How long do you think it'll take until Downtown Los Angeles is "solid"?

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I like the valley more than I thought I would. It has it's own interesting areas.

The San Fernando valley definitely has its own unique vibe. Unmistakably LA, but feels like its own city as well, almost like a time capsule of an earlier LA. There were some hot summer nights on Ventura blvd back in the day. Every bit as lively as Melrose or La Brea, except dirtier.. sleazier somehow.

Anyway here's an interesting same-scale comparison between the valley and Houston:

https://acme.com/same_scale/#34.2209...5.42051,11,H,H

You can clearly see how even the San Fernando valley has much higher density. It's kind of considered a backwater locally, and yet, in the big picture, it's one of the densest, most diverse and cosmopolitan places in the entire sunbelt.

As ThePhun1 mentioned, you really have to get all the way out to the Inland Empire, some 60-70 miles out, to start to see population densities like Houston and other sunbelt cities.

[ChrisLA]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I like the valley more than I thought I would. It has it's own interesting areas.

Me too, especially the south side along the Ventura Blvd corridor, it has that LA basin cool factor. My wife and I live in Woodland Hills-Warner Center, and we like our area, but we would like to be closer to downtown, and move to the east Valley (Studio City, Toluca Lake, or North Hollywood).

Most likely we will stay put only because it’s a shorter commute to our job in Ventura County. We do miss being close to more cultural events in the basin, but again I’m liking the Valley much more than I thought. Besides Cal State Northridge has a Performing Arts Center, Studio City, and North Hollywood has some theaters, but of course we have nothing like the LA County Museum of Art.

[Quixote]

The SFV is really uninteresting to me, but the one thing I do like about it is that it's solidly "middle middle class" when averaged out. And you can still find some relatively great deals (by LA standards) in some of the more desirable neighborhoods. For instance, this freshly renovated 3,175-SF ranch on a 16,568-SF lot (huge for LA) is selling for "only" $1.4 million. South of the Santa Monica Mountains, this property is easily double the price.

https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/.../pid_25051331/

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

I still think you're missing the overall point. Houston and San Jose, for example, share many similarities (both are extremely suburban in character) but look physically nothing alike.

The argument was never about finding a direct analogue for every aspect.

You said you were going to ask your family if the SFV was different than LA proper, cause you're not sure.

You seem to think the only difference is a drop off in density, which isn't true. Again, what is the equivalent of West Hollywood in the Valley, or Inland Empire, or Houston?
Don't me a couple of blocks of a strip mall, and store fronts either. Same goes for Echo Park, Koreatown etc.

You said it's the Hollywood infuence that makes some LA's neighborhood's less sun belt, which isn't true either. Like I've stated earlier, LA's least sun belt areas have almost zero Hollywood influence.

Everyone on here is telling you the same thing I am. You just don't want to believe it for some reason.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I am very familiar with the neighborhoods being compared above by NW290. Just because the Montrose and the Heights have (or had) significant bohemian and/or gay populations does not make either neighborhood remotely similar to Echo Park or Silverlake. The Westheimer and Richmond commercial corridors have next to nothing in common with the Sunset Strip. The former is mostly an eclectic bunch of high end strip malls. The Sunset Strip is mashup of glitz, glamour, and tackiness that could only happen in LA. It is as distinctive in its own way as Times Square in New York. You know you are in the belly of the LA beast when you drive down the Sunset Strip. LA has Galleria/Uptown types of development at multiple locations throughout the metro. The closest actual approximation to Houston's Galleria area might be the Beverly Center area of West Hollywood, but, while it may be close, there is no cigar for making the comparison. The point is that just about every neighborhood between downtown LA and the ocean has a distinctly LA feel to it. There is never any doubt about where you are. There are certain intersections on the west side of Houston that have that same LA feel, but that is exactly what it is, a feeling or sense that, gee whiz, this kind of feels or looks like LA. Nobody in LA is ever going to suddenly say to themselves whilst looking around an LA intersection or neighborhood that, golly gee, this feels like Houston.

Exactly. And that goes for any other sun belt city too. I don't see LA people looking at those citiies and saying, yea, this reminds me of Silver Lake, Echo Park, Venice etc.

LA proper streets/meighborhoods have a certain look to them that I don't see anywhere else. Definelty more "chaotic" or "messier" looking than other sun belt cities. I've traveled quite a bit around the country too.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by badrunner

As ThePhun1 mentioned, you really have to get all the way out to the Inland Empire, some 60-70 miles out, to start to see population densities like Houston and other sunbelt cities.

And with that said, the I.E. is the fastest growing region of greater L.A. -- meaning it is becoming more and more densely settled year over year. It's just newer and behind the evolution of the more established parts of L.A. / Southern California.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Exactly. And that goes for any other sun belt city too. I don't see LA people looking at those citiies and saying, yea, this reminds me of Silver Lake, Echo Park, Venice etc.

LA proper streets/meighborhoods have a certain look to them that I don't see anywhere else. Definelty more "chaotic" or "messier" looking than other sun belt cities. I've traveled quite a bit around the country too.

