DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?(37signals.com)
37signals.com
DHH: Are you sure you want to be in San Francisco?
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/987-are-you-sure-you-want-to-be-in-san-francisco
24 comments
San Francisco is an interesting place. I live in SF, and I know a lot of programmers (and other tech workers) who live in SF, but I doubt that more than a third of them actually work in SF proper. Most of us engage in long and soul destroying drives to sterile office buildings in the midst of pedestrian-unfriendly parking lots on the peninsula and in the south bay. And we pay a lot for the privilege.
I think that other cities, like Portland, Seattle, Austin in the US (and maybe Barcelona, Copenhagen internationally) might actually be better places to work.
I wouldn't leave SF, but I grew up here and have family around. If I were starting out, I'd definitely consider other cities.
I think that other cities, like Portland, Seattle, Austin in the US (and maybe Barcelona, Copenhagen internationally) might actually be better places to work.
I wouldn't leave SF, but I grew up here and have family around. If I were starting out, I'd definitely consider other cities.
I can't believe you put Portland and Austin in the same sentence. Nothing wrong with Portland, but Austin is simply in another league: I don't believe there is another place in US with such combination of technology, nightlife and dating scenes. I do feel sorry for all guys in their 20s living in Bay Area.
That's funny - I actually feel sorry for all the guys in their 30s living in SF (and that includes me)! Technology, nightlife, and dating seems pretty great in SF. And when you have no obligations, you can take advantage of all of that.
Most of the programmers I know are now in their 30s with small children. We're trying to figure out how to pay a mortgate and preschool costs that easily exceed $1000/month.
Salaries are high here, and two income families can swing it. But I have realized that high costs are toxic to freedom. Yeah, if you score huge with a startup you'll have enough money be free of the daily grind, but that isn't really in the cards for most of us, even if we take a real crack at it.
I know people who have cashed out of the real estate market in SF and moved to Austin, and they absolutely love it. I think I'd enjoy it there, too. I think that it's probably easier to gain financial independence and start living on your own terms in other cities. And these don't have to be crappy lame places - these are really entertaining places to live. In some ways, I think the cost structure of SF makes it a less entertaining place to be, because people have to make more decisions based on paying the mortgage than doing something creative.
But my wife and I have a huge extended family in SF (parents, grandparents, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc...). I've actually tried to leave, but just I can't do it. And to me, cost is the only problem - if you have the dough, then for a certain type of person, SF may be the most pleasant place to live in the US.
Most of the programmers I know are now in their 30s with small children. We're trying to figure out how to pay a mortgate and preschool costs that easily exceed $1000/month.
Salaries are high here, and two income families can swing it. But I have realized that high costs are toxic to freedom. Yeah, if you score huge with a startup you'll have enough money be free of the daily grind, but that isn't really in the cards for most of us, even if we take a real crack at it.
I know people who have cashed out of the real estate market in SF and moved to Austin, and they absolutely love it. I think I'd enjoy it there, too. I think that it's probably easier to gain financial independence and start living on your own terms in other cities. And these don't have to be crappy lame places - these are really entertaining places to live. In some ways, I think the cost structure of SF makes it a less entertaining place to be, because people have to make more decisions based on paying the mortgage than doing something creative.
But my wife and I have a huge extended family in SF (parents, grandparents, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc...). I've actually tried to leave, but just I can't do it. And to me, cost is the only problem - if you have the dough, then for a certain type of person, SF may be the most pleasant place to live in the US.
I've lived and started a business in both Austin and Silicon Valley. If you're starting a tech business the valley is a lot better. I miss the weather and the live music scene in Austin, but the tech startup climate is orders of magnitude better in the valley. I'll go back to Austin when I've built the business that I want to build. Until then, I'm staying where the ground is most fertile.
+1 for portland, its a great place to live
Are you sure you want to listen to someone who has never lived in San Francisco?
How can you measure the benefits of being around people and businesses that are similar? Its possible to trade stocks anywhere, but why do companies setup in New York or London?
If you don't want to take someone else's money to build your business, then don't. If you lived in Las Vegas would you automatically become a gambler?
How can you measure the benefits of being around people and businesses that are similar? Its possible to trade stocks anywhere, but why do companies setup in New York or London?
If you don't want to take someone else's money to build your business, then don't. If you lived in Las Vegas would you automatically become a gambler?
> Are you sure you want to listen to someone who has never lived in San Francisco?
Perhaps. But on the other hand - what value is the opinion of someone who has only ever worked/started-up in SF?
To have a basis for comparison you'd need to have experience both in and outside of the Bay area. Probably multiple places outside of the Bay would be needed for a reasonable basis for generalising.
Perhaps. But on the other hand - what value is the opinion of someone who has only ever worked/started-up in SF?
To have a basis for comparison you'd need to have experience both in and outside of the Bay area. Probably multiple places outside of the Bay would be needed for a reasonable basis for generalising.
I don't know. Why don't you ask FeedBurner?
I think that -- by pointing out that there has been only one successful startup in Chicago (37Signals does not count; it's not really a startup, just a small business) -- that you just underscored the argument for the Bay Area.
Way to take my argument out of context.
First, I'm citing Feedburner to demonstrate that large Google acquisitions don't have to come from the Bay Area. Are you refuting that?
Second, if you ask me to name more Chicago startups, I'll add 37Signals, EveryBlock, Threadless, Inkling Markets, and of course Orbitz.
Third, nobody is arguing that any other city in the US, including Boston, can go toe to toe with San Francisco simply on body count. I am, however, objecting to the argument that in 2008, the only way to be successful in a web company is to be based in the same city as your potential acquirer. I'll guarantee you this: your customers will not give a shit where you're located.
First, I'm citing Feedburner to demonstrate that large Google acquisitions don't have to come from the Bay Area. Are you refuting that?
Second, if you ask me to name more Chicago startups, I'll add 37Signals, EveryBlock, Threadless, Inkling Markets, and of course Orbitz.
Third, nobody is arguing that any other city in the US, including Boston, can go toe to toe with San Francisco simply on body count. I am, however, objecting to the argument that in 2008, the only way to be successful in a web company is to be based in the same city as your potential acquirer. I'll guarantee you this: your customers will not give a shit where you're located.
just to nitpick, Orbitz totally wasn't a "startup" in the conventional sense, and certainly not the DHH sense. It was a project conceived and funded by a cartel of major airlines. The initial funding was 150 million dollars!
You're right; I'm just thinking about tech companies, but the same logic would lead someone to count MOT.
Please, can we all stop saying "just a small business"? There's no "just". It's not a bad thing.
You could argue both ways about 37signals, since if you consider Rails as one of their products, they are becoming pretty big through that. Considering the arguments made in Be Good, one can take the point of view of a startup being a startup not because it's chasing huge amounts of money or huge corporate growth, but because it's trying to make a difference in the world. 37signals certainly does that, firstly through Rails and also by providing an interesting reference point for how to design software and run a software company.
if a startup is not a small business, what is it?
It's a small business that is attempting to become either a large business or part of another large business.
37Signals is neither; it's about six people who want the company to remain small and independent. (I have no problem with that.)
37Signals is neither; it's about six people who want the company to remain small and independent. (I have no problem with that.)
It's not 37Signals's goal to stay "small"; it's their goal to grow revenue instead of people and real estate.
DHH talked about lifestyle at Startup camp, and lifestyle is the key reason to want to be in San Francisco. It is simply a great City to live in with the added benefit that almost any escape to the natural world, like skiiing, sailing, etc etc, is immediately available. The downside is some added cost, but the costs here are comparable to Southbay locations and other major Cities. So if you want to build a sustainable business with a lifestyle that you want to enjoy for the long-term, San Francisco is an ideal location.
Give me a break. I lived in San Francisco for a bunch of years, starting after my first company got bought out --- I've experienced the city both totally flush with cash and living paycheck to paycheck. Allow me to retort:
* Public transportation in the Bay Area is a shambles, and, in particular, getting between any two points in the (tiny) city of San Francisco involves interaction with the worst bus system in the country.
* Housing is spectacularly expensive, which, in hacker teams, simply means you're going to be living in half the space you have now, with no amenities.
* Office space in San Franscisco? I already spent the modifier "spectacular", so let's go with "catastrophically" expensive, meaning: your office won't be in the city, it will be in San Mateo, which despite its relative proximity to the city, will still be an hour and a half commute. Unlucky enough to wind up in Santa Clara? I was. My commute from SOMA often exceeded two hours each way.
* Half to 3/4s of your friends are going to live in the South Bay. No matter where you choose to live --- San Francisco or the suburban Mallhalla of the South Bay --- you are going to be 45 minutes to an hour away from anyone you want to visit.
* An ongoing dispute between the dispatchers, the city, and medallion owners keeps taxicabs artificially scarce, so that you are going to wait 20 minutes to catch one on Folsom or downtown.
* There isn't one good place in the city to see a show, but that doesn't matter, because your favorite band skips San Francisco.
