
Build institutions, not apps - Mlutter
https://www.marklutter.com/post/build-institutions-not-apps
======
pbourke
> The result is San Francisco, the most innovative city in a generation,
> proposing a Office of Emerging Technology to require any technology that
> uses public space, scooters for example, to get prior permission from the
> city

That sounds totally reasonable, lest your city become clogged with broken-ass
scooters after the n-th scooter startup goes on their "incredible journey" to
the stars.

Perhaps if you're going to litter the streets with scooters you should be
required to post up cash in escrow for unlittering said scooters if/when you
disappear.

~~~
voz_
You have it backwards. The scooters are not, and have never been, a problem.
The real problem is feces and needles. The real truth here is the SF gov is
greedy, and rabidly anti-tech. I cannot wait until this whole place is
gentrified and cleaned up.

Have you lived in SF? Because this comment reads like an outsider looking in.

~~~
kristopolous
> I cannot wait until this whole place is gentrified and cleaned up

The thing you are complaining about Are The Consequences of gentrification.
They are the output of the process. The system you advocate for produces that
which you are complaining about.

It's not going to be "cleaned up". This is what that process yields.
Gentrification creates more "cracks to fall through" and so more people "fall
through the cracks" through the financial consequences. These issues are the
consequence of it - that's why it happens everywhere things are gentrifying.

These stratifications produce slums, favelas, cantegrils, gecekondus, barrios,
karton siti, paraggoupoli, zopadpatti, baraccopoli, putri, perkampungan
kumuh... there's words in almost every language for this phenomena. Policies
are machines. They produce things.

This is the outcome of the process, globally, for centuries. You can not
possibly get to your goal through that method. It does not work.

I know how alluring the logic is, but like counterintuitive math and science,
the obvious solution does not work and we need to stop pretending otherwise.
Reality doesn't give a damn about personal belief and stubbornness in systems
that don't work. You can't will a wrong answer into being right.

It's the material reality.

~~~
josephg
I’m confused by this stance because, here in Australia gentrification seems to
result in less crime and fewer homeless people out on the streets. There are
no slums here in Melbourne. Or in New Zealand. Or really, any developed nation
outside the US. If gentrification means the rich get richer while the poor
stay poor, of course gentrification won’t help poor people. But just because
that’s how it happens in the US doesn’t mean gentrification itself is to
blame.

The problem, as you say, is the cracks that people can fall through. Nobody
should be sleeping rough and hungry in the richest country on earth. Solve
that with a social safety net, not by banning new construction.

~~~
kristopolous
Yes, now that's a matter of terminology. A holistic focus on improving the
lives of everyone in the community, not by raising prices but by improving the
material living conditions and reducing the stress and anxiety of economic
reproduction and reducing or eliminating the precariat, that's generally not
gentrification. The way Australians use "livable city" really doesn't exist in
American discourse.

A market and property based approach that locks people out, allocates
resources according to ability to pay or some other social status, and sees
signs of inability to pay, poverty, and hardship including death, as merely
personal moral failings, and the market consequences as some amoral natural
system, that's gentrification. Maybe some think that's "the right way to do
it" but it's also a _really_ _efficient_ slum creation engine.

We're set for 1/4th the world to be squatters by 2030, that's not
sensationalistic, it's the reasonable expectation.

Historically this phenomena is found in immigrant or religious minority
communities because they are thought to be less deserving. It's reinforcing
because then they can be pointed at, in squalor, and say "see, I told you they
were filthy". Racist policies lead to outcomes that differ on racial lines,
duh...it was set up that way.

It's all foolish illogical nonsense that should have been tossed in the
garbage in the 1700s with the other discarded superstitious rubbish. We can do
better.

~~~
josephg
> Yes, now that's a matter of terminology.

> A market and property based approach that locks people out, allocates
> resources according to ability to pay or some other social status, and sees
> signs of inability to pay, poverty, and hardship including death, as merely
> personal moral failings, and the market consequences as some amoral natural
> system, that's gentrification.

Yeah this is a disagreement about terminology. It sounds like you've just
described a grab-bag of local social & political systems you don't like and
you're attaching the word 'gentrification' to it all. We use the word
'gentrification' to describe things which happens in other places too, to mean
different things, often in a non-perjorative way. Reusing that word to mean
something similar but different is pretty confusing.

