Council Vetoes Pershing Square Work

With Park Fifth moving forward, any word on how soon a full re-design of Pershing can begin? Will it happen before, during or after Park breaks ground?

So are they trying to preserve the crappiness or something? Like people in other cities will be talking about how shitty Pershing Square is and you have to go see it for yourself. At least the exercise equipment would have given it some usefulness.

What bothers me more than anything is that you can't ride a bike, skateboard or inline skate in the park. Go play in the street!

Even without equipment, there are at least 20+ people who are exercising in Pershing Square every morning as part of physical conditioning boot camp that is conducted there during the week. For that matter, the kids from City Year, in their yellow windbreakers can often be seen doing mass calisthenics in the square's southwest corner.

Hip, hip, hooray! Improvements by bureaucrats thwarted by elected officials.

Park Fifth is a flashback to a similar plan to develop that site by the same owner in the last Downtown real estate boom two decades ago that left the skyline with it's present emptiness. How zen is that?

Planning may be green lights, again. Finance lights are pink and going red fast. again.

But in the meantime the statute garden is safe from renovation, again. Phew.

All is well, again.

Seriously, there's a boot camp there? The entire park smells like piss and seems to be basically a toilet for the homeless. Not where I'd wanna do any pushups.

Seriously.

And willing to pay money for the privilege.

Now doesn't that boggle your mind?

If it's true that large portions of public spaces like Pershing Square do smell like urine, or will continue to smell like urine, then why the hell does anyone want more park space, or even remodeled park space, in downtown? Such yearning and effort ends up being an exercise in futility and a big waste of everyone's time and money.

I'm very glad the City Council stopped Parks and Rec from spending that money on an embarrassing public space as Pershing Square. Since we received more substantial news that Park Fifth may actually break ground, the park will get at least $10 million in Quimby fees. Put that extra $190,000 to the future park improvements. Not on a pathetic "park" that is waiting to get a major, and much needed, revamping.

Basically, to be even more clear about what I mean, spending $190,000 on Pershing Square when it's supposed to go through a major revamping is a waste of money. What if Parks and Recs spent that money and a year later, the new architects hired want to do something really audacious and wonderful? Tearing up that eye-sore and doing something right for a change? That's why I'm saying that the $190,000 should be put in the pot for future improvements. There could still be a place to have exercise equipment, but it may be in a totally different context once Pershing Square is remodeled.

Jan Perry is on the same page about this issue and that is why she was the first to put a stop to spending that money foolishly and frivolously.

Hey: Calley4, listen up! Time for you to go get an enema, or some perscription strength ExLax.

An urban place that is attractively designed and keeps bringing in customers is of course The Place To Be and be seen at as well. With that, males who tend to do their thing in the bushes go elsewhere. Therewith, no stinky winky to put up with. There should be a limited amount of lawn or none at all. Too much lawn and people start sleeping around because denizens of the streets need to be awake and alert during night hours.

And the layout of a new park needs to be maximally viewable from the surrounding streets. That means you need to have trees with canopies high above the ground and no shrubbery. Again, no Bushes. Vagrants are enough of a problem as it is; we don't need no war criminals hanging around.

Otherwise, there needs to be an extraordinary floral display, like one might find in a botanic garden in British Columbia or in Britain. All of the assorted varieties of perennials, biennials and annuals would be no higher than 2 feet tall. Rather than the flora be maintained by Parks and Rec, it would best be kept up, clipped, zipped, misted and interplanted by organic gardening fanatics allied in a non-profit organization dedicated to the future of Pershing Square. Profits generated by other activities in the square would be used for new planting materials, organic fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides, etc.

The place could become a continuous, year-round garden show and any enthusiastic gardener in the metro area could join up to help out.

It would be great if Park Fifth breaks ground and actually gets built.

But delaying action on Pershing Square on the hope of a development project that promises to redo the park is too optimistic.

PropertyShark.com reported last week foreclosures in Los Angeles have quadrupled so it's hard to believe investors will be flocking to pour their money into construction of more residential towers Downtown anytime soon.

This approved expenditure was an opportunity for an improvement to the park that has now been lost.

^ I don't believe that opportunity has been lost. It's not like this park hasn't sat there looking ugly for a week. It's been that way - an embarrassment to LA - for a long time. Half-assing projects is what LA loves to do, and I'm glad Jan Perry breaks that awful tradition and sees that the possibility of Park Fifth breaking ground is substantial reason enough to wait.