* Last call in San Francisco? Earlier than other cities.
* Weather? Choose between "brown" or "wet".
* Streets? Laden with human feces and garbage. Am I being hyperbolic? No.
Almost any other city in the country, save Los Angeles, can lay a better claim to being a destination for long-term lifestyle companies than San Francisco.
* Public transportation in the Bay Area is a shambles, and, in particular, getting between any two points in the (tiny) city of San Francisco involves interaction with the worst bus system in the country.
* Housing is spectacularly expensive, which, in hacker teams, simply means you're going to be living in half the space you have now, with no amenities.
* Office space in San Franscisco? I already spent the modifier "spectacular", so let's go with "catastrophically" expensive, meaning: your office won't be in the city, it will be in San Mateo, which despite its relative proximity to the city, will still be an hour and a half commute. Unlucky enough to wind up in Santa Clara? I was. My commute from SOMA often exceeded two hours each way.
* Half to 3/4s of your friends are going to live in the South Bay. No matter where you choose to live --- San Francisco or the suburban Mallhalla of the South Bay --- you are going to be 45 minutes to an hour away from anyone you want to visit.
* An ongoing dispute between the dispatchers, the city, and medallion owners keeps taxicabs artificially scarce, so that you are going to wait 20 minutes to catch one on Folsom or downtown.
* There isn't one good place in the city to see a show, but that doesn't matter, because your favorite band skips San Francisco.
* Last call in San Francisco? Earlier than other cities.
* Weather? Choose between "brown" or "wet".
* Streets? Laden with human feces and garbage. Am I being hyperbolic? No.
Almost any other city in the country, save Los Angeles, can lay a better claim to being a destination for long-term lifestyle companies than San Francisco.
* Public transportation in the Bay Area is a shambles, and, in particular, getting between any two points in the (tiny) city of San Francisco involves interaction with the worst bus system in the country.
- Public transportation is bad, unless you've ever been to houston, phoenix, dallas, detroit, los angeles, or anywhere else in the US outside of NYC, Boston, Portland, Chicago, or D.C. As bad as it is, SF's public transport is probably the 5th BEST in the country.
* Housing is spectacularly expensive, which, in hacker teams, simply means you're going to be living in half the space you have now, with no amenities.
- Yes.
* Office space in San Franscisco? I already spent the modifier "spectacular", so let's go with "catastrophically" expensive, meaning: your office won't be in the city, it will be in San Mateo, which despite its relative proximity to the city, will still be an hour and a half commute. Unlucky enough to wind up in Santa Clara? I was. My commute from SOMA often exceeded two hours each way.
- My office space on Howard street is cheaper than what I would pay on the peninsula or in Chicago. I think I lucked out, though.
* Half to 3/4s of your friends are going to live in the South Bay. No matter where you choose to live --- San Francisco or the suburban Mallhalla of the South Bay --- you are going to be 45 minutes to an hour away from anyone you want to visit.
- uhh... i guess if your friends all work at Yahoo!? I don't really see this unless your friends are all married or dorks.
* An ongoing dispute between the dispatchers, the city, and medallion owners keeps taxicabs artificially scarce, so that you are going to wait 20 minutes to catch one on Folsom or downtown.
- this is pretty much true.
* There isn't one good place in the city to see a show, but that doesn't matter, because your favorite band skips San Francisco.
- this is true if your favorite musicians are Jack Johnson or Britney Spears. If you are cool and listen to interesting music there are at least 6 decent mid to large clubs and dozens of smaller spaces. The music scene is better in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Chicago but SF is on par with everywhere else.
* Last call in San Francisco? Earlier than other cities.
- except it is the same as Los Angeles, Portland and Minneapolis, an hour later than Seattle and Boston, and about the same time as when most bars in Chicago now close. If you want to stay out really late your only choice in the US is Manhattan.
* Weather? Choose between "brown" or "wet".
- more like "cold and windy" or "not quite as cold and windy"
* Streets? Laden with human feces and garbage. Am I being hyperbolic? No.
- it sounds like someone's office was close to 6th and Market. SOMA is slimy in parts but gentrification happens and the poo is mostly confined to a few select corridors these days.
Poopy streets to avoid: 6th between Market and Folsom and associated side alleys. Capp between 15th and 17th. The tenderloin bounded by turk, mason, leavenworth and o'farrell.
- Public transportation is bad, unless you've ever been to houston, phoenix, dallas, detroit, los angeles, or anywhere else in the US outside of NYC, Boston, Portland, Chicago, or D.C. As bad as it is, SF's public transport is probably the 5th BEST in the country.
* Housing is spectacularly expensive, which, in hacker teams, simply means you're going to be living in half the space you have now, with no amenities.
- Yes.
* Office space in San Franscisco? I already spent the modifier "spectacular", so let's go with "catastrophically" expensive, meaning: your office won't be in the city, it will be in San Mateo, which despite its relative proximity to the city, will still be an hour and a half commute. Unlucky enough to wind up in Santa Clara? I was. My commute from SOMA often exceeded two hours each way.
- My office space on Howard street is cheaper than what I would pay on the peninsula or in Chicago. I think I lucked out, though.
* Half to 3/4s of your friends are going to live in the South Bay. No matter where you choose to live --- San Francisco or the suburban Mallhalla of the South Bay --- you are going to be 45 minutes to an hour away from anyone you want to visit.
- uhh... i guess if your friends all work at Yahoo!? I don't really see this unless your friends are all married or dorks.
* An ongoing dispute between the dispatchers, the city, and medallion owners keeps taxicabs artificially scarce, so that you are going to wait 20 minutes to catch one on Folsom or downtown.
- this is pretty much true.
* There isn't one good place in the city to see a show, but that doesn't matter, because your favorite band skips San Francisco.
- this is true if your favorite musicians are Jack Johnson or Britney Spears. If you are cool and listen to interesting music there are at least 6 decent mid to large clubs and dozens of smaller spaces. The music scene is better in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Chicago but SF is on par with everywhere else.
* Last call in San Francisco? Earlier than other cities.
- except it is the same as Los Angeles, Portland and Minneapolis, an hour later than Seattle and Boston, and about the same time as when most bars in Chicago now close. If you want to stay out really late your only choice in the US is Manhattan.
* Weather? Choose between "brown" or "wet".
- more like "cold and windy" or "not quite as cold and windy"
* Streets? Laden with human feces and garbage. Am I being hyperbolic? No.
- it sounds like someone's office was close to 6th and Market. SOMA is slimy in parts but gentrification happens and the poo is mostly confined to a few select corridors these days.
Poopy streets to avoid: 6th between Market and Folsom and associated side alleys. Capp between 15th and 17th. The tenderloin bounded by turk, mason, leavenworth and o'farrell.
I modded you up, but:
* Compared to Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, or Boston, San Francisco is filthy, both in a "civic pride and basic hygiene" sense, and in a "methadone clinics spewing out mentally ill homeless people contributing to a desperate humanitarian crisis" sense.
* What areas are walkably friendly got that way by gentrifying and bleaching out the culture and neighborhoods from the city. Live in San Francisco? When was your last block party? Can you name your neighbors?
* Strong indie music scene? I guess it depends on what you like --- you could caricature me as a Pitchfork fan. Admittedly, comparing to Chicago, most other cities save New York and Seattle are going to suffer. But go read JWZ's blog about the DNA Lounge and form your own conclusions about how vital and diverse San Francisco's indie venues are.
* If your friends all work at startups, a big chunk of them live in the South Bay, which means you will rarely see them, because facing a 45 minute commute (that's without 101 traffic) at 12:30AM is a strong deterrant to an impromptu night at a bar.
* Your office on Howard Street --- presuming it's a real office --- is not cheaper than what you'd pay in Chicago. Let's compare notes. You first.
I'm skipping the good stuff about San Francisco. Leaving aside the benefits of being surrounded by product managers and QA team leaders, which is a dubious benefit, let me get in:
* You have 7-day-a-week access to solid Dim Sum.
* You live in the US capital of fresh water aquarium suppliers.
* On any Friday or Saturday you are 30 minutes, a cooler, and a couple of logs away from a bonfire on the beaches south of San Francisco.
* If your car can handle, the drive to Half Moon Bay is pretty awesome.
I'm assuming most of the readers here don't have kids. I have two. We won't get in to how much worse the city is going to be for you if you're trying to raise a family.
* Compared to Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, or Boston, San Francisco is filthy, both in a "civic pride and basic hygiene" sense, and in a "methadone clinics spewing out mentally ill homeless people contributing to a desperate humanitarian crisis" sense.
* What areas are walkably friendly got that way by gentrifying and bleaching out the culture and neighborhoods from the city. Live in San Francisco? When was your last block party? Can you name your neighbors?
* Strong indie music scene? I guess it depends on what you like --- you could caricature me as a Pitchfork fan. Admittedly, comparing to Chicago, most other cities save New York and Seattle are going to suffer. But go read JWZ's blog about the DNA Lounge and form your own conclusions about how vital and diverse San Francisco's indie venues are.
