3 ms·

Sure, but problem Cumberland has same problem as rest of Appalachia, it's geography isn't very good. Mountain areas make everything 10x times harder to build.

Sure, but problem Cumberland has same problem as rest of Appalachia, it's geography isn't very good. Mountain areas make everything 10x times harder to build. Let's say some big software company wanted to build second HQ. Even if Cumberland was attractive in workforce, education options and so forth, the architects would say "Building your HQ2 is going to be rough. There isn't enough flat land, flooding could be problematic, fiber companies are screaming about the trenching" Not to mention, where are you going to put all your workers since housing will run into same problem. So if you wanted to stay in MD, somewhere like Hagerstown or Salisbury would be a better choice since usable land is plentiful.

AlotOfReading 2y ago
If there was an economy worth building for, the geography wouldn't be a blocker. Look at Seattle, Oakland, or the Hollywood hills. They're all built on rugged, mountainous terrain just as difficult as the Appalachians, but they don't suffer the same issues attracting wealth because their economic situation is so different. In fact, each of them has the opposite problem of demand to build vastly outstripping permission to build.
- stackskipton 2y ago
  >Look at Seattle, Oakland, or the Hollywood hills. They're all built on rugged, mountainous terrain just as difficult as the Appalachians, but they don't suffer the same issues attracting wealth because their economic situation is so different. Wrong. Seattle, Oakland and Los Angeles are mostly built on much flatter parts of those areas. California entire geography is about "Hey, check out these massive valleys or coastal land we can build in." Same thing with Washington State, Seattle is in between Cascades and Olympics where there is all this flat land to build on. Yes, they running out of land and building into mountains now. That problem is like having FAANG scaling problems. It sucks but it's good/manageable problem to have and you have massive checkbooks to help solve it. Have you been to Appalachia? It's not on the coast and does not have these benefits. If you want to compare it to West Coast areas, it's more like Sierra Nevada. Inland Mountains with only small valleys to build infrastructure in.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > built on much flatter parts of those areas Seattle was MADE flat by literally using fire hoses to flatten hills and mountains [0]. That said, I disagree with the role geography has with developing a tech industry - most of it can be directly related to investment put during WW2 and the 1950s into innovation clusters. For example, Seattle and aerospace (Boeing), Bay Area and computers+electronics+nukes (HP, IBM Almaden, LLNL, LLBL, Los Alamos managed by UCB), San Diego and Biotech+Defense Tech (Salk Lab, Navy), Portland and electronics (INL, PNNL, Tektronics, Intel), etc [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regrading_in_Seattle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regrading_in_Seattle
    - lizknope 2y ago
      I saw an interactive exhibit at Museum of History & Industry (MOHAI) in Seattle. It showed how different sections were regraded and you could push buttons where that section of hills and lakes would get lifted or dropped down. This wasn't a computer display, this was a real physical model of the city. The Bay Area really benefits from Stanford and Berkeley being there. You need a steady stream of educated new grads to grow from.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        > Museum of History & Industry Love that museum. Paul Allen really made Seattle such a great city - amazing museums, good sports, amazing biotech research, strong entrepreneurship scene. It's like Boston but better. > Bay Area really benefits from Stanford and Berkeley Also UCSF (major biotech hub) and SJSU (major electronics hub - imo EE@SJSU makes EE@Stanford look like child's play).
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    I've been to Appalachia. It didn't strike me as notably more rugged than any other reasonably hilly area, and quite a bit less rugged than many places known for it (e.g. the Alpine cities, or the Himalayas). The west coast cities were a reasonable comparison, because they're (1) in the same country and (2) Fairly comparable in elevation and grade, if not a bit worse. The oakland hills (and other bay area communities [1]) rise to comparable heights despite starting at sea level with 25% grades, for example. Queen Anne in Seattle [2] has almost exactly the same elevation gain, but the last 200 feet are basically a cliff. I'm not picking distant suburbs here, but rather historic parts of these areas that have been developed for almost a century. They only maintain the illusion of flatness now because the landscape has been intensively modified over that time to appear less severe. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Sausalito.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Sausalit... [2] https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/930e446c-ec89-11e5-9822-cd95dd15204b.jpg https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/9...
dullcrisp 2y ago
But people live there already. Couldn’t they be prosperous without a big software company building its headquarters there?

