4 ms·

During the 2008 financial crisis, I got a great deal on some lovely and interesting commercial rental space for my 20 person software and consulting company in

During the 2008 financial crisis, I got a great deal on some lovely and interesting commercial rental space for my 20 person software and consulting company in the financial district of San Francisco. It was an old bank building with lots of marble in the entrance and a nice view of the Transamerica building. The developers we hired from outside of San Francisco did not like the space because a commercial bank building did not match their expectations of what a Bay Area tech company should look like. After our lease was up, I let the developers decide what space we would move to. We ended up in a minimalist SOMA warehouse with unfinished walls and ceiling and sealed concrete floors.

douche 10y ago
This is why we can't have nice things...
mathattack 10y ago
I've been at two companies which tore up the floors and ceilings to get the unfinished look. It reminded me of friends in school who spent hours working on making their hair look sufficiently unmanaged.
- theoh 10y ago
  It isn't worrying so much as substantive of a totally image-driven lifestyle. William Morris, for example, wasn't exactly a model of democratic equality but he had an image of authenticity in mind which was achievable without extreme/real contrivances. The problem now is that the neo-yuppie lifestyle requires completely ersatz constructions: walls that look bricky, an urban "buzz" when everyone is boring and elite... etc.
greggman 10y ago
This is true of pretty much every tribe/culture. You want to be a hippie and stick it to the man. You must have dirty hair or dreads, wear sandals, have those baggy light pants (no idea what they are called). South Park made fun of this years ago with their depiction of goths but it's true for pretty much all groups. My brother in law (I love him, just taking short cuts to explain) is monster truck loving heavy metal loving hick stereo type. He hates suits and dressing up but at the same time he has his outfit (jean shorts and a t-shirt with a print on it) and it fits with his tribe of friends and it's just as much of a conscious fashion statement. An attempt to fit in by dressing like your peers. I'm just as guilty. I can't really imaging having a video game company in the offices of E-Corp.
- rhizome 10y ago
  You, like South Park, reverse the arrow of influence in service of punching-down. It's not "I want to be like all the different-people," it's that aesthetics derive from the values of a cohort, and that subcultures exist in opposition to the mainstream by definition. You want to be a hippie and stick it to the man. People don't wake up one day and say "I want to be a hippie," they realize that they share the values of hippies (to whatever degree, never 100%), values which include aesthetic sensibilities. Note that we don't say people who listen to Maroon 5 are just trying to be game show panel members, or that people who wear suits are attempting to convince people they're CEOs or national leaders. Perhaps suits are an unconscious fashion statement? That the mainstream attempts to victimize itself in response, where the only thing stopping a person from being goth or a monster truck person is a choice to acquire the appearance of the subculture, speaks to the vindictiveness of squares against anybody who would reject mainstream values. You yourself say that a person's looks qualifies as "sticking it to the man," illustrating perfectly a representation of subcultures as a threat. Alternatively, implying a mechanistic relationship between hippiedom and political upheaval (or even lawlessness) speaks to a kind of paranoia where the most extreme interpretation appears to be the most reasonable one. Not only that, but "an attempt to fit in by dressing like your peers" is a normative interpretation that asserts that everybody is only ever trying to join whatever mainstream will accept them, which is about the least charitable interpretation of subcultural dynamics possible. The stereotypes you hold people to, using their appearance as the only signal, is as much a political act as signaling membership in a subculture via aesthetic choices. The problem is that only one of those acts has a positive connotation.

douche 10y ago

This is why we can't have nice things...

mathattack 10y ago

I've been at two companies which tore up the floors and ceilings to get the unfinished look. It reminded me of friends in school who spent hours working on making their hair look sufficiently unmanaged.

theoh 10y ago
It isn't worrying so much as substantive of a totally image-driven lifestyle. William Morris, for example, wasn't exactly a model of democratic equality but he had an image of authenticity in mind which was achievable without extreme/real contrivances. The problem now is that the neo-yuppie lifestyle requires completely ersatz constructions: walls that look bricky, an urban "buzz" when everyone is boring and elite... etc.

greggman 10y ago

This is true of pretty much every tribe/culture. You want to be a hippie and stick it to the man. You must have dirty hair or dreads, wear sandals, have those baggy light pants (no idea what they are called). South Park made fun of this years ago with their depiction of goths but it's true for pretty much all groups. My brother in law (I love him, just taking short cuts to explain) is monster truck loving heavy metal loving hick stereo type. He hates suits and dressing up but at the same time he has his outfit (jean shorts and a t-shirt with a print on it) and it fits with his tribe of friends and it's just as much of a conscious fashion statement. An attempt to fit in by dressing like your peers. I'm just as guilty. I can't really imaging having a video game company in the offices of E-Corp.

rhizome 10y ago
You, like South Park, reverse the arrow of influence in service of punching-down. It's not "I want to be like all the different-people," it's that aesthetics derive from the values of a cohort, and that subcultures exist in opposition to the mainstream by definition. You want to be a hippie and stick it to the man. People don't wake up one day and say "I want to be a hippie," they realize that they share the values of hippies (to whatever degree, never 100%), values which include aesthetic sensibilities. Note that we don't say people who listen to Maroon 5 are just trying to be game show panel members, or that people who wear suits are attempting to convince people they're CEOs or national leaders. Perhaps suits are an unconscious fashion statement? That the mainstream attempts to victimize itself in response, where the only thing stopping a person from being goth or a monster truck person is a choice to acquire the appearance of the subculture, speaks to the vindictiveness of squares against anybody who would reject mainstream values. You yourself say that a person's looks qualifies as "sticking it to the man," illustrating perfectly a representation of subcultures as a threat. Alternatively, implying a mechanistic relationship between hippiedom and political upheaval (or even lawlessness) speaks to a kind of paranoia where the most extreme interpretation appears to be the most reasonable one. Not only that, but "an attempt to fit in by dressing like your peers" is a normative interpretation that asserts that everybody is only ever trying to join whatever mainstream will accept them, which is about the least charitable interpretation of subcultural dynamics possible. The stereotypes you hold people to, using their appearance as the only signal, is as much a political act as signaling membership in a subculture via aesthetic choices. The problem is that only one of those acts has a positive connotation.