LAPD Motor Transport Division + Main Street Parking John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

This render doesn´t show the cars crowding the street, it looks weird, but nice anyway

See the dull buildings in the perspective. Still the cars are absent, but believe me, usually there is only a few walking in this street.

If there is a design that´s difficult to resolve when we think of aesthetics, it´s parking structures. In my city, Buenos Aires, they are built underground because we don´t have earthquakes. In California, most parkings structures are built above ground, as earthquakes are continuously shaking the cities.

Old parkings in Los Angeles are really awful, grey monsters spread everywhere. There´s a colorful one in Santa Monica, my favorite up till now that I´ve seen this project. I´m anxious to see the bright green panels, and I hope it´s not just an illusion for the night.

From architectural record:

¨The historic core of Downtown L.A. is on the upswing. Neglected commercial properties and prewar buildings abandoned during the latter half of the 20th century are being converted into residential lofts and art galleries, and St. Vibiana, the city’s former cathedral, which was damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, has been restored and renovated into an elegant event space. Needless to say, the community was less than welcoming when they got wind of the LAPD’s plans to build a vehicular parking and maintenance facility on Main Street, the burgeoning Gallery Row, adjacent to the revamped church.

Taking their cues from the area’s cultural vibe, JFAK employed a whimsical combination of materiality, color, transparency, and light to minimize the impact of the 300,000-square-foot, five-story concrete structure. And although the architects incorporated an 800-car employee garage in addition to a mechanics shop, car wash, and refueling station for official vehicles, the program is subliminal.¨

Keep on reading:

http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/lighting/2011/05/LAPD_Main_Street_Parking.asp

Advances on urban gardens in USA

Detroit urban farm. From http://aslathedirt.files.wordpress.com/

Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.), URS, and City of Chicago outlined how to safely farm an urban garden on top of a contaminated site at a national conference on brownfields. As Amy Yersavich, Ohio E.P.A. explained, “urban gardens aren’t going to come and go. They are here to stay so we need to focus on making them safe.” In fact, in many cities like Detroit, San Francisco, and New York City, urban gardening on all types of sites is “moving forward with leaps and bounds.” She has noticed that even Rustbelt states are transforming their brownfields into urban gardens. “Everyone wants fresh, healthy, local foods.”

Urban agriculture is the “production, distribution, marketing, and disposal of food and other products in the centers and edges of metropolitan areas.” This budding field deals with neighborhood mobilization, land and water use, pollution, health, and other issues. Programs can be private or public, volunteer-led, linked with food banks, or constructed by a landscape architect or horticultural expert. Even some park departments are starting urban farming programs.

For residential urban gardens, it’s important to look at whether the backyard used to be part of an industrial brownfield site. “A backyard could have been a brownfield in the past, or nearby some defunct facility.” Yersavich said residential gardens may have also been sites of historic “burn pits,” used early in the century to burn garbage. In addition, lead paint flakes can spread to yards.

REFERENCE: Excerpt from the article Keeping Urban Farmers Safe. By The dirt ASLA-

http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/dirt/24069/keeping-urban-farmers-safe

Will Zaha Hadid be able to change the boring architecture of California?

Zaha Hadid´s project for Elk Grove Civic Center, California

As I said in a previous post, all Californian architecture is the same. A shopping is like a pharmacy, and it´s like a house, like a market, and so on. Specially in young cities like Huntington Beach. And then, inhabitants and City Council members, who have to take decisions, do not know anything else but the same stucco on post modern architecture everywhere.

It´s very funny for me to read about this issue in Elk Grove, and I´m not defending arch. Zadid´s building, I´ve seen only this squid-picture, but I can imagine upset people shouting at the City Council, insulting the proposed project for the Civic Center.

Let us read some paragraphs from the New York Times.

Old town Elk Grove, California. Is this the architecture the City is proud of? I´ll have to visit Elk Grove and see for myself.... Picture from interwestgrp.net

¨The firm owned by the internationally renowned architect Zaha Hadid is in high demand these days, designing projects in Hong Kong, Milan and Seoul, not to mention the London Aquatics Center, the swimming arena for the 2012 Olympics.

But one of the firm’s smaller clients, the city of Elk Grove, population 153,000, recently conjured far different kinds of aquatic life when members of the City Council and the public chose words like “squid,” “octopus” and “starfish” to describe the latest renderings for a proposed civic center.

Other descriptions were more alien than aquatic. One councilman described the architectural study as “an animal from a different planet,” while the mayor, Steven Detrick, said he was expecting “to hear the theme from ‘Star Wars’ to start playing” during the presentation. None of these comments were intended as compliments.

But it wasn’t always this way.

As the economy inches back toward stability, some cities are beginning to dust off their pre-recession playbooks and dream big again. And few cities were moving as quickly before the financial crisis as this Sacramento suburb, which the Census Bureau proclaimed America’s fastest-growing city in 2006.

It was then that Elk Grove, incorporated in 2000, held an international design competition to create a master plan for a $159 million civic center complex on 78 acres. The project was to include a performing arts center, library, youth sports complexes, convention space and more. The council hoped that an iconic piece of architecture could vault the young city to higher heights, à la Bilbao in Spain and its Guggenheim museum.

