Depends how it goes. Facebook is testing the proposition: Do people love tech companies so much they will live inside of them?
People are increasingly afraid of tech companies, not in love with them. We’re all pretty dependent on them, but that also breeds fear and loathing. It doesn’t help that so many companies are full of the same, weird, Stepford Wife tone of “We love you, we want what’s best for you, and that just so happens to align with our own perverse incentives. We’re changing the world.”
I get the sense that the older guard of the media is also taking this opportunity to stoke fear and resentment of their newer competitors. They’ve been good at that kind of thing for a couple of hundred years longer than tech as a concept existed. I’m concerned that things like encryption and secure messaging, self-driving tech and more will be cynically attacked too.
I think we need to be careful not to extrapolate trends in the news and HN to a country that is increasingly suspicious of "news media", or a world that we are even more detached from.
Facebook has 2.2 billion monthly active users[1]. That's billion, with a B. HN has 3.5 million (with an M) unique visitors per month[2]. Everyone on Hacker News AND the 10 people closest to them could all drop off Facebook and it would only be about 1.5% of Facebook's traffic. Are you sure that the trends you're mentioning are happening outside your social circle? I'm not.
I'm sceptical of the monthly active users number as it also includes Facebook Messenger users that might not ever use the website or app itself.
From my social circle outside the tech world, Facebook is increasingly being frowned upon - and in the teens age bracket , Facebook is what old people (parents and so on) use. Obviously anecdata, but the general feeling is that people use it less and less. There might be a perfect storm coming for Facebook - or it's just a temporary fart, soon to be forgotten.
"I deleted my FB account; I'm only going to post on Instagram now."
FB is like the Goldman of the Social Media (and increasingly, via Messenger and WhatsApp, Communications) world. They have their tentacles everywhere.
Also at the teen-level, Onavo, FB's VPN service, is yuuugely popular in high schools across America.
And imagine if VR actually takes off and becomes a compelling new communications medium.
FB has a lot of inertia at this point, I don't think they're going anywhere.
(Lastly, even with all this hub-bub in the news, I'm sure the govt loves FB and doesn't want it going anywhere; it's a huge competitive advantage for the US intelligence community).
I'm skeptical of your determination of Facebook's outlook based on your social circle, which is limited in size, geographical location, wealth, social status, and a bunch of factors.
Saying 2 billion people use Facebook means around 2/3 of everyone on the internet uses Facebook. When you look around your social circle and see useage closer to 2% it's reasonable to suspect their numbers are fake.
Sure, I know plenty of people that used Facebook several years ago, but it's become a ghost town. My friends, family, and coworkers might be unusual, but not that unusual.
Google can get by with very low click rates. It can be profitable at 1 click per 10,000 views. I may only click an add every few months and mostly by accident, but that's enough. Further, a small percentage of people can easily be clicking more often where Facebook viewership is binary users can only count as one viewer.
How many of those daily active users are bots, spammers, cloned accounts, webscrapers, or people logging on for two seconds because they sent or received one message, or want to do one thing? Do they count people using them to login to other sites as active daily users? How many are generating content or participating in a way that drives the platform?
How much of the daily traffic from a small percentage of people drives a large portion of the rest of the platform? How much of that 1.5% can Facebook afford to lose before it creates a trend they can’t escape?
> How many of those daily active users are bots, spammers, cloned accounts, webscrapers, or people logging on for two seconds because they sent or received one message, or want to do one thing?
How many have to be for 2.2 billion to not still be a pretty damn big number?
> How many are generating content or participating in a way that drives the platform?
Facebook has no shortage of content.
> How much of the daily traffic from a small percentage of people drives a large portion of the rest of the platform? How much of that 1.5% can Facebook afford to lose before it creates a trend they can’t escape?
All of them, as long as the losses are made up in other areas.
A teacher I had in High School explained a particular portion of history to us about like this: "I can rule via Love or via Fear. People can fall out of Love; People don't fall out of Fear." So this monarch dictated government via Fear, and it worked until he died [which is the point much of the time].
Now, the monarchs may not die. "Facebook Forever" as reality? A 'Black Mirror' episode isn't a far stretch, and to be fair so is the opposite -- both of which we can see in reality today.
Being skeptical of tech companies is great. Behaving appropriately is also great. Going "all or nothing" can be debated. I'm interested in hearing about something in the middle, should such exist.
