Hollywood Projects

[LAMetroGuy]

Originally Posted by WesTheAngelino

You make me want to vomit.

Real mature!

[WesTheAngelino]

Originally Posted by LAMetroGuy

Real mature!

And your assumptions about the working class and your imperialistic view of 'desirable areas' is just as mature, yes.

So, I suppose everything should be left in control of the elite right? Decades ago Hollywood was left to rot and become one of the worst neighborhoods in L.A. Now that a lot of investment, both public and private has come into the area, all of sudden everyone is supposed to pack their bags for Pomona or some other aging 'burb and make way for the yuppies. Do you not understand the problems with what you are saying?

[LAMetroGuy]

edit

[yakumoto]

Hooray for LA, where the harder you work the more money you have!

Those people who work 12 hour days in the factories downtown, they're the ones filling up beverly hills!

[citywatch]

Boom has a good series of shots of LA in the photo forum, inc this one that shows a bldg that's been like a big zit on the face of Hollywood Blvd for way too long. It's the 3 story bldg directly next to or west of the El Capitan theater, & straight across from Hollywood/Highland, whose upper windows have been covered in plywood for several yrs. What the hell is that all about??!

But notice how the owner at least has allowed an advertising company to install a huge steel contraption above the roof of his bldg to prop up a large billboard.




As for arguments about whether devlprs should or shouldn't provide low cost apt or condo units in LA, all I know is it wasn't too many yrs ago that almost nothing was being built in DTLA or Hollywood because profit margins weren't considered high enough by funders or investors.

There was a major devlpr who was given rights to build 1 or 2 highrise apt bldgs on the site south of Disney Hall over 13 yrs ago who never went forward with his proj.

The devlpr of the Hanover apt bldg going up at Olympic & Fig said that changing economics, or the soaring cost of construction, that's occured during just the past several months mean his proj wouldn't even pencil out today. That's in spite of his also saying the Hanover would need to charge some of the highest psf rental rates in the hood.

[DJM19]

Yeah, thats not a bad building, it just needs a better owner. They need to do something with the upper two floors and get rid of that bilboard. Or at least position it better, looks pretty far back on the roof

[LAMetroGuy]

That building would make great lofts... you would first row views of the Academy Awards and other movie premiers at the Chinese Theater, El Capitan Theater and Kodak Theater!

[citywatch]

^ The owner of that bldg must be a lazy slob to not want to take advantage of such opportunities. Regardless, would it have killed him to at least paint the plywood that's been covering those windows for several yrs?

BTW, regarding the economics of housing, low cost or otherwise, I didn't even mention that the devlpr of the proposed Medallion at 4th & Main recently cancelled plans for his apt bldgs because the rising cost of construction (& possibly other $$ related issues) has made them no longer feasible. He's supposedly trying to come up with an alternative design that involves smaller wood framed structures, which are cheaper to build. But even though his proj would be aimed at ppl with somewhat good incomes, he's still been forced to find a cheapter alternative.

I'm sure he figured even ppl with $$ would resist paying the kind of rates he'd have to charge to cover soaring costs of building, & didn't want to get stuck with a lot of empty apts. Therefore, imagine what he or other devlprs would be dealing with if they wanted their apts to be leased to lower income ppl.

[WesTheAngelino]

LAMetroguy:

I wish you wouldn't be so cowardly as to remove your last post. Did you read it again and realize how immature, snobbish, and just plain foolish it made you sound? probably.

To answer the question you posed to me in that now deleted post (it was something along the lines of "Let me guess? You're planning on one day getting to live in a desirable area by getting the govt. to help you out?!")

