I think one major argument that he didn't mention is that NYC beats SF hands down in the 'getting laid' department.<p>If you are young and your idea of having a good time is going out, partying until 4am, and getting laid often, then you should stay in NYC.<p>If you a super hipster, social outcast and/or into weird stuff, then come to SF. Your friends are already here.
Not every time, but much of the time, I try to talk about what I do with a New Yorker (most East Coasters, actually), they start by bringing a lot of stop energy[0]. They'll say something like "Why are you doing that when there's already X?"[1], "That'll never work because of Y"[2], "Why did you quit your job at Z?", "Why don't you go work at ABC Investments, Hedge Funds, and Worldwide Arbitrage, Inc?"[3], etc.<p>It's frustrating and tiring to have to run through a huge body of what should be background knowledge just to have a conversation with someone about what I'm doing.<p>In the Bay Area, I generally don't have to deal with:<p>- Huge amounts of stop energy.<p>- Myopic views about which industries/products/companies/places[4] matter.<p>- Support of entrenched monopolies or ideas.<p>- Excessive amounts of negativism.<p>For example, when the iPhone came out, people in Silicon Valley were really excited. Meanwhile, talking to people in New York, it was almost a non-event; all I heard from them was why it would never matter because the Blackberry was so freaking awesome.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.userland.com/whatIsStopEnergy" rel="nofollow">http://www.userland.com/whatIsStopEnergy</a><p>[1] Why are you going to work for Apple? Nobody uses Macs and Microsoft is a much bigger tech company.<p>[2] Nobody here uses iPhones, you'd better get yourself a Blackberry!<p>[3] The future is bundling mortgage securities!<p>[4] If you can't find it in Manhattan, it can't be found! Best city in the world!
<p><pre><code> San Francisco is fun, don’t get me wrong. Compared to New York,
it’s boring. I have trouble even thinking about living in an
apartment in Mountain View, Cupertino or Palo Alto. Those places
are socially dead.
</code></pre>
Mountain View, Cupertino or Palo Alto are not San Francisco. It is like saying...<p><pre><code> New York City is fun, don’t get me wrong. Compared to San Francisco,
it’s boring. I have trouble even thinking about living in an apartment
in Staten ISland, East Rockaway or Westchester. Those places
are socially dead.</code></pre>
I agree with the (title of the) post very much, but one major point I would like to make is: Mountain View != San Francisco! I find it very misleading when people talk about San Francisco (usually in a negative light) and what they are really talking about are the suburbs of SF. Please stop doing that. That would be like saying NYC is boring because you are actually talking about Yonkers.
Well said. The point that Wall Street != New York is particularly important here, w.r.t Antonio's post. I've only been here a year, but I know New York is <i>big</i>, and it is <i>not</i> homogeneous. I don't think Antonio ever realized that.<p>Also, kudos to blip.tv. I had a chance to meet a few of the blip kids a few months ago and you guys were really cool.
I like this rebuttal, a lot. I will say, having lived in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Kentucky (not in that order) has made me realize this: culture counts for a lot, the internet is prolific, and calling any large American city a "technological backwater" is a farce.<p>A lot of people = a diversity of ideas = culture = innovation. New York has <i>a lot</i> of people and <i>a lot</i> of culture, quite a bit of innovation has come out of that city; California (as a whole, not just the Valley, I live in SD right now) has <i>a lot</i> of people and <i>a lot</i> of culture. The same can be said for Atlanta, Dallas, etc...<p>I will note this difference, though: much of California's culture embraces the leading edge more than it's east coast counterparts - computers and the internet <i>is</i> the leading edge; the internet is an agent of social reform and change, technology (computers) is the vessel through which widespread social reticulation is delivered. Therefore, I do not think New York is a technological backwater; but I do think the people in California/Portland/Seattle can be more progressive and this is why the west coast is carrying the torch.<p>Small disclaimer: I've been to New York but I haven't lived there, my conclusion is derived much more from intuition than actual experience.
> Given the lifestyle in the City, products are much closer to the pavement and are a solution to a real-world problem from Day 1. Not some social network plaything.<p>Humorous considering it's hosted by Tumblr, a social plaything based out of NYC. Foursquare is another that comes into mind as a questionably "real-world problem" solver social network plaything that came out of NYC.
Another common gripe about California that I'll echo here: there's no weather! It may sound masochistic but I miss the seasons, the snow, wearing a scarf, sheltering inside with a cold nose and hands with something warm. The passing of the seasons gives life a constant pulse and direction. The eternal summers of CA get to be disorienting after a while.
