Misguided Plan for an LAPD Building

Los Angeles is on the verge of blowing the chance of a lifetime with its well-intentioned but misguided plan for a massive, sprawling new LAPD headquarters.

Building a police facility on two extraordinary parcels of land in the city’s center -- the block across from the south steps of City Hall and an adjacent block anchored by the old St. Vibiana’s Cathedral -- is a painfully shortsighted decision.

Yes, the LAPD needs a new home, but it should not come at the expense of the great park that has long been envisioned for the first parcel. Nor should it mean overshadowing the cultural transformation unfolding on the St. Vibiana’s parcel.

The block bounded by 1st, 2nd, Spring and Main streets is unique in its history and significance. Its neighbors are City Hall, an iconic symbol of the city’s greatness; St. Vibiana’s, the 1876 landmark being transformed into a performing arts center; the L.A. Times, based for 70 years in its 1930s Streamline Moderne building; and the stunning new Caltrans building designed by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Thomas Mayne.

A park in this important space would create a sense of civic place and pride. It would connect the historic core, Little Tokyo, Bunker Hill and the Civic Center. This is not some off-the-wall concept. A civic park on this site is part of the master plan for Civic Center development adopted in 1997 by the City Council and the county Board of Supervisors. Also, the new Caltrans building’s plaza was designed to open onto this park.

Welcoming public space is the single most important element within this master plan. In addition to the park, the plan calls for pedestrian walkways and for gardens on the land west of City Hall. And it calls for rebuilding police headquarters on the existing Parker Center site. The plan won many national honors for planning, design and architecture. Federal and state lawmakers, business leaders and local elected officials were impressed with its implications for urban environmental quality and capital savings for government.

Unfortunately, 1997 may have been the last time the plan was consulted. It was certainly not consulted when it most needed to be -- as the City Council faced the critical decision of where to build a new headquarters for the LAPD. The original plans to rebuild on the Parker Center site were dismissed as too expensive; the council then approved purchase of land at 1st Street and Alameda without consulting the site’s neighbors in Little Tokyo and the Artist District. Understandable community outrage killed that idea. The council then settled on the old Caltrans site where the park was envisioned.

Why would so many people spend so much time and effort to create a master plan that garnered widespread approval, only to ignore it? Because officials -- elected and unelected -- listen to the loudest critics, and because many in the design community won’t publicly stick up for the original plan.

When the city’s initial plans to build police headquarters on the Caltrans site came before the city’s Cultural Affairs Commission this year, the panel courageously chose not to sign off on a proposal that could haunt Los Angeles into the next century. It sent a letter to the City Council urging it to revisit its decision. But rather than listening to that advice -- and to the many citizens who have raised objections to this plan -- city officials accused the commission of exceeding its authority.

The most obvious place to build a new police headquarters is at Parker Center. It is an option that has always been on the table. With thoughtful planning, it can be accomplished without relocating the Police Department during construction. And construction can begin without the delays that will almost certainly be triggered at other sites by property ownership and other legal issues.

My late husband, Ira Yellin, was a leader in re-envisioning downtown Los Angeles. Among his successes were the reclamations of the Bradbury Building, Grand Central Market and Union Station.

A civic park on the old Caltrans site was a dream. He saw it as a physical and emotional gateway between the city’s revitalizing historic core and its halls of government; he saw its potential to anchor and animate the surrounding area. He envisioned the park as a central gathering place for this city without a center.

Many people from various walks of life have spoken publicly in support of it. Others quietly indicate to me that they too support a park on this site, but too few -- for political, financial or other reasons -- are willing to speak out.

Ira believed that each person in every generation has a responsibility to heal or renew his or her society for the benefit of the next generation. And he felt there was a special responsibility for planners, developers and architects to lead the way.

It is time for the design community and cultural and civic leaders to let city officials know that what happens on these blocks matters.