Broadway Retail Only Part of the Problem

I'm a huge fan of downtown's renaissance when it means that disused buildings and once-vacant streets are transformed into upper-middle-class housing units and the attendant goods and services that follow. I know I've been the beneficiary of that, living in downtown and being able to walk to several new bars and restaurants in the area. It's an energized downtown core, and I find it a very exciting place to live.

That being said, I am dead set against the idea of moving out traditional, viable retailers in favor of bringing in higher-end retail for loft-dwellers. The downside to gentrification, any sociologist will tell you, is the forcing-out of the original, lower-income tenants. The best Californian example of this is the Mission District in San Francisco and, before that, the Castro area, where low-income families were once able to live in proximity to the places where they worked. Forcing out current residents just to put in a Starbucks (and asking very successful businesses to leave in order to put in a far less successful venture, just because rich folks want a coffeeshop and not a mercado) would disenfranchise successful Hispanic businessmen, force people from a place they've legitimately made their own, depress business in the area (let's face it; Broadway's mercados are the busiest businesses in downtown on a per-capita basis) and would force individuals who are less likely to own cars out of the local area where they work.

I am not totally against gentrification, as I said, but it comes at a cost when it starts to encroach on perfectly good neighborhoods that don't happen to be made up of the type of people the wealthy loft owners want to see. It's an old, uncomfortable pattern, and people tend to look the other way while the lower class families are pushed out. Well, in this case, they've made themselves very successful, and have been faithful to downtown during times where the rest of us fled. Asking--or forcing--them to leave now is unjust. Further, it risks looking like nothing short of socioeconomic bigotry.

I second Nick's response - displacing existing, viable business and residential along Broadway to make room for Banana Republic and/or Sur La Table would remove one of the best elements of downtown - the authentic life and culture that has actually existed here before any of us lofty hipsters arrived.

There is no question that gentrification is happening, but as long as we can hold out to keep some things sacred - like respect for those who came before us - we should.

mtd

I went to Broadway this weekend to take some photos of the newly cleaned Palace Theater (which looks incredible by the way http://www.flickr.com/photos/fridayinla/sets/72157601663641422/). I was so disgusted by the condition of the buildings next to it that I took some photos to share. These buildings remind me of blighted Mexico City. I think it's wonderful that a handful of buildings are being restored along Broadway, but now that we have a reason to start looking above ground-level, we're noticing the ugly ones too. What a shame.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fridayinla/1259636898/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fridayinla/1258778825/

i live on broadway, across from the palace theatre and next to the los angeles theatre. while moving out the current businesses would definitely making sleeping in a lot easier (it gets loud!) i really dont think offering lower rents to starbucks and national chains are the way to go. in reading that article i was a bit frightened to hear how little the developers seem to care about the historical nature of broadway. this street has an incredible history that should be appreciated and preserved by its future owners and tenants.

i want downtown to maintain some history! some character! some integrity! if i wanted to live on the 3rd street promenade amidst all the tourists, id move down there!

I think developers care much more about the historical value of the Broadway buildings than most current landlords. Developers have come in and restored several gem buildings to their former glory - most notably the Kor Group. Meanwhile, most landlords of the Broadway mercados have let their buildings decay over the decades. We're pointing out all the evidence.

in reading that article i was a bit frightened to hear how little the developers seem to care about the historical nature of broadway.

Considering how decrepit and filthy many of Broadway's buildings have become over the decades, caring little about the area, including its history or otherwise, isn't exactly a recent phenomenon.

There is no displacement of families on Broadway. The shoppers who patronize Broadway mostly don't live downtown. Also, there is so much EMPTY retails on streets other than Broadway that there is very little pressure to replace the Broadway merchants with chains.

Despite the word "gentrification" being thrown around, there is little or none of the displacement associated with gentrification in Downtown LA. The city took care of kicking out most of the residents years ago. The new development is happening in empty or severely underused buildings.

Broadway is decayed because the people who own the buildings allowed this to happen. They argue that it is not economically viable to fix it up, but we see here that the rents are in fact high enough. It wold be a no brainer to get businesses on the upper floors, but there is no incentive to do so with the high rents on the ground floors, which pay for the whole building.

