LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[LA/OCman]

Alki, I have to agree with Illithid Dude on the changes in attitudes about Downtown. Events like Ciclavia draw 130,000 bicylists Downtown a couple of times a year. The LA Marathon draws 25,000 plus and Art Walk...up to 30,000 monthly. Staples Center really changed it all. When I was young you would drive to the Forum in Inglewood to see the Lakers. You would drive there, watch the game and drive home. Now, many westsiders eat at the Katsuya, the Palm, Bottega Louie, Bottlerock, Trader Vics etc and then head to the game.

Also, crime has really dropped in LA since you were here...back then there were 1200 murders in Los Angeles annually...in 2011 it was less than 300. When I bought Downtown having lived in Orange County, people were fascinated. I own in the Eastern Columbia and the Rowan and I am surprised how many residents are native to Southern California (along with many ex-NYers). Quite a few came from the Westside. I have a tenant who rents Downtown and commutes to Santa Monica.

The big change in the future will be the EXPO line which will connect Santa Monica to 7th and Fig...via USC. Connecting the Westside and Downtown will be huge.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by alki

I definitely think attitudes are changing albeit very slowly. I worked on the Westside in the 90s and while I didn't hang with the 1%, my friends and colleagues were definitely affluent and on their way up, and they wouldn't have been caught dead in DTLA. Rarely could I get them to go DT. And you have to remember, Bunker Hill was first developed in the 60s and 70s. Again, it was meant as an island of safety amidst a DT of chaos. And then there was the Boniventure Hotel. Why do you think the focus is inward, not the street? It was meant to look like a fortress to reassure its customers.

I don't mean to denigrate the affluent but they frequently determine the fate of the big projects. When Disney Hall was built, their attitudes definitely were taken into consideration and it was believed, rightly or wrongly, there had to be parking very closeby. I glad to read that their POV is changing. It will be them that ultimately determine the fate of DTLA.........and your generation.



That's why restaurants [and artists] typically spark a neighborhood's revival. When SM decided to turn around Third they literally seeded the street with theaters and restaurants. After those places became successes, other retail joined the fray. For good food, adventurous urbanists/hipsters will go into the worst neighborhoods.

{QUOTE]It's not. You are thinking of a government building, one that is currently in use. The AT&T building I am referring to is on 6th and Grand.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you're right........... do you know which building I mean? I tried to find a photo in google but with no luck

Sorry to disagree, but that's not what happened in SM. The restaurants and theaters that opened in SM were economic disasters and went through multiple owners in spite of the city putting money into the 'hood for 20 years. The changes started coming with the increased demand for urban living and the quality of services and growth control provided by the SM officials.

Artists do not spark a neighborhood's revival. They move in because prices are near the bottom but there is some uptick in the market that has moved it out of "skid row" status. Typically, large unimproved space is available. Sometimes the neighborhood goes up in value; sometimes it just stays as an artsy enclave. Similarly, hipsters may be the final stage of redevelopment, or they too may get priced out if an area becomes truly desirable, and the well-to-do move in.

I only mention this because the real drivers in making an area desirable are things like an easy commute, safe streets, well-maintened public facilities, good schools, efficient government. Bringing in restaurants, artists and hipsters, and hoping others will follow is confusing cause with effect.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

Alki, I have to agree with Illithid Dude on the changes in attitudes about Downtown. Events like Ciclavia draw 130,000 bicylists Downtown a couple of times a year. The LA Marathon draws 25,000 plus and Art Walk...up to 30,000 monthly. Staples Center really changed it all. When I was young you would drive to the Forum in Inglewood to see the Lakers. You would drive there, watch the game and drive home. Now, many westsiders eat at the Katsuya, the Palm, Bottega Louie, Bottlerock, Trader Vics etc and then head to the game.

Also, crime has really dropped in LA since you were here...back then there were 1200 murders in Los Angeles annually...in 2011 it was less than 300. When I bought Downtown having lived in Orange County, people were fascinated. I own in the Eastern Columbia and the Rowan and I am surprised how many residents are native to Southern California (along with many ex-NYers). Quite a few came from the Westside. I have a tenant who rents Downtown and commutes to Santa Monica.