And so, this suburban community where City Council agendas have included discussions on topics like how to deal with rampant beaver dams, chose Ms. Hadid, a Baghdad-born, London-based architect known for soaring biomorphic shapes that make Frank Gehry’s work look tame.

The mayor was thrilled that they had landed such a big fish. “We hit a home run on this one,” gushed James Cooper, the mayor at the time. “The citizens are so excited. The big thing is to let her be an architect and not stifle the process. We want her to think of something different. This is a new chapter in Elk Grove’s life.”

It was a chapter, though, that ended with the recession. And the idea gathered dust until last summer, when the city resumed its relationship with Ms. Hadid’s firm to fashion the center’s master plan, the process in which the scale and proximity of the structures is determined, though the actual design of individual buildings will be decided later.

But one important factor had changed since she was first selected. Three of the five City Council members were new, and one of the most vocal opponents of the Hadid selection in 2006 was now mayor.(...)

One unabashed fan is the city’s planning director, Taro Echiburu, who expects to start a new competition for the design stage this summer and hopes that Ms. Hadid’s firm will participate. “I loved the designs,” he said. Informed, however, that the mayor said he was unlikely to support any project proposed by Ms. Hadid’s firm, Mr. Echiburu insists that he still hopes for the best. “I’ll be disappointed if this ends up as Anytown, U.S.A.,” he said.¨

Elk Grove library. From interwestgrp.net

Elk Grove City Hall. From interwestgrp.net

After seeing the pictures above of ¨Anytown USA¨, I can understand why citizens reject Mrs Hadid´s project. Thanks God there´s still planner Echiburu to defend something new, maybe a little adjustment to the squid shape would be enough???

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/us/01hadid.html?_r=3&ref=us

Day of the Dead in Los Angeles

Today it's the Day of the Dead (Día de los Muertos) and Los Angeles Downtown, specifically Olvera St and the plaza, are crowded with people celebrating in beautiful costumes.

It´s been two years by now since I cannot go, but anyway, I´m sharing some pictures of the event from Los Angeles Times.

To learn more about the altarcitos and the día de los muertos, click here:

http://myriammahiques.blogspot.com/2009/10/religious-altarcitos-in-chicanos-houses.html

Are food trucks displacing restaurants?

A food truck in Los Angeles. Picture from ilovefoodtrucks.com

¨Sure, a few cities around the country may be starting to see a backlash by brick-and-mortar restaurants against the myriad mobile kitchens that have proliferated in a brutal economy. Every dining dollar counts these days, and a party of six eating dumplings or duck confit from a come-and-go curbside truck cuts into the income a "real" restaurateur needs to pay for everything from linens to dishwashers to rent itself.

But many savvy entrepreneurs see the trend as a win-win situation. Wolfgang Wannabes can get a relatively low-budget start on the street and build a following, while established restaurateurs can collaborate to make extra income, whether by renting kitchen space at off-hours or actually doing the cooking for the fly-by-day vendors.

And if imitation is the most trustworthy form of flattery, this is an even busier two-way street. More and more restaurateurs are starting to take their food on the road, validating the whole concept, while curbside cooks are increasingly opening restaurants without giving up on their first ventures.

Matt Geller, a founder of the Southern California Mobile Food Vendors Association that has mobilized since January in Los Angeles, says there is no way to quantify how the truck movement is affecting restaurants, although he sees the biggest impact in areas with few or no food choices where workers are now thrilled to be able to buy ambitious braised pork belly or just a simple burrito. Restaurants that offer "ambiance, a bar, great food" will never be affected, he says. (Location, location matters more than ever now that food is "movable and malleable," Geller adds.)

Food truck in L.A. From Latimes.com

Established restaurateurs may complain that food trucks have an unfair advantage because they don't pay rent, but Geller notes that they still have to pay for commissary space to clean and restock their "kitchens," they pay for licenses and food and staff, and they pay for rent on storage space and commissaries to do most of the prep work. And then there is the energy and the cost of social media: Because trucks are literally on the move, they need Twitter and Facebook to get the word out on where they are and when, plus what they are serving. Websites are so 2009.

On the plus side, Geller says, trucks develop something close to cults. "Restaurants have customers," he says. "Food trucks have followers." The difference lies in the devotion — the latter will follow their food wherever it is.

The food truck phenomenon has obviously exploded in the last year, partly inspired by Roy Choi of Los Angeles, whose Kogi trucks have served thousands and thousands with crossover Korean/Mexican cuisine, including kimchi quesadillas. And talk about a business model: He not only famously grossed $2 million his first year but was also just named Food & Wine magazine's best new chef of 2010, even though he doesn't have a stockpot to stew in like the nine other winners with free-standing restaurants and fixed expenses to cover.

No wonder vendors from Miami to Minneapolis and beyond are getting into the mobile act. Portland has become the Disneyland of food trucks, with areas set aside to create "food courts" that attract even bigger crowds. Seattle is edging toward allowing carts, and New York is nearly overrun. Now the Los Angeles area is beginning to emulate the Portland model, setting aside not just parking spaces for food trucks but clearing lots where four or more trucks can gather to draw bigger crowds for more income.¨

Excerpt from the article by Regina Schrambling.

