LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I'm pretty sure L.A. doesn't have anemic growth. In fact, as I can recall, over the last ten years it added more people then any other city in the U.S.

During the past ten years, the cities of Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Austin and NYC all added more people than the city of LA. But the real anemia can be found in the metro growth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas#Table

Metro LA grew slightly faster than metro NYC which has a base that's a third bigger while experiencing slightly slower than Chicago. That ten year growth rate was 3.75%.........that's considered pretty anemic.

Population growth was slow because job creation is weak.

[alki]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

I don't know that I understand your post because it went from most successful to growth. Sure, growth is slow to see in LA's downtown because it is relatively small compared to other core based cities, which btw are few.

DTLA is not that small. Its small compared to NYC and Chicago but its still a good size DT area. Growth is mostly slow because absorption rates and employment gains are slow.

However, Los Angeles is on its way to becoming the worlds 3rd trillion dollar economy behind only New York And Tokyo.

That's the kind of stat Chamber of Commerce types and city leaders throw out to mask what's really happening.

As mentioned before Los Angeles' growth isn't always in the city limits of the City of Los Angeles, yet the metro has seen unprecedented growth over the past hundred years...

I just posted a chart to ID showing the growth rates for metro areas throughout the country. LA is one of the slowest growing metro areas in the country. In part that's due to its maturity but its also due to a lack of employment growth.

Enviable growth if you ask me. And because this growth occurs in the "nodes", it's not as obvious as if it had all happened in the core. And yet we have cranes returning for new development in downtown and we even have some forumers calling a boom. Don't get me wrong, I understand the statistics as far as renters and those using public transit are almost reversed when compared to New York, but both are major world centers of business with certain industries dominating the scene.. But in the end, though different, they really are much the same.

I guess I feel that Angelenos deserve better and should demand better.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by alki

During the past ten years, the cities of Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Austin and NYC all added more people than the city of LA. But the real anemia can be found in the metro growth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas#Table

Metro LA grew slightly faster than metro NYC which has a base that's a third bigger while experiencing slightly slower than Chicago. That ten year growth rate was 3.75%.........that's considered pretty anemic.

Population growth was slow because job creation is weak.

500,000 people moved to L.A, according to your statistic. That's a lot of people. The reason that the growth rate percentage is low is because 12 million people already live here. 500,000 is going to be a smaller percentage of 12 million, then, say, the five million of Dallas. Moreover, I've seen many different statistics about how many people have moved to L.A. County over the past five years. From what I've seen, I'd say 500,000 is on the lower end of the spectrum.

That said, I do agree with you that there is not as much job growth in L.A. as there should be, something that the City of L.A. knows just as much as we do. Most attribute this slow growth of jobs to high taxes, and the City, knowing this, is trying very hard to lower taxes and make it easier for businesses to move into and open up in L.A. County, which would hopefully make the slow job growth faster again.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

You commented on my post that was censored but apparently your post was deleted......so I can't respond to it.

alki, my post is pretty much intact, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. As for population growth rates, I understand both LA & CA together are adding new residents at at pace slower than at anytime since the late 1800s. I know NYC lost more residents in the 1970s than any other US city in american history. But over the past 20 yrs it has added more ppl in actual numbers than any other US city, including LA. If the population in riverside & san bernardino hadn't grown as much since 2000, I believe the entire LA-orange-LB region would have added fewer new residents than all of the cities that make up the NYC area.

I think dtla is the only dt in the US----other than a small handful of other cities like detroit---that has never seen its amt of unused office space dip below double digits over the past 20 yrs. From around the time of the 92 riots, northridge quake in 94, & loss of aerospace jobs, LA was coming very close to mimicking struggling midwestern towns. we're still losing lots of jobs in the entertainment industry, so if things don't eventually turn around, we'll be like a west coast st louis, flint or cleveland.

on better news, & if one reason LA hasn't been attracting more ppl is due to a high cost of housing, at least a former dive apt bldg, the huntington, has been cleaned up & turned into decent modest priced housing....


