — so don’t fret much.
I hope that this post opens a few eyes and minds. I am certainly mindful of the pitfalls of a Crenshaw station. So is Metro. There’s no indication that the community has warmed up to a subway station in their neighborhood, although this time they aren’t united in opposing a subway per se. We also have to go in knowing that there is no way the subway will turn Park Mile or the Windsors into another Hollywood & Highland.
Remember that the neighborhood wanted Wilshire to look the way it does. We cannot shame them into having Wilshire Center and Miracle Mile meet halfway. The best we can hope for is to get the portal at Crenshaw and leave the rest up to chance.
Yet in another way, it’s the kind of neighborhood many Angelenos and especially transit riders would appreciate. It has a non-urban urbanism. It’s dense living that doesn’t feel dense. It’s rich in history and one of the most pleasant places to take a stroll. It certainly has a beautiful collection of buildings. In this way, it’s sort of nice that time managed to stand still in these neighborhoods.
This is the kind of place the Purple Line needs. It’s a transit-oriented development that predated transit but doesn’t have to be changed for it to accommodate subway riders. It also shows that density does not have to overwhelm its residents.
And while there is very few retail within walking distance of the neighborhoods, the subway puts urban life within easy reach of where it already exists. A supermarket is one stop away, either at Western or at La Brea Avenue with a three block walk. And think of what is within 15 minutes or less of Wilshire and Crenshaw: the Miracle Mile, Wilshire Center, downtown L.A., Hollywood. If it’s not in the heart of it all, being pretty damn close to it has its own pluses.
I can understand all those yellow “Save Windsor Village” signs on properties — even, ironically, in front of apartment and condo complexes! Los Angeles is densifying, and that creates pressures to turn small estate homes and duplexes into McMansions or stucco-box condos. It’s one thing to preserve the character of historic properties.
It’s another thing when preserving history morphs into a siege mentality that has become the hallmark of the community groups. Density is not some evil conspiracy by developers to run people out of their happy homes. It’s a condition caused by circumstances that the community groups themselves had a big hand in creating. A million-dollar home isn’t just a Windsor Square mansion. It’s also the modest shoebox 3-bed, 2-bath, 1-car garage home between Harold Henry Park and Los Angeles High School. It also has historic character, so it can’t be knocked down or modified without a battery of nosy community activists and water-cooler dictators of the city and county bureaucracies.
So about the only activity left for a homeowner who pays good money to live in the neighborhood is mingle with the fellow landed gentry and just develop a monomaniacal obsession to maintain property values at all costs. So if anyone desires to do anything, err on the side of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) and just fight. It has happened so much — especially north of Wilshire — that the fights don’t represent an end other than the fights themselves.
The Wilshire/Crenshaw station is likely to shape up to be one of those fights. And it’s one I hope the community doesn’t win. We’ve been through an arduous one with the Expo Line running through a sliver of Cheviot Hills, and it is still amazing that the better alternative prevailed. This time, the usual suspects are wealthier, have a better fight record and the stakes much greater.
Yes, Crenshaw is only about a half-mile from Western Avenue, but no station at Crenshaw would call much greater attention to the shortfalls of Metro Rail. Running nonstop between Western and La Brea is more than 2 miles, unacceptably long for a quintessentially urban subway system. Also, the subway system should serve the neighborhood because time can only be frustrated but not frozen.
Who’s to say what the outlook of residents will be 10 years after the subway runs? The houses are the same but the people are different. The area has become a lot more diverse, if not by income but certainly by demographics. The area has also become dense, mainly as a consequence of the high housing prices that place upward pressure on density. It didn’t happen with the dwellings, but the dwellers out of economic necessity.
If so much can still change when even everything manages to look the same, a Wilshire/Crenshaw station is well … just another day in the neighborhood.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
[...] Case for a Wilshire/Crenshaw Station (MetroRider) [...]
I live south of Wilshire, and west of Crenshaw. I would be able to walk to this station. Right now I rarely use the subway because Western is too far to walk to, and taking the bus to the subway is stupid. (At that point, it is easier to drive.) Do I think this station will get built? No. Most people think that Wilshire belongs only to the people in Hancock park, not folks like me who live south.
