In the 1970s, Lynwood, CA, dreamed of a downtown mall anchored by Montgomery Ward. Decades later, the empty lots told a story of ambition, delay, and renewal.
In the early 1970s, Lynwood, California, dreamed big.
City leaders envisioned a new, modern downtown — a sprawling shopping and auto mall that would bring jobs, shoppers, and a sense of pride back to this small but growing city in the southeast corner of Los Angeles County. At the heart of the plan stood a gleaming new Montgomery Ward department store, which opened around 1973 and promised to anchor a larger commercial center that never fully came.
But for those of us who grew up in Lynwood during that time, the promise never quite materialized.
Instead, we remember acres of empty lots, chain-link fences, and faded “Coming Soon” signs that sat for decades — silent witnesses to a dream deferred.
The Vision That Stalled
In 1973, Lynwood’s Redevelopment Agency launched what it called Project Area A — an ambitious plan to clear and rebuild much of the city’s downtown core. Small businesses and homes were bought out, land was assembled, and the city floated bonds to support new construction.
For a brief moment, it looked as if the plan might work. Montgomery Ward opened its doors, serving as a retail beacon for the area. Yet the rest of the mall — the shops, restaurants, and auto dealerships — never came.
By the mid-1970s, much of downtown had been bulldozed, but little replaced it. And by the time Ward closed its Lynwood location in 1986, the vast lots surrounding it had become symbols of frustration and unfulfilled potential.
What Happened?
Some longtime residents whispered about corruption or backroom deals — the kind of speculation that grows when visible progress stalls.
But newspaper archives and redevelopment records tell a more complex story.
Lynwood’s plans collided with a series of hard realities:
The construction of the Century Freeway (I-105) disrupted neighborhoods and depressed land values. Environmental cleanup and ownership disputes slowed development. Economic shifts in retail — as malls in nearby Downey, South Gate, and Paramount attracted anchor stores — drained the local market. And later, political infighting among city officials made sustained redevelopment almost impossible.
Advertisement
To this day, there’s no public record of proven corruption directly tied to the 1970s mall plan. What did exist was a tangle of bureaucracy, economic change, and missed opportunity — a perfect storm that left Lynwood’s heart half-built and half-forgotten.
Growing Up Among the Vacant Lots
For those of us who were kids in Lynwood during that era, the story is more personal.
We remember the sight of the Montgomery Ward building — modern and hopeful at first, then shuttered and fading by the mid-1980s.
We remember riding bikes past the empty dirt fields that were supposed to become shopping plazas. And we remember the quiet frustration of adults who had believed the city’s promises.
Those empty blocks became our playgrounds — but they also became symbols of the gap between what Lynwood was and what it wanted to be.
A New Chapter: Plaza México and Beyond
By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the dream finally resurfaced in a new form.
Developers transformed the long-idle site into Plaza México, a vibrant commercial and cultural hub that celebrates Mexican and Latin American heritage.
It took nearly 30 years for Lynwood’s downtown to come alive again.
The result is beautiful — but it’s also bittersweet for those who remember how long the land sat empty, and how many local businesses and residents were displaced in pursuit of a dream that took a generation to fulfill.
Advertisement
Looking Back
The story of Lynwood’s lost mall isn’t just about urban planning.
It’s about hope, change, and resilience. It’s about how a community tried to reinvent itself — and how the children who grew up watching that effort still carry its memory.
Sometimes, when I drive through that stretch of Imperial Highway and Long Beach Boulevard, I still imagine what might have been: the bustling mall that never was, and the voices of a neighborhood caught between ambition and uncertainty.
📚 Further Reading
Montgomery Ward will close its Lynwood store. (Jan 3 1986) — Los Angeles Times.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Rod: A creative force, blending words, images, and flavors. Blogger, writer, filmmaker, and photographer. Cooking enthusiast with a sci-fi vision. Passionate about his upcoming series and dedicated to TNC Network. Partnered with Rebecca Washington for a shared journey of love and art.
PG&E Donates $1 Million to Local Food Banks to Help Feed Families
PG&E donates $1 million to local food banks across Northern and Central California—equivalent to about 3 million meals—supporting 38 food banks serving 47 counties.
Just in time for the holidays, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) announced a $1 million donation to local food banks across Northern and Central California—support aimed at meeting a surge in demand as more families and seniors struggle to put food on the table. According to PG&E, the contribution is expected to provide the equivalent of roughly 3 million meals and will support 38 food banks serving 47 counties within PG&E’s service territory.
A third major food-bank contribution since September
The $1 million gift marks the third food-bank-focused contribution since September from PG&E or The PG&E Corporation Foundation (the PG&E Foundation). Combined, those efforts bring PG&E’s total community food support in 2025 to $2.37 million. PG&E emphasized that the funding for these charitable contributions comes from PG&E shareholders—not customers.
