Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
L.A. in Third since no money = no one buying things from either L.A. or any other U.S. city.
Nobody is buying entertainment? Parts of entertainment are considered "recession proof".
Comparing Chicago to London is a bit ridiculous. I think Chicago is a fine city but comparing it to Los Angeles is a stretch and comparing it to London is a joke. Does the Queen of England live in Chicago? I am from the midwest and I think Chicago is definitely a world class city but reality is reality.
Nobody is buying entertainment? Parts of entertainment are considered "recession proof".
Comparing Chicago to London is a bit ridiculous. I think Chicago is a fine city but comparing it to Los Angeles is a stretch and comparing it to London is a joke. Does the Queen of England live in Chicago? I am from the midwest and I think Chicago is definitely a world class city but reality is reality.
The entertainment industry however is much more "moveable" than the finance industry. For example, if tons of musical artist decided to work out of Chicago, NYC, Miami, then the industry would shift from LA to one of the other cities.
But this thread is about Chicago and London. And with my above statement, I love LA.
The entertainment industry however is much more "moveable" than the finance industry. For example, if tons of musical artist decided to work out of Chicago, NYC, Miami, then the industry would shift from LA to one of the other cities.
The finance industry is not considered recession proof and it could move just as easily (which is not very) as Hollywood could. My statement was in reference to the poster saying "if no one is buying anything". "If no one is buying anything" the finance industry is worthless. I think those in LA will take the chance that Hollywood may pick up and move to "Chicago, NYC, Miami". I think you may be talking about the "art" (if you think it matters where "tons of musical artists decide to work out of"). I am talking about the "industry" where the "artists" don't make any decisions.
The finance industry is not considered recession proof and it could move just as easily (which is not very) as Hollywood could. My statement was in reference to the poster saying "if no one is buying anything". "If no one is buying anything" the finance industry is worthless. I think those in LA will take the chance that Hollywood may pick up and move to "Chicago, NYC, Miami". I think you may be talking about the "art" (if you think it matters where "tons of musical artists decide to work out of"). I am talking about the "industry" where the "artists" don't make any decisions.
If your talking about the film business, than it would be slightly harder to move than the music industry. For the music industry all you need is a quality studio (I'm in the biz). Nashville, Atlanta, and NYC already have stable music industries in them and could increase in size if music artist decided to move from LA. The only reason artist move to LA is because thats where the largest concentration of them are at. Not because there's any major institutions holding them there. The major record labels are going bankrupt and the industry is moving heavily from majors to Indies.
As for the finance industry, the main institutions are in Chicago and NYC. They are much, much, much less likely to move than the entertainment industry.
I think he means movies, Hollywood in particular. I don't even know LA is good at music or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
If your talking about the film business, than it would be slightly harder to move than the music industry. For the music industry all you need is a quality studio (I'm in the biz). Nashville, Atlanta, and NYC already have stable music industries in them and could increase in size if music artist decided to move from LA. The only reason artist move to LA is because thats where the largest concentration of them are at. Not because there's any major institutions holding them there. The major record labels are going bankrupt and the industry is moving heavily from majors to Indies.
As for the finance industry, the main institutions are in Chicago and NYC. They are much, much, much less likely to move than the entertainment industry.
I think he means movies, Hollywood in particular. I don't even know LA is good at music or not.
As far as music goes, LA and NYC are tops. LA more for pop, and NYC for rock, alternative, and most other genres. Nashville for country
If he's referring to movies, than yea the industry is much harder to move and I personally don't see it going anywhere. All of the physical studios, actors, producers, production companies, etc are headquartered in LA.
But film is only one aspect of the media. You also have music and news.
Both could be transient do to the roll of the dice and as far as music goes where the "new" sound is coming out of. And to be honest, I think the new sound is gonna come out of Chicago. House is still an underappreciated genre and there's tons of untapped talent dwelling in the city. That's just a hunch though.
Right now though, I'd say Williamsburgh (Brooklyn) is king.
I've lived in Chicago for over a decade now and just came back from a two months visit to London. To sum up, I felt a bit like the Country Mouse visiting the City for the first time. I'd always thought Chicago was a big city and attributed many of its problems to that, but now I just feel Chicago doesn't come close to living up to its hype or offsetting its various inadequacies, and certainly doesn't come close to true global cities like London. And to think we are trying for the 2016 Olympics right after London Olympics.
The ride back from O'Hare on the blue line was utterly depressing. The urine soaked stations that already look delapitated just two years after renovation (e.g., Jackson blue line station), the obnoxiously loud and obtrusive passengers, and the grating voice out of the CTA intercom heart-breakingly cut through the little love I had left for Chicago. Sure the London Underground is also worn down (for good reason, it's the oldest subway system in the world), but the Underground workers were polite and patient, the passengers were well-mannered, and there wasn't that utter feeling of despair that riding the CTA at night brings upon you.
Now, let's talk about the parks. London parks on the weekends (even in the winter) is full of families with strollers, picnics, spontaneous performers and just life in general. Chicago's Millennium Park and Grant Park? Outside of preplanned events, there is little to none spontaneous activity in these two parks. Only Lake Shore begs some spontaneous activity, but it's primarily a place for people to exercise.
I felt a strong sense of community in London, while in Chicago it's always been a bunch of disjointed neighborhoods (mostly ghetto and places you would never go to unless you had to) stuck together and called Chicago.
Can't wait for the weekend. The Chicago block pary season is kicking off. An unflattering post on city-data isn't gonna influence me one way or another about a city. If I want to know something I just visit for myself
Nobody is buying entertainment? Parts of entertainment are considered "recession proof".
Comparing Chicago to London is a bit ridiculous. I think Chicago is a fine city but comparing it to Los Angeles is a stretch and comparing it to London is a joke. Does the Queen of England live in Chicago? I am from the midwest and I think Chicago is definitely a world class city but reality is reality.
No. Comparing Chicago to LA is not a stretch. LA should aspire to be Chicago. The only thing LA has on Chicago is 1.) more people, b. ) nicer weather, c.) ground that shakes dramatically every 5 years, and d.) sh*tty air quality. Chicago and LA are in the same league. Stop the nonsense.
Comparing Chicago to London however is a bit of a stretch. London is a good bit larger, has had eons of history to develop itself. London is in the NYC/London/Tokyo pantheon.
Ok - let it run a while but I'm shutting it down because we need to stop doing threads that compare North American cities to European cities.
I'm allowing European-to-European city comparisons in here right now even though technically it's a subforum of the General U.S. room, so long as people come up with original and creative topics with specific things to compare to rather than generalizations for the sake of nothing. But no more "Omaha vs. The Vatican" or similar stuff, ok? They are not things that can be compared.
Thank you
Moderator
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
