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

How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 374 posts

Re: How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

#291

Post by matt-p »

TuringNYC wrote: post #191
philipallstar wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Elizabeth Line was unbelievably expensive to build; that's how the UK did it.

>> The Elizabeth Line was unbelievably expensive to build; that's how the UK did it. Fair. But what is also expensive is every single citizen taking $100 Uber rides to the airport, like in NYC. In NJ, the transit service has become so volatile and sporadic and opaque that people have reduced NJTransit use for Newark airport in favor of simply driving.

Wrong, $100 Uber rides boost employment and the economy! (Just ignore the impacts of congestion, wasted time, road spending)

Re: How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

#292

Post by socalgal2 »

foldr wrote: post #123
socalgal2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know London all that well, I've only spent about a month there. But in my limited experience the food scene didn't come close to LA, SF, NYC, Tokyo. As an example, the LA metro Area (LA, OC, SB), 46% latino, 27% white, 15% asian 7% african, 3% mixed There huge sections of those cities, several kilometers long where you drive for miles and see majority one culture. Several areas majority korean, chinese, japan…

The great thing about London is that it has diversity without segregation. So no, you won’t find a huge area of town where almost everyone is of the same ethnicity, but the diversity is still there. Race isn’t the only index. A higher percentage of London’s population is foreign-born than LA’s. Food depends a lot on what you go for. You won’t find much good Mexican food in London, but on the other hand, you can by a…

My experience is that until you get the concentrated areas you don't get the actual diversity of the foods. When you have large areas of the same culture you start to get regional restaurants from the culture, specialty restaurants from the calture, because the market is big enough and business needs to distinguish themselves. You also get the ingredients as there's a big enough market to import them. When you don't have the concentration you just get the generic representation of the food from that country.

Re: How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

#293

Post by dpc050505 »

altcognito wrote: post #250
johnisgood wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, good to know! How are the trains across the country though?

Trains are not an efficient use of time for travel within the US. The US is huge. If you were take a 300mph (nearing 500kph) train (which would make it the fastest train in the world), it would be OVER an 8 hour trip from New York to LA. (Again, about 2500 miles or 4000k) Even in some of the densest areas, the trip times end up being pretty long due to distances: dc to New York? 600 kilometers or almost 400 miles.

How long would it take from New York to Philadelphia, or Boston to DC? How long would it take between San Diego and SF? What about a train between Chicago and Detroit?

We're building a fast train from Toronto to Quebec city in Canada. It's going to be a lot more comfortable and way faster than driving. A MP in my family takes the train from Montreal to Ottawa very frequently, they don't want to bother with parking in the capital and they can work on the train.

Re: How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

#294

Post by corimaith »

lurk2 wrote: post #234
graemep wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is deep enough pool of capital for the vast majority of businesses. Its cultural diversity is a plus for most people (other than people like DHH). The big problem with London is that it is very, very expensive.

> Its cultural diversity is a plus for most people Cultural diversity is not a draw. Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia are all culturally and ethnically diverse. No one moves to any of these places. The primary draw of a city like London is economic prosperity, which is ironically usually only made possible by ethnic homogeneity. This is the case in Britain’s former colonies (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand…

To add on this, ethnic heterogeneity (and ethnic enclaves) is one of the shallowest forms of diversity. If you examine the diversity regarding district characteristics and architecture, shopping options, subcultures, etc, many homogenous cities like Tokyo or Hong Kong are far greater and accommodating than London in diversity.

And I would say that one reason for that is the elements I mention is something an individual can take seriously and integrate into their own world, while enclaves stay perpetually from the vantage of exoticism rather than integration.

Re: How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

#295

Post by altcognito »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #260
altcognito wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains are not an efficient use of time for travel within the US. The US is huge. If you were take a 300mph (nearing 500kph) train (which would make it the fastest train in the world), it would be OVER an 8 hour trip from New York to LA. (Again, about 2500 miles or 4000k) Even in some of the densest areas, the trip times end up being pretty long due to distances: dc to New York? 600 kilometers or almost 400 miles.

I see your point, but consider this: getting to and through a major airport is a huge pain the ass. Trains also tend to take you to city centers more often than airports, which almost always need to be a significant distance from anything interesting due to the noise. Let's take a hypothetical scenario: - 5 hours flight time (average for NY and LA), 2 hours on each side to get to and from the airport to the actual ci…

Eh, you're overselling it. Even in a hypothetical world with a 12 hour train trip, it still loses to an 8 hour plane trip.

