Outlaw Walking! - an editorial on how jaywalking infractions will undermine City of LA's economic recovery

Outlaw Walking!

another Will Wright rant.

The recent Downtown Los Angeles crackdown on jaywalking undermines the economic revitalization of the City and jeopardizes an entire platform of sustainability initiatives that have been formulated under the California Complete Streets Act (AB1358).  Citing jaywalking infractions is a law enforcement decision that runs counter to the goals of AB 32 and SB 375.  It's a law enforcement decision that is misguided and fundamentally flawed.  It's a law enforcement decision that will discourage pedestrianism and foster unsafe civic conditions by impeding a community's ability to inter-mingle as often as possible in such a way that facilitates greater social connectivity and understanding.  

What's more safe?  What's a bigger economic development engine?  A busy sidewalk or one void of people.

Deciding to cite the founding behavior of our community (pedestrianism!) with an infraction from the California Vehicle Code 21456(b) is a despicable implementation/enforcement of policy that threatens to tear our community apart and render Los Angeles as a less-than-livable city, thus eroding progressive initiatives to make LA more appealing and delightful as a place to live, work and recreate.

Additionally, the recent crackdown on jaywalking imperils our public safety by marginalizing our sidewalks.  It discourages the healthy lifestyle of walking and, in fact, reinforces a behavior that we are desperately trying as a City to evolve away from, which is driving the damned automobile!

We are all pedestrians.  Sure, it's counter-intuitive to step out in front of moving traffic.  But then again, pedestrians are traffic!  By all means - penalizing a person $191 for wearing shoes (instead of rubber tires) is absolutely the wrong thing to do.  If you are able to cross the intersection safely by the time the hand quits flashing, then you should be in the clear.  You should be rewarded for walking instead of penalized!

So, it is with all of this in mind that I propose we just simply Outlaw Walking!

Need to go somewhere:  take the elevator down to the garage and drive.  Can't find parking?  Well, tough.  Take a cab next time.  Just make sure that you don't walk anymore than the distance from your front door to the curb.

Walking is now illegal.  Walking is a crime.  Don't do it.  Drive instead.

Or, perhaps since walking is now outlawed - maybe we'll all be scooting around on wheelchairs.  Is a wheelchair a vehicle?  If not, why not?  If so, then as a vehicle does it need to follow the traffic signal or the pedestrian signal?

If I'm on a skateboard or on a bicycle, or wearing roller skates or dressed up as an automobile in immaculate custom traversing through town in a traffic lane (not the sidewalk, but in the traffic lane itself), do I heed the traffic signal or the pedestrian crosswalk signal?

Probably the traffic signal, right?  After all - I'm a moving vehicle/ I am traffic!

Therefore, what is the fundamental difference between a pedestrian and a moving vehicle?  If I have wheels on my shoes, am I a vehicle?  Or, am I still a pedestrian?  Am I a pedestrian while sitting in my car?  If so, then could I get a ticket for crossing a crosswalk on a flashing hand while within the confines of my car?

If my futuristic car learns to walk, is it a pedestrian?  Are those massive AT-AT Walkers from the Empire Strikes Back pedestrians or vehicles?

If I am in the traffic lane with wheels on my shoes, am I a vehicle?  And if I'm a vehicle, which signal do I have to obey?!

Are mechanical robots vehicles and do robots get jaywalking tickets?

Where I'm going with this is simple:  

Instead of walking on sidewalks, I suggest that all of us as pedestrians get in the habit of wearing roller skates and wrap ourselves in cardboard boxes that resemble the shapes of commonly recognizable automobiles (I'm either going to dress like a Prius or a Peterbilt, I haven't decided which).  We obey traffic laws as vehicles instead of as pedestrians and we regain our personal liberty and continue pursuing our healthy lifestyles.

And we continue to revitalize downtown Los Angeles by frequenting its sidewalks as often as possible.

-Will Wright

610 South Main Street, #515

Los Angeles, CA  90014

Will Wright Loves Los Angeles

The Tejon Ranch

we need Rail only ikeas!!!  i fought with alison so much cause i hate supporting ikea's in the exurbs.  at least burbank is a decently progressive city so we went to that one a lot during our renovation.  

man i love tejon ranch, so gorgeous!  been there a few times, first trip was my sophomore geology classs.  

they fucking scare me with their jesus love (just look at the cross in that logo - some scary cult shit!).   fuck i hope this place doesnt become cookie cutter sprawl - why is this outcome inevitable? this picture scares me from their "planned development" site: 

 generic ass same house with 2 car garage and a a cul de sac.   they should only allow development here if there are no cars.  like whistler village in canada (which asthetically im not a fan of) a pedestrian village, cars not welcome inside/park on the perimeter.  

