5 ms·

Doesn't this is a sense show the system is partially working? Austin, who barely cares to get the HQ and has other attractive properties for tech companies, is

Doesn't this is a sense show the system is partially working? Austin, who barely cares to get the HQ and has other attractive properties for tech companies, is offering no incentives, while underdog cities who really want the HQ but have less compelling properties are showing their willingness to try harder. Classic story. I get the race-to-the-bottom argument, but then what mechanisms can an underdog city use to ever compete?

Retric 9y ago
Efficiency, city's don't need to get bigger. Build a city for it's current residents and more people and companies will want to move there. Remember, if someone wants to move to a larger city they can. However, being smaller is actually appealing because you get less traffic etc. Further, city's are only important due to it's residents, if everyone moved somewhere else it's not like the land is going to get upset.
- thinkloop 9y ago
  > city's are only important due to it's residents That's the problem, how do you spark the network effect? People don't setup in SF for ironic atari t-shirts, they're there for the talent pool and infrastructure (i.e. the stuff amazon will bring)
  - JBlue42 9y ago
    People have been talking lately about how Pittsburgh has turned things around. The Raleigh-Durham area is always talked about as kind of an unappreciated, affordable place for tech people to work. Both downtowns have improved over the past decade or two (like in many small cities), the three big universities have plenty of students, RTP is around, the only thing really against it is the suburban sprawl. I hear they are getting light rail but I've heard people talking about rail in NC since I was a child (30 some years ago).
    - notatoad 9y ago
      >the only thing really against it is the suburban sprawl as much as HN (me included) likes to complain about sprawl, don't forget that there's plenty of people who love the suburbs. Sprawl is not a downside for everybody - the people who like it just call it "affordable single-family homes" and "quiet neighbourhoods" instead of sprawl
      - JBlue42 9y ago
        Good point and, as a city resident, I wouldn't mind a bit of peace and quiet myself (but would go more extreme and get as rural as possible). I think on this I was thinking more the requirements of the HQ2 which specifically mentioned mass transit routes. Also, more generally, the parent was talking about the 'network effect' of SF and the culture there. When you're isolated in your affordable single-family home and commute to your office park that vastly differs from the serendipity and collision of people, thoughts, opportunities that you have living in a denser place where you come across more people daily, one would think. I assume that's why cities are more liberal - that we have to put up with, tolerate, and can empathize with a wider variety of people than the isolation of house->car->work->car->house. Just speculating there.
  - pm90 9y ago
    > That's the problem, how do you spark the network effect? People don't setup in SF for ironic atari t-shirts, they're there for the talent pool and infrastructure (i.e. the stuff amazon will bring) In short, you bring them in for other reasons. The most common being Universities, but it can also be Government or Private Sector research labs. One oft overlooked factor in Silicon Valley's success has been the great Universities nearby attracting some of the brightest people from all over the world. Pittsburgh (CMU), Raleigh-Durham (UNC) and Austin (UT, TAMU) are succeeding in tech for similar reasons.
mikeash 9y ago
Underdog cities could and should compete by improving their offering for everyone, rather than making one-off deals with individual companies.
- thinkloop 9y ago
  This is challenging too, most cities would much prefer Amazon to a new coal processing facility, for example.
- notatoad 9y ago
  Sure, that sounds nice in theory, but probably isn't practical. Short of serious corruption, most cities are about as nice as their current tax base allows. Giving a company a tax break to incentivize that company to move into their city allows them to grow their tax base and improve their city for everybody. But it's not like cities are just sitting on potential attractors for employers to move in.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    It's not about nice, it's about structure. What sorts of development are they encouraging? Is the main street an endless series of the same chain restaurants, or does it have a livable core? Are they encouraging rental properties to make the it easier to live there? Are they promoting high-priced condos instead to get quick hits of cash? Policy is a highly subjective thing, but it also takes decades for it to make an impact.
    - echaozh 9y ago
      This is capitalism isn't it. What should the government encourage? To let the consumers and the producers decide for themselves.
      - astrodust 9y ago
        There's a difference between a well tended garden and one left to do whatever it wants. Consumers and producers don't always get to decide. If you live in a small town that has a Wal-Mart then it's extremely difficult to compete directly with that store if you're just some independent. People might like your business, but you can't buy at the same volumes, you can't force the hand of city council for tax breaks, you have almost no power in comparison. Absent good governance then corporations decide everything and we get to "decide" between the options they deign to give us.
s2g 9y ago
> what mechanisms can an underdog city use to ever compete Instead of giving Amazon money (by say, funneling employee taxes back to them. really chicago?) they could promise to earmark those taxes towards overall city improvements that Amazon is also interested in. Transit, for example. In the case of tech companies you could also change your zoning to try and make things cheaper for the 10s of thousands of new employees who are going to move in. That sort of thing. Be forward thinking and try to build a city that doesn't get crippled by housing shortages and traffic.

