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

[ChrisLA]

Originally Posted by badrunner

If south Broadway, shown at the beginning of the video, becomes as busy and vibrant as South park, then I'll say that DTLA has arrived

• Video Link

Or if any intersection starts looking like this again:


https://waterandpower.org/museum/Ear...oadway_and_7th

The crazy thing is, DTLA is well on its way to capturing its former glory. It's just slow going because there are so many other booming areas around the metro.

Believe it or not Broadway Avenue, and even 7th Street Corridor still look like that even in the very early 1980’s. I have pictures to prove that, and one day I’ll have to dig out my photos to prove it. We still had the high end retailers Bullocks and Robinson’s on the 7th Street corridor. I still remember going into Robinson’s Department store as a 19 year old and seeing elevator operators dressed up in formal attire taking customers to the floor you needed to go to.

[Quixote]

^ You have it backwards. South Broadway is more vibrant than South Park, 9th and Broadway being the hub of the retail and boutique hotel revolution--the most exciting developments (to me and a lot of others, especially if you're "accounting for taste") in the revitalization, more so than skyscrapers.

I also think the "too many competing forces" theory, although not without merit, is overblown as far as the mutual exclusivity angle. There's enough people, wealth, and demand for housing to support development over a widespread geographic area, although not the infrastructure. That's why DTLA is in a position to "win the race" as saybanana alluded to; the 2040 community plan projects it will account for 20% of the city's growth in just one percent of its land area as the Westside will remain prohibitively expensive and NIMBY.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

Believe it or not Broadway Avenue, and even 7th Street Corridor still look like that even in the very early 1980’s. I have pictures to prove that, and one day I’ll have to dig out my photos to prove it. We still had the high end retailers Bullocks and Robinson’s on the 7th Street corridor. I still remember going into Robinson’s Department store as a 19 year old and seeing elevator operators dressed up in formal attire taking customers to the floor you needed to go to.

That whole area is remarkably intact. The 70s and 80s must have been a weird time when some of the theaters and department stores were still open while the surrounding neighborhood was well into its decline.

[Quixote]

Also, if you know what the state of LA was in the 90s and the perceptions people had of central city (basically everything east of La Brea, more specifically Western), perhaps that would be enough to explain the OP's original question.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ You have it backwards. South Broadway is more vibrant than South Park, 9th and Broadway being the hub of the retail and boutique hotel revolution--the most exciting developments (to me and a lot of others, especially if you're "accounting for taste") in the revitalization, more so than skyscrapers.

I'm with you. I personally much prefer the historic Broadway area to South Park, but LA Live/Staples is arguably the busiest pedestrian area in all of DTLA. It also depends on how you define South Broadway, imo 9th st is still firmly within Broadway proper. 11th st, where that video starts, is still a bit of a ghost town as you can see, with the Herald Examiner building and Proper hotel still under renovation. I think that area will take a while to get going. Those awful Broadway Palace apartment buildings really cut it off from the rest of Broadway.

[Quixote]

^ Staples/LA Live isn't more vibrant than 9th and Broadway, unless there's a special event--sports, awards ceremony, whatever. And in the colloquial sense (the only thing that matters, as it's our city), "9th and Broadway" is most certainly "south Broadway" in actuality and by convenient definition; it's anchored by the Eastern Columbia and Orpheum.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

I still remember going into Robinson’s Department store as a 19 year old and seeing elevator operators dressed up in formal attire taking customers to the floor you needed to go to.

Unless you're like 70 years old, that surprises me. I thought traditions of the past had vanished by at least the late 1960s. I admit that aspect of old dtla...when the customer was treated like royalty....was better than what's common today. So, badrunner, I understand a part of where you're coming from.

but all in all, to me the good of dt in 2020 outweighs the good of dt in 1950 or 1930.

In 1958, its 75th anniversary year, Robinson's invited
customers to "breeze on downtown" and avail
themselves of the convenience of its auto park,
a six-level garage directly adjacent to the store.

