How the Internet Ruined San Francisco (1999)(salon.com)
salon.com
How the Internet Ruined San Francisco (1999)
http://www.salon.com/1999/10/28/internet_2/
8 comments
Strikes me that a lot of renters want the advantages of property ownership but none of the responsibilities.
Maybe most of them couldn't dream of actually owning property.
Policy makers believe that rising home prices are a sign of a recovering economy, so making home prices rise will make the economy recover is what they do.
Of course, creating an effect does not create one of its possible causes.
Of course, creating an effect does not create one of its possible causes.
I can't afford property in central London either even a 1 bed flat is getting on for $1,000,000.
Sometimes its a lot cheaper to rent something than it is to rent the money to own it.
A better-written counterpoint, also Salon, also 1999:
http://www.salon.com/1999/11/03/sf/
http://www.salon.com/1999/11/03/sf/
[deleted]
Thank you! It just seems with all this talk of the new boom that there's a bit of plus ca change, plus que c'est le meme chose. Look forward to any other historical articles out there too.
I grew up in the Silicon Valley. One of the riches places in the world. The tech hub. Engineers. Soccer moms. Workaholic dads. The sound of leafblowers 24/7. No parties, no night life. Work work work. Money money money. Get a 2400 on your SAT. Get straight A's and go to UC Berkeley, and if you don't go there you're a failure. Go to the gym every day at 7AM. Eat healthy organic fruits. Everything you could ever possibly want to do can be accomplished with computers. Go to hackathons. Work until you die.
I feel like I was deprived of a childhood.
I feel like I was deprived of a childhood.
I grew up 3,000 miles from Silicon Valley, and my childhood was pretty much the same as yours, except with less organic fruit.
I grew up there too and will live there in a yr or two again. I partied, raved, did drugs, made unforgettable friendships, went hiking, water rafting, and much more. Iunno man. Might want to hit one of the local boys or girls up. Many people are unaware of how many different types of lifestyles are very close. Their lives just self select for similar populations.
Where in the Silicon Valley did you grow up?
[deleted]
Go have one now.
Everything except for the last part sounds nice.
Then you can take my place.
You know that I can't. And you also know that what you've described is a series of opportunities presented as a burden.
pikachu_is_cool points the finger at something which doesn't receive nearly enough attention in the tech circles on the US West Coast: Chasing work, marketable skills, money and "success" at the detriment of everything else: Work-life balance, healthy relationships, enjoyable hobbies and overall quality of life. People are obviously free to do whatever they want with their lives, but from my perspective the status quo in the Silicon Valley startup culture is very destructive for the mental health and overall long-term happiness of its members.
Whenever I read a story on HN about 55-100 hour workweeks and lots of comments making this seem like something which is sane and healthy, only taking vacations when you are between jobs, being a serial entrepeneur chasing failed venture after failed venture with the hope of eventually striking it rich, prioritizing personal relationships and interaction with friends behind your company's interests and relentlessly using any (rare) spare time to work on your "startup" or learn skills other people will pay you money for, I cringe. I will never take a regular job in an environment like this. It would fuck up my mental health in less than a year, and I am very surprised that others don't see this. I can only describe it as a collective blindness for some very important parts of life.
There is certainly plenty of opportunity in one of the biggest tech booms in world history. But it's not opportunity that comes without a big human cost, and this side of the story doesn't receive nearly enough attention. When work and success is lauded as the virtues above all, other valuable things will suffer. Most people aren't cut out for this kind of lifestyle, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Whenever I read a story on HN about 55-100 hour workweeks and lots of comments making this seem like something which is sane and healthy, only taking vacations when you are between jobs, being a serial entrepeneur chasing failed venture after failed venture with the hope of eventually striking it rich, prioritizing personal relationships and interaction with friends behind your company's interests and relentlessly using any (rare) spare time to work on your "startup" or learn skills other people will pay you money for, I cringe. I will never take a regular job in an environment like this. It would fuck up my mental health in less than a year, and I am very surprised that others don't see this. I can only describe it as a collective blindness for some very important parts of life.
There is certainly plenty of opportunity in one of the biggest tech booms in world history. But it's not opportunity that comes without a big human cost, and this side of the story doesn't receive nearly enough attention. When work and success is lauded as the virtues above all, other valuable things will suffer. Most people aren't cut out for this kind of lifestyle, and there is nothing wrong with that.
When you're having this shit shoved down your throat for your entire upbringing come back and tell me it's an opportunity.
when you've lived a life where you've never had any such opportunity, come back and tell me it's a burden.
EDIT: I just realized this is a classic 'first-world problem', but extended to 'first-world-upper-class problem'.
EDIT: I just realized this is a classic 'first-world problem', but extended to 'first-world-upper-class problem'.
