Historically this isn't true. There's a much less flashy reason for why so many startups are flocking to SF -- there isn't much space available at reasonable prices in Palo Alto or Mountain View that that's suitable for startups. If office space in Palo Alto or Mountain View was not desirable, the prices would crash.
This isn't new either: there were plenty of SF startups during the old dot-com boom as well. I'd also predict that if there is a further growth of tech startups we'll see startups spread to other areas now considered "less desirable" -- in dot-com days there were plenty of companies in Santa Clara, Milpitas, Downtown San Jose, Fremont, and even exurbs like Pleasanton. When the boom ended, CA-237 was locally called the "dot com graveyard".
While you're right about office space becoming wildly expensive in Palo Alto and Mountain View, I'm unconvinced the data supports the idea that cheap office space is the driver of growth to the city.
As you mention there is plenty of cheap and large offices as you go south along the peninsula, but startups seem to consistently choose more expensive SOMA offices over these. Only startups that need a warehouse or other specialized facilities start their search in the south bay.
I think the reality is that its a combination of factors driving people to SF, from 'cool factor'/perception to quality of life issues (employee proximity) to 'cheaper-than-palo-alto' benchmarking.
By the way, if you're reading this thread and looking for office space, the south bay is a perfectly good place to look. Yes, it's not as glamorous, but it's both functional, frugal, and actually quite nice. The graveyard doesn't consist of dumpy factories, but pleasantly maintained offices with good facilities. You can even live nearby, as long as calm neighborhood is an acceptable condition for you.
I wouldn't call places south of Mountain View and Palo Alto 'Peninsula'. San Mateo is an often overlooked option (not as cheap as SOMA, afaik) but in a way it means a commute both for folks coming from Cupertino/Sunnyvale/Palo Alto/Mountain View and for folks coming from the city.
I would say significant amount of startups would still prefer Mountain View to SOMA, but they'd probably prefer SOMA to Santa Clara or San Jose.
There are many positives you've described to places further South, but there are also issues: fewer other startups, less third places in walking distances, being rather far from any kind of public transportation. In terms of employees it's somewhat of a balancing act: there are older employees with family in South Bay, more infrastructure folks (ex-Google and VMW folks, as well as various infra startups), and there are also younger employees, front-end developers, designers, and people with finance/consulting who live in SF. It would be more far more difficult for SF set to commute to, e.g., an office park in Santa Clara than for folks in South Bay to commute to SOMA (fairly easy trip by either car or Caltrain).
That said, Peninsula is exactly what its name implies, and SF is at very end (with hills in between). There will be greater pressure for startups to go further South again, as well as East (if Berkeley/Oakland adopt more startup friendly laws), elsewhere in SF (already happening), and so on.
That, and cities have a higher standard-deviation than suburbs on pretty much any variable you choose to measure: house price, income, race, price of gas, education level, price of a haircut... In my experience cites have the best and worse of all that life offers. Suburbs are mediocre.
Potentially, but I've found the 'suburbs' of San Francisco/the Bay Area are very different from suburbs in other parts of the country. Suburbs are known for being somewhat isolated, uniform, and idle; the textbook definitions of suburbs describe them as a dissociation of residential life from industrial zones.
This is often not true around SF. Up and down the peninsula, you'll find continuous cities with strong tech and other industries. Would we consider Redwood City a stereotypical suburb, for example? It becomes more murky, and many of the stereotypes fall apart.
That said, your perception is held by many people and is accurate for many parts of the US. As a result, people moving to the Bay Area choose where to live with a similar bias.
I think this is true for a non-trivial amount of the younger generation. I know a decent number of (relatively affluent) people in their early 20s who simply do not have and do not plan on getting a driver's license.
Not really the case when you consider the huge rural population of the past and that the 20th century saw huge amounts of urbanization in the US (where 'urbanization' = developed areas and includes suburbs). The lower-density suburbs are still growing at a decent pace 1990-2013 and on especially in the South/West, but what defines a suburb is no longer the 1950s version and and incorporating urban/city-like elements now
Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities.
