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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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"

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Go everywhere and nowhere. Move bits, not bodies.

What about Seattle?

Miami anyone?

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.