105 karma · joined March 1, 2016
One mistake (IMO) many people make about housing is not adequately thinking through the second possibility.
These consist largely of 19th century buildings. And even the "modern" apartment buildings are 1920s, 1930s, etc. These are also precisely the neighborhoods that zone-limit modern construction to avoid compromising their character.
So you have a bunch of old buildings that need serious maintenance, sometimes by firms with specialized and otherwise outdated skill sets (e.g. stoop rebuilding and iron fence work).
Many of these neighborhoods are also in historic districts, meaning they're landmark-protected to preserve traditional architectural character.
Brooklyn Heights is a prime example. Essentially the whole neighborhood is one big historic district. The housing stock is ancient. And it's a highly desirable neighborhood. Maintenance fees can easily waver between $1,000 and $2,000. There are very few modern condos (which basically avoid these problems). So their very scarcity inflates their purchase prices. All in all you get a very difficult place to live in and own property.
I can't for the life of me figure out any way to be truly comfortable with a land lease.
NYC real estate is a really weird world.
Also recall that selling a place for more than you paid for it doesn't mean you've made money. As I'm sure you know, owning property also involves substantial ongoing costs (beyond the purchase price) that never get recouped: maintenance, property fees, incidental construction / renovation, insurance, mortgage taxes, real estate fees, and so on. Never mind the lost investment potential from the down payment, which is now a sunk cost vs. something that could have earned interest in the markets.
I'm not trying to challenge your anecdote; just to recognize that even with stories like yours the truth is complicated and hard to assess.
For my part, my experience has taught me to be especially wary of "hot markets" - the hype that comes with them IMO artificially inflates real estate prices to a point where the underlying value can easily get lost. I happen to be very lucky in having a rent situation that easily beats purchasing, even over multiple years. But I acknowledge rental arrangements can also get hyped, so a bad rental situation can also cost you.
I think this is one of the key insights. Although, thankfully, I think it's more than a binary choice (either a) legal or b) illegal).
Regulated legality combined with heavy restrictions on marketing and sustained support for rehab / support / education seems to me the best of all worlds. Still keep things accessible enough to cut out the motivation for the black market. But don't let the less scrupulous side of legal society run amok and actively exploit that.
You can find billboards that make bottles of liquor look like royal treasure passed down from the gods. It's ultimately poison in a bottle. This kind of glorification of it hurts people who don't have the ability to enjoy it without consequence (i.e. millions of people in the U.S.).
I don't agree with this.
This is true for some cases, yes. But it's just as common if not more common for people to take drugs to mask pain. It's not about the drug being fun, but about the overwhelming pain of life being temporarily numbed.
Some drugs start off as fun before becoming something more severe. Others are never fun - they're just coping mechanisms.
Unfortunately your comment also reminds me how enormous the barriers remain toward people recognizing alcoholism and having the will to treat it. There's an enormous amount of shame, stigma, and denial toward alcoholism, to the point that most who suffer from it still choose to hide that reality as much as they possibly can.
Even worse, the legality of it promotes a culture of celebration (advertising, fancy and elaborate liquor branding, snazzy bars, nightlife culture, bottle service, etc. etc) that is in so many ways uniquely destructive in its own right. Like everyone should be able to find joy in drinking, and those who struggle have something horribly wrong in them that carries the risk of denying them the good life, friends, social opportunities, cultural connection, and so on (suddenly mundane invitations to bars, cocktail parties, weddings, shows, dinner at a friend's home, drinks with co-workers, etc. become awkward and potentially dangerous).
There's a whole culture built around it: mainstream culture. And someone facing their problems with this particular drug face the prospect of losing access to the culture of their entire society. That's just daunting.
I don't think making alcohol illegal would help. But it's no walk in the park even legal. And poses some of its own unique challenges.
I see no evidence this is the case, or that the founders of YC aren't human beings who also make decisions out of legitimate concern for the betterment of the world.
http://www.amny.com/transit/new-york-city-to-reach-1-000-mil...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York#New_Y...
(not that I'm convinced either is a problem for this discussion)
But my specific point was that I don't believe the author of the blog post is paid by Burning Man. So I don't believe the content of the blog post would be inspired by that angle (correct me if you find out otherwise). That inclines me to consider its viewpoint more seriously, precisely for the reasons you mention.
In specific response to your pondering the many faces of Burning Man - at core it's a temporary city of 70,000 people. That means it's a large and diverse place. That's why you can hear so many wildly different stories about what kind of place it is - it's each of those to the different people who seek those things.
