Connect with us

Business

Inside the Controversy Surrounding Disney’s ‘Snow White’ Remake

Published

on

Inside the Controversy Surrounding Disney’s ‘Snow White’ Remake

Disney knew that remaking “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” as a live-action musical would be treacherous.

But the studio was feeling cocky.

It was 2019, and Disney was minting money at the box office by “reimagining” animated classics like “Aladdin,” “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Jungle Book” as movies with real actors. The remakes also made bedrock characters like Cinderella newly relevant. Heroines defined by ideas from another era — be pretty, and things might work out! — were empowered. Casting emphasized diversity.

Why not tackle Snow White?

Over the decades, Disney had tried to modernize her story — to make her more than a damsel in distress, one prized as “the fairest of them all” because of her “white as snow” skin. Twice, starting in the early 2000s, screenwriters had been unable to crack it, at least not to the satisfaction of an image-conscious Disney.

Advertisement

“Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” which premiered in 1937, posed other remake challenges, including how to sensitively handle Happy, Sneezy, Sleepy, Dopey, Bashful, Grumpy and Doc. (One stalled Disney reboot had reimagined the dwarfs as kung fu fighters in China.)

Still, Disney executives were determined to figure it out. They had some new ideas. More important, the remake gravy train needed to keep running.

“It’s going to be amazing, another big win,” Bob Chapek, then Disney’s chief executive, said of a live-action “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” at a 2022 fan convention.

Instead, “Snow White,” starring Rachel Zegler, arrives in theaters on Friday as one of the most troubled projects in Disney’s 102-year history. The movie became a cautionary tale about relevance — how trying to strike the right cultural chord at the right cultural moment can turn a seemingly innocuous movie into a proxy battle for special interests. And just about everything that could go wrong did, resulting in a case study of the perils of big-budget moviemaking in a volatile, fast-moving world and the risks of trying to endlessly mine existing intellectual property.

For Disney and Hollywood as a whole, this weekend will be a test: How much does prerelease Sturm und Drang even matter these days? Will family ticket buyers steer clear? Or will they ignore the negative chatter and trust a vaunted entertainment brand to provide a little escapist fun?

Advertisement

This article is based on interviews with more than a dozen people involved with the film. Together, their accounts show how “Snow White” went from promising idea to poisoned apple, and how the entertainment giant and the film’s creative team scrambled to save it.

Some “Snow White” challenges amounted to bad luck. Pandemic Covid cases flared up just as production got underway in London, forcing Disney to adopt stringent safety protocols and adding millions of dollars to the budget. One of the sets, a cottage with a thatched roof, caught fire on a soundstage. The 2023 actors’ strike forced Disney to halt reshoots. Gal Gadot, cast as the Evil Queen, suffered health complications from a pregnancy, delaying reshoots and visual-effects work.

Other problems were self-inflicted. Disney flubbed its response to leaked on-set photos of new characters (a troop of seven woodland inhabitants known as bandits) that appear in the new film alongside the seven dwarfs, but that led fans to worry the dwarfs had been expunged entirely for political correctness. And Ms. Zegler went rogue in interviews and on social media, sparking one controversy after another.

Perhaps the biggest challenge to the movie was the cultural shift that has taken place over the past several years.

In 2021, online trolls attacked Disney for casting Ms. Zegler, a Latina actress, as Snow White. “Snow Woke” briefly trended. But the pushback dissipated, and Disney shrugged it off. Inside the studio, executives were proud of the casting. They had been wowed by Ms. Zegler’s voice and screen presence. They saw her ethnicity as a bonus. The killing of George Floyd a year earlier by a police officer had roiled every sphere of American life, prompting institutions and individuals around the country to confront racism and inequity. In Hollywood in general and Disney in particular, “We must do better” rang in every hallway.

Advertisement

As “Snow White” finally comes to market, however, Disney finds itself in a very different climate. Companies, including Disney, have raced to distance themselves from diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives amid a broader backlash toward D.E.I. policies by President Trump. What had been a positive — a Latina in a role associated with whiteness (it’s in the title) — became a potential liability, with right-wing agitators (many of them adult men unlikely to see the film to begin with) hammering Disney and Ms. Zegler.

Some news outlets followed suit. The New York Post alone has published 20 articles about “Snow White” over the last week. “Grumpy, Dopey and Woke — Disney’s ‘Snow White’ Disaster” was the headline on one.

