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

111–120 of 142 posts

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#111

Post by brenns10 »

OJFord wrote: post #104
twblalock wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The average person in California (and in the rest of the country) desires to live in a detached home that they own. And then you put them inches away from one another, lined up in perfect rows! I don't get it, looking on (mainly through TV/film) from the UK, what makes detached houses desirable is almost entirely lacking from North American streets, they frequently seem to look like a terrace that's been chopped up…

Nope, it's not a technical reason. Zoning laws typically prevent you from building structures near the edge of your lot in the suburbs. They also mandate excessive amounts of space to store automobiles, and absurd setbacks from the street.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#113

Post by micromacrofoot »

scns wrote: post #99

It was in a bad shape when Hugh Heffner moved to LA, he started a campaign to get it restored IIRC. He did a lot civil rights and ending segregation too. The southern TV stations objected to him showing black entertainers and talking to them in his TV show, he stood by his values. And he gave a voice to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X in Playboy. Source: the documentary about him on Amazon Prime, highly recommended.

Unfortunately he was also a serial rapist, though I don't think anyone's surprised about that one.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#114

Post by OJFord »

brenns10 wrote: post #111
OJFord wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The average person in California (and in the rest of the country) desires to live in a detached home that they own. And then you put them inches away from one another, lined up in perfect rows! I don't get it, looking on (mainly through TV/film) from the UK, what makes detached houses desirable is almost entirely lacking from North American streets, they frequently seem to look like a terrace that's been chopped up…

Nope, it's not a technical reason. Zoning laws typically prevent you from building structures near the edge of your lot in the suburbs. They also mandate excessive amounts of space to store automobiles, and absurd setbacks from the street.

(From what you've said alone) you could still space them out more, have more variety/less uniformity? ('Little boxes all the same')

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#116

Post by mikebenfield »

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…

> 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.

Then why is it necessary for LA and other localities to make it literally illegal to build denser housing? After all, if detached single family homes are what people want, then surely simple supply and demand will lead to that being what's predominantly built, right?

(Spoiler: Single family homes aren't what everyone wants. Plenty of people want other types of housing. People pushing these zoning rules aren't doing it because _they_ want single family homes - they're doing it because they want control over what type of home is available to others.)

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#118

Post by Mountain_Skies »

afavour wrote: post #103
scns wrote: post #99

It was in a bad shape when Hugh Heffner moved to LA, he started a campaign to get it restored IIRC. He did a lot civil rights and ending segregation too. The southern TV stations objected to him showing black entertainers and talking to them in his TV show, he stood by his values. And he gave a voice to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X in Playboy. Source: the documentary about him on Amazon Prime, highly recommended.

Also an interesting watch is the A&E documentary about the dark side of Hefner and Playboy: https://www.aetv.com/shows/secrets-of-playboy It’s 12 parts and honestly could have easily been 10 if not less but it’s always worth exploring the duality of the man. No denying his social progressivism but he definitely wasn’t all shining light and I’m suspicious of anything that paints him as if he were.

His social progressiveness might have been more about wanting to get rid of morality laws in general, because they were getting in the way of his business expansion, than a genuine belief in those causes. Probably a mix of the two, even if he started out pushing for business reasons, getting involved in any cause gives one an opportunity to hear that group's point of view and a chance to become sympathetic to it. Either way, it ended being good for his fame and fortune.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#119

Post by fractallyte »

voltaireodactyl wrote: post #88
fingerlocks wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m from your generation and my only memory of the film was a lot of talking and very little action. Have you seen it as an adult? Curious how it holds up. Wikipedia’s page is interesting, apparently its got a cult following now.

For the record: it holds up brilliantly. James Hornet’s score alone is worth the ride — still used as a primary temp track for figuring out the edits of new movies. Effects are the best practical work has to offer. Timothy Dalton as Errol Flynn with an Aryan secret is phenomenal, having the most fun of his career. Jennifer Connelly is a full on movie star hitting her stride. Alan Arkin at his peak grumpy old man stag…

Don't forget the poster, by John Mattos! One of the finest movie posters ever: http://www.johnmattos.com/film.php

Detail: https://www.artcenter.edu/gallery/detail/569d6e434d9b6f9a563...

I emailed him a while back, and he told me the original artwork wasn't in his possession, and he had no idea where it was...

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#120

Post by sokoloff »

brenns10 wrote: post #106
sokoloff wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be arguing that people who want to buy (or at least live in) housing of type X should not have their ability to do entirely blocked by land use laws that make them illegal. That makes logical sense yet in the same post you propose to “get rid of the cul-de-sacs” which is a type of land use that many people genuinely prefer, even if you don’t.

We can have both, can't we? Obviously I don't like cul-de-sacs personally, but nowhere in my comment did I suggest banning them. The phrase you quoted was just a turn of phrase as I described my preferred style of land use which is currently illegal in most zoning laws. Right now. It's kind of funny that your reaction to my comment is "he wants to take away the cul-de-sac" when all I'm asking is if we can get zoning…

You did literally propose that we "let people...get rid of the cul de sacs." I don't think I was jumping to baseless conclusions while reading your words.
Post reply on HN