The 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan For Los Angeles was a precedent and well needed plan that incorporated open space, parkways and civic social interactions throughout the city. Olmsted-Bartholomew report was the initial alert that LA sprawl was hindering the opportunity to expand public space, which had positioned Los Angeles was short of the park per capita ratio. Without a long-term, initiated plan on how and when to fix this, the problem will only become worse. It is amazing how Olmsted and Bartholomew saw the LA River as a perfect opportunity to implement open space and parks throughout the city that would economically and socially better the lives of the citizens. It’s just now that the City of Los Angeles is realizing that and now might …show more content…
Los Angeles could have been a more efficient city if planning was important more long-term than short-term. The problem is too many personal interest parties. Without collaboration, effort by any specific party to execute plans comparable to the Olmsted-Bartholomew plan will be nearly impossible. Residents, transportation politicians or officials, environment groups, local park and recreation officials, public health department, and local business Interests all want what’s best for them in the manner. Usually, the group with the most influence or “money” comes out on top. That does not work as we can see how Los Angeles is laid out currently, the problem is the plans are only passed to better the officials who are in short term office now and not how it effects the city as a whole 20 or 100 years down the line. The plan was never implemented and LA has .9/acres per capita verses the 10/acres per capita national average, the city became one giant concrete surface for parking. The same issue arose when General Motors stripped Los Angeles of the Red Trolley Cars and now we have one of the worst traffic problems in the