LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[pesto]

I'm guessing the Raiders go to Industy. Closer to the hard core fan base (thugs, serial offenders, bikers, dopers) and the women who love them.

But it would be fun to see 70k or so of them in DT 10 times a year.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

No ones going to industry because that plan has no financing. It will not happen.

[LAofAnaheim]

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.

When you're just blocks away from the largest homeless encampment in the nation, it's hard to control. Los Angeles - for the reasons we love, has marvelous weather. If you are homeless in San Francisco, New York, Chicago, where would you go to survive on the streets? Los Angeles. During the "great white flight" of the '60s and '70s, cities like Glendale, Pasadena, Hawthorne, etc.. who didn't want to fund homeless shelters sent the money to Los Angeles and thus inadvertentedly created the USA's largest homeless shelter. It's something LA is trying to reverse and making those cities keep their own funds and building their own shelters. Unfortunately, it won't change night/day.

As a resident here, the "homeless problem" has gone down. I use to walk 7th street on Friday/Saturday evenings and would get asked for change way more times last year and years before. Now, it's probably 1 or 2 people. It could be like 5 just four years ago.

Will homelessness go away? Nope. Never. Will the beggars go away? Nope. Never. But, it will be drowned out by the more people who start living on our streets as homeless would have more people to ask for money instead of just the few that walk the streets. There's homeless in New York, but they have way more people to ask for change compared to the streets of downtown LA as our pedestrian traffic is significantly less.

If people are scared of downtown LA because of the homeless, don't live in an urban area. It can happen everywhere. I've been spit on my homeless in Paris, France. This is not an LA problem..it's a world problem.

[Illithid Dude]

from my flickr

Shot of the ongoing renovation of Cliftons Cafeteria. You can see that they have started dismantling the facade, with two patches of it gone. Originally, they had tested the facade removal with the bigger patch, and now, as the new patch shows, they have found it safe to go on with the exterior renovation.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by RuFFy

I'm inclined to believe the team best suited for Farmers Field are the Chargers.. However, the Jaguars are in dire need of life support. SO, if I were placing bets the LA Jags would be where I'd place my money.

I tend to believe a team with a large existing fan base in the region makes the most sense money-wise, both in the short term AND long term.

Originally Posted by DowntownCharlieBrown

That would be bad news – both owners have said only one stadium will be built. I believe that translates to “the first one with a team also will be the only one building a stadium”.

Don't ever recall them saying that. Besides, I fail to see why that has to be the case anyway. If CofI somehow lands an NFL team, why should we just give up on Farmers Field? I mean, does a stadium HAVE to have two teams for it to financially survive? Surely Mt. San Antonio College, Cal Poly, and other possible tenants should be drawn to Grand Crossing. Farmers Field should therefore have no problem attracting tenants.

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

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.

Umm i'm not sure I would call this "side of town" (Walnut, Diamond Bar, Rowland Heights, San Jose Hills, etc) a bad neighborhood... if anything, Westsiders, particularly those in the hills, should feel right at home...

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

JDRCRash., i dont know how many times we have to tell you, but ONLY ONE STADIUM WILL BE BUILT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it does not make economic sense. These two stadiums will be competing with each other for events other than football, not to mention competing with the rose bowl and Colosseum. Oh ya, both groups have said that one will be built.

also, westsidelife did not call that area the "Bad part of town" but its definitely not the westside and is pretty much BFE to most super wealthy people in LA County

[LA/OCman]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

When you're just blocks away from the largest homeless encampment in the nation, it's hard to control. Los Angeles - for the reasons we love, has marvelous weather. If you are homeless in San Francisco, New York, Chicago, where would you go to survive on the streets? Los Angeles. During the "great white flight" of the '60s and '70s, cities like Glendale, Pasadena, Hawthorne, etc.. who didn't want to fund homeless shelters sent the money to Los Angeles and thus inadvertentedly created the USA's largest homeless shelter. It's something LA is trying to reverse and making those cities keep their own funds and building their own shelters. Unfortunately, it won't change night/day.

As a resident here, the "homeless problem" has gone down. I use to walk 7th street on Friday/Saturday evenings and would get asked for change way more times last year and years before. Now, it's probably 1 or 2 people. It could be like 5 just four years ago.