The answer is absolutely not. I don't count on anyone, whether it be my parents or the govt. etc, to help me out. Like you, I come from a poor family and am college educated. UNLIKE you I realize my life didn't have to be this way. All my personal struggles and individual efforts would have been pretty meaningless had I not had good people (parents, relatives, friends, and especially teachers) helping me every step of the way. Not everyone is that lucky, my friend. And even though I graduated from a great school and am doing what I love (political organizing) I will likely never make the kind of money to live in something like the W. But of course I wouldn't want to live there anyways, just in the neighborhood. But do I think that the developers should make way for me? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Let me make this very clear: I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, that affordable housing should be in the hands of or the responsibility of the developers themselves. Why? BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE. As Citywatch pointed out, developers are having a hard enough time making their projects pencil out w/o some kind of inclusionary zoning. Therefore, I beleive putting a tax on them (directly or indirectly) to build affordable housing is just a bad idea. It needs to be a subsidy, not a tax. And hopefully at the federal level, not the city level. Very complicated, I know, but the way municipalities are set up, I really don't see a city getting real about inclusionary zoning without getting screwed in terms of losing economic development.

And to answer your previous question: No, what you described is not how affordable housing works. In my ideal world this is how it would work: A developer gets a subsidy from the govt. to include a certain number of affordable units in their development. The people who live there would not be living rent free---they would simply be paying what they can afford, which can be calculated I'm sure just as college tuition financial aid is. The idea behind this is to break down the ghettoization of the poor. When you put a ton of poor people together in one concentrated environment, generally what occurs is a vicious cycle where people trying to get ahead are continually screwed.

So, let me ask you this: did you see some of the news coverage from France on the suburban riots? I hope you understand that our cities are headed in that very direction if we don't do something about it.

[LAMetroGuy]

I hope your last post makes you feel more fulfilled and satisfied. For the record, I removed my post because I felt that it was off topic and not worth it becasue...



I think you won hands down!

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by WesTheAngelino

So, let me ask you this: did you see some of the news coverage from France on the suburban riots? I hope you understand that our cities are headed in that very direction if we don't do something about it.

It's interesting that you mention France, because that country is governmentally closer to your line of thought, where taxes & policies have been ramped up for yrs to provide a big safety net, or to cater to ppl's every whim (employers are required to give workers a lot of paid vacation time per yr).



In France, a quarter of the population lives in government-subsidised housing complexes, known as HLM (habitation à loyer modéré).

France, a country of about 60 million people, spends 1.9 percent of its gross domestic product on subsidized housing, among the highest percentages in the European Union, and the quality of the country's four million social housing units is considered high.

[BrandonJXN]

Anyone know what the Sunset and Vine tower will look like after conversion?

[RBR]

Originally Posted by WesTheAngelino

LAMetroguy:

I wish you wouldn't be so cowardly as to remove your last post. Did you read it again and realize how immature, snobbish, and just plain foolish it made you sound? probably.

To answer the question you posed to me in that now deleted post (it was something along the lines of "Let me guess? You're planning on one day getting to live in a desirable area by getting the govt. to help you out?!")

The answer is absolutely not. I don't count on anyone, whether it be my parents or the govt. etc, to help me out. Like you, I come from a poor family and am college educated. UNLIKE you I realize my life didn't have to be this way. All my personal struggles and individual efforts would have been pretty meaningless had I not had good people (parents, relatives, friends, and especially teachers) helping me every step of the way. Not everyone is that lucky, my friend. And even though I graduated from a great school and am doing what I love (political organizing) I will likely never make the kind of money to live in something like the W. But of course I wouldn't want to live there anyways, just in the neighborhood. But do I think that the developers should make way for me? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Let me make this very clear: I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, that affordable housing should be in the hands of or the responsibility of the developers themselves. Why? BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE. As Citywatch pointed out, developers are having a hard enough time making their projects pencil out w/o some kind of inclusionary zoning. Therefore, I beleive putting a tax on them (directly or indirectly) to build affordable housing is just a bad idea. It needs to be a subsidy, not a tax. And hopefully at the federal level, not the city level. Very complicated, I know, but the way municipalities are set up, I really don't see a city getting real about inclusionary zoning without getting screwed in terms of losing economic development.

And to answer your previous question: No, what you described is not how affordable housing works. In my ideal world this is how it would work: A developer gets a subsidy from the govt. to include a certain number of affordable units in their development. The people who live there would not be living rent free---they would simply be paying what they can afford, which can be calculated I'm sure just as college tuition financial aid is. The idea behind this is to break down the ghettoization of the poor. When you put a ton of poor people together in one concentrated environment, generally what occurs is a vicious cycle where people trying to get ahead are continually screwed.