Think of it like any other city - is New York a debaucherous party destination? A crucible for art and theater? A whitewashed yuppie land of banks and condos? An immigrant melting pot? A loud and dirty merry-go-round that never stops? A home of amazing, beautiful, inspired people who try their hardest to craft a community where people can live and thrive?
It's all of those things. And more. Cities are too complex and diverse to be reduced to a single dimension. Burning Man is no exception. There's a reason they call is Black Rock City.
In that sense, it's in so many ways a reflection of whatever you seek and however you feel. If you go into it looking to party that's what you're going to find. If you bring open energy and enthusiasm for your fellow human being, and a desire to simply connect and bond with others, you'll find that in bounds. If you bring a fear of pretentious Silicon Valley tycoons using it as their own self-serving dumping ground, you can find that if that's really where you want to direct your energies. And so on.
That's of course also why you'll continue to hear so many varied opinions on it (and so many explanations of how it's been ruined). Some people are convinced it's the epitome of civilization's decline. Others see it as the most important and nurturing community they've ever known. Etc. It's large and diverse enough to serve as a really big mirror to all the myriad ways people project their own identities onto it.
Where you go astray is when you pass judgment anyway. You are not qualified to judge the moral value of peoples' experiences at Burning Man any more than they're qualified to judge the value of your own experience and efforts.
There's a lot to legitimately critique about the event. I'm sorry you feel unwilling to see it at face value - at which point interesting discussions can really happen - and instead want to go for a fatalistic scorched earth policy of bringing down an entire community based on your own biases and personal projections.
That community will continue to welcome you if and when you ever approach it with some humility.
We're talking about the opposite of cowering away. We're talking about the exact community building you value - both out there and back at home.
You're also clearly writing with a chip on your shoulder. I don't know what bad experience created that chip, but I'm not interested in fighting you or putting down your own experience. Please try to offer the same in return.
There's another word for this that doesn't use phrases like "Burning Man" or "real life". That's: "community". My experience has been that it's harder to find and sustain enthusiastic community in the real world. When it happens it's of course great, but people in their day to day tend to be resistant to it. Temporary experience with a more open, enthusiastic, and non-judgmental community than you're normally used to can be an invigorating experience for some.
The (overbearing) presence of police is dispiriting, and is most definitely a sunk cost of the growth and notoriety of the event as it now is. No one enjoys that. It is what it is. That said, it's easy to overstate its impact - they're ultimately a very small part of the experience and don't really stop you from doing whatever you want to do out there.
Burning Man is not what it was in 2000. People who really enjoyed what it was then may not enjoy what it is now. But it really isn't Disneyland or Vegas. Thankfully (in my experience), there's still a long, long way to go before it gets there. When it's getting there I'll be the first to step off the ride. But I'm still enthusiastically in love with what it is now and proud of the communities I know and have been a part of. They're some of the most solid people I've ever known. That's mostly, in the end, what keeps me there.
Our conversation sounds like a "changing of the guards" dialogue. I'm glad you have good memories from your times and I hope you can find some joy knowing there are still people with fires in their heart stirring the flames.
Your interpretation sounds excessively jaded to me and irreconcilable with the communities I know that continue to nurture and grow from BM.
I notice in particular your comment about coming to catered camps. That's precisely what Burning Man's community is pushing back hardest against, because the community wants to avoid the exact degeneration into vapid entertainment that you're claiming it's become. It's deeply deceptive to suggest this is a lost battle, or that the heart that makes this community something more isn't still strong and fighting very hard for the good fight.
Edit: I didn't notice your comment about gay people. What are you trying to express there? Black Rock City has to be one of the most gay-friendly places on earth. Where are you getting these ideas?
That change saddens me.
That said, in the end I basically adopt your last sentence as my ethos. Change is inevitable and the saddest thing of all is to miss what's still great because you're too focused on what's lost.
And of course there's the standard argument that while BM should have leverage, they're also so wedded to the site they're essentially a captive audience. And all the authorities know this. So I'm not sure they really have so much natural power.
Anyway, I'm open-mindedly curious about your own perspective. But I still remain really skeptical about the natural good will of local law enforcement and especially that there was anything reasonable about them jacking up usage fees (e.g. the new Nevada live entertainment tax), which just feels like a plain old power play fleecing at heart.
