Yeah, I live in Baltimore, and my wife and I go with our toddler to a beach at a state park. It's a 30 minute drive away, little patch of sand on the banks of the Back River, no waves, not more than 4 feet deep at the deepest part of the swimming area. Lots of shaded picnic tables and we bring food from home. More than one playground if the little guy wants a change of pace from the water. Honestly perfect for us, since shallow, placid river water is a lot more fun for a toddler than straight-up ocean breakers, and big shade trees within a hundred feet saves us schlepping a shade structure.
It's 18 bucks plus gas for a full- to half-day outing.
We bring friends and they're always amazed that it was right under their noses - people in Maryland are just stuck on sitting in traffic for hours and paying for lodging to go to one of the big ocean beach destinations (e.g. Ocean City).
https://www.wbaltv.com/amp/article/back-river-public-health-...
One just drives along the Back River to get there
I fondly remember something similar at Gasworks Park in Seattle.
Writing from the Nickerson state park at Cape Cod which is also one of great parks with prestine lakes (and cheap for MA residents $20). Though cheapness makes it really hard to book, July-August you have to book at the opening date 6 month in advance.
Rancho Seco? I grew up near there and have fond memories of it. The nuclear plant was shut down a couple years before I was born, but the structures are still standing; IIRC it's (slowly) being turned into a solar power station.
I didn't want to bring them up because going for a day to the Aquarium is actually pretty expensive: 40 bucks per adult, 30 bucks for 3-11, and you're dropping another 15-25 bucks on parking too, probably.
But it works out great for us since we can get to either by bike or bus in 10 minutes, so we can go enough to make the memberships worth it (150-200 bucks if I recall correctly, it was my wife that made this purchase).
Also if you live in the city there are a lot of ways to score free Aquarium tickets (main one I can think of is the public library).
I'm aware of the incidents that are (probably) making you say this, but during the day it's fine as long as you don't get out of your car and bum-rush groups of young men on the street with a baseball bat.
It's just generally not the nicest place to be at night, though. Too big and empty and the night life is elsewhere in the city for the most part.
The last time I visited the aquarium was in the 1980s with my dad. I had very fond memories of both the aquarium and riding those small white electric boat things in the harbor. I didn't feel unsafe at all, but then again I was an elementary school kid so what would I have known back then?
Then again, back then I distinctly felt unsafe going into Manhattan in NYC, and recall my dad commuted into the city with a steel baton and pepper spray in his briefcase for self defense.
The Harbor these days is just empty compared to the '90s, which certainly makes it feel sketchier. As I said, I don't think it's that dangerous, but I wouldn't say it's a nice place to be, especially at night (side note: "The Block" is dangerous at night), and when friends visit I take them to different neighborhoods for dinner / drinks.
Just adding the link here because I lived in Baltimore and think it's irresponsible that so many Baltimore residents try to hand-wave away how dystopian Baltimore really is. It absolutely is a dangerous place and visitors should be extremely careful if they visit the city. It was already at over 150 murders in less than half a year this past June.
> The violence has not let up with almost 160 murders in the city so far this year.
https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/howard-county-teen-ar...
Has to be "we like [restaurant]" followed by disclaimers about having a toddler and not getting out much. Otherwise someone is guaranteed to scoff.
That's an interesting perspective that I wouldn't have expected. I didn't grow up anywhere near the 50s, but I feel like everything is worse from even my childhood in the 90s and 2000s. Malls are decrepit, national and state parks are under maintained but overrun with visitors, stadium seats could not be smaller (and are often so vertical in the "affordable" seats it creates vertigo sensations), parking lots are full of gigantic cracks and poorly marked areas and holes, theme parks are under maintained and expensive with huge lines and many from my childhood closed down, and it goes on and on. I went to an NFL game (only because I got free tickets). It took around 45 minutes from our car in the parking lot (not including the time to be directed to park), in a lot that I'm pretty sure was not paved at all, to get to our seats. The seats were so high up, we could barely see anything. We might as well have been watching from a nearby skyscraper. And the seats were sardine seats, as in sitting sideways so as to not hit the people in front of you with your knees. Those seats probably cost those around me hundreds of dollars.
It's also well known that many people from those older times had rents and mortgages at much smaller percentages of their monthly income than those today, whereas today they can exceed 50% easily.