Not wholly on topic, but for some added depth to that "love or fear" dynamic, I suggest reading Montesquieu's "The Spirit of the Laws." He analyzes different forms of government (democracy, aristocracy, monarchy, and despotism) and their animating principles. For democracy, it's virtue. For monarchy, it's honor. For despotism, it's fear. It's a much more thought-provoking look at how authority works in governance.
Montesquieu also described separation of powers in the same book [1]
Companies come and go. If I have grandchildren, chances are high that they won’t have a clue what Facebook or Twitter or Amazon was, besides the senile stories from grandpa about what computers were like during the Stone Age.
You can also rule by utility and dependence. People don't just love FAANG, they need FAANG because they provide indispensable tools which yield vast utility.
You can also use addiction as a strategy to create dependence, but this is a strategy: users will inevitably realize there's more harm than good being done. It also means you're at risk of become a fad. I actually think Facebook's pivot from user engagement maximizer to social fabric platform reflects some internal awareness of the vulnerabilities of an addiction-focused business strategy over the long term.
Besides Google’s search I can’t think of any FAANG service/product that would be indispensable for the average Joe, being the only service that has no real competition. For all the others, people would replace them relatively easy. Could you provide some examples?
People need Microsoft Windows to operate their businesses and do their jobs, Apple phones and Netflix subscriptions are much easier to replace.
I want to agree with you, but realistically I think a lot of people have come to view Amazon at least, as pretty indispensable. Between their retail offerings, and AWS, they’re into a lot!
Maybe I’m biased because I’m living in a country where Amazon has little to no presence and there are just other retailers to fill the gap, other delivery companies etc. so life goes on. I never heard anyone cry for Amazon to come to our rescue.
- Amazon: Supply chain, low prices, long-tail product discovery, stellar shopping experience supported by an tremendous economies of scale, compute, internet infrastructure
- Google: Search, email, maps, productivity software, compute, internet infrastructure
For as long as these companies remain dominant in these categories continue to provide value to customers, they will not be replaced. They continue to grow exponentially in major part because of the very real value they provide and the lack of viable competition from outside of these groups.
I neglected this vector whilst recalling my previous comment, and I acknowledge addiction as a viability towards ruling over others. Putting ethics, morals, and similar aside for sake of power -- addiction I feel is a "better" method of ruling than fear, given that fear is "better" than love. Why go after all the trouble of scaring people about "the enemy from the East/West/Whatever" back and forth forever when you can just jack them up happy on Jizzum 3.4? You don't, so develop Jizzuj3.4 as you scare people from East and West.
> People are increasingly afraid of tech companies
No, a small part of the IT community, whose overly represented on HN, is increasingly afraid of tech companies.
Around me I can tell you nobody cares about my worries. They think it can't possibly lead to anything dangerous. And that's in the rare case they though about the issue at all.
>self-driving tech and more will be cynically attacked too.
Not cynical at all. We have to push back or we risk the hellworld scenario: the well-to-do safe and secure inside self-driving cars that don't brake for pedestrians. [1]
Pedestrians likely made homeless by NIMBY protectionism preventing the construction of shelters and restrictive zoning that limits housing supply to astronomically expensive single-family homes.
They're mad that FB changed the timeline algorithm. Now they're showing less shared links to 3rd party sites and more personal updates, such as new photos and status updates.
What I mean is most of the FB big decision makers and core employees are from predominantly left wing cities. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Z runs for gov position as a democrat.
Sher.l Sand..g COO FB wikileaks email "And I still want HRC to win badly. I am still here to help as I can. She came over and was magical with my kids."
This "mostly left wing company" enabled Trump becoming president. Without FB this wouldn't have happened. I don't know what's left wing about FB, although for us Europeans left wing in the US is mostly right of the right wing in western Europe so that could explain it a bit.
Facebook is planning to build (something like) a city. Reporting as much isn’t negative for Facebook, which is why they publically presented these plans.
The article does mention some criticism. But all of it seems entirely reasonable and expected when you know the history of “company towns”.
Planned utopian communities have a track record of devolving into anything but their original goals. This feels like a cross between the movie "The Circle" and the Toyota company city in Japan.
Depends on the scale. Lots of cities and towns have areas planned by developers. They work well enough, though they don't have as much character as more organically grown neighborhoods.
