Can anyone give me a comprehensive breakdown on how L.A. ranks around the world when compared to other cities specialties/economies? This is something for school and I'm looking at a lot of sources right now, so I figured that I'd ask a lot of you here (and I suppose this'll help the forums activity a little...) to basically get some opinions as well as facts.

Alright, so... how does L.A. rank around the world in:

-Finance
-International Trade
-Fashion
-Tourism
-Fine Arts
-Technology
-Entertainment (this one is kind of obvious, but I just want to know how well we rank compared to other cities)
-Anything else I'm forgetting and you would like to add?

Also, for areas do you feel that the city is lacking in what do you think could be done to improve these areas?

Thanks in advance!

problem solved

^ Yikes I'm afraid of typing so I won't go thru that ^^ embarrasment.... Spell check from now on for moi!!!!

VZN, you forgot the porn industry!

VZN, you forgot the porn industry!

I think he said L.A, not Van Nuys and Chatsworth :rofl:

Can anyone give me a comprehensive breakdown on how L.A. ranks around the world when compared to other cities specialties/economies?

Sure...

-Finance

Nowhere near where it should be. LA isn't a financial hub for securities trading primarily because we don't have a major financial exchange.

-International Trade

Tops. Port LA/LB is the world's fifth busiest port complex.

-Fashion

Largest fashion industry in the country (yes, larger than New York City). And in terms of influence in the fashion world itself, LA's right behind the "Big Four" of Paris, Milan, New York City, and London. IMO, LA's way ahead of the game with this one.

-Tourism

Was named America's second most visited city by Forbes recently.

-Fine Arts

Define.

-Technology

Define.

-Entertainment (this one is kind of obvious, but I just want to know how well we rank compared to other cities)

The Entertainment Capital of the World, baby! Vegas is nothing compared to LA, no offense.

-Anything else I'm forgetting and you would like to add?

Aerospace, air transportation, manufacturing, and law.

Also, for areas do you feel that the city is lacking in what do you think could be done to improve these areas?

Revise city business taxes (to encourage more large companies to remain or move here), keep entertainment industry in LA (losing business to cities like Toronto and New York City), open up a financial exchange (Dubai has opened four in less than a decade), attract more convention center business (LA Live), and better market the city's cultural institutions.

Westsidelife:

Thanks man. Just to touch on a few things real quick...

On finance - The fact that we do not have any major stock exchange in our city is an outright disappointment, if not completely embarassing. Given our locale, we should have outright dominated this sector on the west coast a loooooong time ago for a multitude of reasons. Primarily because:

1) We face the Pacific. We should have a working financial relationship with all of Asia and Oceania as a given. Also, why did we close the Pacific Stock Exchange back in '01? WTF happened with that?

2) We touch all of Latin America. Why the hell we don't have a financial relationship with all of Latin America is beyond me.

I figure if we can reopen the Pacific Stock Exchange as well as create a Latin American Stock Exchange in our city, that should help us become a very important financial hub in the world, as we should be...

On international trade - Are we #1 in the U.S. when it comes to this? (I think it's Miami...)

On tourism - If we can get our transit situation worked out then that should make non-Angelinos a bit more comfortable with exploring the city...

On fine arts - When I typed that category out, I was thinking of places like the Louvre and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as well as plays, orchestras and stuff of that nature...

On technology - The number of computer, microprocessor, and engineering companies located in our city/metro.

As far as the entertainment industry goes, we're actually losing business to other cities? How so?

Also, what is it about our city business taxes that drive big companies away from L.A.?

Thanks!

On another note, the reason why I created this topic was because I'm compiling a presentation for my speech class. Basically to show that Los Angeles is more than Hollywood and the entertainment industry...

BTW -

solongfullerton: :lol:

Fern: I don't think any other city in the world can compete with us on that... :nuts:

On international trade, check wtcanet.org and you'll find the port complex is incomparable. 4 out of every 10 TCU's in the country (twenty foot equivilents) come through our system. Miami, no! L. A. is really screwed with its business tax. Just one of the reasons why you see people on this site who are so frustrated and even downright angry with some of the performance of this city. I see more potential here than almost anywhere in the world, but it always seems to be 2 steps forward, 1 step back all the time. If this city didn't have so much going for it, then people here wouldn't have such high expectations. As well as people all over the country who think that L. A. is just a negative Hollywood force. They don't understand why there are so many people here, all they concentrate on is the net loss of population to other states. They don't believe we're past 4 million, and growing. They don't understand the multiple center design and say there is no life downtown, therefore, no life in the city at all. They ask. "How can a city so large have so few skyscrapers? Pathetic." L. A. is just gangs to them. They don't understand the sheer amount of industry in this place and when they do, they just label L. A.- 'blue collar'. Consult Westsidelife.

