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

71–80 of 110 posts

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

#71

Post by brianmckenzie »

I loved DHH's speech at startup school, but having lived in Chicago and now living in SF, I have to disagree with him on this one.

His point seems twofold: 1) The availability of funding in the Bay Area tempts people to take it whether they need it or not, and 2) The competition for top talent is stronger here than anywhere else.

The first point, on funding, is news to me. Yes, the availability of VC here is correlated with more Bay Area startups being funded. It doesn't mean that your startup will automatically be funded just because you're located here - the competition for funding is as strong as the competition for talent.

I meet people doing self-funded startups all the time. The differentiator is whether you want to be the next Facebook vs. traditional profit model. Yes, the funded web-2.0-ish startups get most of the press here, it doesn't mean that no one is doing it another way.

Yes, the competition for talent here is fierce. Right now I'm looking for a CSS expert, no programming required, and even that is nearly impossible to find. However, I know I will find someone sooner or later because I'm located in SF. I shudder to think how hard this would be if I were in St. Louis or something, or even a less tech-centric city like Chicago. A few weeks ago I needed an expert Flex hacker to help with something I'm building, so I just called up my friends until I found one. Try doing that in the midwest. Also, I'm at the kind of small, traditional-profit-type company that DHH so admires.

Hackers move here because SF is the best place on earth to be a hacker, and that fact mitigates in your favor when looking for talent.

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

#72

Post by jlc »

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…

I used to agree with a lot of what you say. Then I had kids ;-)

Actually, I still don't disagree entirely, but you did leave out one very important consideration: schools. In many American urban centers the schools are poor, and housing in urban school districts that are good is prohibitively expensive.

So you start looking at suburbs, and the commute is a trade-off you make for the better schools.

Oh, and I wish we could order pizza here -- too far out in the sticks.

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

#73

Post by menloparkbum »

tptacek wrote: post #68
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.

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 Francis…

just to nitpick, Orbitz totally wasn't a "startup" in the conventional sense, and certainly not the DHH sense. It was a project conceived and funded by a cartel of major airlines. The initial funding was 150 million dollars!

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

#74

Post by tptacek »

menloparkbum wrote: post #73
tptacek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Francis…

just to nitpick, Orbitz totally wasn't a "startup" in the conventional sense, and certainly not the DHH sense. It was a project conceived and funded by a cartel of major airlines. The initial funding was 150 million dollars!

You're right; I'm just thinking about tech companies, but the same logic would lead someone to count MOT.

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

#75

Post by astine »

wanorris wrote: post #70
9oliYQjP wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

>>> I'm definitely not defending the cookie-cutter keeping-up-with-the-Joneses traditional idea of the suburbs.

I grew up in the suburbs and never met anyone who met that stereotype. Suburban homes are cheaper than their urban counter part in terms of floorspace and acreage which is important if you are raising children. I've never met a family where both parents worked in order to afford their home and I'm not speaking of very wealthy people either.

What suburbs offer is a quiet, out of the way place, with lots of room, which makes family life much easier.

Then again, I live in Virginia so I might be confused. There's no distinction between city/suburb/rural county around here, and one never really existed.

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

#76

Post by daniel-cussen »

pibefision wrote: post #14

I'm in Buenos Aires. The cost of living here it's 1/6 compared to San Francisco. And we have a lot of talent, cheap bandwidth and resources (apple Computers, big linux community, etc). Also, real state its growing fast. If you are planing to visit BA, msg me! :)

Santiago is nice, though for different reasons. Good weather, cheap, still a big city.

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

#77

Post by wanorris »

astine wrote: post #75
wanorris wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

>>> I'm definitely not defending the cookie-cutter keeping-up-with-the-Joneses traditional idea of the suburbs. I grew up in the suburbs and never met anyone who met that stereotype. Suburban homes are cheaper than their urban counter part in terms of floorspace and acreage which is important if you are raising children. I've never met a family where both parents worked in order to afford their home and I'm not speak…

> I grew up in the suburbs and never met anyone who met that stereotype.

I've definitely met those people in Texas.

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

#78

Post by kingkongrevenge »

sabat wrote: post #54
tptacek wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me a break. I lived in San Francisco for a bunch of years, starting after my first company got bought out --- I've experienced the city both totally flush with cash and living paycheck to paycheck. Allow me to retort: * Public transportation in the Bay Area is a shambles, and, in particular, getting between any two points in the (tiny) city of San Francisco involves interaction with the worst bus system in the c…

Oh, blogga please. "Public transportation in the Bay Area is a shambles". Well, you have me there. On the other hand, it sucks in most other large metro areas as well. NYC is the only real exception. DHH meant the Bay Area and the SV, not San Francisco proper. "San Francisco" is what outside people call the Bay Area because they don't know better. Housing has been spectacularly expensive everywhere in the US for some…

> "you are going to be 45 minutes to an hour away from anyone you want to visit" -- that's called life in any big city.

Hmm? Not my experience in three east coast cities.

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

#79

Post by kingkongrevenge »

cbryan wrote: post #21

I'm surprised that noone's really talking about money here. The Bay Area has one of the highest costs of living of any city in the country. That means its going to take that much more of your time to work, to make money, and to live. If you're spending your time working to live, that means you're not using that time to work on your projects. Right now I'm taking a culture hit. Living in Worcester, MA certainly doesn'…

Not to mention that California is probably the most fiscally screwed up and one of the most tax heavy states in the country.

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

#80

Post by kingkongrevenge »

astine wrote: post #75
wanorris wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

>>> I'm definitely not defending the cookie-cutter keeping-up-with-the-Joneses traditional idea of the suburbs. I grew up in the suburbs and never met anyone who met that stereotype. Suburban homes are cheaper than their urban counter part in terms of floorspace and acreage which is important if you are raising children. I've never met a family where both parents worked in order to afford their home and I'm not speak…

> makes family life much easier.

In the suburbs 15 year olds are still tethered to their parents for transportation. It's ridiculous. Realistically kids are tethered even longer than that as a third or fourth car is not an option for many families. How does it make life easier to be stuck chauffeuring teenagers around for years? Move somewhere they can walk and take public transit from around age 10.

Post reply on HN