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.
I don't know what all this prognosticating and pessimism is rooted in, but it's clearly not rooted in any historical facts, trends or other evidence based data. LA has weathered the kinds of downturns that would destroy and devastate other cities, but instead it always bounces back and with a flourish. With the collapse of the aerospace industry in the 80s, the Northridge earthquake, the riots, and high homicide rates of the 90s, many predicted the city's demise. Instead, what happened? LA’s population continued to grow, it's economy expanded to the 3rd largest metro economy in the world, wealth and new jobs were created, crime steadily declined, the housing market boomed (before the recent bust), tourism skyrocketed (foreign and domestic), and so on and so on. The level and magnitude of such growth over the last decade would have been unthinkable for most cities after such devastating natural disaster and economic events. New Orleans and Detroit (exhibits A and B, respectively).
LA will ALWAYS manage to weather downturns, economic and otherwise, because it is a well resourced city and metro. It’s a major research center with some of the top medical, academic, and scientific research institutions in the U.S and world which will spawn innovation and attract major financial investment from the federal government and private sector alike. It will always be a magnet for educated professionals especially those with advanced degrees in medicine, law, and business, in addition to being a magnet for those who are entrepreneurial who seek wealth building ventures and opportunity. LA will always be a haven for artists of every stripe and color, plus Hollywood isn’t going anywhere. Also, LA’s geographic location will always make it a primary point of entry for goods and services to the U.S. from Asia through the port complex and airport, in addition to being a point of entry for new immigrants who help to fuel the size and sustainability of LA’s enormous consumer economy. LA metro also has the highest concentration of publicly traded companies in the U.S. after New York among a number of sizable private companies covering every industry sector. The idea or suggestion that all of this is going to disappear and go away is complete fantasy IMO or perhaps even wishful thinking among the haters of our great city. Shy of nuclear annihilation from a wayward missile from N. Korea, LA will be humming because the people who create and innovate keep coming.
I don't know what all this prognosticating and pessimism is rooted in, but it's clearly not rooted in any historical facts, trends or other evidence based data. LA has weathered the kinds of downturns that would destroy and devastate other cities, but instead it always bounces back and with a flourish. With the collapse of the aerospace industry in the 80s, the Northridge earthquake, the riots, and high homicide rates of the 90s, many predicted the city's demise. Instead, what happened? LA’s population continued to grow, it's economy expanded to the 3rd largest metro economy in the world, wealth and new jobs were created, crime steadily declined, the housing market boomed (before the recent bust), tourism skyrocketed (foreign and domestic), and so on and so on. The level and magnitude of such growth over the last decade would have been unthinkable for most cities after such devastating natural disaster and economic events. New Orleans and Detroit (exhibits A and B, respectively)
Detroit was merely the city that got hit worst in an entire region that was devastated by recession. While the other Great Lakes cities suffered badly in the recession of the early '80s, Detroit - due to some pre-existing problems and totally inept government - wound up wiped out. However, all the cities near Lake Erie suffered - Cleveland being an obvious example, but also Buffalo which is to this day (non-Latino) white majority also suffered some blows and many of the same problems. Even some of the Canadian cities around the Great Lakes suffered similar problems to a lesser extent. The only two Great Lakes area US cities which escaped relatively unscathed and which prospered after economic recovery set in were Chicago and Minneapolis.
The current recession, like that of almost 30 years ago, is a recession that will knock out an entire region of the country, not just a city. In the '80s recession, the Midwest was permanently damaged. In the current recession, it seems like the Sunbelt will be permanently damaged in the same way. The question is - will L.A. come out like Chicago or like the other cities of the region?
Quote:
LA will ALWAYS manage to weather downturns, economic and otherwise, because it is a well resourced city and metro.
L.A. never truly recovered from the events of the early '90s but it has had ups and downs since then, whereas Detroit has been on a long straight path of severe decline. Cleveland, Buffalo, and Milwaukee never recovered from the '80s recession, and did have brief periods when things looked up (in Cleveland's case, due to innovative urban planning, in Buffalo's case, due to NAFTA) but have generally declined, especially in the current environment. L.A. does have the potential to be a Chicago because of the advantages you mention - the question is, will it?
(Northern California is not part of the Sunbelt and so will be less affected by its overall collapse. If the Bay Area manages to avoid social disaster and/or earthquakes, it'll come out of the recession very well. Even Oakland, which was actually starting to improve prior to the election of Ron Dellums as Mayor and the recession.)
Quote:
It’s a major research center with some of the top medical, academic, and scientific research institutions in the U.S and world which will spawn innovation and attract major financial investment from the federal government and private sector alike. It will always be a magnet for educated professionals especially those with advanced degrees in medicine, law, and business, in addition to being a magnet for those who are entrepreneurial who seek wealth building ventures and opportunity. LA will always be a haven for artists of every stripe and color, plus Hollywood isn’t going anywhere.
The neighborhood isn't (and is in better shape than it was in the 1980s). The film industry, OTOH, certainly has diminished. (Of course, the majority of films haven't been shot in Hollywood since the 1930s. Even as early as 1940 there were more films shot in the Westside than Hollywood.)
Quote:
Also, LA’s geographic location will always make it a primary point of entry for goods and services to the U.S. from Asia through the port complex and airport
Thank you, Tom Bradley, for helping to build this up. However, can this survive the decline of an entire region? L.A. does have things in its favor that could make it a survivor of an economically declining region - however, is the leadership there? Tony V is no Daley, nor even a Harold Washington. Nor is he an enthusiastic cheerleader/negotiator like Bradley who had the ability and skills to overcome limits imposed by a dysfunctional city charter, for the good of the city he loved. "Celebrity politicians" like Tony can only do so much.
