rkolsen 1679 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 The title is self explanatory. I was looking at NBC's Filmmaker Destination (Now called Universal Studios Lot) website because I was curious about the technical equipment in Studio 8H (they had a list before). Anyway I got to looking st the Universal City map and saw the Brokaw News Center was carved out to be part of the City of LA while the rest of the lot was LA County. I vaguely remember reading through paperwork for the redevelopment of the Universal City lot that originally dealt with the planned residential development (that failed) but it included the transfer of part of the lot to the City of Los Angeles from Los Angeles County. I never figured out or saw why they specifically rezoned the part of the lot to become of the city just for the Brokaw News Center (and I think 10 Universal City Plaza). Could anyone enlighten me on the reasoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 The title is self explanatory. I was looking at NBC's Filmmaker Destination (Now called Universal Studios Lot) website because I was curious about the technical equipment in Studio 8H (they had a list before). Anyway I got to looking st the Universal City map and saw the Brokaw News Center was carved out to be part of the City of LA while the rest of the lot was LA County. I vaguely remember reading through paperwork for the redevelopment of the Universal City lot that originally dealt with the planned residential development (that failed) but it included the transfer of part of the lot to the City of Los Angeles from Los Angeles County. I never figured out or saw why they specifically rezoned the part of the lot to become of the city just for the Brokaw News Center (and I think 10 Universal City Plaza). Could anyone enlighten me on the reasoning? The rezoning has nothing to to with Brokaw News Center, since BNC was/ is an afterthought. That area was annexed to LA City for taxation reasons (fire and city services) because there was a planned residential development going in. Keeping that county land would be a bad idea for all involved for a slew of reasons. Universal wanted to sell off some of the back-lot and make condos. Well the locals got pissed over nimby traffic and stuff...and Universal was "convinced" to keep the back-lot as working production areas. Now the annexation is moot since nobody will be living on that land. I don't know if there is any plan to revert that land back to the county, however if you call 911 from the Brokaw News Center,you will get a fire truck from LA city fire and maybe the little fire truck that Universal studios has (Engine 51 and Squad 51) or used to have. There are some details here.. http://deadline.com/2009/10/new-details-on-upgrading-universal-city-16749/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrschimpf 2063 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 I'm assuming tax credits; Universal City is about 70% unincorporated to avoid LA city taxes and regulations, and there was probably some kind of deal so the city could claim that KNBC was in Los Angeles proper and get some ego points out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeters 1811 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 It's actually historical and has nothing to do with the building that is there today. The Los Angeles River used to widen pretty much where the building is today. When Universal first bought the parcels of land that make up their property, the river was still flowing naturally, and thus the property lines for that part of their property were based on the river. The Los Angeles city limits were just drawn around the Universal property lines to create Universal City. Later, the river would be straightened and contained by concrete which created new parcels of land where the river once flowed. This map from 1955 shows the city limits running diagonally through the property roughly where the Brokaw News Center is today as well as some topographical marks showing how the riverbed used to widen there. The County Assessor's Office map show's that's still the case. Since the majority of the combined parcels falls within LA City limits, it's all assumed to be in the City. The Assessor's map also illustrates just how much property boundaries are influenced by history: To this day, the name of that subdivision remains on the books that of the original developer "Lankershim Ranch Land and Water Co." with no regard to what has happened since that subdivision was created in the 1800's. (I always find property maps fascinating to look at) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolsen 1679 Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 Thanks for the responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewsBuffy 18 Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Weeters has the correct answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.