Why has Marina Del Rey gotten so upscale? (section 8, real estate)

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Westside Ghettos = Only ONE starbucks on each block

Pretty much. The "ghetto" areas of the Westside are Del Rey, the part of Culver City west of the 405 (which is basically interchangeable with Del Rey) and some small pockets of Mar Vista and Venice. They're still far better than any real ghetto.

Marina del Rey was always upscale to me too. It's only following the trend of LA, everything has gotten more upscale. Even Santa Monica, for example.

[The Illusive Man]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

Pretty much. The "ghetto" areas of the Westside are Del Rey, the part of Culver City west of the 405 (which is basically interchangeable with Del Rey) and some small pockets of Mar Vista and Venice. They're still far better than any real ghetto.

Marina del Rey was always upscale to me too. It's only following the trend of LA, everything has gotten more upscale. Even Santa Monica, for example.

West of the 405? I live on Washington and Centinela. The area is far from ghetto. It's a very clean and safe area.

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by The Illusive Man

West of the 405? I live on Washington and Centinela. The area is far from ghetto. It's a very clean and safe area.

It's still the most "ghetto" part of the Westside. That's why I'm putting ghetto in quotes.

[Dunbar42]

Where are these upscale parts of Marina Del Ray? I ride my bike along Admirality Way several times a week and I must be missing the upscale amenities. The part of MDR along Lincoln certainly isn't anything special.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

Pretty much. The "ghetto" areas of the Westside are Del Rey, the part of Culver City west of the 405 (which is basically interchangeable with Del Rey) and some small pockets of Mar Vista and Venice. They're still far better than any real ghetto.

Marina del Rey was always upscale to me too. It's only following the trend of LA, everything has gotten more upscale. Even Santa Monica, for example.

I'd forgotten about the ghetto parts of Culver City. I would say the ghetto part of Venice is not that small. Not most of the neighborhood, but the ghetto parts of Venice and Mar Vista aren't insigificant, either. When I passed through, I saw stuff like people sleeping out in TENTS in the yards of HOMES that had multiple bunk beds in them. This is nothing but GHETTO and POOR. Now granted, that was in 2005, I don't know if these areas gentrified or if the city cracked down on these houses. But when I saw them, they were AWFUL.

[yowps3]

Almost every area today in the LA basin at least looks upscale.

Many of the less wealthy areas of LA look better than the well off areas of New York.

[HarryKerryJr]

Everybody keeps talkin' 1980's, I'm really referring to the 1970's as the pinnacle as it was still new, but matured by 1970's. Back then it was in a league with Westwood as the place to be or the place to go, the "it" place as a destination for fun and upscale experiences. By the mid 1980's MDR lost its luster. Then, of course, there was that scandal about the County favoring one developer and how taxpayers weren't getting back the money we should have. That was a low point and was part of the reason MDR became somewhat stagnant through the 1990's. However, today it sounds like things are looking up for MDR these days.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by yowps3

Almost every area today in the LA basin at least looks upscale.

Many of the less wealthy areas of LA look better than the well off areas of New York.

Yes, the less well off parts of Venice and Culver City look better than the Upper East Side or Chelsea, which are nothing but hideously ugly apartment buildings.

[jm1982]

Yeah true. I know that a lot of people from NYC like to disparage L.A as "a bunch of suburbs' or as an example of sprawl...but to me NYC actually looks pretty homogenous . You can't really tell the difference between areas as much it seems. At least in Manhattan. Also you have a lot more lower income people paying lower rents living in the same buildings as very high income people , which you don't see in L.A too much.

The difference between good/bad and poor/rich areas are very striking in L.A

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Yeah true. I know that a lot of people from NYC like to disparage L.A as "a bunch of suburbs' or as an example of sprawl...but to me NYC actually looks pretty homogenous . You can't really tell the difference between areas as much it seems. At least in Manhattan. Also you have a lot more lower income people paying lower rents living in the same buildings as very high income people , which you don't see in L.A too much.

The difference between good/bad and poor/rich areas are very striking in L.A

I think the major difference is the nice areas of Los Angeles tend to just have well off people. In Manhattan, you have luxury housing right next to the housing projects. One block can be ghetto, and a few blocks over you can have Whole Foods.

LA dumps its homeless and welfare motel facilities downtown and in South Central disproportionately, while NYC has stuff like that even in the Upper West Side (a lot of wealthy Manhattan neighborhoods have housing projects where residents pay 400 dollars a month to live there).