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

Who killed the rave?

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#421

Post by _DeadFred_ »

renewiltord wrote: post #232
s1artibartfast wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is almost entirely job driven. Given the choice of equal pay, most people would pick a cheap suburban 2000sqft house with a garden for 10% the price of a SF condo. Of course, variation exists

If this were true, we wouldn’t need to enforce the single family home through zoning.

'If this were true, we wouldn't need to protect our water bodies with EPA laws. Obviously people prefer polluted bodies of water, and it's the artificial EPA laws that prevent it.'

Re: Who killed the rave?

#422

Post by scarecrowbob »

_yb2s wrote: post #383

The author doesn't even seem to know what a rave is, most likely they aren't in decline at all. They're talking about formal, permanent dance clubs shutting down for economic reasons. Raves are mostly an underground - often illegal or questionably legal - impromptu one off event, organized through word of mouth and social media on an invite only basis. There is almost no way to get statistics on them because they are…

Yeah, it's always odd how "the number of raves happening in the world" seems tied to "how connected am I to a group of people who want to push the boundaries of a party".

Sometimes raves are happening every 3 days locally to me, sometimes the world has stopped all together. Very odd and polite that the world can tell when I am not interested in that level of (to be clear, often enjoyable) debauchery.

I presume that they will start up again once I get my warehouse finished on my off-grid property in the desert...

Re: Who killed the rave?

#423

Post by addicted »

geodel wrote: post #415
daedrdev wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many cities effectively ban or heavily restrict new housing developments that increase density. I'm really not surprised real estate prices continue to rise when building new units is often an extremely expensive, risky process that in some areas can be stopped at any time with literally no reason required

Huh, why is college getting expensive, healthcare getting expensive, day care getting expensive, hell even streaming services getting expensive, none of these are heavily restricted that no development is happening there. And in many cities breakneck construction activity is happening still real estate is getting very expensive. This seems rather simplistic reason to me.

One can easily see how high real estate prices can translate to all those being more expensive.

Colleges pay rent. Colleges pay salaries to people who pay rent. All those go up with high real estate prices. Further, even if the college owns a land, the money they earn on that land has to compete with what a developer who is willing to tear it down and put up a residential building which now earns higher rent or sale price.

I don’t think all the increase comes down to high real estate costs but it’s clear that high real estate costs can easily raise prices downstream across nearly every area.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#424

Post by smt88 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #211
smt88 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because most people live in cities because they prefer it, not because their office was there.

I think it is almost entirely job driven. Given the choice of equal pay, most people would pick a cheap suburban 2000sqft house with a garden for 10% the price of a SF condo. Of course, variation exists

> Given the choice of equal pay, most people would pick a cheap suburban 2000sqft house with a garden for 10% the price of a SF condo.

This already happened during Covid, and no country substantially de-urbanized. In fact, urban real estate prices skyrocketed.

The only cities where prices stayed flat or went down were highly over-priced places that people hated living anyway (like the Bay Area).

Re: Who killed the rave?

#425

Post by permo-w »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #416
permo-w wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

exactly, so those people who own an old empty warehouse, a large basement, or whatever, now have a huge incentive to find uses for them. or they have to sell them which pushes prices down for everything

But what good does it do to push prices down, if even more money has to be paid in taxes for as long as they own the property?

lower value, lower tax. lower value, lower rent.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#426

Post by lamp_book »

quchen wrote: post #389
Spivak wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't use Burning Man as a metric for the scene overall because among ravers Burning Man is considered to be one of the worst festivals.

How so? I saw a few vids about EDC and quite frankly it looked worse than tomorrowland (like, reminds me of mobile games patterns), quite the feat. Burning Man has a reputation, and it's definitely not a sharing economy to get there. I wouldn't fly half the globe to get there, I think it would be quite interesting though.

It’s more of an arts and community festival than a music event. There’s a smattering of respected DJs/producers each year and some good sets, but otherwise there’s a bunch of art cars roaming around thumping generic party music. Absolutely nothing against Donna summers, but I’m not shitting you when I say I heard her around a half a dozen times the first big party night, for instance. There is no curation there like a music festival.

That said, absolutely worth going to at least once, for everything else.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#427

Post by freedomben »

apwell23 wrote: post #209
UltraSane wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a hypothesis. It is a well known fact. The more expensive a property is the more time it will be spent vacant because a lot of the very expensive properties are just uses as investments.

why doesn't someone introduce a legislation to tax vacant second homes at astronomical rates

This becomes devastating to people who are trying to sell the "second" home in a market where it often takes months to get sold.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#428

Post by lolinder »

ipaddr wrote: post #330
KeplerBoy wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting how the creation of the internet still hasn't caused real estate prices to plummet. Even two years of covid couldn't do it.

Companies came together to demand everyone back into work at physical locations in part to keep real estate pricing high.

I'm as anti-RTO as anyone, but I've seen this asserted over and over but have never seen anyone give evidence in favor. As I understand it the claim is something about cities giving tax breaks to companies for having offices? Or is the idea that CEOs have investments in real estate?

Does anyone have a source that actually shows that this was a factor?

Re: Who killed the rave?

#429

Post by _DeadFred_ »

bobthepanda wrote: post #213
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the opposite is true. It's easier to find a job in a city other than your own with the internet, and big cities pay the most

That ignores that plenty of people are in cities because of the amenities that concentration allows. If you want niche/specialty restaurants, grocery options, entertainment, medical care etc. you will have to be in a large metropolitan area

Yeah big cities provide a one stop mall like experience for 'experiences and culture' for people who need that curated for them. To me it's the most boring, non-organic, empty experience, but I've always preferred non-mainstream scenes or to hunt out my own entertainment/style/beauty. I can see the draw for people that doesn't work for though.

It's funny that cities various 'interesting districts' are normally just suburbs that the city absorbed. But yeah, suburbs are just awful places without their own culture or interest (unless absorbed, then they are a distinct interesting district).

Re: Who killed the rave?

#430

Post by lemax »

steveBK123 wrote: post #118

Probably a bunch of factors... Tier 1 city RE prices have made live entertainment venues harder to run profitably. GenZ studies have found a lower participation in "risky behavior" which late night clubbing may or not be considered. Mobile internet & smartphones seem to be killing all forms of live in person interaction. And finally electronic music of various forms used to be a niche, and now it's mainstream. In the…

There is still a vast web of international niche electronic music scenes and artists, and elements of electronic music as well as the instruments used to produce it have been used in popular music for many decades (Donna Summer, 80s new wave bands, Madonna, etc).
Post reply on HN