Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I didn't want the tech workers flowing into Seattle with Amazon's decision to invade by building their HQ right in the heart. There was a lot of music culture there, at Cap Hill, in the basements of Seattle families that had lived there a long time. It really felt, if you were there, like an invasion: nobody coming in had any context of what was already there, they just took and took and all they could offer was software expertise and money. The city lapped it up.

Sometimes it isn't about just building to accomodating: it's about hey we don't know who you are, you just heard our city was the place to be but you didn't care about the music or the art just came in clueless.

We're not good stewards of the places we move to. We move in and pillage. Our lives are code and Zoom stand-ups, which fine whatever but what are you bringing in outside your code and Nanoleaf wall lights that give you just enough design to be tech-hip. We're raiders, trading our money for jacked up bulletproof lattes and a scene that doesn't belong to us, nodding along to punk music that's not for us, not about us except as the enemy.

Honestly, the best thing Microsoft did was have their own little stronghold out in Redmond. Amazon upended that careful respect-at-a-distance by landing their dumb super-HQ like an atomic bomb in downtown Seattle.




When a company creates a new HQ, it's displacement. When a company leaves a town (especially a small one) it leaves people jobless and they are evil for it. On the surface it seems some people think cities should stay entirely static forever, frozen at the particular time when they remembered they enjoyed it most.

The people moving in will have their own experiences. Places change. If you don't like your place, work to make it better or find one you like more. Maybe not everyone in your city is into the arts and "scene" as much as you are, and the changes are a net benefit to them.


> On the surface it seems some people think cities should stay entirely static forever, frozen at the particular time when they remembered they enjoyed it most.

I didn't say this.

> The people moving in will have their own experiences. Places change. If you don't like your place, work to make it better or find one you like more. Maybe not everyone in your city is into the arts and "scene" as much as you are, and the changes are a net benefit to them.

The tech people moving in make no effort to learn what the city is about or to integrate. That's really what I'm taking a stand on. They use money in lieu of real effort. That's pillaging.

The root of the problem is big corporations aren't held responsible for the seismic shockwaves they produce entering a city. They make cities fragile because now you've replaced a diverse set of businesses with a monocropping of tech workers and overpriced goods and services to sate them.

I'm talking about good stewardship.


> It really felt, if you were there, like an invasion: nobody coming in had any context of what was already there, they just took and took and all they could offer was software expertise and money. The city lapped it up.

Story as old as time. There were people 30 years ago who wanted to keep out the people you're celebrating as the old-timers. If the older-old timers had their way your preferred old-timers would never have been allowed to move there. And there were even older-than-the-older-old timers who wanted to keep out the older-old-timers. And on and on and on.

Cities change. It's natural. You'll like some changes and hate others, but that's what comes with freedom of movement and, well, freedom more generally. At one time Midtown Manhattan was a forest. Then it was farmland. Then a semi-rural village. Eventually, rich New Yorkers started building Mansions up 5th Avenue. But they did this in the old days before powerful people could block change and even they couldn't stop the walk-ups that replaced their estates. Then those walk-ups were mostly lost to taller buildings. And then even taller ones. And now here come the super-tall skinnies that every New Yorker loves to hate.

At every step there were constituencies opposed to the changes, people who thought the newcomers didn't properly understand the true spirit of Midtown Manhattan. And maybe they were right. But on it goes.

As much as you might not like the changes, the alternatives are far worse. Internal migration controls? Way worse. Refusing to build any new housing to spite the newcomers? Just ends up hurting everyone.

You want to live in Seattle and so do lots of other people. And in a free country their claim on the city is equal to yours. They are full citizens the day they move in. They don't have to pass any kind of Authentic Seattleite test. Because what it means to be an Authentic Seattleite will change, too. That's just life in a free society.


The displacement is real, Ballard used to be mostly Boeing employees, but your not going to be buying there with Boeing's pay and stability problems today.

Visiting Georgetown is a glimpse into the Seattle of 20 years ago IMO. It has it's charm.

Amazon is definitely a turn and burn, threadbare employer that doesn't understand how to value talent and internal resources they develop. Low and mid-level employees are like chewing gum to them, lasting a year or two before Amazon spits them out.

Many of their workers embrace this mentality, making decisions based around their ephemeral stay in Seattle that normal Seattleites find off-putting.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: