Cover Story: "The Next Los Angeles"

[LongBeachUrbanist]

na, na, na, nee, na, naw, naw, nee, naw, I can't hear you, I can't hear you....I know you are, but what am I?..I know you are, but what am I?...naw, naa, ne, na, naa, nee, naa...I can't hear you, I can't hear you...naw, naa, nee, na...your mother wears combat boots, your mother wears combat boots.

Nice.

[Wright Concept]

[/b]That's like someone saying: besides long commutes, what's wrong with a burbanized environment that's full of fwys? Wes, I certainly would recommend you never seek a career in architecture or urban design.

I think he meant it as sarcasm. Besides if you look carefully along some of the main boulevards some of our Modernist/Post Modern/Deconstructive (with nose in the air and with a snobbish tone) Architecture is some of the most walled off an anti-urban design.

Also material choices of homes make a difference as to how they look. If you go to the midwest or east coast and see the brick facade of a two-flat or brownstone it would look elegant even when it's rotting from the inside out. But here brick (unless it's a veneer) wouldn't hold up in an earthquake unless it's heavily reinforced. So wood/plaster/stucco are the materials of choice to keep the cost of housing down and build them quickly.

[edluva]

So wood/plaster/stucco are the materials of choice to keep the cost of housing down and build them quickly.

Stucco in particular since not only is it fast and cheap, it's also versatile. You can make so many different forms out of stucco. But I don't see stucco as being much more durable. It soaks rainwater like a sponge and starts warping after a few years. Buildings in LA aren't made to last and it shows because until recently, LA in general hasn't been built to last. More than in any other city LAs buildings are like free-standing billboards so it makes sense. Hope the rail system counters that impermanence (looking down nose at you)

[edluva]

[/b]That's like someone saying: besides long commutes, what's wrong with a burbanized environment that's full of fwys? Wes, I certainly would recommend you never seek a career in architecture or urban design.

So I'd like to see you actually answer one of these questions for once. What specific things do you dislike about the architecture and urban design in that pic, since you're so gifted with an architectural eye?

[citywatch]

What specific things do you dislike about the architecture and urban design in that pic, since you're so gifted with an architectural eye?edluva, OK, my eyes must be deceiving me. On second thought, I now believe the stuff shown in that photo or in these photos is really wonderful, truly fabulous:

http://abc.go.com/primetime/xtremehome/images/gallery/ep109/ep109_01_360x240.jpg

http://a.abc.com/primetime/xtremehome/images/gallery/ep103/360x240_ep103_1.jpg


BTW, a lot of urban theorists, among others, love to cite this town as an example of how to do things right:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/SF/061111SFO011.jpg


They'll say that unlike LA, the sidewalks, devlpt & street layouts in SF are so ped & ppl friendly. OK, yep, they are. But two photo albums of SF posted at SSP (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2448312&postcount=1) or linked at SSP (http://www.worldisround.com/articles/318396/index.html), along with a few SF photo threads I've seen at SSP in previous months, have stood out to me in one way: they show sidewalks of various hoods in SF that are surprisingly quiet or certainly not full of foot traffic.

IOW, I think that for many ppl, what separates one city from the other goes beyond just the general issue of things like transit (or lack of such) & ped friendly or unfriendly sidewalks. I think it comes down to fundamentals like this (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2454766&postcount=755).

[cookiejarvis]

OMG citywatch, stop being a saracastic snit and just answer edluva's question without links or pictures.

[citywatch]

^ If edluva asked his question with total sincerity----if he really does have to ask why anyone would criticize what's shown in the pics I've posted----then there's no reason to think my previous comment was sarcastic. IOW, ok, maybe those houses aren't so bad after all. In fact, the ppl who built them may have believed they were doing a wonderful, even fantastic, job.

[Quixote]

You shouldn't compare Downtown San Francisco with a suburban-like part of Los Angeles City. Downtown Los Angeles I would consider to be pedestrian friendly in many areas. Downtown Los Angeles will definitely surpass Downtown San Francisco in the future.

[zilfondel]

^ Beautifully put. Personally I reference that as the "Elmo complex". Elmo that loud pesky Red puppet on Sesame Street that says the same thing over again but never really explains why. "Elmo wants this. Elmo wants that". Hell at least Oscar the Grouch gave you a reason for why he was pissed and it usually dealt with someone always throwing their crap in his home (even though it's a garbage can). That kind of has a poetic


Here's some neighborhoods and streets around South LA.

Crenshaw Blvd/57th Street
http://i14.tinypic.com/4hsouhw.jpg

I'll have more around Leimert Park and Crenshaw Blvd in LOS ANGELES, Not Torrance, in the next few weeks.

90062 Zip Code.
A collection of various hoods taken within the last 2 months

On and Around King Blvd/Western

http://i13.tinypic.com/2vdkxli.jpg
http://i13.tinypic.com/3y5igzo.jpg
http://i13.tinypic.com/33jpx6t.jpg
http://i14.tinypic.com/4i2xuog.jpg
http://i13.tinypic.com/4ifwhuh.jpg
http://i13.tinypic.com/2rwkfhc.jpg
http://i13.tinypic.com/33tp3c8.jpg

On and around Vermont/King

There's a couple of shots of a street worker cleaning up the street.
http://i14.tinypic.com/40m7hac.jpg
http://i13.tinypic.com/2zdpyck.jpg
http://i13.tinypic.com/2ih76v6.jpg

Street Trees around Menlo Avenue, one block east of Vermont . Notice how they soften the overhead powerlines.

http://i13.tinypic.com/2vuea2t.jpg
http://i13.tinypic.com/2ufc9s3.jpg
http://i14.tinypic.com/490y7ty.jpg
http://i14.tinypic.com/47lya1i.jpg


More pics will come soon. Some along Whittier Blvd from the backseat of my "Rapid Bus Limo" LOL


OMG! This is LA?! Pretty scary stuff man... got any pics of the nicer parts of the city that are urbanized?

[zilfondel]

[/b]Why? Because the truth hurts? This previous post of mine to you (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2390017&postcount=651) still applies.

BTW, codex, in the era of google, everyone has a "slave"! And the archive is lapl.org, not UCLA. More important, & speaking of recalling the past, weren't you the same person who for some strange reason got all warm hearted towards that silly woman from India who visited CA a few months ago & tinkled & gushed all over SF but said she was unimpressed by LA? If her dissing LA didn't bother you, then you (unlike me or this person (http://www.laweekly.com/general/24-seven/the-defender/8594/)) shouldn't be bothered by similar reactions from anyone else.

Not that it's any of my biz or anything... but just thought you'd like to know that the absolute least credible sources for citation are yourself. And I'm not going to use an analogy. :cool:

[Damien]

Okay citywatch,

I appreciate your passion and your vision for recognizing this issue with our could-be/should-be great city. And since it is so disturbing to you, please tell us how you intend to help solve this problem.

I suggested using the million trees initiative to jump-start change and you said no. What ideas do you have, and how do we, who share your concern help you?

[yakumoto]

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that San Francisco's zoning laws are for pedestrians, and LA's zoning laws are amost exclusivly for auto uses?

And people say "LA is heading in the right direction", because the Mayor is talking about building up...no, its still heading in the wrong direction. There is TALK of changing the zoning laws, but absolutely nothing has been done, and now with so much demand for growth at this moment in history, there is a chance to have the RIGHT kind of growth, but its not happening.

[Codex Borgia]

^ UGH! Unfortunately I think that your assertion may be correct Yakumoto. LA City Council needs to grow some cojones and start campaigning for a transit oriented future and more importantly start selling the public on it. Without painting a broad picture of L.A.'s Future with and without Zoning Law changes, and a Master Plan for the direction of the entire Southland,I'm afraid that our growth will continue to include T.O.D. with larger and larger Parking Structures, more parking fees and congested streets/freeways from 4a-2a. By the time everyone gets sick and tired of it and it starts affecting business, the damage will have been to great to repair to the City. How about a Big Earthquake?! :yes:

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-koreatown27nov27,1,7816360,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Volunteers hit streets to keep Koreatown safe
The security patrollers spend most of their first night simply making themselves known at local businesses.
By K. Connie Kang
Times Staff Writer

November 27, 2006

Armed only with walkie-talkies and looking spiffy in black uniforms emblazoned with Koreatown Security Patrol in big white letters, nine volunteers from the Korean American Federation of Los Angeles made their debut on Saturday night.

They rode in three shiny dark patrol cars through well-lighted boulevards and almost black side streets, from Vermont and Western avenues on the east and west to Beverly and Olympic boulevards on the north and south. Along the way, the volunteers — mostly middle-aged businessmen — made numerous stops at bars, convenience stores and 24-hour restaurants to introduce themselves to proprietors and their customers, and to listen to their concerns.

"We're from the Korean federation," they said in Korean, with a polite bow. "We're beginning our patrol tonight in an effort to make Koreatown safer."

A series of high-profile slayings in the community over the last year — including the shooting deaths of three people at a Koreatown restaurant bar last month — has heightened concern among local residents and business owners, prompting the federation to start the volunteer program, staffed by board members and their relatives.

Although crime is down overall in Koreatown, according to police, there was a jump in homicides and rapes this year over 2005. As of October, homicides had increased from 15 to 21 and rapes from 30 to 44.

Police Chief William J. Bratton sees the volunteer patrol as a "good thing." Spokesman Jason Lee said the chief "asks that they be our ears and eyes" but cautions that they not be vigilantes. Lee says the chief wants them to call police when they see any suspicious activity.

Lee, a 20-year department veteran who grew up in Koreatown, has said that many eateries and bars stay open into the early morning hours, and though that is good for business, it has the potential to attract the wrong element.

"When there's alcohol being consumed late into the night, it can be a combustible combination," he said.

Koreatown was relatively quiet Saturday because it was Thanksgiving weekend; there were no incidents that required the volunteer patrol to follow up with police. Still, one car carrying three volunteers remained on duty until 2 a.m., the closing time for bars and clubs. With the exception of a quick midnight dinner break — all ordered a bowl of beef brisket stew, rice and kimchi — they worked straight through.

Most people — business owners and customers — said they were glad to see them.

"It's good that the federation is doing this," said Shawn Park as he smoked outside Dansung-sa, a bar at a mini-mall at the corner of 6th and Berendo streets. "I am always concerned about safety around here," Park said, before he and his party maneuvered out of the crowded parking lot in a BMW.

An employee at Dansung-sa, who came out to check on the commotion stirred up by the patrol cars, was more skeptical, fearing that the sight of patrol cars could scare customers away. "They might think something is happening," he said.

The patrol began 15 minutes behind schedule, at 10:15 p.m., from the federation headquarters in the 900 block of Western Avenue, near Olympic Boulevard.

A Times photographer and a reporter rode along in a patrol car with Gab Jea Cho, head of the federation's public safety committee, and Chris Moon Key Nam, federation president.

