Public Participation ARGroup

1. A Public Participation Program
for the Park 101 Vision
December 2, 2009
Report prepared by:
Aurea Adao
Patrick Hunter
Justine Johnson
Clement Lau
Aubrey Relf
Melissa Watson

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT 1
Clement Lau
2. DEMOGRAPHICS AND STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS 10
Aubrey Relf
3. BRANDING/MARKETING 19
Justine Johnson
4. OUTREACH 23
Melissa Watson
5. INREACH 32
Aurea Adao
6. RESULTS 39
Patrick Hunter
REFERENCES 44
APPENDICES
PowerPoint Presentation
Examples of Collateral Material
Report Editor
Clement Lau
Presentation Coordinator
Aubrey Relf
i

3. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Total Parks and Open Space as Percentage of City Area 5
Table 2: Children’s Park Access in Seven Major Cities 6
Table 3: Major Cap Park Proposals in Los Angeles County 8
Table 4: Strengths/Benefits and Weaknesses/Costs of Cap Parks 9
Table 5: Downtown Organizations/Groups 17
Table 6: Traditional Media Strategies 30
Table 7: New Media Strategies 31
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Public Participation Program Design Methodology Pyramid 1
Figure 2: Timeline of Public Participation Program 2
Figure 3: Location of Proposed Park 101 3
Figure 4: Park 101 Proposal 4
Figure 5: Top 20 Largest Cities in California 11
Figure 6: Native Languages Spoken 12
Figure 7: Los Angeles Demographics by Race from 2000-2007 12
Figure 8: Map of Park 101 Surrounding Tracts 13
Figure 9: Languages Spoken by Tracts 13
Figure 10: Demographics by Race and Ethnicity within Tracts 13
Figure 11: Population by Age and Gender in 2008 14
Figure 12: Population by Age Group between 1990 and 2008 14
Figure 13: Decline of Homeownership Rates of Large U.S. Cities 15
Figure 14: 2007 LA MSA Industries by Location Quotient 16
Figure 15: Examples of “Dream Green” Giveaways 19
Figure 16: Four Levels of “the Public” 23
Figure 17: Parkcycle 28
Figure 18: Sample Questionnaire 29
Figure 19: Workshop Seating Diagram 33
Figure 20: Walking Tour Route 35
Figure 21: Changes in Outreach and Inreach 40
Figure 22: Four Categories of Participants 41
Figure 23: Integrated Public Participation Process 42
ii

4. INTRODUCTION
This report presents a legitimate and credible public participation program designed to enhance
public awareness to the Park 101 vision by ensuring that those who wish to participate in all
facets of the process are provided an opportunity and are encouraged to do so. Specifically,
this program seeks to:
1. Identify all stakeholders and interested parties;
2. Enhance public awareness to the Park 101 vision;
3. Objectively educate the public; and
4. Facilitate a series of public meetings designed to explore the advantages and
disadvantages of the vision, culminating with public hearings conducted by decision-
making authorities.
Our objective is to ensure maximum participation in a process designed to raise awareness to a
concept or vision by ensuring everyone who desires is given a chance to participate and be
involved. Our focus is on raising public awareness to a vision and facilitating a public dialogue
as to whether the park should be built.
Our public participation program consists of six components as illustrated in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Public Participation Program Design Methodology Pyramid
• Introduction/Context: This component is the foundation of our public participation
program. The other five sections build upon the information provided in the
Introduction/Context. The Introduction states the purpose and scope of our public
participation program, and describes the proposed Park 101. The Context section
details the existing conditions and issues related to the proposed project and its location.
1

5. • Demographics/Stakeholder Identification: The accurate measurement and
interpretation of changes in social and demographic conditions are critical to public
participation. This section offers the social and demographic profile of the City of Los
Angeles and the immediate neighborhood in which Park 101 is proposed to be built.
• Branding/Marketing: Branding/marketing is necessary to captivate the public’s
attention on the potential development of Park 101. This section explains our strategies
to give the public unbiased information that does not explicitly state support or opposition
of the park.
• Outreach Strategies: This section describes our outreach approach and strategies.
Outreach refers to efforts that take information to the people. It represents the most
fundamental of the public participation strategies and is conducted at the earliest stages
of the program.
• Inreach Strategies: This section describes our inreach approach and strategies.
Inreach refers to those strategies designed to bring people to the event. Examples
include advisory groups, workshops, charrettes, and open house.
• Results: This section defines the successful outcomes for the public participation
program. Specifically, it explains the four ways we are using to measure success.
Timeline
The proposed timeline of our 12-month public participation program is shown in Figure 2 below:
Figure 2: Timeline of Public Participation Program
Timeframes for the five tasks overlap because every stage of a successful public participation
process must be integrated. In other words, every stage of the process is not independent of
the other, but rather interdependent.
2

6. The Project
Park 101 is a vision for a 100-acre urban park serving downtown and adjacent neighborhoods
such as Chinatown and Little Tokyo, all of which lack adequate open space. It would involve
building a lid or cap above a portion of the Hollywood Freeway (U.S. 101) and its exit ramps
(see Figure 3 below). This proposal would incorporate nearby parking lots and underused land
next to the freeway, and reconfigure the Civic Center area—converting an eyesore into an
urban park and walkable, vibrant urban neighborhood.
Figure 3: Location of Proposed Park 101
Park 101 is the vision of a group of college students from around the world who participated in
EDAW’s Intern Program in June 2008. (EDAW is one of the world's leading land and
environment-based planning and design firms.) The interns were asked this question: How can
we reconnect the city’s historic core north of the Hollywood Freeway with the civic, cultural and
financial centers to the south? Their solution, Park 101, proposes to cap a half-mile length of
this freeway with an urban park in the heart of downtown Los Angeles (see Figure 4). The
proposal reconnects the city’s historic core at El Pueblo, north of the freeway, with the civic,
cultural, and financial districts of modern Los Angeles to the south. The project provides a
unique opportunity to shape a new direction for downtown. Focused on a relatively small area
straddling the 101 Freeway and situated in an existing maze of roadways, Park 101 is a new
initiative to remake Los Angeles into a more sustainable and livable city. Communities most
benefiting from Park 101 are the densely urbanized and park-poor communities of inner Los
Angeles. The proposal seeks to provide these communities and the greater Los Angeles with
long term benefits by stitching together the urban fabric, strengthening the transportation system
and extending the possibilities for a more sustainable place of choice in which to live and work.
3

7. Figure 4: Park 101 Proposal
According to EDAW, the Park 101 proposal focuses on six design principles:
• Maximize Regional Connectivity
• Develop a Pedestrian Focus
• Provide Flexibility of Open Space
• Reconnect Communities
• Be a Regenerative Tool
• Create a “Wow” Factor
4

8. CONTEXT
In 1930 the Olmsted Brothers and Bartholomew & Associates submitted a report titled “Parks,
Playgrounds, and Beaches in the Los Angeles Region” to the Los Angeles Chamber of
Commerce.1 The report proposed a comprehensive and coherent network of parks,
playgrounds, schools, beaches, forests, and transportation to promote the social, economic, and
environmental vitality of Los Angeles and the health of its people. The report also called for the
shared use of parks and schools to make optimal use of land and public resources. The
Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan was a model of ambitious and bold planning commissioned at a
time when land was available and the region’s population was growing tremendously. However,
the plan was never adopted and only segments of the report have been implemented to date
due to a variety of political, economic, and financial reasons.2
Today Los Angeles is one of the most park-poor cities in the United States. With only 10
percent of its total area devoted to parks and open space, Los Angeles is behind all other major
cities of the west coast (see Table 1) and ranks below New York and Philadelphia. In addition,
parks and open spaces are distributed unevenly in the region, with a significant portion of
parkland located away from the urban core and underserved communities such as South Los
Angeles. Griffith Park, for example, has an area of over 4,000 acres, but does not provide for
the active recreation elements typically available in an urban park.3 The park consists primarily
of rugged hillsides and mountains, and is difficult to reach without a car. Its facilities, including
picnic tables and parking, are so limited that visitors are often turned away on weekends during
summer months.
Table 1: Total Parks and Open Space as Percentage of City Area
City City Area Total Parks/Open Park/Open Space as
(in acres) Space (in acres) Percentage of City Area
Los Angeles 300,352 30,121 10.0%
San Diego 207,360 36,108 17.4%
San Francisco 29,888 7,594 25.4%
Seattle 53,696 6,194 11.5%
Portland 79,808 12,591 15.8%
Source: Harnik, 2000.
Another indicator of park needs in a community is access as measured by the percentage of
children within walking distance or one-quarter mile of a park.4 Los Angeles offers its children
1
Hise, G. & Deverell, W. (2000). Eden by Design: the 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan for the Los
Angeles Region, p. 1.
2
For more information on this report, please refer to book by Hise and Deverell.
3
Active recreation requires constructed facilities such as basketball courts and fields for soccer, softball
and football.
4
Most cities and counties rely on National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) standards to
determine whether they have enough parks. These standards are expressed in terms of acres per 1,000
residents. While these standards may be helpful as general measures of the availability of parkland, they
5