I see the way dtla used to be & all I can say is, nope, I wouldn't want to get into a time machine & be sent to the distant past. I'm not even including things like the really poor air quality back then....admittedly offset by the rampant homelessness & street tents of today.


• Video Link


But today's dtla in general is way better than the dt of yrs ago. In certain ways it's better than it has ever been in the city's history....things like a robinsons store or busy movie theaters on broadway notwithstanding.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ Staples/LA Live isn't more vibrant than 9th and Broadway, unless there's a special event--sports, awards ceremony, whatever. And in the colloquial sense (the only thing that matters, as it's our city), "9th and Broadway" is most certainly "south Broadway" in actuality and by convenient definition; it's anchored by the Eastern Columbia and Orpheum.

If I was referring to 9th and Broadway I would have just said Broadway as most people do. That intersection is what people think of when they think of Broadway. Officially, the Broadway Theater District is between 3rd and 9th, so we're both right. It's right on the border. But the official definition excludes the ACE hotel/UA theater, so I think Olympic makes more sense for the southern border (as there are no more major theaters to the south of Olympic). Olympic is also where the street kinks, so it's a convenient marker. Also, officially, everything south of 9th on Broadway is actually considered South Park (which is huge, officially), so you have to take these things with a grain of salt. Neighborhood borders are fluid and often informal. Anyway, one more thing to argue about, I guess.

You're right about LA Live's vibrancy being more "event-driven" but then again, between the Microsoft theater, Staples and the convention center, there's some kind of event going on almost every single night, so I would say that vibrancy is vibrancy regardless of the source.

[ChrisLA]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Unless you're like 70 years old, that surprises me. I thought traditions of the past had vanished by at least the late 1960s. I admit that aspect of old dtla...when the customer was treated like royalty....was better than what's common today. So, badrunner, I understand a part of where you're coming from.

but all in all, to me the good of dt in 2020 outweighs the good of dt in 1950 or 1930.

Nope not even close, I’m 55 years old. By the way, the old Robinson’s store on 7th closed in 1991, and moved to a new and smaller location at 7th & Fig.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

If I was referring to 9th and Broadway I would have just said Broadway as most people do. That intersection is what people think of when they think of Broadway. Officially, the Broadway Theater District is between 3rd and 9th, so we're both right. It's right on the border. But the official definition excludes the ACE hotel/UA theater, so I think Olympic makes more sense for the southern border (as there are no more major theaters to the south of Olympic). Olympic is also where the street kinks, so it's a convenient marker. Also, officially, everything south of 9th on Broadway is actually considered South Park (which is huge, officially), so you have to take these things with a grain of salt. Neighborhood borders are fluid and often informal. Anyway, one more thing to argue about, I guess.

You're right about LA Live's vibrancy being more "event-driven" but then again, between the Microsoft theater, Staples and the convention center, there's some kind of event going on almost every single night, so I would say that vibrancy is vibrancy regardless of the source.

You could say the same thing about every other city with a major pro sports team that plays in a venue with a capacity of 18,000-20,000. The only exception is NYC, where Times Square is always (by far) the most heavily trafficked (pedestrians and vehicles) section of the city. Staples/LA Live during the weekday is otherwise relatively sparse.

I also think you (and every other non-Angeleno) would be surprised by the level of pedestrian activity in the Historic Core around 7-8 p.m. when most people have already left work. I first took notice of this a couple of years ago, and even I wasn't expecting that many people out.

[ChrisLA]

From what I’ve experience, south Broadway is quite busy at night when all the party people come out, both pedestrians and traffic. The day time activity is not dead, but pretty chill compared to the night life.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

But today's dtla in general is way better than the dt of yrs ago. In certain ways it's better than it has ever been in the city's history....things like a robinsons store or busy movie theaters on broadway notwithstanding.