i think that we should not allow development on land that has not been developed before.  its so expensive to all of us for them to build here.  the strain on our water/power.  the traffic, the depletion of nature.  they are going to ruin tejon ranch.  

so i think this is the tip of an iceberg representing the death and destruction of life as we now know it

damn if we get a time machine im going to the 70's and buying the dtla arts district up + a few theaters on broadway ahead of delijani.  

thanks for the link.  i wish we could help tejon ranch out.  they probably wont listen to me, but maybe they will take a cue from germany: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html 

daveed kapoor 323 252 8510 director utopiad.org california architect C32812

Preserving Los Angeles as the Creative Capital of the World

Preserving Los Angeles as the Creative Capital of the World

Steven, there is quite a bit of hyperbole floating through-out your article.  In fact, I'm amazed that I even bother to read the LA Weekly anymore.  It has become so out of touch and comically old-fashioned!  It's definitely not progressive and it's definitely not helping advance a vision for a more positive and delightful Los Angeles.  Instead, the LA Weekly has become nothing more than an inflammatory rag - misguided, grumpy, regressive and rather glum, kinda like Elmer Fudd but without the cool hat and the charming slur.

The current happenings at City Hall thanks to leaders like Michael LoGrande and Councilmember Reyes are actually quite positive.  Priorities are being realigned and greater efficiencies are being introduced, which inevitably will promote a more economically and environmentally sustainable Los Angeles.  Now is the time to help institutionalize some of these positive re-alignments and rally towards a framework that will ensure the health, livability and economic competitiveness of Los Angeles for generations to come.  For an example of what I'm referring to read this article about Charles Landry's placemaking initiatives:  http://www.strategy-business.com/article/10306?gko=232cd

First of all, we can all agree - the number one priority is to preserve the delightful characteristics of Los Angeles' single-family residential districts.  Let me repeat that:  the number one priority for all of these emerging planning tools is to preserve the delightful characteristics of Los Angeles' single-family residential districts.

How are these new planning tools going to do that, you might ask?

Primarily by enabling greater efficiencies, which will afford planners more time to P-L-A-N, by enabling greater efficiencies in the bureaucracy that in turn save the City (and the tax payer!) money.  

We all agree that we only want to see development occur only in very select areas.  Perhaps these areas can be further defined by the community with greater certainty.  Perhaps we can even re-evaluate what is meant by a Transit Oriented District - and perhaps we can even establish a new framework or metric for how a TOD shall perform so that it achieves the societal goals we all value.

Secondarily, by emphasizing the need to push The City of Los Angeles to become a healthier, more livable and more economically competitive place we are helping advance an agenda that will help ensure that in twenty, thirty, forty years Los Angeles doesn't become a third-rate City, especially when you compare it to the verdant emergence of hundreds of other world-class cities.

In short:  where do you want your grandchildren to live?  In the wreck that is becoming a barnacalized Los Angeles, or a Los Angeles that has preserved its identity as the creative capital of the world.

We all have choices.  That is clear.

-Will Wright

The Tejon Ranch

The Tejon Ranch Company (NYSE: TRC)

What do you think, Daveed?  The Tejon Ranch will probably get a high-speed rail stop.  This is massive.  Like a brand-new Thousand Oaks, kind of.   Or, would it be like a brand new City entirely?  Like a brand new Santa Barbara lapping up the California Aquaduct?

Planned Development there would be proximate to some substantial wilderness, which the state is thankfully taking some steps to conserve.  As a kid, I grew up proximate to the woodsy forests northwest of Houston.  Those woods and coral snakes, cottonmouths and copperheads - they're gone.  So are the pumas.  Do you remember the pumas - our version of the mexican Jaguar?

Is developing Tejon Ranch smart?  Does this advance ideas of prosperity?  Or is it the tip of an iceberg representing the death and destruction of life as we now know it?  Which wouldn't be an entirely bad thing now, would it.  Revolutionary evolution is a grand premise.  Change is inevitable.

As wikepedia notes, TRC is one of the largest private landowners in California.  (ProLogis bought Catellus in 2005 for $5.5 billion (a relative bargain!).

Maybe it is time for a brand-new City to be developed right in the midst of wilderness.  If done right, perhaps quite delightful.  I just don't know.  If done wrong, damn disastrous.

Some aspects, uncontextualized with the bigger picture are already disastrous in my opinion.