* If your friends all work at startups, a big chunk of them live in the South Bay, which means you will rarely see them, because facing a 45 minute commute (that's without 101 traffic) at 12:30AM is a strong deterrant to an impromptu night at a bar.
* Your office on Howard Street --- presuming it's a real office --- is not cheaper than what you'd pay in Chicago. Let's compare notes. You first.
I'm skipping the good stuff about San Francisco. Leaving aside the benefits of being surrounded by product managers and QA team leaders, which is a dubious benefit, let me get in:
* You have 7-day-a-week access to solid Dim Sum.
* You live in the US capital of fresh water aquarium suppliers.
* On any Friday or Saturday you are 30 minutes, a cooler, and a couple of logs away from a bonfire on the beaches south of San Francisco.
* If your car can handle, the drive to Half Moon Bay is pretty awesome.
I'm assuming most of the readers here don't have kids. I have two. We won't get in to how much worse the city is going to be for you if you're trying to raise a family.
* Compared to Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, or Boston, San Francisco is filthy, both in a "civic pride and basic hygiene" sense, and in a "methadone clinics spewing out mentally ill homeless people contributing to a desperate humanitarian crisis" sense.
- I agree with that, I guess. SF is pretty psychotic.
* What areas are walkably friendly got that way by gentrifying and bleaching out the culture and neighborhoods from the city. Live in San Francisco? When was your last block party? Can you name your neighbors?
In my neighborhood the block party is in September but the SOMA block party is in a couple of weeks. I know all the people who live in my building (there are only 5) and three of my good friends live on the same block.
* Strong indie music scene? I guess it depends on what you like --- you could caricature me as a Pitchfork fan. Admittedly, comparing to Chicago, most other cities save New York and Seattle are going to suffer. But go read JWZ's blog about the DNA Lounge and form your own conclusions about how vital and diverse San Francisco's indie venues are.
- JWZ is grouchy because he was hoping to open up an industrial club but instead has to cater to asian gangsters coming up from Daly City. The scene he is into (industrial dance music) was never big enough to support a club the size of DNA and pretty much died out entirely 10 years ago. Everyone who was into it is now 40+ and doesn't go out anymore. I will admit that I don't go to many shows but the bands that I like (Autechre, TV on the Radio, Cornelius, are a few shows I've seen) seem to play here as often as anywhere else. The LOCAL music scene isn't that awesome, IMO. Most people are trying to be DJs rather than be in bands.
* If your friends all work at startups, a big chunk of them live in the South Bay, which means you will rarely see them, because facing a 45 minute commute (that's without 101 traffic) at 12:30AM is a strong deterrant to an impromptu night at a bar.
I guess that would be true. However most of the friends I have at startups work at startups in the city.
* Your office on Howard Street --- presuming it's a real office --- is not cheaper than what you'd pay in Chicago. Let's compare notes. You first.
We pay $8850 for 9000 square feet. Pre-wired, server room, and physical workspace in the basement (part of our product involves creating physical prototypes)
- I agree with that, I guess. SF is pretty psychotic.
* What areas are walkably friendly got that way by gentrifying and bleaching out the culture and neighborhoods from the city. Live in San Francisco? When was your last block party? Can you name your neighbors?
In my neighborhood the block party is in September but the SOMA block party is in a couple of weeks. I know all the people who live in my building (there are only 5) and three of my good friends live on the same block.
* Strong indie music scene? I guess it depends on what you like --- you could caricature me as a Pitchfork fan. Admittedly, comparing to Chicago, most other cities save New York and Seattle are going to suffer. But go read JWZ's blog about the DNA Lounge and form your own conclusions about how vital and diverse San Francisco's indie venues are.
- JWZ is grouchy because he was hoping to open up an industrial club but instead has to cater to asian gangsters coming up from Daly City. The scene he is into (industrial dance music) was never big enough to support a club the size of DNA and pretty much died out entirely 10 years ago. Everyone who was into it is now 40+ and doesn't go out anymore. I will admit that I don't go to many shows but the bands that I like (Autechre, TV on the Radio, Cornelius, are a few shows I've seen) seem to play here as often as anywhere else. The LOCAL music scene isn't that awesome, IMO. Most people are trying to be DJs rather than be in bands.
* If your friends all work at startups, a big chunk of them live in the South Bay, which means you will rarely see them, because facing a 45 minute commute (that's without 101 traffic) at 12:30AM is a strong deterrant to an impromptu night at a bar.
I guess that would be true. However most of the friends I have at startups work at startups in the city.
* Your office on Howard Street --- presuming it's a real office --- is not cheaper than what you'd pay in Chicago. Let's compare notes. You first.
We pay $8850 for 9000 square feet. Pre-wired, server room, and physical workspace in the basement (part of our product involves creating physical prototypes)
* I lived in Noe Valley for a couple years and never once even heard of a block party. "The SOMA block party"? Does that go by another name I'd know it by better, like, say, the Folsom Street Fair? That's hardly a "neighborhood" event, but then, SOMA isn't a neighborhood, and hasn't been since it was debrided by "live-work art spaces" (a.k.a. luxury condos).
* JWZ is certainly not a good trendspotter, but you're providing a parody of his experience. He's not complaining that nobody cares about VNV Nation; he's complaining that he can't get permits to host 18+ shows (why do you care? Because lots of touring acts won't book 21+ shows), and chronicling the demise of one music venue after another.
* You are getting a fantastic deal on office space; you're paying approximately what we're paying for finished office space in the Loop (we have a smaller space; our company is split evenly between Chicago and Manhattan).
* JWZ is certainly not a good trendspotter, but you're providing a parody of his experience. He's not complaining that nobody cares about VNV Nation; he's complaining that he can't get permits to host 18+ shows (why do you care? Because lots of touring acts won't book 21+ shows), and chronicling the demise of one music venue after another.
* You are getting a fantastic deal on office space; you're paying approximately what we're paying for finished office space in the Loop (we have a smaller space; our company is split evenly between Chicago and Manhattan).
It is actually a different block party centered around the park between 7th and 8th on Folsom. It caters mainly to the mexican people who live in the area. I've never heard of a block party in Noe, either. My apologies for bringing up race, but I used to rent an art studio in the Bayview and that was the only place in SF that I've seen block parties. I've lived mainly in white yuppie neighborhoods in various parts of the country and never encountered a block party in any of them. There have only been annual "street fairs." The only other place I've seen a proper block party was when I lived on the edge of a puerto rican neighborhood in Brooklyn.
As for the music scene, it depends what you like. If you like House/Electronica SF is great.
I did upvote your post mainly b/c I don't want more people to move in here. hehe....
My major gripe with SF is actually the dating scene, it sucks ass (unless you are a gay guy, which probably will be great). Ratio of guys to girls in most work places is 3/1. It is expensive to live, so girls in early 20s choose to live somewhere else.
There is also very expensive housing (second after manhatan), and potential of earthquakes, but compare to Boston and most of the South is much much better.
And I agree, transportation is kinda sucky. I find myself using a car, even within the city.
BTW, not everybody works in Southbay or peninsula. I actually do work in emeryville (east bay), and the commute is about 25-35 mins, depending on traffic.
But, also many young startups are choosing SF and not peninsula to start up. The problem to find cheaper place will come only when the startup grows a lot, and you really need a lot of space.
There is also very expensive housing (second after manhatan), and potential of earthquakes, but compare to Boston and most of the South is much much better.
And I agree, transportation is kinda sucky. I find myself using a car, even within the city.
BTW, not everybody works in Southbay or peninsula. I actually do work in emeryville (east bay), and the commute is about 25-35 mins, depending on traffic.
But, also many young startups are choosing SF and not peninsula to start up. The problem to find cheaper place will come only when the startup grows a lot, and you really need a lot of space.
The heterosexual dating scene in SF is indeed horrible. The only bittersweet encouragement I can offer young men in the Bay Area is this: If you stay here long enough, you will eventually get lots of dates with attractive young women... when you are 7-12 years older than they are. Just make sure you take it easy on the free soda and pizza. My apologies to all the 23 year old dudes, but 23 year old nerds are just nerds. 30 year old nerds are endearing, or a way to get back at her parents, or an easy mark for free drinks, or, most likely, simply a boyfriend who can afford to not have roommates.
Oh, blogga please.
"Public transportation in the Bay Area is a shambles". Well, you have me there. On the other hand, it sucks in most other large metro areas as well. NYC is the only real exception.
DHH meant the Bay Area and the SV, not San Francisco proper. "San Francisco" is what outside people call the Bay Area because they don't know better.
Housing has been spectacularly expensive everywhere in the US for some time now. We pay a premium for living in a place unlike any other, chock full of natural beauty, culture, and iconoclastic innovation. We also get paid more, and it more or less balances out.
"you are going to be 45 minutes to an hour away from anyone you want to visit" -- that's called life in any big city.
