1.

Great for Bernard Luggage Company - his chutzpa paid off (the big murder sign on the top of the building was quite funny).

Too bad he didn't make a bigger stink when the main part of the Brown Derby was destroyed in 1994.

Hope he'll do something with the space other than sell luggage though -- Ross stores can provide same luggage for fraction of cost of regular retail.

And too bad W condos are estimated to sell for $1000+ a square foot. With a few "set asides for low income" -- what about reasonably priced units for middle income people with decent jobs (not low or high paying) that cann't afford a $750K mortgage for 750 square feet????

Kids/Elderly -- Low Income/High Income -- everyone seems to ignore the middle -- a stable middle class is what builds a stable country and a stable city.

2.

So, where IS the historic building? Is there something worthwhile underneath the hedious sign and cheap facade? I respect the owner's property rights, but why use historical preservation to support your cause? If the building really meant anything to its owner he would have renovated the place a long time ago. Stores like his add a sorry touch of downtown Azusa to Hollywood.

3.

Actually, I agree with eyeful and I'm PISSED! I know that the owner of Bernard's Luggage may have both a financial and sentimental stake in retaining his store but that store is absolutely hideous and gross and does NOT look like it has any historical significant, architecturally or otherwise. I think this was just an owner with a huge ego that refused to allow the "big guys" and the powers that be to win. Why hasn't any of the posters that support him ever asked the owner why he never did anything to maintain this supposed landmark and upgrade it over the years? Does he now plan to give it a major facelift? Has anyone here ever been inside the shop and actaully made a purchase? It's a total eyesore and I'm suprised that the city signed off on allowing that piece of crap to remain. I, too, believe in historical preservation and I'm an architecture fanatic and I have always appreciated L.A.'s best and oldest structures. This is definetly not one of them! Reminds me of a situation years ago when the Pacific Design Center was being developed and built and there was one solitary property owner that refused to sell, even after being offered far more money that the other earlier sellers. It was a small key-making shack, the kind you may see on corners all over the city. The PDC was eventually built around this shack and the shack remained untouched for many years until the owner eventually died and his two daughters immediately sold the property to the PDC. But for many years, passerbys often wondered aloud, "What da heck?" And if anyone is curious, yes, I live in Hollywood.

4.

Yes, hope the building is restored, without the neon beauty shop and psychic signs.

5.

The building is historically significant, as it was orginally a portion of the original Hollywood location of the Brown Derby restaurant. It was a separate building from the restaurant (obviously since the luggage store and the restaurant were both operating there for decades), but was built at the same time as part of the same project.

I agree it looks like crap and needs a major renovation. Bernard Luggage has been there since around 1950 (I think?) and the building dates to the 1920's. A restoration to its 1920's appearance would be welcome.

By the way, down the block a ways, at the former location of cocktail lounge Daddy's, former patrons of that establishment have covered the front of the place with tons of heartfelt grafitti bemoaning their loss. Go check it out if the building hasn't been knocked down already.

6.

It's truly a shame that it takes lawsuits to convince the CRA, at long last, that there are people in Los Angeles other than developers and the obscenely wealthy whose interests need to be considered while redeveloping the city.

But if that's what it's going to take, I say: sue away.

7.

that place is a dump. i cant believe that the project is being built around it. why not lease him space in the new spot for what he pays now, or close to it so that the eyesore can be torn down? Dont get me wrong, we need to save some of our history, but only when its relevant.

8.

why not lease him space in the new spot for what he pays now, or close to it so that the eyesore can be torn down?

Unless I'm badly mistaken, he owns the building outright.

Look, I think he's as crazy as anyone, but he still owns the property, and ED-ing private property for economic development purposes isn't Undistilled Good(tm).

9.

Hi everyone. I'm the person at the eye of the storm here. The Regional Administrator of the CRA/LA for Hollwood. So I thought I'd respond to a few of the more interesting comments.

1.) Bernard's has some historic merit. It was designed by the same architect as the Brown Derby. Sadly, the Derby was knocked down after the northridge earthquake, so the whole feel of the Vine street district is changed.

2. ) We are restoring the facade of the "Herman Building" but we are not preserving the whole thing. We are digging underneath for parking, and over for building. So you will see a piece of the old building restored, and the historic features of the interior will be saved.

