Hollywood Projects

[danparker276]

Everyone that I know that visits "Sunny California" are impressed with the palm trees.
People are used to seeing on tv on the streets of Beverly Hills. Almost every movie shows palm trees as part of a cut to show southern california.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by PracticalVisionary

Hell, Street trees ARE the basics!

Exactly. And when many streets in LA either have no trees or quite a few semi alive or dead ones---& when I was in the Little Tokyo area of DTLA several months ago, I noticed some of its trees along the sidewalk were missing or dead----spending time arguing over whether we should have palms or oaks, or maples or ficuses or whatever, is kind of like a person working on his job resume & complaining that he can't list a degree from Harvard or Stanford when he hasn't even gotten a high school diploma.

And I believe this photo was taken from the New Jersey side of the NY harbor area. No wonder ppl rag on Jersey.

[Wright Concept]

^ The decision between what tree it is makes a difference in terms of which ones are drought tolerant and provide shade yet low maintenance and won't die the minute you plant them.

[Art]

Originally Posted by LongBeachUrbanist

Palm trees make sense in certain areas. They need enough moisture, plus proper care, and they need to get replaced when they get old and die.

Too many places in So Cal are wrong for palm trees. Like up and down many of the hot boulevards in South L.A. They stand there for years, dead. A dead palm tree is not glamourous. Ask any local residents, I'm sure they'd prefer a nice oak tree to a dead, shadeless palm tree.

To me, Pasadena's Green Street (parallel to Colorado one block south) is a model for how streets can be used to make a street beautiful and comfortable. There is a variety of So-Cal trees along Green, including palms put also several other species like walnut.

Green street is a great example LBU, I have thought of that street as a model for the comfortability a canopy offers for years. We must be on the same page, as I have dreamed of being able to plant a nice shade tree sidewalk canopy on front lawn edges and the parkways on so many of those south and east LA neighborhoods where the sun just tortures pedestrians.

sadly, I worked inthe tree forest service in LA for several years and I get the impression that much of the city's rhetoric is just rhetoric. Our "Trees For a Green LA" program had bad attendance in south and east LA, and besides the obvious problem that they did not adequately advertise the program, we had told those who run the program in the DWP about other programs in low income areas that take a more proactive/aggressive position in providing free trees. Basically the idea is that in poorer neighborhoods people are more weary of free programs and many do not have the time or resources to plant trees on their property no matter how positive the results, so several programs in the pacific northwest would have a trained tree forester(like what I was trained for in the program) walk these low income communities and mark where and what people can place on their property. Then a community planting is planned and watering captains are assigned, and you focus on orienting the trees in such a hot place like LA to form a nice canopy over sidewalks. You basically take the work out of the equation in these areas or few trees get planted, it had proven successful and we showed the evidence and info to those coordinating the program from the. You know what they did(in true LA fashion)? Ignored us and continued to under advertise the program, then they cut our jobs without informing us in advanced(5 days before last Xmas) and cut the workshops from 15 to 3 a month. The kicker was that they then made their marketing department(who were responsible for the inept advertising) run the workshops instead of trained professionals who work in the fields.

I have talked until my face turned blue to Villaraigosa's people and not gotten any action on it. It really sad.

[Wright Concept]

That would be very nice for South and East LA. It would bring investment to the entire city without massive gentrification because it would be spread out rather than focused in one spot. Even the Valley would appreciate that.

[citywatch]

All I know is that, regardless of palm vs oak trees, because we've taken so long to really clean up & improve the city, a lot of ppl, inc many SSPers, don't seem to be placing LA too high on their popularity list.

BTW, I think LA is a more interesting place to visit, & has a better cultural scene, than San Diego, & yet does that town's reputation for being more attractive than we are, & having fewer dive hoods than we have, now really starting to crunch down on us?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-2360948,00.html

CRYSTAL RESENDEZ was working in the Virgin Megastore in New York’s Union Square on the morning of 9/11, and vividly remembers crowds of people fleeing the World Trade Center covered in ash.

Today Resendez, 30, is general manager of the store, next to Mann’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood Boulevard, one of the hottest tourist spots on America’s West Coast. “There’s no doubt we’re still suffering much more than New York from the drop-off in foreign visitors,” she said. “The Union Square store is beating its sales records, but we’re definitely not.”

Midwest accents seemed to dominate the throngs jostling around the freshly made hand and foot prints of actor Kevin Costner in the Chinese Theatre forecourt, but few of them were going into the Virgin store.

