Why did Downtown LA begin to revitalize so much later than other major US cities?
 

I feel like while downtowns such as Seattle, Portland, and San Diego (beginning with the Gaslamp District restoration in the late 80s and Horton Plaza), began to start seeing a first wave boom during the late 90s, downtown LA really only seemingly began to become a thing again perhaps around '06. This brief burst of excitement was quickly halted by the recession, only to see a boom again beginning around 2011 or so.

My question is, given Downtown LA has always had some epic urban bones and that it is part of the second largest metro in the country, why did the idea of "urban renewal" arrive here comparatively so late? You would've thought DTLA would've had a much better head start than say, San Diego (with its smaller economy etc.). I have to be honest, every visit I take to Downtown SD lately I'm stunned as a native by how solid all around it is now--extremely livable, clean, safe, and vibrant. Probably one of the best examples of a downtown comeback in the country for a city its size.

Looking at DTLA, while I love going there and there's definitely a buzz going right now, it still feels like there's a long way to go. What's making it take so long, and made it lag far behind in the first place?

Because Los Angeles is less centralized. One of the major motivating factors in the gentrification of city centres comes from a desire of the professional class to live close to work to minimize their commute. While Downtown may be the largest single employment centre, it's still weaker in LA relative to peer cities.

The other big factor is "coolness" and being able to be close to cool stuff (bars, restaurants, etc). Likewise, LA's popular, trendy areas have traditionally been decentralized in the various urban villages scattered through the city.

Another thing is that in many cities, owing to their age, the best housing stock is found in downtown-adjacent areas. Which, once again, is not the case in LA. As a result of its geography, the most desirable residential stock is in the hills and on the coast.

The long and short of it is that downtown has just never been the centre of civic life in LA the way it has in most cities.

I think there are a couple of factors:

1) The opening of the Staples Center in 1999. That was the catalyst which real estate investors needed to be able to build off of for the development of South Park.

2) There was a regulation change in the mid-to-late 2000's, I believe, which allowed historic properties to be converted from commercial to residential. This opened the door for the Historic Core to become habitable.

Because the West Side has been the center of wealth and commerce in LA for a long time. Century City was built to be a clean and new downtown closer to where the wealthy lived, and DTLA was all but written off. The Lakers and Kings played in Inglewood, the best restaurants and shopping were/are in and around Beverly Hills and WeHo, and it's only been recently that neighborhoods close to downtown became desirable. That's the biggest reason Downtown LA has been playing catch up with other downtown revitalization stories.

The other reason, and one that I think will continue to hamper the success of downtown LA, is Skid Row. Simply put, Skid Row is hell on earth. It's utterly filthy and lawless and just completely unimaginable that such a place exists in America, let alone in the second biggest city in the country. As long as Skid Row exists as it does today, DTLA can never reach its full potential. The Tenderloin in SF is what Skid Row is often compared to, but SR is several orders of magnitude worse than the Tenderloin, and the resultant spillover into parts of the Historic Core, Pershing Square, Arts Districts, Civic Center, etc. are pretty obvious.

This streetview pretty much says it all. How healthy can DTLA really be when this is just 3 blocks (!) from the Historic Core?
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0428...7i16384!8i8192

Because LA did not have one "core" it had several and for a very long time the desirable places were not the downtown.

LA is not the only city like this, large car dependent cities that were developed in the last several decades. Downtown LA considering that it is the center of a region (including San Diego) of some 20 million people in Southern California should arguably be rivaling NYC but it is simply not built that way, it didnt develop with the same constraints and pressures.

Don't scapegoat homeless people for L.A.'s lack of urban planning.

WTF are you even talking about? What a dumb comment.

1) I'm not scapegoating homeless people
2) LA is probably one of the most planned cities in the country. Anyone who knows about urban planning and the history of Los Angeles would know this...
3) LA's plan for dealing with the homeless for many years was to confine the bulk of them (and social services) in Skid Row, largely because Downtown was not a desirable place, and it was far away from the wealthy. The result is the utter shit show that exists now.
4) No other city in the country allows the conditions of Skid Row to exist in the way they do here. It's a decision the city has made to turn the other way and ignore the violence, drugs, rapes, infestations, etc. that exist and regularly occur there. We allow tent cities and these horrible conditions to exist in the name of misguided compassion, and also because it's largely out of sight, out of mind.

