Why has Hollywood, CA continued to stay so sketchy and gritty?

[destroycreate]

What reasons led Hollywood, CA to become so grungy and sketchy? Given it's glorious past, you'd think it'd have experienced some sort of resurgence way sooner than it has. I know now that luxury condos have been going up left and right, but still, it's not nearly as nice as other parts of LA. It's dense, walkable, connected well via transit and has the bones to really be a chic urban destination. Is there a reason why it has remained so rough around the edges?

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

What reasons led Hollywood, CA to become so grungy and sketchy? Given it's glorious past, you'd think it'd have experienced some sort of resurgence way sooner than it has. I know now that luxury condos have been going up left and right, but still, it's not nearly as nice as other parts of LA. It's dense, walkable, connected well via transit and has the bones to really be a chic urban destination. Is there a reason why it has remained so rough around the edges?

I can't really answer this but it may have something to do with delusional people, who are usually broke young people trying to make it into the entertainment industry, moving there and keeping the median income level down and thus the neighborhood suffers as well.

But that's an educated guess on my part.

[JManc]

It would totally lose its character if it was totally overrun by gentrifiers with their cookie cutter condo towers, Anthropologies and Restoration Hardwares...

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by JManc

It would totally lose its character if it was totally overrun by gentrifiers with their cookie cutter condo towers, Anthropologies and Restoration Hardwares...

Maybe. But I'm not exactly into urine, bail bond shops and tweaker's delight.

[ozone]

The question I have is why the OP is so hung up with and constantly trashing California all the time. But to the question posed. Hollywood was never as glamorous as people imagine. It was largely a working class town full of underemployed would-be actors, and a lot of ordinary underpaid behind the scene employees in the film industry. The stars lived in the Hollywood Hills and Beverly Hills.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by ozone

The question I have is why the OP is so hung up with and constantly trashing California all the time.

Um...and when do I do that other than bitch about the cost of living/traffic of San Francisco (where I used to live)? I'm actually from Southern California, and I happen to love LA. Actually thrilled to be relocating there this fall. I was just researching neighborhoods to relocate to in LA and found it interesting that Hollywood is still as blighted as it is given that it is known around the world, and has such high density/walkscores.

[DJM19]

Umm...it isn't? I mean yea it has a lot of homeless people at the moment, but so does much of LA right now. Its MUCH less seedy than say...20 years ago. Mostly because as development and lifestyles shifted further west, Hollywood became less of desirable place to be/visit/live/work.

But now its had a ton of a development and ton more in the pipeline. Its pretty rapidly gentrifying.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

What reasons led Hollywood, CA to become so grungy and sketchy? Given it's glorious past, you'd think it'd have experienced some sort of resurgence way sooner than it has. I know now that luxury condos have been going up left and right, but still, it's not nearly as nice as other parts of LA. It's dense, walkable, connected well via transit and has the bones to really be a chic urban destination. Is there a reason why it has remained so rough around the edges?

Times Square in NYC came to mind immediately. From Wiki, (read the irony) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square

"From the 1960s to the early 1990s, the seediness of the area, especially due to its go-go bars, sex shops, peep shows and adult theaters, became an infamous symbol of the city's decline...In the mid-1990s, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani led an effort to clean up the area, an effort that is described by Steve Macek in Urban Nightmares: The Media, the Right, And the Moral Panic Over the City...Detractors have countered that the changes have homogenized or "Disneyfied" the character of Times Square and have unfairly targeted lower-income New Yorkers from nearby neighborhoods such as Hell's Kitchen.[53][54] The changes were shaped in large part by the actions of The Walt Disney Company, which bought and restored the New Amsterdam Theatre's after several attempts at redevelopment had fallen through. As part of a contract with Disney, officials from the city and state evicted the pornographic theaters and contracted with Madame Tussauds and AMC Theatres to move onto 42nd Street. This spurred the construction of new office towers, hotels, and tourist attractions in the area..."


So a LA based icon, Disney, helped turn Times Square around, but apparently ignores the grittiness in its own back yard.

[goat314]

I think "gritty" is a relative term. In many areas of the country Hollywood would be considered a nice area. When I think of gritty and sketchy I think of areas that are legitimately ghetto and rundown. I wouldn't consider Hollywood to be either.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by goat314

I think "gritty" is a relative term. In many areas of the country Hollywood would be considered a nice area. When I think of gritty and sketchy I think of areas that are legitimately ghetto and rundown. I wouldn't consider Hollywood to be either.

Interesting. I'm from SoCal so I guess my perspective of grit is different, but I find the backstreets of everything south of Hollywood Blvd pretty seedy looking.

[Centropolis]

i mean lets be honest, hollywood is a classic american weirdo magnet.

[jd3189]

I rather Hollywood stays that way so that it maintains its character as a place where actors can rise up. No need for gentrification to mess up a unique LA neighborhood.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by ozone

The question I have is why the OP is so hung up with and constantly trashing California all the time. But to the question posed. Hollywood was never as glamorous as people imagine. It was largely a working class town full of underemployed would-be actors, and a lot of ordinary underpaid behind the scene employees in the film industry. The stars lived in the Hollywood Hills and Beverly Hills.

Yep, the real movers and shakers of the LA entertainment industry have almost never lived in Hollywood itself. Meanwhile, people with less money and mere ambitions have lived in Hollywood.

[soleri]

I remember Hollywood from the 1970s. It's much better today. That said, the homeless love the sidewalk and can probably cadge spare change from all the tourists looking at the "stars". The traffic is really bad, too, particularly on the off streets that are too narrow for the speeding cars. When I was there last year, I noticed that some people were astonishingly good-looking. I didn't think they were legitimate actors, however.