Read the full story:

http://businessonmain.msn.com/browseresources/articles/growthstrategies.aspx?cp-documentid=25662234&source=msneditorial&gt1=25049

California´s new Green Building Code: An interview with Dave Walls

From Green Technology Magazine:

California’s groundbreaking green building code, CALGreen, becomes mandatory on January 1, 2011. Its effects will be far-reaching. By codifying many aspects of green building, CALGreen ensures that energy efficient and sustainable design will become routine in California. In his second interview with Green Technology Magazine, Dave Walls, executive director of the California Building Standards Commission, discusses the genesis of the codes and why this is the right time in history for them to be coming online.

In the evolution of CALGreen what kind of stakeholder groups were engaged? How comprehensive was the development process?

We really reached out to anybody that we thought had any interest in codes. These included CBIA [California Building Industry Association], architects, designers, BOMA [Building Owners and Managers Association] and CBPA [California Business Properties Association]. I really knew that we needed all of this. That was a big part of it. We also reached out to model code-writing bodies because they have a lot of experience in codes and in background and publishing, so they participated. We reached out to our other state agencies that are very much involved in environmental issues, such as the Air Resources Board, the Integrated Waste Management Board [now CalRecycle], the California Energy Commission, the Department of Water Resources, as well as the Department of General Services that has been doing state buildings with the LEED process, making them green.

Of course, we also included the point green building certification groups USGBC [US Green Building Council] and Build It Green and environmental groups like the Sierra Club, NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council] and EDF [Environmental Defense Fund]. We really tried to bring an entire spectrum of people and groups with different perspectives and expertise to build a consensus. That was our attempt and our effort – if we were going to put something in the code we wanted to make sure it was right. So you bring the experts in and then you can have that discussion, and all the meetings were open and public. They were also announced beforehand so that anybody who wanted to attend and had any feelings about it, one way or the other, could make their opinions known, either in writing or in person.

How long did this process run?

Our first focus group was in July of 2007, though we actually started engaging in the process about three to four months earlier than that. We had a number of meetings - group meetings as well as with individuals - to talk about specific issues all the way through probably October or November of 2009.

We’re talking about more than a three-year process of developing our first code, our 2008 code, and then moving this forward with the same groups of people to get to the 2010 code. Some were more engaged at times than others, and some were more focused on certain parts of the code than others, but it really was a very open and transparent process. As we developed our approach we’d put content on our website or we’d send material out to the focus groups so it could be read before our meetings, and could then be used to make informed decisions or comments or recommendations.

Why did CALGreen development take place in California now, at this time in history?

The Governor came to us and asked us what we could do to green the codes. That was the impetus. I think his policies as well as those of others in leadership in California had us headed in such a direction. I also think USGBC, with LEED and other programs, had been leading the way and really changed a lot of the public perception of what green is, and that changed the whole movement.

We’re in an economic downturn – there could be any number of reasons why, with the potential of adding costs and requirements both on the enforcement side and the building side, this could have been pushed off. Why wasn’t it?

I think, again, the timing was right. We had support from the industry, which clearly understands the issues relating to cost. We focused on that – it was a big part of the process to keep the provisions in the code attainable, reasonable, and not something that would hurt or have a negative impact on the construction industry and its recovery.

You’ve got to move forward and the industry will move with it. You’ve just got to make sure that you work hand-in-hand with them. There’s always a reason not to do it - you’ve just got to move forward and make sure that what you’re doing is significant yet realistic, keeping the cost impact or financial impact as minimal as possible while still getting a solid environmental impact.

So often you see a contest being played out between preserving the environment and the associated costs. Do you think that the building industry saw the inevitability of greener buildings with better energy conservation, water conservation, and resource utilization?

I believe they did, yes. I believe they saw it coming, as we all really did. It was either get engaged and help ensure the process is a good one and the results are good and positive, or stand back and fight it and not know what you’re going to get.

They engaged and ultimately supported what is currently the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code. They want to continue to be engaged in that process, so, as the industry recovers, I’m sure there’ll be more and more things that get into the code that make sense. Costs, as things become more mainstream, usually start coming down and just start kind of fitting into the process.

You worked closely with many environmental organizations that had input concerning sustainable construction and the components of the green code. How did you elicit their support? I know there were concerns that CALGreen wasn’t as strict in some of these requirements as it might be.

I think it always starts out that way when you’re dealing with a new code or new effort. You have sides that feel it’s not stringent enough, and sides that think it’s too stringent. We had to find that balance, as we did with the industry. One of our efforts was to work closely with the environmental groups to ensure that they understood what we were doing and trying to achieve. When you really look at individual buildings or what’s going on in a certain area of the state, it may look like we’re lessening the requirements - but again, we’re trying to set the minimum standards.

Others – local cities and counties or builders – that choose to go above our code can certainly do that. But when you look at the overall scene, and this is what the environmental groups that support us did, and get a picture of the impact that the code is going to have in California, you realize that it’s still moving forward. We’re really not taking a step backwards, as some people think we are. When you can capture 100 percent, or almost 100 percent, of the buildings in the state, as compared to making a considerably more stringent standard that is too difficult to comply with, the balance is there. The overall impact on the carbon footprint is still great.

Do you have a sense of how many green buildings were constructed in California, under say LEED or Build It Green, as compared to the number expected under CalGreen?