Oh look, the Oppression Olympics[1] is in town.
Someone always has it worse than you. That does not invalidate pikachu_is_cool's feelings of existential emptiness.
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Oppression%20...
Someone always has it worse than you. That does not invalidate pikachu_is_cool's feelings of existential emptiness.
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Oppression%20...
urban dictionary is not a reputable source?
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's an opportunity. They used to call it the American Dream.
Sounds like the Trainspotting quote -- "Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. [...] Choose rotting away at the end of it all, [...] more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life." I guess if Trainspotting took place in the Valley it would have all the things you listed.
I always liked this version of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K-V8ZWyNMs
Yeah but much much more passively aggressive when compared to schemies from Edinburgh.
Silicon valley almost killed me. Moving north to San Francisco was one of the big turning points in my life.
Same here, I moved to Reno myself, and although it's kind of a shithole here, it's far better than living in the Valley.
I live in Silicon Valley, and we have both parties and night life. It depends on who your friends are. I also knew a lot of people back in Cleveland who were living the workaholic life, trying to get into the best colleges, and so forth. So that they could leave Cleveland behind. It's a state of mind, not a place.
I realize this may not be a popular point of view among San Franciscans, but I think the east bay and south bay are actually better if you don't want to be a workaholic. In SF, unless you bought property in the 1970s, you'll be paying somewhere north of $3500 a month for housing. That kind of money requires you to have a high-end job it sounds like you're not that interested in. There are benefits to living in SF, but they come with costs.
A lot of artists and creatives live in Oakland these days. It has good access to San Francisco and other places via BART, and the housing costs are still reasonable.
On the other hand, the most laid-back place in the bay area is definitely Santa Cruz. It always brings a smile to my face to go down to the beach there.
I realize this may not be a popular point of view among San Franciscans, but I think the east bay and south bay are actually better if you don't want to be a workaholic. In SF, unless you bought property in the 1970s, you'll be paying somewhere north of $3500 a month for housing. That kind of money requires you to have a high-end job it sounds like you're not that interested in. There are benefits to living in SF, but they come with costs.
A lot of artists and creatives live in Oakland these days. It has good access to San Francisco and other places via BART, and the housing costs are still reasonable.
On the other hand, the most laid-back place in the bay area is definitely Santa Cruz. It always brings a smile to my face to go down to the beach there.
Cupertino (which is what I was referring to) is also ridiculously expensive, too. The apartment that I moved out of 2 years ago now costs $4,000 a month.
Also, I'm not talking about the rich adult night life. I'm talking about stuff you can do while you're growing up there. All of the kids my age were obsessed with getting straight A's, hardly any of them went out. The ones who were able to either were always in SF/Santa Cruz or were ridiculously rich.
Edit: I think we may be talking about different parts of the Valley. San Jose, Santa Cruz, and SF are nice, but I'm referring to the heart. i.e. Cupertino, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale.
Also, I'm not talking about the rich adult night life. I'm talking about stuff you can do while you're growing up there. All of the kids my age were obsessed with getting straight A's, hardly any of them went out. The ones who were able to either were always in SF/Santa Cruz or were ridiculously rich.
Edit: I think we may be talking about different parts of the Valley. San Jose, Santa Cruz, and SF are nice, but I'm referring to the heart. i.e. Cupertino, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale.
Sorry to hear that your peers were not much fun growing up. If it makes you feel any better, I felt the same way, living in Ohio.
It seems like you must have had a very expensive apartment indeed. There are 3 bedroom standalone homes available for rent in Cupertino for less than 4,000 a month... like this one: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/apa/4287573131.html
It seems like you must have had a very expensive apartment indeed. There are 3 bedroom standalone homes available for rent in Cupertino for less than 4,000 a month... like this one: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/apa/4287573131.html
That's crazy... I guess my parents got ripped off, then. :/
Neighborhoods matter a lot, as well as school districts. Your old apartment might have had a super awesome school district, or been walking distance to an Apple building, or something. I'll stop speculating :)
It's a matter of perspective. The grass is always greener on the other side, and I think it's unrealistic to pine for an idealistic childhood.
I was born and raised in Palo Alto and I go to UC Berkeley now. I spend a lot of time in SF. A lot of what you said relates to my childhood. But a lot of what happened was the result of my choices. I love technology and I love the culture here. One thing that helped me before going to college was taking a year off to work, which really helped me figure out what was important to focus on and what isn't important (not important = grades. important = meeting people). Now that I'm in college, I could easily choose to party all the time and slack off. But that's just not me. Plus, I've had fun at parties/kickbacks in SF before.
As a side note. I use "Silicon Valley" to refer to the SF Bay Area (SF + East Bay + geographic SV). To me, Silicon Valley is a term for the entire technology region, much like "LA" describes the metropolitan LA area, and "Wall Street" describes NY finance in general.