If this station is constructed, those older people in Windsor Village will be wondering why there were even questions about the need for the station a few years after the line opens. While they ride the subway to Beverly Center or The Grove, few will even remember those silly lawn signs. The best way to save these historical neighborhoods is to make sure they are part of the transit framework of the future of LA… and that future is tied to the Purple line whether these people like it or not. If the NIMBYs get their way, contrary to their mission, they would ensure the death of their neighborhood as it becomes an irrelevant tract that doesn’t have a subway stop.
Another point I would like to make is that density doesn’t always equal destruction of neighborhood character. I just came back from 2 weeks of vacation in Europe… I know it is trite to say “but just look at Europe…” but the fact remains that lots of European cities managed to densify without loosing its historical characters. Several subway stations in Rome are actually located within Roman ruins or Renascence era buildings. They managed to adapt and reuse buildings just fine. Old mansions get turn into multistory apartments without losing the charm. But of course we all know that is not the point… anti-transit NIMBYism in LA has an ugly history of racially tinged flavor. Neighborhood “character” is really a code word for neighborhood complexion. I’m old enough to remember the first time around when the same exact neighborhood associations openly criticized the subway as a conduit for “criminals” to move freely from South Central and East LA to commit property crimes and leave without a trace.
On the other hand, if you leave off that station, the trains can go 70mph between western and la brea. Which almost makes up for the ridiculous wilshire/normandie station.
bzcat: I lived here then. I will never forget reading an article in the Times where someone said they didn’t want “the element” coming up Crenshaw to ride the subway. I thought maybe things had changed since then, but the fact that this is still an issue makes me think that things haven’t changed that much.
Well, it takes MetroRider LA until the THIRD-TO-LAST paragraph of his 45-paragraph treatise.
But, in that short paragraph, the writer does begrudgingly acknowledge the significant TRANSIT PLANNING reason for NOT putting a subway station in the low-density vicinity of Wilshire Boulevard at Bronson-Irving-Crenshaw-Lorraine.
The reason is that there ALREADY is a station JUST four long blocks away — just about a half-mile. That station, at Wilshire and Western, already serves the higher-density communities that the writer cites in the census figures provided. Those communities are a COUPLE OF BLOCKS from the existing station. It makes no transit or economic sense to build a second station two blocks in the other direction. Copy and paste the following into your browser and wait patiently to see a Census map (that you then can pan left and right to see the Census density near Wilshire to the east and west):
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=Pan&-errMsg=&-_useSS=N&-_dBy=140&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00090&-tm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=4001%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=thm_def%7Cdw=0.019418188006236174%7Cdh=0.011954647295593129%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-118.32365923847637%7Ccy=34.06084260654236%7Czl=2%7Cpz=2%7Cbo=%7Cbl=%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=86000US90010%7Cds=DEC_2000_SF1_U%7Csb=50%7Ctud=false%7Cdb=140%7Cmn=4233%7Cmx=73517%7Ccc=1%7Ccm=1%7Ccn=5%7Ccb=%7Cum=Persons/Sq%20Mile%7Cpr=0%7Cth=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00090%7Csf=N%7Csg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-geo_id=86000US90010&-_pageX=&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-_pan=E&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=Identify
Another reason it is a BAD idea to add this second station so close to Western relates to TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME, as noted by Chris. While starting and stopping the Purple Line subway trains three times for the high density WILSHIRE CENTER intersections of Vermont, Normandie, and Western makes sense — despite slowing the travel time — it makes no sense to further slow the travel time with an additional stop in a low-density area just four long blocks west of Western.
Instead, a non-stop trip under the low-density Park Mile, direct to the Miracle Mile CENTER stations at LaBrea and at Fairfax, can help make up for the lost time of stopping often within real Centers. If the travel time of the Purple Line is not attractive to riders further west (say in Westwood and beyond), ridership WILL suffer.
Furthermore, if scarce transit dollars ($150-200 Million?) are wasted on building an unneeded station near Crenshaw, those transit dollars will NOT be available to extend the subway further west sooner.
Maximizing ridership of public transit (the Wilshire Subway in particular), and building that public transit most cost-effectively, should be every transit advocate’s goal. Not social engineering a community.
MetroRider LA’s lengthy piece seems to relate more to sociology than to either transit planning or city planning.
