I have mixed feelings about articles like these. On the one hand, I can see how a more broadly integrated community yields benefits for everyone. On the other, you can't help but feel that the author has a very recriminatory tone. One wonders if he didn't have it out for the Downtown Project from the beginning.
The use of self-deprecation and the "I'm no better than the people I'm criticizing" apologism seems to justify the use of a broad range of ad-hominem attacks. There is a lot of condemning the current approach of the Downtown Project, but I'm not sure how it should be better run. The people that the author suggests be consulted are by his own admission, "human scum." Should Hsieh and co, build more affordances for poorer people? Should they also build charitable social housing? Is merely being transparent enough?
I assume that Hshieh aims to build, essentially, a community that he himself would be happy living in. If such a community is antithetical to the needs of the current tenants of that area (which seems almost tautologically true, sugarcoating by all parties involved notwithstanding), how should this conflict be resolved? I think the core of the author's complaint is that Hsieh and his compatriots are able to do what they like because of their wealth. I submit that this is at least no worse than our other standard approaches to solving conflicts at this scale - complaining or cajoling.
I didn't have it out for the DTP from the beginning, honestly. I was excited as anybody to see something new. But as I say in my piece, I'm disillusioned by the inability to work with the existing community -- not just the super-poor people in Downtown, but even the local cultural scene, whose input has largely been ignored.
My anger comes from this: I don't believe that any community built upon going in and tearing out an old one is a good community. I believe the key is integration, not disintegration. Don't tear out the only local mini-grocery and replace it with an expensive gourmet market. Consider everyone in the community, not just the VCs and startup kids you're trying to attract. Especially if you're ambitiously tearing down much of what was there long before you arbitrarily decided to move into the area and start playing Sim City.
Thanks for responding, I appreciate the sincerity.
I think most communities that have undergone significant change have done so with some asymmetry in power. If Hsieh deigns to consult with the locals, it will necessarily take the form of charity. How is he to run these negotiations? The local mini-grocery wants to stay, and Hsieh wants it to go. The decision is binary and rests entirely on him. Asking Hsieh to consider everyone's needs is difficult, especially given that he has all the bargaining power. I was surprised your article did not more concretely enumerate the community's concerns. I would hazard a guess that they are not nearly as organized.
As for dis/integrating as a viable strategy for improving neighborhoods - I think a lot of us here in SF would be mighty happy with a major, ground-up overhaul to a lot of the city structure. You can't cross a chasm in two leaps, etc.
This is basically the same conversation that circulates around any neighborhood improvement project; it doesn't really have much to do with Tony Hsieh or tech except in the particulars.
Where is the line between improvement and gentrification? How can you maintain the unique flavor of a neighborhood if that rents, prices, and property taxes go up by multiples? How can you maintain "affordable housing" and clean up urban blight at the same time? Etc.
True enough, but just because it comes up often doesn't make it a solved problem. In fact, I think it comes up so often because it's so damn hard to get right. To the extent that the author is advocating for better communication and transparency, I think that's probably a good step in the right direction.
Of course there's a whole OTHER discussion here: private vs public city planning. Is it really a good thing for a single investor to drive so much of the development? Where is the local government? It seems that a city council of some kind should be able to weigh in on behalf of the larger "community"
Yeah, that's part of the problem. There's zero accountability. And in Vegas, local government is only concerned with economic improvement -- everything else takes a backseat.
We're talking about a city where the former mayor (whose wife is now the current mayor) made it illegal to give food to homeless people. Swear to God.
Really? That's.. pretty bad. Sounds like China during the Olympics.
My first reaction was "vote the bastards out," but then: casinos. Maybe you can get a tech company to help crowdfund a new mayor who will constrain tech investment? Wait...
Wow, every "bad" thing being ascribed to Tony Hsieh here seems awesome. Turning the utter wasteland that was LV Downtown into something amazing is worth some inconvenience to renters in the neighborhood.
I wish he'd do the same thing in the Tenderloin, Bayview/HP, or EPA.
Hahaha, hey Ryan, I don't know if you remember me or not. But we also worked for MedWeb at the same time a while back!
I think you're completely wrong, though. It's not convenience, it's survival. But I also know you and I are on total opposite ends of the economic belief system, too. :-)
You're right -- I'm fine with destroying marginal communities or cultures as long as the individuals are somehow taken care of. I think it's individuals who have rights, not cultures or communities. My experiences with Downtown and North Vegas were...not pleasant, although I've pretty much avoided the area entirely for ~8 years, so maybe it has improved, and DTV seems likely to be a continuing part of that.
For many people, culture and community are a major part of their identity and well-being. Destroy that and you've destroyed a part of them. What does "taking care of" individuals mean when you posit that their entire community should be destroyed, just because you had some unpleasant experiences in their neighborhood?
Also, there aren't many people bothering to somehow take care of the individuals, which says a lot about the self-declared DTV majority culture.
This article shares emotions and themes that come with criticism of most big redevelopment efforts. That standard operation is to kick all the poor people out. I'm not saying it's right, but it is common. The emotions expressed in this article are not unique.
