I don't think this will happen. Large tech companies have offices in the rest of the country, but getting the best projects and the promotions usually requires

I don't think this will happen. Large tech companies have offices in the rest of the country, but getting the best projects and the promotions usually requires being at HQ. If you're serious about Google, you'll work in MTV. If you're serious about working for Goldman, you want New York. Sure, you can work in Madison or Austin and be employed by a Silicon Valley company, but you'll be getting the projects that the mother ship passed on. If you want to live in Austin, then you're best off working in an Austin company if you want a career there. Nor are VCs going to move just to "spread the wealth" geographically. They're rich enough that this rent shit isn't their problem and they're settled. Whatever is to reverse this condensation of tech in the Bay Area is going to be post-VC; someone will have to figure out how to target and structure the mid-risk/mid-growth (15-40%/year growth) businesses that VCs hate. I have ideas on structure: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle... It is a nice idea, and if technology comes through with a post-VC wave (a return to maker culture) we will see that geographical shift. It won't be "a new hub". It'll probably be 20 or so microhubs, of which San Francisco and New York will be included. I could see a strong forecast for: Austin, Boulder, Durham, Baltimore, Portland. Boston is well-poised to make a comeback, and Chicago could show some strength.