The careful zoning in the area around Wilshire and Crenshaw was adopted by the Los Angeles City Council, after a half-decade of study, in the late 1970s. Yes, the existing community of residents supported the Park Mile Specific Plan then . . . and supports it now. The Plan is GOOD planning for this unique and historic part of the City of Los Angeles. The City’s reasons for adopting the Plan are set forth in the beginning pages:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/pdf/PARKMILE.PDF
The Plan’s map depicts the low density of the area and the Plan’s “CR(PkM) Zone” restrictions on height, uses, etc.:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/spmaps/Detail/ParkMile.pdf
In the initial Metro Red Line planning stages in the late 1970s, the transit experts hired by the SCRTD never included a Crenshaw-area station on the Wilshire line. It made no transit sense. There never was any community input in that transit planner decision . . . because a station there was not an issue because it made no sense. It only became a community issue in late 1979 . . . when the “Crenshaw Station” was ADDED POLITICALLY by the SCRTD Board of Directors in September of 1979, WITHOUT transit expert support or public notice or public participation.
Today — 2009 and 2010 — the transit experts have an opportunity to review their expert predecessors’ work and to study afresh the current conditions. These transit experts’ recommendations about adding subway stops should be based on providing the most and the best subway service, not how the transit experts want the City to look. It is the City’s zoning experts — the Planning Department and the City Council with citizen support — who already have said what the low density Park Mile community should look like. Let’s now leave the transit planning to the transit planners.
While MetroRider LA is unhappy with the development along Wilshire next to these existing low-density residences (“It’s really sad to go on about the troubles plaguing this stretch of Wilshire”), the people who live and work in and near this stretch of Wilshire are NOT sad. THEY do not speak of a plague of troubles. (Some potential high-density developers — the kind that planned in the early 1970s to tear down all the homes between Sixth and Eighth, between Wilton and Highland, to create a “mini Century City” [true story] — probably ARE sad, of course.)
In sum, the Purple Line subway will run further, faster, and probably sooner if a wasteful station near Crenshaw is not built.
RapidTransitAdvocate: Speed is a false argument. You can make Crenshaw a local stop, just the same way the the “A’ train in Manhattan runs from 125 all the way to 59th and skips all the stops on the upper West Side. It is not that hard to figure out.
And your “half mile from Crenshaw to Western” is also a false argument. Only a handful of people live right at Crenshaw and Wilshire. People like me, who live south, will have to walk a half mile just to get to Crenshaw and Wilshire. As countless studies show, people will not walk more than a half mile to get to a subway stop. So you are effectively cutting out anyone living south of Wilshire and Crenshaw.
The only real argument against a Crenshaw Station is that the people of Hancock Park are afraid there will be more development in Park Mile if the subway stops there. Well you know what, I pay taxes too. I should not be denied convenient access to the train simply because of their fears. I am not asking that the train be re-routed to serve me. I am only asking that it doesn’t pass me by.
First of all, it is great to see this discussion happening. Secondly, I think this discussion is based on some potentially baseless facts:
1) Who says everyone who lives north of Wilshire within a 2 mile radius is against the stop? If you compare these neighborhoods to what they were 30 years ago you wouldn’t recognize them one bit. Property values have sky rocketed (don’t forget that at one point these neighborhoods were left for dead as residents moved to the westside and suburbs). Yes, there are ALWAYS going to be a few people who don’t want change–who can’t see out of a worldview crafted 30 years ago ( ”rapidtransitadvocate”), but things have changed, and so has everyone else who lives around these few outliers.
Has anyone asked the RESIDENTS of these communities whether or not they support a subway portal? Or are we all just going off of past experiences?
Sidenote, the ‘Save Windsor Village’ signs ARE NOT in opposition to the metro stop. That is a bad bit of reporting on the part of this blog.
Here’s why a stop can work:
HPOZ’s have been created in many of the communities surrounding Wilshire. While the HPOZ is almost always misunderstood, its key element is this: It PROTECTS the neighborhood character as a whole. These houses will never be torn down. They can still be renovated extensively, but the portions seen from the street and the front yards, are what the HPOZ is all about. A subway stop cannot reverse these existing HPOZs.
It it is thus impossible for a mini Century City to be built on top of these historic homes. They are protected. Moreover, the HPOZ was supported by a super majority of the residents of these neighborhoods. Why? Because these residents want 2 things: 1) To live in a neighborhood that protects is own history and character 2) to be able to live in an URBAN setting that retains it’s own character while still acknowledging that they are smack dab in the middle of 3 million people–not live in a bubble.