~~~
eropple
What he describes is the very standard outcome of urban gentrification in
American cities. It may be localized to the United States but he is not doing
anything nefarious with his description.

------
greendave
> There is an emerging political consciousness in Silicon Valley.
> Technologists are advancing a new way of understanding the challenges facing
> America and how to solve them that do not split neatly along the traditional
> left right axis. However, to implement change along those new lines, there
> must be a will.

Really? Technologists are offering real solutions to the challenges of poverty
and inequality in America? Looking around at the bay area, you certainly
could've fooled me.

Few would dispute that the U.S. is in a bad way. But judging from Silicon
Valley's major successes of the past decade, at least some skepticism seems in
order.

~~~
akudha
There is a town in Mexico where the locals chased away the loggers, gangsters
and much of politicians. They do a lot of things themselves which normally
you'd expect a government to do.

That is an extreme example (maybe necessary in gang infested areas of Mexico),
but I wonder if it is time for communities to help themselves as much as they
can, before looking to governments, institutions and billionaires. It sucks to
be in this position though.

~~~
TeMPOraL
You'd have to have communities, though. From what I can tell, cities in the
West _don 't have_ the kind of communities you're looking for. The kind
consisting of people living and working in the same area, so that they know
each other and have some level of personal relationship to each other, who
_own_ enough of the area they live in that they can meaningfully self-govern.
In a modern Western town, people living in the same area work all across the
town, never see each other, and most of them only rents the places they live
in.

------
kiwicopple
I once had a relationship with someone with depression. As someone who is
naturally quite happy[1], the thing that suprised me most at the start of the
relationship is the amount of time she spent strategising how to be happy,
rather than just getting on with being happy. In her case, it's understandable
because depression is completely irrational[2]

But nations do have the capacity to act rationally, so when I these posts and
wonder if the world really needs more strategies. Do we need to spend more
time strategizing, rather than getting on-board with the solutions that
already have steam (as imperfect as they might be)?

Anyway, here is my contribution to the noise:
[https://paul.copplest.one/blog/why-nations-
succeed.html](https://paul.copplest.one/blog/why-nations-succeed.html)

    
    
        [1] happy/positive, whatever word you want without derailing the point of the comment
        [2] for anyone with depression, please read this with positive intent. Depression is horrific and I wouldn't wish it on my enemies

~~~
Ididntdothis
If you don’t know how to do something you can’t just get on with it. You have
to strategize. I myself have a tendency towards depression and don’t really
know how it is to just to be happy. Especially after failing a few times you
either give up or you start strategizing how to do it. It s a crazy cycle.

~~~
kiwicopple
I hope I made it clear in my comment that I understand this. Perhaps I
shouldn't have used the analogy so that my main point wasn't lost. For those
with depression, please strategize and do whatever you need to.

~~~
Ididntdothis
Reading your comment again I see what you were trying to say. I guess having
depression makes you sensitive to people saying "just go out and have fun"...

~~~
kiwicopple
That's... a very wholesome response. Not something you see often on anonymous
forums. I hope you can find some nice, peaceful strategies to live by - good
luck

------
meredydd
It is remarkable that in this soaring call to "build" institutions, the author
does not cite a single example of institutional capacity he would like to
build up, rather than tear down.

He cites some obviously real examples of institutional dysfunction (hi, San
Francisco zoning!). But these examples are all (or are all portrayed as)
institutions "hindering", "stifling" or "limiting" otherwise beneficial
processes. This implies a worldview in which the only thing institutions do is
get in the way of "the freedom to build", and the only implied remedy is to
get them out of the way.

This is counterproductive, because it takes us straight back to the
"government is [bad/good]" argument. These arguments haven't got us anywhere
so far, even - indeed, especially - in Silicon Valley, which features one of
the world's highest concentrations of libertarians.