Taxicabs? Say it with me: Bay Area. Not "San Francisco."
"There isn't one good place in the city to see a show" -- the (world-famous) Fillmore, the Great American Music Hall, Slim's, Bimbo's 365 Club, Bottom of the Hill ... that's just off the top of my head, and only in the City. And why would your favorite band skip a metropolitan area of ~13 million people?
"Weather? Choose between 'brown' or 'wet'" -- you know that is not true. Not even close. SF has some of the most amazing, mild weather in the world.
"Streets? Laden with human feces and garbage. Am I being hyperbolic? No." Actually, you are indeed being hyperbolic. There are places in SF, like every major city, where you will find homeless living. There are places in SF where I would be willing to eat off the sidewalk. And we're talking about the Bay Area, not SF alone.
"Public transportation in the Bay Area is a shambles". Well, you have me there. On the other hand, it sucks in most other large metro areas as well. NYC is the only real exception.
DHH meant the Bay Area and the SV, not San Francisco proper. "San Francisco" is what outside people call the Bay Area because they don't know better.
Housing has been spectacularly expensive everywhere in the US for some time now. We pay a premium for living in a place unlike any other, chock full of natural beauty, culture, and iconoclastic innovation. We also get paid more, and it more or less balances out.
"you are going to be 45 minutes to an hour away from anyone you want to visit" -- that's called life in any big city.
Taxicabs? Say it with me: Bay Area. Not "San Francisco."
"There isn't one good place in the city to see a show" -- the (world-famous) Fillmore, the Great American Music Hall, Slim's, Bimbo's 365 Club, Bottom of the Hill ... that's just off the top of my head, and only in the City. And why would your favorite band skip a metropolitan area of ~13 million people?
"Weather? Choose between 'brown' or 'wet'" -- you know that is not true. Not even close. SF has some of the most amazing, mild weather in the world.
"Streets? Laden with human feces and garbage. Am I being hyperbolic? No." Actually, you are indeed being hyperbolic. There are places in SF, like every major city, where you will find homeless living. There are places in SF where I would be willing to eat off the sidewalk. And we're talking about the Bay Area, not SF alone.
> "you are going to be 45 minutes to an hour away from anyone you want to visit" -- that's called life in any big city.
Hmm? Not my experience in three east coast cities.
Hmm? Not my experience in three east coast cities.
Besides the fact that most of your complaints are less than valid, you left out the fact that San Francisco shares, year after year, the status of top restaurant city in the US. (NYC is the other.)
Oh, and there's that wine country about 45 mins. north.
Oh, and there's that wine country about 45 mins. north.
Whatever. You know my theory about fine dining cities? I know you want to. Once you get past a critical mass of high-end restaurants, it stops mattering. Arguments about San Francisco versus Chicago versus New York for restaurants are irrelevant, because unless you have an absurd budget for eating out, you aren't visiting all of them.
So, yes, you have French Laundry (if you count it), and NYC has Per Se, and Chicago has Alinea. Panise vs. Masa vs. Charlie Trotter. If you're a normal person, you're going to run out of places to get 7 courses prix fixe in the Bay Area before I run out of them in Chicago.
Everything else is subjective. You have Mission taquerias. We have Frontera. Yank Sing vs. Arun's. Anything in San Francisco vs. Hot Dougs.
Call whatever city you want "the top restaurant city in the US". Nobody is moving from Chicago or NYC to San Francisco for the food.
So, yes, you have French Laundry (if you count it), and NYC has Per Se, and Chicago has Alinea. Panise vs. Masa vs. Charlie Trotter. If you're a normal person, you're going to run out of places to get 7 courses prix fixe in the Bay Area before I run out of them in Chicago.
Everything else is subjective. You have Mission taquerias. We have Frontera. Yank Sing vs. Arun's. Anything in San Francisco vs. Hot Dougs.
Call whatever city you want "the top restaurant city in the US". Nobody is moving from Chicago or NYC to San Francisco for the food.
Actually people do move to the City for the food. The point is that all Chicago has is Charlie Trotter's. SF has hundreds of amazing restaurants.
Did you read my comment, or do you just not know who Grant Achatz is? SF has hundreds of restaurants. On the high-end, many of them are good (below it, you wind up in North Beach for overpriced tourist Italian). But Chicago does too; so do Seattle and Atlanta.
Name someone who has moved from NYC or Chicago because the restaurant scene in either didn't match up to San Francisco. I'll take your word for it that that person exists.
Name someone who has moved from NYC or Chicago because the restaurant scene in either didn't match up to San Francisco. I'll take your word for it that that person exists.
San Francisco is a great city. But there are other great cities too. I for one, love where I live in Toronto. There is a general perception that Toronto is just another American city except it happens to be in Canada. That is flat out inaccurate and my colleague one office over who just emigrated from California and another American colleague who setup shop here after getting his Ph.D. from Harvard will attest to that. At a conference I attended yesterday, a British speaker asked which day "here" was fireworks day and some Americans piped up "July 4th" to which a whole bunch of us miffed Canadians shot back "July 1st!!!! Geez you're not in the U.S.":-) Anyways, Toronto is not just another American city although I have heard it shares a lot of characteristics with San Francisco culturally.
I live right downtown in Toronto, and while I have a car, I like to walk or bike places. I managed to find a great office that is a 5 minute walk from where I live and it is situated about 500 m from two major subway lines, close to the biggest university and one major college, a hop-skip-and-jump from the museum and art gallery, and countless other great places. I walk out my front door and within 200 m is a great café, a patisserie, a pub, health food restaurant (with food that actually tastes good), etc. I know more of my neighbours here than I did when I lived in a Toronto suburb.
I don't think the key is to live in San Francisco. I think the key is to get the hell out of the suburban hell holes that riddle North America like cancerous spots on an otherwise healthy lung, and find cities in which you can live that offer culture, art, helpful business communities (Google "Toronto BIAs"), understanding government, and diversity with respect to people and industries (e.g., don't live in a one-hit wonder industry city). I can understand that the proximity to the Valley is a huge selling point of San Francisco. You have to remember most of the people telling you to move to San Francisco are doing so because they want to invest in you and they can only do that if they can keep a close eye on you. If you're not looking for investment from those people, then live somewhere else.
I mean, there's some cool stuff coming out of Toronto. Check these guys out: http://www.ideeinc.com/.
I live right downtown in Toronto, and while I have a car, I like to walk or bike places. I managed to find a great office that is a 5 minute walk from where I live and it is situated about 500 m from two major subway lines, close to the biggest university and one major college, a hop-skip-and-jump from the museum and art gallery, and countless other great places. I walk out my front door and within 200 m is a great café, a patisserie, a pub, health food restaurant (with food that actually tastes good), etc. I know more of my neighbours here than I did when I lived in a Toronto suburb.
I don't think the key is to live in San Francisco. I think the key is to get the hell out of the suburban hell holes that riddle North America like cancerous spots on an otherwise healthy lung, and find cities in which you can live that offer culture, art, helpful business communities (Google "Toronto BIAs"), understanding government, and diversity with respect to people and industries (e.g., don't live in a one-hit wonder industry city). I can understand that the proximity to the Valley is a huge selling point of San Francisco. You have to remember most of the people telling you to move to San Francisco are doing so because they want to invest in you and they can only do that if they can keep a close eye on you. If you're not looking for investment from those people, then live somewhere else.
I mean, there's some cool stuff coming out of Toronto. Check these guys out: http://www.ideeinc.com/.
Ugh, the one thing I really hate about Canadian cities is the WEATHER! (I live in Canada) It's nice to wear shorts and a t-shirt! I feel better when it's warm most of the time vs. 3 months! I rather live in California for the weather alone.
True. For me the temperature isn't a problem. I dislike the long bouts of sunless days during our winters, particularly in February and March. I just ensure to throw myself into social activities then. Otherwise it's easy to feel down in the dumps around that time.
I love Toronto (especially downtown Toronto), I hate the weather. Each winter finds me more and more grumpy, and less and less productive. Lack of access to a sea or ocean is also a big minus for me.
The thing I loved about my visits to SF is that it reminded me of (downtown) Toronto more strongly than any other city I've visited. Great food, friendly people, very multicultural, a lot more easygoing than someplace like New York. Yes, SF is expensive as hell, but downtown Toronto's not significantly cheaper.
If Toronto didn't have the winters it does, I probably wouldn't consider moving. As it is, if SF is a more expensive version of Toronto but without winter and with a larger tech community, then that's a price I'm willing to pay.
The thing I loved about my visits to SF is that it reminded me of (downtown) Toronto more strongly than any other city I've visited. Great food, friendly people, very multicultural, a lot more easygoing than someplace like New York. Yes, SF is expensive as hell, but downtown Toronto's not significantly cheaper.
If Toronto didn't have the winters it does, I probably wouldn't consider moving. As it is, if SF is a more expensive version of Toronto but without winter and with a larger tech community, then that's a price I'm willing to pay.
