^ agreed.

What I'm getting at is how a place like Nashville, TN operates. This is the home of country music in the US, and produces a lot of schlock and garbage. But because of the musical ecosystem, Nashville is also an intensely creative place where, for example you can see all kinds of talented live music, country and otherwise basically 7 days a week. In Nashville the pop culture crapola and the attendant creative culture coexist - you wouldn't have one without the other.

I tend to think LA is kind of the same way when it comes to movies and all other kinds of media. You have the industry, and all of the cool indie spinoffs, in the same place.

Whereas some others in this thread have portrayed LA is being solely a taker of talent from NY and London, and as managing to produce only popular culture/blockbusters/other garbage with this (underutilized and misdirected) talent.

Nobody is denying that LA is a media hub, whilst in terms of Hollywood's output, a lot of highly respected people within the film industry have raised concerns and not just people on this thread.

It also should be noted that cities such as NYC and London have substantial media industries and are global music centres themselves. Whilst the French Film Industry has produced some remarkable films and Paris is very much a cultural and artistic powerhouse, as indeed is Berlin which is home to a very bohemian arts scene.

Look at your posts. You pretty much kill Los Angeles because of its media industry and at the same time *shocker* ballwash NY/London/Paris/Berlin for having substantial media industries of their own. Double standard at all?

And can we please cut the bullshit that actors get their talent elsewhere before coming to LA to become successful. How is that any different from IT people around the world flocking to SF, finance people flocking to NY/London, or numb-nuts flocking to SSP forums?

And by the way, thank you for being our arbiter of 'what is art?' with your defense of HBO and other recent tv dramas that are up to your standards. Whether I or anyone else agrees with you, it's interesting where you draw the line when you tear down one aspect or any aspect of Hollywood but praise another, when it really all just comes out of the same machine.

The "high culture v. shallow entertainment" card is, in an argument over which cities are more globally influential, less than persuasive. By its very nature, popular entertainment--e.g. Hollywood blockbusters--influences more of the world's people than cultural pursuits of, by and for the 1% in London and New York.

LA has an awesome creative underclass. Probably better than NYC's tbh since there is so much filth and deviancy there.

The BT Tower is a mixed-use building (office and communications), which whilst not architecturally interesting does have 37 office floors; the Eiffel Tower in contrast has only 3 floors because it is an observation tower. 122 Leadenhall and 20 Fenchurch Street are both still under construction; until the occupiers start moving in I wouldn’t consider either to be finished.

As per my previous post, I did raise the point about Riverside South and other towers that are currently on hold. The difference (as previously mentioned) is that those towers have problems related to the financial crisis, whilst the post-financial crisis round of skyscraper projects is predominantly residentially-focused. These towers are supported by a voracious appetite for housing driven by population growth, astronomically high prices, international demand, and limited building space.

I don’t believe all of the towers that we currently know about will be built, but a majority will, and that those that aren’t built will be substituted by other projects that are currently in the pipeline but have yet to become public. London isn’t going to end up like Hong Kong or New York, but due to the aforementioned pressures, there will undoubtedly be a large volume of new towers popping up in the years ahead.

It’s quite hard to get a specific figure due to the blurred lines with some roles (e.g. a book-keeper at a production company); London & Partners (http://cdn.londonandpartners.com/l-a...s_brochure.pdf) puts the number of people working in London’s creative industries at 400,000 (although other figures indicate nearly double that amount), of which 77,000 are directly employed in film, video & broadcasting. What isn’t certain is whether that includes the four principal production sites of Elstree, Leavesden, Pinewood and Shepperton, all of which are technically not in London, but on its outskirts.

Whilst London may be relatively unique amongst world cities for having such allure for the global elite, I don’t believe that this is impairing the vitality or growth prospects of the economy. Also London’s economy goes beyond ‘media and culture’ into financial, business & professional services, the knowledge economy, etc…

It depends on the situation and circumstances, but there are several taxes relating to property:
- Stamp duty which is paid on the purchase of a property (on homes over £2mn (US$3.3mn) this is 7% if an individual, 15% if a company).
- Council tax which is paid each year based on the value of the property (although these are generally low by international standards).
- Inheritance tax (40% on anything over £325,000 (US$536k)).