huntingtonaptsla.com


huntingtonaptsla.com


huntingtonaptsla.com


huntingtonaptsla.com


the huntington was previously a purple painted trouble spot, infamous for lots of drug activity & ppl hanging around its sidewalks....


you-are-here.com

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I think dtla is the only dt in the US----other than a small handful of other cities like detroit---that has never seen its amt of unused office space dip below double digits over the past 20 yrs. From around the time of the 92 riots, northridge quake in 94, & loss of aerospace jobs, LA was coming very close to mimicking struggling midwestern towns. we're still losing lots of jobs in the entertainment industry, so if things don't eventually turn around, we'll be like a west coast st louis, flint or cleveland.

How can the city with the 3rd-largest economy in the world, one larger than London, be like Cleveland or Flint? Seriously, citywatch?! Enough with the hyperbole already.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I think dtla is the only dt in the US----other than a small handful of other cities like detroit---that has never seen its amt of unused office space dip below double digits over the past 20 yrs. From around the time of the 92 riots, northridge quake in 94, & loss of aerospace jobs, LA was coming very close to mimicking struggling midwestern towns. we're still losing lots of jobs in the entertainment industry, so if things don't eventually turn around, we'll be like a west coast st louis, flint or cleveland.

No. There is no rhyme or reason why you should compare LA to St. Louis or Cleveland. LA was beat up in the first half of the 90's (The office market crash, the riots, Northridge, OJ), but you can't compare LA to the midwest as the midwest has gone through a slew of problems that LA has never gone through.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

No. There is no rhyme or reason why you should compare LA to St. Louis or Cleveland. LA was beat up in the first half of the 90's (The office market crash, the riots, Northridge, OJ), but you can't compare LA to the midwest as the midwest has gone through a slew of problems that LA has never gone through.

Agreed. Mid-western rust belt towns fell on hard times because their economies are built on one thing- manufacturing. Globalization and cheap imports killed these towns.

LA has manufacturing, but it also has a massive media sector. And tourism. And aerospace/defense. And in recent years is even catching up with SF in information technology. Like any global city, LA can take a hit in one or two sectors and still bounce back. Its eggs are in many baskets.

[TheUnderWaterDiva]

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

Agreed. Mid-western rust belt towns fell on hard times because their economies are built on one thing- manufacturing. Globalization and cheap imports killed these towns.

LA has manufacturing, but it also has a massive media sector. And tourism. And aerospace/defense. And in recent years is even catching up with SF in information technology. Like any global city, LA can take a hit in one or two sectors and still bounce back. Its eggs are in many baskets.

Hmmm...anybody noticing the fact that Facebook and Google have recently opened up offices in Mar Vista and are trying to compete in the entertainment industry? LA is getting bigger in the tech industry due to its location. At the companies I've worked with, HR departments always comment that they can afford to pay employees less here than in Phoenix (yes, Phoenix) because people tend not to leave LA compared to other big cities. SF and NYC have much higher turnover as they are not family cities like Los Angeles is.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

That said, I do agree with you that there is not as much job growth in L.A. as there should be, something that the City of L.A. knows just as much as we do. Most attribute this slow growth of jobs to high taxes, and the City, knowing this, is trying very hard to lower taxes and make it easier for businesses to move into and open up in L.A. County, which would hopefully make the slow job growth faster again.

Does LA really have higher taxes than NYC or Chicago, which are more comparable than Dallas due to world-wide status cities? Yes, we have 9.25% local sales tax, but Chicago/NYC need high local taxes for their massive social services and transit funding. I think that's an empty statement "high taxes", when people complain. I see high taxes as a good thing because more public services are available here than other cities with low taxes. High taxes also equate to better public transportation, which can help reduce the need for a personal automobile/gas/parking, which in the long run, saves you more money.

Did you know......it only cost the average Angeleno $25/year when Measure R passed? Just a few more Measure R's and we can get more transit development, thus even less need for a personal automobile, which is a financial drain.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Hmmm...anybody noticing the fact that Facebook and Google have recently opened up offices in Mar Vista and are trying to compete in the entertainment industry? LA is getting bigger in the tech industry due to its location.

