3 ms·

It’s going to be very interesting to see what plays out at the end of the pandemic, assuming there is an end (I’m optimistic.) My hypothesis is that many marke

by kbos87 6y ago

It’s going to be very interesting to see what plays out at the end of the pandemic, assuming there is an end (I’m optimistic.) My hypothesis is that many markets eventually return to normal, but SF strikes me as one that may never be what it once was. The veneer of the place was already cracking for those that lived there or visited, and now it’s cracked for employers. Why stay and limit yourself to SF when you can source talent from everywhere, knowing that a partially or entirely distributed model can work? I can’t imagine real estate values ever return to their prior state in SF. It’s going to be painful for those that own there, but could be some strange sort of renaissance for the city.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
microtherion 6y ago
> SF strikes me as one that may never be what it once was The history of SF is literally that it never reverts exactly to any of its previous incarnations. After the gold rush, it didn't return to being a sleepy fishing village, or whatever it was, after the 1906 earthquake, it didn't rebuild exactly as before, nor did it after the 1989 earthquake (where the rebuild only ended a few years ago). When you say "what it once was", are you referring to the Haight/Ashbury scene of the Summer of Love? The Church of Satan at its Heyday? The gay scene before the arrival of AIDS? SF before Web 1.0? SF before Web 2.0? SF DURING Web 2.0? I don't doubt that SF will be different a few years from now. It's not a given to me that it will be worse. And in fact, maybe letting some of the excess money evaporate and have some of the more opportunistic fortune hunters move on will create breathing space that will help SF hit its next groove.
- kbos87 6y ago
  Very fair point - I should have said that I don’t see SF reverting to what it was characterized by most recently. I mean an unusual concentration of tech talent, sky high property values, and massive income disparities.
  - microtherion 6y ago
    I see the second of these as a downright negative and the third as problematic (I'm in favor of material rewards, but also in favor of a basic income). Talent concentration is good, but in boom times sometimes seems to get a bit too monocultural.

by kbos87 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

microtherion 6y ago

> SF strikes me as one that may never be what it once was The history of SF is literally that it never reverts exactly to any of its previous incarnations. After the gold rush, it didn't return to being a sleepy fishing village, or whatever it was, after the 1906 earthquake, it didn't rebuild exactly as before, nor did it after the 1989 earthquake (where the rebuild only ended a few years ago). When you say "what it once was", are you referring to the Haight/Ashbury scene of the Summer of Love? The Church of Satan at its Heyday? The gay scene before the arrival of AIDS? SF before Web 1.0? SF before Web 2.0? SF DURING Web 2.0? I don't doubt that SF will be different a few years from now. It's not a given to me that it will be worse. And in fact, maybe letting some of the excess money evaporate and have some of the more opportunistic fortune hunters move on will create breathing space that will help SF hit its next groove.

kbos87 6y ago
Very fair point - I should have said that I don’t see SF reverting to what it was characterized by most recently. I mean an unusual concentration of tech talent, sky high property values, and massive income disparities.
- microtherion 6y ago
  I see the second of these as a downright negative and the third as problematic (I'm in favor of material rewards, but also in favor of a basic income). Talent concentration is good, but in boom times sometimes seems to get a bit too monocultural.