3 ms·

I lived in SF (and worked in tech) 2012-2013. I could see problems, but it certainly wasn't "turning into a dump" at that point. Your argument seems to basical

by geofft 6y ago

I lived in SF (and worked in tech) 2012-2013. I could see problems, but it certainly wasn't "turning into a dump" at that point. Your argument seems to basically be, once the high-salaried tech workers leave, the city will get worse. But as far as I can tell, the presence of the high-salaried tech workers has been making the city worse over the last decade, and if you think it's anywhere near "a dump," I think a lot of people will be glad to get back the SF of years past (such as the SF of a couple of years before I arrived, before the second startup boom, before modern venture capital existed, before Uber and Airbnb, during the recession and the dot-com bust - the SF about which people like me said, I'd like to move there).

kmtrowbr 6y ago
I agree with you. I have lived in SF since 2005. In my opinion, the problem is that the tech workers are not engaged with the city. They are here for the jobs, and resent the city. The high prices chased the old SFers away, the artists and eccentrics who enjoyed and loved SF ... and the influx was such that there was no opportunity to pass along the culture. More people needed to be shown what was fun and groovy about SF, than the existing population had the capacity to do. What was neat about SF circa 2005-2012 is that folks in general were happy, excited, and proud to be here. Current day tech workers complain a lot, while contributing little (presence, acceptance, consciousness) to help solve anything: viz the comments on this post. Now they dance upon its grave as they decamp to Montana or Ohio, etc. So in a sense part of the problem is just the mood of the place. If you ever read Jane Jacobs "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" she describes exactly the cycle we are experiencing: a cheap place is colonized by artists and eccentrics, it becomes cool, this attracts mainstream folks, this makes the place hyped & expensive, the people who made it cool move away, it then becomes lame, eventually it decays, is abandoned, and becomes cheap again. Be zen, this is all part of the normal life of the world. In the fullness of time, SF will have many more boom and bust cycles.
- deepakhj 6y ago
  Insert any decade in the past and you can tell the same story...

by geofft 6y ago

kmtrowbr 6y ago

I agree with you. I have lived in SF since 2005. In my opinion, the problem is that the tech workers are not engaged with the city. They are here for the jobs, and resent the city. The high prices chased the old SFers away, the artists and eccentrics who enjoyed and loved SF ... and the influx was such that there was no opportunity to pass along the culture. More people needed to be shown what was fun and groovy about SF, than the existing population had the capacity to do. What was neat about SF circa 2005-2012 is that folks in general were happy, excited, and proud to be here. Current day tech workers complain a lot, while contributing little (presence, acceptance, consciousness) to help solve anything: viz the comments on this post. Now they dance upon its grave as they decamp to Montana or Ohio, etc. So in a sense part of the problem is just the mood of the place. If you ever read Jane Jacobs "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" she describes exactly the cycle we are experiencing: a cheap place is colonized by artists and eccentrics, it becomes cool, this attracts mainstream folks, this makes the place hyped & expensive, the people who made it cool move away, it then becomes lame, eventually it decays, is abandoned, and becomes cheap again. Be zen, this is all part of the normal life of the world. In the fullness of time, SF will have many more boom and bust cycles.

deepakhj 6y ago
Insert any decade in the past and you can tell the same story...