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.
First of all, it is an utter absurdity to suggest that NY is home to more TV production than LA. That is not a little wrong; it is Grabd Canyon wrong. I don't look up easily verifiable statistics for people, so if you want to prove yourself wrong, google it.
Ah, so everyone in the entertainment industry is wrong but "jonnynonos" is all-"noing", I guess.
Let's take it from the experts actually in the business-
LA Has Been Dethroned As The Top Place To Film TV Shows — Here's Why
And obviously NYC dominates talk shows, news programs, and the major cable network productions. The big boys, like HBO, Showtime, AMC, and the like, are all in NYC. Even the horrible celebrity networks like Bravo are HQ in NYC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnynonos
When I say cultural influence I am not talking about near dead art forms; I'm talking about what is actually dynamically informing the trends and opinions of the country, and that is tech and Hollywood.
LOL. According to you, every single entertainment art form on earth is "near dead" except for Hollywood blockbusters. Who knew? Art is dead, music is dead, literature is dead, language is dead, all artistic expression is dead if not involving Nicolas Cage and explosions.
Except NYC is a giant center for movie production too, and all those LA studios are owned by NY firms, so you don't even make a hint of sense. NYC has gigantic studio facilities and tons of crappy blockbusters are filmed in NYC too. LA, since the advent of Hollywood, has never had lower market share than today in terms of movie production. And it isn't just NYC. Toronto, Vancouver, New Orleans, Atlanta and many others have taken market share from LA.
In the past, especially back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's NYC actually had much more limited film and TV production than today. Yet Hollywood has always been just one small piece of global cultural capital.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,280,624 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenJoe
"Billionaires buying condos in NYC has nothing to do with the relative differences in crime rate between cities or across time.
"Back in the 70's and 80's, when crime in NYC was at its peak, NYC still had more millionaires and billionaires than anywhere on earth."
I think the two are intimately related. Back in the seventies, New York was dangerous and experiencing a net loss of population, and I don't think the world's richest people were eager to invest in it. But today, as various articles in the NY Times have noted, there is a tremendous influx of foreign wealth eager to park their money (and families) here. Part of the reason is that their home countries are unstable or dangerous to them, economically. But there also is the allure of New York. They could choose to bid up the cost of condos in Chicago or Pittsburgh, but instead they choose to invest in New York. They are comfortable in NY, and a big part of the reason has to do with public safety, as it has for everyone here. Notwithstanding the not-that-great economy in NY (as I discuss above), New York's current population is at an all-time high of about 8.5 million, after falling to about 7.2 million in the seventies. To put it in perspective, Chicago hit its all-time high population of 3.5 million in the 1950 census and has been falling and falling ever since. Public safety plays a big role in where people with options choose to live. And those with the most options pick New York over any other city in the USA.
International investors are GREATLY INVESTING IN NYC. Even Miami and SF... Yes. NYC ESPECIALLY, is the WORLD'S CITY NOW.
Chicago and other cities DO NOT have as you call THE ALLURE ... but for LA added? Not even in 1950. BUT IT STILL MANAGED A ICONIC SKYLINE ANYWAY.
Like the Chicago or Pittsburgh comment. With Chicago is only 5 times bigger. But Pittsburgh still has a bigger city looking downtown. I liked it on a visit. Guess Chicago has to continue to rely on its OWN building its Skyscraper living. But they thank Mr. Trump for building his Chicago Trump Tower. I like it.
Population is steady for Chicago last census. Some leave new Young Professionals move in and a increase in especially Oriental and Latino residents.
Surprised you didn't go to next Detroit for Chicago and Chirac mock.
I can imagine your reply to what I read a bit ago in another thread.... That Chicago's Downtown has still a compatible Downtown with Manhattan . A Los Angeles; closer to New York or Chicago thread... I can see you go ballistic.
If you think Lakeview us the place to meet a diverse population, you're an idiot. That statement proves you know nothing about Chicago. How's that for dropping the saccharine politeness?
If he's talking East Lakeview, and he's only talking the urban "prime" neighborhoods, then I'd say he's spot-on. It's certainly far more diverse than the B10 Trixies and Chads in LP or the pseudo hipsters from Iowa and Indiana in WP.
Those older apartment buildings near the lake are fairly diverse. A newer condo box in River North or in Bucktown will not be remotely as diverse.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,280,624 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
If he's talking East Lakeview, and he's only talking the urban "prime" neighborhoods, then I'd say he's spot-on. It's certainly far more diverse than the B10 Trixies and Chads in LP or the pseudo hipsters from Iowa and Indiana in WP.
Those older apartment buildings near the lake are fairly diverse. A newer condo box in River North or in Bucktown will not be remotely as diverse.
What were you when you lived in Chicago NOLA? What NICHE....did you fall into.... others could LABEL YOU TOO, and it not be insulting? Or in INTENT? Just curious.... By the way? Are YOU originally from a Midwest State? By chance.
Sure it is a business and financial capital. That has zip to do with cultural influence.
I realize it is hard to go from having an ironclad grip on something to being irrelevant, but that is what massive technological change does.
You either accept it or live in denial.