> I think the key is to get the hell out of the suburban hell holes that riddle North America like cancerous spots on an otherwise healthy lung, and find cities in which you can live
I don't think suburbs are the end of the world, especially for people with kids.
You also left out college towns, which can be very nice. While the college town I'm living in now (Laramie, WY) doesn't have the sheer diversity of a major cosmopolitan city, it attracts a healthy selection of smart, interesting people. I can also walk to work in 10 minutes, housing is way cheaper than places like Seattle and SF, and there are mountains less than half an hour away. If you don't need the networking resources of a major city, a college town can be a sweet deal.
I don't think suburbs are the end of the world, especially for people with kids.
You also left out college towns, which can be very nice. While the college town I'm living in now (Laramie, WY) doesn't have the sheer diversity of a major cosmopolitan city, it attracts a healthy selection of smart, interesting people. I can also walk to work in 10 minutes, housing is way cheaper than places like Seattle and SF, and there are mountains less than half an hour away. If you don't need the networking resources of a major city, a college town can be a sweet deal.
Bare with me as I really dislike suburbia:-) Suburbs (of which I would exclude most college towns I am aware of -- that's not too many) are hell holes. They are not good for raising children unless you think spending an hour or two per day of quality time while feverishly preparing/ordering dinner and/or getting them ready for bed is quality time. Most suburbanites waste upwards of 3 hours per day commuting to and from work in the cities where all the jobs are. The exhaustion of parents is apparent in just how often suburban families have their meals prepared for them by fast food outlets or restaurants. Those suburban parents are simply so exhausted when they get home that they often give up and order a pizza for dinner. This unhealthy lifestyle bleeds down to their children. I can't remember the last time I saw children actually running around outside and playing in the suburbs. And if they were, they'd probably get yelled at as these days adults don't want other people's children ruining their immaculately kept lawns or blocking their cars on the road while they play sports. Suburbs rarely have community focal points and destinations are only reachable by driving. Not that those destinations are particularly noteworthy as they're big box plazas and faceless corporations whose contribution to local community culture is comprised of sponsoring the local soccer team.
We've had a few decades now to observe that the promises of suburbia simply don't hold up. What's sad is that broken families stressed from both parents having to work jobs to hold down a mortgage for the perfect suburban home, consequently eating into the time they would normally enjoy being a family, and epidemics like obesity which are more rampant in suburbia than in many major cities in North America, have done little to get people to wake up to the reality that suburbs suck. But you know what probably will wake people up? High gas prices and an imploding real estate market will.
This TED talk sums up my thoughts on suburbia quite well: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/121
We've had a few decades now to observe that the promises of suburbia simply don't hold up. What's sad is that broken families stressed from both parents having to work jobs to hold down a mortgage for the perfect suburban home, consequently eating into the time they would normally enjoy being a family, and epidemics like obesity which are more rampant in suburbia than in many major cities in North America, have done little to get people to wake up to the reality that suburbs suck. But you know what probably will wake people up? High gas prices and an imploding real estate market will.
This TED talk sums up my thoughts on suburbia quite well: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/121
I used to agree with a lot of what you say. Then I had kids ;-)
Actually, I still don't disagree entirely, but you did leave out one very important consideration: schools. In many American urban centers the schools are poor, and housing in urban school districts that are good is prohibitively expensive.
So you start looking at suburbs, and the commute is a trade-off you make for the better schools.
Oh, and I wish we could order pizza here -- too far out in the sticks.
Actually, I still don't disagree entirely, but you did leave out one very important consideration: schools. In many American urban centers the schools are poor, and housing in urban school districts that are good is prohibitively expensive.
So you start looking at suburbs, and the commute is a trade-off you make for the better schools.
Oh, and I wish we could order pizza here -- too far out in the sticks.
I'm not planning to have kids in the near future, but sincerely hope that this trend shifts (as more people move out of the suburbs and into cities) when the time comes.
I walked to school as a kid, and could walk/bike to my friends' houses until I was 12. Then we moved to the suburbs, and visiting friends had to be worked into my busy parents' schedule -- hence, life got less social.
I walked to school as a kid, and could walk/bike to my friends' houses until I was 12. Then we moved to the suburbs, and visiting friends had to be worked into my busy parents' schedule -- hence, life got less social.
Live in Pittsburgh, two kids. They go to a Catholic school a couple blocks away that we're happy with.
So, the choice becomes move to the suburbs, home school, or pay up for private schooling of some kind.
Pittsburgh has become a "college town" in some ways. There are several good to very good universities here, and the Oakland neighborhood with Pitt and Carnegie Mellon, has become the economic center of the city in my opinion.
So, the choice becomes move to the suburbs, home school, or pay up for private schooling of some kind.
Pittsburgh has become a "college town" in some ways. There are several good to very good universities here, and the Oakland neighborhood with Pitt and Carnegie Mellon, has become the economic center of the city in my opinion.
If you live in a metropolitan area (not a given -- like I said, college towns are a nice alternative) -- you generally have the option of living inside the city proper, or living in a suburb. If you want your kids to have a yard to play in, you'll probably end up in a suburb. But that still doesn't mean you have to be a typical suburbanite.
Some suburbs are snotty, overpriced McMansion nightmares. Pass. Others are more affordable. And if you find a suburb you can actually afford to live in, you may not have to have both parents working like crazy to make the house payment. One problem solved. Second, you may have the option of taking control of where you work. If you start your own business, you can often find cheap space in the 'burbs. Or you can work out of some kind of "third space," if you don't need an office.
Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely not defending the cookie-cutter keeping-up-with-the-Joneses traditional idea of the suburbs. Just the idea that you can make a suburb work as a decent place to live on your own terms if you want to.
Some suburbs are snotty, overpriced McMansion nightmares. Pass. Others are more affordable. And if you find a suburb you can actually afford to live in, you may not have to have both parents working like crazy to make the house payment. One problem solved. Second, you may have the option of taking control of where you work. If you start your own business, you can often find cheap space in the 'burbs. Or you can work out of some kind of "third space," if you don't need an office.
Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely not defending the cookie-cutter keeping-up-with-the-Joneses traditional idea of the suburbs. Just the idea that you can make a suburb work as a decent place to live on your own terms if you want to.
>>> I'm definitely not defending the cookie-cutter keeping-up-with-the-Joneses traditional idea of the suburbs.
I grew up in the suburbs and never met anyone who met that stereotype. Suburban homes are cheaper than their urban counter part in terms of floorspace and acreage which is important if you are raising children. I've never met a family where both parents worked in order to afford their home and I'm not speaking of very wealthy people either.
What suburbs offer is a quiet, out of the way place, with lots of room, which makes family life much easier.
Then again, I live in Virginia so I might be confused. There's no distinction between city/suburb/rural county around here, and one never really existed.
I grew up in the suburbs and never met anyone who met that stereotype. Suburban homes are cheaper than their urban counter part in terms of floorspace and acreage which is important if you are raising children. I've never met a family where both parents worked in order to afford their home and I'm not speaking of very wealthy people either.
What suburbs offer is a quiet, out of the way place, with lots of room, which makes family life much easier.
Then again, I live in Virginia so I might be confused. There's no distinction between city/suburb/rural county around here, and one never really existed.
> I grew up in the suburbs and never met anyone who met that stereotype.
I've definitely met those people in Texas.
I've definitely met those people in Texas.
> makes family life much easier.
In the suburbs 15 year olds are still tethered to their parents for transportation. It's ridiculous. Realistically kids are tethered even longer than that as a third or fourth car is not an option for many families. How does it make life easier to be stuck chauffeuring teenagers around for years? Move somewhere they can walk and take public transit from around age 10.
In the suburbs 15 year olds are still tethered to their parents for transportation. It's ridiculous. Realistically kids are tethered even longer than that as a third or fourth car is not an option for many families. How does it make life easier to be stuck chauffeuring teenagers around for years? Move somewhere they can walk and take public transit from around age 10.
I just moved from Seattle to NYC after 5 years, and although it's only been a few weeks -- it's been nice to be in a city where there are other dominant industries other than technology.
San Francisco (and to a lesser extent, Seattle) does a great job of attracting the best and brightest technical people from around the world ... but that doesn't make for a very intellectually diverse set of people (both socially and professionally).
Even though I've only been here for a few weeks, I've been very impressed with just how many very smart, accomplished people I've met that are outside the tech industry -- that all comes from the fact that New York being the city to be in for a variety of fields (finance, media, advertising, fashion)
For me, it's a great lifestyle benefit that I wasn't getting in Seattle.
San Francisco (and to a lesser extent, Seattle) does a great job of attracting the best and brightest technical people from around the world ... but that doesn't make for a very intellectually diverse set of people (both socially and professionally).
Even though I've only been here for a few weeks, I've been very impressed with just how many very smart, accomplished people I've met that are outside the tech industry -- that all comes from the fact that New York being the city to be in for a variety of fields (finance, media, advertising, fashion)
For me, it's a great lifestyle benefit that I wasn't getting in Seattle.
