Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Questions about Las Vegas

This is topic Questions about Las Vegas in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005106

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 05-16-2007, 08:29 PM:

[ 05-18-2007, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Shane Cooper ]

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 05-16-2007, 09:35 PM:

After living there for six years, my suggestions is don't. The people are shallow and is not an environment is not conducive for families. I loved Vegas but it is only good in small doses.

As for places to live in, stay away from the north end and the east end. The best area to live in would probably be Henderson. It is probably the stressed on real estate prices. Everywhere else that is not ghetto, the real estate situation is totally out of control. Where an average house would cost 250k every else, it would cost 500k-750k depending on the location and how new it was.

If price is not an issue, thy Summerlin or Green Valley.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-17-2007, 01:41 AM:

Can't say that I'd recommend moving here either these days. Anything close to the Strip is gang- or homeless- or transient-infested ghetto. Every neighborhood here has gang, drug (especially meth), and graffiti problems - even high-end areas like Summerlin. Rents and housing prices have gone SoCal insane though a market crash is imminent.

The town is very transient in nature, thanks to the gaming industry and its allure to shark-like people with a "fast buck" mentality. I believe we're still the only metro area in the country that has to print the phone books twice a year, since about a third of the population turns over in that time. Many people here are here only long enough to make that fast buck and move on to somewhere else. As Chris puts it, people are indeed "shallow" here - they're too busy scratching out an existence to be focused on anything else.

The high population turnover and abundant cash contribute to very high levels of social dysfunction here. The rates for property crime, drug use, alcohol abuse, drunk driving, spouse abuse, murders, teen pregnancies, kids in protective custody, high school drop outs, and suicide are all off the scale here. And yet 5000 to 8000 new people continue to move here every month. Another 3000 or so leave.

The unending explosion of uncontrolled growth which hasn't been made to pay for itself has led to other issues that have never been effectively dealt with. Worsening traffic, air quality, overwhelmed schools and public transit, and a looming water shortage are all things that the local government has swept under the rug. They're making too much money off the land developers to do anything else. Maybe when we finally get the National High Level Nuclear Waste Depository open near here in a few years, at least the growth might slow down.

There is some culture and sense of community here. Heck I'm a part of that, teaching and volunteering at schools and several cultural and civic groups. But it's all very bush league compared to any other city of similar size. Nobody here wants to pay or put in volunteer time for things like that, so it doesn't happen. Taxes are low though.

Really, I don't understand how a working person can afford to live here these days. This town used to be a place where a busboy could afford to own a house, but those days are long gone. It is a great town to be rich in though, as money really is the only thing that matters here.

No I'm not bitter. [Smile]

I've just been here off-and-on since 1964 and have watched the town grow and change. Up until about 1980 this was a great place to live and the growth helped make it better. The changes that have happened since around 1980 haven't been for the better.

Why am I still here? Failed escape attempts. Bailed out in the mid-'80s and again in the late-'90s. The third time will have be the charm. There's nothing here for me to come back to anymore.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-17-2007, 11:08 AM:

Boiling it down to the lowest common denominator:

People are willing to pay extra to live where they think the pussy is.

Sorry to make it sound crude and even sexist, but that really is the truth on why some areas of the country, like Las Vegas, Southern California and Southern Florida have such insanely priced real estate and an increasingly soul-less shallow feel.

Pussy is also what drives our economy. Someone who is single yet content is far less likely to buy a huge house he or she cannot afford. When you have a spouse to keep happy you're going to be upgrading cars, homes, clothes and lots of other shit a lot more often. If you don't, you might find yourself single again.

It's pretty evil how our mass media indoctrinates women to tie their self worth to how good they look and how successful their boyfriend/spouse is. That's part of what drives lots of women to areas of the country like SoCal, Florida and 'Vegas. All the glamour, money and adventure is there. It sure isn't in the old home town. Thankfully, most women are smart enough to see through all this pop cultural bull shit.

The pricing insanity on the coasts has been driving more people to this part of the nation lately. Texas has been growing in population by leaps and bounds, due in part to the fact its real estate market hasn't seen the perversely high price escalations seen elsewhere. Even Oklahoma is starting to add population (although it may not grow enough to keep from losing a congressional seat in the 2010 census). Cost of living is much lower. Issues about water and electrical power aren't nearly as bad as they are on the coasts. Basically there's room to grow. And there's pussy here too. Lots of beautiful women are born in this area of the country. They just move to the coasts later. The reigning Miss America, Lauren Nelson, is from Lawton.

My long term hope is that the effects of globalization and technology advancement will do more to further decentralize the industries of movies, TV, fashion and other creative endeavors. Places like Las Vegas and SoCal are still going to have their allure, but spreading out some of those industries might bring some of the living costs down out of the stratosphere.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-17-2007, 11:29 AM:

I take it by your long winded post and your location you aint gettin any of it? [evil]

Tony Montana: "In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-17-2007, 11:54 AM:

Mike, I'm doing alright.