As far as the fine arts, The facilities here are astounding! The Phil at the Hollywood Bowl and the Disney. Opera at the Music Center. MOCA and LACMA and the GETTY, to name a few. The GETTY in Malibu and the Huntington in San Marino. L. A. doesn't depend on European based culture as much as the eastern cities do.

Leading manufacturer in the country.

On finance - The fact that we do not have any major stock exchange in our city is an outright disappointment, if not completely embarassing.

...

I figure if we can reopen the Pacific Stock Exchange as well as create a Latin American Stock Exchange in our city, that should help us become a very important financial hub in the world, as we should be...

Dubai's first financial exchange opened in 2000. Since then, it has established itself as an emerging financial center that hopes to compete with the likes of NYC and London one day. I'm very impressed with Dubai's financial success. Dubai's government is everything Los Angeles' government isn't. We don't have civic leaders that are aggressive go-getters like the ones in Dubai. If there's one complaint I have with Los Angeles, then it is that one. If Dubai can pull it off, so can Los Angeles. Los Angeles needs to get its head out of its ass.

I think Los Angeles has several advantages. First of all, it's a much more established city than Dubai. Second, it already has a sizeable financial sector (fourth in North America, behind NYC, Chicago, and Toronto -- barely though).

On international trade - Are we #1 in the U.S. when it comes to this? (I think it's Miami...)

We're #1 in the US (and by far).

On tourism - If we can get our transit situation worked out then that should make non-Angelinos a bit more comfortable with exploring the city...

We need a world-class city center and the transit infrastructure to boot if our city is going to appeal to those New York City/Chicago/San Francisco/DC/Boston/Philadelphia-type people.

On fine arts - When I typed that category out, I was thinking of places like the Louvre and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as well as plays, orchestras and stuff of that nature...

Hmmm...

Well, it's solid but most would rank it below New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, DC, Boston, and Philadelphia.

Art museums - The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Museum of Modern Art, Art Institute of Chicago, National Gallery of Art, Museum of Fine Arts (Boston), and the Philadelphia Museum of Art rank higher than LACMA. I've heard the Detroit Institute of Arts does as well. I haven't been to any of those museums. I'm hoping to visit LACMA one of these days. LACMA doesn't really get the recognition it deserves. For the largest and most extensive art museum west of Chicago, I'd expect better marketing on LACMA's part. But the Broad Contemporary Museum of Art (expansion of LACMA) is opening in February and it'll have this eye-catching piece designed by Jeff Koons (pictured below) that's sure to turn some heads.

http://www.artasauthority.com/images/Koonstrain.jpg

Orchestras - Well, there's this concept of the "Big Five" (NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland), but I'm not sure if it still exists. LA Philharmonic is among the world's best orchestras, or so I've heard.

Opera - LA Opera is the fourth largest opera company in the country, behind New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago (I'm assuming). It's relatively young compared to the others.

Dance/ballet - Don't know.

Live theater - There's the Music Center which is the third largest performing arts complex in the nation and the LAUSD High School #9 (under construction). There's no major theater district. LA's too spread out. Part of the plan to revitalize Broadway includes creating a vibrant theater district.

On technology - The number of computer, microprocessor, and engineering companies located in our city/metro.

Not sure. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

As far as the entertainment industry goes, we're actually losing business to other cities? How so?

It's too damn expensive to film here.

Also, what is it about our city business taxes that drive big companies away from L.A.?

They're high compared to other major cities. That's probably the reason why most businesses choose to do business in the suburbs. By doing so, they're able to do business well within the LA area and escape the city's tax burdens.

As far as the fine arts, The facilities here are astounding! The Phil at the Hollywood Bowl and the Disney. Opera at the Music Center. MOCA and LACMA and the GETTY, to name a few. The GETTY in Malibu and the Huntington in San Marino. L. A. doesn't depend on European based culture as much as the eastern cities do.