‘RapidTransitAdvocate’ says: “While MetroRider LA is unhappy with the development along Wilshire next to these existing low-density residences (”It’s really sad to go on about the troubles plaguing this stretch of Wilshire”), the people who live and work in and near this stretch of Wilshire are NOT sad. THEY do not speak of a plague of troubles. ”
Where is he or she coming up with this? Have they polled residents of the surrounding neighborhoods? My guess is no.
What I don’t think RapidTransitAdvocate will ever acknowledge is that the Park Mile Plan has killed Wilshire Blvd. Anyone who drives down Wilshire instinctively knows this. The buildings are all empty. Wilshire goes from bustiling, to dead, back to bustling. For-lease signs abound. There are empty lots in many instances.
Was the current state of Wilshire Blvd what planners envisioned? An economically dead stretch on the most important street in Los Angeles? Blocks and blocks of nothing? This might have been the mindset in the 1970s– prevent development at all costs– but this is 2009. Things have changed. There are other answers.
Whether or not ‘RapidTransitAdvocate’ likes it, the Park Mile Plan will collapse at some point. Economics dictates it. The question is, how can we adapt the park mile plan to the times? Mixed used development, on a scale smaller than places like century city, is the answer. Limit the size of buildings, support mixes of residential and commercial, build the subway stop, and, most importantly, RESTRICT parking. This is the recipe for success for WIlshire Blvd. People who live, work, and play–all without the need of a car–will flock to this stretch of Wilshire, but only if they have the ability to leave–and the Crenshaw stop is this option. Those who live north and south of Wilshire would be able to walk down to the drug store, or restaurant, and walk home. What a concept- to live in the middle of a city and not have to use your car to get everywhere.
Here is my prediction: the Crenshaw stop doesn’t get built. There currently is just not quite enough of a demand for it to happen, and Metro is fast tracking this thing which means they aren’t going to want to deal with all of it’s complexities. Then, in about 25 years, when the metro has been running succesfully for a few years and people are starting to get out of their cars, those who live around the stop–from rich to poor–will be outraged that they have been cut out of from the city that they live in the middle of. They will demand that a stop be added because they want to be able to walk down to Crenshaw and Wilshire and take the metro the beach, or downtown to the Staples Center…and then it will be built.
This has happened in many cities before (infill stations). It’s just too bad we won’t be able to get it right the first time. Unless I am wrong, which I sincerely hope I am.
The neighborhood needs a real forum with real information to consider this issue. It is offensive that because of a few xenophobic individuals with time and money on their hands the city thinks that the neighborhood wants to stay isolated. Keeping Windsor Square/Hancock Park out of the subway system will lower our house values, force people out and discourage others from moving in. The Park Mile Plan needs to be re-considered. It is 30 years old and reflects an anachronistic reality. We need to be thinking of the future, not the past. We are already designated historic which gives us protection from over-development. What is wrong with a new plan for the proposed Crenshaw Station which will allow attractive and useful planned development there. Urban blight now characterizes this area so close to us, and it is not a sacred cow! Let us save Crenshaw and save WS/HP along with it.
Ellen makes a point that there are people who want to “get out of their cars” and walk up or down (or east or west) to Crenshaw to take the Metro various places. Well, there just cannot, economically, be a subway stop at everybody’s corner. That’s why the buses (which do stop frequently) also stop at the subway stations. The northbound Crenshaw Rapid Bus, for instance, now turns east on Wilshire and goes directly to the existing Wilshire/Western Metro Rail station — an expense of TIME of about two minutes and a savings of taxpayers’ DOLLARS of about $150-200 Million (the cost of building an extra station two minutes away at Crenshaw).
Ellen’s point about the people who prefer to “live, work, and play – all without the need of a car” is an excellent point. There are, and will be, lots of high-density accommodations available for those good people around the stations at Normandie, Western, LaBrea, Fairfax, and elsewhere. All places in the world (and our City) do not have to be the same.
And, concerning Park Mile real estate development: When the Park Mile Specific Plan (which is worth reading, at the link cited previously) was debated and adopted in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were about 27 vacant, developable parcels in the Park Mile. Today there are only 5 remaining, including the parcel Metro has been holding off the market at Crenshaw for all this time (wisely, of course, from Metro’s point of view). The 22 parcels that now have new buildings were privately developed (by for-profit entities) in compliance with the Park Mile zoning.