I just don't have the desire to get into that whole get married, buy the huge house, 2 SUVs and a bunch of other shit I don't need crock of bull crap. Getting laid once in awhile yet keeping a zero balance on all my credit cards is suiting me just fine.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-17-2007, 12:08 PM:

Just joking... [Razz]

but yeah, no debt here (best thing I ever did next to losing my weight) and everything's going great for a change. I agree with some of your post though, my brother has a 2 year old and he and his wife just had another baby a few months back, and I kind of cringe when I go over every week that there's a new set of toys or clothes for my older nephew. He's got a good job and she helps with the bills too with her job part time as well but I'm sure they're typical family now with a maxed out credit card or so. I guess they're sort of lucky that they have 2 boys, so that they can reuse some of the toys and clothes down the line.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-17-2007, 12:19 PM:

Bobby, I luv you man, but as a former resident of SoCal myself, I can say that's mostly a crock of shit. There are SO many other reasons people want to live there. Do you think all of SoCal is "The OC"? Or even Vegas-like? Puh-leeze! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-17-2007, 12:42 PM:

People are flocking to Montana too, not as fast as Vegas, but they're flocking. Lots of Calfornians. The big thing they seem to want is "safety," followed closely by just a desire not to have so many other people around. Clean air, also. All that is availble in northern California, but they seem to think Montana is where it's at.

They're flocking mostly to the western part of the state, where the mountains are, so housing prices there are ridiculous compared to my part of the state, where the mountains are hills but almost as pretty, and you don't have to shovel 3 feet of snow off your driveway with every winter storm. (More like 3 inches.) A house that costs a million in LA would cost $200,000 here. If my li'l movie theatre was 300 miles west of where it is, I'd have to sell tickets for $15 to survive.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-17-2007, 02:53 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
Bobby, I luv you man, but as a former resident of SoCal myself, I can say that's mostly a crock of shit.

How exactly?

Beaches, mountains and warm weather aren't unique to Southern California. You can find that in many other parts of the country.

A great deal of Southern California's economy was built upon the entertainment industry. Its massive tourism industry grew out of being peripheral to the entertainment industry. Both have drawn countless millions of people to that region, either to work directly in those industries or to just be near it by living in an area on the country with a legendary status. Numerous movies and TV shows set in L.A. work as great marketing tools to get people from all over the world to move into that area. IMHO, young women are more enticed by that than any other demographic. The Valley's porn industry probably wouldn't exist if I was wrong about that.

Agriculture, shipping and military jobs are among the few industries established in SoCal well before the entertainment and tourism businesses boomed there. If Hollywood had never established itself Los Angeles might not have been any different than Corpus Christi, Texas.

The simple truth is lots of people are willing to starve their asses off living in a happenin' city rather than make ends meet comfortably in a more modest community. It's just like the insane shit so many "nuclear families" across the nation are doing in chasing after other unaffordable lifestyle obsessions.

Southern California and Las Vegas certainly aren't the only places drawing lots of young women (and the others who want them) to their regions. Some other major American cities are lucky enough to have a cool enough image to get some of the same result happening. Miami, New York, Austin, Chicago and perhaps a few others are doing well.

The one thing I can at least give Las Vegas is that it has no pretentions about its identity. 'Vegas is "sin city" and it doesn't try to hide it or apologize for it.

quote: Mike Blakesley
They're flocking mostly to the western part of the state, where the mountains are, so housing prices there are ridiculous compared to my part of the state, where the mountains are hills but almost as pretty, and you don't have to shovel 3 feet of snow off your driveway with every winter storm.

Sounds a little like the situation in Colorado Springs (yet another glamour city).

Over the past decade I've been floored by how much building has happened there and never received a straight answer on how the people coming into the area could afford the ridiculously high prices.

Now the real estate situation in Colorado is in a state of crisis. There's a record number of defaults and foreclosures happening. It seems the ratio of personal income to housing price has turned out to be a pretty important factor after all.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-17-2007, 05:09 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Even Oklahoma is starting to add population

Everywhere is adding population. Why? Because too many people are having too many kids. And all of those people who have kids think that there are plenty of resources and room in the world for their kids. Many of these people have more than 2 kids and that is increasing the population by quite a lot. Add to the fact that people are living longer and refusing to die in their 70's... well we'd better get Mars colonized fast.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-17-2007, 05:21 PM:

I was born and raised in "SoCal". In "The OC" as it happens. Lived there for a total of, umm, let me see... carry the aught... About 30 years. Left there in 1990 when I moved to Oregon. There are many things I miss about it, but I'll probably never move back.

