5 ms·

Personally, I think the best option is to encourage the high growth companies in tech/finance/media to create secondary headquarters in nearby secondary cities

by jpao79 8y ago

Personally, I think the best option is to encourage the high growth companies in tech/finance/media to create secondary headquarters in nearby secondary cities that are ready to handle higher density growth (i.e high density residential and light rail systems, etc.). SF/SV -> Sacramento NYC -> Newark LA -> San Diego High level management can day trip it via 1-2 hour train/car/shuttle ride to the secondary headquarters without the expense/complexity of plane rides and overbite hotels, or conversely the employees can day trip it to primary headquarters. Plus there is no timezone difference for conference calls. And most importantly the employees can still be within driving distance of their social network and have a very similar quality of life (climate, outdoor recreation, etc.) but not all of their paycheck is spent on housing.

taurath 8y ago
I’d love we’re this to happen, but it seems like the trend is to cram everyone in the same space - the ambiguous “network benefit” seems to be trumping economics a lot of the time.
pcwalton 8y ago
> Personally, I think the best option is to encourage the high growth companies in tech/finance/media to create secondary headquarters in nearby secondary cities that are ready to handle higher density growth (i.e high density residential and light rail systems, etc.). We already tried that. Google, Apple, etc. located themselves in the small orchard towns of Mountain View and Cupertino instead of the big San Francisco. San Jose responded by building up its downtown, anchored by Adobe, and investing in light rail. A similar story played out in L.A., with media companies moving to Burbank. This didn't solve the problem. There's really no way around building housing.
- mwcampbell 8y ago
  The answer for software companies in particular seems obvious to me: remote work. I think that for the kind of work we do, in-person communication and synchronous collaboration are over-rated. I hope that the next generation of programmers will all have the freedom to stay in their home towns rather than having to congregate in a few cities, thus driving up costs. I know that this change requires a major culture shift, though.
  - taurath 8y ago
    Execs don’t go for it. That’s the primary reason it’s not been done at large scale companies - you do get better control and coordination in person, but not so much better that it outweighs the economics (IMO)
  - afarrell 8y ago
    Remote work is harder for entry-level workers just out of university who haven't yet learned the communication skills needed to be effective working remotely. At least, this is my own particular experience. It took me years to learn how to ask good questions. Before, I would either: 1) When I ran into something that seemed frustrating or inefficient, I would assume that the task was just difficult and I needed to put my head down and slog through it. 2) Ask broad questions to try and build a mental model that would let me work more efficiently and know what to focus on, hear the feedback "you're trying to understand the universe", and think that meant I should stop asking questions and just keep punching. It was only at my current employer (where everyone is in the same office and my tech lead and I could have in-person 1-on-1s) that I got feedback on how to be more specific and contextual in my questions.
    - mwcampbell 8y ago
      > my tech lead and I could have in-person 1-on-1s Do you think it matters that they were in-person? The fact that you called them 1-on-1s implies dedicated chunks of time for direct communication. Would they not have worked just as well over VoIP? Did you have to schedule time for 1-on-1s in the office, or was it more spontaneous? FWIW, I'm visually impaired, and I spent most of my career so far on a distributed team where the same was true of my boss and most of my coworkers. So maybe there's some aspect of in-person communication that we're just used to doing without. Edit: Then again, remote work _is_ on the rise in the wider software industry.
      - afarrell 8y ago
        > Do you think it matters that they were in-person? yes. I wish I had an explicit enough understanding that I could give you a solid explanation of why I believe this, but I don't.
- taurath 8y ago
  Meanwhile Intel is in Bend OR Folsom CA Tacoma WA and a ton of other “smaller” towns in addition to Santa Clara. The only reason it seems for modern tech companies to put a satellite office up is so they can poach from the players that are already there, it’s seemed. Hoping amazon HQ2 can become a model.
- jpao79 8y ago
  Definitely true - that said, it is possible that it would have been much worse if all three had simultaneously attempted to locate their HQ all in SF.
linkregister 8y ago
I disagree that San Diego can handle the sprawl. It is sandwiched between seashore and mountains. LA is already naturally expanding to the Inland Empire, which is essentially flat plain.
- geomark 8y ago
  Not to mention the border to the south and Camp Pendleton to the north. It really is boxed in. San Diego is already a nightmare for commuters with the growth of tech in north county. I think major mass transit would have to go in first before additional growth would be feasible.
nradov 8y ago
In most companies, the decision on headquarters relocation is primarily based on where the senior executives want to live. Actual economics are secondary.
- walshemj 8y ago
  For example Ebay UK's HQ is in Richmond (very posh v expensive suburb of London). Its not on any of the main line's into London and not that well placed for anyone living in London let alone commuting in from more affordable places.
astura 8y ago
San Diego isn't a "secondary city" and is already pretty crowded and expensive.

