You are on page 1of 68

SPACE 134 VISION PLAN

1 B

JUNE 2013 CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

Dave Weaver, Mayor Laura Friedman Ara Najarian Frank Quintero Zareh Sinanyan Scott Ochoa, City Manager
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

GLENDALE CITY STAFF

Hassan Haghani, AICP, Director of Community Development Alan Loomis, Principal Urban Designer Michael Nilsson, AICP CTP, Mobility Planner
SUPPORT TEAM

Annette Vartanian, Program Supervisor, Library, Arts, and Culure Emil Tatevosian, Park Planning and Development Administrator Kathryn Engel, Transit Manager Kevin Carter, Engineering Manager

CONSULTANT TEAM

Melani Smith, AICP, Melendrez Amber Hawkes, AICP, Melendrez Shannon Davis, Melendrez David Koo, Melendrez Allyn Rifkin, PE Rifkin Transportation Planning Group Michael Metcalfe, APA, Metcalfe Associates Robert Dannenbrink, FAICP, AIA, Dannenbrink Design and Planning Todd Graham, PE, DPE, KPFF

CREDITS
This study was made possible by a Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Compass Blueprint Grant awarded to the City of Glendale. The City thanks SCAG for their support of the project and other cap parks throughout the region, through their SCAG Cap Parks Coalition.
METCALFE ASSOCIATES Urban Design Development Planning

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction Situating the Study Area Regional Context Policy Context Project Study Area Land Use and Demographics New Development in Downtown Transportation Context Public Transit Congestion and the Frontage Road Option Local Circulation Other Cap Parks Understanding Scale Theme and Brand Process

1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15

CHAPTER 2: THE VISION


Planning Goals The Vision The Loop Three Character Areas Design Themes 5-Year Vision 20-Year Vision Space 134 West: Downtown Park Space 134 Central: Neighborhood Park Space 134 East: Downtown East Circulation Frontage Road Alternative Structural Considerations

SPACE 134 VISION PLAN

2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-6 2-8 2 - 10 2 - 11 2 - 14 2 - 17 2 - 10 2- 20 2 - 21

CHAPTER 3: LOOKING FORWARD


Weighing the Benefits and Costs How Much Will it Cost Funding Next Steps Additional Resources

3
3 3 3 3 3

1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX
and Team

1 F

INTRODUCTION

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

INTRODUCTION
The lack of public park space in LA County is notable; it is estimated that almost 2 out of 3 children in the county do not live within walking distance of a park, playground, or open space. Also, many park spaces throughout the county are located away from the urban core and from underserved communities. The Space 134 visioning process looks at the potential for new open space immediately within the Downtown Glendale core and immediately adjacent to many residential communities to the south and north by capping a segment of the 134 Freeway and turning it into a park or cap park over the freeway. The Trust for Public Land (2004), identified the neighborhoods around the Space 134 study area as those with the greatest need for new parks. These neighborhoods were identified because they have high concentrations of residents under the age of 18 and have limited or no parks within walking distance. Countless studies, policies and before-and-after analyses of existing open spaces have shown that when cities add well-designed and well-programmed open space directly into their urban mix, they attract new development and new investment, help improve air quality and reduce pollution clouds, improve their communitys health, and generally improve quality of life for residents. And cap parks have the added benefit of re-linking formerly fragmented areas of the city, by covering freeways with usable park and community space. The Millennial generation of young professionals and emptynester Baby Boomers- the folks who are increasingly coming to central city environments to live, work, and play-- create a powerful marketing demand for central city urban neighborhoods like downtown Glendale. These groups expect open space, multimodal transit options, services, entertainment, and housing, all within walking and biking distance - and they demand a highquality urban environment too. The City of Glendale is embracing these shifting demographics and the potential for their community to integrate creative new open space and community amenities, and with this study begins to investigate the potential for a cap park facility. Chapter 1, the vision plan for Space 134 looks first at the physical context that makes the cap park idea desirable for Glendale and then at the policy context that brought the project about. Background analysis is presented; dissecting the study area in more detail. Chapter 2 presents the complete vision plan, starting with the full build-out 40 year vision and then describing the incremental steps along the way, starting with a 5-10 year vision for a green network of an expanded pedestrian realm. Finally the report discussed the logistics of the cap park in Chapter 3, with a discussion on the funding, costs, benefits, and next steps.

Street Space converted to People Space: Brooklyn saw a 172% increase in retail sales (compared to 18% borough-wide) at locally based businesses after a pedestrian plaza was installed.
(Measuring the Streets, NYDOT)

The High Line generated $2 billion in private investment surrounding the park. The city spent $115 million on the park.
(Mayor Bloomberg in the New York Times)

Parks and green spaces provide economic benefits by increasing property tax revenue and attracting businesses as well as provide health benefits by improving air quality through removal of pollutants improving water quality and reducing runoff, and lowering air temperatures.
(County of Los Angeles Public Health, Preventing Childhood Obesity: the need to create healthy places)

Cities with less open area set aside as parks, recreational area, or wilderness area were more likely to have a higher rate of obesity.
(County of Los Angeles Public Health, Preventing Childhood Obesity: the need to create healthy places)

The park has become the most active space downtown and over $700 million of new development has occurred within a two-block radius of the park.
(Campus Martius Park, Detroit, MI, 2010 Urban Open Space Award Winner, ULI)

The greenbelt added $5.4 million to the total property values of one neighborhood. That generated $500,000 per year in additional potential property taxes, enough to cover the $1.5 million purchase price of the greenbelt in only three years.
(Trust for Public Land, The Benefits of Parks)

1 1

SITUATING THE STUDY AREA


ADDRESSING THE BARRIER CREATED BY THE SR-134 FREEWAY
Space 134 is located atop the SR-134 Freeway as it travels through downtown Glendale. As indicated on the diagram at right, while a majority of the city is located north of the 134 Freeway, the downtown core which is located in the southern part of the city, is bisected almost in two by the freeway itself. The freeway passes 20 or so feet below the grade of downtown and as shown on following pages, is crossed by a handful of pedestrian-only and vehicular/pedestrian bridges. Space 134 would connect the civic, cultural, retail, and business core of downtown Glendale with the Citys residential neighborhoods that flank it on either side on the north and south. This critical connection links also to a variety of nearby schools and community gardens.

ADDING PARK SPACE WHERE IT IS NEEDED MOST


The communities that stand to benefit most from Space 134 are the densely-urbanized and comparatively park-poor neighborhoods of downtown Glendale, shown on the map, right. Per the 2009 City Glendale Quality of Life Indicators, the distribution of developed parkland in Glendale indicated that the majority of parks were found in the eastern and northern sections of the city where there are between 3.35 and 6.67 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in areas that are the least populated. In the southern section of Glendale, in areas of highest density, 0.64 to 0.017 acres per 1,000 residents are provided. The freeway cap would help resolve the inequity in park space by providing open space and recreational amenities within a five minute walk for Downtown and downtown adjacent residents.

CITY OF GLENDALE

DOWNTOWN CORE

SPACE 134 134 Freeway

GLENWOOD PELANCONI VINEYARD

ROSSMOYNE WOODBURY CITRUS GROVE

Having parkland and recreational programs nearby significantly reduced childrens risk of overweight and obesity when they reached age 18. Recreational programming affected childrens body mass index much more than parkland.
(University of California, Berkeley)

DOWNTOWN

OPEN/ PARK SPACE SPACE 134 1/4 AND 1/2 MILE RADIUS 134 Freeway

1 2

REGIONAL CONTEXT
In a larger regional context, the City of Glendale is encircled by various riparian systems, natural habitat areas, and public recreational places and finds itself at the center of a series of mountain ranges nearly on all sides, including the Verdugo Mountains, the Santa Monica Mountains and Mount Washington. In fact the name, Glendale means valley in Scottish and Gaelic. The city also sits within the geographical triangle of the Sierra Madre foothills, the Los Angeles River, and the Arroyo Seco. The Verdugo Wash links into the Los Angeles River and the whole city is part of the LA River watershed. At the confluence of all of these amazing natural resources and features, the city center has little open space resources in terms of active and passive park land. Space 134 not only has the potential to add new park space to the downtown core, but also to connect to the broader regional network of water and open space, via the adjacent Verdugo Wash which at some points travels as close as 300 feet from the freeway edge.
er Riv
Griffith Park Verdugo Mountains

LA Ri r ve
NORTH GLENDALE Verdugo Wash
Verdugo Mountains

LA

CENTRAL GLENDALE

Glenoaks Canyon

City of Glendale

LA er Riv

Santa Monica Mountains

Rose Hill Park Mount Washington

Downtown LA

Regional Context

Study Area Watershed Map (National Park Service, 2006)

Research shows that when people have access to parks, they are more likely to exercise, which can reduce obesity and its associated health risks and costs

(Gies, E. (2006). The Health Benefits of Parks, in Lau, C Urban Freeway Cap Parks Policy Briefing Paper, USC).

La River Master Plan

Glendale Narrows

1 3

POLICY CONTEXT
SUPPORT FROM THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Initial visioning for a Glendale cap park was proposed in the Parks and Open Space Chapter of the Downtown Glendale Specific Plan. The 134 Freeway was capped between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard. The Specific Plan suggests that a cap park could enhance Downtown connectivity and feature a regional transit center. A visualization of what the potential cap park could look like from the Specific Plan is included below. GREENER GLENDALE PLAN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Walking Distance Open Space Policies Provide public open space within walking distance of all Downtown residents and employees.

SAFE AND HEALTHY STREETS PLAN


Goal Continue to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety in all Capital Improvement Projects. use best practices to improve and enhance ease of use and safety, ensuring routine accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists.

GENERAL PLAN
Recreation Element Glendale has a deficit of both community and neighborhood park facilities. The city currently has a parkland to resident ratio of approximately 1.4 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents while the Citys park planning standard is 1 acre of neighborhood parks and 5 acres of community parkland per 1,000 residents. Glendale has an extreme shortage of athletic fields which are traditionally located in community parks. Circulation Element Goal #4 Functional and safe streetscapes that are aesthetically pleasing for both pedestrians and vehicular. - Provide and maintain high quality streetscape and pedestrian amenities (i.e. bus shelters, street trees, street furniture, wide sidewalks, etc.). - Support the enhancement of existing and creation of new pedestrian-oriented retail centers.

Urban Nature Objective #4 Ensure there is accessible park and recreational open space to serve residents Strategy A Identify those areas not within 1/3 mile of recreational open space, and develop strategies to provide parks or recreational open space in those areas. Strategy B Take advantage of opportunities to provide parks and open space through greenways and green streets, particularly in areas where park space is not available.

OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS


In addition to the Downtown Specific Plan, support for the Space 134 concept is provided through many policy documents that promote broad policy goals such as providing multi-modal connections, creating walkable environments, and increasing the availability and adjacency of public recreational spaces. These policy goals are realized by aspects of the Space 134 project. The matrix, right highlights just some of these strategies, policies, objectives, and goals, established in various of the Citys policy documents.

Excellent Design Make the new public parks, plazas and courtyards harmonious, inspirational, and sources of community pride and identity through design excellence.

Goal Maintain and update traffic calming measures in the Glendale Traffic Calming Program

Urban Design Objective #3 Continue to implement Southern California Association of Governments Compass Blueprint Strategies in Glendale to coordinate with regional efforts to increase stainability and liveable environments.

Mobility Policy Maintain, re-establish, and enhance the street grid, to promote exibility of movement through greater street connectivity, capture natural views, and retain the historic relationships between various streets.

Goal Continue expanding the Citys bicycle parking facilities. Include installation of secure parking facilities for downtown or the Glendale Transportation Center.

Goal #5 Land use which can be supported within the capacity constraints of existing and realistic future infrastructure.

Visualization from the Downtown Specific Plan illustrating the potential cap park over the 134 freeway between Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue.

A table of relevant City documents with policies that support aspects of the Space 134 project.

1 4

PROJECT STUDY AREA


The Space 134 project area is an approximately 1.25 mile-long corridor between Pacific Avenue and Glendale Avenue. The 134 Freeway (Ventura Freeway) is a major east-west freeway that extends from Ventura to Pasadena and has approximately five lanes (four general access lanes and one carpool lane) in each direction with a sloped embankment on each side. Several pedestrian bridges, tunnels, and overpasses connect across the freeway while some north-south streets have no thru-access, and this contributes to the physical separation of north and south Glendale. These streets end in cul-de-sacs at the freeway edge. Pedestrian-only bridges are located at Woodrow Wilson Middle School (bridge currently closed) just east of Glendale Avenue and at Columbus Avenue (bridge currently open). The only tunnel under the freeway is at Kenilworth Avenue, adjacent to Fremont Park. The tunnel is minimally lit and narrow, but frequently used by pedestrians and bicyclists. The distance between crossings ranges from 700 ft to over 1,300ft. Immediately north of the study area is the Verdugo Wash, a channelized tributary to the Los Angeles River.

PROJECT STUDY AREA


Glenoaks Blvd

Rd

SPACE 134
Kenilworth Ave

Columbus Ave

Pacific Ave

Central Ave

Brand Blvd

Jackson St

Louise St

Geneva St

EXISTING CONNECTIONS

Kenilworth Ave

Columbus Ave

Central Ave

Brand Blvd

Jackson St

Pacific Ave

Louise St

Geneva St

Pedestrian-Only Bridge Pedestrian Tunnel

Existing Bridges: Vehicular and Pedestrian Overpass Cul-de-sac: No Thru-Connection

Verdugo Wash

1 5

Gl

en

da

le

Av e

Gle

Doran St

nd

ale

Av e

Pioneer Dr

Po

Verdugo Wash

Mo

n te

rey

r to

la

Av e

LAND USE
The Downtown Specific Plan runs south from the Freeway and includes Special District Zoning along the core downtown streets, Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue. The community commercial area continues to the west along Glenoaks and there is another node of commercial activity at where Glendale Avenue crosses the 134 freeway. This eastern node of downtown activity indicates a major opportunity for Glendale to expand pedestrian-friendly commercial uses to the east. High and medium density residential neighborhoods surround the study area, with a low-density residential neighborhood, Rossmoyne, to the northeast of the freeway.
PACIFIC AVE

LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
GLENOAKS BLVD

MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL


MONTEREY RD

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

134

FREEWAY

COLUMBUS AVE

CENTRAL AVE

BRAND BLVD

JACKSON ST

GL

DEMOGRAPHICS
The makeup of residents living in the zip code areas adjacent to Space 134 is similar to that of the city as a whole, in terms of race and age, as well as household occupancy and commute mode. The average income in these areas however is less than the city as a whole.

GENEVA ST

LOUISE ST

EA VE

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Land Use Map

Study Area
Total Population

City of Glendale
Total Population

48,537

193,111

20,000
3010 3012.04 3018.01 3019 3018.02 3020.02 3020 3020 .04 .03 3011

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 80,000 6,000 4,000 2,000

COMMUTER MODES
SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE CARPOOL VEHICLE PUBLIC TRANSIT WALKING BIKING OTHER MEANS

$67,500
Avg. Income
Children Population (Age 0-19)

$78,393
Avg. Income Children Population (Age 0-19)

EN

DA L

3021.04

RACE

9,730
Household Occupancy

40,328
Household Occupancy

SPACE 134 134 Freeway

WHITE - %77 ASIAN - %16.2


Race, Study Area

BLACK - %2 OTHER - %5

2.17

2.63

Census Tracts, Study Area

Commute Mode, Study Area

*All Data from 2012 Community Survey, US Census.gov *Study area includes census tracts depicted right

1 6

NEW DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN


Key new development projects are highlighted, right. These pipeline projects are currently planned or underway and would provide over 700 housing units directly to the central city core, where Space 134 would be located. Beyond this, however, there are currently over 2,152 new units planned for Downtown Glendale. The Downtown Specific Plan contemplates major growth in the Downtown area, but in a balanced way to create a vibrant multiuse downtown of residents and business. Up to 1.7 million square feet of retail/office development is also contemplated, which will add some 3,390 jobs. These residences and new businesses will demand and benefit from an increase in park and amenity space in Downtown.

Pipeline Projects
1: Verdugo Gardens 2 at 610 N Central
6-story, 220-unit residential (Stage II.rev May 17 2012)

GLENOAKS

ARDEN

2: Carmel Partners Site A


5-story, 315-unit residential (Stage I Apr 2 2013)
BURCHET

MONTEREY

3: Carmel Partners Site B


5-story, 192-unit residential (Stage I Apr 2 2013)
I134 FREEWAY

4: The Lex on Orange


6-story, 309-unit mixed use (Under Construction)

A NOTE ON PARKING
One of the major strategies that the City has been pursuing is to manage parking supply and demand in the Downtown. During a field visit with staff of the study area; parking spillover into the residential neighborhood from the commercial district was noted. Much of the parking on the bridges over the 134 freeway currently serves Downtown employees. Space 134 should consider parking consolidation and sharing, rather than new parking development to support the park. This is especially true, in light of the large amount of new development coming to Downtown. A comprehensive strategy when it comes to planning for and requiring new parking should be pursued.

5: 301 N Central
6-story, 84-unit mixed-use (Stage II Mar 12 2013)

PIONEER

1 2 3
DORAN

6: Legendary Tower at 300 N Central


6-story, 80-unit mixed use (Under Construction)

7: Marriott Courtyard Hotel at 225 W Wilson


11 story, 172-room hotel (Stage II Dec 1 2009)

DORAN

8: Cental + Wilson
6-story, 153-unit residential (Stage 1 Mar 19 2013)

MILFORD

9: Orange + Wilson
6-story, 166-unit residential (Stage II Oct 30 2012)

LEXINGTON

10: Brand+Wilson
6 story, 235-unit mixed-use (Stage II Sept 11 2012)

MRYTLE

4 5
CENTRAL

11: Alex Theatre Expansion


2-story back-of-house facilities (HPC Dec 12 2011)
COLUMBUS CALIFORNIA

6
MARYLAND KENWOOD JACKSON

ORANGE

BRAND

LOUISE

13: Five Star Cinema


10-screen movie theatre renovation (Under Construction)

7
WILSON

12 9 10 13 14
BROADWAY

14: Louise Gardens


6-story, 63-unit residential (Stage II Dec 18 2008)

15: Glendale Galleria


Comprehensive Renovation (Under Construction)

BID BOUNDARY

16: Bloomingdales
120,000sf department store (Under Construction)

16 15

17 18

17: Eleve at 200 E Broadway


6-story, 208-unit mixed use (Under Construction)

18: Kenwood Terrace at 118 S Kenwood


5-story, 35-unit residential (Under Construction)

HARVARD

19: Nordstrom at Americana


119,119sf department store (Under Construction)

20 19 23
ELK

ORANGE GROVE

21
COLORADO

20: MONA (Museum of Neon Art)


9000sf museum/gallery (Under Construction)

21: Masonic Temple


Adaptive Reuse (Under Construction)

22

22: 124 W Colorado


5 story, 50-unit residential (Stage II Nov 15 2011)

Glendale Downtown Specific Plan


as adopted on November 7 2006 project list updated April 11 2013

Under Construction Entitled Major Renovations

23: Hampton Inn and Suites


5 story, 94-room hotel (Stage I&II Feb 26 2013)

1 7
0 150 300 600

GLE

SALEM

11

ISABEL

4-story, 42-unit mixed use (Stage II Nov 29 2011)

NDA

LE

12: Laemmle Cinema Lofts

VA

LV D

EL E

EV

N BEACHWOOD DR

EB
VICTORY BLVD !
! ! ! !

IA

VI ST A

LIV

LIN

HER

PA LM

EL M W

O LG

ED

CH

ST
!

AV

ST
! !

TE R

AV

AV

S
!