Sounds like sleaze and greed to me.

i guess i was responding more to the article itself than the focus of the post here. i agree the buildings above ground level need quite a bit of work and, considering i have a direct view of several of them, i more than most would appreciate someone taking the time to restore these buildings or at least clean them (as they have with the palace which looks terrific.) that goes without saying.

in terms of the ground level, quotes like these scare me a bit:

“The difference between what we get from the mercados versus what we will get from a national chain will be hard to take,” said Greg Martin, the U.S. representative of a triad of real estate companies called Begonia Development, Mideb, and 5th Street Funding, owned by Australian interests. “But if the right tenant comes along – Borders, Starbucks, Trader Joe’s – we would certainly rent them space.”

this sounds to me like current mercados along broadway would gladly be shoved out for a national business who would pay less in rent. landlord or developer, whoever is making that decision is making the wrong one. on many different levels.

You wrote: "They argue that it is not economically viable to fix it up, but we see here that the rents are in fact high enough"

But that applies to the ground level only. Demand for space above the first floor, which would appeal mainly to businesses or, more recently, residential users, hasn't existed for several decades. The fact that even a lot of much newer, and very clean, modern space in office buildings such as City National Plaza has been hurting for tenants for over 15 years says it all.

^Yes. In fact, a big reason some of the old buildings were chopped down was because the upper levels were worthless and only contributed to a higher property tax bill.

Suddenly things have changed. In many cases, the whole building has become valuable, rather than just the bottom floor. So now owners/developers have to find a balance now between the needs of the retail businesses and their new residential tenants.

As the article notes, existing tenants bring in far more money than chains will pay. So instead of looking to displace existing tenants, building owners need to simply hold themselves and their tenants to higher standards.

Replace those paint-on-boards signs with back-lit signs. Remove the sensory overload that now exists on the storefronts. Install the newer see-through security gates, rather than the old roll-downs that dominate the area. The responsibility for all this lies with the building owners and their tenants. I'm confident the profit motive will result in a cleaner, brighter Broadway.

Seems to me that these building owners are making money hand over fist and should at least use it to clean up the buildings and create a more appealing streetscape. There is no excuse for the condition of these buildings.

Also, I don't see why preserving the Latino shopping district is at odds with adding a few businesses that appeal to the actual residents of the neighborhood.

Wouldn't it be nice if the businessmen running the current businesses could branch out to attempt to serve the new potential customers in the area, seems like that could be a win-win. Probably unlikely though.

I absolutely DO NOT want Broadway turned into another Grove or 3rd St. Aren't there enough Starbucks and Gaps in LA already!?!

Does Broadway need some sprucing up? You bet, but I live downtown because it's one of the few remaining places in LA unspoiled by all the homogeneous retail outlets.

To all the developers out there, please consider the demographic of the neighborhood before you slap in yet another California Pizza Kitchen!

The section of Broadway from Fifth to Sixth, including all four corners of both intersections seems to be most 'key' to eventually reclaiming the avenue from decay. The AGENCY, along with Hon. Councilwoman and Mayor acutely need to step forth and gather all of the property owners into a development corporation. Then enjoin outside investors.

Perhaps the entire ground floor of the Arcade Building could become some sort of retailing breakthrough, an array of gustatory delights from all over the planet.

Connections: any serious revamp of Pershing Square should consider crossing Hill at midblock and punching through to Broadway with a pedestrian connection lined with intimate retail. Think of Olvera Street - scale and intimacy. What if a developer were to buy the jewelry mart at Sixth & Hill and revamp the structure (and facade) into residential and add a residential tower above the Redline portal at Fifth & Hill? Many more residents in this area would prove a boon for Broadway.

I'm not in favor of forcing out any retail tenants, but I am in favor of forcing the landlords to keep their buildings presentable.

There have been City grants to clean off some building facades and the results have been phenomenal (Chester Williams Bldg., Jewelry Trades Bldg., Tower Theater). We need to force more of that happening. Signage stinks in a lot of the stores, facades need to be fixed up and kept clean.

The other thing that bothered me was "Australian based owners." Great. No wonder they don't give a damn, they're 8,000 miles away.

> No wonder they don't

give a damn, they're 8,000 miles away.