Pro sprawl planning policies is why DTLA lagged behind other cities.. That's the answer to the question. Not homeless people in Skid Row.

Agreed, the entire area is an absolute disgrace, given this is a developed country. It's no better than the worst parts of Mumbai.

Ok, tell me more about these pro sprawl planning policies. I don't think Skid Row is the reason DTLA declined, but I do think that its presence has and will continue to limit the revitalization potential for downtown.

Have you ever been to Skid Row? It's not just a poor neighborhood with a lot of homeless people. It's utterly lawless. Open air drug dealing and drug use is abundant. Violence- assaults, rapes, murders- all are huge issues. Trash piles up so much that whenever it rains the whole area will often flood due to drains being blocked with so much crap. There are a ton of rats and just recently this led to an outbreak of fucking typhus. I received emails at my workplace about the typhus outbreak that was spreading out from Skid Row, warning us to avoid walking through the 'Typhus Zone'. With these conditions existing just a couple blocks from the Arts District to the east, Historic Core and Civic Center to the west, and Fashion/Flower districts to the south, it's hard to see DTLA ever reaching its full potential. It's in the middle of the center city circle (created by the ring of freeways). It's actually amazing DTLA has been able to come so far in spite of this, I think.

You have no idea what you're talking about

Yeah I'm not sure what's so controversial about what edale is saying. The presence of crime and "undesirable" elements has been a deterrent to the desirability of many city centres. If DTLA has more of it, it therefore stands to reason that it's had a slower process of regeneration.

Any simple answer is wrong. The truth is very complex, in commercial real estate and especially in consumer behavior, as in most things in life.

Polycentrism, parking requirements, public parking expectations, momentum, critical mass, a large and unruly street population...all major reasons.

Momentum and critical mass are now very different. As the area gets more attractive, that fact draws further people. Public transit and changing rules about parking are major contributors.

Just walking down Broadway or Spring Street on any given day, you are sure to encounter a lot of very mentally unstable, and honestly, scary people. There was a man I saw recently screaming at the top of his lungs and violently kicking over trash cans and hitting cars. It was very off-putting, and I'm sure it wouldn't take much for him to start assaulting others. This is sadly a common sight even in the areas full of professionals and tourists, especially the Metro stations. It's definitely a drawback for the city. I certainly wish it could be different....this is definitely why I choose not to live Downtown. I wouldn't feel comfortable walking my dog alone at night.

If L.A. was not car oriented, and if DTLA was the transit hub of the Los Angeles, DTLA would have rebounded in parallel to any other city. The Tenderloin is proof that Skid Row itself could not have prevented DTLA from reviving. The Tenderloin literally abuts the core of San Francisco, and that city doesn't seem to have had any problem attracting development to downtown.

Its not. Downtown LA has become more popular has Skid Row has worsened. Weird, but its true.

The reason why downtown LA lagged compared to other cities is because other cities don't have the same of activity centers LA does. Its that simple.
No other city (outside of NYC) is even close to that, or will ever be.
Santa Monica and West Hollywood Beverly Hills (with multiple shopping areas)
Venice, Westwood/UCLA, Beverly Grove, Hollywood (multiple areas) , Century City, Koreatown, Wilshire districts, etc etc...
Now you have new places like Playa Vista/Silicon Beach/Culver City adding to this mix, it's just not the same anywhere else.

Downtown LA is the biggest "urban area" but it's not the center.

The Tenderloin is pretty hardcore as it is- But skid row looks 10 times more horrific if not more.

I can only imagine how hellish this area is. Unfortunately this is becoming a problem in most West Coast cities and I do not believe it will get better any time soon.

Either way, I think downtown LA has potential and has some great urban fabric. I'm just not sure Angelinos will adopt the lifestyle that super density requires, ie- no cars. LA would be a very difficult place to live without a car.

Thankfully we are, en mass. Thousands of new units opening every quarter in downtown LA alone. Residential population is now around 85,000 and growing quickly. Downtown is the hub of all transportation with the Red, Purple, Blue, Expo, Gold metro lines all converging down here, amtrak, metrolink, too many bus routes to count. I know it takes time for people to let go of old stereotypes, especially those who havent been here in a while, buts a completely different world and were just now starting to take off. The last few years is just the tip of the ice berg in regards to development.