Several cars carried camera crews from Korean-language broadcast stations. The project, weeks in planning, has generated much discussion in the local Korean media.

Thus far, the federation has received more than $50,000 in donations and pledges, said Mark Yoon, a vice chairman of the federation.

"We are definitely not going around asking people for money," he said. "But businesspeople and board members have come forward on their own," he said. One member donated $10,000. Another is paying for communication equipment.

On the first night of patrol, the plan was to cover mini-malls and nightspots in known problem areas and to locate areas that needed more streetlights.

From Western and Olympic, the team drove east to Vermont Avenue, north to Beverly, and paused briefly at Beverly and Normandie Avenue to note a traffic accident. But, hearing police sirens, they proceeded to their first stop — a mini-mall at Beverly near Oxford.

A lone security guard named Jonathan worked the mall, standing between Napole Club and Toad House.

"It's good," Jonathan said, when told of the patrol's goal. "It's good to have extra help," he said.

Team members went door to door to explain their mission.

Federation board member Chol Mo Kang cited three "major problem spots": Alexandria Plaza at 6th and Alexandria Avenue, Chapman Plaza across the street, and the Brown Derby Plaza at Alexandria and Wilshire Boulevard.

Dong Hyun Park, owner of PC Comics at Alexandria Plaza, was delighted to see the team from the federation.

"Security is nonexistent around here," Park said. "We have homeless people coming — demanding money at all hours."

But Park said it's going to take a sustained effort and cooperation from all segments of the Koreatown business community to make the area safer.

One immediate challenge is figuring out where to stop in the sprawling Koreatown, with its many blocks of restaurants and drinking establishments, some of which are so dark that it's hard to tell from the street whether they are even open. For example, shortly before 2 a.m. Sunday, one patrol car stopped at a mini-mall with a karaoke room popular with the younger set.

From the outside, Ting-ga Ting-ga, near Harvard and Olympic, appeared to be closed, until Yoon heard music coming from inside.

When his group walked up a flight of stairs and ventured inside, they found the place throbbing with loud music.

When Yoon introduced himself, an attendant went inside to get his boss.

"This place is busy," Yoon said.

"We're usually busier," said the manager. "This being a holiday weekend, a lot of customers are taking time off."

"I can't believe the place stays open until 4 a.m.," Yoon said, as he left the premises. "When do these people study or sleep?"

The federation's patrol team will be back on Friday and Saturday, working from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m., Yoon said. Beginning Dec. 13, the team plans to cover Mondays and Wednesdays as well.

"We are concerned about the holiday season," Yoon said.

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
connie.kang@latimes.com

[RAlossi]

Has K-Town formed a BID to help with security/crime, marketing and appearance issues?

[Wright Concept]

To my knowledge, there's Wilshire Center "chamber of Commerce" that Koreatown falls under but not a BID.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

This is very good to hear! I always feel unsafe in K-Town at night because of all the stories I hear about.

This could be the prelude to the formation of a BID as businesses in the area see the benefits of increased security presence. Many people who may have avoided K-Town for safety reasons could come back as the area is perceived as "safer."

[citywatch]

I saw this poll at some arts magazine I've never heard of before, & think it's another example of the city coming up short (http://www.americanstyle.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=154FE50916A844A3BBF46BD27DF204DC&nm=Recent+Articles&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=2EA20B6E76ED47C1A39A5E17F588B91C). Even though the mag's method of surveying ppl may be full of shit----esp when Columbus Ohio rates higher than LA----the fact remains that a lot of its readers prob are quite well educated &, naturally, into the arts to a great enough degree that their opinions can't be discounted entirely.

I'll say it again: just as a person going to a big job interview with a great resume in hand (a PhD from Harvard!, a BA from Stanford!!) but also dressed like a homeless bag lady is going to get laughed out the door, the same thing seems to be happening to LA.

I bet if the city were more like this (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=120190)----& this is just one of many towns in Europe that's nearly postcard perfect, & therefore isn't even that exceptional by the standards of that part of the world----it wouldn't be treated like a bag lady, with scraggleteeth & breath to match.



BTW, SSP's server has become so clogged & slow, this board must be losing a lot of visitors, either existing forumers or potential new ones. :irked:

[solongfullerton]

Thanks for the link to the Madrid pics, I loved the diversity in the architecture there. I love the diversity in the architecture in LA as well, from the stately mansions of Hancock Park, to the garden apartments scattered around hollywood, to the french normandie buildings along sunset and fountain, to the craftsan bungalows in venice and long beach, to the mid rise brick structures in Koreatown. Its unfortunate that there is so much bad architecture in the city, and im not even talking about the valley. maybe someday these 60s-80s buildings will be considered classic, but i highly doubt it. atleast it seems that we're getting back on the right track. its just a bummer that the there is so much faux tuscan crap being built ie the palazo at park la brea. nice arpartments, but they will be so out of style in 10 years.

[citywatch]

^ You sound observant enough, solongfullerton, that the obvious flaws of the city don't have to be spelled out for you. And, yea, I also like the diversity of the nice parts of town, old or new. And, yea, some of the---in your words---faux Tuscan crap may not be everyone's idea of improving or cleaning up a part of the city.

But here's where you don't seem to get it, & this is the reason I'm going to be posting the following pic again. THIS is the kind of sight that I believe to far more ppl makes the town seem like a craphole, or the kind of place where they say, this is a dive & it's depressing....get me the hell outta here!!

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images090/ca-091_wb_app_crenshaw.jpg

[cookiejarvis]

Comparing Madrid or Beijing infrastructure to the needs of Los Angeles is pure folly. Keep in consideration the human sacrifices made during the historic single party government structure "enjoyed" by the very recent post WWII era Spain or People's Republic of China. Maybe when California splits from the U.S. our 30 year "putsch" will imprison the land owning NIMBYs, silence the BRU Trotskyites, underground "hix in the stix" utilities and keep the trains running on time. In the meantime, the very inconvenient, incomplete American two-party system continues to shackle us with EIRs, ADA compliance and Department of Labor regulations.

[Vangelist]

Yeah, let's keep comparing cities that are 2200 years old to ones that didn't really get started until less than a century ago, it's really fair. Madrid was a Roman settlement in the 2nd century BC....hm, maybe a more apt comparison would be the Los Angeles of today with Madrid circa 100 BCE ? Geez..

[solongfullerton]

I have a good comparison to LA. Around the turn of the last century was LA wasnt much more than a cow town, Shanghai was a tiny fishing town in south eastern china. Shanghai is now a city of 15 million people, which is roughly the same size as metro in LA (In China, the city is the whole metro area, they dont have seperate suburban municipalities). Shanghai now has metro lines running throughout the city and a maglev train to its main international airport. Also, Shanghai's urban environment is ridiculously large. I have no numbers to back to my opinion here, but when I was on the viewing deck of the city's tallest building this past summer, Shanghai seemed to absolutely dwarf New York. As far as you could see in any direction there were skyscrapers, residential and commercial. Most of the city doesnt have the compactness of New York or European cities, but it still very dense. What blows me away is that China was a considered a 3rd country not too long ago and there infrastructure is quickly surpassing anything i have ever seen here in the states.

Also, citywatch, i have seen you post that pic more times than i count. i know exactly what youre talking about too. i live a few blocks from lincoln and rose where the big lots is, it doesnt look any different than the picture you keep posting. i cant wait until these intersections rid themselves of crappy strip malls and gas stations, but in the meantime, i dont really care what out of towners think of these areas because these crapholes have some of the best "diamond in the rough" spots in the city. for example, la playita right near the intersection i mentioned above, probably has the best burrito for your buck on the westside.

[kenratboy]

I have a good comparison to LA. Around the turn of the last century was LA wasnt much more than a cow town, Shanghai was a tiny fishing town in south eastern china. Shanghai is now a city of 15 million people, which is roughly the same size as metro in LA (In China, the city is the whole metro area, they dont have seperate suburban municipalities). Shanghai now has metro lines running throughout the city and a maglev train to its main international airport. Also, Shanghai's urban environment is ridiculously large. I have no numbers to back to my opinion here, but when I was on the viewing deck of the city's tallest building this past summer, Shanghai seemed to absolutely dwarf New York. As far as you could see in any direction there were skyscrapers, residential and commercial. Most of the city doesnt have the compactness of New York or European cities, but it still very dense. What blows me away is that China was a considered a 3rd country not too long ago and there infrastructure is quickly surpassing anything i have ever seen here in the states.

Also, citywatch, i have seen you post that pic more times than i count. i know exactly what youre talking about too. i live a few blocks from lincoln and rose where the big lots is, it doesnt look any different than the picture you keep posting. i cant wait until these intersections rid themselves of crappy strip malls and gas stations, but in the meantime, i dont really care what out of towners think of these areas because these crapholes have some of the best "diamond in the rough" spots in the city. for example, la playita right near the intersection i mentioned above, probably has the best burrito for your buck on the westside.

Great observations (especially the burrito!) - Europe has always had good transportation systems (I lived in a London suburb for a few years and was able to get around, I just had to...WALK...to the train station, something people would never do in the USA!), and Asia is very good as well. However, a few differences DO stand out to me.

-Cars are not as much a part of life in these areas as they are in the USA, Canada, etc. - so these systems are literally mandatory for the cities to function (think NYC)

-In China, issues of eminent domain is well, not an issue. You need to tear down an apartment complex, you just do it. While this is a whole other debate, this is one reason these projects may never happen in the USA (even in Japan, they are having horrible issues getting land for airports, trains, roads, etc.) is the fact getting the land is either shockingly expensive if not impossible.

Especially in LA, I just can't see how with our current system and mindset, we could accomplish the land acquisition goals we need for projects like this. Imagine having to pay a 'million dollars a meter' for land for tracks.

[bobcat]

I myself am getting a little tired of these comparisons to China. China has a totalitarian government and is working under a totally different set of rules than here in this country. This article from the BBC compares the differences in how China and the UK are preparing for their respective Olympic games.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6184022.stm

[kenratboy]

Thank you bobcat - we can learn from China, but need to realize they are playing a completely different ball game. The long and short version is China does what they want, period - where (to stay on topic) something like a massive Los Angeles transit project would take a lot more work due to the fact we actually respect peoples lives and property (New London case aside).

[Vangelist]

Around the turn of the last century was LA wasnt much more than a cow town, Shanghai was a tiny fishing town in south eastern china. <<

What?! In which alternate universe? Shanghai has been a boomtown since the late 18th century, when it was already being known as "the Paris of the Orient" by the Brits ...the opium wars exacerbated its extreme growth, which featured many grand buildings from the early Victorian era. I think you may be confusing its history with another Chinese city, but I'm not sure which, since most if not all are much older than American cities, even if they've gone through numerous "deaths" and subsequent re-births in newly incarnated forms

Los Angeles should only fairly be compared to cities that came of age after the advent of the automobile, but yes... even there, we are being put to SHAME. No denial here. But comparing it to any old world city which was built around a centralized core and had much longer to develop traditional aspects of density and aestheticized architecture is more than a little specious.

