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

411–420 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#411

Post by jimnotgym »

_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…

I'm guessing your mention of desert raves places you in a different country to the author?

In the UK, where I believe the word originates when applied to late night electronic music events in the mid 80s, the term meant an often unauthorised event in a field or industrial site.

Perhaps it was the noise menace, or perhaps people dancing in a field fuelled by MDMA caused a big deal in alcohol duty revenue for the government, but raves became highly regulated with the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. Illegal raves were clamped down on by police with a fierce intensity. This essentially pushed the music back into clubs, where people could be taxed more easily. This ended the original race scene. By the late 90s the term was anachronistic in the UK. In the 2010s certain dance subcultures, drum and bass springs to mind, started becoming known as raves again, but these were anything from club nights to outdoor festivals. Quite unlike the earlier usage

It appears that your usage mirrors the UK rave scene from the late 80s to early 90s that died out, and the author has a broader usage that is in use today in the UK.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#412

Post by owisd »

some_random wrote: post #275
adverbly wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's shocking how often the answer to real estate issues is "land value tax would fix this!"

I'll bite, how would land value tax fix raves not being profitable enough to afford their venues? It seems to me like it make things worse.

The theory is that (a) the tax would be paid by the property owner and not the venue (it is assumed rent follows an econ 102 inelastic supply model) and (b) property would be less attractive as a store of wealth so prices would drop.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#413

Post by seanmcdirmid »

tomrod wrote: post #253
janalsncm wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> enough homes to house its population twice over This is because a ton of them are in the Chinese equivalent of like Boise, Idaho where demand is fairly low. People want to live where the high paying jobs are.

Bad example, Boise is a hot and desirable market. Better example: northern Alaska.

Alaska in general. Fairbanks, Anchorage, Ketchikan are currently in decline, as is Alaska as a whole.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#414

Post by Kirby64 »

Tade0 wrote: post #350
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…

> In the US, home vacancy rates are sub-1%. That's homeowner vacancy rate. Rental vacancy rate is around 6.9%: https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/current/index.html

A 6.9% rental vacancy rate implies an average vacancy of ~3.5 weeks per year. Given the high turnover of many rentals, that seems pretty low to me. Turnaround time just to do a make ready for a new tenant tends to be a week at minimum, sometimes longer for proper overhauls (replacing carpet, fixes damage, etc). Sure, not all properties turn over every year, but there's also quite a few properties that have longer vacancies to counteract that.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#415

Post by geodel »

daedrdev wrote: post #366
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.

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.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#416

Post by CamperBob2 »

permo-w wrote: post #387
CamperBob2 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like that would guarantee that only the most profitable uses of a given property would be contemplated by the owner.

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?

Re: Who killed the rave?

#417

Post by forgetfreeman »

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

Why? Because politicians aren't generally in the habit of introducing legislation that pisses in the face of the folks that fund their election campaigns. Oligarchy's a bitch.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#418

Post by iamthirsty »

dagw wrote: post #156
iamthirsty wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should come to Miami. Some people start the night at a normal club, go to a rave at Factory town, and meet the sunrise at Space, all in one night.

How many of the people doing that are locals doing it as a regular thing, vs tourists doing it as a one off experience? The core argument in the article is that the younger generation aren't going to their local clubs regularly enough to keep them afloat, preferring going to do much fewer and more 'special' events. The places that can survive are those that either bring in lots of tourists and/or focus larger one off…

As a local, most of it is actual locals, often bringing out of town friends, but the core is always locals.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#419

Post by _DeadFred_ »

marssaxman wrote: post #238
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

Cities are not just where the jobs are, cities are where everything is. You'd likely have to offer double my salary before I'd consider exchanging my life here in the heart of it all for the lonely, empty, car-dependent barrenness of the suburbs.

Haha, cities are where everything is if you want everything and experiences delivered up to you in a one stop mall like package and don't have personality enough to organically find things.

Personally I find city people the most boring and socially/culturally stunted because they think a cultivated/curated 'mall like setting of stuff' = culture. They also tend to think buying access to art/culture because they have money = having artist style/culture. The music scenes/art scenes are overly (often self) curated pap.

Lots of cities 'diverse' districts are just... suburbs... that the cities absorbed.

Even for things like 'exotic' foods I routinely find bombed out suburban strip mall restaurants to be superior and less 'catered' to American Paletes than places in cities that have to be more generic because they serve such a large population.

I also have personally found when I have been lonely in life, being lonely in the city is the worst kind of loneliness.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#420

Post by forgetfreeman »

vineyardmike wrote: post #235
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

I think you have it backwards, and I think “most” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Given equal cost of a home , most people would prefer to live in a city. Especially if you look globally, cities are absolutely trampling suburbs with demand. Yes, people in the suburbs often chose that preferentially, but there are less people in suburbs. In America, suburbs are disproportionately popular. I’m guessing that has more t…

I think you've got causality twisted here. People prefer having a job, the higher paying the better. High paying jobs exist mostly in metro areas, so folks move there for work. Preference for the suburbs is just folks exercising their perfectly natural tendency to want as much space/land/house as they can afford while maintaining access to services and proximity to work. I'm quite confident the majority of suburbanites would strongly prefer living on 20 acres if they could still get to work in 20 minutes and the grocery store in 10.
Post reply on HN