Ive lived in LA my entire life and downtown for 12 years. I cant tell you how much its improved over the last 3 let alone the last 12

delete

My first thought is that Downtown San Diego is on the waterfront, which is arguably the best part of the city. Downtown Los Angeles is not exactly in LA’s most scenic corner.

that's a really interesting point.

on the surface, downtown LA does seem to be somewhat randomly located within the greater LA metro area.

most other major cities seem to have their downtowns located at key geographical places within their regions, like manhattan island sitting in one of the greatest deep water harbors in the nation, or chicago's loop located where the chicago river meets lake michigan, or any number of interior cities with their downtowns situated upon high ground along a major river.

as a general rule, downtowns with something like a harbor, or major river, or bay, or lakefront, or some other major waterfront feature do seem to make for more natural meeting places.

is there a geographical basis for why downtown LA ended up where it did?

Who says downtown LA wasn't happenin' in the 1970s? This is the downtown LA I remember from my very early childhood. Quite vibrant.
https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...b6&oe=5EF67BC2
Cole's facebook page

There's even a Thrifty drugstore on the corner. And fewer homeless, and they were all east of Main Street, and around the Midnight Mission.

Oh, I see, maybe because during that decade, no había gringos en downtown. *ROLLSEYES*

*Rollseyes* at the small mindedness of that last comment!

Yes. The Los Angeles River. El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciúncula was founded west of it. And of course native villages were all over the LA Basin, which was a very fertile flood plain.

Short answer:

https://live.staticflickr.com/4211/3...c8403596_b.jpg
Santa Monica by Pedro Szekely, on Flickr

i was looking for a more fine-grained answer.

the LA river is dozens of miles long. is there a geographic reason why the specific spot along the LA river where downtown LA now sits became the central node for the entire city?

the lack of a strong geographical basis for downtown LA's location could possibly help explain why it became one of the most polycentric cities in the nation.

Downtown LA currently reminds me of Chicago's Loop from the early 90s before most of the mom and pop shops and restaurants all closed down. The Loop now is probably cleaner and has more tourists now but lacking that character that downtown LA still has.

I was being facetious.

Downtown LA was always vibrant, just the demographics changed. As others have mentioned, LA decentralized early on, and didn't really depend on its downtown like in other big cities. Most new investment was being made in other areas of LA.

Urban renewal of downtown actually started in the 1960s with the eventual clearing of Bunker Hill (displacing many people) to build office towers, shifting the financial district west from Spring Street, which was the center of finance in the old days. Bunker Hill had the "advantage" of being near the 110 freeway, so it was expected that office workers would pour into downtown from the freeway, directly into parking garages, and into their offices, and possibly using some of the elevated walkways that were built in that area, and then getting into their cars, and going directly to the freeway to get home.

The traditional downtown was then "taken over" by other businesses, owned by and many catering to the Latino population who lived east of the LA River. The movie palaces on Broadway were still showing movies, some Spanish-language films, and some Hollywood mainstream films but with Spanish subtitles. Walking down Broadway on a Sunday afternoon in the 1980s, it was filled with people. This is why sometimes I want to roll my eyes when people say that downtown is really packed now, when in my lifetime, it always was.

What HAS changed, though, in my lifetime, is that more people live downtown than back in the 1970s and 1980s. It's made it more of an actual neighborhood with residents, with businesses and restaurants that are open past 6pm. I feel like a lot of downtowns were like this anyway, where a lot of businesses closed up shop after 6pm, because they were really catering to the office workers that worked traditional work hours.

But going back to the way downtown LA was, I really think many people avoided it because they felt there was nothing for them (because of the demographics that were there at the time), even though it had (and still has) amazing Beaux Arts architecture, Art Deco buildings, etc. In my teens, my friend and I would even hang out at Olvera Street and Union Station, just because Union Station has such great architecture. And it would be pretty empty! It's like, why aren't tourists looking at this? Probably because they were SCARED. Haha!

https://www.globest.com/2020/02/21/n...20200121110408

The new normal in downtown LA... 4500 units delivered last quarter. Last I recall, about 35,000 more in the pipeline. We've also had several new towers break ground over the last couple months