9. the worst access to parks among the seven major cities evaluated.5 As shown in Table 2, only
one-third of the city’s children live within walking distance of a park.
Table 2: Children’s Park Access in Seven Major Cities
City Percentage of Number of children
children within one- not within one-quarter
quarter mile of a park mile of a park
Los Angeles 33% 657,700
Los Angeles County 36% 1,694,400
Boston 97% 2,900
Dallas 42% 182,800
New York 91% 178,500
San Diego 65% 102,300
San Francisco 85% 16,700
Seattle 79% 18,600
Source: Trust for Public Land, 2004.
Access to and availability of public facilities for physical activity, such as parks and playgrounds,
have an important role in the prevention and treatment of obesity. Research shows that when
people have access to parks, they are more likely to exercise, which can reduce obesity and its
associated costs and problems.6 A number of studies reviewed in the American Journal of
Preventive Medicine showed that “creation of or enhanced access to places for physical activity
combined with informational outreach” produced a 48 percent increase in the frequency of
physical activity.7 These studies also found that easy access to a place to exercise resulted in a
5 percent median increase in aerobic capacity, along with weight loss, a reduction in body fat,
and improvements in flexibility.8
There are unfair park, school, and health disparities in Los Angeles based on race, ethnicity,
income, poverty, youth, and access to cars.9 Children of color disproportionately live in
were established decades earlier and do not accurately reflect the dynamic environment and variety of
communities today. NRPA standards, for example, do not address access nor do they include many
types of open space common in urban environments such as greenbelts and trails. In addition, these
standards are silent on the issue of equity; the same standards are used regardless of whether a
community is currently park-poor or park-rich.
5
Trust for Public Land. (2004, November). No place to play: a comparative analysis of park access in
seven major cities, p. 6.
6
Gies, E. (2006). The Health Benefits of Parks, p. 8.
7
Kahn, E. et al (2002). The Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Physical Activity. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, pp. 87-88.
8
Ibid.
9
García, R. & White, A. (2006). Healthy Parks, Schools, and Communities: Mapping Green Access and
Equity for Los Angeles Region, p. 3.
6

10. communities of concentrated poverty without enough parks and playgrounds to play in, and do
not have the means to reach parks and school fields in other neighborhoods. The health
implications of the lack of physical activity are significant. Children in underserved communities
are much more likely to suffer from obesity, diabetes, and other diseases related to inactivity.10
García and White (2006) even declared that “this is the first generation in the history of this
country in which children will have a lower life expectancy than their parents if present trends
continue” (p. 3).
Funding for parks and recreation is also unevenly distributed. In most communities, new
neighborhood parks are funded through the Quimby Act which requires developers to help
mitigate the impacts of residential subdivisions on parks and recreational resources.
Specifically, the Act requires developers to either build new parks or pay a fee to the local parks
department which then uses the money to develop new parks or improve existing parks in the
area of the proposed development. While the Quimby Act supplements the limited budget of
park agencies, it only maintains the status quo and does not address existing inequities in the
provision of parks. Quimby fees are only generated in areas where new development is
occurring. Because few new housing units have been built in economically depressed,
underserved neighborhoods, very limited fees have been collected there.
Fortunately, a coalition of community-based environmental and social justice groups has
emerged recently to lead efforts to address inequities in the provision of parks in Los Angeles.
This coalition is trying to revive the Olmsted-Bartholomew vision and has experienced some
success along the Los Angeles River and at nearby lands that were previously slated for non-
park development. Specific examples include the Cornfield near Chinatown and Taylor Yard,
both of which have been developed with new state parks serving inner city residents.11
In addition, the business community as well as planning and design professionals have
advocated for new large urban parks in Los Angeles seeking to duplicate the success of New
York City’s Central Park. Park 101 is one of the proposals.12 Another is the proposed 44-acre
Hollywood Freeway Central Park which has the backing of the Hollywood Chamber of
Commerce and a long list of politicians.13 Proponents of both parks believe that the parks would
offer economic benefits in addition to addressing the park deficit in Los Angeles, including:
enhancing real estate values, and attracting tourists and businesses. Crompton (2001)
demonstrates through his studies that the economic values of parks can be measured and their
economic benefits can be realized through appropriate design, siting, maintenance, and
marketing.14
10
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (2007, October). Preventing childhood obesity: the
need to create healthy places, p. 5.
11
More information regarding the Cornfield and Taylor Yard are provided in Arnold (2007)’s Fair and
Healthy Land Use: Environmental Justice and Planning, pp. 112-113.
12
Davies, V. (2008, August). A “Central Park” for Los Angeles? Urban Land, 67(8), pp. 42-45.
13
Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. (2007). Fact Sheet: Hollywood Freeway Central Park.
14
Crompton, J.L. (2001). Parks and economic development.
7

11. Cap Parks
Both Park 101 and the Hollywood Freeway Central Park are proposed “cap parks.” Cap parks,
also referred to as highway parks, are parks that are built over segments of freeways. A 2007
TPL study found that there are over 20 cap parks in the United States and at least a dozen
more in various stages of planning.15 The average size of the country’s cap parks is nine acres
and each covers 1,620 linear feet of highway. The study also discovered that projects where
freeways are already below grade are more feasible than others.
Civic and business leaders as well as planners and architects have proposed several cap parks
in Los Angeles. Los Angeles seems ideal for new cap parks. The county’s extensive network
of freeways translates to numerous locations that may be capped with new parks. The three
major cap park proposals in the Los Angeles area are: Hollywood Freeway Central Park, Park
101, and the Pasadena Great Park. Table 3 provides a summary of these proposals.
Table 3: Major Cap Park Proposals in Los Angeles County
Cap Park Hollywood Freeway Park 101 Pasadena
Proposal Central Park Great Park
Location Hollywood Downtown L.A. Pasadena
Above 101 Freeway Above 101 Freeway, half- Above 210 Freeway
between Sunset & mile long stretch each of between Fair Oaks Avenue
Hollywood Boulevard 110 Freeway interchange bridge & Wilson Avenue
overpasses bridge.
Size 44 acres 100 acres 50 acres
Construction $950 million $700 million* No estimate available
Cost
Major • Hollywood Chamber • EDAW design firm • West Pasadena
Proponents of Commerce • Caltrans Residents’ Association
• Politicians16 • Metro • City of Pasadena
• SCAG
• City of Los Angeles
• Downtown
Neighborhood Council
Sources: EDAW/AECOM, 2008; V. Davies, 2008; M. Persico, 2008.
* This appears to be a gross estimate given that the smaller Hollywood Freeway Central Park will cost $950 million.
As of this writing, there are no vocal opponents to the above proposals. However, commuters
may have concerns about being stuck in tunnels for lengthy periods during traffic jams.17
15
Harnik, P. & Welle, B. (2007, April). Nature over traffic. Urban Land, 66(4), p. 102.
16
Politicians include: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, City Council President Eric Garcetti, City Councilman
Tom LaBonge, Congressman Xavier Becerra, Congresswoman Diane Watson, former State Senator and
County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, and California Assemblyman Mike Feuer. As of this writing, no
politicians have officially endorsed the Park 101 and Pasadena Great Park proposals.
8

