The city of commuters isn’t wedded to suburbs
Re “Hip loftsters will stay lonely, for suburbs still seduce,” Current, Aug. 14
Joel Kotkin seems to be arguing -- as he has for years -- that because Los Angeles has long been a city of suburbs, that it must always remain so. The throngs of people moving downtown obviously feel that analysis is quite wrong. And here’s why:
* Younger generations are not interested in the commutes that sapped the life out of their parents.
* Singles and young couples want proximity to jobs, art and entertainment that can’t be found in Kotkin’s beloved suburbs.
* Empty-nesters are glad to be dumping the weekend gardening chores along with the commute.
CAROL E. SCHATZ
President & CEO
Central City Assn.
Kotkin, who by my count has written four columns in the last year questioning the resurgence in downtown Los Angeles, cannot seem to understand why anyone would want to live there. Proximity to jobs and the region’s transportation network, a sense of excitement and the fact that small single-family homes in many of the areas cited by Kotkin cost close to or greater than $1 million are some reasons.
Similar growth in the suburbs need not occur at the expense of growth in downtown neighborhoods, as might have been the case 40 years ago. Kotkin is entitled to his opinion, but readers of The Times would be better served by a more accurate view of what is really going on in the region.
WILLIAM A. WITTE
President, The Related
Companies of California