Why did Downtown LA begin to revitalize so much later than other major US cities?

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Downtown Pasadena did decline in the 1980s though. Several local Angelenos told me Old town Pasadena was crime ridden/scary unitl the 1990s, when the city revitalized it. Downtown LA is just on a bigger scale, obviously.

I believe Santa Monica suffered the same fate. IIRC, the Promenade was a push to revitalize the blighted downtown area.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Maybe if that video was a before and after from the 80s or 90s you would have a point. DTLA today is an improvement from the 80s and 90s but it's NOT an improvement from the 30s and 40s, unless you're just one of those people easily impressed by big condo towers and whatnot.

there were portions of dtla at the beginning of the 20th century that were even better than they are today....such as Pershing Sq. Skid row also wasn't such an open nightmare over 80 yrs ago. However, I believe that part of dt has always attracted the down & out.

but the scale of a thriving dtla was limited to just a few streets & didn't extend much beyond a few sq blocks.

Great cities...or places that ppl really want to be a part of....need a lot more than that.

dtla in 2020 is better overall than it was even before it went downhill starting around the 1940s. Even in the 1920s & 1930s, very few ppl lived in dt or wanted to live there. some ppl of means lived on bunker hill....but even they started moving out over 80 yrs ago.

Today's dt has more features that are a first in the history of LA.

[jd3189]

Surprised no one has cited that Noirish LA photo thread here yet. That really opened my eyes to the feel of DTLA back in the day and how it could rise again.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by LAsam

I believe Santa Monica suffered the same fate. IIRC, the Promenade was a push to revitalize the blighted downtown area.

Downtown Pasadena and downtown Santa Monica (and Main Street headed into Venice) did have a decline in the 70s and the early to mid 80s, but it really mostly amounted to many vacant storefronts and a dearth of pedestrian activity. It was the first time that the visibly homeless showed up (in very small numbers) in the area. That was about the extent of it. I guess there were some muggings and street crime from time to time, but neither downtown ever resembled the sorry state of downtown LA during the same period. Not even close.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by citywatch

there were portions of dtla at the beginning of the 20th century that were even better than they are today....such as Pershing Sq. Skid row also wasn't such an open nightmare over 80 yrs ago. However, I believe that part of dt has always attracted the down & out.

but the scale of a thriving dtla was limited to just a few streets & didn't extend much beyond a few sq blocks.

Great cities...or places that ppl really want to be a part of....need a lot more than that.

dtla in 2020 is better overall than it was even before it went downhill starting around the 1940s. Even in the 1920s & 1930s, very few ppl lived in dt or wanted to live there. some ppl of means lived on bunker hill....but even they started moving out over 80 yrs ago.

Today's dt has more features that are a first in the history of LA.

Sorry but this just isn't true. You don't seem all that familiar with LA history. Just a few sq blocks? DTLA population was actually quite a bit larger in 1930 than it is now, even with the current building boom. There were luxury department stores, movie premieres, the Oscars were downtown. It wasn't just the center of activity for the city, by 1930 it was one of the premiere urban centers in the country. No, it wasn't the most desirable place to live, considering the other available options, but that's the case today as well. Even in the newer buildings DTLA rents are relatively cheap compared to Santa Monica or West Hollywood, really anywhere on the westside. DTLA is booming and has a ton of potential, but it'll be quite some time before it can match its former glory. Heck, it'll be decades before it even gets back to it's prewar population.

[saybanana]

Downtown LA is one of those slow and steady wins the race, type of revitalizations. While it is picking up pace despite nearly 20 years of its revitalizations, it is still maybe half way there. Still so many areas that are parking lots, or unused/underused buildings in the historic core. And industrial areas/wholesale areas have yet to be touched. which would increase the vibrant parts of Downtown.

I think some of the main reasons why Downtown hasn't gotten bigger quickly is because of geography of LA. You know how many areas where gentrifying and revitalizing at the same time? Hollywood, koreatown, east Hollywood, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Venice, Mid City, West LA, Long Beach, Inglewood, North Hollywood, USC/Expo park area, are just some of the areas that turned poorer/undesirable into something more desirable. You can add Pasadena, Glendale, Culver City, Marina Del Rey, Burbank, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica on this list despite being desirable areas but these cities were building up on housing, commercial development as well as other desirable areas of LA City like Westwood, Fairfax District, Miracle Mile, Warner Center. Overall the LA Metro has been growing evenly and not just Downtown LA. Doesnt help that sprawl still continues in the far reaches of the San Bern/Riverside county areas and in the northern deserts of LA County.