Food banks facing record-breaking demand
Food banks across California are reporting pressure levels not seen since the pandemic. Officials with the California Association of Food Banks say demand has reached record highs, driven in part by an unexpected surge during the federal government shutdown this fall. “California food banks experienced an unexpected surge with the [federal government] shutdown this fall. So, we reached out for help on their behalf and PG&E responded,” said Stacia Levenfeld, Chief Executive Officer of the California Association of Food Banks. “Their $1 million gift to food banks throughout Northern and Central California will have a meaningful impact on the lives of millions of people this holiday season and help food banks continue their critical work in our communities.” PG&E leaders framed the donation as an extension of a longstanding partnership with food bank networks. “We are grateful to help local food banks fulfill their mission during this time of increasing demand, especially as more families and seniors are struggling through the holiday season,” said Carla Peterman, Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs, PG&E Corporation and Chair of The PG&E Corporation Foundation Board. “Our longstanding partnership with the California Association of Food Banks supports the safety net that is our local food banks.”
Where the 2025 food support has gone
PG&E outlined additional contributions made earlier in the year:
September: The PG&E Foundation awarded $1.12 million to support local food banks, tribal food banks, and senior meal programs.
November: The PG&E Foundation donated $250,000 to the California Association of Food Banks’ Emergency Response Fund.
Equity-focused grant distribution
The California Association of Food Banks notes that while California produces nearly half of the nation’s fruits and vegetables, more than one in five residents still don’t know where their next meal will come from. Food insecurity rates are even higher in many communities of color. PG&E said grant amounts awarded to local organizations will account for county poverty and unemployment levels, using a formula from the California Department of Social Services. The goal: promote equity by directing more support to counties with higher need.
About the PG&E Corporation Foundation and PG&E
The PG&E Corporation Foundation is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, separate from PG&E and sponsored by PG&E Corporation. PG&E is a combined natural gas and electric utility serving more than 16 million people across 70,000 square miles in Northern and Central California. More information is available at pge.com and pge.com/news.
Why this matters
As food banks brace for sustained demand beyond the holiday season, large-scale donations like PG&E’s can help stabilize local supply—especially when distributed with an equity lens that targets the counties facing the steepest economic pressures. For families, seniors, and individuals navigating rising costs, the impact is immediate: more meals available now, and stronger community support systems heading into the new year. Community links:
Population Density: How Los Angeles Compares to New York and Chicago
How dense are America’s biggest cities? A clear breakdown of population density in Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago—city limits vs metro areas—and why it matters.
Population Density: How Los Angeles Compares to New York and Chicago
When people think of crowded American cities, New York City usually comes to mind first. Los Angeles, by contrast, is often labeled as “sprawling,” while Chicago is seen as a middle ground. But population density tells a more nuanced story—especially when comparing city proper numbers versus metro-area density.
City Proper: How Dense Are the Cities Themselves?
Looking only at official city boundaries, the differences are stark:
New York City averages about 27,000–28,000 people per square mile, making it by far the most densely populated major city in the United States.
Chicago comes in at roughly 12,000 people per square mile, dense but far more spread out than New York.
Los Angeles, despite being the nation’s second-largest city by population, averages just 8,400–8,500 people per square mile.
This gap reflects development patterns. New York grew upward with dense apartment buildings and extensive transit. Los Angeles expanded outward with single-family neighborhoods and car-oriented planning.
Metro Areas Tell a Different Story
When the lens widens to include surrounding suburbs and commuter communities, the rankings shift:
Los Angeles Metro Area: ~7,000 people per square mile
New York Metro Area: ~5,300 people per square mile
Chicago Metro Area: ~3,500 people per square mile
This surprises many readers. While New York’s core is extremely dense, its metro region stretches across a vast, lower-density area spanning parts of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Los Angeles, on the other hand, has a metro region that is more consistently built-up, with fewer truly rural gaps.
Why Density Feels Different in Each City
Population density doesn’t always match perception:
New York feels crowded because density is concentrated vertically and transit funnels millions into compact areas.
Los Angeles feels congested not because of extreme density, but because people are spread out and heavily reliant on cars.
Chicago balances both, with dense neighborhoods near the core and more traditional suburban sprawl outward.
For cities like Los Angeles—now reinvesting in rail, buses, and transit-oriented development—understanding density is critical. As coverage on LA Metro and urban revival continues, these numbers explain why transit challenges in Southern California differ so sharply from those in New York or Chicago.
The Big Picture
Most dense city: New York City
Most dense metro area: Los Angeles
Most balanced: Chicago
Density isn’t just about how many people live in a place—it’s about how they live, move, and interact with the city around them.
Further Reading: Population Density & Urban Development
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
2025’s words of the year reflect a year of digital disillusionment
From “AI slop” to “rage bait” and “parasocial,” 2025’s words of the year reflect growing distrust in online life—where manipulation, misinformation, and fake relationships thrive.
