IMO this is a reflection of a culture that's a little more traditional and a lot more conservative than the rest of the country (and I don't mean crazy-right-wing-extreme-conservatism, though we have that here, too). People live, work and start businesses in OKC because they want to be here — not because they want access to VC/talent/incentives/loopholes.
I've lived in OKC for 20 years and we've stayed because it's a great place to live. My kids aren't passing through metal detectors at school, I can drive anywhere in the city in 20 minutes, the other guy always lets you go first at a 4-way stop, and when I say "hi" to a total stranger on the street they smile and reply in kind.
You say this like it's a good thing...
The folks who lived there were really down on their city, something you don't see all that often in Texas (how do you know someone's a Texan? Don't worry, they'll tell you). That was hard to deal with in conversation with them - they still had lots of advantages, but they wouldn't see them.
I never noticed this before, but I'm a Texan, and I do this.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/19/145437581/oklahoma-city-avoids...
It's a pretty good example of why Republicans make good mayors, even when state and national level Republican politicians are insane.
1) Can tolerate daily encounters with racist and homophobic statements and words like nigger and faggot being thrown around by ~everybody. 2) Think it's funny when the local paper actually uses the word "Osamacare" in print. 3) Enjoy minor earthquakes.
If you're not a church goer or conservative, imho, it's not an enjoyable place. You will be outnumbered 90-1. And once you've lived in a community that has a vibrant artistic community (that you partake in), it becomes very difficult to enjoy a city that just doesn't respect that (and doesn't feed that part of your life).
And I say this as someone who loves Oklahoma. But it's problems far outweigh the positives for me to ever move back. I'll take NY or LA along with the expense over a cheaper growing "town".
<edit> And having lived thru the oil bust in the 80s, and how much OKC is married to the wealth and growth of Devon, Chesapeake and the oil/gas industry, another bust or even long periods of negative growth will kill the OK economy. The state leaders won't have the will to counteract that force with investments in tech and renewable energy.
While I can say with absolute certainty that the weather is not nearly as nice (nor the scenery as beautiful) here in OKC as it was in the Bay Area, the people here are awesome, and the opportunities abound. It's hard to put into words the forward momentum that exists here, but everyone here in the local community feels it.
Regarding salary, you may make slightly less here - depending on the job you take - but your living costs are going to be so low, you will end up having a much better, less stressful life. To give you an idea, I work remotely (telecommute) on a very well paying full-time contract, and my mortgage on a 3bd/1.5ba. 1100 sq.ft. house is $640/mth with insurance and taxes included - far below even 10% of what I make. I could easily buy a much larger brand new house, but choose not to for now in order to maximize my savings. I have more freedom in this situation than I would making even 50% more on the coasts.
Also, while I am sure there are other low-cost places to live in the U.S., I don't feel like there are many other places positioned like OKC is right now. The people of Oklahoma City have made significant public investments in the area that have attracted significantly MORE private investment. The [MAPS Projects](http://www.okc.gov/maps/) - and the [MAPS3 Project](http://www.okc.gov/maps3/) that is currently underway have completely transformed downtown OKC and are having ripple effects all throughout the greater metro area. These public projects have paid off for OKC in spades, and will continue to pay dividends for decades to come.
In the relatively short time I have lived in the OKC area, I have seen a complete turn-around and transformation of an entire metro area unlike any other I have ever seen or heard of in my life. It makes me excited for the future, and glad that I am playing a part in it, however small.
However, I had no idea there was any kind of developer community here. Any other events going on? Or at least a centralized place to find them?
We also maintain a meeting announcement mailing list for OKC.js (our largest group, 50-60+ people each meeting) here: http://okcjs.com/ (click on "Sign Up!" in the navbar).
A good article with a nice summary of events is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mick-cornett/oklahoma-city-map...
The move to SF has been worth it, though, for my career/finances. Net was a little bit lower than what I could have been making in Dallas, but my bonus actually, fully paid out and I've gotten actually significant raises. Also, since housing costs were so high I decided to experiment with alternative living styles and I'm now actually spending less money in SF than I was in Dallas.
Do you want to expand on this? Are you just living in a van now?
It's interesting seeing old films or pictures from San Francisco. The city has clearly had its ups and downs. If the 1906 earthquake had not happened I wonder how different it would be compared to today.
Googeling around for one I found this article which picks out the inland west as the fastest growing region in the nation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/09/04/a-map-of-a...
But one of the job hubs they mention, Boise, didn't make the NY times vis.
My own experience is that, when considering cost of living and quality of life, it is hard to beat the northern rockies.
Anyway, my point is, where-ever you move to, make sure you find that place that is home. That place you can truly say you love too. Don't just live somewhere to save some bucks for the sake of saving some bucks. Life is too short and you can't take your cash with you anyway.
What I do wonder: OKC has lots of issues with sprawl. How will this influx change things? Is it possible that the city will become more compact and urban, or will it continue the current trend of expanding the city so that every house is on at least a half-acre of land? I have no point of reference for which is more likely.