It depends on the fields you're interested in. Seattle feels just as diverse as NYC to me, just in different ways.
If you're into finance, advertising, and fashion, NYC is hard to beat. Seattle, OTOH, wins big at mountain climbing (we have mountains nearby), aviation (we have Boeing nearby), and martial arts (we have Japan nearby), for example. It's also a hotspot for medicine, microbrews, and certain kinds of music.
I've been to NYC a few times, and if you're into the things they do well, I'm sure it's heaven. But if you're not, it's just another big city where people talk about boring things like finance and fashion.
If you're into finance, advertising, and fashion, NYC is hard to beat. Seattle, OTOH, wins big at mountain climbing (we have mountains nearby), aviation (we have Boeing nearby), and martial arts (we have Japan nearby), for example. It's also a hotspot for medicine, microbrews, and certain kinds of music.
I've been to NYC a few times, and if you're into the things they do well, I'm sure it's heaven. But if you're not, it's just another big city where people talk about boring things like finance and fashion.
I will definitely miss Seattle's easy access to nature (along with the views and climate, which are amazing) ... but that's also part of the reason NYC isn't a permanent move :)
Have you been to San Francisco? This is a very diverse city, from nationalities to political persuasion, etc. The tech community is definitely in the minority here.
I think it would be amusing to many of us to see you defend the argument about San Francisco's diverse political persuasions. I suppose there probably is a distinction to be drawn between crony machine liberalism and impotent outrage liberalism.
I've been to San Francisco several times, and enjoyed it (I was deciding between SF and NYC for my move). I don't disagree that there's a fair amount of diversity -- however, it just doesn't compare to NYC, totally different ball game (just like SF's tech community is in a different league than Seattle's).
I love the bay area. DHH has a point, but for the wrong reasons. The VC/Web 2.0 echosphere is easy to ignore. The simple reason it is hard to start a business in the Bay Area without investment is because it is so expensive.
This seems a direct contradiction to everything PG advocates ... no funding (not even seed funding). No VC's. No IPO. No buyout. Just doing what you love, without a boss, and getting paid well for it. Claiming a higher probability of happiness than the "funding" route.
And yet, PG is eerily silent... does YC cater to people following the 37sig model? If one decides to stay a private company, how do investors ever make back money?
And yet, PG is eerily silent... does YC cater to people following the 37sig model? If one decides to stay a private company, how do investors ever make back money?
I've just been busy with other stuff today and I haven't read it. But the answer to your question is yes: Wufoo, for example, is very much following the 37 Signals model.
If Wufoo stays private indefinitely, doesn't this clash with YC's business model?
This probably stems from my naivete, but how do investors make money if a company has no intention of going public or being acquired?
This probably stems from my naivete, but how do investors make money if a company has no intention of going public or being acquired?
Investors can make money the same way founders can: Dividends. But yeah, that's a slow, boring way of earning a return in the eyes of some. It's not nearly as spectacular as a 10-100x return from a sale.
The reason venture investors want a return of capital rather than dividends is not so much that it's faster, but that it's harder to spoof. Investors will accept dividends from a large, public company, because they're so highly regulated. But in a small private company it would be too easy for the guys running it to divert (what would have been) profits to their own uses.
This is why medieval venture investors were willing to back sea voyages but not factories. In a sea voyage everyone got liquid at the end of each trip, and it was very clear what was on each ship.
I'm not suggesting of course that 37 Signals would take advantage of investors. I'm just explaining why, structurally, venture investors are not interested in dividends.
This is why medieval venture investors were willing to back sea voyages but not factories. In a sea voyage everyone got liquid at the end of each trip, and it was very clear what was on each ship.
I'm not suggesting of course that 37 Signals would take advantage of investors. I'm just explaining why, structurally, venture investors are not interested in dividends.
Which is a great argument for why we turned down the 30+ venture capitalists who came knocking on our door. We weren't interested in those kind of setups. And I wish more people who think through exactly those implications: Getting a traditional VC involved means aiming for an exit. Whether that be M&A (more likely) or IPO (less likely).
For people who are just interested in building a business, not searching for an exit, the traditional VC is just not a relevant option. 37signals is amongst those people.
For people who are just interested in building a business, not searching for an exit, the traditional VC is just not a relevant option. 37signals is amongst those people.
37 Signals will probably eventually be acquired. Bezos bet on that by investing in them, and he is pretty smart.
Not really, actually. This is in part why we turned down 30 VCs, but were interested in getting involved with Bezos. He's as interested as we are in making this a company that'll be around for 20 years. (And should that turn out not to be the case, Bezos is a minority investor and will have no power to force a sale).
37signals is not for sale now and probably never will be. We like what we're doing too much and are more than comfortable with just the simple financial success of a profitable business making dividends.
Again, doesn't mean that our way is the only way. I'm just trying to do mine to encourage others to see it as a viable alternative to the funding -> sell out route.
37signals is not for sale now and probably never will be. We like what we're doing too much and are more than comfortable with just the simple financial success of a profitable business making dividends.
Again, doesn't mean that our way is the only way. I'm just trying to do mine to encourage others to see it as a viable alternative to the funding -> sell out route.
His first argument seems to do more with the teams themselves than the surrounding area. Temptation is found anywhere, whether it's a big office in the bay area, a huge flat in Chicago, or me supersizing my McDonald's combo #2. If you're not disciplined with your money, you're bound to fail regardless of location. Sounds like he's making a generalization about programmers, too.
As a Silicon Valley resident who has lived in an inexpensive place, I think you have to be more disciplined with your money and time if you live in the Bay Area.
I'm in Buenos Aires.
The cost of living here it's 1/6 compared to San Francisco. And we have a lot of talent, cheap bandwidth and resources (apple Computers, big linux community, etc).
Also, real state its growing fast.
If you are planing to visit BA, msg me! :)
I've been to Argentina and I'm deeply in love with Buenos Aires – but heard that it's getting rather expensive living there fulltime. How is the job situation and such, for foreigners?
Fascinating and funny account of the tech scene in Buenos Aires from an unlikely newsgroup message:
http://osdir.com/ml/culture.people.kragen.journal/2007-09/ms...
http://osdir.com/ml/culture.people.kragen.journal/2007-09/ms...
You can rent an appartment for U$S 300/month in a very accesible and centric place. You don't need a car here. There is plenty of work on IT, but we are talking about startupping here, so yo have everything.
This country does not request visa for work or tourist, so you will not have any problem. Mail me pablocorral at gmail.
I plan to visit BA coming northern winter. I couldn't find your email. My email is (gmail kirubakaran)
Santiago is nice, though for different reasons. Good weather, cheap, still a big city.
You know none of this really matters. Be a rebel. Live everywhere as often as you can.
I've lived in Taipei, Los Angeles, LA suburb, east San Jose, Cupertino, San Diego, Pendleton, Lejeune, and now back in Cupertino with constant visits to San Francisco and I can honestly say... it doesn't really matter where you live.
Learn as much as you can. Make as many friends as you can. And make sure you always have a WiFi connection.
I've lived in Taipei, Los Angeles, LA suburb, east San Jose, Cupertino, San Diego, Pendleton, Lejeune, and now back in Cupertino with constant visits to San Francisco and I can honestly say... it doesn't really matter where you live.
Learn as much as you can. Make as many friends as you can. And make sure you always have a WiFi connection.
I agree. I live in Grass Valley, in the Sierra foothills. Turns out, we've got a solid little tech base here, in a rural area. I never wanted to go the VC route, so the conditions here have made it much easier for me to bootstrap as a consultant, and make lots of professional connections.
In my case, I'll ultimately be more successful starting out here, than I think I would have in the Bay Area.
In my case, I'll ultimately be more successful starting out here, than I think I would have in the Bay Area.
If crazy growth, outside investment, and M&A are your goals, being in the Valley is the place to be. Especially if you are aiming for a consumer app. No question.
If you're going the "DHH path" (profitable lifestyle business, limited outside investment), it probably doesn't matter much.
If you're going the "DHH path" (profitable lifestyle business, limited outside investment), it probably doesn't matter much.
This is really personally my remaining annoyance with News.YC. Too often, people either agree with a submission, or they disagree with a submission. There are too few posts per day that critically think about what is being discussed.
In this case, I don't remember seeing one post about following a combination of strategies at once (if there were a couple of posts, that doesn't make the situation any less sad.) Making a smart product, having a strategy to grow, and offering a free viral version as well as a paid version that pays your bills is the way to go! In fact, having an abundance of free customers will increase the chance you NEED investment, not just the fact that VC's will be more interested. They're more interested because they know you will need money!