Now my point is that entertainment, in the sense of the popular notion of "Hollywood", is a very small part of the overall SoCal picture. It's really rather miniscule. I'm not going to research it but I'll bet less than, oh, say, 1% of the population of what we're calling "SoCal" (which represents tens if not hundreds of square miles and many millions of people) are directly involved in the glamor-glitz side of Hollywood Showbiz. Yes, that's still a lot of people, the biz is high-profile, and it draws wannabes from around the country, but hell, the vast majority of people living there are not even remotely connected to that specific industry. You get out of that core area of LA where showbiz is the main biz, and it's regular people doing regular jobs and living regular lives and not giving a damn about the glamor. The pockets of glamor that may exist outside of Hollywood per se are just aberrations. I will grant you that there are probably more of those aberrations per capita in SoCal than most other large cities, but it's still a relatively small subset of the total picture. It (the "glamor") is just high-profile, with TV shows etc popularizing it and creating a mostly-false mythology.

I dunno, after living there for 30 years, I never ever felt like that stuff was anything more than a sideshow, albeit one that gets a lot of attention.

The chasing of social status, i.e. bigger houses, faster cars, etc. may happen more there than in some places, but it's not exclusively a SoCal thing, not at all, and it just bugs me when people think everything there is "The OC" or something, because that's just not the way it is.

[beer]

Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 05-18-2007, 01:07 PM:

To address the original question: I live in Henderson, and there's no way I'd move from here to somewhere closer to the Strip. It'd make things more convenient, but from my current residence to the middle of the Strip is maybe 20-25 minutes, give or take...but it's a nice area, with no real sign of gangs/drugs/homeless/prostitution/etc. that would drive some people away. The cost goes up some with that, but in terms of where I live, I try to do it somewhere that I can walk from car to front door without having to look over my shoulder!

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 05-18-2007, 01:12 PM:

But look at Kyle -- in that picture HE'd be the guy I'd look over my shoulder to avoid.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-18-2007, 04:20 PM:

quote: The Redifer
Everywhere is adding population. Why? Because too many people are having too many kids. And all of those people who have kids think that there are plenty of resources and room in the world for their kids. Many of these people have more than 2 kids and that is increasing the population by quite a lot. Add to the fact that people are living longer and refusing to die in their 70's... well we'd better get Mars colonized fast.

Someone should teach Hindus and Asians (mostly the Chinese) the joy of pulling out once in a while.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-18-2007, 04:46 PM:

Actually according to the CIA World Factbook China's population is growing at a rate of 0.606% each year, less than that US's 0.8%. India has made big strides in population control in the last decade too, though its growth is still 1.606%.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-18-2007, 05:26 PM:

Interesting... but of course when you look at their population (china having 4 times the US) then you can see how staggering it is. But with the inevitable proliferation of McDonald's and Arbys, we'll have that population shrinking in no time. [Big Grin]

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-18-2007, 07:22 PM:

Of course neither China, India or the USA know how many people are actually in their countries because of illegal migration and/or (i guess) diseconomies of scale involved in the census.

What kind of rent would you pay in Vegas for a studio/one bed apartment in an OK area? I'm over at the start of August for a holiday and emigration is something I may look in to if I have a good time.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-18-2007, 09:23 PM:

Studio/1BR in an OK area? Around $600/month USD for a studio. Around $700/month and up for a 1BR. Ghetto areas do have many move-in specials so it's possible to get in for only a couple of hundred bucks. For better areas figure on starting somewhere around $800/month. These prices are for unfurnished places. If you can get covered parking included you're doing good.

All monthly rents that I've seen here include water. All apartments I've ever rented here include refrigerators (unlike SoCal where often one must supply their own fridge). Also figure on about $200/month for the electricity in the summer (high temps around 115degF, lows around 85defF during July and August). Gas-fired air conditioning would be cheaper but that's relatively rare for apartments here. Most places are all-electric.

I would imagine someone used to London prices would consider 'Vegas rents to be a bargain. Auto insurance and gasoline are another matter - southern Nevadans pay some of the highest rates in the US for both.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-19-2007, 01:12 PM:

I pay about $220 a week for my room in London at the moment, my flat isn't in great condition and the area is kinda dodgy. Then again I don't need to drive (I can't anyway) which saves a lot of money.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 05-19-2007, 01:45 PM:

Out of curiosity, I checked the rents on craigslist. I found the rental prices to be about half of what the greater Los Angeles area is. Those comparing the prices of Vegas with L.A. (and claiming they are close in costs) aren't paying attention.

It appears that a nice rental house in Vegas will run you 1200-1400 a month, where a similar quality home, in a similar neighborhood will cost you twice as much in the So. Cal. area.

Vegas has a cheaper cost of living than most of the major pacific cities including Seattle, Portland, and the Bay Area.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-19-2007, 08:19 PM:

I moved my family to Vegas in 2002 to open the Neonopolis Theatre. My 3 year old son was born in Summerlin Hospital.

We moved back to the east coast because Las Vegas is NOT a good place to raise a family. It is a good place to go on vacation, that's it. If your married - it's not a good family oriented place and if your single- it's like a party 24/7 and your career usually suffers because of all the distractions.

Go there every year for ShoWest. That's it.