Developers in NW Houston are putting 3500 sq ft homes on 0.25 acre lots, and the sprawl shows no signs of stopping. (low interest rates, cheap land, willing commuters)
The peninsula can't sprawl much, but the east bay is puking the same hideous boxy track houses on tiny lots all over the hillsides of Fremont, Hayward, Dublin and far beyond.
I live in Europe and I feel pretty confident that American cities will become more like Paris, Rome, London and not less. That means the poor live on the periphery and the middle and upper class live close to the center.
People here will rattle off weather, jobs, activities (outdoors) -- but the reality of the situation is that there are plenty of incredible places to live in the US, where you can make within 10%-20% of your Bay Area wage with 30%-40% or more less housing costs.
Even a place like LA or San Diego, Seattle, Portland, Austin, Chicago, etc -- you won't believe the homes, apartments, lofts, flats, condos you can get. Absolutely stunning places, with great activities and schooling.
I don't see myself in the Bay Area in 15 years or so, unless there's a drastic change in the cost of housing.
That goes without saying that I find people in the bay area generally rather unfriendly/unapproachable vs. other major metros.
That said, we are leaving LA for Denver. West LA is 'gentrifying' pretty bad right now. We spec'd housing prices in Denver, and a 3 story house's mortgage can come in under our rent in LA. Yeah, there is give and take there, but the diff between LA and Denver housing is amazing. Denver, yes, does not have oceans, but otherwise is very similar to the Bay culturally.
Also, don't forget the reason that prices for homes in California are so distorted: Prop 13. The legislature needs to amend it. The longer we wait, the worse it gets.
In the Bay Area: - salaries seem to be 40-80+% higher, as well as significantly more chances to trade salary for equity (if that's your thing) - there are probably 50-100x more senior developer jobs in SF than Chicago, and at least that many more in the Valley - there are more specialized jobs available (by market, technology, growth stage, company size, etc) - housing prices for a family of 5, good schools, safe neighborhoods, fairly long commute, are probably 75% higher to buy, 50% higher to rent. - the SF tech jobs are better located for transit than the good Chicago ones (River North, Ravenswood, etc are miserable if you ride Metra)
Whenever I looked outside of tech hubs (Tampa, Atlanta, SLC, Research Triangle), I found housing prices within 10-20%, salaries lower by 25% or more, and much narrower job selection than Chicago. Austin was the only place that had more jobs, but salaries and housing prices were in line with those other cities.
My conclusion is that there are many cities where you can create a good job+housing situation, but once you make it work your options are very, very limited. The biggest benefit I feel from living in the Bay Area is the immense career flexibility and potential over the next 20+ years.
I keep in touch with a lot of people in tech from all around the country. Those in flyover country (Denver, OKC, Austin) make less money than those in comparable positions on the coast, but it might be 10% less. Meanwhile their housing costs are typically less than half.
For comparison purposes:
For the same price as this 800 square foot 1 bedroom condo in SF http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/452-Fell-St...
... you can get the most expensive home in my entire zip code. 2800 square feet, on a private lake: http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/4845-W-Warr...
The net result is that, on a developer salary in a place like Denver, KC, or Salt Lake, you can afford the same luxuries as on a developer salary in SF, and quite possibly more.
From a broad climate change perspective, is it really so good that SF and New York are contributing to faster population growth in the South/Southwest, where water resources are more scarce? And cities are less dense, facilitating more driving and consumption of gas?
http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2013/08/ubs-to-bri...
However, These things take time. It's a big risk to move your company to a different place. It's a even bigger risk if you can't hire people in that new place.
Portland was far too dark and dreary for 9 months of the year. TX was too humid, and Chicago too cold/windy in the winter. Sure, each of those areas has a 'great ______ season', but coastal California weather is nice for 9 months of the year (give or take ) whereas the others are nice 3.
Not to say I won't leave again (Denver seems like some place I'd like to pitch a tent for a while), but I always miss the weather when I leave.
I live in the midwest right now, and whenever I contemplate moving to the west coast, one of the things I would dislike the most is giving up having 4 distinct seasons.
The first warm days of spring, crisp fall mornings, "its so hot out we have to go swimming at the lake" days in summer, and the first snow of the year - these are just a few things that, in moderation, are really enjoyable to me (and many others).
Agree. What prevents people from moving to those places is the scarcity of jobs out there. There are good jobs in the Midwest, but not enough per unit area to generate the competition (except, perhaps, in Chicago for finance professionals) that you need, as a worker, to get a fair shake.
Despite the perception on Hacker News that small businesses are the way forward, the data actually support conglomeration and a death of entrepreneurship. See here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/07/aging-ameri... . Also here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-slow-death-of-americ... .
Venture capital is a feudal, connections-based oligarchy that no one should rely on, while bank loans now require personal liability and are therefore a non-starter for anything that might actually fail. Then, there's the general depletion of capital in the middle classes due to the collapse of unions, healthcare malfeasance, and the escalating costs of housing and tuition. So where are the new companies forming? The only place (or few) where they still can.
The Bay Area isn't some utopia at the vanguard. San Francisco is OK; the Valley is properly horrible. It's, for many people, the only option left in non-financial technology. It's the place least destroyed by the meltdown of corporate capitalism in the US.
