West LA, East LA and Term Limitations

Are there term limitations on stereotypes? Just a thought. "Republican," "Liberal," and "Conservative" used to mean entirely different things than they do today. I'm wondering about the duration of semantics. I'm wondering about the limitation of the symbolism of spatial relations, in relation to gentrification. I think about that in regard not only to immigration but also in relation to reputation. For example, and bear with me please unless this concept is entirely too boring, in which case shut the window because I won't know and I don't care - this is cathartic to me anyway - West Los Angeles has a completely different vibe and reputation than East Los Angeles. And as many others have written, the dividing line between the two can be arbitrary and laughably so. Is it Fairfax? Koreatown's foreign signage? The sounds of Armenians fighting and making love at dawn? To me "East LA" signifies crime, rampant crime, and rap videos. And good tacos. But herein I'm talking about the HIP East LA, where I live, choose to live, choose to drink and play and absorb graffiti and see people and walk around and have stupid mutt dogs (literal ones and men) bark at me. I'm not talking about the municipality. I'm talking, where, as you drive east, Santa Monica Boulevard becomes sketchy, Sunset becomes tolerable again, and Beverly becomes downright "where's my Kevlar." West Hollywood is another story altogether. But I think it's illustrative. For my Limeño audience - or just those of you who've not been here in a long time or never - WeHo is the gay district (there are a few) of Los Angeles. But you know what? It's illustrative because it wasn't always and it won't always be. and not just because of the politics of being out. I mean the geography of reputation. I've not thought this through and I need to reread my Richard Sennett before I blab, but no I don't, because unlike in Peru I can say what I want without getting deported. Filipinotown isn't Filipino anymore. In Lima, wealthy San Isidro butts up against some poor-ass 'hoods, which renders it partitioned into "San Isidro" and San Isidro, a claim for which I only have observational and experiential evidence, which since I'm an anthropologist feels as valid as weighing shit on scales. I've been deemed worthy of making such observations. So back to the question: semiotics representation place duration of stereotypes. Boundaries change. What's hip now won't be hip later and what's snobby and elitist, well, that probably still will be unless new money moves to the other hills (but BevHills is quite the anomaly, in all the world, barring maybe Luxembourg and that other little baby country with the casinos). I dunno. Mapping reputation seems so easy in my mind. Would it overlap with yours? I don't think so. Because like Sennett, I wouldn't gauge class by income alone; in fact, I don't even think I'd use class as a classification because I think it's a sort of diaphanous strata and I'd rather use symbolism for my map. Symbolism and oil pastels. I miss oil pastels, but also they smudge.