4 ms·
I think the fact the constraints happen to be geographical is kind of moot. Brooklyn can't start assimilating the rest of Long Island any more than SF can start
by glurgh 13y ago
I think the fact the constraints happen to be geographical is kind of moot. Brooklyn can't start assimilating the rest of Long Island any more than SF can start building octopus's gardens in the Bay or housing in Daly City.
- tptacek 13y agoIt's not that Brooklyn would "assimilate" Long Island; gentrification always displaces people no matter what the geography is. The problem with San Francisco is that gentrification is made more painful by geographic constraints. Moving from SF to Daly City is a big deal.
- glurgh 13y agoI guess I don't quite follow what the difference is. Moving from Williamsburg to Jamaica (Queens) is as big a deal, if not bigger. But we've sort of tangented off, what I meant was 'Agree with you but Manhattan is such an outlier and so evocative that the mere mention of it kind of Godwinizes any argument you're actually trying to make. That I agree with.' That's all.
- tptacek 13y agoMoving to an entirely different city puts you into a different school system and often a different, disjoint public transportation system.
- glurgh 13y agoWhich seems like a or as much of a function of administrative, rather than geographic boundaries so we're completing some sort of talmudic nerdgument circle here and I still don't quite understand why Manhattan is a better or even good example in a comparison with SF. Thread depth 8 or so, though, call it a draw by mutual confusion?