If you have a paid version that pays your operating costs, and gives value, you can keep working on your startup indefinitely. It's also another way to get VC's interested. But except in this case, you logically won't be a little bitch. Instead of having to fake confidence while your cash flow has brought you down to nothing (more likely below nothing), and the only reason you're getting a good valuation is because there are many, many VCs around, and they like that you went to Stanford or something, you will instead be in a situation where you proved people will pay for your product and you don't really need to time selling your company or getting investment in the right cycle of the economy. So which option is better? Whichever one is better at the time! That's what DHH has been saying. If he actually needed investors for a venture, I'm sure he would surely take the money he needs. But he doesn't, so he doesn't. There's no wrong way.
But he's wrong because Silicon Valley gives you that option to pursue VC's in case you need to, and the quality of life seems to be among the best places in the world. And it's sure better than living in the middle of nowhere. And it's great that you can meet cool people and ask them feedback about your apps without receiving questions like "why are you doing a startup" (because working for most companies is a rip off), "wow you must be rich" (people think it's rich people who do startups), and "can you fix my computer" (no explanation needed.)
I like YCombinator's approach, where one can launch and see what happens for a few months before figuring out the best steps -- more angel funding, VC funding, multiple VC funding, selling, quitting, changing an idea, or even having a paid version.
In this case, I don't remember seeing one post about following a combination of strategies at once (if there were a couple of posts, that doesn't make the situation any less sad.) Making a smart product, having a strategy to grow, and offering a free viral version as well as a paid version that pays your bills is the way to go! In fact, having an abundance of free customers will increase the chance you NEED investment, not just the fact that VC's will be more interested. They're more interested because they know you will need money!
If you have a paid version that pays your operating costs, and gives value, you can keep working on your startup indefinitely. It's also another way to get VC's interested. But except in this case, you logically won't be a little bitch. Instead of having to fake confidence while your cash flow has brought you down to nothing (more likely below nothing), and the only reason you're getting a good valuation is because there are many, many VCs around, and they like that you went to Stanford or something, you will instead be in a situation where you proved people will pay for your product and you don't really need to time selling your company or getting investment in the right cycle of the economy. So which option is better? Whichever one is better at the time! That's what DHH has been saying. If he actually needed investors for a venture, I'm sure he would surely take the money he needs. But he doesn't, so he doesn't. There's no wrong way.
But he's wrong because Silicon Valley gives you that option to pursue VC's in case you need to, and the quality of life seems to be among the best places in the world. And it's sure better than living in the middle of nowhere. And it's great that you can meet cool people and ask them feedback about your apps without receiving questions like "why are you doing a startup" (because working for most companies is a rip off), "wow you must be rich" (people think it's rich people who do startups), and "can you fix my computer" (no explanation needed.)
I like YCombinator's approach, where one can launch and see what happens for a few months before figuring out the best steps -- more angel funding, VC funding, multiple VC funding, selling, quitting, changing an idea, or even having a paid version.
Because why? You didn't make an argument, you just recited the premise of DHH's argument.
I wasn't trying to make an argument.
However, if I was, I'd say:
Draw a 50 mile radius circle around Stanford. Get a list of all consumer startup acquisitions in the last 2 years. Put a pin in the map for each acquisition. (This is straight from the mouth of Ron Conway, so apologies to him).
Rinse/repeat for VC investment (which is nearly required for any consumer startup)-- it turns out that VCs tend to invest in Valley companies (because that's generally who they can meet face to face).
However, if I was, I'd say:
Draw a 50 mile radius circle around Stanford. Get a list of all consumer startup acquisitions in the last 2 years. Put a pin in the map for each acquisition. (This is straight from the mouth of Ron Conway, so apologies to him).
Rinse/repeat for VC investment (which is nearly required for any consumer startup)-- it turns out that VCs tend to invest in Valley companies (because that's generally who they can meet face to face).
Wow. For that argument to make sense, all you have to do is get bought by Google.
If your target path is VC and then acquisition, I'd say proximity to Google is a pretty good idea, wouldn't you? Throw in Yahoo, Ebay, and the many other big players who like to buy companies as a bonus.
The point is-- It's way easier to get funded in the Valley (I'm raising money in the Valley and Seattle right now, so I'm speaking from a bit of experience).
And the data seems to show that it's easier to sell your company if you're in the Valley (which is the only realistic path to liquidity for founders/investors). Even if the data didn't confirm it, it makes SENSE, doesn't it?
The point is-- It's way easier to get funded in the Valley (I'm raising money in the Valley and Seattle right now, so I'm speaking from a bit of experience).
And the data seems to show that it's easier to sell your company if you're in the Valley (which is the only realistic path to liquidity for founders/investors). Even if the data didn't confirm it, it makes SENSE, doesn't it?
I don't know. The last big VC-funded company I was with was in Ann Arbor, MI. When the valley influenced the rest of the VC-backed or acquired companies I worked with, it did so by moving the established company out to California. I've never worked for a company whose opportunities came simply from being located in California.
Meanwhile, the elephant in the room here is that you aren't going to be acquired by Google, in the same sense as you are not going to win the lottery. There's a get-rich-quick mentality behind web startups that is totally not borne out by the numbers, and it cuts both ways: unrealistic hubris that infects judgement (for instance, by moving teams out of comfortable environments to San Francisco), and devastating emo temper tantrums at minor setbacks, like not being accepted into YC.
Meanwhile, the elephant in the room here is that you aren't going to be acquired by Google, in the same sense as you are not going to win the lottery. There's a get-rich-quick mentality behind web startups that is totally not borne out by the numbers, and it cuts both ways: unrealistic hubris that infects judgement (for instance, by moving teams out of comfortable environments to San Francisco), and devastating emo temper tantrums at minor setbacks, like not being accepted into YC.
I loved DHH's speech at startup school, but having lived in Chicago and now living in SF, I have to disagree with him on this one.
His point seems twofold: 1) The availability of funding in the Bay Area tempts people to take it whether they need it or not, and 2) The competition for top talent is stronger here than anywhere else.
The first point, on funding, is news to me. Yes, the availability of VC here is correlated with more Bay Area startups being funded. It doesn't mean that your startup will automatically be funded just because you're located here - the competition for funding is as strong as the competition for talent.
I meet people doing self-funded startups all the time. The differentiator is whether you want to be the next Facebook vs. traditional profit model. Yes, the funded web-2.0-ish startups get most of the press here, it doesn't mean that no one is doing it another way.
Yes, the competition for talent here is fierce. Right now I'm looking for a CSS expert, no programming required, and even that is nearly impossible to find. However, I know I will find someone sooner or later because I'm located in SF. I shudder to think how hard this would be if I were in St. Louis or something, or even a less tech-centric city like Chicago. A few weeks ago I needed an expert Flex hacker to help with something I'm building, so I just called up my friends until I found one. Try doing that in the midwest. Also, I'm at the kind of small, traditional-profit-type company that DHH so admires.
Hackers move here because SF is the best place on earth to be a hacker, and that fact mitigates in your favor when looking for talent.
His point seems twofold: 1) The availability of funding in the Bay Area tempts people to take it whether they need it or not, and 2) The competition for top talent is stronger here than anywhere else.
The first point, on funding, is news to me. Yes, the availability of VC here is correlated with more Bay Area startups being funded. It doesn't mean that your startup will automatically be funded just because you're located here - the competition for funding is as strong as the competition for talent.
I meet people doing self-funded startups all the time. The differentiator is whether you want to be the next Facebook vs. traditional profit model. Yes, the funded web-2.0-ish startups get most of the press here, it doesn't mean that no one is doing it another way.
Yes, the competition for talent here is fierce. Right now I'm looking for a CSS expert, no programming required, and even that is nearly impossible to find. However, I know I will find someone sooner or later because I'm located in SF. I shudder to think how hard this would be if I were in St. Louis or something, or even a less tech-centric city like Chicago. A few weeks ago I needed an expert Flex hacker to help with something I'm building, so I just called up my friends until I found one. Try doing that in the midwest. Also, I'm at the kind of small, traditional-profit-type company that DHH so admires.
Hackers move here because SF is the best place on earth to be a hacker, and that fact mitigates in your favor when looking for talent.
This issue is so much less important than other matters - and heavily context dependent. But I find the ability for two reasonable and diametrically opposing opinions interesting.
I just moved to SF from Boston. I think more people understand startups in the Valley, making hiring with equity displacing cash more of an option.
I also think my startup's success will heavily depend on distribution and business development deals. That makes moving to a concentrated area more important.
I just moved to SF from Boston. I think more people understand startups in the Valley, making hiring with equity displacing cash more of an option.
I also think my startup's success will heavily depend on distribution and business development deals. That makes moving to a concentrated area more important.
I wonder if DHH means SF proper, or if he's actually talking about the entire Bay Area.
The Peninsula (Palo Alto, San Mateo) and the South Bay (Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale) are home to the popular web sites used around the world.
The issues you would deal with living in SF differ pretty dramatically from the ones you'd deal with living anywhere else in the Bay Area. (Except the expense, which is bad everywhere.)
The Peninsula (Palo Alto, San Mateo) and the South Bay (Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale) are home to the popular web sites used around the world.
The issues you would deal with living in SF differ pretty dramatically from the ones you'd deal with living anywhere else in the Bay Area. (Except the expense, which is bad everywhere.)