The big change in the future will be the EXPO line which will connect Santa Monica to 7th and Fig...via USC. Connecting the Westside and Downtown will be huge.

Agree. Lower crime rates, easier commutes and such attract the artists, then the young generally. To get famlies (if that's the goal) schools, parks, streetscape, etc., have to improve. Of course, if the goal is not to worry about families but become a tourist and entertainment area, these are less important.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Yes, it is an amazing city, but it is grimy and dirty beyond belief.

illithid, there is grit & then there is grit grit. if one of the bldgs caught on film by koth were in the type of city I mentioned before, it would have looked more like this....


kingofthehill

^ a bit of editing of the original image , but if you still don't get or care about the difference, that's ok. Many ppl who've played a big role in shaping LA through the yrs have been the same way.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by alki

On that I can agree with you...........the kind of people that would patronize Disney Hall probably believe that DTLA is very dangerous place to be in after dark.

I was reading a post in the "LA noire" thread in the "found photos" section of ssp a few days ago & someone who I believe described his visiting dtla as a youngster back in the 1950s, or a loong time ago, said even back then he thought the hood was kind of shabby, or something like that. When dt still was more of the center of LA, the fact most ppl not only didn't rave about it but instead treated it with indifference was a warning sign there was trouble up ahead. That's why I say that ppl who believe transit or the way cars are treated here represents the magic bullet in reviving the hood need to remember that all these shortcomings originate from a time when LA still had one of the biggest transit systems in the world, the big red car trains.

the arrival of crime & the rise of the burbs made a weak situation even worse, but the hood's fate was sealed way before alot of ppl today were even born.

Originally Posted by pesto

The restaurants and theaters that opened in SM were economic disasters and went through multiple owners in spite of the city putting money into the 'hood for 20 years.

Imagine if we were all the age we are today over 30 yrs ago, & the internet & forums like this existed at the time. Not only would dtla have been in really sad shape, but even more burban areas like Samo, esp the 3rd st promenade, were falling apart. Old town pasadena at that time also was considered rundown & a place to avoid, & hollywood was seen as sad or even sadder than dtla. Ppl who were the predecessors to sspers back then----the type of ppl interested in the topics found at this sort of website, & certainly the ones living in LA, must have felt like this:

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by citywatch

illithid, there is grit & then there is grit grit. if one of the bldgs caught on film by koth were in the type of city I mentioned before, it would have looked more like this....

Not really. Have you been to NYC or Chicago? While NYC has its fair share of renovated warehouses and industrial structures, there are also many in various states of disuse and disarray. This has been picked up by popular media/cinema, and now is a well-integrated and synonymous with the city's identity, even becoming a source a pride for some locals. For instance, how clean or sanitized does this look to you?





Let's not embellish things. NYC is full of gritty industrial neighborhoods; Bushwick, East Williamsburg, Maspeth, Sunset Park, Red Hook, Long Island City, Hunters Point, and the South Bronx all have plenty of rough-looking industrial buildings and crudely-converted lofts. Same for Chicago. Here is a similarly non-pristine-looking section of the Pilsen:



Let's be real here.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

A recently-finished loft conversion on 4th St./Alameda, in the Arts District:



The affordable housing project on Main, near 5th St.:



Loft conversion of another, formerly industrial building. This time in the Historic Core, on Winston, between Main and Los Angeles Streets:

Previously (June '09):



Now:

Nice update! I can't help but think those conversions look a little sterile tho. I have to admit I like the grittier looks of the buildings prior to conversion better.

[202_Cyclist]

dktshb:

Nice update! I can't help but think those conversions look a little sterile tho.

You don't like the DC-style architecture?

[LA/OCman]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Nice update! I can't help but think those conversions look a little sterile tho. I have to admit I like the grittier looks of the buildings prior to conversion better.

The white building on Winston St. Downtown in KOTH's pic under renovation will be brought back to its natural brick facade so it will really be an improvement when it is completed.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Let's not embellish things. NYC is full of gritty industrial neighborhoods; Bushwick, East Williamsburg, Maspeth, Sunset Park, Red Hook, Long Island City, Hunters Point, and the South Bronx all have plenty of rough-looking industrial buildings and crudely-converted lofts.

one major difference is that many of the areas you point out are very peripheral to the main ctr of that city, or most of manhattan. iow, they're not mixed in with the best parts of nyc. By comparison, the nicest sections of dtla are scattered about, interspersed with the grit of broadway, south pk, empty parts of bunker hill, sections between little tokyo, the arts dist & the old bank dist, hoods on the other side of the fwy, across from the civic ctr towards chinatown, or near LA live. So ppl can't get away from the grit as easily or quickly as they can in certain other cities. or ppl keep running into that grit, whether they want to or not.

