Third Los Angeles
Post your reflections on the Third Los Angeles article in the comments section below.
Home: Palm Trees, Koreatown, Loneliness, Oranges, Lines, Babies, Crabs, Brooms?
“After hours, Bobby goes home. House’s in Koreatown, edge of Pico-Union. Maybe it’s Koreatown, but he owns it. Stucco job with two palm trees in front. Nobody home. Just him” (Yamashita, 18). Here are some questions. Don’t feel obligated to respond to all of them. If one angle interests you more than the other, take it. What about Koreatown makes Bobby feel at home? What do you make of the sentence “Maybe it’s Koreatown, but he owns it"? What about Koreatown gives us that downbeat, that disclaimer, “maybe?” How does he own it? Does his ownership have to do with his work, his identity, his relationships, or the American Dream? Does he seem to enjoy his “stucco job?” As an immigrant, do his expectations meet reality? Are the “two palm trees” real or fake? How might Bobby’s opinion about palm trees compare to Buzzworm’s and his classmates’ (Chapter 4, bottom of page 32)? How does the fact that he’s alone change the meaning of “home?” What does that say about Bobby’s characte...
I found it interesting to read about how each characteristic of Los Angeles has a particular outcome when Los Angeles goes through development. Being a "Horizontal city," Los Angeles will continue to grow outward when it changes. On the other hand, describing Los Angeles as a "Neighborhood City" leads us to assume that all of the different communities will continue to change based on certain characteristics of the people found there, primarily race. Like the article mentioned in the beginning, it is unrealistic to assume that Los Angeles will change from A to B. In some ways I think I have the more boosterist outlook on Los Angeles's. I am optimistic to see how the city will change, but at the same time, change is rarely ideal for everyone. I think I start to adopt the noir outlook once I realize that the change is inevitable and the change will upset a group of people but I would still like to address the changes is the least confrontational way. I think only time will tell.
ReplyDeleteThe First and Second LA's seemed to be centered around economic growth and "selling"the city. The First and Second LA's had so much space to be filled by outsiders and Americans looking for a new life West of the Mississippi. This is not longer the case in the Third LA. There are plenty of people being attracted to the City, but there is no where fro them to go. Angelinos are being forced out of their homes and forced to emigrate, while the residents of the places they are moving to are being force fed lies about the easily attainable and prosperous land in Los Angeles. The Third LA is no longer a place for positive development, but it is a place that is focused on getting rid of the people that the first and second LAs attracted. I think that the LA now is not what was envisioned during the post war era and before. Through our neighborhood studies we have witnessed first hand how the age of two story houses, green lawns, new cars, and white picket fences are over for everyone. I do not know what Los Angeles is turning into, and I do not know if it is good or bad for the populations. But, I do know, regardless of what the Fourth LA looks like, people will continue to flock like birds because of the image that LA already holds.
ReplyDeleteI think this article offers an interesting perspective on Los Angeles that I had not considered before. I never thought of "three LA's", but after reading the article, this makes more sense to me. It was interesting to read about how the Third LA encompasses the rediscovering of public spaces, with more of a communal mentality focused on shared spaces. I can see how this proves to be true, yet I can also see the opposite. With fear of displacement and economic inequality, the rising presence of wealth in certain areas of Los Angeles has affected the communal mentality that LA may be trying to develop. In this, I question the "validity" of the third Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the article addresses the stereotypes that LA seems to produce and the need to break them down. In reading the section on LA being a city of neighborhoods, I thought about our neighborhood studies. A stated in the article, Leimert Park used to be a neighborhood organized around restrictive racial covenants, making the post-WWII boom of the African-American population more intense. This prompted me to think about Sonya's visit and how she talked about her appreciation for a diverse city as well as one of the podcast episodes where a man described his love for a multicultural environment. I wonder if the Third LA that is being described is one that will embrace the change and see the new developments and changing demographic as positive additions. The article also mentioned a new light rail line, an Art Deco theater, and new black-owned galleries and businesses. I thought about the new businesses we have observed on our neighborhood studies, many of which were established by young white people. I wonder if these black-owned establishments in Leimert Park have the same negative connotation as those owned by whites. I wonder if the community looks at these developments differently, seeing them as positive contributions made by their own community members.
I caught myself rereading the line "Having to relearn the art of sharing the city rather than chopping it up into tens of thousands of private residential enclaves." This line stood out to me because I feel that it strongly pertains to what we have discussed regarding freeways in the city. We have questioned the stereotyped diversity of LA because as people who live here, we recognize that there is a lack of fluidity in our diversity- neighborhoods and their people are very separate. This line also made me think back to grandparents day, and the different relationships each grandparent had to the city of LA. LA has changed in so many unexpected and unpredictable ways. From rolling plains to an industrial city, Los Angeles feels to have been manipulated to fit the current social values.. if that makes sense. Our grandparents grew up in a time where racial tensions were high and therefore the city was cut up and separated by freeways and racially incriminating laws. Today's Los Angeles--our Los Angeles-- seems to be working against and redefining its previous identity. For the most part, Angelenos are working to physically and emotionally restructure the city to be properly suited for the more inclusive and open-minded ideals that we hold today. Change is something natural of any city, and this line and this article made me understand that "sharing the city" is something that will be a key aspect of the "Third LA": key to envisioning, reaching for, and establishing a more cohesive and productive city.
ReplyDeleteA few weeks before winter break, just after part of the class attended the conference in Downtown Los Angeles, I heard some members of the class talking about Third Los Angeles. I had no idea what they were talking about. After reading the article, I learned what Third LA is ( the new identity that Los Angeles is establishing) and so much more about it. The part of the article that most interested me was the section titled "Los Angeles is a horizontal city." The section identifies the current viewpoint of tall buildings in Los Angeles as one of uncertainty, and questions the role that skyscrapers will play in Third Los Angeles. This section was interesting to me because I have always found tall buildings fascinating. Whenever I visit other major cities, I am always shocked by the height of the buildings (NY and Chicago are examples), and always wonder why Los Angeles lacks a large number of tall buildings. The article made it clear that both the uncertainty surrounding tall buildings in Los Angeles and the helipad requirement have prevented the growth of the skyline of Los Angeles, but also questioned if Third Los Angeles will see the extension "our reputation for cultural and architectural innovation skyward."
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that the Third LA existed but it is incredibly intriguing. I would like to start out by posting one quote that captured me as I was reading through the article: "it is beginning to make crucial cultural, ethnic and neighborhood distinctions less relevant -- flattening and maybe even homogenizing a famously eclectic and diverse city." At the beginning of the class we talked about how LA is diverse but segregated. This quote so confusingly reflected our struggle with diversity in Los Angeles. Under the heading of "L.A. is a city of neighborhoods", the writers state that LA is becoming homogeneous in a sense of melding the different cultures, ethnicities and neighborhoods. Is this a bad thing? As we have discussed in class, I understand the value in having a community of people who are similar to you but I also think there is immense value in living in a place where a variety of people live. I just thought this was a thought provoking quote because it depicts the mixing of different communities as a solely negative thing. Living in and reading about this Third LA is makes me think again about stereotypes. I noticed things that I laugh at like tourists in the middle of the street as I drive up the Hollywood Hills to my cousins house from things that I identify with like wanting a super modern house with a killer view. I wonder how we as people who live in LA identify or laugh at certain stereotypes and how that builds our perception of LA. All in all, I think this is a very interesting topic to delve into as we continue to search the tough aspects of LA that we have been. I am excited to hear what we dissect about the Third LA.
ReplyDeleteLos Angeles, an individualistic, segregated city that has stretched as far out as possible is now condensing. I wonder who is working to create this new “civic identity” (maybe the people at Space LA) and what their priorities are. It seems like an increase in public transportation and a movement towards condensed living could be beneficial— people will talk to each other more, become more exposed to the world and other cultures around them, rather than stay holed up in cars. But I, too, am worried about development “homogenizing a famously eclectic and diverse city” and making “crucial cultural, ethnic and neighborhood distinctions less relevant.” I wonder if development is happening too quickly for city planners, government officials, and the public to think crucially about race relations and income inequality. Perhaps there is a way for people of diverse backgrounds and socio-economic levels to coexist in a condensed L.A.— but how? Black-owned businesses in Leimert Plaza Park suggest movement in the right direction, but are new businesses in other areas also prioritizing people of color? Beyond that, are the new businesses reflective of community values, or do they kick out those with lower incomes, enforce dress codes like Eastside Luv in Boyle Heights? The talk of houses turning into museums, the influx of tourists at the Hollywood sign, and lack of alternative public space make me think that Los Angeles is still trapped in commercialism and profit. I wonder if this “machine” that sucks in workers and churns out goods and services all for the big bucks will start to think more about the wellbeing of its composite parts in the Third L.A. What are concrete steps the public can take to ensure new site plans prioritize housing and minimize displacement?
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of a third LA based on the identities and stereotypes that the past two phases brought is a really interesting idea. Initially, when I read "Third LA," I thought this article would be talking about futuristic architecture and design plans, but I quickly learned that the concept of the third LA is a lot deeper then merely architecture and futuristic designs. The third LA is an identity. An identity that we as Californians have a difficult time breaking out of, because of how foreign this new identity feels. When recalling identities, however, it is very important to remember that the city of LA is one of the rarest cities of a large scale of different identities. I found it extremely interesting to see the pictures while also reading little snippets about some of the many different identities Los Angeles has to offer.