I don’t know in terms of numbers of actual buildings, but as we went through the process we looked at what local jurisdictions were doing. When we finalized the code earlier this year, there were roughly 10 percent of jurisdictions in the state doing some level of green building, with a required or voluntary program in place.

Some of them, of course, were the bigger cities. But as you look deeper, bigger cities aren’t always doing the most in terms of new construction. In terms of jurisdictions and size, though, we’ve now captured the 90 percent of the jurisdictions within the state that were doing nothing.

There’s a mandatory commissioning requirement as part of CALGreen for nonresidential buildings. How is this coming into play, since commissioning has never been part of a building code? What assistance can you give to both the building community and building officials?

That is the one piece of the code that is probably the most different for builders and jurisdictions. In areas where they’ve been building under LEED with a LEED commissioning requirement, some people are aware of it. But now under CALGreen we’re talking about all buildings over 10,000 square feet, which is going to greatly increase the use of commissioning.

We understand that commissioning is a new factor to contend with. We have a task force working on guidelines and we’re reaching out to stakeholders statewide. We’re trying to make sure there are enough people out there who are educated and trained to be able to comply. As I said earlier, the one thing we don’t want to do is have a negative impact on the construction industry – but this is also the largest piece in terms of environmental impact in terms of energy efficiency and what we can do. The study we relied on was from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories. It showed the cost benefits and the short period of time for payback on commissioning, The environmental impact, the impact on energy usage on a building derived from commissioning are just well worth the effort.

As the January effective date nears for the new mandatory measures, what would you want to convey to building officials, architects, planners, contractors and other industry stakeholders concerning CALGreen?

Embrace the code and learn it. Get your staff educated and trained so you can implement it because it’s going to be here and it’s going to be here quick. It’s all about understanding – understanding the intent of the code and what you’re going to gain from it.

The Commission is already working on the next code review cycle. What do you see in the future for CALGreen?

For the code cycle that will begin at the end of this year, we’re looking at the tweaks and fixes that need to be addressed. With any code and any new provision, once you start trying to implement it, you realize where it worked or didn’t work. As we move forward we plan on improving it, bringing in new technologies, new efforts, or methods that can make the code better and reduce the impact that buildings have on the environment. That’s the goal.

CALGreen appears to have had an influence on the International Code Council and its development of an International Green Construction Code (IGCC). Do you see this continuing?

Well, we’ve been the first state to develop and publish a green code and they did look at our code as one of their resource documents. I participated on the International Green Construction Code committee that did the initial development, and I was able to share some of the things we learned in California with the IGCC committee. That’s been our main impact. I believe there are 29 committee members all together, so there’s considerable influence from around the country as well.

Building codes have really been focused on public safety issues – fire, electrical, seismic, that type of thing. How is it that sustainability moved into codes?

To protect buildings from fire, we have put fire standards in the code. Similarly, we have structural safety design standards for earthquakes or wind. We’ve had our energy code in California since the early 1980’s, we’ve had water conservation features in the code for a long time – many years. People tend to forget this.

I think we’ve just expanded on that. Environmental concerns have really raised the public consciousness. We’ve looked at this and we’ve said, let’s start looking at ways of reducing the environmental impact of buildings.

What better way to do that than with the codes? Our long-term goals are to integrate the provisions into our other codes. Then people don’t suddenly think “oh it’s a green issue and I don’t like green so I don’t want it,” or the other side of it with “it’s not green enough.”

We want it to be “it’s just the way you build” – and it’s going to be sustainable.

http://www.green-technology.org/green_technology_magazine/davewalls2.htm

Archipelago. By Nova Jiang

Of all works on line at the workshop for the 2010 Biennal ¨Build your own world¨, in San José, California, this one is my favourite: Archipelago, by Nova Jiang. Nova a young Chinese artist, currently living in Los Angeles.

Sustainable locomotion is not just about lowering energy consumption and reducing pollution, it is also an opportunity to redefine the social paradigm of transportation. In a car-based culture, we have sacrificed sociability in the way we travel for an ideal of “individual convenience” which ironically impedes rather than promotes mobility in our congested cities.

For this project and workshop, a collection of mobile “desert islands” will be constructed with help from the public. Each island will carry empty bottles and writing materials and circulate throughout the city. A participant can create an anonymous “message in a bottle” which asks for help, whether for romantic advice or philosophical guidance. The author can later log onto the project website to see what solutions people have offered.

Archipelago (2010) seeks to address issues of urban isolation exacerbated by car culture. The islands act as “vehicles” which carry communication instead of people or goods. They are nodes in an experimental “social network” created around empathy. Archipelago has no predefined destination. Its mobility is a strategy to initiate chance encounters and encourage people to leave the “desert island” of their normal routine.

Commissioned by ZER01 for the 3rd 01SJ Biennial, and presented with the support of the James Irvine Foundation.

The pictures posted here belong to Nova Jiang and are posted at:

http://01sj.org/2010/artworks/archipelago/

What is a site plan review in L.A.?

Los Angeles 1950. From http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/

A couple of days ago, I had a hard time trying to explain to a homeowner why he had to pay for a site plan review and after the process, his request was denied.

Any person applying for a new construction, remodel or legalization, has to pass through the site plan review at Regional Planning in Los Angeles. But the case that interests me is the legalization.