I was born and raised in Palo Alto and I go to UC Berkeley now. I spend a lot of time in SF. A lot of what you said relates to my childhood. But a lot of what happened was the result of my choices. I love technology and I love the culture here. One thing that helped me before going to college was taking a year off to work, which really helped me figure out what was important to focus on and what isn't important (not important = grades. important = meeting people). Now that I'm in college, I could easily choose to party all the time and slack off. But that's just not me. Plus, I've had fun at parties/kickbacks in SF before.
As a side note. I use "Silicon Valley" to refer to the SF Bay Area (SF + East Bay + geographic SV). To me, Silicon Valley is a term for the entire technology region, much like "LA" describes the metropolitan LA area, and "Wall Street" describes NY finance in general.
It worked out for you because you fit the mold (perfectly, if I might add). Most other kids don't fit that mold. And for those kids it can be a living hell, look at the Gunn suicides.
Edit: I should have mentioned I'm referring to Cupertino/Mountain View/Sunnyvale area. I don't really have anything to say about SF and Santa Cruz, they sound like nice places to live.
Edit: I should have mentioned I'm referring to Cupertino/Mountain View/Sunnyvale area. I don't really have anything to say about SF and Santa Cruz, they sound like nice places to live.
> ...for those kids it can be a living hell...
I think you need to check your privilege here. You grew up in a household with successful parents that wanted their children to succeed. If you didn't get into Berkeley, you'd have your parents be disappointed in you. The main economic driver in your area wasn't something you were interested in, so you'd likely have to move when you grew up.
I would go so far as to say that most people in the US (not even the rest of the world) have childhoods that better resemble a living hell. I suppose most tragedy is relative, and I'm not trying to delve into Candide-style one-upping. I'm just saying that maybe it's not Silicon Valley that sucks, maybe it's just growing up.
I think you need to check your privilege here. You grew up in a household with successful parents that wanted their children to succeed. If you didn't get into Berkeley, you'd have your parents be disappointed in you. The main economic driver in your area wasn't something you were interested in, so you'd likely have to move when you grew up.
I would go so far as to say that most people in the US (not even the rest of the world) have childhoods that better resemble a living hell. I suppose most tragedy is relative, and I'm not trying to delve into Candide-style one-upping. I'm just saying that maybe it's not Silicon Valley that sucks, maybe it's just growing up.
You don't understand the most vicious verbal/physical abuse that can be thrown at you, to literally make you feel like you are the worst scum on the earth because you got a B in AP Calculus. And subsequently the sneering and pompous attitudes your peers give you. I know this sounds like some sort of exception, but it happens all the time. I literally remember being in the car with one of my friends and his dad, my friend said he got into UC Davis and is planning on going there. The dad said UC Davis is for failures.
I'm not saying that the Silicon Valley is the worst place in the world. For some people it may be a great place to grow up. But there seems to be a disproportionate amount of people who think that the Valley is some sort of godsend place to raise kids, when it isn't at all.
It is a very real problem that is underlooked BY A LARGE MARGIN, which is why I felt the need to bring it up and possibly save some people. Life is not be about being successful and rich. And you are not a failure if you get bad grades.
I'm not saying that the Silicon Valley is the worst place in the world. For some people it may be a great place to grow up. But there seems to be a disproportionate amount of people who think that the Valley is some sort of godsend place to raise kids, when it isn't at all.
It is a very real problem that is underlooked BY A LARGE MARGIN, which is why I felt the need to bring it up and possibly save some people. Life is not be about being successful and rich. And you are not a failure if you get bad grades.
people in India kill themselves if they don't make it into the top colleges for a chance to come to America
The difference is that people strive to live in the Silicon Valley and think it's one of the greatest place to live.
Also, we have suicides too: http://abcnews.go.com/US/palo-alto-struggles-rash-teen-train...
Also, we have suicides too: http://abcnews.go.com/US/palo-alto-struggles-rash-teen-train...
I grew up in an abusive household with alcoholic parents. I was so scared of violence I couldn't sleep for years without my shoes on in case I had to jump out of the window and run for my life. I remember having to clean my mothers' blood up off the walls of our living room because her crackhead boyfriend took a hammer to her head, and the taste of government cheese (surprisingly tasty), and being so emotionally withdrawn that people assumed I was a mute.
Please stop complaining.
Please stop complaining.
And there are severely starved and malnourished African children with bloated bellies whose rotting corpses will serve as feeding grounds for the vultures that watched and patiently waited.
Your problems do not invalidate his.
Your problems do not invalidate his.
