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.