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

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#131

Post by throwaway22032 »

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.

As someone who's visited, this is a confusing comment to me.

I think of that as being the entire point of the city. It's a deliberate contrast to places like NYC, Tokyo, London.

A place where you can have a big old lot, a store that's half empty, a car collection. Cause there's so much land kicking about. Too bad it became expensive anyway, I guess.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#132

Post by brenns10 »

OJFord wrote: post #114
brenns10 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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')

I think it comes down to development cost. A lot of suburbs are developed by a single housing developer, and they essentially have a "theme" with similar styles and just a few floor plans to choose from. So some suburbs end up looking very cookie cutter. They also do things like clear all the old trees out prior to developing the land, which is cheaper and easier, but can create a very desolate environment to live in.

There are plenty of suburbs that aren't this way though, especially older ones.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#134

Post by twblalock »

rtpg wrote: post #92
DocTomoe wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are ~no good rural jobs. This depends on your definition of a 'good job'. If this is about pay, yes, wages in the countryside are lower - but so are living costs. If I average over my contacts, people working rurally seem to be generally happier with their occupation, though. > and other whining from people who would rather have their yard than replace that with a larger public park... If I have the choice be…

Many places have decent sized parks that are maintained and safe, and offer bbq pits or the like. Perhaps not the US or many parts of the world. But like… I dunno, I was in Brisbane the other day and they had huge places with more amenities my back yard will ever have. It’s not the same as the best yard, but it’s better than most peoples yards.

In the suburb where I live, we have private backyards, and a couple of well-maintained parks within walking distance. There are also multiple grocery stores and restaurants within walking distance. I can be in two different downtown areas after a short drive, and I can get to San Francisco in under an hour.

I don't know where people get the idea that suburbs are nothing but houses for miles and miles. We really do have it all here. And the people who want dense housing don't want to live in my neighborhood -- they gravitate to the parts of the area with high rises.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#135

Post by twblalock »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #64
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.

> who can afford it And there your argument falls apart; vast majority can’t afford it. Policy you advocate has caused a housing shortage.

What policy did I advocate? I'm simply telling you how Americans prefer to live. It's a fact that many advocates of denser housing seem to ignore.

The suburbs got built because people wanted them! The zoning laws exist because the voters wanted them! It's a big mistake to think that most Americans secretly want denser housing arrangements and the zoning laws are preventing it.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#136

Post by mixmastamyk »

twblalock wrote: post #135
mixmastamyk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who can afford it And there your argument falls apart; vast majority can’t afford it. Policy you advocate has caused a housing shortage.

What policy did I advocate? I'm simply telling you how Americans prefer to live. It's a fact that many advocates of denser housing seem to ignore. The suburbs got built because people wanted them! The zoning laws exist because the voters wanted them! It's a big mistake to think that most Americans secretly want denser housing arrangements and the zoning laws are preventing it.

More important than what we want is what we can afford. Additionally, the result of these zoning laws (artificial restrictions) is to increase homelessness. So commenting on an on about what people prefer is rather immaterial.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#137

Post by twblalock »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #83
kortilla wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.builderonline.com/money/economics/80-percent-of-...

Absent anything else, of course most people prefer to live in single-family homes (SFH). But that's not the question most people have to face in reality, because SFH have other trade-offs that that survey completely ignored, including: - significantly higher cost (absent widespread R1 zoning, which drives the cost of apartments up), - locations in the middle of desolate suburbia, - dead neighbourhoods because almost…

> - significantly higher cost (absent widespread R1 zoning, which drives the cost of apartments up),

Also significantly higher return on investment. Homeowners build equity, renters don't. Houses increase in value faster than owned condos/apartments/townhouses.

> - locations in the middle of desolate suburbia,

It's not desolate. We have everything -- parks, stores, restaurants, schools, nearby downtown areas...

> - dead neighbourhoods because almost no one lives there,

Not dead at all. Plenty of kids playing all the time, people walking their dogs, etc.

> - very few nearby stores and restaurants,

Not true at all. There are hundreds of stores and restaurants where I live. They just aren't jammed between people's houses.

> - no or limited public transit because it costs far too much to run in sprawling suburbia,

Plenty of transit in my suburb.

