Will South(Central) LA be the next Harlem? (Santa Monica, Culver City: section 8, house)

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by jacktravern

Grew up in NYC, Brooklyn specifically and have worked in South Central. Several points to this

1-Even in in worst days, Harlem was never on par with the total chaotic environment of South Central

2-Harlem was always seperated by blocks from the expensive part of town, basically life got alot better and still does if you cross under 110th street. The better areas of LA COunty are thankfully many miles from South Central. People who lived in the better parts of Manhatten still had to be on the train with folks who lived in harlem. People that live in Bev Hills, Santa Monica, Brentwood, Woodland Hills, STudio City ect... they're worlds just dont criss cross with those in South Central

and 3- Harlem is not this wonderful mecca that some newly transplanted NYers have made it out to be. Its just that the white population has grown probably by about 10% in the last decade. Whoop de do. If you take a walk around Harlem, much of it still looks run down with trash and rats everywhere, and a good amount of projects and welfare recipients not too far away. All the high rents in Harlem do is, give people the illusion they live in a good area b/c they live in Manahtten. The schools in that area are still crap and no middle class NYer is saying to themselves "I can't wait to get a place in Harlem.

Harlem started at 96th Street on the East Side, not sure on the West Side. On the East side, particularly on 5th Avenue, Madison Avenue, Park Avenue, and Lexington Avenue, gentrifcation or expansion of the UES has gone to about 105th Street. Further on up changes aren't as extreme.

But gentrification also doesn't necessarily mean the neighborhood becomes mostly white. Try to get a market rate apartment in Harlem these days? Lets just say its much more expensive than it used to be. Unless you're living in the housing projects, you've got to earn well to live in Harlem now. That's the biggest change. A lot of poorer people moved out . Also, the cheap rent stabilzied apartments in Harlem, when the parents move or die, the rent gets jacked up big time. Crime went down in Harlem, partially because its much harder to get welfare long term in NYC than it was 70s-early 90s.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by HuntingtonHenry

Depends on what you mean by gentrified. Only way I see that happening on any noticeable scale is if hispanics become a majority and rebuild+lower the crime rate. White Hipsters are more likely to move into hispanic hoods than black hoods.

Not really. A lot of white hipsters in New York have moved into Bedstuy, Harlem, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, and other Black neighborhoods because of cheaper rent.

Basically, the NYPD made a big prescence in these neighborhoods, and with a lot of comes patrolling them, the white hipsters felt SAFE.

At least in NYC also, hipsters don't move into middle class Hispanic or Black neighborhoods. Middle class Hispanics likely have MORE money than white hipsters, who just graduated from college and aren't earning much money. Therefore hipsters tend to move into more GHETTO areas, in part out of desperation. Ditto for a middle class Asian neighborhood.

Hipsters moved into neighborhoods ravaged by crime, abandonment, and deindustrialization. When enough of them get in, the real estate industry and other corporate and institutional investors take notice, and that's when the real gentrification begins.

[jm1982]

Another thing though is that many of these 'hipsters' do actually come from families that have money and often they are subsidized. This seems not too uncommon in places like L.A or NYC. Many are getting help in someway while they try to break into the film, art or some other type of business.

There are also going to be different types of 'urban pioneers' moving into these neighborhoods at various times.

Another group of urban pioneers that often change areas are gays and artists. I actually think these groups are the first ones to really influence change in an area and then the young hipsters move in once it's a bit safer.

So if you are looking to buy property...i'd say buy when artists or gays move in...you don't want to buy when the yuppies with strollers are on the streets...then it's too late! Prices have gone up too much!

In Silverlake (in L.A) it was first gays, then hipsters and now you're getting the more professional yuppie types.

I'm trying to find the next place (even elsewhere in the country) that might go up crazy like some of these 'gentrified' parts of L.A . The plus side is rents go up a lot too when prices go up like that.

[astroia 34567]

I live in NYC and have not been to LA but my curiosity of the place and desire to visit it has gotten me to research LA and some of the surrounding areas. It sounds like the reference to "South Central" is quite vague in this discussion. For example, Baldwin Hills, Lemiert Park, Jefferson Park are from my understanding affluent to middle class areas either not far from South Central or a bit of a distance, yet people imply this is "South Central". I also thought that areas around Exposition Park were OK these days too. I think a map showing what area is meant by South Central.

