LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Baltimore is older, larger, and more established than DC. It also is its own MSA (though part of the larger Bal/Wash CSA).

That may have been true at one point in the past, but for decades now DC has boomed and Baltimore has stagnated, and the result is that Baltimore has pretty much become a bedroom community of DC. You can even see it when you ride the MARC train between the two cities. Riding from DC to Baltimore during morning rush? You'll get a seat for sure. Riding from Baltimore to DC during that same time? Enjoy standing for 30 min.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Oh please.

I'd be shocked if the Raiders were being considered. It's a working class fan base whose rowdier elements scare off people with money. Also AEG is going to want the games to be family friendly and Raiders games aren't really that.

[mello]

LA Sports Fan: I'm saying I consider the Rams and Raider to be front runners because there is no way the Raiders will get their own stadium in the Bay. Just like in LA only one will be built up there and do you think they want to go play in what will clearly be "The Niners house" in Santa Clara with its red seats? Plus Al's kids will give up a bigger piece of the ownership pie than Dean Spanos.

I also like the Rams for the reasons I mentioned and what WestSideLife alluded to. Anschutz and Kroenke are good buddies and STL is a crap market with an outdated dome and not a whole lot of history. Plus history has shown us that good teams don't move. The Rams suck and the Chargers are looking pretty solid in the AFC for years to come.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Easy

I'd be shocked if the Raiders were being considered. It's a working class fan base whose rowdier elements scare off people with money. Also AEG is going to want the games to be family friendly and Raiders games aren't really that.

You really think AEG, the world's largest sports and entertainment conglomerate, would let thuggish behavior fly in their brand new facility where they plan on hosting large conventions and trade shows? At their shiny new LA Live complex that's become host to several prominent events? They have an image and reputation to uphold. The whole Staples/LA Live/Farmers Field is their baby. Like everything AEG builds, Farmers Field will be a corporate palace (not unlike Staples Center). Hooliganism will not be tolerated.

On the other hand, City of Industry Grand Crossing would be bad news. Excuse the racial insensitivity, but good luck luring the Westside, SFV, and South Bay crowds to that side of town.

[mello]

^^^ For eight home games a year I think they will show. And it is an easy drive for most of Orange County too. NBA or MLB wouldn't work but I really think for the NFL they will come.

[Vangelist]

the ugliness that he describes is another reason why I believe it's quite a stretch to ever believe LA will become too gentrified & then worry about the consequences of that.

For artists to live in LA & be fully aware of its fugliness is an odd paradox. That's cuz many creative ppl tend to be more conscious of the aesthetics all around them than the average person. So artists, even more than others, must have an exceptionally odd love/hate relationship with the city.

For many typical local residents, I think the fugly look of so much of the city, similar to the overly gritty east side of DT (or what I showed in the pic posted previously), is a major reason their patience is constantly tested & why many of them eventually will move out before the type of gentrification you're fearful of really takes over.

so I have to again say that worrying about LA becoming too gentrified, dt included, is sort of like an 80 pound adult woman who suffers from severe anorexia worrying that a piece of chocolate will make her fat.

I was talking about the economics of gentrification; being priced out of an area

Shocking as it might seem, some of us have to deal with the aching inconvenience of judging living conditions beyond the mere aesthetics of a neighborhood (or its telephone poles)

[Vangelist]

For many typical local residents, I think the fugly look of so much of the city, similar to the overly gritty east side of DT (or what I showed in the pic posted previously), is a major reason their patience is constantly tested & why many of them eventually will move out

Hm. I wonder how many "typical local resident"-artists you know who currently live downtown, or in the arts district.

[alki]

Originally posted by bobcat

I don't think Beverly Hills is a very good comparison because it will never be a major urban center. OTOH if we look at someplace like Chicago's N Michigan Ave you do have businesses which cater to a variety of incomes, yet rents are still too high for struggling artists to live there.

I'm sure many will call N Michigan Ave "boring" and "sterile," but IMO that's perfectly appropriate for the center of a major international city.

As for BH, you're right it will never be a major urban center but I brought it up because of all the talk of a more glamorized DTLA.....in my mind, it invoked the image of BH which reminds me of a high end Disneyland....way too perfect to be real.

And you're right N. Michigan Ave is not boring but N. Michigan in one of many streets in DT Chicago.

Originally posted by Illithid Dude

In spite of how everyone is down on SoHo at the moment, I gotta say, I really like that model of retail for downtown L.A. SoHo is a good mix of international, high-end stores, sporadic big-box, and dozens of only in NY boutiques. Something along those lines is what I would hope for Downtown L.A.