It's the lowest point in the river that is geographically fixed in place. Below that point, the river meanders in a huge flood plain, sometimes meeting the sea down south by Long Beach, sometimes heading west toward Playa del Rey, destroying everything in its path. Look at where Cairo is located within the Nile river delta, it's the same idea. The people who founded the city knew the lay of the land and picked the best spot for their needs.

cool. thanks for the knowledge.

it's still interesting to me that the CBD of downtown LA (where all the skyscrapers are) is still set-back ~1.5 miles from the river though. i wonder why that is?

it's also a shame what's been done to the LA river over the years with the concrete trench it runs through, turning it into little more than an over-sized drainage channel. it's not exactly a scenic waterfront to revitalize a downtown around, as so many other cities have done with their waterfronts.

Yeah if downtown LA was where Santa Monica or Venice are, there would have been a lot more revitalization by now. Far from the ocean, far from the Westside hills.

The location of DTLA is somewhat arbitrary... it's always been the brightest star in a constellation. Other cities like Santa Monica or Long Beach were self-sufficient, regional rivals before they were conjoined into a giant megalopolis. Also, it's odd that the downtown did not concentrate around the San Gabriel mission the same way other California cities grew around missions.

I think you can really attribute the success of downtown Los Angeles, just like Chicago, to railroads and the city's success at luring them. DTLA really took off after city boosters persuaded the Southern Pacific to make downtown LA the interchange point between the east-west line across the continent and the north-south line up California, plus a spur down to the big port at San Pedro/Wilmington. This gave LA a link to the East Coast, to San Francisco, and to international trade, whereas other settlements in the area had to content themselves with merely being linked to LA via streetcars and interurbans.

Because most of the rivers in the west especially in California are small and seasonal. They were not used for transportation via barge so there was no drive to build anything fronting the water. In fact until about 30 years ago they would do crazy shit like FILL IN THE RIVER WITH CONCRETE and place industrial buildings around it.

San Antonio was the same way until a major effort was put in to build the river-walk, Phoenix is the same way with the city 2 miles north of its river and the river being surrounded by gross industrial uses. A few miles to the east Tempe, which had its downtown centered on the river do to a flour mill and ferry crossing back in the day revitalized their portion of the river and have seen massive development in the years since doing so etc. etc.

Phoenix the Rio Solado: https://goo.gl/maps/XV1oHxQLaCoizUpT8 This is is likely how the LA river looked back in the day, before being engineered over. The flows for both were once higher but the rivers are damned up for water/agriculture. The flow is still seasonal and actually in Phoenix the area was susceptible to annual flooding due to snow melt much like Iraq.

And the same river 3 miles east where Tempe revitalized https://goo.gl/maps/t6HCvKA7xRN42vEt6

Most of the LA river looks like this today https://goo.gl/maps/Dmxti1CF9j1LYyG98

If you want to go down a internet rabbit hole about what they are planning for the river, start here - http://lariver.org/

It's like what Chicago is doing to bring back the river, except on a MUCH larger scale. And waaaaaaay more fighting.

Not totally. look at inland Pasadena and other key portions of the san gabriel valley. they're even more miles away from the coastline, yet many of its communities never went as far downhill from after WWII as dtla did.

if downtown had been built nicely from the beginning, it wouldn't have fallen so hard to begin with.

as lasportsfan notes, dtla today is a far cry from where it was certainly 20-40 yrs ago, even a few yrs ago...

notice the contrast between dtla's seedy past and its better condition today....homelessness, litter, piss smells & graffiti notwithstanding.


• Video Link

Of all the many many absurd things America used to do to its rivers before recent times I will never understand why they destroyed them so much.

I am not really a big conservationist personally, I just dont really care but what was done with so many rivers just boggles my mind. The revitalization efforts in our time are really nice to see.

that includes upcoming apt towers on the ne corner of 8th & Fig and the ne corner of 4th & Hill St.

The first is in a very visible part of the fig-business district corridor, the other is a key neighbor to the grand central mkt, clark hotel and even the bradbury bldg a block away. Those two locations have instead been lifeless parking lots for over 40, 50 or more yrs.

oh, i didn't know about the RR history, that makes sense.

the fact that the RR junction was set up in a location without a strong geographic/water feature makes downtown LA's location within the basin feel somewhat arbitrary.

