Move Silicon Valley: America needs a tech hub in a place where it’s welcome

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/the_next_silicon_valley/2013/12/move_silicon_valley_america_needs_a_tech_hub_in_a_place_where_it_s_welcome.html

by jseliger • 13 years ago

27 35 13 years ago

slate.com

cmwelsh• 13 years ago

How come the United States has never seen a planned metropolis, built on the principles of maximum security and maximum density? I know many people who would give up their "freedom" for the ability to live affordably in an environment like that. Where is our Silicon Arcology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology

beachstartup• 13 years ago

planned metropolis, built on the principles of maximum security and maximum density

this is exactly what new york is. it was a military base in a protected harbor, that turned into a planned city after several changes of ownership (some would say over-planned). that perfect grid system didn't spring forth organically.

i would recommend 'new york', the ric burns documentary.

scarmig• 13 years ago

Planned metropolises tend to break: cities are complex, emergent structures. Brasilia gets more shit than it deserves, but the planning that went behind it certainly wasn't good for it. Maybe "planning better" or "planning for better things" could work, but its hyper-modern conceit to not consider how it has failed in the past.

Or is failing in the present: see the grand, empty cities that the PRC has been building.

a8da6b0c91d• 13 years ago

Many great european cities grew entirely out of deliberate projects. Some noble family would want to harbor a thriving marketplace so they could tax it.

American cities did used to be planned. Philadelphia and New York didn't just assemble as grids. It's only in the postwar era suburbia build out that urban planning became haphazard and driven by developers.

The idea of a polity building a well planned city from scratch has loads of successful historical precedent.

snowwrestler• 13 years ago

Because central planning doesn't work.

Ok, it might work if the central planners could accurately predict the future. But they can't, so centrally planned economies and societies tend to fall behind.

muzz3• 13 years ago

Agreed that central planning doesn't work.

But somehow pundits like the author think that their second-guessing of markets somehow would.

angersock• 13 years ago

Basically, because the street finds its own uses for things.

Moreover, any place that is planned, instead of evolving organically, tends to be boring as shit to live in--for evidence, consider suburbs. Very planned, very boring.

wudf• 13 years ago

Haha. I'm about to move from Cleveland to the Valley in a couple months for the scene.

exelius• 13 years ago

I don't disagree with the author's premise; but Cleveland? If you look at the major technology startup hubs around the US (San Francisco, Austin, Boston, NYC, Pittsburgh) the one common factor is that they have major, world-class engineering universities.

selmnoo• 13 years ago

I agree, Cleveland is a strange choice - for more than a lot of reasons. Personally I'm rooting for any of these cities: Chicago, Austin, Madison, Portland, Seattle or Minneapolis. Austin might be the ideal choice, if only for the big weather factor.

maxent• 13 years ago

Case Western is in Cleveland and Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh is close.

muzz3• 13 years ago

Why aren't you disagreeing with the premise?

Businesses are free to locate themselves as they choose.

The fact that one doesn't like the result of market forces doesn't mean that the market is somehow wrong.

rguzman• 13 years ago

What would make google et. al. want to move, though? Is it really feasible for government (local or federal) to give strong enough incentives? Those companies are immensely profitable, so I'd guess it's not easy to bribe them with tax breaks. Furthermore, they care to be able to attract talent AND having a critical mass of talent, moving them all at once would only help with the latter, while they have both in SV.

sirkneeland• 13 years ago

"so I'd guess it's not easy to bribe them with tax breaks."

Especially when they are already paying so little tax to begin with on those profits...

danjaouen• 13 years ago

If we have to move Silicon Valley somewhere, my vote would go to Rochester, NY: http://rocwiki.org/

jff• 13 years ago

I was actually thinking that. Plenty of schools there including RIT and U of R, lots of office/warehouse/factory space available, unique local culture, cheap (for now) housing...

swivelmaster• 13 years ago

Is it really consensus that tech workers in San Francisco have that kind of contempt for folks who make less money? The article assumes that premise based on a few data points, but I don't buy it.

And anyway, tech hubs are created based on a very specific set of circumstances that are basically impossible to simulate. What company is going to be the Fairchild Semiconductor of Cleveland?

brianbarker• 13 years ago

Cleveland? SLC has more of an argument. I'd still go with Austin if we had to move it, though.

VladRussian2• 13 years ago

quick google shows that non-competes are enforceable in OH. Not-starter for hi-tech. TX pretty much the same.

For illustration, as another poster mentioned Fairchild - with enforceable non-competes you'll never have the "Fairchild Semiconductor of Cleveland"

greenyoda• 13 years ago

Just because a state enforces non-compete contracts doesn't mean that companies have to use them.

If a company in Ohio or Texas is trying to convince people to move there from California, and these people refuse to agree to non-compete contracts, the companies will have to stop that nonsense since it will prevent them from hiring the people they need.

ConnorBoyd• 13 years ago

I'm probably biased, but I think the Denver/Boulder area would be a good candidate

altoz• 13 years ago

The author of the article is obviously schilling for Cleveland and other rust belt cities that no longer have the manufacturing jobs that they used to.

Cleveland is one of the most heavily regulated and wasteful cities, as is Detroit. I would say that big companies aren't wanted there any more than they are in SF.

mhurron• 13 years ago

How about not having one and we can finally have some of these companies offering actual remote work.

stormcrowsx• 13 years ago

It's 27 degrees right now in Cleveland, need I say more?

kps• 13 years ago

Go everywhere and nowhere. Move bits, not bodies.

mgberlin• 13 years ago

A huge factor that the author fails to account for is weather.

Public transit might have it's pitfalls in SF, but there are no snow days. There's no ice on the roads. There's no hurricanes, or tornadoes, or summers that require A/C at all hours. You don't really have to pay to heat your home or office all winter. You can drive to the snow if you want to ski, or you can hang out on the beach in January.

The Bay Area is a paradise, meteorologically speaking. It's the reason that people who live on the street congregate here, and it's the same reason people are willing to pay exorbitant rent. There are very few other places in the country that even come close to competing, and it's not something that even the likes of Google can take with them to Cleveland.

muzz3• 13 years ago

The biggest factor that the author fails to account for is the market.

Businesses are profit maximizers. They locate themselves where they can profit the most.

arbuge• 13 years ago

"What’s needed is for a critical mass—say Google and Apple and Facebook and Twitter—to move all at once, to the same place, thus immediately creating a new tech hub."

Most of the millionaires who cashed out of those companies have already left, and many others would be unwilling to relocate. I don't think moving the ecosystem of angel investors etc. which powers the valley is so easy.

mwnz• 13 years ago

This whole idea that you can simply define an equivalent tech hub is misguided. Like it or not, there is nowhere in the world that compares to silicone valley. This, despite the high land prices, poor public transport and high rental prices.

dynofuz• 13 years ago

Miami anyone?

michaelochurch• 13 years ago

I don't think this will happen. Large tech companies have offices in the rest of the country, but getting the best projects and the promotions usually requires being at HQ. If you're serious about Google, you'll work in MTV. If you're serious about working for Goldman, you want New York. Sure, you can work in Madison or Austin and be employed by a Silicon Valley company, but you'll be getting the projects that the mother ship passed on. If you want to live in Austin, then you're best off working in an Austin company if you want a career there.

Nor are VCs going to move just to "spread the wealth" geographically. They're rich enough that this rent shit isn't their problem and they're settled. Whatever is to reverse this condensation of tech in the Bay Area is going to be post-VC; someone will have to figure out how to target and structure the mid-risk/mid-growth (15-40%/year growth) businesses that VCs hate. I have ideas on structure: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle...

It is a nice idea, and if technology comes through with a post-VC wave (a return to maker culture) we will see that geographical shift. It won't be "a new hub". It'll probably be 20 or so microhubs, of which San Francisco and New York will be included.

I could see a strong forecast for: Austin, Boulder, Durham, Baltimore, Portland. Boston is well-poised to make a comeback, and Chicago could show some strength.

gmays• 13 years ago

Come on down to San Diego, we'd love to have you.

intangible• 13 years ago

What's wrong with Vegas? There's plenty of room here, Project 100 and other interesting tech companies starting up, and close enough to fly in or drive to and from the Valley if needed every so often. Also, the city is trying to diversify from just Casino culture as it is, so you can get a decent amount of support for pie-in-the sky projects, not to mention the business-friendly tax laws.

koberstein• 13 years ago

I vote Reno. The real estate market is cheap. It is just a few hours down the 80 from the bay. Tahoe is our neighbor. The city is motivated to attract tech.

bobosha• 13 years ago

What about Seattle?

Move Silicon Valley: America needs a tech hub in a place where it’s welcome

Related Stories