Would you care if L.A. eventually started killing it's inner suburbs to make way for more density?

[jm1982]

Yes i have been to them recently . I think improvements in downtown la especially are impressive.

Perhaps they have been cleaned up ... Prices have also risen astronomically as well...even factoring in inflation.

An area with over 1.2 million residents and part of The City of Los Angeles shouldn't be so neglected.

You mentioned Santa Monica and weho , those are both separate cities though.

The city clearly and blatantly neglects the valley ...I'm pretty sure it would definitely be better off If secession happened .

[PDF]

Downtown LA is cleaned up, but I still get a weird vibe when I go there.

[jm1982]

It's cleaned up compared to what it was .. But definitely not cleaned up totally . There are still lots of shady folks lurking around , and big homeless population. If it gets cleaned up totally watch prices go up significantly .. They are already going up , and I agree they should be going up because it is improving ... It helps that city hall is in downtown too..and that the city is focusing nearly all their resources on improving downtown .

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Amazing what you'll trick yourself into believing when you hold a negative opinion of a place. The notion that L.A. looks MORE blighted and tacky now vs the 80's is absurd.

I agree.

Besides, what is one person's "blighted and tacky" may be another's "historic and charming". Granted, of course, that safety and health codes/mores are not violated.

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by PDF

Downtown LA is cleaned up, but I still get a weird vibe when I go there.

Perhaps that is not because of Downtown LA itself? There are two in this "relationship".

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz

I wouldn't mind if LA razed all the small, ugly stucco buildings in the East and South to make way for high-density living. In fact, move southward and redo all of South LA and Compton for high-density, middle-class structures.

As for West LA, much of it is taken up by rather lovely, large homes. We can keep those! Forgive me if that was snobbish of me to say. Would LA not benefit from this sort of project, though? Get rid of the blight, less-appealing, poorly-planned neighborhoods and replace them with better-planned structures. Many currently proposed high-rise to mid-rise buildings ask for planners to reserve units for lower-income families, so it's not like redeveloping South & East LA would eliminate the lower-income families. It would simply give everyone a better place to live.

No.

At least to "getting rid of less-appealing, poorly planned neighborhoods" (which is at its mildest quite subjective), especially when it would involve running roughshod over the rights of owners and their tenants. To some people those "less-appealing poorly-planned neighborhoods" are HOME. People still live in these places, unlike neighborhoods in many cities in the Northeast/Rust Belt (read, Detroit, Cleveland, etc.), where the population has been dropping over the course of decades, some to the extent where some of the neighborhoods pretty much cease to exist or have no viability. Such is not the case with LA generally.

And yes, you are forgiven, for it did sound snobbish for you to say that only "lovely, large homes" should be kept.

Since when do people's neighborhoods in a city need to become a dog-and-pony-show for visiting politicians mindful of the state of the city's coffers, lest they run the risk of being bulldozed to make way for newer, better, and MORE tax dollars (so they hope)?

Besides, it's not really the job of the city government to determine where people live.

As I look at your past posts, it seems to me you favor big government solutions to things. I think it does a few things right, but not this.