AV

EL M

ER

VA LE N

VE

ED

AV

RR

EN

AL AM

ROBIN GLEN DR

AR

CALEB ST

LY N

RE ST

VI D

M PS O

AV

OLD PH

PR

SP AZ IE

DR

EEVI N AV

AV

SU

MOND

PA CIF IC

AV

D AV

EC

EN

W OO

BEN LO

HIGHL AN

STONE

ARD

AM

CARNARVON DR

PR

IA

IDLE

RT A

ST

R CLA

NS

AV

AV

AH

ET

JU

AV

EN

AV

JU

RD

TE R

IA AV

AS H

HILLCREST AV

RL AN

D RD

VE

AV IS TA

G EL EN

NONAME

W VALENCIA AV

AV

SA

M PS

MB E

WY

AN

LO M

AY M

BASSO TER CU

EN

AV

AR

ST

LN

AV

AV

ARDM ORE

W O

D RD

BRUC

D AV

AL LE

AV

W IN

AR

HIGHL AN

WOO

NOLD

ED

ED

AV

HR

N CENTRAL AV

CT

AV

IDLE

O R

EL M

AV LIN

SO

OL ST

D RD

N MARYLAND AV

EN

C AR ME ND R SIN ALO AD R LO RE TO DR

BRUC

AV IS

GLEN

OV AA V

AV

ER WV

EL M

IA

! !

VA LE N

W OO

AV

LIN

! !

AL E

AV

IA AV

IDLE

CO RD

! !

SCHO

BL VD
AV

EM EN

W Y

BL VD

E AV

AV

DU

GO

CA VA N

W O

AV

TO

VIRG IN

RY

CO SM IC

GRAY

DE

BE

V IC

AG

LN

RT A

EN

O SE D

AV

IA AV

ER

AV

LN

AS

JU

GL

OLMS

TED

DR

OA

KS

HILLCROFT

TO R
RD

RE

WOO

! !

D RD

TOLL
MS
ST CONCORD

HHS
!

SPEN
CLEME

CER ST

E MOUNTAIN ST
ROSS ST

SD

O ALAM

DR

R
DEL MONTE DR

CIR

CLE
!

DR

NT DR

CASA ADOBE DE SAN RAPHAEL

O SE D

AV

CAMPBELL ST

AV

EL M

NORT ON AV

M PS O

M AU

AV

TG

AV

W IL

N ISABE L ST

AV

EN

TH

LU

N BRAND BLVD

AV

R ST

ROSS MOYN E AV *****

AV

SAN RAFAEL AV

FOXKIRK

MELROSE AV

ST

TE R

AN

LA

PA U

N CENTRAL AV

LLE AV

AV I

!D E

LE

ESTE

LB OA AV

LA

*****

*****

CANYON

N LOUISE ST

HOWARD ST

N ISABEL ST

COMMERCIAL ST

N EVERETT ST

STATE ST

GL E

N BRAND BLVD

N MARYLAND AV

PL

CHESTER ST

N KENWOOD ST

*****

N PACIFIC AV

N CENTRAL AV

NS

CONCORD ST

WESTERN HERITAGE WY

SINCLAIR AV

TA LN

N ORANGE ST

N EVERETT ST

*****

VIS

*****

N COLUMBUS AV

VA L

YD

UE

ME M

S CEDAR ST N CEDAR ST

N ADAMS ST

LOW

DR

EVERGREEN

DR
CRYSTAL LN

S KENWOOD ST

S PACIFIC AV

CARR DR

*****

AMERICANA

*****

WAM ED

W TE R CE DA RE DG CA EA ND V AC E PL HIL LM W O AL NT D AV O PL

HIGHLAND VIEW AV

CAMPUS ST

ILL AD

MN E

S CENTRAL AV

AV E

*****

AV

*****

IEW

SU

IEW

VIE

AL

KH

NE

GRISWOLD ST

S ADAMS ST

EL RIO AV

S LOUISE ST

S KENILWORTH AV

S CHEVY CHASE DR

S BELMONT ST

LE

GRANADA ST

ONTEORA WY

*****

S BRAND BLVD

MA IS

WING ST

PORTER ST

SHEARIN AV

FISCHER ST

HAVE N AV

S CENTRAL AV

VINCENT AV

MARIPOSA ST

DR

FISCHER ST

PEPPER WY

GU

IX

DR

W WINDSOR RD

VERD

WIO TA S

FIRE RD

EAST TR

! ! !

OAKS

DR

VIEW AV

AR

PL

ND

COLL EGE

DR

TO P

RO UN

ROUND TOP DR

BEMIS ST

TYLER ST

ELLE NWO OD

VINCENT AV

BOYNTON ST

PROSPECT DR

S ORANGE ST

DR

S GL EN

SE

REM

MA R

CORO NA

ND

RA

DE

NA VE

BE

NA

LE VA N

W AW O

HO LL YR

DD

WY

MISSI ON R

COLBY DR

NU

OW HEA

TR E

ILL IP

ARR

PH

LO WA V LY TE LL EP L

TOLEDO

47

N AVENUE 55

ENUE

N AV

ENUE

TL AK ED

PL

NA VE NU

LH A

ON

35

DO ST

PE

ICK

UE

MA

VE

BA

ST

VD BL

5. Increase the percentage of trips made by walking and biking through infrastructure improvement and new programs and policies that make walking and biking downtown easy, safe, and enjoyable. 6. Manage right of way to improve movement of people rather than just moving vehicles. 7. Develop financing strategies that allocate the cost of improvements appropriately to new and existing development and to the people who live, work, and visit downtown.

Caltrans is responsible for the operation and planning for the Freeway as a link in the statewide and regional highway network. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) provides coordinated funding for future improvements to the transportation network including the Freeway system and both of these regional agencies must be consistent with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan to maintain eligibility for federal transportation funding. Policy documents for all three of these agencies were reviewed to determine the regional transportation context. The Caltrans 2002 Transportation Concept Report (TCR) represents the

1 8

PL

4. Improve the coordination of Glendales on-street and off-street parking policies with its transportation demand management strategies.
NV ERM ON

PR EST W

**** TA * V

N DU

DE

RY RD LOW

AN

CH ET FL

U RG

ER

GLASSELL PARK & ! ! ! REC CTR

O RDUG

VIEW

DR

YK RR

NO

DR

ST

BUCH

ANAN

ELG

IN S T

NS

AV E

ED

JUNTOS

ER

D LL

HUB

TOLE

DR

WA VE N

GLEN HO LLY

NR

NORTHEAST DIVISION POLICE STATION

E IT

SCAN

PTO

NU

SH

AN

NO

ATWATER VILLAGE ! ! BRANCH LIBRARY !

DR

ITA

ST

DR

ST

DIA

WY

PA S

PL

ST

ST

RE

BUCH

ANAN

FAYE TT

E ST

GARVANZA

DS

66

TO N

DR

GLEN OA K

BER T PL LO CK SL EY

GREE

K N OA

DR

DR

DR

B TY

E TR !

EW

ST

D RO

EL

EA

N AV

ES

LAM

DR

TO

FLETCHER!DR !

N AV

CR

Route 4
DR

N AV

BELDEN DR

CARO

LUS

Metro Routes

ROOSEVELT MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE

CA

DM AN

AP

PO

CK

RN

ST

FIE

W AD

L EL

IC ER

KR

AV

M O

NT

AR TE

N AV

E PL

A CH

U EN

CH

ENUE

ST

RR

ST

PM

PA

CAN

HAZE

E6 4

N TO

N AVENU

L TO

ENUE

AN

TER

LN AV

N AVENUE 54

52

ST

53

ST

AN

LINCO

ENUE

SS RO!

LA R

ST

YR B UR

L TO 3 E4

M IN

! !

51

DP

E 65

C LE

50

HN

LN

LO DO

N LY

AN

DW

COOPER AV

NOLDEN ST

ER

RE

FREEDOM WY

YORK

LE GRAY AV MILW AUKE E AV

3. Manage Route parking supply and demand downtown to ensure Route 3/31/32 12 that a growing downtown does not impact residential Route 3 Saturday LCF Shuttle 33/34 neighborhoods and to generate revenue for downtown area improvements.
D H
N CA

HIGHGATE AV

N AVENUE 56

WY

MEMORY LN

OD AV

NO

VAL LEY

N AV ENUE 47 MUN SON AV

45

CYPRESS LN

ENUE

N AV

ENUE

ALE AV

N AV

BY LA N

LWOO D AV HAZE

*****

N AV

PL

ARMAD

VE DO

R CA

BA

ST

BAY LN

ST

E TR

W EL

N AV

AC AC ST

DE

RD

N AV

COOL IDG

PL

L ME

ST

IA

LN

BIRCH LN

A RO RLIN DE G RIC TO DO K NR N PL D AV

N VA LE

DR TA VIS E T LL RC VA NO A M

*****

ENUE

R VE DO

AC

49

LWO

! ! !! CERRITOS

DR

BE

AV

54

ST

GL

E VIEW

N DR

FALLSTON ST

PHI DEL

ST

N AVENUE 65

LOS FELIZ MUNICIPAL GOLF ! ! COURSE

ENUE

D AD

RANG

ALMA DE

PHIL LIPS WY

ENUE

RA

STRA TFOR D

RANGE VIEW AV

SPRING

VALE

DR

ROY ST

IN LN SAYL

PIC

KW

ICK

ST

BLVD !
!

MERI

DIAN ST

STRATFORD RD

MYOS

RUBY

OTIS ST PL RUBY PL D ST BEAR


!

! !

D EL

ST ER

RUTLAND AV

YO

N AVENUE 55

51

!!!

LD

46

YORK

ME D

EN

PL

CH

ADELANTE AV

D ! BLV

UR

EA

SY

FORTUNE WY

NS

! W

RA

***

A DR

LARKER AV

DR

LO

GLENDALE LARRY ! ZARIAN TRANSPORTATION ! CENTER (GTC)

ED

AV

**

ALU

MN

CORI NG

EATON TER

W!CERRITOS AV

I AV

TEHAMA ST

CH

ST

ST
L GO DP L

GL E

RS

FAYE TT

MERIDIAN ST

AV

E ST

BALT IMOR E

PO

LLA R

EN AV

UE

67

ARATINA ST

FE

** *

! LIZ

CA TH

AGUILAR ST

**

4 5 !

The DMS suggests that an east-west transit connection to the adjacent cities of Pasadena and Burbank along the 134 Freeway corridor is an important strategy to meet future mobility needs. The Caltrans TCR, consistent with planning documents of both SCAG and Metro does not contemplate rail transit in this corridor. Instead the TCR acknowledged the potential for bus rapid transit (BRT) in the median of the freeway to complete a regional transit network. BRT in the median of the 134 Freeway is mentioned and is the basis for the ultimate transit concept (UTC) governing the Caltrans desire to maintain enough right of way for double HOV lanes in each direction.
BIR
E6
R LLE WE

PAU

RD

LANTANA DR

VE

SE

SOMERS AV

Route 2
LED
HW

Route 11 Afternoon

RD

!!

N UR ICT

N LHA

N LUM

ST

! LIC

W EULALIA ST

ST

NU

AV

I AV

EATO N

RABER ST

RO M

AV E

AV E

V HA

WY

NT

DE

MEMORIAL

CUN

ARD

NE

ST

COR

E LAUREL ST

S LIS

DR

52

ID

Route 1
HEATHER DR

DR

RK

* ****

The 134 Freeway is significant to the Downtown access program as it v 180/181 90 serves as the780 major automobile access for employees and shoppers. 91 Conversely, the Freeways limited access points (Pacific Avenue, Central/ Brand Boulevard and Glendale Avenue) have become the most heavily congested sections of the City street system. A related condition 92 to the congestion is the high volume of traffic on adjacent residential neighborhood streets deal with commuter traffic seeking to c which must bypass the congested freeway ramps. In particular, complaints about traffic volumes and speeds on Doran Street during the commuter hours are a recurring issue for the City (see additional discussion below). The current freeway east bound ramp system at Glendale Avenue represents a major impediment to completing a potential parallel frontage roadway that could mitigate the residential impacts.
DR
!

ST

RIG

V IA AL! !

ELE

NW Y

CANTERBURY ST

O AX

DR

NU

ISO

**

EG LL CO

VIE

AV

RIC NOLDEN ST BEGONIA AV E ST

WOOD DR

the quantity and quality of transit service: making transit a fast, Route 11 Morning reliable, and attractive option.
VIS D TA EL L VA

RO

P CY

603
R GA DE

MA D

*** *** **

** *

* ****

E5 1

WESTDALE AV

COR

WY ANNAN ! !

LISS

ST

ST

* ***

NORDYKE ST

K LA POPP RIC LN ST GTON FARRIN AV OD WO BUR CIR R AK R ! ! LE D O D T LE NDA EA DA GR HILLA AN L HIL WY ST ST ADA CRE K LA PR A O

AK Y PE

DR

AV ND

BU

EIG RL

DR

SAN

YD

BU

ST

NG

RE

! !

**

E SS

SA

WY GAMORE

EN

FIRE

YO

RD

201

S SS

EC

RD

DR

YPR

ER YL

LANGDA

CAMP US

YALE

DR

CAMBRIDGE DR

School

Route 7 2. Increase the percentage of trips made on transit by improving

THE 134 FREEWAY


VERDANT ST !

MARIPOSA

LOLETA AV

DALE AV

TE R

DD

W Y

VERDA

NT ST

12

W PALMER AV

PALMER
OAKRIDGE

BRIER LN
GREEN ST

! !

IT E

WO O

TA

MAGNOLIA AV

! !

STA ! SHA
!

O RD

GREEN ST PL REEVES

685
CIR N

L FY

ER

PL

ST

NORWALK AV

LAS COLINAS AV

HEPN

ER AV

K OA

LAKEVIEW RD

ST

TYRO

TOWNSEND AV

AVEN

DR LE AN

183 780

E PALMER AV

KO

RESTHA VEN DR

V RO

DR

PO PIN PPY E G ST RO VE AV

DR

JUNIPER DR

GLEN HO

EAG

ORILLA AV !

DR

NE

! YOSEMITE RECREATION CENTER

UE 64

CHEVY CHASE DR

!!

PARK AV

LLY

CHEVY CHASE

W CHEVY CHASE DR

!!

! !

! !

PALM

LE R

*****

E CHEVY CHASE DR

183
VISTA CT

ER DR

A AV

NORW ALK AV

ADDI SON

CHE

AL ED

OCK

LAVE RN

WY

FAIR PARK AV

IR FA

R PA

V KA

AV ! V LE RA DA BO CK AR RO EN GL

TAM ARA

NORTH ATWATER
*****

W ACACIA AV

ROMULUS DR

DY

LN

YOSE
! !

GLE N

****

E ACACIA AV

LA WN D

CIN

MITE DR

NEO

T LA S

CD

LINDA ROSA AV LINDA ROSA AV

LANARK/SHELBY

RRY DR SE QU OIA DR

KE

RE

HILDA AV

*****

NEOLA PL

BAYWOOD ST

BLVD

! !

! !

ROOSEVELT MS

GCC GARFIELD CAMPUS

ROSA

ULLE

PLUMAS ST

AV

LINDA

A AV

DW O

PA RK

GLEN AYLS

GLA C

RW IN

W GARFIELD AV

MITE DR

MOUNT ROYAL DR

E GARFIELD AV

YOSE

SEQUOIA ST

E GARFIELD AV

RIDGEVIEW AV

DR

VIS

RE SAGAMO

WY

AV

most current focused planning document for the 134 Freeway with an c EAGLE emphasis on determining the ROCK ultimate need for freeway right of way. While the report acknowledges recurring congestion on the segment approaching the interchange of the Freeway with the I-5 Freeway (just to the west of the study area) the report does not contemplate further highway capacity enhancements beyond the recently completed high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and four mixed flow lanes in each direction.
IER
BR
GRANDOLA AV
!

PA RK

AV

! !

EAGLE ROCK BRANCH LIBRARY


FAIR

TO N

92

SD

LOCK

FAIR

OAK TREE DR

LIN

DA

*****

*****

2 Further discussion of some of the DMS mobility strategies as they relate 180/181 to the study area follow.
S COLUMBUS AV
PORTER ST
S LO
GOODWIN AV
!

EL REPOSO DR WAWONA ST

Legend

1. Manage traffic congestion and parking demand downtown through a combination of infrastructure improvements and Bus Stop Route 5 policies that encourage the use of alternative modes for travel to and within downtown. Point of Interest Route 6
D DR

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

603 201

E WINDSOR RD

E GARFIELD AV

RO

RD

W MAPLE ST

W MAPLE ST

RALEIGH ST

11

LOY LN

MERT ON AV

MERTON AV

WALDRAN AV

HARTWICK ST

MAPLE

GLEN IRIS AV

MOUNT ROYAL DR

LA GLENDALE WATER RECLAMATION

ST E MAPLE

90 91

KE

NT PL

WARD ST LA RODA AV

H RT NO

TR

W LOMITA AV

E CHESTNUT ST
E MAPLE ST

WILSON MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE

12

!!

DR RIVERDALE !

183 685

! ! !

KIP

LIN

ON

FIG

EA

AV W LOMITA

DAY

ROCK GLEN AV

ROCK GLEN AV

WY

AV

! ! !

E MAPLE ST

EL ROBLE DR

Measure R Projects Map c


OO NW D DR

! ! !

! !

! !

COLORADO BLVD !
!

! ! !

! !

AV

*****

CHICKASAW AV

CHICKASAW AV

LB HO

RO

OK

ST

L CO
! ! !

A OR

DO

VD BL
E GL NG

AR

RY

RD

*** *

SA

AV

! DR SAN ER MA LC OV OL EN M AN GL SE DR QU ITA OIA DR * DR

RAFAEL
SA
AN NA

CLU

UE

E LOMITA AV

CASPAR AV

VINE ST

N MAYWOOD AV

EDISON PL

LO CO

ARA

HILL

DR

RO

*****

BR

VIS

RA

HARTWICK ST

DO

LOLETA AV

*****

c Transportation Context, Beeline & Metro Routes


!

HOLY FAMILY

WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN NIAG

TA

WC

OL

E ELK AV

DIXON ST

AS

BLV

W ELK AV

W ELK AV

E ELK AV

FIRST LUTHERAN

ROCKLAND AV

DAHLIA DR

LAS FLORE S DR KIPLIN G AV

DR

EAGLE ROCK

E ELK AV

WINDERMER

EAGLE ROCK BLVD

****

PACIFIC COMMUNITY CENTER & PARK

ELLENWOOD DR

LIV E

!!

LINCOLN AV

CO LL EG

SIE

OA K LN

! !

E AV

! !

183

! !

OA

W COLORADO ST

! !

183

! !

! !

! !

EV

RR

RO CK

LO C

FIRE RD

E COLORADO ST

KV

*****

OAK ST

S EVERETT ST

ORANGE GROVE AV

DR

603

AV

CARR

HARDING MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE

MOUN

NA V

W HARVARD ST

AV

W AY

HERMOSA AV

LN

! !

RA V

BLUE BELL

MEMO

ELECTRONICS PL

HAWTHORNE ST

GLENDALE GALLERIA

E HARVARD ST

TOBIN WORLD

BR

T HELE

RY LN

94 794
WS AN

GHS
S VE

KIN

CH

A AV

LS TR

MAYNARD ST

EL

IVY ST

EL

EH ILL R

FERN DR

GRIFFTH PARK

S ISABEL ST

NA AV

OE

DA

MAGNOL

IA DR

The transportation system context for this project is summarized best by the recently adopted 2007 Downtown Mobility Study (DMS), which, in support of the Downtown Specific Plan, describes the Citys vision for a comprehensive mobility program. The DMS outlines the following broad goals to balance mobility needs for a growing Downtown:
!

RA

! ! !

LW

!E

BROADWAY ! !

! ! ! ! !

LA MIRA

HL IA

MIN E

HAR

BRAZIL ST

W BROADWAY

201

180/181 780

b
!

*****

NT VE

DA RD

GPD

LUKENS PL

RD

N EVERETT ST

DR

DR

IO

HA

*****

! W !

WILSON AV

! ! !

E WILSON AV

! !

OW PL SLEE PY HOLL
VALLE VISTA DR

FIG

RV E

OR

IA L

LE Y

DR

CE

SALEM ST

NS

FASHION CENTER

LOS ANGELES ZOO

*****

SPERRY ST

BYW OOD

DR

EAGLE ROCK HILLSIDE

LOS AL TOS DR

VA L

AS

MOUN

T SI

! !