LA overall is a mystery to me. It has one of the planet's nicest climates but much of the city is seedy. That said, if you're in the right area, say Wilshire at it approaches Beverly Hills or Los Feliz or Century City, it's really nice. Downtown is improving dramatically. Even Echo Park and Boyle Heights are gentrifying. On a good air day, it is spectacular in a way few cities are.

[Illithid Dude]

Honestly right now is the first time since the literal 1920s that entertainment companies are moving to Hollywood (besides Paramount). Netflix has set up shop there, along with many other content creation arms of various internet companies, like Buzzfeed. Hollywood is still gritty in certain areas, but is rapidly gentrifying almost quicker than Downtown at this point. Some might say it is already becoming too expensive. We've reached 6k for two bedrooms. Is that good or bad? You decide.

https://la.curbed.com/2018/4/23/1727...se-rent-photos

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Interesting. I'm from SoCal so I guess my perspective of grit is different, but I find the backstreets of everything south of Hollywood Blvd pretty seedy looking.

If the area below Hollywood Blvd. disturbs you, consider looking further south in the northern reaches of Koreatown. Somewhere between Melrose and Third St. east of Larchmont (Vine) all the way over to Normandie, the neighborhood ditches most of the Hollywood grit. It still is not especially pretty or pristine, but the ethnic mix is phenomenal and stimulating. There are a ton of good local places to eat. The convenient location with downtown and the west side being 20 to 30 minutes away by car is unbeatable. The subway is not too far away, and the area is served by tons of bus service. It was a while ago, but I owned a circa 1908 bungalow down on South Ardmore between 2nd and 3rd for almost a decade. I came to love the area, and I think it has improved in many ways since I left. I also appreciated the grungy nature of Hollywood back in that period, but I was single and a seeker of dubious thrills at that time. If you think Hollywood is sketchy today, you would have been gobsmacked by the Hollywood of 20 or 30 years ago.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by soleri

I remember Hollywood from the 1970s. It's much better today. That said, the homeless love the sidewalk and can probably cadge spare change from all the tourists looking at the "stars". The traffic is really bad, too, particularly on the off streets that are too narrow for the speeding cars. When I was there last year, I noticed that some people were astonishingly good-looking. I didn't think they were legitimate actors, however.

LA overall is a mystery to me. It has one of the planet's nicest climates but much of the city is seedy. That said, if you're in the right area, say Wilshire at it approaches Beverly Hills or Los Feliz or Century City, it's really nice. Downtown is improving dramatically. Even Echo Park and Boyle Heights are gentrifying. On a good air day, it is spectacular in a way few cities are.

"much of the city (L.A.) is seedy"

Most cities are "seedy" close up, if poverty exists in that city and poor are allowed to move around. Many areas of San Francisco, San Diego. Portland, Vancouver, Rio etc. are very "seedy" close up, but of course beautiful at a distance. Beverly Hills does a pretty good job of keeping out poor & homeless. So the homeless go to Howo and DTLA. Shifts the problem around. We need more shelters, in BevHills too. Rich areas have a responsibility to house homeless as much as poor areas or at least contribute to an affordable housing fund. But right now, most rich areas are 100% NIMBY. Good old film that still is worth watching--"Down and Out in Beverly Hills".

Anti-growth & anti-gentrification "NIMBYs" have also done a good job of delaying projects in Hollywood. Example: the Palladium towers project. Hollywood would have three or four times the redevelopment if not for NIMBYs.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

"much of the city (L.A.) is seedy"

Most cities are "seedy" close up, if poverty exists in that city and poor are allowed to move around. Many areas of San Francisco, San Diego. Portland, Vancouver, Rio etc. are very "seedy" close up, but of course beautiful at a distance. Beverly Hills does a pretty good job of keeping out poor & homeless. So the homeless go to Howo and DTLA. Shifts the problem around. We need more shelters, in BevHills too. Rich areas have a responsibility to house homeless as much as poor areas or at least contribute to an affordable housing fund. But right now, most rich areas are 100% NIMBY. Good old film that still is worth watching--"Down and Out in Beverly Hills"..

I used to live in Phoenix until I moved to its polar opposite, Portland, a few years ago. When it comes to homelessness, they pursue the same strategy, which is to concentrate social services and shelters in their downtowns. On a certain level it does make sense but you're right that it's unfair. The rich will counter that they pay more in taxes so they deserve having tony enclaves free of the unsightly. The rich might be hypocrites but money has a persuasive logic all its own. NIMBYs are everywhere, however. The middle classes in Phoenix and Portland won't abide homeless shelters in their hoods either. Bottom line: unless we create a national strategy to mainstream the homeless with a guaranteed basic income, only those areas with the least political clout will end up paying the price.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ozone

The question I have is why the OP is so hung up with and constantly trashing California all the time. But to the question posed. Hollywood was never as glamorous as people imagine. It was largely a working class town full of underemployed would-be actors, and a lot of ordinary underpaid behind the scene employees in the film industry. The stars lived in the Hollywood Hills and Beverly Hills.

This.

Hollywood is refers to more than just the neighborhood. The enterainment industry has a MASSIVE footprint n LA, stretching from Venice/Playa Vista/Santa Monica to Burbank/Glendale and even downtown now.

That said, it's nowhere as gritty as it used to be. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. The "grittiest" part of Hollywood is actually along Santa Monica boulevard, but that section is filled with enterainment/creative companies. Some of the side streets over there have nice new apartments these days.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Maybe. But I'm not exactly into urine, bail bond shops and tweaker's delight.

Hollywood isn't that bad. I've been there a few times and it was hodge-podge of everything...clogged with tourists. Urine is all part of the urban experience. New York City, for example, is supposed to smell like rotting garbage and piss. Because New York.