I don't think the mass demolition of Bunker Hill and its Victorian homes (I think it was The North One who once said that it would've been "our [little] San Francisco" or something to that effect) is that big of a deal, as that level of density isn't commensurate with what a megalopolis should have in its urban core. It's what replaced those Victorian homes that's the disturbing part. Although the DWP (John Ferraro) building is a MCM masterpiece, and one of my favorites. The axial orientation with City Hall is borderline "monumental," although it's too bad that Grand Park and the civic buildings (minus the Hall of Records) flanking it are shit.

The real loss, I think, is the connective tissue that existed between the present-day Civic Center/Little Tokyo area and Union Station. But even then, the buildings were only 2-3 stories... again, not a commensurate scale for such a large city. I'd liken it to how Midtown Manhattan was essentially Central City Philadelphia. Eventually the brownstones gave way to post-modern boxy skyscrapers.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Quixote

You could say the same thing about every other city with a major pro sports team that plays in a venue with a capacity of 18,000-20,000. The only exception is NYC, where Times Square is always (by far) the most heavily trafficked (pedestrians and vehicles) section of the city. Staples/LA Live during the weekday is otherwise relatively sparse.

You could also say that about Broadway, as events and shows held at the Orpheum and UA theater also increase the vibrancy and pedestrian traffic in the area. Like I said, vibrancy is vibrancy regardless of the source.

Originally Posted by Quixote

I also think you (and every other non-Angeleno) would be surprised by the level of pedestrian activity in the Historic Core around 7-8 p.m. when most people have already left work. I first took notice of this a couple of years ago, and even I wasn't expecting that many people out.

Wouldn't surprise me at all seeing as I'm the one who posted the video showing the area full of pedestrian activity . In fact the activity in that area never really fell off, I remember going there in the 80s as a kid. It was a lot seedier back then, but just as busy if not busier than it is today. But again, I wasn't even talking about that area, I was talking about south Broadway, specifically the area around 11th st, that still has a ways to go. It feels somewhat disconnected, despite it being almost equidistant to both the booming neighborhoods of South Park and Broadway.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

You could also say that about Broadway, as events and shows held at the Orpheum and UA theater also increase the vibrancy and pedestrian traffic in the area. Like I said, vibrancy is vibrancy regardless of the source.

There's a difference between "organic" vibrancy and "manufactured" vibrancy. Special events belong to the latter category, as they're specially coordinated. The game/event starts and ends at a certain time, so naturally you're going to have throngs of people in one place simultaneously.

Excluding events that draw a mass group, 9th and Broadway is unequivocally more vibrant than Staples/LA Live.

Wouldn't surprise me at all seeing as I'm the one who posted the video showing the area full of pedestrian activity . In fact the activity in that area never really fell off, I remember going there in the 80s as a kid. It was a lot seedier back then, but just as busy if not busier than it is today. But again, I wasn't even talking about that area, I was talking about south Broadway, specifically the area around 11th st, that still has a ways to go. It feels somewhat disconnected, despite it being almost equidistant to both the booming neighborhoods of South Park and Broadway.

What's with the fixation on 11th and Broadway? What makes that intersection so special that it'll signal the arrival of DTLA once it reaches a certain threshold of "vibrancy"? Because I actually agree that DTLA isn't quite there yet. Me personally, I think that moment will come when South Park (between 7th, Broadway, Figueroa, and 11th) is filled in with high-rises and quality development starts infiltrating the Fashion District. And when Skid Row is at best only slightly worse than the Tenderloin.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I don't think the mass demolition of Bunker Hill and its Victorian homes (I think it was The North One who once said that it would've been "our [little] San Francisco" or something to that effect) is that big of a deal, as that level of density isn't commensurate with what a megalopolis should have in its urban core.

not just the density, but much of it was made up of mediocre bldgs...most of which had grown rundown through the yrs. The victorian mansions were only a small part of bunker hill.

That's why I've never understood a lot of nostalgia for that aspect of old LA...of old dtla in particular. To me, a person might just as well feel sad about the loss of air so thick & brown, it could have been cut with a knife.

sorry to the ppl who feel otherwise...& other than the loss of the old Atlantic richfield bldg (it's demolition was unforgivable)....but this to me is not a scene that fits the status of a big time city...