Adding a few exercise machines and some grass isn't going to tip the balance on an atrocious park such as Pershing Square. If you're really concerned about changing Pershing Square into a REAL park, support a major revamping that includes tearing down those walls that surround the park and changing out those god awful colors (yellow and purple? Gee what the hell were they thinking? I hope they weren't doing it in reference to the Lakers' colors)

Any way you attempt to rationalize it, this was an opportunity that has been lost.

There's no budget for a major renovation of the park. What we just saw reversed was a small improvement that could have easily been accomplished.

If it was reversed because of the "possibility" of Park Fifth, then examine that possibility. Again, it would be great if Park Fifth breaks ground and gets built -- but it hasn't. Nor has Park Fifth funded a major renovation of Pershing Square.

So now, instead of a bird in hand, the public (including those elements of the public many posting here seem to find objectionable) waits for something that market forces control.

Given the rapid increase of residential foreclosures, is it really prudent to shape public policy on private real estate speculation (aka "development")? If everyone is so convinced Park Fifth is a "go", why not push for the City to fund a major renovation that will be reimbursed by the development? See if the developer will agree to that.

For that matter, if you are really concerned with the current colors of the park, why not volunteer to repaint them?

Pershing Square being an ugly embarrassment is not something I own. It's a consensus by all those who have stepped foot into this depressing failed public space.

The colors are beyond horrible. It's a stark contrast to the surrounding buildings, and not in a good way either. Basically, it's a poor design for the context its in. Anyone who has an iota of taste can see that immediately. And most people do, hence why Pershing Square is detested by most.

I remember attending a walking tour of Downtown LA once and the guide saying, "Pershing Square is like our version of Union Square in SF." You should have heard the chuckles.

Now, it's not to say that Pershing Square doesn't have any hope. This park has great potential to transform the area into something just as wonderful as Union Square in SF. It needs to lose all the yellow and purple tacky colors, rip out that abrasive tower, and tear down the walls and open it up to the streets on ALL FOUR SIDES. Add lotsa trees and some simple art, possibly a fountain and a cafe.

Adding a few patches of grass and some exercise machines isn't what I call "opportunity." It's an insult to LA and its people that we can't do any better than this? The park, in its current state, is a lost cause. If you want to make a real difference, it needs to be completely revamped.

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that the same councilmember who reportedly was seeking to ban fast food from South LA just halted the addition of public exercise equipment in the middle of Downtown?

Could Pershing Square use a complete rehab, sure. But until that check is cashed from Park Fifth, why stand in the way of any improvement?

Maybe I'm from planet commonsense, but some actual forward progress is better than any "talk" of larger plans.

There are plenty of gyms in Downtown LA if your main intent is to prove that people in Downtown LA need a bit more exercise. 24 Hour Fitness, LA Athletic Club, Gold's Gym, Ballys, YMCA Ketchum, in addition to the ubiquitous mini-gyms in many of the loft buildings. And with such fierce competition, the membership dues are affordable to most people.

Jan Perry is smart for not implement blanket policies/one-size fits all. What is needed in South LA doesn't mean it'll be needed in Downtown LA - two different contexts. It was smart of her to support a moratorium on building anymore fast food restaurants and it is smart of her to support waiting to see if Park Fifth can grow some legs, which will give the park the much needed funds to really make a difference - not add a patch of lawn and some inferior exercise equipment that will undoubtedly sit empty collecting dust.

The idea that public funds should not be spent on exercise equipment because there are private gyms available is absurd.

As much as it would be great to see it built, Park Fifth has had plenty of time to grow legs and it's still the same parking lot it was the last time the parcel's owner proposed a development.

In the meantime, this was an opportunity that has been lost as it is highly unlikely Rec and Parks will take ANY initiative again with respect to Pershing Square given the chilling effect this public rebuke of their actions will have.

Congratulations on championing the status quo!

If the head of Rec and Parks washes his hands, is not in tune with the mayor and the local councilwoman regards Pershing Square, he can submit his resignation forthwith.

The climate surrounding the square is vastly changed from the days of the early Nineties when the last makeover was conceived. The coming renovation will be different because there are now so many new residents. There will be no hidden agenda; the process will not remain hidden and sequestered. Hopefully, the local chapters of professional architects and landscape architects will assist in the process. It would be invaluable if MOCA were to be involved as well, along with all of the usual Downtown suspects and suspect agencies.

