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.
I see the rent-a-cops driving around Brentwood but they don't look too menacing. Riding my bike through Brentwood I noticed a police car parked in the same spot on the street for like 3-4 weeks. I wondered if it was there to repel thieves (it looked pretty real but could have been one of those TV props.) That's a ritzy area though and it seems pretty safe to me. It's not uncommon to see parties being thrown at those mansions with valet parkers standing out front on the weekend. Justin Bieber's manager spent something like $10M on a house in Brentwood recently.
I don't think their job is to look menacing, it's their job to do what LAPD cannot. It is to repel thieves but it's also to actually defend and protect clients, they can detain people and others.
Brentwood is still a nice area, but Westwood is too, however anyone who had lived here through the 1990s cannot say with a straight face that Westwood hasn't declined. By no means are these areas ghetto but they aren't what they were. I am honestly baffled that anyone would want to spend that to live here, I mean why not Beverly Hills for that price? You get the better 'cache' (even in Mogadishu or Uzbekistan, they know what Beverly Hills is) and a city that actually focuses on the needs of your demographic. Our city council and Mayor has made it clear that their priority is downtown and Silverlake hipsters, and Boyle Heights types.
Long term resident middle class families be damned, I just don't know why they cannot afford to provide adequate police cover and acceptable schools but they can build a subway that is only going to be used by a small demographic of people, those in poverty and hipsters..
I don't think their job is to look menacing, it's their job to do what LAPD cannot. It is to repel thieves but it's also to actually defend and protect clients, they can detain people and others..
Crime is at its lowest level in decades and it was never bad in Brentwood. When Chief Bratton came in the LAPD wisely deployed police to high crime spots. The city overall is 100 times better off now on this dimension than circa 1990.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escape from Los Angeles
Brentwood is still a nice area, but Westwood is too, however anyone who had lived here through the 1990s cannot say with a straight face that Westwood hasn't declined. By no means are these areas ghetto but they aren't what they were. I am honestly baffled that anyone would want to spend that to live here, I mean why not Beverly Hills for that price? You get the better 'cache' (even in Mogadishu or Uzbekistan, they know what Beverly Hills is) and a city that actually focuses on the needs of your demographic. Our city council and Mayor has made it clear that their priority is downtown and Silverlake hipsters, and Boyle Heights types.
..
Westwood was thronged with young people on the weekends in the 70's and 80's who would show up for movies or dancing at Dillon's or just to walk around. There was no competition then (Third Street in SM and Culver City). Very late 80's and the Third Street Promenade re-opened with its "new" Dinosaur look and the crowds left Westwood. The shooting in Westwood in the late 80's helped too.
But the reality is the long-term homeowners in the area were happy to see the crowds go and they don't want them back. Good luck building any consensus between the university, the long-term homeowners and the business merchants. The town vs. gown clash is s a tough needle to thread in any setting but when it is in a large urban setting amongst some of the priciest real estate in the country forget about it.
I personally could care less about cache and even with a winning lottery ticket in hand I wouldn't live in Beverly Hills. But to each their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escape from Los Angeles
Long term resident middle class families be damned, I just don't know why they cannot afford to provide adequate police cover and acceptable schools but they can build a subway that is only going to be used by a small demographic of people, those in poverty and hipsters..
You are very misinformed here. The MTA is building/funding the subway and it is a COUNTY agency, not a city department. Also, the current rail lines are used by a wide variety of people (although not as varied as in NYC). I work in downtown LA and co-workers of all kinds use various lines to get to work (blue, red, expo, etc.). That service will extend to Santa Monica/West LA next year when the expo line opens. I expect it will get even more popular then. Also, the subway to the sea would be finished now if it weren't for some selfish homeowners in hancock park and a myopic westside politician named Henry Waxman who gave his westside constituents what they wanted: he killed the westside subway 30 years ago. About time we build the damn thing now before it gets even more expensive.
Crime is at its lowest level in decades and it was never bad in Brentwood. When Chief Bratton came in the LAPD wisely deployed police to high crime spots. The city overall is 100 times better off now on this dimension than circa 1990.
