6 ms·

Why is it popular? Serious question.

by microb 13y ago

thaumasiotes 13y ago
Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities. Also: Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you. As a sub-point to the above, if you're looking to meet any other people, for whatever reason, you'd want to be located in a city. Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city.
- somaguy 13y ago
  Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities. Huh? In the US, median rural income was $40,135, compared to $51,522 in metropolitan counties. [1] Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city. Please tell me how long the drive from SF to the nearest Walmart is. Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you. This is a very good point. Lots of interest-based communities form in cities. In suburbs, there would not be a sufficient "critical mass" for this kind of community to exist. It drives business too - there are, for example, restaurants in cities serving niche foods. They would never have a large enough customer based outside of a highly-concentrated urban area. [1] http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3086 http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3086
  - spullara 13y ago
    I think you salary statistic is probably in rural favor unless adjusted for cost of living...
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Judging by google maps, there are several Walmarts within a 12-14 mile radius of the Sutter-Stockton garage. (All on the east side of the bay, as you might have expected.) The traffic estimates are roughly 30 minutes. For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart, except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership. Then again, I could walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target.
    - strlen 13y ago
      By most Americans' definition of suburb, Mountain View doesn't exactly qualify. My apartment was within 15 minute bike ride of Walmart, 10 minute bike ride of downtown (including commuter rail), walking distance of YCombinator, and it on the easternmost edge of Mountain View (the grocery store I walked to was technically in Sunnyvale). My commute to work was 5 minutes. Now I live in Saratoga where I've a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto -- and again, am in walking distance of grocery stores, coffee shops, and biking distance of downtown.
      - thaumasiotes 13y ago
        I think I need to elaborate / clarify my earlier words: --- For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). When I was in San Francisco, I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart (because of my background), except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership. Then again, I could (when I was in San Francisco) walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target. --- I'm not sure why you bring up Mountain View, as I didn't mention it and in fact was not referring to it in any capacity. My family lives in a "beach community" with one store, of which I do not know the name. Besides the store, there's a church, a school of some primary-or-kindergarten level, an outpost of the public library, and a fire department. I have also heard the location described as a "suburb". Going anywhere at all is a hassle; there is nothing nearby. It is possible, given the right wind, to smell the fertilizer that the local farms apply to their fields.
        strlen 13y ago
        You weren't, but other commenters did call Mountain View a suburb. I was just calling attention to your example (25 minutes to get anywhere) as it's a better example of an average suburb than Mountain View.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    The basic business model of Walmart--the premise of the company existing in the first place--is to provide affordable retail to rural communities underserved by other retailers. And they're so successful that in much of rural America, they have an effective monopoly. The real question is: do you have better options than Walmart? Because the bargain-basement shit they have for sale isn't worth buying if you can afford the alternatives.
impendia 13y ago
My impression is that cities are chaotic, unpredictable, and fast-paced, while suburbs are designed to be predictable and to feel safe. Working in a startup is also chaotic, unpredictable, and fast-paced, so it seems natural that people drawn to startups would also be drawn to cities.
- strlen 13y ago
  Historically this isn't true. There's a much less flashy reason for why so many startups are flocking to SF -- there isn't much space available at reasonable prices in Palo Alto or Mountain View that that's suitable for startups. If office space in Palo Alto or Mountain View was not desirable, the prices would crash. This isn't new either: there were plenty of SF startups during the old dot-com boom as well. I'd also predict that if there is a further growth of tech startups we'll see startups spread to other areas now considered "less desirable" -- in dot-com days there were plenty of companies in Santa Clara, Milpitas, Downtown San Jose, Fremont, and even exurbs like Pleasanton. When the boom ended, CA-237 was locally called the "dot com graveyard".
  - spartango 13y ago
    While you're right about office space becoming wildly expensive in Palo Alto and Mountain View, I'm unconvinced the data supports the idea that cheap office space is the driver of growth to the city. As you mention there is plenty of cheap and large offices as you go south along the peninsula, but startups seem to consistently choose more expensive SOMA offices over these. Only startups that need a warehouse or other specialized facilities start their search in the south bay. I think the reality is that its a combination of factors driving people to SF, from 'cool factor'/perception to quality of life issues (employee proximity) to 'cheaper-than-palo-alto' benchmarking. By the way, if you're reading this thread and looking for office space, the south bay is a perfectly good place to look. Yes, it's not as glamorous, but it's both functional, frugal, and actually quite nice. The graveyard doesn't consist of dumpy factories, but pleasantly maintained offices with good facilities. You can even live nearby, as long as calm neighborhood is an acceptable condition for you.
tibbe 13y ago
Driving really hurts standard of living, at least for me.
- ceras 13y ago
  I think this is true for a non-trivial amount of the younger generation. I know a decent number of (relatively affluent) people in their early 20s who simply do not have and do not plan on getting a driver's license. I have one, but I avoid driving like the plague.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  How do you see your friends? Do you just not know anyone who lives over a mile away from you? For me, though obviously it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else, I miss singing in the car. :/
  - lmm 13y ago
    I live in Europe with a decent public transport system. Cars are slower than trains.
raldi 13y ago
I think the real question is, why did city life's millennia-long popularity take a short dip for the 50-year period from 1940-1990?
- exue 13y ago
  Not really the case when you consider the huge rural population of the past and that the 20th century saw huge amounts of urbanization in the US (where 'urbanization' = developed areas and includes suburbs). The lower-density suburbs are still growing at a decent pace 1990-2013 and on especially in the South/West, but what defines a suburb is no longer the 1950s version and and incorporating urban/city-like elements now

Why is it popular? Serious question.

by microb 13y ago

Why is it popular? Serious question.

Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities. Also: Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you. As a sub-point to the above, if you're looking to meet any other people, for whatever reason, you'd want to be located in a city. Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city.

somaguy 13y ago
Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities. Huh? In the US, median rural income was $40,135, compared to $51,522 in metropolitan counties. [1] Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city. Please tell me how long the drive from SF to the nearest Walmart is. Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you. This is a very good point. Lots of interest-based communities form in cities. In suburbs, there would not be a sufficient "critical mass" for this kind of community to exist. It drives business too - there are, for example, restaurants in cities serving niche foods. They would never have a large enough customer based outside of a highly-concentrated urban area. [1] http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3086 http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3086
- spullara 13y ago
  I think you salary statistic is probably in rural favor unless adjusted for cost of living...
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Judging by google maps, there are several Walmarts within a 12-14 mile radius of the Sutter-Stockton garage. (All on the east side of the bay, as you might have expected.) The traffic estimates are roughly 30 minutes. For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart, except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership. Then again, I could walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target.
  - strlen 13y ago
    By most Americans' definition of suburb, Mountain View doesn't exactly qualify. My apartment was within 15 minute bike ride of Walmart, 10 minute bike ride of downtown (including commuter rail), walking distance of YCombinator, and it on the easternmost edge of Mountain View (the grocery store I walked to was technically in Sunnyvale). My commute to work was 5 minutes. Now I live in Saratoga where I've a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto -- and again, am in walking distance of grocery stores, coffee shops, and biking distance of downtown.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      I think I need to elaborate / clarify my earlier words: --- For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). When I was in San Francisco, I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart (because of my background), except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership. Then again, I could (when I was in San Francisco) walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target. --- I'm not sure why you bring up Mountain View, as I didn't mention it and in fact was not referring to it in any capacity. My family lives in a "beach community" with one store, of which I do not know the name. Besides the store, there's a church, a school of some primary-or-kindergarten level, an outpost of the public library, and a fire department. I have also heard the location described as a "suburb". Going anywhere at all is a hassle; there is nothing nearby. It is possible, given the right wind, to smell the fertilizer that the local farms apply to their fields.
      - strlen 13y ago
        You weren't, but other commenters did call Mountain View a suburb. I was just calling attention to your example (25 minutes to get anywhere) as it's a better example of an average suburb than Mountain View.
- philwelch 13y ago
  The basic business model of Walmart--the premise of the company existing in the first place--is to provide affordable retail to rural communities underserved by other retailers. And they're so successful that in much of rural America, they have an effective monopoly. The real question is: do you have better options than Walmart? Because the bargain-basement shit they have for sale isn't worth buying if you can afford the alternatives.

impendia 13y ago

My impression is that cities are chaotic, unpredictable, and fast-paced, while suburbs are designed to be predictable and to feel safe. Working in a startup is also chaotic, unpredictable, and fast-paced, so it seems natural that people drawn to startups would also be drawn to cities.

strlen 13y ago
Historically this isn't true. There's a much less flashy reason for why so many startups are flocking to SF -- there isn't much space available at reasonable prices in Palo Alto or Mountain View that that's suitable for startups. If office space in Palo Alto or Mountain View was not desirable, the prices would crash. This isn't new either: there were plenty of SF startups during the old dot-com boom as well. I'd also predict that if there is a further growth of tech startups we'll see startups spread to other areas now considered "less desirable" -- in dot-com days there were plenty of companies in Santa Clara, Milpitas, Downtown San Jose, Fremont, and even exurbs like Pleasanton. When the boom ended, CA-237 was locally called the "dot com graveyard".
- spartango 13y ago
  While you're right about office space becoming wildly expensive in Palo Alto and Mountain View, I'm unconvinced the data supports the idea that cheap office space is the driver of growth to the city. As you mention there is plenty of cheap and large offices as you go south along the peninsula, but startups seem to consistently choose more expensive SOMA offices over these. Only startups that need a warehouse or other specialized facilities start their search in the south bay. I think the reality is that its a combination of factors driving people to SF, from 'cool factor'/perception to quality of life issues (employee proximity) to 'cheaper-than-palo-alto' benchmarking. By the way, if you're reading this thread and looking for office space, the south bay is a perfectly good place to look. Yes, it's not as glamorous, but it's both functional, frugal, and actually quite nice. The graveyard doesn't consist of dumpy factories, but pleasantly maintained offices with good facilities. You can even live nearby, as long as calm neighborhood is an acceptable condition for you.

tibbe 13y ago

Driving really hurts standard of living, at least for me.

ceras 13y ago
I think this is true for a non-trivial amount of the younger generation. I know a decent number of (relatively affluent) people in their early 20s who simply do not have and do not plan on getting a driver's license. I have one, but I avoid driving like the plague.
thaumasiotes 13y ago
How do you see your friends? Do you just not know anyone who lives over a mile away from you? For me, though obviously it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else, I miss singing in the car. :/
- lmm 13y ago
  I live in Europe with a decent public transport system. Cars are slower than trains.

raldi 13y ago

I think the real question is, why did city life's millennia-long popularity take a short dip for the 50-year period from 1940-1990?

exue 13y ago
Not really the case when you consider the huge rural population of the past and that the 20th century saw huge amounts of urbanization in the US (where 'urbanization' = developed areas and includes suburbs). The lower-density suburbs are still growing at a decent pace 1990-2013 and on especially in the South/West, but what defines a suburb is no longer the 1950s version and and incorporating urban/city-like elements now