Hacker News Reader

Comment by rootusrootus | Hacker News Reader

> And yet, San Francisco, like other great cities worldwide, has its unique charm and a sense of elitist smugness, a conviction that living here is a coveted opportunity. As a fellow lover of big cities, I respect this attitude.

That's quite introspective, and might explain a lot of the commentary on hacker news when urban/suburban/rural discussions come up.

View on HN

I wouldn't put SF in the great cities list. Maybe it had something back in the 80's or 90's - it's own charm or soul. But for the past 15 year's it's slowly turned into a soulless, charmless, no character city where everyone is in tech and thinks the same.

I may be in the miniority on this site - but frankly I think it's sucked for a while now. I've had much better times in other big cities worldwide.

People move to a city because they want to be more like the people who already live there.

But if too many move in too fast, the city instead becomes like them.

No, most people move to a city for a job - not because they think the average person that lives there is some aspirational target.

SF had an abundance of jobs that paid a boat load of money, and people moved there to take those jobs.

Not because it's close to Muir Woods and has the best weather in the world, and the people at cafes wear cool t-shirts (although nearly everyone who moves to SF tries their hardest to convince themselves this is the real reason, not the job and the money).

Agreed. Going for the $$$ is a completely different and valid reason. But to say it's in the top 10 most fun and cultural cities is a giant reach.

What?

I know we're talking about SF but the LA example is much more obviously clear: so everyone in LA _is actually in entertainment_ when they move? The servers and baristas went there "for the job" as a server and barista, but also acting, of which they already have well paying jobs in? I'm not even making sense to myself. Point is, absolutely... there's an aspirational part to moving to a big city, and yes they move for the weather, and yes they move to be closer to nature.

There are probably a hundred thousand places in California alone where you can be "closer to nature" than San Francisco.

Problem is a lot of people already in SF where not there for tech jobs, but beauty, art, banking, social movements, good industrial work, fishing/canning jobs, all that sort of thing. The unusually high software/tech related salaries have somewhat diminished the ability of the other folks to enjoy the lifestyles they previously enjoyed.

> The unusually high software/tech related salaries have somewhat diminished the ability of the other folks to enjoy the lifestyles they previously enjoyed.

Absolutely false.

The refusal of NIMBYists to allow anything to get built which pushed housing costs to infinity is what pushed everyone out w/o a top-1% paying job.

Not that the Bay created a bunch of high paying jobs.

I moved here because of the location, not the jobs. I could care less about standing about in an open office with noise canceling headphones all day. If you want a walkable place to live that is near some of the most wonderful cycling in the entire world, it is hard to beat.

Not true at all. Everyone is not the same in great cities.

SF also refused to adapt. Poor public transportation, extremely low building height.

The minority you point out is an ever shrinking one.

I remember coming close to a decade ago when I'd be chastised for suggesting that SF is dumpy because there's human poop, bins overflowing with rotten food waste, large packs of rats, and junkies sniffing lines in broad daylight all over the place there, but today few here will deny this anymore.

I want to love SF, and I'm not just saying that. Yet, every time I visit, it's visibly worse and I often end up in some bizarre verbal altercation with a BART employee or resident of the streets. Los Angeles, the city where I live today, has its own issues, some of which dwarf that of SF, but not nearly as often do I arrive home at night with a story to tell. And somehow we manage to have less poop.

The poop is just spread out so you don't notice it any given place you happen to be, because LA is bigger. Much bigger.

All those people living on the street are not in tech. Nor are the people making the coffee and serving the food. Or sweeping the streets or cleaning the houses.

Aside from how SF stacks up in the "great cities" list, many people like myself have a lifelong attraction to the bay area for entirely geographical reasons. It's absolutely gorgeous. The land, the water, the mountains, everything about that region is physically incredible. And those aspects are rather immutable and special.

You can close your eyes and just drive to some random place, a 7-11 or whatever, and it is so beautiful that it would be a state park in Maryland. And the weather is so nice you can leave your tiny overpriced house and go visit the beauty every day.

People are in denial about aging out of city living.

You age out of all living eventually

I think some people are more comfortable with death than changing priorities.

Hard to imagine aging into living in a place with less access to healthcare and amenities accessible to people who don't drive.

Why would you age out of having amenities closer to you? If anything, as you get older things should be even closer.

One reason is that you have kids and you want to have more space. Also, your cost of living goes up because you need more resources for a larger family. You might spend more on education, food, vacations, and so want to reduce rents or mortgages. You can do all that stuff in any big city, many do. But kids are common reason to move out of a city center.

I would agree in principle, but from experience it seems people are less interested in the energy of the city as they age and acquire more things, and prioritize building their own space around them instead of utilizing the city around them.

Bingo. To someone like me, the "energy of the city" is a severe down-side. I don't want "energy" in my life. I don't care about "amenities". I don't want to hear my neighbors music, or smell their cooking, or deal with their drama. Where I live now, working from home, I could go an entire week without seeing another living soul, and it's wonderful. I value the ability to sit on my porch with a beer, hear nothing but birds and crickets and the stream behind my property gurgling away, smell nothing but the trees, and see nothing but the sunset.

Many of those amenities are not as relevant when you're older. Easy access to bars, restaurants, and clubs is not as important as a larger home and good school districts when you're a parent, for example. Access to things like healthcare, grocery stores, and target are not any more difficult and often easier to access in suburbs.

Basically, people's priorities change and the optimal living situation changes accordingly. On average, that is, I'm sure some people prefer city life into later adulthood, and some young people like suburbs.

"good school districts"

This point seems to be mostly American and a result of how schools get financed in the US and not inherent to cities. Schools being financed by very small areas they are located in is exacerbating the divide between poor and wealthy neighborhoods for no real reason. In contrast, when I grew up in Germany, kids had to commute from the suburbs and villages to the city to attend a really good school.

Parent engagement has a huge impact on how good a school district is. It isn't the funding. Poorly performing schools often get more funding.

Kids. You will value space much more than you value proximity to restaurants.

Also, the amenities available in a city are quite limited as you age out of your 20s. Food and necessities become a much smaller share of what you are purchasing. Eventually you want access to tools and hobby supplies and home goods - stuff that is logistically not hauled into big cities but dropped off in the suburbs.

Because the amenities you value change over time. There’s very little I want or need in the city any more. Plus these days, lots of amenities will come to you.

If the car companies manage to get level 5 self driving working well, I’ll move even further out of the city.

People don't value all amenities equally, and as people age, their personal amenity-valuations change, often in stepwise ways. For example, prior to having a school-aged child, an individual might value good-elementary-school-access very little, but if they have a child, their valuation of that amenity will likely rise sharply within a few time-needed-to-move units of their kid being school-aged.

Maybe in America, but I don't think this trend is true elsewhere. Cities are very convenient (and safe) for families and elders in many countries.

To add to your point: The way we push people into the suburbs in the US leads to more loneliness for adults. If I want to meet up with friends, we usually all have to drive, regardless where we meet because nobody has a pub or restaurant or place where we could do any activity together near their homes. The only exception is one friend who lives in the city proper, but he lives across town, so everyone else has to drive extra far. In contrast, my friends in European cities seem quite happy living in the city proper, sometimes with kids, and they'll just meet with friends and family for brunch on the weekends and can walk or take public transit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com