Hey, I can relate. I'm betting you grew up under really traditional foreign parents who raised you in a very high-pressure, high-stress environment that only offered support if you followed the rules and fulfilled the expectations. I did. And I totally agree with your last sentence.
My advice is to start figuring out what it is you want to do and sketch a plan to get to that place. If your parents/community are anything like mine, you'll get a lot of hate and no support, but pushing through it is worth it. Find what you enjoy now because you don't want to find yourself 10 years from now deeply regretting the fact that you followed the mold and did what everyone expected of you.
You won't be a failure if you pursue a different path. Don't believe that because it'll paralyze you. And if you don't get a 2400 and don't get into UC Berkeley, what's the worst that'll happen? Chances are you won't become homeless.
My advice is to start figuring out what it is you want to do and sketch a plan to get to that place. If your parents/community are anything like mine, you'll get a lot of hate and no support, but pushing through it is worth it. Find what you enjoy now because you don't want to find yourself 10 years from now deeply regretting the fact that you followed the mold and did what everyone expected of you.
You won't be a failure if you pursue a different path. Don't believe that because it'll paralyze you. And if you don't get a 2400 and don't get into UC Berkeley, what's the worst that'll happen? Chances are you won't become homeless.
"Median rent for a two bedroom apartment is $2,000 per month." Oh how I yearn for the good old days!
Not much different from Stockholm....
coming here to work for a startup has been awesome but i couldn't imagine growing up around here or even settling down here. i am here for the experience and then im outta here
[deleted]
I don't want to sound callous but ... market forces shape and reshape cities all the time. When the facets of city-life in San Francisco that initially drew people fade away, people will flock somewhere else and the rents will stagnate or reverse. And if San Francisco is losing its allure as an artist's hub, perhaps other places (such as downtown Detroit) are compensating?
I live in a reasonably affluent smaller city and the problem of affordable housing for the "working poor" is about the same here ... but I still haven't seen what I think is a viable solution (developers were compensated for building low-income housing and maintaining low rent for 10 years, but now the rent for those houses exceeds my monthly mortgage).
I live in a reasonably affluent smaller city and the problem of affordable housing for the "working poor" is about the same here ... but I still haven't seen what I think is a viable solution (developers were compensated for building low-income housing and maintaining low rent for 10 years, but now the rent for those houses exceeds my monthly mortgage).
What seems ridiculous to me is that the city that's absorbing the 'artists' is... Oakland! 20-minutes, or one BART stop away! That sounds fine to me. As SF gets bigger, let people overflow into Oakland. I don't see what's so bad about that.
The only people who are really concerned about this are the ones to insist that SF and Oakland are totally different cities. Come on guys, they've been the same economic region for 100+ years, it's time to admit that they're the same city.
The only people who are really concerned about this are the ones to insist that SF and Oakland are totally different cities. Come on guys, they've been the same economic region for 100+ years, it's time to admit that they're the same city.
Yeah, let's pave over that lake and call it a deal.
Sorry, what do you have against Lake Merritt?
> I still haven't seen what I think is a viable solution
What about cooperative ownership? When an asset is communally owned, it reduces the temptation for people to destroy it for a payout.
What about cooperative ownership? When an asset is communally owned, it reduces the temptation for people to destroy it for a payout.
My biggest concern about communal ownership (ignoring tragedy of the commons) is that such an arrangement is simply undesirable for most people. There is something fundamentally unappealing about buying into a communal arrangement, and I can see why - I can easily think of a few past roommates to whom I'm very glad I was not financially bound in a long-term arrangement.
For example, TICs are declining in numbers in SF, not increasing. If communal ownership were a viable option, we should see the number of TICs increasing.
For example, TICs are declining in numbers in SF, not increasing. If communal ownership were a viable option, we should see the number of TICs increasing.
Yes, there are certainly a lot of unsolved problems in communal ownership. I'm optimistic that solutions are out there.
>If communal ownership were a viable option, we should see the number of TICs increasing.
I don't understand how that follows. All that indicates is that some particular operating structures (the specific TICs in place in SF) are not viable on one specific market (SF) in one particular moment in history.
I was just suggesting that in theory communal ownership could solve the problem. How to actually get that to work, in practice, is a problem that entrepreneurs have been working on for decades, and it will take many decades more.
>If communal ownership were a viable option, we should see the number of TICs increasing.
I don't understand how that follows. All that indicates is that some particular operating structures (the specific TICs in place in SF) are not viable on one specific market (SF) in one particular moment in history.
I was just suggesting that in theory communal ownership could solve the problem. How to actually get that to work, in practice, is a problem that entrepreneurs have been working on for decades, and it will take many decades more.
Didn't Stalin try this?
That's how it works. Nothing new about it and there's no way to change it, except perhaps stopping the Federal Reserve from creating bubbles with cheap money.