[pteredactyl]

The mutual exclusivity is naive at best.

To me, it shows haters' level of intellect. And perhaps explains why they feel left out. They're attached to an ideal of what 'art' (additionally, activism[1]) should be. An outdated, 20th century one.

I personally don't like Google. And I understand your framing is hypothetical.

But why is tech framed the opposite of art?

Why is tech equal to techbro?

Yea there are always bad apples. But I wonder what Da Vinci would think about holding art in the opposite category as tech?

I'd argue they're more synonymous than opposite. To me, there's creativity. Both art and tech are creative. Applied creativity pertains to both code or a paint canvas.

Either way, the best, most valuable work to society is often never been done before.

Can anyone name an art piece (or if I'm being generous, an art movement) in the last 15 years that's made the level of impact as Google? Or cryptocurrency?

Ultimately, to me, the 'artists' need to up their game. Big time.

[1] Protest city hall if you feel gentrified. Especially in SF where it's largely illegal to build housing. Also, regarding gentrification, you don't hear the positive stories of immigrant families whose businesses flourish because of increased capital in an area, or those who feel safer, or even those who cashed out and sold their 50k house for 1.2 million. Again you hear a largely misdirected, dated and one-sided argument.

[eigenvector]

The mutual exclusivity is valid. Being able to do stuff that requires a lot of time and doesn't make a lot of money (i.e. art) requires a low cost of living. Adding a bunch of people making $200k+ into a neighbourhood does the opposite of that, very rapidly and very predictably.

[jkaplowitz]

Most people working for tech startups (as opposed to for Google itself) don't make anywhere near that salary, especially not outside the major US tech hubs. This campus would have been a startup incubator, not a regular Google office.

That said, yes it would have still contributed to gentrification in a less extreme way than a true Google office.

[ehnto]

A low cost of living is also a benefit to bootstrapped software/web companies (small blogs, niche publishers, other online content creators).

But gentrification still happens without big dollar companies showing up. It's often a side effect of the success of the arts in the area. As the wealthy kids move in to be hip and cool, and the businesses that enjoy their money move in afterward, rents go up and creators are pushed out.

[xapata]

If you want to be a professional artist, you need people to buy your art -- patrons. In cities without a large number of wealthy people (passing through, if not resident), there aren't many art galleries.

Artists often live in different districts or even different cities than their gallerists, but they tend to appreciate their patrons.

[amanaplanacanal]

This may not be relevant, but the great majority of artists will never be professional. Most do their art because they love it, and if they can make some money from it, that is just frosting.

[xapata]

Not relevant, I think, because we're talking about professional artists. Anyone can be a hobbyist, including the gentrifiers.

[rumcajz]

As being from an artistic community and a programmer at the same time, I can empathize with both sides.

However, it should be pointed out that there are really two different programmer cultures. There the corporate one, and then there's, for lack of the better word, "open source" one. The latter is very close to artistic culture but very different from corporate culture. The people are working on what they love, they don't have much money, often they are in precarious situations. I've seen them sharing working space with artists, I've been at parties that mixed hackers and artists without any friction. I've seen self-help institutions meant to help the artists going out of their way to host some kind of strange hacking event.

[mercer]

One of the things I like (and sometimes hate) about HN is that it has a decent number of people from both those camps.

[sonnyblarney]

Berlin is big, and Germany is much bigger, and there are tons of places for artists. Even in Berlin.

[VonGallifrey]

The issue is that Google wanted to go to the very specific and small space in Berlin where tons of artists are. Berlin is "big" (although not as big as you might think), so why would Google need to be in Kreuzberg when it can be ANYWHERE else.

[mercer]

The main issue is that all the programmers want to live in Kreuzberg too...

[derEitel]

I'm doing a PhD in Berlin, living in Kreuzberg and I can tell you far from all of the programmers that I know want to live here!

