Kokteiliretseptid, piiritusjoogid ja kohalikud baarid

5550 Wilshire Miracle Mile'is: kaasaegne linnaelu LA südames

5550 Wilshire Miracle Mile'is: kaasaegne linnaelu LA südames



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Los Angelese ikoonilise "Main Street" ääres on uus luksusliku kortermaja, millel on retro -välimus, mis pakub pikka nimekirja ihaldatud mugavustest ja linna parimate ostude, söögikohtade ja meelelahutuse lähedust.

Majutusasutus 5550 Wilshire Miracle Mile pakub üürnikele võimalust nautida ülimat linna-LA-d, kus on kuurordiga ümbritsetud bassein, mida ümbritsevad kabaanid, tuleruumidega õueala, kahekorruseline kaasaegne jõusaal ja hubane teater. elustiili.

Kogukond sisaldab ühe-, kahe- ja kolme magamistoaga elamuid, suurusega 770 ruutjalga kuni 2061 ruutjalga erinevates põrandaplaanides-traditsioonilistest paigutustest kuni katusekorterini. Kõikides majutusruumides on gurmeeköök koos roostevabast terasest seadmetega, Caesarstone'i töötasapinnad, Kohleri ​​valamud, suured saared ja iga korteri elaniku unistus-täismõõdus pesumasinad ja kuivatid.

Lisamugavuste hulka võivad kuuluda 10-meetrised laed, garderoobid, vannid ja privaatsed rõdud. Elanikud saavad määratud parkimiskohad ja turvalise juurdepääsu kinnistule. Ka neljajalgsed sõbrad on teretulnud, nii et kogu pere saab rikkalikult elada.

Keskne asukoht muudab liikumise lihtsaks, olgu siis metrooga, bussiga, kõndides või hüpates 405, 101 või 10 vaid mõne kvartali kaugusel. Lähedal asuvad Grove, Museum Row ja põllumajandustootjate turg, samuti kesklinn, Hollywood ja Beverly Hills. Liisinguteabe saamiseks helistage telefonil 866-912-6813 või külastage veebisaiti WindsorCommunities.com.


Rahvus: tänavad vs kaubanduskeskused: linna avalike ruumide kaasaegne dilemma

Suurenev tagasilöök jaemüügihiiglaste, nagu WalMart, vastu linnades üle kogu riigi, annab olulise avalduse mitte ainult kaupluste tüübi, vaid ka kommunikatsioonitüüpide kohta, mida inimesed soovivad ja ei taha tulevikus. WalMarts ja teised lao jaemüüjad ning nende esindatud areng on näksinud ja näivad nüüd olevat ahistanud paljusid Ameerika kogukondi, asendades need millegi vähemaga kui varem. Suund linnalähedase jaekaubanduse poole, mis pole ühendatud kesklinna ostupiirkonnaga, muudab kogukonnad vähem mugavaks, vähem isiklikuks, vähem mitmekesiseks ja vähem turvaliseks.

New Yorgis elades tunneme end õnnelikuna. Kuigi mõnele võib see üllatusena tulla, on New Yorgi linnaosad enamasti mugavad, mitmekesised ja turvalised. Need on kohad, kus elujõudu ammutatakse tänavalt ja inimesed, kes tänavat kasutavad. Need on kohad, kus jaemüüjad tunnevad oma kliente. Näiteks pärast kolm päeva kohvikus käimist on kelneril kohvi paratamatult valmis, enne kui olete tellimiseks suu lahti teinud-olete saanud tavaliseks! Või rohelise toidukaupleja, kes siseneb tema poodi neli aastat pärast ära kolimist ja siis tagasi, küsides: „Kus sa olid?”

Nendes linnaosades on teenindus hädavajalik, kuna konkurentsi väljakutse on palju väiksem ja isiklikum kui sellel tasandil, kus kaubanduskeskus või WalMart funktsioneerivad. Sel moel sarnanevad New Yorgi linnaosad pigem väikelinnadega.

Los Angeles on teistsugune. Viimase kahe aasta jooksul oleme veetnud palju aega Los Angeleses töötades ja tunneme vajadust heliseda. Tundub, et linn loobub oma tänavatel ja võib seda tehes sulgeda ukse „linnalikumaks” muutumiseks.

Seevastu tundub, et Los Angeles loob lõputult palju eraomanduses olevaid, kõrgelt kontrollitud kinnisvaraarendusi. Kuigi need arengud meelitavad ligi paljusid inimesi, on need ainuõiguslikud taskud-mitte osa linna kangast. Need ei ole kohad, kust arenevad tõelised linnad.

Mis teeb head linnad ja kuidas saavad nad edasi areneda kohtadena, kus inimesed tahavad olla? Vaadake vaid seda, kus inimesed unistavad oma puhkuse veetmisest-jalutades Pariisi puiesteedel, rüübates espressot välikohvikus Itaalia väljakul, tulles isegi New Yorki.

Hea linn seisneb mitmekesisuse kogemises-isegi kui see tähendab lihtsalt tänaval kõndimist, et jälgida inimesi, kes pole sinusugused. Heades linnades on ka avalikke kohti-kohti, mis on osa linnast, mis näitavad teile, mis linn endast kujutab, ja annavad sellele südame. Mõnikord on need kohad uhke avenüü või suur väljak. Igatahes on need inimeste igapäevaelu oluline osa.

Hea linn ei saa eksisteerida ilma heade tänavateta. Kas te kujutate ette Pariisi ilma selle puiesteedeta? Tegelikult laiendas Pariis äsja Champs -Élysées'l kõnniteid, et paremini ühiskondlikku ja majanduslikku elu ning joie de vivre mille poolest linn on kuulus.

Suurepärase tänava tuvastamine on lihtne. Pange tähele, kes on kohal ja kes mitte. Hea tänav on mitmekesine: pensionärid, teismelised ja lapsed. See on hea märk, kui mehi ja naisi on umbes võrdselt: naised valivad kasutatava tänava rohkem kui mehed. Kui kiiresti inimesed kõnnivad ja mida nad teevad? Kas inimesed kohtuvad üksteisega, lõpetavad rääkimise inimestega, keda nad tunnevad ja kellega lihtsalt juhtus kokku jooksma? Jalutamine ja palju suhtlemist on veel üks hea tänava näitaja.

Arvatakse, et head tänavad kuuluvad neid kasutavatele inimestele: kliendid, kes tulevad aeg -ajalt tagasi, ja jaemüüjad, kes jälgivad pidevalt tänava probleeme. Isegi kui nad ei osta, tunnevad inimesed, et nad kuuluvad heale tänavale. Nad teavad lühikesi teid ja salajasi parkimiskohti. Neil on kogunenud mälestusi kogemustest, mis saavad osaks nende identiteeditundest kogukonnas. Nad on mures, kui juhtub midagi, mis tänavat muudaks.

Vastupidiselt linnadele, mis keskenduvad tänavale kui nende sotsiaalsetele ja majanduslikele nurgakividele, näib Los Angeles olevat keskendunud "elamuste" loomisele. Sellistes kohtades nagu CityWalk, Beverly keskus ja Westside'i paviljon omandab mõiste „omand” teistsuguse tähenduse kui heal tänaval. Need kohad õitsevad kui „koht, kuhu minna” ja näivad pealtnäha omavat paljusid hea tänava omadusi. CityWalk, mis on kujundatud tänava moodi, on kõnnitav, seal on mugav parkimine, elust suuremad jaemüügifassaadid, purskkaevud lastele mängimiseks, palju söögikohti, filme vaatamiseks ja isegi teemapark. Kuid see ei kuulu kogukonnale, kes kaitseks, kui seda ähvardaks näiteks ümberehitamine või kavandatud maanteelõik. See on kinnisvarainvesteering, mis kuulub selle investoritele.

Erinevused hea tänava ja kinnisvarainvesteeringute vahel on kaubanduskeskuses ilmsemad. Üks sõidab kaubanduskeskusesse, pargib suurele parklale ja siseneb sisemisse, kliimakontrollitud keskkonda. Sees on see mugav ja enam -vähem etteaimatav, sest kauplused kuuluvad kettidele, mis pakuvad igal pool sama tüüpi tooteid ja hindu. Võimalused isiklikuks teenindamiseks või poeomanike tundmiseks nime järgi on üsna väikesed.

Nende jaemüügikogemuste edu ei ole olnud tagajärgedeta tänavatele ja avalikele ruumidele, mis peaksid olema linna tegelik elatusvahend. Los Angeleses on loobutud kunagi parimatest ostutänavatest-näiteks Miracle Mile'i linnaosas Wilshire'i puiestee ääres. Kui inimesed sõidavad kaubanduskeskustesse jõudmiseks, on liiklusinsenerid laiendanud tänavaid ja kiirendanud liiklust, hävitades jalakäijate elu.