If a person receives a letter from Code Inforcement, there is no way he/she can skip the situation. A letter like this, means there is something illegal -or apparently illegal- in the property. Needless to say if the garage or even a storage is rented as a living space. 

Sometimes, if the inspector hasn´t seen the property´s records, he can suppose about the status of the constructions. And once a construction is suspected to be illegal, while the owner doesn´t prove the contrary, he has to submit plans for a site plan review. He will pay the City for a complete analysis of his property. Set backs, lot coverages, parkings, maximum heights, zoning, quantity of units, etc. Even if there is only a very small Code violation.

Then, if a structure is non conforming (it means, built under a different Code from the current one), but it is untouched and nothing has been added to it, you can keep it. But at the very moment you make a remodel on it, everything has to be brought back to the current Code.

The homeowner I mentioned before, was discussing that he bought the house ¨as is¨,  he was not guilty. It doesn´t matter, the responsibility of illegal situations inside the property, lies on the current homeowner.

Then, he said, I used to have a bathroom behind the garage, I have the record here. But, once you demolish a non conforming construction, you cant´rebuild it. He insisted, ¨I still have the pipes¨. No way to rebuild it in unpermitted set backs again.

I don´t think it´s so difficult to understand, but it must be very frustrating to pay for a site plan review (approx. 800$) and then have a ¨denied¨ as an answer after reviewing all the records, even from the Assessor´s office........

At last, in his anguish, he mentioned many neighbors had more than 2 units in district R2. He was right. But he had to consider, when the Code changed, from R3 to R2, whatever was legally built cannot be demolished, unless there is a new construction, and again, the new Code R2 rules. This is a way to ¨clean¨ the urban tissue, to renew the urban morphology. More cars offstreet means more cars inside the property, more open space, and probably 2 stories houses instead of 1 story. In the future, the benefit will be for all, as the neighborhood is being improved. The sacrifice of a few, for the benefit of all the neighbors, including the sacrificed ones. The problem is that homeowners don´t envision it, only architects, urbanists and planners.

Land use and legalization of Marijuana

Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/thetruthabout/

These are separate excerpts from the article ¨Placemaking for pot smoking¨, by Josh Stephens, for Planetizen. To make us think how far planning issues sometimes are beyond our imagination.

Make no mistake: 74 years after the film Reefer Madness cemented the connection between deviance and getting high, medical marijuana is already quasi-legal. But if the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 passes November 2, it would strip away the medicinal veneer of cannabis use and simply make it legal for anyone over age 21 to possess, grow, and use marijuana, hemp, and related products. The measure, which has been officially approved for the ballot after backers submitted the more than 400,000 required signatures, would also authorize the state to impose taxes on the sale and cultivation thereof, and would give local jurisdictions broad leeway to permit, prohibit – and tax – its cultivation and sale.

After California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996, the drug-cum-medicine gained further legitimacy in fits and starts until, in 2008, California Attorney General Jerry Brown issued guidelines confirming that marijuana collectives could in fact operate as retail establishments as long as they served only members and did not reap inordinate profits. This announcement, coupled with the proliferation of "prescriptions" that recommended the use of marijuana for everything from anorexia to anxiety to insomnia, the marijuana "dispensary" was born. Some cities, however, were not prepared to regulate a nonexistent land use.

In Los Angeles, the regulatory void was filled by equal parts compassion and profiteering. It's estimated that up to 800 dispensaries proliferated throughout the city.

Los Angeles' quick rise to the position of retail marijuana capital of the world forced the city council to play catch-up earlier this year and pass an ordinance that would close roughly 600 rouge dispensaries and place complex restrictions on those that were allowed to remain.

City planners estimated the appropriate number of dispensaries per each of the city's 35 planning areas and came up with between two and six, depending on the respective areas' populations. Dispensaries may not locate near residential areas or places where children congregate, and they may be no less than 1,000 feet from each other. They must have controlled entries and cannot use flashy signage or advertising.

"The recommendations we came up with ensured that there would be potentially medical marijuana collectives located within all the community plan areas in the city," said Alan Bell, senior planner at the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, who led the crafting of the marijuana ordinance. "We'd limit the number so that we could have a limited number that we could enforce and monitor."

Cities that choose to both regulate marijuana sales and cultivation without stifling them need not re-invent their land-use laws but can instead follow the model of bars and restaurants. Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, who authored Measure F, said that Oakland’s embrace of marijuana relies in part on the issuance of special activity permits, which, she said, give the city the oversight it needs to ensure that the businesses are conforming to the city's regulations. "Which is different from something that’s handled as permit that comes with the land, which can often be in perpetuity," said Kaplan. "That has allowed us to have a level of rigorous oversight because the facilities have to come in every year for a hearing where there’s an opportunity to take that permit away."

In Los Angeles, once the City Council and City Attorney determined their optimal number of medical dispensaries the task fell to the Department of City Planning was directed to keep dispensaries away from residential areas and places where children congregate, including school and playgrounds. But, fearing that these restrictions would lead to the clustering of stores into cannabis ghettos, city planners have also required that they be spaced at least 1,000 feet apart, and they have prescribed a limited number of dispensaries per each of the city's 35 plan areas, according to the plan areas' respective populations. While this approach reflects the troublesome side of marijuana, some believe that it stigmatizes what is, ostensibly, a legitimate medicine.

