4 ms·
Non-sensical is hyperbolic. You're pulling those two examples from a table that includes these rows: Dallas $127,715,000 / 147% / $75,940,000 Detroit $66,985,
by dionidium 11y ago
Non-sensical is hyperbolic. You're pulling those two examples from a table that includes these rows:
Dallas $127,715,000 / 147% / $75,940,000
Detroit $66,985,000 / 145% / $39,640,000
Portland $42,600,000 / 675% / $37,100,000
St. Louis $23,930,000 / 327% / $18,330,000
Kansas City $13,670,000 / 297% / $10,230,000
- ghaff 11y agoYes, but the two examples are at the top of the table and together significantly exceed the sum of the rest of the table.
- rexreed 11y agoexactly. And while the fly-over country (as they say) might indeed be non-coastal and lower-cost the quantities are sufficiently small to indicate that the conclusion is incorrect. It's not that being non-coastal or low-cost is an indication of where the money is going (Portland, San Diego, and Boston are clear counter-examples), it's that the ones that are non-coastal and showing growth in VC funding are being driven by a small number of large investments that are outliers. So, when it says the "biggest winners"... they really don't mean the biggest winners. They mean that there are some winners that are interesting non-coastal low-cost living locations, but these are interesting winners, not the biggest ones. And of course the big winners are still coastal and high cost of living cities. There's nothing contraindicating in the research that VC patterns have shifted. EXCEPT in the case of Austin, which interestingly is the opposite of what they claim about the biggest winners. Austin was a big loser in Q1.
- sib 11y agoAlso, Portland is effectively "coastal" and not a cheap place to live. It's definitely closer to the coast than Seattle is.
- ryanSrich 11y agoYou should pull Portland out. I just saw a 1 bedroom apartment list at $3499. Also, it's 1 hour from the coast, so it's a coastal city.