[Damien]

Thank you bobcat - we can learn from China, but need to realize they are playing a completely different ball game. The long and short version is China does what they want, period - where (to stay on topic) something like a massive Los Angeles transit project would take a lot more work due to the fact we actually respect peoples lives and property (New London case aside).

Incidentally, both Beijing and Madrid are engaged in the world's most ambitious subway extension programs.

Madrid is in the middle of building building 120 miles of rail, all but I think maybe 10-15 miles underground in 12 years. The most mentionable fact of this project is the price tag: $70-85 million per mile! Cheaper than at-grade rail lines here. (Expo Phase One is currently $640 million for 7 new miles of rail.)

Beijing has committed to building 100 miles of new subway by 2010 and another 177 miles by 2020 (http://au.news.yahoo.com/061120/19/11hxe.html).

The good thing is apparently some of the construction principles that have allowed Madrid (which is probably a better comparison for LA) and other Asian cities to construct tunnels so quickly have made their way up to city hall. Recently Mayor Villaraigosa called a meeting with the best engineers in the area to see how quickly he could build the subway to the sea if he had all the money on the table. By breaking the line up into segments and constructing each segment simultaneously they said 18 months. But the most important aspect of the meeting is the fact it was called. It means we have a mayor with his eyes on the prize who is willing to look to the rest of the world for solutions to our problems here at home.

Additionally, I'm slowly but surely coming across mounds of evidence that force me to question the accuracy of the $300-350 million/mile estimate by MTA. Tunneling technology has greatly improved and cities even in America aren't paying anywhere near that much for their subways.

[citywatch]

Madrid was a Roman settlement in the 2nd century BC....hm, maybe a more apt comparison would be the Los Angeles of today with Madrid circa 100 BCE ? Geez..Uh, not really, because Beverly Hills or portions of SaMo or old town Pasadena are hardly ancient & yet they're perfectly nice & more than attractive. And large segments of Wilshire Blvd certainly aren't full of the classic old world Euro bldgs found in a city like Madrid, but it's still a perfectly fine street. Only problem is that too many other avenues in LA look alot more like the dump shown in that photo of the street that intersects with Crenshaw blvd in Torrance.


Also, citywatch, i have seen you post that pic more times than i count. i know exactly what youre talking about too.Thank you. Just when I think that the point I'm trying to get across finally will be understood by everyone, someone posts about how bad new faux Tuscan devlpt in LA is, while saying nothing about the stuff that really sucks to the 10th degree.

I continue to think the biggest problem in fixing up the city is that too many ppl in local govt or in LA in general are like the employment advisor who keeps telling the job applicant that the reason she's not getting hired is because her resume is printed on fax quality paper, or because she went to Harvard instead of Yale.

Uh, how about telling the job seeker that THE main reason she's not getting hired is because she keeps showing up at job interviews dressed like a homeless bag lady, with hygiene to match?

[SunMonTueWedThuFriSa]

citywatch stop deluding yourself into think you're bringing a new, realist perspective to the board. you bring nothing here. do you think any of us here are unaware of the gritty, strip-mall, gas station, chain linked fenced lined streets that make up a majority of Los Angeles? you keep posting pics going 'hey guys look at this ugly street!' uh yes we get it citywatch. we know beyond well you know considering you live in santa maria. stop posting the obvious. it just seems like you're the only one who realizes this but only because the rest of us have moved passed the obvious and are more interested in discussing solutions rather than complaining about shit we're already well accustomed to

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Damien, I think you're really onto something with the whole price inaccuracy thing with subway construction. This misinformation has been spread across the Southland already making everyone believe (without doubt) how expensive building subways are.

Even though Villaraigosa called a meeting with the "best engineers," do these qualified people know that other cities are building the subway for a lot cheaper? I'm not always confident that people in the industry know everything. Remember the Japanese guy at the Beverly Hills Transportation Meeting--the transportation consultant hired--that had no idea how long it would take from Beverly Hills to Downtown LA? He said some really inflated time when all you have to do is look at the Red Line in a similar route up to NoHo to guesstimate.

Anyway, my point is, don't let the ball drop. If you know the subway can be built cheaper, you can bring this info up to the right people.

[colemonkee]

You can't necessarily use other cities costs per mile figures to demonstrate how it might be cheaper to build a subway line in LA. We have to look at the construction materials market in Southern California and labor costs in Southern California, which are going to be different from other countries - and even other cities in the US. So saying "Toyko can do it cheaper" is not a valid argument unless our labor and materials costs are the same here. I suspect they are not.

But I agree, the city should study the current costs to see if those $300 million per mile estimates are in fact accurate.

[Wright Concept]

Here's one thing that Beijing has that LA and for that matter the rest of the country used to have (hell it help win WWII) and need to seriously catch up on, Skilled and Cost-effective labor. When any area has that they can do anything! Without it, it becomes the classic case of supply and demand. That is why high-rises (such as LA Live) here take more time and cost more $$$. And if we want to get rid of deadzones, well we'll have to take into account having projects that are quick to build, cost-effective and with the right materials like Brick instead of stucco, can promote positive momentum to allow some taller towers to pencil out.

[colemonkee]

Labor unions and cost of living are two of the main reasons our labor costs are so high. Unions provide some level of worker's right's protection (and six levels of unecessary bureacracy) though, so it's kind of a double-edged sword. Yes, we need cheaper labor, but not at the expense of worker safety.

[citywatch]

do you think any of us here are unaware of the gritty, strip-mall, gas station, chain linked fenced lined streets that make up a majority of Los Angeles? you keep posting pics going 'hey guys look at this ugly street!' uh yes we get it citywatch.And who the hell are you? I don't recall ever seeing your screen name here much or at all. BTW, I don't live in Santa Maria, which just goes to show you know as much about me as I know about you.

Besides, I wasn't even talking to you (uh, again, who the hell are you?), but to those ppl, inc some SSPers, who complain about new devlpt, such as faux Euro style bldgs, while saying nothing about the crap that really wrecks the city. Or the ppl who think that comparing LA with a city like Madrid is impossible because the good aesthetics of something built centuries ago can never be duplicated in today's time.

oh, that therefore means hoods like Beverly Hills or Hancock Pk cannot be visually pleasing. Oh, that therefore means the improved, newer parts of DT, such as Elleven/Evo/Luma or Disney Hall, must look like trash.

[yakumoto]

Citywatch, I think your problem is you're getting worked up over other people's opinions. I mean, obviously LA’s terrible zoning codes are more of a problem than uninspired architecture, but seriously, its not like the SSP lobby holds any sway over the city planning department. There aren’t any developers on the forum (I think the guy who did rehabs left) so I doubt whatever they says is going to make a huge difference.

[Quixote]

[/b]And who the hell are you? I don't recall ever seeing your screen name here much or at all. BTW, I don't live in Santa Maria, which just goes to show you know as much about me as I know about you.

Besides, I wasn't even talking to you (uh, again, who the hell are you?), but to those ppl, inc some SSPers, who complain about new devlpt, such as faux Euro style bldgs, while saying nothing about the crap that really wrecks the city. Or the ppl who think that comparing LA with a city like Madrid is impossible because the good aesthetics of something built centuries ago can never be duplicated in today's time.

oh, that therefore means hoods like Beverly Hills or Hancock Pk cannot be visually pleasing. Oh, that therefore means the improved, newer parts of DT, such as Elleven/Evo/Luma or Disney Hall, must look like trash.

Citywatch, many tourists find Beverly Hills to be very aesthetically pleasing. Yet Beverly Hills doesn't having any of the architecture that one would find in Madrid. Many are impressed with Beverly Hills because of its cleanliness, beautiful landscaping, great condition, its architecture (like I said, we have some of the best private architecture), and of course the multi-million dollar mansions. Chicago is considered to be a city with great architecture, both classic and modern. Many of the buildings going up right now (Trump, Waterview, Mandarin Oriental, etc.) are regarded as "great architecture". And they're all post modern buildings.

[citywatch]

Citywatch, many tourists find Beverly Hills to be very aesthetically pleasing. Yet Beverly Hills doesn't having any of the architecture that one would find in Madrid. Exactly! I think some ppl make this issue far more complicated than it actually is. And if some ppl assume an attractive hood is impossible to create in a city that's less than X number of yrs old, or isn't precisely set up for pedestrians on sidewalks, or isn't specifically oriented to transit, that leaves the impression that nothing can be done to improve LA, at least not for another 1000 yrs.

And yakumoto's point about zoning is another reason I keep repeating my own opinion about this issue, or why I post the same pics of places like that street near Crenshaw in Torrance. That's because zoning, although it's important, doesn't have anything to do with ppl having a "who gives a shit?!" tude about the dives around them, or ppl having scuzzy or differing tastes.

Ex: I think LAB is pretty much on target when it comes to most matters discussed here, & the city would be better off if more ppl were like him. But he said several months ago that he liked seeing graffiti on frwy walls. On another occasion, he also said he didn't mind the sight of wires all over town.

[yakumoto]

And yakumoto's point about zoning is another reason I keep repeating my own opinion about this issue, or why I post the same pics of places like that street near Crenshaw in Torrance. That's because zoning, although it's important, doesn't have anything to do with ppl having a "who gives a shit?!" tude about the dives around them, or ppl having scuzzy or differing tastes.


First off, if I were to enter a debate about the aesthetics of San Francisco with pictures of Richmond, or something like that, and stating it as a reason why San Francisco is unattractive...sweet lord, Citywatch, there are SO many ugly places WITHIN the city limits...

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/assrapist/Downtown/pl3.jpg

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/assrapist/Downtown/pl2.jpg

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/assrapist/Downtown/pl1.jpg

Personally though, I would much rather LA become a FUNCTIONING city, before a pretty one. If it has a nice skyline, but was worthless to live in? Well, then we could call ourselves Houston. We can worry about cleaning up the city when all the poor people get priced out, ok?

Graffiti? Come on, find me a major city without it on your way back to the grove. Seriously, if someone wants to see well kept suburbs why not travel down to Irvine, Newport, or another one of those shitholes.

By the way there was once a writer who praised Broadway for its grit, then moved to the suburbs, etc…

[latennisguy]

First off, if I were to enter a debate about the aesthetics of San Francisco with pictures of Richmond, or something like that, and stating it as a reason why San Francisco is unattractive...sweet lord, Citywatch, there are SO many ugly places WITHIN the city limits...

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/assrapist/Downtown/pl3.jpg

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/assrapist/Downtown/pl2.jpg

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/assrapist/Downtown/pl1.jpg

Personally though, I would much rather LA become a FUNCTIONING city, before a pretty one. If it has a nice skyline, but was worthless to live in? Well, then we could call ourselves Houston. We can worry about cleaning up the city when all the poor people get priced out, ok?

Graffiti? Come on, find me a major city without it on your way back to the grove. Seriously, if someone wants to see well kept suburbs why not travel down to Irvine, Newport, or another one of those shitholes.

