I just read that about 10 years ago LA replaced Chicago as the nation’s leading industral centre.
It also seems to be passing NYC in a lot of other areas as well.
What would happend to LA if the movie and TV industry were not there? Supposing those industries packed up and moved to say Nevada, much the same way the TV industry packed up from NYC to LA in the late 50s early 60s. What kind of impact would that have on the economy of the city.
Second part. Would LA be as important today if the entertainment industry (movies, radio, TV etc) had established itself somewhere else?
I don’t think the entertainment biz is as concentrated in LA as it used to be back in the big studio days of David O. Selznick, et al. A lot of films are being shot out of state (and out of country) to save money. Some studios (like George Lucas’) are not even in SoCal.
Oh yes, to be sure LA wouldn’t be the same without the entertainment industry. But LA, unlike places like San Francisco, is greatly spread out. You can easily bump into a star in West Hollywood as you would a computer programmer in Irvine.
If the ENTIRE entertainment industry packed up and moved away, of course there would be an economic effect. However, a lot of film and TV production is already done in other parts of the country and in Canada.
The executives are all still here and probably see little reason to move. DreamWorks is still trying to find a place to build its enormous offices and Disney is aiming for a big expansion of its offices.
Now, if suddenly, no tourists came to LA, then you would have a problem.
The Los Angeles area weathered the defense industry contraction (Lockheed moved out, the shipyards in Long Beach closed down). There used to be auto plants and tire manufacturers in LA. They aren’t around here either.
The largest banks in Los Angeles are either headquartered in San Francisco or someplace out of state.
Personally, as someone with a secure government job, I’m all in favor of an economic downturn so I can afford to buy a house out here. Unfortunately for me, most of the people out in Southern California seem to be gainfully employed.
I recall hearing on NPR on Friday that the current SAG strike for a new contract involving commercials played on cable and over the internet was costing the city (not clear whether this was the city gov’t or the city’s economy; I’d guess the latter) about $1 million a day.
But I may have misheard, so take that with a grain of salt.
The City of LA collects a lot of money from permits for filming. Despite the SAG strike, there still is some filming going on and LAPD officers are earning easy overtime working security at film shoots. (The producers have to pay the cops.)
That is completely false. Film permits in Los Angeles cost $15. They’re basically free except for a nominal processing fee. The City of LA doesn’t make any money off permits.
I stand corrected on the permits. The city’s permit fee is nominal and often waived.
However, property owners can charge you fees to use their property for filming and some of the city’s department’s charge fees for filming on their facilities (but not all.)
So, Los Angeles’ take from film production would not directly flow into City Hall’s coffers. However, all of the related businesses (like the police, the caterers, the trailer/dressing room rentals) take in the money.
The City of LA department I work for does charge fees to filmmakers and it’s not an inconsequential amount.