LA seems more organic in the way it grew. It definitely has its own look that isn't seen anywhere else. Granted there are a couple of streets here and there in Houston that resemble parts of LA, the houses and some apartment buildings with the tall skinny palm trees but Houston is a classic sprawled out newish sunbelt city and LA has been at this a lot longer and looks it.

Not sure who has better tacos though.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

DTLA has 80k residents now. We solid.

That's not bad! I live in Denver now, where 80K is the downtown estimate. And it's full of activity.

I remember back in the early 90s when I was 20, driving around DTLA on a Saturday night and it the only activity was blowing trash and the occasional homeless person. It even seemed kind of dark. But many western cities (Denver too) were like that 25 years ago.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by JManc

LA seems more organic in the way it grew. It definitely has its own look that isn't seen anywhere else. Granted there are a couple of streets here and there in Houston that resemble parts of LA, the houses and some apartment buildings with the tall skinny palm trees but Houston is a classic sprawled out newish sunbelt city and LA has been at this a lot longer and looks it.

Not sure who has better tacos though.

Texas "Mexican" food is all too often lathered in sour cream, grilled jalapenos and cheddar cheese. I really don't think it's in the same league.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

That's not bad! I live in Denver now, where 80K is the downtown estimate. And it's full of activity.

I remember back in the early 90s when I was 20, driving around DTLA on a Saturday night and it the only activity was blowing trash and the occasional homeless person. It even seemed kind of dark. But many western cities (Denver too) were like that 25 years ago.

Blowing trash is cool. It’s the modern equivalent of rolling tumbleweed, and highly cinematic; totally called for.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

That's not bad! I live in Denver now, where 80K is the downtown estimate. And it's full of activity.

I remember back in the early 90s when I was 20, driving around DTLA on a Saturday night and it the only activity was blowing trash and the occasional homeless person. It even seemed kind of dark. But many western cities (Denver too) were like that 25 years ago.

By 2040, DTLA population is expected to triple to 200K. Insane. At some point soon, we’ll still be on this forum and we won’t be talking about DTLA needing to attract population anymore. It’ll be its own mid-sized city, and an unavoidable portion of an LA visit.

[Crawford]

LA will never have a core comparable to traditionally centralized cities. It isn't happening, ever.

Even with the current boom, the level of growth in core LA is much less than in much smaller cities.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA will never have a core comparable to traditionally centralized cities. It isn't happening, ever.

Even with the current boom, the level of growth in core LA is much less than in much smaller cities.

Wow, could you try and be a bit more specific? At least can you clarify to us what you consider "core LA?"

Which much smaller cities are you comparing it to? The level of growth in what way? Amount of investment? Amount of population increase? Workforce?

[LA21st]

Right?

He's also the same guy that says Downtown LA is the size of downtown Cleveland, so take it with a grain of salt.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA will never have a core comparable to traditionally centralized cities. It isn't happening, ever.

Even with the current boom, the level of growth in core LA is much less than in much smaller cities.

It doesn’t need to happen. LA has multiple cores. It needs those multiple cores to be important gravitational center unto themselves for people to have any and every type of experience they want in a single city. That’s what LA wants, regardless of what you think it should want. At the same time your traditionally centralized cities will never have the advantages that a multicentered, varied city can provide. That’s not happening, ever.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Wow, could you try and be a bit more specific? At least can you clarify to us what you consider "core LA?"

Use any definition you want. LA will remain multipolar with a relatively insignificant core.

Originally Posted by dktshb

Which much smaller cities are you comparing it to? The level of growth in what way? Amount of investment? Amount of population increase? Workforce?

Any. Take your pick. Any older, centralized city. Chicago, DC, Boston, Philly, SF, Seattle, not to mention practically any non-U.S. city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ocman

It doesn’t need to happen. LA has multiple cores. It needs those multiple cores to be important gravitational center unto themselves for people to have any and every type of experience they want in a single city. That’s what LA wants, regardless of what you think it should want. At the same time your traditionally centralized cities will never have the advantages that a multicentered, varied city can provide. That’s not happening, ever.

I agree with all this, except no one on this thread seems to be implying "what you think it should want" except for a few downtown LA boosters.

The region will not lose its multinodal nature.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Use any definition you want. LA will remain multipolar with a relatively insignificant core.

The core is already significant and fortunately it's growing after being completely gutted midcentury. The thing is it's not the only game in town, so it doesn't have to be the end all be all thing in L.A. unlike cities like Boston, Seattle, Philly etc.[/QUOTE]

NY, Chicago, S.F., Boston, Philly are all larger. L.A. is probably 6th or 7th in size? Not sure how to measure that? Having a top ten core, with multiple other significant nodes in a region of 20 million is significant.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The core is already significant and fortunately it's growing after being completely gutted midcentury.

Obviously not true. LA is one of the most multimodal cities on earth, and the core has a tiny share of metro employment, retail, hotels, tax base, etc.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

NY, Chicago, S.F., Boston, Philly are all larger.

Also obviously not true. LA is two or three times the size of all these metros excepting NYC.

[Obadno]

Don't bother guys Crawford hates all warm weather cities and any city that didn't develop Pre-1900