7 ms·

The issue is this. San Francisco used to be weird, beautiful, edgy, and affordable outside of known rich neighborhoods (Pac Heights) that, like the UES, aren't

The issue is this. San Francisco used to be weird, beautiful, edgy, and affordable outside of known rich neighborhoods (Pac Heights) that, like the UES, aren't very interesting places to be, anyway, unless you live there. San Francisco used to have a lot of unique character to recommend it. It still does, to a lesser extent, but it also has douches wearing Glass and paying huge sums of money for crappy apartments, not even because they want to live there, but because they enjoy bullying the poors. When MBA culture infected the Valley, it turned it into a shitty New York: the worst of both worlds between a sleepy, semisuburban (but still beautiful and interesting in its own right) California city and the hypercompetitive pressure-cooker of Manhattan. In 2002 it was still conceivable that a normal person would want to live in San Francisco, just because it was still an interesting place: a genuine big city on the West Coast, with less rain than Seattle and far more character than L.A. Now, all the people I like hate what's happening to Northern California. Even tech workers are marginalized in this brave new world. How many software engineers are there that could buy a house in San Francisco at the market rate? Seven? Twelve? At typical house-buying, setting-down ages the are... zero, plus or minus one engineer who got in early on a ridiculously lucky startup, negotiated well, and over whom the founders are still kicking themselves. It's ridiculous. Of course, that's also the fault of the NIMBYs, who should be squashed with extreme prejudice. They deserve far more hatred than anyone on Sand Hill Road. It'd be better if the insane anger were directed at NIMBYs instead of innocent Google engineers (who are also getting ass-raped by rent, thus victims of the same thing). I don't know what the permanent identity of San Francisco is. I hope the crash will take out the nonsense and flush the entitled, Harvard-MBA culture back into the Stygian reaches from which it came. Let's have the NIMBYs thrown under that bus as well. They're certainly trying to turn San Francisco into a shitty New York knock-off, but they haven't irreversibly won yet.

sltkr 13y ago
> [..] douches [..] paying huge sums of money for crappy apartments, not even because they want to live there, but because they enjoy bullying the poors. I find this very hard to believe.
bane 13y ago
SF is like the Hippy movement writ large. Weird and experimental and funky a long time ago, got older and realized money is better and now wears turtlenecks and wireframe glasses that are too small and protects their property investment by artificially limiting availability and keeping public transport away (so the riff raff can't get around as easy). A few folks burned out early and couldn't get in on a good investment vehicle, but the weather is too nice to do anything about it and nobody seems to mind when you take a pee in the middle of the street. Plus, it's not too hard to bum a ride every month or two and head north to score some great bud.
crusso 13y ago
that's also the fault of the NIMBYs, who should be squashed with extreme prejudice I don't have a dog in the fight, but I respect the right of people to help determine the kind of city they want to have. Enough people who already live in SF are saying that they don't want to be New York. What's wrong with that?
- cynicalkane 13y ago
  They exercise privilege that they haven't paid into but simply possess on being there first, nor do they have economic incentive to see development that is beneficial for others. NIMBYs are the economic version of "finders keepers" together with not caring about anyone's well-being. This is suboptimal, even in lassiez-faire, to say nothing of an actual egalitarian society. Then there's the additional problem of the most ornery and stubborn NIMBYs commanding the greatest political influence. This is also suboptimal in any economic model.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    > They exercise privilege that they haven't paid into but simply possess on being there first, nor do they have economic incentive to see development that is beneficial for others. It's amusing, because this is almost the exact opposite of the typical argument I see against gentrification of lower-class neighborhoods in Brooklyn or Upper Manhattan in which most of the longtime residents are not property owners (ie, "They were here first").
  - crusso 13y ago
    simply possess on being there first Being there first is a really strong reason to respect someone's wishes. The ones who have been there have formed the place into much of what it is that makes it so desirable. If being there first doesn't carry much weight, being a johnny-come-lately carries even less.
- natrius 13y ago
  What you've described would be desirable were it not for a widespread flaw in human reasoning. When people invest time and/or money into a place, they want to make sure it doesn't change for the worse. The default strategy to achieve that goal is to fight any change at all, which doesn't work in growing cities. You can try to keep the buildings the same as they are, but the people will change, as will the transportation problems. A growing city requires more housing to slow the rise of housing prices. A growing city requires more housing near its transportation investments (especially where capacity can easily be increased) so more people can get to where they need to go quickly. NIMBYism prevents both of those, and is the cause of many problems in the modern American city.
gruseom 13y ago
> San Francisco used to be weird, beautiful, edgy > the fault of the NIMBYs, who [...] deserve far more hatred When I lived in SF, the "weird, beautiful, and edgy" older culture was very much also the anti-development and NIMBY culture. I'd be surprised if that were no longer true.

sltkr 13y ago

> [..] douches [..] paying huge sums of money for crappy apartments, not even because they want to live there, but because they enjoy bullying the poors. I find this very hard to believe.

bane 13y ago

SF is like the Hippy movement writ large. Weird and experimental and funky a long time ago, got older and realized money is better and now wears turtlenecks and wireframe glasses that are too small and protects their property investment by artificially limiting availability and keeping public transport away (so the riff raff can't get around as easy). A few folks burned out early and couldn't get in on a good investment vehicle, but the weather is too nice to do anything about it and nobody seems to mind when you take a pee in the middle of the street. Plus, it's not too hard to bum a ride every month or two and head north to score some great bud.

crusso 13y ago

that's also the fault of the NIMBYs, who should be squashed with extreme prejudice I don't have a dog in the fight, but I respect the right of people to help determine the kind of city they want to have. Enough people who already live in SF are saying that they don't want to be New York. What's wrong with that?

cynicalkane 13y ago
They exercise privilege that they haven't paid into but simply possess on being there first, nor do they have economic incentive to see development that is beneficial for others. NIMBYs are the economic version of "finders keepers" together with not caring about anyone's well-being. This is suboptimal, even in lassiez-faire, to say nothing of an actual egalitarian society. Then there's the additional problem of the most ornery and stubborn NIMBYs commanding the greatest political influence. This is also suboptimal in any economic model.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > They exercise privilege that they haven't paid into but simply possess on being there first, nor do they have economic incentive to see development that is beneficial for others. It's amusing, because this is almost the exact opposite of the typical argument I see against gentrification of lower-class neighborhoods in Brooklyn or Upper Manhattan in which most of the longtime residents are not property owners (ie, "They were here first").
- crusso 13y ago
  simply possess on being there first Being there first is a really strong reason to respect someone's wishes. The ones who have been there have formed the place into much of what it is that makes it so desirable. If being there first doesn't carry much weight, being a johnny-come-lately carries even less.
natrius 13y ago
What you've described would be desirable were it not for a widespread flaw in human reasoning. When people invest time and/or money into a place, they want to make sure it doesn't change for the worse. The default strategy to achieve that goal is to fight any change at all, which doesn't work in growing cities. You can try to keep the buildings the same as they are, but the people will change, as will the transportation problems. A growing city requires more housing to slow the rise of housing prices. A growing city requires more housing near its transportation investments (especially where capacity can easily be increased) so more people can get to where they need to go quickly. NIMBYism prevents both of those, and is the cause of many problems in the modern American city.

gruseom 13y ago

> San Francisco used to be weird, beautiful, edgy > the fault of the NIMBYs, who [...] deserve far more hatred When I lived in SF, the "weird, beautiful, and edgy" older culture was very much also the anti-development and NIMBY culture. I'd be surprised if that were no longer true.