I hope you don't take this as a negative comment. That's not why I'm writing this. It's definitely not for everyone; it helps no one trying to make it an event for everyone, and anyone who considers it needs to do real soul searching about their own identity and how that might intersect with the event. You're showing clear self-awareness which is leading you to a particular intuition. I respect that you can see with confidence who you are and where your cultural fit is.
The feeling of "I'm not cool enough for Burning Man" makes 100% sense. I know many people who have keenly felt that. I've felt it myself off and on. If you let yourself fall into the wrong mindset it can definitely bring you down.
But some of my greatest inspiration from Burning Man comes from having learned how not to give into those insecurities, and to have let myself see with open eyes the supportive community that really is there and shows authentic enthusiasm for you just because you're you: no matter how uncool, introverted, shy, awkward, or whatever other non-sexy self-label you apply to yourself.
One of the greatest strengths of Burning Man's community at its best (in my opinion) is offering such unique support for people proudly being whoever they are. Even if they're uncool. Especially if they're uncool. You are loved and accepted simply because of who you are.
Yes, this sounds like hippie nonsense. Yes, it's not universally practiced and there are elements that don't buy into it. It's definitely not a walk in the park. But that magic is really there. I felt it through some combination of dumb luck and personal openness to the world and I'm deeply thankful to have found it.
Maybe your path can help you find that too, maybe not. I'm lucky to have found some amazing personal community there that continues to support me even in my weaker moments. But I assure you, as best as I'm able as random words here on a computer screen, that you could be a deeper fit in that community than you may realize. Maybe you'll never go there (and I'd be the last to judge you if you don't). But if so, it's not because you're not cool enough for the party.
More broadly, I'm not sure I fully understand the criticsm. There is paid staff, yes. But that's still a vanishingly tiny percentage of the effort that makes Burning Man what it is. It is still first and foremost a volunteer effort, and lives or dies by that effort. It's exceptionally few people, to my understanding, who earn money. I believe you can find a list of all of them on the BM financials page.
Two very relevant examples of when the "amortization" argument won't apply:
- a rising market in which the landlord bought a long time ago. Their purchase price was way below the area's current market value. So they can cover their expenses while you still pay less in rent than what a modern-day mortgage would be.
- a home buying market that's expecting continued pricing appreciation. Homeowners can (and will) rent out property at a loss with the expectation it'll be made up in a higher sale value years down the line. Whether or not this actually happens, of course, depends on their ability to accurately predict the future.
There's also the inverse case of declining markets, when landlords can end up over the heads financially and simply can't charge the rates they need to cover their mortgages, because the entire area has turned south.
There are very real financial risks to landlords. They can't just charge whatever they want. It really depends on the state and future of their market.
That's, as I recall, why there was the infamous chopping of 200 feet from the under-construction Nouvel Tower on West 53rd St - right smack dab in the middle of the land of skyscrapers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53W53
which in my view was a minor travesty and loss of a great skyline opportunity.
I agree with you that the educational infrastructure here is sadly lacking. And the highways.
I largely disagree with most everything else you've shared. Jersey City and East New York aren't remotely similar to each other - huge swaths of Jersey City are perfectly livable and lightyears ahead of East New York, which is notoriously one of the city's most challenged neighborhoods. Huge swaths of Jersey City are also downtrodden, but... it's an entire city. It varies up and down. East New York is just a single neighborhood.
Trashcan cleanliness is middle of the road - I've certainly seen better but I've certainly seen worse. New York is a far cleaner city than the stereotypes suggest. Some blocks are absurdly filthy. Others are pristinely taken care of and perfectly clean.
I couldn't disagree more strongly on your attitude about housing projects. They are not death zones. You're not placing your life into your hands by walking through them. You can use your iPhone walking straight through the middle of many of them and you will have zero problems of any kind. You're doing a real disservice feeding into peoples' worst paranoid fears about housing projects. Some have more problems than others. Most are filled with decent people and most are far more stable than reputations suggest. Some housing projects I'd feel uncomfortable walking through But most I wouldn't (and don't).
And so on. We could debate these perspectives forever, but I've learned quite clearly that you can take two people who live in this city for the same exact amount of time and find one who views it as a filthy godforsaken land of misery and poverty while the other sees it as an inspiring place full of passion, beauty, and inspiring and deeply giving people. Eye of the beholder is a real thing here. I won't fault your perspective but I seriously challenge the idea that it's some uniquely accurate perspective.
I, for one, couldn't imagine wanting to live in Tokyo over New York, no matter how pleasant it is (but I wouldn't mind better train service).