The tumult around “Snow White” had grown so intense by the movie’s premiere in Los Angeles last weekend that Disney heightened security and curtailed red carpet interviews. The entrance to the theater was hidden from public view by tall hedges on movable platforms. (The eagerness to see “Snow White” fall on its face was such that some online haters began insisting, incorrectly, that the premiere had been canceled.)

After the screening, a few Disney executives and people who worked on the film stood in the lobby searching people’s faces for responses and hoping for a last-minute plot twist — that reviews would be positive and their work to keep “Snow White” on track would pay off with strong ticket sales. Maybe, in the end, the movie would not go down in the Hollywood history books as a cautionary tale. Maybe I.P. really can be reimagined for every generation, just as every studio executive loves to dream.

“Our job is to delight,” Marc Platt, the film’s lead producer, said to The New York Times after the premiere. “I’m hopeful that once audiences actually experience the film, all the noise around it will fade away and people will discover a family entertainment that is joyful, aspirational and delightful.”

Advertisement

As the first feature-length, fully narrative animated film, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” defined a new art form. It contributed “Heigh-Ho,” “Whistle While You Work” and “Someday My Prince Will Come” to the Great American Songbook.

The movie cost about $1.5 million to make (about $34 million today) and collected $184 million (roughly $4 billion) in the United States and Canada. Walt Disney bought the land for Disney headquarters with part of the profit. To this day, Disney leaders work in a building adorned with monumental statues of the seven dwarfs. Disney Animation offices sit nearby, along Dopey Drive.

Any effort to remake the movie would carry extra weight.

Knowing this, Disney movie executives lined up an A-plus creative team. In the producer’s chair would be Mr. Platt, now a four-time Oscar nominee for “Wicked,” “La La Land,” “Bridge of Spies” and “The Trial of the Chicago 7.” Marc Webb, who had experience with big-budget blockbusters, including two “Spider-Man” movies, came aboard as director. Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, the EGOT-winning songwriting partners (“Dear Evan Hansen,” “The Greatest Showman”), would contribute new tunes.

Ms. Zegler was winning raves for playing Maria in Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” Ms. Gadot was literally “Wonder Woman.”

Advertisement

The production would be colossal, sprawling across 10 soundstages in suburban London. Eight visual-effects companies in three countries would digitally create the dwarfs, the magic mirror and a multitude of cutesy animals (owls, bunnies, birds, turtles, squirrels). For the deer, puppeteers would be employed.

Most important, the screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson (“The Girl on the Train”) had collaborated with Mr. Pasek and Mr. Paul to modernize the story. Snow White, now named after a wintry storm, was no longer a naïve princess defined by her looks; she was a leader in training, someone the Evil Queen despised because she was beautiful, yes, but also because she prized fairness as a leadership quality. The prince was dropped; that love interest became a Robin Hood-esque scofflaw. And the dwarfs, especially Dopey, were given character arcs of their own — more emotional depth, less bumbling physical comedy.

Greta Gerwig (“Barbie”) and five other writers did polishes. Satisfied by their work, Alan F. Horn, then chairman of Walt Disney Studios, pushed the project forward with a budget of $210 million.

From the beginning, Disney knew the seven dwarfs could become a public-relations nightmare. Disney fans delight in them. The dwarfism community, however, tends to view the characters as infantilizing, dehumanizing and hurtful.

The studio hired three dwarfs as consultants to help navigate potential pitfalls.

Advertisement

The first real blowback came in January 2022 when the actor Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) criticized Disney for remaking “Snow White” during an appearance on Marc Maron’s “WTF” podcast. “I was a little taken aback when they were proud to cast a Latina actress as Snow White,” Mr. Dinklage said. “You’re progressive in one way, and you’re still making that backwards story about seven dwarfs living in a cave? Have I done nothing to advance the cause from my soapbox?”

Disney swiftly put out a statement: “To avoid reinforcing stereotypes from the original animated film, we are taking a different approach with these seven characters and have been consulting with members of the dwarfism community.”

Because Disney did not explain its “different approach,” however, damaging theories began to wash across the internet. Had the studio decided to do away with the dwarfs? After all, they had disappeared from the title of the film.