It's not too much of an embellishment to say that if the hood in one of your pics was in LA & not in NY, it would have an even grittier or sloppier look about it.....

[sopas ej]

citywatch, I know you have issues with power lines/utility poles---big issues, almost obsessive, it seems; but to each his or her own, I guess. I understand that a grand boulevard might look very cluttered with utility lines (which is why Wilshire Boulevard never had streetcars going down it, because early on, it was felt that overhead trolley wires and "grand boulevards" don't mix), but I personally don't mind them, particularly in industrial areas or certain residential neighborhoods, in fact in some instances, I think they add character. Not every street is a grand boulevard, nor should every street be. If we put all utility lines underground, then we get Irvine.

These were pics I took, which include utility lines/utility poles:

Arts District

Photo by me


Photo by me


Photo by me


Photo by me

Olympic Boulevard Bridge over the LA River

Photo by me

4th Street Bridge over the LA River

Photo by me

Not downtown of course, but my town, South Pasadena, which is full of utility poles and lines:

Photo by me


Photo by me

I personally don't think that any of these utility lines and poles look bad.

[alki]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

Alki, I have to agree with Illithid Dude on the changes in attitudes about Downtown. Events like Ciclavia draw 130,000 bicylists Downtown a couple of times a year. The LA Marathon draws 25,000 plus and Art Walk...up to 30,000 monthly. Staples Center really changed it all. When I was young you would drive to the Forum in Inglewood to see the Lakers. You would drive there, watch the game and drive home. Now, many westsiders eat at the Katsuya, the Palm, Bottega Louie, Bottlerock, Trader Vics etc and then head to the game.

Also, crime has really dropped in LA since you were here...back then there were 1200 murders in Los Angeles annually...in 2011 it was less than 300. When I bought Downtown having lived in Orange County, people were fascinated. I own in the Eastern Columbia and the Rowan and I am surprised how many residents are native to Southern California (along with many ex-NYers). Quite a few came from the Westside. I have a tenant who rents Downtown and commutes to Santa Monica.

The big change in the future will be the EXPO line which will connect Santa Monica to 7th and Fig...via USC. Connecting the Westside and Downtown will be huge.

I don't disagree with your premise........attitudes about DTLA among the general population have changed dramatically........that's evident by all the new restaurants/retail opening up.

However, the group that Illithid and I were addressing is the 1% for lack of a better term....the movers and shakers of LA; the ones who decide where the big money will be spent. I am not convinced that they are convinced about DTLA yet. Why? Because the hi end market condos found at LA Live are not selling well. That location should be a natural for actors like Leo and Barrymore. Have either bought one? The affluent and the stars in LA are reluctant to buy......and that tells me they are not convinced about DTLA.

That group has always been reluctant when it comes to DTLA. And that's why there is a huge parking garage under Disney Hall. That enables them to whisk in and see a performance and then whisk out when its over. Those people have never cared about DTLA.........they have always kept it a distance. And frankly, I could care......but unfortunately, they control too many of the big purse strings.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by alki

Why? Because the hi end market condos found at LA Live are not selling well.

I don't think that is a good example. L.A. live is physically separated from the rest of downtown. It is on the fringe. There are plenty of high-end apartments and condos in the main part of downtown that sell plenty well.

Also, just saying, if you are wealthy, would you want the building you live in to be plastered with Coca Cola ads? I wouldn't. Just because something is expensive doesn't make it primed to sell, no matter the condition or viability of the surrounding neighborhood.

[alki]

Originally Posted by pesto

Sorry to disagree, but that's not what happened in SM. The restaurants and theaters that opened in SM were economic disasters and went through multiple owners in spite of the city putting money into the 'hood for 20 years. The changes started coming with the increased demand for urban living and the quality of services and growth control provided by the SM officials.

