HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2014, 4:54 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 5,545
^ 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.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2014, 6:41 PM
Pretext Pretext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
^ 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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 2:49 AM
StethJeff's Avatar
StethJeff StethJeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,058
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 2:55 AM
StethJeff's Avatar
StethJeff StethJeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,058
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 3:35 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 3:36 AM
inSaeculaSaeculorum inSaeculaSaeculorum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 440
LA has an awesome creative underclass. Probably better than NYC's tbh since there is so much filth and deviancy there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 9:37 AM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
BT Tower is not a skyscraper, just as the Eiffel Tower is not a skyscraper either. As for 122 Leadenhall and 20 Fenchurch Street, they have already passed 150 meters, which leads to the figure of 15 skyscrapers for London that I indicated in my previous post.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
Regarding the 7 other skyscrapers under construction, the only one I had missed was South Bank Tower, which is not far from reaching 150 meters, so London will soon have 16 skyscrapers. Apart from that one, only 1 is really rising above ground, and the other ones are either under at ground works or just at a demolition, and in London we know that doesn't necessarily mean they will effectively be built (think Riverside South for example), so I would call them under construction yet.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
In terms of culture, LA actually exceeds NYC in employment in the arts (15% of the national total compared to 10% or so). LA has 56% of motion picture industry jobs in the US, around 140,000. Interesting to know what London's total is on this metric.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
London's problem is that, besides media and culture, much of its wealth is built on asset management for global elites. Is this specialization desirable or sustainable?
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…

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
^ no property tax certainly helps. And being the center of the tax haven empire of the UK.
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)).
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2018_06_11
London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2018_05_15
London General Update Thread updated: 2018_06_11
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 10:36 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum View Post
LA has an awesome creative underclass. Probably better than NYC's tbh since there is so much filth and deviancy there.
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 10:46 AM
Pretext Pretext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by StethJeff View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StethJeff
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.
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




Last edited by Pretext; Mar 26, 2014 at 11:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 12:12 PM
kool maudit's Avatar
kool maudit kool maudit is online now
what it is
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Helsingør
Posts: 10,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum View Post
LA has an awesome creative underclass. Probably better than NYC's tbh since there is so much filth and deviancy there.




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.
__________________
here's why that's a problem
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 12:17 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is online now
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 31,257
Eureka! The creative class is responsible for the growing mess that is London's skyline! It all becomes so clear now.
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2014, 10:47 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 23,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum View Post
LA has an awesome creative underclass. Probably better than NYC's tbh since there is so much filth and deviancy there.
Common man, wtf?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 12:57 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Eureka! The creative class is responsible for the growing mess that is London's skyline! It all becomes so clear now.
Some physicists believe that if you travel across the universe at the speed of light, you will eventually end up back where you started.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kool maudit View Post
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.
A religious conservative with leftist economic views is like my philosophical antipode.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 1:00 AM
Outta here's Avatar
Outta here Outta here is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: 1060 W. Addison
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Some physicists believe that if you travel across the universe at the speed of light, you will eventually end up back where you started.
Will I have time to order lunch ?
__________________


.....Words that are heavy with trouble :
" Tinker to Evers to Chance ."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 11:52 AM
Tony Robins Tony Robins is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 12:27 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Robins View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 1:59 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,744
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 8:09 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 44,925
London is being transformed with 230 towers. Why the lack of consultation?

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

Quote:
When the appearance of a great city is about to be radically transformed, it is a good idea for its citizens to be shown what is going to happen and have a say in it. It is also a good idea if the city's government has a vision, or at least an overview, of what is happening. Neither of these applies to the wave of towers about to hit London.

- Today we also publish a statement signed by scores of leading figures in culture, politics and business, and societies representing citizens. They include architects who have won the profession's highest awards, contemporary artists, property developers, MPs, authors and the heads of colleges and museums. These are not Luddites or fogeys, they are not enemies of business or of the new, but they share simple shock at the thoughtlessness with which change on this scale is happening.

- Here's another good idea: buildings in cities should not be designed in isolation, but in relation to the places in which they are set, whether these are views to and from world heritage sites, or the fabric of adjoining streets. Together with its present and future neighbours, new development should make accessible public spaces that are a pleasure to inhabit – the effects of tall buildings are as important at ground level as they are in the sky. And the larger and more prominently placed a building is, the greater the care that should be taken over its design.

- Nobody could go to the places already being shaped by towers – Elephant and Castle, Vauxhall or Stratford High Street, a discus-throw from the Olympic Park – and say that these are great places to linger, or that the tall buildings now rising there enhance the experience. Images of these places in the future, when further skyscrapers will jostle for attention, suggest more of the same. New urban zones are being created with no overall idea of how the parts contribute to the whole, of the places that are being made at their base. Rather, new London tower design tends to go out of its way to be as assertive and architecturally antisocial as possible.

- If towers can sometimes look dramatic and impressive, they also bring drawbacks. They are inflexible, expensive to run and maintain and consume money, space and resources on lifts, air conditioning and structure that lower buildings do not require. Above a certain height such simple pleasures as opening windows and outdoor space become difficult. Towers disconnect residents from their surroundings.

- Overcoming these issues requires effort in design, effort that is hard to see here. It was decided in the 1970s that councils should no longer build high-rise blocks for families, particularly where there were not enough open spaces and communal facilities. Those now being built are for the higher end of the market, but the lessons of the past have not been learned.

- The majority of the tall buildings now proposed are residential. There is, of course, an acute shortage of homes in London, but stacks of high-rise, high-price flats are not what the city needs. In a recent Ipsos Mori poll commissioned by New London Architecture, a majority of Londoners said they would not want to live in towers. The transformation of the skyline is not driven by serving their needs, but by a bubble of overseas investment in high-end residential property. Many of these flats are likely to be left empty.

- Peter Murray of New London Architecture has proposed a mayoral London Skyline Commission, in which experts would scrutinise the quality of new proposals and guide developers. He also wants a publicly accessible digital model of the city, which would enable everyone to see the effects of any planning application. Both would be welcome steps, but they don't go far enough. Murray's commission sounds like a (possibly improved) version of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, which has existed for 15 years and is now part of the Design Council, during which London's planning has got into this state.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 10:39 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,066
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.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2014, 2:24 PM
Pretext Pretext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 280
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:51 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.