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.
We can disagree. I don't see DTLA as having a top-tier level of retail or a ton of tourism, as both are centered elsewhere. LA Live is a mausoleum unless an event is happening. The volume of infill is good but it'll take a while longer.
Bunker Hill with its world renowned Music Center, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Broad Museum Of Contemporary Art, Museum Of Contemporary Art(MOCA), the Slide and Observatory Deck at the USBank Tower, the historic Angel's Flight which takes you from Bunker Hill to Hill St directly across from Grand Central Market is all a tourist mecca. There are popular walking tours of historic dtla. Many take tours to the top of iconic City Hall and its observation deck. All close to rail and subway stations. Along with this the billion dollar Frank Gehry project across from Disney Hall which is u/c will add a hotel, apts, condos, restaurants and retail to this already tourist mecca.
Somehow that area still manages to be pretty quiet in my admittedly limited experience. It doesn't feel like a tourist area.
As for LA Live, maybe it's busy in the evening but lunch and a movie on a weekday were really, really quiet. That was before most of the big new towers though...but even then, residential towers won't make it pop. Daytimes need pleasure tourists and office workers.
We can disagree. I don't see DTLA as having a top-tier level of retail or a ton of tourism, as both are centered elsewhere. LA Live is a mausoleum unless an event is happening. The volume of infill is good but it'll take a while longer.
LA Live, which sits next door to the LA Convention Center, is busy almost every night of the week. LA Live is home to the Grammy Museum and Staples Center and hosts concerts at the Microsoft Theater, Novo Theater, The Conga Room, The Grammy Museum, and Staples Center. ESPN Broadcasting Center is also located at LA Live. LA live hotels include the he 54 story Ritz Carlton, The Marriott Hotel, Courtyard at LA Live, and Residence Inn at LA Live. There are also countless restaurants in and around LA Live.
Although it's busiest when the Convention Center hosts events, and on concert nights and game nights when the Lakers, Clippers, and Kings are in town, the place stays pretty busy most nights.
Because parking is at a premium and very expensive, a large percentage of visitors to LA Live use the Expo and Blue Line light rail lines to access the venue. In my case I live near Universal and always use the subway and light rail to get to LA Live for functions, mainly Kings and Clipper games, or to catch an exhibit at the Grammy Museum.
As for the "in fill" you mentioned, there's not much there anymore, and the few empty lots that remain in the area are boarded up for new construction projects.
Last edited by Angelino19; 01-23-2019 at 05:31 PM..
As Anthony Bourdain once said, there are only two true US urban metropolises, NYC and Chicago, which have miles between each other and miles between 3rd place...
After that there is a three way split for 2nd tier, depending on your perception of urbanity (sheer density, breadth of action, or epicenter of innovation/change/power):
1. Smaller but true urban metropolises, most prominently Philadelphia, from its density (CC is 2nd most dense urban area in US) to its quality and quantity of cultural, economic, academic, historical and artistic institutions; and Boston, which makes up for its size with a more mature (in terms of urban development, not emotional disposition) cluster of middle to upper class professional neighborhoods.
2. Los Angeles, such a sprawl of a metro that it actually belies its vibrant downtown. There is more business, art, food, tech, etc in the sliver of land from downtown LA to the beach between Santa Monica Blvd and Fwy than anywhere outside of Manhattan. Only a lack of infrastructure prevents it from a connectivity required to be a true metropolis (between Chicago and NYC).
3. The newly minted cities, which cater to a small but wealthy population and might fool a visitor as mightily urban but lack breadth of culture and, increasingly more common, a range of middle/upper-middle class neighborhoods. SF is the obvious example: clearly lacking a depth beyond a few stunning neighborhoods and the best Chinatown in the country. Most of the economic output of the metro exists well outside of the city itself, and the NIMBY attitude prevents the city from developing much past a playground for tech bros and tourists.
DC is the clear second example: the sheer gravitational pull of the federal government has brought enormous wealth to the region but there is no true urban area. What is even downtown DC? I would argue NOVA is most interesting, and Georgetown most beautiful, but both exist on the periphery.
Similar arguments can be made for Miami (the Beach (tourists) vs Downtown (business)vs Coconut Grove (the wealthy) vs West MIA (the interesting). One may also propose Dallas and Houston for this category. This author, for one, considers Houston to be perhaps the coolest city in the US, but very little of that happens in any sort of centralized nature.
**Honorable mention for urban metro Emeriti (Pittsburgh, Detroit, et al) and the young up and comers (ATL, Austin, DEN, Nashville, Charlotte, among others): some of my favorite places, and, were I to have the choice to move anywhere in US to start a business and/or raise a family, would be at the very top of my list. Just not quite there in the urban metro category yet.