Then an on-set photo leak turned what had been an online brush fire into an inferno. In July 2023, The Daily Mail published images that appeared to show the seven dwarfs being played by actors and actresses of various races and ethnicities; only one of them was a dwarf. The headline was “Snow White and the Seven … Politically-Correct Companions?”

At first, a Disney publicist said the photo was fake. The company then reversed itself. But Disney, worried about spoilers, did not provide a crucial piece of information: Those weren’t the dwarfs. This movie would feature two groups of seven — a troop of bandits (depicted in the photo) and a separate troop of C.G.I. dwarfs, to be added in postproduction.

Advertisement

As the initial March 2024 release date moved back — Disney was underwhelmed by the first cut and ordered reshoots — the studio found itself playing Whac-a-Mole with one dwarf controversy after another. When it finally emerged that Disney had opted to use C.G.I. to render Doc, Sleepy, Bashful and the gang, the company came under attack for the “erasure” of people with dwarfism.

Others criticized Disney for denying them jobs. “I was born to play Dopey,” Matt McCarthy, an actor with dwarfism, told reporters on Monday as he and his wife, an actress with dwarfism, planned a protest outside Disney headquarters in Burbank, Calif. “When you’re a little person, opportunities are few and far between,” he said.

On Aug. 9, 2024, Disney’s marketing campaign for “Snow White” kicked into a higher gear with the release of a teaser trailer. It did not go well.

Some people criticized the dwarves. Others mocked Ms. Zegler’s wig, likening her helmet hair look to Lord Farquaad from “Shrek.” Many simply questioned the wisdom of remaking the 1937 original. (As of Wednesday, roughly 102,000 people had clicked “like” on the trailer on YouTube, while 1.5 million had clicked “dislike.”)

But the real headache came a few days later when Ms. Zegler shared the trailer on X and added, “And always remember, free Palestine.” In an instant, “Snow White” became part of a highly divisive global political conversation — the opposite of what Disney wanted. Ms. Zegler’s comment also caused a severe rift with Ms. Gadot, who is Israeli. (Both actresses declined to comment for this article.)

Advertisement

Hollywood’s studio system days are long gone. Stars are free to express themselves as they wish. All studios can do is beg: Please, pretty please, stay on message. (Ms. Zegler had already angered fans of the original movie. “People are making these jokes about ours being the PC Snow White,” she said in 2022. “Yeah, it is — because it needed that.”)

The best containment strategy, Disney decided, was silence. Asking Ms. Zegler to take her post down could generate more attention — especially if she told her followers that she had been pressured to do so. But Mr. Platt flew to New York from Los Angeles to have a heart-to-heart with Ms. Zegler. He explained how much was at stake, both for Disney and for her career, and asked her to post heedfully.

She seemed to understand.

In November, however, Ms. Zegler took to Instagram to sound off about the presidential election. In a post salted with expletives, she harshly criticized Mr. Trump and those who had voted for him.

It had only been a short time since Disney had tried to turn a corner with MAGA followers by ending a spat with the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, over Disney World. A new skirmish could threaten the détente.

Advertisement

Within seconds of Ms. Zegler’s Instagram post, screenshots of the screed pinged between phones at Disney headquarters. How could the studio possibly trust her to participate in the coming “Snow White” publicity tour?

This time, members of Ms. Zegler’s management team, including agents at Creative Artists Agency, sprang into action. Her post was quickly replaced with an apology. “I let my emotions get the best of me,” she said. “I’m sorry I contributed to the negative discourse.”

But it was too late. Ms. Zegler, “Snow White” and Disney had already been in the cross hairs of right-wing pundits. Now, it was open season.

Megyn Kelly called for Ms. Zegler’s replacement in the film. An anti-D.E.I. agitator, Robbie Starbuck, went on the attack. Elon Musk weighed in with a post that skewered Disney for race-swapping iconic characters.

Ms. Zegler’s fans rallied around her. “So overjoyed knowing that little Latinas will be able to see themselves as such an iconic Disney princess,” one commented on Ms. Zegler’s Instagram page.

Advertisement

Disney hoped that prominent voices on the left would step up to deliver a pushback to the pushback. But it didn’t happen.

“Really never, but especially right now, no studio wants its movie branded as a D.E.I. lesson,” said Martin Kaplan, who runs the Norman Lear Center for entertainment, media and society at the University of Southern California.