DR

HO

STANLEY AV

LLO WD R

RO AS

NAI DR

CUTTER ST

ALEX THEATRE

N JACKSON ST

THE DOWNTOWN MOBILITY STUDY


E FIR RD

TRYO N

* LE *** Y * D R

W CALIFORNIA AV

E CALIFORNIA AV

MOUN

ZOO DR

685

ADVENTIST

LL

SLE

E PY

CIVIC CENTER

RTE 134 & 2 PARK & RIDE

UR

A
DR

134

*****

BLU

AD

TUSTIN

RD

HILL DR

ES ST

RD

PA TR IC

IAN

WY

ANNANDALE GOLF COURSE


**** *

LIN

DA

VIS

AV TA

****

COVENANT WY

A AV E CALIFORNI

PL

HOLL YD

LIN

DA

VIS

TA

! !

O AD OR! !

BLV

D
LN SAN RAFAEL

LOWE

***** ELMWOOD DR

HS NIT

DA

R LE

AV

T KS LIC

HE

OS RM

AR

SAN RAFAEL LIBRARY

KAW EAH

LAG

AR UNIT

LA LOMA R

LA

L OM

CRES

D WY TWOO

AR

D
!

SA

LE AV

RD

D DR WILDWOO AV ON UPPERTON PL ERT P UP

TIP

TON WY

ON TIPT

WY

POPP

RA

Y PE

AK DR

FA E

LA V

LA G

MESA VERDE RD

UN

AR

SA

S PA

CU

AL

AV

ARR

ARROYO GOLF CO

RD

T CA

ION

*****

NO RT HT R

MYRTLE ST

! ! !

W O

MC HENRY RD

CE

MA N

AS

E GLEN OA
! !

RMEL

ID DR KING DAV

ZION LUTHERAN

201

KS BL VD !
! SC HO

O D N R ANY TO C ING RL CO PL ARDS EDW

FO

W LEXINGTON DR

DC

*****

W LEXINGTON DR

! !

E LEXINGTON DR

201

A RD

DR

AV

GLENOAKS !

RD

G AR

A VISTA

VESPE R DR

SKYLINE TR

11

ORC H

TE R

P AK

LI FF E

! D

DN

W MILFORD ST

N AV

HOLLI STER

W Y

B! LV

EDE

RD

ER

W MILFORD ST

GENEVA ST

FOREST LAWN DR

LA MIL

RD

EC

OA KS

PEN

NER

PASO ALTO

****
M IR

W DORAN ST ! !

ALEXANDER ST

! ! ! !

! HE

EG

LE N

TON

ER IST LL HO

CA

E DORAN ST

NARANJA DR

CA

W DORAN ST

PL

N LY

E GL

NE

183

VY

CH

AS

RL SO

NO

DEVONSHIR

SON

*****

! W DORAN ST !

R ED

P
DR

K ER

DO

CALVARY GA LE CHRISTIAN R

IN

AK

DR

11

****

! !

R TRE ND

DR

RIV

E LN

PL

! !

ZOO

WOODBURY RD

ON NT

CIR
R TE

SB

PIONEER DR

BA

ER

SID

PIONEER DR

LV D

PH

LB OA

N ZOO DR

DR LUTON DR

DR

A GR

NG

AV

T ES

SANCHEZ DR

****

SID W RIV ER

VALLE

Y HEAR T DR

N AV

BA

E DR

DR

134

PATTER SO
FAIRMONT AV

FREMONT

VA L

W MORNING SIDE

PA U

LE

AV

PO

ST

BURCHETT ST

GOODE AV

MONTEREY RD

GL EN

IDE

RA

IR

E GLENOAKS BLVD !
!

JACKSON PL MAURITA PL 1 MARYLAND PL 2 E DORAN ST

WILSON MS

O AV

NO

AK

TE

VIS

DE

AV

PA R

AV

KS

MOUNTAIN VIEW

NC

RS T

HAHN AV

GLENDALE ADVENTIST ACADEMY

TA

HO

GA R

OM A

ON

AV

BURCHETT

ST

BE

AH UL

ARDEN AV

! !

INA

DR

SCHOLL CANYON GOLF COURSE

ARDEN AV

RT OL AA N GL V EN DA LE NA AV DA MS ST

V AA

AV

AV

SE VE N

!!

RS

ST

RO CO

NA

! !

TW Y

RIV

ID RS

G R

DR

DE

ST

LD

ST

! !

AN EL
!

! ! !

GLENOAKS BLVD
!
!

PAT TE

ARDEN AV

92

The 2007 Downtown Mobility Study helps to establish the 7 background transportation policies and programs that are critical RIVERSIDE RANCHO for Space 134. Other recently adopted policy documents including the 2006 Beeline Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and the 2012 Glendale134 Bicycle Transportation Plan (GBTP) are also critical policy background documents when it comes to designing Space 134 within its transportation context.
AZ EL

GESELL ST

AY M

IR VI N

W IN

DA VI S

AV

FIE

LE EG
CAMERON PL

A KS NO

DO

DR

ED

IN

BU

H RG

ON AV

GLENMORE BLVD

GA R

VIE

LS

AL MA

AL

AV

FA IR

ST

N CO

V IA

E FAIRVIEW AV

BLV

ETH

C AS

JE S

*****

PITMAN AV

BA R

RANCHO MARKETPLACE

ES

O R

AV

SE

AV

IT T

!!

ST

12

EL

GROVE PL

LN

OA

TE

W CT ALLER CT
CT

RIV

RA

ND

TR U

LA V

W DRYDEN ST

W DRYD

EN ST

ST

NF LO

C AD

ET T

ERS

AV

! !

TO N

AV

IDE

!ST W DRYDEN

E DRYDEN ST

DR

ST

ST

RA

! !

PALM DR

PALM DR

IA D

NT

PALM

AV

AV

DR

ALLEY

VISCA

OLY MPIC

ER

CE

N CEDA

N EVER

W ES

GENE

AL LE N

! !

BL VD

LA K

ND

SOUTH ST

DR

FL OW

AIR

PALM DR

CORDOV A

GR A

CORTEZ DR

!!

NO DR

ST

TO RY

ALMA ST

LIN

AY M

TE

! ! !

RD

! !

ETT ST

PELANCONI

VA ST

AV E

RU

VIC

! !! !

! !

E STOCKER ST

KENNINGTO

W STOCKER ST

HOWA RD

CH

IR VI N

BE RT A

LA R

ST

NIBLEY

ST

AZ UL

N DR

AV

WO

****

AV

IN

VIRG IN

SP AZ

AK

EW BY

AV

ST

AV

IE

*****

TONONI

AV

W LORAINE ST

SALEM LUTHERAN

MONC

ADO DR

GLENDALE CIVIC AUDITORIUM

GLENDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

ST


31 32

LA CAR

AL E

OM

ST

LI N

! !

M O

ST

ST

NNET H RD

GR A

UC

ST IN

EL

AV

AV

AV

! !

NORT ON AV

BR

CE

PH

! !

MO S

NA

! !

5T H

NT O

! !

RD

MONT E VIST A AV

W KE

BOHLIG

RD

DR

OROS

LIN

AV

VICTORY CT

DA

ST HA AN LE DA ST RD AV

EN

AZ BE

E AV

MAJE

AV

PU E

ES

EA

OO D

TY MIS

AT E

LA N

32

EDGEWICK RD

AS

RD

SA

GRANDVIEW LIBRARY

TH

EL M

TE R

NW

ISLE

DR

EN

MO R

ED

AV

NT

DR

GL E

STIC

AV

PL

W Y

OA K

BLA DR CO DR

! !

ST

****

AV

TH

UG

LAWS ON

UB

DU

CL

CO RN

IDLE W OO

RD

DR

ST

5T H

GRANDVIEW MEMORIAL

R LA

DR

LF

NS

CO

GE

RD

*****

RD

DR

LIDA LN

VE

LI

RID

LAS FLORES

GEORGE IZAY

Beyond its placemaking aspects, Space 134 may also help the c 5 need to establish a central city transit hub city to respond to the for east-west commuter light rail or bus rapid transit, which may 12 be planned along the 134 Freeway in the future. Because the 134 Freeway is significant to the Citys mobility and 94 access needs, the 183 92 Space 134 project must consider the transportation context for the 794 area surrounding it.
G

EN

N COLUMBUS AV

AN

AV

CLEV ELAN D

RIDGEWAY DR

VIRGIN

LI N

TA

PR

LA K

! !

RL AN

R D RA D

BO

AT H

IR VI

ER

BR

DR

IA

DR

VERDUGO

Y RD ! VERD UGO VISTA DR


!

KIR KB !

DR

AV

AV

CRESTSHIRE DR

RD

ES

GO

TA TE S

ONTARIO AV

VI

CU

MB E

R RD

HE

EN

LD

THUR

LE NE

SPIRSA

TU

WK

GF AIR

LINDA VISTA AV

VE R

RD

P EM

IN

ER LN

LIN

AV

GR E

IT A

BE

AL CA

ARVIN DR

BELL

EAU

RD

CHEVY CHASE CHEVY CHASE COUNTRY CLUB LIBRARY


AY RW PA

PE

LA N

LOMAY PL

PARKVIE

AV

V KA

SU

*** *

N TO

RO YA ALC L B ALD EW LV D

AV

SHER

AV

SP

PL

AV

NR D

WA LINDA VISTA LL DR RD ME RE RD

RD

c
DR
DR

OO D

DR

W AV

ST

AY M

WO

EL M

AV

RA

D RD

GR GE

VA R

NE

! !

! !

PLEA SA

NT VIE

RL AN DR W TER D

VIEW

CRES

SH

AV

ALM WP

AV

E OV

AV

CU

LA

MB E

T RD

RIM

MOOR

IN

TH

AV

GRA ND

AV

CRES

AL

DR

! !

ED

T DR

OR

LOM

BALM

COLINA DR

W ES T

TRANSPORTATION CONTEXT
AV
E

O RD

IR VI N

M W

ILLIPS

HIL LC

ST

AV

VIEW AV

AV

IA

EN

RO HR

N VERDUG

ED

CUMBERLAND RD

SIDE DR

! !

CRES
! !

TMON

T CT

MAYORS BICENTENNIAL

SH

ER

CHEVY KNOLL DR

BUCKINGHAM RD

KN

IDA

OL LW

LA VIST A PL

VA LE N

*****

HINE DR

NIODRARA

AR

ER

!!

HIGH LAND AV

AV

EL

ST

BL VD

RD

KILDONAN DR

SUNS

KA

DR

LA K

* ***

AV

IA

AD

RE

ST

! !

DO

ET H

HILLSIDE ! DR
!

A VIST A DR

AN

RD

NT

AV

FR O

LIN

RN

ST

KE

ED

EL

NN

MATILIJA RD

WOND

SIE

AV

AV

FE

CH

IR

D AN

PL

ST

SA

W IN

DR

1S T

5T H

RD NESMUTH INE DR VALENT NOLAN AV DR MAGINN

AD

ERVIE

KIL MA
W DR

PO
RY LN

BONITA DR

LE R

OO D

RD

AV

! !

AP

D BLV

UG

BURBANK TRANSPORTATION CENTER !

AV

! !

NN

AV

IA

ES

BO

! !

5T H

183

BE

LA

LDIVA

IR

ST

DR

* ***

*
BRAN TA DR

YW

VERDUGO ADOBE HISTORIC SITE

DUBLIN DR

! !

BA

RA

EMERALD ISLE
ERIN

WA LD O

VIA SE

BE

SP AZ IE

1S T

! !

3R D

BL VD

****

VIA SA

DR

JUNE LN

RW IC

AR

NE

OPECHEE WY

COR

R O TE RD

RS

TO N

ED

RRAN

AV

N EST

KS

IN

! !

BRAND LIBRARY

SAN LUIS REY DR

DE

KIR

ME

AV

LE NO

UT

OA

CALA

KD

LE E

ST

AV

EN

ST

CANADA BLVD

RE

O VA D AV LE N C IA AV

BURBANK CITY HALL

AL AM

MO S

GL

DE

PL

! !

AN

CAPISTRANO AV

FIA

ST

KH

AM

DR

ID

ISA

BE L

ED

6T H

SE

AV

ST

ITA D

ST

AV

VE

ST

****

AV

VA LE N

TW

5T H

ED

R BER WICK DR

AV

MEDIA CITY CENTER


RO NF

POLICE STATION

! !

VU

JOAQUIN MILLER

M PT O

RA

AV

DEL VALLE ! AV
!

LN

OU

NT AIN

RIS
LN

PL

GLENDALE SPORTS COMPLEX


Y

*** *

BURBANK PUBLIC LIBRARY

NG

ST

DR

IE

UR

7T H

RD

IR

EA LA

BA

! !

CH
LL E

AN

LI

BE

LVA S

EL RI TO AV

EL RITO AV

FERN

KIN

RID

WY GE

A M

DIS

RD

HAVERS

ILT ON

DR

HA

BR

AN

DL

E AT

RA

DON CARLOS AV

3 31

ALLANJAY PL ISLE L DE

TR FLIN

IDG

R ED

WINDERMERE PL

KE

SW

INV

ER

NE

SS

TOCK RD

OAK GROVE DR

YU

WO O

CC

DB

AL

UR YR

D
! ! AV

DR

N MO

AR

DR CH
EU NP STO

NW EIM AR

PA L

UPPER ARROYO
*****
*****

RF

CRESTVIEW AV

LA R

90 91
! !

DR
D RR

WABASSO WY
ROSITA DR

HAV

T NS

FULL

MOO

N DR

IS

DR

CO LIN

OAKMONT TER

SA

AU

S GU

TIN

DR

DOVE WEN

N
RM NO AN DY CT

VD

ST

TH

LA

GLENDALE
*****
RW VE DO
LE VA AR ST


LN

CT

PA

ICK

DR

LN

LN

LN

CORONA

***

O FO IL TH LD R

**

AD RIS

CH

DR

E AK NL ST

EA

AD

P TE GA ST

NE

C AR

SY AN LV

YD

RIE

ER EM

NT

NG
SE

NV

LN

R KD AR HP FIT RIF DR OD WO CH EA ST NB KS PAR NS DR


NB EA CH NR EE PL NS

ST

D AL

ICT YB OR LVD
NM
N AR NV ST EY

ISL ED R

U FIG ER O

S OS

ON DR ASHINGT

AS

BRAEMA

N AR

NM
NG

*****

ST

WY

ST ITA OM NL T NS LTO HE NS ST SA IPO AR

D EV

RO Y

NG W LEN OO L DP

EDGEHIL

L PL

PU

E TN

YR

R RD

ON RD

OB

LVD

ARD EEV

TH CA

R KD AR HP FIT RIF DR OD WO

ST AY

IN AV

**** *

M DEER

FALG TRA

O D O

RD

NO RC RD HA DR
AM NL ER PL ST AR NP ISH NM YE RS ST INC SL

M LO

LN VISTA

PAR KS ST

DR

ARROYO VIEW

ONT

ST ITA

ER

RO

S CA CEN IC SH DR IR E PL

RD
NG M LEN ON

DR

ARBOLE

CIE O LIT DR

CA MIN O

WELLINGTON AV

LIDA ST

S DR

DR

SA N RA

R BU LLY HO

PARKVIE

NONAME

LAUREL ST

BRYANT ST

BROOKSIDE GOLF COURSE

E FA L

LW ME

MERRIMAN DR

TD

NE

RD VIEW VALLEY

N COLU

GORY RD SAINT GRE

THY DORO

W AV

PE IM

CHAMB ERLAIN RD

BANYAN ST

OM SL

CT

OO

SG

SV

****

IA

LEN

IRG

RIDGE

MTWY

DRAGONFLY ST

WICKS RD

MOUNTAIN

2
RID

LE AL

DU

LC

E
E SIR NA

CA

LLE

E GR

IC NW

RD

ON AFT
O AFT T NS

SA LV AFTON ST IA ST CA NY ON RD

DR

S ITA

MBUS

U FIG

SM

INIA

O WO

DR

SS PAR KS ST

S AIN

ERO

AV

AV

DP

SR E EES PL
ER AM SL

AS

LE AL

CA

SO

LLE

CALLE BE

SM

EL

MIR

CA

AD

LL E

OR

DR
BA WA

CALL

E AM AB LE

RA

DIO

TE LA

RA

ST SH

CH

AR

LE S

ST ARLE S CH

PASAD
ST

*****

N R IS

CA

LA

ST SA R IPO KD AR AR HP FIT RIF SG

TH DORO

LE AL D EL C PA

E LL

PR VE IMA

LIN

TRAM

CA

DA

LLA

A NT

VIS

Y DR

L RD MEL

N COLU

RA

IC SM CO

ON HELT SS

TA

***

IC IF

W MT

**

EN EM

MBUS

Y W

TH OR W NIL KE

DR RD HA RC SO PL ISH AR SP

SM RS YE

K RT W STUA

ST

W Y

AV

GL E

E GLENOAKS BLVD

N STO EY SK

EAC SB

ZO

RIG SB

ST

DR

EN MAYGRE

IT LE

RD
DR LN URY

RAN

CHE

RO S

CH

P RD TA VIS ULA

AV

ST

NS OL T

SR

GE

ON HT ST

OO HW

EE SE

DR

KELLOGG AV

T ES

PL

DD

*****

T DR WES

FAY DR

O AC

SO S AY LW

RN PL

LINDA

RIDGE

RD

SB UE NA VIS S TA T
L MU HO A LL ND Y

AV

HE

H AT

ER

SID

ER

NS D ATKI

* ***

AVONG

LE DA

AV

PIN

EO

AK

LN

LEN TER

LIL AC LN

BR

LIN

EN GL

N VE RDUG O RD

DA EN GL

E GL

CT

HILL DR

OA

SCHOLL CANYON

SE

DR

KS

MOORESQUE DR

VD BL

GROVE PL

N ZOO DR

SC HO LL CA

SCHOLL CANYON RD

NY O

*****

O ZO DR

N RD

ZERR CT

SA NF

H TR NORT

HOLLYVISTA

ER NA ND OR D

LA C UMB RE D

DR

BE LD

FIRE

AY

ASCE

R FE

* ***

RD

NSION

AV

RD

N SA

CRY

*****

N RA

STA

TOWNSEND AV

E FA

ARGUS DR

L SP

R FE

V LA

MOUNT ROYA

AV HIGHLAND VIEW

VINCENT AV

HERMOSA AV

RIN

NA ND

RDUG

L IL

GS

SHEARIN AV

OR

DR

O RD

S SAN

L DR

LOY LN

SIERR

RAFAEL

OU M

NM

DR MONTE BONITO

LE EL

E GL

FLORISTAN AV

NT HO OO YW LL

A VIEW

IG

ND AL ER

NS

UE

AV

ME UM

LR

CH

RD

ER D RY

R RD

C MAL

AN

GE

ALG

OLM

S LE

ER

*****

AD ANIT

ST

DR

MOUNT LEE

ST

JANE

FI GRIF

RUTH AV

T PL

W AVENU

CA

TH PA

PIN

AVOCA ST

SUN VISTA SUPERBA DR

RAY CT

DR

ER

AV E PALMER LIN DR OBER

RK

OD

ALG

E 40

DR

LSID HIL

W AVENUE 42

ER ST

NYCRES

CALEDO

E ET

SA DA S MS T

T DR

NIA WY

AN

NA

W AVENU

WAWONA ST

ER NT

VERDUG

SILVERWOOD

DR

BA

RE DO

S RD COON

ON EMM

E 42

IO MAR

ER

O RD

LU CO

RD

AR ON

S MU

SA

N AVEN

S RD

N DR

PE

DA

RD

BIA

AV ITA RL

R GA

GA

LN

S MS

NA

DR

AV

UE 57

DE

****

AVE

AV

RANO

*****

V NA

YO R K

NU

AN OLE

VEN NA

STE TMIN WES

NS AV

W AVEN

W AVEN

*****

EASTVIE

D LE

L IL P L

CHURCH

DR

DER

UE

UE 40

UE 41

GEW

45

W DR

DR

DR THAVEN CRES E 63 ENU DR N AV VIEW PALM T IS S LEW PL

IO FIL

DD OO

R RD

E AV

DURAND

VE WA

NU

BR

ST

ED

3 E4

UN

BO

TAL CRYS

EN

RE

NU

IC SW

YC

DR

SE

HU

E AV MARI PL VISTA R ST FISHE ST KIRBY

VE

ID MER

2 E4

NE

MM CO

AV

RS

RE

S VA

OO W

RVATORY E OBSE

A PL NEV

CA

M ALDA

VE LI O

AV

V TA

LEGION

AV

SA

SPRING

VE

AV

IAN

DH

ON

AR G

RM

LN

VALLEY BRINK RD

AV

E AV

GRIFFITH VIEW DR

A WE

TER

A ST

ON

ES

EN

LN

S DR

R TA

TC

H LT

AV

NEWLAND ST

AN YO

E GL

CA NY

AV

N AVEN

BURY AMES

AS

BRANCH ST

C LA

RD

AS IT

IZ B EL NF

N RD

D LE

ON

AV

UE 45

DR

AV

LVD

RD

PUBLIC TRANSIT
Public transit service in Glendale is very good and is a key part of the Downtown Mobility strategy. Transit in Downtown Glendale is served by Beeline local routes operated by the City and regional transit bus services operated by Metro. In addition, LADOT runs a commuter express service along the 134 Freeway with stops at Sanchez Drive at Brand Boulevard and Goode Avenue at Brand Boulevard. The DMS makes an important point that to keep the vibrancy of the Downtown the planned transit system must connect the local transit buses to the regional system. Currently, Beeline transit routes focus on the Larry Zarian Transit Center, an Amtrak/ Metrolink station to the south of Downtown Glendale, and to a Bus Rapid Transit link at the hub of Brand Boulevard and Broadway but there is potential to link the local system into the regional system at Space 134.