Correction: The points made about getting out of our cars, etc., were made by North of Wilshire and not by Ellen. Apologies to each of you!
If the distance is too short to Western, we could put the stop halfway between Western and La Brea, at ROSSMORE (yeah right). Anyway, the subway digging machines can bore the tunnels to Crenshaw in two months, and we could have a new station built within a year. This would be a great way to get momentum started on the entire “subway to the sea” project, since it’s designed to take forever. Moreover, there aren’t many businesses on the street that would be disrupted either. The only real problem is that it might cause some residents north of Wilshire psychological damage. But I hear most of them have great health coverage, so we need not worry.
Unfortunately, I could probably dig the tunnel myself on weekends in the time it will take Metro to build it. I lived in the area just southwest of Crenshaw/La Brea between 2004-2009 (12 minute bike ride to Wilshire/Western), but I’m so glad I moved south near the Expo line. No more NIMBY nonsense.
Some of the responses take an ad hominem approach: i.e., since those rich people north of Wilshire are closet racists or at least NIMBYs, let’s ignore their opposition.
A lot of those folks aren’t racists (after all, bigotry transgresses current norms), and even if they were, sometimes even bad people make good arguments. So it might be wiser to look at objective criteria. Siting a $200 million station in a relatively low population density/low business density area seems unwise, unless there are synergies with the transportation infrastructure that offset the disadvantages. The site under discussion would be serviced by buses coming up Crenshaw. Those buses could just as easily be routed to a Western, Highland, or LaBrea station. If there is an economic case (i.e., costs are less than benefits) for the Crenshaw/Wilshire station, it hasn’t been made yet.
Let me invite those of you who feel strongly about whether or not to include Crenshaw in a future Westside Subway, or about any other aspect of that project, to make your views count. How? Come to our website (www.metro.net/westside) and click on “Contact Us.” You can also leave us your contact information so we can let you know about future community meetings where this and other aspects of planning for the subway will be discussed. Or, you can find us on Facebook at Metro Westside Subway Extension.
Jody Litvak
Metro Westside Subway Extension Team
Good to see you on here, Jody. I think Metro has done a tremendous job in communicating the timeline, steps, and nature of this historic project.
My primary point is not to hash out the Park Mile Plan. I think the results speak for themselves. In comparison to the rest of Wilshire Blvd, the Park Mile stretch is a wasteland.
‘Rapid Transit Advocate” makes the point that, “There are, and will be, lots of high-density accommodations available for those good people around the stations at Normandie, Western, LaBrea, Fairfax, and elsewhere. All places in the world (and our City) do not have to be the same.”
We aren’t trying to make it the same, and no one wants to ruin any of the neighborhoods. If anything, the Crenshaw stop presents a great opportunity to show that urban neighborhoods and corridors can retain their charm, quality, and unique nature while still being linked to the rest of the city. The bus is not that option. Angelenos are a stubborn bunch and to get them out of their cars the alternate option needs to be almost if not just as fast as driving. Waiting for the bus, taking it down Wilshire, getting off, going underground, waiting for the train….only a dedicated few will do that. Metro is not proposing a stop on every corner. This is, in fact, one of a very few that are in question, which makes it unique, but certainly not superfluous.
Metro is studying this option because they see that it has potential for success and because it can fit in with the master plan. It will not be a blockbuster stop, but a building block for the future. A building block for a revitalized Park Mile, a building block the line that could someday go down Crenshaw to LAX, a building block for their system. The federal funding guidelines will play a large part in whether or not this station gets built, but there needs to be some acknowledgement that this is a station being built more so for the future than for now. That’s a hard thing to do.
This will take a lot of guts on the part of Metro, but my key point is that they should not accept the premise that there is not support in the surrounding neighborhoods. There is HUGE support, but people are busy and this is a project that is way to abstract to grasp. Neighborhood boards are not a good barometer to measure support. They are run by a vocal minority who have more time on their hands than the rest of us to push their own worldviews.
There has been no study to determine the TRUE level of support this stop would have. To keep thinking in the 1970s mindset is flat wrong. Everyone I talk to in the neighborhood thinks it is a no-brainer–that’s why they voted for Measure R!
North of Wilshire: The reason that “Metro is studying this option” is NOT because Metro sees “that it has potential for success and because it can fit in with the master plan.”
The adopted master plan (Wilshire Community Plan and Park Mile Specific Plan) emphatically make this location NOT A CENTER.
