Regional Connector community updates continue today; new drawings of stations

The latest round of community updates for the Regional Connector project are underway, with one today at 1 p.m. at the Central Library; here’s the full list.

The project team has also produced a new batch of power point presentations showing designs for the three stations along the Connector’s 1.9-mile route between the 7th/Metro Center station and Little Tokyo. The Connector will tie together the Blue and Expo lines with the Gold Line, meaning fewer transfers and more direct trips through downtown Los Angeles for most Metro Rail riders.

Please follow the links in blue below to the document on Scribd if you’re interested in downloading the pdf files.

1st & Central station

2nd & Broadway station

2nd & Hope station

6 replies

  1. Interesting design, but it seems like there’s too much “building” for what is essentially a fancy station entrance, gates, ticket machines and escalators.

  2. These are ridiculously over built. Most subway stations should have a couple of sets of stairs to enter them, only. Those on a traffic island (2nd & Hope) should be like a mini-park with most of the structure below grade. This will give drivers better sight lines for traffic from different side.

    1st & Alameda: Taking away what will be even more valuable commercial real estate is unwise. With the RC in place the land around the ‘Little Tokyo’ station will become more desirable and will add to the local tax base. Taking 1/2 of a block out for what could be served by 4 sets of stairs is stupid.

  3. I don’t particularly like the way they are built and walled/fenced off so you can only enter from one direction. Take the current Pershing Square portal on 5th Street — you can enter the stairs if you’re walking from Broadway or from Hill. With these stations, from one side you would always be forced to walk all the way around the structure into a singular entry point to the above-ground plaza, and then to the stairs to go down.

    There’s really no point in putting ticket machines above ground when there’s plenty of space below. I’ve read that designers studies NYC, London, and Paris in an attempt to “brand” the system… not sure how this is the result.

    Take a look at NYC: http://primawan.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/subway-station-entrance.jpg
    Paris: http://ipreferparis.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b0bd69e2012875633b58970c-800wi
    London: http://www.flickr.com/photos/londoncamera/4340227980/

    These are all very similar in that they are just a set of stairs, with consistent graphic and design elements. They fit nicely into the city around them and are clearly designated at the same time.

  4. I’m really excited for this project to get going already! It’s going to be a game changer for DTLA. Sort of reminds me of the SF Muni – how all the LR lines share track down Market Street.

    Anyways, I do agree to the comments above about our subterranean stations. In general they are incredibly cavernous, which is a stark contrast to the low ceilings at most NYC, Paris and London subway stops. I agree with those above, simple portals that are adjacent to areas where mixed use developement can take place will greatly serve these stops and those who use them.

    Probably wishful thinkings, would it cut costs enough to instead build simpler portals and lower underground ceilings, to allow for a 5th and Flower stop? Hopefully incorporate it with the 505 Flower underground food hall? I would imagine a station associated with that would help the businesses in there as they seem to only get customers during the lunch rush. The portal to that food court can be updated to increased use – but portals already exist there!

  5. I too am curious about Metro’s decision to put so much of these stations aboveground. Keep in mind though that the reason (or a reason anyway) New York, Paris, and London’s subway stations are completely underground is that land in those cities is so expensive that putting them underground is the only fiscally viable option, even though building anything underground is more expensive than building the same thing above. DTLA, however, still has lots of open and underutilized space, so putting portions of the stations aboveground may save some money if those stations can then have smaller portions underground (there are no dimensions on these drawings, so I can say if that’s what happening here) even after Metro pays a premium to make the aboveground portions more aesthetically appealing than they might a fully underground station.

    Will that calculus change (and will Metro eventually profit from selling the aboveground rights to these locations, even if that means they have to spend some money reconstructing and expanding the underground portions of the stations)? On behalf of everyone concerned about the economic development of DTLA — most especially the people that live and work there — I sure hope so!