OPTIONS FOR STATION LOCATIONS


Unlike the Caltrans TCR, the east-west transit connection, as described in the DMS, is an off-line transit center on either side of the 134 Freeway between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard. East-bound BRT buses would stop on Sanchez Road and westbound BRT buses would stop on Goode Avenue (See BRT station location Option 1, right). This configuration would coordinate with a BRT route that would travel to the west along Glenoaks Boulevard, south to the Brand/Colorado Boulevard intersection and then easterly along Colorado Boulevard. That configuration could also work with the Caltrans suggestion that the BRT route would be in the 134 median, but with some additional bus ramps to connect the City street system to the Freeway median. A simpler BRT station configuration would be on either side of Brand Boulevard connecting to the possible freeway median BRT system as described by Caltrans (see BRT station location Option 2, right). Freeway would need to be substantially widened to accommodate two-way drop-off / loading of passengers from BRT buses. As of May, 2013 Metro is conducting a feasibility study to further refine the concept for BRT in this corridor. Metro is currently favoring the Option 2 alignment.

GOODE SANCHEZ

GL
2 2

EN
WOODROW WILSON MIDDLE SCHOOL

MONTEREY
1 1

VONS COLUMBUS PACIFIC CENTRAL

RD WHITE ELEMENTARY

1 2

BRT Stations Option 1 BRT Stations Option 2

BRT Route Option 1 BRT Route Option 2

Bike Sharrows

LIGHT RAIL PROTOTYPE (AT-GRADE) :

BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROTOTYPE (AT-GRADE):

Sidewalk Varies

Traffic Lanes Varies

Median 8

Transit Way 24 Min.

Platform 8 Min.

Traffic Lanes Varies

Example of a BRT Station

1 9

DA L

GLENOAKS

BRAND

LOUISE

CONGESTION AND THE FRONTAGE ROAD OPTION


CONGESTION IMPACTS TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS
A high level of commuter traffic through the residential neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown is also highlighted in the DMS strategy. To mitigate excessive traffic volumes on these streets, the DMS describes possible changes to implement a continuous freeway access frontage road system adjacent to the freeway, focusing on Sanchez Road on the south side and Monterey Road/Goode Street on the north side. According to the DMS, the following changes are recommended for relieving congestion and improving freeway access (See figures, right): Restripe Goode Avenue to add a fourth westbound travel lane. Widen Sanchez Drive on the south side and restripe to add a fourth eastbound travel lane.

Extend Orange Street north to Goode Avenue, including right-of-way acquisition (currently a 1,000-space parking garage is on this site).
There are various options for Sanchez Drive which remain under consideration and will require further study:

Extend Sanchez Drive east to Maryland Avenue as an eastbound one-way Extend Sanchez Drive further east as a two-way street to Geneva Street, including right-of-way acquisition. Extend Sanchez Drive to Geneva Street as an eastbound one-way and convert Monterey Road to one-way westbound between Geneva Street and Brand Boulevard.
Another option in the long term for improving Freeway access is to extend Monterey Road over the Verdugo Wash with a bridge to connect to Glenoaks Boulevard. This would require right-of-way acquisition as well as a partial street closure on Glenoaks Boulevard. The project team was asked to look at a frontage road option in light of a new park space atop the greenway, specifically on how the road would function, how it would contribute to a wellfunctioning park, and how it should be designed to best respond to the needs of Space 134. The concept designs for this frontage road option are included in Chapter 2.

Proposed Frontage Road Modifications from the Downtown Mobility Study

1 10

LOCAL CIRCULATION
Currently, access to the project area is primarily by vehicular travel, as well as pedestrian travel to a lesser extent. However, proposed bike facilities, street enhancements, and public transportation amenities will increasingly provide connectivity opportunities for cyclists and pedestrians.

LINKAGES AND ENHANCEMENTS


VERDUGO VIEJO

KEY CONNECTIONS
E Stocker St

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FLOW


E Stocker St

TRAFFIC FLOW

E Dryden St

7
ROSSMOYNE
Geneva St

LINKAGES AND ENHANCEMENTS


Key takeaways from an analysis of linkages and street enhancements include:
92
Glenoaks Blvd

E Dryden St

Several new bike facilities are proposed under Glendales recently adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. Within the Space 134 study area, these facilities are sharrows rather than painted lanes or separated tracks. Monterey Road and Doran Street are major east west connectors through the study area, carrying heavy amounts of cut through, commuter, and local traffic. The Beeline bus will travel along Brand and through the Downtown core as a local bus circulator. The entire length of Geneva Street is a critical north south neighborhood linkage from the Rossmoyne neighborhood to RD White Elementary and is already identified by the City as a safe-routes-to-school route, with new improvements installed at Doran Street and Geneva Street, including bulbouts and enhanced crossings. A segment was previously identified by the city for a road diet or street narrowing and traffic calming along Glenoaks Boulevard between Geneva Street and Louise Street.
The Freeway represents a physical barrier between the residential districts to the north of and south of the Freeway. Other than the vehicular arteries serving the freeway ramp system, Louise, Jackson and Geneva Avenues are the only local road bridges over the Freeway. The Freeway connections at Pacific Avenue, Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard and Glendale Avenue are so heavily congested that it is difficult to provide for good pedestrian and bicycle access. The few local street connections across the Freeway may require physical improvements to provide the desired pedestrian and bicycle access in the context of the requisite automobile access. The City of Glendale has notable Safe Routes to School programs for its schools. Connectivity between local schools and the attending students is also impeded by the Freeway in this corridor. Students from R.D. White Elementary and Woodrow Wilson Middle Schools have to take circuitous routes to travel between their respective homes and schools.

Arden Ave

Gle

noa

ks B

Glenoaks Blvd Arden Ave

1
Burchett St Goode Ave Sanchez Dr Pioneer Dr

2
Monterey Rd

Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd Goode Ave

Burchett St

Geneva St

lvd

Maryland Pl

Jackson Pl

Maurita Pl

Sanchez Dr

Maryland Pl

Jackson Pl

134-SR

M
Maurita Pl

E Doran St

E Doran St

Geneva St

Everette St

Maryland Ave

Central Ave

Louise St

Columbus Ave

Kenwood St

Pacic Ave

Brand Blvd

Jackson St

Columbus Ave

Maryland Ave

Pacific Ave

Kenwood St

Central Ave

Brand Blvd

Jackson St

Orange St

Louise St

Isabel St

11

Howard St

E Lexington Dr

Howard St

Orange St

Isabel St

Geneva St
400 40

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

dale

Glen

E California Ave

E California Ave

3
HARVARD MINI PARK GALLERIA/ AMERICANA CENTRAL PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY

CHESS PARK
E Wilson Ave

E Wilson Ave 11

Legend Legend

Proposed Street Enhancements


Road Diet Area

0 0

400 40

800 80

E Broadway

Proposed Bike Facilities

LegendLegend
Higher Vehicular Flow

0 0

Gle
800 80

Proposed Bike Facilities


Colored Bike Lane (Class II)

Proposed Street Enhancements


Safe-Routes-to-School Intersection Treatment

E Broadway

Bus Facilities
1 2 3 5 7

Colored Bike Lane (Class II) Road Diet Area Bike Lane (Class II) Critical Linkages and Paths Bike Lane (Class II) B-Type Sharrow (Class III) Safe-Routes-to-School Sharrow (Class III) Path of Travel for Students to RD White Intersection Sharrow (Class III)Along Verdugo Bike Path: c Treatment Substantial Cut-Through Tr Wash (Class I) Bike Path (Class I) Ped and Vehicular Connectors Across 134 Proposed Freeway Access 1/2 Mile and 1/4 Mile, (5- and Ped Only Connectors Across 134 10-Minute) Walk Radii Improvements Beeline Route 1 Beeline Route 2 Beeline Route 3 Beeline Route 5 Beeline Route 7 Beeline Route 11 (AM) Beeline Route 11 (PM) Metro Bus 92 Community Gardens
Critical Linkages and Paths

Vehicular Flow Intensity


Lower Vehicular Flow

OFF On- and Off- Ramps, 134 Freeway

Proposed Freeway Enhancement Areas 1/2 Mile and 1/4 Mile, (5- and 10-Minute) Walk Radii

1/2 Mile and 1/4 Mile, (5- and 10-Minute) Walk Radii

Path of Travel for Students to RD White Substantial Cut-Through Traffic Pedestrian and Vehicular Bridge Across 134 Pedestrian Only Bridge Across 134

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FLOW

11 11
92

After the 134 Freeway, which carries the highest amount of vehicular traffic the major north-south streets, Glendale Avenue, Central Avenue, and Brand Boulevard have the highest volumes of traffic throughout the day. Glenoaks Boulevard, Monterey Road, and Doran Street also have substantial volumes of traffic and are used by commuters as freeway bypasses.

Community Facilities

1 11

nda

le A ve

Ave

OTHER CAP PARKS


There are several existing and proposed cap, lid, or freeway deck park examples from national and even local communities. These case studies demonstrate that not only are cap parks feasible, but they may also be designed and built in a variety of different ways. These other parks also provide guidance in understanding methods for constructing, financing, and managing for Space 134. The Trust for Public Land found that as of 2007 there were over 20 built cap parks in the United States and the average size for cap parks is nine acres (both statistics from Lau, C Urban Freeway Cap Parks Policy Briefing Paper, USC). Several locations throughout the country also have structures built over freeway decks, that is to say that buildings are built directly atop the freeway, See the Inventory of Comparative Decking Projects from the City of Sacramento, 2001 for more information. Wikipedia also has a fairly substantial list of Structures Built on top of Freeways. Regionally, Santa Monica, Hollywood, Downtown Los Angeles, and Ventura all have cap parks in various stages of planning. An existing park in La Canada Flintridge caps the 210 Freeway with passive open space and a gazebo and was done as part of a freeway mitigation effort. In San Diego several freeway bridge overpasses have been widened to accommodate widened pedestrian realms, with transit plazas, landscaping, and shade structures. In addition there is a 4-acre cap with a full freeway lid. Nationally, the Pacific Northwest has several existing cap parks, some of which are pictured, right, from large passive greens to smaller urban plazas. The recently completed Klyde Warren Park in Dallas Texas is a particularly relevant example because of its central city location, size, and programming, which includes a multi-purpose building, civic green, and public art. In Atlanta, Georgia a smaller-scaled precedent are the bridges at the University of Atlanta, which like the bridges in San Diego have been widened to expand the pedestrian-realm, with terraced grassy areas, shade structures and landscape buffers. Other cap parks exist in Seattle, WA; Columbus, OH; Chicago, IL; Trenton NJ; Phoenix, AZ; and Boston, MA. The costs for various cap parks are compared in Chapter 3 along with a discussion of the benefits, which include reconnected neighborhoods, new business and investment, increased visitors, provision of amenities to people who need them most, and an enhancement of property values. The costs include a substantial land acquisition costs, construction costs, and increased costs due to project complexity. Acquisition of air rights and leasing regulations are a particular challenge for cap parks. See Creating Sustainable Air Rights Development Over Highway Corridors: Lessons from the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston, Campbell, B., 2004 for more information.

La Canada Flintridge, CA

San Diego, CA

Hollywood Central Park, Los Angeles, CA

Tongva Park, Santa Monica, CA (Not a full cap concept)

Mercer Island, WA

Park 101, Los Angeles, CA

Ventura, CA

Dallas, TX

Atlanta, GA

1 12

UNDERSTANDING SCALE
The Space 134 study area covers a large swath of Downtown, with approximately 36 acres from Central Avenue in the west to Glendale Avenue in the east and spans anywhere between 470ft and 270ft wide north to south. It is about seven city blocks from one end to another. To put this in context, this is 12 acres larger than Millennium Park in Chicago (approximately 24 acres). In terms of spatial requirements, Space 134 can accommodate Nokia Plaza, Maguire Union Square, SFLA Yerba BuenaGardens, Gardens,LA SF Gilbert Lindsay Plaza, LA active courts and fields, basketball, volley ball, bocce, little league 3 AC baseball, even Size: one regulation size soccer field, although Size: AC Size: the soccer 1.1 Size: 3.5 .8 AC Size: 4.5 ACAC (incl. street) Hardscape: Hardscape: 45% 85% Hardscape: 35% Hardscape: 35% field would leave little room for spectators. Other programmable Hardscape: 90% Softscape: 15% Softscape: 50% Softscape: 20% Softscape: 40% spaces can also fit, such8% as multi-purpose / outdoor yoga fields, Softscape: Amenities: 00% Amenities: 15% Amenities: 35% Amenities: 25% Amenities: 2% convention tents, concert arenas and a farmers market.
soft soft soft soft

Plazas: Plazas: Program Program Comparison Comparison

Plazas: Program Comparison

Plazas: Program Comparison

Jameson Square, Portland Pershing Square, LA

Pioneer Portland Grand Square, Hope Park, LA

Campus Martius, Detroit One Colorado, Pasadena

Bryant Park, NY SF Union Square,


Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softscape: Amenities: Amenities:
soft

Yerba Union Buena Square, Gardens, SF SF Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softscape: Amenities: Amenities:
soft soft

Jameson Square, Portland Yerba Buena Gardens, SF Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softcape: Amenities: Amenities:
soft soft

Pioneer Square, Portland Jameson Square, Portland Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softcape: Amenities: Amenities:
amenity soft

Pioneer Martius, Square, Portland Campus Detroit Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softscape: Amenities: Amenities:
amenity soft

Bryant PM Campus

Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softcape: Amenities: Amenities:


soft
soft

4.3 AC 1.2 AC 50% 65% 25% 25% 25% 10%

Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softscape: Amenities: Amenities:


amenity

1.2 2.5 AC AC 65% 75% 30% 00% 5% 25%


soft

Size: Size: Hardscape: Hardscape: Softscape: Softscape: Amenities: Amenities:


amenity soft

.25 AC 2.1 AC 90% 55% 00% 20% 05% 15%


ha rd

6.6 3.5 AC AC 45% 50% 20% 20% 35% 30%

4.5 3.5AC AC 35% 45% 40% 20% 25% 35%

4.5 AC 1.2 AC 35% 65% 40% 25% 25% 10%

1.2 1.2AC AC 75% 65% 00% 25% 25% 10%

1.2 2.1AC AC 75% 55% 00% 20% 25% 15%

Size: Hardscap Softscape Amenitie

ha

rd

ha

rd

p.1
LA Events Center Open space Investigations 06.20.11
LA Events Center Open space Investigations 06.20.11

p.2

Amenities

SCALE AND SIZE


Softscape Hardscapes
LA Events Center Open space Investigations 06.20.11

Plazas: Size Comparison

p.2

What Fits?
Arden Ave

LA Events Center Open space Investigations 06.20.11

Gilbert Lindsay Plaza, LA Nokia Plaza, LA Maguire Gardens, LA Pershing Square, LA One Colorado, Pasadena .25 0.8 1.1

Burchett St

Union Square, SF Yerba Buena Gardens, SF

10

Jameson Square, Portland Pioneer Square, Portland Campus Martius, Detroit

Sanchez Dr

Maryland Pl

Jackson Pl

Bryant Park, NY

p.3 A Comparison of Scale of Parks and Plazas


Central Ave Brand Blvd Orange St Louise St

1 2 3

6 7 8

Full court / 5 on 5 basketball tournament 8 - 50 x 100 courts (with 20 buffer) Convention / event tent 140x300 Concert in the park

Outdoor Yoga 60x100 = 100 ppl. Farmers Market Booths or art in the park 80 - 10x10 booths (4 rows with 20 per row) Little League baseball Field 1 Field
0 0 200 40 400 80

widths that may be capped: 4 40,000 sf open lawn seating with Stage
5
1

In order to get a feel for the size and scale of the area and
9
(2,700 spectators) half court /3 on 3 space basketball tournament Large garden event 8 - 50x50 courts (with 20 buffer) 10,000 sf (7001,000 ppl.)