Westwood was thronged with young people on the weekends in the 70's and 80's who would show up for movies or dancing at Dillon's or just to walk around. There was no competition then (Third Street in SM and Culver City). Very late 80's and the Third Street Promenade re-opened with its "new" Dinosaur look and the crowds left Westwood. The shooting in Westwood in the late 80's helped too.
But the reality is the long-term homeowners in the area were happy to see the crowds go and they don't want them back. Good luck building any consensus between the university, the long-term homeowners and the business merchants. The town vs. gown clash is s a tough needle to thread in any setting but when it is in a large urban setting amongst some of the priciest real estate in the country forget about it.
I personally could care less about cache and even with a winning lottery ticket in hand I wouldn't live in Beverly Hills. But to each their own.
You are very misinformed here. The MTA is building/funding the subway and it is a COUNTY agency, not a city department. Also, the current rail lines are used by a wide variety of people (although not as varied as in NYC). I work in downtown LA and co-workers of all kinds use various lines to get to work (blue, red, expo, etc.). That service will extend to Santa Monica/West LA next year when the expo line opens. I expect it will get even more popular then. Also, the subway to the sea would be finished now if it weren't for some selfish homeowners in hancock park and a myopic westside politician named Henry Waxman who gave his westside constituents what they wanted: he killed the westside subway 30 years ago. About time we build the damn thing now before it gets even more expensive.
You're entitled to your views, would you like to purchase my home in Brentwood?
As for Westwood, it looks economically depressed with all of the empty storefronts.
And as for "selfish westsiders" I don't think it's selfish to protect what you have. When you purchase a home, you purchase a lifestyle. This is Los Angeles and I like living because of its suburban nature and car centric-ness, the subway takes away from that and adds more foot traffic and "density". If I wanted to live in a busy area with subways and people walking I would move to Manhattan.
You don't really believe crime is at an all time low do you? Maybe it's lower than the crack years but that's a pretty low bar. The LAPD/SD is famous for fudging stats. The murder rate is also down because improved ambulance care.
Personally I think it's worse now. Back then crime was in bad and urban/inner city type areas that aren't good for families anyways like Silver Lake or Echo Park, but family areas in the valley were still mostly nice. I just don't understand the push to turn this place into something it isn't. Los Angeles is about a home with a yard and a lawn and driving in your car down sunset with the top down, it's not about living in a tenement and taking the subway..that's NYC.
And as for "selfish westsiders" I don't think it's selfish to protect what you have. When you purchase a home, you purchase a lifestyle. This is Los Angeles and I like living because of its suburban nature and car centric-ness, the subway takes away from that and adds more foot traffic and "density". If I wanted to live in a busy area with subways and people walking I would move to Manhattan.
The Wilshire corridor in Los Angeles is the most dense corridor in LA and is the most logical place to put heavy rail. Any transit planner will tell you this. The failure to build that line 25-30 years ago is one of the biggest public policy failures in the region in decades. So yes it was very selfish for those homeowners to have hijacked the city and the region with their self-serving agenda. LA is not about to be Manhattan so let's leave that canard aside. We used to have 1,000 miles of inter-urban rail here so this is not really anything that new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escape from Los Angeles
You don't really believe crime is at an all time low do you? Maybe it's lower than the crack years but that's a pretty low bar. The LAPD/SD is famous for fudging stats. The murder rate is also down because improved ambulance care..
Crime is at it lowest level in decades (at least back to pre-1970 levels). The widespread decrease in crime across the country's big cities is one of the biggest public policy achievements in the last 25 years. Do you really think all the big city police departments in the country are colluding with one another to dupe the general populace?