> - utter dependence on personal automobiles, and the complete lack of independence for children, young adults, and other non-driving members of society,

Not true at all. People have ways to get around. Kids ride bikes. There are buses and trains not all that far away.

> - the necessity of maintaining the grounds of your own personal park,

It's not usually a big deal to maintain your yards. Most people seem to manage. Some hire gardeners, but many also take care of it themselves.

> - poorly maintained or missing public infrastructure because everything is so spread out,

All the infrastructure in most suburbs is fine. It's not like we all live in the 1800s or something. The roads are even paved!

> - having to endure endless traffic because of your 1hr commute to work,

A 1-hour commute is an outlier. It just is. The US average, last I checked, is something like 30 or 35 minutes.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#138

Post by frosted-flakes »

twblalock wrote: post #137
frosted-flakes wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absent anything else, of course most people prefer to live in single-family homes (SFH). But that's not the question most people have to face in reality, because SFH have other trade-offs that that survey completely ignored, including: - significantly higher cost (absent widespread R1 zoning, which drives the cost of apartments up), - locations in the middle of desolate suburbia, - dead neighbourhoods because almost…

> - significantly higher cost (absent widespread R1 zoning, which drives the cost of apartments up), Also significantly higher return on investment. Homeowners build equity, renters don't. Houses increase in value faster than owned condos/apartments/townhouses. > - locations in the middle of desolate suburbia, It's not desolate. We have everything -- parks, stores, restaurants, schools, nearby downtown areas... > - d…

That may be true in your specific case, but is most definitely not true in general (your house also probably costs $3 million).

Nonetheless, NONE of what you say justifies single family home MANDATES (as well as minimum parking mandates, minimum setbacks, maximum heights, etc.). Let people build what they want to, at the price they want to, and everyone will be happier. This is the United States we're talking about, supposedly the "land of the free"—why not make it actually true?

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#139

Post by mardifoufs »

rtpg wrote: post #92
DocTomoe wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are ~no good rural jobs. This depends on your definition of a 'good job'. If this is about pay, yes, wages in the countryside are lower - but so are living costs. If I average over my contacts, people working rurally seem to be generally happier with their occupation, though. > and other whining from people who would rather have their yard than replace that with a larger public park... If I have the choice be…

Many places have decent sized parks that are maintained and safe, and offer bbq pits or the like. Perhaps not the US or many parts of the world. But like… I dunno, I was in Brisbane the other day and they had huge places with more amenities my back yard will ever have. It’s not the same as the best yard, but it’s better than most peoples yards.

Picking an australian city as a counter example for urban sprawl is a pretty weird take. I know, your example is specifically about parks but that's not a very good example of good and comfy parks in a dense city.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#140

Post by twblalock »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #138
twblalock wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - significantly higher cost (absent widespread R1 zoning, which drives the cost of apartments up), Also significantly higher return on investment. Homeowners build equity, renters don't. Houses increase in value faster than owned condos/apartments/townhouses. > - locations in the middle of desolate suburbia, It's not desolate. We have everything -- parks, stores, restaurants, schools, nearby downtown areas... > - d…

That may be true in your specific case, but is most definitely not true in general (your house also probably costs $3 million). Nonetheless, NONE of what you say justifies single family home MANDATES (as well as minimum parking mandates, minimum setbacks, maximum heights, etc.). Let people build what they want to, at the price they want to, and everyone will be happier. This is the United States we're talking about,…

My house costs way less than $3 million.

The restrictions exist because people want to ruin neighborhoods like mine. We made laws to prevent it.

For every sane YIMBY who wants to build livable density, there seems to also be an unhinged person who thinks everyone should be forced to live in tower blocks.

Many such people are in this thread. I used to think it was a strawman argument, but those people really do exist, they really want to take my home from me and turn my whole block into a high rise, and that’s not going to happen without a fight. That’s why the mandates exist.

The biggest obstacle the YIMBY crowd faces is the insane people in their own camp: The crazy utopian socialist weirdos who think it’s morally wrong to live in a house in a suburb and drive a car. Force those people out, denounce them, and you’ll see a lot of the opposition to new housing go away.

Post reply on HN