12. Construction costs for cap parks can be very high, as evidenced by the expected price tags of
the Hollywood Freeway Central Park and Park 101. However, the land may be free, made
available as air rights by Caltrans. This can translate to a multimillion-dollar gift in urban
locations. For example, land costs $2 million to $3 million per acre near the Santa Ana Freeway
by Los Angeles City Hall.18 Various local, state, and federal funds may be used to finance cap
parks. One approach is to create a tax increment financing district, whereby future increased
tax revenue is used to pay back the costs of the park. Other local funding sources include
public works capital funds or municipal bonds. The federal or state government may also pay
for the cap, while the city finances the actual park development.
Because of their location, cap parks may expose future park users to potential health threats
related to poor air quality and excessive noise. In particular, a USC study has shown that
children living near freeways are more likely to develop asthma.19 The environmental impacts of
the three cap park proposals have not been evaluated yet. An environmental impact report
(EIR) will be prepared for the proposed Hollywood Freeway Central Park and should be
available for public review in 2010. EIRs will also be required for the other two proposals when
they are further along in the planning process.
Table 4 summarizes the strengths/benefits and weaknesses/costs of cap parks.
Table 4: Strengths/Benefits and Weaknesses/Costs of Cap Parks
Strengths/Benefits Weaknesses/Costs
• Create large new parks in urban areas. • Construction, operation, and maintenance
• Land may be generally free. costs are high due to large size of parks.
• Enhance adjacent property values. • Time and process required for park
development will be lengthy.
• Attract businesses and visitors.
• Only one or two cap parks will likely be
• Large park proposals appeal to a much pursued at a time due to costs and
broader audience than smaller projects. complexity of these projects.
Political and business leaders are eager to
support grand visions of large new urban parks • Expose park users to: 1) potential health
in Los Angeles. risks related to air quality and noise; and 2)
potential safety risks since pedestrian
• Build on successes elsewhere including access to cap parks may be dangerous.
Seattle’s Freeway Park.
• Parks may attract the homeless and gang
members.
17
Pool, B. (2008, November 19). Plan for park atop Hollywood Freeway is praised. Los Angeles Times, p.
B3.
18
Harnik, P. & Welle, B. (2007, April). Nature over traffic. Urban Land, 66(4), p. 103.
19
Gauderman, W. J. et al (2007). Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of
age: a cohort study. The Lancet, 368, pp. 535-537. The study, which tracked 3,600 children for 13 years,
found that those living within 500 yards of a highway faced risk of permanent health damage, including
stunted lung growth and respiratory problems.
9

13. DEMOGRAPHICS AND STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
The accurate measurement and interpretation of changes in social and demographic conditions
are critical to public participation. Misinterpretation of social and demographic change can
result in erroneous urban policies and projects that have adverse impacts on the disengaged
public. Failure to grasp the significance of demographic changes can also result in an
illegitimate public participation process that overlooks the diverse cultures, multi-layered issues,
and the various realms of social, ecological, and economic characteristics that are unique to a
specific place. Such failure also lessens the credibility of the decision-making process and
opposes the tenet of participation: “two-way communication and interaction, with the overall goal
of better decisions that are supported by the public” (Creighton, 2005). This two-way
communication is legitimized when the organization conducting the process engages
participants that reflect the community impacted by the decision-making process.
Objective
The objective of this analysis is to maximize two-way communication by first understanding the
population, identity, and languages of Los Angeles. This analysis offers a demographic profile
of the City of Los Angeles and the immediate neighborhood in which Park 101 is proposed to be
built. We analyze the population, age, gender, housing characteristics, and languages spoken
in Los Angeles and the neighborhood in order to strategically target all aspects of the
community and maximize the legitimacy of the participation process. Furthermore, the level of
interaction between an organization and the public depends significantly on the ability to speak
a common language and to appeal to the various age and race/ethnic groups that comprise the
community.
Methodology
Data was collected from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 1990 and 2000 Decennial analysis data sets
by tract level. We also used 2007 and 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) data sets
available on the Census website. The ACS data sets do not offer data by tract level, but provide
the most recent, comprehensive information by city level, allowing one to trace and study
changes over time. As described in the findings section, the data collected from these sources
reveal the diversity and uniqueness of Los Angeles and its residents.
In addition to data available through the Census Bureau, interviews with community members
and observations of places within Los Angeles and its downtown neighborhoods yielded
foundational information that is necessary for us to design a legitimate participation process.
Information was also retrieved from HealthyCity.org to identify potential stakeholders, including
public agencies, private businesses and corporations, nonprofits and other community-based
organizations, and other groups. HealthyCity.org is an online community service and policy
research tool for all of Los Angeles County, and provides access to a large database of
community resources and localized demographic and health data on a GIS mapping platform.
10

14. Findings
The findings of our demographic analysis are presented on the following pages. Our
participation strategies (to be described in subsequent sections) are based upon the findings of
this analysis.
Population and Language
With a population of 3.7 million residents, Los Angeles is the largest city in the State of
California. However, not only is Los Angeles very populated, it is also incredibly diverse. To
facilitate legitimate participation, unique strategies of “parade building” in Los Angeles is
essential. Figure 5 below shows the population of the 20 largest cities in California.
Figure 5: Top 20 Largest Cities in California
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, table B01003.
The sheer size of Los Angeles’ population complicates the ability to attract and engage the
public within its boundaries. Consequently, to meet the challenge of engaging so many
residents, a systematic approach to outreach must be implemented by focusing on smaller
groups, such as younger age groups, ethnic/cultural communities, linguistically isolated
neighborhoods, and other groups. This approach makes outreach to the masses more
manageable by targeting smaller groups with unique interest(s) and characteristics. It also
increases legitimacy by recognizing groups that have traditionally been overlooked by top-down
efforts of decision-making and through outreach techniques that focus only on the majority of
the population while excluding minority groups. Further understanding and analysis of the city’s
population is critical to elevating the level of engagement within its boundaries. In particular, a
study of the languages spoken is necessary and helpful.
Methods of public outreach must address and reflect the diversity of the city’s population and
the multiple languages spoken within its boundaries. Identifying the proportion of those
populations who do not speak English well is critical to the facilitation of legitimate participation.
These groups make up linguistically isolated communities which present challenges to effective
11

15. two-way communication. Figure 6 shows that among Los Angeles residents who do not have
command of the English language, the Spanish-speaking community accounted for the largest
share (23.2 percent). Outreach strategies must take this information into consideration.
Figure 6: Native Languages Spoken by People who Do Not Speak English Well in Los Angeles
Source: 2008 U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, table B16001.
Race and Ethnicity
Related to language is information related to race and ethnicity. Figure 7 below shows the
race/ethnic break-down of the city’s population and trends from 2000 to 2007. Los Angeles has
a very diverse population. Latinos represent the majority of the city’s population, increasing
from 46.5 percent in 2000 to 48.5 percent in 2007. Also, Whites make up a significant, but
gradually declining portion; as of 2007, Whites accounted for 29.3 percent. The African
American and Asian shares of the population were both at approximately 10 percent in 2007.
Figure 7: Percent Share of Los Angeles Demographics by Race from 2000-2007
Source: 2000, 2007 U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, P7, B03002.
12

16. In efforts to include all groups within decision-making, we also examined data at the tract level
to capture the unique composition of the immediate neighborhood in which Park 101 is
proposed. Thus, in addition to data for the entire City of Los Angeles, focused analysis of this
neighborhood is necessary to ensure that no pockets of areas are overlooked within the
participation process. After all, if the demographic analysis does not hone into the specific
neighborhoods surrounding a proposed development, the overall study may be misleading and
result in marginalized communities being overlooked. To ensure adequate opportunities to
participate in decision-making are afforded to all groups, further analysis of language, race, and
ethnicity was conducted in communities immediately surrounding the proposed site of Park 101.
Language and Ethnicity in Tracts Surrounding Park 101
Our research reveals that there are many Chinese speakers in two tracts surrounding Park 101
(see Figure 9). In particular, Asians account for over 80 percent of the total population in tract
2071 (see Figure 10). This is not surprising because this tract includes Chinatown. The
proportion of Asians and Chinese speakers are also high in tract 2060.1 located northeast of
downtown. However, the proportion of Spanish speakers in this tract is actually higher. Also
noteworthy is the high proportion of English-only speakers in tract 2074 (88 percent).
Figure 8: Map of Park 101 Surrounding Tracts Figure 9: Languages Spoken by Tracts
Figure 10: Demographics by Race and Ethnicity within Tracts Surrounding Proposed Park 101
Source: 2008 U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, table P7.
13