For instance, I've always been curious about the motivation for placing that giant Ikea warehouse just past the Grapevine so far away from the urban core of Los Angeles.  It scares me to think about how mostly diesel trucks transport that stuff - or, is that Ikea serviced by rail only?  It should be rail-only!  Berkshire Hathaway owns both BNSF and MidAmerican Energy.  They'll probably buy First Solar, soon.  They've invested substantially in BYD thanks to Charlie Munger.  What's next?  The Grand Tejon Ranch, you think?They'll even have Geico Stadium there someday, perhaps

Where are we going and how are we ever going to get there?

If you and I can figure out how to make a time-machine, remind me to buy Catalina Island from James Lick (oh, and ask him for a Piano, too!).

-WrW

AIA|LA Breakfast Reception w/ Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky - November 19 (8am)

Please make plans to attend our upcoming breakfast reception with Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, which will be on Friday, November 19 (8am) at AC Martin Partners, Inc.

To register please CLICK HERE.

AIA Los Angeles presents...
"A Greener City Through Better Land-Use - Part 7"
A Breakfast Reception with Zev Yaroslavsky
Los Angeles County Supervisor - Third District
Friday, November 19 (8:00-9:30am)
AC Martin Partners, Inc.
444 South Flower Street
Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Hosted by AC Martin Partners, Inc.

AIA Members - $15.00
non-members - $30.00

ADVANCE RESERVATION REQUIRED. To register please CLICK HERE.

As part seven of our 2010 AIA|LA Breakfast Series entitled "A Greener City Through Better Land-Use", the breakfast reception with LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky will conclude our seven part series of discussions with civic officials about how we can build and operate a more environmentally and economically sustainable City by making better land-use decisions.

For more details, please CLICK HERE.

Tell A Story About Your City Without Cars

Tell A Story About Your City Without Cars

The online submission form for the 'My City Without Cars' book is ready for citizens to tell their stories about what they imagine their city without cars to be.  We're looking for a punchy statement, and then some text explaining their ideas.  Last night Bob had the idea of 10 basketball courts on the I-10 overpass; another girl said she wants to be able to have starbucks and cafes filling the streets.  At the end of next week (approx nov 20) we will be selecting 25 statements to give to collagers to 'translate and image' the citizens ideas.

http://railla.org/inmycity/

Take some time, fill it out, get creative, and pass it on!

Vertical Content

Download now or preview on posterous

Vertical_Content_v1.7.pdf (1437 KB)

Our Four Primary Resources

The following e-mail was written as a response to an architect who was upset that AIA|CC advocated NO to Prop 23.

Dear Mr. S., 

Thank you for your critical input and for cc'ing me on your e-mail to Brandon Keefe with the Clean Economy Network.

As you may know, AIA's position on key legislative issues is quite dynamic, comprised by the membership's point of view and expert analysis.

As an AIA member, I encourage you to get further involved with the various committees that help shape the Chapter's position.  Your voice does matter and it can indeed make a difference.

If your not by chance an AIA member, then this is your opportunity to join the AIA and to get more involved, and help represent the voice of the profession.

With regards to your passionate support for Prop 23, I have a few additional reflections to add:

The supporters of Prop 23 are not California-based businesses.  They are businesses located elsewhere.  California-based businesses favor AB 32.  It provides regulatory certainty and certainty is an asset.

I agree, attempting to discuss Green-House Gas emissions is a distraction.  Volcanoes emit GhG's, so why shouldn't we?

However, let's not distract ourselves from the primary importance of AB 32, which is to help make California more economically competitive by ensuring its environmental health (and our physical health) for future generations.

AB 32 is a strategic regulatory framework to reach certain environmental and economic thresholds that I feel you and your firm and your firm's clients highly value.

I'm sure we can all agree that the four primary resources that we all value (and want to fiercely protect!) are:

1. Time - life's most precious commodity.  Efficient systems help save time (and money) and if it helps save time, then we have more time to engage in prosperous activity - right?  That's why I ride the subway to work - to save time.  It's a more efficient system.

2. Land - we need more of it, right?  But that's not going to happen anytime soon - so the only alternative is to ensure the land that we do currently have access to is as healthy and as resourceful as possible.  Our economic longevity relies 100% on our ability to utilize land and mineral resources more efficiently.  We need to re-think our land-use regulations, and the way we utilize land in general.  SB375, a directive of AB 32 will help us re-prioritize municipal zoning codes to enhance our urban systems in effort to set more land aside for natural resources.

3. Air - the cleaner the air, the healthier we are.  Health is not a benefit, it's a necessity.  What price are you willing to put on it?  

4. Water - water is the essence of life.  It is probably our State's number one priority at present:  how do we take proactive measures to ensure the most cost-effective water delivery infrastructure to ensure access to clean, healthy water for all?