By the way there was once a writer who praised Broadway for its grit, then moved to the suburbs, etc…

hey...I thought the same thing, but I've been living in Houston for 5 months now and it's only a semi-shit hole...it has some really cool areas, The Village, Montrose, The Galleria (nah, it sucks - so fake), downtown Houston is freakin' happening at night - so many more concentrated clubs than downtown L.A.

[ocman]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/history/la-et-125punchingbag3dec03,0,5721423.story?coll=cl-lat-homepage

Oh, go ahead and insult us


What is it about Los Angeles that annoys people so much? Let's face it -- everyone needs some place to despise. And we're it.

ONE morning not long after I came to Los Angeles, I was sitting in rush-hour traffic having just carpooled six children to school, talking on the cellphone to New York. My friend on the other end of the line was in Manhattan, on the Upper West Side. I told her that I was trying desperately to get to a yoga class.

"It's happening to you too," she said, after a dark, fraught silence. "I knew it would."

"What's happening to me?" I asked.

"You're becoming an empty-headed Californian," she said. "Soon," she predicted direly, "you'll be happy."

I often wonder how a place where Alfred Hitchcock and John Huston flourished, where F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote and Raymond Chandler found his great material has managed to maintain its status as cultural whipping boy to the world. How come everywhere, everyone is so glad to accept the idea of Los Angeles as a bland place full of stupid people with no cultural interests? Can it be that they are jealous of the weather? They think it never rains here.

L.A. has been hated and disrespected for a long time, publicly and privately, by people who live here, by people who visit, by newcomers and old-timers, by writers and commentators and immigrants and transients. For a city that has produced so much art — in film, painting and literature — it remains the place, as Woody Allen famously noted, whose "only cultural advantage is that you can make a right turn on a red light."

This is our gift to the world: Everyone needs someone to despise, and as a city we are always available. After all, Los Angeles — though self-conscious — is not shy. Over the years, it has offered itself up almost shamelessly to be examined, and then rejected. Nathanael West was perhaps the greatest of the Los Angeles haters, and his vituperative "The Day of the Locust" is still the classic apocalyptic indictment of the city. (Los Angeles hated him back and meted out his fate in classic fashion: He died in a car crash with his wife after running a stop sign in El Centro.)

Even Carey McWilliams, the great chronicler of Southern California who eventually came to love the region, admits to having undergone a long bout with the illness I call anti-Angelenism before his attitude about the place turned around. "When I first arrived in Los Angeles," he wrote in 1946, "I hated, as so many other people have hated, the big, sprawling, deformed character of the place. I loathed the crowds of dull and stupid people that milled around downtown sections dawdling and staring, poking and pointing, like villagers visiting a city for the first time. I found nothing about Los Angeles to like and a great many things to detest."

L.A. has long been viewed as an embarrassment by America. Because it is the city at the end of the continent, it is commonly regarded as the newest, freshest, best thing the country has to offer, so its every flaw is interpreted as a sign of our collective national failure. As McWilliams writes, "What America is, California is, with accents, in italics." Europeans — among them De Tocqueville, Trollope and, more recently, Bernard Henri-Levi — look to the West and see Americans as uncultured, loutish, self-indulgent materialists. And Americans do the same: In Los Angeles, they see what they take to be a more babyish, dumber version of themselves and they shudder.

Because of its early history, L.A. has had to live up to some very high expectations. From the start, the town was touted as a paradise, and people came in droves. Much of the boosterism was true, or based on truth. Los Angeles was set in an exquisite landscape — warm, breezy, tucked between an ocean and purple mountains. (Even now, having lived here for four years, I can't believe it when I look up from traffic on a clear day and see not just the lovely Hollywood Hills but the San Gabriel range in the distance, behind the shopping malls and billboards.) The climate was healthful, dry and pleasant. Fruits and vegetables, although not of the Brobdingnagian size advertised by pamphlets and brochures, did have a longer growing season.

Still, once the crowds settled in, they noticed that Los Angeles was not paradise. Hardly anyone was a native, and hardly anyone who came here had time, before the next wave of humans landed, to establish a mark that could endure. There were too many people, and the new arrivals were always searching for Los Angeles, for some kind of meaning or significance or heart, and not finding it. They wanted to know where they had washed up, but in truth, there was no there where they were.

In a very real sense, Los Angeles has always been occupied territory. It was occupied by the Americans while it was still part of Mexico. Today, many occupiers come from the East Coast (though in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the deluge was from Iowa). Often, they are Hollywood people.

Hollywood people are always coming from somewhere else: The actors, of course, who arrive from that special nation called the Land of the Good Looking, but also the producers and directors and writers. They have their own peculiar state within a state here, although at the same time, they are visible nationally and internationally. I hold them accountable for a lot of L.A.'s bad press, both as local setters of ridiculous trends — dogs in bags, knitting as a lifestyle, the 2-inch jean zipper, Restylane — that are mocked but followed by the rest of the world, and as the biggest of the L.A. denigrators. They always like to tell you that they get only the New York Times. They're always raising money for candidates who are running for governor … of New York.

L.A.'s bad reputation has been oddly long-lived, but then, what would the world do without a place it could despise? In every century and culture, I would argue, there has been a place upon which opprobrium could be heaped, usually for cultural reasons, or out of jealousy and fear. This locus of loathing, I would argue further, will always be a place where the dominant culture has established its final triumphant outpost. (In the 1700s and 1800s, New York and Boston served this function for England and Europe; since the turn of the last century, Los Angeles has provided it for America, as well as the rest of the Western, and possibly Eastern, world.) It's necessary to have a yardstick against which one can measure one's own standing, and the culture of the last outpost will always challenge the received wisdom, much as a child challenges his or her parents. The older culture will seek to suppress the younger, but the younger will inevitably survive, to vanquish what came before.

So will there ever be a culture Los Angeles can look down on?

Well, I wonder, what would happen if there were one day a settlement on the moon.

"Ah," Angelenos might crow. "She's from the moon. I mean, come on. You can't expect her to be normal. Everything's so easy there, in the bubble. I mean, you're weightless, for heaven's sake. You don't ever have to lose a pound…. And it never rains."

Amy Wilentz is the author, most recently, of "I Feel Earthquakes More Often Than They Happen: Coming to California in the Age of Schwarzenegger."

[citywatch]

What is it about Los Angeles that annoys people so much? Let's face it -- everyone needs some place to despise. And we're it.

L.A. has been hated and disrespected for a long time, publicly and privately, by people who live here, by people who visit, by newcomers and old-timers, by writers and commentators and immigrants and transients.

I notice the writer doesn't once speculate or mention that a lot of that hate or despising may have something to do with this!:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/assrapist/Downtown/pl2.jpg

Kind of like asking----& here we go again----why does that person keep getting turned down by job interviewers??! Why isn't she respected? Why isn't she taken seriously?

She's got a good resume, a nice smile & has a lot of experience. She's even got a BA & masters from Stanford!

uh, has it ever occured to you & her that one big reason she's dissed or not considered seriously for the various jobs she's been applying for is because she keeps showing up dressed like a homeless bag lady, with a filthy do rag wrapped around the top of her head?

[citywatch]

Personally though, I would much rather LA become a FUNCTIONING city, before a pretty one. If it has a nice skyline, but was worthless to live in? Well, then we could call ourselves Houston. We can worry about cleaning up the city when all the poor people get priced out, ok?
Huh? what? wh.. huh? wha...? Huh? what?

"Functioning"? So vague. So imprecise. What does that mean?

But, yakumoto, I do admit it has a nice intellectual ring to it.

And it makes me think of an expert on career advancement telling that job seeker, the one who keeps going to interviews dressed like a bag lady with a do rag on her head, that to be more successful when seeking employment in the future, she has to be more "functioning" during job interviews.

Huh? what? wh..huh? wha...what?? huh?

That's odd, the expert didn't say anything about that unemployed job seeker handing out her application to a possible new boss or manager wearing the garb of a homeless bag lady.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-valley8dec08,0,4417505,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Census Bureau offers first-ever snapshot of San Fernando Valley
Demographic study of the region's 1.74million residents is expected to help secure funds for anti-poverty, housing and transit efforts.
By Amanda Covarrubias
Times Staff Writer

December 8, 2006

The San Fernando Valley lost its bid for secession in 2002.

But the U.S. Census Bureau gave the region something of a consolation prize Thursday with the release of the first-ever demographic snapshot of the region.

It showed that Valley residents make more money, spend more of it on housing and endure longer commutes to work than the average American.

The findings, while far from unexpected, were met with pride from Valley leaders who see it as an important step in being viewed as distinct from the Greater Los Angeles area.

L.A.'s Valley neighborhoods, combined with the cities of Glendale, Burbank, Calabasas and San Fernando, had a population of 1.74 million in 2005, making it larger than every American city but New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston.

The census report resulted from a hard-fought battle by Valley leaders to have the area recognized as geographically distinct from the rest of the city and county. It will allow elected leaders to pursue federal and state funds based on its unique demographics, said U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), who represents a large portion of the Valley and helped pave the way for the region to gain separate status last year with the Census Bureau.

The designation came after the Valley failed in its effort to break away from the city of Los Angeles. During the campaign, some Valley residents questioned whether accurate demographic statistics about the region existed.

"It may have even started before the secession debate, but it reflected the same kind of cynicism and suspicion on the part of Valley residents that they were a donor region, not a recipient region, when it came to dollars spent," said L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who represents part of the Valley. "So when taxes were raised, they were the first to pay dearly, but when it came to getting services, they were not the first to receive. Most of us were not in a position to be able to argue the interests of the Valley in the best possible way or in context to the rest of the region."

The report should dispel the idea that the Valley is filled only with financially well-off white people. It found that more than 72,000 households have incomes under $15,000.

"There is significant poverty in the Valley, justifying our requests for housing funds and for inclusion in tax-incentive empowerment zones," Sherman said.

According to the report — which surveyed households only and had a margin of error of about 3% — 1,032,000 Valley residents were born in the United States, and 711,000 were foreign born. In terms of languages spoken in the home, 668,000 households spoke English only, and 956,000 spoke a language other than English.

"The Valley has become a port of entry for foreign-born people right along with the rest of L.A.," said Dan Blake, director of the San Fernando Valley Economic Research Center at Cal State Northridge.

Of the Valley's foreign-born residents, 264,000 were from Asian countries and 374,000 from Latin American countries.

"It tells you something about the foreign-born in the Valley," Blake said. "It's illuminating for people who are thinking of opening ethnically oriented markets and shops and providing services and so on. There's a stereotype that a lot of people are carrying around, but now we have the up-to-date information of who is really in the Valley."

At the same time, the median home price in the region — meaning the price at which half are higher and half lower — was found to be $524,800, higher than that in the city, county and state.

Yet the median household income in the Valley was estimated at $51,700, compared with $53,600 statewide and $46,200 nationwide.