I'd be great for retention of they could make the leases conditional on continued employment at Facebook. /s
> Google will build 5,000 homes on its property under an agreement brokered with Mountain View in December. Call it Alphabet City as a nod to Alphabet, Google’s corporate parent. The company said it was still figuring out its future as a landlord, and declined further comment.
There's no question that the Alphabet/Google company town should be called Alphaville.
Developers build cities. Developers maximize profit. In the USA, the gov't defines where incentives are. That is why we have urban sprawl everywhere (including the bay area).
I always thought this project, S. Lake Union (Amazon), Toronto Waterfront (Google), Diridon Station San Jose (Google) was these large companies' response to no private developer or gov't entity building a city they thought was needed... in other words it's just a normal city built by a large company. It's not too different than one of these crappy master planned communities where I live like http://stonegatereno.com/ or http://damonteranch.com/ .
Getting laid-off if you were a FB employee and a resident would become super-unpleasant. "Got laid off. Now I have to find a new place to live by the end of the week. And explain to them how I am able to pay the higher rent on the new place"
I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Despite being located next to Google or Facebook, these will likely be apartments being rented out like anywhere else with no particular employment requirements.
Though, they're likely to be attractive to employees who want to live within walking distance.
because "they're likely to be attractive to employees who want to live within walking distance.", which is good for retention and recruitment.
Plus, the types of companies we're talking about have wads of cash that they're not returning to shareholders (yet). Real estate investments could provide better returns than a a number of other financial instruments. Win-win. :)
I don't know about Facebook, but Google is under pressure to reduce traffic from employee commutes. There's a cap on traffic in North Bayshore, and if some employees walk to work, there's less traffic.
I imagine Facebook has similar considerations. Housing and traffic are major issues in Silicon Valley.
Everywhere in the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage. Even with $150k+ salaries, there are very limited housing options available on the peninsula.
The Bay Area's land-use policies are directly responsible for the absurdly high housing costs and terrible road congestion. Too many jobs are in office parks, too many houses are in far-flung and low-density areas.
If Facebook can build 1000 apartment homes that would allow their employees to walk to work, they stand to benefit in huge ways. If that development can help subsidize 200 apartment homes for people who have been displaced by the skewed housing market, all the better.
Yes but rent is high anywhere in Silicon Valley. We're talking highly paid software engineers with Facebook on their resume in a place with plentiful jobs within biking distance. These are the last renters you need to worry about.
though not FB, I know someone in California who lives in company-owned housing. the person recently decided to leave the company. sure enough, the company is indeed forcing them to move out too.
Lot's of negative sentiminents in these comments towards Facebook which is understood but the way I look at it this is a symptom and not the root cause.
We are having a really bad housing crisis in coastal cities, and obviously the Bay Area is leading the pack. NIMBY voters and short sighted government officials are stagnating developers from building more units. Just a few weeks ago the city council in Portland rejected two housing projects that would've generated thousands of units and hundreds of affordable housing units.
When the public sector cannot solve the housing problem it is no surprise that the private sector will step in and play a bigger role. It's not surprising to see tech companies leading the way because their HQs are in the Bay Area. If potential employees don't wont to work for you because the area that the office is in has an astronomical COL that is an existential threat to your company.
That's an altruistic lens applied over a more likely scenario -- 20-40% of salaries are lost to rentier cadres. Throughout history they have been a blight upon humanity and they have always been formidable, and furthermore Facebook actuaries likely calculated that rental costs are only going to keep going up unabated. There will be a point where Facebook will have to move headquarters and that will come with a multibillion dollar pricetag.
In this hypothetical scenario, they will have to take steps to ensure this doesn't happen again, which comes with a hefty pricetag in itself, so provided this data there is only one question -- where to relocate the HQ?
There is no better place than the SF Bay Area, so logically it stands to reason that they take the same steps to progressively expand their current HQ rather than relocate.
Not only that but this new FB community can be a testbed for applying the same pernicious digital surveillance mentality to the physical world. Truly, it will be the place to measure how much privacy people will give up for real-life benefits (eg: rent).
When the public sector cannot solve the housing problem
s/cannot solve/actively created/
Developers would build 100,000 housing units this year in the Bay Area, that would sell for double the national median housing price, if it were legal for them to do so.
Zoning and land use restrictions are the cause of high housing prices in the priciest cities. Those are legal, not market or technological, restrictions.
