Hacker News Reader

Comment by 001sky | Hacker News Reader

This is silly, nonsense. The centre of any major capital...London, Paris, Moscow, New York...like SF is incredibly expensive. The purpose of a capital city is to concentrate wealth and power, so that those who need to exercise it can do so efficiently. People move to SF to network and to have access to VC capital (for example). You should expect to encounter economic rent-seeking when you get there. You also shoud expect to see laws and regulations that keep out people of color and transients (eg, parking restrictions in the hamptons; no BART service south of SF to places like Palo Alto).

View on HN

I believe you're thinking a bit too US centric if you assume that regulations are there to keep out people of colour...

I questioned your premise that cities were "designed" to be expensive, whereas I believe they merely "become" expensive through basic laws of supply and demand. The reason cities such as London and San Francisco never grow ever taller skyscrapers is because of planning laws and regulations that restrict supply - not, a free market of supply and demand.

London is a good example of such in that it has ancient viewing rights that restrict the height of nearby buildings, the classic case being that no building can be higher than St. Pauls (a relaxed principle nowadays, but still enforced sometimes). This is a major reason why the old houses in London haven't been knocked down to be replaced by a whole skyline of skyscrapers, but instead are massively expensive properties compared to the rest of the country.

I questioned your premise that cities were "designed" to be expensive, whereas I believe they merely "become" expensive through basic laws of supply and demand.

Capital cities are a "premium" product, and they are designed to be so. People pay the premium, because they are effective in the task for which they are designed. Where do you think the "demand" comes from? The demand is for the productivity improvements that can accrue to those who control assets that are highly productive. But note the two words: (1) control; and (2) productive. To extract maximum rents, the product must be under control (so expect a class of laws designed to g;tee this). And secondly, expect a design which caters to high-end productivity (ie, networking, and its corralry...social exclusivity).

Just to point out few facts: New York City isn't a capital of anything, nor is San Francisco. VCs are in the South Bay, not in San Francisco.

Capital city, the area of a country, province, region, or state, regarded as enjoying primary status, usually but not always the seat of the government

If you need to brush up on the history of new york and san francisco as 'financial capitals'.

Alright, if you want to use the term metaphorically, that's ok.

SF may be a financial capital to some degree, but your comment about VC is still off: they're not based in the city, and they didn't take much interest in companies in the city at all until recently.

That is a literal definition, btw (hence italics)

The capitol of California is Sacramento.

Capitol (def): A capitol is a building in which a legislature meets

Footnote [1] If you're going to be pedantic, be correct. Not only is your use of words incorrect (pedantic/ly), the logic is insufficient to be a valid argument (on substance). The seperation of the political seat of power (in both california/sacramento and the us/washington DC) was (as historical fact) done in repsonse to desire for a seperation of political capital from financial capital (her being used in the sense of assets) to minimize potential corruption. The presence of capital (assets) in a city is what makes that a capital (descriptive) city. This is why you can have non-political Capital cities (like NY, SF) without speaking illogically or using incorrect grammar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com