Kuid on mõningaid lootustandvaid märke selle kohta, et linnad võivad „näksida” omadusi, mis on tänavatele ja inimestele tundmatu arengu tõttu eitanud. Kaks California linna, mille kesklinn oli vaid paar aastat tagasi lakanud olemast koht, kuhu minna, on nüüd hakanud “tagasi näksima”.

Riverside'is tuuakse Mission Inn'i ümbrus tagasi "linna kuurordiks"-kuna linn keskendub tänavate, alleede ning olemasolevate peenete ja inimtühjade hoonete parandamisele.

Vaid 10 miili kaugusel asuv San Bernardino, mille kesklinn on juba mitu aastat parkimisplatside meres hõljunud, toob kesklinna järk -järgult tagasi. Eelmisel aastal ehitasid nad keskväljaku, mida on nüüd kasutatud sadade sündmuste-sealhulgas mitmete pulmade-saidina. Nad on aeglustanud liiklust ja lisanud väljaku ümber nurga all parkimise. Üle tänava kavatseb 1960. aastatel vanale peatänavale ehitatud kaubanduskeskus renoveerida oma sissepääsud, et parandada juurdepääsu kesklinnale.

Los Angeleses on praegu käimas riigi üks innovaatilisemaid programme, Los Angles Neighborhood Initiative, mille kavas on võtta tagasi linnaosade tänavad ja avalikud ruumid. See programm algab sellega, et naabruskonna inimesed teevad väikseid muudatusi-"näksivad tagasi", et luua enda jaoks kogukonnatunne. Fookuses on väikesed asjad, mida saab kohe teha-näiteks turvalised ja mugavad bussipeatused, väikesed väliturud, aeglasem liiklus ning paremad ülekäigurajad ja peatumismärgid-muudatused, mis toovad kogukonna tänavale tagasi. Los Angelese „näksimiseks” on vaja selliseid rohujuuretasandi meetmeid.*


Rahvus: tänavad vs kaubanduskeskused: linna avalike ruumide kaasaegne dilemma

Suurenev tagasilöök jaemüügigigantide, nagu WalMart, vastu linnades üle kogu riigi, annab olulise avalduse mitte ainult kaupluste tüübi, vaid ka kommunikatsioonitüüpide kohta, mida inimesed soovivad ja ei taha tulevikus. WalMarts ja teised lao jaemüüjad ning nende poolt esindatud areng on näksinud ja näivad nüüd olevat ahistanud paljusid Ameerika kogukondi, asendades need millegi vähemaga kui varem. Suund suunduda äärelinna vabalt ujuva jaemüügi poole, mis pole ühendatud kesklinna ostupiirkonnaga, muudab kogukonnad vähem mugavaks, vähem isiklikuks, vähem mitmekesiseks ja vähem turvaliseks.

New Yorgis elades tunneme end õnnelikuna. Kuigi mõnele võib see üllatusena tulla, on New Yorgi linnaosad enamasti mugavad, mitmekesised ja turvalised. Need on kohad, kus elujõudu ammutatakse tänavalt ja inimesed, kes tänavat kasutavad. Need on kohad, kus jaemüüjad tunnevad oma kliente. Näiteks pärast kolm päeva kohvikus käimist on kelneril kohvi paratamatult valmis, enne kui olete isegi suu tellimiseks avanud-olete saanud tavaliseks! Või rohelise toidukaupleja, kes siseneb tema poodi neli aastat pärast ära kolimist ja siis tagasi, küsides: „Kus sa olid?”

Nendes linnaosades on teenindus hädavajalik, kuna konkurents on väljakutses, mis on palju väiksem ja isiklikum kui see, kus sellised kohad nagu kaubanduskeskus või WalMart toimivad. Sel moel sarnanevad New Yorgi linnaosad pigem väikelinnadega.

Los Angeles on teistsugune. Viimase kahe aasta jooksul oleme veetnud palju aega Los Angeleses töötades ja tunneme vajadust heliseda. Tundub, et linn loobub oma tänavatel ja võib seda tehes sulgeda ukse „linnalikumaks” muutumiseks.

Seevastu tundub, et Los Angeles loob lõputult palju eraomanduses olevaid, kõrgelt kontrollitud kinnisvaraarendusi. Kuigi need arengud meelitavad ligi paljusid inimesi, on need ainuõiguslikud taskud-mitte osa linna kangast. Need ei ole kohad, kust arenevad tõelised linnad.

Mis teeb head linnad ja kuidas saavad nad edasi areneda kohtadena, kus inimesed tahavad olla? Vaadake vaid seda, kus inimesed unistavad oma puhkuse veetmisest-Pariisi puiesteedel jalutades, Itaalia piazza välikohvikus espressot rüübates ja isegi New Yorki tulles.

Hea linn tähendab mitmekesisuse kogemist-isegi kui see tähendab lihtsalt tänaval kõndimist, et jälgida inimesi, kes pole sinusugused. Heades linnades on ka avalikke kohti-kohti, mis on osa linnast, mis näitavad teile, mis linn endast kujutab, ja annavad sellele südame. Mõnikord on need kohad uhke avenüü või suur väljak. Igatahes on need inimeste igapäevaelu oluline osa.

Hea linn ei saa eksisteerida ilma heade tänavateta. Kas te kujutate ette Pariisi ilma selle puiesteedeta? Tegelikult laiendas Pariis äsja Champs -Élysées'l kõnniteid, et paremini ühiskondlikku ja majanduslikku elu ning joie de vivre mille poolest linn on kuulus.

Suurepärase tänava tuvastamine on lihtne. Pange tähele, kes on kohal ja kes mitte. Hea tänav on mitmekesine: pensionärid, teismelised ja lapsed. See on hea märk, kui mehi ja naisi on umbes võrdselt: naised valivad kasutatava tänava rohkem kui mehed. Kui kiiresti inimesed kõnnivad ja mida nad teevad? Kas inimesed kohtuvad üksteisega, lõpetavad rääkimise inimestega, keda nad tunnevad ja kellega lihtsalt juhtus kokku jooksma? Jalutamine ja palju suhtlemist on veel üks hea tänava näitaja.

Arvatakse, et head tänavad kuuluvad neid kasutavatele inimestele: kliendid, kes tulevad aeg -ajalt tagasi, ja jaemüüjad, kes jälgivad pidevalt tänava probleeme. Isegi kui nad ei osta, tunnevad inimesed, et nad kuuluvad heale tänavale. Nad teavad lühikesi teid ja salajasi parkimiskohti. Neil on kogunenud mälestusi kogemustest, mis saavad osaks nende identiteeditundest kogukonnas. Nad on mures, kui juhtub midagi, mis tänavat muudaks.

Vastupidiselt linnadele, mis keskenduvad tänavale kui nende sotsiaalsetele ja majanduslikele nurgakividele, näib Los Angeles olevat keskendunud "elamuste" loomisele. Sellistes kohtades nagu CityWalk, Beverly keskus ja Westside'i paviljon omandab mõiste „omand” teistsuguse tähenduse kui heal tänaval. Need kohad õitsevad kui „koht, kuhu minna” ja näivad pealtnäha omavat paljusid hea tänava omadusi. CityWalk, mis on kujundatud tänava moodi, on kõnnitav, seal on mugav parkimine, elust suuremad jaemüügifassaadid, purskkaevud lastele mängimiseks, palju söögikohti, filme vaatamiseks ja isegi teemapark. Kuid see ei kuulu kogukonnale, kes kaitseks, kui seda ähvardaks näiteks ümberehitamine või kavandatud maanteelõik. See on kinnisvarainvesteering, mis kuulub selle investoritele.

Erinevused hea tänava ja kinnisvarainvesteeringute vahel on kaubanduskeskuses ilmsemad. Üks sõidab kaubanduskeskusesse, pargib suurele parklale ja siseneb sisemisse, kliimakontrollitud keskkonda. Sees on see mugav ja enam -vähem etteaimatav, sest kauplused kuuluvad kettidele, mis pakuvad igal pool sama tüüpi tooteid ja hindu. Võimalused isiklikuks teeninduseks või poeomanike tundmiseks nime järgi on üsna väikesed.

Nende jaemüügi "kogemuste" edu ei ole olnud tagajärgedeta tänavatele ja avalikele ruumidele, mis peaksid olema linna tegelik elatusvahend. Los Angeleses on loobutud kunagi parimatest ostutänavatest-näiteks Miracle Mile'i linnaosas Wilshire'i puiestee ääres. Kui inimesed sõidavad kaubanduskeskustesse jõudmiseks, on liiklusinsenerid laiendanud tänavaid ja kiirendanud liiklust, hävitades jalakäijate elu.

