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

London vs San Francisco – back and forth

jh47.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 132 posts

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#31

Post by ghaff »

sulam wrote: post #25

So, I moved to SF in 1994 in my early 20's, which means my bona fides are longer than the OP, but still not native. However, from the greater baseline I can say a few things that won't be easily available to someone having lived in SF for a year: 1) public transit has sucked since well before the tech boom. When I moved to SF Oracle was probably the northernmost tech company of note (not counting Autodesk in San Rafa…

San Francisco is an extreme case. But somewhat similar dynamics apply to a number of US cities. Up through the early 90s or so, companies were far more likely to be moving out of the city rather than moving in. Boston/Cambridge had very little tech (and what they had was mostly consulting) at that time. Everything was out at Route 128, 495, or even southern New Hampshire.

Furthermore, the majority of the people I knew weren't particularly interested in living in the city. Some of that was because it would have required a longer commute. But, in general, there wasn't even a particular preference among recent grads for living in town. Some did, but it wasn't the norm or even especially common in my experience. This is partly because, by and large, US cities were not as pleasant places at that time and this in turn led to less investment in transit, etc.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#32

Post by CM30 »

dmix wrote: post #3

Regarding the "how did these guys raise so much money?" thing. I'm afraid this is mostly just a sampling bias - one that I've experienced as well. Here's why: the people who forever can't find good talented engineers are usually the bad companies with bad ideas. Getting capital from MBA-educated VC's isn't that challenging or any significant validation of success (although still a notable one). So you are more likely…

I don't know about that. I'd say over in the UK (and maybe a lot of places outside of the US), investors are definitely more cautious about how much they'll invest. I mean, over here, getting an investment of a few hundred thousand pounds is treated like a decent deal, where it's seen as pocket change to a Silicon Valley investor.

Which all kind of feeds into why getting talented engineers is difficult here. Cause the money you raise isn't enough to pay the kind of wages they're used to in San Francisco, nor market the business quite as much.

And people are definitely more cautious here too. Over in the US, it seems people will start a business or invest in one on the off chance it might potentially succeed at some distant point. Over here, it's 'prove your business is making/will very quickly make money or get out'. And the good engineers (if they haven't moved somewhere with better wages) will probably be at larger companies, which their friends and relatives say is a 'safe' career choice.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#33

Post by BashiBazouk »

generic_user wrote: post #13
eistrati wrote: post #6

Very interesting read, but also very sad. I think the local authorities in San Francisco are the ones that have to wake up and invest quickly into growing up the infrastructure to accommodate the influx of talent. Otherwise the exodus will hurt everyone and it's already happening (e.g. http://qz.com/627414/tech-workers-are-increasingly-looking-t... )

The housing situation has been in the same state with the same dynamics for over 20 years even before the first bubble started in 2000. The vast majority will simply never be able to afford a house there. The only way that could possibly be attempted would be to build massive condos everywhere like you see in some Asian cities. That would kill the character of SF. No one wants to have a huge condominium plunked down…

The other thing about the SF character that many don't talk about: the tech sector may be here to stay, or not, but tourism has been a large part of the SF economy for a century. Don't kill a long term industry by over building for another industry of uncertain longevity...

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#34

Post by roymurdock »

drcongo wrote: post #29
stickydink wrote: post #21

I moved here with my wife from the UK on a H1-B a few years ago now. Three weeks ago we drove (less than 1hr) to Stinson Beach, spent all day hiking the hills, spectacular views of the Bay, the City and the Farallon Islands in the distance. Two weeks ago we drove to Monterey, took a Whale Watching boat ride for a few quid. We spent an hour watching a group of Orca hunt Sea Lion a couple hundred feet away. Last weeken…

I live in London, three weeks ago I drove (more than 1hr) 4 miles into the town centre.

Thank you for this well-placed gem of British humour. Although it begets the question - with the excellent bus and tube system, why drive?

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#35

Post by arethuza »

m1sta_ wrote: post #28
arethuza wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edinburgh here - we've got the hiking, spectacular views (and then some), islands, aquatic beasties, skiing 2 hours away. Even some nice big bridges. You may have a point about the weather though! ;-) [NB Obviously I forgot to mention the history, culture, the festivals, an ancient castle on the plug of an extinct volcano, glorious architecture....] Weather can be a bit grim though.... (and has been particularly mise…

2hrs to skiing where?

There are 5 ski areas in Scotland - most fairly handy for Edinburgh (OK - not the Lecht):

http://www.winterhighland.info/

OK not the 3 Valleys but on a good day they can be great fun. My personal favourite is Nevis Range:

https://vimeo.com/10797924

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#36

Post by cmdkeen »

m1sta_ wrote: post #28
arethuza wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edinburgh here - we've got the hiking, spectacular views (and then some), islands, aquatic beasties, skiing 2 hours away. Even some nice big bridges. You may have a point about the weather though! ;-) [NB Obviously I forgot to mention the history, culture, the festivals, an ancient castle on the plug of an extinct volcano, glorious architecture....] Weather can be a bit grim though.... (and has been particularly mise…

2hrs to skiing where?

Glencoe 15cm of snow on the ground today according to Google.

I live in Edinburgh and have always been able to live less than a 15 minute walk from work, often in my own flat, for very reasonable sums. Everyone I know in tech has been able to afford their own property within 6 years of starting work.

I'd choose here over London any day of the week. You sort of get used to the weather eventually...

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#37

Post by lmm »

neximo4 wrote: post #30
orf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally nobody lives there (well, 7000 people do, out of a city of 8.5 million - 0.08%)

But people still commute there right? This is the point i'm trying to make, No one (and by that I man a small minority) lives in the city centre because it is too expensive. Applies to any major city on Earth which has suburbs. I imagine the population during the day swells more than 100 fold...

The City of London is a weird ancient administrative division. It's not the whole of the city centre by any means, and not at all comparable to San Francisco.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#38

Post by kinnth »

I currently live in London and have never lived in SF but have travelled every year for GDC (games developer conf) for 1 week a year.

I tend to agree with the author. The place is lovely, it's almost like a heaven on earth with almost all ameneties, temperatures and people within a 3h driving time from SF, but for some reason London with it's grey grimey and dirty history has more appeal. Perhaps it's the fact that you can explore and get lost down a back alley, or that your friends tell you about this new bar which started up but is in zone 4 and you just have to see it.

I also like the fact that Tech is an asside and people are key. I don't want to live in a bubble but I love what I do. I admire mingling with the theatre crowd or simply watching the tourists navigate the bus timetables.

I think everyone has their preference, but both are fun for different reasons.

Now if you want a real up and coming tech city, I would suggest Berlin.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#39

Post by lmm »

stickydink wrote: post #21

I moved here with my wife from the UK on a H1-B a few years ago now. Three weeks ago we drove (less than 1hr) to Stinson Beach, spent all day hiking the hills, spectacular views of the Bay, the City and the Farallon Islands in the distance. Two weeks ago we drove to Monterey, took a Whale Watching boat ride for a few quid. We spent an hour watching a group of Orca hunt Sea Lion a couple hundred feet away. Last weeken…

I'm not sure I follow? There are plenty of fascinating things to see or do within an hour's drive of London - it's not like cars go faster in the US, and if anything there's more variety in a small area in dense England.
Post reply on HN