So, let me ask you this: did you see some of the news coverage from France on the suburban riots? I hope you understand that our cities are headed in that very direction if we don't do something about it.

I know this is off topic but I'll just add my 2 cents quick. Developers should have the choice of doing whatever they want with their land period. The poor belong with the poor and I don't think people that earned their way up would want someone poor living in the same building as them. The poor just has to try and get along and work their way up, they should understand how lucky they are to be born in this country of opportunity. Mixing rich and poor not a good idea... I think low income housing developments should be built in low income neighborhoods to deal with the problem of low income housing.

[yakumoto]

Originally Posted by RBR

I know this is off topic but I'll just add my 2 cents quick. Developers should have the choice of doing whatever they want with their land period. The poor belong with the poor and I don't think people that earned their way up would want someone poor living in the same building as them. The poor just has to try and get along and work their way up, they should understand how lucky they are to be born in this country of opportunity. Mixing rich and poor not a good idea... I think low income housing developments should be built in low income neighborhoods to deal with the problem of low income housing.

My 2 cents "quick"...

you're a 'tard.

[WesTheAngelino]

Originally Posted by citywatch

[/b]It's interesting that you mention France, because that country is governmentally closer to your line of thought, where taxes & policies have been ramped up for yrs to provide a big safety net, or to cater to ppl's every whim (employers are required to give workers a lot of paid vacation time per yr).



In France, a quarter of the population lives in government-subsidised housing complexes, known as HLM (habitation à loyer modéré).

France, a country of about 60 million people, spends 1.9 percent of its gross domestic product on subsidized housing, among the highest percentages in the European Union, and the quality of the country's four million social housing units is considered high.

You obviously didn't read my post. If you did, you'd have noticed that I didn't advocate new taxes, in fact I advocated subsidies for developers......and while on the subject of subsidies, people like LAMetroguy get up in arms when anything is given to the poor, yet don't seem to bat an eye at corporate welfare or the billions given in subsidies and tax loopholes given to corporate interests. LA Live ring a bell? Don't get me wrong, I am all for LA Live, but don't go blowing the horn of capitalism when there are plenty of projects out there feeding at the govt. trough. Also, I really don't understand why I always get labeled a socialist on this forum when I suggest that perhaps the poor need a better shake at housing. I am absolutely not a socialist and if you read my posts on some of the other parts of the forum I actually have a rep as a homeless hating, pro-Wal Mart, anti-union capitalist.

As for France: I was referencing it as am example of the kinds of trends we are seeing in US cities taken to their ultimate extrememes, i.e. the well-off living fabulous lives in the inner core served by every concievable public and private ammenity and the lower class of mostly immigrants forced out into underserved, completely ghettoized burbs.

LAmetroguy: The post you deleted was full of ad hominems and assumptions, mine was actually an articulated argument. Sorry you're incabable of doing the same and simply back down with a funny pic.

[RBR]

Originally Posted by yakumoto

My 2 cents "quick"...

you're a 'tard.

good your a bitch who the hell cares?

[yakumoto]

Originally Posted by RBR

good your a bitch who the hell cares?

Well, the joke here is that my response was as well thought out as yours.

[RBR]

Originally Posted by yakumoto

Well, the joke here is that my response was as well thought out as yours.

Thats your "losers" opinion.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Lets not ruin the thread, Ya?

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by RBR

I know this is off topic but I'll just add my 2 cents quick. Developers should have the choice of doing whatever they want with their land period. The poor belong with the poor and I don't think people that earned their way up would want someone poor living in the same building as them. The poor just has to try and get along and work their way up, they should understand how lucky they are to be born in this country of opportunity. Mixing rich and poor not a good idea... I think low income housing developments should be built in low income neighborhoods to deal with the problem of low income housing.

I've heard of people leaving their minds in the 60's but wow. Did you pick up your dumbassery in life or was it passed on from generation to generation?