Agreed. This comes down to a battle between homeowners and renters + new arrivals. Facebook/Google are moving to deal with the complaints they're hearing from their workforce that the municipalities have consistently ignored for years. I don't think people care if company towns are the result, as long as they get manageable rents/commutes. This all strikes me as a lot less "black mirror" than general selfishness and tragedy of the commons.
You get sixteen likes, whattaya get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
St. Peter don'cha call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I live a couple of blocks from the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, which isn't too far from the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital. It's funny to compare to all of the buildings on the east coast named after Rockefellers and Carnegies. New industrialists indeed...
Folks, this will let employees walk to work, resulting in less traffic, and putting somewhat less pressure on housing prices in nearby communities. Mixed-use development is what a lot of housing advocates have been asking for.
This "company store" stuff is unwarranted negative sentiment. They're just apartments. Along with new housing you do want to have parks and stores.
No one, myself included is going to give facebook the benefit of the doubt. To say that they’ve used it all up and then some would be an understatement.
Nice defense of a terrible concept. Not. You're just ignoring legitimate complaints and saying "non issue". Enjoy your facebook overlords, but don't tell me to.
This is not a new idea. At no point previously in history has this worked out well. Companies like Facebook (and they aren't alone in this) love the idea of employees living around the company both literally and figuratively - spend 12 hours a day at the office and in return we'll give you free food and a gym and games. This is not a great future.
I think people are expecting innovation in real estate just because it's Facebook. But this isn't their area of expertise. Do they need to do anything different from any other large real estate developer in Silicon Valley to succeed at building housing?
They've likely hired professional real estate developers who will follow all the same laws, with more money.
The free food and games and gyms are already there (at work).
So I'm not seeing how this will be different in practical terms from other large apartment complexes?
A company whose main business model is giving things out for free, to gather your data, which they then make billions of dollars selling to other businesses?
And you think they're suddenly taking on the very complex and muddied problem of real estate because they have passionate feelings about the housing crises?
There once was a time when satire was just that, satire. When dystopian fiction was understood to be that, dystopian, portraying a potential future. When books like 'Brave New World', 'Fahrenheit 451' and '1984' were written. Where cyberpunk was a literary genre where corporations were more powerful than nation states.
Now, things are different. Facebook is building the set for a real life Truman show [1], Fahrenheit 451 (the temperature at which book paper catches fire, and burns..) has found stiff competition in the rise of censorship on the 'net, 1984 is treated as a user manual by those who prefer to see the world in terms of 'good' and 'bad', Brave New World is just another story - nothing to see there, move along. Where institutions like the EU are trying to dissolve national borders and national identities without offering a believable identity in return, leaving the population grasping for a handhold and ready for recruitment by any strong identity group which catches their favour.
There is supposed to be a Chinese proverb saying 'may you live in interesting times' , to be directed at those one considers to be their opponents. While the proverb seems to be made up, times are interesting in many ways.
Great post, I agree with you 100%. If you don't mind, I thought the correct Chinese proverb was "May you live in uninteresting times" - as the proverb is an acknowledgement of the disruption of lives that occur during interesting times.
Over the last ~decade, far too many episodes of Max Headroom have changed from "metaphorical warning about growing social issues" to "literally happening today".
However, for what I believe will be the most prescient fictional warning about where society is currently headed, see Sleep Dealer[1].
Seriously folks, that the fuck is going on? Every day I read the news it's like I'm in a dystopian novel. Yesterday there was the parole-as-a-service startup announcement, today 'The Circle' leaks into reality. Lots of startups are issuing basically 'Kongbucks' and a self-driving car killed its first victim. Looking forward for the first corporation to want to become sovereign.
Agreed. This place seems to love most of those events however. Google execs have been very open about their desire to start a Google Island where they can conduct limitless experiments (on customers / 'citizens' I assume) away from regulation.
That sounds very much like the city of Rapture in Bioshock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock) the only difference being that Art Déco is the more tasteful styling.
Bad Nash Equilibria. I'm not always a big Yudkowski fan but his recent book/pamplet Inadequate Equilibria explains it pretty well: https://equilibriabook.com/
People speculate wildly but what is this really 1) utopian attempt or 2) new form of paternalism, or 3) just practical way to solve housing crisis for employers.
2) Traditional paternialism was social engineering attempt where employers wanted to control their workers force middle-class ideals to working-class. It was seen as moral and religious responsibility for owners to do this. Company Towns were build to achieve this goal. Modern version might push certain lifestyle and values.