17. Age and Cohort Analysis of Los Angeles
Outreach strategies must also consider the age and gender composition of the population.
Figure 11 offers the age and gender profile of Los Angeles’ population. Noteworthy are that
men have a 10 percent larger share of the total population than women and that the 25 to 34
group is largely populated by men.
Figure 11: Population by Age and Gender in 2008
Source: 2008 U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, Table B01001.
Figure 12 offers further analysis based on age. It displays a cohort analysis which traces the
trends of age-groups at three points in time. It illustrates a dramatic decline in the 25 to 34 age
group from 2000 to 2008, while the 35 to 44 age group accounted for the largest share of total
population in 2008. These findings may help an organization to better facilitate two-way
communication by relating to issues associated with the paradigm shifts that have taken place
over time and by recognizing the divergent views among certain age groups.
Figure 12: Percent of Total Population by Age Group in Los Angeles between 1990 and 2008
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000, 2008, SF3, Tables P013, P8, B01001
Tabulation: age-group/total population*100
14

18. Designing outreach strategies to reflect cohorts and age-groups may yield better results by
targeting all age groups and by appealing to the various issues related to paradigm shifts that
have taken place over time. Knowing an age group’s percent share of the population and
understanding changes over time can help design methods of outreach that facilitate high levels
of community engagement.
Housing
Analyzing social demographics along with housing characteristics can shed light on additional
issues faced by individuals within a community and shape outreach strategies that consider
both small and large interests groups. Being aware of public issues and concerns is important
in the development of effective outreach strategies. An example of such issues is the decline in
homeownership. As shown in Figure 13, Los Angeles is not the only major city facing this
problem. Amidst the economic crises felt throughout the nation, Los Angeles’ homeownership
rate dropped significantly from 2000 to 2008 (61.4 to 39.4 percent).
Figure 13: Decline of Homeownership Rates of Large U.S. Cities from 2000 to 2008
Source: 2000, 2008 U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, Tables H007001 B25003.
The level of homeownership is significant and relevant to public participation. In particular, one
may argue and interpret the loss of homeowners as an increase of renters who may not be as
invested in their communities as owners. Thus, an erosion of public participation in these areas
may occur. In contrast to this possible interpretation of the data, one may revisit the case of the
redevelopment of Santa Monica’s downtown and understand that, “Its success was in large part
due to the mobilization of renters who had been civically engaged as a result of their opposition
to crooked landlords and rent control issues in their community” (Denny Zane, former Mayor of
Santa Monica, California).
Regardless of whether renters or owners are more civically engaged, it is clear that identifying
issues that permeate a community through demographic analyses can be instrumental in
communicating and interacting effectively with the public. Organizers should be well aware of
important community issues, facilitate input from concerned members, and collaborate with
neighborhood councils or other groups that cater to various social, economic, and
15

19. environmental aspects of a specific locality. Doing so will lay the foundation upon which to build
a legitimate participation process.
Location Quotient Analysis
Cooperation and partnership with the business community is vital to realizing feasible park plans
for downtown Los Angeles. A location quotient analysis was conducted to identify major
business sectors in Los Angeles. Location quotient analysis is a technique used to identify the
concentration of an industrial sector in a local economy relative to a larger reference economy.
It is shown as a ratio between the percentage of employment in an industry locally to the
percentage of employment in the same industry found in the state or nation being used as a
reference. If the ratio of the local to the reference economy is greater than one, it means that
the industry is concentrated (overrepresented) in the local area compared to the reference
economy. If the ratio is less than one, however, the industry is locally underrepresented. In this
case, Los Angeles Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is the local economy and the U.S. is the
reference economy. An example of a LQ analysis is shown in Figure 14 by tabulating data
retrieved from the 2000 – 2007 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The calculation used was:
Location quotient (LQ) = Local Sector employment / Local Total Employment
Reference Sector Employment / Reference Total Employment
Figure 14 shows that many sectors within the entertainment industry are highly concentrated in
the Los Angeles MSA. Consequently, common interests with or concerns about the
development of Park 101 held by key players among Los Angeles’ industrial sectors should be
identified.
Figure 14: 2007 LA MSA Industries by Location Quotient
Source: 2007 Business of Labor and Statistics Data by Los Angeles MSA vs. the U.S.
Tabulation: Location quotient (LQ) = Los Angeles Sec empl / Los Angeles total empl
U.S. sec empl / U.S. total empl
16

20. Stakeholders
We also retrieved information from HealthyCity.org to identify potential stakeholders,
including public agencies, private businesses and corporations, nonprofits, and other
community-based organizations. The following list (Table 5) identifies possible
organizations that may be instrumental to implementing outreach strategies in downtown
Los Angeles. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but offers a glimpse as to the
diversity of organizations operating in and around downtown.
Table 5: Downtown Organizations/Groups
Name of Organization/Group Address
1. Castelar Elementary School 840 N. Yale St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
2. Alpine Recreation Center 817 Yale St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
3. Chinatown Service Center 767 N. Hill St., Ste. 108, Los Angeles, CA 90012
4. Evans Community Adult School 717 N. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
5. Altamed Grand Plaza Adult Day 701 W. Cesar Chavez, Suite 201, Los Angeles, CA
Health Care Center 90012
6. LA City Library - Chinatown Branch 639 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
7. Station No. 4 - N. Main St. 800 N. Main St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
8. CA Community Tech Policy Group 1000 Alameda St., Ste. 240, Los Angeles, CA 90012
9. Teen Post – Chinatown 600 N. Broadway, Ste. D, Los Angeles, CA 90012
10. Chinatown Senior Services Center 600 N. Broadway, Ste. B, Los Angeles, CA 90012
11. Chinese Committee On Aging 600 N. Broadway, Ste. C, Los Angeles, CA 90012
12. Center Theatre Group 601 W. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
13. Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels 555 W. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
14. Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic 535 N. Main St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
Church
15. First District-Supervisor Gloria Molina 500 W. Temple St., Rm. 856, Los Angeles, CA
90012
16. LA County Office of Affirmative Action 500 W. Temple St., Rm. 780, Los Angeles, CA
90012
17. LA County Chief Executive Office 500 W. Temple St., Rm. 358, Los Angeles, CA
90012
18. LA County Business License 500 W. Temple St., Rm 374, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Commission
19. LA County Board of Supervisors 500 W. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
20. LA County Consumer Affairs 500 W. Temple St., B-96, Los Angeles, CA 90012
21. LA County Office of County Counsel 500 West Temple St. 648, Los Angeles, CA 90012
22. LA County Domestic Violence Council 500 W. Temple St., B-50, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Source: HealthyCity.org, 2009.
17

21. The Outreach section of this paper describes a strategic approach of collaboration with
specific large scale corporations and organizations.
Summary
This section is intended to improve our understanding of potential stakeholders of the proposed
Park 101 project, including residents in both adjacent neighborhoods and the City of Los
Angeles as a whole. The location quotient analysis and information obtained via
HealthyCity.org help us to identify potential partners including public agencies, private
corporations and businesses, nonprofit organizations, community-based groups, and other
leaders within the community. Our findings enable us to develop an intelligent approach to
facilitating the underpinning theme of legitimate participation, “Interaction with the overall goal of
better decisions that are supported by the public” (Creighton, 2005).
The data revealed that outreach and inreach strategies must not only appeal to the majority of
the population, but must also target and attract smaller segments of the public whose voices
have historically been unheard. This targeted strategy increases the quantity of participants as
well as the quality of the participation process.
Informed decisions and strategies are critical to both the effective and efficient implementation
of public outreach techniques. The findings of this section can guide our approach to outreach
and influence strategic partnerships with collaborative entities in these areas that may have
developed a rapport with members of the community. These partnerships are invaluable to
facilitating effective two-way communication and civic engagement within these communities.
As an additional approach to building effective two-way communication between organizations
and the public, organizations should proactively create cultural awareness amongst their
internal staff and understand the specific segments of the public prior to outreach. This will
maximize legitimacy of the participation process and attract higher quantities of participants
through more intelligent approaches to outreach.
18