AlotOfReading 2y ago

If there was an economy worth building for, the geography wouldn't be a blocker. Look at Seattle, Oakland, or the Hollywood hills. They're all built on rugged, mountainous terrain just as difficult as the Appalachians, but they don't suffer the same issues attracting wealth because their economic situation is so different. In fact, each of them has the opposite problem of demand to build vastly outstripping permission to build.

stackskipton 2y ago
>Look at Seattle, Oakland, or the Hollywood hills. They're all built on rugged, mountainous terrain just as difficult as the Appalachians, but they don't suffer the same issues attracting wealth because their economic situation is so different. Wrong. Seattle, Oakland and Los Angeles are mostly built on much flatter parts of those areas. California entire geography is about "Hey, check out these massive valleys or coastal land we can build in." Same thing with Washington State, Seattle is in between Cascades and Olympics where there is all this flat land to build on. Yes, they running out of land and building into mountains now. That problem is like having FAANG scaling problems. It sucks but it's good/manageable problem to have and you have massive checkbooks to help solve it. Have you been to Appalachia? It's not on the coast and does not have these benefits. If you want to compare it to West Coast areas, it's more like Sierra Nevada. Inland Mountains with only small valleys to build infrastructure in.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > built on much flatter parts of those areas Seattle was MADE flat by literally using fire hoses to flatten hills and mountains [0]. That said, I disagree with the role geography has with developing a tech industry - most of it can be directly related to investment put during WW2 and the 1950s into innovation clusters. For example, Seattle and aerospace (Boeing), Bay Area and computers+electronics+nukes (HP, IBM Almaden, LLNL, LLBL, Los Alamos managed by UCB), San Diego and Biotech+Defense Tech (Salk Lab, Navy), Portland and electronics (INL, PNNL, Tektronics, Intel), etc [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regrading_in_Seattle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regrading_in_Seattle
  - lizknope 2y ago
    I saw an interactive exhibit at Museum of History & Industry (MOHAI) in Seattle. It showed how different sections were regraded and you could push buttons where that section of hills and lakes would get lifted or dropped down. This wasn't a computer display, this was a real physical model of the city. The Bay Area really benefits from Stanford and Berkeley being there. You need a steady stream of educated new grads to grow from.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      > Museum of History & Industry Love that museum. Paul Allen really made Seattle such a great city - amazing museums, good sports, amazing biotech research, strong entrepreneurship scene. It's like Boston but better. > Bay Area really benefits from Stanford and Berkeley Also UCSF (major biotech hub) and SJSU (major electronics hub - imo EE@SJSU makes EE@Stanford look like child's play).
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  I've been to Appalachia. It didn't strike me as notably more rugged than any other reasonably hilly area, and quite a bit less rugged than many places known for it (e.g. the Alpine cities, or the Himalayas). The west coast cities were a reasonable comparison, because they're (1) in the same country and (2) Fairly comparable in elevation and grade, if not a bit worse. The oakland hills (and other bay area communities [1]) rise to comparable heights despite starting at sea level with 25% grades, for example. Queen Anne in Seattle [2] has almost exactly the same elevation gain, but the last 200 feet are basically a cliff. I'm not picking distant suburbs here, but rather historic parts of these areas that have been developed for almost a century. They only maintain the illusion of flatness now because the landscape has been intensively modified over that time to appear less severe. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Sausalito.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Sausalit... [2] https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/930e446c-ec89-11e5-9822-cd95dd15204b.jpg https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/9...

dullcrisp 2y ago

But people live there already. Couldn’t they be prosperous without a big software company building its headquarters there?