(My amateur hypothesis: If you approach institutional reform with an agenda of
dismantling those institutions, that's a recipe for scorched-earth resistance
from anyone who believes in that institution's goals - _however well or poorly
that institution is currently functioning._ This leads to the worst of both
worlds: dysfunctional institutions, held in stasis by the tug-of-war going on
around them.)

If you really believe in institution-building, you should be able to cite some
examples of what they should be able to do more or better. Otherwise, you're
just advocating old-school deregulation and calling it "building".

Tyler Cowen's summary of "state capacity libertarianism", which this article
cites, is much preferable on this score: It is explicit about what Cowen
believes institutions should do (and do well), as well as what they should
not:
[https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/wh...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/what-
libertarianism-has-become-and-will-become-state-capacity-libertarianism.html)

------
cousin_it
> _Apple has committed $2.5 billion to housing in the Bay Area. Google
> committed $1 billion. Mark Zuckerberg committed another $500 million.
> Microsoft committed $500 million to housing in the Seattle region... In
> other words, the tech giants find it easier to spend hundreds of millions,
> if not billions of dollars than to reform city and local land use policies.
> A politically effective movement would hire a bunch of lobbyists and change
> zoning and land use for a fraction of the cost._

I think this is a good question, why do tech companies spend so little money
on YIMBY lobbying? (At most a few million, AFAIK.)

------
bsder
Horseshit.

Andrew Carnegie was a robber baron bastard, but it was him _actually cutting
checks_ that gave us museums and concert halls that persist to this day.

The Silicon Valley "elite" like to bitch, but they want everyone _else_ to cut
the check.

~~~
papeda
It seems easier to bankroll museums and concert halls (especially when
Carnegie lived) than change the kind of legislation that gets passed. This
article is more about the second impact.

~~~
bsder
Not really. You just have to _spend money_.

The reconstructed Globe Theatre in London ran into a problem while it was
being designed: thatched roofs had been illegal for hundreds of years. So,
they had to go through the process of certifying a fire suppression system,
getting everything approved, and then demonstrating that it was safe before
opening.

Sam Wanamaker was the person who persisted and cut checks--even in the face of
_LOTS_ of government resistance:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Wanamaker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Wanamaker)

------
daguar
I think the motivation behind this is right. In my experience many in Silicon
Valley don't understand the mechanics of long-term institutional change. In
part, that's simply because — much like entrepreneurship — expertise comes
from practical experience. Tacit, not-easily-transferrable knowledge
dominates.

I find Ezra Klein's recent line here useful:

"[W]hatever the recommendations, the same thing is needed: A sustained and
concerted movement that cares about institutional reform. But people get much
more excited about building something, anything, than about reforming existing
institutions. Meta-building isn’t a popular pastime, and the patient, focused
work it requires is particularly frustrating, in my experience, to
entrepreneurial personalities." [1]

I confess that I myself find it incredibly frustrating. See a government
program that's incredibly difficult to deal with, friction-laden up and down,
with reams of paperwork with legalese?

One _can_ build a layer on top that eliminates most or all of the friction.
But it will always be limited by the resource models that can sustain it. And
many problems simply have _no_ workable models other than state financing and
operation (market failure, in other words).

Instead, doing the work to make that program much better institutionally
involves long-term (frustrating) strategies like:

\- Think tanks / white papers: influencing the epistemic landscape among
policymakers

\- Organizing: shifting the Overton Window to make the change you want to see
broadly accepted

\- Coalition-building: working with allies with overlapping agendas to get
more muscle behind your own priorities

And even... waiting. You often have to wait — years! decades! — for a window
to come where you can get a big thing done. People worked on big healthcare
reform for 3 decades of effectively zero progress — and then in a year they
passed Obamacare.

That work is long, hard, much more probabilistic than product work, and much
less directly-controllable by a given person.

BUT there are playbooks to get it done. And I do wish technologists looked to
those tools more to make the institutional changes we need to make it so the
opportunities (individual and societal) of entrepreneurship were more widely
accessible.

One concrete example: I've long thought that a basic source of friction in
public services is because user experience isn't well-monitored, and therefore
not well-considered in public policy decisions.

Technologists are _great_ at measuring friction. It is a craft well-honed in
an environment where conversion is a live-or-die metric. But translating that
craft into institutional change requires something like a think tank, and/or
an organized movement with an agenda.

I think we'll get there, but it will take some risk-takers who understand that
long game and financial backers who aren't as well-versed in it, but who have
the risk tolerance of SV and the savvy to see that playbook _does_ work, and
point it at a problem with significant leverage.

[1] [https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-
build...](https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build-
government-coronavirus)

~~~
drewcoo
Or it could be that in tech entrepreneurship, goals are quarterly instead of
long-term, they're measured in dollars instead of happiness and welfare, and
completely failing, folding, and starting anew is admired and encouraged. This
approach seems incompatible with the public good.

~~~
TeMPOraL
In tech entrepreneurship, goals are growth metrics that indicate the chance of
for the business to have "an exit" in a year or two.

A startup that dies quickly after proving itself non-viable is a good thing,
because it doesn't take money or attention from investors anymore. And if the
founders were any good, they've learned things that will be useful on their
next venture.

A startup that shows large exponential growth is the best, because the
investors can sell the hot potato to a bigger fool before it implodes or gets
gutted by the buyer. This kind of company is the whole reason behind tech
investment.

The worst is the sustainable, slowly growing business. Such company isn't
going to bring home 10x return for the investors. And it stubbornly refuses to
die. The people running such company are more proven than random first-time
founders, so it would be better, from investor POV, if they just killed their
company and get back to the startup game.

Hence failing, folding and starting anew is admired and encouraged. Because
it's better for the investors than succeeding, but not succeeding big.

------
mordae
If we did not have patents, we wouldn't have to build in the current cities,
would we? I mean to earn our living. But since we do have patents, we cannot
escape the extractive system that corrupts public sector in order to secure
rent and we have to build on our land lords land. Funny.

------
voz_
I am having trouble understand what you are suggesting.

Technologists playing a more active role in government?

VCs in cabinet positions?

------
misrab
Reminds me of Fukyama's "Political Order and Political Decay", but in a more
contemporary and narrow context. Interesting thought bubble, thanks for the
read!

------
DominikD
The tl;dr of this article reads to me like "when building, make sure you know
how to lobby local government to maximize private profits utilizing as much of
public resources as possible". I did not see this coming. Outderegulating Marc
Andreessen is quite a feat.

------
adityasingh1b
scooter is major problem

------
tathougies
> My day job is working on charter cities, arguably the most quintessential
> act of institution building. Last fall I applied and had an interview at a
> prestigious accelerator. I told them the Charter Cities Institute helped
> draft regulations for Enyimba Economic City, a new city in Nigeria with a
> target population of 1.5m residents.

The idea that a city can 'target' a population is laughable and absolutely
terrible. Honestly, I stopped reading right there.

------
pochekailov
Why not build apps to build institutions?

Politics is quite complex and full of its own jargon. It is not simple to
understand.

Why not to develop apps, which will streamline a complex political process?
Take zoning for example. There are new construction hearings, which only few
NIMBYists attend, while pro-builders do not even know where to search for
those. Say I'm a pro-builder busy with my own career. I have many questions.
Where are those hearings held? Can I attend them, or there are some
requirements? How do I meet those requirements? Is there any voting taking
place? Where is it actually decided whether to build or not? What is the next
action I can take given I am an average city dweller able to dedicate few
hours per month for politics? If there is an app that would bring the tasks
down to small actionable points with descriptions, and offer simplest step by
step instructions, I may find it actually fun to do.

~~~
daguar
There are a lot of people who have built this app — but they're concierging!
(aka... not an app)

The reason is that the work you're describing (which is effectively
organizing) doesn't have the unit economics of tech automation.

All of this info can be created but it's pretty hard for a computer to
generate it because of the specifics of every project, across every different
city/municipality.

Layer on top of that the fact that the _biggest_ bottleneck is the activation
energy it requires for people to actually show up, and an app is just less
effective.

But you know what turns out to work shockingly well? A social aspect to
organizing. Have everyone show up to the meeting, and go grab a drink after
together to bond and make it so that folks feel good and want to do it again,
that they feel a part of it.

