Comment by OkGoDoIt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by OkGoDoIt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I meant living in Tahoe. I’ve done the weekend trip from SF a few times and with the long drive, the traffic (everyone has the same idea), the cost of hotel, trying to fit everything in a couple days, etc, I find it more stressful to take a weekend trip there than I find it enjoyable. Living there would be great but calling it a perk of living in San Francisco is a bit of a stretch for me. If your criteria for a good place to live is having a beautiful place within a 4 hour drive, then a lot of the USA is included in that. I want to live in the nice, beautiful, low-stress place.

But again, it seems to be a very personal preference. Maybe for some people having the ability to drive 4 hours to get somewhere amazing is a good balance to the things they love about living in San Francisco. I don’t consider it close enough to be a factor in my opinion of SF though.

Edit: I’m not trying to get into an argument about how amazing or horrible the Bay Area is. I’m just saying that some people find it amazing but other people actually would prefer to live in (the suburbs of) Detroit or elsewhere. I have no idea the percent of people in each group, but I don’t think we should take for a given than if all big industry leaves the Bay Area, that it will still be as popular as it is today. Not everyone loves it that much.

>I want to live in the nice, beautiful, low-stress place

As long as whatever you consider nice is the same as whatever every other similarly paid white collar worker with a spouse and 1.75 kids considers nice you will never be able to get that. Those places always will be overprices and high stress.

Look at how Boston area money has shit up Cape Cod, southern Maine and NH. NYC money has shit up all of Long Island, large parts of PA, upstate and VT. CA money has shit up Colorado so bad that CO money shits all over Utah. Chicago money shits all over Wisconsin.

What you're really trying to get away from is the secondary effects of people like you (and me, and most everyone on HN). You're trying to get away from a service and tourism economy where everyone else is (somewhat rightfully) out to screw you for every dollar you're worth. Unless you have radically different tastes in what you want this will never be possible because all the other people of the same means will gravitate toward the same places.

I think you just succinctly described the root cause of my crippling depression.

>You're trying to get away from a service and tourism economy where everyone else is (somewhat rightfully) out to screw you for every dollar you're worth.

I wouldn't characterize this as someone trying to "screw" someone. It's just a consequence of demand outstripping supply, and hence the way society allocates the resources in low supply is by who can pay the highest prices.

If anyone comes up with a better way to allocate scarce resources, I'd love to know.

A big city with world-class skiing nearby is pretty rare worldwide. If you don't appreciate it that's ok but many other people do appreciate it.

I don't feel like you are being honest. Driving across the state of California is not being nearby. A 4+ hour, 200+ mile, one way drive is not nearby.

I do it maybe a dozen times a year. Most of the younger bay area people I know go at minimum once or twice every winter. It is definitely one of the perks of living here along with all the other cool nature.

Because flying to CO or somewhere like that for skiing is even more of a pain the arse than driving to Tahoe.

Tahoe is a nightmare of traffic, terrible winter-weather drivers and crowds. 20 years ago it used to be a decent getaway for the weekend. Now, not so much -- it's basically a guarantee that you're going to spend a full day driving to/from there, and gods help you if you leave friday afternoon and try to drive back on sunday -- everyone, their dog and grandma included, are going to be doing the same exact thing.

Once or twice a year is not implying accessible -- it's implying that it's inaccessible. It's somewhere that people do want to go, but the effort required to do so limits most. If it wasn't worth going, people wouldn't be trying to go every winter, and if it was reasonably easy to get to, perhaps people would go more than once or twice a winter.

Reminds me of that Grouchism:

> Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded

That's the wonder of tiny percentages of huge numbers -- they're still big numbers!

If only .01% of 35,000,000 people go to Tahoe every week, that's still 3500 people a week that are visiting. Thats a lot of cars on the road, a lot of people waiting in lines, a lot of hotel rooms and vacation rentals taken up. I made up these numbers of course, but the point is with a state like California, even a tiny fraction of the population visiting at any given time, it's still an overwhelming number of people to deal with. And its not even just Californians that go to Tahoe -- plenty of folks from other states visit, and plenty of international visitors too.

So back to

> Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded

Yep, practically speaking, a tiny fraction of people that can go to Tahoe at any time actually go -- a rounding error -- 'nobody'. But it's still too damned crowded because Tahoe can't handle the rounding error anymore.

> I do it maybe a dozen times a year

People that live in a place like Salt Lake City can hit the slopes a dozen times in 2 weeks without taking a day off of work. I know people that work at tech companies in Park City, about 3 miles from The Canyons resort. They can literally go skiing during their lunch break.

How long does it take them to get to the beach?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com