Support for LAist comes from
We Explain L.A.
Stay Connected

Share This

This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.

This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.


3 Options for a Post-Occupy City Hall Lawn

Before you read this story...
Dear reader, we're asking for your help to keep local reporting available for all. Your financial support keeps stories like this one free to read, instead of hidden behind paywalls. We believe when reliable local reporting is widely available, the entire community benefits. Thank you for investing in your neighborhood.

The city's department of recreation and parks has been a wee bit obsessed with the state of the City Hall lawn ever since Occupy Los Angeles protesters camped out on it and killed the grass.

But new renderings of the City Hall park show that the department is using the destruction of the lawn as an excuse to revamp the park and get rid of some of the water-wasting turf. Blogdowntown explored three options on the table, and today the department released renderings that illustrate each option. We've paired the Blogdowntown descriptions with screenshots from the department's site.

OPTION 1: The grassy, relatively cheap option

Blogdowntown says: "Option One uses the most turf (aka grass) and is the closest to restoring the lawn to its original appearance. The project would cost approximately $350,000 and use an additional $90,000 per year in maintenance fees."

Support for LAist comes from

OPTION 2: The compromise candidate

Blogdowntown says: "Option Two seems to be the favorite so far, as it preserves large areas of grass but also integrates planting areas and decomposed granite walkways. Decomposed granite is a crushed stone material that's often used for driveways as well as garden walkways and national park paths. This option costs more than double option one, and maintenance fees shoot up to about $140,000 per year."

OPTION 3: The radical, expensive option

Blogdowntown says: "Option Three is the most radical and represents the most dramatic departure from the lawn as we used to know it. This uses the least amount of grass, with most of it located only along the area's perimeters. This plan favors drought-resistant plants and expansive areas of the granite material. Option Three would cost a little over a million dollars to execute and about $180,000 to maintain each year."

Which one appeals to you? (More importantly, what would Leslie Knope do?)