NYC's creative underclass is inferior because of filth and deviancy? Or LA's is superior because of filth and deviancy?

Look, "Hollywood" (meaning the major studios) isn't even a creative industry. They're selling a product. Independent film is a creative industry, and that's huge in LA as well but also exists elsewhere. Likewise LA has several of the big music labels, but they're not creating culture, they're a distribution channel. By the time an artist (and not everyone that records music should be referred to as such) signs to Capitol Records or whomever, they've already established themselves and the art has already been created, usually elsewhere. LA doesn't have a better or worse music scene than a city of its size should, but the presence of the labels' headquarters is irrelevant to its cultural influence.

What non-LA forumers in this thread are saying, I think, is not to ignore the multitude other forms of media and art that are not industries based in LA (and for which both New York and London are major centers).

Hardly, I have merely stated what many feel in relation to Hollywood or are you so hyper sensitive that you can't take criticism. As for NY, London, Paris and Berlin I merely mentioned that they all had their own film and media industries.

As for people going to Hollywood, that's hardly an issue, lots of Hollywood actors come to Britain to make films or appear in theatre productions, and I don't recall making a big issue of the subject.

I think it's widely acknowledged that US Television Drama has improved, and I am not drawing any line, whilst my observations are echoed by many highly respected individuals who work in the industry.


Is Hollywood Model Doomed? Steven Spielberg and George Lucas Think So



:)

if i am reading you correctly, new york's creative underclass is full of what you call filth and deviancy. taken in combination with your other statements about the ostensibly right-wing nature of this board, and considering your "catholic juche" tagline, i am beginning to understand that your political and cultural views are sort of traditionalist/collectivist/communist. is this correct? because this is a rare stance to encounter and i find it interesting.

Eureka! The creative class is responsible for the growing mess that is London's skyline! It all becomes so clear now.

Common man, wtf?

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_ima...n_this_one.jpg

Some physicists believe that if you travel across the universe at the speed of light, you will eventually end up back where you started.


A religious conservative with leftist economic views is like my philosophical antipode.

Will I have time to order lunch ?

The London eye may not be the prettiest of sites, but it is an extremely popular tourist attraction.
Have you ever actually been on it?

I am no more likely to go up the London Eye than I was to go to the top of the Empire State Building during almost a decade in NYC. In others words, NFW.

If you want a nice view of London, go to one of the restaurants in the Shard (or the Oblix lounge), or to Duck & Waffle.

I posted this in the aerial photos thread in the other forum, but it would be useful for discussion here as well (also, the photos are really awesome):

http://stock.jasonhawkes.com/-/galleries/london/


Browsing these along with Google Maps might give people who are less familiar with London an idea of why its skyline is the way it is, and always will be.

London is being transformed with 230 towers. Why the lack of consultation?

Read More: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/20...f-consultation




http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...the-Th-011.jpg

:previous:Such a backlash was inevitable. The same happened in Paris after they built lots of towers in the city in the 1970s with little regard for aesthetics. The two latest additions to the City of London's skyline in particular, the so-called "walkie-talkie" and "cheesegrater", with their grotesquely ugly shapes, must have negatively affected the image of towers among Londoners.

Most of the towers are luxury apartment blocks well away from tourist areas, with many in areas which are in need of redevelopment such as the East End and South London.

Furthermore you can't just run a blanket campaign against all high rise towers, especially given that a good number have already been passed by local authorities and a rigorous planning process.

If the campaigners have the money and resources to fight 234 individual planning application, many of which have already been granted then good luck to them. Personally I think they have left it a bit late and secondly I would point out that many major building companies have very good legal teams and just because a groups of celebrities becomes involved doers not mean that work on these towers will suddenly cease.