Hacker News Reader

Comment by yef | Hacker News Reader

We should be realistic about two things:

1. Saying that Boston is the center of ideas is lacking. Ideas aren't an industry, the way movies, finance, or tech is. Also, ideas are cheap. It's the vetting and execution of ideas that is valuable.

2. The quality of life issues need to be addressed. It's embarrassing that MIT students leave for Google, Facebook, etc., but I can also understand why. Aside from Kendall, the Boston area feels old, expensive, somewhat dilapidated, miserable in the winter. That's going to turn off a lot of people.

View on HN

Ideas are an industry. Universities employ tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in Boston.

And while the quality of life in Boston could definitely be improved, the oldness of the city is one of the things that attracts me about it. Old things are rich and comforting. New ones can be somewhat bleak. Not just because old things have a patina. Old things are more human, because they tend to be smaller and handmade, instead of just extruded from a factory somewhere.

There is also a very good architectural argument that old cities make for better quality of life. If you're Houston or LA, you're built for cars. That makes for a worse experience than subways and walkways. The public parks in Boston are excellent. The Minute Man bike trail is unrivaled, as far as I'm concerned.

There is a great feedback loop here too. People that like things like the Public Garden are more likely to demand changes keep the feeling.

Even the Big Dig, while a bullshit waste of public resources, turns out to make the city much more pedestrian friendly. It largely emerged because the city was too old to retrofit a freeway system that could handle the capacity above ground.

The Big Dig made for a huge improvement. People who lived here in past years should see http://ourdoings.com/brlewis/2008-05-14

That's quite striking. I agree that is has been pretty awesome, from what I can tell. I only moved to Boston right as it finished.

There was inexcusable corruption and incompetence in the construction though. That puts of a taint on large municipal projects generally.

The elevated highway it replaced was such a complete disaster that it's a net win to have it gone even with all the corruption.

From what I've heard, though, the old highway was designed the way it was because of corruption too. The palpable aura of corruption in Boston probably doesn't help it as a tech hub. Corruption tends to yield low quality of life, because so much of the money that goes into the government goes to political supporters rather than into beneficial projects.

I've noticed practically all very corrupt cities (Syracuse was a striking example) are economically backward, though it's hard to say which is cause and which is effect.

I doubt corruption is the cause. Most American cities were very corrupt during the late 1800's, yet had amazing economic growth. Detroit, Cleveland, Syracuse, etc were all startup hubs back then.

All governments funnel money to their employees and supporters. For us subjects, what matters is that the rulers are competent and think for the long term. If they are smart and optimize for the long term, they realize that the best way to enrich themselves is to grow the pie, not to gobble it all up. The guys who ran Tammany Hall understood this, more recent corrupt rulers like Detroit's Coleman Young did not.

Don't you think the industrial revolution is a unique period? And who is to say corruption didn't have a big impact, just lessened by the booming period?

I don't get what you are trying to say. Yes, it was a booming period, that is the point. The question is why it was a booming period.

I don't think rule by corrupt political machines is ideal, I'd prefer if it if cities were run as joint stock corporations. But despite its many shortcomings, Tammany Hall and its ilk were much better at ruling than most of our modern city governments. Compare how the recovery of Chicago after the great fire to that of New Orleans after the flood. Or compare it to the (non-existent) rebuilding of the World Trade Towers. They were building infrastructure at amazing rate, we are letting it decay. If I could trade the current Boston government for Tammany Hall, I'd do so in a second.

Agreed, the park system and the walkability of Boston is great. The problems come when you want to drive somewhere or find an affordable place near the subway with all modern kitchen and laundry stuff. We could do so much better, just tear down all the old 2 and 3 story buildings and build bigger, better ones....

We could do so much better, just tear down all the old 2 and 3 story buildings and build bigger, better ones....

This is exactly the wrong thing to do. You end up with a sterile wasteland.

I get where you're coming from, but that's quite a leap. Newer development doesn't imply sterile wasteland. A lot of suburbs are sterile, for sure. But a lot of urban development integrates quite nicely with the surrounding area, often adding to the appeal of the neighborhood. eg: Church Corner in Cambridge. Then there's the full-on live/work/play development like Atlantic Station in midtown Atlanta. Both areas are quite vibrant.