Last year 49m people visited America, 1.5m fewer than five years earlier. But these figures disguise a u-shaped trend in which visitor numbers slumped for two years after the attacks in 2001 but have been climbing again since 2003.

Ground Zero has proved a potent international magnet. New York expects an extra 500,000 international arrivals this year compared with 2005, when the 6.8m foreign visitors exactly matched the figure for 2000. But the West Coast, which has suffered no terrorist attacks, has had a drop in tourism. Last year Los Angeles had 2.5m foreign tourists, 1m fewer than in 2000.

[POLA]

^accoriding to that article you just posted, Los Angeles is the 11th most popular city in the country for people to want to live at and our state is number one. how is that bad?

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by POLA

^accoriding to that article you just posted, Los Angeles is the 11th most popular city in the country for people to want to live at and our state is number one. how is that bad?

Because as the 2nd largest city in the US, & one that gets lots of free publicity from the entertainment business, it should be doing a lot better. But it nonetheless ranks surprisingly low, even worse when you average the city's ratings from 1997 to 2006 & then compare it with the averages for San Diego, SF, Chicago or NYC.

And notice how most of the SSPers who've responded to that thread don't even bother to mention LA as being among their top picks. In comparison, a lot of them do list San Diego.

However, I'll admit that what ppl say in a survey & how they actually behave in real life may be 2 different things:



California Residents Decide Golden State is Tarnishing

Housing costs have become too rich for many, making this the most popular state to leave.

By Muhammed El-Hasan
DAILY BREEZE
September 17, 2006

Go west, young man.

Or maybe not.

The popular 19th-century adage urging Americans to move westward in search of new opportunities has been turned on its ear -- at least where California is concerned. The nation's most populous state, a traditional magnet for throngs of daring, ambitious people seeking everything from gold nuggets and great weather to good jobs and Hollywood glamour, now carries an unflattering designation. The Golden State is No. 1 in outward migration of residents to other states, according to the most recent figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

From July 1, 2004, to July 1, 2005, the net flow of residents from California to other states -- those moving to the state minus those leaving -- was negative 239,000 people. That's higher than any other state in the union. California even edged out former No. 1 New York by 7,000 people.

"You think of California as kind of a growing state. And overall, California did gain population," said Robert Bernstein, a Census Bureau spokesman. "But (it was) because a natural increase and immigration from abroad exceeded the loss to other states."

California has been losing residents to other states each year since the period of July 1, 1988, to July 1, 1989, when the outflow began as a trickle. As of last year, the state's outflow was at its highest point since the mid-1990s, when a severe recession and aerospace industry slump drove engineers and other professionals out of California in search of work. Back then, the departures peaked from July 1, 1993, to July 1, 1994, with a net outflow that surpassed 400,000 residents.

But instead of returning to California's historical trend of a positive net inflow of residents, the outflow has continued nonstop. And after a lull of a few years, the net departures again seem to be accelerating. For example, the period from July 1, 2000, to July 1, 2005, saw a net outflow of 664,000 people from California, an average of nearly 133,000 a year. That average is about half of the latest figure.

As a percentage of population, New York still has greater outward migration of residents to other states than does California.

"But that still begs the question: Why are nearly 240,000 people leaving (California)?" said Paul Ong, a demographics expert at the UCLA School of Public Affairs.

The current outflow comes at a time of relative economic strength and moderate job growth in the state. In contrast to the recession of the 1990s, this most recent outflow has been driven mostly by an economic boom. The housing boom has made buying a home or even renting much more expensive than just a few years ago. That has inspired many of the state's residents to eye cheaper homes in other states while giving pause to those considering a move to California.

"California is an extremely expensive place to live, particularly compared to some of the markets close by like Phoenix or Las Vegas, (where) you can get a lot more house for your money," said Steve Cochrane, senior managing director of Moody's Economy.com in Westchester, Pa.

In July, the median price for an existing, single-family detached home in California was $567,360, according to the Los Angeles-based California Association of Realtors. The figure for Torrance was $610,000. For California, Torrance and many other cities statewide, you would have to go back only five years to find prices at half their current value. This has made otherwise robust home appreciation in other parts of the nation look downright meager.

"Look at San Francisco and parts of Los Angeles," Ong said. "If you look at the last decade or so, the people who can afford to stay tend to be better educated and higher income. It's driving out working-class people with children. They're moving to the suburbs. Some of that must spill into moving to other states."

As a result, Los Angeles County saw a net outflow of 154,320 residents to other counties from July 1, 2004, to July 1, 2005, according to the Census Bureau. Ong added that even with the current slowdown in home appreciation, the damage already has been done since the prices have reached a "very high plateau."