Harlem's gentrification has been slow and its attractiveness varies greatly. Parts of East Harlem became quite ugly with the high concentration of high-rise projects east of Lenox Ave all the way from 104th to 125th to the East River while west of Lenox you have areas of fine brownstones and wide avenues with some stunning buildings mixed in. THe housing projects are more spread out, and there are more sites or places of interest - Citty College/CUNY, some nice historic districts, and a few small corridors of food and drinkl places. East Harlem is getting a little bit of gentrification in some areas between 99th and 116th. One thing I do like about East and Central Harlem - it is nice to see families sitting out in the warm weather with a bar-b-que or lounging about talking. And people are happy to see nice new businesses - a few young guys called the presence of a well-appointed and professional-looking dog behavioral business as "beautiful' ... because they said it was the only business of its type in East Harlem.

What South Central seems to share in common with Harlem is a rich history - the difference being South Central's is not as well-known as Harlem's. Anyway, when I visit LA, I do plan to visit Watts Towers and explore some of the nabes around South Central.

One question, aside from Watts Towers, are there any interesting or cool little enclaves IN or AROUND South Central (aaside from what little I know about Baldwin Hills, Lemeirt Park, some spots around Exposition) that I could explore on foot or a mix of foot and public transport?

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by astroia 34567

I live in NYC and have not been to LA but my curiosity of the place and desire to visit it has gotten me to research LA and some of the surrounding areas. It sounds like the reference to "South Central" is quite vague in this discussion. For example, Baldwin Hills, Lemiert Park, Jefferson Park are from my understanding affluent to middle class areas either not far from South Central or a bit of a distance, yet people imply this is "South Central". I also thought that areas around Exposition Park were OK these days too. I think a map showing what area is meant by South Central.

Harlem's gentrification has been slow and its attractiveness varies greatly. Parts of East Harlem became quite ugly with the high concentration of high-rise projects east of Lenox Ave all the way from 104th to 125th to the East River while west of Lenox you have areas of fine brownstones and wide avenues with some stunning buildings mixed in. THe housing projects are more spread out, and there are more sites or places of interest - Citty College/CUNY, some nice historic districts, and a few small corridors of food and drinkl places. East Harlem is getting a little bit of gentrification in some areas between 99th and 116th. One thing I do like about East and Central Harlem - it is nice to see families sitting out in the warm weather with a bar-b-que or lounging about talking. And people are happy to see nice new businesses - a few young guys called the presence of a well-appointed and professional-looking dog behavioral business as "beautiful' ... because they said it was the only business of its type in East Harlem.

What South Central seems to share in common with Harlem is a rich history - the difference being South Central's is not as well-known as Harlem's. Anyway, when I visit LA, I do plan to visit Watts Towers and explore some of the nabes around South Central.

One question, aside from Watts Towers, are there any interesting or cool little enclaves IN or AROUND South Central (aaside from what little I know about Baldwin Hills, Lemeirt Park, some spots around Exposition) that I could explore on foot or a mix of foot and public transport?

Well in real South Central, there is the Central Ave. Jazz Park (which has events quite often I believe), as well a lot of classic architecture from the days when Central Ave. was one of the more happening hotspots for African Americans (since, you know, they were banned from everywhere else). Exposition Park is not really in South Central IMO but also has a ton of worthwhile attractions, the California Science Center, Natural History Museum, Rose Garden, The Coliseum, etc.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by munchitup

Well in real South Central, there is the Central Ave. Jazz Park (which has events quite often I believe), as well a lot of classic architecture from the days when Central Ave. was one of the more happening hotspots for African Americans (since, you know, they were banned from everywhere else). Exposition Park is not really in South Central IMO but also has a ton of worthwhile attractions, the California Science Center, Natural History Museum, Rose Garden, The Coliseum, etc.

And your opinion would be as wrong as thinking that what is now called South Los Angeles, is not dignified enough to contain Exposition Park and even USC sir.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by Mr. Opinionated

And your opinion would be as wrong as thinking that what is now called South Los Angeles, is not dignified enough to contain Exposition Park and even USC sir.

Pretty much.

Try telling the Chinese students who were murdered just west of USC last year that they weren't in South Central.

http://news.yahoo.com/2-usc-students...205336516.html

[munchitup]

I didn't say it wasn't really South Central to imply it was nicer or not a dangerous neighborhood - I was just going strictly from a historical standpoint... South Central was always centered along Central Avenue on the other side of the 110. I think South LA is a good moniker (re-branding) for that entire region / district of the city, since it doesn't also refer to a specific neighborhood within said region (Like how the Westside and West LA refer to two different things).

[yby1]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Pretty much.

Try telling the Chinese students who were murdered just west of USC last year that they weren't in South Central.

2 USC students from China fatally shot off campus

So it's only South Central if someone gets shot?

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by yby1

So it's only South Central if someone gets shot?

That is certainly a feature of the area.

Why don't you explain to Harrier why you don't consider University Park, West Adams, etc..., to be South-Central.