The housing thing though for sure is a problem. Then again we are now concentrating more and more in big cities.
The one thing people always miss with these calculations is food. We think food is expensive now but the cost of chicken or beef is insanely cheap relative to really what it should be (or what it once was). A steak in the 1920s was probably a real treat.
It has gone up 4.12% per year compared to regular food inflation rate of 3.56%. So no it is not cheaper.
In 1950, porterhouse steak was $0.95 per pound.
Edit: the bls.gov inflation calculator says $0.95 of 1950 dollars is $11.98 in 2022 dollars. :shrug:
That said I still wouldn't dare suggest a 1:1 relationship between the trends.
Your other points I'll agree with. State Fairs->Disney was just too much of a stretch for me to accept.
State and Country Fairs, on the other hand, are relatively diverse in their attractions: you can do the carnival stuff if you'd like, or you can:
* Peruse your state's agricultural and crafts competitions
* Go to the livestock auctions
* See live music by local artists
* Go the the trade halls and look at/purchase goods by local businesspeople
* Attend the live performances and competitions (my favorite county fair[1] has tractor pulls and pig races)
I remember going to the state fair growing up, and it was excruciatingly boring waiting for the adults to finish looking at cows and trinkets. Whereas our family's trip to Disney was tailor-made for kids from start to finish, and honestly features pretty prominently among my favorite all-time memories.
I often went to the Boulder County Fair in grad school and that had a Demolition Derby, which my kid would love.
(I never went to Disney until I was 25, when I visited for free for 1/2 day thanks to a friend who was working there seasonally.)
Now, I don't enjoy amusement parks and never did, and don't feel strongly about Disney media, so it's just amusing to me, especially seeing it play out on HN
I'd rather go to a state park than Disney lmao
How are we even equating a State Park with theme parks like Disney? It originally was suggested as State Fairs vs Disney. At least a typical State Fair has some sort of amusement rides that tilts in the direction of a Disney level theme park. While State Fair to Disney is at least apples and oranges, State Parks to Disney is like comparing fruits to anything else unrelated.
I grew up going to Disneyland, had an annual pass in the past and still live fairly close to it; it's an easy day trip. Almost went when the new Star Wars section opened - until I started to look at the pricing. Would have been over $100 a day for tickets (!), never mind all the other costs. The last time I went tickets were in the $80 a day range and I thought that was nuts.
Obviously they are getting people to still pay it - good for them; I'm out. Too many other things to do. And it warms my heart to see Universal in Orlando really taking on the mouse. Disney has killed Star Wars and Marvel - Thor's theater receipts are an utter joke. Disney has gotten complacent and lazy; maybe a good fleecing will wake them back up.
Moving to California though I was surprised by how much traction Disney continues to get with the follow-on generations.
Their IRL entertainment products-- the resorts/parks, travel, etc-- are super-premium. They are not a great value. And they are in a weird "bubble".
But man, your kids are entertained and customer service is good and everything is fun for everyone.
My single thought was "?!", followed by wanting to leave.
I have a hard time imagining anyone could enjoy it in a normal situation.
Disney lines are horrific by comparison. It’s nice they add some theming while you wait, but you will have a far better time just skipping the rides unless you want to run to something at park open or schedule your day around fast pass.
You said "state park" which is a very different thing than what GP was talking about. I like Disney alright but spending time in nature at a state park can be just as fun IMO. State fair though? Count me out.
Same here, even as a kid I preferred the state park. I've never been to Disney, but I've never liked theme parks. I do like water parks though.
Also the annual passes, that lots of locals use to make multiple trips per year affordable, have been increasing in price. Disney wants their visitors to spend money, and those who economize using annual passes have proven to be on the whole, not the most advantageous customers.
I live in NH and the local amusement park, called Canobie Lake, has more rides and ride systems than the Magic Kingdom. The "themeing" isn't as nice but it's a fraction of the cost.
I like the Disney Parks, but you're really paying a heavy premium for IP and a potential visit with a Princess. For most people your local Six Flags will be a far better value for the dollar with not much of a dimunition of the experience.