I don't know if you can say that when their head in America made the following comment:

Joseph Hellen, who leads the U.S. operations for the Australian firms, says he would like to see the block entirely converted to an upscale shopping mall akin to the Third Street Promenade or the Grove, but with more entertainment venues.

If they really didn't give a damn, I'd think they'd be perfectly content to milk their properties in downtown Los Angeles for all they're worth -- or pretty much do what their predecessors did, and what most of their counterparts on Broadway are doing right now. Why would any firm, Australian or otherwise, that didn't give a damn lift a finger to implement any sort of improvement that was above and beyond what was expected of them by the average leaseholder? So if many of those leasees have a lazy, second- or third-rate approach to running a retail outlet, I'd think that just as long as the rent was being paid on time, a property owner who didn't give a damn would happily say "so be it!"

I live Downtown and would LOVE to see Broadway go upscale like Downtown San Francisco/Union Square and Midtown Manhattan/Bryant Park.

Broadway used to be very upscale; why not again? I say let the free market decide, and it looks like Downtown is returning to its former glory. There are plenty of areas in the County that can absorb the discount stores and mom-and-pop shops that make Broadway look junky and, frankly, depressing.

Some people love to rag on the Third Street Promenade and The Grove, but I'll bet those same people go to those places with their out-of-town visitors "to go someplace nice."

Gentrification is tricky, but chances are, It's going to happen on a huge scale in the next few years Downtown. And it might even resemble something like Union Sq or Mid-town. But what makes these places unique has absolutely nothing to due with the uniform disneyland-esque/outdoor suburban mall thing that the Grove and 3rd st have going one. All the boutiques/restaurants/museums/clubs that make up union sq didn't pop up over night al-la Caruso.And before you start wanting to turn Downtown into downtown SF & Manhattan, remmeber that these are two of the most expensive places to live in the freaking world so considering LA salaries are substantialy lower across the board . . .

I like how "lastraphanger" doesn't mince words about his/her wishes to see the poor pushed out of downtown so that Broadway can return to "its former glory." The remark cuts to the chase and lets us call things by their name: the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. A place that serves those with money is nice and full of glory (because the rich are themselve nice and full of glory, of course). The poor can go be "junky and... depressing" anywhere else in the county that the rich no longer care for.

In the US, sadly, classism is not as bad a word or concept as racism. People like lastraphanger can justify their scorn for poor Latino immigrants by pointing to their poverty. There seems to be some consensus (in this virulently conservative country of ours) that the poor can be hated for being poor even while people of color cannot be hated for not being white.

I agree that povery is something to loathe but i don't agree with lastraphanger that there exist human communities who deserve to be objects of our scorn and displacement. Poverty must be fought by making poor people less poor, which means implementing policies that redistribute LA's (and the nation's) vast wealth. If those using the buildings on Broadway weren't so poor, the street would boast beautiful and well-maintained structures - such as those in the gorgeous Mexican city of Zacatecas, where many LA immigrants are from.

As somebody who grew up watching Mexican movies in the 1980s at the Palace, the Million Dollar Theater, the Orpheum and about a dozen other movie palaces on Broadway while his mom shopped nearby, I long to see downtown become exciting again, inhabited, clean, maintained, and lively - like downtown Guadalajara, for example. But I wish that those of us who never left can continue to afford it as well. Bringing into the city center businesses that cater to rich and middle-class Angelenos may be part of the formula for revitalizing it - I believe in the spillover effects of wealth - but implementing measures like commercial rent control and developing affordable housing in the vicinity seems necessary to ensure that downtown continues to belong to us all.

Some of these comments on Broadway and downtown sound very much like Columbus' discovery of America. There has always been life and "culture" downtown... you've just discovered it. You don't like it, now u want to change it.

While I agree w/ some (few) of the comments on aesthetics, I do believe that the point of potential upgrades is to enhance the already existing linkages between the consumer base here and these businesses. Build off the vernacular, not eradicate it. That's the key to the creation of that "spectacular" social atmosphere that some of you crave for, or claim isn't there.

You might rag on the displays/signage(painted signs etc), but I do believe these in fact help pedestrianize Broadway w/o the need for physical improvements or "planned" pedestrian-friendly urban design elements. "Intimate retail?" (as a blogger commented), what's more intimate than a mannequin right along the sidewalk...3-D/interactive display? That reggaton song blasting onto the sidewalk I suppose isn't just intimate enough.