Disney largely managed to avoid this critique as recently as 2023, when it remade “The Little Mermaid” with a Black actress in the title role; defenders were plentiful. But last month, when Disney released “Captain America: Brave New World,” with a Black actor in the title role for the first time, the company had a harder time.

It’s not an entirely new phenomenon: Think of the male-Internet uproar over the all-female “Ghostbusters” from 2016, or the ongoing fan vitriol around Disney’s efforts to bring diversity to the “Star Wars” franchise. But the “anti-woke right” has grown more powerful, Mr. Kaplan noted, while defenders on the left have grown quieter, either because they feel cowed or frustrated or because even they have come to see Hollywood’s aggressive diversity efforts as clumsy.

“I’m not sure anyone could have predicted that a reactionary force could so quickly and dramatically reverse the cultural winds, but that is certainly what has happened,” Mr. Kaplan said. “What once were uncontroversial or proud decisions are suddenly somehow un-American.”

Advertisement

As “Snow White” bounced from one controversy to the next, the Hollywood gossip mill kicked into high gear: Surely, Disney would cut its losses and send this beast straight to streaming.

But sweeping “Snow White” under the rug (as the company had done with other problem movies, including the critically reviled “Artemis Fowl” in 2020) was never something that Disney considered. The budget for “Snow White” had risen to $270 million, not including marketing. Disney+ would need to absorb that cost (minus tax incentives) if it took the film. And that would undercut one of Disney’s key promises to Wall Street: greater streaming profitability.

Disney also knew something the outside world did not: After the reshoots (“additional photography” in studio parlance) and extensive visual-effects work, the movie was starting to jell.

A second-act song called “Hidden in My Heart,” a tear-jerker sung by one of the dwarfs, had been cut to speed the story along. A new scene near the finale involving the Evil Queen and magic mirror had added spectacle. That troublesome wig had undergone digital fixes.

Was it possible that “Snow White” was becoming … a decent movie? At least one that would entertain the Disney faithful?

Advertisement

In October, executives from across the company had been scheduled to fly to Disney World in Florida for a corporate retreat. When the summit was called off at the last minute because of Hurricane Milton, the studio team used the time to focus on “Snow White.” Disney’s new live-action film chief, David Greenbaum, who had inherited the troubled project, gathered a dozen studio leaders in a screening room on the Disney lot and spent two days scrutinizing the movie — stopping it, starting it — to see what could be improved, according to three people with direct knowledge of the session, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private process.

The C.G.I. dwarfs looked “waxy,” Mr. Greenbaum worried. They could also be better integrated with live-action woodland footage shot on location. What trims could be made? The bandit story line, it seemed, could be tightened by a lot.

Mr. Webb, the director, kept tinkering with sound and color until February.

On Tuesday, Mr. Webb was in an upbeat mood. Reactions from people invited to the premiere had been positive. He positioned his “Snow White” as a throwback to a simpler time.

“Now that people are seeing the movie, I think they’re surprised and warmed by how nostalgic it is,” he said in a phone interview. “This movie is nostalgic not just in its aesthetic but in its worldview. It’s wholesome and kind, and that’s what I’ve held sort of dear through this whole process.”

Advertisement

Reviews arrived on Wednesday. Critics praised Ms. Zegler’s performance, but were underwhelmed by the film as a whole. “It’s just, well, fair,” Nell Minow wrote on RogerEbert.com.

Based on ticket presales and surveys of moviegoer interest, “Snow White” is expected to collect $45 million to $50 million at domestic theaters over the weekend, according to box-office analysts. That start would be slow for a Disney live-action remake: In the 15 years that the company has been producing them, none of the big-budget entries have exclusively arrived in theaters to less than $58 million, after adjusting for inflation. (That was “Dumbo” in 2019.)

David A. Gross, a box office analyst, noted that some of the thrill of seeing an animated classic reimagined as a live-action spectacle has worn off in the years since “Snow White” went into production. The film’s ultimate box office tally will probably come down to what he called “the babysitter effect.”

“Never underestimate the need for a 6-year-old to be entertained,” Mr. Gross said.

Advertisement

Business

Ford sues L.A. lemon law firm alleging ‘utter fabrications’ inflated fees by 7,000%

Published

on

Ford sues L.A. lemon law firm alleging ‘utter fabrications’ inflated fees by 7,000%

Ford Motor Co. is suing a prominent Los Angeles lemon law firm for allegedly inflating their fees by as much as 7,000%, the company’s latest attempt to crack down on California attorneys who it says are exploiting the state’s unique law to protect consumers from defective cars.