22. BRANDING/MARKETING
The growth of social media and innovative public outreach techniques has inspired us to create
a set of strategies that meet the dual objectives of: 1) educating the public and 2) provoking a
social movement centered on the need and importance of parks in Los Angeles. The purpose
of branding Park 101 is to captivate the public’s attention on the potential development of the
park. Our strategies focus on providing the public with unbiased information that does not
explicitly state favor or opposition of the proposed park. Simply put, we seek to enhance the
public’s education about Park 101 by stimulating public awareness. Our recommended
strategies include the following:
• Create an attractive slogan;
• Provide public giveaways;
• Put up noticeable signage in public places;
• Collaborate with private businesses, corporations, and foundations; and
• Identify celebrity spokesperson(s).
Slogan
In order for Park 101 to spark a social movement, people must have something that grabs their
attention. Appealing slogans are an effective tool for marketing products in the for-profit sector.
Similarly, we decided to utilize this approach in establishing a slogan that represents Park 101.
The goal of the slogan is to draw attention to Park 101 in a manner that does not create a
biased opinion as to the ultimate future of the park proposal.
“Dream Green” is our proposed slogan. We see this phrase as catchy, yet simple. This phrase
can encourage and motivate the public to think futuristically about parks and green space.
“Dream Green” is more than just a slogan; our team envisions this phrase as the start of a
significant movement. “Dream Green” will become a familiar phrase that can be recognized in
public giveaways.
Giveaways
The demographic characteristics of the communities around Park 101 will determine the types
of giveaways that should be provided to the public. Our earlier analysis revealed that many of
the people living in neighborhoods near the proposed Park 101 are Latino and Asian within the
age range of 25-54. The combination of rising millennials, Generation Y, and Generation X that
comprise the area also help us to determine the appropriate type of giveaways for this targeted
population.
The diverse set of languages spoken in the area also requires that the “Dream Green” slogan
be displayed in different languages to meet the linguistic needs of the population. Our
suggested giveaways include the following: T-shirts, hats, buttons, rubber green bracelets,
drinking canteens, recyclable tote bags, pens, key rings, magnets and bumper stickers (see
Figure 15). The giveaways will be provided for those who participate: in public meetings
19

23. (workshops, open house, etc), on the community advisory committee, in charrettes, at the park
picnic, and in the mobile park and kiosks.
Figure 15: Examples of “Dream Green” Giveaways
The purpose of the giveaways is to provide the public with an item to personalize on their
experience of dreaming big about the present and future needs of green space in Los Angeles.
Each item that displays the “Dream Green” slogan sparks the external pressure for people to
outwardly show their pride in engaging in a momentous event. Public giveaways are important
to the branding process, but the reach has to impact the population that may not want to engage
in public events.
Signage
Public signage is necessary to reach those who may not be interested in participating in Park
101 public events. The targeted population for this strategy is the 20 percent of people that are
not interested or vested in public participation. By using attractive signage that has bold letters
of “DREAM GREEN” followed by small letters with a website and phone number naturally draws
attention to the human eye. These signs should be located inside and outside of buses and
trains, at bus stop benches, and posters in public buildings such as libraries and schools. The
prominence of signage around the vicinity of Park 101 will help to foster inquisitiveness of those
20

24. that seek to understand what “Dream Green” actually means. Visual appeal and graphic design
help to captivate public attention. Signage will provide the inreach needed to promote
awareness and education through an individual’s independent usage of the Park 101 website
information and the Park 101 telephone hotline.
Collaborations
Targeting the private sector (i.e. businesses, corporations, foundations) as an affiliate to
assisting public participation is pivotal to the success of bringing awareness to Park 101. For
example, those promoting Chicago’s Millennium Park made great strides by bridging a
relationship with the private sector. Millennium Park gained intrinsic (expertise) and extrinsic
(financial) private sector support in the pre and post planning processes. Similarly, we suggest
that Park 101 uses Millennium Park as a best practice of relationship building when planning a
participation model for Park 101. Corporations and foundations are usually interested in giving
philanthropic dollars to cause-related issues that involve environmental or social objectives.
Presenting information to corporations and foundations about Park 101 and the goal of
enhancing civic engagement could be an attractive opportunity for private investment.
Corporate sponsorship into the “Dream Green” movement benefits the corporation through
name recognition on “Dream Green” banners, posters, and t-shirts. Engaging the corporation
and foundations into the branding process of Park 101 can provide the much needed
knowledge, expertise, and financial resources.
While large scale private reach is needed, the local business community is the best opportunity
to visibly reach out to those in the local community. Establishing a positive relationship with the
local business community near the vicinity can assist in getting the public engaged about Park
101. Local businesses have a direct connection to the local community as they are frequently
used by the local residents. For local businesses that are in support of Park 101’s goal of
educating and engaging the public, we propose giving each of them a “Dream Green” banner or
poster that can be displayed in store fronts or office windows. The goal is to get the local
business community interested about the proposed Park 101 and publically display the need for
the public to get involved and “Dream Green”. Each business that is approached would be
given advertisement space if the owner agrees to put a “Dream Green” poster inside his/her
business. Businesses will also be given the option of having a larger size of advertisement
space for a $50 fee. Bookmark-like flyers will also be available with information about public
events regarding Park 101.
Private web companies can also muster the social capital that is needed to draw attention to the
proposed Park 101. Building relationships with various social web companies such as Twitter,
Google, MySpace, Facebook, and AOL allows us to reach a broad range of audiences that is
necessary for successful participation in Park 101. In addition, social websites that target
specific interests of green space and parks in Los Angeles can trigger a worldwide movement of
people who are informed and abreast on the status of Park 101. Web companies such as
Google allow their software engineers to use 20 percent of their time doing volunteer projects
that interests them (Source: www.allforgood.org/about). We suggest that using collaborating
with software engineers at Google will help to further expand the scope of public outreach
through social technology. The innovative staff at Google could launch a website that is
interactive and allows people to link onto social media websites to state their awareness and
position about Park 101. Partnering with social websites puts more momentum behind the
“Dream Green” movement. The goal is to create the social pressure that is needed to push
people to feel compelled to participate.
21

25. Spokesperson(s)
Lastly, Park 101’s “Dream Green” movement should have a local spokesperson(s) that the
community can identify with. The spokespersons should be reflective of the current population
and their dominant languages spoken. Based on our demographic analysis, the community
surrounding the proposed Park 101 includes English, Spanish, and Chinese speakers. The
local spokesperson must be able to speak fluently in one or more of these predominant
languages. We propose the following local spokespersons:
• Teresa Quevedo: Ms. Quevedo has over eighteen years of experience in Spanish news
journalism. Ms. Quevedo has been anchor for weekday news program “Noticias 34”, on
KMEX-TV Channel 34, for over 10 years. She is an ideal representative whom many
individuals within the Latino community can identify with due to her familiar face on
Spanish television station KMEX-TV Channel 34.
• Marc Brown: Mr. Brown is a news anchor for the top rated evening news program
“Eyewitness News”, which can be seen on KABC-TV Channel 7. With over eleven years
of experience as news anchor for Eyewitness News, Mr. Brown would be an ideal
spokesperson that English speakers would recognize by face.
• Sharon Ha: Miss Ha was the crowned Queen of the 2008 Miss Los Angeles Chinatown
Pageant. Since 1963, the historic pageant has been going strong in the Los Angeles
Chinatown community.
These spokespersons were selected because of their background, ability to speak in one or
more of the predominant languages, and their upbringing in the Los Angeles area.
The local spokesperson(s) role in the “Dream Green” movement is to educate and stimulate
awareness on the lack of green spaces in Los Angeles. The local spokesperson(s) should not
explicitly state their personal position on Park 101. Their responsibilities would include but not
limited to the following:
1. Making public appearances at “Dream Green” events, such as the open house or
mobile park kiosk;
2. Wearing “Dream Green” apparel at public participation events (i.e. Dream Green T-
shirt and hat);
3. Partaking in television and radio commercials that educate the public on the current
and future environmental trends in Los Angeles; and
4. Using social media websites that encourage the public to “Dream Green”.
The use of local spokesperson(s) is important to attracting a wider range of people that make up
the 70 percent of people that occasionally participate, as well as the 20 percent that does not
participate at all.
22