That being said, on to my real comment. When I read Delivering Happiness, I honestly could not feel that I would ever want to work at Zappos. It seemed that you would have to spend 100% of your life with fellow Zappos co-workers, or else you would just not fit in. It really did feel like I was reading the operations manual for a politically correct cult. Obviously that's fine for Zappos. They don't want people like me. They want people with whom they can party outside of work, seemingly all the time. But I wonder how many people in the world are really like that.
As a resident of one of this continent's many bombed-out post-industrial hellholes, if you don't want Hsieh, we'll take him.
I'd rather the local gals be selling $12 lattes than $12 handjobs, thanks very much. And as for the bums and druggies being displaced, maybe with money flooding into the community the government and local community groups will actually be in a position to help them rather than preserving their habitat like some kind of exotic wildlife. "We must protect the population of the mid-town doorway-pissers!"
I wish someone would buy up the old Gemco building at the intersection of Boulder Highway and Sahara and do something useful with it. The last time I someone made a run at it the owners were apparently "waiting for a big hotel" to come around and buy them out for millions. What a waste.
[born and raised in vegas; now a software developer in the bay area] watching downtown transform into what it currently is has been both inspiring and discouraging. thank you for your thoughts on this issue; i hope open discussion ensues
I'm old enough that I saw the original screenings of "The Jungle Book" and "The Shakiest Gun in the West" at the Huntridge. I was born in Vegas, my father was born in Vegas, his father moved here to work on the dam during the depression.
After helping Danny Greenspun start several local tech things in the early 80s, I made a break for Texas.
So, no, I'm not "local", even though as I type this I am in Vegas, helping my father deal with a bunch of crooked Mormons in Southern Utah.
Vegas could do worse than Hsieh, and people here should be happy that anyone is interested in rebuilding the unnatural act that is Las Vegas.
As a background: I'm a Las Vegas native who lived there for 18 years but moved to California to go to school and find a job as an electrical engineer. My parents both moved to Las Vegas when they were young, ended up going to school at UNLV, and they are still working and living in Las Vegas to this day.
---
The reason states like California attract the worlds best and brightest engineers is because of its institutions of higher learning. Would Silicon Valley exist as it does today without the Stanfords and the Berkleys, I don't think so. Much of the rest of California benefits in the same way:
* San Jose - 5.8% employed are engineers (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_41940.htm#17-0000)
* San Diego - 3.0% employed are engineers (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_41740.htm#17-0000)
* Los Angeles - 1.9% employed are engineers (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_31100.htm#17-0000)
* Reno, NV - 1.3% employed are engineers (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_39900.htm#17-0000)
* Las Vegas, NV - 0.9% employed are engineers (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_39900.htm#17-0000)
At UNLV, less than 5% of all students are engineering majors (https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-university-search...). Compared to the major California schools (and the University of Nevada: Reno) that is a pitifully small amount of students and it mirrors pretty closely the percentage of the population as a whole:
For Las Vegas to compete as a technological powerhouse we need to work on retaining local talent from the high schools because as someone who has seen many friends (including myself) leave Las Vegas for a better education (and a better overall experience), I think this is one thing that cannot and should not be ignored.
Projects like the Downtown Project will only help retain smart young people in Las Vegas, it then becomes a process that keeps building on itself.
Awesome read. This guy seems like he'd be fun to have a beer with.
That said: he reveals his hand at the end. His startup ideas have been rejected, he's been told he has no chance of being funded in the future and is generally disliked by the Vegas Tech community. So this is his butthurt revenge (whether he realizes it or not).
That doesn't mean anything he said is untrue, but it means it's a certainty there is another side to this story that would paint a much different picture of the nature of the interactions between "Vegas Tech" and the downtown "locals".
Having lived in Vegas for awhile, one key element he didn't mention which could by itself explain why they keep to themselves, is safety. There have probably been naive startup kids who have been mugged, conned, attacked, hustled and worse. The easiest defense to this is to stick together and not get involved with outsiders.
Honestly? I've never sought money from the DTP, nor do I plan to. I have lots of other contacts for VC if I seek it. :-)
My point was that I don't need them, which is why I'm okay with saying this stuff where others in the community aren't.
But you're right: there are other sides to the story. If it interests you, seek them out!
[Edit: actually, I spoke informally to some of them very briefly, very early on in the timeline of all of this, about investing in my startup. I'd forgotten that. But it never went anywhere and after a bit I realized it would have been a bad fit anyway.]
My bad didn't realize you (the author) submitted this.
You specifically said they talk bad about you "when they think you aren't listening" and that you've been told you won't get funded. I made the leap that you had requested said funding and been rejected so perhaps that part was incorrect.
I do look forward to hearing the other side but I'll repeat: I'm not saying a word of what you said is inaccurate. Just that its important to consider the source is somebody who feels slighted by the Tech Vegas clique.
I don't relate much to this article but "I'd like to suggest that you find a nice, quiet sofa in the Beat upon which to curl up on and go fuck yourself" is a pretty funny insult when you think aboutt it...
tl;dr: Waaaah, the people with the money are making the rules and instead of doing it better myself I'll just write some clever insults from my corner.
