What would it take to make Austin 'the next Silicon Valley'? (real estate market, cinema)

[jobert]

Originally Posted by scottfreez

No that is Hollywood.

zing!!!!!

[FueledByBlueBell]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Or it could be because they've been on an acquisition spree, including several companies in Silicon Valley. Dell also has a huge office in Dallas now, since acquiring Perot Systems.

True too, but talent was a factor

[DORAEMON4ever]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Step One: Governor Rick Perry needs to GO AWAY!
Step Two: Greater state investment in public education from K-12 through University

Both Rice and A&M are nearby and produce world-class engineers too.

Originally Posted by Tim_Barton

....................


................................ and plenty more Cali residents to come along with

Honestly, I hope not! Keep the Californian in California! I love Austin just the way it is. Otherwise I would have just moved to CA. Keep Austin "AUSTIN".

[Tycho Brahe]

Originally Posted by pdxtech

In order to build a second silicon valley, you need --TWO-- great universities in close proximity, not one.

Silicon Valley has -- Standford and Berkeley.
The Boston Corridor has -- MIT and Harvard
The Research Triangle Park has -- NCSU and Duke
Austin has -- UT and ???

NYC has a great tech scene, but does not have any good local engineering schools. Colombia might be Ivy league, but I would not place its computer science program anywhere near the top. What NYC has is money.

[eepstein]

There is only one Silicon Valley and will always only be one. There are other cities in the nation with high tech companies, but none of them (including Austin) could ever come close to the dense concentration of companies and the high salaries that most of these companies pay. The brain power in the silicon valley is amazing! Some of the smartest, most technologically advanced people I have ever met, live and work in the San Jose area.

On the silicon valley's WORST day, Austin could never compete. UT is a decent school (acedemically), but not even close to the world class institutions of Stanford & Berekley. And, need we forget all of the perks of living in the San Jose area?? Beautiful climate, beautiful scenery, progressive, liberal attitudes, eco friendly, the list goes on and on. Sure it's expensive, but why wouldn't it be? It's pretty much the best place in the country to be. (next to Santa Barbara of course)

Originally Posted by pdxtech

Full article here:

Viewpoints: What would it take to make Austin 'the next Silicon Valley'?

I lived in Austin for a few years, before getting "Bangalored" like many high-tech professionals. Unlike many, I actually moved to Bangalore! I really liked Austin and its people during my stay there. My wife is a longhorn, and we
have great memories of our time in Austin.

I read this article and felt that it covers most issues except one, needed to build a world class city of innovation. It seems like most experts did not even consider this! In order to build a second silicon valley, you need --TWO-- great universities in close proximity, not one.

Silicon Valley has -- Standford and Berkeley.
The Boston Corridor has -- MIT and Harvard
The Research Triangle Park has -- NCSU and Duke
Austin has -- UT and ???

Academia gets complacent by default and more complacent if there is no competition. The political leaders in Texas need to understand this. Austin needs a second world class university.

[winkosmosis]

eepstein, how is the hill country any less beautiful than San Jose?

"Progressive" "liberal" attitudes = California Smug

Hmm, maybe if you try hard enough you can convince the Californians to stay there. While you're at it get them to not move here to Hawaii either.

[artsyguy]

UT Austin is only "decent" if you can get into the McCombs school of business (accounting program), engineering schools, or law school. However, current law graduates are having a tough time with underemployment and profound debt too. It's not a paradise for anyone. I wanted to correct Eepstein's disinformation. Everything else he says is correct though.

Originally Posted by eepstein

There is only one Silicon Valley and will always only be one. There are other cities in the nation with high tech companies, but none of them (including Austin) could ever come close to the dense concentration of companies and the high salaries that most of these companies pay. The brain power in the silicon valley is amazing! Some of the smartest, most technologically advanced people I have ever met, live and work in the San Jose area.

On the silicon valley's WORST day, Austin could never compete. UT is a decent school (acedemically), but not even close to the world class institutions of Stanford & Berekley. And, need we forget all of the perks of living in the San Jose area?? Beautiful climate, beautiful scenery, progressive, liberal attitudes, eco friendly, the list goes on and on. Sure it's expensive, but why wouldn't it be? It's pretty much the best place in the country to be. (next to Santa Barbara of course)

[MtnLion512]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

UT Austin is only "decent" if you can get into the McCombs school of business (accounting program), engineering schools, or law school. However, current law graduates are having a tough time with underemployment and profound debt too. It's not a paradise for anyone. I wanted to correct Eepstein's disinformation. Everything else he says is correct though.

Actually, if anything that was MISinformation...meaning the info happened to be incorrect [according to you]. DISinformation has a direct intention of spreading false info.

I'd like to correct YOUR misinformation: UT is a "decent" school across the board and has many "excellent" programs. McCombs and Cockrell would be considered "top-tier". Hmm, in many of your posts I've read it seems like you tend to throw around these claims without backing them up. I'd love to see your sources regarding employment for law school grads.

[spelrod]

Considering the source, Artsy using "disinformation" fits your definition perfectly. We would also have accepted the word "hyperbole."

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by spelrod

Considering the source, Artsy using "disinformation" fits your definition perfectly. We would also have accepted the word "hyperbole."

Well for "hyperbole" to even apply, there has to be an inkling of truth in the statement to hyperbolize (is that even a word?). I'm not sure Artsy's posts meet that requirement very often.