Comments on: Yuppies Try, Fail, to Save Their Vision of Eagle Rock. Tears.

By: lucindamichele

lucindamichele — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:38:48 +0000

Finally got a chance to read the whole story, and while yes yes I see the whole point, I am most amused that the writer quoted one of my friends, Apryl Lundsten, in regards to her changing lifestyle.

By: Travis Koplow

Travis Koplow — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:06:58 +0000

This line says it all for me:

“…and a neglected 1940s diner could become a retro spot for a quick meal”

sigh.

By: evan

evan — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:23:47 +0000

“I actually do think of the newer breed (as in, moved there in the last eight years or so) Eagle Rockers are yuppies and aging hipsters. They may not fit all the old classic definitions of “yuppie” created in the 80s but it’s a different time now, and they slot just fine into that niche.”

I typically disagree with everything he writes, but David Brooks nailed it, I think, in coining the term “bobos”–for bourgeois bohemians. People with money who don’t necessarily buy a BMW or a Mercedes, but a Prius instead, very socially conscious, liberal, environmentalist, and not really interested in flaunting their wealth like yuppies (the Curbed LA post on this NYT article used “Bourgeois Bohemian” in the title).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_bohemian

By: chimatli

chimatli — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:04:13 +0000

There is definitely a culture gap in Eagle Rock between the long-time middle class residents and the influx of yuppies from around the city. One common complaint I heard from friends was that the restaurants got really loud. I don’t know what it is about hipster/yuppies/whatever but some of them like to hear themselves speak and talk in really loud voices while they eat! It’s very annoying.

By: lucindamichele

lucindamichele — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:31:38 +0000

I actually do think of the newer breed (as in, moved there in the last eight years or so) Eagle Rockers are yuppies and aging hipsters. They may not fit all the old classic definitions of “yuppie” created in the 80s but it’s a different time now, and they slot just fine into that niche. I think a lot of people had high hopes for ER to change into some hipster paradise, but it’s just not built for that, it’s just not ZONED for that.

And as for this question…: “ Can someone point to a neighborhood in LA where the economic benefits of gentrification did not result in mass displacement, where there is a fine balance of revitalization and conservation, and where both old and new residents appreciate the benefits of the other’s contributions?

…I can’t think of a damned one either. :(

By: twistfunk

twistfunk — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:44:31 +0000

On a related note, I walked into the Gold Room in Echo Park on Tuesday night, and heard a huge group of people singing ‘Don’t Stop Believing’ by Journey.

By: alpl

alpl — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:38:27 +0000

Rents are dropping here, too. Previously owner-occupied units are being added to the rental supply and people are taking in extra roommates and moving in with family.

One of the things that makes California different in terms of the process of gentrification is the property tax laws. In the rest of the country gentrification actively pushes out long time residents as increasing property values drive up their tax obligations making it difficult for them to afford to keep living in their long-time homes*. Since property taxes can only rise very slowly in California, instead of people being pushed out they stay in newly mixed neighborhoods longer with turn-over coming instead through attrition and cashing out.

*Though when they move, they also sell for a hefty profit and get to buy a nicer place in their new neighborhood.

By: Matt Mason

Matt Mason — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:14:15 +0000

Screenwriters are considered “yuppies”? I always thought they had enough creative cred to take them out of that realm. Perhaps in Los Angeles they are simply considered corporate fodder and thus qualify as yuppies.

As far as rental economics, it may be that fewer home purchases would lead to an increase in demand for apartment rentals, and thus an increase in prices, assuming that the number of people living in the area isn’t declining. However, I have a feeling that more would-be renters are going lo-rent rather than luxe. This might mean having roommates, going for smaller, cheaper places, etc., which would tend to offset increases in average rental prices brought on by increased overall demand. Just a guess.

By: evan

evan — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:21:35 +0000

Not too sure. I’ll be the first to admit that my grasp on economics is shaky, but it seems to me that a decline in the housing market would/could easily lead to an increased demand in rentals, driving rents higher. But I’ve also read a lot of things talking about a decline in rentals across the country.

By: tique

tique — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:14:19 +0000

“For long-time residents, the return to pre-boom rents may be a blessing.”

From what I understood, some cities are having dropping rents, but in L.A. just the opposite was happening. Rents are going up and there are less rentals open. Is this accurate? I’ve seen conflicting stories on this.