--opinions of a humble US expat in HK/UK whos spent quite a bit of time around the US
I don't think LA Live should be the selling feature for DTLA. DTLA, in the older parts like Historic Core, has some of the most beautiful old buildings of any downtown outside the classic urban cities. I know people who live/work/play there. Fig at 7th, the Bloc and Macy's are located downtown for shopping, and there are plenty of other small businesses for shopping. There are tons of great restaurants all over DTLA. The bar scene has exploded with speakeasies and rooftops and nightclubs all over. Residential buildings are going up everywhere. Businesses are relocating to the high rises of DTLA. The public transportation options are great. There are plenty of museums. The library is phenomenal. Grand Central Market is just like the large markets of many other downtowns that are considered great. There is an Arts District and Little Tokyo within greater DTLA. And potentially even Chinatown if we can extend it that far. Union Station serves a lot of commuters. There are new live music venues all over and plenty of artists/DJs now play in DTLA over Hollywood. Then when you add in LA Live, you get a large movie theater, luxury hotel/residence complex, a great sports complex, and a bowling alley.
So yes, it is entirely possible to live a life in DTLA (without a car I might add) that includes where you live, where you shop, where you work, where you dine, where you drink, where you part, where you go to the movies, etc.
That said, it's not the same quality as NYC, Chicago, Philly, Boston, SF or DC. But it is right underneath them and not far behind.
LA Live, which sits next door to the LA Convention Center, is busy almost every night of the week. LA Live is home to the Grammy Museum and Staples Center and hosts concerts at the Microsoft Theater, Novo Theater, The Conga Room, The Grammy Museum, and Staples Center. ESPN Broadcasting Center is also located at LA Live. LA live hotels include the he 54 story Ritz Carlton, The Marriott Hotel, Courtyard at LA Live, and Residence Inn at LA Live. There are also countless restaurants in and around LA Live.
Although it's busiest when the Convention Center hosts events, and on concert nights and game nights when the Lakers, Clippers, and Kings are in town, the place stays pretty busy most nights.
Because parking is at a premium and very expensive, a large percentage of visitors to LA Live use the Expo and Blue Line light rail lines to access the venue. In my case I live near Universal and always use the subway and light rail to get to LA Live for functions, mainly Kings and Clipper games, or to catch an exhibit at the Grammy Museum.
As for the "in fill" you mentioned, there's not much there anymore, and the few empty lots that remain in the area are boarded up for new construction projects.
That's my point about LA Live...it's about events, not about tourists showing up just to be there. If it was otherwise, it would be busy all day, every day.
As Anthony Bourdain once said, there are only two true US urban metropolises, NYC and Chicago, which have miles between each other and miles between 3rd place...
After that there is a three way split for 2nd tier, depending on your perception of urbanity (sheer density, breadth of action, or epicenter of innovation/change/power)
DC is the clear second example: the sheer gravitational pull of the federal government has brought enormous wealth to the region but there is no true urban area. What is even downtown DC? I would argue NOVA is most interesting, and Georgetown most beautiful, but both exist on the periphery.
Hmmm...I really don't agree with the sentiment about DC. DC has L'Enfant's Baroque city plan (think Turin, not Paris) with a tight height limit, which certainly is non-traditional for an American city, incorporating all of the ceremonial, logical, airy, elements of the day to form that vision of the idealized 18th century capital city, but imho that makes the lived experience special. DC is urban, just not in the way that American cities are generally, and its reasonable level of density throughout its 60 sq. mile core is still vibrant, grand, impressive without being overwhelming. It's not NY or Chicago but why should it be?
Idk...yes, we call the center downtown, but maybe the concept of downtown, in the US sense, isn't the best descriptor for the way the core of DC functions. It's got a moderately high level of urbanity spread through its core because it was always intended to.
Hmmm...I really don't agree with the sentiment about DC. DC has L'Enfant's Baroque city plan (think Turin, not Paris) with a tight height limit, which certainly is non-traditional for an American city, incorporating all of the ceremonial, logical, airy, elements of the day to form that vision of the idealized 18th century capital city, but imho that makes the lived experience special. DC is urban, just not in the way that American cities are generally, and its reasonable level of density throughout its 60 sq. mile core is still vibrant, grand, impressive without being overwhelming. It's not NY or Chicago but why should it be?
Idk...yes, we call the center downtown, but maybe the concept of downtown, in the US sense, isn't the best descriptor for the way the core of DC functions. It's got a moderately high level of urbanity spread through its core because it was always intended to.
this is fair and in that context has similarities to European cities (albeit not as old or dense as the larger ones) but many large European cities have a dynamic of there is not a defined center per se but a larger footprint. DC has this larger footprint but doesn't have an apex of the other traditional old school us cities
I don't know turin well but rome has a similar dynamic of sorts And not saying DC is rome but on how a city has a spread and no singularly defined center I can see similarities
I like that DC is improving and has more interesting aspects adding some areas that were historically good
I like DC but its hard to totally compare it to a Boston for example
Its almost as though DC has a large spread of lets say a next step down intensity of (will use Philly comparators) say a Rittenhouse but has a larger spread of something above an East Passyunk - almost like DC has a huge expanse of U City (I Know all grossly over simplified)
maybe rome is a better example (though rome doesn't have the office intensity but does even share in the capital aspect)
I have always struggled with the Paris reference though can see some similarities it just doesn't feel nearly the same (maybe because the intensity of energy in Paris on the street level, not sure but Paris is a toucgh comparison for nearly anyplace, as is rome in ways but maybe works better here as rome never feels as intense as paris does to me)
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.