I don't know to what 20 year period you are referring but this was the 90s. I wasn't in LA in the '80s. How I know what happened in SM is because I had been appointed by the councilman to the review board for the Hollywood CRA. One of the presentations given to the board was by the SM CRA equivalent. They carefully outlined the process by which they went about reviving 3rd Ave.....if memory serves me at the time of the presentation, 3rd Ave was already in an upswing. Apparently Westwood was in decline, overrun by UCLA students and theater companies were looking for a new locational venue to showcase their new features. SM encouraged them to consider 3rd Ave and made financial incentives to make it happen. In the same way, they encouraged restaurants to open up, pointing out that the new theaters would provide a fairly steady clientele. The rest is history.

[QUOTE]Artists do not spark a neighborhood's revival. They move in because prices are near the bottom but there is some uptick in the market that has moved it out of "skid row" status. Typically, large unimproved space is available. Sometimes the neighborhood goes up in value; sometimes it just stays as an artsy enclave. Similarly, hipsters may be the final stage of redevelopment, or they too may get priced out if an area becomes truly desirable, and the well-to-do move in.[/QUOTE]

Pesto, I think you're quibbling. Yes, artists move in because the rents are cheap......its what they can afford. That's a given. And eventually, small restaurants and coffee shops follow suit because of the growing artist population. Eventually hipsters 'discover' the area and start moving in. Its at that point where the revival becomes well known among the general population and the neighborhood takes off.

Why this formula usually works and neighborhood values generally go up significantly is because the artists typically pick neighborhoods where the architecture is pleasing to them even in its run down state. You know....its the artist eye........the artistic aesthete. And once those bldgs get rehabbed they have appeal to the general population.

[QUOTE]I only mention this because the real drivers in making an area desirable are things like an easy commute, safe streets, well-maintened public facilities, good schools, efficient government. Bringing in restaurants, artists and hipsters, and hoping others will follow is confusing cause with effect.[/QUOTE]

But that's just it.......many of those neighborhoods are frequently off the beaten path with lousy services and public facilities and rampant with crime. SOHO's revival which is in DT Manhattan started when the center of influence was midtown and uptown. Georgetown was on the periphery of the District, close to neither the affluent NW or Capitol Hill. It was a broken down port area that was rife with crime.

But I do agree with you a good location does help. SOMO was the dangerous tenderloin district of SF. It was the area people circumvented to get to DTSF. Same with Pioneer SQ in Seattle. However, both were close to their DTs which made them more interesting.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I don't think that is a good example. L.A. live is physically separated from the rest of downtown. It is on the fringe. There are plenty of high-end apartments and condos in the main part of downtown that sell plenty well.

Also, just saying, if you are wealthy, would you want the building you live in to be plastered with Coca Cola ads? I wouldn't. Just because something is expensive doesn't make it primed to sell, no matter the condition or viability of the surrounding neighborhood.

I don't know. Those condos sit above the Ritz Carlton and are adjacent to where the Lakers play. It seems to be a natural location for someone like Leo to have a pied-a-terre. I think if the Coke signs are the problem, they would have turned them off.........they're digital right?

I really shouldn't argue this point.........I lost a sense of the real estate market in LA years ago. You may be right.........that I am being too harsh. But I don't think there are any other condos in DTLA more pricey. Maybe Brigham knows better.......in terms of priciness and why they are not selling well.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

but I personally don't mind them, particularly in industrial areas or certain residential neighborhoods, in fact in some instances, I think they add character. Not every street is a grand boulevard, nor should every street be. If we put all utility lines underground, then we get Irvine.

sopas, there are certain things that appear to cause ppl to react the way described in an article I saw several wks ago, published in LA mag. I don't know of any of the traditional great cities of the world that are described as places where it takes a visitor or new resident a few yrs to fall for them. instead I read about ppl visiting SF & saying they left their heart there. Or ppl going to NY & saying it's so exciting & great. Or ppl visiting chicago (& I've been told this myself) & saying it's appealing in a way that LA isn't. Or ppl going to cities across the atlantic & saying how wonderful & beautiful they are. Or ppl going to hong kong or tokyo & saying they're impressive, full of $$ & hustle bustle. IOW, I don't hear those towns described as places where it will take a few yrs to like them.

there's something amiss about LA, & ppl have different reasons for liking or not liking it, or any city, I suppose. I'm just going on my own hunches that what makes most ppl go in the beginning is the shabbiness of the city in general. too much of it is fugly in a way that's typical of lower tier, esp sunbelt, american cities.