California's high cost of living may help explain why about four in 10 Nissan employees followed their jobs out of state when the company's North American sales and marketing headquarters moved from Carson to Nashville over June and July.

So, where are Californians moving to? From 1995 to 2000, the most recent period with available statistics from the Census Bureau, the top destination state was Nevada. Arizona came in second, followed by Texas, Washington state, Oregon, Colorado and Florida. Each of these states had a positive net migration of residents into their borders, according to the latest census figures. Most are relatively close to California. And all are less expensive.

That's good news for Jason Braford, ZipRealty's Las Vegas district director. "We're seeing a continual influx of people from California," Braford said. "The lion's share are people coming in from California."

Home prices, lower taxes, shorter commutes and a burgeoning community in Las Vegas entice many Californians, Braford said. "In California, you can (sell) your $500,000 or $600,000 property, you can come here and usually you get something that's in the $300,000 to $400,000 range and gain in lot size," Braford said.

In addition, people moving from the East Coast and Midwest in search of a warmer climate usually first look either to Los Angeles or Las Vegas, Braford said. But often Las Vegas wins out because of California's higher cost of living, he said.

A survey conducted by UCLA demographers found that most Southern Californians still see this region as attractive. The top three positive elements cited were the weather, economic opportunity and cultural diversity, said Ong, who worked on the survey. "Transportation and traffic emerged as the least attractive aspect of Southern California," Ong said. Pollution, crime and public schools also were viewed as problems.

"We've reached the point where our amenities are being outweighed by some of the perceived costs -- air pollution, crowding, congestion and so forth," Ong said.

In addition to so-called "push" forces such as high home prices that make California seem less hospitable, a big "pull" comes from other states, Economy.com's Cochrane said. "The rate of growth of employment in California is OK, but it's not great. It's average at best," Cochrane said. "There are a lot more fast-growing areas (like) Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Washington state. And increasingly, Texas is back on its feet.

"So, for economic reasons, there's a pull from the surrounding region because of employment opportunities, and there's a bit of a push from California because of the expense of staying in California."

Despite California's net loss of residents to other states, in a seeming contradiction, the Golden State remained No. 1 in attracting foreign immigrants, drawing about one in every five entering the U.S., according to Office of Immigration Statistics figures for Oct. 1, 2004 to Sept. 30, 2005, the latest available. Indeed, California's 232,000 foreign newcomers in that period were nearly double that of the second top immigrant magnet, New York.

California's ethnic diversity is a big reason for the attraction despite the high cost of living, Cochrane said. "Migrants go where there's a place to live and where there's a support system," Cochrane said. "And certainly all of California, and L.A. in particular, provide that for migrants in many regions of the world."

Another reason for California's popularity with immigrants is the state's massive economy that offers vast job opportunities, Cochrane said. He added that coastal cities such as Los Angeles traditionally have served as points of entry for foreigners.

California's immigrant inflow plays an especially critical role, given the state's outflow of residents to other states, Cochrane said. Notably, the number of immigrants admitted to the state from Oct. 1, 2004, to Sept. 30, 2005, almost equaled the net loss of residents to other states from July 1, 2004, to July 1, 2005.

California's immigrant infusion appears to effectively nullify the population loss to other states, in terms of numbers.That reality bears heavily on the state's economy, Cochrane said. The pace of economic growth is based partly on the work force's rate of increase. A slow rise in the work force's size could stunt economic expansion by limiting the labor supply. "California depends so much on international migration, particularly to maintain positive (economic) growth," he said.



http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/livingcities/losangeles.htm

Los Angeles's population growth in the 1990s derived almost entirely from its significant immigration flow, which has made the city among the nation's most racially diverse. Over 40 percent of city residents were born outside the U.S., and Mexico, Central America, and East Asian countries all contribute heavily to the city's workforce. These inflows have made Los Angeles one of the nation's most youthful cities, and explain the large number of families with children who call the city home.

Unfortunately, the economic difficulties that plagued southern California for much of the 1990s seem to have further separated Los Angelenos by race and income. The City and County of Los Angeles lost a significant number of white residents over the decade. Median household income fell precipitously between 1990 and 2000, at a faster rate than in any other Living City. Annual household incomes for the city's blacks and Latinos trail those for whites by large margins, mirroring differences in educational attainment by race. Homeownership in Los Angeles, already low by large-city standards, declined overall in the 1990s.

International migrants continued to arrive in Los Angeles in the 1990s, but other groups left the city and region. Los Angeles added 180,000 new foreign-born residents over the decade, so that by 2000 immigrants accounted for over 40 percent of the city's population—the second-highest presence among the Living Cities. Mexico is by far the most common country of origin for the city's foreign-born, though populations from El Salvador and Guatemala each number over 100,000.

As immigrants grew in number and importance in the 1990s, however, other groups left the city. Most notably, the white population declined by 200,000 in the city, and by 460,000 in the remainder of the county. These population dynamics contributed to separation by race and ethnicity in the region. Los Angeles-Long Beach has the fourth-highest level of segregation between whites and Hispanics among the 100 largest cities in the U.S.

Educational attainment trends point to the emergence of "two economies" in Los Angeles. Just over one-fourth of Los Angeles adults possess a bachelor's degree, somewhat higher than the national average. However, the proportion that has graduated from high school fell slightly between 1990 and 2000—one of only a few cities in which this occurred. This trend reflects not only the scale of Latin American immigration to Los Angeles, but also the location—and relocation—of more educated workers in other parts of the region.

Education statistics by race and ethnicity further suggest that the city is dividing into "two economies" —a high-skill sector in which whites and Asians are disproportionately represented (over 40 percent hold college degrees), and a low-wage sector composed disproportionately of blacks and Latinos (17 percent and 6 percent, respectively, hold college degrees).

Los Angeles's overall economic profile worsened in the 1990s. The effects of economic recession and restructuring in southern California in the early to mid-1990s are revealed in Los Angeles's economic profile in Census 2000. Where manufacturing once played a pivotal role in the region's economic stability, that sector employs fewer than one in seven of the city's workers today. Meanwhile, only six in ten adults participate in the labor force, ranking Los Angeles 80th among the top 100 cities. Median household income in the city fell by nearly 12 percent over the decade, reflecting a drop in middle- and higher-income households and rapid growth in low-to-moderate-income households.

[POLA]

[Vangelist]

Citywatch, you need to chill out instead of parsing thru and analyzing all the minutiae of disparate rankings. The simple fact remains that Los Angeles is not going to be highly rated by the rest of the country until it effectively revolutionalizes its transportation system, and mass transit that is speedier and present in a more potent form than the bus system, is both highly available and highly publicized, with old tenants and newcomers alike testifying to their friends in other parts of the country that it's convenient. Maybe then the air quality will improve as well, but that would remain to be seen

If you add the downtown reviltaization to this fantasy, as well as perhaps Hollywood making a few better movies ("haha" - of course that has nothing to do with quality of life here, but for good or bad our reputations are inevitably linked), then perhaps the old rep could see a makeover; no amount of electrical wires being replanted underground is going to do the trick alone. The people from walkable cities want...walkability! More than pockets of pedestrian activity, but a metropolis full of it.

The damage has been done; until then, LA will always be seen as a hellhole of traffic by outsiders, which is something I've stopped worrying over: better for the people who actually live here and enjoy its pleasures and secrets. Our gain, their ignorance, especially when we ARE trying to rectify the problem (albeit very, very slowly).

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Vangelist

The simple fact remains that Los Angeles is not going to be highly rated by the rest of the country until it effectively revolutionalizes its transportation system....The people from walkable cities want...walkability! More than pockets of pedestrian activity, but a metropolis full of it.

The damage has been done; until then, LA will always be seen as a hellhole of traffic by outsiders, which is something I've stopped worrying over: better for the people who actually live here and enjoy its pleasures and secrets.

But is San Diego, which a lot more ppl give high marks to, so much more of a transit city than LA? And even though its DT has filled out nicely over the past several yrs, is SD really sooo much more of a walkable town than LA? Is SD really so much more ideal to a lot of SSPers, or at least to the ppl who've replied to this thread?

I wish lousy transit & jammed roads were the main reason many ppl rate LA way down on their list.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by POLA

uh, all the ppl at SSP who include SD, but not LA, as one of the top cities they'd like to move to? OK.

[Vangelist]

I think it IS our traffic problem that forms the bulk of our negative image - well it accounts for two-thirds of the triad anyway: traffic, smog/air pollution, and gangs/crime. The amount of traffic directly correlates to the smog. Gangs are just a negative stereotypical holdover from the Dr Dre 90s. It's unfortunate that perception of LA as a crime-ridden apocalypse hasnt changed much at all. Snoop singing so much about "da LBC" hasn't helped.

San Diego by contrast is a quaint little manageable beach/ resort like town, filled with beaches and sunshine and pretty buildings and good times, and so close to Mexico. If you're trapped in the cold mid-west, etc when THAT is the national image of SD (instead of miltary base, yuppie-dominated senior Republican stronghold with just as much autodependency, in most parts, as LA)...dude, what is there not to like?

I'm not talking reality, I'm talking perception. LA's is negative, but as reality is all that matters, who cares? Why should we be that concerned (a little concern is okay, but obsessing over this is futile) ? In the 70's NYC also had a despised reputation; didn't alter the fact that some of the greatest art was made there in the day

[POLA]

Originally Posted by citywatch

uh, all the ppl at SSP who include SD, but not LA, as one of the top cities they'd like to move to? OK.

[LA/OCman]

I live in OC but own property in LA. I have lived in SD as well so here is my perspective. I realize this should be a new thread, but I would like to respond.

I prefer LA to San Diego because the most interesting place on the planet. That said, LA really needs to improve its freeways and train routes because so many people see LA from these vantage points. There used to be an organization in LA called LA Beautiful who planted trees and flowers near the freeways/exits. Caltrans does a horrific job. The 5 freeway is the ugliest freeway south of Downtown...graffiti, trash and lack of interesting vegitation. LA needs to develop a "garden district" surrounding downtown.

Hollywood has so much promise..but there is a real lack of interesting landscape. They even took out the flower planters on Hollywood Blvd recently. Look at Michigan Ave, Park Ave....even Beverly Hills. Landscaping would have an immediate impact on the look from eyes of a tourist. Great landscaping is why cities such as Paris are so beautiful.

Hollywood has such a dynamic nightlife now and I see a lot of promise if they can improve the quality of life issues. Downtown LA has a bigger task. Perhaps South Park should really begin to look like a "park" with landscaped medians. Hopefully someone from the mayor's office will see this....LA Beautiful needs to become active once more! With our weather, we should have the most beautiful streets and freeways. We should not settle for mediocrity.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

I realize this should be a new thread, but I would like to respond.

When I have to read things like this....

Today Resendez, 30, is general manager of the store, next to Mann’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood Boulevard, one of the hottest tourist spots on America’s West Coast. “There’s no doubt we’re still suffering much more than New York from the drop-off in foreign visitors,” she said. “The Union Square store is beating its sales records, but we’re definitely not.”

New York expects an extra 500,000 international arrivals this year compared with 2005, when the 6.8m foreign visitors exactly matched the figure for 2000. But the West Coast, which has suffered no terrorist attacks, has had a drop in tourism. Last year Los Angeles had 2.5m foreign tourists, 1m fewer than in 2000.

...this part of the Hollywood thread, as far as I'm concerned, isn't OT.

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

There used to be an organization in LA called LA Beautiful who planted trees and flowers near the freeways/exits.

I bet a million bucks that if our traffic was just as bad as it is today, & our transit was no better than it is now, but if more of LA looked like the best parts of DTLA or Westwood, Bev Hills, Pasadena, Weho, SaMo, or mid Wilshire, a lot more ppl wouldn't be so down on the city.

Originally Posted by LA/OCman

The 5 freeway is the ugliest freeway south of Downtown...graffiti, trash and lack of interesting vegitation.

In a way I think the city would be in better shape today if more of its ppl through the yrs, esp pols & leaders, such as all of LA's mayors & council members, had been driving & walking around LA, & saying, damn it, this place looks like shit!!! Unacceptable!!! What the hell is wrong with is for allowing our city to be like this??!!!

Originally Posted by Vangelist

I prefer LA to San Diego because the most interesting place on the planet.

I think so too. But it's interesting how many ppl, even here at SSP, seem to have warm fuzzies for SD, but not LA. If you ask me, I think that preference is kind of boogie or burban like, because LA to me is a more interesting, culturally happening place. But when ppl who love NYC & SF or Chicago----which aren't bourgoisie type places----also want to give high marks to SD, but not to LA, you know we've got big problems.

Originally Posted by POLA

Are you saying this is the extent of the way you debate a topic, Pola?

[POLA]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Are you saying this is the extent of the way you debate a topic, Pola?

There is no debating with you. Absurd statements beget absurd responses.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by POLA

There is no debating with you. Absurd statements beget absurd responses.

Absurd? How so?

I hope you're not the type of person who when he hears a message he doesn't care for, puts his fingers in his ears & goes "naw, naw, neener, naw, neener, naw, naw....I can't hear you, I can't hear you..."