3.) You don't have to Sue the CRA to get our attention. We are not a faceless burocracy, but local residents who happen to work for the government, and are trying hard to help revitalization occur in this City we love.

4.) A lot of press time has gone in to Eminent Domain, but quite frankly we always try to negotiate deals. Sometimes the press gets frenzied and lawyers get nasty. I'm glad this deal worked out.

5.) We have NOT forgotten about middle income folks. There is a lot of housing need in LA. I'm very proud that we got 20% of the apartments in this project for very low income housholds. (Which is where there is greatest demand for housing). But we have other projects in the pipeline with "workforce housing" for more middle of the range.

6.) We are an open door. If you ever want to talk with me - or anyone at the Hollywood CRA, please feel free to come to our offices and tell us what you think.

Helmi
WWW.CRALA.ORG or (213) 977-1677

10.

Helmi: your agency has been "trying hard to help revitalization occur in the City" for decades now, and has almost invariably screwed things up.

The CRA was responsible for the wholesale destruction of the Bunker Hill neighborhood (which could have been restored) and its replacement with cold corporate offices; Bunker Hill to this day is a ghost town after 5 P.M.

The CRA forced poor Latino residents out of Chavez Ravine with the promise of newer, better housing; instead the whole thing was ultimately razed to create Dodger Stadium.

The CRA condemned and destroyed the entirety of the historic Beacon Street waterfront area in San Pedro in the late 1960s and replaced it with vacant lots, vacuous office buildings (one of which was a money-losing failure right up until it was mercifully demolished last summer), a perennially empty hotel that keeps changing hands from one corporate hospitality chain to another, and a couple of depressing cinderblock mini-shopping centers. San Pedro has never recovered from the blow...and the CRA's solution to this in 2006 is to subsidize the construction of several large "loft" condominium projects on the outskirts of the dead zone it created forty years ago (needless to say, even the cheapest of these units are well outside the financial grasp of the local residents who have been inconvenienced for four decades by the CRA's folly).

Those are just the debacles that I can think of off the top of my head. Do you think everybody has forgotten about these things? The CRA's long history is a history of bullying, sweetheart deals with politically-connected developers, and the destruction of irreplaceable neighborhoods and the forced displacement of their residents and small businesses. It's nice that you, Helmi, have taken the time to address the Curbed readership, but please don't insult our intelligence.

As to the deals that you "always try to negotiate" before seizing people's property to hand over to your favored developers: it's like the difference between sticking a gun to somebody's temple and demanding his wallet, or discreetly flashing the gun in its holster while strongly suggesting he "voluntarily" hand the wallet over. Either way, the victim knows what's going to happen if he rejects the deal.

11.

Daniel, all your examples are thirty years old or more. And are you sure the redevelopment agency was involved in Chavez Ravine?

12.

Well, it sure seems as if Daniel has an axe to grind regarding the CRA. In an earlier post he suggests that we all do the very thing that most Americans have come to despise: SUE AWAY! Definetly not good advice in my opinion. Also, I'm certain that the current leadership of the CRA isn't the same as it was when some of these events happened four decades ago. Gimme a break!

13.

Wrongshore: I gave examples that are decades old because those are the ones that are the most famous, mostly because they are the ones whose ill effects persist to this day. Bunker Hill is still an urban ghost town, they're still trying to figure out what to do about it, the people displaced from Chavez Ravine were never made whole, etc. I can give you plenty of more recent examples (apart from...hello!...the example that this post is about) if you want to read another long comment. But a lot of the recent ones are still in the process of being bullied into existence.

In answer to your question, yes, I'm positive. It's not a state secret or anything.

14.

The building is being redone, the facade is being restored. The owner inherited the property from his father only a couple years ago, so it is not his fault that it hasn't been restored. One of the excuses that was given for the eminent domain was that the government had to intervene because private developers wouldn't come to the area without it... except that all the surrounding blocks are being redone by - gasp! - private developers. What a crock. It doesn't matter what the building looks like, you can't use eminent domain to take one person's private property to give it to another private person. It's ILLEGAL.

15.

Right on eyeful. The attempt the "save" this building as a historical resource is viewed by many as an underhanded tactic. This building lacks integrity - of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Six of the seven aspects required to determine historical significance. The "saving" of a structure such as this only diminishes the hard work of preservationists around the city. So the facade remains... facadectomies are not preservation either.