Will South(Central) LA be the next Harlem? (Compton, Ladera Heights: 2013, hotels)

[hipcat]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Uh - how can someone be south of the 110?

I meant south the 10. Major typo error.

[mesa1974]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

Harlem has not gentrified. It is still Black Harlem, or Spanish Harlem with much less crime. And I hear the chinese are moving into Spanish Harlem.

Yes. They are moving uptown because they are being priced out of Chinatown.

[quixotic59]

Originally Posted by PDF

But right now is Harlem is miles ahead of South Central. You can't even compare the two. I can't ever see normal people actually wanting to live in South LA.

Well that's just plain rude.

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

I don't know what's more nauseating--this comment, or seeing yet another "LA vs NY" thread on the front page. This board is pretty much ruined now.

No normal people? Who's living there now? Did you mean white people? FFS.

Anyway, I could see areas north of Exposition gentrifying in the next 10-15 years. USC is on its way already. There is some nice housing stock throughout the region, and its close proximity to red hot DTLA will make it an attractive destination.

As for Harlem--I don't know or care if it's gentrifying or not. This is the L.A. board. What I do know is that South L.A. is a much larger region, making any comparisons between the two pointless.

True

Originally Posted by hjt123

south central is massive. i can see gentrification continuing strong around the USC area, but i don't think it will ever penetrate south of MLK. if the crenshaw line happens then there could be some revitalization in leimert park. it won't be a hipster destination (too far from the silver lake/echo park artistic locus) but i could see it turning into more moneyed community, kind of a black larchmont eventually

anyway, it's far more likely gentrification will spread east into boyle & lincoln heights before south central is touched

Also true.

Originally Posted by Harrier

I thought that Columbia University was in Morningside Heights - not Harlem.

Forgive me for not sticking to precise cartographic definitions. It's a matter of blocks.

Originally Posted by Harrier

East Coast liberals think that us West Coast conservatives are shalow.

They would never expect that I understand the intracacies and differences of disparate NYC neighborhoods.

Shoot - I live in Los Angeles County - where both the city, and the incorprated cities and unincorporated county area ar defined by their neighborhoods.

You would have to be from L.A. County (or maybe New York City) to understand.

Sorry for the political language - I usually hang out in the politics forum - and I forgot that I was here in the L.A. forum.

While I am an East Coast liberal (aspiring to be a West Coast liberal), I in no way think of West Coast conservatives as unable to grasp the intricacies of any neighborhoods. It's that I just don't care enough to be that specific. You also don't have to be from anywhere special to read a map.
If I have an opinion at all I have to agree with RaymondChandlerLives that comparisons are useless. In my book NYC loses everytime anyway.

Anyhow, I think a better question would have been, "Will South Central ever be subjected to gentrification?" Personally, I think there are two major factors at play-
1) Economic - Will there ever be enough financial incentive to make it worth someone's investment?
2) Social - Where will the displaced residents move to?

[drunk on kool aid]

Since the term "South Central" traces to Central Ave. and not the points on a compass, I have a hard time stretching the description too far west of the 110, much less all the way to Crenshaw. I know this is the current usage; it's just weird to me.

Originally Posted by silverkris

South Central LA doesn't seem to have the same long-standing history as NYC's famed district, IMO., so it's hard to see it become another Harlem.

Actually not true, Central Ave has a very distinguished history as the epicenter of black L.A. culture in the pre-war years. The Dunbar Hotel and Club Alabam anchored a jazz scene that could rival that of anywhere else in the country.

Originally Posted by hipcat

You could say the same thing about Silver Lake and Echo Park 20 years ago. Those neighborhoods were mainly lower class Latino neighborhoods filled with gangs, now it's becomming a hipster mecca. Hollywood also used to a dump full of tattoo shops, and druggies, that is in the process of being revitilized. This city doesn't stay in flux, lol

I guess I just have a higher tolerance of seed than most folks on this forum but Silver Lake, Echo Park, Highland Park et. al., even 20 years ago weren't "dumps." I used to go to Hollywood in the 80's and it was a bustling place with a lot of cool venues, not some place where you were gambling with your life. And tattoo shops are a sign of decay? Does every place have to look like Irvine to be considered nice?

Most of the neighborhoods along Crenshaw Blvd look really nice to me. Seriously, the area around the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza is great looking.

The housing stock in South L.A. includes a variety of small but really cool houses, lots of apartments and tons of storefront retail along with some strip malls. The location is central to everything and the weather is not as hot as the valleys so there are a lot of things going for it. If LAUSD overcame its stigma and public safety continues its upward trajectory, I could see South L.A. becoming a very desirable place to live.

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by PDF

But right now is Harlem is miles ahead of South Central. You can't even compare the two. I can't ever see normal people actually wanting to live in South LA.

Define "normal" people, please.

Usually that means "people like me", whoever that is.

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

Gentrification really only happens when whites move into a neighborhood. Hispanics, Asians, and to a lesser extent blacks can help, but not really. That being said, whites in LA generally do not move into black neighborhoods so whatever gentrification South LA sees will probably happen in areas that are already mostly Hispanic. But that could change in the future. I can see gentrification happening all along the Expo line. And then that could spread along the Crenshaw line. The blue line will not gentrify. Compton will not gentrify. Watts will not gentrify.

Did a project on this very thing a couple of years ago in a GIS program I was taking. With your parameters, Watts WILL gentrify, Compton WILL gentrify.

PM me if you're interested in seeing my maps from 1980-2010 of the area and the black share of the population for the four censuses.

[MediaArtist]

Some parts of South LA are becoming gentrified and desirable. Baldwin Hills, View Park come to mind.

Crime isn't nearly as bad as it was in the 80s and 90s.

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

Some parts of South LA are becoming gentrified and desirable. Baldwin Hills, View Park come to mind.

Crime isn't nearly as bad as it was in the 80s and 90s.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Baldwin Hills has long been an upscale area rather than an up and coming place with blue-collar origins.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by silverkris

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Baldwin Hills has long been an upscale area rather than an up and coming place with blue-collar origins.

The area near Coliseum, and MLK used to be known for being low-income, high crime (mostly drugs), and generally undesirable in the 80s and 90s. Now it's not so bad, and most of that element has been priced out.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by PDF

Um, are you talking about me or the OP here? You do seem confused.

Ahh... No. Read it again slowly....