SoHo is cool but still fairly restrictive when it comes to retail. I think DTLA is big enough to have a diverse retail base.

I understand the desire for more hi end retail in DTLA because there is so very little there now. But eventually hi end will come and then I think DT has to make efforts to preserve its lesser retail so that its appeal remains broad and it attracts a diverse crowd of shoppers.

Originally posted by LosAngelesDreamin

I understand what you mean by great neighborhoods in cities in the world are devoid of all the rich stores, but im just talking about the section of broadway, not all of downtown... and i do not like BH AT ALL as well, i don't shop at gucci, dior, or louis vuitton also.. i just wanted to point out the glamour part.. and i didn't mean all of downtown should be expensive stores.. just a small part of downtown to serve those who do shop there.

I think we're on the same page.

im just saying, for me at least.. when i do become a resident of dtla in the future.. i want stores that'll cater to me and others like me also... if you guys dont want downtown to have stores like ones i mentioned then that wouldn't make downtown a neighborhood for everybody because you guys are afraid of that sort of retail, basically a nimby-ish-like attitude towards chain stores, retail that i mentioned isn't allowed because you're afraid it'll ruin the city's charm... making it harder for me and have to travel out to the westside or nearby malls to go to those stores instead of just walking to them if they were available downtown. do i have to move to the westside to be happy??? idk i guess im gonna lose this one here... -__-'' ok im sorry.

You're too funny. If DTLA becomes as successful as we think it will, the chain stores will be falling all over themselves to set up shop. Trust.

The problem with hip chain stores is that they tend to takeover because they have serious dough backing them up........and they tend to be cookie cutterish. After you've been in LA a few years, I bet it will be the unique 'independents' that turn you on more.

[alki]

Originally Posted by travanx

Keeping all of the crazy homeless people down here will not encourage the amount of new development or new business needed to come in. People are taking some huge risks right now opening up the current bars, restaurants and other assorted business needed to keep the locals doing business in the DT.

They are not vermin, but does the Mission and new laws giving super rights to the homeless, really help the situation? Have you been to that area lately? And have you seen this area say 2 years ago? It is very different. Have you been to the Ralphs on 9th/Flower when you have to pass by more than just a couple of homeless who get up in your face when you are trying to buy food? And then get back in your face when leaving?

I am curious what people think that live down here and try to not drive and get around the city. The projects I mentioned earlier were for low income families. Which were basically going to demo some nasty vacant looking buildings to make way for some nice new buildings with somewhat affordable rent. So I feel like there are some plans to fix the situation with good construction and removing the blight.

I am neither a bleeder nor on a soap box. I understand that the homeless do not look good and confront us in ways we do not like to be confronted. However I had an experience with the homeless which changed my view of them. I was walking with friends in Santa Monica when we saw this homeless guy laying face down on the sidewalk near a bldg. I wondered what was wrong with him.........a friend said he was trashed and had passed out. Two hours later, we were coming back down the same street, and the guy was still there. A friend wanted to poke him with a stick. Instead, I went up to him and saw that he had purged himself and his skin had turned a strange color. I realized then he was dead. It was very strange for me........it was the first time I had ever seen a dead person.

The truth is many homeless end up on the streets because they are mentally challenged and/or mentally disturbed. They have gotten disconnected from their families for a whole variety of reasons. They are a sad part of life in this country.

Since that experience in SM, I have treated the homeless differently. I do not ignore them. I look them right in the eye and answer whatever question they have asked of me. Then I move on. I don't have a solution to their plight but I refuse to treat them any less than any other human being I encounter.

That's all.

[alki]

What about an expansion team for LA? Its inevitable the NFL will expand in the next few years; after all, there are number of cities big enough to host a team.

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by alki

What about an expansion team for LA? Its inevitable the NFL will expand in the next few years; after all, there are number of cities big enough to host a team.

And, Los Angeles could support 2 teams, couldn't it. Weren't the Rams and Raiders here at the same time?

By the way, I heard an interesting interview on AM radio the other day. It was Keshawn Johnson. He spoke to matters concerning NFL in LA that no one has yet raised... at least publicly, or, for my ears. The matters he raised spoke to the personnel that would be here to work for an NFL organization... everyone from Trainers to Coaches and so forth. And, that the majority of employees are not going to earn millions in a salary, including a lot of players. An NFL team will also need a Training Facility and this location has not been entertained as of yet. These questions were contrasted with... where will these employees live and the affordability of housing. Los Angeles is not Tampa Bay where folks can buy a good $200k home in a good neighborhood that is 3 miles from the stadium or training facility. An NFL team would need to account for these if it is to attract quality personnel. The point made - from my interpretation - is that an NFL team in LA is not going to be some panacea of good fortunes to whomever lands here.