I'm surprised that noone's really talking about money here. The Bay Area has one of the highest costs of living of any city in the country. That means its going to take that much more of your time to work, to make money, and to live. If you're spending your time working to live, that means you're not using that time to work on your projects.
Right now I'm taking a culture hit. Living in Worcester, MA certainly doesn't put me at the center of startup culture, but Boston and Providence are close enough. I can take the bus/train and find myself surrounded by technically oriented people. A low cost of living in this town is what allows me to work less and affords me the free time to work on my projects. To me, this time to work is alot more valuable.
(Oh, there is culture in Worcester. You just have to dig. :)
Right now I'm taking a culture hit. Living in Worcester, MA certainly doesn't put me at the center of startup culture, but Boston and Providence are close enough. I can take the bus/train and find myself surrounded by technically oriented people. A low cost of living in this town is what allows me to work less and affords me the free time to work on my projects. To me, this time to work is alot more valuable.
(Oh, there is culture in Worcester. You just have to dig. :)
Not to mention that California is probably the most fiscally screwed up and one of the most tax heavy states in the country.
You forget to mention that I make about twice as much here in SF as I did in Boston.
And my lifestyle and quality of life improved dramatically...
I have an uncle in Worcester, and I visit it once and a while, and I think it is really boring.
I have an uncle in Worcester, and I visit it once and a while, and I think it is really boring.
The smart businesses know you don't want to be in San Francisco - there are too many distractions. You want to be somewhere lame, like San Carlos, so that people don't have anything to do besides work.
edit: I guess I should have added the ";)" JUST KIDDING!
edit: I guess I should have added the ";)" JUST KIDDING!
Bluh. Dunno about you, but I get badly demotivated if all I'm doing is working.
Just because there are some crap companies being started, and some crap investments being made, doesn't mean everything coming out of the bay area is as DHH describes. I'm working at a company thats doing quite well, and will continue to do quite well. Being close to the bay area was essential, so essential that the founders both relocate from their homes for most of the year to be here.
After reading this rant and listening to his talk in startup school, is DHH drinking too much of his own kool-aid?
[I live in SF bay area and work in VC funded startups]
I mean life is not just 37 signals? At some point in time, he has to come out and do another startup. Is he setting himself a trap of doing a very narrow set of startups?
[I live in SF bay area and work in VC funded startups]
I mean life is not just 37 signals? At some point in time, he has to come out and do another startup. Is he setting himself a trap of doing a very narrow set of startups?
Why do I have to go out and do another startup? I don't work at a startup, I work at a company.
I think this mentality is a big part of what's wrong with the startup culture in the Bay area. This notion that it's inevitable that you have to work for a long string of companies, better not get too attached to any one of them.
Jason and I intend to make 37signals a company that'll last for 20 years. Maybe we won't succeed, lots of businesses fail, but that's at least our goal.
It's a sad state of affair where such a simple goal is looked upon with suspicion and disbelief.
I think this mentality is a big part of what's wrong with the startup culture in the Bay area. This notion that it's inevitable that you have to work for a long string of companies, better not get too attached to any one of them.
Jason and I intend to make 37signals a company that'll last for 20 years. Maybe we won't succeed, lots of businesses fail, but that's at least our goal.
It's a sad state of affair where such a simple goal is looked upon with suspicion and disbelief.
Much of the "go big with other people's money" culture is by design.
People are naturally risk-averse -- moreso than pools of capital would prefer. Capital wants to maximize expected return, and will smooth out the variance by diversification, rather than trading away raw expected return for stability.
People are naturally risk-averse -- moreso than pools of capital would prefer. Capital wants to maximize expected return, and will smooth out the variance by diversification, rather than trading away raw expected return for stability.
No one's mentioned competition?
Along the lines of start small, regional and expand. It's easy to differentiate yourself as a regional online application. Anywhere else.
Along the lines of start small, regional and expand. It's easy to differentiate yourself as a regional online application. Anywhere else.
There should be another point under TALENT.
Set up shop near a college with a strong tech program.
Set up shop near a college with a strong tech program.
And there should be a sub-bullet for "HARD TO COME BY IN THE BAY AREA". Yes, there's clearly more of it in the Bay in gross terms. That doesn't mean you're getting access to any of it: new startups in San Francisco are totally, completely outgunned.
I'm glad you enjoy those wonderful Chicago winters, DHH.
Winter in Chicago isn't that bad. Do you think "wow, this is great weather" every day during the winter? No. But the spring, summer, and fall is very enjoyable.
The problem with Chicago is that there are no other hackers around (all the tech people work for banks, and end up being as interesting as you'd imagine), and there are no 24-hour coffee shops, at least not near me.
Chicago is a good place to be if you want to be alone. I guess it's "a big city" but it sure doesn't feel like it at times.
The problem with Chicago is that there are no other hackers around (all the tech people work for banks, and end up being as interesting as you'd imagine), and there are no 24-hour coffee shops, at least not near me.
Chicago is a good place to be if you want to be alone. I guess it's "a big city" but it sure doesn't feel like it at times.
Not at all true! The difference between the Chicago hacker scene and the San Francisco hacker scene is, you have to go out of your way to find the Chicago hacker scene, and you can't avoid the San Francisco hacker scene.
I've worked for two startups here, both successful, and know of plenty more. And of course, "Feedburner Feedburner Feedburner 37Signals".
Should there be a monthly meetup for people like us in Chicago? Absolutely. I set one up for security people (http://www.sockpuppet.org/chisec) and it's been pretty successful --- at least, if its spinoff (http://www.citysec.org) is to be believed. If 40 people will show up each month to swap drinks for infosec stories, surely more would show up to talk about Social Networking for Pets.
I've worked for two startups here, both successful, and know of plenty more. And of course, "Feedburner Feedburner Feedburner 37Signals".
Should there be a monthly meetup for people like us in Chicago? Absolutely. I set one up for security people (http://www.sockpuppet.org/chisec) and it's been pretty successful --- at least, if its spinoff (http://www.citysec.org) is to be believed. If 40 people will show up each month to swap drinks for infosec stories, surely more would show up to talk about Social Networking for Pets.
"Winter in Chicago isn't that bad."
In the words of 37signals -- and Dr. Phil -- get real. Winter is hell in Chicago, summer is a pressure cooker, and fall and spring are tolerable for a few days.
"Isn't that bad" is relative. Weather in the Bay Area is amazingly good. One of three mediterranean climates in the world. There is no comparison.
In the words of 37signals -- and Dr. Phil -- get real. Winter is hell in Chicago, summer is a pressure cooker, and fall and spring are tolerable for a few days.
"Isn't that bad" is relative. Weather in the Bay Area is amazingly good. One of three mediterranean climates in the world. There is no comparison.
> In the words of 37signals -- and Dr. Phil -- get real. Winter is hell in Chicago, summer is a pressure cooker, and fall and spring are tolerable for a few days.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. It's just the weather; if that's the defining feature of your life, try to do something more interesting :)
You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. It's just the weather; if that's the defining feature of your life, try to do something more interesting :)
Chicago winters make you appreciate the summers, just as the smaller Chicago Web-dev scene makes you appreciate the startup folks here, just as the lack of web-2.0-echo-chamber-ness makes you pay more attention to Normal People who don't know what Twitter is. Balance is good!
Flamebait. From a guy who's barely ever been here. From a guy who grew up in an ugly place with lousy weather (Denmark) and moved to a place that's remarkably similar to that.
DHH generalizes wildly in this rant -- usually an indication of anger and jealousy rather than reason.
DHH generalizes wildly in this rant -- usually an indication of anger and jealousy rather than reason.
What is he angry and jealous of? I'm pretty sure he can afford to move there if he wants to.
I'm just guessing, but I'd say he's intimidated. Usually people who are frequently accused of arrogance are overcompensating. He doesn't like the Bay Area because so much happens here, and he's not a part of it.
Afford? DHH is not rich.
Afford? DHH is not rich.
I actually really like the Bay area as pleasant place to be. My argument is that you shouldn't move there to start a company of the product/price/profit variety.
And this doesn't really have anything to do with cost. 37signals is a multi-million dollar company and we (including the founders) could certainly afford to move to San Francisco.
And this doesn't really have anything to do with cost. 37signals is a multi-million dollar company and we (including the founders) could certainly afford to move to San Francisco.
[deleted]
The fact of the matter is, there are tons of individuals across the country that make thousands of dollars a month creating websites themselves. They don't seek funding, they either hire a designer/programmer or do it themselves. They don't have a beta, they launch whatever they they are making. They don't have one obscure idea that they think they need to go out and pay $5,000 to form an official company for, but instead have a couple of useful websites that generate money. If they start to make a lot of money, then they'll open a LLC for tax benefits.
On top of that, I'd bet a majority of them have no computer science degree or the knowledge that the hackers here do, which means anyone here can make as much as them since they won't need to pay for programmers.