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

Why San Francisco Is Not New York

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#61

Post by un_holy_guy »

cyclecount wrote: post #26
hoodq19 wrote: post #11

It's easy to confuse the negative effects of scale with cultural similarities. I've lived in both cities and you'd have to step outside the US to find two cities less like each other. Its easy to understand why New York magazine would publish high-brow link-bait: the decreasing relevance of banking-- NY's primary economic engine. The funny thing is that the importance of banking is cyclical. Banker misbehave, markets…

The tech:SF::banking:NYC comparison is false for a number of reasons. Chiefly, no single industry in New York overwhelms the city the way tech overwhelms San Francisco. Finance, fashion, media, and many other industries are very big in NY. But NY is still bigger, bigger than people from San Francisco can fathom. San Francisco is already overwhelmed with tech culture, and this sector continues to grow. Everywhere you…

22% of total revenue and 31% of tax base in NYC comes from the financial services industry. People don't realize what a one trick town it is

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#62

Post by chimeracoder »

cynicalkane wrote: post #51
crusso wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's also the fault of the NIMBYs, who should be squashed with extreme prejudice I don't have a dog in the fight, but I respect the right of people to help determine the kind of city they want to have. Enough people who already live in SF are saying that they don't want to be New York. What's wrong with that?

They exercise privilege that they haven't paid into but simply possess on being there first, nor do they have economic incentive to see development that is beneficial for others. NIMBYs are the economic version of "finders keepers" together with not caring about anyone's well-being. This is suboptimal, even in lassiez-faire, to say nothing of an actual egalitarian society. Then there's the additional problem of the m…

> They exercise privilege that they haven't paid into but simply possess on being there first, nor do they have economic incentive to see development that is beneficial for others.

It's amusing, because this is almost the exact opposite of the typical argument I see against gentrification of lower-class neighborhoods in Brooklyn or Upper Manhattan in which most of the longtime residents are not property owners (ie, "They were here first").

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#63

Post by mason240 »

bsenftner wrote: post #28
paulhauggis wrote: post #24

The only reason I would pick SF is because of the weather.

you like freezing? you've confused SF with southern california; worlds apart in attitude and temperature: laid back and warm.

Looking out my window in MN, the ground is still covered with snow and it is 16 degrees (F). SF meanwhile will be in the 60s all week which seems pretty good to me.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#64

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

msrpotus wrote: post #54
LeafyGreenbriar wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, the per-ride fair on the subway is cheaper but the monthly pass is actually more expensive at (I think, I don't have one) $130/mo. However, the subway does truly feel like transportation for everyone, and it makes the city feel many times more accessible than SF.

It's $112, which works out to roughly 45 rides or 1.5 rides a day. If you're someone working a M-F job and taking the subway there every day, a monthly pass is almost certainly cheaper than pay-per-ride. If you can bike (which I do), though, the calculus quickly changes.

In my experience, taking a bike on BART is a colossal PITA. Caltrain is years ahead.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#65

Post by fidotron »

pg wrote: post #46

I lived in NYC at one point, and I'd agree that the two cities are fundamentally different, but I think he missed what may be the biggest source of the difference: the proportion of people playing zero-sum games. A lot of the most ambitious people in NYC work in finance, whereas in SF hardly any do. Nearly all the most ambitious people in SF make money by creating things that other people are willing to pay them for.…

The culture in the Bay Area seems to be to get people addicted to their employer as fundamental to their identity, not just the money it gives them. This may be because SF doesn't have the level of services you get in NYC, but that's a cause/effect problem from lack of disposable income and lack of population density.

For example, a Google employee that moved from elsewhere in the country to San Francisco, and takes the Google bus to Mountain View because they don't have a car has an absolutely terrifying dependency on Google that they would not have if they were freely spending their own money to get the same services.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#66

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

cyclecount wrote: post #32
chrismonsanto wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The public transportation in SF (and the larger Bay Area) is a classist, unreliable nightmare. I've never been to California, but used to live next to NYC. Could you expand on how the transit is 'classist' ? Is it too expensive? Does it not stop at places other than the suburbs?

My view is that in any place where public transportation is not ubiquitous, the ridership often comprises the poorest people in the city. Much of the public transportation system is used only by those who cannot afford better means of transportation. In NY, the norm is that everyone from the poorest classes to the upper-middle class use the Subway and buses for their daily commute, to go out at night, to grocery shop…

In my experience, the rush hour commute on BART takes quite a bit of white collar people to/from the Market Street stops. Its just that when the BART strikes happened, a lot of people could work from home or drive or whatever. Imagine being a full time student at SFSU or something coming in from the East Bay.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#67

Post by bhc3 »

PLenz wrote: post #37
dannyrosen wrote: post #20

I wouldn't mind an article titled: "Why New York is Not San Francisco"

One isn't needed. New York is very happy being New York. It's San Fran that isn't happy being San Fran.

Having lived in SF since 1996, I'd like to formally refute your point here. I'm quite happy with SF. I also live outside the Mission gentrification world, but do work in the tech industry. SF is still weird, it's still got its distinct character and it's still part of an incredible geography. I like being in the West because it's as much a psychological distance as anything. I say this as someone born and raised in Virginia.

I'm always amused at people's attitudes about San Francisco, and San Franciscans. Keep 'em coming.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#68

Post by asveikau »

bsenftner wrote: post #28
paulhauggis wrote: post #24

The only reason I would pick SF is because of the weather.

you like freezing? you've confused SF with southern california; worlds apart in attitude and temperature: laid back and warm.

The truth is any west coast city is going to seem mild year round to a northeasterner. I used to live in Seattle and felt that way up there, despite the fact that Californians seem to think it's unbearably rainy and cold.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#69

Post by raverbashing »

jfb wrote: post #55
raverbashing wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" The general ingredient quality just blows NYC away - both meat and produce." Well, west coast (meaning: access to Australia and some other selling markets), good climate, etc

It's more that it's in California, which means easy, quick access to fresh produce all year round.

Yes, that's what I meant by "good climate", it wouldn't help being in the WC but in Seattle for example

But the way I wrote it kind of hid the point.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#70

Post by mertd »

msrpotus wrote: post #54
LeafyGreenbriar wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, the per-ride fair on the subway is cheaper but the monthly pass is actually more expensive at (I think, I don't have one) $130/mo. However, the subway does truly feel like transportation for everyone, and it makes the city feel many times more accessible than SF.

It's $112, which works out to roughly 45 rides or 1.5 rides a day. If you're someone working a M-F job and taking the subway there every day, a monthly pass is almost certainly cheaper than pay-per-ride. If you can bike (which I do), though, the calculus quickly changes.

Also many employers will let you buy it pre-tax. http://web.mta.info/mta/farebenefits.htm
Post reply on HN