‘THE PARKING PROBLEM’ … PART 2 OF A SERIES-The Los Angeles City Council’s solution to the parking issue downtown was to ban parking downtown! The Los Angeles Times, November 30, 1919:
Sentiment in favor of the no-parking system for the downtown district – at least from Third to Eighth streets – was crystallized at a luncheon yesterday at the Athletic Club, attended by representatives of various interests directly affected by the proposed changes in traffic regulation.
In attendance at this luncheon meeting were all members of the City Council, numerous members of the Business Men’s Co-operative Association and representatives of the Pacific Electric, Southern Pacific and Los Angeles railways.
During the discussion the statement was made that local men have capital available for the construction of buildings capable of housing a vast number of automobiles if parking on the congested streets is prohibited.
A couple of items are noteworthy. First, the crush of cars was bad for the streetcar business, and it is worth pointing out that Pacific Electric and the Los Angeles Railway were privately owned and operated enterprises. Traffic congestion caused by automobiles hurt the bottom line. Second, the City was putting the solution to the parking problem squarely on the shoulders of local businesses since business, not the City, profited from parking.
In a rather ironic opinion, Stanley W. Smith, the president of Smith Brothers which had eight Peerless automobile distributors in Southern California, was in favor of the no-parking law: “There is no doubt that there are thousands of business men and clerks, who drive to and from work, and who during business hours park their cars on side streets. These cars add to the congestion in the business district not only during the day, but during the morning and evening rush hours. It is far cheaper, if one is located near one of the [street] car lines, to travel to and from work by the street car than by auto” (LA Times 12/7/19).
Mr. Smith also noted that the proposed ordinance would provide for off-street parking. “Many lots near the business center and on which stand antiquated and unsightly dwellings will be turned into parking places. Some of these derive but a small income for the owners, while others none at all. Wrecking companies tear down such buildings and clear the ground and pay a price for the salvaged material. Parking places of this character would be undoubtedly filled to capacity and earn a neat monthly rental for the owners. There is also no doubt that large garages with several stories, as are to be found in large eastern cities, would be built in the business district.”
Mr. Smith pointed out that such parking lots or parking garages would make it “very difficult for thieves to secure a car” (LA Times 12/7/19).
Coming out against the no-parking ordinance was Dr. Howard Moffatt who felt that the ordinance would be dangerous to patients and doctors. His fear was that a doctor would not be able to park where he was needed and would have to walk an unknown distance to see the patient. Dr. Moffatt agreed with the general opinion “that this no-parking plan will only increase our congestion, because of the fact that people will still enter this restricted zone, do their marketing and shopping while their drivers block traffic running back and forth with no place to stop and no where [sic] to go” (LA Times 1/2/20). Even today, how often have we seen cars parked where they shouldn’t be parked with the driver waiting for their passenger to bring back a double mocha latte grande?
The Los Angeles Times published a lengthy article about the no-parking law February 29, 1920 titled “THE PERILS OF A PARKLESS TOWN.” Part fact and mostly tongue-in-cheek (but serious, too), the article included several humorous cartoons satirizing the proposed law. Here is how the writer explained the no-parking law:
The no-parking ordinance, effective April 10, creates three circles in what is known as downtown Los Angeles. In what is known as the congested district – the area embraced by Main, Spring, Broadway and Hill streets, from First to Ninth streets – automobiles cannot park between 11 a.m. and 6:15 p.m., certain areas of the hill regions being excepted. Outside the congested district, and within the business district proper, which is bounded on the north by Sunset boulevard, on the east by San Pedro street and Central avenue, and on the south by Pico street, and on the west by Georgia, Bixel and Boylston streets, the automobile owner can park his car for two hours at a stretch without being cited into police court. Anywhere outside the boundary of the so-called business district it will be safe to park an auto till the cows come home, providing auto thieves don’t happen along.
The new ordinance prohibits the use of the left-hand turn during the no-parking hours at the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh-street crossings of Main, Spring, Broadway and Hill street.
Commercial deliveries are to be made from alleys whenever conditions permit.
Some of the highlights of the 1920 article:
The new law “will inevitably force the creation of new shopping districts outside of the present congested area. Big mercantile establishments to cater to automobile-using shoppers, banned by the ordinance from downtown, are already being arranged for in Hollywood, on Wilshire boulevard and other sections outside the no-parking area.”