You're losing an entire day on the train. You still have to deal with luggage pains, now you're eating on the transportation which will be inferior, and will have similar problems with last mile transportation.

Flying is currently not a great 8 hour experience, but it beats losing an entire day. I can do LA to NY for a weekend trip. (I personally wouldn't but there are some that would for sure)

Trains can and do make sense even in the US, and we do ourselves great harm by underinvesting in them, but there will always be a place for plane travel.

Re: How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

#296

Post by altcognito »

dpc050505 wrote: post #293
altcognito wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains are not an efficient use of time for travel within the US. The US is huge. If you were take a 300mph (nearing 500kph) train (which would make it the fastest train in the world), it would be OVER an 8 hour trip from New York to LA. (Again, about 2500 miles or 4000k) Even in some of the densest areas, the trip times end up being pretty long due to distances: dc to New York? 600 kilometers or almost 400 miles.

How long would it take from New York to Philadelphia, or Boston to DC? How long would it take between San Diego and SF? What about a train between Chicago and Detroit? We're building a fast train from Toronto to Quebec city in Canada. It's going to be a lot more comfortable and way faster than driving. A MP in my family takes the train from Montreal to Ottawa very frequently, they don't want to bother with parking in…

> What about a train between Chicago and Detroit?

I've ridden the Wolverine, it isn't half bad.

I 100% agree trains might be underfunded in the US. The LA to NY flight will stay preferred to a hypothetical high speed train due to time. It is unlikely ever to be less than 10 hours.

For train rides under 4 hours, and if you can get trains running smoothly (less stops), the time spent on the train and the overall integration of trains is a lot better as a mode of transportation.

Re: How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

#297

Post by direwolf20 »

nanna wrote: post #274
rmccue wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not as bad as the Glasgow one, which feels like travelling on a 2/3 scale model of a subway with alarmingly narrow platforms. For anyone who's not aware, the Glasgow Subway is literally smaller - the track gauge is 4ft (85% of standard gauge), and the rolling stock (trains) is similarly scaled down, to the point that you probably have to duck if you're over 6ft.

I remember that one of Stockholm's train line is also endearingly tiny too?

Half the Berlin lines are weirdly narrow, but not short.

Re: How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

#298

Post by [deleted] »

socalgal2 wrote: post #292
foldr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great thing about London is that it has diversity without segregation. So no, you won’t find a huge area of town where almost everyone is of the same ethnicity, but the diversity is still there. Race isn’t the only index. A higher percentage of London’s population is foreign-born than LA’s. Food depends a lot on what you go for. You won’t find much good Mexican food in London, but on the other hand, you can by a…

My experience is that until you get the concentrated areas you don't get the actual diversity of the foods. When you have large areas of the same culture you start to get regional restaurants from the culture, specialty restaurants from the calture, because the market is big enough and business needs to distinguish themselves. You also get the ingredients as there's a big enough market to import them. When you don't…

[deleted]

Re: How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

#299

Post by walthamstow »

socalgal2 wrote: post #292
foldr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great thing about London is that it has diversity without segregation. So no, you won’t find a huge area of town where almost everyone is of the same ethnicity, but the diversity is still there. Race isn’t the only index. A higher percentage of London’s population is foreign-born than LA’s. Food depends a lot on what you go for. You won’t find much good Mexican food in London, but on the other hand, you can by a…

My experience is that until you get the concentrated areas you don't get the actual diversity of the foods. When you have large areas of the same culture you start to get regional restaurants from the culture, specialty restaurants from the calture, because the market is big enough and business needs to distinguish themselves. You also get the ingredients as there's a big enough market to import them. When you don't…

LA is much less dense than London so maybe you need concentration for those things, but we don't. We don't really have monocultural ghettoes. The beauty of London is how dense and intermixed it is. Cheek by jowl, as Shakespeare wrote.

Re: How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

#300

Post by TulliusCicero »

altcognito wrote: post #250
johnisgood wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, good to know! How are the trains across the country though?

Trains are not an efficient use of time for travel within the US. The US is huge. If you were take a 300mph (nearing 500kph) train (which would make it the fastest train in the world), it would be OVER an 8 hour trip from New York to LA. (Again, about 2500 miles or 4000k) Even in some of the densest areas, the trip times end up being pretty long due to distances: dc to New York? 600 kilometers or almost 400 miles.

People aren't taking trains from Madrid to Tallinn, either.

The proper point of comparison here is more medium length trips. There's no reason not to have a high speed train for Portland - Seattle - Vancouver, for example.

Post reply on HN