Kuid on mõningaid lootustandvaid märke selle kohta, et linnad võivad „näksida” omadusi, mis on tänavatele ja inimestele tundmatu arengu tõttu eitanud. Kaks California linna, mille kesklinn oli vaid paar aastat tagasi lakanud olemast koht, kuhu minna, on nüüd hakanud “tagasi näksima”.

Riverside'is tuuakse Mission Inn'i ümbrus tagasi "linna kuurordiks"-kuna linn keskendub tänavate, alleede ning olemasolevate peenete ja inimtühjade hoonete parandamisele.

Vaid 10 miili kaugusel asuv San Bernardino, mille kesklinn on juba mitu aastat parkimisplatside meres hõljunud, toob kesklinna järk -järgult tagasi. Eelmisel aastal ehitasid nad keskväljaku, mida on nüüd kasutatud sadade sündmuste-sealhulgas mitmete pulmade-saidina. Nad on aeglustanud liiklust ja lisanud väljaku ümber nurga all parkimise. Üle tänava kavatseb 1960. aastatel vanale peatänavale ehitatud kaubanduskeskus renoveerida oma sissepääsud, et parandada juurdepääsu kesklinnale.

Los Angeleses on praegu käimas riigi üks innovaatilisemaid programme, Los Angles Neighborhood Initiative, mille kavas on võtta tagasi linnaosade tänavad ja avalikud ruumid. See programm algab sellega, et naabruskonna inimesed teevad väikseid muudatusi-"näksivad tagasi", et luua enda jaoks kogukonnatunne. Fookuses on väikesed asjad, mida saab kohe teha-näiteks turvalised ja mugavad bussipeatused, väikesed väliturud, aeglasem liiklus ning paremad ülekäigurajad ja peatumismärgid-muudatused, mis toovad kogukonna tänavale tagasi. Los Angelese „näksimiseks” on vaja selliseid rohujuure tasandi meetmeid.*


Rahvus: tänavad vs kaubanduskeskused: linna avalike ruumide kaasaegne dilemma

Suurenev tagasilöök jaemüügigigantide, nagu WalMart, vastu linnades üle kogu riigi, annab olulise avalduse mitte ainult kaupluste tüübi, vaid ka kommunikatsioonitüüpide kohta, mida inimesed soovivad ja ei taha tulevikus. WalMarts ja teised lao jaemüüjad ning nende esindatud areng on näksinud ja näivad nüüd olevat ahistanud paljusid Ameerika kogukondi, asendades need millegi vähemaga kui meil varem. Suund linnalähedase jaekaubanduse poole, mis pole ühendatud kesklinna ostupiirkonnaga, muudab kogukonnad vähem mugavaks, vähem isiklikuks, vähem mitmekesiseks ja vähem turvaliseks.

New Yorgis elades tunneme end õnnelikuna. Kuigi mõnele võib see üllatusena tulla, on New Yorgi linnaosad enamasti mugavad, mitmekesised ja turvalised. Need on kohad, kus elujõudu ammutatakse tänavalt ja inimesed, kes tänavat kasutavad. Need on kohad, kus jaemüüjad tunnevad oma kliente. Näiteks pärast kolm päeva kohvikus käimist on kelneril kohvi paratamatult valmis, enne kui olete isegi suu tellimiseks avanud-olete saanud tavaliseks! Või rohelise toidukaupleja, kes siseneb tema poodi neli aastat pärast ära kolimist ja siis tagasi, küsides: „Kus sa olid?”

Nendes linnaosades on teenindus hädavajalik, kuna konkurents on väljakutses, mis on palju väiksem ja isiklikum kui see, kus sellised kohad nagu kaubanduskeskus või WalMart toimivad. Sel moel sarnanevad New Yorgi linnaosad pigem väikelinnadega.

Los Angeles on teistsugune. Viimase kahe aasta jooksul oleme veetnud palju aega Los Angeleses töötades ja tunneme vajadust heliseda. Tundub, et linn loobub oma tänavatel ja võib seda tehes sulgeda ukse „linnalikumaks” muutumiseks.

Seevastu tundub, et Los Angeles loob lõputult palju eraomanduses olevaid, kõrgelt kontrollitud kinnisvaraarendusi. Kuigi need arengud meelitavad ligi paljusid inimesi, on need ainuõiguslikud taskud-mitte osa linna kangast. Need ei ole kohad, kust arenevad tõelised linnad.

Mis teeb head linnad ja kuidas nad saavad edasi areneda kohtadena, kus inimesed tahavad olla? Vaadake vaid seda, kus inimesed unistavad oma puhkuse veetmisest-Pariisi puiesteedel jalutades, Itaalia piazza välikohvikus espressot rüübates ja isegi New Yorki tulles.

Hea linn seisneb mitmekesisuse kogemises-isegi kui see tähendab lihtsalt tänaval kõndimist, et jälgida inimesi, kes pole sinusugused. Heades linnades on ka avalikke kohti-kohti, mis on osa linnast, mis näitavad teile, mis linn endast kujutab, ja annavad sellele südame. Mõnikord on need kohad uhke avenüü või suur väljak. Igatahes on need inimeste igapäevaelu oluline osa.

Hea linn ei saa eksisteerida ilma heade tänavateta. Kas te kujutate ette Pariisi ilma selle puiesteedeta? Tegelikult laiendas Pariis äsja Champs -Élysées'l kõnniteid, et paremini ühiskondlikku ja majanduslikku elu ning joie de vivre mille poolest linn on kuulus.

Suurepärase tänava tuvastamine on lihtne. Pange tähele, kes on kohal ja kes mitte. Hea tänav on mitmekesine: pensionärid, teismelised ja lapsed. See on hea märk, kui mehi ja naisi on umbes võrdselt: naised valivad kasutatava tänava rohkem kui mehed. Kui kiiresti inimesed kõnnivad ja mida nad teevad? Kas inimesed kohtuvad üksteisega, lõpetavad rääkimise inimestega, keda nad tunnevad ja kellega lihtsalt juhtus kokku jooksma? Jalutamine ja palju suhtlemist on veel üks hea tänava näitaja.

Arvatakse, et head tänavad kuuluvad neid kasutavatele inimestele: kliendid, kes tulevad aeg -ajalt tagasi, ja jaemüüjad, kes jälgivad pidevalt tänava probleeme. Isegi kui nad ei osta, tunnevad inimesed, et nad kuuluvad heale tänavale. Nad teavad lühikesi teid ja salajasi parkimiskohti. Neil on kogunenud mälestusi kogemustest, mis saavad osaks nende identiteeditundest kogukonnas. Nad on mures, kui juhtub midagi, mis tänavat muudaks.

Vastupidiselt linnadele, mis keskenduvad tänavale kui nende sotsiaalsetele ja majanduslikele nurgakividele, näib Los Angeles olevat keskendunud "elamuste" loomisele. Sellistes kohtades nagu CityWalk, Beverly keskus ja Westside'i paviljon omandab mõiste „omand” teistsuguse tähenduse kui heal tänaval. Need kohad õitsevad kui „koht, kuhu minna” ja näivad pealtnäha omavat paljusid hea tänava omadusi. CityWalk, mis on kujundatud tänava moodi, on kõnnitav, seal on mugav parkimine, elust suuremad jaemüügifassaadid, purskkaevud lastele mängimiseks, palju söögikohti, vaatamiseks filme ja isegi teemapark. Kuid see ei kuulu kogukonnale, kes kaitseks, kui seda ähvardaks näiteks ümberehitamine või kavandatud maanteelõik. See on kinnisvarainvesteering, mis kuulub selle investoritele.

Erinevused hea tänava ja kinnisvarainvesteeringu vahel on kaubanduskeskuses ilmsemad. Üks sõidab kaubanduskeskusesse, pargib suurele parklale ja siseneb sisemisse, kliimakontrollitud keskkonda. Sees on see mugav ja enam -vähem etteaimatav, sest kauplused kuuluvad kettidele, mis pakuvad igal pool sama tüüpi tooteid ja hindu. Võimalused isiklikuks teeninduseks või poeomanike tundmiseks nime järgi on üsna väikesed.

Nende jaemüügi "kogemuste" edu ei ole olnud tagajärgedeta tänavatele ja avalikele ruumidele, mis peaksid olema linna tegelik elatusvahend. Los Angeleses on loobutud kunagistest peamistest ostutänavatest-näiteks Miracle Mile'i linnaosas Wilshire'i puiestee ääres. Kui inimesed sõidavad kaubanduskeskustesse jõudmiseks, on liiklusinsenerid laiendanud tänavaid ja kiirendanud liiklust, hävitades jalakäijate elu.

Kuid on mõningaid lootustandvaid märke selle kohta, et linnad võivad „näksida” omadusi, mis on tänavatele ja inimestele tundmatu arengu tõttu eitanud. Kaks California linna, mille kesklinn oli vaid paar aastat tagasi lakanud olemast koht, kuhu minna, on nüüd hakanud “tagasi näksima”.

