Hollywood Sign Endangered By Real Estate Deal

LISA LEFF | April 17, 2008 08:59 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
The famous Hollywood sign is visible on Mount Lee under blue skies above Hollywood in downtown Los Angeles, March 18, 2008. Potential sale of property on Cahuenga Peak near the sign has raised objections from many people and is forcing the city to consider buying the property. (AP Photo/Don Ryan)

LOS ANGELES — The world-famous HOLLYWOOD sign that has been used by TV and movie directors in more scene-setting shots than a film student could ever count was first erected in 1923 to promote real estate in the fledgling capital of celluloid.

Eighty-five years later, some fear the sign and the hillside on which it sits are threatened by, yes, a real estate deal.

An investment group that owns 138 sage-covered acres above and to the left of the 45-foot-high, steel-and-concrete H put the land up for sale last month for $22 million.

Some Los Angeles residents are afraid mansions will be built there, spoiling the sign's uncluttered, postcard-perfect backdrop. They worry, too, that the land will no longer be accessible to the hikers, sightseers and romantics who often climb the hill for solitude and a panoramic view of the Los Angeles basin.

Residents led by a city councilman are fighting to preserve the parcel, known as Cahuenga Peak.

"That is our Eiffel Tower," Councilman Tom LaBonge said. "There is the Hollywood sign. There is the open space. And that's all there is. This is ours and it should remain ours."

The parcel has a distinctly Hollywood back story: It was once owned by billionaire Howard Hughes.

Lore has it that Hughes bought it in 1940 _ 17 years after the publisher of the Los Angeles Times spelled out his plans for a nearby subdivision in King Kong-size letters _ with dreams of building an estate to share with Ginger Rogers.

The romance fizzled _ Rogers later said the idea of being holed up with the tycoon on the isolated hilltop gave her the willies _ and Hollywood's highest crest was left to the deer, the coyotes and the visitors who ignore the no-trespassing signs.

In fact, most people here assumed the property had long ago fallen into the public domain. That is, until Fox River Financial Resources, the Chicago investors who quietly purchased the peak from Hughes' estate for $1.7 million in 2002, put the one-of-a-kind parcel on the market recently.

Based on the bargain-basement price paid by the investors, it appears the Hughes estate's trustees were unaware of what it was worth or too busy managing the billionaire's vast holdings to care, said Ernie Carswell, a real estate agent handling the property.

Either way, the current asking price stems from valuable information the owners unearthed after buying the property: In 1949, Hughes secured the right to build a hillside road on land owned by the city Department of Water and Power. That would make the hill more accessible, and thus more attractive to homeowners.

"Deep beneath all the layers was the Hope diamond. Someone found it, and it was our sellers," Carswell said. "The day that happened is when that property skyrocketed in value."

Carswell said the parcel is farther away from the Hollywood sign than many people realize, and that at a distance, even a mansion would be a mere "speck" on the mountain.

To the many fans of the Hollywood sign, however, carving up 1,820-foot Cahuenga Peak makes as much sense as cutting up the Hope diamond to make a lot of engagement rings.

"I think people would do everything from bake sales to jog-a-thons to stop this," said Yvonne Chotzen, who often walks her dog on the trail below the sign. "There is huge passion for it."

LaBonge wants the city, which owns the ground the sign stands on and the land on three sides of it, to acquire the old Hughes property. But he said the city cannot legally pay more than $6 million, a price based on its most recent appraisal.

The councilman is talking to conservation groups about buying the land. Another option, he said, is asking Hollywood heavy hitters to chip in as they did in the 1970s, when Hugh Hefner, Alice Cooper and other celebrities paid $28,000 each to replace the sign's nine crumbling letters.

Historian Marc Wanamaker, president of the preservation group Hollywood Heritage, doubts the Ginger Rogers-Howard Hughes love story. But he said there is no denying the significance of the Hollywood sign, which is instantly recognizable around the world.