Such is life in Los Angeles.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Citywatch: Like any billionaire, Kroenke has multiple residences. He owns homes in Columbia, Denver, and Malibu.

He is a "Denver-based" billionaire in that he owns the Denver Nuggets (NBA), Colorado Avalanche (NHL), Colorado Rapids (MLS), and Colorado Mammoth (NLL). The latter two were purchased from AEG.

Kroenke is not so much a real estate developer as "someone who married the daughter of a billionaire" (one of the Waltons from Wal-Mart). The houses may belong to his wife; I'm not sure what ownership or managerial decisions he can make without permission from the relevant trusts and boards. In any event, he is a figure-head, not a decisionmaker or wheeler-dealer.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

And, Los Angeles could support 2 teams, couldn't it. Weren't the Rams and Raiders here at the same time?

By the way, I heard an interesting interview on AM radio the other day. It was Keshawn Johnson. He spoke to matters concerning NFL in LA that no one has yet raised... at least publicly, or, for my ears. The matters he raised spoke to the personnel that would be here to work for an NFL organization... everyone from Trainers to Coaches and so forth. And, that the majority of employees are not going to earn millions in a salary, including a lot of players. An NFL team will also need a Training Facility and this location has not been entertained as of yet. These questions were contrasted with... where will these employees live and the affordability of housing. Los Angeles is not Tampa Bay where folks can buy a good $200k home in a good neighborhood that is 3 miles from the stadium or training facility. An NFL team would need to account for these if it is to attract quality personnel. The point made - from my interpretation - is that an NFL team in LA is not going to be some panacea of good fortunes to whomever lands here.

Such is life in Los Angeles.

The coaches/personnel would have to take Metro. Or, as the Lakers do, set-up the training center in a different area, like El Segundo. LA will not have home prices like Jacksonville...we're more in comparison with New York, SF, Boston, Philly, etc... It's apples and oranges.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by alki

Originally posted by bobcat


As for BH, you're right it will never be a major urban center but I brought it up because of all the talk of a more glamorized DTLA.....in my mind, it invoked the image of BH which reminds me of a high end Disneyland....way too perfect to be real.

And you're right N. Michigan Ave is not boring but N. Michigan in one of many streets in DT Chicago.

Originally posted by Illithid Dude


SoHo is cool but still fairly restrictive when it comes to retail. I think DTLA is big enough to have a diverse retail base.

I understand the desire for more hi end retail in DTLA because there is so very little there now. But eventually hi end will come and then I think DT has to make efforts to preserve its lesser retail so that its appeal remains broad and it attracts a diverse crowd of shoppers.

Originally posted by LosAngelesDreamin


I think we're on the same page.



You're too funny. If DTLA becomes as successful as we think it will, the chain stores will be falling all over themselves to set up shop. Trust.

The problem with hip chain stores is that they tend to takeover because they have serious dough backing them up........and they tend to be cookie cutterish. After you've been in LA a few years, I bet it will be the unique 'independents' that turn you on more.

I have been to those 'independents'.. San Diego has tons of them here in hillcrest and university ave, similar to melrose ave... its unique and it has it's character and charm... a lot of thrift stores that carry unique and cute outfits. I LOVE THEM and they do turn me on lol but I mostly shop at G for Guess, H&M, Forever XII, Express etc etc... i never wanted downtown la to be a rodeo drive also... i wanted just one section or part of downtown to be similiar to sf's union square shopping district or 5th ave in new york. There is no problem with chain stores.. i think their clothes are beautiful. I think a mix of independents, chain stores and the high end retail is the perfect retail experience.. i believe that chain stores next to the independents will just hi-lite the independent's uniqueness and charm even more...and THAT.. will make it so much more greater. Rather than just have independents in downtown and thats it... its not very appealing, but rather boring and sleepy. people will want a mix of retail available.. EVERYTHING: Chain stores, independents, high end. Be more welcoming to that sort of stuff.. its downtown after all.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

Originally Posted by alki

I am neither a bleeder nor on a soap box. I understand that the homeless do not look good and confront us in ways we do not like to be confronted. However I had an experience with the homeless which changed my view of them. I was walking with friends in Santa Monica when we saw this homeless guy laying face down on the sidewalk near a bldg. I wondered what was wrong with him.........a friend said he was trashed and had passed out. Two hours later, we were coming back down the same street, and the guy was still there. A friend wanted to poke him with a stick. Instead, I went up to him and saw that he had purged himself and his skin had turned a strange color. I realized then he was dead. It was very strange for me........it was the first time I had ever seen a dead person.