In terms of quality AND quantity of performance venues (think Disney Hall, Music Center, Hollywood Bowl, Greek Theatre, Kodak Theatre, Nokia Theatre, etc.) I can't think of a better city than LA. :)

The museums here are great, but they pale in comparison to eastern cities. The Getty's collection is pretty sucky, though they have some famous pieces (Van Gogh's Irises). People say that the views are better than the collection -- I agree. If you want more art and less architecture/views, you head to LACMA, Hammer, MOCA, and Norton Simon. I've read that LACMA has one of the best Korean and Islamic art collections in the world. But guess where it falls short? Yup, you guessed it...European paintings and modern art. LA really is more about contemporary art. That's why I think we should focus our energy there because it too will one day appreciate in value. ;)

So to sum it all up...

As much as we take pride in our city being "different" and its own "thing", we need to be more of that New York City/Chicago/San Francisco/DC/Boston/Philadelphia-type city if LA's going to rise to the next tier of global cities.

Nah......LA needs to concentrate what it does best, polycentricism. So I think it should continue along the lines of Tokyo, Mexico City and Sao Paulo. But anyway, here is the GaWC rankings which is recognized and respected the world over. For the time that LA has actually been doing business its success is simply phenomenal. As much as we bemoan the city and its sense of directionless, its a powerhouse globally and considered hands down one of the world's Alpha cities:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citymap.html

In a nutshell... we're only holding ourselves back from become the world class city that we can truly become. I sincerely believe that if we don't address our lack of a competitve financial center, our public transit situation, and our high city tax, L.A. will pale in comparison to other world class cities. As Westsidelife put it, L.A. simply has to get it's head out of it's ass. We're so much more capable than what we're doing right now and it's a shame that we're not taking advantage of that.

We have the #1 port in America and we have the entertainment industry in our hands, amongst other things. Why shouldn't this city become an important world wide economic engine? I always get this feeling that our civic leaders just don't give a damn and are always thinking about right now and not the future.

Nah......LA needs to concentrate what it does best, polycentricism. So I think it should continue along the lines of Tokyo, Mexico City and Sao Paulo.

I never said it shouldn't.

In a nutshell... we're only holding ourselves back from become the world class city that we can truly become. I sincerely believe that if we don't address our lack of a competitve financial center, our public transit situation, and our high city tax, L.A. will pale in comparison to other world class cities.

We are doing that, albeit they be baby steps.

We will have two new rail alignments up and running by the end of the decade, with many more transit projects starting up (hopefully). We've had meetings for the Westside, Eastside, Crenshaw, Regional Connector, and Canoga transit projects. We've made it clear that we're unhappy with the traffic congestion and are interested in more transit options. And as gas prices continue to skyrocket, some won't have that option of driving.

"Cut Taxes for Small Businesses to Stimulate Economy and Create New Jobs. In January 2006, Mayor Villaraigosa announced new tax reform measures that provided more than $92 million in tax relief to local businesses. According to the City Administrative Officer, 260,000 businesses of all sizes received an automatic 3.1% reduction in their business taxes in 2006. An additional 12% decrease is planned for future years to assist small businesses." (http://www.lacity.org/mayor/deliveringresults/results_econ.htm)

It's true that LA can't compete with the top global centers without a major financial exchange. Even cities like Mumbai and Johannesburg are way ahead of LA with this one. The other nine Alpha world cities (NYC, London, Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, Chicago, Singapore, Frankfurt, and Milan) are all major centers of finance. Sad.

So if LA is lagging behind so much, why the hell is it even in the Alpha City status? I've read that the LA metro area is the third most viable economic metro after Tokyo and New York. How is LA not competitive?

I think LA will continue to write her own script... I don't think LA need to model herself after cities that are below in the ranks if it wants to rise to the next level.

ON Fine arts:

Well, it's solid but most would rank it below New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, DC, Boston, and Philadelphia. .


I would have to disagree with you on that one. NYC is of course numero uno in this regard but I would probably rank LA at number 2. Way ahead of SF, DC, Boston and Philly.

