Originally Posted by alki
However, I don't think its built environment is the main culprit or even plays a leading role. I think other factors come into play........for example, like its air pollution. LA has the opportunity to reverse that image but IMO its going to require Angelenos demanding changes from their leaders.
I'm not sure what is the main cause of the bad image. I don't think a lack of pristine air quality helps the city's reputation, but since it's much cleaner today than it was 30 yrs ago, I doubt that's as much of a factor to many ppl as it once was. The image of LA being full of gangs probably is far more of a turn off. The image of jammed fwys & no convenient transit is another one.
However, I think all of that pales next to the
appearance of the city. The reason is that even before LA got stuck with the same problems that detroit & oakland are now infamous for, it still was treated with a kind of indifference. It's never had alot of the
hype that has been directed at certain other cities. But LA imho is better today than it was several yrs ago, esp around the 92 riots, & there are alot of
cities that ppl----for whatever reason----gave higher marks to than LA. btw, I think most american cities aren't all that. Most of them are forgettable or boring to me.
It's my own personal experiences, based on the reaction of ppl I've known & my own impressions, that lead me to believe that if LA didn't look so
, it wouldn't make ppl feel like
. I think that's a big reason so many companies still are avoiding moving to dt. Even if the hood itself is in better shape today than it was in the past, many ppl do have to drive through
hoods to reach it.
sadly enough, that could be why the very ambitious plans for the area around union station probably are pie in the sky. It's why the owner of the grand wilshire hotel had to change their plans at the last minute. It's why there's still plenty of empty space in the hood even though no new office bldgs have been created in 20 yrs.