26. OUTREACH
Outreach is defined as all those activities where we take information out to the public: that is,
activities where we go to them. This definition works in tandem with our definition for inreach
strategies in which the public comes to us for meetings, charrettes, field trips, etc. In order to
inform the public about the Park 101 idea and gather input from them, outreach strategies are
essential. Outreach strategies are key to sharing knowledge and gathering input in a manner in
which members of the public does not have to change their routines in order to learn more
about Park 101, and if done effectively will increase awareness of and participation in our
various inreach activities.
Methodology
The outreach strategies we have developed are designed to reach three levels of “the public”: 1)
immediate neighbors of the Park 101 site; 2) people who live or work downtown or nearby
neighborhoods; and 3) people from the wider Los Angeles metropolitan region. Using new
media and other methods, we will are also likely to reach a fourth level consisting of people who
live throughout the United States and possibly across the globe. As shown in Figure 16, the
four levels we will target can be illustrated as four concentric circles, with the inner circle
representing the smallest and most important target group and the outer circle representing the
largest and geographically broadest group.
Figure 16: Four Levels of “the Public”
23

27. 1. Immediate Neighbors
The first core group consists of immediate neighbors of the proposed Park 101 site.
These are the people who will be most affected by the park’s construction and presence.
This group is vital. In this case, many of the immediate neighbors happen to be
decision-makers as well (including City Hall) so it is especially important to make them
feel like they are influential and a part of the process from the beginning. Other
immediate neighbors include Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Central Los Angeles
Area High School #9 for the Visual and Performing Arts, Union Station, and Pico House
and other historic buildings east of the 101. Additional neighbors are identified in Table
5 of the Demographics section of this report.
2. Downtown Los Angeles and Surrounding Neighborhoods
This group consists of all people who live, work, or play in downtown Los Angeles and
surrounding neighborhoods, including Chinatown and Little Tokyo. As the demographic
data indicate, this is a very diverse group with varying ages, ethnicities, languages,
professions, and lifestyles. Our outreach strategies are tailored to this diverse public,
expressed in greater detail below.
3. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Region
Thanks to its incredible positioning at the heart of the regional transportation network,
Park 101 has the potential to be a destination for people from all around the city of Los
Angeles and the metropolitan region as a whole. The site is located across the street
from Union Station, the hub of Metro rail, Metrolink, and Amtrak trains, as well as many
Metro bus lines. Multiple major freeways pass near the site as well. Because of this
wide impact, our outreach strategies must be equally broad so as to include the
maximum number of stakeholders in the process.
4. National and International
New media strategies will enable us to easily reach a worldwide audience, sharing
information with people interested in parks and the environment across the globe.
The First Step: Briefing Key Stakeholders
Before going public, the first step in the outreach process consists of briefing key stakeholders
and decision-makers. These are personal visits to key stakeholders and agencies to inform
them of the planned public participation program and invite them into the process early on so as
to head off potential conflict or controversy later. By ensuring that they do not first learn of the
Dream Green public participation program in a newspaper (or worse from a vocal opponent of
the project), we can avoid the risk of bad feelings. In addition to preventing potential
resentment, briefings are a good tool to get input from these key individuals and groups before
we go out to the general public. If we can gain their support early on, they will feel more
ownership over the process, can help shape it to make it more effective, and will likely help the
Dream Green movement as it progresses.
We have identified the following eight elected officials, individuals, and groups that should be
briefed before commencing the public participation outreach strategies. Since the proposed
park is adjacent to the Civic Center, all briefings can be conducted without traveling far. We
recommend scheduling a few each day at each site so that you can complete them all within a
week, allowing us to quickly move on to following public outreach strategies.
24

28. • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7 –Tel: (213) 897-3656
o Park 101 is proposed as a cap park above the 101 Freeway and calls for the
rerouting of several main streets that currently cross above the freeway, so
Caltrans must be a key figure. It will also involve the transfer of Caltrans’ air
rights above the freeway. Asking for their input and their support, and
encouraging them to “buy-in” to the process early on will surely smooth out
potential hurdles to come.
• Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – Tel: (213) 485-2121
o As a major public figure and decision-maker in Los Angeles, Mayor Villaraigosa
should be made aware of the campaign as soon as possible. He will also be
influential in gathering support. This meeting should take place at City Hall, and
would ideally be scheduled the same day as the meetings with the City Council
and Councilmember Huizár.
• Los Angeles City Council – Tel: (213) 473-7013
o Not only will the City Council affect this project as a major decision-maker, its
location just one block away from the Park 101 site means City Hall will be
affected by the project—and benefit from the park—as well.
• Councilmember Ed Reyes, Council District #1 – Tel: (213)-473-7001
• Councilmember Jan Perry, Council District #9 – Tel: (213)-473-7009
• Councilmember Jose Huizár, Council District #14 – Tel: (213) 473-701
o The proposed Park 101 is of particular interest to three council districts: 1, 9, and
14. We will meet with all three councilmembers and their field deputies as they
should be some of the first people informed of the public participation program.
They may find it in their best electoral interests to support a park project, as the
public generally sees parks in a favorable light.
• Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels – Tel: (213) 680-5200
o It is extremely important that the Cathedral be a part of this movement from the
beginning, and that we strive to take their concerns into account regarding
potential side effects of the construction of a park over the adjacent freeway.
The church has already expressed concern that the proposed park would prevent
motorists on the 101 from seeing its towering cross above them as they pass
through downtown—a cross that was designed specifically with those drivers in
mind. We will need to respond to their concern and establish from the beginning
that we wish to work with them to find a solution rather than fight against them or
ignore them.
• Union Station – Tel: (310) 206-5388
o Union Station is the hub of rail transportation for the entire Los Angeles region,
and an important neighbor to the Park 101 site. When meeting personally with
station leadership, it would be a good idea to discuss possible collaboration
efforts to reach the maximum number of people with the Dream Green message,
such as advertisements inside or outside trains and subways.
25

29. • El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument – Tel: (213) 485-6855
o Pico House belongs to El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument, which
plays a central role in Park 101’s vision of connecting the historic center with
downtown LA. This historic area is a major draw for tourists and it is important
that they feel ownership over the park movement.
• Central Los Angeles Area High School #9 for the Visual and Performing Arts:
Tel: (213) 241-7000 (Office of the Superintendent)
o Directly across from the Catholic Church, the new LAUSD performing arts high
school is a gem of modern architecture and a symbol of pride for downtown Los
Angeles. Students at the school will undoubtedly benefit from the construction of
a park adjacent to the school, but there may be some unanticipated negative
consequences as well. Informing the LAUSD school board of our efforts to
increase awareness of the lack of green space downtown and the potential Park
101 site will allow us to try to gain support from the school early on, which would
be a motivating symbol for the rest of the neighborhood. The “Dream Green”
movement is, after all, all about the future of our great city.
Presentation to Community Groups
After briefing the abovementioned stakeholders, we are ready to move onto the next step in the
outreach process: community group presentations. We have identified key groups to present
our program to: the two neighborhood councils that border the section of the 101 Freeway
proposed for development and local business groups. We will still target groups in the
immediate area (the innermost circle), but by sharing at public meetings we will begin to reach a
wider audience.
Local Neighborhood Council Meetings
We recommend talking to the Neighborhood Council board members and arrange to present
information about the issues and the Park 101 proposal at their meeting. This will allow us to
discuss issues concerning the lack of park space in Los Angeles, the barrier created by the
freeway, how all this may affect our health and the health of our children, and related issues.
The use of engaging graphics, such as a video, a good PowerPoint presentation, will help spark
their interest. Then, we can present Park 101 as a possible response to those concerns, and
invite councilmembers’ input and input from the public. We will explain that we wish to get the
conversation started so that the public will be educated about the park issue and, through
education, be empowered to initiate or affect change. For collateral, we will prepare informative
brochures that are eye-catching but not too flashy: the public could be turned off if it appears we
are wasting money, especially at a time of budget cuts and constraints.
Because of the rich diversity of area residents, interpreters will be necessary. The Historic
Cultural Neighborhood Council encompasses Chinatown and Little Tokyo, so Chinese and
Japanese interpreters should be available. In addition, Spanish translators are necessary given
the high numbers of Spanish speakers in tracts around the proposed Park 101. Translators
may also be necessary at the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council. The brochure
should be made available in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese. This will also be a good
time to begin collecting names, addresses, and email addresses for people interested in park
updates and participation opportunities. Information about regular meetings held by the
Downtown and Historical Cultural Neighborhood Councils are shown below:
26

30. Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Meets the 2nd Tuesday of the month, 6:30pm
L.A. Theater
J. Russel Brown, President
Tel: (213) 999-0379
Historic Cultural Neighborhood Council Meets the 2nd Tuesday of the month, 7:30pm
114 E. Paseo de la Plaza, Los Angeles
Kim Benjamin, President
Tel: (310) 245-4470
While this sector of the public is important, we need to keep in mind that the Neighborhood
Council board members and the participants who regularly attend these meetings only
represent a small percentage of total stakeholders (the 10 percent). They are the people who
are typically interested and have time to come to meetings. Remember to bring Dream Green
paraphernalia to share (wristbands, key chains, T-shirts etc.). Neighborhood Councils are a
great place from which to launch the broader public participation campaign.
The Private Sector
Cooperation and partnership with downtown business is vital to realizing feasible park plans for
downtown Los Angeles. Two groups we have identified for Park 101 informative presentations
are the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Los Angeles Business
Improvement District. Involving them in the process will help build credibility with private sector
business interests and demonstrate a commitment to cooperation between the private and
public sectors.
Los Angeles Area Chamber of (213) 580-7500
Commerce 350 S. Bixel Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Downtown LA Business (213) 624-2146
Improvement District 626 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Again, we need to be prepared with interpreters and prepare all materials in English, Spanish,
Chinese, and Japanese. Also we need to bring items, such as buttons, wristbands, or T-shirts,
to share with participants to thank them for their input.
The Mobile Mini-Park “Road Show”
A.k.a. the “Parkcycle”
By taking this park on the road to various community events and spaces, this attention-
grabbing, pedal powered mini-park will reach residents throughout the downtown area. Its
surprising presence should spark curiosity and get people thinking about green spaces and how
having more park space could transform life in downtown Los Angeles. San Francisco-based
Rebar Group has set a precedent for this innovative technique; we believe this model can be
highly effective in our Dream Green campaign in Los Angeles. More information and a
demonstrative video can be seen online at www.rebargroup.org/projects/parkcycle.
27

31. Figure 17: Parkcycle
The Parkcycle (see Figure 17) is an
upbeat way to get the conversation
going; passers-by can sit for a while and
chat with staff about city parks, while staff
can share more information about the
Park 101 concept and provide informative
fliers in various languages. In the spirit of
the low-tech (watching the Parkcycle
cruise down the street brings to mind
Fred Flintstone’s feet powering his
prehistoric car), participants will use pen
and paper to respond to a few questions
about the need for park space downtown
and express their opinion about a park
over the 101 freeway. A box will be
provided to collect the anonymous votes
that staff can use to tally later on. Staff
will also invite participants to leave additional comments or concerns if they would like. Figure
18 is the sample questionnaire. All participants will receive some sort of Dream Green
paraphernalia for their participation. Staff members should be bilingual Spanish/English at a
minimum. The mini-park will spend from one day to one week at each of the following locations:
Location Comments
Union Station Commuters, residents from across LA metro region
Performing Arts High School Youth and area residents
(Outside)
The Civic Center mall Civic employees, people who work downtown
(Starbucks)
Chinatown, Main Entrance Ethnic Chinese and Chinese-speaking residents, tourists, area
Gate residents
Little Tokyo Branch Library Ethnic Japanese and Japanese-speaking residents, tourists, area
residents
LA Live Residents from across LA region, nighttime downtown users
El Pueblo de Los Angeles Local residents, Spanish-speaking employees on Olvera Street, tourists
Historic Monument
Dodgers Stadium Residents from across LA region, young and older sports fans
Downtown Farmers Markets Wednesdays 11:30am – 3:00pm Pershing Square
Thursdays 9:00am – 3:00pm 7th & Fig
Fridays 11:00am – 3:00pm Bank of America Plaza
Note: Some locations may require special permission from the city to park our mini-park (in loading zones
or courtyards), and we will be sure to clear it with them first.
28

32. Figure 18: Sample Questionnaire
Thank you for your participation. Please complete the following questionnaire by circling your response,
and then drop this in the comment box. Thank you!
1. Do we need more parks in downtown Los Angeles? Yes No
2. Have you ever heard of a park over a freeway? Yes No
3. Did you enjoy the mobile “mini-park”? Yes No
4. How do you use parks? (Circle all that apply) A. To play D. Events / Concerts
B. Leisure E. Other: ____________
C. Family
Additional comments or concerns?
Traditional Media
Despite all the hype about technology and the doomsday reports about the “end of traditional
news,” the fact remains that a significant percentage of residents continue to read the
newspaper and watch the TV news. Traditional media is an important way to reach the entire
circle, from immediate neighbors to the entire Los Angeles metropolitan region. It is also an
especially good way to reach older residents who are not as reliant on the Internet for their
news. Local traditional media outlets in the downtown area can also get the message to non-
English speakers through foreign-language newspapers and radio, including Spanish-language
La Opinión, Chinese Sing Tao Daily and The Rafu Shimpo (a Japanese-English language
newspaper based in Little Tokyo).
Media Kits: Preparing media kits is an essential step. By providing a folder that contains
summarized information about the Dream Green movement and the proposed Park 101 project,
the reporter or editor will have a condensed and authoritative source of information to help them
work under deadline. Our media kit will include scientific and social information about parks and
the lack of park space in Los Angeles, and potential effects of that lack of green space on
children and residents. Remember, we are sharing information about parks and providing Park
101 as a potential alternative, not advocating for a certain project.
We recommend the following traditional media strategies and outline elements of each.
29

33. Table 6: Traditional Media Strategies
Media Type Circle/Level Target Audience Benefits Costs
L.A. Times Insert 1,2,3 Older residents, Seen as legitimate Higher price
professionals
Feature Story, 1,2,3 Older residents, Human-interest, low Time spent
Newspaper professionals, younger cost convincing
readers (online) reporter to
write story
Radio: NPR and 1,2,3 Drivers, older residents, Wide audience, can Less control
Talk Radio liberals and conservatives call in to comment, over content or
low cost opinions
Local Downtown 1,2 Younger loft-dwellers, Non- Reach speakers of None
Newspapers, English-speaking foreign languages,
Non-English downtown residents lower cost
papers
Newspaper 1,2,3 Older residents, Low cost Writer may be
Editorial professionals seen as biased
Public Service 1,2,3 Older residents, television Free or low cost Limited number
Announcement watchers of viewers
TV News 1,2,3 Older residents, television Visual, focused on Declining
watchers local issues number of
viewers
New Media
The term “new media” refers to social networking sites like Facebook, interactive websites and
blogs, and new ways to reach wide audiences using telecommunication technologies almost
instantly using Twitter. With these new tools you can reach a younger target group with
stimulating, engaging, and powerfully visual messages. You can keep an ongoing, visual
recording of the public participation program and stakeholders can easily and publicly become a
part of the ongoing conversation with Facebook and the interactive Dream Green blog. A
powerful tool for “peer marketing,” social media allows you to reach an even broader audience
and engage people in the 20 percent group that rarely or never participates—they may not
come to a meeting, but they will check out a link on their friend’s Facebook page. By gaining
followers and sharing formation about parks and the environment, we will reach not only the
three circles of “the public” in the earlier diagram, but can potentially gather support and input
from interested people around the globe!
We have created a preliminary Facebook page to build upon, which can be found by searching
“Dream Green LA” on Facebook. We also created a Twitter account, which is linked to the
Facebook page so that every time we post something on Facebook, a “tweet” is sent to all our
followers. Table 7 is an outline of each of the new media strategies.
30

34. Table 7: New Media Strategies
Media Type Circle Target Benefits Costs
/Level Audience
www.Facebook.com 1,2,3, • Younger • Convenient to • Facebook friends
http://www.facebook.com/# 4 populations web users to from around the
/pages/Los-Angeles- around the voice their globe will not be a
CA/DREAM- globe opinion direct stakeholder
GREEN/182161587975 • People who • People will be in the planning
are “pro- able to view web process
environment” albums of the
Park 101’s public
participation
initiatives
www.twitter.com 1,2,3, • Younger • Convenient to • Twitter followers
http://twitter.com/DREAM 4 populations web users. from around the
GREEN101 around the • Easy to post world will not be
globe information to directly impacted
• People who the public about by Park 101
are “pro- events planning process
environment”
www.blogger.com 1,2,3, • Younger • Convenient for • Bloggers from
http://dreamgreen101.blog 4 populations web users. around the world
spot.com around the • Reaches to the will not be directly
globe 20% that may impacted by Park
• People who not want to 101 planning
are “pro- participate but process
environment would rather
• Academics/ read information
scholars and updates
about Park 101
31