Man let people have fun. I've been to Disney World a couple of times. It's not that fun with all the crowds and lines and such. We all have our own idea of fun. Mine is with friends and families having a low stress day at a water park, nature hike, minor league sports event and not worrying about bragging rights after the "adventure".
https://touringplans.com/disneyland/attractions/opening-date...
Favorites like Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion didn't open until the late 1960s, a decade after the park did, and Space Mountain & Thunder Mountain didn't open until the late 1970s.
So I wonder if it's even meaningful to them to talk about alternatives at all. Many of them are mainly visiting that one special place for sure every year, so it's not too terrible to save the money either.
Now get off my lawn.
I would argue that Disneyland should be even more expensive. As Yogi Berra once said (paraphrasing) "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded." People that simultaneously complain about Disneylands price and the crowds are delusional.
perhaps in a simplified model of the world in which the only way of allocating limited resources is via a pure free market, and we assume that there's no way to satiate more demand
just off the top of my head for the latter: an online pre-sign-up and scheduling system with phones or wireless wristbands that assigns you times for your preferred rides, should help level demand and avoid bottlenecks, and thus increase throughput, and thus increase turnover, and thus increase daily attendance capacity
essentially MRP but the people are the materials and the rides are the workstations
And there's a really good video someone did on the evolution and systems engineering behind the Genie+ / FastPass system:
In the last 10 years, Disneyland has become an activity for wealthy childless millennials, which is almost certainly driving up the costs and turning Disney from a middle class activity into a wealthy one. Disney, just like any other corporation is gladly taking their money.
Pretty similar for pro sports. Lots of my friends take their kids to minor league baseball - for the kid, it can be better, as they often have specific kid activities. I've always been shocked at the price for Redskins tickets/parking/etc. Nationals is a bit less expensive, but still not cheap.
(Reminiscing over the $5 student tickets available with college ID in the early 2000's)
Not really sure what other options there are. People need to stop valuing Disney parks so highly. Or don’t and accept the price.
What on earth would be the appeal for people that do not have children? If I want rollercoasters I'll go to six flags.
Impeccably landscaped grounds. Heavily themed environments (not even the trash cans are left unthemed). Care and thought put into the immersive experience, sight lines, smell, music, etc. Christ some of the live musicians (Dixieland, barbershop, the Dapper Dans, etc) are worth it on their own. Its a fantastic place to just walk around (assuming not hot and crowded) and devour the sensory experience.
Not for the cynical of course. You have to just give in and let it all in.
If you’re the type to just trounce through an area without taking in the details that sit before you, it’s not the place for you. If you’re the type to admire the street lamps, flowers, insanely well-maintained painted woodwork, etc it’s the place for you.
Like damn, people in this thread are acting like adults can’t like Star Wars and Frozen. Do you feel the same way about music festivals? Seeing your favorite bands and buying merch.
The prevailing line in this thread is that it’s seemingly childish, immature, #cringe to genuinely like and be excited for things.
The people paying are really into Disney.
Schools get a day off each year for Fair Day in the North Texas area. Obviously, you don't have to go to the fair, but each student gets a free ticket, and "most" people typically went at least once during their school years. The "most" people seems pretty broad brush in my experience.
That isn't to say Disney is cheap. It isn't cheap either.
I have great memories of doing all that stuff too but I also remember standing in line in 90 degree heat for over an hour, seeing grown men getting into fist fights over a game and the majority of nature on display being forests of selfie sticks.
Point is that you can do that stuff once in a while and then step back, figure out what you like and don't like about the experiences and then find cheaper local alternatives that are pretty amazing too.
If your goal is to spend a nice summer night walking around with the family, seeing interesting stuff while eating churros and taking the occasional tea cup ride then you don't exclusively have to pay Disney $1,000+ to do it.
I've been to the Grand Canyon as well as other canyons like Palo Duro and similar. However, they all do pale in comparison as a cheap knock-off and none are as grand as The Grand Canyon. If you're into outdoorsy type things, you cannot not be moved by it. It is one thing that is very much appropriately named.
This is not to say that any of the other parks are not worth going, state or federal, but if you're a canyon and The Grand Canyon exists, just know you will only ever at best be second chair.
But no, I have not been to that canyon.
In contrast there are plenty of regional parks even lesser known than Six Flags like Adventureland, Kings Island, Dorney Park. These are much more similar to Disneyland (albeit scaled down) than they are to a state fair.