I'm confident that AB 32 will help California protect those four primary resources, and therefore Prop 23 hinders our efforts to make California more economically competitive; Prop 23 hinders our efforts to ensure California's environmental and physical health for future generations.

Sure, as you've outlined, it might cost billions $$ to implement AB 32.  But for every billion $$ spent, there is an economic gain of that exact same investiture recirculated into our economy (and ideally our local economy since substantial businesses in California have made strategic investments in innovative, energy-efficient technologies).

In short, if I spend ten dollars, then someone has just made ten dollars - right?  If I spent billions $$, then someone has just made billions $$, right.  That investment is not a job-killer.  If anything, it has created jobs!  

If anything is certain, it is that change is inevitable.  Systems adapt and efficiency is paramount to how those systems evolve.  Think of the Colorado River evolving, shaping the Grand Canyon - this is an excellent metaphor to reflect on how systems adapt to become as efficient as possible, i.e., when was the last time you saw a river run uphill?

Hopefully, my words have inspired you.

I look forward to continuing the dialogue and encourage you to become more involved with helping to shape the AIA's position on public policy initiatives.

Very truly yours,

Will Wright

Director, Government & Public Affairs

AIA Los Angeles

Our Four Primary Resources

The following e-mail was written as a response to an architect who was upset that AIA|CC advocated NO to Prop 23.

Alan, thank you for your critical input and for cc'ing me on your e-mail to Brandon Keefe with the Clean Economy Network.

As you may know, AIA's position on key legislative issues is quite dynamic, comprised by the membership's point of view and expert analysis.

As an AIA member, I encourage you to get further involved with the various committees that help shape the Chapter's position.  Your voice does matter and it can indeed make a difference.

If your not by chance an AIA member, then this is your opportunity to join the AIA and to get more involved, and help represent the voice of the profession.

With regards to your passionate support for Prop 23, I have a few additional reflections to add:

The supporters of Prop 23 are not California-based businesses.  They are businesses located elsewhere.  California-based businesses favor AB 32.  It provides regulatory certainty and certainty is an asset.

I agree, attempting to discuss Green-House Gas emissions is a distraction.  Volcanoes emit GhG's, so why shouldn't we?

However, let's not distract ourselves from the primary importance of AB 32, which is to help make California more economically competitive by ensuring its environmental health (and our physical health) for future generations.

AB 32 is a strategic regulatory framework to reach certain environmental and economic thresholds that I feel you and your firm and your firm's clients highly value.

I'm sure we can all agree that the four primary resources that we all value (and want to fiercely protect!) are:

1. Time - life's most precious commodity.  Efficient systems help save time (and money) and if it helps save time, then we have more time to engage in prosperous activity - right?  That's why I ride the subway to work - to save time.  It's a more efficient system.

2. Land - we need more of it, right?  But that's not going to happen anytime soon - so the only alternative is to ensure the land that we do currently have access to is as healthy and as resourceful as possible.  Our economic longevity relies 100% on our ability to utilize land and mineral resources more efficiently.  We need to re-think our land-use regulations, and the way we utilize land in general.  SB375, a directive of AB 32 will help us re-prioritize municipal zoning codes to enhance our urban systems in effort to set more land aside for natural resources.

3. Air - the cleaner the air, the healthier we are.  Health is not a benefit, it's a necessity.  What price are you willing to put on it?  

4. Water - water is the essence of life.  It is probably our State's number one priority at present:  how do we take proactive measures to ensure the most cost-effective water delivery infrastructure to ensure access to clean, healthy water for all?

I'm confident that AB 32 will help California protect those four primary resources, and therefore Prop 23 hinders our efforts to make California more economically competitive; Prop 23 hinders our efforts to ensure California's environmental and physical health for future generations.

Sure, as you've outlined, it might cost billions $$ to implement AB 32.  But for every billion $$ spent, there is an economic gain of that exact same investiture recirculated into our economy (and ideally our local economy since substantial businesses in California have made strategic investments in innovative, energy-efficient technologies).

In short, if I spend ten dollars, then someone has just made ten dollars - right?  If I spent billions $$, then someone has just made billions $$, right.  That investment is not a job-killer.  If anything, it has created jobs!  

If anything is certain, it is that change is inevitable.  Systems adapt and efficiency is paramount to how those systems evolve.  Think of the Colorado River evolving, shaping the Grand Canyon - this is an excellent metaphor to reflect on how systems adapt to become as efficient as possible, i.e., when was the last time you saw a river run uphill?

Hopefully, my words have inspired you.

I look forward to continuing the dialogue and encourage you to become more involved with helping to shape the AIA's position on public policy initiatives.

Very truly yours,

Will Wright

Director, Government & Public Affairs

AIA Los Angeles