[POLA]

sigh

[RAlossi]

Office Building Is A Hollywood Hit

By DANIEL MILLER
Los Angeles Business Journal Staff

A two-decade drought is over: Hollywood is getting a new office building.

Next month, Sunset Gower Studios, an independent production facility, will break ground on a six-story, 97,000-square-foot building for Technicolor Inc. at Sunset Boulevard and North Gower Street.

Redevelopment and real estate industry professionals have supported the project, noting that Hollywood needs more office space to support the growth of the area’s housing market, which has ballooned in recent years.

Though Technicolor, a division of France-based Thomson, signed a lease to occupy the entire building several months ago, an appeal made to the Los Angeles Central Area Planning Commission by a neighboring business owner threatened to derail the $40 million project.

That appeal, made by East-West Studios LLC owner Doug Rogers, was rejected 3-0 by the commission at its Sept. 12 meeting; the project is now moving forward, with construction slated to begin in October, said Robert Papazian, Sunset Gower Studios’ chief executive.

“A real renaissance could take place in Hollywood,” Papazian said. “Hopefully this will kick off other developers to refurbish existing structures or take old ones down and build new office buildings. It would be good for the community and great for businesses that participate.”

The office project has received the support of L.A.’s Community Redevelopment Agency and the Los Angeles Mayor’s Office business team, among other groups that cite the long drought in office construction.

The last Class A office building erected in Hollywood was the Mercedes-Benz tower, which was built in 1984 at 6353 Sunset Blvd. Klasky Csupo Inc., an animation production company, currently occupies that building.

According to John Perfitt, senior real estate development agent for the CRA, the construction of the Mercedes-Benz tower also followed several years during which there had been no office construction.

Balance issue
“We are very concerned about the jobs and housing balance in Hollywood,” Perfitt said. “We would like to see more Class A office space in Hollywood specifically targeted at the entertainment industry.”

The new Technicolor facility at 6040 Sunset Blvd. will be built on the northeast corner of the 11-acre Sunset Gower Studios lot, between North Gower Street and Gordon Street. The building area is currently a surface-level parking lot.

Technicolor is already a tenant on the Sunset Gower Studios lot and has outgrown its current space, where it does sound production work. As part of the new Technicolor building construction, other upgrades will be made to the studios’ lot, including a new entrance and landscaping.

“With a big company like Technicolor placing its mark on Sunset, it’s a bona fide statement that says we believe in this area,” Papazian said.

In recent years, through Los Angeles’ Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, large chunks of Hollywood’s office space – often in antiquated buildings – have been converted to condos and lofts.

“If you look at construction and land costs and rent, the for-sale residential properties still pencil better in terms of other land uses,” Perfitt said. “The equity money follows that.”

The new Technicolor building is slated to open by the end of 2007 and will house some of the company’s post-production, editing, and dubbing operations.

“We are thrilled,” said Bob Hoffman, vice president of marketing for Technicolor. “Technicolor has a long history of involvement in the Hollywood neighborhood and we are thrilled that there is a re-emergence of that neighborhood.”

Technicolor also operates a post-production facility across the street from Sunset Gower Studios at 6087 Sunset Blvd.

In its appeal to the Planning Commission, East-West Studios, a recording studio, argued that operational and construction noise created by the building would be a detriment to the studio’s recording operations, according to Planning Commission documents.

“The Sunset Gower folks went out and did testing on noise levels and presented it to commission,” said Tim McOsker, attorney with Christensen Glaser Fink Jacobs Weil & Shapiro LLP, who handled the appeal for Sunset Gower Studios. “The area Planning Commission agreed with Sunset Gower’s findings.”

Papazian said that Sunset Gower Studios is working with other area landowners to make sure they are comfortable with the construction. “We are doing anything possible to mitigate sound problems so they can continue in their business,” he said.

East-West Studios did not return calls seeking comment.

With the Technicolor project now moving forward, those in redevelopment say that it could jump-start other projects.

Perfitt said that among potential office projects in Hollywood, the CRA is working with a group of entertainment industry real estate professionals – including Dana Arnold, chief executive of Culver Studios – on a 100,000-square-foot project at 1601 N. Vine St. The environmental documents for the project are currently being written, and construction could begin in fall 2007.

Linda Dishman, executive director of the Los Angeles Conservancy, said that the goal in Hollywood is to create a community that is more than just a thriving residential neighborhood.

“It is about a balance,” she said. “We don’t want Hollywood to simply be a residential neighborhood. Since Hollywood is the entertainment capital of the world I think the office space essential.”