LaLiLuLeLo wrote: bruinfan10 wrote: zot1 wrote: LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
bruinfan10 wrote:i find these comments about hobo pee/crappy streets/no parking amusing given that the alternative is san freaking francisco. there's an app for SF that maps homeless poo for you in every neighborhood. jfc.
The alternative is working but not living in DTLA.
I hear you, but I'm not sure someone who likes "city living" is going to love Pasadena or Culver City, and OP should know that commuting in Los Angeles presents a unique set of challenges. That said, I 100% plan to move to South Pasadena as soon as humanly possible, and I agree that DTLA is overpriced for what you get. It's just a lot better value than SF is.
TBH if someone loves "city living" I think DTLA will disappoint. It's gotten better (Whole Foods lol) but still a far cry from being like other "cool" areas in major cities across the country.
I dunno, my view may be warped. It's not Manhattan, Chicago, Seattle, or Portland, but it's arguably more vibrant than the downtown-type areas of Minneapolis, Louisville, St. Louis, Sacramento, St. Paul, the hip/gentrified areas of Detroit, and might even give Denver (which similarly suffers from ridic sprawl), Dallas, and Oakland a run for their money.
That's about my universe of cities where I've lived/worked with any frequency, so again, my view may be warped. DTLA gives me the vibe of living in a decent smallish city---plenty of gentrification on display in the Arts District, near the Whole Foods development, etc, if that's what you're into---or there are really cool small cultural pockets (Little Tokyo and Chinatown here can both be awesome), but that's a super personal/idiosyncratic judgment.