With regard to art museums, its true that LACMA doesn't compare to the single best museums in Chi, DC, Philly, or Boston, When you combine the collections of LACMA, the Huntington, the Norton Simon, the Hammer, and both Gettys, the disparity is not that great. There are close to twenty Rembrants in this city compared to one at the Art Institute in Chicago. This includes iconic paintings like the Blue Boy and the Van Gogh Irises. Chicago has better French Impressionists and post impressionists, after that its all LA. LA has better collections of Asian Art than any of the above cities though it is scattered in several institutions and much of the collection at the Pacific Asia Museum in Pasadena is off display,Between the Getty, LACMA, and the Museum of Photography in Riverside, we probably have the best colections of Photography in the country. When you add in the museums deicated to Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Latin American Art plus all the small art museums, such as Long Beach, Santa Monica, even Downey and the galleries, second only to New York, LA is pretty competitive in this area. With 300 or so museums in the greater metropolitan area LA has more museums than any other city in the world including NYC and Paris, although we lack the encylopediac institutions like the Met or the Louvre.

As far as theater goes, LA is second only to New York, usually there are between 120-150 live theater performances going on at any time. Actually more than New York though the productions and theaters are smaller and runs tend to be considerably shorter. Still this is twice the number of productions you can see in the greater Chicago area, which is probably the number three city for theater.

Classical Music: the day of the big five is over. The LA Phil is as good as any orchestra in the country and plays in the best concert hall. But there are many other concert ensembles, the Los Angeles Chamber Symphony, The Pacific Symphony, Pasadena, Hollywood Bowl, Glendale, LA Master Chorale, etc; Opera, the LA Opera may the fourth biggest company but there is also the Opera Pacifica in Orange county and the Long Beach opera companies. LA only comes short in classical dance.

As for jazz and pop there are over 150 clubs playing live music in the city. Generally including most of the major performing acts in all fields. With major venues like the Greek, the Bowl, the Nokia, the Gibson, etc. LA competes with NYC, London and berlin in this regard. Chicago doesn't come close and SF, DC. Philly, and Boston don't come close to Chicago.

Again with regard to cinema, only New York might have a larger selection of movies available or viewing at any one time and no city has better theaters to see them in.

All in all, LA is the number two city in the US for culture, its a shame that most people in the city don't realize it.

So to sum it all up...

As much as we take pride in our city being "different" and its own "thing", we need to be more of that New York City/Chicago/San Francisco/DC/Boston/Philadelphia-type city if LA's going to rise to the next tier of global cities.

Why does LA have to be "more" of a Chicago/San Francisco/DC/Boston/Philadelphia-type city when according to most stats LA matches Chicago in many respects and far exceeds the others mentioned? And I've always wanted to ask this question being a person who is not at all interested in old European art, why would LA have to collect this specific type art to be regarded highly by the rest of the world? Isn't their enough art from other places rather than Europe that is highly regarded as well? If not, why? Also can't LA just corner the market on contemporary art if all of the other cities are pre-occupied with dated art?

Great points brought up by everyone. And thank you svs for that breakdown too.


So if LA is lagging behind so much, why the hell is it even in the Alpha City status? I've read that the LA metro area is the third most viable economic metro after Tokyo and New York. How is LA not competitive?

True that... don't get me wrong, L.A. is a very competitve city - our acquisition of the SFV as well as of San Pedro and the garnering of the Port of LA/LB has helped us to become an alpha city. My only concern is why are we lagging as far as becoming a viable economic center? We honestly couldn't ask for a better locale and in doing so it will help us gain more of a global influence (and you already see how much we're influencing the entire world without one!).

Anyway though, on the art thing... I do believe we need to place more of an emphasis on our contemporary and Asian/Latin American art. I believe that's our forte and by better marketing the museums that carry those types of art not only will that seperate us from the European art carrying east coast cities but it will also show that we can carry fine arts as well without the need of European based influence. Besides, we're a fairly new alpha city, so I believe our direction would be in setting the trend worldwide by promoting new and different things. I don't think we're gonna do that by relying on old European art.

One more thing... I was dabbling around with information about the Port of Los Angeles and this is how much we were able to garner from our superport:

China ($68.8 billion)
Japan ($24.1 billion)
Taiwan ($10.8 billion)
Thailand ($6.7 billion)
South Korea ($5.6 billion)

Now this is the kind of stuff I want to see. Now could you imagine if we had the Pacific Stock Exchange/Latin American Stock Exchange in our city? I know it's a different ball game, but you know...

