3 ms·

That explains the draw of SF vs Monterey, but not necessarily SF vs Houston. Why do the most prestigious cities reliably stay the most prestigious cities, if no

by cjlars 8y ago

That explains the draw of SF vs Monterey, but not necessarily SF vs Houston. Why do the most prestigious cities reliably stay the most prestigious cities, if not for the prestige itself being the draw? As I said, I'm grasping a bit because I'm not sure I fully grok it. But there is something that would be lost about Manhattan if it became cheap. I believe it's not just the three items you list, but also the concentration of people that not only want to, but crucially, can afford the price of entrance. Beverly Hills comes to mind as an example, why do the rich and famous want to live there if not to also be surrounded by other rich and famous? Perhaps that's closer to the common link you mention in Palo Alto.

dpark 8y ago
Yes, clearly much of the appeal of Beverly Hills is the proximity to wealth. I don't think that's nearly as applicable to San Francisco, given that the proximity to wealth is countered by the proximity to homeless encampments. I will concede that for some portion of people, the prestige of living in San Francisco is a part of the draw. There are other factors that are probably more important for a lot of people, though. Comparing to Houston, San Francisco is literally 5 times as densely populated, which changes the feel of the city drastically. Houston is larger in terms of population, but it's also massively sprawled. That sprawl drives down the price of homes but also makes much of the city feel like the suburbs (probably; I have not visited). Houston also spends >100 days/year at >90F, which makes it not comparable to a coastal city for people who do highly value temperate weather.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Path-dependency. Urban rankings are quite surprisingly durable, with the US being among the worse examples of this, given, say, the rise and fall of numerous formerly-great cities, say St. Louis or Detroit, or to a lesser extent Boston or Philadelphia. Globally, Rome, London, Paris, Tokyo, and other major metropolises have sustained themselves for centuries. In cases, millennia. The Bay Area's biggest risk is likely its high cost of living given induced housing constraints. If an alternative centre emergess, as Los Angeles did in the 11920s, following the 1906 fire and earthquake, plus San Francisco's transport and water limitations (neither the bridges nor Hetch Hetchy existed at the time), as well as LA as a resource hub (oil). That advantage remained until the 1990s defence contraction, which hammered Los Angeles. If you really want to see durability of prestige, though, look to universities. Virtually all the great mediaeval European universities remain notable, and several (Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Leipzig) remain world-class. In the US, Harvard and Yale (among others) pre-date the country itself. Even in California's public university system, founding campuses Berkeley ("Cal") and UCLA, founded in 1868 and 1919, respectively, greatly out-rank subsequent expansion campuses. (UCSB, 1944, Riverside; 1954, Davis, 1959; San Diego, 1960; Irvine, 1965; Santa Cruz, 1965; Merced, 2005. UCSF medical school, 1873, is not a general-education campus.)

by cjlars 8y ago

dpark 8y ago

Yes, clearly much of the appeal of Beverly Hills is the proximity to wealth. I don't think that's nearly as applicable to San Francisco, given that the proximity to wealth is countered by the proximity to homeless encampments. I will concede that for some portion of people, the prestige of living in San Francisco is a part of the draw. There are other factors that are probably more important for a lot of people, though. Comparing to Houston, San Francisco is literally 5 times as densely populated, which changes the feel of the city drastically. Houston is larger in terms of population, but it's also massively sprawled. That sprawl drives down the price of homes but also makes much of the city feel like the suburbs (probably; I have not visited). Houston also spends >100 days/year at >90F, which makes it not comparable to a coastal city for people who do highly value temperate weather.

dredmorbius 8y ago

Path-dependency. Urban rankings are quite surprisingly durable, with the US being among the worse examples of this, given, say, the rise and fall of numerous formerly-great cities, say St. Louis or Detroit, or to a lesser extent Boston or Philadelphia. Globally, Rome, London, Paris, Tokyo, and other major metropolises have sustained themselves for centuries. In cases, millennia. The Bay Area's biggest risk is likely its high cost of living given induced housing constraints. If an alternative centre emergess, as Los Angeles did in the 11920s, following the 1906 fire and earthquake, plus San Francisco's transport and water limitations (neither the bridges nor Hetch Hetchy existed at the time), as well as LA as a resource hub (oil). That advantage remained until the 1990s defence contraction, which hammered Los Angeles. If you really want to see durability of prestige, though, look to universities. Virtually all the great mediaeval European universities remain notable, and several (Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Leipzig) remain world-class. In the US, Harvard and Yale (among others) pre-date the country itself. Even in California's public university system, founding campuses Berkeley ("Cal") and UCLA, founded in 1868 and 1919, respectively, greatly out-rank subsequent expansion campuses. (UCSB, 1944, Riverside; 1954, Davis, 1959; San Diego, 1960; Irvine, 1965; Santa Cruz, 1965; Merced, 2005. UCSF medical school, 1873, is not a general-education campus.)