Hacker News Reader

Comment by CalRobert | Hacker News Reader

"San Francisco has no right to compare itself to New York. None at all."

Who exactly is the arbiter of this right? San Francisco (and for that matter Paris, Tokyo, Beijing, London, hell even Turlock) are free to compare themselves to whatever other city they like.

Also, you don't need a car in SF if you're not lazy or just coming back from buying a couch, I prefer the weather in SF, and different cities have different good and bad things about them.

As far as capital of the world? Eh... I guess, but London seems the more natural choice for that in many regards.

View on HN

London is the financial capital, not the cultural capital. London long ago lost its lustre as a place of fun and sanity. You get taxed driving into the city centre, not so NYC, the cost of living in NYC is far less than London. A year-long NYC subway pass is dirt cheap compared to the 7,000 pound a year British Rail pass.

I like London and have a great time there when I visit, but I guess I'm weird. Brewdog, Euston tap, the skaters at South Bank, etc. are all good attractions. I also strongly support the congestion charge. Land is expensive, and letting automobiles drive all over it subsidizes drivers at the expense of the pedestrian (or cyclist). Ideally it would be so expensive to drive in the city center we could take a lane or two away from cars and give them to other road users, but I guess this is a pipe dream. Remember, at one point streets were for people (and carts, horses, early cycles, and yes, even very slow-moving automobiles), but cars stole that, and with it an important civic space, from us.

LA is the cultural capital. As depressing as it may be, world culture is now Hollywood culture; Los Angeles has far more impact on the culture of far-away places than either San Francisco, New York, or London.

LA makes pop culture but London is by far and away the aspiration city for those on the make. NYC doesn't enter into it. All over the world everybody aspires to be an English gentleman. Rich New Yorkers essentially try to emulate a rich Englishman but never manage. A Savile Row suit is still the gold standard and London sets all the high end fashion trends.

"London sets all the high end fashion trends"

Come on, now. Paris? Milan?

By "high end" I mean what real, successful people actually wear, not runway nonsense. Italian tailoring on a man is a bit ridiculous in most places.

When I look at what real, successful people actually wear, it usually consists of ripped jeans and faded T-shirts. Occasionally pajamas or assless chaps. My perspective may be warped by the Bay Area though. (Which is kind of my point - who defines who "real, successful people" are? The folks I see rollerblading here have billions of dollars more than even high society folks in London or Paris.)

...who defines what...

Exactly. That's the whole problem with the sweeping statements here. It's good we have different cities with different styles and sensibilities. And it's usually silly to say one is "best."

Very rich people in the bay area are not successful by popular standards. At the end of the day they are still fat nerds with lame interests and nobody cares, no matter how much money they make. This is what the world aspires to: http://cdn.ltstatic.com/2012/June/GJ406062_942long.jpg

Reply on news.ycombinator.com