They might even like Houston better than Austin. Cost of living can be a bit lower, and Houston loves the mega-wealthy, with lots more room to add mansions. The city is probably only slightly less liberal than Austin. Houston will probably fair better in the future water shortages as well.
Sure, the Silicon Valley big-wigs don't much grace the third coast, but there's plenty of money waiting to be tapped, and a lot of millionaires who'd love t be in on the action.
I support the vote for Austin. I live in Chicago. After reading "The Fate of the States"[1] by financial analyst Meredith Whitney, I believe Austin is a very viable alternative to Silicon Valley purely for how the state of Texas manages its finances.
I took the relevant information from her book, which is about how debt-burdened states like California are hurting their long-term economic prospects and how states like Texas are currently growing and poised for future growth, and wrote a blog post titled "Is California's Budget Threatening Silicon Valley?"[2]
It didn't get much play on HN, but I think it's full of very important data that should be discussed by the startup community.
In addition, Las Vegas still has tons of homes left over from their last boom and bust, and were caught holding the bag after the housing bubble -- this means there are tons of homes sitting vacant (at least, last I looked).
The problem with moving a large community is that, basically, you're just as likely to break the place you move to as not. Vegas has a degree of "keep doing what we're doing" that probably isn't very shakeable, but Texas has ... interesting thoughts on things like gay marriage, reproductive rights, etc., that are likely at odds with the average Valley resident, that aren't necessarily going to make feeling welcome the easiest of tasks.
Of course, expatriation is at an all time high, at least partly due to progressive taxation, so I think we should be wary of encouraging movement, as the destination might not necessarily end up being in the US.
>>but Texas has ... interesting thoughts on things like gay marriage, reproductive rights, etc., that are likely at odds with the average Valley resident
Texas as a whole may have those thoughts, but Austin is significantly more liberal. Heck, I live in LA right now and whenever I visit Austin it feels a lot more liberal than LA -- and more interesting.
Don't move to Austin, our traffic sucks[0]. Plus we're still in a drought[1].
Though, there are a lot of nice things about the city. If you want suburban life, Round Rock and Cedar Park lets you get a large house for fairly cheep, and it's not much of a drive.
There is lots of live music around downtown, and even when large bands come here, they tend to play smaller venues. The F1 track open just over a year ago, and that's been a bit of a boon to the city (on-top of SXSW and ACL).
More generally, tech workers who enjoy healthy six-figure salaries want to live and raise families in nice places. Even if they don't have ocean views, the SF Bay Area offers excellent beaches, skiing, biking, hiking, sailing, surfing, golf, parks, etc. -- all within ~3 hours' drive and for a good portion of the year. The weather and geography are such an important factors.
It is a damn shame the Texas Coast isn't more developed in that area. The only city I could see being close to Austin is Houston, and attractiveness isn't one of its strong suits.
I'm surprised I've seen no mention of Tampa/Orlando/Palm Beach. No income tax, pro business government, the locals would not get bent out of shape about "outsiders". Good weather and recreation. Also, the whole gateway to Latin America thing. Orlando might have the best flight connectivity of anywhere in the USA; that's a big reason why all the PGA players live there.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Paris has strict rules on how tall a building can be within the city core. That certainly puts a dent in any plans to increase the density of the city...
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
