Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Google Twitter Technology

High Tech Companies Becoming Fools For the City 276

theodp writes "Drawn by amenities and talent, the WSJ reports that tech firms are saying goodbye to office parks and opting for cities. Pinterest, Zynga, Yelp, Square, Twitter, and Salesforce.com are some of the more notable tech companies who are taking up residence in San Francisco. New York City's Silicon Alley is now home to more than 500 new start-up companies like Kickstarter and Tumblr, not to mention the gigantic Google satellite in the old Port Authority Building. London, Seattle, and even downtown Las Vegas are also seeing infusions of techies. So, why are tech companies eschewing Silicon Valley and going all Fool for the City? 'Silicon Valley proper is soul-crushing suburban sprawl,' Paul Graham presciently explained in 2006. 'It has fabulous weather, which makes it significantly better than the soul-crushing sprawl of most other American cities. But a competitor that managed to avoid sprawl would have real leverage.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

High Tech Companies Becoming Fools For the City

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Soul Crushing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02, 2012 @08:41AM (#41204933)

    totally agree

    I cannot imagine anything more soul crushing that just being reminded that you have no identity, no visibility, and that you are little more than just one of the teeming horde which is exactly how I feel when I am in downtown anywhere. It might help if the cities he mentioned had any soul but I grew up in San Fran and let me tell you, after hours its a ghost town, and at other times of the day it is just a constant reminder of how completely f*ck*d we are as a society. the problem is not where the company is, the problem is the company itself.

  • by oic0 ( 1864384 ) on Sunday September 02, 2012 @08:44AM (#41204949)
    I've always wondered about that lol. Why are the tech companies almost always attracted to areas with exceptionally high cost of living? Must be something I'm missing.
  • We were lucky (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02, 2012 @09:02AM (#41205009)

    But I just don't get the hateful crusade against them. I personally enjoyed having a decent sized yard as a kid

    "Decent sized yard" is the key. Many, all too many, suburbs don't have greenspace (parks and other places to play) or if they do they are driving distance for most kids. In my suburban neighborhood, the yards are on half acre or less plots, the nearest park is 5 miles away, and the kids have really no where to play outside; so they stay indoors playing video games and getting obese.

    When developers build a subdivision in suburbia, they put as many homes in the development as they can to maximize their profits - to state the obvious. Any amenities are an after thought and poorly designed - usually it's just a "clubhouse" and a shitty pool that's too small to do laps in; such as some kidney shaped thing to lounge around to work on one's melanoma. We have tennis courts but they were built in an area that the developer couldn't put a house so he put tennis courts there - which are constantly being vandalized by the little shits who have nothing better to do.

    Why do folks live there? Schools. To have their kids go to a better school.

    Decent sized yards are usually found in areas where the zoning boards force developers to a minimum sized plot that allows for the decent sized yard - like my parent's house where I grew up. The minimum building lot was an acre and as a result I also grew up with a decent sized yard.

  • Re:finally (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Sunday September 02, 2012 @09:35AM (#41205139)

    I like that part, too. I also like the good schools, the relatively clean air, the quiet, and the ease of getting away from people if you want.

    I hate that Chiles is considered an acceptable place to eat. I hate driving everywhere... the sheer insanity of driving to a gym so that you can exercise! I hate the lack of economic and ethnic diversity (though we are in an "old" suburb with at least some of that). Most of all, I hate the static blandness of it all. Same chain stores as you get anywhere else in the US. When we have house guests, we have to all drive somewhere to do something unique... often that means going... to the city!

  • Re:Soul Crushing? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IANAAC ( 692242 ) on Sunday September 02, 2012 @10:16AM (#41205457)

    It might help if the cities he mentioned had any soul but I grew up in San Fran and let me tell you, after hours its a ghost town, and at other times of the day it is just a constant reminder of how completely f*ck*d we are as a society.

    When I was in my mid-twenties, I moved to SF as a single person. My parents, who lived in the suburban sprawl of Phoenix, AZ, were always worried about me. It was hard for them to imagine that there were vibrant communities throughout the entire city that provided safety for everyone living in the area. In fact, I don't know of a single area in SF proper that there aren't corner stores and eateries that are open past midnight.

    It was also hard for them to realize that it was relatively easy to become friends with owners and other patrons of all these corner spots, and we'd all eventually come to care for each other. If something happened to one of us, the rest of us would inquire what was happening, if there were anything any of us could do, whatever. Of course they couldn't understand that. Suburbs just don't offer that.

    If anything is a ghost town, it's suburban America. But I can assure you, such a compact, diverse city as SF is hardly a ghost town. Growing up in SF, surely you realize that you never had to travel many blocks to find plenty of human activity. If not, you were most likely a shut-in.

