Chicago's "brain drain" and culture of "mediocrity" (Columbia: house, neighborhood)

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

And San Francisco is truly a very nice place to live. I definitely see the appeal.

Though the vast majority of tech is nowhere near San Francisco. Tech is HQ 40 miles south, and SF (the city and MSA) is kind of on the fringe of the tech scene; it's the San Jose MSA that has Apple, Google, Facebook, HP, Intel, Cisco.

In fact, if you look at the list of largest Silicon Valley tech companies, the highest ranking SF company is at #49. And only 2 of the top 50 Bay Area tech firms are in the SF MSA.

SV 150: Searchable database of Silicon Valley's top 150 companies for 2013 - SiliconValley.com=

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by MichiVegas

Though the vast majority of tech is nowhere near San Francisco. Tech is HQ 40 miles south, and SF (the city and MSA) is kind of on the fringe of the tech scene; it's the San Jose MSA that has Apple, Google, Facebook, HP, Intel, Cisco.

In fact, if you look at the list of largest Silicon Valley tech companies, the highest ranking SF company is at #49. And only 2 of the top 50 Bay Area tech firms are in the SF MSA.

SV 150: Searchable database of Silicon Valley's top 150 companies for 2013 - SiliconValley.com=

The Bay Area is truly a very nice place to live*. I definitely see the appeal.

(With notable exceptions like much of Oakland, Villejo, and East Palo Alto...)

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

The Bay Area is truly a very nice place to live*. I definitely see the appeal.

(With notable exceptions like much of Oakland, Villejo, and East Palo Alto...)

Oh, I agree with this, 100%. And SF would still be super expensive if there were no tech. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit disingenuous when people say "SF is the tech city".

If you include entire Bay Area as CSA and then call it "SF" (even though that isn't the technical name), then I guess you could make the argument, but it would be like calling Chicago "home to United Airlines" if United located 50-60 miles away in Indiana or something. Maybe technically true by kind of manipulating one type of Census classification, but not really.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by MichiVegas

Oh, I agree with this, 100%. And SF would still be super expensive if there were no tech. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit disingenuous when people say "SF is the tech city".

If you include entire Bay Area as CSA and then call it "SF" (even though that isn't the technical name), then I guess you could make the argument, but it would be like calling Chicago "home to United Airlines" if United located 50-60 miles away in Indiana or something. Maybe technically true by kind of manipulating one type of Census classification, but not really.

The Bay Area is fairly unusual in that there is a contiguous pattern of development between two MSAs. The Niners' new stadium is in the SJ MSA. Most major Valley firms sit within 8 miles of San Francisco's urbanized area border in an area with no development break. It would be more like if Joliet was the size of Milwaukee and people were arguing if firms located in Bolingbrook or Orland Park were Chicago firms or Joliet firms...or if Joliet and Chicago metros were really one and the same.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by MichiVegas

Oh, I agree with this, 100%. And SF would still be super expensive if there were no tech. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit disingenuous when people say "SF is the tech city".

I know what you're saying, but there's a lot of people who work 40 miles south in big campuses that live in SF. Not all of course, but many of the younger ones, especially ones who aren't married, live in San Francisco. There's a reason why a lot of companies have big shuttles that go between Oakland, San Francisco, and the suburbs down south of there.

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I know what you're saying, but there's a lot of people who work 40 miles south in big campuses that live in SF. Not all of course, but many of the younger ones, especially ones who aren't married, live in San Francisco. There's a reason why a lot of companies have big shuttles that go between Oakland, San Francisco, and the suburbs down south of there.

Yeah, I agree with this, but I don't think it's apples to apples saying (for example) "Finance for NYC, Govt. for DC, Hollywood for LA, Tech for SF".

And all those shuttles exist because the San Jose area generally has terrible urbanity, and SF has the best urbanity west of the Mississippi. Couple that with the fact that SF is actually no more expensive than some faceless Silicon Valley sprawlburb, and obviously lots of young people want to live in a great city like SF.

When 99% of the tech companies aren't even within 25-30 miles of the city center, it's just a different scenario than Wall Street for NYC or Govt. for DC, IMO. If Chicago had all the corporate and financial might 40 miles from the Loop, and some shuttle buses taking people out to the exurbs, Chicago could still make the claim to these assets, but it wouldn't be the same.

[Frank the Tank]

The OP's article is fairly strange. If there's one thing that Chicago is actually doing well in the new economy, it's attracting young college grads. I'll have to find the stats, but Chicago is literally at the top on that metric (even above NYC and SF) because of what others have stated here of how the city is taking in so many newly-minted college grads from across the Midwest in droves.

Now, is Chicago behind as a tech incubator? Absolutely, and it's honestly punching below its weight in that regard. If Chicago could have just captured the University of Illinois grads that have gone on to found Silicon Valley companies, it would be a high-tech superstar. It's not a shocker that Chicago might be losing people that want to work in those types of environments to San Francisco and I can see why someone working in the tech industry in particular might perceive there to be a "brain drain" in that sector.

However, other industries are different where Chicago is a bigger puller of talent (even from the coasts). For instance, professional services firms (consulting, law, accounting) are massive here and take people from all across the country. If you're trader in the U.S., you basically need to be in Chicago if you're not in NYC. Overall, Chicago is in very good shape in terms of attracting college grads today. The main long-term issue is whether there is enough of an entrepreneurial culture where companies and firms will continue to get built here for future generations.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by MichiVegas

Though the vast majority of tech is nowhere near San Francisco. Tech is HQ 40 miles south

Even relatively speaking, "nowhere near" is a stretch. the majority of people commuting to the valley, are commuting from San Fran. Additionally, many of the larger valley companies have hubs in San Fran proper.

[sydlee]

Originally Posted by MichiVegas

When 99% of the tech companies aren't even within 25-30 miles of the city center, it's just a different scenario than Wall Street for NYC or Govt. for DC, IMO.

Minor point -- most of the tech companies are in fact w/in 25-30 miles of the city center: San Jose. It has
an urban downtown. It's certainly no Chicago, but then, most major cities are not Chicago.

Tech first put down roots not in San Francisco, but in the South Bay of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. That area includes San Jose and the smaller towns of Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, etc. (though you could consider Palo Alto as being part of the "peninsula." But you get the picture.) Yes, tech companies are now forming in SF and some established companies have opened offices in SF. But by and large, the South Bay -- not SF -- remains the center of tech jobs in Northern California.

(And yes, lots of people live in SF and commute to the South Bay, but that can be said of the entire Bay Area.)

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

Even relatively speaking, "nowhere near" is a stretch. the majority of people commuting to the valley, are commuting from San Fran.
.

I bet you this is nowhere near true. The strong majority of people commuting to Silicon Valley are not SF residents. That doesn't even make any sense, because there are more jobs in the Valley than there are working age adults in SF.

If 20% of Silicon Valley tech jobs were held by people residing in SF, I would be really surprised. I think the number is significantly lower, and the typical techie lives somewhere like Cupertino. Most people don't want 90-minute one-way commutes, especially if you aren't a 20-something.

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

Additionally, many of the larger valley companies have hubs in San Fran proper.

Many do, but the vast majority of jobs and HQ are far from SF.