The reason Metro is studying this option is because (1) the idea of a station at Crenshaw and Wilshire was added politically in September of 1979, and (2) some people, like you, say they “want” the station. Perfectly good reasons for studying again. I want a subway station near everywhere I am or go. But that many stations will not make very “rapid’ transit.
As to an extension of the Crenshaw-Prairie Line from LAX, north of the Expo Line, I believe that most transit advocates today believe it will be preferable to have such a route NOT be on Crenshaw north of Venice Boulevard.
The preferences seem to be either to go northwest from Crenshaw on San Vicente and then up LaBrea to the long-planned Purple Line station at Wilshire and LaBrea (where there also is potential for further northward extension on LaBrea to Hollywood) or to go even further west on San Vicente, direct to the Purple Line station proposed for Wilshire and San Vicente (perhaps en route to Cedars-Sinai and West Hollywood someday).
P.S.:
A) Vince52 makes a good point in #13. Let’s all discuss our planning and transit viewpoints . . . and not make simplistic (and probably in most cases incorrect) ad hominem attacks on fellow Angelenos who may be residents near the Wilshire Park Mile.
B) With respect to bzcat’s comment #3 (“I’m old enough to remember the first time around when the same exact neighborhood associations openly criticized the subway as a conduit for ‘criminals’ to move freely from South Central and East LA to commit property crimes and leave without a trace”) and other comments critical of neighborhood associations (“Neighborhood boards are not a good barometer to measure support,” in #15): Those comments seem like rather broad brushes with which to paint.
It would be interesting if either commenter could come up with such allegedly racist criticisms from any associations in the area surrounding the Park Mile. Feel free to post the references. While there is no doubt that an individual or two (or more) has expressed invidious individual fears or concerns about change or perceived threats over the years, it is hard to find any association conclusions of that sort. (Such fears are, of course, as unfounded as they are distasteful.)
Especially in recent years, activists within the larger community surrounding Wilshire from Western to LaBrea have done all in their power to encourage debate and discussion in an open, transparent way. One new forum for this has been the representative (about as representative as you can get in a democracy) organization for this Wilshire area, the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council (GWNC). There was a well-publicized and well-attended meeting organized by GWNC on this subject last year. Metro led a discussion, and the Agenda and background materials (much involving the proposed Bronson-Irving-Crenshaw-Lorraine station) are available online:
http://www.greaterwilshire.org/site/files/metropresentation011408.pdf
In addition, Metro regularly has held community meetings (including as recently as two weeks ago) in this mid-Wilshire neighborhood. Metro’s Jody Litvak (comment #14) encourages everyone to write your views to Metro.
Please do. Share your views with Metro as well as here. But let’s all work in a civil fashion to get the Purple Line extension construction underway. As noted, however, the Purple Line subway will run further, faster, and probably sooner if an expensive, unneeded station near Crenshaw is NOT built.
RapidTransitAdvocate, you are brilliant, and absolutely right: (#6). (Wad, I respect you, and all you have done for transit, but you are simply wrong on this) Speed is not a false arguement, – people do not ride the gold line because of metro’s huge miscalculation regarding the importance of speed. People want to get where they are going FAST, and if they can’t, they’ll drive. It is why ridership is below projections on the gold line. I thought Metro would have understood this, and i hope that now they have learned this.
An express alternative is just that, an alternative, that brings complexity and the inconvenience that we would have to wait even longer for all the local trains to pass first before we can even catch an express train… more waiting time… No thank you – i would like to know i can get there quickly whenever i board any train.
Save the money for the subway line please! – Prioritize! we cannot have everything, don’t be distracted from what LA needs most, transit funds are not limitless, and the subway/ purple line is infinitely more important.
Oh yea, also the downtown connector is much more important than this one poorly chosen additional station that would slow down the line and cost an additional $150,000,000 to $200,000,000. question: would an additional $150,000,000+ help the downtown connector in any way?
From a ridership standpoint, what justifies a station at Wilshire/Crenshaw? There are no destinations nearby (Pollo Loco?). There are not a lot of transit-rider residents. And, bus transfers can be done more easily and efficiently at Western.
By the same arguments being offered for Wilshire/Crenshaw, we might say we need a subway station at Wilshire/Highland. Where’s the clamor for that station?