Quill & Arrow, a personal injury firm that represents drivers suing over so-called “lemons” — vehicles with significant, unfixable manufacturing flaws — has long been a thorn in the side of Ford. Since 2021, Ford said its has paid them more than $100 million, roughly half in attorney fees.

That profit, Ford alleges in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday, came from billing records that were “utter fabrications.”

Quill & Arrow used an overseas “army” of low-paid, non-lawyers to help file thousands of lemon lawsuits and then pretended the work was done by California attorneys, who billed as much as $950 per hour, Ford alleged in its complaint.

Ford claims that the bulk of the work was actually done by non-lawyers in countries such as Mexico and the Philippines, who got paid as little as $13 per hour.

Advertisement

Quill & Arrow was founded in 2019 by attorneys Kevin Jacobson and Jonathan Shirian, according to the firm’s website, which touts recovering $500 million in lemon law payouts. The partners called Ford’s lawsuit “nothing more than an attempt to silence firms who would dare to hold them responsible and seek justice for consumers.”

“It grossly mischaracterizes the facts and the claim that Quill & Arrow created fabricated attorney billing records is absurd,” the firm said in a statement.

California’s lemon law, considered one of the strongest consumer protections in the nation, allows drivers to get a refund or replacement of a broken car if the manufacturer can’t fix it. If the driver is not satisfied, they can sue.

If the driver wins, the law allows attorneys to collect their fees from the car maker — rather than take a percentage of the client’s winnings, as is common in personal injury cases. This fee structure, Ford argues, has turned the law into a bonanza for plaintiff attorneys. The longer the case drags on, the company argues, the more the law firm can reap in profit.

Ford alleges the firm intentionally slowed down its clients’ cases to drive up their billable hours, instructing drivers not to communicate with Ford and pushing them toward filing a lawsuit.

Advertisement

“California’s Lemon Laws are in need of reform and the courts need to exercise more oversight, given the fraud we continue to expose,” said Doug Lampe, counsel at Ford, in a statement. The law is “being blatantly abused by the lemon law plaintiffs lawyers, the bar is not policing its own and the courts need to monitor fee awards with far more skepticism and scrutiny.”

The cases, he said, “have become about the lawyers for the lawyers.”

Lemon law cases have exploded in California in the last decade from about 4,500 cases in 2015 to roughly 30,000 in 2024, according to an analysis from the Assembly Judiciary. These cases, officials warned, “are poised to cripple the entirety of California’s civil justice system.”

In 2024, the legislature tightened the state’s lemon law, requiring additional steps before a driver could sue. The bill seems to have put little dent in the caseload: Lemon lawsuits surged to record levels the following year.

Ford’s lawsuit marks the second attempt by one of America’s largest car manufacturers to go on the offense against lemon law attorneys in Southern California.

Advertisement

Ford sued a cohort of local lemon law firms in May 2025, accusing attorneys of collecting at least $100 million in “phantom legal fees” by billing for hours they never worked. The case, which was brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, alleged lawyers worked together to file a flurry of fraudulent cases with billable hours that defied logic.

A partner at Knight Law Group, an L.A.-based lemon law firm, once billed an “ostensibly heroic but physically impossible” 57.5-hour workday, Ford alleged.

Knight Law Group denied inflating their billing, calling the suit a “thinly veiled attempt to silence firms who would dare to hold them responsible and seek justice for consumers.”

A judge threw out the suit in March on the grounds that lawyers were protected under the 1st Amendment from being sued for the content of their lawsuits unless the case was proved fraudulent. Ford says it plans to appeal.

After Quill found about the Knight Law Group case, Ford alleged, Quill dedicated a team to “scrubbing” their own timesheets of “impossible time entries.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Ranch lovers can soon travel with a TSA-friendly kit of the popular American dressing

Published

on

Ranch lovers can soon travel with a TSA-friendly kit of the popular American dressing

Ranch dressing is having a moment thanks to the World Cup and Kraft is ready to meet it.

The company said Thursday that it is working on a “TSA Compliant Ranch” for those looking to travel with the quintessentially American condiment. The announcement follows the influx of social media videos showing international soccer fans sampling the dressing for the first time.

