Legendary Television City may be be sold in further blow to Hollywood - Los Angeles Times 39%

By Roger Vincent0%

7/11/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Halo Effect, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 146 hits. Analysis detected 1,180 faulty-reasoning hits from 881 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.6% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,377 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.10% of the article peer group.

(Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times) 
July 11, 2026 3 AM PT 
Click here to listen to this article 
This is read by an automated voice. 
Please report any issues or inconsistencies here . 
See more from the L.A. 
Times in Google Search. 
Set us as preferred 
p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text" data-subscriber-content> 
Television City, one of the most famous studios in the entertainment industry where generations of TV shows have been created, is expected to hit the market again as its owner grapples with debt. 
It’s the latest sign of distress in Hollywood as the film and TV industry struggles from a sharp falloff in production activity across Southern California. 
Television City’s owner, Hackman Capital Partners, is already in the process of selling the historic Radford Studio Center, which gave L.A.’s Studio City neighborhood its name. 
Hackman defaulted on a $1.1-billion mortgage in January and investment bank Goldman Sachs took over the property, which is now escrow for a sale to Netflix. 
The sprawling Television City property is one of the most desirable locations in Los Angeles, sharing fences with the Original Farmers Market and the luxury Grove outdoor shopping center, each of which attracts millions of visitors every year. 
If the studio at Beverly Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue where “American Idol,” “All in the Family” and scores of other shows were filmed becomes available as expected, the owners of the Grove and the Farmers Market would be among the likely contenders for the property for potential expansion of their businesses, said sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. 
Grove owner Rick Caruso was among the bidders for Television City, formerly known as CBS Television City, last time it was on the market and could emerge as a possible bidder. 
The highest bid when broadcaster CBS sold the studio in 2019 came from Hackman Capital Partners, an international movie studio operator and commercial property landlord that paid $750 million for the 25-acre site that is near Hollywood, Beverly Hills and and the Sunset Strip. 
Hackman Capital’s plan to recoup its investment included continuing to operate Television City as a studio for rent while adding new revenue-generating features. 
Last year the city approved Hackman Capital’s $1-billion plan to add 980,000 square feet of offices, sound stages, production facilities and retail space. 
The original studio designed by famed Los Angeles architect William Pereira erected in 1952 has city landmark protections, but newer structures on the property do not and there are acres of surface parking that could be converted to other uses. 
Both Caruso and Farmers Market owners A.F. 
Gilmore have sued to limit the planned expansion of the studio, calling it a “massively scaled” development that “would overwhelm, disrupt, and forever transform the community.” 
Owners of Television City scale back plans for a $1.25-billion upgrade of the legendary studio lot in response to neighbors’ concerns. 
The debate over the development has played out amid a serious downturn in the region’s entertainment industry, with studios shifting film and television production to Georgia, New Mexico and other out-of-state locations. 
L.A.’s entertainment industry also suffered a series of blows including the COVID-19 shutdown, strikes by writers and directors in 2023 and cutbacks at studios that reduced demand for sound stages. 
A group of Hackman Capital’s lenders led by Deutsche Bank filed a notice of default last month, saying they’re owed more than $357 million. 
Hackman Capital is still trying to renegotiate its debt. 
“The studio market is evolving, and the financing environment for studio assets remains complex,” Chief Executive Michael Hackman said in a statement. 
“We are engaged in active discussions with our lending partners and are carefully evaluating all of the alternatives.” 
A person familiar with the process but not authorized to speak about it publicly said Hackman Capital will be hard-pressed to pay its debt in light of challenges facing the industry. 
The notice of default is “the baby step to put Television City in play” for new buyers, the source said, “and it is in play.” 
Already in play is Manhattan Beach Studios, another Hackman Capital property encumbered by a $240-million loan from Deutsche Bank that the lender is in the process of selling. 
A buyer could foreclose on the property and potentially change its use to advanced manufacturing such as aerospace or defense, which is in high demand in Southern California. 
Brokerage Cushman & Wakefield, which is managing the sale, emphasized in marketing materials that the 22-acre site has “significant available power capacity” and “offers flexible uses” on “some of the most irreplaceable underlying land in the South Bay.” 
Business Hollywood Inc. 
Real Estate California 
The Wide Shot brings you news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production  and what it all means for the future. 
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service , which include arbitration and a class action waiver. 
You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads. 
Roger Vincent covers commercial real estate for the Los Angeles Times. 
More From the Los Angeles Times 
Most Read in Business 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Roger Vincent: 4.0%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic6.7%This article: 7.2%Roger Vincent: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 2.3%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Roger Vincent: 6.6%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Roger Vincent: 7.2%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 4.5%Roger Vincent: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias4.5%This article: 16.6%Roger Vincent: 6.9%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias16.6%This article: 2.0%Roger Vincent: 5.3%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias2.0%This article: 2.5%Roger Vincent: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error2.5%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Roger Vincent: 8.8%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect11.5%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Roger Vincent: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.3%Roger Vincent: 5.3%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority7.3%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.2%Roger Vincent: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope3.2%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.4%Roger Vincent: 4.1%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization3.4%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.5%Roger Vincent: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.5%This article: 7.3%Roger Vincent: 3.3%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.6%Roger Vincent: 5.1%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.6%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 3.3%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%Roger Vincent: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.4%Roger Vincent: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground2.4%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.5%Roger Vincent: 3.2%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote13.5%This article: 5.8%Roger Vincent: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.8%This article: 4.9%Roger Vincent: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice4.9%This article: 9.1%Roger Vincent: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination9.1%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Vincent: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Roger Vincent: 2.9%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.8%

881 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers17%attributed speech727writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageHackman Capital Partners • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 63 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageA.F. Gilmore • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDeutsche Bank • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Hackman • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Hackman • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageCushman & Wakefield • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cushman & Wakefield

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words25% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +97.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Cushman & Wakefield: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-16.4 ptsWriter: 16.4%Cushman & Wakefield: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%Cushman & Wakefield: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Cushman & Wakefield: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Cushman & Wakefield: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.