I'm in software development, and I can say from firsthand experience that there's no shortage of software jobs here. There's still probably more opportunities in Silicon Valley, but the difference isn't great enough that I'd be bothered to move up there. I'd rather live and work in LA, rather than live in SF and commute to Silicon Valley every day.

I'm involved mostly in the web side of things- increasingly mobile web, but I'm assuming that it's equally good here for other parts of the software industry. Game developers/publishers especially seem well represented in LA. I know that Square-Enix (developers/publishers of Final Fantasy) and EA (publishers of EVERYTHING) both have campuses here, and just yesterday I met someone that works for Infinity Ward, the developer of biggest series ever in terms of revenue - Call of Duty. I had no idea they were based in LA until now.

[BrandonJXN]

EA has a campus in Playa Vista not far from LMU. Playa Vista is a interesting place. Gigantic apartment buildings. Borderline commie blocks. Pretty commie blocks though.


But anyway, I went pa st the Marriott site today. Parking lot is fenced off. So any day now.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

I'm involved mostly in the web side of things- increasingly mobile web, but I'm assuming that it's equally good here for other parts of the software industry. Game developers/publishers especially seem well represented in LA. I know that Square-Enix (developers/publishers of Final Fantasy) and EA (publishers of EVERYTHING) both have campuses here, and just yesterday I met someone that works for Infinity Ward, the developer of biggest series ever in terms of revenue - Call of Duty. I had no idea they were based in LA until now.

Yeah, you're right about videogame devs and publishers being based in L.A. Activision, THQ, and Sony Computer Entertainment of America, are based in L.A., with dozens of 'smaller' developers being based here as well. Hell, the studio that made God of War is called Santa Monica Studio, and I think you can guess where they are based.

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Yeah, you're right about videogame devs and publishers being based in L.A. Activision, THQ, and Sony Computer Entertainment of America, are based in L.A., with dozens of 'smaller' developers being based here as well. Hell, the studio that made God of War is called Santa Monica Studio, and I think you can guess where they are based.

I'm waiting for Rockstar to open up an LA location. Between GTA:San Andreas, Midnight Club LA, L.A. Noire, and now GTA:5, they've likely spent a lot of time here doing research and gathering assets!

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

I'm in software development, and I can say from firsthand experience that there's no shortage of software jobs here. There's still probably more opportunities in Silicon Valley, but the difference isn't great enough that I'd be bothered to move up there. I'd rather live and work in LA, rather than live in SF and commute to Silicon Valley every day.

You hit the nail on the head. You have a better chance to earn more money and rise faster in the Silicon Valley, but the downfall is that you live to 1) live in Silicon Valley or 2) commute from SF

If you go up north, you'll see tons of Indians/Chinese from India/China, because they have a hard time retaining people from US to stay in the Silicon Valley due to its location. LA has more favorable lifestyle (weather is a huge plus), so people would rather stay in LA and earn less money, but live in a more fun city (compared to other cities, LA has WAY more cultural activities due to weather and beach opportunities..makes a big difference, trust me, I've lived in London, Indiana and San Jose).

I could earn way more up north, but its just fun to be in LA; where you have a more diverse culture (not race, but train of thought as not everybody is a techie), cultural opportunities (weather), beach and areas of entertainment are close by (nothing up north outside of Napa, Santa Cruz or SF).

That's why I've seen more tech companies relocate to West LA recently; esp Google/Facebook. More talent would rather stay in LA than in the Silicon Valley.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Yes, we have 9.25% local sales tax...

Where is sales tax 9.25%?

EDIT: I take that back. South El Monte has a sales tax of 9.25%. Los Angeles County has a sales tax of 8.75%, but some cities add their own sales tax on top of that. The city of South Gate, in LA County, has a sales tax of 9.75%. I wonder if South Gate residents shop outside of their city because of that.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

That said, I do agree with you that there is not as much job growth in L.A. as there should be, something that the City of L.A. knows just as much as we do. Most attribute this slow growth of jobs to high taxes, and the City, knowing this, is trying very hard to lower taxes and make it easier for businesses to move into and open up in L.A. County, which would hopefully make the slow job growth faster again.