Nothing like an inflammatory rebuttal to an inflammatory essay.<p>"The social component of a real city with museums, clubs, venues, pubs, bars and barcades is important."<p>SF has all of these. Obviously less by virtue of being in a metro area a third the size of NYC, but you aren't going to get bored.<p>"Am I paying for a car? No."<p>Many San Franciscans don't drive. That being said, having a car always has its benefits - and a car in NYC (at least in Manhattan) is even tougher than in SF.<p>"In short, New York City is more interesting and—I believe—better suited for the startup and a young guy’s lifestyle"<p>Well, we all have different lifestyles. I enjoy yearlong mountain biking that's only minutes away. I enjoy awesome snowboarding only 3 hours away. I enjoy climbing 14,000 foot mountains. I enjoy not sweating in humid, hot summers and freezing in snowy, cold winters.<p>I've spent about a month of my life in NYC (over various trips) and would hands down take SF over it.
This rebuttal is hilarious.<p>Kelly's TL:DR summary at the end should have been:<p>• NYC is more fun! And interesting! I'm 23.
• I work at a big company, but startups have happened here at least once.
• What do I know? I'm only 23.<p>The original article was articulate if a bit bombastic. The most salient points, which Kelly failed to address, were in my mind:<p>• The Bay Area has a culture and history of tech innovation
• The Bay Area has thousands of VCs and venture money
• The Bay Area has top engineering schools
• The Bay Area has tons (metric!) more startups, entrepreneurs, hackers, coders, etc.<p>The most telling sentence in Kelly's post is: "The social component of a real city with museums, clubs, venues, pubs, bars and barcades is important."<p>A "real city"! Wow. By Kelly's estimation there must be at most only 2 or 3 real cities on the entire planet.
<i>Every once in awhile, you see a Google emerge from the Valley. But for every Google emerging from the Valley, there are ten thousand equally ambitious startups that fail. Some of them fail catastrophically... Given the lifestyle in the City, products are much closer to the pavement and are a solution to a real-world problem from Day 1. Not some social network plaything.</i><p>This is the main reason NY will never usurp Silicon Valley. Tech-wise NY's culture is too conventional.<p>"Why build Z when X is good enough?"<p>"This idea is stupid."<p>"What's the point? It doesn't make any money."
Title really should be "Choosing New York over Silicon Valley" - the city of San Francisco is night and day different from bedroom communities like Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc.
If you are trying to do a life style start up, New York is probably a good place. (i don't have anything against life style business). Most of the examples you gave,including the startup you work for are life style business. So sure they would be more practical and making money from day 1. But you're trying to do anything more ambitious, silicon vally is still the place to go.
"Given the lifestyle in the City, products are much closer to the pavement and are a solution to a real-world problem from Day 1."<p>This makes no sense. How does NYC's "lifestyle" create products that are any closer to "the pavement" than SF's does? Maybe Kelly should illustrate his point by choosing some NYC companies and comparing their products with SF products, or the products of startups from anywhere else for that matter?
What about vendors for Wall Street? Anyone know where I could find vendors to Wall Street that are still essentially tech companies? I figure that market is huge in New York and might be a good alternative to the tradition IT in an IB job.
Having lived both places SF feels like the place where new ideas meet with the least resistance. In New York I'm more inclined to want to go out and ogle girls in summer dresses, but NY is a very inspiring place to live, no doubt.
+1 from a guy that did 2 startups in NYC over 3 years as well. My sentiments exactly.<p>They are different environments with pros and cons, but I preferred the social scene in NYC to SF by far.
>along with Seattle, Los Angeles, Düsseldorf and Berlin
So how is Düsseldorf, Berlin compared to NYC and SF?
Would you have moved to Berlin if blib.tv was there?
If you want an affordable, quality place full of capable, motivated people, not to mention the headquarters of the Kauffman Foundation... Kansas City is the place.
<i>Compared to New York, it’s boring. I have trouble even thinking about living in an apartment in Mountain View, Cupertino or Palo Alto. Those places are socially dead.</i><p>This post suffers from the presumption that everyone wants the same thing from a city. So SF (really, the Bay Area) was not for you. It's for a lot of us.<p>Not all of us want to suffer awful winters and unbearable summers. Some of us love natural beauty -- and not just the girls. And many of us like a different kind of social scene than NYC offers.<p>Sure, NYC is exciting. I've been there, and not as a tourist. But it's not for me. (Then again, I'm not 20.) SF (proper, not the Bay Area in general) is the birthplace of cafe society. Mountain biking was born on Mt. Tam. This is a unique, beautiful place, and a lot of people can't figure it out -- and so they move. That's fine: we're already the largest state in the union. We don't need any more people, thank you.