Riverside'is tuuakse Mission Inn'i ümbrus tagasi "linna kuurordiks"-kuna linn keskendub tänavate, alleede ning olemasolevate peenete ja inimtühjade hoonete parandamisele.

Vaid 10 miili kaugusel asuv San Bernardino, mille kesklinn on juba mitu aastat parkimisplatside meres hõljunud, toob kesklinna järk -järgult tagasi. Eelmisel aastal ehitasid nad keskväljaku, mida on nüüd kasutatud sadade sündmuste-sealhulgas mitmete pulmade-saidina. Nad on aeglustanud liiklust ja lisanud väljaku ümber nurga all parkimise. Üle tänava kavatseb 1960. aastatel vanale peatänavale ehitatud kaubanduskeskus renoveerida oma sissepääsud, et parandada juurdepääsu kesklinnale.

Los Angeleses on praegu käimas riigi üks innovaatilisemaid programme, Los Angles Neighborhood Initiative, mille kavas on võtta tagasi linnaosade tänavad ja avalikud ruumid. See programm algab sellega, et naabruskonna inimesed teevad väikseid muudatusi-"näksivad tagasi", et luua enda jaoks kogukonnatunne. Fookuses on väikesed asjad, mida saab kohe teha-näiteks turvalised ja mugavad bussipeatused, väikesed väliturud, aeglasem liiklus ning paremad ülekäigurajad ja peatumismärgid-muudatused, mis toovad kogukonna tänavale tagasi. Los Angelese „näksimiseks” on vaja selliseid rohujuuretasandi meetmeid.*


Rahvus: tänavad vs kaubanduskeskused: linna avalike ruumide kaasaegne dilemma

Suurenev tagasilöök jaemüügigigantide, nagu WalMart, vastu linnades üle kogu riigi, annab olulise avalduse mitte ainult kaupluste tüübi, vaid ka kommunikatsioonitüüpide kohta, mida inimesed soovivad ja ei taha tulevikus. WalMarts ja teised lao jaemüüjad ning nende esindatud areng on näksinud ja näivad nüüd olevat ahistanud paljusid Ameerika kogukondi, asendades need millegi vähemaga kui meil varem. Suund linnalähedase jaekaubanduse poole, mis pole ühendatud kesklinna ostupiirkonnaga, muudab kogukonnad vähem mugavaks, vähem isiklikuks, vähem mitmekesiseks ja vähem turvaliseks.

New Yorgis elades tunneme end õnnelikuna. Kuigi mõnele võib see üllatusena tulla, on New Yorgi linnaosad enamasti mugavad, mitmekesised ja turvalised. Need on kohad, kus elujõudu ammutatakse tänavalt ja inimesed, kes tänavat kasutavad. Need on kohad, kus jaemüüjad tunnevad oma kliente. Näiteks pärast kolm päeva kohvikus käimist laseb kelner kohvi paratamatult valmis enne, kui olete isegi tellimiseks suu lahti teinud-olete saanud tavaliseks! Või rohelise toidukaupleja, kes siseneb tema poodi neli aastat pärast ära kolimist ja siis tagasi, küsides: „Kus sa olid?”

Nendes linnaosades on teenindus hädavajalik, kuna konkurents on väljakutses, mis on palju väiksem ja isiklikum kui see, kus sellised kohad nagu kaubanduskeskus või WalMart toimivad. Sel moel sarnanevad New Yorgi linnaosad pigem väikelinnadega.

Los Angeles on teistsugune. Viimase kahe aasta jooksul oleme veetnud palju aega Los Angeleses töötades ja tunneme vajadust heliseda. Tundub, et linn loobub oma tänavatel ja võib seda tehes sulgeda ukse „linnalikumaks” muutumiseks.

Seevastu tundub, et Los Angeles loob lõputult palju eraomanduses olevaid, kõrgelt kontrollitud kinnisvaraarendusi. Kuigi need arengud meelitavad ligi paljusid inimesi, on need ainuõiguslikud taskud-mitte osa linna kangast. Need ei ole kohad, kust tõelised linnad arenevad.

Mis teeb head linnad ja kuidas saavad nad edasi areneda kohtadena, kus inimesed tahavad olla? Vaadake vaid seda, kus inimesed unistavad oma puhkuse veetmisest-Pariisi puiesteedel jalutades, Itaalia piazza välikohvikus espressot rüübates ja isegi New Yorki tulles.

Hea linn tähendab mitmekesisuse kogemist-isegi kui see tähendab lihtsalt tänaval kõndimist, et jälgida inimesi, kes pole sinusugused. Heades linnades on ka avalikke kohti-kohti, mis on osa linnast, mis näitavad teile, mis linn endast kujutab, ja annavad sellele südame. Mõnikord on need kohad uhke avenüü või suur väljak. Igatahes on nad inimeste igapäevaelu oluline osa.

Hea linn ei saa eksisteerida ilma heade tänavateta. Kas te kujutate ette Pariisi ilma selle puiesteedeta? Tegelikult laiendas Pariis äsja Champs -Élysées'l kõnniteid, et paremini ühiskondlikku ja majanduslikku elu ning joie de vivre mille poolest linn on kuulus.

Suurepärase tänava tuvastamine on lihtne. Pange tähele, kes on kohal ja kes mitte. Hea tänav on mitmekesine: pensionärid, teismelised ja lapsed. See on hea märk, kui mehi ja naisi on umbes võrdselt: naised valivad kasutatava tänava rohkem kui mehed. Kui kiiresti inimesed kõnnivad ja mida nad teevad? Kas inimesed kohtuvad üksteisega, lõpetavad rääkimise inimestega, keda nad tunnevad ja kellega lihtsalt juhtus kokku jooksma? Jalutamine ja palju suhtlemist on veel üks hea tänava näitaja.

Arvatakse, et head tänavad kuuluvad neid kasutavatele inimestele: kliendid, kes tulevad aeg -ajalt tagasi, ja jaemüüjad, kes jälgivad pidevalt tänava probleeme. Isegi kui nad ei osta, tunnevad inimesed, et nad kuuluvad heale tänavale. Nad teavad lühikesi teid ja salajasi parkimiskohti. Neil on kogunenud mälestusi kogemustest, mis saavad osaks nende identiteeditundest kogukonnas. Nad on mures, kui juhtub midagi, mis tänavat muudaks.

Vastupidiselt linnadele, mis keskenduvad tänavale kui nende sotsiaalsetele ja majanduslikele nurgakividele, näib Los Angeles olevat keskendunud "elamuste" loomisele. Sellistes kohtades nagu CityWalk, Beverly keskus ja Westside'i paviljon omandab mõiste „omand” teistsuguse tähenduse kui heal tänaval. Need kohad õitsevad kui „koht, kuhu minna” ja näivad pealtnäha omavat paljusid hea tänava omadusi. CityWalk, mis on kujundatud tänava moodi, on kõnnitav, seal on mugav parkimine, elust suuremad jaemüügifassaadid, purskkaevud lastele mängimiseks, palju söögikohti, vaatamiseks filme ja isegi teemapark. Kuid see ei kuulu kogukonnale, kes kaitseks, kui seda ähvardaks näiteks ümberehitamine või kavandatud maanteelõik. See on kinnisvarainvesteering, mis kuulub selle investoritele.

Erinevused hea tänava ja kinnisvarainvesteeringute vahel on kaubanduskeskuses ilmsemad. Üks sõidab kaubanduskeskusesse, pargib suurele parklale ja siseneb sisemisse, kliimakontrollitud keskkonda. Sees on see mugav ja enam -vähem etteaimatav, sest kauplused kuuluvad kettidele, mis pakuvad igal pool sama tüüpi tooteid ja hindu. Võimalused isiklikuks teeninduseks või poeomanike tundmiseks nime järgi on üsna väikesed.

Nende jaemüügi "kogemuste" edu ei ole olnud tagajärgedeta tänavatele ja avalikele ruumidele, mis peaksid olema linna tegelik elatusvahend. Los Angeleses on loobutud kunagistest peamistest ostutänavatest-näiteks Miracle Mile'i linnaosas Wilshire'i puiestee ääres. Kui inimesed sõidavad kaubanduskeskustesse jõudmiseks, on liiklusinsenerid laiendanud tänavaid ja kiirendanud liiklust, hävitades jalakäijate elu.

Kuid on mõningaid lootustandvaid märke selle kohta, et linnad võivad „näksida” omadusi, mis on tänavatele ja inimestele tundmatu arengu tõttu eitanud. Kaks California linna, mille kesklinn oli vaid paar aastat tagasi lakanud olemast koht, kuhu minna, on nüüd hakanud “tagasi näksima”.

Riverside'is tuuakse Mission Inn'i ümbrus tagasi "linna kuurordiks"-kuna linn keskendub tänavate, alleede ning olemasolevate peenete ja inimtühjade hoonete parandamisele.

Vaid 10 miili kaugusel asuv San Bernardino, mille kesklinn on juba mitu aastat parkimisplatside meres hõljunud, toob kesklinna järk -järgult tagasi. Last year, they built a central square that has now been used as a site for hundreds of events--including several weddings. They have slowed down traffic and added angled parking around the square. Across the street, the shopping mall, built on the old Main Street in the 1960s, is planning to renovate its entrances to improve its access to downtown.

In Los Angeles, one of the most innovative programs in the country is currently under way, the Los Angles Neighborhood Initiative, with plans to take back the streets and public spaces of neighborhoods throughout the city. This program begins with the people of a neighborhood making small changes--"nibbling back” to create a sense of community for themselves. Little things that can be done right away are the focus--such as bus stops that are safe and comfortable, small outdoor markets, slower traffic and better crosswalks and stop signs--changes that bring the community back to the street. It is grass-roots measures like this that’s needed to “nibble back” Los Angeles.*


The Nation : Streets vs. Malls: The Modern Dilemma of Urban Public Spaces

The increasing backlash against retail giants like WalMart in cities across the country makes an important statement not only about the type of stores but also the type of communi ties that people want and don’t want in the future. The WalMarts and other warehouse retailers, and the development they represent, have nibbled at and now seem to have gobbled up many of America’s communities, replacing them with something less than we had before. The trend toward suburban, free-floating retail unconnected to a downtown shopping district is making communities less convenient, less personal, less diverse and less safe.

Living in New York, we feel lucky. Though it may come as a surprise to some, the neighborhoods of New York are, for the most part, convenient, diverse and safe. They are places where vitality is drawn from the street and the people who use the street. They are places where retailers know their customers. For example, after frequenting a coffee shop for three days, the waiter will inevitably have the coffee ready before you’ve even opened your mouth to order--you’ve become a regular! Or the greengrocer who, as you walk into his store four years after having moved away and then back again, asks “Where ya been?”

In these neighborhoods, service is a necessity because of the challenge of competition at a scale that is far smaller and more personal than the level at which places like a mall or WalMart function. In these ways, New York’s neighborhoods are more like small towns.

Los Angeles is different. During the past two years, we have spent a lot of time working in Los Angeles and feel the need to sound an alarm. The city seems to be giving up on its streets and, in doing so, may be closing the door to becoming a more “urban” city.

By contrast, Los Angeles seems to be creating an endless number of privately owned, highly controlled real-estate developments. Although these developments lure large numbers of people, they are isolated pockets of exclusivity--not a part of the city’s fabric. They are not the places from which real cities evolve.

What makes good cities and how can they continue to evolve as places where people want to be? Just look at where people dream of spending their vacations--strolling the boulevards of Paris, sipping espresso at an outdoor cafe in an Italian piazza, even coming to New York.

A good city is about experiencing diversity--even if that means simply walking on a street to observe people who are not like you. In good cities, there are also public places--places that are part of the city, that show you what a city is all about and give it a heart. Sometimes, these places are a grand avenue or a large plaza. Whatever, they are an important part of people’s daily lives.

A good city cannot exist without good streets. Can you imagine Paris without its boulevards? In fact, Paris has just widened the sidewalks along the Champs Elysees to better accommodate the social and economic life and the joie de vivre that the city is famous for.

It is easy to identify a great street. Notice who is there and who isn’t. A good street has variety: seniors, teen-agers and children. It is a good sign if there is about an equal mix of men and women: Women are more particular about choosing a street to use than men. How fast are people walking and what are they doing? Are people meeting each other, stopping to talk with people they know and just happened to run into? Strolling and a lot of socializing is another indicator of a good street.

Good streets are thought to be “owned” by the people who use them: customers who come back time after time, and retailers who are continually monitoring a street’s problems. Even if they are not shopping, people feel they “belong” on a good street. They know the short cuts and secret parking spaces. They have accrued memories of experience that become part of their sense of identity in a community. They are concerned when something happens that would change the street.

In contrast to cities that focus on the street as their social and economic cornerstones, Los Angeles seems to be focused on creating “experiences.” In places like CityWalk, the Beverly Center and the Westside Pavilion, the term “ownership” takes on a different meaning than it does on a good street. These places are thriving as a “place to go” and seem, on the surface, to have many of the qualities of a good street. CityWalk, designed to look like a street, is walkable, with convenient parking, larger-than-life retail facades, fountains for kids to play in, a multitude of places to eat, movies to see and even a theme park. But it is not “owned” by a community who would rally to its defense if it were threatened by, say, redevelopment or by a proposed freeway cutting through it. It is a real-estate investment, owned by its investors.

The differences between a good street and a real-estate investment are more obvious at a mall. One drives to the mall, parks in a large parking lot and enters an internalized, climate-controlled environment. Inside, it is comfortable and more or less predictable, because the stores are owned by chains that provide the same type of products and prices everywhere. The chances of personal service or knowing the store owners by name is fairly slim.

The success of these retail “experiences” has not been without consequences to the streets and public spaces that should be the real livelihood of a city. In Los Angeles, once prime shopping streets--for example, in the Miracle Mile district along Wilshire Boulevard--have been abandoned. As people drive to get to the malls, traffic engineers have widened streets and sped up the traffic flow, destroying any remnant of pedestrian life.

But there are some hopeful signs that cities can “nibble back” at the qualities that have been negated by development insensitive to streets and to people. Two California cities whose downtowns, only a few years ago, had ceased to be places to go, have now begun to “nibble back.”

In Riverside, the area around the Mission Inn is being brought back as an “urban resort"--as the city focuses on improving the streets, the alleys and the existing exquisite and human-scaled buildings.

Only 10 miles away, San Bernardino, whose downtown has been afloat in a sea of parking lots for several years, is bringing back its downtown incrementally. Last year, they built a central square that has now been used as a site for hundreds of events--including several weddings. They have slowed down traffic and added angled parking around the square. Across the street, the shopping mall, built on the old Main Street in the 1960s, is planning to renovate its entrances to improve its access to downtown.

In Los Angeles, one of the most innovative programs in the country is currently under way, the Los Angles Neighborhood Initiative, with plans to take back the streets and public spaces of neighborhoods throughout the city. This program begins with the people of a neighborhood making small changes--"nibbling back” to create a sense of community for themselves. Little things that can be done right away are the focus--such as bus stops that are safe and comfortable, small outdoor markets, slower traffic and better crosswalks and stop signs--changes that bring the community back to the street. It is grass-roots measures like this that’s needed to “nibble back” Los Angeles.*


The Nation : Streets vs. Malls: The Modern Dilemma of Urban Public Spaces

The increasing backlash against retail giants like WalMart in cities across the country makes an important statement not only about the type of stores but also the type of communi ties that people want and don’t want in the future. The WalMarts and other warehouse retailers, and the development they represent, have nibbled at and now seem to have gobbled up many of America’s communities, replacing them with something less than we had before. The trend toward suburban, free-floating retail unconnected to a downtown shopping district is making communities less convenient, less personal, less diverse and less safe.

Living in New York, we feel lucky. Though it may come as a surprise to some, the neighborhoods of New York are, for the most part, convenient, diverse and safe. They are places where vitality is drawn from the street and the people who use the street. They are places where retailers know their customers. For example, after frequenting a coffee shop for three days, the waiter will inevitably have the coffee ready before you’ve even opened your mouth to order--you’ve become a regular! Or the greengrocer who, as you walk into his store four years after having moved away and then back again, asks “Where ya been?”

In these neighborhoods, service is a necessity because of the challenge of competition at a scale that is far smaller and more personal than the level at which places like a mall or WalMart function. In these ways, New York’s neighborhoods are more like small towns.

Los Angeles is different. During the past two years, we have spent a lot of time working in Los Angeles and feel the need to sound an alarm. The city seems to be giving up on its streets and, in doing so, may be closing the door to becoming a more “urban” city.

By contrast, Los Angeles seems to be creating an endless number of privately owned, highly controlled real-estate developments. Although these developments lure large numbers of people, they are isolated pockets of exclusivity--not a part of the city’s fabric. They are not the places from which real cities evolve.

What makes good cities and how can they continue to evolve as places where people want to be? Just look at where people dream of spending their vacations--strolling the boulevards of Paris, sipping espresso at an outdoor cafe in an Italian piazza, even coming to New York.

A good city is about experiencing diversity--even if that means simply walking on a street to observe people who are not like you. In good cities, there are also public places--places that are part of the city, that show you what a city is all about and give it a heart. Sometimes, these places are a grand avenue or a large plaza. Whatever, they are an important part of people’s daily lives.

A good city cannot exist without good streets. Can you imagine Paris without its boulevards? In fact, Paris has just widened the sidewalks along the Champs Elysees to better accommodate the social and economic life and the joie de vivre that the city is famous for.