Read about the perfect cannabis

http://theclubofcompulsivereaders.blogspot.com/2010/04/en-busca-de-la-perfecta-cannabis.html

Read the whole article:

http://www.planetizen.com/node/44845

Old patterns of suburban growth and urban decline are now being reversed

Maps of foreclosures in Chicago region. See the difference between 1998 and 2008. Scary....From New Urban News

I´ve been reading an article at New Urban News, about professor William H. Lucy, who has examined America’s foreclosure epidemic in great detail and has arrived at this conclusion: Decades-old patterns of suburban growth and urban decline are now being reversed. 

This is pretty obvious and you don´t need a complete analysis, though I really appreciate all the investigation.

What was left, the empty neighborhoods, ¨zombie¨ developments, are located mostly in suburban areas, in rural areas where beautiful houses were sold a couple o years ago, much bigger and cheaper than the ones in the cities. Those homeowners could enjoy lakes, landscapes, but now, it´s  very difficult for any body to afford the expenses related to far away neighborhoods, beginning with access to supermarkets, long travels to work –if they were not fired-, more than one car as everybody has  to drive to populated cities.  Now, people look for job openings in urban areas, as always, they can find more opportunities.

And where do foreclosure former homeowners go? To rent, anywhere, obviously rental apartments are not in suburban or rural areas. Or even they relocated in another states, with their families.

This is the real city I see everyday, what is not shown in the books, properties in crowded neighborhoods, with illegal constructions ready to be rented. If somebody buys a property with illegal rooms, he can ask for a price reduction. Then, he should take care of it, demolish or legalize. But, people keep on renting them until an inspector from the City shows up. This is another attraction from cities………

Illegal construction for rent, in Los Angeles. Picture by Myriam Mahiques

People also rents motor homes in the city. What cannot be seen from the street....Picture by Myriam Mahiques 

This is an excerpt from the article  at New Urban News:
“The years leading up to the 2008-2009 crises may be seen in retrospect as the last hurrah of the exurban extreme of the American dream,” says Lucy, a professor of urban and environmental planning at the University of Virginia. Increasingly, people with choices and financial resources want to live in cities. 
The residential foreclosures that spiked in the past three years have been highly concentrated. Sixty-two percent of foreclosures in 2008 occurred in just four of the 50 states: California, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona. Forty percent clustered in 16 counties within 10 metropolitan areas, nearly all of them in the Sunbelt, which have more than their share of semi-abandoned tracts — referred to by Lucy as “zombie subdivisions.”
The foreclosure crisis has taken most of its toll on metropolitan areas’ edges — places that in many instances depended heavily on real estate activity for their economic well-being, according to Lucy. His findings appear in Foreclosing the Dream: How America’s Housing Crisis Is Reshaping Our Cities and Suburbs, a 208-page paperback from the American Planning Association’s Planners Press 

Lucy attributes much of the foreclosure crisis to these factors:
• Federal policy aimed at increasing the homeownership rate above the 64 to 66 percent range where it had stayed from the 1960s to the 1990s. President Bill Clinton boosted the rate to 67.7 percent. President George W. Bush’s goal of getting 5.5 million more Americans to own homes — pushing the rate to 71.4 percent —resulted in a further easing of financial standards. 
• A long-term decline in the incomes of most Americans and an increase in the gap between the rich and the rest of the population. Many who were enticed to buy houses couldn’t afford them. 
• Credit that started out cheap but jumped to a higher rate within a few years.
• The recession. “The foreclosure crisis was triggered in those states where house prices to income ratios widened the most,” led by California and Nevada and then Arizona and Florida, Lucy says.

Back to the city
Unaffordable houses and a severe recession weren’t the only influences, Lucy says. “Something else was also afoot. … The whole pattern of metropolitan development was quietly moving in reverse.” 
Through a detailed examination of census records, Lucy shows that the condition of quite a few cities stabilized by 1990 and then improved. “During the 1990s, something remarkable began to happen,” Lucy says. “Cities were attracting people with money.” In the 40 central cities of the 35 metropolitan areas ranked as America’s largest in 1980, the decline in average per capita income halted. 
Why the change?
“The revival of interest in cities on the part of middle-class whites had a lot to do with a fondness for older homes,” particularly their craftsmanship and character, Lucy maintains. By 2000, neighborhoods with housing built before 1940 were no longer the poorest in their metropolitan areas. They were attracting inhabitants with greater means. 
At the same time, neighborhoods made up of housing that had been built between 1950 and 1970 started to lose their privileged status. Areas developed from 1950 to 1970 were “most likely to be dominated by small houses [whose appeal was waning], far from shops and other needs.”
In other words, both the nature of the houses and their construction and their closeness to, or distance from, everyday needs and services precipitated a profound shift. Urban living gained in popularity. 