The source of those 2 pics is KOTH, who I recall saying he even likes grit. However, he did mention recently that when he took a friend (who I believe is from europe?) to broadway, she said something about the street being overly gritty & not caring for it. Her type of reaction sums up a major weak point for the city, & I know my own response to streets like that or too many other parts of LA is similar to hers. Hoods that leave ppl feeling cold or---at best----ambivalent & in too many instances making them want to go elsewhere.

Her start was rocky, and she spent all the time she had trying to grasp the relationship between the Hammer Foundation—which the mogul had crafted to oversee his collection—the university, and Occidental Petroleum. “It was confusing and complex. It needed to be defined from the inside out.” She was miserable for a good six months and thought about going back to New York City. “Everybody said to me it will take two-and-a-half to three years to fall for L.A. But that’s exactly what happened to me.... This is my city. I still need my New York fix, but I love this city.” She lives during the week in West Hollywood with her partner, Cynthia Wornham, who is a vice president of marketing and communications at the Natural History Museum. On weekends they escape to a surf pad in Malibu.

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by citywatch

The source of those 2 pics is KOTH, who I recall saying he even likes grit. However, he did mention recently that when he took a friend (who I believe is from europe?) to broadway, she said something about the street being overly gritty & not caring for it. Her type of reaction sums up a major weak point for the city, & I know my own response to streets like that or too many other parts of LA is similar to hers. Hoods that leave ppl feeling cold or---at best----ambivalent & in too many instances making them want to go elsewhere.

Look, man. I don't know if it is because I am one of the few people on this site who fairly and accurately photographes and depicts the current realities of LA, but I don't know from where you are getting this "KOTH likes grit" bs you are always talking about. I have never said I "like" grit.

Yes, I am a lover of cities, and I am quite fond of archtecture, arts, culture, and food; qualities that may cause me to be attracted to certain places and areas that may or may not be grittty. Rest assured, though, I do not hang out there, like them, or take pictures of them because there are "gritty." I am just as happy to see Downtown revitalize and redevelop as much as the next forumer is, and I am one of the biggest fans of contemporary architecture around. Seriously, why do you think I am always there, socializing and visiting friends (and taking pictures of new developments)? Where are you getting this drivel from?

Oh, and for what it's worth, grit is merely a characteristic or patina, and it should not be used in place of things like abandonment, blight, decay, or generally violent or otherwise unsafe areas - all truly ugly warts on cities at large. Also, not that I do, but if people prefer it as aesthetic or quality, that is their choice, and they should not be hounded or vicitimized for it.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by citywatch

sopas, there are certain things that appear to cause ppl to react the way described in an article I saw several wks ago, published in LA mag. I don't know of any of the traditional great cities of the world that are described as places where it takes a visitor or new resident a few yrs to fall for them. instead I read about ppl visiting SF & saying they left their heart there. Or ppl going to NY & saying it's so exciting & great. Or ppl visiting chicago (& I've been told this myself) & saying it's appealing in a way that LA isn't. Or ppl going to cities across the atlantic & saying how wonderful & beautiful they are. Or ppl going to hong kong or tokyo & saying they're impressive, full of $$ & hustle bustle. IOW, I don't hear those towns described as places where it will take a few yrs to like them.

And people come from those places to L.A. and say that they love the laid-back quality of L.A., the quality that Tokyo doesn't have. Or they love the sunshine. Or they love the quieter feel.

My point is, people always want what they can't have. You seem to exemplify this, with your obsession over cleanliness.

I've been to cities where there is not a spot of dirt on the sidewalks. And I've left those cities feeling that, thought they may be aesthetically pleasing, they lack a certain aspect of 'soul', a unique character that differentiates them from another city. I hardly think anyone would call L.A. not a unique city.