What makes Kreuzberg attractive for startups and a Google campus is that it's central and perfectly connected infrastructurewise. Most other regions like Schöneberg, parts of Friedrichshain, Prenzlauer Berg and maybe Moabit, are all harder to reach from some other regions, even though more start-up employees live there. You can see on the maps of rental e-scooters like Coup how during the day there is a lot of activity towards Kreuzberg whereas after work the district is basically empty of their scooters. Imho kreuzberg is too dirty for most startupers. I guess they don't want to see the heroin junkies of Kotti when they do their grocery shopping.

In general I liked the sentiment of the activists against placing a Campus in Kreuzberg. Nevertheless I didn't like much of their public attitude ("bullets for google") and some arguments seemed superficial ("other Google campuses have increased rents" idk about the causality and factor here). I wouldve liked a Google campus in Schöneberg for example, just as I liked the Google campus in Madrid. In Madrid it offered a nice environment for work, some interesting talks and I didn't feel like it was in an artsy district that suddenly gentrified and turned hip. This could've added something to Berlin, but meddling with the activist scene in Kreuzberg was a poor choice.

[hn_throwaway_99]

I think your comment is extremely patronizing and arrogant ("To me, it shows haters' level of intellect.") and a "let them eat cake" attitude that to me shows a clear lack of understanding of why people have become so anti-tech over the past 2 decades.

[avip]

I think we should stop using these empty terms in discussion. They contribute nothing, it’s just ad hominem.

[blablabla123]

Yup, on both sides of the argument. But in any way, there is some deeper truth here, the whole discussion went ad hominem already years ago.

Also it sucks for "the good guys" - literally - that tech has a bad reputation in that sense and on the other hand this is improving only so slowly.

On the other hand it's of course naive to say that artists are good people per se, that is just not true. This is almost biblical, considering that artists are always poor and thus good. We all need to progress, not only people in tech.

[kadendogthing]

They're not empty terms. They're appropriate qualifiers. And they're not even close to being ad hominem. Don't invoke logical fallacies if you don't understand their usage.

[mrzool]

> The mutual exclusivity is naive at best.

Your comment shows utter ignorance about what's happening — or already happened — in virtually every major city in every developed country.

[wbl]

How are Tokyo housing prices? Vienna's cost of living is kept down by large amounts of social housing, etc. Gentrification is a side effect of not building housing.

[hnzix]

> Gentrification is a side effect of not building housing.

The pattern I've seen (excluding SF) is that an arty area becomes trendy because of its culture, then a bunch of real estate developers kick out all the artists to build high-density housing while bringing in residential zoning laws (no live music etc).

The artists flee somewhere cheaper, build up the culture, rinse and repeat, until you end up with somewhere like Sydney Australia that's had all its culture surgically removed.

[wbl]

Imagine if we permitted apartments in Forrest Hills.

[askmike]

That's cherry picking, it's happening in virtually every major city in every developed country.

> Gentrification is a side effect of not building housing.

It's a much more complex than simply lack of housing. It's commonly described to neighborhoods, not cities.

[globe1337]

you sound like that rick and morty copypasta. embarrassing.

[kadendogthing]

Just so you know, your entire comments reacts of bitterness and ignorance. You think their view point on art is stuck in the 20th century, but that's only because you clearly don't understand the type of community you're dealing with. In fact your view point seems extremely myopic and appears to be constrained around your own motivations and hobbies.

>But why is tech framed the opposite of art?

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the issue. It's not tech vs. art. It's a "here's these people that make a lot of money and end up just being really big consumers" vs people that are the "creatives." The type that give a neighborhood flare.

Consider a programmer who perhaps love the "art" of programming and spends the majority of their time coding/tinkering without compensation (a rare prospect these days, admittedly), versus someone who works at a corporate job, does what they need to do, and goes home. Neither is better than the other, but they will end up creating radically different communities.

>Why is tech equal to techbro?

Because it's just the type of people it attracts these days. Name one neighborhood where a group of IT people came into that neighborhood and made it a creative space. Without fail, it just becomes a giant consumer hub with absurd rent prices. Artists tend to congregate in areas with other artists and areas that have cheap rent. Tech tends to drive up rent, and it certainly isn't an industry that attracts artists not centered around digital design.