2025’s words of the year reflect a year of digital disillusionment
Roger J. Kreuz, University of Memphis Which terms best represent 2025? Every year, editors for publications ranging from the Oxford English Dictionary to the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English select a “word of the year.” Sometimes these terms are thematically related, particularly in the wake of world-altering events. “Pandemic,” “lockdown” and “coronavirus,” for example, were among the words chosen in 2020. At other times, they are a potpourri of various cultural trends, as with 2022’s “goblin mode,” “permacrisis” and “gaslighting.” This year’s slate largely centers on digital life. But rather than reflecting the unbridled optimism about the internet of the early aughts – when words like “w00t,” “blog,” “tweet” and even “face with tears of joy” emoji (😂) were chosen – this year’s selections reflect a growing unease over how the internet has become a hotbed of artifice, manipulation and fake relationships.
When seeing isn’t believing
A committee representing the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English settled on “AI slop” for their word of the year. Macquarie defines the term, which was popularized in 2024 by British programmer Simon Willison and tech journalist Casey Newton, as “low-quality content created by generative AI, often containing errors, and not requested by the user.” AI slop – which can range from a saccharine image of a young girl clinging to her little dog to career advice on LinkedIn – often goes viral, as gullible social media users share these computer-generated videos, text and graphics with others. Images have been manipulated or altered since the dawn of photography. The technique was then improved, with an assist from AI, to create “deepfakes,” which allows existing images to be turned into video clips in surreal ways. Yes, you can now watch Hitler teaming up with Stalin to sing a 1970s hit by The Buggles. What makes AI slop different is that images or video can be created out of whole cloth by providing a chatbot with just a prompt – no matter how bizarre the request or ensuing output.
Meet my new friend, ChatGPT
The editors of the Cambridge Dictionary chose “parasocial.” They define this as “involving or relating to a connection that someone feels between themselves and a famous person they do not know, a character in a book, film, TV series … or an artificial intelligence.” These asymmetric relationships, according to the dictionary’s chief editor, are the result of “the public’s fascination with celebrities and their lifestyles,” and this interest “continues to reach new heights.” As an example, Cambridge’s announcement cited the engagement of singer Taylor Swift and football player Travis Kelce, which led to a spike in online searches for the meaning of the term. Many Swifties reacted with unbridled joy, as if their best friend or sibling had just decided to tie the knot. But the term isn’t a new one: It was coined by sociologists in 1956 to describe “the illusion” of having “a face-to-face relationship” with a performer. However, parasocial relationships can take a bizarre or even ominous turn when the object of one’s affections is a chatbot. People are developing true feelings for these AI systems, whether they see them as a trusted friend or even a romantic partner. Young people, in particular, are now turning to generative AI for therapy.
Taking the bait
The Oxford Dictionary’s word of the year is “rage bait,” which the editors define as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive, typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media content.” This is only the latest word for forms of emotional manipulation that have plagued the online world since the days of dial-up internet. Related terms include trolling, sealioning and trashposting. Unlike a hot take – a hasty opinion on a topic that may be poorly reasoned or articulated – rage baiting is intended to be inflammatory. And it can be seen as both a cause and a result of political polarization. People who post rage bait have been shown to lack empathy and to regard other people’s emotions as something to be exploited or even monetized. Rage baiters, in short, reflect the dark side of the attention economy.Rage baiters have little concern for the people whose emotions they exploit for attention or profit.yamonstro/iStock via Getty Images
Meaningless meaning
Perhaps the most contentious choice in 2025 was “6-7,” chosen by Dictionary.com. In this case, the controversy has to do with the actual meaning of this bit of Gen Alpha slang. The editors of the website describe it as being “meaningless, ubiquitous, and nonsensical.” Although its definition may be slippery, the term itself can be found in the lyrics of the rapper Skrilla, who released the single “Doot Doot (6 7)” in early 2025. It was popularized by 17-year-old basketball standout Taylen Kinney. For his part, Skrilla claimed that he “never put an actual meaning on it, and I still would not want to.” “6-7” is sometimes accompanied by a gesture, as if one were comparing the weight of objects held in both hands. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently performed this hand motion during a school visit. The young students were delighted. Their teacher, however, informed Starmer that her charges weren’t allowed to use it at the school, which prompted a clumsy apology from the chastened prime minister.
Throw your hands in the air?
The common element that these words share may be an attitude best described as digital nihilism. As online misinformation, AI-generated text and images, fake news and conspiracy theories abound, it’s increasingly difficult to know whom or what to believe or trust. Digital nihilism is, in essence, an acknowledgment of a lack of meaning and certainty in our online interactions. This year’s crop of words might best be summed up by a single emoji: the shrug (🤷). Throwing one’s hands up, in resignation or indifference, captures the anarchy that seems to characterize our digital lives.Roger J. Kreuz, Associate Dean and Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor, University of Memphis This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Roger J. Kreuz, Associate Dean and Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor, University of Memphis This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