Honestly, I think it all comes down to weather. I remember L. A. weather, and am reminded of it every time I visit. I took some of my Vegas friends over to the courts at UCLA and, just walking over one of them said, "man... this really is perfect weather. Makes you want to fall asleep." There it is in a nutshell. You all think you have it made because you have it made. Location and weather-wise of course. Other cities don't have the size and the weather and Hollywood and its international attention, so they make up for it by working their ass off to get a piece of the pie. I've never worked in Los Angeles so I imagine it's as cutthroat as any other place, but I still get the feeling L. A. doesn't "get the lead out" like other locations where people dress like monkeys in cold, windy, rainy or in unbearably humid conditions. You're on the beach! Am I wrong? :)

So if LA is lagging behind so much, why the hell is it even in the Alpha City status? I've read that the LA metro area is the third most viable economic metro after Tokyo and New York. How is LA not competitive?

So what if LA is an Alpha city with the third most viable economy? Are you saying that to excuse the fact that LA severly lags behind other cities in areas like business, finance, and transit infrastructure? There are dozens of "lesser" cities out there that have had strong reputations for business, prominent financial institutions, and extensive transit systems for decades now. Cities like Boston, Sao Paulo, Madrid, and Mexico City are ahead in those three areas.

LA is not competitive because:

1) the city has yet to make great strides toward becoming a more business-friendly city,
2) the city did not open up a new financial exchange when the Pacific Exchange closed in 2001, and
3) the city has yet to come up with a well thought out transportation plan for the long-term.

I think LA will continue to write her own script... I don't think LA need to model herself after cities that are below in the ranks if it wants to rise to the next level.

LA will continue to write her own script. But ALL global cities need to be major business centers and have prominent financial institutions and extensive transit systems. It's not considered modeling oneself after other cities when the rest of them are all like that.

As far as theater goes, LA is second only to New York, usually there are between 120-150 live theater performances going on at any time.

But where are all the Broadway shows?

Why does LA have to be "more" of a Chicago/San Francisco/DC/Boston/Philadelphia-type city when according to most stats LA matches Chicago in many respects and far exceeds the others mentioned? And I've always wanted to ask this question being a person who is not at all interested in old European art, why would LA have to collect this specific type art to be regarded highly by the rest of the world? Isn't their enough art from other places rather than Europe that is highly regarded as well? If not, why? Also can't LA just corner the market on contemporary art if all of the other cities are pre-occupied with dated art?

LA has to be more of a Chicago/San Francisco/DC/Boston/Philadelphia-type city in that it needs to take on a more urban form with more organic growth patterns. There's no cohesive city center or the proper transit infrastructure to boot. LA cannot gain further prominence without those two things.

As for European art, that's all people care about and that's all they want to see. LACMA is not as highly regarded as the other great art museums of this country because it doesn't have a significant European art collection. But I do agree with you in that LA should focus on cornering contemporary art while it still has very little competition. After all, contemporary art will one day appreciate in value as well.

Now could you imagine if we had the Pacific Stock Exchange/Latin American Stock Exchange in our city?

Why would it be called the "Latin American Stock Exchange"? LA isn't part of Latin America. These would be more appropriate:

"Los Angeles Stock Exchange"
"Los Angeles Mercantile Exchange"
"Pacific Stock Exchange"
"Los Angeles Board of Trade"

^^^When I typed that out, I was finding a bit of a hard time articulating what I really wanted to say... which basically was that we should open up a stock exchange that helps us to do business with our neighbors in Central/South America (if that's not possible, school me on that so I can understand it a little better) as well as all of Asia and Oceania.

Anyway though:

LA is not competitive because:

1) the city has yet to make great strides toward becoming a more business-friendly city,
2) the city did not open up a new financial exchange when the Pacific Exchange closed in 2001, and
3) the city has yet to come up with a well thought out transportation plan for the long-term.

And I'm sure that every Angelino on this forum and everywhere else would agree that this is what we need to work on in order to step up to the next level.