"Broadway used to be very upscale; why not again?" I'm curious how long ago was that. Most likely pre-1970s, hmmmm. Dude, you're trying to undo the economic processes that have shaped L.A. demographics over the last 30 yrs. I grew up accompanying my mother to Broadway's Jewelry district (from the SFV 1980s/1990s) to restock her business supply, not with just one wholesaler, but with plenty of other jewelry suppliers. It was here where I experienced the ethnic diversity of Los Angeles, as many of the wholesalers were Persian, Korean, Chinese, Salvadorean, etc. Despite many of them being limited in English (like moms), they always managed to get to the bottom line with my mother--$$$$! The C.R.E.A.M! If one didn't have the merchandise in stock, they would send somebody to go get one from a family member's other joint. I doubt the Gap can provide that kind of service, but I suppose that's what we shoud aspire for.

This whole return to the "good ole' days" ain't happening. The supply and demand pipeline that keeps many of these businesses thriving goes beyond and is bigger than the "recent arrivals..." and by that I mean some of you. You want "unique" places? Build off the already existing urban performance (its profitable too).

Some as at the Latino Urban Forum (latinourbanforum.com) are exploring the idea of designing and executing workshops for business owners to enhance their already existing natural methods of operation. As a blogger mentioned, this is how we create win-win solutions.

"lastraphanger" clearly knows nothing about the free market system when he says "let the free market decide." The free market already DID decide, my friend, and it decided in favor of $10/sqft rents that the Hispanic tenants pay--rates that the current owners freely admit the prospective new tenants could not pay. In fact, the LABJ article specifically mentions one owner who is considering cutting rents to $2/sqft--that's hardly market economics at work. A true market system would react to supply and demand rather than giving in to externalities such as personal proclivities. If upper middle class people move into a building that has a thriving mercado below, they're doing so because demand exists for lofts; if mercados thrive, it's because there's demand for them; if rents are high, it's because the mercados are doing so well that they can pay the bills. Changing this system is antithetical to classical libertarian economic models. Before you go throwing the phrase "free markets" around, learn what it means first.

Also, your classist attitude is readily apparent in your phraseology, as already pointed out by Chuy90023. It's disturbing that your notion of "glory" somehow encompasses the artificiality of 3rd St Promenade or The Grove while you yet reference the organic development of Union Square or Bryant Park. The two are antithetical. Union Square and Bryant Park developed over the course of many years, retaining the historicity of the area in which they sprung to life. The Grove/3rd St were vomited up by developers with little sense of the historical significance of the areas they were bulldozing. To do the same to Broadway--an area of far greater historical significance than Mid-Wilshire or Santa Monica--would be abhorrent. If you find Broadway "junky and, frankly, depressing," I'm sure The Grove would love to have you.

Whoa...

When I read the article I cane away with a smug sense of "see, they are finally getting beat at their own game". Sure, the (drumroll, please) "Developers"... are certainly turned on and breathing heavy with the idea of yet another Grove, 3rd St. Prom, Old Colorado or similar mass-replicated retain and entertainment "mix". The fact that they and their mass homogenization dreams and schemes are being kept at bay by mom & pops and bridal shops that cater to the so-called "poor people" yet eagerly spend twice the rent that corporate chains and loss-leader storefronts pay is one of the most fundamental lessons to be learned about this city. There are so many people here, particularly those who work in the corporate world, that just don't get who we are... Starbucks/Gap/Pottery Barn is only a part of the scene here, and mercifully not even a real big part.

Of course the buildings must be cleaned up and maintained. of course Downtown LA is changing and densifying. Eventually many of the currently unused upper floors will be either converted to residential or have commercial uses. Signage and restoration of architectural features need to be addressed. Yes there is landlord greed and slime. Talk about "old news"! Methinks the bigger question has to do with the way the newly developing, quite affluent, still not too diversified high end residential community Downtown will coexist with the possibly inconvenient fact that right in the midst of the loft boom lies the most profitable, popular and tenacious Latino markeplace in the Western US. Embrace it - let's work together and if this community can actually begin to live the way it says it does, maybe we'll have a far more diverse, local, less commuter based Downtown.

If you find Broadway "junky and, frankly, depressing," I'm sure The Grove would love to have you.

And yet are you the type of person who nonetheless will spend little or no time on Broadway? Okay, maybe not you personally, but certainly all those who are guilty of talking the talk, but not walking the walk. And not just figuratively, but literally too: on the sidewalks of Broadway. That's because when such people are behind closed doors, and are being candid with themselves, if not others, even many of them will admit to perceiving Broadway as "junky and depressing." Moreover, quite a few of these very same people may actually find themselves, on more occasions, sauntering down the walkways of the Grove or Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade, maybe also Pasadena's Old Town, with downtown LA's Broadway far off in the distance -- and out of sight, out of mind.

Kelly, I agree that Broadway is dirty and dilapidated and, for that reason, sad. We, who have always shopped and done business on Broadway, would like to see this change. But believe me, while I end up walking through 3rd St or the Grove once or twice a year (almost always because of movie playing there), I really have no need for that corporate monstrosity. Do I want to see Broadway's sidewalks regularly washed down, its buildings fixed up? Absolutely! Will i welcome the opening up of cafes, bookstores, and late evening venues? Of course! But, as one commentator above said, build upon what is already there rather than adopt Columbus's attitude of eliminating it to build for a different demographic.

The city has the power to make things better. If the city required landlords to use some of the money they make off of us on Broadway to maintain their own buildings as well as the streets, even the corporate chains would be willing to pay $10 per square foot.

I think we should leave the Broadway stores alone, they do well, they have a reliable customer base, let them have their own success.

What I'm most concerned about is the empty space in the upper floors. They are just so EMPTY.

And in Los Angeles we really need every space for housing we can get.

Those empty offices would make an excellent opportunity to build Artist lofts or affordable apartments. We should be building more floors on those buildings, not chopping them down.

Just leaving those floors empty will leads to more decay. The City can preserve those buildings and create much needed affordable housing at the same time ... if they can just work with the Landlords.

i live above broadway next to the los angeles theatre and im just fine with the street below. leave it as is. no need to start doing away with people who have been here for years for a starbucks! seriously. this is a resident talking here. everything is fine. please. no need to push anyone out!

Kelly:

You're sort of missing the point. Even if Broadway is "out of sight, out of mind" to most people, it's NOT out of sight to the droves of people who shop there. Forcing out the mercados would blight an entire section of Broadway. Sure, I wouldn't mind seeing a building facelift, but that facelift is not whitewashing by throwing out the current occupants and replacing them with yuppie chains.

And, to answer your question, yes, I do frequent Broadway, as well as other downtown haunts, like the Grand Central Market and the garment district. I recognize that many of my other favorites, like Pete's and Edison, cater more to my socioeconomic group. That doesn't mean I don't head over to Broadway to, at the very least, browse or enjoy the hustle and bustle of the busiest downtown street on weekends. However, even if I didn't, I can still stand up and say: leave the successful businessmen and women of Broadway alone.

(I think Kelly & Lastraphanger are really one person) Anyway, I have yet to read a post on here that would seem to disagree with the fact that Broadway is an unattractive stretch of land. But kicking these people out is definitely not the problem. If anything, as i believe was mentioned earlier, the city should work together with the local business owners and make sure that the storefronts and sidewalks ur kept up to a high standard of aesthetic.It just seems silly to force landlords to lower their rents so that perfectly profitable business can makeway for chains that can easily locate anywhere else in the downtown area they wish, and still be just a block away from broadway loft dwellers. I understand that alot of people bought property there on speculation that it too would be the next Grand, but unless it was written into your contract comwhere i don't see how you can logically demand people that were already there to leave. Its not like these people weren't there went you first toured the lofts above . . .Cleanliness, high standards, high regard for aesthetics = good, displacing law abiding business owners = bad.

an homage to the the type of storefronts found on Broadway & SoCal.

LUF

No, Jay, I am not "Kelly." But, thank you, Kelly for having the courage to speak up for the silent majority and speak the politically incorrect truth.

I don't care who you are, racially or economically, almost everyone shares the desire to shop and stroll in an environment that lifts the spirits and makes one feel proud of their city.