"It's true the Hollywood sign was originally a sign to help sell development. But by 1945 the City Council of Los Angeles had made it the official iconic sign of Los Angeles," Wanamaker said. "It's just become part of the culture and landmark status of Los Angeles, extremely important."

Carswell said there is something ironic about the effort to block real estate development around the site.

"Those letters were a real estate developer's advertisement. That's the whole way the sign got there," he said. "So I think it's the perfect circle."

___

On the Net:

http://www.telesproperties.com/app/webroot/cahuengapeak/

http://www.hollywoodheritage.org

http://www.hollywoodsign.org

 

Comments
19
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:

the land around the hollywood sign is what is really at stake! so most of you don't care about hollywood...bfd, but do you care about land? this is one of the most beautiful areas in LA. around the sign, bronson canyon, beachwood canyon...the hollywood hills. i grew up in LA, actually went to summer camp at camp hollywoodland which is right next to the sign. this is our wilderness in la! lave it be, tear down a couple mcmansions in beverly hills, no one cares, and the real estate is worth more. leave the sign (the LAND) alone!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:40 PM on 04/17/2008

I always envisioned a tramway (like the one in Palm springs) based behind the Oakwood Apartments going to the top of the hill, kind of around where the 1 tree is (hey is that where they got the name one tree hill?). At the top of the hill would be a large restaurant with 360º views. I know this thought will piss off a lot of people, but since it will probably never happen I thought I would share the thought with y'all.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 PM on 04/17/2008

The new Hollywood could give a Rat's a*s about what the old Hollywood would have cringed at suggesting nowadays I'm sure ,those old moguls and Hollywood stars are rolling over in their graves at the Hollywood now,the Hollwood now would sell out any iconic symbol ,any landmark,for the highest price believe me.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 04/17/2008

No surprise if people rally their ol' Can Do attitude and save the sign. But save the world? Stop catastrophic global climate change? Oh no. That would be inconvenient. That would hurt the "bottom line". Look down, buddy. You're not standing on a brick of gold or a wad of bills. Your feet and foundation are on dirt. Remember dirt? It grows stuff you need to eat so you can live. And it's dying.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:08 PM on 04/17/2008

While I agree with the sentiment of the posters below me, I must say that I think that's a very short-sighted view. This sign is now more than a sign, just like the Eiffel Tower is more than just steel. Just like the Statue of Liberty is more than just copper. This is an historic landmark at this point, and spoiling it, even with mansions which would be "just a speck" makes as much sense as putting an advertisement on the Statue of Liberty!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 PM on 04/17/2008

This one of LA's major significant landmarks, even if it is rooted in a real estate development. The problem is that the Chicago investment house is basically blackmailing LA - they expect the City of LA to pay their inflated price, and are inflaming the passions of Angelenos by dropping rumors that "middle eastern" interests are looking at the parcels.

We hold so little sacred in LA, and silly as it may sound, this sign is an important part of our collective consciousness. One of the few things that symbolically unifies this diverse city.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 04/17/2008

Just what we need, more McMansions. I thought home-building was down to ridiculously low levels. Do these greedy bastards really need this specific plot of land? Are there really gluttinous pigs out there craving a mansion on the hillside next to the Hollywood sign?

Eat the rich.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 AM on 04/17/2008

BFD

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 AM on 04/17/2008

So move the friggin' sign. There are plenty of unstable hills in the area that are unsuitable for building and could be used to relocate it. The only in LA could a real estate sign be considered a landmark isn't even in Hollywood in the first place. There are a lot of good spots areas actually in Hollywood, even around another landmark, the Hollywood Bowl that would do nicely.

As for the $22million price tag for the land, good luck. Real estate prices are in a tailspin and the City Council's offer of $6million sounds more in line. So let the developer try and get his number without holding the residents of Los Angeles hostage and by exploiting the value of a somewhat dubious icon.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 04/17/2008

Pfffftttt... it was a real estate sign to begin with!