It is easy to identify a great street. Notice who is there and who isn’t. A good street has variety: seniors, teen-agers and children. It is a good sign if there is about an equal mix of men and women: Women are more particular about choosing a street to use than men. How fast are people walking and what are they doing? Are people meeting each other, stopping to talk with people they know and just happened to run into? Strolling and a lot of socializing is another indicator of a good street.

Good streets are thought to be “owned” by the people who use them: customers who come back time after time, and retailers who are continually monitoring a street’s problems. Even if they are not shopping, people feel they “belong” on a good street. They know the short cuts and secret parking spaces. They have accrued memories of experience that become part of their sense of identity in a community. They are concerned when something happens that would change the street.

In contrast to cities that focus on the street as their social and economic cornerstones, Los Angeles seems to be focused on creating “experiences.” In places like CityWalk, the Beverly Center and the Westside Pavilion, the term “ownership” takes on a different meaning than it does on a good street. These places are thriving as a “place to go” and seem, on the surface, to have many of the qualities of a good street. CityWalk, designed to look like a street, is walkable, with convenient parking, larger-than-life retail facades, fountains for kids to play in, a multitude of places to eat, movies to see and even a theme park. But it is not “owned” by a community who would rally to its defense if it were threatened by, say, redevelopment or by a proposed freeway cutting through it. It is a real-estate investment, owned by its investors.

The differences between a good street and a real-estate investment are more obvious at a mall. One drives to the mall, parks in a large parking lot and enters an internalized, climate-controlled environment. Inside, it is comfortable and more or less predictable, because the stores are owned by chains that provide the same type of products and prices everywhere. The chances of personal service or knowing the store owners by name is fairly slim.

The success of these retail “experiences” has not been without consequences to the streets and public spaces that should be the real livelihood of a city. In Los Angeles, once prime shopping streets--for example, in the Miracle Mile district along Wilshire Boulevard--have been abandoned. As people drive to get to the malls, traffic engineers have widened streets and sped up the traffic flow, destroying any remnant of pedestrian life.

But there are some hopeful signs that cities can “nibble back” at the qualities that have been negated by development insensitive to streets and to people. Two California cities whose downtowns, only a few years ago, had ceased to be places to go, have now begun to “nibble back.”

In Riverside, the area around the Mission Inn is being brought back as an “urban resort"--as the city focuses on improving the streets, the alleys and the existing exquisite and human-scaled buildings.

Only 10 miles away, San Bernardino, whose downtown has been afloat in a sea of parking lots for several years, is bringing back its downtown incrementally. Last year, they built a central square that has now been used as a site for hundreds of events--including several weddings. They have slowed down traffic and added angled parking around the square. Across the street, the shopping mall, built on the old Main Street in the 1960s, is planning to renovate its entrances to improve its access to downtown.

In Los Angeles, one of the most innovative programs in the country is currently under way, the Los Angles Neighborhood Initiative, with plans to take back the streets and public spaces of neighborhoods throughout the city. This program begins with the people of a neighborhood making small changes--"nibbling back” to create a sense of community for themselves. Little things that can be done right away are the focus--such as bus stops that are safe and comfortable, small outdoor markets, slower traffic and better crosswalks and stop signs--changes that bring the community back to the street. It is grass-roots measures like this that’s needed to “nibble back” Los Angeles.*


The Nation : Streets vs. Malls: The Modern Dilemma of Urban Public Spaces

The increasing backlash against retail giants like WalMart in cities across the country makes an important statement not only about the type of stores but also the type of communi ties that people want and don’t want in the future. The WalMarts and other warehouse retailers, and the development they represent, have nibbled at and now seem to have gobbled up many of America’s communities, replacing them with something less than we had before. The trend toward suburban, free-floating retail unconnected to a downtown shopping district is making communities less convenient, less personal, less diverse and less safe.

Living in New York, we feel lucky. Though it may come as a surprise to some, the neighborhoods of New York are, for the most part, convenient, diverse and safe. They are places where vitality is drawn from the street and the people who use the street. They are places where retailers know their customers. For example, after frequenting a coffee shop for three days, the waiter will inevitably have the coffee ready before you’ve even opened your mouth to order--you’ve become a regular! Or the greengrocer who, as you walk into his store four years after having moved away and then back again, asks “Where ya been?”

In these neighborhoods, service is a necessity because of the challenge of competition at a scale that is far smaller and more personal than the level at which places like a mall or WalMart function. In these ways, New York’s neighborhoods are more like small towns.

Los Angeles is different. During the past two years, we have spent a lot of time working in Los Angeles and feel the need to sound an alarm. The city seems to be giving up on its streets and, in doing so, may be closing the door to becoming a more “urban” city.

By contrast, Los Angeles seems to be creating an endless number of privately owned, highly controlled real-estate developments. Although these developments lure large numbers of people, they are isolated pockets of exclusivity--not a part of the city’s fabric. They are not the places from which real cities evolve.

What makes good cities and how can they continue to evolve as places where people want to be? Just look at where people dream of spending their vacations--strolling the boulevards of Paris, sipping espresso at an outdoor cafe in an Italian piazza, even coming to New York.

A good city is about experiencing diversity--even if that means simply walking on a street to observe people who are not like you. In good cities, there are also public places--places that are part of the city, that show you what a city is all about and give it a heart. Sometimes, these places are a grand avenue or a large plaza. Whatever, they are an important part of people’s daily lives.

A good city cannot exist without good streets. Can you imagine Paris without its boulevards? In fact, Paris has just widened the sidewalks along the Champs Elysees to better accommodate the social and economic life and the joie de vivre that the city is famous for.

It is easy to identify a great street. Notice who is there and who isn’t. A good street has variety: seniors, teen-agers and children. It is a good sign if there is about an equal mix of men and women: Women are more particular about choosing a street to use than men. How fast are people walking and what are they doing? Are people meeting each other, stopping to talk with people they know and just happened to run into? Strolling and a lot of socializing is another indicator of a good street.

Good streets are thought to be “owned” by the people who use them: customers who come back time after time, and retailers who are continually monitoring a street’s problems. Even if they are not shopping, people feel they “belong” on a good street. They know the short cuts and secret parking spaces. They have accrued memories of experience that become part of their sense of identity in a community. They are concerned when something happens that would change the street.

In contrast to cities that focus on the street as their social and economic cornerstones, Los Angeles seems to be focused on creating “experiences.” In places like CityWalk, the Beverly Center and the Westside Pavilion, the term “ownership” takes on a different meaning than it does on a good street. These places are thriving as a “place to go” and seem, on the surface, to have many of the qualities of a good street. CityWalk, designed to look like a street, is walkable, with convenient parking, larger-than-life retail facades, fountains for kids to play in, a multitude of places to eat, movies to see and even a theme park. But it is not “owned” by a community who would rally to its defense if it were threatened by, say, redevelopment or by a proposed freeway cutting through it. It is a real-estate investment, owned by its investors.

The differences between a good street and a real-estate investment are more obvious at a mall. One drives to the mall, parks in a large parking lot and enters an internalized, climate-controlled environment. Inside, it is comfortable and more or less predictable, because the stores are owned by chains that provide the same type of products and prices everywhere. The chances of personal service or knowing the store owners by name is fairly slim.

The success of these retail “experiences” has not been without consequences to the streets and public spaces that should be the real livelihood of a city. In Los Angeles, once prime shopping streets--for example, in the Miracle Mile district along Wilshire Boulevard--have been abandoned. As people drive to get to the malls, traffic engineers have widened streets and sped up the traffic flow, destroying any remnant of pedestrian life.

But there are some hopeful signs that cities can “nibble back” at the qualities that have been negated by development insensitive to streets and to people. Two California cities whose downtowns, only a few years ago, had ceased to be places to go, have now begun to “nibble back.”

In Riverside, the area around the Mission Inn is being brought back as an “urban resort"--as the city focuses on improving the streets, the alleys and the existing exquisite and human-scaled buildings.

Only 10 miles away, San Bernardino, whose downtown has been afloat in a sea of parking lots for several years, is bringing back its downtown incrementally. Last year, they built a central square that has now been used as a site for hundreds of events--including several weddings. They have slowed down traffic and added angled parking around the square. Across the street, the shopping mall, built on the old Main Street in the 1960s, is planning to renovate its entrances to improve its access to downtown.

