3 ms·
I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but isn't it better to drop new FAANG campuses in already large, expensive cities where housing will only get a coup
by eigenvector 8y ago
I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but isn't it better to drop new FAANG campuses in already large, expensive cities where housing will only get a couple percentage points more expensive than in, say, an affordable mid-sized city where their presence could totally destabilize the local housing market for decades?
This is what I always thought was problematic about putting a Google campus in a place like Boulder, a smallish college town with geographic constraints to new housing. Adding over 1,000 Googlers with $200-$500K total comp might as well be a tsunami for a town that size.
- davidw 8y agoBoulder's constraints are almost entirely political. You could even build up in the mountains if you really wanted to (but that would be awful). There's tons of land in a green belt around it that's quite buildable, and of course most of the city is your basic single-family home western american town with a ban on apartments or building even human-scale 2/3/4 story housing.
- bilbo0s 8y agoeigenvector's point still stands. You choose Detroit, or Cleveland, or Birmingham, or whatever and you completely distort their local economy.
- kenneth 8y agoDetroit I'm sure has plenty of real estate waiting for a good use. Yes, a lot of the blight has been razed, but my understanding is that there's still plenty of underused urban buildings.
- bsvalley 8y agoPlaying devil's advocate to your devil's advocate play, isn't it better when a tech giant opens up a new campus in a not-so developed area? This brings new jobs, raises equities, increase resources, etc. We're talking places like Austin TX, Portland OR, etc. They are at a sweet spot today. They should stop here. Because there's a fine line where it has to stop otherwise it becomes a disruptive machine like the Bay Area and NYC.