"I see folks in the Valley with their median income, earning four, five, six thousand dollars or more per year (than the national median) and spending it all on housing," Sherman said. "We really don't have more disposable income."

Sherman said the data would aid efforts to make more low-cost mortgages available to Valley residents and to preserve the income tax deduction on mortgage interest.

"These issues are particularly important to the typical Valley homeowner," he said. "The buyer of a $500,000 or a $600,000 home in the Valley is a local teacher or police officer — not a millionaire."

The findings also estimated that Valley residents spent an average of 29 minutes commuting to work, compared with a statewide average of 27 minutes and a national average of 25 minutes.

Sherman said that information would be useful in seeking federal transportation dollars and state funding under Proposition 1B, a $19.9-billion state transportation bond approved last month by voters.

Besides using it to extract dollars from the government, the census report might help economic leaders lure new businesses and jobs to the Valley, officials said.

The data show that more than 107,000 residents have graduate or professional degrees and an additional 227,000 have bachelor's degrees.

"Businesses are looking for an educated workforce," Sherman said.

Unlike the larger census surveys conducted by the federal government every decade, the Valley study looked only at households.

Census officials have promised to conduct more complete annual surveys, like those that cities receive — beginning in 2010, Blake said.

Yaroslavsky said Valley residents should see the census report as a victory.

"It gives the city and county an opportunity to evaluate the Valley on its own terms," he said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
amanda.covarrubias@latimes.com

*

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Valley Shapshot

The Census Bureau released its first-ever demographic survey of the San Fernando Valley on Thursday. Race/ethnicity Valley L.A. County California
Total
population 1,742,760 9,758,886 35,278,768
Whites 43% 29% 43%
Latinos 42% 47% 36%
Asians 10% 13% 12%
Blacks 4% 9% 6%
Others 2% 2% 3%
Income
Median
household $51,717 $48,248 $53,629
Housing
Median rent $978 $918 $973
Median home value $524,800 $480,300 $477,700
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding

Source: Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey

*

Immigration

*

The San Fernando Valley has become a portof entry for the foreign-born.

--

Place of birth

--

Born in U.S.: 59%

--

Foreign-born: 41%

--

Language spoken at home

--

Non-English language: 59%

--

English only: 41%

*

Source: Census Bureau

[yakumoto]

[/b]
Huh? what? wh.. huh? wha...? Huh? what?

"Functioning"? So vague. So imprecise. What does that mean?

But, yakumoto, I do admit it has a nice intellectual ring to it.

And it makes me think of an expert on career advancement telling that job seeker, the one who keeps going to interviews dressed like a bag lady with a do rag on her head, that to be more successful when seeking employment in the future, she has to be more "functioning" during job interviews.


lol wut?

[WesTheAngelino]

Citywatch:

I'm just gonna go out on a limb and explain what I think yakumoto meant by "functioning":

- a city whose residents' time doesnt have to be eaten up by sitting in traffic (i.e. a city in which there are transit and (gasp) walking alternatives to the auto).

- a city in which tourists, conventioners, and business travellers can move about freely and have a great experience with minimal effort (hmmm can someone say airports connected to transit, better transit throughout the city, better wayfinding???)

- a city that invests in things that actually make walking around enjoyable (more REAL trees that give shade instead of palms, more pocket parks, better lighting).

- a city that adequately provides fire safety, police safety, trash pick up, etc. to ALL its citizens in as equal a manner as possible so that certain parts of the city don't appear to be off limits to anyone with half a brain.

- a city that tries to cut red tape and NIMBY bullshit so that perhaps the cost of doing business and building housing won't have to be so high.

- a city that has venues that WORK, i.e. NOT like the traffic nightmares like Dodger Stadium.

But I guess wou wouldn't care about any of that since you don't actually live in Los Angeles or even come here....perhaps you only care about what meets the eye because all you do is look at pictures?

[citywatch]

I'm just gonna go out on a limb and explain what I think yakumoto meant by "functioning":
And I'll say again that the points you raise are like an advisor telling an unemployed person who keeps going to various job interviews dressed like a homeless bag lady, & who hasn't bathed in a few wks:


Ma'm, the reason you haven't had much luck so far, & why you're being rated by many interviewers as unqualified, & why your application keeps getting sent to the bottom of the pile is because...

- You should have gone to Harvard instead of Yale

- you need to improve your skills in calculus

- your resume doesn't list enough hobbies & volunteerism

- you need to arrive at an interview at least 15 minutes before the appointed time.

- you need to stress how many friends & kids you have

- & you must NEVER park in the handicapped only space----otherwise you're liable to get a $350 ticket!

[cookiejarvis]

Citywatch, using strawman analogies to defend your point is a cop-out.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Overall, citywatch's point is pretty simple. The way a city looks--ranging from architecture to cleanliness--affects the perception of the city to visitors and even quite a few residents.

A good example would be the very positive impression most people have toward San Diego (our beautiful lil' sis to the south). Citywatch is saying that if people REALLY earnestly cared about the cliche "list of things" to judge a city by (i.e., world-class museums, shopping, etc.), then LA should logically be listed toward the very top of most people's lists. But according to many of our experiences, people seem to "love to hate" LA and pretty much disregard all the wonderful things that LA has. All the while, San Diego with "lesser" qualifications (as an interviewee), still gets the job--so-to-speak.

However, people's distaste for LA could be altered for the better if we did have an extensive rail system (heavy rail preferred) through at least Wilshire (our de facto "downtown") and possibly West Central. A good example is Tokyo, which is an interviewee that ALWAYS gets the job. Although Tokyo is generally cleaner than many parts of LA, it is NOT an attractive city (at least not by citywatch's standards). Yet, because of the INTENSE vibrancy and ease of transit around the urban playground, it gets HIGH marks from visitors and residents alike.

LA could continue to revitalize its dilapidated core by cleaning it, providing more police protection, and attracting business. Making the area look presentable and safe is obviously very much needed. And most importantly, the subway absolutely needs to be extended down Wilshire Blvd. I guarantee you, citywatch, that if the subway was finished down Wilshire Blvd. tomorrow to Santa Monica, visitors and residents alike would almost immediately sing a different kind of song. One that sounds a bit more like Randy Newman.

[Wright Concept]

^ Even that Randy Newman song had a "love to hate" LA additude in it.

[WesTheAngelino]

Citywatch:


You just. don't. get it.

I think you confuse people's opinions on L.A. for asthetic judgements when they are really judgements on our city's livability.

I know people who don't like L.A. (I actually know them as opposed to cherry picking opinions from surveys or blogs such as yourself). The following are what usually comes up:

1. TRAFFIC. People hate traffic no matter where they are. Now, imagine you are on vacation....you're going to hate it even more. In other cities, such as NYC, SF, D.C., Chicago, and even Portland one can simply disembark from a plane, hop on a train, and have access to pretty much everything there is to do in those cities in a week's time. If you are thinking of venturing out of an immediate area of L.A. then this isn't as easy.

2. Crime. Despite the trend of having far less crime since the mid 90's (and despite the national downward trend as well) a lot of people still seem to have this perception that L.A. is the crime capital of the world and there are gangs, drive by shootings, and teen runaways at every corner. What I'm about to say is a mere hunch and will surely get me a lot of flak from other forumers, but I think a lot of this perception comes from seeng less white people than one would see in other cities. The other large cities I've visited just seem to have more white people walking about or at least have a higher percentage of them as opposed to non-whites. Say what you will, but when a white person (especially one that lives outside of a city) goes too many blocks without seeing other whites it tends to freak them out and give them a bad impression. I.e. someone who goes to Baldwin Hills Mall and thinks it's the "ghetto" mall simply because it has few white patrons.

3. Lack of a functioning downtown. I hear this shit all the time "L.A. doesn't even really have a downtown does it?" Yes, Virginia, there is a downtown L.A. However, as it currently exists, it is not the best environment for either a tourist, business traveller or conventioner. I wholeheartedly believe we will have a downtown on the level with other cities within 10 years if not 5 at the rate things are going. We also have to look back five years. Just think of five years ago: there were virtually NO bars aside from hotel bars, there was no construction of L.A. live, there was no construction in South Park, there were ZERO middle of the road dining options (a la Daily Grill) at least not ones that were open for dinner, Skid Row was farther west than it is now, etc etc. Our downtown has come a long way in a very short time and hopefully the progress will continue.

[SunMonTueWedThuFriSa]

In your beaten to death job interview analogy, what "job" is LA applying for? The one that gets it nice compliments from some random internet message guy from St. Louis? You guys are worthless.

[SunMonTueWedThuFriSa]

Citywatch:


You just. don't. get it.

I think you confuse people's opinions on L.A. for asthetic judgements when they are really judgements on our city's livability.

I know people who don't like L.A. (I actually know them as opposed to cherry picking opinions from surveys or blogs such as yourself). The following are what usually comes up:

1. TRAFFIC. People hate traffic no matter where they are. Now, imagine you are on vacation....you're going to hate it even more. In other cities, such as NYC, SF, D.C., Chicago, and even Portland one can simply disembark from a plane, hop on a train, and have access to pretty much everything there is to do in those cities in a week's time. If you are thinking of venturing out of an immediate area of L.A. then this isn't as easy.

2. Crime. Despite the trend of having far less crime since the mid 90's (and despite the national downward trend as well) a lot of people still seem to have this perception that L.A. is the crime capital of the world and there are gangs, drive by shootings, and teen runaways at every corner. What I'm about to say is a mere hunch and will surely get me a lot of flak from other forumers, but I think a lot of this perception comes from seeng less white people than one would see in other cities. The other large cities I've visited just seem to have more white people walking about or at least have a higher percentage of them as opposed to non-whites. Say what you will, but when a white person (especially one that lives outside of a city) goes too many blocks without seeing other whites it tends to freak them out and give them a bad impression. I.e. someone who goes to Baldwin Hills Mall and thinks it's the "ghetto" mall simply because it has few white patrons.

3. Lack of a functioning downtown. I hear this shit all the time "L.A. doesn't even really have a downtown does it?" Yes, Virginia, there is a downtown L.A. However, as it currently exists, it is not the best environment for either a tourist, business traveller or conventioner. I wholeheartedly believe we will have a downtown on the level with other cities within 10 years if not 5 at the rate things are going. We also have to look back five years. Just think of five years ago: there were virtually NO bars aside from hotel bars, there was no construction of L.A. live, there was no construction in South Park, there were ZERO middle of the road dining options (a la Daily Grill) at least not ones that were open for dinner, Skid Row was farther west than it is now, etc etc. Our downtown has come a long way in a very short time and hopefully the progress will continue.

citywatch just wants to impress his visiting friends from Chicago with a shiny skyline of a city he doesn't even live in. All his posts are personal agenda that has nothing to do with urbanism. Let's ignore him and move on.

[WesTheAngelino]

^ Dude,

you got it all wrong about citywatch....he doesnt have any friends.

