Washington Post Profiles Downtown

I always find it amusing when people speak of how 'cool' and 'hip' downtown has become. I'm amazed that anyone falls for it. But, an entire residential boom has been fueled by this quest for 'cool' and 'the genuine.' Few seem willing to acknowledge that what is being sold is just another commodity. That you can buy 'cool' seems to be a contradiction of the concept. Regardless, downtown has benefited enormously. But, the level of self-delusion, self-flattery and self-congratulation of these cool-hunters strikes me as excessive and highly narcissistic.

Getting beyond this tedious narrative (why are hipsters such irritating people?), I think the article speculates about the future of downtown in a thoughtful manner. Will the commodification of 'authenticity' sweep away the grit and character of downtown in a tsunami of development? When will the Gaps and Starbucks begin their long march of commercial conquest? In this case, I think downtown L.A. ultimately doesn't fit the narrative. I believe the complexity of downtown and the various micro-neighborhoods and their respective economic strength will decide the issue. Much of the residential activity has swept through areas which were economically under-utilized. Loft conversions transformed aging non-performing buildings into valuable economic assets. Similarly, parking lots are now being converted into new high-rise residential structures. Some areas were ripe for this transformation.

However, some areas like the Fashion District, Jewelry District, Toy District or Latino Broadway are quite likely to weather the gentrification process quite well because their economic fundamentals are so strong. Gentrification will have to pay a steep dollar to get in the game. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Little Tokyo is a neighborhood to watch. There is definitely a lack of economic dynamism there. Too many of the local businesses have not been operating at high efficiency. Frankly, they've been coddled by easy-going landlords. Lately, I've noted that many properties in Little Tokyo are transitioning to different ownership. The new owners will surely be looking for a return on their investment. It is here that the traditional businesses may well get pushed out if they can't compete. I've heard plenty of concern being voiced by local businesses and I think their concerns are well-founded. I suspect the character of this part of downtown will be transformed. Pinkberry is probably a harbringer of the future for Little Tokyo, if the local businesses can't get their act together. Not necessarily a bad thing in my book.

In my opinion, The "Hippness" factor has probably accounted for less than a dozen move-ins. People don't buy expensive real estate for a fashion statement. There is way too much investment and risk for anyone to covet a loft for "coolness".

Downtown's appeal is somewhat abstract, unconventional, maybe even philosophical. It is the opposite of the Los Angeles mindset.... The Los Angeles anti-lifestyle.

Parking is never free. Work commutes are much shorter. The generic brand name stores coexist side by side with the Mom and Pops establishments. Neighborhoods are not polarized. There is economic and racial diversity. People are in close proximity... i.e. density.

The Loft Movement is a re-actionary culture. To resist the sprawl that has made LA the Urban Twilight Zone for decades.

Some neighborhoods will fare better than others. Little Tokyo, Chinatown, Arts District, and Broadway are deep in cultural identity and tradition.

Other places like South Park, City West, and Figueroa south, need that commercial identity and the dollars it brings. They need to embrace a makeover, revitalization, because it will benefit the entire community.

Well, the hip/cool factor certainly drives the marketing of downtown. It is also central to the narrative which the media presents. I wish it weren't so. I think the recycling of these descriptive terms really reflects the cultural biases of these businesses.

Speaking for myself, I think the lofts may be marketing the hip/cool factor to get buyers that already live downtown. I lived downtown for three years (in an apartment) before buying a loft. "Lofts" (as opposed to other types of housing like apartments) are cool, but I think Whitman is right, no one is going to relocate to downtown and put a ton of money into a loft to be "cool". People might relocate to another district of downtown that they perceive is "cooler" (i.e. more bars, etc.), but I don't think people purchase property downtown so they can look cool to their friends.

Whitman is also right about the philosophical angle. I had once heard in college that Americans sacrifice time for space (they would rather have a long commute and a big house), whereas Europeans sacrifice space for time (they often live in tiny apartments in the city, even in small cities, to walk to work and to small grocery stores). I decided from the start that I like the European mindset better. I think that mindset is being adopted by a whole lot of young people coming out of college and grad school (to the chagrin of their bosses who think they should work longer hours and ignore their mates/families). That is fueling the downtown movement, and the marketing of "coolness", because many have already decided they want to live downtown and it's a competition between the lofts to see which lofts gets those buyers.