Also:
Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you.
As a sub-point to the above, if you're looking to meet any other people, for whatever reason, you'd want to be located in a city.
Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city.
Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities.
Huh? In the US, median rural income was $40,135, compared to $51,522 in metropolitan counties. [1]
Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city.
Please tell me how long the drive from SF to the nearest Walmart is.
Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you.
This is a very good point. Lots of interest-based communities form in cities. In suburbs, there would not be a sufficient "critical mass" for this kind of community to exist. It drives business too - there are, for example, restaurants in cities serving niche foods. They would never have a large enough customer based outside of a highly-concentrated urban area.
The basic business model of Walmart--the premise of the company existing in the first place--is to provide affordable retail to rural communities underserved by other retailers. And they're so successful that in much of rural America, they have an effective monopoly. The real question is: do you have better options than Walmart? Because the bargain-basement shit they have for sale isn't worth buying if you can afford the alternatives.
Judging by google maps, there are several Walmarts within a 12-14 mile radius of the Sutter-Stockton garage. (All on the east side of the bay, as you might have expected.) The traffic estimates are roughly 30 minutes.
For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart, except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership.
Then again, I could walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target.
By most Americans' definition of suburb, Mountain View doesn't exactly qualify. My apartment was within 15 minute bike ride of Walmart, 10 minute bike ride of downtown (including commuter rail), walking distance of YCombinator, and it on the easternmost edge of Mountain View (the grocery store I walked to was technically in Sunnyvale). My commute to work was 5 minutes.
Now I live in Saratoga where I've a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto -- and again, am in walking distance of grocery stores, coffee shops, and biking distance of downtown.
I think I need to elaborate / clarify my earlier words:
---
For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). When I was in San Francisco, I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart (because of my background), except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership.
Then again, I could (when I was in San Francisco) walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target.
---
I'm not sure why you bring up Mountain View, as I didn't mention it and in fact was not referring to it in any capacity. My family lives in a "beach community" with one store, of which I do not know the name. Besides the store, there's a church, a school of some primary-or-kindergarten level, an outpost of the public library, and a fire department. I have also heard the location described as a "suburb". Going anywhere at all is a hassle; there is nothing nearby. It is possible, given the right wind, to smell the fertilizer that the local farms apply to their fields.
Maybe none of these guys would have done what they've done.
Maybe they'd never even have been born, their parents being to lazy.
Maybe we'd never have evolved from being pretty comfortable monkeys sitting around - why would we have evolved to breed, to love sex, and to make babies at all? Babies are just competition to an immortal being.
Bottom line is, none of us would be around to mourn the passing of an apparently very nice person. RIP Ilya.
> Maybe we'd never have evolved from being pretty comfortable monkeys sitting around - why would we have evolved to breed, to love sex, and to make babies at all?
But we are here now, and we don't want to die. Death might have been useful in the past, but now it's the high time for it to go away.
You could asses any natural disaster or mass genocide with the same "maybe" logic. I don't know you, but I doubt you applied the same framework to September 11th or the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004. These events are objectively tragic, as is the death of Ilya.
Interesting idea. Seems like the NSA could easily shut this down given the dossier & data stream they must have tied to Snowden by now. He probably can't even turn a computer on without red flags going off.
I think people are interested in Snowden because people are curious to see what happens to someone who so brazenly defies a democratic government in the name of democracy.
I agree. It is always (somewhat) interesting to see who the elites place in the oval office every four years via near absolute control of the news media and a corporate owned congress, full of people who can switch talking points on demand.
That's different. This new posting is a different clip (although seemingly from the same interview).
It begins with "The following clip has never been publicly shown before." It's less than 2 minutes, and you'll probably enjoy it. Buying the full interview (Production Date: January 2013; Playing Time: 60 Minutes) would support Silicon Valley Historical Association:
