Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you put that in, Click on "New Community Plans" on the left column, then click on Hollywood, and then "Latest Plan Update" and it will have all the PDFs there to check out.
The increased density would occur for the most part along the Red Line's path. There is also some planning for increased density along Sunset Blvd (which has some real eye-sores) and down the Vine St. Corridor. I believe that development will also be encouraged along the 101, which would eventually (in the eyes of those that wrote this plan) have a large park capping the below grade sections from Gower to Santa Monica Blvd.
I do know the specifics, have read the plan a few times.
Those that call it the Manhattanization of Hollywood are frankly, idiots. Having discussed it with some of them in the past, most have not read the plan and cannot cite specific examples of where exactly in the plan it allows for unlimited heights throughout Hollywood. That's because it doesn't.
If anything the plan seeks to preserve the character of historic lower-density neighborhoods while increasing density (read: 6-10 story mid-rises that are typical of the area - such as the intersection of Hollywood and Vine). There are significantly more height decreases than height increases. The Hollywood Heritage Society, one of the most dedicated preservationist groups in the city, issued a critique of the plan that mostly dealt with it not being specific enough in its preservation efforts. Not a single mention of over-densificiation or Manhattanization.
The funny thing is, if you actually read the plan, it mainly focuses on improving the streetwall, doing away with strip-style development, encouraging pedestrian and cyclist-friendly development on the street and sidewalks, increasing park land (specifically the Hollywood Freeway Cap Park) and other intelligent planning. But of course all these opposition groups can latch onto is the fear that 2-3 more highrises will be built in Hollywood.
The opposition is a tiny minority of the neighborhood. They have a booth set up at the farmer's market on Sunday and it's a ghost town. Its mostly Hills residents worried about how the increased driving will hinder their ability to drive around and potential blocked views.
This says that Hollywood's number of people living there is decreasing every year from 1990 to 2010, so there is no reason to increase density or build highrises there when the population is already dropping.
This says that Hollywood's number of people living there is decreasing every year from 1990 to 2010, so there is no reason to increase density or build highrises there when the population is already dropping.
Possibly from gentrification and a decrease in either families or overcrowding. You can have a population decrease and high demand for new housing in these conditions.
Possibly from gentrification and a decrease in either families or overcrowding. You can have a population decrease and high demand for new housing in these conditions.
Yep that's exactly why. The plan won't really change the character of the neighborhood, just streamline the process to build the kinds of developments currently going up every day in Hollywood. Developments like this: http://m.la.curbed.com/archives/2012...aks_ground.php - not really anything about it screams "Manhattanization".
Oh the 55 story skyscraper that gets mentioned? Already allowed under the current plan. The (weak and brief) evidence in that link is a scare tactic by folks who have obviously never really read the plan or have very limited understanding of what it really says.
Last edited by munchitup; 06-02-2012 at 12:14 PM..
Possibly from gentrification and a decrease in either families or overcrowding. You can have a population decrease and high demand for new housing in these conditions.
Our block decreased dramatically in density while we were living there, and was, I think, fairly representative of the area as a whole; developers razed an apartment building across the way, booted all the residents out (including long-time rent-controlled residents, likely with higher numbers of people per unit) and then never got around to building anything new on the site. We were there in the mid-2000s (and yes, it is a very dense neighborhood, at least the Yucca Corridor portion of Hollywood is quite packed) and could see it changing during that time. It had already become much safer, rents were going up as old residents moved out, and I assume the number of families (or just roommates packed into one room) was going down. They never did build their proposed upscale building -- not sure if they have built something now -- but the proposed number of new residents on that footprint was much smaller than the building it replaced; it was taller in height, but was to have bigger units aimed at wealthy singles and couples. Haven't been there recently, but now it's gentrified even more, and I can definitely imagine that central Hollywood would be a classic case of population decrease coupled with high demand for new housing. The existing housing was mostly a blend of beautiful vintage buildings (not to everyone's tastes, and ours, while wonderful, wouldn't allow A/C, which would be a deal-breaker for many) and "newer" (but not modern) more dumpy places that probably don't appeal to those looking for the central Hollywood location, but who don't want to sacrifice apartment style or amenities for location.
We loved Hollywood, for what it's worth. A bit gritty, but very urban, vibrant streets (although a bit TOO vibrant at 2 am sometimes...), full of weirdos, which kept things interesting. Very walkable and with great public transportation, too. My big pet peeve is reading about the "Manhattanization" like it used to be some low-density suburb or something. On the other hand, it IS being "Manhattanized" in the sense that it is becoming increasingly gentrified and a lot more sanitized. (and FWIW, my other big Hollywood pet peeve: the constant articles that suggest that all the residents there drive, and that getting them to take public transportation will be a big change. When we lived there I think most people in the neighborhood did not own cars, and I think the "everyone drives" thing was more about the Hollywood Hills -- where the rich people lived -- then the "flatlands" part of Hollywood where parking spots came at a premium, bus and subway service was good, and the residents a lot more diverse socioeconomically.)
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 06-04-2012 at 01:10 AM..
Our block decreased dramatically in density while we were living there, and was, I think, fairly representative of the area as a whole; developers razed an apartment building across the way, booted all the residents out (including long-time rent-controlled residents, likely with higher numbers of people per unit) and then never got around to building anything new on the site. We were there in the mid-2000s (and yes, it is a very dense neighborhood, at least the Yucca Corridor portion of Hollywood is quite packed) and could see it changing during that time. It had already become much safer, rents were going up as old residents moved out, and I assume the number of families (or just roommates packed into one room) was going down. They never did build their proposed upscale building -- not sure if they have built something now -- but the proposed number of new residents on that footprint was much smaller than the building it replaced; it was taller in height, but was to have bigger units aimed at wealthy singles and couples. Haven't been there recently, but now it's gentrified even more, and I can definitely imagine that central Hollywood would be a classic case of population decrease coupled with high demand for new housing. The existing housing was mostly a blend of beautiful vintage buildings (not to everyone's tastes, and ours, while wonderful, wouldn't allow A/C, which would be a deal-breaker for many) and "newer" (but not modern) more dumpy places that probably don't appeal to those looking for the central Hollywood location, but who don't want to sacrifice apartment style or amenities for location.
We loved Hollywood, for what it's worth. A bit gritty, but very urban, vibrant streets (although a bit TOO vibrant at 2 am sometimes...), full of weirdos, which kept things interesting. Very walkable and with great public transportation, too. My big pet peeve is reading about the "Manhattanization" like it used to be some low-density suburb or something. On the other hand, it IS being "Manhattanized" in the sense that it is becoming increasingly gentrified and a lot more sanitized. (and FWIW, my other big Hollywood pet peeve: the constant articles that suggest that all the residents there drive, and that getting them to take public transportation will be a big change. When we lived there I think most people in the neighborhood did not own cars, and I think the "everyone drives" thing was more about the Hollywood Hills -- where the rich people lived -- then the "flatlands" part of Hollywood where parking spots came at a premium, bus and subway service was good, and the residents a lot more diverse socioeconomically.)
Thanks for your input, it's always interesting to hear your take.
FYI, if the empty lot you are talking about is Yucca/Whitley, it's under construction right now.
Thanks for your input, it's always interesting to hear your take.
FYI, if the empty lot you are talking about is Yucca/Whitley, it's under construction right now.
Yes, that's it.About time! Only took them, what, six years? We'll have to start planning a trip back soon! It was certainly depressing to see the existing building ripped down (it sat empty and attracted squatters for some time as well) and then was a big overgrown lot, so I'll be curious to see the final result.
We were there for a couple of years in the mid-2000s, and that stretch (between Hollywood and Franklin) changed quite a bit even in that short time (and I know it was much different than if we'd arrived even a few years before that).
I miss Hollywood! It still remains one of my favorite places we've ever lived. I hope the gentrification doesn't suck all the eccentricity out of the place, although overall I have no problem with them adding far more density (especially if it means filling in some of the surface parking lots).
Yes, that's it.About time! Only took them, what, six years? We'll have to start planning a trip back soon! It was certainly depressing to see the existing building ripped down (it sat empty and attracted squatters for some time as well) and then was a big overgrown lot, so I'll be curious to see the final result.
We were there for a couple of years in the mid-2000s, and that stretch (between Hollywood and Franklin) changed quite a bit even in that short time (and I know it was much different than if we'd arrived even a few years before that).
I miss Hollywood! It still remains one of my favorite places we've ever lived. I hope the gentrification doesn't suck all the eccentricity out of the place, although overall I have no problem with them adding far more density (especially if it means filling in some of the surface parking lots).
I think the new building will be a good addition to the neighborhood, definitely better than an empty lot and hopefully having some residents on that stretch will help clean it up - that corner gets tons of trash.
Too bad they haven't been able to build something on that lot at Yucca / Las Palmas, I'm not sure if it was a concrete pit when you lived there - but it is basically a giant toilet/trash dump with concrete pillars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