35. INREACH
Inreach refers to those strategies designed to bring people to the event. Inreach
strategies described in this section include: advisory group, workshops, charrettes, and
open house.
Advisory Group
An advisory group is generally defined as a small group of people representing various
interests, points of view, or fields of expertise that is set up to advise an organization on
its programs or proposed actions (Creighton, p. 103). We propose creating an advisory
group that represents the interests of the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed park.
This group of individuals will be comprised of community leaders who are active
members in neighborhood events. We will work with the field deputies of
councilmembers Ed Reyes, Jan Perry, and Jose Huizár to identify these key
stakeholders. These stakeholders will make recommendations on a design brief that will
be presented in workshops and a charrette. The design brief for a charrette is the set of
instructions given to the design team. It details numerical requirements and
performance targets for the site (Condon, 2008, p. 35).
Workshops
Workshops are highly interactive meetings. They are particularly useful when dealing
with complex issues because they provide time for detailed consideration and a high
level of interaction (Creighton, p. 134). We propose holding a total of three workshops at
three different locations around the parameter of the proposed park. Each event will last
approximately three hours in length. The first workshop will be held on a Thursday night
from 6:00 to 9:00 pm. The second workshop will be held on a Friday night the following
week. And the third workshop event will be held one week on the following Saturday in
the morning. These open workshops will invite all members of the community to
participate in James Rojas’ City Building Participatory interactive model. (Mr. Rojas is a
local artist, community advocate, and Metro planner. For the past few years, he has
been touring the region and beyond, bringing along an interactive model, and asking the
public to invent a vision for their communities.) Staff will be bilingual in English and
Spanish, and in English and Chinese. Fliers will also be available in English, Spanish,
and Chinese.
Workshop Program:
Staff will provide:
• Light refreshments
• Colored name tags
Introduction:
• Participants will be greeted with light refreshments as they are given a colored
name tag to write their name on.
32

36. • Participants will be seated in tables seating groups of six to eight people.
• A presentation about the demographics, history, and overview of total parks and
open space in the city of Los Angeles.
Break-out Session:
• Groups will be asked to break out in tables according to the color of their name
tag (see Figure 19). Each place setting will have a 12” x 12” blank white
styrofoam board.
• The facilitator of the workshop will ask:
“If you had to create an open space in your neighborhood, how would you design
it?”
• Groups will then be presented with found materials located on a central table that
they can use to construct their ideas physically on the styrofoam board. The
exercise should last 30 minutes.
• The facilitator (“F” in Figure 19) will then ask each individual participant to speak
about their work and what they envisioned in their open space design.
• Designated trained staff will document each individual’s presentation through
photography and a video camera.
Wrap-up:
• Session ends with the opportunity to get more refreshments and ask any
questions.
• Questions will be recorded on large white blank sheets of paper that are mounted
on presentation easels.
• Refreshments will be served until the final participants leave the presentation
room.
• Staff will hand out tote bags to participants as they leave.
Figure 19: Workshop Seating Diagram
33

37. Charrette
A charrette is a “time-limited, multiparty design event organized to generate a
collaboratively produced plan for a sustainable community” (Condon, p. 1). We propose
holding a charrette at the Conference Center of the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels. It
will convene over four consecutive days starting on a Wednesday and culminating in a
final event on Saturday night. Staff will be bilingual in English and Spanish, and in
English and Chinese. Fliers will also be available in English, Spanish, and Chinese.
Each charrette participant will receive his/her own personal binder at the start of the
charrette. Each binder will have a legal consent form that informs participants that their
notes will be the property of EDAW|AECOM. The binder will have five divided tabs that
will be organized according to the following:
• Tab 1 will have the introduction/background information about Park 101 followed
by personal bios of all charrette participants.
• Tab 2 will have the itinerary of Day 1 of the charrette followed by blank sheets of
paper for notes.
• Tab 3 will have the itinerary of Day 2 of the charrette followed by blank sheets of
paper for notes.
• Tab 4 will have the itinerary of Day 3 of the charrette followed by blank sheets of
paper for notes.
• Tab 5 will have the surveys for participants to complete at the end of each day.
The participants will not be able to see the itinerary for days 2 or 3 in their binders until
the start of each new day. The binders will be collected at the end of each day; staff will
photocopy notes that were taken by participants and a new itinerary will be printed and
inserted for the next day. The purpose of inserting an agenda into the binder is to keep
participants engaged and excited about each new day. Participants will be encouraged
to take notes throughout the charrette to make the best use of their binders. The binders
serve as a written document for each participant, as their notes will show indicators of
progress/compromise/insight that occurred throughout their experience. Once the
charrette is completed on Day 4, charrette participants will be able to take their binders
home.
Our proposed charrette schedule is presented below.
Day 1: “TALK”
Opening Event:
This kick-off event will include members from the pre-charrette workshop stakeholders,
as well as community members who were not able to attend the previous events. The
first half of this event participants will be served a light breakfast consisting of coffee,
juice, bagels, and fruit. The attendees will be seated according to a choreographed
chart, located at the reception table. Staff will utilize this introductory phase with a
presentation about Park 101, regarding design, demographics, history, orientation, and
the context for which the idea of this project saw fruition. Principles, goals, and
objectives about Park 101 will be identified with clarity during this presentation.
34

38. A second presentation will be given by EDAW, Caltrans, Metro, SCAG, and the
representatives from the Mayor’s office and major groups in the greater Los Angeles
region, invested in this project.
Field Trip:
• Participants will be led outside to the corner of Grand Avenue and Temple Street
as staff and members of EDAW lead a walking tour of the site of the proposed
park. Figure 20 identifies the proposed route of the tour.
• This phase should last about two hours.
• The participants will then return to the central courtyard in the Cathedral of Our
Lady of the Angels.
Figure 20: Walking Tour Route
Lunch:
Lunch will be served as participants are seated in five round tables, each seating five.
Group facilitators will be assigned to dine with each table to help foster a conversation
about thoughts and reflections of the fieldtrip. Seating will be engineered to foster a
well-rounded conversation, encompassing multiple perspectives. Lunch will be catered
by Full House Seafood Restaurant.
First Break-Out Session:
Participants will be invited back into conference room for the first break-out session.
• Participants will be encouraged to go to the table of their choice; stations will be
organized by general topics.
• Facilitators will discuss local and distant successful precedents of cap park
projects across the country. Examples include Seattle’s Freeway Park and
Chicago’s Millennium Park.
• Facilitators will also introduce a large blank map to each group. Conversations in
this phase identify non-negotiable areas in the map. Not a lot of drawing will take
place at this time.
35

39. • Facilitators will identify the general topics and values that are important within the
community on the large maps provided.
Break-out session one ends and groups return to original tables.
• Cookies, juice, cheese, crackers, and water will be available.
Final Re-cap:
• Technical focuses from the design brief will be re-iterated. Questions and
comments from all of the tables will be welcomed and recorded on large white
blank paper pads, displayed on presentation easels.
• Facilitated conversations reflect an overall summation of the events throughout
the day.
Day Two: “DOODLE”
Opening Session and Breakfast:
Participants are welcomed to sit in the large table and are also served breakfast. The
first half of this event participants will be served a light breakfast consisting of coffee,
juice, bagels, and fruit. The attendees will be seated according to a choreographed
chart, located at the reception table.
• Facilitators will welcome new revelations and thoughts from the previous day.
Second Break-Out Session:
Stations will now be organized according to different areas of the site. Participants will
be encouraged to think about technical issues within specific areas of the proposed Park
101 as they will select a table that will be organized by geographic location.
• Tables will be tailored so that one person from each issue-based table from the
first break-out session will be at each of the site specific-based table in this
break-out session.
• Facilitators will now be specifically skilled designers.
• Conversations will be directed toward blank maps and sketching by pencil
ensues.
Lunch:
A buffet will be served outside at the courtyard of the Cathedral overlooking the 101
freeway. Lunch will be catered by Casa Golondrina Mexican Café.
• Stakeholders will then be dismissed for the day.
• Designers will continue to draw until after hours.
Day Three: “DRAW”
Opening Session and Breakfast:
• Participants will be welcomed to sit in the large table and will also be served
breakfast. Facilitators will welcome new revelations and thoughts about the
previous day.
36