Cache timeout seems to take a while, so posting the brief synopsis here. The article lists a number of cities (actually locations) with a corresponding news article claiming that particular city/location "The Next Silicon Valley". Locations listed were:
US: Mississippi, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, Jacksonville, San Diego, Detroit, New York, Asheville, Austin, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Chicago, Sacramento, Arkansas, Denver
Europe: Ireland, Russia, Ukraine, France, Berlin, Prague, Lisbon
Apac: Beijing, Vietnam, Sydney, Philippines, India, China, Singapore
Middle East: Israel
Americas: Mexico, Cuba
Others: Small Town America
I really liked Brad Feld's take on this which was that trying to be the "next" Silicon Valley was a losing proposition, instead just focus on removing barriers for people who want to innovate and you'll get the economic growth you desire. It is amazing how unsettling that is for local governments.
I talked with a state representative from New Mexico on a flight to Denver who wondered what it would take to make New Mexico the next "Silicon Valley". I asked if they had enforceable non-compete agreements there (which they do), and then asked what it would take to change that. He said it would be really really hard given the commercial interests. And I said, "Well that answers your question, New Mexico will never be the next Silicon Valley." It kind of stunned him when he understood it.
And I'm pretty confident that I'm not being close-minded about how ridiculous Russia or Ukraine becoming "Silicon Valley" is. Closed off, isolationist, adversarial, and regularly sanctioned Russia competing to become a global hub for information technology? It just seems laughable. I'm not saying they are a backwater or something, but Silicon Valley is the way it is largely because of a massive international influx, something that just won't happen in Russia for the foreseeable future. And Ukraine, which was just invaded and lost one of their wealthier regions, has a broken government, and is still in a civil war somehow turning it around? Right.
Lol.
I live in northwest Arkansas, soon to move to Denver due to job, and I once had a guy at a party claim that Bentonville/Rogers/Springdale area was going to be the next Austin. I laughed, and overheard another guy at the party joking about how we were going to be called "Silicon Trailer Park."
Yeah this isn't happening. We're way too corrupt and taxation heavy for any serious entrepreneurs. Hell, pretty soon Uber and Lyft will be illegal here as the Aldermen just passed a bill to pretty much elimated them via punitive regulation. The tech talent in the midwest immediatly leaves for the coasts, leaving second stringers and die-hards. I can't think of any reason of staying here once you get something off the ground and have basic funding. Even if its a wash economically being this far away from East and West coast tech investors is unpleasant, not to mention the horrible winter and crime epidemic.
>Russia
Skolkovo, Russians SV, failed: In 2009, Moscow unveiled an ambitious plan to build a world-class technology incubator. Then corruption, brain drain, and Putin killed it.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/06/the-short-life-and-speed...
Literally any city could be "like silicon valley" if a bunch of rich people start a fund and hand out cash to people creating technology companies. Anything else is just window dressing.
The king.com founders started Sweet Capital, which might be headquartered in Stockholm, but they obviously have an office in SV as well.
So even exit money from non-SV companies end up being reinvested in SV, instead of growing more non-SV companies, and that's just hard for other tech hubs to compete with.
start a consulting firm that gives city councils advice on how to attract tech companies and try to become the next silicon valley
after typing that out, im still not sure if im being satirical or not
Now it's not like we all weren't competing before, but now it seems the playing field is getting more and more level. Which can mean nothing but good for the average person. Right?
It seems to me a boring cliché used to make article headlines from nothing.
Portland: obvious, though many locals hate it.
San Angeles: it's kind of one city overall, but tech activity is concentrated in: San Diego (downtown area), Irvine/Costa Mesa, Santa Monica, Pasadena, and maybe downtown LA. I live near Irvine now and everyone I talk to says the tech scene has grown a lot and is still growing, and I see evidence of that myself. One of the strengths of this region (other than sheer size and being a few hours by cheap plane ride from SV) is something people like to bash it about: it's one big giant mass of sprawl with either many city centers or none depending on how you look at it. While that's not hot and trendy these days, it also means that this region can grow a lot without catching acute real estate hyperinflation disease. There's just so damn much of it and there are so many town/city governments that nobody can establish a NIMBY monopoly. It's not exactly cheap but it's not "$2M for a starter home" crazy and probably never will be unless you insist on the absolute hippest neighborhood or living within walking distance of a surfing mecca beach. Self-driving cars are going to absolutely revolutionize transit down here and fix the region's commuting problems in the next 5-10 years.
New York: already #2 or #3 depending on how you count it. Could grow a lot because it's just so huge and has tons of money available. Also has great transit to offset the real estate costs-- you don't have to live in Manhattan or the trendiest parts of Brooklyn and you don't have to have one car per person. Commuting from as far away as Connecticut and New Jersey south of the crummy areas is entirely possible.
Boston: Boston really should have been Silicon Valley in the first place-- the reasons why it's not are beyond the scope of this post. (I lived there for a while and could almost write a book.) If these things can be fixed they have more than enough talent and the city itself is very nice.
Some longer-shot wildcards:
Denver: it's cool and has appeal and seems to be drawing a crowd.
Pittsburgh: it's like Boston lite with numerous great schools but less expensive and less stuffy. It lacks many of the cultural problems that keep Boston from being Silicon Valley in spite of Boston's incredible talent pool. Uber and Google have added gravity.
Detroit: being kind of re-settled by an interesting mix of people. Things have happened there before and could happen there again. It's got a "cool factor" to it that other rust belt cities that have fallen on hard times just don't have. If I were 20 years old and in a different life-phase I would definitely consider going there, since escaping the real estate death spiral treadmill would offer a great opportunity to work on longer term "high risk / high payoff" projects. Think of $20k homes as a very light personal version of the DARPA fund for big ideas. (Assuming you have little fear of ghetto, which in my case is true.)
Toronto: close to a very good tech school (Waterloo) and UToronto is not bad either, a very big cool city, and doesn't have the real estate madness of Vancouver. Otherwise the latter might also make the list. (SF/SV can at least survive its real estate madness because it's so prosperous otherwise, but Vancouver doesn't have the muscle to overcome this handicap.)
I do think tech is geographically re-diversifying, so I wouldn't totally count out other places. But those are the ones I'd say have a good shot of developing into true "centers" as opposed to just places with some tech stuff going on.
Strongly considering moving there within a year from now.
In all seriousness, there won't be just one. Technology centers will continue to grow. Our economy is becoming even more centered around information and technology. If your city isn't positioning itself to attract business and talent, it's gonna be a rough future for you.
45 seconds later
closes tab
1. http://www.tbtf.com/siliconia.html "Siliconia are appropriations of names beginning with 'Silicon' by areas outside Silicon Valley."
No. No, it will not.
It almost seems like the site is intended to shame the attention-economy publications and sites into ceasing the continual recycling of the same old article over and over. But I don't think it will work. Those guys have no shame, and the article format for "Is Y the next X?" has been around forever.
Seems they're fluffing the Irish government so they keep their hands off Apple's cash..
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/us/phoenix-focuses-on-rebu...
I wish Connecticut could do something to get off the opposite list.