[cookiejarvis]

In your beaten to death job interview analogy, what "job" is LA applying for? The one that gets it nice compliments from some random internet message guy from St. Louis? You guys are worthless.

No kidding. What if L.A. is going to an audition? What should she wear then?

[Wright Concept]

No kidding. What if L.A. is going to an audition? What should she wear then?

^ Absolutely Nothing at all! LOL (whistles and catcalls)

[citywatch]

All his posts are personal agenda that has nothing to do with urbanism. Let's ignore him and move on.[b]you got it all wrong about citywatch....he doesnt have any friends.Your replies are a mark of real maturity. uh huh, thanks for debating:

"na, na, na, nee, na, naw, naw, nee, naw, I can't hear you, I can't hear you....I know you are, but what am I?..I know you are, but what am I?...naw, naa, ne, na, naa, nee, naa...I can't hear you, I can't hear you...naw, naa, nee, na...your mother wears combat boots, your mother wears combat boots....I can't hear you, I can't hear you...."

[citywatch]

I think you confuse people's opinions on L.A. for asthetic judgements when they are really judgements on our city's livability.

I know people who don't like L.A. (I actually know them as opposed to cherry picking opinions from surveys or blogs such as yourself). The following are what usually comes up:

1. TRAFFIC.

2. Crime.

3. Lack of a functioning downtown.I wish it were that simple. Most cities worldwide have a lot of traffic & congestion. However, I do admit that your reference to LA's crime & white flight, & the city's meager DT, does point to why a bad situation is far worse. IOW, if you're stuck on a crowded road or fwy, or getting robbed, it's a case of adding insult to injury when you're in a place that looks more like Fresno than Paris, that looks more like DT Detroit than Manhattan.

[citywatch]

Citywatch, using strawman analogies to defend your point is a cop-out.
No, they're not. Not when someone like Yakumoto states expressly that he "would much rather LA become a FUNCTIONING city, before a pretty one."

OTOH, if he had said he thinks problems involving the ugliness of the city are as important as all the other points he raised, then, OK, my analogy would be overblown. But his priorities are similar to a job counselor telling an unemployed woman who's always showing up at interviews dressed like a homeless bad lady to first focus on the way her resume is written or on how friendly her personality is before worrying about the way she looks.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Yes, they have a lot of traffic and congestion, but they usually also have subway system that brings them to the places they need to/want to get to.

Instead of using Paris or Manhattan as examples, let's focus on Tokyo or Taipei. Both have lotsa traffic, and not exactly the most aesthetically pleasing cities (they look NOTHING like Paris or Manhattan), but people love 'em. Why? Because they're easy to navigate (subways), have pedestrians walking around everywhere, and that translates into "urban energy." LA's Westside has that as well, just on a lesser scale because it's harder to achieve the kind of pedestrian activity when you're relying solely on cars. Mainly, with subways, you're essentially liberated and ideally have the freedom to walk anywhere in the urban confines served by subways without heading back to where you parked. When you park in a structure, like in Old Town Pasadena, you cannot stray far because you always have to return back to your car. It's like a ball-and-chain.

But in Manhattan, you are free to move about pretty much anywhere. The pedestrian circulation becomes random and free and that is what you see on the streets of NY or Tokyo or Paris or London or Taipei or Hong Kong. LA cannot because people are not exactly free from cars yet. That is why it is so critical that we extend that subway down Wilshire Blvd. to give people some kind of freedom from the car and to provide a sophisticated transit service that actually gets people to where they need to go.

[WesTheAngelino]

^ Excellent points, LAB.

When, oh when, will people accept that L.A. is not NYC or SF. Having been to both of those cities I'm glad it isn't either of them.

And to compare downtown L.A. to downtown Detroit, Citywatch, is just rediculous. Please, do tell, how many ground up projects are currently underway there?

[citywatch]

A good example would be the very positive impression most people have toward San Diego (our beautiful lil' sis to the south). Citywatch is saying that if people REALLY earnestly cared about the cliche "list of things" to judge a city by (i.e., world-class museums, shopping, etc.), then LA should logically be listed toward the very top of most people's lists. But according to many of our experiences, people seem to "love to hate" LA and pretty much disregard all the wonderful things that LA has. All the while, San Diego with "lesser" qualifications (as an interviewee), still gets the job--so-to-speak.EXACTLY!!!

However, people's distaste for LA could be altered for the better if we did have an extensive rail system (heavy rail preferred) through at least Wilshire (our de facto "downtown") and possibly West Central. A good example is Tokyo, which is an interviewee that ALWAYS gets the job. Although Tokyo is generally cleaner than many parts of LA, it is NOT an attractive city (at least not by citywatch's standards). Yet, because of the INTENSE vibrancy and ease of transit around the urban playground, it gets HIGH marks from visitors and residents alike. Better transportation alternatives throughout the city definitely would help. And the inability for ppl, either locals or visitors, to get from one part of town to the other quickly & efficiently is a major turn off.

But keep in mind that a lot of ppl were dissing LA a long time ago, before congestion had reached its current level. And even though the city at least now has a partial transit system, with the Red, blue, Green & Gold lines, it still seems to get low marks from a lot of ppl-----such as that woman visiting CA a few months ago from India-----from INDIA, no less!-----who claimed the city didn't have much of a spark & could be passed over by tourists on a tight schedule.

And although Tokyo may not be the most beautiful city in the world, it at least doesn't have as much of a $$$ starved look, or the parts of LA that look like too little money has been stretched over too much land-----referring to all the places full of deadzone car lots & riggidy raggedy small houses & bldgs.

[WesTheAngelino]

Ok, Citywatch:

Time to put up or shut up. Please, do tell, what, if any, SOLUTIONS do you have for fixing Los Angeles. IS there a top ten of what you would do if you were suddenly dictator of Los Angeles?

I've asked you to do this before, to write down some coherent substantive points of how to remake the city in order to solve the problems you are constantly complaining about. To, as myself and a few other forumers do, tell us how we should FIX it. Specifically. You've never been up to the task. You'll probably just respond with some hacknyed analogy about a bag lady who went to Harvard or a picture of Torrance for the early 80's, but prove me wrong, prove me wrong.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Our transit system is deceiving. Yeah sure, we have, what? 75 miles of rail, but most of it is useless. It should have connected to LAX, it should have gone down Wilshire Blvd., the downtown connector should have been done, etc. C'mon, you honestly think the Green Line works? The lady from India isn't going to see that as anything because hardly anyone uses that thing.

The only line that is "impressive" by any means is the Red/Purple Lines. They're actually used by a variety of people and it is now finally taking you somewhere you want to go (Hollywood mainly). But the function of a downtown is to provide a reference point in an urban context. A strong focal point. Right now, it is hardly appealing when the the rail that originates from downtown LA spans out to areas more exciting than Downtown LA itself.

Downtown LA needs to become the true center of vibrancy before the exisiting rail service would make sense.

[Wright Concept]

^Oh, So you mean a network of connecting lines. LOL Like this? Realistically in the City of LA, the only main lines that are needed to fill the large gaps are:
(1)Downtown Connector from Financial District to Little Tokyo (Phase 1). Phase 2 should be replacing the Washington Blvd Blue Line segment with a new subway through LA Live, South Park and Fashion District and a second connecting line up either Hill or Main Streets We can't even talk about creating a focal point in Downtown without it.
(2)Purple Line to UCLA/Westwood At the very least since all the major centers are along the corridor even a small 1/2 mile piece to the Grove/Farmer's Market/CBS and Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center will make ridership jump through the roof than a straight Wilshire route.
(3)North-South Line from LAX to Hollywood via Crenshaw, Mid-Wilshire and Melrose.
(4)Red Line down Vermont Avenue The potential to transform it into the Second "Wilshire Blvd"
(5)405 Corridor from Van Nuys to West LA Well that's obvious is you sit, oops I mean drive on that parking lot everyday.

The rest can be filled in with simple improvements like Bus-Only lanes and Streetcars.
http://i16.tinypic.com/2py8cnl.gif

[dktshb]

^ Yes, they have a lot of traffic and congestion, but they usually also have subway system that brings them to the places they need to/want to get to.

Instead of using Paris or Manhattan as examples, let's focus on Tokyo or Taipei. Both have lotsa traffic, and not exactly the most aesthetically pleasing cities (they look NOTHING like Paris or Manhattan), but people love 'em. Why? Because they're easy to navigate (subways), have pedestrians walking around everywhere, and that translates into "urban energy." LA's Westside has that as well, just on a lesser scale because it's harder to achieve the kind of pedestrian activity when you're relying solely on cars. Mainly, with subways, you're essentially liberated and ideally have the freedom to walk anywhere in the urban confines served by subways without heading back to where you parked. When you park in a structure, like in Old Town Pasadena, you cannot stray far because you always have to return back to your car. It's like a ball-and-chain.

But in Manhattan, you are free to move about pretty much anywhere. The pedestrian circulation becomes random and free and that is what you see on the streets of NY or Tokyo or Paris or London or Taipei or Hong Kong. LA cannot because people are not exactly free from cars yet. That is why it is so critical that we extend that subway down Wilshire Blvd. to give people some kind of freedom from the car and to provide a sophisticated transit service that actually gets people to where they need to go.

I wish they would extend the Hollywood subway line with the Wilshire plan... have the Hollywood line continue down La Brea from the Hollywood/Highland terminal with stops at Sunset, Santa Monica, Beverly and Wilshire. I always think aboout it when I drive down La Brea.

[citywatch]

Time to put up or shut up. Please, do tell, what, if any, SOLUTIONS do you have for fixing Los Angeles.

You'll probably just respond with some hacknyed analogy about a bag lady who went to Harvard or a picture of Torrance for the early 80's, but prove me wrong, prove me wrong.

How to improve the city?

Well, first of all it, it comes down to adjusting ppl's tudes. For instance, it would help if more ppl in LA didn't go waah, waaah over the issues you were getting all unhappy about several months ago when you were arguing with the SSPers (esp LAMG & LAB) who toured the McArthur Pk area. That tude is no better, or no more constructive, than mindless NIMBYism.

And you may snicker about the bag lady analogy, but in the city compilations forum, 2 SSPers tonight have complained about the look of a new apt bldg in DT. OK, that's fine. But is there a reason they don't also diss the really sucky things about the hood or city? Is it because everyone has widely different opinions & ways of grading things? Yea, probably so. In fact, LAB said several months ago he thought graffiti on fwy walls looked kind of good----& I still think the city would be better off if more ppl were like him.

I also have to say that a lot of ppl in LA prefer cars & fwys to rapid transit, & think bldgs shouldn't be too tall. So you have to deal with that tude too.

OK, but since you want specific examples of what can be addressed by ppl in the city, here's an example of what's going on across the Atlantic. BTW, the folks in London aren't even dealing with the piddly stuff we in LA generally ignore, where you're less likely to get fried if you reached up & touched the things I'm referring to. We're taking heavy duty stuff here, like the wires attached to those big steel towers around the LA River near DTLA, where a person standing even dozens of ft below on the ground can sense (or certainly hear) the current running high above them.

