All of the usual suggestions are too small, IMO, except Seattle (4M) which is already expensive and facing similar problems to the Bay. Austin (2M), Raleigh-Dur

All of the usual suggestions are too small, IMO, except Seattle (4M) which is already expensive and facing similar problems to the Bay. Austin (2M), Raleigh-Durham (2M), Denver (3M), Portland (2.5M) are not suited to compete with the Bay (8M). Baltimore-Washington (9M), Boston (7M), New York (20ishM) and San Diego (3.5M) are already very expensive. Climate isn't king, but Phoenix (4.5M) and Minneapolis (3.5M) are too uncomfortable for most people. That leaves Chicago (9.5M), Dallas (7M), Detroit (4M), Houston (6.5M) and Atlanta (6M), of which the first and last have a more mature tech sector, denser urban geography and better public transit (Atlanta's transit ridership is five times Houston's). Of the two, Chicago has much better infrastructure, but Atlanta has much nicer weather. Both are far too small currently to pose a threat to California's dominance, so I wouldn't expect to see any changes any time soon.