10

Regulation soccer small movie in the park 1 Full size Field 1,500 blankets = 2,500+ ppl, screen 30 ft. wide

Space 134 and full court / 5 onScale 5 basketball tournament


8 - 50 x 100 courts (with 20 buffer) Convention / event tent 140x300 concert in the park 40,000 sf open lawn seating with Stage (2,700 spectators)

outdoor yoga 60x100 = 100 ppl. Farmers Market Booths or art in the park 80 - 10x10 booths (4 rows with 20 per row) Little League baseball 1 Field

Maryland Ave

Half court / 3 on 3 basketball tournament 8 - 50x50 courts (with 20 buffer)

kenwood St

Small movie in the park 1,500 blankets = 2,500+ ppl, screen 30 ft. wide

Jackson St

LA Events Center Open space Investigations 06.20.11

1 13 9

ha

rd

ha

rd

rd Truly Space 134 provides a unique opportunity to host various ha enity m a cultural, artistic, and civic activities in the heart of Glendale. Imagine an open air ethnic food festival, local music fair, animation exhibition, a regular farmers market, or a movie night in the park.

soft am e ha nity rd

soft

amenity amenity hard

hard ame nity ha rd

ame

nity

nity enity ame am


am
hard hard hard

amen

ity

amenity

amenity hard

nity ame hard


ha rd

rd ard ha h

ity en am amenity

ha

rd

ha

am

hard

rd

en ity

en ity

p.2
3

4.3

3.5 4.5 1.2 1.2 2.1 6.6

1 AC

2 AC

3 AC

4 AC

5 AC

6 AC

FIGURE x

THEME AND BRAND


In 2011, Glendale completed a Branding Report that lays out a vision for an updated brand strategy, including logo, tag lines, creative brand collateral material, and brand implementation and management. Space 134 should build upon this brand, especially in terms of the elements that were identified that differentiate the City from its competitors. Here is what the Branding Report described as Glendales strengths: Neighborhoods: Glendale has 33 neighborhoods throughout the City. Each neighborhood is unique and distinct and brings a different flavor to the community. Strong mix of business: Glendale has a strong economic base that is dominated by financial services, retail, service industries, healthcare, and manufacturing companies. The City is home to several small businesses and concept stores as well as corporate headquarters to companies such as Nestle and IHOP. Creative Corridor: Creative entertainment companies such as Disney and DreamWorks call Glendale home. Accessibility: The City has excellent accessibility in Southern California via freeways and the convenience of the Los Angeles and Burbank airports. City Services: The research showed that Glendale has a well managed City government, and the City is considered to be safe and clean. Diversity: Glendales resident base is diverse with more than 65 different languages represented among the Citys residents. Village Feel: Even though Glendale is a large City, a village atmosphere permeates through the many neighborhood districts. This emphasizes quality of life attributes and positions Glendale as a great place to raise a family. Parks and Recreation: The residents rate the city parks highly, and cite them as a point of community pride. The outdoor recreation is a draw for people in neighboring communities. The Brand Library is a gateway to many hiking trails throughout the City. Education: Glendale Community College is an excellent higher education institution that serves a large student population and contributes to the trained and educated workforce. Restaurants: Glendale is home to many ethnic cuisines. There are a variety of restaurants here for everyone. Retail: The City is known as a strong retail destination with shopping at the Glendale Galleria, Americana at Brand, Glendale Marketplace, and the Glendale Fashion Center. And Glendales opportunities: Creative Corridor: With anchors like Dreamworks and Disney, attracting creative industries in the San Fernando Road Corridor is a natural fit for Glendale. Start-ups/concept stores: Glendale has a number of small businesses that are locally-owned. The city could make supporting entrepreneurs a priority by offering incentives, business classes, or creating an incubator program complete with work space for up-and-coming companies. With a history as an early-influencer among retailers, Glendale should tell that story to attract the next concept store success story. Public Art: The urban art program was recently expanded as a Citywide program that will develop public art for the community. This will add to the culture and enrich the community if properly funded. Community College: A strong partnership between Glendale Community College and the Glendale business community will enhance workforce development programs. Cohesive Message: As a result of this branding initiative, Glendale will have a cohesive message to communicate to residents as well as the Southern California audience. Tourism: Glendale is already a destination for great shopping. There is opportunity in expanding (and marketing existing) visitor attractions to retail visitors and business travelers. Events: Glendale has some strong events such as Cruise Night, Harley Love Ride and Farmers Markets. The City has an opportunity to make a name for itself with more unique events that are familyoriented and celebrate the various neighborhood districts. Signage and Marketing: Entryway and wayfinding signage (wayfinding project underway) will allow the City to begin the campaign of reintroducing itself to audiences. The marketing of a new identity to target markets has a real opportunity to quickly impact economic growth. Space 134 should be designed to capitalize on these assets and build the brand, from the creative industries that call the city home, with an emphasis on animation studios, to the diversity in cultures, food, and languages, and the village-feel of the city itself. The Citys tag line, Glendale. Animated. or Your Life. Animated. Live. Animated. Etc., can encapsulate the feel and taste of Space 134, as a place where creativity is produced and enjoyed a place of fun and entertainment and a great place to be rather than a place between two others. (Branding Report, p. 8). It is truly Downtown. Animated. Space 134 can be what the branding report refers to as a Being Space in Downtown where people can come out, gather, produce, create, and collaborate in the outdoor, urban realm. These types of spaces will be increasingly critical as the Millennial generation of young professionals and empty-nester Baby Boomers- the folks who are increasingly coming to central city environments to live, work, and play-- create a powerful marketing demand for central city urban neighborhoods like downtown Glendale. These groups expect open space, multi-modal transit options, services, entertainment, and housing, all within walking and biking distance - and they demand a high-quality urban environment too. Space 134 should: Respect & Build the Brand Showcase the Brand Enhance Opportunities to Live, Work, & Play Position Downtown as THE Hub of Activity, Creativity Movement, Excitement It is not only the end product that can reflect the citys brand, the look of the signage, the programming of the park itself, rather the process of designing and conceptualizing Space 134 should be branded to match. The Lets Make Space 134 logo and tag line (right) has started to take hold as a process brand which engages community members in a collaborative process.

Glendale is Southern California community full of character where imaginations and visionary minds create and animate films, neighborhoods, and some of the worlds most recognizable brands. (City of Glendale, Branding Report)

Look for ways to create and market being space/third places in downtown. (City of Glendale, Branding Report)

1 14

PROCESS
This Vision Plan represents the culmination of the year-long concept process led by the City funded by a SCAG Compass Blueprint grant. As discussed previously in the Policy Background section, the seed of the idea came from the Downtown Specific Plan as a way to accommodate a northern transit hub for Downtown Glendale and also relink north and south Glendale in the critical block between Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue. The next Chapter develops the visions and themes for Space 134 and discusses implementation over a short-, mid-, and long-term timeframe. The intent is to design the project in bite-sized pieces that the city can pursue as realistic over time. Chapter 3 then discusses costs and benefits for Space 134 and funding options. Future studies should delve more deeply into project feasibility, economic impact, and perhaps most importantly public outreach. As we have seen with other cap park precedents and even large infrastructural public benefits projects such as the Highline in Manhattan, buy-in and ownership by the community will be critical. This Vision Plan can only go so far without community advocates to carry it forward. See the Space 134 website for the growing community of supporters: http://www. space134.net. The vision presented in this document should be verified with, critiqued by, and built upon by community advocates to make it a truly- community built and community envisioned project.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL, 2013

IDEA IS HATCHED
1. Glendale Downtown Specific Plan 2. Compatibility with City brand, parks needs assessments, and other policy documents established

CONCEPTS DEVELOPED
1. Vision and Themes 2. Implementation: Short-Term Mid-Term Long Term 3. Alternatives 4. Design Development

PROS/CONS WEIGHED
1. Cost/Benefit Analysis 2. Funding Analysis

VISION IS PRESENTED
1. Three Phases 2. Structural Concepts

DETAILED ANALYSIS
1. Feasibility Study 2. Economic Analysis 3. Public Outreach 4. Next Phase Design

FINAL VISION REPORT


1 15

FUTURE STUDY

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

SPACE 134: THE VISION

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

PLANNING GOALS
The City planning team narrowed down a series of planning priorities for Space 134 to those that were the most relevant for the Downtown community. Priorities include:

Make Connections! Create Green Open Space! Put the Environment First! Grow Glendales Economy! Prioritize Mobility!

Verdugo Wash

Space 134 should respond to local needs and local priorities rather than catering to out-of-towners and drawing people regionally. It should be a park for Glendalians providing amenities that the community particularly desires, such as recreational spaces, sports courts, places to gather and meet up, multi-use field areas, and programmable indoor and outdoor event space. It should not only provide these new open spaces, but also help to link north and south Glendale together with safe passageways and connections across the Freeway. Space 134 should emphasize a greener Glendale, with landscaping chosen to filter pollution through soils and bio-swales, cleaning the air, and requiring less water and maintenance. A greener Glendale also means one that embraces opportunities for outdoor fitness. The park should also help to grow Glendales economy, by catalyzing new development around its edges or providing income generating uses within the park. Finally, the park should prioritize all alternative forms of mobility, from bike, to transit, pedestrian, car share, bike share, etc. The overall goal is to transform car-space into people-space, to transform concrete into green, to provide Downtown with a setting for great things to happen, a backdrop for a livable community. Space 134 should also link in to the larger green network, both locally and regionally, including the Verdugo Wash, and the LA River watershed.
Existing Space: Freeway, chainlink. Car-Space Proposed Space 134: Active spaces, comfort, interest, and People-Space

The overall goal for Space 134 is to transform car-space into people-space, to transform concrete into green, to provide Downtown with a setting for great things to happen, a backdrop for a livable community.

Existing Verdugo Wash: Concrete channel. All backs turned to the waterway

Proposed Verdugo Wash and Green Loop: Waterway celebrated as a major asset

2 1

THE VISION: SPACE 134. ANIMATED.


The vision for Space 134 is a multi-purpose community space with passive open space, programmed community and civic buildings, and a new eastern development node. Space 134 will reflect Glendales diverse culture and its creative industry and provide space for the growing Downtown to evolve as a livable community. The Space 134 cap park will re-link north and south Glendale and repair the urban fabric that was ripped apart by the 134 Freeway, revitalizing highway-adjacent Downtown communities. It will catalyze new development and investment in the city and to become the next great place in Glendale. More specifically it will fulfill the citys visions for the Downtown Area as put forth in the Downtown Specific Plan and the Citys recent branding effort and create a real people space, bringing people out into the public realm. By promoting Downtown Glendales identity as an attractive cutting-edge regional destination, and providing much-needed open space amenities to the Citys many residents, the energy that is focused into the Downtown area will help make Downtown a complete neighborhood. The cap park will help sustain the larger urban context, allowing Downtown Glendale to increase its density while maintaining ample space that caters to alternative transportation, health, recreation, and resource conservation. Space 134 will live up to the Citys identity as a forward thinking, well-rounded place, a regional commercial and cultural center, both a destination and a home. The 40-year full build-out vision includes a major new passive and active park with neighborhood-serving uses, evolution of a Green Loop, where the Freeway overpasses will be widened, enhancement of the Citys green network with a walk and bike active Glendale loop, and a main park at Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue with conference and event facilities, an outdoor plaza and programmable outdoor space immediately responding to the needs of Downtown residents. At the same time a more neighborhood-scaled park along a Safe Routes to School street is envisioned in the east at a critical link between north and south Glendale.

TIMEFRAME: 40+ yRS OPEN SPACE / CAP: 28 ACRES

Outdoor Dining and Pavilion Cafe

An 18-hour Downtown Experience

The Great Lawn

Hip Things to Do and See

The Space 134 Vision Concept

400

800

2 2

THE LOOP
Central to the Space 134 concept is The Loop. The Loop is a set of physical elements in the park and even in adjacent streets that draw the user through the space and tie it together along a main spine path with stops along the way where people can move, interact, innovate, engage, and learn. These stations may include interactive public art, fitness stations, innovative technology displays, and outdoor musical instruments. They should happen every 300 500 ft along the main path network and will be linked with the overall signage program. They will help to break the space down into human-scaled, manageable increments. A continuous visual element such as a linear, winding bench may pop up in places to reinforce the loop, or may manifest in a reoccurring color or signage elements. This main park loop should be linked into the bigger green loop that is discussed in the short-term vision later on in this section, that is to say the green loop of enhanced overpasses and streets to link Space 134 to the Verdugo Wash and the regional greenspace network.

Digital Studios

Verdugo Trail Nature Garden

Outdoor Theater/Art Park

Central Market/ Local Cuisines

Ferris Wheel

Playelds
Cell Phone Booth Bike Station / Amenity

Music Place

Fitness Station Outdoor Music / Interactive Art

Move Touch / Interact Innovate Engage / Learn


The Green Loop Concept Envisioned: Plan, Bench Concept, and Signage

2 3

THREE CHARACTER AREAS


Along the project corridor, there are three distinct character areas defined by changing land use patterns, community character and urban form:

AREA 1

Due to its close proximity to the Glendale Central Business District this area is more civic/commercial in character and denser in building typologies. Space 134 in this area should reflect a bustling, 18-hour Downtown environment, with programmable spaces, more hardscaping and spaces that respond in size and scale to the Downtown milieu.

AREA 2

Area 2 is much more residential in character. Multi-family residential units are located to both the north and south of the 134 Freeway, with scattered single-family dwellings as well, some of which are historically relevant. Streets are smaller in scale, as are buildings. Space 134 should have a more neighborhood-oriented recreational identity in this area, providing residents with areas to gather, play, and exercise on a small-scale.

AREA 3

The defining characteristic of Area 3 has to do with its potential for redevelopment and its current land use classification, as well as its proximity to Downtown. This area is currently dominated by a collection of auto-oriented commercial uses, which suggest great potential for redevelopment into a more pedestrian- and bicyclist-friendly eastern node, with a more dynamic mix of uses. Space 134 should respond to this potential in the eastern segment.

Area 1: Critical to the concept are street frontages that activate the street. Pictured here: Brand Avenue at the new Animation Studio and mixed-use building
E D R Y D E N S T

E Dryden St

Geneva St

ST

A R D E N

A V E

Arden Ave

G LE N O A K S

B Blvd LV D Glenoaks

B U R C H E T T

S T

Burchett St
GOOD E

M O N TE R E Y

Monterey R D Rd

GENEVA

GL E N OA K S

B L V D

Glenoaks Blvd

u Verd

ash go W

Goode Ave A V E

WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL

SSanchez A N C H E Dr Z D R

AREA 1
M A R Y LA N D P L JMaryland A C K S O Pl N P L

Jackson Pl M A U R I TA

AREA 2
P L

Maurita Pl

AREA 3

E Doran St
A V E Columbus Ave LV D Central B Ave A V E Orange St

E I S A B E L St S T Kenwood

D O R A N

S T

GLENDALE SHOPPING PLAZA Isabel St


S T G E N E V A

Maryland Ave S T

L O U I SBlvd E S T Brand

Louise St S T

S T

M A R Y LA N D

K E N W O O D

C E N T R A L

JA C K S O N

O R A N G E

H O W A R D

B R A N D

T JacksonSSt

Three character areas along the 134 Freeway

Area 1

LE ND AL E

AV E

DOWNTOWN GLENDALE

RD WHITE ELEMENTARy SCHOOL

Area 2

Area 3

2 4

THREE CHARACTER AREAS


AREA 1: CENTRAL TO LOUISE
CENTRAL LOUISE BRAND

AREA 2: LOUISE TO GENEVA


GLENOAKS
GLENOAKS
JACKSON

AREA 3: GENEVA TO GLENDALE

GENEVA

LOUISE

GENEVA

MONTEREy

134 Freeway

134 Freeway

134 Freeway
MO NT

GL
ERE

FRONTAGE

EN

DA L
y

BURCHETT

MARyLAND

North

PIONEER
DORAN

VONS

DORAN

DORAN

POTENTIAL FOR:
Conference facility / outdoor amphitheater uses and / or rentable, occupiable pavilions, multi-purpose space, or buildings. Other revenuegenerating uses such as an art museum, etc. True 18-hour activation and creative programming that supports the creative Glendale brand. Memorable and Imaginable major art attraction, central attraction hub, eyecatching element visible from the Freeway and iconic to Glendale. Regional transit plaza, node, or station. Enhanced crossings and north-south linkages. Linkages to the existing adjacent corporate plaza and corporate uses. Corporate sponsorships. Bike-share, bike station, or car share. Shared parking with adjacent uses on nights and weekends. Infill of adjacent parcels with hotels as mutually-supporting with Space 134.

POTENTIAL FOR:
Passive open space areas, such as multipurpose fields, picnic areas, courtyards, plazas, and walking trails, including art walks and art fields. Active open space that is neighborhoodscaled, such as basketball, volleyball, bocce, tetherball, or giant chessboard. Tot lots and playgrounds to work in tandem with safe routes to school improvements in the area. New pedestrian connections north-south through Space 134 at existing cul-de-sac streets and along key desire lines. Eventual redevelopment of parcels along the Space 134 edge for park-oriented development and eyes-on-the-park. New woonerf or neighborhood street east-west along the edge of Space 134 for maximum access, improved circulation, and eyes-on-the-park. Supportive uses such as cafe(s), bike facilities, bike share, bathrooms for park users.

POTENTIAL FOR:
A wider cap park with a mix of built areas and open space areas for a new Glendale eastern node. A civic-scaled green space surrounded by new residential, mixed-use, and live-work development. New pedestrian connections north-south to reconnect streets, especially those that help to link to the new commercial core and to the schools to the north and south. Incorporation of the large shopping center property into the cap in terms of its design, new development, etc. Consolidation of on- and off-ramps to accomplish a more substantial capping. An iconic design for the Glendale overpass bridge as an eye-catching element visible from the Freeway to brand the space and announce the city from those traveling from the east.

2 5

DESIGN THEMES
INTRODUCTION
A series of design concepts have been identified to unify Space 134 and provide themes which designers and planners can refer to and get inspiration from in future phases. The roles of these themes are to:
tie the Space together, guiding the design and arrangement of the Space inform the programming of the areas within the park Link the Space into the larger Glendale context and the Glendale brand market and sell it to constituents get people excited so they can see the potential of what Space 134 can become

NATURAL GLENDALE
The natural theme celebrates Glendales nature story, its proximity to the mountains, the Verdugo Wash, natural habitat, and it brings touches of nature into the heart of Downtown. Get connected to nature while being in the heart of Glendale Views to the mountains / bringing the mountains closer Chaparral, birds, local planting Water play for children Learning moments Celebrate the transect of mountains, water, valley, through design and programming. Symbolic transect: Mountains, Arroyo, Citrus Groves as link to agricultural past Link open-space-rich north Glendale, with more urban south Glendale

LOCAL GLENDALE
The local theme celebrates Glendales rich ethnic panoply through food, cultures, music, and design.

Places for independent businesses Local cuisines and cultures / A Taste of Glendale Work with the Americana at Brand not against Places for food trucks Occupiable flexible structure Rentable space for weddings Iconic design of pavilion by local designer Art in the Park

The themes are not mutually exclusive and several can be used at the same time to brand and identify the space.

St Louis City Garden. Arroyo Franklin Park, Los Angeles

Portos Bakery, Glendale, CA

Chess Park, Glendale, CA

Portland, OR. Wave Fountain

Luckys on the Green, Tulsa, OK

Portos Bakery, Glendale, CA

Playground Rock Climber

Teardrop Park, New York

Musical Instruments Playground

Local Food Trucks

2 6

ACTIVE GLENDALE
The active theme is focused on encouraging sports, walking, jogging, bicycling, etc., At Space 134, especially a walking and biking circuit or green loop link to Verdugo Wash and Fremont Park and to the larger LA River, Glendale Narrows, and the regional park network.

CELEBRATION OF THE CAP


This theme relates to the cap structure itself as inspiration for the park, both in terms of a celebration of its construction and engineering, and also in terms of the vehicles that are traveling beneath. The proximity and relationship to vehicles can be celebrated, rather than concealed. Connection to Glendales auto industry Exposed support structures and trusses Transparent walkways over Freeway Play with Freeway walls in terms of art, lighting. Car lights as art. Gateway element visible from Freeway as iconic branding element for people traveling on Freeway A signature series of red bridges element to brand Space 134 and make it identifiable and memorable

GLENDALE. ANIMATED.
This final theme celebrates Glendales tie to the animation community and to its creative industries. This theme could manifest in a variety of ways from screened and framed moments and playful installations using light and sound to programmable outdoor space for plays, movies, and related events.

Glendale-specific active recreation Mobility hub Links to bikeways and existing parks Health stats and exercise circuit Sports fields and courts Pollution-screening trees and vegetation Given the adjacency to the Verdugo Wash, Space 134 can be conceived of as a green loop with enhanced streetscaping, active recreation trails, and green improvements to the Wash

Viewing portals to the Freeway Outdoor movies and shows Connection to animation studios Interactive public art Shadows and light play Potential for corporate sponsorship to link theme and brand of city

Glass portals through cap to Freeway below Guadalupe River Park and Gardens, San Jose, CA Westminster, CO

City Garden, St Louis, MO

Lightboxes at Triangle Park, St Louis, MO.