Those who accuse local residents of xenophobia and NIMBYism are missing the point. There is no good justification for a station a Crenshaw. Other than to have nice even spacing of stations on the map.
Since Metro seems to prefer that the northern extension of the Crenshaw LRT be extended westward to intersect Wilshire at LaBrea, Fairfax or SanVicente, that diminishes the potential Purple Line ridership at Crenshaw/Wilshire.
In the long run, demand may change. Isn’t it possible to build the Purple Line in such a way that the station may be built in the future if it is not built during the initial construction?
I can see rational arguments for not including a station at this time that are not “NIMBY” arguments. I can also see arguments for including one. Tough choice.
From a ridership standpoint, what justifies a station at Wilshire/Crenshaw?
I’m interested in hearing why you guys think ridership at Wilshire/Crenshaw is so low. What are the numbers you have? You don’t see enough people getting on the 720? Won’t you expect increased ridership with a subway stop, and even more if we can get a ‘kiss n ride’ in the empty lot there (which seems impossible at all the other Wilshire stations)? Or, mega-happy solution, a small park and ride in that lot (c’mon, dream big). My gut feeling tells me that if the Normandie station didn’t exist, we might not be having this conversation.
Metro said in their presentation on the Westside Extension that the Crenshaw station had the lowest projected ridership of any station in their computer modeling and it is easy to see why when compared to the other stations when considering density, future development, and so forth. Where there is density in the neighborhood, it is generally to the East where it is close to the Western station.
[...] discussion to the last thread, “The Case for a Wilshire/Crenshaw station”, was provocative enough to generate a lot of smart discussion. It also has generated quite a bit of [...]
Metro Rider LA may have even more time on his hands than Rapid Transit Advocate!
But I, too, have weighed in at:
http://metroriderla.com/2009/08/19/addendum-to-the-case-for-a-wilshire-crenshaw-station/comment-page-1/#comment-311560
Regis:
Given that at Wilshire/Normandie is in the middle of one of the denser residential and job areas of Mid-Wilshire and Koreatown, that station made sense.
Some may suggest well there’s a 1/2 mile stop spacing along other portions of the current Subway and that is true, but let’s put into context what is there at these close distances.
Vermont/Sunset and Vermont/Santa Monica stop distance is 0.5 miles. However at the Vermont/Sunset is Childrens Hospital, Kaiser Hollywood, Los Feliz and (as icing on the cake) a major bus interface with the Vermont buses ending here.
Vermont/Santa Monica we have the LA City College campus and a busy transfer point to the #4/704 buses.
So there are activity centers that are located at these two points to make stations feisible. What do we have at Wilshire/Crenshaw that justifies the investment of a subway station? Wilshire-Ebell theater and the Mayor’s house those offer a limited time frame for light boardings. I’ve been to Wilshire/Crenshaw frequently to see the bus transfers but most of them occur for passengers heading South on Crenshaw most of whom go to Wilshire/Western and wait for the Rapid 710. What would be good for that stretch of Wilshire;
1) Road paving to remove those potholes and
2) Dedicated bus-only lanes between Western and at least La Brea with queue jumpers to allow the buses a jump start at those intersections.
Henry:
The Gold Line is actually one of the faster LRT in the country even with the 20 mph Highland Park section the problem with the line isn’t end-to-end speed its the fact that ends on the edge of Downtown and a transfer to the subway is needed at Union Station.
Eliminate that transfer with the Regional Connector and you’ll have a line that becomes very competative to the 110 freeway at all times due to parking in Downtown LA. (I believe ridership will automatically double or reach 50K boardings a day)
There’s also the problem in station selection where they are stops that are directly served by the areas needed, such as the Allen station which is farther from Pasadena City College compared to Hill which would be 1/2 mile shorter distance. There is no stop on Fair Oaks which would serve South Pasadena offices and business as well as the one at Mission.
So speed is only one factor in the performance and ridership of a line, it’s also got to have good stop placement in which to serve the most potential riders.
[...] using the Census Bureau’s American Fact Finder to get data for the Wilshire/Crenshaw station post, I was fascinated by the volumes of data that could be plotted geographically on a [...]
[...] future stations along the Purple Line, or the “subway to the sea.” It began with the Wilshire/Crenshaw station, and was followed up with the future La Brea and Fairfax stations. This time, it’s a [...]
[...] The Case for a Wilshire/Crenshaw station [...]