State Fairs can be "fun" (for some definition) but it's very different from Disney
Give me the carnies any day of the week!
During our travels through the US they definitely provided the most bang for the buck, especially given that we had the $80 annual pass. In that context it was actually state parks that were an additional cost for us, though certainly never any kind of substantial cost. The tiniest fraction of our budget. Doing stuff in cities was much more expensive and we didn’t even consider visiting Disneyland, even though we actually stayed a couple of nights in Orlando (to visit the Kennedy Space Center – one of the most expensive things we did - followed by a visit to the neighboring state park, which was very cheap).
We never stayed inside or even just near the parks, so that certainly helped. Our budget of spending between $100 and $150 per night for three people always felt very manageable (mostly AirBnB and so we nearly always had a kitchen to cook food) but I can see how that might be too much for some people.
I think had we wanted to stay closer to the national parks (to explore them more thoroughly instead of basically doing day trips to like twenty of them) we would have spent a bit more on places to sleep (more like $200).
The fun things to do in national parks don’t cost any additional money, at least usually. I guess if you want to ride a mule down to the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon? But even that’s more limited by scarcity than price. Maybe there are little costs here and there (like renting bikes in the Everglades) but we definitely spent more on t-shirts about national parks than we did on things to do in national parks. They felt like a real benevolent gift most of the time, expect when there were too many other people, I guess (though since we were one of those too many people we could hardly complain).
I would say National Park trips are "expensive" in ways other than the cash it takes to get in. We tried to plan our trips avoiding the major holidays and spring/fall breaks of the local school districts, etc.
- They're overly crowded. It feels like a theme park. Looking at a waterfall and you're standing shoulder to shoulder with strangers. It's crazy.
- Parking is nearly impossible to find. Some days you have to pay for parking and bus into the park.
- Every campground was full. Hotels and BNBs are not exactly cheap in those areas.
We'd ask workers/etc about the traffic and they'd always say stuff like, "oh yeah, this is nothing. You should've seen it X weeks ago!"
So, sure the National Park itself is peanuts to get admission. But it was disappointing in a lot of ways. For those reasons, I would be more interested in paying more dollars to see State parks, if all the other "costs" were "cheaper" :)
Everywhere you could look you could see damage to the park. From people swimming in the mountain lakes, going off trail, cars providing pollution and noise and killing animals, etc. The volunteers at the park were exhausted. And I'm pretty sure someone hit and killed a black bear with a car on the weekend we were there. People were just moving through the park like cattle at the mall.
Cars are another good example of this. A 1985 Honda Accord is just not as nice of a car as a 2022 Honda Accord: https://www.netcarshow.com/honda/1985-accord_sedan. Not only in absolute terms, but in relative terms. The Accord occupies a premium segment of the market today compared to 1985.
Disney, likewise, is much bigger and better today. The hotels are much nicer. Tech conditions people to expect better products for less money every year, but that doesn’t translate into meat space. A bigger park with more attractions, nicer and cleaner hotel rooms, etc., all cost more to build and maintain even in inflation-adjusted terms.
And also abuse every single possible thing you can, birthdays, etc, and don't be afraid to ask.
Ditto on Las Vegas as far as prices are concerned.
There’s also more people but I think that’s an entirely separate issue. There are just more people on Earth than there was 10, 20 or 500 years ago.
Maybe we aren’t building enough new attractions. There is probably money in it.
Instead of MLB/NFL, check out summer or arena leagues.
Things like MLB/NFL games have greatly outpaced inflation. One reason people keep paying for them (aside from other obvious factors, like love of the game) is because we have been conditioned to believe that they are things "average" people can afford them when in fact that hasn't been true for a long time.
Even if sports ticket prices didn't outpace inflation, the fact is that 50 years ago being at the stadium was the best way to see the game. Your other alternative was a tiny, balky TV or radio. These days you can see them at home in HD on a giant screen that would have seemed like science fiction 25 years ago and in fact, because of cable bundling, you may already be paying for this privilege even if you don't want to.
(edit: There are still things that are special about the live experience, but the home experience has become massively better than it used to be)
So like collecting physical music, or attending movies in movie theaters as opposed to Netflixing them it makes some level of sense for live sports attendance to migrate from "everyman activity" to "premium niche thing for diehard fans with disposable income."
