HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 10:49 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisouthside View Post
Ironically despite being lambasted by the right, California is firing on all cylinders on the one marker Conservatives typically worship the most (economic growth/capitalism!).
Actually, that's the very reason that California is lambasted by the right. It's very predictable. California's success simply does not fit their ideological narrative. How can a progressive, diverse and multicultural place like California be the world capitol of innovation and wealth creation? That's impossible! They can't wrap their minds around it.

And of course the fact that the most culturally backwards, economically depressed and environmentally degraded states are deep red states, only adds insult to injury.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 10:57 PM
LA21st LA21st is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,620
Careful, you might be called "elitist" with those comments. They have no problem calling out California, but whatever.


Yea, conseratives should honestly think about turning their red states around before taking jabs at Calfornia's problems. There are VERY SERIOUS problems in those states, but I won't name them all. Most people know what those things are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 11:22 PM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is online now
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,989
The high job growth rates are a huge reason why more housing should be available. I'm not sure why under this level of prosperity a good amount of people should be either homeless or cramped in a overpriced apartment. The success is great, but the current response to it is meh.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 11:48 PM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisouthside View Post
Ironically despite being lambasted by the right, California is firing on all cylinders on the one marker Conservatives typically worship the most (economic growth/capitalism!).
It's precisely because of their epic hypocrisy that we need not let them have it both ways going forward. Either a booming economy is to be acknowledged by all as an objectively good thing, indicative of the "goodness" of a state's economic conditions and policies, or it is not.

And if a booming economy is not to be acknowledged by all as an objectively good thing, indicative of the "goodness" of a state's economic conditions and policies, then why should we care what anti-California trolls think about our economic conditions and policies when a slowdown eventually comes, since it's all subjective and cherry-picked to only make the state look bad? No, those who constantly move the goalposts in order to relentlessly paint California in a negative light are operating in bad faith, and trolls operating in bad faith should be treated accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
“Tales of this expansion’s demise are highly exaggerated."

"We don’t see any end to it,” Thornberg said.

I'm taking that with a grain of salt, as I do all predictions, because our economy has always been cyclical and is likely to slow down regularly between booms. That said, I intentionally included that quote because--all rational skepticism aside--this guy is an expert on the topic of San Francisco's economy in a way none of this forum's right-wing kulturkampf trolls will ever be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 12:44 AM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
The high job growth rates are a huge reason why more housing should be available. I'm not sure why under this level of prosperity a good amount of people should be either homeless or cramped in a overpriced apartment. The success is great, but the current response to it is meh.
California's economy is doing great if you measure things in terms of GDP and growth rates but people are leaving in droves. Must be the combination of high levels of immigration with NIMBYism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 1:01 AM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is online now
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,989
^^^ To be honest, I’m not sure what you stated was a new point. It’s already apparent that the economy is booming. I think the problem lies in channeling the new wealth with additional folks without having to see increased income disparity and homelessness.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 1:43 PM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I don't think we'll see a place become a tech center just because there is an alternative app rooted there. For instance, Snap was supposed to launch Los Angeles into this dominating tech hub, but that hasn't panned out so much.
Snap did help launch LA into a tech hub. The tech industry is now booming in LA thanks to Snap, with every FAANG company presence there, thus all the complaints about Playa Vista gentrification. It didn’t launch LA into an IPO hub, though. The litmus test is which cities are paying tech bros 120K at minimum. That wasn’t common in LA before SNAP.

Quote:
In a sign of the continued shift of jobs and investment north from the traditional bounds of Silicon Valley to the newer tech hub of San Francisco, the northern part of the Bay Area had 385,019 jobs, versus 371,640 in the southern part.
I don’t see how San Francisco gets credit for the increase of tech jobs on the Peninsula, which seems like natural overflow from Silicon Valley. The tech scene is contiguous from Menlo Park, north and south. It stops north of Burlingame until you get to South SF, and then you start seeing a lot of biotech again. From that point, I’d say that’s where SF tech starts. The rest of the Peninsula is more a part of the South Bay ecosystem, just by feel and sensibility.


Also, the talk of the "exodus" of tech companies doesn’t allude to the loss of dominance to me. It alludes to an increasing dominance of Silicon Valley. When you have 2nd, 3rd, 10th expansions, that’s influence reaching further out and growing, not leaving.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 1:53 PM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
Careful, you might be called "elitist" with those comments. They have no problem calling out California, but whatever.


Yea, conseratives should honestly think about turning their red states around before taking jabs at Calfornia's problems. There are VERY SERIOUS problems in those states, but I won't name them all. Most people know what those things are.
Red states think their Republicanness make their cities work until it becomes overpopulated. Then it’s the same problems and NIMBY solutions developed in California. NIMBYism knows no party.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 2:03 PM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Exactly. That's really why I decided to post this. We all read constantly about people and businesses leaving CA for Texas or, recently in the WSJ, New York. But the point of this thread kind of is that even though people and companies are leaving, more are arriving (from other parts of the US and also from places like Europe and Israel) or springing up than are leaving and the tech economy in the Bay Area is still growing.

CA is really a birthing center and incubator of companies and jobs, but once they reach a certain stage some of them do choose to leave for someplace the competition for workers and the cost of doing business or housing those workers is lower. But as that's happening, more businesses are arriving or being founded.

An example of what's happening:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-st...=hp_lead_pos10

I read someone taking the opinion that the bay area is no longer a place people move to and put down roots, but is establishing itself as the world’s biggest training base or university-like city where people come for a certain number of years and gain experience and reputation and eventually graduate making way for a new incoming class of workers. And that will become the nature of the bay area.

Last edited by ocman; Nov 14, 2019 at 2:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 3:25 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman View Post
Snap did help launch LA into a tech hub. The tech industry is now booming in LA thanks to Snap, with every FAANG company presence there, thus all the complaints about Playa Vista gentrification. It didn’t launch LA into an IPO hub, though. The litmus test is which cities are paying tech bros 120K at minimum. That wasn’t common in LA before SNAP.
To me it seems like Snap just coincided with the natural overflow of tech into other parts of the country (and world).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 3:49 PM
LA21st LA21st is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman View Post
Snap did help launch LA into a tech hub. The tech industry is now booming in LA thanks to Snap, with every FAANG company presence there, thus all the complaints about Playa Vista gentrification. It didn’t launch LA into an IPO hub, though. The litmus test is which cities are paying tech bros 120K at minimum. That wasn’t common in LA before SNAP.



I don’t see how San Francisco gets credit for the increase of tech jobs on the Peninsula, which seems like natural overflow from Silicon Valley. The tech scene is contiguous from Menlo Park, north and south. It stops north of Burlingame until you get to South SF, and then you start seeing a lot of biotech again. From that point, I’d say that’s where SF tech starts. The rest of the Peninsula is more a part of the South Bay ecosystem, just by feel and sensibility.


Also, the talk of the "exodus" of tech companies doesn’t allude to the loss of dominance to me. It alludes to an increasing dominance of Silicon Valley. When you have 2nd, 3rd, 10th expansions, that’s influence reaching further out and growing, not leaving.
When places like Hawthorne, Lawndale and Inglewood are preparing for the tech boom, you know it's exploding. The new media companies are expanding everywhere in LA, I don't remember anything like it. Culver City alone rivals anything else outside of LA itself for production/entertaiment companies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 4:40 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
To me it seems like Snap just coincided with the natural overflow of tech into other parts of the country (and world).
Snap gave rise to Stories (essentially the equivalent of Facebook “status updates” from back in the day), which Instagram subsequently hijacked and used to elevate the platform to another level of popularity. This has been a big rebound year for Snap after its stock reached a low of $4 and change. It’s still growing followers and continues be more popular with Gen Z than Instagram. The Snap “Shows” in particular are a differentiating feature in that IG’s counterpart IGTV has sort of flopped.

LA also birthed the scooter movement (Santa Monica-based Bird) before you had Lime, Uber, and Lyft follow suit.

Disney+ also launched yesterday (albeit to disappointment due to technological glitches), and the streaming space is about to become even more crowded once AT&T and Comcast launch their own services.

Otherwise, it’s really difficult to break into the elite class of tech superstars (of which I don’t count Netflix a part of). And even then, Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook aren’t recent startups; the first three have been around for decades.

The tech sector in LA is rising. As with NYC, Boston, DC, Austin—all of which are described as “tech” cities—LA doesn’t need an Amazon, Apple, or Google to show for it. As I’ve pointed out for the umpteenth time, San Diego is a thriving biotech center (top three with Bay Area and Boston), yet doesn’t have a Gilead Sciences or Biogen headquartered there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 5:23 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Snap gave rise to Stories (essentially the equivalent of Facebook “status updates” from back in the day), which Instagram subsequently hijacked and used to elevate the platform to another level of popularity. This has been a big rebound year for Snap after its stock reached a low of $4 and change. It’s still growing followers and continues be more popular with Gen Z than Instagram. The Snap “Shows” in particular are a differentiating feature in that IG’s counterpart IGTV has sort of flopped.