We can debate the many reason as to why crime fell but make no mistake it is REAL and we should all applaud that. It has made big city life far more safe, secure and less stressful. I was jumped in Studio City of all places in 1992. This city and county are safer now than in a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escape from Los Angeles
Personally I think it's worse now. Back then crime was in bad and urban/inner city type areas that aren't good for families anyways like Silver Lake or Echo Park, but family areas in the valley were still mostly nice. I just don't understand the push to turn this place into something it isn't. Los Angeles is about a home with a yard and a lawn and driving in your car down sunset with the top down, it's not about living in a tenement and taking the subway..that's NYC.
Inner city areas had families and they still have families. The fall in crime should be welcomed by all. Yes, it is still more concentrated in South LA but South LA is far safer and less a war zone today than it was 25 years ago. We all benefit when a kid in south LA can get to school without fear of getting shot. Even the homeowner in Brentwood should applaud that.
You are living in the past like 1940's Los Angeles or something. But since you are part Japanese-American you really don't want to go back to the 40's. You are better off just accepting LA for what it is now or else just move to south Orange County or Arkansas.
I grew up in the '80s and '90s. It was hilariously bad back then in LA... basically everywhere.
Right now, LA is far safer than back then, even with the current high-density and urbanization push.
Just because the environment and circumstance many decades ago allowed most people to live in SFRs with two or more big cars, that doesn't mean we can continue living this way.
Hey, LA even had a lot of trains and streetcars back then. We are just bringing them back.
I don't think their job is to look menacing, it's their job to do what LAPD cannot. It is to repel thieves but it's also to actually defend and protect clients, they can detain people and others.
Brentwood is still a nice area, but Westwood is too, however anyone who had lived here through the 1990s cannot say with a straight face that Westwood hasn't declined. By no means are these areas ghetto but they aren't what they were. I am honestly baffled that anyone would want to spend that to live here, I mean why not Beverly Hills for that price? You get the better 'cache' (even in Mogadishu or Uzbekistan, they know what Beverly Hills is) and a city that actually focuses on the needs of your demographic. Our city council and Mayor has made it clear that their priority is downtown and Silverlake hipsters, and Boyle Heights types.
Long term resident middle class families be damned, I just don't know why they cannot afford to provide adequate police cover and acceptable schools but they can build a subway that is only going to be used by a small demographic of people, those in poverty and hipsters..
I agree this is what is pretty frustrating...Everything is downtown downtown downtown, but a lot of it is because a lot of it happens to be that City Hall is there. Makes it easy to 'showcase' the city when it's right in your backyard so to speak. Too many areas get overlooked because they are too far from CityHall.
Downtown while their population is increasing is hardly anything. I think 60,000 residents maybe?... The valley alone is 1.8 MILLION people...and the entire valley doesn't get a fraction of the attention of downtown.
Don't take me wrong , I think it's cool new places are opening downtown. I remember going down there when I was in elementary school to the toy district , and I went to school at USC too , there was hardly anything downtown or near the USC area back then. McCormicks and CPK were among the few decent options.
But I don't think the whole focus should just be on downtown. I believe i read something to that the city made it a streamlined process to open businesses there, which is good...but why not do it for the rest of the city?..This probably explains why I read about a new DTLA place opening at least once a week. New bar/resto.
I'm wondering how sustainable all the new businesses are too. Oftentimes when a lot of new businesses open in one area it becomes really saturated. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out..and I hope they all can stay in business and thrive for sure.
I agree this is what is pretty frustrating...Everything is downtown downtown downtown, but a lot of it is because a lot of it happens to be that City Hall is there. Makes it easy to 'showcase' the city when it's right in your backyard so to speak. Too many areas get overlooked because they are too far from CityHall.
Downtown while their population is increasing is hardly anything. I think 60,000 residents maybe?... The valley alone is 1.8 MILLION people...and the entire valley doesn't get a fraction of the attention of downtown.
Don't take me wrong , I think it's cool new places are opening downtown. I remember going down there when I was in elementary school to the toy district , and I went to school at USC too , there was hardly anything downtown or near the USC area back then. McCormicks and CPK were among the few decent options.
But I don't think the whole focus should just be on downtown. I believe i read something to that the city made it a streamlined process to open businesses there, which is good...but why not do it for the rest of the city?..This probably explains why I read about a new DTLA place opening at least once a week. New bar/resto.