>Or cryptocurrency?

The technology that did absolutely nothing, soaked up huge amount of raw resources, so techbros could play a game about who's going to be left holding the bag?

This is exactly why I used the term myopic. You might find it interesting and cool, and that's great! But it hasn't done anything for anyone else outside the tech sphere. In fact it's actually pretty easy to argue it's been a net-negative across the board.

[pteredactyl]

I'm bitter and ignorant?

I've lived in these communities of 'creatives'. For years. I know its a lot of drugs, idealism and not a lot of action.

Except for complaining about how wronged they've been by the system. Is that your 'another world is possible'? So maybe I am bitter...

Don't get me wrong, the system is fucked up in many ways. And I agree with your distinction of a grey blandness that permeates the tech culture.

I'm more interested in how all the enlightened 'creatives' can engage with this boring grey techbro community. Because frankly, they're the ones paying for most of their free shit.

[kadendogthing]

I said the statement reeks of bitterness and ignorance. It wasn't a wholesale description of you as a person. It's not black and white.

>Except for complaining about how wronged they've been by the system.

You're still operating off of stereotypes instead of actually talking about the people that live in these communities and the work they do.

>I'm more interested in how all the enlightened 'creatives' can engage with this boring grey techbro community.

I think the techbro community needs to be the one doing the engaging.

[Kalium]

You're right! The tech community absolutely needs to put forth the effort to engage with people who are unlike them. People who live different lives, have different bodies, and make different choices.

I hate to be the one to say it, but in some cases I can see why some people might be reluctant to engage. I know that for my own part, I am generally disinclined to engage in genuine, kind, compassionate, and empathetic ways with people who treat me with what can feel like open hostility. It's almost always less emotional labor to tell them "Have a nice day" and walk away, putting them out of my mind. My making this choice does nothing at all to further any kind of constructive engagement, and certainly nothing to improve their lives or alleviate their pain and suffering, but it does make my life easier that day.

Again, you're completely right. Techrbos need to engage! It's just that at times it can be challenging to convince people of this basic truth when they find unfriendly receptions.

[kadendogthing]

> in some cases I can see why some people might be reluctant to engage.

Within the tech community, it's really just ego and myopic view points and experiences.

>convince people of this basic truth when they find unfriendly receptions.

As a matter of practicality, it's easier to deflate the obstacle.

[Kalium]

> Within the tech community, it's really just ego and myopic view points and experiences.

I definitely understand that. Tech people are too self-centerd and shortsighted to look or care about others! If they tried, they'd surely find it a highly rewarding experience. It's patently obvious that none of these asshole techbros has ever actually tried at all, right?

After all, if they had stepped outside their narrow worldviews and bubbles of greed and privilege then it would be obvious. They would think differently. Act differently. Believe differently. Value other things than they currently do. It's not possible that someone could be exposed to the glory of art, creativity, and expression without being moved to value it!

They'd stop acting as locusts, devouring all they come across because it looks tasty and destroying everything in their paths. They'd start acting in considered, conscious, intentional ways. They'd value community.

> As a matter of practicality, it's easier to deflate the obstacle.

I confess, I'm really not sure what you mean by "deflate the obstacle". Or what this means beyond a metaphor I think I don't understand. Could you please help me here? I would very much like to be able to engage substantively with whatever it is you are trying to say.

[malvosenior]

A lot of developers who work at places like Google also:

* Develop software on the side for free (art)

* Work on open source software during working hours sponsored by their host company

* Can afford to have families (I notice "vibrant" communities didn't include those with children in them)

> Or cryptocurrency?

Like it or not, Bitcoin is very artistic. Innovative, novel, spurs conversation and strong reactions...

I think it's you who's actually stuck in the 20th century mentality. Cultivating urban hipster hotspots full of "artists" is pure 20th century bohemian chic.