Just an example: one of my favorite cities is Berlin, and Berlin is a dirty city. Yet, the culture it exudes speaks louder then the grime on the streets. Of course, it didn't hurt that I would see stunning architecture every fifth block. Note, though, that this architecture would often be next to an empty lot. And yet that didn't detract from my love of the city.

Hell, there are parking lots directly adjacent to the High Line in New York. The High Line and its surroundings are still great, despite it.

My point is, yes, we would all love to see the gaps in downtowns urban fabric closed. But a parking lot does not a city make. It doesn't really matter how many parking lots downtown has if the city itself can speak beyond it.


Also, just a sidenote, a parking lot doesn't go away for every picture of one you post, CityWatch. We all know the state of downtown, we don't need you showing us it every three posts. Not the biggest deal in the world, just a sidenote.

And another sidenote, I just a very nice book containing the photographs of Julius Shulman. If you don't know who he is, Shulman is the most famous architectural photographer in the world. And he photographed primarily L.A. buildings. In fact, arguably the most famous architectural picture in the world (Case Study House 22) is of a mid-century house in L.A. How many cities in the world can say that? Well, none, really. Anyways, all I'm saying is, look up his photographs. They make you proud to live in such a unique city as L.A.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Look, man. I don't know if it is because I am one of the few people on this site who fairly and accurately photographes and depicts the current realities of LA, but I don't know from where you are getting this "KOTH likes grit" bs you are always talking about. I have never said I "like" grit.

I hope you're not getting defensive about the idea of the gritty side of a city being appreciated. I've noticed various sspers for quite awhile----esp in the photo forums----saying they like seeing grit in a city, so that POV isn't unknown here. I only have a problem with it if someone believes LA doesn't have enough grit, or say that the city could use more grit. Grit is something that LA will never have a shortage of, esp in hoods like dt.

btw, I appreciated this comment of yours, cuz it mirrors my own & that of what I've noticed in other ppl through the yrs......

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

BTW, My gf, a Norwegian, is visiting town and yesterday we spent quite a bit of time in DTLA. She hated Broadway (which, judging from my recent trips to NYC, "outgrits" NYC, lol), but loved the pedestrian activity on Spring, as well as the new restaurants in/around the Arts District. Showing her Broadway - our flagship boulevard, in the heart our city's core - in its currently appalling condition did hurt a bit, though. And this is coming from somebody who has a pretty high threshold and tolerance for grit. That said, it made me appreciate even more the continued redevelopment efforts taking place, especially on its southern end (Two Boots, Unami Delicatessan, Figaro, that new workspace, Blackstone Lofts, etc.)

Your girlfriend's reaction reminded me so much of my own & that of my daughter's, & the family members who were with us when we drove down broadway last yr. I was caught off guard cuz I didn't realize that so many rundown swapmeets still were in business on that street. It's one of the rare times when I would have actually been happier or relieved to see mostly vacant shops in dt.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Also, just a sidenote, a parking lot doesn't go away for every picture of one you post, CityWatch. We all know the state of downtown, we don't need you showing us it every three posts. Not the biggest deal in the world, just a sidenote.

illithid, then why does the subj of parking, cars & garages come up repeatedly when dtla is being discussed? why is that topic discussed & rehashed over & over again by so many forumers or supposed experts on urban matters overall? I've noticed more ppl wrangling over whether cars discourage ppl walking around, or whether parking podiums sap the life of the sidewalk, or whether cars should even be accommodated in dtla based on what's true of cities that are transit dependent, than whether surface lots in particular destroy the hood. IOW, I get the feeling some ppl are more bothered by the idea of cars in general than the impact of all the parking lots throughout dt. Or that if more ppl took transit & walked around, the existence of all the parking lots wouldn't bother them as much.

Or ppl like that writer who seems to be unhappy there's a big parking lot------which is hidden & underground-----below Disney Hall. So he's more unhappy about an underground parking lot than the deadzones across the street?

I recall your writing about visiting bunker hill last yr (or was it over a yr ago?) & saying you were put off by the lifeless plazas & sidewalks. I recall someone else saying they were put off by the empty plaza of the music ctr. I know exactly what you or others mean or feel about that lifelessness. but when ppl imply that's the worst thing of all about the hood, or believe the lack of ppl milling about is somehow due to the areas that have been developed, that's where I feel a need to point out the hood still has bigger problems.