We also need to take control of our own elements within our city as well. For example, the old Pacific Stock Exchange is now run by NYSE. We lost that. On another note, (as everyone here already knows) our L.A. Times is based out of Chicago. When I find out about little things like that, its no wonder that we have such a hard time taking control of this city and propelling it to where we want it to be. The future of our city is being controlled by other cities... we need to eliminate outside influences. It shouldn't be New Yorkers for Angelinos, nor Chicagoans for Angelinos, it should be Los Angeles for the Angelinos and the sooner we realize that we can start dealing with OUR needs.

^^^When I typed that out, I was finding a bit of a hard time articulating what I really wanted to say... which basically was that we should open up a stock exchange that helps us to do business with our neighbors in Central/South America (if that's not possible, school me on that so I can understand it a little better) as well as all of Asia and Oceania.

The stock exchange would be a regional stock exchange.

We also need to take control of our own elements within our city as well. For example, the old Pacific Stock Exchange is now run by NYSE. We lost that. On another note, (as everyone here already knows) our L.A. Times is based out of Chicago. When I find out about little things like that, its no wonder that we have such a hard time taking control of this city and propelling it to where we want it to be. The future of our city is being controlled by other cities... we need to eliminate outside influences. It shouldn't be New Yorkers for Angelinos, nor Chicagoans for Angelinos, it should be Los Angeles for the Angelinos and the sooner we realize that we can start dealing with OUR needs.

Why does it seem as if none of our civic leaders give a shit about LA, its future, or its potential? That is my biggest complaint against LA. Maybe it's because they're too hard-pressed with finding solutions to the problems facing our region? I don't know. Eli Broad is the only one who seems to really care.

Why does it seem as if none of our civic leaders give a shit about LA, its future, or its potential? That is my biggest complaint against LA. Maybe it's because they're too hard-pressed with finding solutions to the problems facing our region? I don't know. Eli Broad is the only one who seems to really care.

Basically. Not saying our civic leaders are lazy, but it sure seems like they don't give a damn. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if they didn't.

Basically. Not saying our civic leaders are lazy, but it sure seems like they don't give a damn. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if they didn't.

I think they've got great vision for the city and its future. However, they rarely follow through with their ideas, plans, and programs.

Like I said in my above post, Eli Broad is the only one who seems to care. He's made it his goal to raise the city's cultural profile, and the fruits of his ambitious philanthropy are apparent. Just look at what he did for the LA Opera and the Walt Disney Concert Hall, which happens to be one of the best and most acoustically sophisticated concert halls in the world. And look at his ongoing involvement with projects like Grand Avenue, LACMA, and the LAUSD High School for the Visual and Performing Arts #9. His passion for this city really shows. We're so lucky to have him in our city. Without him, we wouldn't be the culturally rich city we are today and the even richer one we'll be tomorrow.

Yeah, really. This city would be in a real slump without that man. What's crazy is that Eli was born in Detroit. This man isn't even a native Angelino and he's done a LOT for this city. If he wanted to, he could've done all of this for Detroit. But he didn't; he had his visions implemented here and now they're finally starting to come to fruition. Eli earns my utmost respect (along with Magic Johnson, another non-native Angelino who's done a lot for the city. Ironically, they're both from Michigan). Too bad we don't have too many Eli's and Magic's on the city council. :dunno:

Anyway though... I think that everyone here has aspirations to make this city better. We all have big ideas to make this city better tomorrow... we just all have to make them happen somehow. I'm gonna do something big for this city one day...

BTW, can someone change the title of the thread to "L.A. Statistics Analysis?" Reason being that "fine arts" isn't exactly an economic factor to the city... and it just doesn't fit.

Yeah, really. This city would be in a real slump without that man. What's crazy is that Eli was born in Detroit. This man isn't even a native Angelino and he's done a LOT for this city. If he wanted to, he could've done all of this for Detroit. But he didn't; he had his visions implemented here and now they're finally starting to come to fruition. Eli earns my utmost respect (along with Magic Johnson, another non-native Angelino who's done a lot for the city. Ironically, they're both from Michigan). Too bad we don't have too many Eli's and Magic's on the city council. :dunno:

Anyway though... I think that everyone here has aspirations to make this city better. We all have big ideas to make this city better tomorrow... we just all have to make them happen somehow. I'm gonna do something big for this city one day...

BTW, can someone change the title of the thread to "L.A. Statistics Analysis?" Reason being that "fine arts" isn't exactly an economic factor to the city... and it just doesn't fit.