3) Zucktown and Alphabet City may be just a realization that it's cheaper and easier for everyone if employers turns into property developer and builds housing than just increase wages.
Microsoft ended up, organically, surrounded by Microsoft employee residences. All you ever see in your life are Microsoft buildings on campus, fellow Microsoft employees driving on all nearby roads (you can tell from parking permits), living next door, sitting next table in the bar, standing the queue at the store, riding the company shuttle, being your friends.
What it did is create an awful monoculture. You don't get to have a beer with a buddy works at a competing or related company and realize how utterly, unbelievably stupid and immature your position is on this or another issue. Ideological inbreeding is what it is. My biggest regrets lie where I wasted time on something that I could have been talked out of by someone with a different perspective.
I think cross-pollination of ideas is the major advantage of Silicon Valley. Seattle is also getting better recently, with big companies opening more jobs.
>I think cross-pollination of ideas is the major advantage of Silicon Valley. Seattle is also getting better recently, with big companies opening more jobs.
Tech workers hanging out with other tech workers is still a huge circle jerk of ideas. If all you've known is graduate university with a CS degree and working at tech companies and living in upper middle class and wealthy livelihoods you are still part of the same monoculture. Not much changes between Google and MS in the larger picture.
Right SF is better than what the parent comment describes but it very oftentimes is still devoid of true diversity. I worked at a company based in SF and made the conscious decision not to live there. It felt like every time I would go out to a bar or coffee shop all I would hear is tech workers and business investors having the same types of conversations everywhere. More than being crummy for expanding one's perspective on a whole host of issues, it was just plain depressing to be around.
This is one of the things I really liked about moving from Mountain View to Los Angeles. Not only breaking out of your company's bubble, but the tech bubble all together.
125 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadPeople are increasingly afraid of tech companies, not in love with them. We’re all pretty dependent on them, but that also breeds fear and loathing. It doesn’t help that so many companies are full of the same, weird, Stepford Wife tone of “We love you, we want what’s best for you, and that just so happens to align with our own perverse incentives. We’re changing the world.”
I get the sense that the older guard of the media is also taking this opportunity to stoke fear and resentment of their newer competitors. They’ve been good at that kind of thing for a couple of hundred years longer than tech as a concept existed. I’m concerned that things like encryption and secure messaging, self-driving tech and more will be cynically attacked too.
Facebook has 2.2 billion monthly active users[1]. That's billion, with a B. HN has 3.5 million (with an M) unique visitors per month[2]. Everyone on Hacker News AND the 10 people closest to them could all drop off Facebook and it would only be about 1.5% of Facebook's traffic. Are you sure that the trends you're mentioning are happening outside your social circle? I'm not.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9219581
From my social circle outside the tech world, Facebook is increasingly being frowned upon - and in the teens age bracket , Facebook is what old people (parents and so on) use. Obviously anecdata, but the general feeling is that people use it less and less. There might be a perfect storm coming for Facebook - or it's just a temporary fart, soon to be forgotten.
"I deleted my FB account; I'm only going to post on Instagram now."
FB is like the Goldman of the Social Media (and increasingly, via Messenger and WhatsApp, Communications) world. They have their tentacles everywhere.
Also at the teen-level, Onavo, FB's VPN service, is yuuugely popular in high schools across America.
And imagine if VR actually takes off and becomes a compelling new communications medium.
FB has a lot of inertia at this point, I don't think they're going anywhere.
(Lastly, even with all this hub-bub in the news, I'm sure the govt loves FB and doesn't want it going anywhere; it's a huge competitive advantage for the US intelligence community).
Sure, I know plenty of people that used Facebook several years ago, but it's become a ghost town. My friends, family, and coworkers might be unusual, but not that unusual.
Facebook is losing the young audience in a big way.
How much of the daily traffic from a small percentage of people drives a large portion of the rest of the platform? How much of that 1.5% can Facebook afford to lose before it creates a trend they can’t escape?
How many have to be for 2.2 billion to not still be a pretty damn big number?
> How many are generating content or participating in a way that drives the platform?
Facebook has no shortage of content.
> How much of the daily traffic from a small percentage of people drives a large portion of the rest of the platform? How much of that 1.5% can Facebook afford to lose before it creates a trend they can’t escape?
All of them, as long as the losses are made up in other areas.
Now, the monarchs may not die. "Facebook Forever" as reality? A 'Black Mirror' episode isn't a far stretch, and to be fair so is the opposite -- both of which we can see in reality today.
Being skeptical of tech companies is great. Behaving appropriately is also great. Going "all or nothing" can be debated. I'm interested in hearing about something in the middle, should such exist.
Montesquieu also described separation of powers in the same book [1]
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Montesqui...
You can also use addiction as a strategy to create dependence, but this is a strategy: users will inevitably realize there's more harm than good being done. It also means you're at risk of become a fad. I actually think Facebook's pivot from user engagement maximizer to social fabric platform reflects some internal awareness of the vulnerabilities of an addiction-focused business strategy over the long term.
People need Microsoft Windows to operate their businesses and do their jobs, Apple phones and Netflix subscriptions are much easier to replace.
Hence Facebook's goal to move into fundamental infrastructure with both this company town plan and internet.org
Same with Google Fiber etc...
The ultimate goal for a tech company is to provide what utilities and public infrastructure cannot.
- Facebook: Rolodex
- Apple: Simple, low-hassle, powerful tech
- Amazon: Supply chain, low prices, long-tail product discovery, stellar shopping experience supported by an tremendous economies of scale, compute, internet infrastructure
- Google: Search, email, maps, productivity software, compute, internet infrastructure
For as long as these companies remain dominant in these categories continue to provide value to customers, they will not be replaced. They continue to grow exponentially in major part because of the very real value they provide and the lack of viable competition from outside of these groups.
I neglected this vector whilst recalling my previous comment, and I acknowledge addiction as a viability towards ruling over others. Putting ethics, morals, and similar aside for sake of power -- addiction I feel is a "better" method of ruling than fear, given that fear is "better" than love. Why go after all the trouble of scaring people about "the enemy from the East/West/Whatever" back and forth forever when you can just jack them up happy on Jizzum 3.4? You don't, so develop Jizzuj3.4 as you scare people from East and West.
No, a small part of the IT community, whose overly represented on HN, is increasingly afraid of tech companies.
Around me I can tell you nobody cares about my worries. They think it can't possibly lead to anything dangerous. And that's in the rare case they though about the issue at all.
Not cynical at all. We have to push back or we risk the hellworld scenario: the well-to-do safe and secure inside self-driving cars that don't brake for pedestrians. [1]
Pedestrians likely made homeless by NIMBY protectionism preventing the construction of shelters and restrictive zoning that limits housing supply to astronomically expensive single-family homes.
1. http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/
That said, pretty much every politician has an excuse to talk about facebook rather than other things. So, that’s what you’re likely to see.
Sher.l Sand..g COO FB wikileaks email "And I still want HRC to win badly. I am still here to help as I can. She came over and was magical with my kids."
The article does mention some criticism. But all of it seems entirely reasonable and expected when you know the history of “company towns”.
> Google will build 5,000 homes on its property under an agreement brokered with Mountain View in December. Call it Alphabet City as a nod to Alphabet, Google’s corporate parent. The company said it was still figuring out its future as a landlord, and declined further comment.
There's no question that the Alphabet/Google company town should be called Alphaville.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphaville_(film)
I always thought this project, S. Lake Union (Amazon), Toronto Waterfront (Google), Diridon Station San Jose (Google) was these large companies' response to no private developer or gov't entity building a city they thought was needed... in other words it's just a normal city built by a large company. It's not too different than one of these crappy master planned communities where I live like http://stonegatereno.com/ or http://damonteranch.com/ .
Though, they're likely to be attractive to employees who want to live within walking distance.
Plus, the types of companies we're talking about have wads of cash that they're not returning to shareholders (yet). Real estate investments could provide better returns than a a number of other financial instruments. Win-win. :)
I imagine Facebook has similar considerations. Housing and traffic are major issues in Silicon Valley.
The Bay Area's land-use policies are directly responsible for the absurdly high housing costs and terrible road congestion. Too many jobs are in office parks, too many houses are in far-flung and low-density areas.
If Facebook can build 1000 apartment homes that would allow their employees to walk to work, they stand to benefit in huge ways. If that development can help subsidize 200 apartment homes for people who have been displaced by the skewed housing market, all the better.
At least that's how I read their motivations.
Sure your rent doesn't actually go up, but you are going to need to get a job that pays pretty well.
though not FB, I know someone in California who lives in company-owned housing. the person recently decided to leave the company. sure enough, the company is indeed forcing them to move out too.