Guadalupe River Park and Gardens, San Jose, CA

Aquarena, San Marcos, Texas

Black Pool Tower, England

High Line, New York, NY

Mary Bartelme Park, Chicago, IL

Stoner Skate Park, Los Angeles, CA

Multi-age recreation

ARoS Aarhus Kuntsmuseum, Denmark

Art Basel Convention, Miami, FL

Central Park, Redwing, MN

Jeffrey Open Space Trail, Irvine, CA

High Line, New York

Tianmen Mountain, China

Union Square, San Francisco, CA

Jewish Museum, Germany

2 7

A PHASED APPROACH: 5-yEAR VISION FOR A GROWING PARK


The first stage of the Space 134 vision starts with a series of linear walkways and enhanced sidewalks to better link north and south Glendale. Freeway capping does not occur during this phase, rather attention is focused on the improvement of the pedestrian realm as well as enhanced facilities for bicyclists. From Central Avenue to Balboa Avenue a segment of the Caltrans right-of-way is reclaimed for a bike and walk path along the south edge (see illustrative section, below right). The path, delineated with decomposed granite, special pavement, and directional / wayfinding signage begins to establish the green loop concept central to later phases of Space 134. East-west connectivity is enhanced and car-space is gradually transferred into people space. New pollution-screening landscaping along this edge, along with the running bench element help define the space. The block-long segments of Maurita Place Jackson Place, and Maryland Place are reclaimed as pocket parks which can accommodate tot lots and passive open space with landscaping and places to sit. These parks will require demolition of existing street improvements (pavement, curbs, gutters, catch basins). Existing utilities will likely require some adjustments and/or relocations to accommodate the layout of park features. On main north-south streets, street trees and pedestrian lighting are enhanced and a reoccurring signage or graphic element ties these streets into the green loop. Connections are made apparent to the Verdugo Wash. At Central Avenue the overpass bridge structure is widened on one side to expand the pedestrian realm and mitigate the noise and experience of the Freeway while walking over it. Iconic art is installed onto the safety fence, an eye-catching piece visible from the Freeway beneath. Likewise at Balboa Avenue the cul-de-sac condition at the Freeway is ameliorated with a new eye-catching pedestrian- and bike-only bridge over the Freeway. As the gateway element from the east, this structure should be compatible with the visual voice at the western end of the Freeway at Central Avenue.

TIMEFRAME: 1-5 yRS NEW OPEN SPACE: 5 ACRES

Interactive Public Art, Expanded Pedestrian Realm

Continuous Path and Branded Art on Existing Fence, Sidewalk Widened

Multi-use Path with Fitness Stations

Bike Share/Station

400

800

65 134 Freeway

5 12 8 Landscape Bike Ped. Buffer Path Trail

15 5 Open Setback Space

A series of navigable green loops through the Space 134 enhancement area

Illustrative section through green loop trail on south edge of Freeway, east of Louise Street.

2 8

12 12
IN IST EX

74 11
SB E IV DR

12 11
NB E IV DR

11
SB E IV DR

10
SB FT LE

98 ROW 10 10
NB NB RN TU FT LE RN TU FT LE

11
NB E IV DR

12
IN IST EX

A PHASED APPROACH: 5-yEAR VISION FOR A GROWING PARK SECTION A - CENTRAL AVENUE BRIDGE
As mentioned on the previous page, central to the 5-year vision is the re-visioning of the overpass bridge structures over the 134 Freeway. Proposed modifications to the Central Avenue bridge and the Geneva bridge are illustrated to the right. In both cases a widened sidewalk on one side makes for a more comfortable pedestrian realm. Incremental improvements also include introduction of new street trees in raised planters, continuous wayfinding and branding/ signage elements, shade structures and landscaped setback areas to soften the experience of the Freeway beneath (Geneva Avenue), and iconic entry art on the eastern most and western most fence faces (Central Avenue and Glendale Avenue) as visible from the Freeway beneath. The goal is not only to create a more comfortable environment for people walking and biking over the Freeway, but also to establish a memorable visual cue from the Freeway that they are traveling through the heart of Glendale.

G K AL EW SID

R TU

K AL EW SID

LA NE

LA NE

NE LA

NE LA

N NE LA

N LA E

N LA E

ExISTING

PROPOSED

12 12
IN IST EX G SID AL EW K

74 11
SB DR E IV LA NE

12 11
NB E IV DR

22 22 11
SB DR

74 11
SB

12 11
NB E IV DR

11
SB DR E IV LA NE

10
SB FT LE R TU N

98 ROW 10 10
NB T FT LE N UR N LA E NE LA NB T FT LE N UR N LA

11
NB E IV DR NE LA NE LA

12
IN IST EX G SID AL EW K

7 7 9
R PA KIN

52
DR E IV

10
SB FT LE

108 ROW 10 10
NB NB T FT LE

7
T FT LE

11
NB E IV DR

12
IN IST EX

T EX

66 ROW 17
SB

EN

17
N

9
GNE NA KIL

E IV

K WAL AL E SID EW G SID IN D IST DE EX

NE E LA LAN E RN RIV TU B D

SID

LA

LA NE

NE LA

NE LA

R PAN UR

E EWA N SID LA G IN RN IST U EX

NE

AL EW

DR E IV

LA

TUNNEL ENHANCEMENTS

Enhancements to the existing tunnel beneath the Freeway at Kenilworth Avenue are included in the green loop enhancements. The current tunnel does not provide adequate clear width for the safe passage of pedestrians and bikes. Widening the existing tunnel would likely be expensive, difficult, and generally impractical. Constructing a new tunnel would also present a number of challenges. In order to avoid significant impacts to Freeway traffic, the tunnel would likely need to be constructed completely from below the road. Tunneling techniques to consider might include jack and bore, pipe arch canopy, soil grouting, lattice girder and shotcrete, and boring with a tunneling machine. Note that all of these options are relatively expensive and have more potential risk when compared to an above grade crossing alternative. Good subsurface information is important when deciding which tunnel method to select. In order to obtain competitive pricing it will be important to develop tunnel requirements that will allow for different tunnel technologies to bid on the project (for example, allow either a rectangular or arched tunnel cross section).

SECTION B - GENEVA AVENUE BRIDGE


ExISTING

NE

PROPOSED

LK

7 22 22
T EX EN DE D

52 66 ROW 9
R PA

7 74 9 17 108 ROW 10 10
NB E IV DR

7
EX IN IST G

17
SB

7
EX

12 11
NB
K AL EW

17 17
EX ED ND TE

52 86 ROW 9
R PA KIN

17 12
NB E IV DR

R PA

11

11
SB DR

10
SB
LA NE

11

12
IN IST EX

5
SB BI KE

12
SB DR E IV

5
NB E BIK

9
R PA KIN

17
EX ED ND TE

IN IST

DR

KIN

KIN G

E IV

NB

NB

E IV DR K SB WAL E LA

NB

SID

SID

LA NE

FT LE

E IV DR

E IV DR

T FT LE

T FT LE

E IV LA

LA

N LA

LA

LA

NE

R TU

SID

SID

SID

NE

E(

NE

NE LA

NE LA

N UR

N UR

(1

17

SECTION A

SECTION B

17
EX ED ND TE SID K AL EW

Location Key

Perk Park, Cincinnati, OH

SID K AL EW

K AL EW

K AL EW

1 B

NE

NE

52 86 ROW 9
R PA KIN G

N NE LA

AL EW

F BU

UF

LA

LA NE

FE

FE

NE

R)

R)

17 12
NB E IV DR

5
SB BI KE N LA E (1

12
SB DR E IV LA NE F BU FE R)

5
NB E BIK N LA
NE LA

9
R PA KIN G UF FE R) E( 1 B

17
EX ED ND TE SID K AL EW

Peggy Rockefeller University, NY

Atlanta, GA

Nagoya Pedestrian Bridge, Japan

2 9

A PHASED APPROACH: 20-yEAR VISION FOR A GROWING PARK


The full 40-year vision can be realized in a set of incremental improvements. In the 20 year vision, the first full Freeway caps are constructed from Central Avenue to just east of Brand Boulevard and from Howard Street to Balboa Avenue. These two areas were chosen for capping because of their critical importance to their surrounding neighborhoods and their different character that allows Space 134 to respond to the needs of multiple user groups from the Downtown worker, to the resident of the neighborhoods along Geneva Avenue, and the children and families traveling to school along Geneva Avenue. In addition to these two cap park areas, a re-visioned Vons shopping area along Glendale Avenue includes a new street with street fronting retail or mixed-use with a commercial anchor tenant along Glendale Avenue and parking tucked behind the buildings with their back to the Freeway. This concept for this area shows one variation for redevelopment and is not drawn cumulatively as the other areas are. The Brand Boulevard to Central Avenue cap takes a more urban, central city character with the conference facility, caf, civic green and plaza area with street-fronting active uses along Brand Boulevard. See page 2-12 for more information on this segment. The Howard Street to Balboa Avenue cap is a smaller and more residentially-oriented in terms of scale and design. Basketball courts, a small caf or multipurpose room, a tot lot playground and new north-south pathways are introduced along this critical safe-routes-to-school route.

TIMEFRAME: 20+ yRS OPEN SPACE / CAP: 15 ACRES

The Glendale Pavilion at Brand Park

Iconic Public Art

Play Areas and Activities for all Ages

Neighborhood-Scaled Active Recreation

20-Year Vision Plan

400

800

2 10

SPACE 134. ANIMATED - DOWNTOWN PARK


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Focal Point: Conference Facility Rentable Animation/Sound Studio Space with Retail on Street Focal Point: Outdoor Plaza Focal Point: Great Lawn Cafe Running Bench Clear North / South Connections (Mid-block controlled pedestrian crossing at Goode Avenue / Sanchez Drive) Signage Family Helps Brand the Space New Development Automated Parking / Shared Parking Opportunity Boutique Hotel Opportunity Enhanced Sidewalk, Gateway Art Feature, & Vista Overlook Verdugo Trail Loop Shared Parking Opportunity Beginning of the Green Loop Multi-Use Trail Transit Station Location Options Transit Option 1 (Freeway Alignment) Transit Option 2 (Glenoaks Alignment / Surface Streets) The Moment Art or Attraction Bike Station / Amenity

13

14

14

7 6 12 5 4 3 8 1

C ENTRAL AVE

BLVD BRAN D

15

10

11

200

400

Location Key

Maximum Development Alternative Shown

2 11

SPACE 134. ANIMATED - DOWNTOWN PARK


The conference facility sits within the existing Downtown context where buildings are seven or more stories tall. Designed at two stories and taking up about 1/3 of the full block, the facility helps to break Space 134 into human-scaled increments, carving out plaza space and green space around it. Goode Avenue and Sanchez Drive remain one-way and are faced with windows and wide sidewalks. These streets now accommodate new Bus Rapid Transit stations for regional transit connectivity into the heart of Glendale. Upon future redevelopment, south side parcels may be infilled with park-supportive uses, such as a boutique hotel and shared parking configurations with an automated parking facility. The hotel can house people coming for conferences and events in the Space 134 facility. Other infill may include office space or more likely, new housing that overlooks the park.

Section Location

Visualization location
Visualization of the new conference facility and grand civic plaza Location Map

Existing Office Building

Bus Rapid Transit Shelter

Wind Turbines

Conference Green Plaza Roof Center Shade Trellis


over outdoor seating areas

Potential Office / Mixed Use / Residential Bus Rapid Transit Shelter Potential Boutique Hotel

Potential Automated Parking

GOODE AVENUE

SANCHEZ DRIVE

134 Freeway

Illustrative Section - Goode Avenue to Sanchez Drive (not to scale)

2 12

SPACE 134. ANIMATED - DOWNTOWN PARK


SECTION A - CENTRAL AVENUE TO BRAND BOULEVARD
Iconic Gateway Bridge Vista Point Cafe Shaded Grove Great Park & Plaza Solar Panels Wind Turbines Shade Trellis over Outdoor Seating Areas Retail edge and outdoor dining to create pedestrian activity and animation of street Green Roofs Conference Center Space 134 Studios

EXISTING BUILDING

EXISTING BUILDING

CENTRAL AVENUE

EXISTING BUILDING

BRAND BOULEVARD

134 Freeway
Illustrative Section - Central Avenue to Brand Boulevard (not to scale)

This central core area of Space 134 lies in the heart of Downtown Glendale, between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard. The multistory buildings on either side of the park embrace the space and provide eyes on the park for safety. This block is unique in that there is a frontage road on either side of the Freeway. This means that buildings actually face the park, rather than turning their back or side to it, as is the case in other areas of the park. The vision for this park is an urban park with a plaza, hardscape, water feature, cafe, and a conference/events facility of two to three stories. A large central green space can accommodate picnics and impromptu gatherings, as well as organized community events, meet-ups, group yoga, and outdoor movies. Adjacent to this green space, a cafe building anchors the west side of the park. Visually porous and light on the ground, the cafe looks out onto the park and has outdoor cafe tables and chairs. The first of two bike share stations can sit along Central Avenue, easily-accessible from the street. Walking from the cafe east through a shaded grove and main pathway you arrive at the conference facility and main plaza with interactive fountain, public art and places to sit and people watch. The east side of the space can accommodate transit stations and is designed with active street-fronting uses along the conference facility edge, such as a cafe, or retail uses. A deep sidewalk and setback allows for a double row of trees along Brand Boulevard,

with enhanced streetscaping, signage, and paving. The Space 134 signage system weaves throughout the park, with a series of wayfinding pylons and directional cues. The Freeway edge on Central Avenue is designed with an eye-catching public art display on or adjacent to the overpass fence, to be visible from passing vehicles beneath. The street edge along Brand Boulevard is embraced with active use along the east side, with a new animation studio and mixed-use building. The north-south transition is thus eased and most pedestrians would be unaware that they are traveling over the Freeway as it is no longer visible or audible. North and south Glendale are rejoined. Pollution-screening trees are drawn into the main green space area and wind-turbines and solar roof panels help to tell the healthy Glendale story. Bioswales pick their way along the main pathway spine. Public art stopping points and interactive stations dot the park along the main pathway and showcase Glendale creativity, telling the animated Glendale story.

Section Location
Location Map

2 13

SPACE 134. ANIMATED - NEIGHBORHOOD PARK


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Focal Point: Water Play Running Bench Main Bike, Walk Loop Path Clear North/South Connection Bocce Focal Point: Great Lawn Move Station: Workout Equipment Branded Signage Volleyball Focal Point: Art Infill Development Play Station: Playground Parking Basketball Focal Point: Verdugo Wash as People Space Redeveloped Lots Future Park-Oriented Development Potential Bike Station / Amenity

ST

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 17 10 11 13

J ACKSON

L OUI SE

S T

Focal Point: Community/Pavilion Cafe

14 15

Location Key

Neighborhood Park Concept Plan

200

400

2 14

SPACE 134. ANIMATED - NEIGHBORHOOD PARK


SECTION C - JACKSON STREET TO GENEVA STREET
Volleyball Courts JACKSON STREET Wandering Grove ISABEL STREET (Beyond) Tot Lot and Play Area Bocce Ball Court The Running Passive Open Space Bench Public Art/ Picnic Area HOWARD STREET (Beyond)

Basketball Courts

Restrooms and Streetscaping GENEVA STREET

134 FREEWAY
Illustrative Section - Jackson Street to Geneva Street (not to scale)

Between Jackson Street and Geneva Street the character of the park morphs to reflect the residential adjacencies. Space 134 here is softer in design, more landscaped, with more passive recreation opportunities and a smaller scale of spaces. At Jackson Street a bike-share facility along the street edge and the Space 134 signage pylon announce the park, describing the uses within. The main east-west spine is the green loop multi-use trail, with a two-way bike path and a decomposed granite walking and running path next to it, separated by a low landscaping strip. Occasionally along the path there are fitness stations and bench nooks for resting or working out. Bike racks are along this path at key nodes, allowing people to park and enter the park. The running bench element is carried along the green loop pathway, manifesting as a continuous bench, tables, even a slide or interactive play element for children. East-west across Jackson Street and Geneva Street, new continental crosswalks and flashing warning lights facilitate the movement of people along the multipurpose trail. This section of the park has volleyball courts and basketball courts, along with bocce courts with viewing areas and team meeting areas. Interspersed with these active recreational uses are passive open spaces/greens for picnics, barbecues, and small community or neighbor events. A tot lot or playground area near Isabel Street or Howard Street is cited for easy community access. Critical to this segment of the park are new north-south connections at the existing cul-de-sac streets of Isabel Street and Howard Street. These new pedestrian pathways connect down to the multi-purpose green loop trail.

At Geneva Street, a critical safe-routes-to-school connection, a tot lot or playground on the east side of the street (not shown in section) provide a place to stop and play for families and children traveling along the street. Geneva Street which is a bike enhanced street in the Citys Bicycle Transportation Plan, contains another bike share facility and bike racks along the park edge. Public restrooms near the basketball courts and street edge serve the park west and east of Geneva Street. Pollution-screening trees are drawn into the main green space area and wind-turbines help to tell the healthy Glendale story. Bioswales pick their way along the main pathway spine. Public art stopping points and interactive stations dot the park along the main pathway and showcase Glendale creativity, telling the animated Glendale story.
Location Map

Section Location

2 15

SPACE 134. ANIMATED - NEIGHBORHOOD PARK


Central to the Neighborhood Park, is the multi-purpose walking, jogging, and biking green loop, pictured below, right. This neighborhood scaled space will have high-quality design. Park elements should be chosen to demonstrate a strong Space 134 brand through color and material such as those depicted right and below. Notice how the color red becomes a branding element for the space and pathway hierarchies are defined by variations in ground plane materials.
Picnic Table

Pre-Cast Concrete Seat Walls

Poly-carbonate Bench

Poly-carbonate Bench

Parc Centre Chair and Ottoman

Rubberized Surface: Primary Circulation Pedestrian and Bike

Pathways may be Separated by Curb or Marking

Concrete: Primary and Secondary Pedestrian Walkways

Decomposed Granite: Used at Tertiary Pathways

Concrete Pavers: Used at Plazas and Entrances

Concrete Pavers: Used at Plazas and Entrances

Cobble Pavers: Used at Secondary Entrances

Branded tree grates. Tell the Glendale story.

Frequent places to sit and gather

The Neighborhood Park and Green Loop Trail

2 16

SPACE 134. ANIMATED - VILLAGE CENTER


The eastern node of Space 134 is visualized as a new village center. It is organized around a new civic park with a cafe, great lawn, and places to walk and people watch. New residential development faces the park and is designed as podium courtyard buildings. In essence this vehicular-oriented place is turned into a more livable and people-friendly space. New streets carve out blocks with walkable lengths, while also leaving room for structured parking within the blocks, which is wrapped by active uses on the ground floors. Along Glendale Avenue the buildings would be more commercial and mixed-use, rather than single-use and auto oriented. Where the existing shopping center is located, a new retail street is configured, with parking tucked behind and wide sidewalks for strolling. The new street that wraps around the civic park is a shared-street that is to say that the sidewalk and street are at the same level and may be separated by bollards or other vertical controls (see image, lower right for an example shared street). The paving material for the sidewalk and the street is the same, further reinforcing the idea that the street should be shared between vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and the like. The new civic park can also serve as the eastern hub for bike share or a city bike station. The Glendale Avenue overpass has iconic public art on the side that is visible from the freeway.
A new Civic Park

Playroom: Kids Play

Shared Street

Residential Mixed Use Buildings (3 to 4 Stories)

Pavilion Cafe in park

Woonerf

Office Mixed Use (3 to 4 Stories)

2 17

SPACE 134. ANIMATED - VILLAGE CENTER


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

New Village Center Civic Park Focal Point: Pavilion Cafe Retail or Mixed Use Residential Consolidated Parking Shoppers Plaza Enhanced Sidewalk and Gateway Art Feature Focal Point: Community Pavilion Cafe/Bike Station Play Station: Tot Lot Innovation Station: Cell Phone Booth Open Lawn New Pedestrian / Bike Connection Relocated On-Ramp Shared Streetspace Development Potential Bike Station / Amenity

AKS GLENO

BLVD

11

12 10

13 5 15

ON TE RE Y 5

RD
4

1 3

AV
14
0

NOTE: This iteration shows removal of the east-bound and westbound off ramps and relocation of the eastbound on ramp.

4 7

DO

RA N

ST

LE ND AL E

E
8
200

Location Key

Downtown East Concept Plan

400

2 18

SPACE 134 CIRCULATION


A critical goal of the planning process is to improve circulation and assure that Space 134 contributes to an enhanced mobility network, rather than detracting from it. As envisioned Space 134 provides a thoroughly enhanced network of pathways for pedestrians traveling north-south and east-west along the corridor. The pathways have been organized to respond to the community and have been delineated into primary and secondary pathways, which will be differentiated by scale, pavement material, programming, signage variations, etc. Beyond providing these pathways, Space 134 will also introduce wayfinding, both passive and active, which assists people walking, by directing them to key destinations in the Downtown area and within the park. Bicycle access is accommodated via a new west-east connection along the south side of the cap along the multi-purpose pathway spine, as a two-way bike path. The park also links in to the Citys proposed bike lane and sharrow network and includes recommendations for bike stations and bike share kiosks along these bikeways.