I'll give props to the City Council and the MTA for their recent "progress" on the issues of zoning and mass transit. Back in August, the City Council approved a new zoning ordinance that now encourages larger and denser developments Downtown. And the recent meetings on several proposed transit projects is a good step forward.

The title of the thread is fine. Promoting the arts in the city is directly tied to cultural tourism, which affects the local economy. Broadway is a huge money maker for NYC.

True that. At least they're finally getting ont he ball about the numerous things that needs to be done here...

But where are all the Broadway shows?And this goes back to your European art argument.....I think you're a bit mislead on this. LA will not have a bevy of European art because other cultural institutions in other metros already have a huge lead on the city so I would strongly suggest that LA should probably concentrate on contemporarty art collections as well as Asian as well as Latin American art collections. It's truly about carving out your own niche market and your niche tourist magnets. Along w/ Broadway shows......it would be nice to see our Broadway revitalized and see a run of some hit Broadway shows. But our off off Broadway shows is the strength of LA's theatre. In any given week you can hit up Hollywood, Weho, NOHO or Santa Monica(even Burbank) and find the theatre districts within those areas chock full of new plays by new playwrites. We can invest in the revive of Broadway but this is where LA will and is setting itself apart. To be preoccupied with making LA a replica of other cities and there tried and true art institutions is unbelievably short-sighted and mind-numbingly uninspired.

I think that we would all agree about the transit situation in LA but how many of us attended the recent meetings that were free and open to the public?

As far as the PSE and its demise I don't know much about it and would like to hear a grown up discussion on why it is no longer in existence and why (as heard here) does the NYSE control it? So could someone elaborate on that situation?

Oh yeah, also Eric Garcetti gets it as well in fact Perry seems to get it as well along w/ Villar when he's not starring in his very own X-rated telenovela. The ones that we need to keep our eye on are the Zev's and Atonibitch's.

And this goes back to your European art argument.....I think you're a bit mislead on this. LA will not have a bevy of European art because other cultural institutions in other metros already have a huge lead on the city so I would strongly suggest that LA should probably concentrate on contemporarty art collections as well as Asian as well as Latin American art collections. It's truly about carving out your own niche market and your niche tourist magnets. Along w/ Broadway shows......it would be nice to see our Broadway revitalized and see a run of some hit Broadway shows. But our off off Broadway shows is the strength of LA's theatre. In any given week you can hit up Hollywood, Weho, NOHO or Santa Monica(even Burbank) and find the theatre districts within those areas chock full of new plays by new playwrites. We can invest in the revive of Broadway but this is where LA will and is setting itself apart. To be preoccupied with making LA a replica of other cities and there tried and true art institutions is unbelievably short-sighted and mind-numbingly uninspired.

A major theatre scene equipped with all kinds of productions, including Broadway shows, is all I'm asking for. I'm not suggesting LA replicate other cities.

And I do agree with you in that it's more important for LA to carve out its own niche, but I'd say we've done that already.

As far as the PSE and its demise I don't know much about it and would like to hear a grown up discussion on why it is no longer in existence and why (as heard here) does the NYSE control it? So could someone elaborate on that situation?

The trading floor of the PCX was closed in 2001 and the exchange itself was bought by Archipelago Holdings which was bought by the NYSE.

On the Pacific Stock Exchange:

EDIT: Whoops, WSL beat me to it. Anyway though:

The PSE had a lot of problems from jump street. For one, it was a joint effort between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Nothing wrong with that, however, when they demutualized in 1999 was when things started to go donwhill. Because of that, the L.A. floor was closed in '01 and the S.F. floor in '02. Archipelago Holdings bought out the PSE in '05, however the NYSE bought them out in a reverse takeover just last year. It can change, however. We just have to create a regional stock exchange for our city and manage it well it enough to keep it from being bought out by the big powerhouses in the east.

And I'm gonna pull a Mike Jones about the art situation...

I like European art. It's cool. I have no problem with it. But at the same time, to hell with our city trying to deal with it. That ain't us; we don't even face Europe. There's a whole world of art out there that can be considered just as "fine" as European art. We just got to get on our jobs on keeping a better eye on it and featuring that art in our city. Same thing with contemporary art, we should focus more on that as well. I believe everyone here agrees with that wholeheartedly.

