Hacker News Reader

Comment by JAlexoid | Hacker News Reader

If you think that a town of 200k can compete with NYC - you are deluded. People move to large cities for more than just the money* or the job.

You are aware that there are only two places in the world to have globally renowned theatre districts? NYC's Broadway and London's West End.

No periodic Osheaga can outdo music venues in Brooklyn.

There are things that stick. Things that would have to move. Things that seems "easily replicated", but are only possible in extremely densely populated areas.

PS: I just recently moved out of NYC to a town 1 hour north of NYC. And I hate NYC. And I still can see what is impossible without certain factors.

*Software Engineer in Bay area gets paid more, than in NYC.

View on HN

Awhile back another user posited in a discussion of "Why is Berlin so cool" and "Why was Portland cool" that if the cost of living is low enough that you can tend bar 2 nights a week and cover your living expenses, all sorts of awesome people will congregate- all the kind of people that are fun to hang out with, and throw good parties, and do cool shit- music, software, performances, etc. New York used to be affordable for artsy types per a former dance instructor of mine in the 2000s, but I suspect that is no longer the case.

I suspect that an extremely awesome scene can be replicated anywhere there is suitable mass of interesting people who can live cheaply. Sure, it's not going to be top billing, but for 99% of us, we simply don't care. Having a hundred different live shows to go to any weekend is more than enough for us, with lots of great local artists.

Created - yes. Replicated? That's a stretch.

New York is still way more affordable, than many other places(a busy bar bartender can get over $100K in tips). You also have to realize that outside of NYC you need to have 1 or 2 cars per household and you need way less space for stuff in your apartment in NYC(product and service availability make it easier to depend on things "being there")

Portland is an outdoorsy city, barely a cultural hub - it's cool in its own way. Its appeal is way narrower, than NYC.

Berlin is literally massive city with political power and financial prowess. It could become another global center, but like London - it's its own thing. Very different to NYC.

(speaking from personal experience here)

Not everyone desires materialistic things, live performances included. I love live performances, but I think most people are not really capable of appreciating "top" live performances anyways - to them, a big mac is filet mignon.

Are you joking?

Live performance is art, which is opposite of materialistic.

Smaller and more niche artists sell out medium sized venues in NYC, while failing to get half occupancy in fairly large cities. That is a major draw, because even idealistic artists need food.

I consider art another type of materialism, but perhaps my definition is wrong. I consider any kind of hedonistic pursuits materialistic (even if they are free). Consumerism in other words.

I'm not speaking of just money and property, but rather, anything which pleases our lizard brain - this includes things like tourism, sex-for-pleasure, video games, and novels.

Some counter-examples that I don't consider materialistic are: personal relationships (family and friends), pursuit of justice, philosophy, and also creating art.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com