LOL!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:37 AM on 04/17/2008

If we can't see the sign anymore what are we going to change to say Hollyweed.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 04/17/2008

Cash is king. The pandemic has arrived and it is developers, ravenous as locusts.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 04/17/2008

Bastards!! Arrgghh...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 04/17/2008

Jeez with the attitude that some of the comments no wonder there is the attitude that L. A. has no history. The sign is protected it's the view that would be cluttered of mansions around it.
Why isn't the big hitters of Hollywood rallying to this, where's Spielberg and De Caprio and Tom Cruise and (gawd) Paris Hilton etc. etc.. don't they care ONE SHREAD about this.

And all this crap about housing well it ain't gonna make anymore housing for the folks that need it the most.

Fortunately I once was able to hike to the sign from Griffith Park before they fenced it off and added security stuff around it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 AM on 04/17/2008

I'm somewhat surprised the sign isn't protected by some landmark commission. Personally I could care less about the sign itself, but it was always a good excuse to leave the land as undeveloped as possible. If threat of losing the sign keeps the land from being turned into million dollar homes that offer no relief to middle class home buyers then at least it can serve a decent purpose.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 AM on 04/17/2008

I have seen the sign in person....like, who cares, rip it down.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:53 AM on 04/17/2008

And, who says the age of irony is over?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 AM on 04/17/2008

The end of Hollywood as we know it.

Sounds good.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 AM on 04/17/2008

Having lived underneath the famous sign I feel qualified to say... so what? Its one of the stupidest landmarks around. Well, maybe most underwhealming.

Now there could be reason for opposing this still. While LA desperately needs more space for housing, I doubt the huge prices that these estates will go for will bring relief to middle-class home buyers. And having yet a side of mountain helps the city feel a little less claustrophobic when you can look up from anywhere and see some wilderness.

I hope they don't build on it, but screw the sign.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:32 AM on 04/17/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 

Popular Stories on HuffPost
M.S. Bellows, Jr. Clinton's Open Letter To Obama On MI and FL

On a day when it appears that the Michigan controversy may be resolved in a way...

Obama Vice President Picks: Who Are The Frontrunners?

With the Democratic nomination now in its endgame, it's time to speculate on...

Obama Suggests Offer Maybe Clinton Can't Refuse

On Friday, Barack Obama publicly raised the possibility of helping Hillary Clinton pay...

Bill Clinton's Angry Confrontation With Voter (VIDEO)

From "CBS News RAW": While campaigning in Fayetteville, W.Va., Bill Clinton argued with...

Eva Mendes Topless And Toe Sucking In New Photoshoot (PICTURES)

Actress and Calvin Klein spokeswoman Eva Mendes posed for a provocative photospread in the...

Obama Campaign Launches "Vote For Change" Voter Registration Drive

Today, May 10, marks the first day of what the Obama campaign is calling its "Vote For...

Nancy Pelosi Cuts Short Press Conference, Makes "Beeline" For Obama During His DC Visit

CBS caught Senator Obama on Capitol Hill in a swarm of...

"Saturday Night Live's" Message From Hillary Clinton: "I Have No Ethical Standards" (VIDEO)

Last night's all new "Saturday Night Live"

Clinton Supporters Send Last-Ditch Obama Attack Emails To Supers

As the Democratic primary nears its long-awaited conclusion, undecided superdelegates have...

Al Meyerhoff McCain to Me in 1999: Bush "As Dumb as a Stump"

As a lawyer might say (OK, I am one), I have no personal knowledge of whether John or...

Arianna Huffington Truth Alert: McCain's Freudian Slip is Showing (and Very Telling)

At the same time that former West Wingers...

Kevin Phillips Washington's Great "No Inflation" Hoax

Billionaire California bond manager Bill Gross calls it "a haute con job." Bloomberg...

Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ASK_logo