Hacker News Reader

People still seem to think Pittsburgh's a hellhole even though it's anything but.

Honestly, I don't think it's a bad thing that people think this. The city's steadily drawing in talent yet rent/cost of living is remaining low and stable. Every once in a while I see people say "Pittsburgh's the next Portland!", but good god, I hope not. Too many people from SV have flooded into Portland and driven rent up to insane levels in just a few years while offering nothing of substantial value--Pittsburgh doesn't need the same.

> people in the US still perceived Pittsburgh as a bad place

They still do.

I'm originally from the area and when I mention this everyone thinks I come from either a Deliverance-like backwoods or a bombed-out Detroit-style factory town.

No one takes me seriously when I call it The Paris of Appalachia.

Because even if it is "the Paris of Appalachia", it's still Appalachia. I'm sure the city has made great strides but the outside perception is still negative.

Oh my, never considered Pittsburgh as part of "Appalachia" - I thought that was West Virginia! I guess the US looks at Pittsburgh like Pittsburgh looks at WV...

as soon as you leave the city, it's evident. it's hilly and the coal industry is everywhere (but shrinking...)

probably why steel found its way there too. plenty of fuel to make steel.

the people are friendly too. i had no idea what to expect but everyone was really friendly and open minded.

Pittsburgh is about 50 miles from West Virginia at the closest point.

It's a beautiful town.

Appalachia is actually a huge region that comprises probably 1/3 of the eastern seaboard, stretching from New York to Alabama: http://www.arc.gov/assets/maps/Subregions_2009_Map.gif

Appalachia extends all the way into southern NY.

"I'm originally from the area and when I mention this everyone thinks I come from either a Deliverance-like backwoods or a bombed-out Detroit-style factory town."

This has been my perception of the city until recently. I grew up in Florida, and my perception of the city had been formed mostly/entirely by the Pittsburgh Steelers. The team (and city by association) has a very hard-nosed, blue collar kind of vibe... similar to how I would think of the Baltimore Ravens.

I've recently moved to Chicago and heard mostly good things about Pittsburgh. As I've gotten more into baseball, the Pittsburgh Pirates (and their ballpark) have also changed my perception of the city. The Pirates are a great team and you never hear of any off-the-field issues from that team. PNC Park is also top 5 on my list of parks I'd like to go to.

It's naive that my perception of the city was/is based mainly on sports, but I've definitely read and heard lots of great things about the city, especially since moving up north to Chicago.

> The team (and city by association) has a very hard-nosed, blue collar kind of vibe

True. Where else could a player like Heath Miller become the fan favorite?

> It's naive that my perception of the city was/is based mainly on sports

Well then, the Steelers' now high-flying offense and the Bucs snapping their 20 season losing streak could be a sign of things to come for the city.

> This has been my perception of the city until recently. I grew up in Florida, and my perception of the city had been formed mostly/entirely by the Pittsburgh Steelers. The team (and city by association) has a very hard-nosed, blue collar kind of vibe... similar to how I would think of the Baltimore Ravens.

It is sacrilege to compare or equate the Steelers with the Ravens. You'd be thrown out of this town so fast.

>bombed-out Detroit-style factory town.

Yeah, it sure is annoying when people mindlessly insult your city....

Why do you need access to so much money that you can't get it in Pittsburgh or remotely?

Seems like an insanely cheap place to bootstrap. Get to break even far faster, etc...

If you're living in Manhattan now, you could reduce costs by over 75% by moving back and put it into the next venture instead.

Plus, the kids get the dog and a yard.

I bootstrapped my startup so I indeed never needed outside money (well rather never really tried given that we started during the 2000-2002 nuclear winter).

But if I had to do it again, especially in the current VC environment, I would raise money. It can be slow and tedious to bootstrap (took us 12 years to grow to 125 people and exit) and a lot of good startups in Pittsburgh seem eternally stuck in the seed stage.

Even if you do need to raise money, why is it a necessity to run your company out of the same city that your investors are in?

I've never had to personally raise money for a startup, but I see a lot of the face-to-face meetings starting off as warm email/phone intros. Even if you have to constantly travel to NY/CA/* to meet prospective investors isn't it still a better value to run a business somewhere with a low cost of living?

You don't. But investors tend to invest a big chunk of their money locally (they don't like to travel for board meetings...)

I can see that. Imagine you're someone like Sequoia with "1,156 Investments in 664 Companies" according to crunchbase. It would do your head in flying all over the country to see them all.

Maybe the answer is to come to where the money is for raising and then set an office back home.

Part of what an investor provides is a network. That network tends to be where the investor is.

> Even if you do need to raise money, why is it a necessity to run your company out of the same city that your investors are in?

It's almost never necessary but try telling an investor that. The amount of investors that said no to the start-up I'm currently working at, simply because it was on the East coast (that was literally the only reason given), was simply astonishing. In a world where you can be anywhere in essentially, physically, in less than a day (typically hours domestically) or instantly digitally technology investors would stick their noses up due to physical location.

I love SF but it just didn't make sense at the time and it's still insanely expensive there!

> "digitally technology investors would stick their noses up due to physical location."

Either they're correct, although there seems to be no logical reason why or any sane rationalization for it, or they're leaving great piles of money on the table for more open minded investors to snatch up, or they're not really in it for the money (retirement hobby, its for social signalling, etc).

The problem is you'll be putting out a 5 persons team, hope you don't get a Silicon Valley competitor who hires a 50 persons teams and spends ad money with their VC funding.

I guess I forgot that not everyone is doing something because they're passionate about it and are willing to stick it out in the long haul (supposedly that is "tedious" nowadays). They're in it for the fame or "billionaire status" or whatever high hopes they wish to achieve.

But here's what's hilariously ironic for OP: After achieving that mystical billionaire status, what would he likely end up doing?

Serious chance he buys a plot of land outside of Pittsburgh with a dog and yard for his kids and now grandkids. All things he can already afford to do right now!!

Call me old fashioned, but I just don't get the point of that exercise.

It's amazing that Pittsburgh hasn't evolved past the bad rap. A cousin of mine moved there in the early 80s, and it was already rated one of the best cities in America to live in.

It's interesting that CMU just isn't enough to help the scene. Silicon Valley and Manhattan are hard to beat for access to money, personal ambition and risk appetite.

I hear you on the cost of NYC. It's a city that sucks every dollar out of bankers and hedge fund traders - everyone else can only just run the treadmill.

> we were the first company to ever do something with a technology that CMU released to the founders.

Boom. A few thousand people vaporized, James Gosling among them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PERQ

https://www.pdf.com/Home

etc, etc.

You didn't read the qualifier: "released to the founders". It means that CMU didn't pursue the tech we invented there. So we were free to go out and do something with it as long as we gave them a small chunk (though nobody knew what that was).

Curious: what was the company that you founded, and that was sold in 2012?

It's in his profile, Vivisimo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivisimo

Worked for them. It was pretty awesome until we got acquired by IBM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivisimo