Los Angeles will be home to George Lucas' $1-billion museum - Page 5

sopas ej · #81 Posted **Jul 6, 2017, 1:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45

Something that would be tasteless in Chicago can work fine in LA.

I like this, but I don't think I'd have liked it in Chicago.

You guys are funny; you talk as if had the Lucas museum ended up in Chicago (or San Francisco) that the building would have the same exact design as the one they're gonna build in LA. The designs for those proposed in the other cities can be Googled.

... unless you mean a Museum of Narrative Art would somehow be tasteless in Chicago?

MolsonExport · #82 Posted **Jul 17, 2017, 4:58 PM**

jaringjarsofjarjar

10023 · #83 Posted **Jul 17, 2017, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej

You guys are funny; you talk as if had the Lucas museum ended up in Chicago (or San Francisco) that the building would have the same exact design as the one they're gonna build in LA. The designs for those proposed in the other cities can be Googled.

... unless you mean a Museum of Narrative Art would somehow be tasteless in Chicago?

I think he means that context is important. This is the reason that I don't really care for the London Eye.

Yes, it would have been the same design, but that design can work in some cities and not others.

10023 · #84 Posted **Jul 17, 2017, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

I think it's supposed to look like a Naboo Royal Starship.

That's the first problem. If Lucas had any sense he would pretend those movies didn't exist.

10023 · #85 Posted **Jul 17, 2017, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StethJeff

a) that doesn't change the fact that your initial statement was wrong
b) tourists do indeed go to the SFV for universal studios and the WB studio tour

My initial statement was not wrong. When tourists go to LA to "see the stars" and various film industry artefacts, they're going to "Hollywood". I don't care where the soundstages are, they're going to see the Walk of Fame, etc.

And the San Fernando Valley just isn't very nice. There's a reason the actors, directors, producers, etc involved in the film industry live and play in west LA.

LA21st · #86 Posted **Jul 18, 2017, 12:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

My initial statement was not wrong. When tourists go to LA to "see the stars" and various film industry artefacts, they're going to "Hollywood". I don't care where the soundstages are, they're going to see the Walk of Fame, etc.

And the San Fernando Valley just isn't very nice. There's a reason the actors, directors, producers, etc involved in the film industry live and play in west LA.

Not true. Sherman Oaks, Studio City and Encino are basically extensions of West LA. So is Calabassas, even though that's further west.
Many big celebs live in Toluca Lake, Studio City, Sherman Oaks, Encino, Woodland Hills, etc. North Hollywood has the young, "emerging" group of actors, writers etc. Burbank is an industry town as it gets. Alot of writers live close by to be near the studios.

The producers guild is in Sherman Oaks. Kevin Hart and other big names have their own production companies along Ventura blvd.

So, no.

There aren't many places in the country that have the real estate of the Valley's premier areas either.

LA21st · #87 Posted **Jul 18, 2017, 12:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej

You guys are funny; you talk as if had the Lucas museum ended up in Chicago (or San Francisco) that the building would have the same exact design as the one they're gonna build in LA. The designs for those proposed in the other cities can be Googled.

... unless you mean a Museum of Narrative Art would somehow be tasteless in Chicago?

There was serious outrage from Chicagoans on social media when they didn't get the museum.

LA21st · #88 Posted **Jul 18, 2017, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One

We're derailing the thread but my response was more geared toward the negative tone in which he asked the question, not me taking a dig at Texas.

The negative tone was in response to your negative remarks. You brought that into the thread.

sopas ej · #89 Posted **Jul 19, 2017, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

I think he means that context is important. This is the reason that I don't really care for the London Eye.

Yes, it would have been the same design

It would not have been the same design; it would have looked like this:

chicagoreader.com

Chicago Tribune

Reminds me of a more flowing, Space Mountain at Disneyland, kind of, so uh... yeah, Chicago I guess did dodge a bullet. Design-wise, anyway.

But still, not the same design.

badrunner · #90 Posted **Jul 20, 2017, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Reminds me of a more flowing, Space Mountain at Disneyland, kind of, so uh... yeah, Chicago I guess did dodge a bullet.

Or... you could say LA dodged a bullet since it had the best design of the three proposals.

10023 · #91 Posted **Jul 21, 2017, 11:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st

Not true. Sherman Oaks, Studio City and Encino are basically extensions of West LA. So is Calabassas, even though that's further west.
Many big celebs live in Toluca Lake, Studio City, Sherman Oaks, Encino, Woodland Hills, etc. North Hollywood has the young, "emerging" group of actors, writers etc. Burbank is an industry town as it gets. Alot of writers live close by to be near the studios.

The producers guild is in Sherman Oaks. Kevin Hart and other big names have their own production companies along Ventura blvd.

So, no.

There aren't many places in the country that have the real estate of the Valley's premier areas either.

I take it you live there, but no one else cares about the Valley.

The part of LA that matters to anyone outside of LA extends from Downtown to Santa Monica, between the I-10 freeway and the hills. Near the coast of course this extends south of I-10 to Venice. But that's really it.

LA21st · #92 Posted **Jul 21, 2017, 1:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

I take it you live there, but no one else cares about the Valley.

The part of LA that matters to anyone outside of LA extends from Downtown to Santa Monica, between the I-10 freeway and the hills. Near the coast of course this extends south of I-10 to Venice. But that's really it.

That's nice. I just told you your previous statements are wrong.
Who is anyone? You?
And here some areas south of the 10 that apart of LA's image.

USC/Historic Adams
Exposition Park (the location of this museum)
Lemiert Park
Playa Vista
Marina Del Rey
Culver City (Sony/countless entertainment companies)

So I don't know what you're talking about.

I can apply that same logic to any city, that only certain parts "matter", including Manhattan and the rest of NYC.

Leo the Dog · #93 Posted **Jul 21, 2017, 2:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

I take it you live there, but no one else cares about the Valley.

The part of LA that matters to anyone outside of LA extends from Downtown to Santa Monica, between the I-10 freeway and the hills. Near the coast of course this extends south of I-10 to Venice. But that's really it.

I'd also extend it further to the South Bay (Manhattan/Hermosa/Redondo). Even south of that, Rancho Palos Verdes is where major LA wealth is parked, with spectacular views of the Pacific and LA basin.

LA21st · #94 Posted **Jul 21, 2017, 2:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I'd also extend it further to the South Bay (Manhattan/Hermosa/Redondo). Even south of that, Rancho Palos Verdes is where major LA wealth is parked, with spectacular views of the Pacific and LA basin.

Yup. Those beach cities are very popular. Long Beach matters, Orange County, etc. The San Gabriel Valley/Pasadena.

Inglewood is going to be a big deal with the new train line/Rams/Chargers stadium

sopas ej · #95 Posted **Jul 21, 2017, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I'd also extend it further to the South Bay (Manhattan/Hermosa/Redondo). Even south of that, Rancho Palos Verdes is where major LA wealth is parked, with spectacular views of the Pacific and LA basin.

Yes, the Palos Verdes Peninsula does have a lot of wealth, though I must say, they are a conservative bunch politically. I knew someone who grew up in Rancho Palos Verdes, which, according to him, of the four PVP cities (the others being Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates), Rancho Palos Verdes is the least ritzy of the four. In fact, Rancho Palos Verdes has its own ZIP code, whereas the other 3 cities share a common ZIP.

And it is beautiful there. I hike there often, and I make it a point to take visiting relatives and friends there. The PVP seems to be off the radar in terms of places to visit in LA, but I don't doubt that the residents there like it that way.

10023 · #96 Posted **Jul 21, 2017, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I'd also extend it further to the South Bay (Manhattan/Hermosa/Redondo). Even south of that, Rancho Palos Verdes is where major LA wealth is parked, with spectacular views of the Pacific and LA basin.

I'm talking about places that are a focus for visitors and tourists. There are of course others (e.g., Pasadena) but most are packed into that area I mentioned.

I have never even heard of Leimert Park and I'm a city nerd that visits SSP.

Inglewood? Come on. That's like saying Bronzeville is an attraction because the White Sox stadium is there.

Leo the Dog · #97 Posted **Jul 21, 2017, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st

Yup. Those beach cities are very popular. Long Beach matters, Orange County, etc. The San Gabriel Valley/Pasadena.

Inglewood is going to be a big deal with the new train line/Rams/Chargers stadium

Long Beach is one of the most under-rated cities in CA and I'd even go as far as the US. Spectacular setting. Old established core. Rail access to DTLA. Massive port of LA/LB adjacent. Close to mega-wealth and yet cheap considering it's on the water. Amazing. I've spent quite a bit of free time exploring LB. Definitely a gem.

10023 · #98 Posted **Jul 21, 2017, 6:08 PM**

Long Beach is nice (I have a cousin who lives there). But for a visitor it's pretty much a separate destination from LA. Same with Orange County. If you go to Newport Beach as a visitor you don't just swing up to LA.

LA21st · #99 Posted **Jul 22, 2017, 7:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

Long Beach is nice (I have a cousin who lives there). But for a visitor it's pretty much a separate destination from LA. Same with Orange County. If you go to Newport Beach as a visitor you don't just swing up to LA.

Again, this is not true for everyone. As at tourist twice, I visited OC, Long Beach and LA neighborhoods on one trip.

Many tourists will lump Disneyland with LA visits. It's not that far.

LA21st · #**100** Posted **Jul 22, 2017, 7:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

I'm talking about places that are a focus for visitors and tourists. There are of course others (e.g., Pasadena) but most are packed into that area I mentioned.

I have never even heard of Leimert Park and I'm a city nerd that visits SSP.

Inglewood? Come on. That's like saying Bronzeville is an attraction because the White Sox stadium is there.

I was thinking more of the entertainment zone they plan to build next to the Stadium.

The Chargers/Rams stadium isn't just some regular stadium. It's going to host multiple super bowls, be a huge part of the Olympics . I believe the NFL network is moving there from Culver City as well.