I'd say otherwise, or think I was missing the reality of old LA, if the city had a long history of ppl....both residents & tourists....waxing poetic about how scenic LA was & is.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Those awful Broadway Palace apartment buildings really cut it off from the rest of Broadway.

that property has at least brought in hundreds of new residents to that part of dtla. That's more than can be said about the swapmeet stores or struggling small businesses in old masonry bldgs & all the parking lots that still make up much of that section of dtla.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Quixote

You could say the same thing about every other city with a major pro sports team that plays in a venue with a capacity of 18,000-20,000. The only exception is NYC, where Times Square is always (by far) the most heavily trafficked (pedestrians and vehicles) section of the city. Staples/LA Live during the weekday is otherwise relatively sparse.

I also think you (and every other non-Angeleno) would be surprised by the level of pedestrian activity in the Historic Core around 7-8 p.m. when most people have already left work. I first took notice of this a couple of years ago, and even I wasn't expecting that many people out.

I saw it myself last night after watching the fight at El Tejano. It does seem busier than you'd expect.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Quixote

What's with the fixation on 11th and Broadway? What makes that intersection so special that it'll signal the arrival of DTLA once it reaches a certain threshold of "vibrancy"? Because I actually agree that DTLA isn't quite there yet. Me personally, I think that moment will come when South Park (between 7th, Broadway, Figueroa, and 11th) is filled in with high-rises and quality development starts infiltrating the Fashion District. And when Skid Row is at best only slightly worse than the Tenderloin.

That just happened to be where that particular video started. It's not a big deal. You're the one fixating on it by insisting that I was talking about the much more active 9th and Broadway, when that was clearly not the case.

Skid Row is an interesting case, I actually don't think it's anywhere near as bad as the Tenderloin. I mean, in absolute terms it's way worse, but it's in an underutilized industrial area. The only reason to ever go in there is to gawk at the homeless. I've certainly never had any business in Skid Row, no reason to ever go there, have you? The Tenderloin, in contrast, is in the heart of the city, right next to high-end neighborhoods. In SF the core is a much bigger deal in relation to the metro and is also the most desirable place to live. The Tenderloin would be the equivalent of having a large homeless encampment in the Westside, something that would never be tolerated.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by badrunner

That just happened to be where that particular video started. It's not a big deal. You're the one fixating on it by insisting that I was talking about the much more active 9th and Broadway, when that was clearly not the case.

Skid Row is an interesting case, I actually don't think it's anywhere near as bad as the Tenderloin. I mean, in absolute terms it's way worse, but it's in an underutilized industrial area. The only reason to ever go in there is to gawk at the homeless. I've certainly never had any business in Skid Row, no reason to ever go there, have you? The Tenderloin, in contrast, is in the heart of the city, right next to high-end neighborhoods. In SF the core is a much bigger deal in relation to the metro and is also the most desirable place to live. The Tenderloin would be the equivalent of having a large homeless encampment in the Westside, something that would never be tolerated.

Most Anglenos have zero reason to go into Skid Row. It borders the historic core and Little Tokyo/Arts District but Skid Row itself? No. Some people outside of LA pretend/act like it's something we have to deal with on a daily or weekly basis. It sucks its there, but it's not hurting the development around it.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Most Anglenos have zero reason to go into Skid Row. It borders the historic core and Little Tokyo/Arts District but Skid Row itself? No. Some people outside of LA pretend/act like it's something we have to deal with on a daily or weekly basis. It sucks its there, but it's not hurting the development around it.

Yeah, as that video shows, it doesn't really spill over to the Historic Core. I saw a few homeless in the video, but no more than what you'd find in any busy street in a huge city. No tent cities, no one shooting up or shitting in the street. You'd have to actually venture into Skid Row (for some reason) to witness stuff like that. People with an agenda would have you believe that it's a zombie apocalypse out here. Most people never encounter homeless in their daily routine.