
Move Silicon Valley: America needs a tech hub in a place where it’s welcome - jseliger
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
======
exelius
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.

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

------
altoz
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.

------
cmwelsh
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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology)

~~~
scarmig
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
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.

------
mgberlin
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.

~~~
muzz
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.

------
danjaouen
If we have to move Silicon Valley somewhere, my vote would go to Rochester,
NY: [http://rocwiki.org/](http://rocwiki.org/)

~~~
jff
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...

------
rguzman
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
"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...

------
intangible
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.

------
arbuge
"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.

------
swivelmaster
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?

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

------
VladRussian2
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
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.

------
mwnz
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.

------
koberstein
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.

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

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

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

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

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

------
kps
Go everywhere and nowhere. Move bits, not bodies.

------
bobosha
What about Seattle?

------
dynofuz
Miami anyone?

------
michaelochurch
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...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-
macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/)

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.

