They got paved over to build a highway. Or in lots of places, were never built at all, or are too far away. So much infrastructure over the last half century is built for cars, not people. The trend you've identified is people realizing this situation and reclaiming some of the space for people instead of just cars.

I live in Los Angeles. There are three (what I would call "average-sized") parks within 1.5 miles of the street mentioned in the article, as well as two smaller parks. At least one of them just underwent major renovation over the past six months.

I couldn't say whether public parks in Los Angeles are going away in general. I'd say "likely". But I think this article somewhat incorrectly frames how dire the situation is with respect to public parks in L.A..

Would you let your 8 year old kid walk 1.5 miles to the park, on their own, in LA?

No, I wouldn’t. I’m merely suggesting that the author is mischaracterizing the public park situation around Fickett St., and not suggesting that kids in Boyle Heights walk 1.5 miles to their local park.

Historically, streets were far more than just "transportation infrastructure". They were the quintessential "public space", accommodating many different uses: transportation, yes, but not (just) cars but also bikes or pedestrians. Children playing, parents having an after-work beer with neighbors, street vendors, protests etc...

If parks are available within walking distance for every child then that's preferable. But from what I remember, it rarely is in the US.

Automobile infrastructure has enjoyed primacy for about 70 years. What you’re really seeing is just a long-overdue return to the idea that other things matter, too. Neighborhoods aren’t places for other people to get through as quickly as possible. In other words, we’re “destroying” a bunch of transportation infrastructure that shouldn’t ever have been built in the first place (or that was originally built with a very different purpose in mind).

Nothing, but not all children have a park in front of their homes.

And roads are transportation infrastructure, streets are to live on. That’s why the article talks about “reclaiming streets for civic live”.

Yes! The distinction between roads and streets isn't made often enough.

How is sectioning off a street for a single day "destroying transportation infrastructure"? This doesn't seem that different from when roads are sectioned off for farmer's markets or parades.

Turning it around, what's wrong with parking in a city garage, and reclaiming residential infrastructure that has been lately overrun with automobiles? Why give automobiles primacy over people -- Ford Prefect's blunder?

Those of us who can’t afford city-center/transit-connected apartments are also people.

If that would be in San Francisco - they would be full of used syringes and aggressive psychos - not really suitable places to play in

That's a problem created by a different breed of well-intentioned idiocy around homeless policy.

Well-intentioned idiocy is handing over cities to cars so completely that average people can barely remember what a city is or could be without them -- so completely that the temporary closing of 15 minor streets for another use could be described as "destroying transportation infrastructure."