Los Angeles City Councilman José Huizar unveiled Highland Park's first parklet at a ribbon-cutting ceremony Saturday on York Boulevard between Avenue 50 and Avenue 51.
Click on the attached video to see highlights from the ceremony.
The parklet, which is also the first for the city, converted a no parking zone into a street porch/mini park where residents can sit, gather and socialize.
City Controller Wendy Greuel, Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council President Monica Alcaraz and other neighborhood and city leaders who were involved in getting the project off the ground also spoke at the event.
[Click here to read how the parklet plan became a reality.]
Similar projects are set to be unveiled in the coming year on Huntington Drive in El Sereno and in Downtown Los Angeles.
On a side note. I've never seen a bigger group of 30-40 year old hipsters. I'm surprised they haven't hurt themselves from trying so hard.
2. Who is going to be responsible for the first accident. Some shyster will be there before ambulance gets there. 3. It look ghetto almost as bad as driving by the bars and see people standing out front smoking that really looks ghetto.
But is it worth the money that was spend on the project? I'm guessing that it's not. And is it worth having these local politicians come down and show how much they "care"? I can't think of many things that are worth that experience.
I haven’t followed the discourse enough to know how much the exhaust argument has been used. But I take your point on the I5 comment. My comment was a reflection of preference; If I already think the space had kind of a gross atmosphere, then benches aren’t really going to change that opinion, right? Thing is, as I see it, whether or not the project is worth the money is completely *not* another matter. Aesthetics (smog) and funding are tied. The exhaust/traffic argument arises, at least in part, because it’s so easy to see this space as a weird choice for the project. What I mean is, in what context would it be totally cool and normal to build a parklet on a busy, noisy street like York? I know cities like Pasadena have sidewalk benches, but that’s not a parklet, which is built at least in (large) part to spark interest in shops. Fine. The parklet is built because of the shops. Dangerous (and completely realistic) precedent: Funding, time, and attention go where money changes hands. It’s a reflection of poor (and undemocratic) priorities. It’s both typical in modern /Western times and scary to see play out on a local level.
If it's legally considered a park, then the police can selectively enforce "park hours" to prevent homeless folks from sleeping or even congregating in the space. Sorry if the answer has already been reported. I'll check other stories for the answer.
1) If I already think the space had kind of a gross atmosphere, then benches aren’t really going to change that opinion, right? --True. However, as I suggested before, I don't necessarily see that area as gross at all, and I imagine more would share that perception if they spent some time sitting in it. York Boulevard, at noon on a weekend, has never struck me as a high exhaust area. My personal feelings about this particular parklet aside, I think a plan that revolves around introducing an element that will encourage people to gather near commerce in an emerging area is not an entirely unsound one. 2) "I know cities like Pasadena have sidewalk benches, but that’s not a parklet, which is built at least in (large) part to spark interest in shops. Fine. The parklet is built because of the shops." --Indeed. Is that such a bad thing? 3) Dangerous (and completely realistic) precedent: Funding, time, and attention go where money changes hands. It’s a reflection of poor (and undemocratic) priorities. It’s both typical in modern /Western times and scary to see play out on a local level. --See, here, I totally disagree with the idea of this being an "undemocratic" process. Previous stories show this was extensively vetted at at least four community meetings. Of course, as you know, the democratic process does not always result in everybody getting exactly what they want.
Had a group of community activists gone to City Hall and demanded that Huizar allocate $10,000 from the general fund to build this thing, without holding a single public meeting, *that* would constitute a total waste of money/time. But, that's not how it happened, in fact, that's the exact opposite of what actually happened. Huizar came to Highland Park--for reasons either political or altruistic--wanting to catalyze York Boulevard's gentrification. As early as December 2010, community meetings were held. Attendees were told that about $10K was available for an "easy" one time project that would boost interest in the longer-term effort to continue bolstering York's "revitalization." Are fixing streets, installing new lights, new crosswalk lights, improving storefront signs all higher priorities than a street porch? 100-percent YES. Can you do that with 10K? Not even close. It won't even get you out the front door. The idea was to building something cool, show that projects can be completed though community organizing, and *maybe* this will raise HLP's profile--which has obvious benefits when it comes to the bitter battle for street services. Finally--b/c this has been mentioned elsewhere--I reject out of hand the notion that projects should not be pursued on the premise that people who don't have homes will ruin them.
It is a shame that the majority of this community is ignored, even here on Patch in the past month there has been one story relavant to the majority hispanic community in highland park and that had to do ironically enough with bias against hispanics, the only other had to do with Antigua which I tipped you off about. There are church events weekly, dances and the like that are never covered by you or the patch but as soon as something to do with parklets or a new or a new yoga place you write about that. that is shameful
And thanks for clarifying some other things. I also want to clarify one of my comments that you responded to. When I called the the priorities of the powers that be "undemocratic" (as well as implying that the process has been undemocratic). It was a little irresponsible of me to just toss out that term without any context. I didn't mean to slam those folks who have outreached and coordinated community meetings on the parklet, but I now see that it's easy to read my comment that way. My gripe is broader. I don't call into question the hard work of people organizing meetings. But I do question the overall effectiveness of such community meetings. I don't know if I was out of town during meetings, but I know that my family didn't know about them either. I hope people went and participated. My comment involves a bigger conversation about the ethics of maintaining a status quo that excludes people. We can call all of the meetings we want, but if a only fraction of the population attends, how democratic (that word again) is it? I guess the moral of the story is: i shouldn't assume that I know the intentions of those who labor and organize such meetings.
The mountain does not come to Mohammed. And it shouldn't have to. The local papers all covered the meeting schedules. AND The York Vison Plan meetings were announced again, and again at the Neighborhood Council. NC Agendas are posted in several locations, as well as on line. Nothing that happens here, goes unnoticed or un-announced. If you don't try to look for the local news, don't complain. There is plenty of info out there, but it requires effort on the part of the stakeholder to seek it. Quit drinking that Whine.
ChickenFanBoy, "If you don't try to look for the local news, don't complain." ... This perspective is so cynical and void of social nuance. It's not like people refuse to be politically empowered because they think it's yucky. You're essentially saying that the it's totally cool that the political status quo alienates people (and that's only one aspect). And I guess it's cool that those people just happen to be poor people of color? That's not meant to be a rhetorical question. It seems that it's at least some of the heart of the discourse around Highland Park. Nimby pimp, "Creper seems to be fashioning himself as a heroic defender of the downtrodden natives against the rapacious white hipster invaders. Simple-minded, predictable and a little pathetic." ... Can you elaborate on why Creper's supposed position is "Simple-minded" and "pathetic"? My initial response is that your comment is insensitive and verging on racist. But, I think you drastically simplified what you call the "heroic" perspective. And maybe the racist elements that I'm reading are a result of your simplification and maybe that's not what you meant or how you meant to say it.
While I agree that the means of outreach insufficient, I find it harder and harder to blame organizers. It's true that they shouldn't be so naive to think they are adequately reaching the community. But to a certain extent, these are the cards they're dealt, so know? It's the political infrastructure first and foremost that is ineffective. Idk, man. I have mixed feelings.
While I don't know any of the folks who worked on the parklet project, nor do I know their motivations outside of what's been reported by David, I take your point. It's a very important point.