I don't think outside of the industry itself anyone else cares whether NY is the advertising capital or the home to the conglomerates that own the studios anymore than anyone cares that Idaho is the potato capital.
to say NYC is irrelevant in cultural influence is completely ridiculous and its clear you have an anti-New York agenda. Even movies that are not made in New York but are set in New York give off cultural influence. For example, Mad Men is filmed in LA but based in NYC. Millions of people around the world watched the show and took in bits and pieces of NYC culture. Like it or not but New York is still the first place people from outside of the US think about when they think of us, and that alone gives it a huge cultural influence.
to say NYC is irrelevant in cultural influence is completely ridiculous and its clear you have an anti-New York agenda. Even movies that are not made in New York but are set in New York give off cultural influence. For example, Mad Men is filmed in LA but based in NYC. Millions of people around the world watched the show and took in bits and pieces of NYC culture. Like it or not but New York is still the first place people from outside of the US think about when they think of us, and that alone gives it a huge cultural influence.
I am saying relatively compared to pre-Internet/tech boom and compared to all-dominant celebrity culture.
If you don't get what I'm saying you probably are just not in a position to understand. As someone who has spent considerable time in sectors where many of these issues have emerged over the last 20 years, it's been obvious.
I don't have a anti NY bias. Before recently spending more time there I assumed I would prefer it to Chicago. I certainly don't prefer LA to NY, and I am not arguing that any city, really, let alone Chicago, has usurped NY in status. Just that things have changed drastically and as a result it is the West Coast that is setting the zeitgeist.
And obviously NYC dominates talk shows, news programs, and the major cable network productions. The big boys, like HBO, Showtime, AMC, and the like, are all in NYC. Even the horrible celebrity networks like Bravo are HQ in NYC.
LOL. According to you, every single entertainment art form on earth is "near dead" except for Hollywood blockbusters. Who knew? Art is dead, music is dead, literature is dead, language is dead, all artistic expression is dead if not involving Nicolas Cage and explosions.
Except NYC is a giant center for movie production too, and all those LA studios are owned by NY firms, so you don't even make a hint of sense. NYC has gigantic studio facilities and tons of crappy blockbusters are filmed in NYC too. LA, since the advent of Hollywood, has never had lower market share than today in terms of movie production. And it isn't just NYC. Toronto, Vancouver, New Orleans, Atlanta and many others have taken market share from LA.
In the past, especially back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's NYC actually had much more limited film and TV production than today. Yet Hollywood has always been just one small piece of global cultural capital.
That is a list of DRAMA pilots for a single year due to a tax credit; not the overwhelming number of shows that are set on sound stages or shows in general.
Anyway, this is getting silly; if you can't differentiate "culture" in the broad sense from "high culture" I don't really see the point of continuing this back and forth; what I am saying probably requires a bit of innate awareness and to be somewhat attuned to things that you are likely not exposed to.
If you want to believe that west coast based tech and west coast based entertainment haven't radically shifted the way the country and world consumes and relates to information, and that these haven't drastically undercut NY's previous cachet, knock yourself out.
I am saying relatively compared to pre-Internet/tech boom and compared to all-dominant celebrity culture.
If you don't get what I'm saying you probably are just not in a position to understand. As someone who has spent considerable time in sectors where many of these issues have emerged over the last 20 years, it's been obvious.
I don't have a anti NY bias. Before recently spending more time there I assumed I would prefer it to Chicago. I certainly don't prefer LA to NY, and I am not arguing that any city, really, let alone Chicago, has usurped NY in status. Just that things have changed drastically and as a result it is the West Coast that is setting the zeitgeist.
I am in enough of a position to get it. The thing is you made it seem like NYC doesn't have influence any more, not that it has less. Pretty much every major city has less cultural influence than it did 20 years ago besides the Bay Area and that is because technology has made it possible to learn whats cool on the coasts even if your in your moms basement in Idaho. I still think NYC is VERY culturally relevant. Just spend a some time there and see how many bands play there on the regular because they live there. Or Broadway shows. Things like this will never go away.
I am in enough of a position to get it. The thing is you made it seem like NYC doesn't have influence any more, not that it has less. Pretty much every major city has less cultural influence than it did 20 years ago besides the Bay Area and that is because technology has made it possible to learn whats cool on the coasts even if your in your moms basement in Idaho. I still think NYC is VERY culturally relevant. Just spend a some time there and see how many bands play there on the regular because they live there. Or Broadway shows. Things like this will never go away.
Relatively speaking, it doesn't. Twenty years ago if a relatively small community of perhaps 10,000 NY arbiters didn't buy/promote/select your idea/art/film/book/product, it was essentially a death sentence.
Today, their opinions, with some exceptions, are completely irrelevant.
If you aren't cued into that you are just in denial or weren't aware of how things worked.
I was in Queens again today for awhile and couldn't help but think about what I was saying before. The people on here trashing NYC for being dirty and what not really need to get to areas in Brooklyn and Queens. I think they'd like it more than parts of say, Midtown Manhattan, if they enjoy Chicago.
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.
With Chicago is only 5 times bigger. But Pittsburgh still has a bigger city looking downtown. I liked it on a visit. Guess Chicago has to continue to rely on its OWN building its Skyscraper living. But they thank Mr. Trump for building his Chicago Trump Tower. I like it. 
. A Los Angeles; closer to New York or Chicago thread... I can see you go ballistic.
