Author: Caroline Olsen-Van Stone
There are some pretty extravagant lawn ornaments in LA-hundreds of pink flamingos, ostentatious fountains-but home buyers should not have the chance to buy property that backs up to the iconic Hollywood Sign.
This sign is much more than 50-foot sheet metal letters. It, along with the land around it, should be preserved as a historical monument. Its rich history and world fame should ensure its safety from money-hungry developers forever.
According to an LA Times article written in February titled “Homes could rise on ridge near Hollywood sign,” the problem, as communicated by a Chicago investment group, is that the city of Los Angeles does not have the money to preserve the land around the sign. The current landowner, Fox River Financial Resources, bought the 138-acre property of Cahuenga Peak in 2002 from the Howard Hughes estate.
Though city leaders have been raising money to buy this land as a part of an extension of Griffith Park, according to the Times they’ve only got $5 million of the $22 million Fox River is asking for.
The Fox River group, in the grand tradition of Los Angeles growth, is made up of modern-day land speculators. In fact, it is ironic that the Hollywood Sign is in danger of encroachment by developers, when it began as an advertisement for a development itself, Hollywoodland, established in the 1920’s.
Actors have committed suicide from atop it, CalTech students pulled a prank to make it read CalTech, it burned down once and in 1978 actors felt so strongly about saving it that they donated $27 million each to preserve it, the LA Times reported.
This is the argument every preservationist uses, but really, what would it be like to have a cluttered hillside around the Hollywood Sign? It would change the everyday lives of Angelenos and even Californians significantly. A part of their history would be reduced to an existence in the books, rather than in front of them.
Tourists hoping to capture a snapshot of themselves in front of the iconic Hollywood sign would see LA as it really is -overrun with cancer-paced population growth rates and greedy home buyers (not exactly a Kodak moment). Residents who currently have views of the Hollywood Sign may, in addition to an altered view of the sign, face lowered property values.
Though many are staunchly opposed to compromising even the setting of this sign, Times writer D.J. Waldie argues in her piece “What’s our Sign?” that it is but one of LA’s many landmarks. LA does have a lot of landmarks, but many of them have disappeared, and can only be found in books like Los Angeles Then and Now. This book, and others like it, feature tragic before-and-after photographs of LA’s historic buildings and intersections. For example, The Brown Derby-once a restaurant in the shape of the hat by the same name-has been replaced by a strip mall, and all that remains of the hat is a small icon of it on the strip mall marquee.
Real Angelenos love many parts of LA, but the Hollywood Sign is an integral part of this city’s character, and to see it altered would mean defeat in the struggle for remembrance of important eras in LA’s history. It is also a testament to the city’s ostentatious sets and chicanery.
Forces at work to modernize this city and evidence of their successes are everywhere, so to overlook the encroachment of real estate on a real landmark is unforgiveable. The dinky Hollywood sign at Universal City Walk just cannot be this icon’s stunt double.
Caroline Olsen-Van Stone is a junior CTSJ major. She can be reached at cstone@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