“The 30,000 autos, which daily park in the to-be-forbidden area represent 82,500 people, who will be forced to do one of three things: Stay at home, leave their cars outside the no-parking area (thereby creating as much congestion on its edges as now exists downtown) and walk in or take the street cars, or use the street cars all the way from home …. The [street] car company plans to add more cars and run them faster. How many [street] cars and how much faster will be necessary to accommodate 80,000 more people than now hang on by their eye-brows? Can they do it? Question!”
“When thousands of cars are parked a mile or so from their respective owners’ places of business or visiting, the auto-stealer’s trade is expected to boom. Several big storage garages planned for downtown locations will care for a thousand cars or so and the rest will stand out, far from their drivers’ eye.”
“Some relief will be afforded by the construction of gigantic storage garages within the business district. Last year [1919] the first garage of this sort was erected at the corner of Fourth and Olive streets by the Clark Hotel management …. This garage accommodates about 275 machines.”
“Another building of this type is soon to be erected at the southeast corner of Fifth street and Grand avenue by the Grand Central Garage Company, at a cost of $650,000. It will be 168x180 feet, with eight floors for storing automobiles …. The building will be capable of housing 1022 cars.”
The “automobile driver will be given exactly 120 seconds in which to stop his car and unload or load passengers at any point inside the no-parking ordinance.” (One of the cartoons showed a car with an ejector seat – FG)
“15,000 people have so far signed the referendum petition against the no-parking law” “in order to place the no-parking question before the people at an election” to “save Los Angeles from the stupidity of her City Council.”
There was nothing in the article about where the City Council members would park, presumably because they would have their own personal parking space at work. It is easy for politicians to pass laws when they are not directly affected by them.
To summarize the salient points, businesses would suffer unless, of course, they could provide on-site parking which was unlikely, given the age of the downtown buildings, many built in the horse and buggy era, and the parking that would be available was being provided by private enterprise. The concept of municipal public parking was, in Los Angeles at least, in an embryonic state, but it was being discussed:
A June 24, 1923 Los Angeles Times article titled “THE PARKING PROBLEM” noted that regulating traffic was not the problem, it was trying to “find out what to do with automobiles … when they are standing still.” “Perhaps we shall come to simple three-fold classification of parking spaces on business streets – stop to discharge passengers; shipping stops, which may extend from fifteen minutes to half a day, and all-day parking.” “In towns and cities where there are considerable areas near the business section – but not with valuable frontage – still unbuilt upon, the municipality should acquire these and maintain them for automobile parking. It may charge car owners a small fee for this service.”
The article notes that on “secondary business streets the width should permit of two lines of cars parked parallel with the curb, though parking parallel is not so good as parking at an angle.” It may be interesting to point out that we only see parallel car parking on streets; if there is a parking lot that uses parallel parking -- except in isolated sections -- I have not seen one.
So, you may ask, what about the no-parking ban downtown? Page one, Los Angeles Times, July 11, 1924:
COUNCIL APPROVES BAN ON DOWNTOWN PARKING
Despite the many protests, the City Council ordered the City Attorney to draft the no-parking ordinance, using the recommendations made by a special Parking Survey Committee. “Proponents of the plan admitted that it was not perfect and that it might hurt somebody. But they held, as a majority of the Councilmen held, that some start must be made in clearing up the city’s downtown traffic congestion.”
George Anderson Baker of the Los Angeles Railway provided an interesting statistic: For the “1,000,000 daily street-car riders” “every year some 360,000 years of time are lost due to traffic congestion brought about by use of the automobile, time lost both by automobilists and street-car riders.”
“In the course of the discussion, Councilmen fell to arguing about the shopping customs of their wives.
“How many women,” cried Councilman Criswell, in speaking of the objections to no-parking by merchants, “how many women can go into a store and buy a hat or a dress in half an hour?”
Nobody could answer him.
Sexist today, humorous then, but the connection between automobiles, women, shopping and parking would, in the near future, cause a mini-revolution.
(Fred Gurzeler is a native Westsider. His two car garage used to hold two cars, but the need for more storage has forced the cars on to the driveway. Thankfully, cars built for Southern California are designed to bake in the sun … aren’t they? The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Gurzeler. This is Part 2 of this History of Parking series. Part 3 will be posted on Thursday, Nov 8.)
CityWatch
Vol 11 Issue 88
Pub: Nov 1, 2013