GOODE

SANCHEZ

CENTRAL

Walk, Bike, Run: Green Loop Primary Pedestrian Path Secondary Pedestrian Path

LOUIS E

BRAND

Bicycle Circulation from Citys Bike Plan New Space 134 Bicycle Circulation Bike Station or Amenity

JACKSON

Primary Entry Point Secondary Entry Point Vehicular Entry Point

Bike Parking, Bike Station, & Bike Share: Space 134 will be equipped for multiple types of facilities

2 19

GENEVA

FRONTAGE ROAD ALTERNATIVE


As discussed previously, the development of an extended Sanchez Drive along the south side of the Freeway is a part of the Downtown Mobility Study (DMS) strategy to mitigate undesirable traffic congestion in the residential neighborhoods to the east of Brand Boulevard. Options for creation of a pair of frontage roads (Sanchez Drive on the south and Monterey Road/Goode Avenue on the north) were suggested in the DMS. One option was for the frontage roads to be a one-way couplet. The second option was to implement the frontage roads as two-way streets. The Space 134 project further analyzes the opportunity for a frontage road from the point of view of enhancing the Space 134 open space amenity rather than primarily facilitating traffic flow to and from, the Freeway. In this viewpoint, the frontage roads are important not only as a mitigation for Freeway effects on the neighborhood circulation, but also as a security measure for the open space as it provides eyes on the street for the public areas contemplated in the new park. In the Space 134 context, the one-way frontage road streets option is not recommended, as conceived in the DMS as a pair: Monterey Road/Goode Avenue on the north and Sanchez Drive on the south. One-way streets are usually associated with higher vehicle speeds, which would be incompatible with encouraging pedestrian access between the residential neighborhood and the public spaces in the park. Also, it appears from research and review during this effort that the implementation of Monterey Road/Goode Avenue as a route would face many obstacles, especially in the need to obtain new right-of-way for the street. The recommended frontage road alternative focuses on Sanchez Drive, instead, as a two-way neighborhood-and park-oriented complete street. The new Sanchez Drive frontage road is contemplated as a collector street to enhance community circulation on the south side of the Freeway and a complete street serving a multitude of users including vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians and providing additional parking for local residential uses. The vision is to design the street so that service circulation in an orderly manner utilizing a road diet to calm the automobile traffic along this route which potentially connects the Downtown to the next Freeway access point to the east, Glendale Avenue. The section, right, shows the recommended layout for the new Sanchez Drive and the plan below, right shows the design of the street in relation to the park. Key features include sidewalks, onstreet parking, bicycle lanes and one vehicle lane for each side of the roadway. The total required right of way for this new collector street would be 80 feet from property line to property line including 15 foot sidewalks and a 50-foot roadway. At Brand Boulevard, the western end, the proposed frontage road would be constrained by the configuration of the Freeway eastbound on-ramp. The roadway would be a one way street
Road Frontage Option

for cars between Brand and Louise Street. At the eastern end of the frontage road, the development of the connection to Glendale Avenue would depend upon potential redevelopment of the existing shopping center and relocation of the Freeway east bound ramps. Further study of this concept is required. Civil infrastructure improvements associated with the proposed frontage road require new utilities, and street improvements including; sidewalks, crosswalks, striping, and curb/gutters.

PROPOSED STREET SECTION A, SANCHEZ DRIVE

FRONTAGE
15 15
Si de w

PACIFIC

CENTRAL

JACKSON

GENEVA

LOUISE

BRAND

DA L

GL

EN

50 8
Pa rk in g k

15 5
Bi ke

5
Bi ke La

80 ROW 12 12
D riv e La D riv e La

8
Pa rk in

15
Si de al w

La

al

ne

ne

ne W B

ne EB

POTENTIAL FRONTAGE ROAD LOCATION

SECTION A

Property Line

400

800

2 20

STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS- CAP STRATEGIES


The long-term vision for Space 134 would be realized structurally with a bridge cap likely consisting of a two-span arrangement with the intermediate support located in the existing Freeway median (see elevations, right). These capping structures would need to support significant superimposed dead loads from the various park appurtenances and landscaping while not restricting the vertical clearance for the Freeway underneath. One recommended method for bridge cap construction is presented to the right both as a general loading alternative and an alternative that could accommodate heavier loads, i.e. buildings. For this bridge type, post-tensioned concrete girders would serve as the primary longitudinal members, with a cast-in-place concrete bottom slab spanning between girders. In order to minimize the required structure depth, size of members, and amount of post-tensioning, the design should seek out creative methods for minimizing the structures self-weight. Particularly effective methods include: 1. Use voided deck slabs: Portions of the concrete deck slab would be replaced with lighter materials such as rigid foam or air. 2. Replace unnecessary portions of landscaping soil with lighter weight materials: Any excess soil depth could be replaced with foam or similar light-weight material. 3. Use lighter-weight concrete in lieu of normal weight concrete. 4. Use light-weight landscaping soils. 5. Coordinate bridge design with future heavier park loads, such as for light-framed buildings, to avoid unnecessarily conservative design loads. 6. Use post-tensioning and high strength concrete to reduce the size of concrete sections. The depth of the girders will need to strike a balance among several factors such as: minimum cover requirements for the landscaping, vertical clearance restrictions with the Freeway below, as well as the requisite structural demands. Tightening the girder spacings and installing more post-tensioning are two methods for increasing the capacity of the girders without affecting their depth. However, there are structural limits beyond which the girder depths typically should not exceed. For a typical pedestrian bridge, the minimum span-to-(superstructure)depth ratio is limited to about 30. It should be expected that actual span-to-depth for these capped bridges will be lower (i.e. the superstructure will be deeper) due to the heavier than normal superimposed dead loads.
Scale 1 = 12.5

ELEVATION 1 - NEW BRIDGE CAP FOR HEAVIER LOADS

ELEVATION 1
Scale 1 = 50

ELEVATION 2

Location Key

PARTIAL SECTION - NEW BRIDGE CAP FOR HEAVIER LOADS

ELEVATION 2 - NEW BRIDGE CAP GENERAL LOADING


A B

PARTIAL SECTION - NEW BRIDGE CAP GENERAL LOADING

Scale 1 = 50

Scale 1 = 12.5

2 21

Structural Considerations- BRIDGE WIDENING


BRIDGE CAP FOR HEAVIER LOADS It may be desirable to construct heavier steel or concrete-framed buildings on the capped structures at some locations. The key actions for accommodating these heavier loads include most efficiently are described below. (A section view of this type of heavier loaded cap structure is provided on the previous page). 1. Coordinate bridge girder layout to closely align with building point loads: This will help to minimize or avoid unnecessarily conservative design loads. 2. Provide additional transfer beams above and within the deck to transfer building loads to primary bridge members. 3. Limit heavier building loads to specific portions of the bridge cap best able to support the loads: For example, keep heavy loads nearer to the bent supports). OTHER CONSIDERATIONS The bridge cap structure will also need to effectively resist corrosion due to being in relatively constant contact with moist soils. Furthermore, it will be very difficult to inspect and monitor the condition of the obscured portions of the cap after the soil has been placed, so protection systems need to be highly reliable. A sampling of key techniques for improving the bridges corrosion resistance includes the following: 1. Install waterproofing membrane over all surfaces that will be in contact with the soil. 2. Use concrete rather than structural steel. 3. Provide well-designed and easily-maintained landscape drainage systems. 4. Use post-tensioning to reduce concrete cracking. 5. Use effective post-tension duct grouting methods to protect steel strands. 6. Provide additional clear cover to deck and girder reinforcing steel. 7. Apply additional corrosion-resistant coatings or cathodic protection to reinforcing steel. 8. Limit chloride use throughout the cap park area. The near-term 5-year vision plan, includes plans for a widened pedestrian realm along the existing Jackson Street, Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard, Louise Street, and Geneva Avenue bridges to improve pedestrian and bicycle access. These existing vehicular bridges are each two-span structures with an intermediate bent located in the center median of the Freeway. Generally, the bridges consist of reinforced concrete girders supporting a cast-in-place concrete roadway deck along with sidewalks. The substructures typically consist of an intermediate bent with reinforced concrete crossbeam and columns. Each bridge is approximately 200ft 225 ft long. There are several feasible, structural options for widening these existing bridges. The most viable options include:

NARROW WIDENING OF EXISTING BRIDGE

Cantilevering a new light-weight structure off of the existing bridge, or; Constructing a new superstructure independently supported. and substructure

A summary of key elements, along with advantages and disadvantages of each approach is provided below. Note that the bridge widening concepts assume that storm drainage for the added surface area will be collected and piped under the structure, via a hanger system, to existing storm drain lines beyond the bridge abutments for further conveyance.

Cantilevering Off of Existing Bridge without added girders or substructure


For this approach (see typical section drawing, above right), new width is added to the existing bridge by connecting a new cantilevered deck and barrier / fencing along the outside edge of the existing structure. This approach is appropriate for a more narrow widening of the bridge. The key issues associated with cantilevering off of the existing structure include:

Cantilevering off of existing bridge without added girders or substructure

WIDE WIDENING OF EXISTING BRIDGE

Key Issue #1: This approach should be less costly to construct than other options. Assuming limited upgrades are required to the existing structure, this approach should be less expensive and disruptive to construct than constructing a completely new and independent structure. Key Issue #2: This approach could be constructed with minimal impact to traffic. The widening work could primarily be completed from deck level, with limited temporary impacts to Freeway traffic. Work on the deck could also be staged so that at least one existing sidewalk remains open throughout construction. Similarly, vehicular traffic across the bridge could likely be maintained during the work. The result would be lower temporary traffic control costs and fewer impacts to motorist and pedestrian mobility. Key Issue #3: This approach imparts new and additional loads to the existing bridge. Additional analyses would be required during the design phase for the widening to determine if the existing structure would need to be strengthened. The scope of these modifications could be relatively small such as strengthening local portions of the deck or girders, or the modifications could be larger in scale such as for strengthening the substructure or foundations. An effective strategy for mitigating these impacts and avoiding substantial modifications to the existing structure would be to use light-weight materials such as steel and fiber reinforced

2 22

Structural Considerations- RETAINING WALLS


polymer (FRP) and employ efficient framing systems for the new widenings. Furthermore, the total width of the potential widening may be restricted by the existing structures residual capacity.

Key Issue #4: This approach would require approval by Caltrans. Many transportation agencies are obligated to upgrade existing facilities to meet current seismic design codes if significant modifications are planned. It would be important to understand Caltranss position on this issue during preliminary widening design so that the required level of technical analysis and stakeholder responsibilities are well-defined and understood. Seismic retrofits for bridges can be complex and costly. This add-on type widening would also likely impact the bridges aesthetics and long-term inspection and maintenance needs. Caltrans would need to be consulted and their approval gained.

In the near-term vision concept, new retaining walls are being considered along the outside of the Freeway as a means to regain more usable space along the frontage roads. Currently, this space consists of steep cut slopes and shorter walls, neither of which can support build-out up to frontage road level without significant modifications. An important consideration with building any new retaining walls along an existing Freeway right-of-way would be ensuring that future Freeway widening or ramp modifications would not be impeded. Transportation agencies are frequently reluctant to allow permanent restrictions on their facilities due to the uncertainty of how these installations might box them in later on. Therefore, establishing acceptable setbacks from the Freeway for the walls would be a key step. All potential retaining wall design options would need to consider accommodations for future Freeway cap structures. This may include designing for future bridge load allowances or ensuring the walls can accommodate a range of potential future bridge foundations. Two structurally feasible options for constructing walls between the Freeway and frontage roads are presented to the right and described in more detail below. Option 1 is believed to be the more cost-effective alternative.

WALL OPTION #1 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL

Constructing additional substructure and superstructure

WALL OPTION #2 SOLDIER PILE/SHEET PILE WITH C.I.P. CONCRETE FACING

For this approach, the widening would be supported with a new substructure and foundation and be seismically isolated from the existing bridge. See the previous page for a sketch of this option.

WALL OPTION #1

Key Issue #1: This approach should not impart additional loads to the existing bridge. By isolating the new widening structure from the existing, it should be possible to avoid having to upgrade or strengthen the existing bridge. Key Issue #2: This approach could accommodate more widening width and heavier loadings. The new structure could be designed to support more widening and higher live loads than the cantilever option. This approach may integrate better with the long-term vision of capping the entire Freeway since it could be designed to accommodate those potential heavier future loads and therefore would not restrict future uses and access as much as the cantilever option. Key Issue #3: This approach should facilitate approvals by Caltrans. Since direct impacts to the existing bridge would be minimal, this should be a cleaner approach than building off of the existing bridge and improve the odds of receiving Caltrans approval. Likewise, the aesthetics for the new widening structure could be better matched up to those of the existing bridges. This should help with local buy-in as well as help with gaining Caltrans approvals. Key Issue #4: This approach would likely have significant impacts to Freeway traffic and cost more to construct. This approach would require significant work in the center Freeway median to construct the intermediate pier. This could result in lane closures or lane shifts lasting several weeks.
Also, setting new girders or installing falsework could negatively affect Freeway mobility. Overall costs to construct this type of widening would likely be between $400 and $500 per square foot of widening.

Option 1 consists of a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall with precast concrete facing panels. This is a conventional and effective wall type widely-used to support roadway fills. The general steps to construct this type wall would include: 1. Drive temporary sheet piles behind the planned wall location. The line of sheets would be located behind the planned permanent wall a distance approximately 0.8 x the wall height to allow for the subsequent installation of soil reinforcing. 2. Excavate the existing toe of the slope from in front of the sheets. 3. Construct the lower portion of the MSE wall including soil reinforcing strips, backfill, and pre-cast facing panels. 4. Continue building up the MSE wall and backfilling to a level even with the top of the sheet piles. 5. Extract the temporary sheets. 6. Continue constructing the wall and backfill up to the frontage road elevation. 7. Construct roadway pavements or landscaping on the fill, as required.

WALL OPTION #2

Option 2 consists of a tied-back, steel soldier pile wall with a cast-in-place concrete facing. These walls are typically more expensive to construct than MSE walls and do not offer significant advantages. The wedgeshaped backfill between the existing slope and the back of the walls, as well as the staged installation of the permanent tie-back anchors may be challenging to construct. This option is likely more expensive than Option 1 with MSE walls.

2 23

OTHER Structural Considerations


Iconic Pedestrian BridgeS
An iconic pedestrian bridge approximately 300 ft-long x 16 ftwide is planned for crossing the Freeway near Balboa Avenue. Likewise the existing pedestrian bridge at Columbus Avenue could be replaced or enhanced. Unique, iconic bridges frequently use less common structural systems to convey specific themes or architectural characteristics. Examples of bridges that are typically not cost competitive with standard girder-type bridges but are usually grouped into the iconic or special category include: arches, cable-stayed, suspension, or special trusses. The form of the bridge is often driven by a bridge architect and the desires of the owner or key stakeholders. Site conditions also help to dictate what bridge form is sensible to use. For example, suspension and pure arch bridges are more efficient when sound rock is close to the surface. Conversely, cable-stayed and special steel trusses are likely more efficient when sound rock is located deeper below ground. Other site criteria such as wind and seismic performance, local availability of materials and skilled labor, construction accessibility, required vertical clearances, and horizontal / vertical alignments all play a key role in considering what types of iconic bridge structures to build and how much they would cost. Construction costs for a typical, girder-type pedestrian bridge at this location would likely be between $400 - $500 per square foot of deck, in todays dollars. An iconic bridge would likely cost considerably more to construct. A possible range of costs would be between $900 to $2,000 per square foot of deck and is based on a sampling of other iconic-type pedestrian bridges built around the country over the last decade. The extent of architectural features and the complexity of design would help determine where within this broad range of costs this particular iconic bridge would lie.

Port of Nagoya Pedestrian Bridge, Japan

Helix Bridge, Singapore

Zubizuri Bridge, Bilbao, Spain

Dreamy Draw, Phoenix, AZ

Craigieburn Bypass Trail, Melbourne, Australia

La Roche-sur-Yon, France

2 24

LOOKING FORWARD

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

WEIGHING THE BENEFITS AND COSTS


In the long-run the benefits of this amenity for the City of Glendale will likely outweigh the costs. The benefits of such a project include first and foremost a livable city. This means a better quality of life for residents, which in turn helps to attract new development and investment and increase property tax revenue. The project would relink the city north to south and provide recreational amenities in one of the most under-served neighborhoods in the city. There are no major park facilities within 1/2 mile of the study area. The park could also help improve air quality through filtration of particulate matter from the freeway, filtration of stormwater runoff, and lowering of temperatures.

RETAIL SALES AND NEW JOBS

Space 134 would likely positively impact retail sales and jobs in the area. NYDOTs Measuring the Streets, a helpful summary of the impact of street improvements and urban design interventions throughout New York, described how the borough of Brooklyn saw a 172% increase in retail sales (compared to 18% borough-wide) at locally-based businesses after a pedestrian plaza was installed there. The same report indicated that there was a 14% increase in sales at fronting businesses after a pedestrian seating area was installed in Manhattan. Both of these examples point to the power that cities have when converting under-utilized space into people space to bring economic benefits to their communities. Space 134 would likely bring new jobs, both directly and indirectly to Glendale, including new permanent jobs. It will also likely attract tourists and visitors and bring increased earnings for hotels. Reports the ULI, regarding its 2011 Amanda Burden Open Space Award winner, Citygarden in St Louis, Hotel bookings are 18% ahead of the ten-year average, and local shops and ground-floor retail establishments have benefitted from the increased foot traffic that Citygarden is producing. Chicagos Millennium Park sees 3 million visitors a year resulting in $1.9 2.6 billion in visitor spending over 10 years (Park 101 District Freeway Cap Feasibility Study)

NEW DEVELOPMENT

Space 134 would likely create a demand for new development and redevelopment around its edges. As described by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), regarding their 2010 Urban Open Space Award Winner, Campus Martius Park in Detroit Michigan, the areas around the park have become the most active space downtown and over $700 million of new development has occurred within a two-block radius of the park. Park 101, a cap project proposed in Downtown Los Angeles, expects that construction of the park will attract 600-800 new residential units, with $490 million to the area.

PROPERTY VALUES

Introduction of new park space in central city environments has been shown to Increase rental and property values. According to the Downtown Los Angeles Park 101 Feasibility Report, there is a premium of 10%-40% for commercial rent in park adjacent buildings. Several examples of the impact of new park space on rental and property values are included in this study. For example, 2 years after Bryant Park in New York City opened, leasing activity on the adjacent street increased by 60% in the first 8 months and in the 10 years after park opened, rents for nearby commercial space around the park increased 115% to 315 %, while surrounding markets saw a much smaller increase (41% to 73% in similar commercial properties). Similar adjacency to Millennium Park in Chicago created a 33% increase in overall residential property value. This price premium was also noted in: Philadelphia, PA where city wide residential units with park proximity are 5% higher than others; Boulder, CO where the value of properties adjacent to a greenbelt are 32% higher than those located 3,200 feet away; and Austin, TX, where premiums for properties adjacent to a greenbelt and wilderness park there range from 6% to 20%. Director of the New York City Department of City Planning and Chair of the City Planning Commission, Amanda Burden reported that after the High Line was constructed, the price of apartments adjacent to the park has doubled (New York Times, 6/6/11). The Benefits of Parks by the Trust for Public Land noted that in Boulder, Colorado the addition of a new greenbelt added $5.4 million to the total property values of the neighborhood and generated $500,000 per year in additional potential property taxes, enough to cover the $1.5 million purchase price of the greenbelt in only three years.

COSTS

Initial costs outlays are high and include planning, design, environmental review, coordination, acquisitions, land lease, and construction. While ongoing costs include operations, programming, and maintenance. As a point of reference, Millennium Park spends about $13 million per year on operations. (Park 101 District Freeway Cap Feasibility Study) Dollar costs estimates for construction for Space 134 are summarized on the following page, along with a matrix presenting comparison costs for our sister cap park projects already constructed or in the planning stage both locally and nationally as points of comparison.

