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

Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#961

Post by galdosdi »

curiousllama wrote: post #481
throw4847285 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just in response to your second point, I do think that's specific to you and your circles. I know multiple retired or semi-retired people who have moved towards the center of a city. Without work to keep them occupied, they want the hustle and bustle, which means something to do. And driving has become more of a hassle and a barrier to the kinds of lives they want to live. These are east coast or midwest cities, so m…

Cities' attractiveness feels u-shaped Young adults love it bc they have the time to go to bars/restaurants/clubs Middle aged folks hate it because they're so busy - they can't take advantage, and other people get in their way (some) Older folks like it again bc they have the time to go to restaurants/theater

You know what sucks? A ton of families-with-kids would love to stay in the city, if only the schools-- especially high schools-- were on par with what can be found for similar price in the suburbs. There is no physical reason it should be like this; in fact, just the opposite. Cities may have the density to support more bars, but they also have the density to support more varied after school kids' activities and cultural attractions, etc (and the ability to let middle and high school aged kids walk themselves to school and other places rather than becoming a chauffeur)

But the failing schools push many parents out against their own and their own childrens' preferences.

This is one of the weird dysfunctions of the USA. It's really not that different to how a lot of third world cities leave a lot of potential wealth on the table by having poorly functioning electrical grids with scheduled black outs. In both cases nobody really benefits and there's no real net savings for society, it's just money left on the table and burned away and is the biggest reason cities are seen as child-unfriendly when in fact they are inherently more friendly to children than a suburb where you're a prisoner till you get a driver's license.

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#962

Post by galdosdi »

trgn wrote: post #629
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, the residential neighborhoods of SF are the perfect place to raise a family if you make tech money: dense enough that there is a ton of stuff to do and your kid knows other kid nearby, low density enough that you get 1500-2500sqft to yourself.

turn of the century suburbs truly are goldilocks neighborhoods.

Yes they are. We don't have enough of them and should make more.

Literally all of Philadelphia (and its suburbs going quite far out) resembles this, thanks to rowhouses which allow true single family you-own-your-own-land-with-your-own-(tiny)-yard housing while still hitting enough density to get economies of scale and insanely great walkability. It would be paradise on earth if the public schools were good.

Queens is like this too (except I have no idea about public school quality there, and it's probably hard to afford these days -- but balanced by access to the Manhattan job market)

Governments need to accept that winner-take-all massive metro areas are the way of the future and just adjust zoning and incentives to flood the zone with transportation and housing (which help substitute for and encourage each other anyway), otherwise you're stuck choosing between affordable housing and access to education and jobs. Concentrating more jobs nearby creates more than the sum of their parts because workers are often more productive in industry clusters.

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#963

Post by acchow »

citizenkeen wrote: post #194
ulfw wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are quite boring mid-size cities that are heavily overpriced for what they offer. SF is more exciting/prettier yet less safe than SJ.

The 17th largest city in the US is mid-sized?

Because the US is so car centric, the largest cities just feel like "mid-size" cities compared it other continents.

A town of 100k in Europe will feel livelier than a metro area of 3 million in the US.

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#964

Post by acchow »

neilv wrote: post #679
rapatel0 wrote: post #468

I lived for about 12 months in telegraph hill (got lucky with a solid apartment). I had my wife and 1 year old son. Despite it being a really nice and affluent neighborhood, there was a weekly mugging outside my house. Any packages or items left outside were basically taken if left out for more than 1 hour. My neighbor’s car parked in front of the house was stolen, taken for a joyride and left in a random part of the…

Question from someone who doesn't know the SF neighborhoods... Can a single, childless tech startup-type person live comfortably walking car-free in contemporary SF, long-term? If so, how much does that cost, and in what neighborhoods? Reason I'm asking: the East Coast city where I currently live isn't great for software startups, and, on top of some crazy downsides of this city, there's a possibly emerging new downs…

The new startup ecosystem in SF (including Ycombinator itself) has moved to the Dogpatch and Mission Bay area (https://maps.app.goo.gl/62FCMHEQWsMD2yHq7) of SF. You will not encounter needles here. I never even see any homeless here. It doesn't really "feel" like SF, but it is very walkable and bikeable. It is very clean.

I think a 1 bedroom apartment rent would be around $3500 now (and all of the buildings here are fairly new)

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#965

Post by ozgrakkurt »

eric-hu wrote: post #855
dehrmann wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in mid-market/the TL from 2014 until 2017. The tech companies sort of helped. A handful of hip restaurants and bars sprung up, but the city never really dealt with the homeless. There are a lot of non-profits serving the homeless in the TL, and there wasn't really anywhere for them to go as an alternative. >> $10 million a year in lost revenue That's 1.5% of the homeless budget.

Wow. I had to fact-check this. Wow. https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-... > San Francisco is slightly smaller than Jacksonville, Florida. Yet San Francisco’s homelessness budget—$1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021–22—is nearly 80 percent of Jacksonville’s entire city budget.

This really looks like someone is stealing money. There is no way it costs that much

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#966

Post by dehrmann »

ozgrakkurt wrote: post #965
eric-hu wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I had to fact-check this. Wow. https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-... > San Francisco is slightly smaller than Jacksonville, Florida. Yet San Francisco’s homelessness budget—$1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021–22—is nearly 80 percent of Jacksonville’s entire city budget.

This really looks like someone is stealing money. There is no way it costs that much

SF tried to build a $1.7M toilet.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-publ...

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#967

Post by philsnow »

BobAliceInATree wrote: post #637
philsnow wrote: post #428

> Twitter — which at the time was threatening to move to Brisbane Wow , that does not seem like it would jive with the local character for Brisbane, from what little I know of it.

Brisbane, California not Australia.

I know -- the only people I know who live in Brisbane (the tiny town ~7 miles to the south of San Francisco) enjoy its insularity

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#968

Post by cdelsolar »

lucidone wrote: post #519
bastardoperator wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've been able to gauge life and the street scene in SF based on several meetings? That's super interesting. I would argue the Embarcadero is fairly nice and I live here, but what do I know.

I am nobody important living in rural middle of nowhere, but visited SF twice for work, and it was the most horrific city I have ever been to. I am a big man and didn't feel very safe.

lol

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#969

Post by amy-petrik-214 »

hintymad wrote: post #412

There is a famous paper about the location of company headquarters: they get as close as possible to the residence of company CEOs. If we don't consider the CEO's influence, I'm actually curious if the location of company headquarters has to do with the average age of the employees in the Bay Area. As the employees start to have families, they most likely move to the south bay for better or for worse, and I have a ha…

This came as a surprise to me but San Jose is actually one of the top 10 largest cities in the US.

Just saying, maybe south bay isn't SF, but it ain't idyllic peaceful suburbs either

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#970

Post by bijutoha »

TheAdamist wrote: post #93
fabian2k wrote: post #31

Doing this on a few weeks notice seems rather insane to me. Unless you have very good remote work options this is very disruptive for employees.

Thats generally the point with sudden disruptive moves - high attrition. Reduce the headcount without having to be in the news for layoffs.

It's an exciting move by X! They seem to adapt to the changing work environment. I wonder how this relocation will impact their company culture and operations in the long run.
Post reply on HN