Education is an industry. Ideas are not, there is no marketplace for ideas, etc.

Old vs. new is just a matter of taste. The overriding value is whether something works or not. In general, the technical people I've met have very little patience for things that don't work, regardless of when they were built.

I agree, but I wonder about the subtle effects of so many old buildings have on the psychology of a place.

Old buildings and a place with a long past (which in North America means hundreds of years) is probably great for the idea industry, as new ideas are built on top of older ideas, recursively. Having architecture around with a long history brings attention to this longer timespan, and provides the necessary perspective.

But for startups, it sometimes seems to me that the "blank slate" aspect of much of Silicon Valley encourages focus on the new and the future, which is pretty much what one wants in the startup space, as opposed to the idea space.

I lived in Cambridge for 6 years. It's cold. Cambridge didn't clear its sidewalks; it just let everything accumulate. I could tell when it was spring from the smell of 4 months of dog shit thawing. One December day I was walking across Cambridge Common, 10 degrees, the wind was blowing. I said, "to hell with this." The next month I moved to California and I've been warm ever since. :-)

Funny- That's exactly my story as well. I've met quite a few Boston escapees out here in SF who all tell the same story. Loved Cambridge; hated the winter.

> Boston area feels old, expensive, somewhat dilapidated, miserable in the winter

I lived in the Boston area for about 7 years, and I can't help but agree with you. It's got it's upsides, but overall it's just not that nice there.

I guess it depends on what you like. I just moved back to Boston and am glad to be back. I like the snow and sitting by a roaring fire drinking tea, and walking the esplanade in the summer is always lovely. I like the SV/SF area to visit, but honestly I'd never want to live there.

Those things are great, and Boston does have its unique advantages. Digging your car out of the snow, slipping on ice, and gloomy days aren't. After 3 (ok, 2.8) winters here, those are the things that made me finally understand why people don't like winter.

Well, I grew up in Vermont, so I may be crazy, but I have a garage, good boots, and a love for snowboarding, walking in the snow, fireplaces, hot tea, and all that. I don't have to dig my car out of the snow, I don't slip on the ice, and I don't mind the dark days at all.

I love the sense of history that Boston has, old churches and many places that played a big role during the American Revolution. For me, it's the perfect US city, with the right balance of culture, East Coast attitudes, weather, etc... But I totally understand that it's not for everyone:)

With regards to the tech hub thing, I definitely see lots of younger tech people flocking to SV due to all the VC, Google, etc... That said, if you ignore the VC driven profitless startups, Boston still has a decent share of tech companies, and lots of other business (financial, medical, pharama/gene/biotech, etc..) which I think is important for a standard business ecosystem.

We actually have very similar tastes. I guess I just need a garage. :)

> [I have] a love for snowboarding, walking in the snow, fireplaces, hot tea, and all that

Ditto. The difference is that out here in the valley winter is a place up in the Sierra Nevadas that we visit when the December/January rain hits the bay area. The best part is that once we have had our fill of winter fun we drive back home :)

Even walking on the esplanade on a serene calm winter's day when there's no-one else about can be very tranquil. Also, I find walking about Boston, even in weather that most people think of as bad, a good way to help me concentrate my thoughts.

Bad weather's not a big deal, you just have to dress appropriately.

Esplanade is also good for running too during the winter. Because if you are not dressed appropriately for the weather (i.e., in your running shorts), you are essentially forced to run the whole esplanade to keep warm 'till you get home.

Speaking of quality of life issues, I was thinking of moving to California, but they really need to fix that gay marriage ban.

And then there's Kendall, which feels young, expensive, somewhat dilapidated, and miserable in the winter.

Why do people like Kendall so much? Out of all the "squares" and neighborhoods in Boston, it sucks the most IMO. It's essentially the industrial park next to MIT.

If people are so inclined to be in the "tech scene", live in any other neighborhood, Porter/Davis/Central/Beacon Hill/Brookline/JP and take the T to Kendall if you have to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com