LA also birthed the scooter movement (Santa Monica-based Bird) before you had Lime, Uber, and Lyft follow suit.

Disney+ also launched yesterday (albeit to disappointment due to technological glitches), and the streaming space is about to become even more crowded once AT&T and Comcast launch their own services.

Otherwise, it’s really difficult to break into the elite class of tech superstars (of which I don’t count Netflix a part of). And even then, Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook aren’t recent startups; the first three have been around for decades.

The tech sector in LA is rising. As with NYC, Boston, DC, Austin—all of which are described as “tech” cities—LA doesn’t need an Amazon, Apple, or Google to show for it. As I’ve pointed out for the umpteenth time, San Diego is a thriving biotech center (top three with Bay Area and Boston), yet doesn’t have a Gilead Sciences or Biogen headquartered there.
The point I was trying to make is that there are two forces happening in tech right now that are transforming the industry:

First, it is generally becoming more democratic and less biased to Silicon Valley. Ten years ago if you wanted to launch an idea with venture capital, you pretty much were forced to move to the Bay Area. While there is still a lot of location bias, and a lot of it is biased to the Bay, a person does not absolutely have to be in SV (or NYC, or Boston, or Austin), to get funding. I would guess that today it's like 50% Bay Area, 50% everywhere else combined, whereas 10 years ago it was 99% Bay Area, 1% everywhere else.

Second, and I think this will be more transformative for the tech industry, is that the list of scalable ideas that the Bay Area had almost complete competitive advantage over has been pretty much exhausted. The Bay Area was well-positioned to be the early pioneer because it had a lock on hardware engineering and software engineering. So if you wanted to turn a phone into a computer, you had to be there. Nowadays, the Bay Area doesn't have a lock on the industry knowledge that will power the next phase of tech. Is it better to create self-driving cars in the Bay Area or Detroit? Is it better to create AI technology for the federal government in the Bay Area or the D.C. area? FinTech in the Bay or NYC?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 8:19 PM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I would guess that today it's like 50% Bay Area, 50% everywhere else combined, whereas 10 years ago it was 99% Bay Area, 1% everywhere else.
All of your numbers seem completely off, but I could be wrong.

Let's see the data showing 99% of venture capital went to the Bay Area ten years ago, and that there has since been a 50% drop in venture capital going to the Bay Area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 8:41 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
All of your numbers seem completely off, but I could be wrong.

Let's see the data showing 99% of venture capital went to the Bay Area ten years ago, and that there has since been a 50% drop in venture capital going to the Bay Area.
These are numbers that I pulled out of my ass to make a general point, but I wasn't that far off on the Bay Area's share of venture capital:

Quote:
High tech in America remains geographically concentrated and unequal. The Bay Area remains far and away the nation’s and the world’s leading center for high-tech venture investment, raking in $30 billion or nearly 45 percent.

https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/10...ration/539775/
Also, I think the overall pool of venture capital has probably expanded a bit since 2009, so the Bay Area's share of VC could drop and the total capital invested could have still increased. Actually, I'm almost certain that that has happened.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 8:54 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman View Post
NIMBYism knows no party.
Amen. I follow this group in LA that is called(if I am not mistaken) Abundant Housing LA. These dudes are quite liberal, but we both agree that NIMBYs(among MANY other issues) are hurting people in the housing market.

I don't see the difference between a liberal SF resident not wanting a highrise built next to their house vs someone in Brookland Arkansas not wanting an apartment complex built because of traffic.

Both people might have legitimate concerns and they should be analyzed carefully, however, in the end we all know they usually end up just being either hyperbolic emotions towards change, density, or just plain old selfishness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 9:12 PM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
These are numbers that I pulled out of my ass to make a general point, but I wasn't that far off on the Bay Area's share of venture capital:

Also, I think the overall pool of venture capital has probably expanded a bit since 2009, so the Bay Area's share of VC could drop and the total capital invested could have still increased. Actually, I'm almost certain that that has happened.
The article below is from earlier this year (your source is two years old) and analyzes 2018 venture capital funding nationwide. The Bay Area does indeed get less than 50% of total venture capital, but remains by far the biggest regional player, and has not lost 50% of its share over the last decade as you erroneously asserted. Also, the article notes venture capital is shifting north from the San Jose MSA to the San Francisco MSA.