Just too many competing areas in LA trying to attract new development, wealthier people, retail, commerce. Downtown is still king in that but there are many strong contenders. It is a lot easier to concentrate everything in one small area. It looks more impressive in a shorter period of time. Downtown LA is just not type of area.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by saybanana

Downtown LA is one of those slow and steady wins the race, type of revitalizations. While it is picking up pace despite nearly 20 years of its revitalizations, it is still maybe half way there. Still so many areas that are parking lots, or unused/underused buildings in the historic core. And industrial areas/wholesale areas have yet to be touched. which would increase the vibrant parts of Downtown.

I think some of the main reasons why Downtown hasn't gotten bigger quickly is because of geography of LA. You know how many areas where gentrifying and revitalizing at the same time? Hollywood, koreatown, east Hollywood, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Venice, Mid City, West LA, Long Beach, Inglewood, North Hollywood, USC/Expo park area, are just some of the areas that turned poorer/undesirable into something more desirable. You can add Pasadena, Glendale, Culver City, Marina Del Rey, Burbank, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica on this list despite being desirable areas but these cities were building up on housing, commercial development as well as other desirable areas of LA City like Westwood, Fairfax District, Miracle Mile, Warner Center. Overall the LA Metro has been growing evenly and not just Downtown LA. Doesnt help that sprawl still continues in the far reaches of the San Bern/Riverside county areas and in the northern deserts of LA County.

Just too many competing areas in LA trying to attract new development, wealthier people, retail, commerce. Downtown is still king in that but there are many strong contenders. It is a lot easier to concentrate everything in one small area. It looks more impressive in a shorter period of time. Downtown LA is just not type of area.

This.
Yes,
It's crazy how many areas of the metro are changing at once . I'm excited to see the results when the Olympics arrive in 8 years, the world will see a very different place.

It's good for the metro and city, but it slows down downtown development.

[lio45]

This thread has been an interesting read. Stuff like this is the best side of this forum. Learned a few things about LA.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by badrunner

DTLA population was actually quite a bit larger in 1930 than it is now, even with the current building boom. There were luxury department stores, movie premieres, the Oscars were downtown.

Where did they all live? yea, some did list the old apt bldgs & rooming houses on Bunker hill as their home. A few others may have lived in the Alexandria, Biltmore or old apt bldgs that have since been torn down through the yrs. but just about all of that...even before the wrecking ball came in...was scattered & limited.

however, if you stretch the boundaries of dt to include areas like westlake or around what's now USC, you might find a larger number of ppl listed as residents of LA's traditional center. But whether the 1920s or the 1950s....& certainly well after that....most ppl avoided dt as a place to live....unless they were down on their luck or found themselves there with a home address for a short while.

that hasn't been true of the centers of most major cities throughout the world. Lots of fashionable or successful ppl in other towns have long called their town's core as home base.

Since LA is moving closer to that category, I find the multi node nature of LA a feature that's actually unique in a good sort of way.....just as long as dtla doesn't again decline as it did for decades.

[park123]

Downtown LA is an unfortunate location for the main center of the 2nd largest metro in the USA, and a top 4 metro in the entire Western World. It's not by the ocean, it's not by the Westside hills/mountains. But the built environment is actually not terrible, there's quite a lot of decent architecture there. The subway is just a few lines away (or another 30-40 years lol) from making LA very doable by public transport.

I personally think self-driving cars will come before a decent public transport network in LA. Maybe in another 10-15 years? And they will serve kind of the same function public transport is supposed to.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by park123

Downtown LA is an unfortunate location for the main center of the 2nd largest metro in the USA, and a top 4 metro in the entire Western World. It's not by the ocean, it's not by the Westside hills/mountains. But the built environment is actually not terrible, there's quite a lot of decent architecture there. The subway is just a few lines away (or another 30-40 years lol) from making LA very doable by public transport.

I personally think self-driving cars will come before a decent public transport network in LA. Maybe in another 10-15 years? And they will serve kind of the same function public transport is supposed to.

Self-driving cars (if they ever exist, which I highly doubt on any reasonable timescale) will just increase congestion. Self-driving buses on the other hand...