Will homelessness go away? Nope. Never. Will the beggars go away? Nope. Never. But, it will be drowned out by the more people who start living on our streets as homeless would have more people to ask for money instead of just the few that walk the streets. There's homeless in New York, but they have way more people to ask for change compared to the streets of downtown LA as our pedestrian traffic is significantly less.

If people are scared of downtown LA because of the homeless, don't live in an urban area. It can happen everywhere. I've been spit on my homeless in Paris, France. This is not an LA problem..it's a world problem.

Actually, the numbers lately contradict your statement. If you have been by skid row, you will see that things have gone back to where they were years ago. The latest count on the numbers living on the street Downtown..during the past 12 mos, the numbers have risen from 888 to 1662. Sadly we had made progress from 2005 to 2010 where homelessness dropped Downtown from 2000 to 600. The homeless population in NY is a fraction of Los Angeles....but the good news is the LA has a slightly lower percentage of homeless on the streets than Portland, OR!

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

Actually, the numbers lately contradict your statement. If you have been by skid row, you will see that things have gone back to where they were years ago. The latest count on the numbers living on the street Downtown..during the past 12 mos, the numbers have risen from 888 to 1662. Sadly we had made progress from 2005 to 2010 where homelessness dropped Downtown from 2000 to 600. The homeless population in NY is a fraction of Los Angeles....but the good news is the LA has a slightly lower percentage of homeless on the streets than Portland, OR!

I didn't say the homeless population was less or more than in previous years. I was giving the history why Los Angeles has the largest homeless encampment in the nation (survivable weather and "white flight").

Also, to clarify why I encounter fewer homeless in 2011 compared to 2007 is because there are more people walking the street so homeless can approach more people, but you individually will get approached less because homeless have other people they can ask at the same time.

Like I said earlier, homelessness is a world-wide issue that will never go away. Stray off the beaten urban path in other world-class cities and you'll run into homeless there (not as large as LA because our weather is survivable). We can only hope to contain and reduce the problem, but nothing will significantly change.

[JDRCRASH]

Some news on the Art Walk:

http://www.thecitymaven.com/2011/10/11/art-walk-gets-8800-bill-from-city/

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

JDRCRash., i dont know how many times we have to tell you, but ONLY ONE STADIUM WILL BE BUILT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it does not make economic sense. These two stadiums will be competing with each other for events other than football, not to mention competing with the rose bowl and Colosseum. Oh ya, both groups have said that one will be built.

If this is true, then why is it not the case with the other major sports, then? Is it because it's cheaper to build an MLB or NBA venue?

also, westsidelife did not call that area the "Bad part of town" but its definitely not the westside and is pretty much BFE to most super wealthy people in LA County

Okay but it is at least Upper Middle Class.

[213]

I was giving the history why Los Angeles has the largest homeless encampment in the nation (survivable weather and "white flight").

A few years ago I attended a community meeting at which senior officers from Central Division gave their own take on the matter. They attributed the robust growth of downtown's homeless community principally to a) Proposition 13, which dramatically reduced funding to state and local assistance programs, and b) post-1980 reductions/eliminations of federal support for such programs. Their message, in so many words, was that the current situation finds its origins in what voters are willing to be taxed for.

For sure, weather and downtown disinvestment have been important factors, as has several decades of national economic realignment. But one can not sum the current problem as something intractably inherent, nor dismiss its implications for downtown's prospects.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 213

A few years ago I attended a community meeting at which senior officers from Central Division gave their own take on the matter. They attributed the robust growth of downtown's homeless community principally to a) Proposition 13, which dramatically reduced funding to state and local assistance programs, and b) post-1980 reductions/eliminations of federal support for such programs. Their message, in so many words, was that the current situation finds its origins in what voters are willing to be taxed for.

For sure, weather and downtown disinvestment have been important factors, as has several decades of national economic realignment. But one can not sum the current problem as something intractably inherent, nor dismiss its implications for downtown's prospects.

To put in kindly, the officers had no idea what they were talking about. Sounds more like a standard govt. employees' union flyer for why taxes shold be increased. They ought to consider leaving economic theory to others and focusing on crime prevention and detection.

For starters, did he mention that there were MORE derelicts downtown pre-1980 than there are now? And that they pretty much covered Fig to the river as their own territory?

Why would a decline in services cause an increase in homelessness in a given area? Wouldn't it cause the homeless to move to other areas? And how much could it have declined: California is not exactly ungenerous even now in welfare expenditures.

How would this theory explain the dramatic drop for 5 years followed by a rise for the last year or two? Was this a delayed effect of Prop. 13 or the supposed 1980 cuts?

And why downtown specifically (not Oklahoma, San Jose, the Valley, etc.)? Federal cuts should increase homelessness everywhere in the country, and state cuts everywhere in California.

[Virtual Urban Vision]

Originally Posted by pesto

To put in kindly, the officers had no idea what they were talking about. Sounds more like a standard govt. employees' union flyer for why taxes shold be increased. They ought to consider leaving economic theory to others and focusing on crime prevention and detection.

For starters, did he mention that there were MORE derelicts downtown pre-1980 than there are now? And that they pretty much covered Fig to the river as their own territory?

Why would a decline in services cause an increase in homelessness in a given area? Wouldn't it cause the homeless to move to other areas? And how much could it have declined: California is not exactly ungenerous even now in welfare expenditures.

How would this theory explain the dramatic drop for 5 years followed by a rise for the last year or two? Was this a delayed effect of Prop. 13 or the supposed 1980 cuts?

And why downtown specifically (not Oklahoma, San Jose, the Valley, etc.)? Federal cuts should increase homelessness everywhere in the country, and state cuts everywhere in California.

I can spell it out for you, when you take away government housing from people that can't otherwise provide for themselves, they become homeless. Make sense?

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Virtual Urban Vision

I can spell it out for you, when you take away government housing from people that can't otherwise provide for themselves, they become homeless. Make sense?

Speaking of spelling, that answer gets an F.

In that case it should go up in all the US and especially California, not just downtown LA. Also, it would have happened in 1980. Also, it doesn't explain sharp declines for 5 years with rises the last year or two. Also, it doesn't explain why there are fewer homeless now than pre-1980. Please give an answer blaming prop. 13 and 1980 cuts for homelessness that explains the above.

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Don't ever recall them saying that. Besides, I fail to see why that has to be the case anyway. If CofI somehow lands an NFL team, why should we just give up on Farmers Field? I mean, does a stadium HAVE to have two teams for it to financially survive? Surely Mt. San Antonio College, Cal Poly, and other possible tenants should be drawn to Grand Crossing. Farmers Field should therefore have no problem attracting tenants.
.

From the LA Times
Another NFL stadium plan for L.A.?

Tim Leiweke and Casey Wasserman are considering the area behind Staples Center for new venue.

By Sam Farmer
April 15, 2010 | 8:14 p.m.


....It's hard enough to build one stadium in the L.A. area, and there aren't going to be two. This concept, therefore, would be in direct competition with the one that billionaire Ed Roski hopes to develop in the City of Industry.

That would pit Leiweke and Roski, both of whom played major roles in getting Staples Center done.

John Semcken, the point man on Roski's project, acknowledged that there isn't room in Souther California for two stadium projects, but he said they have no plans to abandon theirs.

This is an old article. I've seen AEG quotes about "only one stadium will be built", but I'm not looking for it.

Remember, Roski's already has plans for a 'retail' only center on the site and has been mentioning it more lately. That's because the site will be retail once AEG obtains a team.

[travanx]

The problem is the City giving these people extra rights. Like stealing a shopping cart and using it for their home. And now the police can't even take back the stolen shopping cart. Ralphs must love that one.

I went to the store yesterday around 3pm and couldn't believe that there were people sleeping right in front of store doors across from Ralphs. There was also a guy bothering a woman walking with her 2 little kids. The reason I brought up this issue is that this really is a deal breaker if you are going to be taking the huge risk of developing a building in DTLA.

I am working on a project in Culver City and the opposite is happening. The developer knows that their project will turn an abandoned car dealer with a homeless camp on the back street into something nice and clean. But for some reason the neighbors oppose the project and want the abandoned car dealership along with the homeless sleeping in the uncut greenery.

So maybe these neighbors are like some of the posters on here who don't mind the situation. Obviously being homeless sucks for everyone, so I guess I am seeing differing opinions on real life projects lately.

Now onto the stadium idea. What is the city going to do about the transportation issue with putting even more bodies next to the Staples Center? We recently went to a concert at the park near Chinatown and the subway had to add extra car to handle the capacity issue. But that was just a concert that catered to trendy hipsters in the middle of nothing. Not 70k+ football fans next to Staples, Nokia, and the Convention Center. I am still having trouble imagining where all the parking will be since some of the lots across from Staples will be getting developed as well.

