It's the archetypal Hollywood tourist scene. Visitors compare their handprints with those of stars at the Chinese Theater. They gawk at a premiere at the El Capitan. They point to names lit up on neon marquees, and recite the names enshrined in terrazzo on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Only one thing is wrong with this scene: It is occurring in Florida, on a replica of Hollywood Boulevard at Disney/MGM Studios Theme Park in Walt Disney World. It's the archetypal Hollywood tourist scene. Visitors compare their handprints with those of stars at the Chinese Theater. They gawk at a premiere at the El Capitan. They point to names lit up on neon marquees, and recite the names enshrined in terrazzo on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Only one thing is wrong with this scene: It is occurring in Florida, on a replica of Hollywood Boulevard at Disney/MGM Studios Theme Park in Walt Disney World. The real Hollywood Boulevard, meanwhile, looks shabby by day and menacing by night. While Tinseltown still attracts millions of visitors, most react with disappointment at the lack of attractions and historical flavor. Tour groups pile off the buses to take a gander at the Chinese Theater, and then pile on again. There is nothing else to see, at least in the eyes of tour guides. When first announced in 1986, the Hollywood Redevelopment Project seemed an easy winner. Hollywood has an inexhaustible hold on the world's imagination, and the area has a pent-up tourist demand. If most of the film studios have left the area, Hollywood continues to be center of entertainment-related businesses. The commercial strips are filled with handsome buildings from the 1920s and '30s. "Hollywood has so many positive things going for it: a central location, the cultural history, a great collection of buildings, and some of the world's greatest housing nearby," says Los Angeles architect Barton Myers. But nearly five years later, the $1 billion Hollywood redevelopment is still largely an idea. With one exception, all major projects are dormant. And millions of dollars of tax increment designated for the project remained tied up in court Ironically, commercial developments with filmland themes have been popping up in Southern California and Florida in recent years. Much of the tourist trade destined for Hollywood is siphoned away by MCA-Universal Studio Tours. Some skeptics say that Hollywood has waited too long to stage a comeback, and that the real thing may have difficulty competing with glitzy imitations in more controlled environments. Why has redevelopment taken so long? Councilman Michael Woo, a professional planner who spearheaded the redevelopment project, points to the thoroughness of the planning process. A soft office market and the notorious "credit crunch" are other answers. Legal problems also took up time. One lawsuit resulted from the disbandment of the original Hollywood Project Area Committee, which had been set up to advise the CRA. The PAC had contained a number of outspoken opponents of redevelopment; they claimed their lack of cooperation caused their dismissal. (Woo and the CRA later set up another committee, Hollywood Community Advisory Council, that critics claim has been friendlier to redevelopment.) Former PAC members sued to be reinstated, and to have their powers enlarged. A Superior Court judge ruled against the group in February 1989, and an appeal failed. In a second and still unresolved case, a group of local residents, Save Hollywood Our Town (SHOT), sued the CRA, challenging the legality of the Hollywood Redevelopment Project. In particular, SHOT claimed the CRA had not properly notified property owners or held public meetings regarding the plan. A Superior Court judge dismissed the suit; SHOT is currently appealing the case. As a result of the suit, the tax increment from the Hollywood Area -- now about $10 million -- has been parked in an escrow account until the case is resolved. The case made it next to impossible for the agency to float bonds for Hollywood-area projects. But if the courts have delayed Hollywood, the time was arguably well spent in planning. After rejecting a prior plan prepared by consultants, Woo in 1987 created an advisory group, Hollywood Planning and Design Review Committee, headed by Hollywood-based architect Myers, to create policy for urban design and "built form." Woo and CRA staff also created a design "workshop" and invited public participation in numerous meetings that sometimes resembled the "charrette" or collective-design process favored by designers such as Andres Duany. For a city agency accustomed to dictating design criteria from on high, the workshops were a "unique" experience, says Cooke Sunoo, CRA project manager for Hollywood. The latest version of the plan is remarkable for its close attention to local conditions. The plan divides Hollywood into three overlapping areas: tourism and entertainment to the West, a "gateway" to Hollywood near on Hollywood and Vine, and residential-oriented retail to the east. Residential mixed use is a priority throughout. Design guidelines are also proposed. They include wider sidewalks and tree planting on Hollywood Boulevard. A 150-foot height limit is imposed on new construction, to conform to the standard of the 1920s. A continuous "streetwall" is to be maintained, while architectural styles are to complement Hollywood's combination of "Chateau, Moderne, and Spanish," according to Myers. The transition from planning to development has been frustrating, however. Only the Hollywood Galaxy, a 200,000-square-foot shopping center, is currently under construction. The Hollywood Promenade project, arguably the linchpin of Hollywood redevelopment, remains in limbo. The project, intended for a five-block area between Highland Avenue and the Chinese Theater, combines certain elements of shopping malls, office districts, and theme parks. It includes a high-rise office building, a major hotel, a shopping center, a Hollywood museum, and an American Cinematheque film center to screen classic Hollywood fare. But the developer, Melvin Simon & Associates, has been unable to obtain financing. After months of rumors that the project was all but dead, the CRA has offered "tens of millions" of dollars in incentives, according to CRA's Sunoo; he declines to identify them. Conceivably because of those incentives, the project in late October seemed close to getting financed at last. Other ambitious projects are also quiet. Little has been heard lately of a project of the Bass family of Fort Worth, Texas, to build 1,000 units of housing and 200,000 square feet of retail. Ditto for Alexander Haagen's plans to refurbish a former Sears location. The difficulty of moving projects forward in Hollywood has prompted skeptics to ask whether Hollywood has missed its moment -- and its market. Planning consultant Larry Kosmont is one of the doubters. "They lost the office market to the Burbank Media District and the tourist market to Universal Studio Tour," he says. "You tend to wonder whether people would be a lot more comfortable in a more contrived environment, such as Universal City, as opposed to the real grit of Hollywood." The idea makes Woo bristle. "It's a mistake to think that Hollywood needs nothing more than a new amusement park to turn it around. ... Hollywood has a number of unique attributes ... and a multi-ethnic constituency that makes for a genuine, dynamic urban district, as opposed to an entertainment park atmosphere." In making such comments, Woo is simply pointing out the critical difference between Universal City and Hollywood. Universal is an attraction, not a city. It has no housing and no jobs apart from the MCA payroll; it offers nothing of interest that does not cost money, and it closes at night. Hollywood, on the other hand, is a genuine urban environment. It partakes of the "disorder" that social critic Richard Sennett has identified as a needed element in an increasingly controlled world. The real Hollywood is bound to lose some of the tourist trade to its clean-cut imitators. Eventually, however, the middle class will return to Hollywood, as an antidote to oppressive orderliness. Despite what film studios say, life is more interesting than any amusement park. Maybe sooner or later the lenders will catch on, and the Hollywood redevelopment plan will start moving forward again.
