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.
Sure they deserve to live there but they will forever keep the area's subpar and undesirable. LA isn't going to attract that many people that aren't in that ethnic group to the area. I just always notice when *some* pictures of urban LA are posted, it basically looks like somebody photoshopped a built up area and mixed it with the hood at street level. You don't see this in other global cities. DT and surroundings are prime real estate. Nobody with means is going to choose to live there. Don't start off the whole PC stuff...let's be real.
Downtown and some of its surrounding neighborhoods have shifted dramatically in the last several years with a large and mostly affluent population boom and with it amenities catering to that set. I think it's also important to note that the working class immigrant neighborhoods in LA are simply really poor bu generally not so violent and sometimes have amenities that people outside the community can easily appreciate as opposed to some of the rougher neighborhoods I've seen in the midwest and northeast.
Downtown and some of its surrounding neighborhoods have shifted dramatically in the last several years with a large and mostly affluent population boom and with it amenities catering to that set. I think it's also important to note that the working class immigrant neighborhoods in LA are simply really poor bu generally not so violent and sometimes have amenities that people outside the community can easily appreciate as opposed to some of the rougher neighborhoods I've seen in the midwest and northeast.
Agreed on all points, LA is coming along FAST. My main point is they have a solid core frame work that could be super bustling if city devoted it's energy towards it. I think LA should just work on say it's core, one block at a time, but that will never happen b/c of politics. Some of the development and transit in LA is simply being spread around too far. Having such a big city limit is sometimes a blessing/curse.
Agreed on all points, LA is coming along FAST. My main point is they have a solid core frame work that could be super bustling if city devoted it's energy towards it. I think LA should just work on say it's core, one block at a time, but that will never happen b/c of politics. Some of the development and transit in LA is simply being spread around too far. Having such a big city limit is sometimes a blessing/curse.
Well, much of the transit funding in LA is concentrated in downtown and I don't completely agree with it. I feel a polycentric urban development pattern is a pretty good idea and a better use of transit as well as keeping multiple parts of the city vital and distinct.
Well, much of the transit funding in LA is concentrated in downtown and I don't completely agree with it. I feel a polycentric urban development pattern is a pretty good idea and a better use of transit as well as keeping multiple parts of the city vital and distinct.
Maybe in the future they can have some kind of light rail line in between to connect those nodes. Something like how Atlanta is planning with the Beltline (22 mile circle around the core)
Agreed on all points, LA is coming along FAST. My main point is they have a solid core frame work that could be super bustling if city devoted it's energy towards it. I think LA should just work on say it's core, one block at a time, but that will never happen b/c of politics. Some of the development and transit in LA is simply being spread around too far. Having such a big city limit is sometimes a blessing/curse.
I'd say 90 percent of new development is either in DTLA and environs, Koreatown, Hollywood, Santa Monica or along the Expo Line. So really, the city's development is more in line with what you suggest than you realize.
And I think transit in the core is at a point where it is pretty decent - it the next level of neighborhoods like the Westside and San Fernando Valley that are really in serious need of transit alternatives. So I think the way transit is being built in LA is doing a good job of meeting the demands of the region. The Purple Line extension is probably the most important rail project in the country, and it is pretty far away from the core of the city. Same with the Sepulveda Pass, which will easily be able to attract 100k daily riders even though it will never get closer than 10 miles from DTLA (outside of NYC, are there any US cities that could make that claim). That being said, a second subway is being built in DTLA, so it is not like LACMTA is ignoring DTLA (and in fact, many county residents think the agency is way to LA-centric).
LA is such an interesting / unique / challenging city to plan for, which is why it is so fascinating to see the city remake itself before your eyes.
Maybe in the future they can have some kind of light rail line in between to connect those nodes. Something like how Atlanta is planning with the Beltline (22 mile circle around the core)
When completed, Los Angeles will have more of a "web" or grid transit system (not unlike the region's grid of freeways). Los Angeles isn't building a hub-and-spoke transit system (though right now, uncompleted, it looks like one), so building a beltline or "ring" line won't really work.
Yes and I've posted statistics that show there are more U.S tourists visiting Toronto as well to which you replied that you aren't in that group - which I respect but doesn't change the reality of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I have been talking about US visitors specifically.
And I separated them from the mental health profiles and drug addicts in my post didn't I? A healthy balance across various socio-economic layers is a good thing and is a nice gentrified area... mental health acts, drug dealers and gang bangers and too many poor people who can't afford squat - ummm not so much
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
They are working class immigrants, not schizophrenics. There's a difference.
Yes and I've posted statistics that show there are more U.S tourists visiting Toronto as well to which you replied that you aren't in that group - which I respect but doesn't change the reality of things.
That's true, and I said I was surprised by it. I just don't want to confuse the two separate discussions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
And I separated them from the mental health profiles and drug addicts in my post didn't I? A healthy balance across various socio-economic layers is a good thing and is a nice gentrified area... mental health acts, drug dealers and gang bangers and too many poor people who can't afford squat - ummm not so much
Well, you joined them all together in the same sentence so yea, you're sort of separating them, but I think it's important to highlight those differences. The working class population in LA is really large and some ways it's a lot more conducive to having a healthy urbanity--they're also usually, good or bad, the first neighborhoods to hit gentrification rather than more down and out communities that aren't simply poor and working hard to earn a better living, but are rather in a cycle of poverty and dependency.
That's true, and I said I was surprised by it. I just don't want to confuse the two separate discussions.
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.