This junk, btw, is almost never hidden here in the US because it's really, really $$$ to remove. But it just goes to show you how much more cosmopolitan ppl in London are compared with, well, those of us here in LA:

http://www.london2012.com/en/news/press+room/releases/2006/April/2006-04-06-12-11.htm

[POLA]

it always comes back to power lines.

[edluva]

[/b]

How to improve the city?

Well, first of all it, it comes down to adjusting ppl's tudes. For instance, it would help if more ppl in LA didn't go waah, waaah over the issues you were getting all unhappy about several months ago when you were arguing with the SSPers (esp LAMG & LAB) who toured the McArthur Pk area. That tude is no better, or no more constructive, than mindless NIMBYism.

And you may snicker about the bag lady analogy, but in the city compilations forum, 2 SSPers tonight have complained about the look of a new apt bldg in DT. OK, that's fine. But is there a reason they don't also diss the really sucky things about the hood or city? Is it because everyone has widely different opinions & ways of grading things? Yea, probably so. In fact, LAB said several months ago he thought graffiti on fwy walls looked kind of good----& I still think the city would be better off if more ppl were like him.

I also have to say that a lot of ppl in LA prefer cars & fwys to rapid transit, & think bldgs shouldn't be too tall. So you have to deal with that tude too.

OK, but since you want specific examples of what can be addressed by ppl in the city, here's an example of what's going on across the Atlantic. BTW, the folks in London aren't even dealing with the piddly stuff we in LA generally ignore, where you're less likely to get fried if you reached up & touched the things I'm referring to. We're taking heavy duty stuff here, like the wires attached to those big steel towers around the LA River near DTLA, where a person standing even dozens of ft below on the ground can sense (or certainly hear) the current running high above them.

This junk, btw, is almost never hidden here in the US because it's really, really $$$ to remove. But it just goes to show you how much more cosmopolitan ppl in London are compared with, well, those of us here in LA:

http://www.london2012.com/en/news/press+room/releases/2006/April/2006-04-06-12-11.htm

All that text (I barely read any of it since I expected not to expect anything of substance anyhow), and lo and behold citywatch states something *specific* for once in his skyscraperpage.com lifetime! We have a breakthrough! And what is it above all things - above the subway down wilshire, above the downtown connector, above reduced parking requirements, above subsidizing dense or ped-friendly developments, above business-tax reform, above all those things that citywatch suggests LA undertake first to improve its status as a major global city among all global cities?

--in his own words:
"the wires attached to those big steal towers around the LA River near DTLA"

what a joke. you guys take him way to seriously (as do I apparently - but that's secondary to you guys)

[Wright Concept]

it always comes back to power lines.

Thank God, there's an ignore button!

[citywatch]

what a joke. you guys take him way to seriously (as do I apparently - but that's secondary to you guys)
You must take me quite seriously, edluva. After all, your sig line is a quote from me. Thank you.

BTW, re all those issues you mention (the Wilshire connector, zoning laws, etc). Very generalized subjs, debated about endlessly by many here, but things that really don't have a thing to do with, or that will help, the look of the city.

You have your priorities, I have different priorities, & all the other ppl throughout LA, esp the NIMBYites & lovers of cars & fwys, have their own priorities.

[edluva]

I only care to the extent you're getting what minimal respect is required of some people to actually respond to your ill-contrived statements.

The sig is just a classic. I could have used just about anybody else's ridiculously inane statement but yours was just too inane.

[citywatch]

The sig is just a classic. I could have used just about anybody else's ridiculously inane statement but yours was just too inane.
Look in the mirror. I still recall your complaining how negative I was on this board, & yet I often see some of the most gloomy or snotty comments about various issues involving the city coming from you.

[citywatch]

Thank God, there's an ignore button!OK, be that way, PV. Be the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

Sorry, but it won't change the reality of this:





http://www.latimes.com/news/local/history/la-et-125punchingbag3dec03,0,5721423.story?coll=cl-lat-homepage

Oh, go ahead and insult us

What is it about Los Angeles that annoys people so much? Let's face it -- everyone needs some place to despise. And we're it.

L.A. has been hated and disrespected for a long time, publicly and privately, by people who live here, by people who visit, by newcomers and old-timers, by writers and commentators and immigrants and transients. For a city that has produced so much art — in film, painting and literature — it remains the place, as Woody Allen famously noted, whose "only cultural advantage is that you can make a right turn on a red light."

This is our gift to the world: Everyone needs someone to despise, and as a city we are always available. After all, Los Angeles — though self-conscious — is not shy. Over the years, it has offered itself up almost shamelessly to be examined, and then rejected. Nathanael West was perhaps the greatest of the Los Angeles haters, and his vituperative "The Day of the Locust" is still the classic apocalyptic indictment of the city. (Los Angeles hated him back and meted out his fate in classic fashion: He died in a car crash with his wife after running a stop sign in El Centro.)

Even Carey McWilliams, the great chronicler of Southern California who eventually came to love the region, admits to having undergone a long bout with the illness I call anti-Angelenism before his attitude about the place turned around. "When I first arrived in Los Angeles," he wrote in 1946, "I hated, as so many other people have hated, the big, sprawling, deformed character of the place. I loathed the crowds of dull and stupid people that milled around downtown sections dawdling and staring, poking and pointing, like villagers visiting a city for the first time. I found nothing about Los Angeles to like and a great many things to detest."

L.A. has long been viewed as an embarrassment by America.


BTW, I've never thought the city was as bad as many ppl make it out to be, or that it deserved all the negative or apathetic reactions it often provokes in various locals or visitors. I'm certainly not one of the folks mentioned in that newspaper story. But, like it or not, that's the way it is.

And so instead of sticking my head in the sand & pretending all the ppl who diss the city are full of shit, I say we've got a problem & it's time to crack some whips & clean up the place.

[Quixote]

^Can you please just give it a rest and stop complaining. Many of your posts focus on other peoples' opinions about LA. Take a chill pill and try not to freak the moment you read a newspaper article regarding opinions on LA. And please stop freaking out and reacting to such minor things. It gets old and annoying.

[Wright Concept]

[/b]OK, be that way, PV. Be the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

Sorry, but it won't change the reality of this:

:goodnight:

Your mother wears combat boots! La-La-La-La-La-La!
Your mother is a bag lady! La-La-La-La-La-La!
Your mother wears combat boots! La-La-La-La-La-La!
Your mother is a bag lady! La-La-La-La-La-La!
Your mother wears combat boots! La-La-La-La-La-La!
Your mother is a bag lady! La-La-La-La-La-La!
Your mother wears combat boots! La-La-La-La-La-La!
Your mother is a bag lady! La-La-La-La-La-La!
Your mother wears combat boots! La-La-La-La-La-La!
Your mother is a bag lady! La-La-La-La-La-La!
:-b

[WesTheAngelino]

http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/nyc-cityscape-power-line-blackout-aug2003_ap.jpg

http://www.ancilnance.com/images/sfstreet1873.jpg

LMAO OMFG

Citywatch.....I will wait in the tall grass for you. I will attack your posts at every turn. It is now my quest to end you on this board. You and your agenda will be ended.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-housing10dec10,0,6537486.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Renters press officials for affordable housing
By Jessica Garrison
Times Staff Writer

December 10, 2006

In another sign of the growing potency of low-income housing as a political issue in Los Angeles, a group of about 100 tenants held a forum Saturday to press elected leaders to create more affordable units and to prosecute slum landlords.

Meeting in a South Los Angeles community center, tenants speaking English and Spanish told stories of utilities cut off for no reason, eviction notices delivered without cause and unabated rats and cockroaches. One man said that his landlord tolerated prostitution on the premises. Another compared Los Angeles to São Paulo, Brazil, and Calcutta.

"I need to know where the City Council stands," said Percy Banks, who lives in a downtown building and is a member of the Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which helped organize the meeting. "Do they stand with developers? Or do they stand with us?"

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jan Perry got a standing ovation when she told the tenants she backed proposals to create more housing in the city.

The meeting came a month after Measure H, which would have been the largest municipal housing bond in U.S. history, was narrowly defeated at the polls. The proposed $1-billion package would have created about 10,000 affordable housing units and increased the number of such dwellings in Los Angeles by about 13%. It received 62% of the vote, just short of the required two-thirds majority.

Many activists say they want to keep the pressure on political leaders to find solutions. The average rent in the city, about $1,700 a month, has nearly doubled in the last 12 years. Meanwhile, although nearly 13,000 affordable units have been built using city money in the last six years, more than 10,000 existing rent-controlled units were torn down or converted to condominiums in the same period.

Perry said she believed political support was growing for measures that would create more affordable housing.

"Regular, normal people are beginning to understand how it impacts them," she said, adding that she believed that almost everyone knew someone who couldn't afford to live in Los Angeles even though they worked full time.

Some landlords, however, have said that even current city rules are too onerous. The city's rent-stabilization law limits increases in many buildings to 4% a year and makes it difficult to evict tenants. Once a tenant moves out, the landlord can raise the rent to market values.

Deputy City Atty. Serena Christion said her office intended to prosecute landlords who have numerous health, safety and fire-code violations, and that some could wind up being sentenced to live in their own decrepit buildings for months at a time.

She took the addresses of several tenants who complained of problems.

At the end of the meeting, she was surrounded by tenants beseeching her to go after their landlords.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jessica.garrison@latimes.com

[dktshb]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/history/la-et-125punchingbag3dec03,0,5721423.story?coll=cl-lat-homepage


Hollywood people are always coming from somewhere else: The actors, of course, who arrive from that special nation called the Land of the Good Looking, but also the producers and directors and writers. They have their own peculiar state within a state here, although at the same time, they are visible nationally and internationally. I hold them accountable for a lot of L.A.'s bad press, both as local setters of ridiculous trends — dogs in bags, knitting as a lifestyle, the 2-inch jean zipper, Restylane — that are mocked but followed by the rest of the world, and as the biggest of the L.A. denigrators. They always like to tell you that they get only the New York Times. They're always raising money for candidates who are running for governor … of New York."

I couldn't agree more :yes:

[yakumoto]

But his priorities are similar to a job counselor telling an unemployed woman who's always showing up at interviews dressed like a homeless bad lady to first focus on the way her resume is written or on how friendly her personality is before worrying about the way she looks.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/assrapist/Downtown/centipedes.jpg

[cookiejarvis]

double post

[cookiejarvis]

OK, be that way, PV. Be the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

PV, more than most on this board, is actively trying to change things about our locally built environment.

Sorry, but it won't change the reality of this

Which is exactly why you need to stop obsessing about something as arbitrary, subjective and vague as personal tastes and preconceived notions of aesthetics.

[cookiejarvis]

edit double post

[Wright Concept]

OK, be that way, PV. Be the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

PV, more than most on this board, is actively trying to change things about our locally built environment.

