The City of Los Angeles is not the City of New York

Let’s Be A Truly Great City

By Valerie Vanaman

The City of Los Angeles is not the City of New York. We are not a densely built area with multi-story apartment buildings clustered around a central core. We do not have a large population of people located in one area who can, in terms of transportation and access, be easily served by a single large park. Because of the geographic nature of the City of Los Angeles, one cannot compare Griffith Park and its place in our City’s park structure with, for example, Central Park in the City of New York. Griffith Park is not the “central” park for the City of Los Angeles. Given the geographical make up of the City of Los Angeles, Griffith Park, just as is the case with any other park within the City, is only one park of an overall park system. If all of the residents of the City of Los Angeles are to have similar access to park and recreational activities, all planning and development activities must occur with the realities of our geography and population density. It takes all of the City of Los Angeles to provide an effective park system for its residents, not just one or two areas of the City.

At the present time, the geographic distribution of park land within the City of Los Angeles is widely disparate. While that is partly the result of the grant from the Griffith family and the existence of Griffith Park, that does not explain the wide diversity in available open space that exists within the existing park system. Griffith Park is part of City Council District 4, one of the fifteen City Council Districts that make up the City of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks has something over 15,000 acres under its jurisdiction. Much of that acreage, 4,620 acres, is located in Council District 4. The next largest number of acres, 3,199, is located in Council District 12 in the San Fernando Valley. The smallest number of acres, 86 acres, less than one percent of those acres, is located in Council District 10, with the next smallest number, 92 acres, located in Council District 9, the area that begins in Downtown Los Angeles and extends into South Los Angeles.

Just from these figures, it is apparent that open space is at a premium in many areas of this City, particularly areas where the median income of the residents is lower than in Council Districts 4 and 12. It is not reasonable to expect that the need of the residents of Council District 9, for example, to hike through trees in an early evening, or take an early morning stroll through a park, can be met by traveling to the San Fernando Valley or even to Griffith Park. Our public transportation system does not support such activity and, even if it did, the distance needed to travel to participate in the stroll becomes prohibitive after a long day at work.

If we are to have a park system that works for all of the people of Los Angeles it must be just that, a park “system.” When we expend funds on only one of the parks, we effective cheat the other communities out of resources and additional park space. Griffith Park must be open, available and accessible for all the residents of the City of Los Angeles, but it doesn’t need another ball field if we can increase the open space in Council District 9 by putting a ball field there. It doesn’t need more parking space if we can make more open space for the residents of Council District 8 by spending the money on land for a park there.

Any real master plan must be a Master Plan for a Park System – not just one park. To do less is to be less than all we can be as a City. All of the residents of the City of Los Angeles need and deserve open space – and any master planning that takes place must start, and ultimately end, at that conclusion if we are to be a truly great City.

Note: A study released in April 2004 by the Trust for Public Land concluded that two-thirds of L.A.’s children are not within walking distance of a park -- see http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=14565&folder_id=266 , a finding the Dean of UCLA’s School of Public Health called “a terrible indictment.” Correspondingly, a USC study released in May 2002 concluded that Los Angeles was spending its park funds for kids where they were least needed. To address this imbalance, Mayor Villaraigosa has made it a priority to purchase urban parcels to create new parks --see https://ensim3.interlix.com/zope/antonio2005.com/vision?id=0008 . In defiance of it, the draft suggests spending monies that could be used for such acquisitions on expensive frills in Griffith Park--none of which will make one child in the City of Los Angeles one inch closer to park.