We are having a really bad housing crisis in coastal cities, and obviously the Bay Area is leading the pack. NIMBY voters and short sighted government officials are stagnating developers from building more units. Just a few weeks ago the city council in Portland rejected two housing projects that would've generated thousands of units and hundreds of affordable housing units.
When the public sector cannot solve the housing problem it is no surprise that the private sector will step in and play a bigger role. It's not surprising to see tech companies leading the way because their HQs are in the Bay Area. If potential employees don't wont to work for you because the area that the office is in has an astronomical COL that is an existential threat to your company.
In this hypothetical scenario, they will have to take steps to ensure this doesn't happen again, which comes with a hefty pricetag in itself, so provided this data there is only one question -- where to relocate the HQ?
There is no better place than the SF Bay Area, so logically it stands to reason that they take the same steps to progressively expand their current HQ rather than relocate.
Not only that but this new FB community can be a testbed for applying the same pernicious digital surveillance mentality to the physical world. Truly, it will be the place to measure how much privacy people will give up for real-life benefits (eg: rent).
s/cannot solve/actively created/
Developers would build 100,000 housing units this year in the Bay Area, that would sell for double the national median housing price, if it were legal for them to do so.
Zoning and land use restrictions are the cause of high housing prices in the priciest cities. Those are legal, not market or technological, restrictions.
Seems like there would be a lot of aspirational lifestyle overlap.
http://thedollop.libsyn.com/320-the-wobblies-go-to-everett
I can't think company towns are a good idea, this stuff creeps me out.
This "company store" stuff is unwarranted negative sentiment. They're just apartments. Along with new housing you do want to have parks and stores.
What if Facebook is literally just building apartments and renting them out to anyone?
They've likely hired professional real estate developers who will follow all the same laws, with more money.
The free food and games and gyms are already there (at work).
So I'm not seeing how this will be different in practical terms from other large apartment complexes?
And you think they're suddenly taking on the very complex and muddied problem of real estate because they have passionate feelings about the housing crises?
Now, things are different. Facebook is building the set for a real life Truman show [1], Fahrenheit 451 (the temperature at which book paper catches fire, and burns..) has found stiff competition in the rise of censorship on the 'net, 1984 is treated as a user manual by those who prefer to see the world in terms of 'good' and 'bad', Brave New World is just another story - nothing to see there, move along. Where institutions like the EU are trying to dissolve national borders and national identities without offering a believable identity in return, leaving the population grasping for a handhold and ready for recruitment by any strong identity group which catches their favour.
There is supposed to be a Chinese proverb saying 'may you live in interesting times' , to be directed at those one considers to be their opponents. While the proverb seems to be made up, times are interesting in many ways.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truman_Show
However, for what I believe will be the most prescient fictional warning about where society is currently headed, see Sleep Dealer[1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZw2Hxdq1QE
A name change and their first burbclave wont be too far behind.
maybe also look backwards? e.g. British East India Company, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India
1) Walt Disney tried utopian with Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPCOT_(concept) The property became the Walt Disney World Resort but some of the architecture is from the EPCOT concept. Later Michael Eisner tried something similar with Celebration, Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida
2) Traditional paternialism was social engineering attempt where employers wanted to control their workers force middle-class ideals to working-class. It was seen as moral and religious responsibility for owners to do this. Company Towns were build to achieve this goal. Modern version might push certain lifestyle and values.
3) Zucktown and Alphabet City may be just a realization that it's cheaper and easier for everyone if employers turns into property developer and builds housing than just increase wages.
Holy shit!
>About 12,000 of its 25,000 employees work in Menlo Park. In a decade, it will have space for 35,000
so they are planning to build 15 of these Zucktowns in Menlo Park in the next 10 years?
What it did is create an awful monoculture. You don't get to have a beer with a buddy works at a competing or related company and realize how utterly, unbelievably stupid and immature your position is on this or another issue. Ideological inbreeding is what it is. My biggest regrets lie where I wasted time on something that I could have been talked out of by someone with a different perspective.
I think cross-pollination of ideas is the major advantage of Silicon Valley. Seattle is also getting better recently, with big companies opening more jobs.
Tech workers hanging out with other tech workers is still a huge circle jerk of ideas. If all you've known is graduate university with a CS degree and working at tech companies and living in upper middle class and wealthy livelihoods you are still part of the same monoculture. Not much changes between Google and MS in the larger picture.