It's not about blindly supporting anything, whether that be the status quo or progressive design changes to a hideous park.

It's about being provident about limited funds and not wasting them on "improvements" that will most likely go unused, such as this ridiculous idea of installing exercise equipment. Of course it's not absurd to bring up the fact that numerous full-scale gyms exist within minutes of Pershing Square. It means competition. People aren't going to use Pershing Square's theoretical gym just because they feel they're doing the city a good deed.

With the park looking as hideous as it already does, adding a "gym" to the little corner of it isn't going to improve it at all. Hence, it'll be squandering $190,000.

Improvements to parks all over the City's are added without the direct consent of City Council and without making headlines on the expenditure. Most Councilmembers even lobby Rec and Parks to get improvements to parks in their districts, not stop them. The amount of fees City Council waives each year makes $190k look like spare change, not squander.

Has it occurred to anyone thinking there are enough gyms Downtown that the people who might use the proposed exercise equipment would include those unable to afford gym memberships?

What if that outdoor gym changed the lives of 12 homeless people a year (or for Park Fifth true believers, 24 people between now and the glorious renovation funded by a project that has not broken ground)? Would $190,000 have been well spent then?

And considering the equipment could have been picked up and reinstalled elsewhere in the City's park system, it's disingenuous to call the expenditure a complete waste. The only "squander" in the event a Park Fifth-funded renovation moves forward would have been site prep and installation.

It's great to have hope for a large scale renovation of Pershing Square (whatever the source of funds), but decisions should be made in the present, not hinged on hope for the future.

Okay, see that's YOUR ideal. Your true intention has revealed itself. You want Parks and Rec to spend $190K on exercise equipment on the sole premise that the facility will be used by the homeless people with a naive belief that somehow, doing a few chest presses and leg presses would somehow "change the lives" of a "12 maybe 24 homeless people." Talk about hinging hope on a make-believe future. "What if, what if."

Your example of improvements implemented "all over the city" by City Council is hardly justification for spending money on exercise equipment for the homeless. And affordability isn't a huge issue. As long as you've got a job, you can find deals at the gyms. If you can't afford a gym membership yet, push-ups work wonders. But I am not going to support spending $190K on the idea that gym equipment is going to be reserved for the homeless on the ridiculous notion that it'll "change their lives."

My ideal is that the public Downtown, including the homeless some people posting here find so abhorrent, are able to have access to park equipment like any other park anywhere else in the City has. Nothing more, nothing less.

Rec and Parks, including their oversight commission, are the ones who wanted to spend the money. I commend them for their initiative in this regard. Additionally, I find it amazing people who claim rationale thinking are hinging their objection on the massive "what if" that is Park Fifth. If a check was in the bank from the developer for a renovation of Pershing Square, it would be one thing. But that hasn't happened.

What has happened, is that people Downtown (that includes the homeless, and the lofties, 500,000 workers and everyone in-between) just had an improvement to their community pulled when it had already been approved by the entity responsible for managing these decisions.

It is further ironic that the same politician who has taken a leadership position on the ills of fast food in South LA (but not Downtown) took such a public stance against something that might actually spark some people to start exercising.

I hope Park Fifth, and the associated renovation of Pershing Square, move forward to completion. But in the meantime, would have been such a bad thing if some exercise equipment (that could easily be relocated, not wasted) was installed? No, it wouldn't have.

Once again, congratulations on maintaining the status quo of a park we can all agree needs improvement.

There are plenty of examples of irony to ponder about that are a bit more interesting in my opinion. Personally I don't view Jan Perry's decision as an irony. Rather, I regard her decision to prevent further fast food restaurants from opening in South LA as a much long overdue. Jan Perry and the rest of the City Council also made the right choice to block unnecessary funds from being spent on Pershing Square that would have made absolutely no difference to its appeal to the community (with the exception of probably "12 to 24" homeless people that some people seem to advocate for).

If you're worried about access to parks for all people (including those who have moved downtown in the past few years as well as visitors from other cities), then the proper solution is to tear down the walls that surround Pershing Square. The problem with Pershing Square isn't due to a lack of exercise equipment (god no!), it has to do with its perception as not only a homeless encampment, but incredibly aesthetically unpleasing to the eye in the given context of its surroundings. Also, the fact that most of the park is surrounded by walls is a difficult impediment for pedestrians to access the park.

