Los Angeles Needs to be Manhattanized (San Diego, Pasadena: for rent, lofts, restaurant)

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by Surfside__

L.A offers a great amount of things, however it is lacking in one VERY important aspect that makes a city a TRUE city and that is being urban and dense in the downtown area. Think Chicago, Miami, Manhattan. Imagine having walkability and a dense urban lifestyle without having to rely on your car so much in LA? Everything you need at your finger tips, everything brought to life. LA does OFFER a lot, I am NOT talking it's surrounding areas, I am talking PURELY about the city itself the downtown area has a lot of potential and can be GREAT if only it was manhattanized

check out these articles

NYC Thinks L.A. Wants to Be 'Manhattanized' - Los Angeles News - The Informer

TIME Asks 'Can Downtown Los Angeles Be Manhattanized?': LAist

what do you think?

LA Occupancy Rate for the CBD needs to be at or near maximum capacity in order to build added SKYSCRAPERS in it's downtown area...and it ain't....

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/v..._33812cf5-213c

[OptimusPrime69]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

No. LA is LA, not SF, not NYC, not Chicago. And who defined what a true city is?

Plus, I assume this means more gentrification, which means more kicking poor out of their homes and pushing them somewhere else so the areas you want to change can be nice and pretty.

Yeah exactly, make way for progress. . . let the poor ppl live somewhere else. Why have them all in the downtown area? Get them OUT ASAP. please. do us all a favor.

Downtown LA is seriously lacking. There's just not a whole lot going on, it's kind of boring. Manhattan on the otherhand is like unbelieveable. There's so much energy and diversity and so much going on it's hard to even keep up. LA does not have that.

[jm1982]

Yeah I don't live in downtown...but honestly I'd be pissed if i spent a bunch of money on a loft and had to deal with the homeless crazies. I have a feeling with all the business going on in downtown they will get pushed out but much slower than most places.

Also the important thing to keep in mind , many of these homeless people are psychotic and criminals and thieves. Being "homeless" gives them a good cover.

I have homeless people that hang out around my house and that is in the valley so they are def not all in downtown..but theres a crapload downtown too.

As a CITY employee mentioned today "the problem in L.A is we are too lenient" this wasn't in regards to the homeless problem but with the city not giving a crap how businesses run their business what rules they break,etc.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by OptimusPrime69

Yeah exactly, make way for progress. . . let the poor ppl live somewhere else. Why have them all in the downtown area? Get them OUT ASAP. please. do us all a favor.

Downtown LA is seriously lacking. There's just not a whole lot going on, it's kind of boring. Manhattan on the otherhand is like unbelieveable. There's so much energy and diversity and so much going on it's hard to even keep up. LA does not have that.

Yeah, but does Manhattan have places 10-15-20 miles away with the excitement and diversity of 10-15-20 miles from DTLA including Hollywood, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Mid-Wilshire, West Hollywood/Sunset Strip, North Hollywood/Stuido City>Ventura, Venice, Hermosa Beach, DT Long Beach, etc., etc?

Manhattan and downtown Chicago blow downtown LA out of the water sure, but in the same distance as those aforementioned areas of LA County, you have mostly boring and homogenous suburbs, whether good OR bad. Sure you have some progressive communities with a college, or some unique suburb that is integrated, eclectic and diverse, but it is often overhelmingly either:

bombed out, depopulated, post industrial, boarded up, 99% African American areas.
Working class, somewhat socially conservative 50% 3rd or later generation Irish/Italian/Polish/German-Americans
Old money, stuffy, somewhat socially conservative areas that are 50% white anglo-saxon protestant.

This is not entirely true, but there are trade-offs.

[MattClyde]

LA doesn't have the public transportation to back up Manhattanization. Besides who would want to go to downtown LA anyways :P Much better places to be in the LA area.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

[/color]

LA Occupancy Rate for the CBD needs to be at or near maximum capacity in order to build added SKYSCRAPERS in it's downtown area...and it ain't....

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/v..._33812cf5-213c

Agreed. I believe Hollywood needs office space though. Most of the new high-rises in DTLA will be hotels for the time being, the occupancy rate is near 99 percent (maybe higher). I believe that is what the Wilshire Grand tower is supposed to mostly be, with a a smaller proportion of offices. Also a couple of tall-ish buildings are going into South Park, both hotels. I think Koreatown is getting a couple towers and Hollywood has one on Sunset that is under construction. So LA is getting taller, wouldn't call it "Manhattanizing", that seems like a lazy term.

Downtown seems pretty interesting to me, and is improving at a surprising rate post-recession. I get that the dirtiness or grittiness of it is a turn-off to some people but I really enjoy the area. The public transportation is good enough to warrant high-rises, especially along Wilshire as the Purple Line gets extended.

[GatsbyGatz]

LA doesn't NEED skyscrapers. This may be a controversial statement, but DTLA needs to gentrify. LA needs to fill in all the empty parking spaces, empty retail locations, empty buildings, and replace all the low-end stores. I'm sorry, but most of the stores in DTLA are low-quality, cheap goods. The vast majority of these stores are lost on the middle class and upper class which is unfortunately where cities gather money. For a world class city, this is rather disappointing. Downtown San Diego looks leaps and bounds richer and more luxurious than DTLA. Even Pasadena, a "small" city compared to LA, is more vibrant. In Downtown Pasadena, you can see all classes mingle together. You can see a variety of life. In DTLA, it's mostly homeless.

I'm merely pointing out the white elephant in the room, speaking what a lot of people won't admit because it's not "politically correct." DTLA isn't super vibrant simply because it lacks middle class / upper class "hipness". DTLA definitely has potential, but it's going to have to kick out the poor. That's the unfortunate fact.

[LordOfTheCars]

Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz

I'm merely pointing out the white elephant in the room, speaking what a lot of people won't admit because it's not "politically correct." DTLA isn't super vibrant simply because it lacks middle class / upper class "hipness". DTLA definitely has potential, but it's going to have to kick out the poor. That's the unfortunate fact.

That is the LA city polititians stock and trade... poor people, they give them peanuts for their votes.

Add to that the santuary city B.S. and you have instant blight... The myor loves it, these people kiss his butt and keep him there. What? Tony Villaraigosa is not running for mayor again??? He must be looking to be gonernor....

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

No. LA is LA, not SF, not NYC, not Chicago. And who defined what a true city is?

Plus, I assume this means more gentrification, which means more kicking poor out of their homes and pushing them somewhere else so the areas you want to change can be nice and pretty.

Great point! And it's also typical that newcomers take their place at the back of request line behind all the folks who understand and appreciate why L.A. doesn't need to copy any other cities to be the Superstar it has earned the right to be.

[moonsparkle]

NY in general has too many old looking buildings with ladders on the side. Like a boring old style.

LA has a lot of South Beach style art deco which looks nicer.