The other advantage the valley has is newly rich people are willing to live there based on its climate. New York survives in large part because of the ecosystem of arts and entertainment focused on rich people who live there. Random City USA is unlikely to have both, but they can be better.
tldr; valley is super cool b/c it's run by engineers (and they're so awesome, amirite?). new york is cool too but the people there are just kinda eh.
-
For people who engineer but are not engineers, there is New York City. Life is bigger than technology and the culture that surrounds it. NYC is home to me b/c it offers a vast array of opportunities.
NYC has substantially higher taxes than most of its suburbs. It also has a much higher draw due to its dense population supporting fancy bars, arts, and other world class amenities. The network effects of living close to other interesting, cosmopolitan, or just niche social group people are also valuable.
Lucky might be subjective. Standard of living in the suburbs of American might be deemed superior to living in an efficiency apartment in Hong Kong, but that's much less an option for people who live in areas that developed later on, as these areas leaned into true urban levels of density since it's infrastructurally far cheaper per capita. Given the choice, many would prefer to not live in New York levels of density.
Weather, accessibility of diverse food options (this exists in new york too, but you'd need to go to queens), housing that is cheaper on a price per square foot basis (units are still expensive, but they tend to be larger), larger geography (beaches, mountains, national parks). The list goes on.
new york beats silicon valley for one simple reason: If you're a programmer who just graduated college, would you rather live in suburban California and work at a sterile "office park" or would you rather live/work in Manhattan?
FYI, for all the jaded readers/commenters (everyone?) I think this is just a an op-ed piece in the vein of "Why X Is Better Than Y" That Lucky Peach has been doing.
FYI, for all the jaded readers/commenters (everyone?) I think this is just a an op-ed piece in the vein of "Why X Is Better Than Y" That Lucky Peach has been doing.
And, hate to say it, but Talent likes to live where it is desirable, fun, and interesting to live. Because Talent can afford it, and Talent wants a life full of desirable characteristics. The Bay Area isn't expensive because of magic. It's expensive because people want to live there, and people want to live there because it really is a great place to live, all things considered. You can play the value game all you want and try to make the argument that upstate New York is somehow unfairly treated by an economic imbalance, but the truth is, people want to live there less than they want to live in NYC or SF or nearly anywhere else.
New York would want to compete, and it's big enough to do so. And I don't blame them for escaping the "city/state/geographical category is the next Silicon Valley" drivel that's been written previously because otherwise you just end up being eclipsed by Silicon Valley in endless comparisons between them.
I used to live on the UES of Manhattan and now live in flyover country on a half-acre wooded lot in a house that is 6x larger than my studio apartment and yet costs less -- the extra space is quite useful for kids and a work-from-home office. There are pros and cons to both arrangements and I certainly miss some things that NYC had to offer, but articles like this exaggerate the advantages of city living. Other comments have pointed out some of them, so I'll point out just one item -- the geographic proximity of rich and poor in cities is way overblown. There may have been poor people living within a couple hundred yards of luxury apartments in NYC, but that doesn't mean there was any interaction between them. NYC is very stratified by socioeconomic status and living geographically close to people in other socioeconomic classes does not change that at all.
NY has a few things going for it most notably it is seen by many as a "capital of the world".
- People want to live here. Not everyone of course, but if you're young, like a diversity of entertainment options and people, good food, culture, etc (yes - there are downsides). Very few people in the world say "I'd love to live in Boston, Seattle, Portland, etc for a bit to see what it's like". NY has that effect on people.
- Major companies and industries which are being disrupted or enhanced by technology are HQ'd there. Advertising, financial services to name two. If you roll in CT and NJ, you have insurance, pharma, etc.
- Lots of people so if you're doing something on the consumer side, many guinea pigs.
- Lots of money and influential folks here. The whole 1% thing.
- More and more VCs are setting up shop here as well. I think they see a good ecosystem here, and I think many of them don't mind having an excuse to visit NY for business.
New York is one of the most expensive place to live and work. This is not just the cost of housing, but also food, travel, and hiring.
NYC is more cut-throat than SF - you know the old song "If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere." This is a problem with so many people working so hard that it is almost an uncaring attitude for your fellow man.
However, NYC is where the money is and a good surrogate to Silicon Valley. New York is a very active city, and has the best mix of culture, food, and experience that you will find anywhere in the world. There is good infrastructure to live outside the city (but you will pay in time for commuting). If you do decide on NYC, I will gladly help - look me up on my profile
NY is an incredibly easy city to adjust to because it is so transient. Rent will be expensive, and food is expensive, but it's a wonderful place to live. As someone who moved from California, it's one of the greatest places to end up.
New York is boring because a bunch of boring, wealthy suburbanites moved in. These people can not tell the difference between patina and dirt. They need their surroundings to conform to their sensibilities, mainly, new and clean and full of people willing to pay $10 for a burrito. It's full of artists, but it's more like rich people who decided to be artists. They can't really create anything relevant or interesting or revolutionary.
New York used to be a place you would move to Make It. Now it's a place for those who have already Made It (or their parents did) to live.
If you are from a wealthy suburb, if your daddy is helping you pay rent (or maybe your college education), then NYC is the place for you. If you are a dreamer or an artist, or anyone else with ambition without pedigree, then Detroit, Baltimore, literally any other city will be more accepting of you.
NYC is different because you can live an urban lifestyle without living in Manhattan at significantly lower cost. You can do this by living in Brookyln or Queens or even Jersey. When the urban thing gets old, there are plenty of detached single family neighborhoods in the city, early 20th century inner suburbs, or you can flee to the suburbs.
I've only been to California a couple of times to visit, but it seemed to me that everything is "newer" than your typical east coast city, and there's an immediate transition from urban environment to 1960+ suburbia.
reply