Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 142 posts

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#51

Post by nopenotthat »

wogaf wrote: post #10
broast wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring that the film industry in India is popularly called Bollywood, in honor of Hollywood.

It's nicknamed "Bollywood" by people in the US. In India, it's referred to as "बॉलीवुड".

That is literally pronounced “boleevud”. Can you guess why?

"Bollywood" was invented & popularized in Bombay-based film trade journals in the 1960s & 1970s. It was an explicit reference *by the Indian film industry there to Hollywood. It was additionally a play on “Tollywood" for the Tollygunge-based cinema of West Bengal, which had been called that since the 30s.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#52

Post by sologoub »

eganist wrote: post #44
sologoub wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC density: 26,403 people per square mile (source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_Cit... ) Hollywood density: 22,193 people per square mile Koreatown density: 42,611 people per square mile Source: https://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/population/density/ne... Yes, greater LA area also has a lot of what people like to call “sprawl”, but it’s a big place and has many different neighborhoods.…

> but it’s a big place and has many different neighborhoods. That's called sprawl.

Instead of dismissing with derogatory terms, you should try to actually get to know these. You’d realize that Santa Monica is very different from West Hollywood, which is also different from Hollywood, K-town, etc.

Even in the valleys, Sherman Oaks is very different from Agoura. OC would take years to really get to know as well.

When you look at areal/satellite imagery, Santa Barbara to San Diego is basically connected by different towns and neighborhoods, with very little breaks. Yet, no one will say that it’s all the same or somehow homogeneous. The scale in itself is breathtaking from the plane.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#53

Post by twblalock »

nocsi wrote: post #25
scoofy wrote: post #13

People need to remember the Hollywood sign was for a housing development at the edge of town in Los Angeles. That's how long it's been, and we've added almost no density, and eternal sprawl.

The rest of this century is dedicated to undoing the zoning practices of a certain generation.

Millennials are entering the home buying market in large numbers now, and it turns out they want detached single family homes in quiet suburban neighborhoods, just like everyone else.

It is important to be very clear about this because the HN crowd seems to have a massive over-representation of people who like dense living arrangements: the vast majority of Americans want to live in a detached home that they own, and they want to transport themselves in cars that they own. They don't want to live in apartments, they don't want to rent, and they don't like mass transit. There are indeed some Americans who want to live in places like Manhattan, but they are a small minority. A large majority of the Americans who currently live in apartments only do so because they cannot afford a detached home.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#54

Post by jltsiren »

twblalock wrote: post #33
eganist wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own reference seems to confirm OP's point that sprawl, not density, is what increased. Relatively few places in the greater LA area have properly dense housing projects, and you just have to look across LA from vantage points along either Mulholland drive or Rancho Palos Verdes to see for yourself. Plenty of opportunity for high-rise and even more mid-rise projects, but nearly everything is low-rise. Thankfully…

That’s because people want to live in low rise buildings. The average person in California (and in the rest of the country) desires to live in a detached home that they own. It is not wrong to want that. However, it is definitely wrong to assume that high-rise apartments are “proper” density and that LA is doing it wrong. LA is the way the people live there want it to be. If you want high density and high-rise living…

What the average person wants is not the point.

Roughly speaking, 25% of people prefer urban living, 50% prefer suburban living, and 25% prefer rural living. Urban living is currently expensive, because there is a massive shortage of urban housing. People didn't build enough of it in the 20th century for a number of reasons.

All other things being equal, urban living should be cheaper than suburban living, because urban areas need less infrastructure for each resident. Every city where urban living continues to be expensive should build high-density mid-rise areas until that's no longer the case. High-rises rarely make sense outside central locations, as they are expensive to build.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#55

Post by celtain »

twblalock wrote: post #47
rtpg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that loads of people are fine with apartments because of the price/convenience/location. If you ask a young couple "would you rather pay $1500/month to be in an apartment or $3000/month to be in a SFH", you think everyone is choosing the latter?

Once they have kids, almost everyone who can afford it chooses a home in the quietest and safest neighborhood they can get into. Apartments are fun when you are young and want to live downtown and enjoy the restaurants and the night life. When you get older and want your home to be a refuge and raise a family, apartments really suck.

Ok, but not everyone can afford it. When there's a dearth of apartments and you can't afford your own detached house, you're forced to share a house with other people.

People do not prefer sharing a house with roommates to having their own apartment.

Also the idea that people's preferences should be encoded into bans on certain housing types is completely absurd to begin with.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#56

Post by twblalock »

celtain wrote: post #55
twblalock wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once they have kids, almost everyone who can afford it chooses a home in the quietest and safest neighborhood they can get into. Apartments are fun when you are young and want to live downtown and enjoy the restaurants and the night life. When you get older and want your home to be a refuge and raise a family, apartments really suck.

Ok, but not everyone can afford it. When there's a dearth of apartments and you can't afford your own detached house, you're forced to share a house with other people. People do not prefer sharing a house with roommates to having their own apartment. Also the idea that people's preferences should be encoded into bans on certain housing types is completely absurd to begin with.

There is no dearth of apartments. Apartments are everywhere. It's just silly to think that people are "forced" to live in single family homes.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#57

Post by vikingerik »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #43
hnav wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC is a whole city of five boroughs with different densities, Hollywood and K-town are neighborhoods. Manhattan which is what most think of as NYC is 70k+/sqmi

Even with five boroughs, I'm still surprised NYC is this low. In addition to the obvious Staten Island, apparently Queens "only" has 22,125! I always thought it would be close to Brooklyn etc.

Well, Queens is about 75% cemeteries by land use. (Population figures don't include dead people, I assume.)

Kidding, but there is more land for industrial and commercial use in Queens that isn't residential. Including two airports and three sizable sports facilities. Brooklyn by contrast has almost no interruptions to the edge-to-edge residential street grid.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#58

Post by kaetemi »

twblalock wrote: post #53
nocsi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of this century is dedicated to undoing the zoning practices of a certain generation.

Millennials are entering the home buying market in large numbers now, and it turns out they want detached single family homes in quiet suburban neighborhoods, just like everyone else . It is important to be very clear about this because the HN crowd seems to have a massive over-representation of people who like dense living arrangements: the vast majority of Americans want to live in a detached home that they own, an…

People who like dense living spaces should visit some of the dense high rise areas in Manila. Enjoy the gridlock and queueing ten minutes for the elevator to your floor.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#60

Post by Larrikin »

sircastor wrote: post #24
cocacola1 wrote: post #15

I'm glad they dropped the "land" part. "Hollywoodland" doesn't have the same ring that Hollywood has.

Always makes me think of “The Rocketeer”. That probably pins me to a particular generation.

That movie was always strange to me as a person who watched it in kindergarten. It was in my memory peak cinema, with an amazing tie in of reusable cups from the best restaurant chain (Pizza Hut)that lived in my house for years later and I drank out of regularly. As a kid I loved pretending to be able to fly around the sky.

But I've never met anyone in my generation that has ever seen it and even people older than me barely remember it existing.

Post reply on HN