Venture Capital Keeps Flowing to the Same Places
The latest data show regions outside the big VC magnets of San Francisco, Silicon Valley, New York and Boston capturing more deals, but not many more.

Justin Fox
Bloomberg.com
January 8, 2019

Among the biggest economic stories in the U.S. over the past couple of decades has been the increasing concentration of wealth in a few “superstar” metropolitan areas. Recently, many people — myself included — have been looking hopefully for signs that maybe the situation is changing at least a little. One place to look is in the venture capital data, since VC investment presumably presages future growth. But most VC investment in 2018 went the same places it’s been going for a while now.
...
But nine of the 15 rest-of-the-U.S. regions have actually lost deal share since 2007, and the two regions with by far the largest deal-share gains have been San Francisco and New York.

The two biggest regional developments in U.S. venture capital over the past decade, then, have been activity shifting northward in the San Jose/San Francisco Bay Area... and New York City establishing itself as a major center of startup activity. If you just look at the last five years, San Francisco’s dominance has slipped a little, and more rest-of-the-U.S. regions have made gains. But overall, the VC data still seems mainly to show how resilient the superstars remain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 9:39 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
The article below is from earlier this year (your source is two years old) and analyzes 2018 venture capital funding nationwide. The Bay Area does indeed get less than 50% of total venture capital, but remains by far the biggest regional player, and has not lost 50% of its share over the last decade as you erroneously asserted. Also, the article notes venture capital is shifting north from the San Jose MSA to the San Francisco MSA.

Venture Capital Keeps Flowing to the Same Places
The latest data show regions outside the big VC magnets of San Francisco, Silicon Valley, New York and Boston capturing more deals, but not many more.

Justin Fox
Bloomberg.com
January 8, 2019

Among the biggest economic stories in the U.S. over the past couple of decades has been the increasing concentration of wealth in a few “superstar” metropolitan areas. Recently, many people — myself included — have been looking hopefully for signs that maybe the situation is changing at least a little. One place to look is in the venture capital data, since VC investment presumably presages future growth. But most VC investment in 2018 went the same places it’s been going for a while now.
...
But nine of the 15 rest-of-the-U.S. regions have actually lost deal share since 2007, and the two regions with by far the largest deal-share gains have been San Francisco and New York.

The two biggest regional developments in U.S. venture capital over the past decade, then, have been activity shifting northward in the San Jose/San Francisco Bay Area... and New York City establishing itself as a major center of startup activity. If you just look at the last five years, San Francisco’s dominance has slipped a little, and more rest-of-the-U.S. regions have made gains. But overall, the VC data still seems mainly to show how resilient the superstars remain.
Okay, but I'm not sure this really changes the point I was making. The point is that there are a lot more tech companies being funded by VC in places that are not the Bay Area (or New York, or Boston) than there were a decade ago. If (hypothetically) 10 years ago there were 10 companies funded in the Bay, and 10 elsewhere, versus 100 today in the Bay and 100 elsewhere, that still means there are 100 options to choose that are not the Bay Area, when before there were only 10.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 10:30 PM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
The point is that there are a lot more tech companies being funded by VC in places that are not the Bay Area (or New York, or Boston) than there were a decade ago.
According to the article I quoted and linked above, if we look how venture capital was spread among the nation's metros, "[O]nly about 30 percent of 2018 VC investment landed outside the superstar metros of San Francisco, San Jose, New York and Boston. That’s down from 61 percent back in 1995, and 34 percent in 2017." That's a downward trend for the non-VC hubs.

But that's total funding, which I think is the better metric, and not the number of venture capital deals (as close a proxy for 'companies' as I could find) which you're focused on.

"The share of VC deals going outside the superstar regions is still smaller than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s, but it’s the biggest it has been since 2007."

So you might be just squeaking by on this one--relative to the national total, the share of deals outside the major VC hubs does appear to be more than in 2009, but still fewer than there were in the years leading up to, and including, 2007. Perhaps the long-term trend is reversing, but we'll have to wait to see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2019, 6:55 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,430
At one point, "tech" was supposed to be a great democratic equalizer on several fronts, though it's obviously had the opposite effect - it's simply made rent-seeking and hording that much more efficient and accelerated the parasitic hoovering of wealth by a geographically concentrated elite.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:18 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.