i spent $1,300/mo for a 350 square foot studio in a rich person's garage in potrero hill, summer 2007.
that's a lot of money to spend on rent for a startup. as a human being, you get a big bang for your buck, namely the whole city of san francisco. but i'm not sure startup-related amenities are incorporated into the high price of rent as good life-related amenities are.
Misleading. If higher rents discourage marginal or less determined teams, then it could increase overall success rates or leave more room for the biggest winners. Low rent hasn't helped Alabama or North Dakota much. It's just one factor in a complex equation that can only be answered in hindsight.
Can anyone explain what was wrong with this? If someone is determined enough to move to SV for the startup ecosystem, is an extra $200/month really going to stop them?
that's a lot of money to spend on rent for a startup. as a human being, you get a big bang for your buck, namely the whole city of san francisco. but i'm not sure startup-related amenities are incorporated into the high price of rent as good life-related amenities are.