Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 110 posts

Re: DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

#61

Post by sabat »

tptacek wrote: post #60
sabat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides the fact that most of your complaints are less than valid, you left out the fact that San Francisco shares, year after year, the status of top restaurant city in the US. (NYC is the other.) Oh, and there's that wine country about 45 mins. north.

Whatever. You know my theory about fine dining cities? I know you want to. Once you get past a critical mass of high-end restaurants, it stops mattering. Arguments about San Francisco versus Chicago versus New York for restaurants are irrelevant, because unless you have an absurd budget for eating out, you aren't visiting all of them. So, yes, you have French Laundry (if you count it), and NYC has Per Se, and Chicago…

Actually people do move to the City for the food. The point is that all Chicago has is Charlie Trotter's. SF has hundreds of amazing restaurants.

Re: DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

#62

Post by sabat »

condor wrote: post #59
sabat wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that -- by pointing out that there has been only one successful startup in Chicago (37Signals does not count; it's not really a startup, just a small business) -- that you just underscored the argument for the Bay Area.

if a startup is not a small business, what is it?

It's a small business that is attempting to become either a large business or part of another large business.

37Signals is neither; it's about six people who want the company to remain small and independent. (I have no problem with that.)

Re: DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

#63

Post by sabat »

rob wrote: post #57
sabat wrote: post #49

Flamebait. From a guy who's barely ever been here. From a guy who grew up in an ugly place with lousy weather (Denmark) and moved to a place that's remarkably similar to that. DHH generalizes wildly in this rant -- usually an indication of anger and jealousy rather than reason.

What is he angry and jealous of? I'm pretty sure he can afford to move there if he wants to.

I'm just guessing, but I'd say he's intimidated. Usually people who are frequently accused of arrogance are overcompensating. He doesn't like the Bay Area because so much happens here, and he's not a part of it.

Afford? DHH is not rich.

Re: DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

#64

Post by 9oliYQjP »

wanorris wrote: post #45
9oliYQjP wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco is a great city. But there are other great cities too. I for one, love where I live in Toronto. There is a general perception that Toronto is just another American city except it happens to be in Canada. That is flat out inaccurate and my colleague one office over who just emigrated from California and another American colleague who setup shop here after getting his Ph.D. from Harvard will attest to tha…

> I think the key is to get the hell out of the suburban hell holes that riddle North America like cancerous spots on an otherwise healthy lung, and find cities in which you can live I don't think suburbs are the end of the world, especially for people with kids. You also left out college towns, which can be very nice. While the college town I'm living in now (Laramie, WY) doesn't have the sheer diversity of a major…

Bare with me as I really dislike suburbia:-) Suburbs (of which I would exclude most college towns I am aware of -- that's not too many) are hell holes. They are not good for raising children unless you think spending an hour or two per day of quality time while feverishly preparing/ordering dinner and/or getting them ready for bed is quality time. Most suburbanites waste upwards of 3 hours per day commuting to and from work in the cities where all the jobs are. The exhaustion of parents is apparent in just how often suburban families have their meals prepared for them by fast food outlets or restaurants. Those suburban parents are simply so exhausted when they get home that they often give up and order a pizza for dinner. This unhealthy lifestyle bleeds down to their children. I can't remember the last time I saw children actually running around outside and playing in the suburbs. And if they were, they'd probably get yelled at as these days adults don't want other people's children ruining their immaculately kept lawns or blocking their cars on the road while they play sports. Suburbs rarely have community focal points and destinations are only reachable by driving. Not that those destinations are particularly noteworthy as they're big box plazas and faceless corporations whose contribution to local community culture is comprised of sponsoring the local soccer team.

We've had a few decades now to observe that the promises of suburbia simply don't hold up. What's sad is that broken families stressed from both parents having to work jobs to hold down a mortgage for the perfect suburban home, consequently eating into the time they would normally enjoy being a family, and epidemics like obesity which are more rampant in suburbia than in many major cities in North America, have done little to get people to wake up to the reality that suburbs suck. But you know what probably will wake people up? High gas prices and an imploding real estate market will.

This TED talk sums up my thoughts on suburbia quite well: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/121

Re: DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

#65

Post by tptacek »

sabat wrote: post #62
condor wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if a startup is not a small business, what is it?

It's a small business that is attempting to become either a large business or part of another large business. 37Signals is neither; it's about six people who want the company to remain small and independent. (I have no problem with that.)

It's not 37Signals's goal to stay "small"; it's their goal to grow revenue instead of people and real estate.

Re: DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

#66

Post by tptacek »

sabat wrote: post #61
tptacek wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever. You know my theory about fine dining cities? I know you want to. Once you get past a critical mass of high-end restaurants, it stops mattering. Arguments about San Francisco versus Chicago versus New York for restaurants are irrelevant, because unless you have an absurd budget for eating out, you aren't visiting all of them. So, yes, you have French Laundry (if you count it), and NYC has Per Se, and Chicago…

Actually people do move to the City for the food. The point is that all Chicago has is Charlie Trotter's. SF has hundreds of amazing restaurants.

Did you read my comment, or do you just not know who Grant Achatz is? SF has hundreds of restaurants. On the high-end, many of them are good (below it, you wind up in North Beach for overpriced tourist Italian). But Chicago does too; so do Seattle and Atlanta.

Name someone who has moved from NYC or Chicago because the restaurant scene in either didn't match up to San Francisco. I'll take your word for it that that person exists.

Re: DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

#67

Post by tptacek »

webwright wrote: post #52
tptacek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. For that argument to make sense, all you have to do is get bought by Google.

If your target path is VC and then acquisition, I'd say proximity to Google is a pretty good idea, wouldn't you? Throw in Yahoo, Ebay, and the many other big players who like to buy companies as a bonus. The point is-- It's way easier to get funded in the Valley (I'm raising money in the Valley and Seattle right now, so I'm speaking from a bit of experience). And the data seems to show that it's easier to sell your c…

I don't know. The last big VC-funded company I was with was in Ann Arbor, MI. When the valley influenced the rest of the VC-backed or acquired companies I worked with, it did so by moving the established company out to California. I've never worked for a company whose opportunities came simply from being located in California.

Meanwhile, the elephant in the room here is that you aren't going to be acquired by Google, in the same sense as you are not going to win the lottery. There's a get-rich-quick mentality behind web startups that is totally not borne out by the numbers, and it cuts both ways: unrealistic hubris that infects judgement (for instance, by moving teams out of comfortable environments to San Francisco), and devastating emo temper tantrums at minor setbacks, like not being accepted into YC.

Re: DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

#68

Post by tptacek »

sabat wrote: post #50
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Why don't you ask FeedBurner?

I think that -- by pointing out that there has been only one successful startup in Chicago (37Signals does not count; it's not really a startup, just a small business) -- that you just underscored the argument for the Bay Area.

Way to take my argument out of context.

First, I'm citing Feedburner to demonstrate that large Google acquisitions don't have to come from the Bay Area. Are you refuting that?

Second, if you ask me to name more Chicago startups, I'll add 37Signals, EveryBlock, Threadless, Inkling Markets, and of course Orbitz.

Third, nobody is arguing that any other city in the US, including Boston, can go toe to toe with San Francisco simply on body count. I am, however, objecting to the argument that in 2008, the only way to be successful in a web company is to be based in the same city as your potential acquirer. I'll guarantee you this: your customers will not give a shit where you're located.

Re: DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

#69

Post by acgourley »

Just because there are some crap companies being started, and some crap investments being made, doesn't mean everything coming out of the bay area is as DHH describes. I'm working at a company thats doing quite well, and will continue to do quite well. Being close to the bay area was essential, so essential that the founders both relocate from their homes for most of the year to be here.

Re: DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?

#70

Post by wanorris »

9oliYQjP wrote: post #64
wanorris wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the key is to get the hell out of the suburban hell holes that riddle North America like cancerous spots on an otherwise healthy lung, and find cities in which you can live I don't think suburbs are the end of the world, especially for people with kids. You also left out college towns, which can be very nice. While the college town I'm living in now (Laramie, WY) doesn't have the sheer diversity of a major…

Bare with me as I really dislike suburbia:-) Suburbs (of which I would exclude most college towns I am aware of -- that's not too many) are hell holes. They are not good for raising children unless you think spending an hour or two per day of quality time while feverishly preparing/ordering dinner and/or getting them ready for bed is quality time. Most suburbanites waste upwards of 3 hours per day commuting to and fr…

If you live in a metropolitan area (not a given -- like I said, college towns are a nice alternative) -- you generally have the option of living inside the city proper, or living in a suburb. If you want your kids to have a yard to play in, you'll probably end up in a suburb. But that still doesn't mean you have to be a typical suburbanite.

Some suburbs are snotty, overpriced McMansion nightmares. Pass. Others are more affordable. And if you find a suburb you can actually afford to live in, you may not have to have both parents working like crazy to make the house payment. One problem solved. Second, you may have the option of taking control of where you work. If you start your own business, you can often find cheap space in the 'burbs. Or you can work out of some kind of "third space," if you don't need an office.

Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely not defending the cookie-cutter keeping-up-with-the-Joneses traditional idea of the suburbs. Just the idea that you can make a suburb work as a decent place to live on your own terms if you want to.

Post reply on HN