In Los Angeles, one of the most innovative programs in the country is currently under way, the Los Angles Neighborhood Initiative, with plans to take back the streets and public spaces of neighborhoods throughout the city. This program begins with the people of a neighborhood making small changes--"nibbling back” to create a sense of community for themselves. Little things that can be done right away are the focus--such as bus stops that are safe and comfortable, small outdoor markets, slower traffic and better crosswalks and stop signs--changes that bring the community back to the street. It is grass-roots measures like this that’s needed to “nibble back” Los Angeles.*


The Nation : Streets vs. Malls: The Modern Dilemma of Urban Public Spaces

The increasing backlash against retail giants like WalMart in cities across the country makes an important statement not only about the type of stores but also the type of communi ties that people want and don’t want in the future. The WalMarts and other warehouse retailers, and the development they represent, have nibbled at and now seem to have gobbled up many of America’s communities, replacing them with something less than we had before. The trend toward suburban, free-floating retail unconnected to a downtown shopping district is making communities less convenient, less personal, less diverse and less safe.

Living in New York, we feel lucky. Though it may come as a surprise to some, the neighborhoods of New York are, for the most part, convenient, diverse and safe. They are places where vitality is drawn from the street and the people who use the street. They are places where retailers know their customers. For example, after frequenting a coffee shop for three days, the waiter will inevitably have the coffee ready before you’ve even opened your mouth to order--you’ve become a regular! Or the greengrocer who, as you walk into his store four years after having moved away and then back again, asks “Where ya been?”

In these neighborhoods, service is a necessity because of the challenge of competition at a scale that is far smaller and more personal than the level at which places like a mall or WalMart function. In these ways, New York’s neighborhoods are more like small towns.

Los Angeles is different. During the past two years, we have spent a lot of time working in Los Angeles and feel the need to sound an alarm. The city seems to be giving up on its streets and, in doing so, may be closing the door to becoming a more “urban” city.

By contrast, Los Angeles seems to be creating an endless number of privately owned, highly controlled real-estate developments. Although these developments lure large numbers of people, they are isolated pockets of exclusivity--not a part of the city’s fabric. They are not the places from which real cities evolve.

What makes good cities and how can they continue to evolve as places where people want to be? Just look at where people dream of spending their vacations--strolling the boulevards of Paris, sipping espresso at an outdoor cafe in an Italian piazza, even coming to New York.

A good city is about experiencing diversity--even if that means simply walking on a street to observe people who are not like you. In good cities, there are also public places--places that are part of the city, that show you what a city is all about and give it a heart. Sometimes, these places are a grand avenue or a large plaza. Whatever, they are an important part of people’s daily lives.

A good city cannot exist without good streets. Can you imagine Paris without its boulevards? In fact, Paris has just widened the sidewalks along the Champs Elysees to better accommodate the social and economic life and the joie de vivre that the city is famous for.

It is easy to identify a great street. Notice who is there and who isn’t. A good street has variety: seniors, teen-agers and children. It is a good sign if there is about an equal mix of men and women: Women are more particular about choosing a street to use than men. How fast are people walking and what are they doing? Are people meeting each other, stopping to talk with people they know and just happened to run into? Strolling and a lot of socializing is another indicator of a good street.

Good streets are thought to be “owned” by the people who use them: customers who come back time after time, and retailers who are continually monitoring a street’s problems. Even if they are not shopping, people feel they “belong” on a good street. They know the short cuts and secret parking spaces. They have accrued memories of experience that become part of their sense of identity in a community. They are concerned when something happens that would change the street.

In contrast to cities that focus on the street as their social and economic cornerstones, Los Angeles seems to be focused on creating “experiences.” In places like CityWalk, the Beverly Center and the Westside Pavilion, the term “ownership” takes on a different meaning than it does on a good street. These places are thriving as a “place to go” and seem, on the surface, to have many of the qualities of a good street. CityWalk, designed to look like a street, is walkable, with convenient parking, larger-than-life retail facades, fountains for kids to play in, a multitude of places to eat, movies to see and even a theme park. But it is not “owned” by a community who would rally to its defense if it were threatened by, say, redevelopment or by a proposed freeway cutting through it. It is a real-estate investment, owned by its investors.

The differences between a good street and a real-estate investment are more obvious at a mall. One drives to the mall, parks in a large parking lot and enters an internalized, climate-controlled environment. Inside, it is comfortable and more or less predictable, because the stores are owned by chains that provide the same type of products and prices everywhere. The chances of personal service or knowing the store owners by name is fairly slim.

The success of these retail “experiences” has not been without consequences to the streets and public spaces that should be the real livelihood of a city. In Los Angeles, once prime shopping streets--for example, in the Miracle Mile district along Wilshire Boulevard--have been abandoned. As people drive to get to the malls, traffic engineers have widened streets and sped up the traffic flow, destroying any remnant of pedestrian life.

But there are some hopeful signs that cities can “nibble back” at the qualities that have been negated by development insensitive to streets and to people. Two California cities whose downtowns, only a few years ago, had ceased to be places to go, have now begun to “nibble back.”

In Riverside, the area around the Mission Inn is being brought back as an “urban resort"--as the city focuses on improving the streets, the alleys and the existing exquisite and human-scaled buildings.

Only 10 miles away, San Bernardino, whose downtown has been afloat in a sea of parking lots for several years, is bringing back its downtown incrementally. Last year, they built a central square that has now been used as a site for hundreds of events--including several weddings. They have slowed down traffic and added angled parking around the square. Across the street, the shopping mall, built on the old Main Street in the 1960s, is planning to renovate its entrances to improve its access to downtown.

In Los Angeles, one of the most innovative programs in the country is currently under way, the Los Angles Neighborhood Initiative, with plans to take back the streets and public spaces of neighborhoods throughout the city. This program begins with the people of a neighborhood making small changes--"nibbling back” to create a sense of community for themselves. Little things that can be done right away are the focus--such as bus stops that are safe and comfortable, small outdoor markets, slower traffic and better crosswalks and stop signs--changes that bring the community back to the street. It is grass-roots measures like this that’s needed to “nibble back” Los Angeles.*


The Nation : Streets vs. Malls: The Modern Dilemma of Urban Public Spaces

The increasing backlash against retail giants like WalMart in cities across the country makes an important statement not only about the type of stores but also the type of communi ties that people want and don’t want in the future. The WalMarts and other warehouse retailers, and the development they represent, have nibbled at and now seem to have gobbled up many of America’s communities, replacing them with something less than we had before. The trend toward suburban, free-floating retail unconnected to a downtown shopping district is making communities less convenient, less personal, less diverse and less safe.

Living in New York, we feel lucky. Though it may come as a surprise to some, the neighborhoods of New York are, for the most part, convenient, diverse and safe. They are places where vitality is drawn from the street and the people who use the street. They are places where retailers know their customers. For example, after frequenting a coffee shop for three days, the waiter will inevitably have the coffee ready before you’ve even opened your mouth to order--you’ve become a regular! Or the greengrocer who, as you walk into his store four years after having moved away and then back again, asks “Where ya been?”

In these neighborhoods, service is a necessity because of the challenge of competition at a scale that is far smaller and more personal than the level at which places like a mall or WalMart function. In these ways, New York’s neighborhoods are more like small towns.

Los Angeles is different. During the past two years, we have spent a lot of time working in Los Angeles and feel the need to sound an alarm. The city seems to be giving up on its streets and, in doing so, may be closing the door to becoming a more “urban” city.

By contrast, Los Angeles seems to be creating an endless number of privately owned, highly controlled real-estate developments. Although these developments lure large numbers of people, they are isolated pockets of exclusivity--not a part of the city’s fabric. They are not the places from which real cities evolve.

What makes good cities and how can they continue to evolve as places where people want to be? Just look at where people dream of spending their vacations--strolling the boulevards of Paris, sipping espresso at an outdoor cafe in an Italian piazza, even coming to New York.

A good city is about experiencing diversity--even if that means simply walking on a street to observe people who are not like you. In good cities, there are also public places--places that are part of the city, that show you what a city is all about and give it a heart. Sometimes, these places are a grand avenue or a large plaza. Whatever, they are an important part of people’s daily lives.

A good city cannot exist without good streets. Can you imagine Paris without its boulevards? In fact, Paris has just widened the sidewalks along the Champs Elysees to better accommodate the social and economic life and the joie de vivre that the city is famous for.

It is easy to identify a great street. Notice who is there and who isn’t. A good street has variety: seniors, teen-agers and children. It is a good sign if there is about an equal mix of men and women: Women are more particular about choosing a street to use than men. How fast are people walking and what are they doing? Are people meeting each other, stopping to talk with people they know and just happened to run into? Strolling and a lot of socializing is another indicator of a good street.

Good streets are thought to be “owned” by the people who use them: customers who come back time after time, and retailers who are continually monitoring a street’s problems. Even if they are not shopping, people feel they “belong” on a good street. They know the short cuts and secret parking spaces. They have accrued memories of experience that become part of their sense of identity in a community. They are concerned when something happens that would change the street.