The truth is many homeless end up on the streets because they are mentally challenged and/or mentally disturbed. They have gotten disconnected from their families for a whole variety of reasons. They are a sad part of life in this country.

Since that experience in SM, I have treated the homeless differently. I do not ignore them. I look them right in the eye and answer whatever question they have asked of me. Then I move on. I don't have a solution to their plight but I refuse to treat them any less than any other human being I encounter.

That's all.

I've volunteered to help out at the shelter here in SD before. and found out that some homeless choose to be homeless... why??? because they said it brings them a closer connection to God... i don't mean to bring religion in here but im just saying... In order for them to be saved and have a good after life and a home in paradise.. they forfeit everything they have.. a home, money, food and all that good stuff.. and in return a closer relationship with God. =/ some of them are really nice people i agree, and some over here are military veterans gone mad, which could be scary sometimes cuz they bring a whole thing and act as if they still at war.. kinda sad.

[213]

...the majority of employees are not going to earn millions in a salary, including a lot of players. An NFL team will also need a Training Facility and this location has not been entertained as of yet. These questions were contrasted with... where will these employees live and the affordability of housing. Los Angeles is not Tampa Bay where folks can buy a good $200k home in a good neighborhood that is 3 miles from the stadium or training facility.

My heart simply breaks for them.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Vangelist

Shocking as it might seem, some of us have to deal with the aching inconvenience of judging living conditions beyond the mere aesthetics of a neighborhood (or its telephone poles)

there are certain ppl who exaggerate the bad qualities of LA, & then there are others who exaggerate the good qualities of LA. I wasn't sure where you fall on that scale. however, i think anyone who looks around & worries that LA may become too gentrified is more likely to be in the latter category.

I cannot count the number of times I've seen ppl slam LA, & at that moment I think they're being unfair. I think they're the type who exaggerates the bad aspects of LA. Then I myself will go to DT or visit some other part of LA & right then & there I become very . my own honest reaction is: "is this all there is?! is this the best the city can do??! oh oh, LA really is bad".

maybe that's what artist john baldesarri was referring to when he says cuz LA is so ugly, & cuz that apparently makes him slightly angry, he is inspired to do artwork.

When I mentioned "typical local resident" I wasn't thinking of ppl like him, meaning those who---as the saying goes----take a lemon & turn it into lemonade. I meant non artist types. those ppl who are more likely to say that cuz LA is so fugly & cuz that makes them angry, if things don't start turning around more clearly & faster----& definitely by the time they have a spouse, kids & a need for a school to send them to----they're outta here!!! iow, the fugliness of the city & the anger that causes won't drive them to do something creative. it will drive them to another city.

[213]

Originally Posted by travanx

I am curious what people think that live down here and try to not drive and get around the city.

Speaking strictly for the Financial District, the past year has seen a palpable increase in homeless/indigent traffic following several years of relative improvement. More people are camping and "messing" in the area, and the breadth of cases has seemingly widened: more severe ones (i.e. "screamers", catatonics) on the one end, and those whose challenges seem primarily financial (the elderly, the disabled, etc.) on the other. Panhandlers are generally more proliferate and aggressive.

Solutions can be debated -- I personally veer to the left in these things -- but the problem must be actively addressed if downtown is to remain growthful and marketable. As things stand, my encounters with the indigent have escalated from often to constant, particularly in the evening. This is likely beyond the threshold of tolerance for most prospective residents.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by 213

Speaking strictly for the Financial District, the past year has seen a palpable increase in homeless/indigent traffic following several years of relative improvement. More people are camping and "messing" in the area, and the breadth of cases has seemingly widened: more severe ones (i.e. "screamers", catatonics) on the one end, and those whose challenges seem primarily financial (the elderly, the disabled, etc.) on the other. Panhandlers are generally more proliferate and aggressive.

Solutions can be debated -- I personally veer to the left in these things -- but the problem must be actively addressed if downtown is to remain growthful and marketable. As things stand, my encounters with the indigent have escalated from often to constant, particularly in the evening. This is likely beyond the threshold of tolerance for most prospective residents.

It's weird, because when I go downtown I don't encounter many homeless people, and when I do they keep to themselves.

[edluva]

i hope to god it's not raider-nation again, holmes. we have enough problems with idiotic cholos as it is (eg beating up random people at dodger stadium)