ReplyDeleteBefore finishing the article, the idea of calling today’s Los Angeles today the "Third Los Angeles" immediately engaged me. Our classes discussion around neighborhood development and change in the city seemed to properly fit under the veil of such a title, and I started to think of how the name could serve a framework for our classes discussions. The idea of our city entering a new chapter, to me, reframes what it means for a neighborhood to change architextuality, demographically, and commercially. Instead of speaking of the identities of our city through words like "preservation," framing it as a new chapter of Los Angeles may invite a grammar of becoming, wherein discussions are guided by a recognition Los Angeles is already forever changed as we enter the “Third Los Angeles.”
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the article talking about how parts of the "Third Los Angeles" mirrors the Los Angeles of the late 19th and early 20th made me think about how time functions within cities. After I read the article and the changes it identified, everything seemed so new, as if Los Angeles was following a linear projection of development. But, the thought of Los Angeles following a circular timeline and returning to aspects already visited was not only cool, but made me think that maybe the past can serve as a valuable heuristic today. I'm not sure exactly how much the development today mirrors that of the past, but if aspects overlap then maybe recognizing the tautology of Los Angeles' development can teach its citizens important lessons about how to enter a (not so) new era.
A few weeks ago when Sonya Geis came for the authorship seminar she mentioned the third LA and Christopher Hawthorne. I remember her speaking of this and not knowing anything about what the third LA was.I think the idea that the article presents is very interesting and relevant to many of the themes we have approached and studied thus far. Something that stuck out to me was this almost lack of separation between diversity and segregation. Los Angeles is segregated, yet diverse. The article speaks of how Los Angeles is being homogenized. How the city is being stripped of its unique culture that is present in primarily black or latinx neighborhoods. When reading this article this line specifically resonated with me; “But that positive change is shadowed by a deep anxiety about the future”.
ReplyDeleteThis line made it more real for me and brought it back to daily life. It made me think of our neighborhood studies. While we are studying the rapid changes of Boyle Heights, there are families living it. While discussing gentrification as a class, there are people outside of our class, in the neighborhoods we visit on urban labs, with “deep anxiety about the future”. It is so easy to remove oneself from the human suffering that follows “rapid change”. I struggle with finding ways to learn more about Boyle Heights from an outside perspective but know that the knowledge we get is probably very limited. This made me think about what it means to “study” a neighborhood and how for many of us our primary interaction with gentrification is being dropped off at a corner once a week. This possibly makes it easier to remove ourselves from the topic or maybe even from part of the problem.
I thought it was really interesting to read about "Third LA" and what that actually means. I have never really read an article that so blatantly points out the aspects of Los Angeles for what it is. We have talked a lot about Los Angeles and what different perceptions and stereotypes go along with it, and this article really explained how LA residents have kind of given in to this identity and developed and changed based on this. Something that definitely stood out to me was what the author said about diversifying the city and how it is segregated. As we have discussed many times in class, Los Angeles is a melting pot of races, ethnicities and cultures, however, the city is still divided between these groups. The article talked about how this segregation is contributing to the division of the city and the phrase, "LA is the city of neighborhoods" clearly demonstrate that.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I gathered reading the article, it is important to recognize that L.A. is not just moving into a new phase—it HAS BEEN moving into this new phase for the last decade. As stated in the article, creating the Third Los Angeles is not as simple as going “from A to B”; it is a lengthy transitional process, with countless in-between stages and modifiable elements added throughout. I recognized many of the elements specified by the author, such as mass transit, pedestrian culture, and ambitious civic building/park design, from my own life. As we have discussed in class, expanding, improving, and removing the stigma around using L.A. public transportation is a difficult and prevalent present-day issue, but I am not sure that if all socioeconomic classes and ethnic backgrounds used buses/the Metro/trains, the well-known “commuter” stereotype of L.A. would fade (and I am not sure that it has to). In relation to pedestrian culture, I remember hearing in an episode of There Goes the Neighborhood about a Hollywood Blvd. apartment complex being turned into an outdoor mall—I think the building of such structures does contribute to the pedestrian movement and gives people more incentive to walk places. And I have noticed the creation of new buildings and parks everywhere I go, whether on my neighborhood study of Highland Park, in Pasadena, or in Downtown L.A., so I completely agree with the statement that this new “emerging city” is “rediscovering its public spaces.”
ReplyDeleteRather than keep “growing its way out of every problem,” this new L.A. has begun to fold in on itself and take a second, more focused look at the sections/areas it only lightly developed before—this is bringing new attention (whether wanted or unwanted) to certain neighborhoods that investors believe have profitable potential, and while I am unsure if I can confidently say that halting the outwards expansion to instead expand inwards is a good thing, I do think it plays a key role in the undergoing changes to the current L.A..
