Comment by mapgrep | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mapgrep | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I try not to rant on this site but I can't help myself here so I'm sorry:

The whole point of the sign is you can see it from far away. If you look at it from the street in downtown Hollywood or whatever, you are experiencing the sign as it was meant to be experienced.

For people who... for some reason... want to go RIGHT UP to the sign... or behind it... sigh — This is an interesting compulsion which I normally would not judge. But we're now talking one hundred million dollars and untold materials and effort... to help visit... a SIGN. Literally just a sign that says, "Hollywood." Up in some otherwise beautiful nature.

To enable this dysfunctional behavior with this kind of money and technology is nuts. Go to the beach. Go for a hike. Come up with some other utterly unimaginative scheme to visit an object you saw on a screen.

Sometimes it is better NOT to apply technology to a problem. Let's NOT make this easier to accomplish. It's pointless, thoughtless behavior with no worthwhile reward.

To quote an actor named Will Ferrel dressed up as an imaginary fashion star named Mugatu, "Doesn't anyone else notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

("I invented the piano key necktie! I invented it!!")

The Apple and Google HQs are literally just offices and laboratories where people work.

JPL and Kennedy Space Center are just hangars and launchpads where we send rockets into space.

Yellowstone is just a spot on the earth where a bunch of water comes out.

Different things appeal to different people. For some people, getting to visit the Hollywood sign up close is a big deal, especially given the importance that Hollywood films have played in influencing American and international culture. (Hollywood is huge overseas. The sign is literally what billions of people first think of when they think of America. New York and the Statute of Liberty are a close second.)

EDIT: The view of LA from the area below the sign is also pretty great. That view is likely to be just as much part of the attraction as getting up close to the sign. There is only one other easily accessible spot where you can get a view of LA like that (and currently the only spot where you don't need to hike): the Griffith Observatory.

EDIT: The other great view of the LA basin is Inspiration Point in Alta Dena (north of Pasadena), which is a 2-12 hour hike round-trip depending on your fitness level. On a clear day, you can see out to the Channel Islands to the West, and Orange County to the South, and Malibu to the North.

> There is only one other easily accessible spot where you can get a view of LA like that (and currently the only spot where you don't need to hike): the Griffith Observatory.

and if you don't mind hiking 30-45 minutes, take the trail up to the peak behind the observatory to get an even better view of both the LA basin and the san fernando valley on the other side.

Good point. If the sign is visible from as many places as possible, the view from there's gotta be pretty great too. It's their 100M let them spend it. It will probably without a doubt create a profit perhaps within 7 years too. And after that it's all profit! Go waybuilders!

There are _amazing_ things going on at those HQs, JPL, Space Center, and Yellowstone. This is a sign.

It's a sign representing the Hollywood movie industry, which almost everyone in the world loves. To them, the sign is just as amazing as the HQs, space centers, and national parks. I happen to think all of these things are amazing, which is why I include the sign in this august group.

> It's pointless, thoughtless behavior with no worthwhile reward

People enjoy visiting the sign. Just because it's pointless to you doesn't mean it is so to everyone else. These are private dollars being used to fund a development with community input. It's not my cup of tea, but that doesn't mean we must be antagonistic towards it.

You can hike right up to / behind the sign if you want to go there. The hike itself is an experience. The tram will enable the tourists who don't want to hike. I do agree with your sentiment that it will take away some of the magic from the current experience.

How can you hike to it? It's on a hill totally surrounded by a built-up environment.

No, it's not; it's on a hill in a large urban park (Griffith Park) with established hiking trails leading up.

That’s part of the fun. You have to figure that out, while driving past the signs that say “No Hollywood Sign Access”.

I mean you can just walk up to it - you don't need to hike anywhere. It's in the middle of urban environment. It's not somewhere in the wilds.

> Sometimes it is better NOT to apply technology to a problem. Let's NOT make this easier to accomplish.

I am happy that most people don't think this way.

I venture there all the time via hiking or biking as I live near-by.

1. It gives access to an area a lot of people wouldn't / couldn't adventure to due to location and/or heat during the summer. 2. It's the journey not the destination. The view along the way would be pretty cool. 3. The observatory has very limited parking.

Well-put! I can think of 100,000,000 better ways to spend $100,000,000.

In a world where Color and Juicero have collectively received more than $100m to build fancy boondoggles for spoiled rich people, a tramway to the Hollywood sign, which would be a major revenue-generating tourist attraction on its own enjoyed and used by hundreds of thousands of people each year...is not a bad way to spend $100m. It's less than was wasted on those two embarrassments alone.

Two colossal wastes of money is not a good reason for a third colossal waste of money.

We disagree on this being a waste of money. I see it is a valuable tourist destination promotion the LA area and generating taxable tourist spending in LA. It's basically just an investment in a long-term business.

In the meantime, you see wasting $100 million on drug addicts who are voluntarily homeless because they refuse to stop using drugs as a more valuable way to spend money. (See what I did there?) LA already has $2.1 billion to spend on addressing homelessness and it hasn't spent it yet. It doesn't need another $0.1 billion from WB.

I love your post and agree 1000%

Reply on news.ycombinator.com