You want the most bang for your buck. I don't advocate spending funds just to spend it on the basis of some naive ideology. The City Council made the right decision to block unnecessary spending.

The City Council spills more than $190k on its way to grant fee waivers that have a direct, negative impact on the General Fund. This goes beyond unnecessary spending to unnecessary interference with the City's ability to generate revenue to fund things like parks.

Too bad Perry's campaign against fast food doesn't include the much more densely populated Downtown (business day population = 500,000) or supporting public exercise equipment in the middle of same said densely populated area.

All for a major renovation of Pershing Square. But that's a multi-million dollar project for which no budget currently exists. What did exist, up until Council's reversal, was approval for a small improvement.

Clearly some people have an aesthetic issue with Pershing Square, but in the world of City politics, aesthetics is not among the factors driving the expenditure public funds.

Perhaps a proper solution would be to persuade Perry and her colleagues to stop waiving fees and instead earmark those dollars towards a dream renovation of Pershing Square.

Of course, City Council could vote to reduce the number of Council Districts and save the taxpayers $190k a year in one councilmembers' salary alone...

Getting stuck on obsessive references to Jan Perry's moratorium on opening anymore fast food joints is besides the point.

Adding exercise equipment into a park avoided by many isn't considered a "small improvement." I would consider it money spent unwisely. You bring up how dense Downtown LA is, but yet a look into a typical day inside the park reveals an underutilized, somewhat barren landscape. It's a poorly designed public space that desperately needs community support to overhaul its entire design. Not settle for a small addition of some exercise equipment.

Again, adding exercise equipment to a park that a lot of people find repulsive (except maybe a "12 to 24 homeless") won't do a darn thing. Hence, a waste of money.

There's no obsession, just observation of fact.

The same as it is an observation that maybe if there were more things to do in the park (like exercise equipment) more of the public would use it.

This isn't a binary position. It's possible to support BOTH the improvement Rec and Parks wanted to do AND still hope and organize for a larger renovation that does not hinge upon funding from a nearby private development.

Adding a few exercise machines to the Palm Court inside Pershing Square would not generate anymore use of the park than normal. Most people don't go to the park to do chest and leg presses. They go to relax and people watch. If going entails exercising, it usually means jogging. Something MOST overweight Americans need to start doing more of.

In addition, the area the equipment would have been added to is inside the Palm Court section, which is one of the most uninviting spaces in the one of the most uninviting parks on the West Coast. Not because it doesn't have a chest press or lat machine, but because it feels way too confined. Looking at the picture of Palm Court, it is easy to see that adding a few machines would hardly generate any more traffic into the park. Thinking otherwise? Now that's wishful thinking.

Adding a few exercise machines to the Palm Court inside Pershing Square would not generate anymore use of the park than normal. Most people don't go to the park to do chest and leg presses. They go to relax and people watch. If going entails exercising, it usually means jogging. Something MOST overweight Americans need to start doing more of.

In addition, the area the equipment would have been added to is inside the Palm Court section, which is one of the most uninviting spaces in the one of the most uninviting parks on the West Coast. Not because it doesn't have a chest press or lat machine, but because it feels way too confined. Looking at the picture of Palm Court, it is easy to see that adding a few machines would hardly generate any more traffic into the park. Thinking otherwise? Now that's wishful thinking.

All this conjecture depends on whether Park Fifth goes foward in a reasonable length of time. But if it instead gets weighed down by funding problems and slow pre-sales, then all bets are off. And Pershing Square will be right back to square one. No changes, no alterations, no improvements, nada.

However, installing gym equipment, and spending tax money on that, is an iffy proposition too. Such equipment requires a certain level of maintenance or attention that has nothing to do with the typical services performed by city-park personnel on lawns, plants and trees.

Imagine how crusty and broken down gym equipment can become after sitting out in the elements for just a few months, used perhaps on occasion by the homeless as a place to sit, vomit, urinate or defecate. Not a pleasant picture.

Behind the Battle Over Pershing Square

How a Simple $190,000 Park Improvement Plan Led to a Clash

http://www.downtownnews.com/articles/2008/07/14/news/news04.txt