This is no different than dropping a Walmart in the middle of a small town and crushing all the family businesses. It's not utopian but it is how nature works. Those with the biggest teeth control the ecosystem. The only difference is the modern world has decided to use a point system to measure power. Don't like it? Strap on your entrepreneur hat and do it how you think it should be done.
Oh, and teaching the "locals" who in the "ghetto" how to write HTML is not going to change anything.
You appear to be one of those tedious people who think entrepreneurship is the solution to everything. I doubt it's worth my time, but I'll point out that that's fine for people who have not only the economic but social capital to become entrepreneurs. Not everybody has Mommy and Daddy to pay their bills while they dream up some retarded app, nor are many people even taught that that's something that they themselves can actually do.
Hence teaching HTML classes in the ghetto, to try and help people without those resources that entrepreneurship is even possible for them.
But since that won't change anything, I suppose that only middle and upper class folks should have the ability to change the world.
Also, something to consider: if power is the only way the world works, whether we like it or not, what is human civilization for? I mean, I'm fairly sure I could kick all your fucking teeth down your throat if I wanted to...is that okay, because I have the power to do it?
Or do we not behave in such a fashion, because we understand that might makes right is a philosophy only fit for hunter-gatherers and jerk-off geek libertarian fantasists?
> Not everybody has Mommy and Daddy to pay their bills while they dream up some retarded app
> I suppose that only middle and upper class folks should have the ability to change the world
> I'm fairly sure I could kick all your fucking teeth down your throat
> jerk-off geek libertarian fantasists
I sympathize with your underlying positions (at least I might—it's hard to tell when reading something this unpleasant), but can you please not use such aggressive and sarcastic language on HN? It violates both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines and, experience has shown, is one of the worst ways to degrade the quality of the site.
I know how nannyesque that sounds, and I even enjoy fine flaming wit, but not here. It's the social contract of this place and it needs respecting.
"Oh, and teaching the "locals" who in the "ghetto" how to write HTML is not going to change anything."
This argument is dumb. They are not going door to door asking people if they want to learn HTML. Code School, Code Academy, Khan Academy do not expect the local community to learn to code. Those who are interested will go seek them out. It's more like - if you build it, they will come.
The people in the "ghetto" are kind of trouble in the short term. But they are in trouble everywhere. If these mogul(s) can pull it off, they can help create a more viable jobs pool. There needs to be more influx of money into the ecosystem, improvement in quality of education, and a shift away from the casino business.
Basically, Las Vegas needs to be more family-friendly if it expects to be like a tech hub like San Francisco.
Agreed, and we're actually going off of the Codecademy/Khan Academy course tracks for what we're teaching.
But I don't think the moguls are creating more jobs here. They're importing people from elsewhere -- I'd say literally 75% of better of the Vegas Tech crowd hasn't been in town for more than six months. And they've shown zero interest in improving local education, either within the school system or independently. Unless you count Ruby meetup groups as education, which I don't. ;-)
I recently saw a PBS documentary on the birth of Silicon Valley. At one time, it was place that had nothing except cheap land and lots of farms. Las Vegas is kind of like this.
The key is to attract smart people. The problem with Las Vegas (or Nevada) is that the amount of engineers per capita is very low (about half of that in California).
Also, business does have an impact on higher education. If you look at Stanford or Cal, they have a strong program in computer engineering. UCLA, USC both are strong in medical sciences. UCSD strong in biopharma. It could be a chicken and egg thing - at some point businesses will demand skilled technical people from the universities and will adapt their programs accordingly.
Meetups allow me to learn from my peers. I would call that an educational tool. I suppose it depends what kind of meetups you go to...I like the powerpoint kind.
> And they've shown zero interest in improving local education, either within the school system or independently.
Surely that'll change over time? If there's an influx of well-paid young people now, within 10 years you'll have a pulse of well-off freshly-minted parents working its way through the system, some of whom are going to be incensed enough to fix the problems they see. In theory that sort of improvement shouldn't have to be centrally directed.
He was the one calling it the place a ghetto. As you mentioned, bringing in more economic wealth will surely be better for the skilled and non-skilled alike. My argument is saying too much tech is the problem and then saying but I'm going to teach html is backwards.
The use of self-deprecation and the "I'm no better than the people I'm criticizing" apologism seems to justify the use of a broad range of ad-hominem attacks. There is a lot of condemning the current approach of the Downtown Project, but I'm not sure how it should be better run. The people that the author suggests be consulted are by his own admission, "human scum." Should Hsieh and co, build more affordances for poorer people? Should they also build charitable social housing? Is merely being transparent enough?
I assume that Hshieh aims to build, essentially, a community that he himself would be happy living in. If such a community is antithetical to the needs of the current tenants of that area (which seems almost tautologically true, sugarcoating by all parties involved notwithstanding), how should this conflict be resolved? I think the core of the author's complaint is that Hsieh and his compatriots are able to do what they like because of their wealth. I submit that this is at least no worse than our other standard approaches to solving conflicts at this scale - complaining or cajoling.