This is unfortunate in many ways, and it is a loss, but it does not necessarily equate to a degradation of average quality of life. That would only be the case if average people no longer had any affordable leisure options ...if there were no new affordable to replace those which migrated upscale.
(FWIW, I say all of this as a sports fan who does enjoy attending some games each year)
Anyway, another industry that has gone this way is the ski industry. Back in college, we'd get up early, pile a bunch of people in a car, drive 3 hours to the slopes, pay $40 for a lift ticket, ski until sunset and drive home. Now, lift tickets are incredibly expensive, all the while the ski resorts built up amenities like bars and restaurants, spas, etc. And they wonder why their customers are trending older...
I also believe this is a big part of why college has become much more expensive: the amenities arms race.
I'm not big into sports, I go on and off following ice hockey (the Leafs), so maybe that explains it, but I just think - money aside - going to see a game in person would be an all-round inferior experience.
(Pay for definitely-fast food, queue for public loos, potentially surrounded by people I don't want to watch with, ...)
Also isn't it just way better on television? The
angle is always (or, to many nines of the time)
great, always close.
There are things that are super special about the live experience that are tough to appreciate on TV, although they're also tough to appreciate in person unless you're lucky enough to be sitting rather close or just seeing the event in a small arena.
The speed and violence of an MLB player mashing a baseball in person is something else, if you ever get a chance to see it up close. Tennis is another sport where TV doesn't do it justice IMO.
Hockey's definitely one that I think can be a little hard to follow in person. Although, in the pre-HD days, it was REALLY hard to appreciate on TV because it could be damn near impossible to see the puck on a fuzzy 15" CRT!
In fact, "I can't follow the puck" was such a common complaint in the pre-HD days that I had a failed prediction that hockey would massively blossom in popularity once everybody had HD. Glad I had no money... I was so convinced of this prediction that I probably would have poured all my money into buying ownership stake in a hockey team or something lol.
And if you sit in the same seat for a number of games over a season, you'll start to anticipate things in ways you can't on TV (though the best radio announcers would anticipate them the same way).
If your purpose is just to watch a game you have so many more options so going in person has become a luxury experience entirely because it's no longer necessary.
Obviously it does to some people, I didn't mean to suggest that stadium-goers are idiots who don't realise it's objectively better at home! I just meant 'game-watching' - but even there, sibling commenter to you makes a point about the rawness of physical contact if you're close-up in the stadium.
Ironically, this also makes attending a game super cheap if you're willing to deal with the uncertainty of buying tickets from an online reseller right before game time (or even slightly after).
The uncertainty factor, of course, makes it really tough if you're taking e.g. a family to the game. Have fun explaining to kids why you're turning around and coming home, or why mommmy is sitting 15 rows away because it was impossible to get 4 seats located together.
But, for a couple of friends hitting up a game... it can be a great way to go.
is that there's no substitute. Tom Brady plays in the NFL, not USFL. Steph Curry in the NBA, not the d-league. Etc.
Housing is similar--there aren't many small 1200 sq ft starter homes with a one car garage being built--it's mostly big McMansions with a list of bullet points. There are fewer and fewer affordable entry points to housing and college for the working class to start building wealth from.
Now having a family of my own, we keep the tradition alive. Our kids know Disney(place) as a thing that is overpriced and overcrowded.
But, It’s all in what kind of recreation you seek. I’m sure there plenty of people who would be put off by all the camping and canoeing trips we do.
But I nevertheless grew into a Disney grinch. (We have roller coasters in Maryland!)
Hopefully I can get my driver’s license renewed soon, so I can pretend the line is for a ride at the land of magic.
I grew up taking a family trip over Christmas break every year to wherever Clemson was playing in a bowl game. This was the 90s, so it was never a top tier game for us but the trips were always great.
When my kids got old enough to start taking them on these trips, it was impossible to justify the $1,000+ cost per ticket for each playoff game. Before travel cost was factored in.
Tickets to the Cheez-It Bowl were in the $50-80 range and you could pay a little more to get access to the Club Level. Took the whole family to the game and the kids loved it. We all had a great time. And Clemson won (take that Iowa State).
FOMO is real and amplified by media. Most medium-size cities in the US have plenty of family-friendly activities and entertainment.
My grandpa and his brothers would regularly cart their families a few miles up a canyon (now a regional park) to play pinochle and bocce while the kids raced up hills and splashed in a stream. These are things still accessible to most people.
To use the Disneyland example, in the late 1990s, Disneyland tickets could routinely be had off-season for $20 and annual passes were around $100. Adjust that for inflation, and you're still at 1/3 to 1/2 of today's prices. But most of Disneyland's expansion and most of the really groundbreaking things were already in place.
This is a great option. I would add to this (smaller) college events. We take family outings to see collegiate volleyball, which is free (even parking!) and food is priced like the 1980s. It is possible to watch Olympians compete for less than the price of a movie ticket.
Similarly, the colleges near us have good (although small) museums. And student-run theaters often have public events that do not cost a lot of money.
https://kixs.com/most-expensive-and-biggest-texas-high-schoo...
In the 1960s the “best of breed” entertainment (like Disney) was a available to middle class families. They also had the option of going to a cheap state fair, or local theatre, or minor league baseball.
Now, the middle class can’t afford those “best of breed” entertainment venues like they used to.
My guess is it's MBAs. They figured out that you can squeeze people more and so they're doing it.
Before everything was optimized by a business person with as spreadsheet, people would set prices by reasonable guess, and that guess would simply be lower than optimal.
For instance there's a village shop where I live. You can get a hand made sandwich for two pounds. Similar factory made sandwiches at Marks would easily be closer to double.
"Those damn MBAs" is a lazy scapegoat.
Doesn't matter anyway. If you've chosen big-corp adtech, datasci, analytics, optimization, etc for a career, not "loving" it is not an excuse.
Tickets to sports, concerts, Disney and other big-name attractions have been increasingly steadily, outpacing inflation, for at least the past 25 years. You've really missed the boat if you think this is in any way, "short-term".
There's no reason it isn't just an interminable series of short term steps.
Bob Iger was Disney CEO for 15 years, during which he bought Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm, opened parks in Hong Kong and Shanghai, and set the stage for Disney+. The company's valuation increased better than 5x.
Michael Rapino ran Live Nation and merged with Ticketmaster in 2010, becoming CEO of the new Live Nation Entertainment, and depending on your choice of start date, has 5x to 10x'ed the company's valuation. It has bought multiple event management companies, created artist management divisions, and owns and operate concert venues across the U.S. and internationally.
Jerry Jones bought the Dallas Cowboys in 1989 for about $140 million. Now, it is the most valuable NFL franchise, at about $5.5 billion -- a 40x increase. He built AT&T Stadium, moved the team HQ and practice facility to become the centerpiece of a massive real-estate development "The Star," and has been a pioneer and leader among NFL owners in boosting revenues from television contracts and other external sources.
These are not "short-term steps."
Disney seems to be going after DINC people now instead of families with their pricing and overall strategy. Good luck with that.
That's essentially the "skip the avocado toast" type of logic.
Except there were already state fairs in the 60s and Disney in the 60s and the latter was already a whole different level back then. So there has been real change if back then you could afford to take your kids to Disney and today the budget is only enough for the state fair anymore.
until you go to the drew league to see your friend play, and lebron decides to show up (kyrie was a no-show of course). then you can't get in for any amount of money because all the bandwagoners jam the sidewalks and doorways, not to mention the gym. (not bitter)
I wonder if this the only trend pressuring prices up. Another effect of "bigger and better" is that it reduces the likelyhood of competition. And with less competition, there's less downward price pressure.
Another possible pressure is on why it has to be better. I don't think it's only consumer pressure. (Surely those who can't pay for "better" would rather stay at "good enough"). The problem is, what regulators consider "good enough" back then is not good enough today.
Some call this "progress". But some of these standards could be construed as protectionist barriers of entry
This is also a big contributor to the rising costs of:
* Housing * Food * Construction
Which all make regular appearances on HN as people wonder why they all cost more.
Safety standards are higher, quality standards are higher, convenience standards are higher.
Someone buying a house in the 1950's would have gotten an empty kitchen, no washer or dryer, no granite countertops, no detailing in the back yard.
Meals were simpler - 2 or 3 ingredients, mostly stock items, all local.
Roads and buildings are built to last longer, have fewer externalities, with more accessibility options for pedestrians, better energy utilization, etc.
Housing in Japan has gotten much nicer too, but rent has stayed fairly reasonable even in Tokyo (which is huge and has still been growing). Plus, even just the cost of land in the US is enormously higher now, ignoring any buildings.
Much of Silicon Valley also fits the bill of places that were drab faceless suburbs in the 1980s when people’s parents bought houses there. But it’s not like there wasn’t expensive suburbs in the 1980s. It’s just that Mountain View today occupies the same market position Scarsdale NY or Greenwich CY occupied in the 1980s.
The general problem is overpopulation--but the good news is that there's a countervailing force built in: the more people there are, the more stuff of value there can be. New York's too congested to live in? Go to Chicago. Chicago becomes full? Live in Minneapolis, or Madison, or some up-and-coming artsy small town most of us have never heard of. So, the problem we actually experience is not overpopulation itself but, rather, the weighted overpopulation that is created by extreme inequality (i.e., by some people having 1,000,000 times more votes and more choices than the rest of us). When some rich douchebag can play the high school bully and buy hotel rooms for $1000 per night (or even buy out the whole hotel) it means everyone who can't pay $1000 per night for lodging suffers. We don't actually need to depopulate the world (although, and I hate to say this, I think traumatic and unplanned depopulation is a high likelihood in the next 50 years) so much as we need to do something about the astronomical footprint of the rich; we could support the global population that exists now if only the world were run by better people and the resources better organized.
>> I think everything is just generally "nicer". Stadium seats are cushier, parking lots are paved instead of gravel, sidewalks are a lot wider, more air-conditioned spaces, better food availability, etc.
I never asked for any of that. I just want some cost effective free options for fun.
We were going through a family member's childhood boxes recently and came across all their old HS Football bills from the late 1950's. These things were really detailed and really good looking. 8 pages, full color, few ads, with loads of detail on the players for both teams and coaches. All for a public HS football program.
You mean 1950's, not 80's
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway...
In terms of having a substantial system of highways in place out that transformed traveling lifestyles for an age group of children, the general "growing up in the 80s" still seems about right.
Are you people not Americans? Do you have any idea how big car travel is here and how it's been happening way, way, before the 70's and 80's?
My parents drove out to Yellowstone with my grandparents a very long time ago.
My grandfather was a college lecturer and would plan massive road trips each summer in the 60s to all the national parks. These days I doubt a college lecturer could take summer off
> I think people are just not very aware of the past including their grandfathers generation these days.
It feels surreal to have to even state this, but "being American" does not require that one's grandparents grew up in America. Being a first or second generation immigrant does not make one less "American"
So you’re right the wording was bad, i wasn’t the one that said “not Americans” but I think that person was confused why so many are making flat out incorrect comments like they don’t know anything about America.
My comments was trying to say, “no even multigenerational Americans often don’t know what their grandparents generation was like.”
In this context of comparing American vacations across time periods, the group you’re talking about, Recent immigrants, I would hope aren’t commenting because very few would have researched the topic of American vacations from 1920 to 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
(Edit: this was supposed to be a top-level comment, not a reply. Sorry!)
You’d think that the profits over the past 60 gears would have been able to pay for a lot of that.
But of course these things are owned by shareholders that demand returns, and if you just get a new loan/grant/subsidy to pay for your $108M parking lot (seriously wtf?), there’s that much more to pay out to the most important people of all.
And people expect more exciting and high quality things now, because they have seen a lot (comparably). Someone growing up in the 1930s wasn't able to hop on the interstate and go 300 miles away for the weekend. Those growing up in the 80s were more apt to do that sort of thing, and as mobility has increased, attractions (nicer ones) have been built out over the decades. Now that person who traveled to all sorts of attractions continues to seek out new things -> bigger and better of course. More $$$.
The basic, economical attractions are still there if you look. Just think smaller scale. Instead of national parks, go to state parks. Instead of Disney, go to the state fair. Instead of Broadway, find the local theater troupe. Instead of MLB/NFL, check out summer or arena leagues. Just because you read about an attraction that seems cool, is 1,500 miles away, and is the best of breed nationwide, doesn't mean you need to or even get to experience it.