Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It most certainly is true, DTLA maintained some of it's vibrancy throughout the 1950's, but it was already in decline. By the 1960's it took a major downturn, especially by the time of the Watts riots.
No, it's almost certainly false. There would not be gigantic department stores and packed streets in an "empty and declined" area. Same goes for the nicest hotels, fanciest office space and the like. The Watts riots weren't in the 50's and were nowhere near downtown.
In the 1950's, LA was centered downtown, which had the fanciest stores, highest office rents, nicest hotels and the like. It wasn't until the 60's and 70's until that stuff started transitioning to the Westside, and not really until the 80's when the Westside really started dominating everything.
The elites lived in places like Pasadena, and worked downtown (this was long before Century City and all that). Places like Pacific Palisades weren't even mostly developed.
No, it's almost certainly false. There would not be gigantic department stores and packed streets in an "empty and declined" area. Same goes for the nicest hotels, fanciest office space and the like. The Watts riots weren't in the 50's and were nowhere near downtown.
In the 1950's, LA was centered downtown, which had the fanciest stores, highest office rents, nicest hotels and the like. It wasn't until the 60's and 70's until that stuff started transitioning to the Westside, and not really until the 80's when the Westside really started dominating everything.
The elites lived in places like Pasadena, and worked downtown (this was long before Century City and all that). Places like Pacific Palisades weren't even mostly developed.
I say this because you talk like you what you are talking about, but you most certainly do not.
Most of these places were built in the 20's and 30's, not in the 1950's.
The transition started in the 1950's with the dismantling of the streetcar system. This made it harder to get to the traditional core.
The Westside had it's retail niche in the 50's and 60's. Places like 3rd St., Santa Monica were very vibrant in the 50's, 60's and started a decline in the 70's, until it was redeveloped in the late 80's.
Westside didn't dominate anything in the 80's. The most vibrant Westside area in the 80's was probably Westwood Village. The Westside still had some grit and gang activity. I think the Westside started to shine in the 90s.
No, it's almost certainly false. There would not be gigantic department stores and packed streets in an "empty and declined" area. Same goes for the nicest hotels, fanciest office space and the like. The Watts riots weren't in the 50's and were nowhere near downtown.
In the 1950's, LA was centered downtown, which had the fanciest stores, highest office rents, nicest hotels and the like. It wasn't until the 60's and 70's until that stuff started transitioning to the Westside, and not really until the 80's when the Westside really started dominating everything.
The elites lived in places like Pasadena, and worked downtown (this was long before Century City and all that). Places like Pacific Palisades weren't even mostly developed.
This is completely false. DTLA started its decline way before the 60s and the 70s. Omg go sit down. You don't know what you're talking about.
This is completely false. DTLA started its decline way before the 60s and the 70s. Omg go sit down. You don't know what you're talking about.
No, you don't know what you're talking about. You aren't even following the thread.
The claim was that "downtown LA was abandoned by the 1950s". That's what I responded to.
Now you are saying "downtown LA started its decline way before the 60's". Maybe it did, by some measures, but it was hardly "abandoned by the 50's". Downtown LA was the dominant center of Southern California until the 1970's, in every respect. Nowadays, there is no way to make such a claim.
I say this because you talk like you what you are talking about, but you most certainly do not.
Most of these places were built in the 20's and 30's, not in the 1950's.
The transition started in the 1950's with the dismantling of the streetcar system. This made it harder to get to the traditional core.
The Westside had it's retail niche in the 50's and 60's. Places like 3rd St., Santa Monica were very vibrant in the 50's, 60's and started a decline in the 70's, until it was redeveloped in the late 80's.
Westside didn't dominate anything in the 80's. The most vibrant Westside area in the 80's was probably Westwood Village. The Westside still had some grit and gang activity. I think the Westside started to shine in the 90s.
This is all wrong, and not relevant to anything we're talking about. But if you want to carry on about alleged gangs in Westwood, or when a place was first developed, or how buses allegedly didn't go downtown after the trolleys were removed, go ahead, I guess...
No, you don't know what you're talking about. You aren't even following the thread.
The claim was that "downtown LA was abandoned by the 1950s". That's what I responded to.
Now you are saying "downtown LA started its decline way before the 60's". Maybe it did, by some measures, but it was hardly "abandoned by the 50's". Downtown LA was the dominant center of Southern California until the 1970's, in every respect. Nowadays, there is no way to make such a claim.
Downtown LA started to decline before WWII. It was a large center but hardly a dominant center in the 50s. Los Angeles was probably the first large American city to decentralize.
I think LA was guilty of trying to be people pleasing to everyone, but I don't think that is the case anymore. The area is too congested for that. More effort is being placed on restoring traditionally urban areas/corridors and making mass transit throughout the city more efficient. LA will not be like NYC or most NE cities, it's city structure is not as old. I just feel that the impression that LA is a place that is completely auto-centric and the only pedestrian-friendly, vibrant area are it's shopping centers is completely superficial. LA is more than that.
Seattle is not really any newer than Los Angeles but much more centralized. Vancouver is nearly as dense as Los Angeles, similar in age, and more pedestrian-friendly and again more downtown oriented.
That's true, but the area around LA DT is about 600k people, 85% hispanic/5% white/5% asian/5% black though so kind of predominantly one demographic except for a few areas in downtown and echo park. Density also pretty high, but poor and low levels of education compared to the rest of the city.
Population:
92000 boyleton
26600 lincoln heights
125897 east la
27849 downtown
42324 pico union
103839 west lake
40455 echo park
9610 chinatown
23596 university park
49728 historic south central
40947 alameda
582845
from mapping LA, seems to be the areas within 1-2 mile radius of DT give or take.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