I think the city should focus on two issues. First, put their energy into one or two industries where LA is competitive and then do all it can to encourage those industries by developing educational facilities that complement those industries and promoting the establishment of related research operations. In addition, CA is the land of venture capitalists and it wouldn't hurt for the city to develop relationships with a couple of them. It could turn into a very profitable relationship.

The other thing I think the city should do is scrap the multi nodal concept as it stands right now. Frankly, I don't think it works very well.......I found myself going to Pasadena for my banker, Sherman Oaks for my CPA, Hollywood for my architect and Glendale for my contractor. The nodes haven't become self sustaining villages but rather far flung pieces in an intricate puzzle connected by freeways. Some days I spent most of my time in my car.

I think the city should cap all office and commercial development in those nodes, and encourage them to turn into high density residential enclaves that feed the transit and bus system. And then funnel all future office and commercial development into DTLA.

I know, I know.....what a radical concept.....and not likely to happen.

[JDRCRASH]

Alki, I would love to see the majority of all future office and commercial growth focused in and around downtown, and hopefully that at least SOMEWHAT happens.

However... i think what will improve the multi-nodal concept of city development in LA is connecting them by rail, which we are doing.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Alki, I would love to see the majority of all future office and commercial growth focused in and around downtown, and hopefully that at least SOMEWHAT happens.

However... i think what will improve the multi-nodal concept of city development in LA is connecting them by rail, which we are doing.

I think the centralization will be in the general L.A. Basin area (from downtown to the beach, and north of the 110) then just downtown. For example, vacancy rates have remained very high (concerning offices) in the Valley and exo-burbs of L.A., but throughout the basin vacancy rates are dropping. This means that offices are expanding or relocating to the basin while other places in L.A. are either neglected or abandoned. Not bad.

On another note, I did a downtown shopping trip this past weekend, to Apollis and Skingraft. In those two stores, I made some friends, and heard some choice rumors/upcoming openings. For example, over in the Arts District, a general store type concept is going to open up over, along with a new coffee place and possible retail from the owners of the Malibu Country Mart. This is all, mind you, in those few blocks around the Wurstkuche area. In the Historic Core, I heard that almost all empty retail places are either snapped up or about to be snapped up, and announcement are imminent for multiple boutiques in the Historic Core, particularly along Broadway. So.... good times ahead.

[dachacon]

Originally Posted by alki

I think the city should focus on two issues. First, put their energy into one or two industries where LA is competitive and then do all it can to encourage those industries by developing educational facilities that complement those industries and promoting the establishment of related research operations. In addition, CA is the land of venture capitalists and it wouldn't hurt for the city to develop relationships with a couple of them. It could turn into a very profitable relationship.

Horrible Idea, that is the main reason that midwestern towns and cities fell into ecomomic slumps. Focus on one or two industries, then when another city offers a better place than you, your pretty much screwed.
All major world class cities, offer hubs for multiple industries. such as Media Finance, Entertainment, Tourism Etc. A nice of mix of 5 or 6 Industries helps a city diversify. When one side starts failing the others can pick up the slack. Basic common sense, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Originally Posted by alki

The other thing I think the city should do is scrap the multi nodal concept as it stands right now. Frankly, I don't think it works very well.......I found myself going to Pasadena for my banker, Sherman Oaks for my CPA, Hollywood for my architect and Glendale for my contractor. The nodes haven't become self sustaining villages but rather far flung pieces in an intricate puzzle connected by freeways. Some days I spent most of my time in my car.

Fantastic Idea, The northern part of the city in the SFV, has as much office space as in Downtown. If we can move those tenants to Downtown it will help make a definitive central core "over the hill". Can't say much about what LA can do with other cities such as Glendale or Pasadena. We cant tell them to give up their major employers. All LA can do i guess is provide incentives to move to to the Central Regions of Downtown, Hollywood, or Koreatown.