Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude
Am I the only one that actually likes the westside here? I mean, I know I'm a little biased (as I live there) but it really isn't so bad. In some cases, it's rather nice! For the most part, it's very urban, and dense, and has some great architecture. Sure, it can be improved, but does it have to be hated all the time on this forum? I believe that not only should the Westiside and Downtown coexist, but they will coexist, because, frankly, Downtown will never take over the Westside in terms of importance. I mean, has DT ever really been more important then the Westside? Even in the 30s, there was still Miracle Mile, and Hollywood, and Koreatown and Westlake. You can't bring back what was never there. I'm totally happy with the way DT is going right now. I don't mind it being mostly residential based. Vancouver is that way, and no one has ever argued that Vancouver has a bad DT. And, if some office towers go up as well (as they will) then all the better! If we feel like DT has to compete with something then it should be the fringes of L.A; the valley, the southlands. Pretty much, everything that sprung up post-war. It's like gardening, in a way. When you deal with roses, you prune some, but leave most as it is. What L.A. needs is a little pruning around the edges. A little nip/tuck.
|
.
The Westside is a post WW II phenomenon.........before the war, DT was the center of the metro area. Yes, there was the Miracle Mile and Hollywood but they were only subcenters to DT.
As for the Westside I don't hate it but its an amorphous blob that is more suburban than urban and doesn't have much concentrated vitality. Its the weakest form of city. As for DTLA never matching the Westside in importance........
never is a very long time. I wouldn't be so sure.
But if Angelenos want a Vancouver which is becoming one of the most vapid cities in Canada, then that's your choice. I just would be careful what you wish for.
Quote:
However, with all that said, I do hate the valley (excluding Studio City and North Hollywood, which aren't so bad) with a passion, and would be more then happy if a lot of the companies in the valley moved to Downtown. I think, with the Westside being developed largely before WWII, it has stronger urban fabric then the valley, being developed largely post-war, and because of that, the Westside should be viewed as a closer equal to DT then the valley should. Yes, I realize I may have just completely contradicted myself. But whatever. It's late and I'm tired. So there.
.
|
The residential areas of the Westside were developed before WW II. Most of the commercial development occurred after WW II. That's when the Westside took away DT's crown.
Threaded Mode