  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Sunday September 02, 2012 @10:30AM (#41205551) Journal

    I work at the Port of New York Authority building, and I'd much rather my job were in some soul-less office park in the suburbs. The choices for housing in the NYC area are to rent in a shoebox in Manhattan for insanely high prices, rent a slightly larger place in Hoboken, Jersey City, Queens or Brooklyn for also insanely high prices (and have a relatively long subway commute), or to buy in the suburbs (also insanely costly) and have a ridiculously long commute (1hr+, whether Long Island or New Jersey). I'm not a city person, I need some space. My wife is an artist, she needs some space to work. I'm not so interested in "nightlife" (#1, I'm married, so the payoff isn't there. #2, I'm a geek, so it never was)

    I think there's two main reasons the tech companies are mostly going to cities. One is an ideological attraction to cities and antipathy to suburbs on the part of management. The other is an attraction to cities (particularly including New York and San Francisco) on the part of new grads; when you're competing for Ivy League CS grads, an office in Putnam County, NY or Eureka, IN just isn't going to cut it.

  • Re:Soul-crushing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02, 2012 @10:31AM (#41205561)

    Something really weird and bad must be happening to some of you people when you sit in a car, thats never happened to me so I can't relate.

    You have to sit on your ass in in a massive air conditioned box just to get anywhere. Then when you get there, you have to circle around the massive parking lot to find a spot, possible battling it out with some asshole who decided to cut in line in front of you. Then you haul your groceries out to the car, sit down for another 20-30 minutes, get cut off by *another* asshole on the freeway. Maybe you pull over to a Starbucks, where park again, wait in line for some sugar-drenched coffee.

    Compare to:

    I walk outside, down the block, stop at Whole Foods, pick out what I want and check out. They set up a delivery for me later that day. While I'm out I walk by my favorite bakery and pick up some scones, and then stop by my favorite coffee place (there are about 10 to choose from in a 4 block radius) to sit and have some coffee and read. I decide that it's such a nice day out that I'd like to go to central park, so I hope on the uptown subway that's around the corner, and 10 minutes later, I'm there. I stroll through the park -- not having had to find somewhere to park my car -- and then realize that it's getting to be about time for my delivery from Whole Foods. I pop back on the subway and am back home in 10 minutes.

    Or, if I'm really lazy, I just don't leave the couch, order all my groceries from Fresh Direct, and just let them deliver them to me. That way I can spend my time doing other things than grocery shopping or driving.

    Soul crushing is urban, like your neighbor's kid was in the crossfire got shot and died, or your car/house/garage was broken into for the fifth time, or you were mugged again, etc.

    Yes, that happens *all the time*. Oh wait, no it doesn't.

  • Re:Soul-crushing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suomynonAyletamitlU ( 1618513 ) on Sunday September 02, 2012 @11:11AM (#41205775)

    I can't speak for the adult experience of living in a suburb, but as a child growing up there, "You have to drive to get anywhere" means "Unless you're friends with the neighbors or have a car, there is nothing to do."

    I didn't get my driver's license until I was about 18, which means that if I wanted to go somewhere, I was begging friends or family for a ride. I perhaps could have gotten on my bike and rode a half hour through traffic, without sidewalks or bike lanes (I have a few times, uncomfortably; also, this was Texas, where temperatures are often 100+ in the summer) to get to a small variety of stores, but I couldn't get, for example, to the mall, or a decently interesting strip mall.

    And asking parents for a ride...? They commuted an hour each day to get to their jobs and were not terribly interested in jumping in the car just to satisfy my boredom. It probably would have been easier if I'd had older friends, but I didn't.

    Everywhere I wanted to be and everyone I wanted to be with I couldn't reach without begging someone and potentially making them upset. So yes, I would say it crushed my soul a bit.

  • Re:Soul-crushing? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MogNuts ( 97512 ) on Sunday September 02, 2012 @02:42PM (#41207231)

    You are right. There are suburbs and there are suburbs. I live in a suburb that is almost country if you will. Lots of space, 1 acre lots, and next to towns that have a lot of stuff to do. But there are also suburbs right next to me where you literally see your neighbors bathroom window from yours. And a patch of grass is your lawn. So poster below you is right too.

    Back to topic though, shame on the WSJ for this article. This isn't some BS blog. This is the WSJ, who is supposed to give great business insights. They mention NYC as a spot. However, look at the companies:

    Pinterest: BS social networking site that won't be in business in 2-3 years.
    Yelp: no growth, but won't be out of business either.
    Zynga: bankrupt in 2-3 years.

    Salesforce is the only company with any prospects, stability, or growth. The WSJ should state that yes, companies are coming to cities. But they should also state that what will employees do when their BS companies go bust and they are left with a $4000/mo apartment to pay for. And the fact that these are all startups. What happens when they realize, like the banks are doing (all moving out of NYC), that the city is fucking expensive. Like just a floor in a building is fifty-fucking-thousand dollars a month in rent! Yea, you heard me. It may be trendy, but in 3-5 years they will all say "screw it" and move out to Piscataway, NJ where the industrial parks are.

    And again, this is the WSJ. They should mention that in NO WAY will these startups pay the salaries commensurate with living in NYC. A shitty one bedroom is $3,200/mo! Not only will the the companies rent costs be insane, but the salaries will have to be MINIMUM $120k/year. The WSJ should really mention this.

    Look, I'm sure this was a fluff piece by the WSJ. But the WSJ should really know better.

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Working...