Originally Posted by pesto

Speaking of spelling, that answer gets an F.

In that case it should go up in all the US and especially California, not just downtown LA. Also, it would have happened in 1980. Also, it doesn't explain sharp declines for 5 years with rises the last year or two. Also, it doesn't explain why there are fewer homeless now than pre-1980. Please give an answer blaming prop. 13 and 1980 cuts for homelessness that explains the above.

[POLA]

Originally Posted by pesto

Speaking of spelling, that answer gets an F.

In that case it should go up in all the US and especially California, not just downtown LA. Also, it would have happened in 1980. Also, it doesn't explain sharp declines for 5 years with rises the last year or two. Also, it doesn't explain why there are fewer homeless now than pre-1980. Please give an answer blaming prop. 13 and 1980 cuts for homelessness that explains the above.

Nothing is ever black and white, but to give you a more nuanced response; Affordable housing provided by the free market (cheap apartments/SRO/cheap hotels) has been disappearing due to several reasons not discussed. As a result the government has stepped in to provide low cost alternatives. So, a disinvestment in housing by the state would lead to more homelessness, though not that that the state has to be the only source of cheap housing. Also, to explain why homelessness dropped for the last five years and then increased for the last two years (not even sure if that's true, but you said so), that would have nothing to do with the housing market so much as to do with the job market which boomed and busted two years ago- which actually would further push the case for needing the government intervention with affordable housing.

[213]

Originally Posted by pesto

In that case it should go up in all the US and especially California, not just downtown LA. Also, it would have happened in 1980. Also, it doesn't explain sharp declines for 5 years with rises the last year or two. Also, it doesn't explain why there are fewer homeless now than pre-1980. Please give an answer blaming prop. 13 and 1980 cuts for homelessness that explains the above.

Different regions have different socio-economic variables, so are impacted by trends in different ways. As downtown L.A. has traditionally had a high concentration of services, many non-local indigents were drawn here (or were "dumped") as services attenuated elsewhere.

The late-'00s decline in homeless numbers is largely attributed to the Safer City Initiative, conceived by William Bratton as a downtown "clean-up" effort and introduced in 2006. His thinking was that higher-level violent and drug-related crimes could be forestalled by stepped-up enforcement of such "gateway" offenses as loitering and public urination. The net result was less a reduction in homelessness than an increase in jailed indigents.

Where pre-1980 numbers are concerned I am interested in your source, even if experiential/anecdotal. My best web-scrounging has turned up little from that era apart from observations that most numeric estimates were vague, unscientific and inconclusive. There is, however, a fair wealth of material addressing a dramatic and unprecedented increase in the demand for homeless assistance after 1980.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by travanx

Now onto the stadium idea. What is the city going to do about the transportation issue with putting even more bodies next to the Staples Center? We recently went to a concert at the park near Chinatown and the subway had to add extra car to handle the capacity issue. But that was just a concert that catered to trendy hipsters in the middle of nothing. Not 70k+ football fans next to Staples, Nokia, and the Convention Center. I am still having trouble imagining where all the parking will be since some of the lots across from Staples will be getting developed as well.

But that's the thing. We shouldn't be building more and more parking structures and garages because our goal is getting people OUT of their cars. As some at the Transit Coalition have suggested, increasing frequency on game nights and/or expanding the Pico station to accomodate 5 car trains is possibly is an option. Also, having the streetcar run nearby wouldn't hurt either.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Also, having the streetcar run nearby wouldn't hurt either.

It's barely a streetcar. It travels one way in a loop. More like a street-running people mover.

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

Originally Posted by travanx

Now onto the stadium idea. What is the city going to do about the transportation issue with putting even more bodies next to the Staples Center? We recently went to a concert at the park near Chinatown and the subway had to add extra car to handle the capacity issue. But that was just a concert that catered to trendy hipsters in the middle of nothing. Not 70k+ football fans next to Staples, Nokia, and the Convention Center. I am still having trouble imagining where all the parking will be since some of the lots across from Staples will be getting developed as well.

You know you provided the solution in your rant. If you focus more on greening the planet and less on where everybody will park, you too will see the answer.