If things do go wrong, there's no reason why those goods and services wouldn't go through Seattle, or for that matter Oakland (a city far more dysfunctional than L.A. but it is the main port of the Bay Area).
Quote:
in addition to being a point of entry for new immigrants who help to fuel the size and sustainability of LA’s enormous consumer economy.
Which also exists in the Bay Area.
Quote:
LA metro also has the highest concentration of publicly traded companies in the U.S. after New York among a number of sizable private companies covering every industry sector. The idea or suggestion that all of this is going to disappear and go away is complete fantasy IMO or perhaps even wishful thinking among the haters of our great city. Shy of nuclear annihilation from a wayward missile from N. Korea, LA will be humming because the people who create and innovate keep coming.
I truly hope you are right and that L.A. manages to survive the decline of the Sunbelt just as Chicago has survived the decline of the Midwest.
Majoun, I am not going to go back and forth with you. We've had similar debates about LA's future before and we are in complete disagreement. Most importantly, however, you use anecdotal events that have impacted other regions of the country to draw your conclusions about LA metro. The Midwest and Southern California are not comparable or analogous for a variety of reasons (e.g. climate, geography, cultural sensibility, demographics, and politics, among a host of other reasons). Nor is it appropriate to lump LA metro with the entire Sunbelt which includes the entire bottom half or southern tier of the United States, stretching from California to Florida. The economic, cultural, political, demographical, natural resource and geographic dynamics of the Sunbelt among all of these states and metros are incredibly diverse and different. We are not one big monolithic region.
LA has been on a steady upward climb since its founding as a city. The metro area has grown by leaps and bounds since post WWII and manages to survive and reinvent in robust fashion after what many would consider cataclysmic events. There is NO evidence that LA is on the decline on the order you speak of. Just because film production, for example, has become a more global enterprise does not mean that the industry is completely disappearing in LA. TV production overwhelmingly remains in LA and a plurality of U.S. film production remains in LA. Unless the studios close shop that won't change.
In summary, when LA's population begins to decrease, when LA County no longer has the largest millionaire population in the U.S., when our metro economy precipitously and steadily drops from its high perch, when the number of billionaires starts to decline, when we are no longer #2 or in the top 5 in the number of publicly traded companies, when China and other Asian countries decide to no longer trade commerce through LA's ports, when tourism collapses (right now we are consistently in the top 3 for number of foreign and domestic tourists), when Caltech, RAND, UCLA, JPL, USC, UCI, Cedars, City of Hope, St. Johns, etc. decide to shackle their doors and decide to no longer hire top researchers and recruit top students who go on to create and expand new business enterprse, when the flow of federal and private investment begins to disappear, when politicians stop coming here to raise money to win national elective office, when college grads and immigrants alike stop coming which helps to fuel economic growth, when the housing market particularly in LA city and county completely collapses, etc., etc. etc. then we'll talk.
Last edited by TheRealAngelion; 04-15-2009 at 09:01 AM..
like i said in my earlier post, LA IS STILL A VERY DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion
Majoun, I am not going to go back and forth with you. We've had similar debates about LA's future before and we are in complete disagreement. Most importantly, however, you use anecdotal events that have impacted other regions of the country to draw your conclusions about LA metro. The Midwest and Southern California are not comparable or analogous for a variety of reasons (e.g. climate, geography, cultural sensibility, demographics, and politics, among a host of other reasons). Nor is it appropriate to lump LA metro with the entire Sunbelt which includes the entire bottom half or southern tier of the United States, stretching from California to Florida. The economic, cultural, political, demographical, natural resource and geographic dynamics of the Sunbelt among all of these states and metros are incredibly diverse and different. We are not one big monolithic region.
LA has been on a steady upward climb since its founding as a city. The metro area has grown by leaps and bounds since post WWII and manages to survive and reinvent in robust fashion after what many would consider cataclysmic events. There is NO evidence that LA is on the decline on the order you speak of. Just because film production, for example, has become a more global enterprise does not mean that the industry is completely disappearing in LA. TV production overwhelmingly remains in LA and a plurality of U.S. film production remains in LA. Unless the studios close shop that won't change.
In summary, when LA's population begins to decrease, when LA County no longer has the largest millionaire population in the U.S., when our metro economy precipitously and steadily drops from its high perch, when the number of billionaires starts to decline, when we are no longer #2 or in the top 5 in the number of publicly traded companies, when China and other Asian countries decide to no longer trade commerce through LA's ports, when tourism collapses (right now we are consistently in the top 3 for number of foreign and domestic tourists), when Caltech, RAND, UCLA, JPL, USC, UCI, Cedars, City of Hope, St. Johns, etc. decide to shackle their doors and decide to no longer hire top researchers and recruit top students who go on to create and expand new business enterprse, when the flow of federal and private investment begins to disappear, when politicians stop coming here to raise money to win national elective office, when college grads and immigrants alike stop coming which helps to fuel economic growth, when the housing market particularly in LA city and county completely collapses, etc., etc. etc. then we'll talk.
The one reason I love big cities like NY and LA: the culture. There is ALWAYS something interesting to do! We have museums, great places to eat, great places to shop, incredible diversity in the things we can do in our spare time. We have professional musicians, professional actors...
Have you ever lived in a place where the only plays ever put on were the ones put on by the local high school?!! Where the only places to shop were the cookie cutter malls with the same chain stores in every one of them?!!
Is it a trade-off? Sure. But I wouldn't trade living in LA for living in Podunkville for less than a million dollars. I LIKE having an interesting life!
I totally agree with you. I couldn't live in a small town for the very reasons you stated.
However, when you add up the total cost of having those things at your disposal it truly is staggering.
And there are large cities, Chicago, for example, that offer everything (except sunshine) that LA or NY offer yet doesn't cost nearly as much to live there.
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.
