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

371–380 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#371

Post by watwut »

elzbardico wrote: post #352
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.

People prefer cities due to access to stuff, but most people also would prefer a 3000 sqft home with a pool. During different phases of life, your ability and your relative importance given to either of those two poles will vary. As you get older, especially if you are married and have kids, usually the trade-off skews strongly towards having a big house, and then you will balance the distance side of the equation. A…

> most people also would prefer a 3000 sqft home with a pool

If someone else does all the maintenance, dusting and vacuum cleaning, maybe. Other then that, actual swimming pool for doing laps or actual water park with slides is kind of better in most cases. There are some people who would use that large house or would be using their backyard swimming pool often ... but most just dont.

> As you get older, especially if you are married and have kids, usually the trade-off skews strongly towards having a big house, and then you will balance the distance side of the equation.

Someone with kids appreciates not having long drive to and from work, those take away from time with kids. And someone with kids over 7 years including kids themselves appreciates presence ability to do go to sport clubs, music clubs, libraries, school or whatever else without parent having to drive them each time.

There is some advantage to big house in remote place with kids, but it also causes you and the kids to be more isolated from everything else.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#373

Post by majormajor »

marssaxman wrote: post #295
s1artibartfast wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not sure I follow your point. What does demand have to do with zoning? I agree that if you remove zoning, many areas of single family homes would be built up if they are in and around urban cores. That isnt new demand, but existing demand, not able to be expressed by current law. However, my point is that if your [random small town] job paid the same as NY or SF, you would see a flux out of those cities to the sma…

You appear to be asserting that the demand for suburban-style low-density housing is naturally quite high, and that many people who live in cities are merely settling for less-desirable dense urban housing, as a sacrifice they must make for a higher income. I counter that if this were the case there would be no need for single-family zoning, because people would naturally choose such housing whenever possible, and th…

> I counter that if this were the case there would be no need for single-family zoning, because people would naturally choose such housing whenever possible, and the market would respond.

A major reason zoning exists is because with out it you'd have developers and investors out-bidding the homeowners to redevelop plots of land as they became available.

It's a collective response to the power of $$$ in a free market.

Even if all of those condo purchaser who would buy a unit in the building that replaced a single home would've preferred a single home, they didn't have a direct say in that lot being turned into condos. The person with the most money did.

And of course, they couldn't have all fit there. But I am skeptical of "enough people with money want to live in your area now" as being a sufficient justification to say that local control has to be eliminated. Why favor the future richer potential-resident over the current resident? (I would extend this broadly, for incumbency protections for renters and owners alike - why is it an inherent good for an existing area to get denser forever? Why not encourage less centralized development? Why would "the people with the most money should get to decide how this area is developed?" the best plan?)

Re: Who killed the rave?

#374

Post by Dibes »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #354
mjsir911 wrote: post #166

NPR did a recent expose about a local renegade spot & the shows it supports in my scene: https://www.kuow.org/stories/under-the-bridge-a-portrait-of-... With mixed results, it kind of burned the spot by virtue of being talked about in too wide an audience but I think it's also important to make it known to the mainstream that this kind of stuff is happening. All that's needed to make a rave happen is music & speakers…

> Humans will always find spaces to congregate ... I hope we're not losing our drive to be around each other and dance, it's been such a integral part of my life story (as a fairly young person!) and has let me find my people. I'm gonna dump a little bit with the blind hope that someone can explain what I'm feeling. Not meaning to disrespect you mjsir, but this thread just has the right context: I'm in my 30s and I h…

I would highly recommend talking this through with a therapist! I don't think anyone on the internet has the time/understanding/or context to tell you either way in any satisfying manner that would settle your confusion. It is never too late to introspect and learn about who you are as a person, and a therapist is a great sounding board at the very minimum.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#375

Post by xeromal »

lostlogin wrote: post #294
zamfi wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China built enough homes to house its population twice over, yet it's not reflected in the prices. All because everyone and their grandma is investing in real estate. Yes, but this is reflected in China's vacancy rate: 22% by some estimates. In the US, home vacancy rates are sub-1%. Not saying people aren't treating homes as investments, but it seems clear we also have a supply issue. "Real Estate is Investment" sh…

If they built double the houses they need, how is the vacancy rate just 22%?

Because people want to live in particular areas

Re: Who killed the rave?

#376

Post by UltraSane »

gosub100 wrote: post #356
UltraSane wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like rent is so high in big cities that so many businesses are no longer possible. I think one solution to lower rent is a rule that for every month a rental property is vacant its book value declines by 10 times the rent.

My fantasy solution is that ALL businesses near expensive areas must pay a minimum wage high enough to rent a place (or a room) there. If the barista must be paid $109k to afford to live there, then let Starbucks jack the price of a plain black coffee to $17 for a small. Fewer people will be willing to pay this, Starbucks will go out of business and virtually nothing will fill its place. Suddenly these multimillion d…

I've had the same idea. 1 week of after tax wages must be enough to pay 1 month's rent within x miles on a y sq ft apartment.

And people should be paid for commuting. Unpaid commutes to work are a huge hidden subsidy for businesses. They use tax funded roads to allow workers to live farther away in cheaper locations and don't have to compensate them for the time needed to get to their jobs.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#377

Post by Spivak »

ZeWaka wrote: post #302
jprete wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in the club or rave scene - practically the opposite - but it astounds me that the FT thought they could draw useful conclusions about an underground scene by analyzing publicly-posted events on a site named Resident Advisor.

To be fair, RA is /the/ place to post more organized events. Even my local underground spot posts there. (Yes, it's underground, ~20 people show up to the small shows)

For clubs maybe but EDMTrain is the go-to among all my rave friends.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#378

Post by 9rx »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #170
jamestimmins wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's shocking how often the answer to "How come X changed?" is either the creation of the internet or the cost of real estate. Surprisingly often, it's both.

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.

That is because the internet is what largely has made real estate more valuable.

In pre-internet times, people shared real estate. Bars, restaurants, church, etc. Their discretionary income went into the fees, offerings, etc. to make these places comfortable. With the rise of the internet, people started preferring to stay home to use the internet. All that discretionary income once spent on fuelling those third places is now competing for each own's individual domain, thus driving up the price where individuals are found.

Two years of COVID exacerbated things because even those who still got out of the house from time to time were forced to stay home, so what remaining money was still funnelling out to activities outside of the home was entirely redirected into individual real estate.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#379

Post by Spivak »

fizx wrote: post #310

Burning Man's been dying slowly since about 2018, so pre-Covid. When I say dying, I don't mean "getting mainstream & EDMified" like all the old Burners have complained about since forever. I mean, the mainstream has stopped taking interest, and increasing portions of the tickets are getting taken by internationals because its passé in the USA, but still on some people's travel bucket lists. This year was the first ye…

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.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#380

Post by CPLX »

mtalantikite wrote: post #309
vrosas wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What 20-something can afford to do that with any regularity? Practically every 20-something (and just as many 30+ somethings) I know in NYC DO do this very regularly, especially if they already live in wburg/bushwick. If they're not there, they're mixing it up at nowadays.

I guess the 20-somethings I know (and knew when I was also 20-something) are broke artists and models. They don't have $200 to spend on a night out every weekend. Nowadays certainly is affordable and there are others of course. People make it work. There were definitely expensive clubs that kids with money went to when I was young -- a friend ran sound at The Box and that was always wildly priced. But there was no sh…

Those underground parties still exist for the most part. I've aged way out of all this, like you have, but I'm aware of their existence through many friends in the music scene in NYC. If you're enterprising and skilled at navigating Instagram and similar platforms as they rise and fall you wouldn't have too much trouble figuring out where they are.
Post reply on HN