> Oh, you mean the LA that's turning away from cars to solve its problems and is moving to walking, biking, and especially transit? That LA? That very one. Eve

> Oh, you mean the LA that's turning away from cars to solve its problems and is moving to walking, biking, and especially transit? That LA? That very one. Even with it's car issues, it has gotten to be successful. Those "solutions" don't work all that well in so cal because of the sprawl. I'm not arguing it's a 100% pro. There are cons, but I think you're missing my main point, which is that there are tradeoffs, and definite benefits and cons to sprawl, but it's the same with urbanization. > > Why not set up shop in one of those suburbs That's a question you need to be answering. The suburbs are already cheaper and less crowded, so why don't businesses set up shop there? Do they hate money and love traffic? They choose different tradeoffs, and I believe there may be an inherent preference of many people who start certain companies for certain areas for multiple reasons. The founder of my company had his life in the suburb we work out of, so it started there and remains there. Some suburban spots are inconvenient to reach from only specific other suburbs, so there's an infrastructure issue involved as well. Lastly, my point isn't that it's the right move for every company or even every industry. But I have seen and worked for companies that didn't even consider moving outside of certain urban areas because of image reasons. I'm just saying that there are other benefits worth considering. > Employee satisfaction can also be improved by having a successful company, which I think is probably a higher priority for most businesses, hence why you've seen more companies recently moving from suburbs to major cities (e.g. GE). My point is that success and location aren't mutually exclusive. It's easy to fail in both types of areas, and a different kind of hard to get it successful. And the company doing well doesn't always lead to employee satisfaction. Not every company passes on those benefits, or the company culture is toxic. > Whoa there bucko, maybe take off your hippie hat? "When you think about it, handicapping your recruiting is actually a good thing!" No. No it's not. Accepting a trade-off isn't handicapping anything, it's accepting reality and working within constraints. And constraints are very often a good thing, and they're still there with urban cities. At the end of the day, each company should pick whatever delivers the best economic outcome for them, and the smart ones make sure to account for the long term, which includes retaining smart and good people. If your company turn over rate is high, yeah, you'll need to focus on recruiting, but IMHO, that's not a good way to work in this world, hippie hat or not. Maybe it all comes down to how and where we prefer to work, but I think the benefits are often not even considered.