Retric 9y ago

Efficiency, city's don't need to get bigger. Build a city for it's current residents and more people and companies will want to move there. Remember, if someone wants to move to a larger city they can. However, being smaller is actually appealing because you get less traffic etc. Further, city's are only important due to it's residents, if everyone moved somewhere else it's not like the land is going to get upset.

thinkloop 9y ago
> city's are only important due to it's residents That's the problem, how do you spark the network effect? People don't setup in SF for ironic atari t-shirts, they're there for the talent pool and infrastructure (i.e. the stuff amazon will bring)
- JBlue42 9y ago
  People have been talking lately about how Pittsburgh has turned things around. The Raleigh-Durham area is always talked about as kind of an unappreciated, affordable place for tech people to work. Both downtowns have improved over the past decade or two (like in many small cities), the three big universities have plenty of students, RTP is around, the only thing really against it is the suburban sprawl. I hear they are getting light rail but I've heard people talking about rail in NC since I was a child (30 some years ago).
  - notatoad 9y ago
    >the only thing really against it is the suburban sprawl as much as HN (me included) likes to complain about sprawl, don't forget that there's plenty of people who love the suburbs. Sprawl is not a downside for everybody - the people who like it just call it "affordable single-family homes" and "quiet neighbourhoods" instead of sprawl
    - JBlue42 9y ago
      Good point and, as a city resident, I wouldn't mind a bit of peace and quiet myself (but would go more extreme and get as rural as possible). I think on this I was thinking more the requirements of the HQ2 which specifically mentioned mass transit routes. Also, more generally, the parent was talking about the 'network effect' of SF and the culture there. When you're isolated in your affordable single-family home and commute to your office park that vastly differs from the serendipity and collision of people, thoughts, opportunities that you have living in a denser place where you come across more people daily, one would think. I assume that's why cities are more liberal - that we have to put up with, tolerate, and can empathize with a wider variety of people than the isolation of house->car->work->car->house. Just speculating there.
- pm90 9y ago
  > That's the problem, how do you spark the network effect? People don't setup in SF for ironic atari t-shirts, they're there for the talent pool and infrastructure (i.e. the stuff amazon will bring) In short, you bring them in for other reasons. The most common being Universities, but it can also be Government or Private Sector research labs. One oft overlooked factor in Silicon Valley's success has been the great Universities nearby attracting some of the brightest people from all over the world. Pittsburgh (CMU), Raleigh-Durham (UNC) and Austin (UT, TAMU) are succeeding in tech for similar reasons.

mikeash 9y ago

Underdog cities could and should compete by improving their offering for everyone, rather than making one-off deals with individual companies.

thinkloop 9y ago
This is challenging too, most cities would much prefer Amazon to a new coal processing facility, for example.
notatoad 9y ago
Sure, that sounds nice in theory, but probably isn't practical. Short of serious corruption, most cities are about as nice as their current tax base allows. Giving a company a tax break to incentivize that company to move into their city allows them to grow their tax base and improve their city for everybody. But it's not like cities are just sitting on potential attractors for employers to move in.
- astrodust 9y ago
  It's not about nice, it's about structure. What sorts of development are they encouraging? Is the main street an endless series of the same chain restaurants, or does it have a livable core? Are they encouraging rental properties to make the it easier to live there? Are they promoting high-priced condos instead to get quick hits of cash? Policy is a highly subjective thing, but it also takes decades for it to make an impact.
  - echaozh 9y ago
    This is capitalism isn't it. What should the government encourage? To let the consumers and the producers decide for themselves.
    - astrodust 9y ago
      There's a difference between a well tended garden and one left to do whatever it wants. Consumers and producers don't always get to decide. If you live in a small town that has a Wal-Mart then it's extremely difficult to compete directly with that store if you're just some independent. People might like your business, but you can't buy at the same volumes, you can't force the hand of city council for tax breaks, you have almost no power in comparison. Absent good governance then corporations decide everything and we get to "decide" between the options they deign to give us.

s2g 9y ago

> what mechanisms can an underdog city use to ever compete Instead of giving Amazon money (by say, funneling employee taxes back to them. really chicago?) they could promise to earmark those taxes towards overall city improvements that Amazon is also interested in. Transit, for example. In the case of tech companies you could also change your zoning to try and make things cheaper for the 10s of thousands of new employees who are going to move in. That sort of thing. Be forward thinking and try to build a city that doesn't get crippled by housing shortages and traffic.