You're going to encounter a certain amount of tension between preservationists and urban planners whenever any wide-ranging redevelopment plans are being trotted out for long-established but somewhat-rundown urban enclaves. And certainly, when you are dealing with a community that holds such strong sentimental value for a lot of locals, the prospect of redevelopment will elicit even stronger feelings than normal. The only salient questions, to me, in any kind of renewal project like this would be:
(1) Will it promote increased economic activity, i.e., more jobs and money for the area?
(2) Will it take advantage of existing infrastructure and transportation to attract commerce?
(3) Will it increase overall public safety and well-being for the community?
(4) Will it at least maintain (if not enhance) the community's existing public amenities?
Now, in the case discussed here, just about any redevelopment would answer these questions affirmatively since, sentimentality aside, most of central and east (i.e., "Old") Hollywood is, frankly, a low-rent crime-addled eyesore, and has been for decades. Hollywood Boulevard between LaBrea and Vine has become a bustling destination for dining, dating, nightlife, etc., over the past 20 years, but the "trickle down" effect upon the surrounding neighborhood has been marginal (and in the case of parking, arguably to its detriment), and should you stroll more than two blocks off the main drag in any direction, you had better be packing.But,
(5) If the aim of the redevelopment is to encourage more people to stay out of their cars and "live more locally," can people of modest means afford to live and work in the newly redeveloped neighborhood?
That's a genuine sticking point since most modern mega-developers want to design their mixed-use spaces for a more affluent clientele with plenty of disposable income for dinner, drinks, shopping, etc., the better to attract front-line anchor tenants---and as a rule, poor people don't have the kind of disposable income these businesses favor. That's not to say you can't shoehorn an upscale development complex into a decidedly downscale neighborhood---the LA Live/Staples Center complex downtown has been a roaring success, both for attracting commerce and as a magnet for trickle-down development of affordable housing on adjacent parcels of land. But unlike downtown's South Park district, where plenty of vacant lots provided ample space to build out for lofts, parking, etc., undeveloped real estate is almost nonexistent in a place like Hollywood anymore.
How to fix? Well, most of Hollywood's neighborhoods---away from the high-traffic commercial pockets---are fairly low-density (detached single-family housing, triplexes, bungalow courts, etc.), though it was not ever thus; when the community was smaller, a greater percentage of the population lived in multi-story, tenement-style buildings as one finds in the eastern cities. Though earthquakes and past renovations have taken a toll on their number, there are still quite a few of these old structures in existence, many in close proximity to subway/transit stops, but a lot of them have been either allowed to deteriorate to slum properties or have been re-zoned for commercial/storage use.
So, perhaps a solution to the "Hollywood gentrification problem" would entail a more scattershot "community-wide" (as opposed to a boulevard-centric) initiative that would trade off new upscale commercial development near the historic center with rehabs of structures in outlying neighborhoods, to be re-zoned for residency and reserved for low- and middle-income housing. Most of the people who live there already fit into this income demographic, so you'd be able to retain the area's attraction/affordability for its existing residents, plus you'd be giving lower-income people a stake in the greater redevelopment effort, which translates into a stake in their own community's well-being. (I'm sorta thinking "Broken Windows" here, which Hollywood certainly suffers a great deal from, and how to empower local residents to do something about it on their own without having to rely on already-stretched police/city services.)
Looking back from an hour ago, this was supposed to be a short, pithy post. I guess this means that balancing all the needs of a community before the bulldozers show up to raze it is a difficult, knotty subject requiring of plenty of time and devotion to detail. Fortunately, planners in LA have gotten a lot smarter about this over the last generation or so. Hopefully, they'll get the formula right this time too.
---
Vitelius