On technology - The number of computer, microprocessor, and engineering companies located in our city/metro.

Not sure. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

L.A.’s a Fine Fit For Tech Sector

By CHARLES CRUMPLEY
Los Angeles Business Journal Staff
November 21, 2007

POP quiz. When you think of tech startups, you think:

A. Silicon Valley

B. New England

C. Los Angeles

If you had answered C in the past, you may have gotten a pat on the back for being an idealistic local booster. The correct answers were A and B, of course.

But that was the past. Los Angeles has emerged as a legitimate capital of tech-dom. One reason: Today’s tech companies tend to have something to do with getting entertainment and creative content on to the Web, and that’s L.A.’s sweet spot.

You may have known that or at least sensed it, since it’s a trend that’s been developing for a time. For example, in the last two quarters, Southern California edged out New England for the No. 2 spot in venture capital funding. Silicon Valley is still No. 1.

But the trend will smack you if you read the special section in this issue about the fastest growing private companies. The section includes a list that ranks 100 up-and-coming companies in L.A. County, and the list is heavy with Internet businesses.

Even the once-reviled dot-com name is making a comeback. Five years ago, there was no company with dot-com or dot-net on the list as part of its name. But this year’s list has four such names, including the No. 4 company: Reunion.com.

Russell Reeder, the founder of NxTV Inc. (No. 10 on the list), is quoted in one of the articles as saying: “Los Angeles is definitely the digital media hub, where technology, finance and the media all intersect. The content side being here and the deal makers being here are what made the difference.”

Reeder’s last comment alludes to another issue that’s extremely important. Los Angeles has, for lack of a better term, a culture of entrepreneurism. Universities are here, along with the creative community and funding sources. What’s more, there’s an attitude that allows, even encourages, people with bold ideas to start a business and give it a try – and not just tech businesses.

A number of cities don’t enjoy such a culture. They’d love to duplicate L.A.’s spirit of entrepreneurship but have trouble doing so because culture is the hardest thing to change. As a result, many opportunities die in those places.

I think a lot of Angelenos take L.A.’s culture of entrepreneurism for granted or aren’t even aware that it exists. But that culture struck me right away when I moved here. It still surprises me. And if you look over the special section, you may be reminded of the strength of that culture.

It’s just one guy’s opinion, but I believe the culture of entrepreneurism is L.A.’s greatest economic asset.

•••

You have to wonder if Rick Caruso has engendered jealousy from his competitors. Why else would a big mall operator like General Growth Properties kick a little mall developer like Caruso by trying to prevent a Cheesecake Factory restaurant from opening in Caruso’s new mall in Glendale? (In case you missed it, Caruso won more than $89 million from General Growth in a lawsuit over the matter.)

Caruso pays attention to detail and creates inviting places where people actually want to spend time. Contrast that to most other developers, who keep putting unimaginative boxes on asphalt. If they look at what Caruso has done, they must be jealous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Los Angeles Business Journal (http://www.labusinessjournal.com/weekly_article_pay.asp?aID=180833302.176444.1555151.4710764.4655362.284&aID2=119618)

Oh, and let's not forget the LA metro is home to JPL and corporations like Northrop Grumman, Computer Sciences, Jacobs Engineering Group, Tetra Tech, and Gateway.

Damn! I wish I could have incorporated that into my speech (it was today. It went pretty well btw) but that was a great read nonetheless.

-Finance

According to this source (http://www.greatertoronto.org/investing_sec_05.htm), the Los Angeles area is home to the fourth largest financial services sector in North America.

Damn! I wish I could have incorporated that into my speech (it was today. It went pretty well btw) but that was a great read nonetheless.

What exactly was the topic of discussion?

^^ Basically you just had to do a presentation on something that you were already interested in - some dude did a presentation on sneakers and some girl did a speech on makeup, so I decided to step out of the box and do one on a city. :lol:

According to this source (http://www.greatertoronto.org/investing_sec_05.htm), the Los Angeles area is home to the fourth largest financial services sector in North America.

Hmm... seeing how big our city is (and how fast we are growing by the decade) we can easily shake off our number 4 spot. The only hard part is actually making an effort to become a competitive financial city. That's all we would have to do. Just make any kind of effort whatsoever to get it off the ground and let the ball roll from there.