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

81–90 of 142 posts

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#81

Post by asdff »

twblalock wrote: post #76
asdff wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this were the case, we'd see it in the zoning with a lot of parcels being underbuilt for what they are zoned for, since low density is preferred over high density. Instead, the city is developed to upwards of 90% of its zoned capacity. Its gotten to the point where no more units can be built, the zoning has to change in order to make it possible to permit more units. The high prices are all because the job growth…

Depends on where you are. I know of places near Sacramento where new suburban subdivisions are being built every year.

How are they zoned? Probably for suburban subdivisions and not for highrises. You can find new suburban subdivisions in LA too if you go all the way out into san bernardino or riverside county, and in those cases too its because these areas recently changed zoning from agriculture to low density residential development, and builders are building to the limits of what the land is zoned for. Apartments are so popular that developers often try to get variances to zoning for their projects, to add even more units than what the lot is zoned for. If there wasn't demand for that a developer would not bother.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#82

Post by asdff »

twblalock wrote: post #36
frosted-flakes wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average person has no choice but to live in single-family homes. That doesn't mean they want that. Your solution of 'move somewhere else' is completely tone-deaf. Furthermore, you completely ignored mid-rise housing, and the fact that it can be seamlessly mixed in with SFH without significantly changing the feel or character of the neighbourhood. Oh The Urbanity made a great YouTube video about this recently wher…

Any solution that involves shared walls with neighbors is not desirable to the vast majority of Americans. Anyone who wants to live in apartments can do so. Nobody is forced to live in single-family homes -- on the contrary, we work long and hard to afford the money to get into them because they are better than listening to our neighbors all the time.

If these things weren't desirable you wouldn't see so much demand for homes in boston and nyc and chicago with attached walls. Its not an act of desperation to move into a 25 million dollar townhome in manhattan, considering 25 million just across the hudson or upstate or in long island would probably buy you a castle fit for the king of England.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#83

Post by frosted-flakes »

kortilla wrote: post #41
frosted-flakes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a big claim with nothing backing it up.

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 no one lives there,

- very few nearby stores and restaurants,

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

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

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

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

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

and I could go on.

Given the above, if apartment living wasn't so heavily restricted by law, so many more people would choose to live in them rather than SFH. You only need to look at cities like Montreal or entire countries like the Netherlands to see that this is true.

In Montreal, housing is still cheap and most people live in multiplexes (walk-up two-to-four storey buildings with private front doors and small back yards) and live very close to where they work, but there are still a lot of different styles of SFH that people can choose to live in if they want, and many do. Again, look at the video I linked above for examples.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#84

Post by sircastor »

fingerlocks wrote: post #75
Larrikin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

I was about 13 when it came out. Watching some clips recently, it’s exactly as I remember it. I can confirm that it feels slow to start. I think most movies used to take a good 15 minutes to get going. These days they’re very out-of-the-gate.

I’m one of the cult followers I guess. It’s a shame to me that it never got a sequel. It’s fun pulp fiction in the style of Indiana Jones.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#85

Post by brenns10 »

kaetemi wrote: post #58
twblalock wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a strawman to compare detached suburban housing to the densest housing options on the planet. If you do that, it's only fair to compare it against cabins without utilities, off road and miles away from the nearest grocery. Very, very few of the "majority of Americans" want to live in that.

So, be honest and just compare suburban sprawl against, well, normal development where people can build town houses, duplexes, small apartment buildings, and of course small stores and restaurants. THAT is the density that the majority of people are talking about. Not high rises in ultra dense urban cores. I think more Americans than you think would like to be walking distance from a decent grocery store, bar, and breakfast place. I enjoy it!

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#86

Post by voltaireodactyl »

Larrikin wrote: post #60
sircastor wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Rocketeer is among the finest action adventure movies ever made, and deserves to be hailed much more widely than it currently is.

The reason it is not is simple bad luck: out of all the movies it could have opened against, it managed to open against the single film that (at that time) could outdo it in its own action-adventure game, the defining work of the genre: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Even Rocketeer couldn’t overcome that.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#87

Post by brenns10 »

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…

It's important to be very clear: you're misrepresenting the options!

It's not a choice between suburbia and Manhattan. It's a choice between exclusionary, backwards suburban zoning (which is subsidized by denser development due to the increased cost of utilities for sprawling development), and literally any more sane option. Let people build duplexes, corner stores, local markets, and get rid of the cul de sacs. That's literally the core of the "density" people are talking about. Not Manhattan style high rises.

Saying that people (really any group, but millenials here) prefer suburbia because that's what you see them currently buying on the housing market, is ignoring the fact that the available housing stock probably doesn't match up to their preferences! Plenty of people are buying the "lesser of two evils" rather than their dream home. Plenty of people would choose something within walking distance of a decent park and grocery, if they had that option. But America, despite being built on the train and the pedestrian, has been rebuilt on the automobile and the cul-de-sac with single family home zoning. So people are buying what is available, even if it's not what they want.

If you doubt what I'm saying, check the prices of homes in prewar "streetcar suburbs" which are denser, but still have small yards, detached houses, and yet are near small commercial uses too. Plenty of people want to buy these and the prices have skyrocketed: it's illegal to build them now, so the supply is limited.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#88

Post by voltaireodactyl »

fingerlocks wrote: post #75
Larrikin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 stage. And Billy Campbell deserved a better career.

And the story is pure old fashioned American underdog finds a unique advantage and uses it to take on the bad guys to save the girl. It’s damn near perfect tbh.

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#89

Post by boomboomsubban »

voltaireodactyl wrote: post #86
Larrikin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Rocketeer is among the finest action adventure movies ever made, and deserves to be hailed much more widely than it currently is. The reason it is not is simple bad luck: out of all the movies it could have opened against, it managed to open against the single film that (at that time) could outdo it in its own action-adventure game, the defining work of the genre: Raiders of the Lost Ark. Even Rocketeer couldn’t over…

"The Rocketeer" opened June 21, 1991. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" opened June 12, 1981. From Wikipedia

>The (Rocketeer) opened #4 behind Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, City Slickers and Dying Young

Re: The Hollywood sign debuted 100 years ago

#90

Post by voltaireodactyl »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #89
voltaireodactyl wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rocketeer is among the finest action adventure movies ever made, and deserves to be hailed much more widely than it currently is. The reason it is not is simple bad luck: out of all the movies it could have opened against, it managed to open against the single film that (at that time) could outdo it in its own action-adventure game, the defining work of the genre: Raiders of the Lost Ark. Even Rocketeer couldn’t over…

"The Rocketeer" opened June 21, 1991. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" opened June 12, 1981. From Wikipedia >The (Rocketeer) opened #4 behind Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, City Slickers and Dying Young

You’re absolutely right — I got my inventive, genre-redefining blockbusters mixed up. Instead of Raiders I should have said Terminator 2, which Rocketeer did compete with. James Cameron remains a defining figure in that space.

I am stung by the correction because it’s nice to imagine oneself infallible, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

Post reply on HN