Capitol Condos Not a Capital Idea

The Times is reporting that, unsurprisingly, people are upset over a slim possibility of the Capitol Records building being turned into condos. I can understand people’s potential disappointment, but something about going to lengths to keep a company in a building it doesn’t necessarily want because it “feels right” rather than for some positive economic impact seems strange.

9 thoughts on “Capitol Condos Not a Capital Idea”

  1. All of which just reminds me that the Fox local news the other night ran a graphic covering some politician’s Capital trip. :’-(

  2. I don’t care if its Capital Records in there, but I’d like to keep more actual entertainment businesses in Hollywood instead of it continuing to become only a symbol of the entertainment industry, and full of tourist traps, shopping, and residential areas.

  3. Usually I don’t mind the function being changed as long as the building remains where it is. LA has a scary history of tearing down landmarks and substantially changing neighborhoods with no regard to character or historical heritage. But I agree, having the signature industries stay would be a lot better. You never know what fills in the gap they leave behind…

  4. I’m not sure why office space is acceptable, but residential space isn’t. As Valentin says, it’s really about the building and not the function. Personally, I think it would be an awesome place to live. But of course that depends on how it’s done, because I can also imagine it being a real dump, in spite of its terrific facade.

  5. then again, where would you park?

    Ha. Capitol agrees with you:

    In 2000, Capitol Records officials said they were prepared to leave Hollywood because of a lack of parking and the need to upgrade their building. The City Council spent $4 million to help Capitol refurbish a nearby office building and prevent the move.

    You never know what fills in the gap they leave behind.

    Well, in this case you do. Or do you mean if one industry leaves you don’t know what other industry will replace it? That’s an interesting point. They actually address this in the final paragraph, which is bizarre because it seems like the most persuasive argument and they should have brought it up much earlier:

    “We have to be really careful to make sure we don’t transform Hollywood into a city of restaurants and lounges and high-end residential,” said Kor Group’s Bartolo, “without being mindful of the need to have office workers in the area by day to shop and eat in the restaurants.”

    I do think it would be a bummer if they left, but in the end it’s really only 160 people. Even though everybody talks about Holywood being vacant, it’s full of entertainment-related businesses. What does everybody think is occupying all of that office and bungalow space? It’s all writers, producers, small production companies, recording studios, photography studios, etc.

  6. First the Ambassodor Hotel now Capitol Records building? Hollywoods doing a great job destroying landmarks.

    A) Capitol is, or was, only entertaining discussion. It’s all still wildly speculative.
    B) Nobody’s talking about tearing anything down.

  7. If they go through with the conversion- I’m not taking sides- I think it would be awesome if they had a 1/3 market (for the grossly wealthy), 1/3 artists’ residences (to keep the creativity flowing from this landmark) and 1/3 below-market (to keep it real).

Comments are closed.