by jpao79 8y ago

taurath 8y ago

I’d love we’re this to happen, but it seems like the trend is to cram everyone in the same space - the ambiguous “network benefit” seems to be trumping economics a lot of the time.

pcwalton 8y ago

> Personally, I think the best option is to encourage the high growth companies in tech/finance/media to create secondary headquarters in nearby secondary cities that are ready to handle higher density growth (i.e high density residential and light rail systems, etc.). We already tried that. Google, Apple, etc. located themselves in the small orchard towns of Mountain View and Cupertino instead of the big San Francisco. San Jose responded by building up its downtown, anchored by Adobe, and investing in light rail. A similar story played out in L.A., with media companies moving to Burbank. This didn't solve the problem. There's really no way around building housing.

mwcampbell 8y ago
The answer for software companies in particular seems obvious to me: remote work. I think that for the kind of work we do, in-person communication and synchronous collaboration are over-rated. I hope that the next generation of programmers will all have the freedom to stay in their home towns rather than having to congregate in a few cities, thus driving up costs. I know that this change requires a major culture shift, though.
- taurath 8y ago
  Execs don’t go for it. That’s the primary reason it’s not been done at large scale companies - you do get better control and coordination in person, but not so much better that it outweighs the economics (IMO)
- afarrell 8y ago
  Remote work is harder for entry-level workers just out of university who haven't yet learned the communication skills needed to be effective working remotely. At least, this is my own particular experience. It took me years to learn how to ask good questions. Before, I would either: 1) When I ran into something that seemed frustrating or inefficient, I would assume that the task was just difficult and I needed to put my head down and slog through it. 2) Ask broad questions to try and build a mental model that would let me work more efficiently and know what to focus on, hear the feedback "you're trying to understand the universe", and think that meant I should stop asking questions and just keep punching. It was only at my current employer (where everyone is in the same office and my tech lead and I could have in-person 1-on-1s) that I got feedback on how to be more specific and contextual in my questions.
  - mwcampbell 8y ago
    > my tech lead and I could have in-person 1-on-1s Do you think it matters that they were in-person? The fact that you called them 1-on-1s implies dedicated chunks of time for direct communication. Would they not have worked just as well over VoIP? Did you have to schedule time for 1-on-1s in the office, or was it more spontaneous? FWIW, I'm visually impaired, and I spent most of my career so far on a distributed team where the same was true of my boss and most of my coworkers. So maybe there's some aspect of in-person communication that we're just used to doing without. Edit: Then again, remote work _is_ on the rise in the wider software industry.
    - afarrell 8y ago
      > Do you think it matters that they were in-person? yes. I wish I had an explicit enough understanding that I could give you a solid explanation of why I believe this, but I don't.
taurath 8y ago
Meanwhile Intel is in Bend OR Folsom CA Tacoma WA and a ton of other “smaller” towns in addition to Santa Clara. The only reason it seems for modern tech companies to put a satellite office up is so they can poach from the players that are already there, it’s seemed. Hoping amazon HQ2 can become a model.
jpao79 8y ago
Definitely true - that said, it is possible that it would have been much worse if all three had simultaneously attempted to locate their HQ all in SF.

linkregister 8y ago

I disagree that San Diego can handle the sprawl. It is sandwiched between seashore and mountains. LA is already naturally expanding to the Inland Empire, which is essentially flat plain.

geomark 8y ago
Not to mention the border to the south and Camp Pendleton to the north. It really is boxed in. San Diego is already a nightmare for commuters with the growth of tech in north county. I think major mass transit would have to go in first before additional growth would be feasible.

nradov 8y ago

In most companies, the decision on headquarters relocation is primarily based on where the senior executives want to live. Actual economics are secondary.

walshemj 8y ago
For example Ebay UK's HQ is in Richmond (very posh v expensive suburb of London). Its not on any of the main line's into London and not that well placed for anyone living in London let alone commuting in from more affordable places.

astura 8y ago

San Diego isn't a "secondary city" and is already pretty crowded and expensive.