4 ms·

Flat topography would be an economic advantage, would it not?

davidw 18y ago
Which is why Detroit is a thriving city, and hilly San Francisco is run down and derelict...? Maybe 100 years ago that was some kind of advantage, but not these days in the industries that SV relies on.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  Detroit is a thriving city, and hilly San Francisco is run down Actually, the opposite is true, and hilliness is not the only factor in play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship
  - davidw 18y ago
    Hilliness is not an economic factor at all. Well, perhaps with the exception of some hill towns in central Italy that are still fairly inaccessible, I don't think it really matters in this day and age, in our industry, except for the fact that it makes a place more pleasant to live for many people, like me. This is where I live now, and the economy isn't that bad: http://www.welton.it/photos/innsbruck/innsbruck_panorama.html http://www.welton.it/photos/innsbruck/innsbruck_panorama.htm...
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      Hilliness is not a factor at all. Did you not just post several messages claiming the opposite?
      - davidw 18y ago
        Are you seriously arguing that Detroit is a better place to be a programmer/"knowledge worker" because it's flat?
        gravitycop 18y ago
        My question was: "How is SV's topography better than Detroit's?". Your answer to that question was essentially that SV's advantage is hilliness: SV has some things going for it [...] topography, that Detroit will never have. [...] The highest point in the entire state of Michigan is lower than the hills west of SV.
        davidw 18y ago
        Am I chatting with M-x doctor or what? Flat places are boring. Hills are nice. There are lots of sports where having some hills is more or less necessary. Who likes to go hiking in the corn fields? Grapes for wine are best grown on hills. Thus, SV (and California in general, outside of the valley) is better. Subjective? Entirely. But probably true for more people than those who absolutely love monotonous flat places. In terms of voting with their feet, SV beats the rust belt "hands down". If someone simply doesn't care about having some hills or mountains, than perhaps that's not an advantage for them in SV. But the climate is still quite nice, as well as access to the ocean, for some people. I actually wouldn't want to go back there, but it's got a lot of attractive things.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Maybe 100 years ago that was some kind of advantage Interesting choice of date. 100 years ago SF was rebuilding from the giant earthquake that had leveled most of the city three years before. So, yeah, Detroit's got certain topographical advantages. People just can't remember that, because essentially none of the current residents of the Bay Area were living there in 1906, and human memory is short. But there may come a day when you remember. It'll be one day after one third of the buildings fall down and the water taps stop working. And now for the public service announcement: If you live in the Bay Area, stockpile some drinking water and bolt your shelves to the wall!
  - davidw 18y ago
    Seismography != Topography :-) They had a big earthquake in 1989, right? So it's not that old a memory in any case.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      They had a big earthquake in 1989, right? http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/future http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/future There are two things wrong with that. First, Loma Prieta was not the big one. It was a moderately big one, certainly destructive to some parts of the Bay Area, but nowhere near the size of the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906. [...] The new report also says that the next one will most likely strike farther north than Loma Prieta, somewhere between San Jose and Santa Rosa on either side of the Bay. The epicenter of the October 1989 quake was in a sparsely populated area. The next one, according to the study, will likely be centered in a more populated area.

Which is why Detroit is a thriving city, and hilly San Francisco is run down and derelict...? Maybe 100 years ago that was some kind of advantage, but not these days in the industries that SV relies on.

gravitycop 18y ago
Detroit is a thriving city, and hilly San Francisco is run down Actually, the opposite is true, and hilliness is not the only factor in play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship
- davidw 18y ago
  Hilliness is not an economic factor at all. Well, perhaps with the exception of some hill towns in central Italy that are still fairly inaccessible, I don't think it really matters in this day and age, in our industry, except for the fact that it makes a place more pleasant to live for many people, like me. This is where I live now, and the economy isn't that bad: http://www.welton.it/photos/innsbruck/innsbruck_panorama.html http://www.welton.it/photos/innsbruck/innsbruck_panorama.htm...
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    Hilliness is not a factor at all. Did you not just post several messages claiming the opposite?
    - davidw 18y ago
      Are you seriously arguing that Detroit is a better place to be a programmer/"knowledge worker" because it's flat?
      - gravitycop 18y ago
        My question was: "How is SV's topography better than Detroit's?". Your answer to that question was essentially that SV's advantage is hilliness: SV has some things going for it [...] topography, that Detroit will never have. [...] The highest point in the entire state of Michigan is lower than the hills west of SV.
        davidw 18y ago
        Am I chatting with M-x doctor or what? Flat places are boring. Hills are nice. There are lots of sports where having some hills is more or less necessary. Who likes to go hiking in the corn fields? Grapes for wine are best grown on hills. Thus, SV (and California in general, outside of the valley) is better. Subjective? Entirely. But probably true for more people than those who absolutely love monotonous flat places. In terms of voting with their feet, SV beats the rust belt "hands down". If someone simply doesn't care about having some hills or mountains, than perhaps that's not an advantage for them in SV. But the climate is still quite nice, as well as access to the ocean, for some people. I actually wouldn't want to go back there, but it's got a lot of attractive things.
mechanical_fish 18y ago
Maybe 100 years ago that was some kind of advantage Interesting choice of date. 100 years ago SF was rebuilding from the giant earthquake that had leveled most of the city three years before. So, yeah, Detroit's got certain topographical advantages. People just can't remember that, because essentially none of the current residents of the Bay Area were living there in 1906, and human memory is short. But there may come a day when you remember. It'll be one day after one third of the buildings fall down and the water taps stop working. And now for the public service announcement: If you live in the Bay Area, stockpile some drinking water and bolt your shelves to the wall!
- davidw 18y ago
  Seismography != Topography :-) They had a big earthquake in 1989, right? So it's not that old a memory in any case.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    They had a big earthquake in 1989, right? http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/future http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/future There are two things wrong with that. First, Loma Prieta was not the big one. It was a moderately big one, certainly destructive to some parts of the Bay Area, but nowhere near the size of the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906. [...] The new report also says that the next one will most likely strike farther north than Loma Prieta, somewhere between San Jose and Santa Rosa on either side of the Bay. The epicenter of the October 1989 quake was in a sparsely populated area. The next one, according to the study, will likely be centered in a more populated area.