3 1

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?


The Appendix to this report presents detail on an order-ofmagnitude cost analysis for the Space 134 cap park, arranged into the three cumulative phases: near-, mid-, and long-term, as per the design vision. Costs are based on 2013 values and are provided in todays dollars. The estimate is not reflective of detailed civil, topographical, and other engineering information, nor of refined urban design, landscape architecture, traffic studies or design drawings. It rather represents a best-estimate based on concept plans, team drawings, and real-world comparisons. The bridge widening estimate does not include full seismic upgrade or other code upgrades which may be required by Caltrans. Per acre costs are included for each cap park segment, along with grand totals by phase. A separate contingency amount has not been included in the estimate at this time. These estimates will be refined upon future economic and feasibility study. To the right are comparable costs for several of the cap parks that were mentioned in Chapter 1. With the limitations stipulated above, the hard costs for each of the three phases for Space 134 are estimated at:

Freeway Park, Seattle, WA $2.7 million / acre (1970s) $14 million, 5.2 acres

Hollywood Central Park, Los Angeles, CA $22 million/acre $950 million, 44 acres

Margaret T Hance Park, Phoenix, AZ $4 million / acre (1990s) $105 million, 29 acres

South River Walk Park, Trenton, NJ $23 million / acre (2004) $150 million, 6.5 acres

Bridge Widening, New East-West Trail & Streetscape Improvements

NEAR-TERM

$50.00 million
MID-TERM
@ 15 acres

Olympic Sculpture Park, Seattle, WA $9.5 million / acre


(early 2000s. Not all capped)

$85 million, 9 acres

Park 101, Los Angeles, CA: $24 million / acre $825 million over 25 years/34 acres
(Includes cap park, land acquisition, streetscape)

$230.13 million
(In addition to costs of previous phase)

LONG-TERM
@ 25 acres

Klyde Warren Park, Dallas, TX $22 million / acre $110 million, 5 acres

Downtown Cap Park, Ventura, CA $57 million / acre $330 million, 5.7 acres

(including all public facilities, cap, grading, roadways, etc)

$337.90 million
(In addition to costs of previous phases)

The estimated costs for the above projects have been extracted from the Park 101 Feasibility Study, the Hollywood Central Park Feasibility Study, the Ventura Beach and Town Project White Paper and the Urban Freeway Cap Parks Policy Briefing Paper by Clement Lau, USC. See references at the end of this document.

3 2

FUNDING
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Best practices and review of similar projects indicate a set of guiding principles when it comes to funding Space 134: Build and nurture a relationship between city leaders and the philanthropic community. Identify a Steering Committee and/or a Friends of Space 134 group. Identify potential public-private partnerships and naming rights opportunities. Clearly identify a lead agency or developer to apply for, administer, monitor, and evaluate grants and funding. Special Events. May include conference events in the facility on the cap, rentable events space, farmers markets, etc. Generates revenue for operations and maintenance. Transfer of Development Rights. Transfer development rights (TDR) from one site to another and using the economic benefit from the increased density, to finance portions of the Park. Local TDR examples include: Burbank, Irvine, Pasadena (non-cap related). Typically used to finance capital improvements or land acquisitions, rather than maintenance or operations. Glendales Urban Art Fund

GOVERNANCE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
As with lessons-learned from the funding of cap parks, there are important takeaways from how the parks are governed and managed. Guiding principles for governance include: Cooperation between public and private entities is key. Initial fund-raising should include endowments for maintenance. Private funds and public funds should be kept distinct from one another to give private donors more control, accountability, and incentive. Consider using MOU, MOA, Inter-agency Development Agreement, and/or Joint-Use Maintenance Agreement

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES


Funding for Space 134 would likely come from a variety of local, regional, state, and federal sources. Some of these entities also may be appropriate management entities. Identified sources include the following, listed in alphabetical order: Local Benefit Assessment District Business Improvement District (BID) Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Community Facilities District (CFD) Development Impact Fees. Fees charged on new developments within the Project Area, during the permitting process. These fees need to be set carefully so as to not negatively impact new development. Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) Foundation/Private Funds. Private foundation backing from local/regional sources or donations from local individuals /developers. May include naming rights or a Friends of Space 134 group. Infrastructure financing district Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts. Similar to special assessment districts, but may be more flexible. A tax used to pay for public facilities or services. Parking Fees and Revenues Parking Tax District Public / Private Joint Development Agreement Quimby Act Park Funds. Developers pay into a fund, which supports park and recreational facilities. Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Increased assessment on properties within the area to finance aspects of the park. Sale / Lease of Air Rights. City would sell the air rights above the freeway deck or immediately adjacent. City would lease spaces in the park to tenants, vendors, developers for building pads / sites. Sale of new development parcels

Regional / State Caltrans Environmental Justice and Transportation Planning Grants Carbon Reduction Mitigation Funds Measure R funds Metro funds Prop 1B Funds Prop 1C Funds Prop 84, Urban Greening Grants Public Health funds Safe Routes to Schools State Transportation Improvement Fund (STIP) Transportation Development Act (Bike and Pedestrian Funds) Federal Federal funding is an essential component of these projects. As an example the Margaret T Hance cap park in Phoenix, AZ used 92% FHWA funding for the freeway and deck (100% City funds for the park itself). CDBG funds Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program FHWA assistance program HUD Funding New Market Tax Credits Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Surface Transportation Program (STP) Sustainable Communities Grants Transit Enhancement Funds TIGER Grants

GOVERNANCE MODELS
1. Lead Agency. As with funding management and administration, identify one leader to oversee the management of the park. This entity can be a private foundation or a public agency. 2. Committee as Leader. This may include a Joint Powers Authority and is a system by which resources are shared. 3. Public-Private Partnership 4. A Hybrid Approach. Using a combination of governance options.

3 3

NEXT STEPS...
More detailed feasibility study and economic analysis will help the city and its residents to more fully understand the pros and cons of constructing Space 134. Economic and feasibility analysis would look in detail at impact to surrounding communities from an economic, environmental, and development standpoint. Additional study would quantify these impacts both at park construction and over time, including the operations and maintenance requirements of the park.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL, 2013

IDEA IS HATCHED
1. Glendale Downtown Specific Plan 2. Compatibility with City brand, parks needs assessments, and other policy documents established

CONCEPTS DEVELOPED
1. Vision and Themes 2. Implementation: Short-Term Mid-Term Long Term 3. Alternatives 4. Design Development

PROS/CONS WEIGHED
1. Cost/Benefit Analysis 2. Funding Analysis

VISION IS PRESENTED
1. Three Phases 2. Structural Concepts

DETAILED ANALYSIS
1. Feasibility Study 2. Economic Analysis 3. Public Outreach 4. Next Phase Design

FINAL VISION REPORT


3 4

FUTURE STUDY

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Resources used during the Space 134 study and the compilation of the final report are listed to the right. Several are useful research documents presenting compelling information specifically about cap parks and urban parks in general. CAP PARK CASE STUDIES AND RELATED RESEARCH Creating Sustainable Air Rights Development Over Highway Corridors: Lessons from the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston Bonnie E. Campbell. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning. 2004. Hollywood Freeway Central Park Feasibility Report EDAW/AECOM. October, 2008. Klyde Warren Park Klyde Warren Park Press Kit. Dallas, TX. List of Structures Built on Top of Freeways. Wikipedia. Park 101 District Feasibility Study AECOM. August 2012. Park 101 District Governance Analysis White Paper Iteris, SCAG. May, 2012. Urban Freeway Cap Parks Policy Briefing Paper, Considering the Barriers and Opportunities for More Park Space in Los Angeles Clement Lau, AICP Candidate, Doctor of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California. 2010. Ventura Beach + Town Project White Paper Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects, Inc, Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc., Economic Planning Systems, Inc., Van Atta Associates. June 2012. SPACE 134 BACKGROUND INFO Base Maps General Plan Land Use Map Glendale Zoning Map

BENEFITS OF PARKS AND OPEN/CIVIC SPACE The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space Paul M Sherer. The Trust for Public Land. 2006. The Health Benefits of Parks, how parks help keep Americans and their communities fit and healthy Erica Gies. The Trust for Public Land. 2006. Preventing Childhood Obesity: The Need to Create Healthy Places - Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology County of Los Angeles Public Health. October, 2007. Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets New York Department of Transportation. 2012

Land Use/Land Value Downtown Specific Plan Projects Map Downtown Specific Plan Project Spreadsheet

Mobility 2005 Traffic Counts 2009 / 2010 Bike and Pedestrian Count Report 2030 Traffic Counts Beeline System Map City of Glendale Bicycle Transportation Plan. May, 2012. City of Glendale Public Works Department Study. State Route 134 East On-ramp at Brand Boulevard, 2008 Downtown Mobility Study. 2007. Downtown Specific Plan. July, 2012. Downtown Specific Plan Projects Map. Glendale Safe & Heathy Streets Plan. 2011. OLDA- Orangeline High Speed Rail Take back the burbs: A Case Study, the Glendale Experiment Sunset Magazine. June, 2012.

Other Glendale Urban Art Program Guidelines. December, 2010. Greener Glendale 2010 Report. Greener Glendale Plan - Community Activities. 2012. Greener Glendale Plan - Municipal Operations. 2011. Comprehensive Design Guidelines- City of Glendale, 2011. Glendale, CA BrandAMP Report. July 2011.

3 5

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

APPENDIX

i- I

COST ANALYSIS DETAIL


The following pages describe the near-, mid-, and long-term cost assumptions which the team used to arrive at the totals presented in Chapter 3. Costs are based on 2013 values and are provided in todays dollars. The estimate is not reflective of detailed civil, topographical, and other engineering information, nor of refined urban design, landscape architecture, traffic studies or design drawings, rather represents a best-estimate based on concept plans, team drawings, and real-world comparisons. Bridge widening estimate does not include full seismic upgrade or other code upgrade which may be required by Caltrans. Per acre costs are included for each cap park segment, along with grand totals by phase. A separate contingency amount has not been included in the estimate at this time. These estimates will be refined upon future economic and feasibility study. To the right are comparable costs for several of the cap parks that were mentioned in Chapter 1.

i II

NEAR TERM: GREEN LOOP - $50,003,900 CONCEPT 1: NEAR-TERM CONCEPT 1: NEAR-TERM


THE GREEN Project A LOOP
Green Loop Connection to Park

TIMEFRAME: 1-5 YRS NEW OPEN SPACE: 5 ACRES

THE GREEN Project B LOOP


Green Loop Connection to Park

TIMEFRAME: 1-5 YRS NEW OPEN SPACE: 5 ACRES

THE GREEN Project C LOOP


Green Loop Connection to Park

CONCEPT 1: NEAR-TERM
TIMEFRAME: 1-5 YRS NEW OPEN SPACE: 5 ACRES

COLUMBUS

Bridge Enhancement A: Streetscaping Only. One (1) Bridge


0 400 800

11

Bridge Enhancement B: Sidewalk Extensions and Streetscaping. Five (5) Bridges


0 400 800

Bridge Enhancement C: Pedestrian- and Bike-Only Bridges (2)


11 11

400

800

Line Items
Replacement of existing fence Installation of iconic art on fence New special paving Street trees in planters Bridge drainage (drains and pipe system)
Subtotal

Total
and Team

Line Items
Replacement of existing fence Installation of iconic art on fence New special paving Street trees in planters Landscape between guard rail and walk Planter wall Seat Wall Arcade over sidewalk Widen bridge 10 each side (20 total) Bridge drainage (drains and pipe system)
Subtotal (1 bridge)

Total

and Team

Line Items
Installation of new pedestrian / bicycle bridge New special paving Pedestrian lighting Public art (1.5%) Landscape at bridge entry Paving at bridge entry Directional signage Subtotal (1 bridge)

Total

and Team

$48,000 $45,000 $72,000 $100,000 $70,000 $335,000

$48,000 $45,000 $108,000 $100,000 $450,000 $60,000 $105,000 $150,000 $2,700,000 $70,000 $3,836,000 $19,180,000

$6,000,000 $72,000 $66,000 $94,500 $108,000 $43,200 $15,000 $6,398,700 $12,797,400

Subtotal (2 bridges)

Subtotal (5 bridges)

i - III

Project D

Project E

Project F

Green Loop A: Street ID and Enhancement

Green Loop B: Walk / Bike Path, Southern Edge of the 134 Freeway, over Existing Embankment Total
$90,000 $86,250 $105,000 $50,000 $1,020,000 $50,000 $550,000 $15,000 $15,000 $30,000

Pacific Avenue Tunnel Enhancement (Vehicular and Pedestrian)

Line Items
Continuous loop line paint Bike striping / buffer Identification pole signage Exercise station Streetscaping Additional landscape enhancement Pedestrian lighting - pedestrian level Informational health signage Bike station Bike signage Subtotal

Line Items
New paving - pedestrian path New paving - Bike path Landscape buffer Pedestrian lighting Trees Signage Exercise station Seating nodes Retaining walls along freeway edge Utilities Subtotal

Total
$504,000 $268,800 $910,000 $517,000 $61,100 $52,500 $40,000 $30,000 $8,040,000 $585,000 $11,008,400

Line Items
Public art 1.5% Pole mounted pedestrian lights New enhanced paving Signage
Subtotal

Total
$15,000 $66,000 $72,000 $15,000 $168,000

$2,011,250

i IV

Project G

Project H

Project I

Kenilworth Avenue Tunnel Enhancement (Pedestrian- and Bike Only)

Block-Long Pocket Parks along South Edge of Freeway

Greening of Vons Parking Lot

Line Items
Special paving Public art 1.5% Wall mounted pedestrian lighting Lighting at entry Special paving at two entries Landscape at two entries Site furnishings Signage Construct replacement tunnel Subtotal

Total
$62,400 $1,900 $25,000 $33,000 $28,800 $20,000 $10,000 $15,000 $1,560,000 $1,756,100

Line Items
Special paving New landscape Trees Pedestrian lighting Seating nooks Tot- Lot (3-5 yr.) with resilient surface Signage Paving demolition Utilities Cul de sac

Total
$171,000 $1,068,750 $39,000 $165,000 $45,000 $60,000 $45,000 $285,000 $123,000 $250,000

Line Items
Vegetative swales Vegetative swale trees New planting in parking Landscape renovation of existing planters in parking New shade trees in parking Asphalt concrete and base demolition Base material for permeable paving Flush concrete header Striping

Total
$216,000 $26,000 $136,000 $20,000 $22,100 $34,500 $20,400 $19,500 $1,500

Subtotal

$2,251,750

Subtotal

$496,000

i-V

MID-TERM: THE GROWING PARK - $230,127,575


Project A Project B Project C

Cap Park 1: Brand Boulevard to Central Avenue

Cap Park 2: Brand Boulevard to Maryland Avenue

4.75 acres $23.4 million per acre


Line Items
Cap structure Planting - on structure Hardscape Lighting Seat walls Planter walls On-site trees Specimen trees Street landscape Pedestrian lighting

1.91 acres $23.9 million per acre


Total
$78,660,000 $3,752,500 $1,125,750 $275,000 $300,000 $187,500 $75,000 $80,000 $40,950 $170,500 $750,000 $1,000,000 $45,000 $140,000 $3,105,000 $935,000 $40,000 $1,021,000 $17,390,000 $2,128,500

Cap Park 3: Howard Street to Geneva Street

1.91 acre $18.2 million per acre


Line Items
Cap structure Parking

Line Items
Cap structure Street landscape Screen landscape Hardscape Pedestrian lighting Amenities (furniture, signage, art) Crosswalks Utilities Multiuse facility/ office (2 story, 59,300SF) Retail (7,000SF) Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under cap park Subtotal

Total
$31,540,000 $3,900 $25,000 $498,000 $30,000 $30,000 $240,000 $955,000 $9,488,000 $1,120,000 $1,245,000 $374,000 $45,548,900

Total
$29,050,000 $249,000 $498,000 $1,867,500 $27,200 $200,000 $15,000 $110,000 $30,000 $45,000 $780,000 $84,375 $21,600 $1,245,000 $374,000 $34,596,675

Pedestrian paving / sports courts Planting on structure On-site trees Planter walls Seating areas Pedestrian lighting Sports court equipment Sports court lighting Utilities Restrooms (775SF) Management office (180 SF) Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under cap park Subtotal

Water feature - passive Water feature - interactive Plaza site furnishings Civic scale art 2% Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under CAP Crosswalks Utilities Conference / multi-use facility (2 levels, 94,000SF, shell cost only) Caf (9,900SF) Subtotal

$111,221,700

i VI

Project D

Project E

Project F

Cap Park 4: Geneva Street to New Pedestrian- and Bike- Bridge

2.02 acres $19.0 million per acre

Station Plaza for Bus Transit

Interactive Stations

Line Items
Cap structure Site landscape Pedestrian paving Planter walls Tot-lot playground Pedestrian lighting Site furnishings Fountain -interactive Utilities Caf (4,700SF) Full service bike station (3,600SF) Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under cap park Subtotal

Total
$30,800,000 $2,082,500 $499,800 $220,000 $90,000 $302,500 $25,000 $425,000 $780,000 $1,010,500 $450,000 $1,320,000 $396,000 $38,401,300

Line Items
Pedestrian paving Site furnishings Bus pullout Subtotal

Total
$24,000 $60,000 $100,000

Line Items
Interactive stations (location TBD) Bike stations Subtotal

Total
$125,000 $50,000 $175,000

$184,000

i - VII

LONG-TERM: SPACE 134 ANIMATED - $337,896,915


Project A Project B Project C

Cap Park 5: Louise Street to Howard Street

8.17 acres $18.7 million per acre


Line Items
Cap structure

Cap Park 6: Glendale East (New Village Center, Includes Main Development Sites over the Freeway)

Interactive Stations (in addition to Mid-Term, F)

6.89 acres $26.8 million per acre


Total
$124,600,000 $10,479,000 $1,757,040 $891,000 $472,500 $445,000 $188,000 $300,000 $350,000 $1,000,000 $150,000 $1,470,000 $1,910,000 $1,440,500 $84,375 $450,000 $5,340,000 $1,595,000 Subtotal $152,922,415

Line Items
Cap structure On-site landscape Hardscape Enhanced roadway paving Pedestrian lighting Seat walls / built site seating Planter walls On-site trees Specimen trees Water feature - passive Plaza Site furnishings Civic Scale Art 1% Enhanced Crosswalks Cafs (two in park) (3,600SF) Full service bike station (3,600SF) Utilities Roadway Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under cap New mixed use residential - Site 1 (3 floors, 30 du/flr, 86,000 SF) New mixed use residential - Site 2 (3 floors, 30 du/flr, 86,000 SF) New mixed use residential - Site 3 (3 floors, 30 du/flr, 86,000 SF) Subtotal

Total
$105,000,000 $3,600,000 $864,000 $720,000 $440,000 $245,000 $375,000 $64,000 $80,000 $350,000 $50,000 $1,220,000 $10,000 $774,000 $450,000 $2,700,000 $4,500,000 $2,010,000 $1,347,500 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $184,799,500

Line Items
Interactive stations (location TBD) Bike stations Subtotal

Total
$125,000 $50,000 $175,000

Planting on structure Hardscape Pedestrian lighting Seat walls / built site seating Planter walls On-site trees Specimen trees Water feature - passive Water feature - interactive Plaza site furnishings Civic scale art 1% Utilities Caf (6,700SF) Restrooms (675SF) Full service bike station (3,600SF) Mechanical ventilation Highway lighting under cap

SPACE 134. ANIMATED. Project A

CONCEPT 3: LONG-TERM
TIMEFRAME: 20+ YRS OPEN SPACE / CAP: 28 ACRES

400

800

Cap Park 5: Louise to Howard

15

8.17 acres $18.7 million per acre


Line Items
Crosswalks Utilities

and Team

Total
$1,835,000 $3,055,000 Subtotal $4,890,000

i VIII