As you can see from this street scene at right (click to enlarge it), it could be at almost any commercial corridor in Los Angeles by one feature or another. Whether it's the faded and only partially painted red curb, the power lines, or the cluster of graffitied newsracks, parts of this scene exist from the Figueroa Corridor to Brentwood to Chinatown to Toluca Lake. This happens to be just off of Sunset on Echo Park Avenue.Here are things that could be fixed now (if budgetary issues didn't exist):
1. The graffiti on the newsracks could be removed.
2. The red curb could be re-painted to clarify that is does exist (no matter if it's faded - it is still a red curb and a no stopping zone).
3. The powerlines and other utilities could be "undergrounded."
4. The newsracks could be removed (the new law prohibits newsracks within 25 feet of a driveway and a corner)
5. The trash in the street could be cleaned up (technically, the responsibility of the adjacent property owner).
6. The window grate could be removed (because nothing says "welcome" like a window grate).
7. By the looks of the low, cream-colored wall, people set up "shop" against it selling something (probably foodstuffs). This could be dealt with by asking them not to set up there (which is illegal). It's not in the picture, but it's clear that it happens. (So, stopping in that faded red curb to by frutas or some other treat may yield a ticket.)
At least the street is in good condition!
4 comments:
1. Aren't the newspaper vendors already responsible for the appearance and maintenance of their machines? They should be.
2. If I got ticketed for parking in the "faded" red zone, I think a pretty strong argument could be made that, since the curb to the left has clearly been repainted recently, and clearly the "faded" part was purposely not painted, that the intention is that the "faded" part is no longer restricted. This may not be the case, but I could see a sympathetic judge agreeing with the argument.
3. Sure, and I'm sure there's plenty of money in the budget for that. In fact, free wireless broadband throughout the city could eliminate lots of these utility wires.
4. Is there a grandfathering clause for existing newsracks, or are these now in violation? If so, I agree. Let's take 'em out!
5. This is a new one to me. The business is actually responsible for cleaning up trash in the street? How far out from the curb does this responsibility extend? Five feet? Ten?
6. Agreed, it looks ugly, but this is a business decision. It's hard to tell if the business is open or not. Does the crime level in the neighborhood justify this? Perhaps if more law enforcement and local "watch" groups were in the area, there wouldn't be a need for the grates.
7. Perhaps, though it's not clear to me that's what is actually happening. It looks more like shoe marks left by folks leaning against or sitting on the wall. I'm partial to street vendors, as long as they are welcome by the neighborhood. If there is indeed vendors on the street, and they are not welcome by businesses there, then yes they should be asked to move.
Re: anonymous' #2. I agree. There is something to be said about pattern recognition.
Funny that you mention "the road looks good". I wonder what would happen if the road were ignored, and everything around it was focused on by our city government, instead.
Your focus on City action to repair your view of a block you will most likely whizz by going 35 mph is a bit strange.
If the automobile were de-emphasized on that major commercial corridor, I can almost guarantee that conditions on that block would improve: more foot traffic, more local sales tax revenue, and less noise and pollution.
You forgot to notice the strip-mall parking lot, and the wide driveway - two things that strip malls bring to the urban street that help make them ugly, unsafe for pedestrians, and bad for our long term growth (supposing cheap oil goes away).
About City Nerd's #5, the only section I can think of that City Nerd was referring to would be this one:
CHAPTER IV
PUBLIC WELFARE
SEC. 41.46. SIDEWALKS – CLEANING OF.
(Added by Ord. No. 127,508, Eff. 6/29/64.)
No person shall fail, refuse or neglect to keep the sidewalk in front of his house, place of business or premises in a clean and wholesome condition.
Post a Comment