Berkeley happens to be particularly village shaped, wherein housing is (relatively) affordable such that actually 100 people can live in walking distance to each other… and they do.
(Note: while I admittedly will probably not stick to this usage, part of the reason I coined ‘The Village’ for Berkeley in particular is because it’s literally Village sized and village shaped, whereas other communities felt more like ‘communities.’)
I honestly think people in Oakland-in-particular should probably move to Berkeley – it makes more sense to concentrate the village than diversify there (unless they are specifically part of the Leverage Cluster in which they should move to Lake Merritt if they haven’t already).
I definitely think there the SF community(ies) should continue to strengthen itself/themselves. (the meetup that Maia and Roger run seems to be going strong. I know of a couple good group houses). San Francisco seems to suffer a bit from “there’s not an obvious place to cluster such that public transportation isn’t a problem, and things are expensive which is quite limiting.” I don’t know enough about it to know what’s strategically adviseable but if it’s possible to coordinate better there I think people should.
Local Chapters
I think we already have something like “if you’re a rationalist moving to a new city you should look for the local rationalist meetup”, and that that makes sense as a model. There are some deeper problems that involve pressure to move towards major hubs once you get sufficiently agenty and mission-aligned, which I think need to be more thoroughly resolved.
Other Hubs
I know very little about other hubs – my sense is that only Berkeley ended up particularly “village-like” – Oxford and DC seem (from my vantage point) more like either a professional network (for Mission stuff) or a local club (for community-qua-community stuff). It’s not obvious a priori that anyone else should be aspiring to be a “true village” – only that since Berkeley has already oriented in that direction, it should continue to consolidate it’s efforts and try harder.
My experience in Seattle was 2x − 3x more Village-like than my experience in Berkeley. Caveat that I also didn’t live in Berkeley, first I lived in Oakland near Leverage and now I live in San Francisco.
Seattle’s community is small enough to have one primary group house where parties happen and people congregate, so it really felt like one extended social group, whereas in Berkeley it feels like there are many. Some people in Seattle also feel very proud of their community (myself included, even though I’ve moved here), which to me suggests a village-ness. I get the sense that in Seattle the focus is more the Village than the Mission, which then has the problem you mentioned of agenty mission-oriented people moving to other places.
I do think Seattle, like Berkeley, should aspire to be a “true village”, since many people there desire this, and the benefits are large. I also think having multiple successful villages would strengthen the [global] community overall. I think Seattle has the advantage that it is small and centralized, and Berkeley has the advantage that it has more Mission energy.
BTW, I’m regretting trying to use the word Village for two different things, interested in people having suggestions:
Term 1: the thing where there’s an organizing structure that prioritizes “being human” over Impact
Term 2: the thing where there’s an organizing structure for 150+ people, which is necessarily shaped differently than the organizing structure for something that is 30-50 people.
30 minutes feels like roughly the upper bound. (And in any case, that’s roughly the situation, whether you agree with my assessment of walking distance or not)
Ray, let’s compare notes about group houses in SF offline. I know of a couple but not many, and I’d be interested to know of more. (And I prefer to talk about people’s homes in a less public forum).
I’m noticing an error I’ve been making, which is to be sort of fatalistic about community in SF rather than gathering data and making plans.
Nod. (FYI I’m not sure I have much to say about SF because I don’t live there and don’t know much about the constraints it’s under, but I’m happy to chat about it and help brainstorm ideas or considerations)
The Bay (Berkeley, Oakland, SF, South Bay)
Berkeley happens to be particularly village shaped, wherein housing is (relatively) affordable such that actually 100 people can live in walking distance to each other… and they do.
(Note: while I admittedly will probably not stick to this usage, part of the reason I coined ‘The Village’ for Berkeley in particular is because it’s literally Village sized and village shaped, whereas other communities felt more like ‘communities.’)
I honestly think people in Oakland-in-particular should probably move to Berkeley – it makes more sense to concentrate the village than diversify there (unless they are specifically part of the Leverage Cluster in which they should move to Lake Merritt if they haven’t already).
I definitely think there the SF community(ies) should continue to strengthen itself/themselves. (the meetup that Maia and Roger run seems to be going strong. I know of a couple good group houses). San Francisco seems to suffer a bit from “there’s not an obvious place to cluster such that public transportation isn’t a problem, and things are expensive which is quite limiting.” I don’t know enough about it to know what’s strategically adviseable but if it’s possible to coordinate better there I think people should.
Local Chapters
I think we already have something like “if you’re a rationalist moving to a new city you should look for the local rationalist meetup”, and that that makes sense as a model. There are some deeper problems that involve pressure to move towards major hubs once you get sufficiently agenty and mission-aligned, which I think need to be more thoroughly resolved.
Other Hubs
I know very little about other hubs – my sense is that only Berkeley ended up particularly “village-like” – Oxford and DC seem (from my vantage point) more like either a professional network (for Mission stuff) or a local club (for community-qua-community stuff). It’s not obvious a priori that anyone else should be aspiring to be a “true village” – only that since Berkeley has already oriented in that direction, it should continue to consolidate it’s efforts and try harder.
Regarding hubs: I’ve gotten a sense that Seattle is also pretty village shaped, though I am not confident.
My experience in Seattle was 2x − 3x more Village-like than my experience in Berkeley. Caveat that I also didn’t live in Berkeley, first I lived in Oakland near Leverage and now I live in San Francisco.
Seattle’s community is small enough to have one primary group house where parties happen and people congregate, so it really felt like one extended social group, whereas in Berkeley it feels like there are many. Some people in Seattle also feel very proud of their community (myself included, even though I’ve moved here), which to me suggests a village-ness. I get the sense that in Seattle the focus is more the Village than the Mission, which then has the problem you mentioned of agenty mission-oriented people moving to other places.
I do think Seattle, like Berkeley, should aspire to be a “true village”, since many people there desire this, and the benefits are large. I also think having multiple successful villages would strengthen the [global] community overall. I think Seattle has the advantage that it is small and centralized, and Berkeley has the advantage that it has more Mission energy.
Nod.
BTW, I’m regretting trying to use the word Village for two different things, interested in people having suggestions:
Term 1: the thing where there’s an organizing structure that prioritizes “being human” over Impact
Term 2: the thing where there’s an organizing structure for 150+ people, which is necessarily shaped differently than the organizing structure for something that is 30-50 people.
What counts for you as walking distance? 10 minutes walking? 20 minutes walking? 30 minutes walking?
30 minutes feels like roughly the upper bound. (And in any case, that’s roughly the situation, whether you agree with my assessment of walking distance or not)
Ray, let’s compare notes about group houses in SF offline. I know of a couple but not many, and I’d be interested to know of more. (And I prefer to talk about people’s homes in a less public forum).
I’m noticing an error I’ve been making, which is to be sort of fatalistic about community in SF rather than gathering data and making plans.
Nod. (FYI I’m not sure I have much to say about SF because I don’t live there and don’t know much about the constraints it’s under, but I’m happy to chat about it and help brainstorm ideas or considerations)