One thing that interested me in the article was the idea that the fast pace of L.A. change is “beginning to make crucial cultural, ethnic and neighborhood distinctions less relevant—flattening and maybe even homogenizing a famously eclectic and diverse city.” If change is homogenizing the city by making it diverse in every community rather than diverse overall (as a result of the diverse separated neighborhoods), is this truly a bad thing? I also find it interesting that the epitome of a Los Angeles home still is a modernist house on the hillside with a pool, yet the huge homes that do achieve this complete dream do not even house people—they are only “rented out for parties, film shoots and product launches.” In fact, as the people in the flats of Hollywood likely complain about, these houses take up lots of unused, unnecessary space that could be potentially be developed into housing for the ever-growing L.A. population.
In contributing to the Third Los Angeles, it will be important to consider a multitude of questions: what do we want to look like? How big of a role should technology play in the L.A. that we want to see? How can we retain the cultural identity individual immigrant communities while integrating diversity across the city? How does people from L.A. investing in L.A. rather than foreign companies change the flow of money and identity associated with the city? What image of Los Angeles are we currently selling to the world, and what image to we want to sell (a.k.a. what stereotypes/ cliches need to be done away with and which should be enforced)?
What intrigued me the most in this article was the "horizontal" Los Angeles and the focus on consolidating our city instead of expanding to new land. The idea of more and more skycrapers however seems very foreign to Los Angeles and contradicts the very reason many come all the way west. People come to Los Angeles for the backyards and the seemingly endless amount of land that encompasses the city. People love one could feel like they are in Connecticut in Westwood and then go down to the fashion district and feel like they are in a small neighborhood from Ecuador. Skyscrapers would completely ruin the city. Look more people are leaving then coming in so it is clear that housing prices are only rising and we do not need more space we simply need to revitalize the houses and apartments not being in use. All of teh other arguments were completely valid and realistic. All in all a very interesting article that sought to analyze every aspect of the "new Los Angeles". A scary prospect indeed.
ReplyDeleteThe information in this article was very intriguing, learning about all of the different “LA’s” like the first, second, and third. Having learned that some people state LA through sections during World War II, And after the war, the stereotypes about LA started to develop which created the second. I like the idea of the third LA revolving around sharing the space of LA rather than “chopping it up into tens of thousands of private residential enclaves.” It’s much better than the blatant segregation that we have today. However when I was reading the article more and more and they went into more depth about what the third LA is I was put off when they spoke of “no longer pushing out at the edges but folding back on itself, doubling back, looking to develop more intensely the sections it developed lightly before -- or even overlooked entirely in its race to grow at the periphery.” In my mind and my eyes, I took that as gentrifying a community instead of sharing it. I do believe that neighborhoods do need to have more development; however, it’s the rate that it’s going that is detrimental to the society, and I feel like people don’t understand that THAT is one of the leading problems with gentrification.
ReplyDeleteI think that this article was very effective at examining the identity of Los Angeles. As Los Angeles is such a diverse and cultured city, it can be difficult to assign a certain identity or label for it. The article suggests that looking deep into the history of Los Angeles a new perspective of the city forms. In modern day, this deep history is now being rediscovered and the city is no longer expanding itself but building upon what has already been built. In our class we have discussed the innate stereotypes of Los Angeles. Instead of examining the multiple stereotypes and perspectives that we have engaged with in class, the article sees the city either "through the “sunshine” lens of boosterish enthusiasm or the “noir” lens of pessimism and dystopia.” I thought this was a very unique way of looking at the city. When examining neighborhoods, gentrification is discussed as "a larger sense that the pace of change has become so quick in Los Angeles that it is beginning to make crucial cultural, ethnic and neighborhood distinctions less relevant -- flattening and maybe even homogenizing a famously eclectic and diverse city.” This has often been discussed in our class and I think that examining the history of neighborhoods can offer a unique perspective to how they are changing now.
ReplyDeleteWhat I noticed in reading about the "Third Los Angeles" is that the future of our city is one that is fueled by consumerism, money and building, and all of these different factors have helped shape what modern Los Angeles looks like. A interesting factor that I did not really explore about the expansion of LA is that as the city gets more pricey and exclusive, people in the earlier years of the city would just build outwards. However because the city has grown so much these people can no longer move outwards, but rather have to find themselves living somewhere else. I think this development of no longer being able to move out has caused the city to begin building up. I was driving back from LAX because of the ridiculous traffic, we had to take the streets of downtown to get back to Pasadena. In driving through downtown I noticed the tremendous amount of apartment complexes that have been built. All of these complexes also promoted expensive living and the entire neighborhood I believe has been shaped by these rich apartment complexes. The Third LA at least in downtown looks extremely gentrified and wealthy. As well the talk of money and how much is brought into the city due to people working in the technological field is another interesting thing I learned in reading about the "Third Los Angeles".
ReplyDelete