Keep on reading

http://www.newurbannews.com/15.4/foreclosures.html

Coop Himmelblau in Downtown Los Angeles

I’m happy that I’ve found an article at Arcspace.com about the High School #9 in Los Angeles, California. First of all, every time I saw its round windows in the gray boring walls, I was wondering who’d be the architects that add more gray to the city (it has enough of it). I never related the tower to this building and I was also concerned about the meaning of it. This is what arcspace.com says:

“High School #9, LAUSD’s new flagship high school project with emphasis in the Visual and Performing Arts, is in direct vicinity of the downtown Los Angeles cultural corridor with Disney Concert Hall, the Museum of Contemporary Art and the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. The school campus will include four academies for education in music, dance, theater arts and visual arts, and a theater for 1,000 visitors which can be open to the public.

The tower, a unique and highly visible sculptural landmark, will provide a point of identification for the students, a symbol for the arts in the city and a sign for the positive development of the arts, education and our society. The tower also relates to the immediate context of downtown Los Angeles and the other cultural institutions within.

A spiral in form of a #9 which revolves around the tower completes the sculpture and is an expression of the dynamic development of our society.”

Now, being an architect myself, and with experience in “reading” buildings and their meanings, I could never have imagined such a symbol for the “dynamic development of our society”. This is not that I don’t understand the spiral, the problem is that the picture published at arcspace.com is aerial, and you can see it as in a model. But, when you are at speed in the freeway, the only thing you see is the tower that looks like a building. That’s the problem, you don’t understand if it is an empty silly building good for nothing or a huge sculpture dedicated to nothing. I took a picture myself, inside the car, and I promise to look for it, or take another one.

Maybe some architects forget that real buildings are not to be seen as massive models, unless you are inside an airplane instead of a car, with the view blocked by the freeway walls and trees. From this point of view, the tower is absolutely out of context.

Tatlin had this idea of the spiral conforming the tower. This is a great sculpture, I highly prefer this one, because the tower is in itself a spiral and doesn´t need ramps to express the idea. No extra elements needed! Image from http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/college/

http://www.arcspace.com/architects/coop_himmelblau/no_9/no_9.html

*All pictures have been downloaded from arcspace.com

Selection of pictures at 3Form.com

MGM Cirque Du Soleil, Las Vegas

I´m showing today some pictures I´ve selected from 3 Form web page. 3 Form is a commercial trade mark for eco resin materials. There are different finishes and all of them are really nice to work in interior design. Specially in commercial buildings, scenographic architecture and lighting. I used it some times, and of course, it´s expensive compared to acrylics or plastics, but resin has a higher quality. I´m not advertising, just exposing some beautiful solutions.

http://www.3-form.com/installations-case_studies.php

MGM Cirque Du Soleil, Las Vegas

Adams Place

CalState Fullerton, California

Kaiser offices, California

Montclair Plaza

Smithonian Museum, Washington

Smithonian Museum, Washington

Trade Show Light Art

Urban Pastoral Hong Kong

Urbana Pastoral Hong Kong

Handicap Issues and Buildings

Image from http://www.mysurgerywebsite.co.uk/

My father spent his last years in a wheelchair, living in his own house, that was not upgraded to his severe condition. He usually complained he couldn´t enter the bathroom without hurting his knuckles, as there is a pocket door in the bathroom in first floor, and it cannot be completely embedded inside the wall. And one day, he went too fast to the small ramp from the patio to the garden, and he fell down. Of course, the house was not under ADA code. A person that had a heart attack is a common problem in a house. When the affected person cannot go to the bedroom in 2^nd floor, a bedroom had to be improvised on first floor. So, I usually suggested in a new house design, to have an extra room –if possible- like a family room or studio, and if something happened, there was an extra accessible bedroom.

Sometimes, a building can be upgraded completely for handicap, sometimes not.

The main complications I´ve seen, when the handicap requirements became an obligation in Argentina, long years ago, were in commercial buildings. The new ramps were so long, that would never fit in some places. You don´t make them work, you couldn´t approve fire department. So, I spent long hours discussing with the fire fighters how to remodel buildings accesses, some suggestions were ridiculous, and they never took into account that sometimes there is no money to cover the remodels.

Anyway, handicap improvements are really important, accessibility has to be provided for everybody. But, the Codes fail in considering there are different degrees of disability. For example, I was a consultant for schools construction conditions in Buenos Aires, and I remember one school for blind people was accessible –let´s say for wheelchairs- they have the Braille signs, obviously, but colors were plain and there were no textures on the walls, no special sound to guide those who are not completely blind. I asked the principal about it, and she answered ¨It never occurred to us.¨ It is that the architect never told them about some minor helpful tips.

An obese person is a handicap. An Argentine obese actor, told once in an interview that he could not pass through the subways controls, they were too narrow. Seats, are another example. A pregnant woman is a short time handicap, and so on.

So many issues, I think buildings cannot cover all level of disabilities, and this is not enough reason for plan checkers to say some designs show ¨discrimination¨. But, what is not specifically written in the Codes, should be analyzed by the architects. It is our obligation to provide all the elements needed to make the handicap´s life easier, without becoming silly in our effort.

