Question about population shifts in Los Angeles

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Bruin5

I used to live near the nexus point between West Adams, Mid-City and Culver. The neighborhood I lived in really did have a diverse population. Hispanics and blacks definitely made up the majority though one of our next door neighbors was an Anglo family from England and the people living in the unit behind us were white and I did know some white guys who lived on Hauser just north of the 10. The big factor in moving to that area was cheap rent and the central location. Neighborhoods around that area are hit or miss. I personally liked the central location, but as for whites in the entire area, I would guess they would be a trickle in the bucket compared to the amount of Latinos in the area.

Yes there are a few whites living where you're talking about (around Venice and Fairfax from your description), although that area's been majority black for many years and it has seen more Latinos moving in. There are some Asians around there as well. By now it might be plurality black.


There are definitely more whites once you go west or north.

[Huckleberry3911948]

no they will not.

[the one]

DITTO

white folk are coming back.

they were just vacationing in the IE or outlying areas.

as jobs in the far flung areas dry up, and people look towards LA for employment, the cheaper housing stock in certain areas will look more appealing than a dreadful commute.

its also hip to tweet about gun shots.

Originally Posted by BRinSM

from what i've seen, white people are slowly coming back to neighborhoods that they left decades ago (aka gentrification). the 80s were a tough decade for all large cities and the early 90s were rough for LA with the riots. but since that was nearly 20 years ago now, things have calmed and people are willing to look at neighborhoods they never would have considered 5 or 10 years ago. i know of white people moving to west adams, echo park, parts of east LA, and other areas that were a lot different when i was a kid 10-15 years ago.

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by the one

as jobs in the far flung areas dry up, and people look towards LA for employment, the cheaper housing stock in certain areas will look more appealing than a dreadful commute.

Unless you have kids, which is why people move to the far flung areas because the schools in LA are some of the worst in the state and the places with good schools are still far too expensive.

Gentrification/revitalization is really only an excuse for the local housing market when it gets far too expensive to live somewhere nice. Downtown LA would still be a Moderator cut: language if the housing bubble didn't happen.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

Unless you have kids, which is why people move to the far flung areas because the schools in LA are some of the worst in the state and the places with good schools are still far too expensive.

But with the far flung areas becoming cheaper, the existing trends of L.A.'s poor moving to those areas is only going to accelerate. What will the schools in those areas be like then?

Gentrification/revitalization is really only an excuse for the local housing market when it gets far too expensive to live somewhere nice. Downtown LA would still be a Moderator cut: language if the housing bubble didn't happen.

Gentrification implies outsiders coming in, revitalization implies the community itself participating or those with ties to it.

[NYSD1995]

Trajectory of LA is constant flux. That is the only constant.

Revitalization does not equal an area becoming gentrified, it just means it goes up from wherever it is.

The population trend for LA and most large CA cities (and even northeastern cities) is basically the same: immigrants and educated high income without kids moving in, middle and working class families leaving. There is a certain population in entrenched long-term poverty that cannot afford to leave, they will either stay put or move to most inexpensive neighborhood available. Similarly there is an entrenched ultra-wealthy population with no need for most city services (schools, police) who can afford to stay put and keep and neighborhood decline at bay.

Gentrification only occurs in neighborhoods attractive to high income people, usually that means some sort of attractive pre-war housing stock. Most currently or recently middle-class areas are either going up or down, most are really going down, just some faster than others. The future of LA (and really most of CA and east coast cities) is just even more of a bifurcation between very rich and very poor.

[cowman809]

Originally Posted by Bruin5

I used to live near the nexus point between West Adams, Mid-City and Culver. The neighborhood I lived in really did have a diverse population. Hispanics and blacks definitely made up the majority though one of our next door neighbors was an Anglo family from England and the people living in the unit behind us were white and I did know some white guys who lived on Hauser just north of the 10. The big factor in moving to that area was cheap rent and the central location. Neighborhoods around that area are hit or miss. I personally liked the central location, but as for whites in the entire area, I would guess they would be a trickle in the bucket compared to the amount of Latinos in the area.

me too, Washington/La Cienga/Venice

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Trajectory of LA is constant flux. That is the only constant.

Revitalization does not equal an area becoming gentrified, it just means it goes up from wherever it is.

The population trend for LA and most large CA cities (and even northeastern cities) is basically the same: immigrants and educated high income without kids moving in, middle and working class families leaving. There is a certain population in entrenched long-term poverty that cannot afford to leave, they will either stay put or move to most inexpensive neighborhood available. Similarly there is an entrenched ultra-wealthy population with no need for most city services (schools, police) who can afford to stay put and keep and neighborhood decline at bay.

Gentrification only occurs in neighborhoods attractive to high income people, usually that means some sort of attractive pre-war housing stock.

So, Echo Park and Hollywood definitely have futures (this also suggests Highland Park won't degentrify despite the gentrification process being less established there than in ExP), most of the Valley doesn't. I'll go along with this.

This also implies that East Hollywood and Koreatown may have better futures.
And that North Hollywood might be saved, but Van Nuys definitely will not be (I've said this all along)

I'd characterize the Echo gentrifiers (and those in Northeast L.A.) as more middle class than high income. The higher income people go to Silver Lake because they can afford it. Likewise the West Adams gentrifiers are also more middle class, although many of them probably actually had family in the neighborhood who decamped once more areas became accessible to African-Americans.

Most currently or recently middle-class areas are either going up or down, most are really going down, just some faster than others.

Especially those which lack any attractions and walkability.

The future of LA (and really most of CA and east coast cities) is just even more of a bifurcation between very rich and very poor.

Try the future of America, unless something is done to rebuild the middle class. Remember the middle class majority that ended under W was a product of FDR's New Deal programs.

As for the remaining middle class patterns: you overlook what could happen if fuel costs shoot out of sight which they probably will again. That could seriously change socioeconomic patterns of neighborhoods, including for families. Remember many unexpected things can happen.

I've said before and I'll say again: the ONLY people in late 1970s California who accurately predicted what would happen in years to come were the anti-Prop 13 people. Everyone else got it wrong in a big way.