I don't know where you are getting that the city is only downtown focused. As you know, downtown was flat on its back for decades. If the city was truly downtown focused they'd be relocating homeless services to Brentwood. Downtown has born the brunt of concentrated homeless services for decades. How about a fast track to open homeless services in West LA or Studio City? Ok, I am being facetious but I think you get my point.
As for your argument about the actual number of residents in downtown, let me put it this way: current estimates say there are about 57,000 residents. That number should be and will be much higher going forward. It could easily reach 90,000 in 10 or 20 years. The fact is about 20 percent of all housing units built in the city of LA in the last 15 years have been in downtown LA. It is one of the few places developers are welcomed by the community. Places like Brentwood or even Hollywood go nuts when making development proposals. The downtown residents are mostly welcoming of the new development. Also, the previously vacant and underutilized storefronts that were vacant now produce tax revenue that all can benefit from.
The Restaurant permitting process takes forever even in downtown LA. But again the typical homeowners group and neighborhood councils in other parts of LA don't want to speed anything up. They want multiple reviews even if it is just to add a dining patio to an existing restaurant. The climate in downtown is just different. The downtown neighborhood council is mostly pro-development. You can not say that about many other areas in the city of LA. So the city made expedited patio dining permits a pilot program in DTLA in 2013 (with possible expansion to the rest of the city).
In the land market, developers are now willing to pay more for downtown LA sites than Santa Monica b/c they know they can get approved much faster and will get more FAR (floor area ratio). Time is money.
I don't know where you are getting that the city is only downtown focused. As you know, downtown was flat on its back for decades. If the city was truly downtown focused they'd be relocating homeless services to Brentwood. Downtown has born the brunt of concentrated homeless services for decades. How about a fast track to open homeless services in West LA or Studio City? Ok, I am being facetious but I think you get my point.
As for your argument about the actual number of residents in downtown, let me put it this way: current estimates say there are about 57,000 residents. That number should be and will be much higher going forward. It could easily reach 90,000 in 10 or 20 years. The fact is about 20 percent of all housing units built in the city of LA in the last 15 years have been in downtown LA. It is one of the few places developers are welcomed by the community. Places like Brentwood or even Hollywood go nuts when making development proposals. The downtown residents are mostly welcoming of the new development. Also, the previously vacant and underutilized storefronts that were vacant now produce tax revenue that all can benefit from.
The Restaurant permitting process takes forever even in downtown LA. But again the typical homeowners group and neighborhood councils in other parts of LA don't want to speed anything up. They want multiple reviews even if it is just to add a dining patio to an existing restaurant. The climate in downtown is just different. The downtown neighborhood council is mostly pro-development. You can not say that about many other areas in the city of LA. So the city made expedited patio dining permits a pilot program in DTLA in 2013 (with possible expansion to the rest of the city).
In the land market, developers are now willing to pay more for downtown LA sites than Santa Monica b/c they know they can get approved much faster and will get more FAR (floor area ratio). Time is money.
True , good points. But still 90k in 10 or 20 years is still 18x less population than what the valley is now is my point.
It does make sense that downtown residents might be prodevelopment..because most of them are relative newcomers too. In downtown you didn't have a situation generally where longterm residents where displaced to make room for new residents. Most of the people living there are living in buildings that were empty buildings , former factories ,etc. Nabisco Lofts, etc.
While downtown is prodevelopment now...that certainly doesn't mean they will be so gungho in the future once residents have 'established roots' so to speak and have been living there for a long time ,raising families there.
You see this type of mentality all the time, people that came here as immigrants or from immigrant parents and then not being too welcoming to newcomers.
For double our income, we'd either move to a nicer, more secluded part of our existing neighborhood in Pasadena (San Rafael), Linda Vista (also in Pasadena) or San Marino. I don't think these areas are considered L.A. Metro, but this looked like a fun thread, so I thought I'd play too.
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.