Let´s see a case a contractor showed me today: in a commercial building in California, of approximately 4000 sq ft, two stories, you can add an elevator or, if not, make the second story absolutely accessible, like the first story. My question, if the handicap is on a wheelchair (and that´s the bathrooms requirements, the use of a wheelchair), how could a handicap access to the bathrooms in second story without an elevator? In other words, what´s the purpose of two stories with ADA design if there is no way to go to the 2^nd floor, unless somebody carries the handicap in arms? I had an identical case, but even worst, in the City of Hemet. The plan checker said to me, that I was discriminating with such an argument. He said directly, or you do what I´m telling you or you´ll never approve the plans. And I asked him, if we have sewer machines in first floor and second floor, how could he expect that somebody in a wheelchair, or blind could use a type of sewer machine that needs of all our limbs? It means that, for some type of jobs, a handicap would never be hired, and this is not discrimination, this is that there is no way to resolve these problems, at least for now, with the technology we have available right now, like the example of sewers machines that have a foot pedal below.

Björk, a shot from Dancer in the Dark. From http://unit.bjork.com/

Another example, the movie ¨Dancer in the Dark¨, with Björk. How can a person, almost blind, work with a very dangerous machine? Do we need handicap bathrooms in the building of the movie? No, only in the administration area. So please, plan checkers, do not be blind yourselves in the interpretation of the Building Code.

Weeds in the Front Yard: aesthetic issues and depressing effect on local property values

Robert Wright´s front yard.  Picture in his article for New York Times

I have many posts explaining the American issues related to front yards, the obligation –at least in California- is to keep them as Wimbledon-like-lawns.

If there is something I really HATE in California man-made landscapes, is the gardeners´ habit to cut the bushes as cubes. That´s so incredible for me, because I can accept a bush that is destined to divide properties or areas in a garden, but to cut everything straight is really weird. Also, it is weird for me the wire mesh with an animal´s shape to be modeled as a bush, I see it too kitsch when it is not a sculpture in itself, in other words, when the wire mesh is bought at Home Depot or a nursery and there is no artistic value added. This opens a discussion about aesthetics, that is well treated by Robert Wright in his article for the New York Times ¨The Dandelion King¨, dated April 20^th, 2010. (Difficult question: Is there an aesthetic of the weed?)

Robert Wright, is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, and writes for the New York Times every Wednesday about culture, politics and world affairs. 

Let us read some paragraphs from his great article:

I can accept this one. Picture posted  at http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/10-amazing-animal-bush

This one has a completely different concept from the frog. Probably you can find a kitsch wire mesh below. Image from http://jensorganizedwriter.files.wordpress.com/

As I’ve told my neighbors, I feel bad about lowering the value of their property. I mean, it isn’t my goal to have a front yard that, by standard reckoning, is unattractive. The unkept look of my lawn is just a byproduct of a conclusion I reached a few years ago: the war on weeds, though not unwinnable, isn’t winnable at a morally acceptable cost.

When I first bought a house, back in 1993, I was under the naïve impression that the Wimbledonlike lawns in my neighborhood were more or less natural. At most, I figured, I’d have to pull the occasional weed and sometimes toss grass seed onto a barren patch before a spring rain.

Sure, I’ve done enough Googling to conclude that if you deploy the standard arsenal of lawn-care chemicals, you may well pose a threat to grass-eating pets or dirt-eating toddlers or, further downstream, water drinkers in general. 

I certainly applaud less lazy people who craft eco-friendly carpets of green in labor-intensive ways — researching and implementing elaborate “organic” weed-suppressant strategies. And I have nothing against people who can hire a battalion of weed pullers. But for me, the practical way to have an eco-friendly lawn is to have a weedy lawn.

The problem is that this approach doesn’t leave me with a wholly clear conscience. Sure, I can tell myself that I’m helping neighborhood pets and any straying toddlers — and maybe water drinkers in general. But then there’s the aforementioned effect on local property values.

An economist might frame my dilemma in terms of “negative externalities” — unwelcome effects that my behavior has on people other than me. Polluting the environment is a negative externality, but so is lowering the value of my neighbor’s home. How to choose between dueling externalities?

The first of the two externalities — releasing dubious chemicals into the environment — is the inevitable result of using them on your lawn; you can’t negate this negative externality without rewriting the laws of nature.  But the second externality — the depressing effect on local property values — results from something that may be mutable: prevailing opinion about what makes for an attractive lawn. The preference for Wimbledonlike lawns is not, I submit, a law of nature.

I mean, sure, an expanse of green probably does appeal to the typical human’s sense of beauty. But so does a snowcapped Alpine peak — and I’m definitely not putting one of those in my front yard. The question isn’t whether carpets of green are intrinsically attractive, but whether the more natural alternative — my front yard — is intrinsically unattractive. I think not.

Looking at Wright´s lawn picture, I suppose the problem is not the dandelion, but the grass that is left in between them. Of course, you cut the grass, and you cut the dandelions, unless you are extremely careful. Maybe he has to cut altogether, that´s it, I´ve never been worried about weeds unless they grow in the interstices of a path, or if they are too big, I remove them from the root. But after all, dandelion has a kind of beauty with its yellow flower, and I learnt some months ago, that it is edible, and you can make any type of salad. So, another solution, is to eat the leaves in salads and then cut the rest. When it grows again, you make more salads, and cut the grass  and weeds and so on.

Read the full article

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/the-dandelion-king/?ref=opinion

More posts about front yards:

http://myriammahiques.blogspot.com/2010/03/orange-officials-sue-couple-who-removed.html

http://myriammahiques.blogspot.com/2009/10/mexican-gardens-in-california-cultural.html

See animals bushes

http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/10-amazing-animal-bush