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Where did they all live? yea, some did list the old apt bldgs & rooming houses on Bunker hill as their home. A few others may have lived in the Alexandria, Biltmore or old apt bldgs that have since been torn down through the yrs. but just about all of that...even before the wrecking ball came in...was scattered & limited.

however, if you stretch the boundaries of dt to include areas like westlake or around what's now USC, you might find a larger number of ppl listed as residents of LA's traditional center. But whether the 1920s or the 1950s....& certainly well after that....most ppl avoided dt as a place to live....unless they were down on their luck or found themselves there with a home address for a short while.

that hasn't been true of the centers of most major cities throughout the world. Lots of fashionable or successful ppl in other towns have long called their town's core as home base.

Since LA is moving closer to that category, I find the multi node nature of LA a feature that's actually unique in a good sort of way.....just as long as dtla doesn't again decline as it did for decades.

Where did they all live? Are you serious? There were dense residential neighborhoods all throughout the area, It wasn't just Bunker hill. You keep bringing up places like Bunker hill, the Biltmore and Alexandria, which makes you sound like someone with only a cursory knowledge of LA history. There are tons of maps and photos of various downtown residential areas if you're interested. Here's a 1921 map showing many neighborhoods that have been completely wiped off the map: http://www.historicmapworks.com/Atla...state+Surveys/

The whole area between Bunker hill and the freeway was dense residential at one point, as was South Park and the Union Station area (old Chinatown). Court hill where the current civic center stands was a cute little neighborhood of high end homes. Even the massive Fashion District area was once dotted with modest SFH neighborhoods. Hardly anyone lives there now. It was like any other city, the CBD (currently the Historic Core) was surrounded by dense housing of all kinds, everything from boarding houses to Victorian mansions. Due to zoning, it's unlikely that the residential footprint of DTLA will ever get back to prewar levels, but I could see its population getting there in a couple of decades.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Where did they all live? Are you serious? There were dense residential neighborhoods all throughout the area, It wasn't just Bunker hill. You keep bringing up places like Bunker hill, the Biltmore and Alexandria, which makes you sound like someone with only a cursory knowledge of LA history. There are tons of maps and photos of various downtown residential areas if you're interested. Here's a 1921 map showing many neighborhoods that have been completely wiped off the map: http://www.historicmapworks.com/Atla...state+Surveys/

The whole area between Bunker hill and the freeway was dense residential at one point, as was South Park and the Union Station area (old Chinatown). Court hill where the current civic center stands was a cute little neighborhood of high end homes. Even the massive Fashion District area was once dotted with modest SFH neighborhoods. Hardly anyone lives there now. It was like any other city, the CBD (currently the Historic Core) was surrounded by dense housing of all kinds, everything from boarding houses to Victorian mansions. Due to zoning, it's unlikely that the residential footprint of DTLA will ever get back to prewar levels, but I could see its population getting there in a couple of decades.

I find it hard to believe that downtown LA had more residents in the 20s and 30s than today. Besides the dozens of new residential towers, there are probably over a 100 historic office buildings that have been turned into residential buildings. These are all significantly denser than the sfr / smaller complexes back then

Yes, it was busier back in the day as this was the epicenter of the metro but with all the hotels, residential and office construction, today's downtown will be just as busy if not busier in a short time

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Where did they all live? Are you serious? There were dense residential neighborhoods all throughout the area, It wasn't just Bunker hill. You keep bringing up places like Bunker hill, the Biltmore and Alexandria, which makes you sound like someone with only a cursory knowledge of LA history.

I admit I don't know the details of LA's population over 80 yrs ago & haven't studied census maps from the 1920s, 1930s or before. But something about the nature of most of old dtla points to it being not exactly the type of place ppl...unless they were poor & struggling...would want to be a part of.

however, I'm fairly sure more successful angelenos started abandoning the nw section of dt....or bunker hill....over 80 yrs ago. I figure if that historically nice part of town, where a few victorian mansions were set up for LA's elite in the late 1800s, started to lose its appeal by the early 1900s, the rest of dt must have been in even worse shape.


lamag.com


I'm still going with the idea that today's dtla reflects the home base for more up & coming angelenos in at least over 70 yrs, possibly over 90 yrs. Possibly more successful ppl living in dt since the city began as a sleepy pueblo.

[badrunner]

I don't disagree with you that DTLA hasn't been a desirable place to live for the wealthy for a long time. Like I said, people who had the means started heading out to greener pastures a long time ago. But there's more to the argument than "where the rich people live." Even as the wealthy were leaving, downtown still remained the center of activity in the city and a thriving entertainment and commercial district throughout the 30s and 40s. People might not have lived there, but it was still a premiere destination, in a way that it's only now starting to recapture. As late as 1959 Broadway still looked like this before suburban multiplexes put an end to it:


https://losangelestheatres.blogspot....ior-views.html

Considering that you actually said you prefer 2020 Bunker hill to 1940 Bunker hill in that video (the first person I've encountered who holds that opinion), my guess is that you simply lack an appreciation for certain things that have been lost. It makes me question your judgement on all things urban and all things aesthetic. Of course the fact that you also stated that Recife, Brazil should be an urban model for LA to follow just seals the deal

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Considering that you actually said you prefer 2020 Bunker hill to 1940 Bunker hill in that video (the first person I've encountered who holds that opinion), my guess is that you simply lack an appreciation for certain things that have been lost.