Sorry, but it won't change the reality of this

Which is exactly why you need to stop obsessing about something as arbitrary, subjective and vague as personal tastes and preconceived notions of aesthetics.

Thank you for your kind words.

But with types like that, you know, the Office Chair-Internet-quarterback or the backseat driver who thinks they can do something by typing some words down but has NO action or follow through behind them. I don't bother responding to them with words or reason, because they're not going to listen. I'll use a scripture from the bible to make my point:

"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent and discerning if he holds his tongue" Prov 17:28

Or in more layman's terms "Better to be thought of as a silent fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" :jester:

[Quixote]

Going back to the topic about the area around the Beverly Center being too ugly. Well there's the Sofitel Hotel. This is what we need in Los Angeles! This is elegant density!

http://static.flickr.com/46/193602505_3dfed92f6a.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/55/193602596_d183a12258.jpg?v=0

[kenratboy]

That building looks AWFUL! Looks like something Trump would have built in Paris in the 80's.

[solongfullerton]

That building looks AWFUL! Looks like something Trump would have built in Paris in the 80's.

word!

[Quixote]

That building looks AWFUL! Looks like something Trump would have built in Paris in the 80's.

I disagree with you! Maybe if the glass were different but I like the Parisian look to it. Yet, it's not trying to be Parisian at all!

[dktshb]

I disagree with you! Maybe if the glass were different but I like the Parisian look to it. Yet, it's not trying to be Parisian at all!

Well it is an improvement over the pink stucco and blue awnings. :yuck:

[bjornson]

I think it looks alright. I wasn't too sure of it when I saw it. If they have ivy growing on it, then it would look better. Oh, and Sofitel is a French hotel brand so whoever they hired designed this hotel.

Oh, I also mentioned wayyyyy back that even with this hotel, Beverly Blvd is still fugly.

[Damien]

The glass is what's killing it. It's like 1980s downtown meets the Grove, save the ornamentation.

[bjornson]

Double post

[bjornson]

Mega-projects could reshape L.A. growth
By Cara Mia DiMassa, Times Staff Writer
December 13, 2006

Los Angeles is having a city-building moment.

Two massive projects — the L.A. Live entertainment complex next to Staples Center and the Grand Avenue development on Bunker Hill — are underway. A third giant project, a major expansion of Universal City, was unveiled last week. All adhere to a much-ballyhooed planning strategy embraced by Los Angeles power brokers.

The projects, at a combined cost of about $7.5 billion, follow what has become the big planning trend in Los Angeles and elsewhere: mixing dense housing, retail and office space in village configurations near mass transit. The idea is to foster "smart growth" — in which residents leave their cars behind, walk to shops, and take buses and rail to work.

For Los Angeles, "this is the beginning. This will be the place where a model gets created," said Gail Goldberg, the city's planning director. "This is very different from past development in L.A. We have in the past seen sort of a limitless amount of land. And I think that there were opportunities for sprawl that don't exist anymore."

Goldberg and other planners suggest that the current projects demonstrate that Los Angeles has learned from the drawbacks of past mega-developments.

In the 1960s and '70s, for example, city planners created a second downtown in Century City — but they did so far from any freeways or mass transit, a legacy that Westside commuters deal with daily.

But critics are more skeptical, saying that "smart growth" is only a euphemism for more sprawl.

They worry that the sheer size of the projects — Grand Avenue's six skyscrapers, Universal City's 2,900 homes, and L.A. Live's huge shopping and entertainment venues — will overwhelm any small improvements made by increasing the number of people who use mass transit.

That point was underscored in the environmental impact report for the Grand Avenue project, which found that the development could significantly worsen traffic in downtown — despite the fact that it would be built along the Red Line subway.

"The landowner is always going to want to put as much as possible onto their properties, and push off onto the public sector the costs for doing it," said Rick Cole, city manager of Ventura and a longtime L.A. urban thinker, speaking of large-scale projects in general. "The public ends up having to foot the bill."

Los Angeles has long favored mega-developments, from the Century City and Warner Center office developments in the 1970s to Playa Vista, a mixed-use housing, retail and office community started in the 1990s on the Westside.

But as some of those developments age, their shortcomings have become apparent. In Century City, there is now a push to build residential towers alongside the office space, in the hopes of improving the balance.

Though the three projects have some central tenets in common, they approach the idea of city-building in very different ways.

L.A. Live, the "sports-entertainment" hub, focuses on being a destination for Angelenos and tourists alike. The project, which already is rising near Staples Center, includes plans for a convention center and hotel, a 7,100-seat theater, broadcast facilities, 14-screen movie theater, and nearly a dozen restaurants and clubs. Luxury condominiums are also part of the mix, with completion of the first phase expected next fall.

Grand Avenue is being touted as the much-needed heart for the city's center. The three-phase project ultimately would include eight condo and office towers, shopping arcades, a 16-acre park and a boutique hotel. The first phase, which would be anchored by two towers designed by Frank Gehry, has received several key official approvals and is expected to start construction next year.

The Universal plan would create an instant neighborhood on the site of the studio's current back lot, with homes and apartment units and a north-south street to serve residents. In addition, the studio's master plan calls for restaurants, stores and a hotel nearby on NBC-Universal property. The plan goes before officials next year.

Despite their differences, all are attempts to create "hubs" that combine denser housing than Los Angeles is used to with shopping and offices near major rail lines.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has hailed this type of development, saying that it provides needed housing in the urban core while giving residents an opportunity to use mass transit instead of cars.

Smaller, transit-oriented, mixed-use projects have popped up in recent years, particularly around the Red and Gold lines. The Times visited one transit village development in Hollywood after it was built in 2004 and found that although residents liked living near a rail line, all the parking spaces in the complex were taken and many residents still used their cars.

Land-use experts say the sheer size of L.A. Live, Grand Avenue and Universal City mean that those projects ultimately will test whether smart growth can work in Los Angeles.

UCLA planning professor Richard Weinstein said single projects alone would not fundamentally alter Angelenos' shopping and commuting habits. But he said worsening traffic has begun to affect where people decide to live.

The recent boom in upscale condos and lofts in downtown Los Angeles has been driven partly by the desire of people to cut their commutes and live close to work.

The question is whether the people who move into the three new developments are willing to alter their lifestyles accordingly.

"It has much to do with changing people's perceptions of how they want to travel," Weinstein said.

Urban planner Doug Suisman said that in Los Angeles, the challenge for mega-projects and other mixed-use projects near transit corridors is how to create density in a way that works for L.A.

"We are learning here how to do mixed use," Suisman said. "And even if people have lots of experience in other parts of the world, it has to be applied locally."

The stakes for Los Angeles are high.

Con Howe, the city's former longtime planning director, believes that Los Angeles may never have another opportunity to shape its urban fabric as it has now with the three mega-developments.

The influence of those projects will extend far beyond their borders, because mega-developments often influence the kind of growth in surrounding neighborhoods, he said.

"There are some major projects that because of their scale or their impact become a generative force, or a regenerative force," said Howe, who heads the Urban Land Institute's Center for Balanced Development in the West.

L.A. Live already has sparked a significant number of residential projects in the South Park neighborhood around it, with developers trusting that the center will be such a draw that people will want to live nearby.

L.A. Live offers "a vibrancy that you can't get in other parts of the city," said Greg Vilkin of Forest City, a developer who recently built the upscale rental Met Lofts there. It will be "like living two blocks off of Times Square."

[WesTheAngelino]

"L.A. Live offers "a vibrancy that you can't get in other parts of the city," said Greg Vilkin of Forest City, a developer who recently built the upscale rental Met Lofts there. It will be "like living two blocks off of Times Square."

The development of South Park will be what cements L.A. Lives success or failure. Hopefully the added foot traffic and traffic in general will fill up all the retail spaces in the South Group and the other new condos in the 'hood. I so wish one of the parking lots in the area would be turned into something like Bryant Park, where people could chill in lieu of participating in the hustle and bustle, somewhere to walk your dog, sip your latte, eat you hot dog with the bacon wrapped around it (! what do you call those anyways)???

[Wright Concept]

And the fact that the Ralph's Supermarket will soon open will be the glue that will hold that area together and bring the extra foot traffic that is needed for the area.

I've always felt more subsidy should have been poured into the Supermarket so it could be built sooner cause the money would be repaid immediately with more development surrounding it and early foot traffic from Convention Center/Staples events at night and the workers stopping for lunch or running errands during the day.

[Arriviste]

Going back to the topic about the area around the Beverly Center being too ugly. Well there's the Sofitel Hotel. This is what we need in Los Angeles! This is elegant density!

http://static.flickr.com/46/193602505_3dfed92f6a.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/55/193602596_d183a12258.jpg?v=0

I might not live in LA, but I have spent enough time there to sit here and laugh my ass off. That building looks like it could be an insurance company headquarters in Idianapolis Indiana. LA was a world class city the last time I was there.

[Wright Concept]

This is what we need in Los Angeles! This is elegant density!

http://static.flickr.com/46/193602505_3dfed92f6a.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/55/193602596_d183a12258.jpg?v=0


If that is elegant density, then the NIMBY's in LA will definitely win the housing battle AND the war.

That is like too many things going on yet not enough detail to draw your attention. The massing and proportion is off. The Glass detailing is crappy and those railing at each window. :yuck: It's like they had one idea, but didn't have enough money to finish it.

It would have been better if they just went with a solid bronze glass cube, mimicing the Pacific Design Center, Blue, Green and Red creating an iconic link to the area nearby. Or made the Parisian village look with smaller modulations to create the "facade" of a village which would work better in scale and actually be a small jewel in the area.

[edluva]

I don't get how the sofitel ever got associated with that building's architecture. It's horrid. It's as bad as 1100 wilshire. Nevermind the details, it's not even contextually correct. Modernist glass curtainwall meets ersatz mansard meets spanish revival. What the hell?

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I do like how it's pretty massive, but it's totally pedestrian unfriendly at the street level. The whole immediate area is actually. :( If there was a subway stop near the Beverly Center, I think the best location (off the top of my mind) would be Beverly/San Vicente where it's close to everything. You could walk to Bev. Center with the new escalator entrance, the Sofitel, Cedars-Sinai, the Avenues of Art and Design with Kitson, Ghost, Armani Case, the Ivy, etc., and Weho including the Abbey.

Now that I think about it, having the subway diverge from its straight path down Wilshire would actually make a lot of sense!

[LA/OC/London]

The Sofitel's design doesn't really bother me that much - I think its one of the better looking structures in that area, especially when compared to the behemoth Beverly Center. I remember the old Beverly Connection not looking too great, but I can't say much about the new one since it appears to still be a work in progress.

I didn't realize how pedestrian unfriendly this area was until Halloween when I had to walk from the Beverly Center Parking lot to Santa Monica Blvd. The sidewalks are so narrow and cramped - people were spilling into the streets. Granted there were a lot of people, but in some areas you had to walk single file....