In contrast to cities that focus on the street as their social and economic cornerstones, Los Angeles seems to be focused on creating “experiences.” In places like CityWalk, the Beverly Center and the Westside Pavilion, the term “ownership” takes on a different meaning than it does on a good street. These places are thriving as a “place to go” and seem, on the surface, to have many of the qualities of a good street. CityWalk, designed to look like a street, is walkable, with convenient parking, larger-than-life retail facades, fountains for kids to play in, a multitude of places to eat, movies to see and even a theme park. But it is not “owned” by a community who would rally to its defense if it were threatened by, say, redevelopment or by a proposed freeway cutting through it. It is a real-estate investment, owned by its investors.

The differences between a good street and a real-estate investment are more obvious at a mall. One drives to the mall, parks in a large parking lot and enters an internalized, climate-controlled environment. Inside, it is comfortable and more or less predictable, because the stores are owned by chains that provide the same type of products and prices everywhere. The chances of personal service or knowing the store owners by name is fairly slim.

The success of these retail “experiences” has not been without consequences to the streets and public spaces that should be the real livelihood of a city. In Los Angeles, once prime shopping streets--for example, in the Miracle Mile district along Wilshire Boulevard--have been abandoned. As people drive to get to the malls, traffic engineers have widened streets and sped up the traffic flow, destroying any remnant of pedestrian life.

But there are some hopeful signs that cities can “nibble back” at the qualities that have been negated by development insensitive to streets and to people. Two California cities whose downtowns, only a few years ago, had ceased to be places to go, have now begun to “nibble back.”

In Riverside, the area around the Mission Inn is being brought back as an “urban resort"--as the city focuses on improving the streets, the alleys and the existing exquisite and human-scaled buildings.

Only 10 miles away, San Bernardino, whose downtown has been afloat in a sea of parking lots for several years, is bringing back its downtown incrementally. Last year, they built a central square that has now been used as a site for hundreds of events--including several weddings. They have slowed down traffic and added angled parking around the square. Across the street, the shopping mall, built on the old Main Street in the 1960s, is planning to renovate its entrances to improve its access to downtown.

In Los Angeles, one of the most innovative programs in the country is currently under way, the Los Angles Neighborhood Initiative, with plans to take back the streets and public spaces of neighborhoods throughout the city. This program begins with the people of a neighborhood making small changes--"nibbling back” to create a sense of community for themselves. Little things that can be done right away are the focus--such as bus stops that are safe and comfortable, small outdoor markets, slower traffic and better crosswalks and stop signs--changes that bring the community back to the street. It is grass-roots measures like this that’s needed to “nibble back” Los Angeles.*


The Nation : Streets vs. Malls: The Modern Dilemma of Urban Public Spaces

The increasing backlash against retail giants like WalMart in cities across the country makes an important statement not only about the type of stores but also the type of communi ties that people want and don’t want in the future. The WalMarts and other warehouse retailers, and the development they represent, have nibbled at and now seem to have gobbled up many of America’s communities, replacing them with something less than we had before. The trend toward suburban, free-floating retail unconnected to a downtown shopping district is making communities less convenient, less personal, less diverse and less safe.

Living in New York, we feel lucky. Though it may come as a surprise to some, the neighborhoods of New York are, for the most part, convenient, diverse and safe. They are places where vitality is drawn from the street and the people who use the street. They are places where retailers know their customers. For example, after frequenting a coffee shop for three days, the waiter will inevitably have the coffee ready before you’ve even opened your mouth to order--you’ve become a regular! Or the greengrocer who, as you walk into his store four years after having moved away and then back again, asks “Where ya been?”

In these neighborhoods, service is a necessity because of the challenge of competition at a scale that is far smaller and more personal than the level at which places like a mall or WalMart function. In these ways, New York’s neighborhoods are more like small towns.

Los Angeles is different. During the past two years, we have spent a lot of time working in Los Angeles and feel the need to sound an alarm. The city seems to be giving up on its streets and, in doing so, may be closing the door to becoming a more “urban” city.

By contrast, Los Angeles seems to be creating an endless number of privately owned, highly controlled real-estate developments. Although these developments lure large numbers of people, they are isolated pockets of exclusivity--not a part of the city’s fabric. They are not the places from which real cities evolve.

What makes good cities and how can they continue to evolve as places where people want to be? Just look at where people dream of spending their vacations--strolling the boulevards of Paris, sipping espresso at an outdoor cafe in an Italian piazza, even coming to New York.

A good city is about experiencing diversity--even if that means simply walking on a street to observe people who are not like you. In good cities, there are also public places--places that are part of the city, that show you what a city is all about and give it a heart. Sometimes, these places are a grand avenue or a large plaza. Whatever, they are an important part of people’s daily lives.

A good city cannot exist without good streets. Can you imagine Paris without its boulevards? In fact, Paris has just widened the sidewalks along the Champs Elysees to better accommodate the social and economic life and the joie de vivre that the city is famous for.

It is easy to identify a great street. Notice who is there and who isn’t. A good street has variety: seniors, teen-agers and children. It is a good sign if there is about an equal mix of men and women: Women are more particular about choosing a street to use than men. How fast are people walking and what are they doing? Are people meeting each other, stopping to talk with people they know and just happened to run into? Strolling and a lot of socializing is another indicator of a good street.

Good streets are thought to be “owned” by the people who use them: customers who come back time after time, and retailers who are continually monitoring a street’s problems. Even if they are not shopping, people feel they “belong” on a good street. They know the short cuts and secret parking spaces. They have accrued memories of experience that become part of their sense of identity in a community. They are concerned when something happens that would change the street.

In contrast to cities that focus on the street as their social and economic cornerstones, Los Angeles seems to be focused on creating “experiences.” In places like CityWalk, the Beverly Center and the Westside Pavilion, the term “ownership” takes on a different meaning than it does on a good street. These places are thriving as a “place to go” and seem, on the surface, to have many of the qualities of a good street. CityWalk, designed to look like a street, is walkable, with convenient parking, larger-than-life retail facades, fountains for kids to play in, a multitude of places to eat, movies to see and even a theme park. But it is not “owned” by a community who would rally to its defense if it were threatened by, say, redevelopment or by a proposed freeway cutting through it. It is a real-estate investment, owned by its investors.

The differences between a good street and a real-estate investment are more obvious at a mall. One drives to the mall, parks in a large parking lot and enters an internalized, climate-controlled environment. Inside, it is comfortable and more or less predictable, because the stores are owned by chains that provide the same type of products and prices everywhere. The chances of personal service or knowing the store owners by name is fairly slim.

Nende jaemüügi "kogemuste" edu ei ole olnud tagajärgedeta tänavatele ja avalikele ruumidele, mis peaksid olema linna tegelik elatusvahend. Los Angeleses on loobutud kunagistest peamistest ostutänavatest-näiteks Miracle Mile'i linnaosas Wilshire'i puiestee ääres. Kui inimesed sõidavad kaubanduskeskustesse jõudmiseks, on liiklusinsenerid laiendanud tänavaid ja kiirendanud liiklust, hävitades jalakäijate elu.

Kuid on mõningaid lootustandvaid märke selle kohta, et linnad võivad „näksida” omadusi, mis on tänavatele ja inimestele tundmatu arengu tõttu eitanud. Kaks California linna, mille kesklinn oli vaid paar aastat tagasi lakanud olemast koht, kuhu minna, on nüüd hakanud “tagasi näksima”.

Riverside'is tuuakse Mission Inn'i ümbrus tagasi "linna kuurordiks"-kuna linn keskendub tänavate, alleede ning olemasolevate peenete ja inimtühjade hoonete parandamisele.

Vaid 10 miili kaugusel asuv San Bernardino, mille kesklinn on juba mitu aastat parkimisplatside meres hõljunud, toob kesklinna järk -järgult tagasi. Eelmisel aastal ehitasid nad keskväljaku, mida on nüüd kasutatud sadade sündmuste-sealhulgas mitmete pulmade-saidina. Nad on aeglustanud liiklust ja lisanud väljaku ümber nurga all parkimise. Üle tänava kavatseb 1960. aastatel vanale peatänavale ehitatud kaubanduskeskus renoveerida oma sissepääsud, et parandada juurdepääsu kesklinnale.

Los Angeleses on praegu käimas riigi üks innovaatilisemaid programme, Los Angles Neighborhood Initiative, mille kavas on võtta tagasi linnaosade tänavad ja avalikud ruumid. See programm algab sellega, et naabruskonna inimesed teevad väikseid muudatusi-"näksivad tagasi", et luua enda jaoks kogukonnatunne. Fookuses on väikesed asjad, mida saab kohe teha-näiteks turvalised ja mugavad bussipeatused, väikesed väliturud, aeglasem liiklus ning paremad ülekäigurajad ja peatumismärgid-muudatused, mis toovad kogukonna tänavale tagasi. Los Angelese „näksimiseks” on vaja selliseid rohujuuretasandi meetmeid.*


Vaata videot: 5550 Wilshire at Miracle Mile Apartments in Los Angeles, CA - (August 2022).