I admit I'm not too nostalgic for old merely because it's old....however, the victorian mansions of old bunker hill were valuable...some of them at least were saved & relocated to other parts of the city, mainly heritage sq next to the 110 fwy. but beyond them, yes, I say bunker hill in 2020 is much better than bunker hill early 1900s, much less mid 1900s.

seems like other ppl from the past would agree.



laist.com

A population explosion then hit Los Angeles, bringing the town from 11,000 residents in 1886 to 50,000 in 1887, notes Merry Ovnick in Bunker Hill In The Rearview Mirror: The Rise, Fall, And Rise Again Of An Urban Neighborhood. And by 1888, more homes were populating the eastern part of Bunker Hill facing downtown.

By the end of the decade, Bunker Hill had become one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in the still-booming Los Angeles. Opulent mansions and hotels lined the streets. At the corner of Hill and Court Street, Lewis Bradbury, who made millions by investing in Nevada's Comstock lode, completed construction on his tony mansion in 1887 (six years before he built his namesake commercial building, which still stands today, at Broadway and Third streets).

And though Bunker Hill had some two decades as the city's crown jewel, the neighborhood slowly grew more crowded (and undesirable) with apartment buildings and commercial development moving in. The wealthy elite of Los Angeles made their exodus to more remote and exclusive neighborhoods like Angeleno Heights, West Adams, and Westlake through the turn of the 20th century.

If ppl claim otherwise about dtla, they might just as well be the ones who say they prefer sylmar to malibu, compton to palos verdes. Or wichita to Paris. Some ppl, for various personal reasons, may say exactly that.

[badrunner]

Or someone who prefers Recife to LA

Anyway, you're a broken record and you're boring me. A couple points:

1) No, nobody would agree with you about Bunker hill. Even the person who wrote that article would have preferred to have saved what was once described as the "city's crown jewel" instead of paving it over and putting up generic office towers. You're literally the only person I know who prefers the latter. No accounting for taste, I guess

2) There were many other residential neighborhoods in the area, in and around downtown. It wasn't just Bunker hill. Even those neighborhoods mentioned in your article - Angeleno Heights, West Adams, and Westlake are just a stone's throw away, and they continued to support a thriving downtown through the 30s and 40s (before postwar suburbanization wiped them out too). Where do you think the people in those neighborhoods went to for shopping and nightlife? Your article actually proves my point.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Or someone who prefers Recife to LA
Anyway, you're a broken record and you're boring me. A couple points:

And you're not? Incidentally, you must be referring to a post of mine from awhile back where I mentioned how surprised I was by the amt of highrise construction in a city...which I've never heard of...on the coast of northern Brazil. I didn't say that was the ideal that LA should aim for....but I implied that all the ppl, such as at SSP, who complain about tall bldgs being difficult to create in LA would be even more exasperated if they saw what obscure cities in south America are able to accomplish.

meanwhile, we do have the oceanwide proj sitting unfinished on Fig St.

the hoods you're citing are not a part of dtla. so if successful ppl moved to such areas over 80 yrs ago, while they might have kept commuting in to dt for shopping, dining or entertainment, their home addresses were still disconnected from dt itself. Ppl in all the new apt projs added to dt over the past 5, 10, 30 or more yrs are actually based IN dtla, not a few miles away.

If some ppl say that sylmar is better than malibu or that compton is preferable to palos verdes....or that old dtla was better than new dtla....then, sure, no accounting for taste.

[badrunner]

You got me. I admit I too have often wondered why LA isn't able to accomplish what obscure cities in South America are able to accomplish vis-a-vis skyscraper construction

[badrunner]

If south Broadway, shown at the beginning of the video, becomes as busy and vibrant as South park, then I'll say that DTLA has arrived

• Video Link

Or if any intersection starts looking like this again:


https://waterandpower.org/museum/Ear...oadway_and_7th

The crazy thing is, DTLA is well on its way to capturing its former glory. It's just slow going because there are so many other booming areas around the metro.