“Some visitors leave with souvenirs. Others leave with America’s favorite dressing,” Kraft wrote in a caption accompanying an AI image of a TSA-approved clear bag packed with ranch dressing packets posted to social media. The image showed the bag — complete with a luggage tag resembling a ranch dressing bottle — placed in an airport security screening bin along with other travel essentials.

Additional details will be announced later, the company said.

TSA has also leaned into ranch’s apparent newfound popularity among international travelers, providing some helpful tips (and warnings) on social media.

Advertisement

“If you’re visiting for a very large sporting event & you happen to discover RANCH while you’re here… pls pack it in your CHECKED BAG on your way home,” the agency posted on Instagram Tuesday. It also asked travelers to “avoid chugging your ranch outside security” lines.

“Who knew dip-lomacy could be achieved through addressing the obvious: ranch is the king of condiments,” TSA wrote in the caption accompanying its carousel of humorous ranch-related quips. “If you’re traveling within the U.S., make sure to keep your carry-on sauces to 3.4 oz or less and place any larger containers in your checked bags.”

“Some heroes wear capes. Others bring ranch,” it added.

According to 1987 Times reports, ranch dressing was invented by Steve Henson, who opened the Hidden Valley Guest Ranch in Santa Barbara in the mid-1950s with his wife, Gayle. The unnamed condiment originally mixed herbs and spices with buttermilk and mayonnaise and its popularity with guests led to it being jarred so they could take some home. The more travel-friendly powdered form followed.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Business

Landmark downtown apartment tower faces foreclosure

Published

on

Landmark downtown apartment tower faces foreclosure

A landmarked downtown Los Angeles apartment building designed by famed Los Angeles architect John Parkinson is on the market as its owners face foreclosure.

Residences in the Metropolitan, a 10-story tower built in 1913, are nearly filled with tenants but its ground floor retail spaces on Broadway and 5th Street are unoccupied, as are other street-level stores in downtown’s Historic Core.

The historic building was once considered one of the best in the city and is owned by the Fallas family, which operated a chain of value-priced clothing stores based in Gardena including one called Fallas Paredes in the Metropolitan.

Fallas-Paredes at 449 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90013.

(Google Maps)

Advertisement

Around 2011, Michael Fallas, who once worked in family’s downtown store as a stock boy, converted the upstairs floors from offices to apartments while continuing to operate Fallas Paredes. The store closed more than five years ago in the wake of a 2018 filing by its parent company for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Earlier this month in state Superior Court, a special servicer representing Fallas’ lender asked for a judicial foreclosure of the property, alleging that Fallas had stopped making payments on a $32 million loan dating to 2017. After leasing the property for years, Fallas bought the building in the 1990s.

Fallas didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The location of the Metropolitan where the buildings stands was hailed in a Times story in 1912, saying “it is regarded by many realty men as the most valuable piece of real estate in Los Angeles.”

Advertisement

The building today is recognized as a city historic-cultural monument because “Broadway became the commercial center of the Southland, a title it retained until well after World War II,” with its development, the city said. One of the architects who designed the Metropolitan in the Beaux-Arts style was John Parkinson, who is credited with designing such well-known local structures as City Hall, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and Union Station.

Notable tenants in the Metropolitan have included the Los Angeles Public Library, Owl Drug Co., variety store J.J. Newberry and real estate company Janns Investment Co., which sold the land where UCLA is built and developed Westwood Village, among other Los Angeles neighborhoods.

In recent years, the buildings around the Metropolitan have struggled to keep retail tenants after a spurt of residential conversions of historic buildings starting in the early 2000s brought commerce to the neighborhood. Many downtown businesses have struggled since the pandemic reduced occupancy in offices downtown and reduced the flow of visitors.

“The lack of bodies on the street is generally hurting downtown, and that’s one of the reasons that has building has problems,” said downtown real estate broker Hal Bastian, who lives in the Historic Core.

There are close to 1,000 residential units in historic buildings at the intersection of Broadway and 5th Street, Bastian said, but all the ground floor stores are closed. Drug stores there suffered substantial losses from shoplifting he said, and now, “our challenge on Broadway is leasing.”

Advertisement

The 88 apartments in the Metropolitan are 91% rented, according to a listing for the property by the Zacuto Group, which also touts its roof deck with pool, fitness center and barbecue grills. No sale price is set.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending