5 ms·

Trouble is that San Francisco is a terrible place, geographically, for a large and ever-expanding industry. It's a tiny sliver of land on the end of a peninsula

by hugh4 11y ago

Trouble is that San Francisco is a terrible place, geographically, for a large and ever-expanding industry. It's a tiny sliver of land on the end of a peninsula. There's only three roads out of town and no room to expand. Austin is much more suitable, it's surrounded by nothing on all sides. Sooner or later the global hub of the computer industry has to shift away from San Francisco to somewhere there's actually some goddamn space. That time is now, as evidenced by the ridiculous prices, which are pushing people out. This is a good and natural stage of the process. The only question is whether we destroy one of the few genuinely pleasant cities in North America trying to hold on for another decade. Sigh. It seems that every time I say something counter-circlejerklical, I take a karma hit which prevents me from posting for hours. "You're submitting too fast. Please slow down."

sampo 11y ago
> Trouble is that San Francisco is a terrible place, geographically, for a large and ever-expanding industry. So a bit like Hong Kong, Singapore, or Manhattan?
- philsnow 11y ago
  I like to link to this photo [0] when this discussion comes up. I don't think SF will ever look like this, unfortunately. [0] http://7-themes.com/data_images/out/69/7008405-hong-kong-skyline-view.jpg http://7-themes.com/data_images/out/69/7008405-hong-kong-sky...
bsder 11y ago
> Sooner or later the global hub of the computer industry has to shift away from San Francisco to somewhere there's actually some goddamn space. That time is now, as evidenced by the ridiculous prices, which are pushing people out. This is a good and natural stage of the process. They've tried. Several times. It never works. As soon as the economy donwnturns, all the non-SV sites get shuttered. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. And now, people have been through enough iterations to know that non-SV satellite sites are full of crap. The consolidation in the semiconductor industry isn't helping, either. However, the solution is rather simple: sustained Series A investment in an area. This is the key point that drives Silicon Valley--as bad as the Series A situation is in the Valley, it's orders of magnitude better than anywhere else. So, if you funded 50 Series A's each year at about $5 million each, you wind up with about 5,000 employees and 500 companies for about $2.5 billion invested over 10 years. Given the lack of Series A in the valley right now, THAT would create a new Silicon Valley. Of course, at that point, the VC's in Silicon Valley would finally get off their asses and start funding Series A's, so now you are competing with them as they attempt to short circuit your ability to get another Silicon Valley off the ground. So, is someone going to cough up a check for $2.5 billion to be contrary and make the next Silicon Valley? Or, instead, are they just going to go join the rest in the valley? I know what I would do if I had that kind of money.

by hugh4 11y ago

sampo 11y ago

> Trouble is that San Francisco is a terrible place, geographically, for a large and ever-expanding industry. So a bit like Hong Kong, Singapore, or Manhattan?

philsnow 11y ago
I like to link to this photo [0] when this discussion comes up. I don't think SF will ever look like this, unfortunately. [0] http://7-themes.com/data_images/out/69/7008405-hong-kong-skyline-view.jpg http://7-themes.com/data_images/out/69/7008405-hong-kong-sky...

bsder 11y ago

> Sooner or later the global hub of the computer industry has to shift away from San Francisco to somewhere there's actually some goddamn space. That time is now, as evidenced by the ridiculous prices, which are pushing people out. This is a good and natural stage of the process. They've tried. Several times. It never works. As soon as the economy donwnturns, all the non-SV sites get shuttered. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. And now, people have been through enough iterations to know that non-SV satellite sites are full of crap. The consolidation in the semiconductor industry isn't helping, either. However, the solution is rather simple: sustained Series A investment in an area. This is the key point that drives Silicon Valley--as bad as the Series A situation is in the Valley, it's orders of magnitude better than anywhere else. So, if you funded 50 Series A's each year at about $5 million each, you wind up with about 5,000 employees and 500 companies for about $2.5 billion invested over 10 years. Given the lack of Series A in the valley right now, THAT would create a new Silicon Valley. Of course, at that point, the VC's in Silicon Valley would finally get off their asses and start funding Series A's, so now you are competing with them as they attempt to short circuit your ability to get another Silicon Valley off the ground. So, is someone going to cough up a check for $2.5 billion to be contrary and make the next Silicon Valley? Or, instead, are they just going to go join the rest in the valley? I know what I would do if I had that kind of money.