What I find offensive is the idea that clean attractive streets are something only rich white folks can enjoy. An attractive city center benefits everyone.

Moreover, I don't think having aesthetic standards (removing some of the noise) will result in large-scale dislocation. The only way existing businesses will be thrown out by the chains is if the chains are willing to pay more. According it the article, it sounds like that isn't going to happen any time soon.

(I think Kelly & Lastraphanger are really one person)

And are you and Nick the same person?

However, if you rarely or never set foot on the sidewalks of Broadway, then you're different from Nick, based on the locations he says he regularly patronizes. But if you, by contrast, regularly find yourself far removed from Broadway -- perhaps miles and miles away from there, if not at the Grove or in Santa Monica than some other spot that draws millions of people per year -- then you're more likely to be the type of person who I was describing above: Someone who in private moments does think or say -- and admits -- that Broadway is "junky and depressing."

Cleanliness, high standards, high regard for aesthetics = good, displacing law abiding business owners = bad.

And if the owner of the property who controls the lease of the storeowner wants to either renew or cancel that person's lease, which is a decision that falls under the heading of "law abiding" too, that's just the way things go in the real world.

"And if the owner of the property who controls the lease of the storeowner wants to either renew or cancel that person's lease, which is a decision that falls under the heading of "law abiding" too, that's just the way things go in the real world."

Yes Kelly, it is law abiding, I never said it wasn't, nor did I imply it would be a crime. Infact,what i did say was that it was "silly" and that the DEMAND for them to leave would be ilogical. And yes, that is the way things will probably work out, being the real world and all. Which is exactly the reason I said so in post #19. And yes, I do believe(outloud & secretly) that Broadway is an unattractive area, again, as I already mentioned in my earlier post. the difference between us is that i provided ideas for this "problem" that didn't involve turning this prime piece of real estate into the Grove 2. Aesthetic resons aside, there is not actual need for another cookie cutter mall in this town. If all the exsisting ones aren't enough then just google a search for the "in development" projects from Mr. Caruso and others. All within a 9 mile radius.

Forget downtown getting Manhattanized, its apparently going to get Westsided out(with all these references to Santa Monica + Th Grove)!!!. Apparently the Westside is the only point of reference being thrown around here for "Angelenos." Truth be said, I find those sites or places... boring + depressing. People camping out at the Grove + Santa Monica for an iphone? Yes very depressing.

^ Considering the city of Los Angeles's position when it comes to sales-tax revenue, its politicians and constituents can't afford to be dismissive of the effect of being "Manhattanized" or "Westsided out."

I would guess the level of sales in the stores (which includes auto dealers) throughout West Los Angeles is barely being matched (if at all), much less exceeded, by most other sections of the city. And as a comparison, I wonder how much of the activity of stores in downtown, including along Broadway, is making up for lower amounts of the same thing elsewhere in the city?

The article referenced by Eric R. includes these words: "Merchants and landlords said that business at the mercados has been falling off for years."

Los Angeles brought in $111 in sales tax revenue per capita in the city’s 2007 fiscal year that ended in June. Other cities in L.A. County brought in an average of 21 percent more.

If the city could raise its per capita sales tax revenue to the county average, it would generate $92 million – almost enough to erase the city’s current structural deficit of $95 million.

Now it's about sales tax & fiscal matters? Let's not conflate the issue(s) here. I believe that article mentions Huntington Park, most specifically Pacific Blvd, which I do believe does GREAT as far as tax-revenue. The article also alludes to competition between Broadway and Pacific, although you might not be big on rockin' Ostrich cowboy boots, somebody is. I wonder what would happen if L.A. enhanced some of the street/design features there on Broadway as HP is doing for the businesses along Pacific. Don't underestimate the power of these consumers. Since we're talking numbers, I"ll inquire to a friend over at at Judy Chu's (state board of equalization) about raw numbers. I'll get back on this one, tasks permitting.

In 2002 the City of San Fernando did backflips to save a swap meet, which also sells stuff similar to Pacific & Broadway. The city was set to lose a tremendous tax revenue if the swap meet was to be closed. Funny thing is, the swap meet only opened like 3 days a week!

Omg, Kelly, are you citywatch?

These places on the Westside do very well. But by creating more of the same and a lot of it, you're only gonna hurt the market.