As I said above the rivers in California are not large, they are small, seasonal, prone to flooding, the only rivers that are navigable and only due to heavy engineering are out of the central valley flowing into San Francisco bay to both Stockton and Sacramento.

The only reason to be close to the LA river at all was water access for literal drinking and growing plants. So the downtown is close enough to the river for that but far enough to avoid seasonal flooding.

Here is like a 110 year old pic of the LA river before the concreted it over for "flood control"

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chor...00097841.0.jpg

This is how would be most of the time until a heavy snow or rain would turn it into a tiny raging torrent knocking out bridges and power lines.

https://waterandpower.org/7%20Histor...River_1941.jpg

The LA River was prone to flooding before it was turned into essentially a flood control channel. The 1938 flood was one of the main reasons.

• Video Link

You totally missed the point. If Santa Monica is the short answer, the long answer would be: Santa Monica, Pasadena, Burbank, Hollywood, Venice, Westwood, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Orange County etc.

:???: I think you're in the minority here, as people here and in that video comment section universally prefer the older version.

Yes, common problem in the west with large elevation changes over short distances and snow in the mountains.

The rivers go from being quiet little creeks or even dry most times to raging rivers from rain storms or snow.

Probably the main reason most western cities are set back from their respective rivers.

That's interesting as it mirrors the history of Southeastern Piedmont cities like Atlanta and Charlotte that have rivers but weren't founded along them as they aren't navigable; it was the railroads that made them economic hubs.

huh? My point was that pasadena is a lot further away from the ocean than dtla is...no scenic oceanfront views there....yet it never became as rundown as dt became. ppl didn't flee from pasadena at the end of the day as many ppl fled dtla.

Pasadena's old town area along colorado blvd did go downhill over 50 yrs ago too, but never as far down as dtla became....old town also gentrified well before dtla was on anyone's radar.

if ppl find the old scenes of dtla preferable to today's dtla, then where were they....or their old time counterparts....over 10, 30, 50 yrs ago? having cocktails in a SRO boarding house on bunker hill? However, there were places like the biltmore hotel or clifton's in the distant past....before that there were businesses like the once fancy alexandria at 5th & spring or a bradbury bldg...but that was about it.

Your point was irrelevant as you were arguing against an imaginary position. Both Pasadena and Santa Monica (as well as many others) are desirable locales within the metro that competes directly with DTLA. That's the short answer to the OP's question. I don't know what you're going on about.

The rivers in LA were paved over by the army Corp of engineers following the devastating floods in the 20's and 30's that killed many people. Most people don't realize that we get a LOT of rain in short periods during atmospheric River storms. It's not uncommon for areas in Angeles National Forest (tnt mountains behind LA that feed the rivers) to get 15, 20, 25 inches of rain in a couple days span during those events. That water all comes gushing down and turns the river into a raging 57 mile rapid

didn't you post a photo of the beach at Samo? If you weren't implying such natural scenic advantages give a boost to areas like that....which dtla lacks....I was pointing out that other parts of socal that also don't have oceanfront views have nonetheless managed to do better compared with dtla over the past 70 yrs.

the multi node layout of LA also has affected it. But that wouldn't have had as much bearing on dtla if the area had been built in a more attractive way over 90 yrs ago.

some ppl claim the construction of fwys spelled the decline of dt...to a certain degree they did....but they fail to note that the big red cars in the early 1900s already were allowing ppl to live all over the basin.

Your first post in this thread was a photo of the beach in Santa Monica, implying that the reason DTLA declined was its distance from the ocean. Citywatch was saying that Pasadena was even further from the ocean, but didn't suffer the same decline that DTLA did, so there must be something more to the story. Get it?

Yes natural scenic advantages give a boost to Santa Monica, as the mountain backdrop does to the wooded foothills of Pasadena and the San Gabriel valley, and does the coastal chaparral and steep and lushly landscaped twisting roads of the Santa Monica mountains in Malibu, Westwood and the Hollywood Hills. The point is, it's a beautiful area with many diverse environments to explore, so why the hell would people choose to live on top of each other in shoeboxes in a dirty and polluted "urban environment?" Now you're getting it. Indeed, people who had the means started heading for the hills and beaches just as soon as technology enabled it.