 
|
 |
|
Good piece by Joel Kotkin in the LAT Sunday Opinion section on downtown revival and how Disney Hall is not it.
But there's another reason to be skeptical about the latest "solution" — remember pedestrian malls, convention centers and sports arenas? — to what's considered an ailing central city. Downtown is anything but dead. It already boasts a number of vibrant, job-producing districts — garment, flower, toy and jewelry, to name some. These industrial and retail hubs, where more than 6,000 businesses employ about 50,000 trade and manufacturing workers, have been revitalizing formerly destitute parts of the central core while all eyes were watching Frank Gehry's idea for Disney Hall bloom.(snipped)
Los Angeles' downtown already has multiple reasons to exist. What's needed are policies that would stimulate its existing dynamism. For example, public funds should be spent on improving street lighting, historic restoration, policing and vagrant control. Rather than create a Grand Avenue culture corridor, says the Los Angeles Conservancy's Ken Bernstein, the city should make zoning changes and minor improvements to transform Broadway, with its stunning collection of vintage theaters, into a major entertainment destination again.
Speaking of downtown, the San Francisco Chronicle "Living" section today does the nightlife with Marc Brown of BuzzNet.com, loosely pegged to Disney Hall and the Standard Hotel (added 1:45 p.m.):
For years, nightlife in downtown Los Angeles was all about scoring ammonia-laced crack from delirious dealers, breaking into empty office buildings to throw up and dodging stray shopping carts sent barreling down the empty streets by bitter homeless people. The neighborhood provided just the right makings for an awesome evening out. Then plans for the construction of the Frank Gehry-designed Walt Disney Concert Hall for the Los Angeles Philharmonic, which finally opened last week, were announced.The abandoned complexes were converted into outrageously expensive live- work spaces. Unabashedly tacky Latin fusion restaurants popped up on every block. Even the meter maids stopped nodding off long enough to actually issue tickets during their late shifts.
Finally, a reasonable policy on downtown. One that won't interest the Times, though; they're more interested in big showplaces for their West Side moneybags friends than they are in the real people who already live downtown or downtown-adjacent.
Incidentally, whatever happend to The Times' longtime downtown property holdings? Does Tribune now have them, or did they stay with the Chandler family?
Posted by: exherald at October 26, 2003 09:10 AMCongratulations to Joel Kotkin for his piece. What makes downtowns vibrant is the mix of jobs and residents. Downtown L.A. needs policies that encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of what's there now, not destruction and re-construction.
Posted by: Roger Karraker at October 26, 2003 09:51 AMWhat does downtown need??? Fewer ratty tatty bldgs, trashy (if not abandoned) storefronts, and potholed parking lots, and more, MUCH more, nice in-fill development.
Posted by: Katie at October 26, 2003 12:14 PMI hope a lot of people read this piece.
I made a very fine line informed decision between a downtown loft or apartment and West Hollywood last month. I sadly chose to stay in West Hollywood for many of the reasons Joel Kotkin addresses. I would have preferred downtown, but it is not ready . . . . and certainly not ready for independent single women.
The piece brings up all the right points. Frightening and sobering how urban planning is largely a hit and miss misguided effort.
Let everyone remember: It doesn't have to be either/or, one or the other. Restore, impeccably, what's already there -- with well lit streets and laws that are enforced -- and let the new center for the arts hold. They will energize each other.
The monumental, shameful problem of the homeless is beyond my knowledge and understanding to address and breaks bigger hearts than mine, but maybe our new unstoppable bipartisan governor will be forced to find a way to make San Francisco and Los Angeles sane and humane models for other cities. We can hope.
The piece left me with dread.
Posted by: Relevant or Irrelevant? at October 26, 2003 08:45 PMWould you people just shut up and get back to fawning over the few parts of downtown the Times deems acceptable....
Posted by: BobfromPlaya at October 26, 2003 11:56 PMi agree with mr. bernstein on his thoughts about focusing on the treasures that make up broadway. these theatres are great and i believe can be used for broadway shows. get rid of those loud ugly stores. there eye sores. I believe there should be zoning laws where retail stays in a retail zone and entertainment stays in its own zone. everthing is just way to cluttered in downtown .
Posted by: michael weiss at July 5, 2004 01:56 PM
of LA Observed
I've been waiting for Bernstein and others who wield influence to weigh in on Disney Hall's place in downtown's revitalization. I live downtown and can attest to the neighborhood's current vitality. We have a beautiful, historic infrastructure in place that is already a daytime destination. The historic core doesn't need $3 billion in redevelopment funds to become a 24-hour destination.
Last weekend I opened my loft in the Old Bank District to more than 300 visitors who wanted to see what "downtown living" was like. Many of those visitors expressed excitement at the idea of living downtown--eliminating commute and living in an urban environment--but would clearly not do so until they could see a neighborhood infrastructure in place. A neighborhood infrastructure begins with streets that are well lit and laws that are enforced. Right now we have neither.
Posted by: MexRep at October 26, 2003 09:10 AM