I marvel how people like Chuy are all for progress as long as no latinos have to move, well my friend just like there was white-flight before, the tides are changing and the brown-flight is coming.

You comments are just as telling and racist as any one other comment. Not every body wants to see hotdog vendors who use shopping carts, or somebody selling corn fom a bucket on a milk crate.

Get ready the big change is coming to downtowm Los Angeles and it will be very expensive just like other big cities (New York)

Omg, Kelly, are you citywatch?

Hehe, that was my thought too!

It's odd to see people from diverse backgrounds suddenly fighting over Broadway! A couple of years ago, few people seemed to give a damn about it.

I say that, to some extent, tongue in cheek. The buildings on Broadway are valuable, economically and culturally.

But I think people are doing an awful lot of projecting their own hopes and fears here. Some people have dreams of Manhattan West. Others seem to romanticize present-day Broadway like its some kind of Latino paradise. Some fear the criminal element: others fear homogeneity.

I just say: make it nice. Clean it up. It'll be good for business, regardless of what business is there.

Buildings don't make the neighborhood: people do.

The city was set to lose a tremendous tax revenue if the swap meet was to be closed.

But you have to to be aware that the small city of San Fernando's tax base was very limited to begin with, so something like a swap meet couldn't be taken for granted by them. Not helping matters, cash-and-carry sales transactions carried out by small independent sellers operating out of the back of their van is even more likely to be underreported to local tax authorities.

Omg, Kelly, are you citywatch?

I wish I were! It's one of the sites I check at the start of the day, and I wouldn't mind having the inside contacts of its owner. For those who don't know where it's at on the web, check out http://www.citywatchla.com.

"I marvel how people like Chuy are all for progress as long as no latinos have to move, well my friend just like there was white-flight before, the tides are changing and the brown-flight is coming"

Sure.

"Buildings don't make the neighborhood: people do."

Best thing I've heard. Build on the hustle and bustle that exists.

L.A. Resident, your sense of history is seriously distorted here, drawing an analogy between White Flight and the pushing out of Latinos - which you call "brown flight." Open up any urban history book that addresses the 1950s and suburbanization. You'll discover that white people left to take advantage of a tax-funded opportunity to become middle-class homeowners in the suburbs. This was a huge welfare-state benefit notoriously denied to many people of color. It also had the effect of impoverishing the central city, as the tax base shifted to the sububrs.

On the other hand, the "brown flight" you're talking about would come in the form of displacement of poor people (who, in this case, happen to be Latino).

As for your charge that what I say is racist... It's probably not worth responding to... what can I say? Re-read my posting above. Where is my prejudice or intolerance??? On the contrary, I say that middle-class and rich Angelenos should be accommodated downtown without displacing people already there.

Your words, however, do reflect prejudice and intolerance, saying you can't tolerate seeing "hotdog vendors who use shopping carts, or somebody selling corn fom a bucket on a milk crate."

I wrote previously: "And yet are you the type of person who nonetheless will spend little or no time on Broadway? Okay, maybe not you personally, but certainly all those who are guilty of talking the talk, but not walking the walk."

These two gentlemen are good examples of that:

....Anthony (Tony) Lovett and Matt Maranian, the authors of "L.A. Bizarro: The Insider's Guide to the Obscure, the Absurd and the Perverse in Los Angeles." Published in 1997 by St. Martin's Press, the groundbreaking guidebook was instantly embraced by camp-loving Angelenos, spending 18 weeks on the Los Angeles Times' bestseller list...and selling nearly 40,000 copies.

(The Los Angeles Times)

Yesterday I walked the length of Broadway on my way to the Grand Ave Festival. In the morning, the streets were mostly litter free and you can see what a difference the cleaning of the Tower and Palace Theatres makes. I was able to see up close some of the buildings that are being renovated and I really do think it will not take all that much money to really bring around a renaissance. The signage on the most of the buildings are the biggest problem. The city needs to get these landlords to make changes. I was surprised at the amount of terrazzo on the sidewalks. The clutter keeps you from noticing the terrazzo. I am not sure why we need two Payless Shoe stores just a few blocks from each other.

So, new signage, cleansing of facades, a few sidewalk cafes, trees/flowers...would give an instant impetus to a very neglected street.