Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It'll be interesting to see whether the program mostly succeeds in creating "mini hubs" or real mass, even in their specific fields. A few billion vs. the vast resources of the top corporate/university hubs?
One factor is that many/most of these fields prefer to be among other tech sectors due to sharing talents and other synergies. The big tech hubs have gotten that way for good reasons.
Consortia have to include the private sector. So successful applicants are those where the city says, “we have the universities, the human capital, the political will, the local corporate support, the natural resources, and the know-how. All we need is the Federal Government’s money and ability to press more companies to move here.”
Similar to how Syracuse and Phoenix got huge semiconductor investments due to Washington’s constant prodding of TSMC, Apple, Micron, etc.
It’s basically the Japanese/Taiwanese models where the Federal Government takes on the role of building tech hubs because a small locality often doesn’t have stature to advocate on its behalf. Of course, at $500 million, this seems more like a trial run.
The real question is whether the Hill likes the 20 that are named and begins showering the program with money.
I get that. But it could be local corporations, mid-tier universities, etc. That doesn't necessarily translate to real scale if the giant corporations in the top hubs don't play along.
An interview with an assistant Secretary of Commerce. She also mentions that there is another program for distressed areas, under the Recompete mast. Some interesting stuff in there.
The Brookings report compiled their own list of candidates. They tossed out any place within 100 miles of the cities they deemed already had self-sustaining ecosystems for innovation: NY, LA, Boston, DC, San Francisco, Austin, Seattle, Raleigh. That meant places like Baltimore and Philadelphia were removed just due to geography.
Their recommendations (in order) were:
Madison
Minneapolis
Albany
Lexington, KY
Rochester
Provo
Portland
Tucson
Pittsburgh
Salt Lake City
Columbus
Chicago
Nashville
Akron
St. Louis
Boise
Milwaukee
Cincinnati
Buffalo
Kansas City
Des Moines
Indianapolis
Detroit
Albuquerque
Palm Bay, FL
Syracuse
Cleveland
Greenville, SC
Omaha
Fayetteville, AR
Knoxville
Dayton
Charlotte
Birmingham
Columbia, SC
Obviously Congressional shenanigans will be heavy (Schumer is pushing Buffalo I believe to get the upstate NY spot), but that seems like a reasonable pool to expect at least most of the choices to be from. Madison had far and away the highest eligibility score.
An interview with an assistant Secretary of Commerce. She also mentions that there is another program for distressed areas, under the Recompete mast. Some interesting stuff in there.
The Brookings report compiled their own list of candidates. They tossed out any place within 100 miles of the cities they deemed already had self-sustaining ecosystems for innovation: NY, LA, Boston, DC, San Francisco, Austin, Seattle, Raleigh. That meant places like Baltimore and Philadelphia were removed just due to geography.
Their recommendations (in order) were:
Madison
Minneapolis
Albany
Lexington, KY
Rochester
Provo
Portland
Tucson
Pittsburgh
Salt Lake City
Columbus
Chicago
Nashville
Akron
St. Louis
Boise
Milwaukee
Cincinnati
Buffalo
Kansas City
Des Moines
Indianapolis
Detroit
Albuquerque
Palm Bay, FL
Syracuse
Cleveland
Greenville, SC
Omaha
Fayetteville, AR
Knoxville
Dayton
Charlotte
Birmingham
Columbia, SC
Obviously Congressional shenanigans will be heavy (Schumer is pushing Buffalo I believe to get the upstate NY spot), but that seems like a reasonable pool to expect at least most of the choices to be from. Madison had far and away the highest eligibility score.
I can also see Albany, given that it currently has a growing tech sector, a high/above average educational attainment and it is within 3 hours(give or take) of Boston/NYC and Philadelphia.
They miss the boat omitting Charleston. MUSC is a research center if that’s a requirement. Life sciences and tech have a strong marriage. BTW, the city pictured in the photo accompanying the executive summary in their report is King Street in Charleston. Maybe they’re saying Charleston’s already a tech hub, although I looked for that in the report and didn’t see it. Columbia is more than 100 miles from here.
I hope it gets split out to many locations rather than dumped onto one spot. Wherever gets selected, I just hope they have a gameplan to add housing so workers can actually move into where these new opportunities get created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlestondata
They miss the boat omitting Charleston. MUSC is a research center if that’s a requirement. Life sciences and tech have a strong marriage. BTW, the city pictured in the photo accompanying the executive summary in their report is King Street in Charleston. Maybe they’re saying Charleston’s already a tech hub, although I looked for that in the report and didn’t see it. Columbia is more than 100 miles from here.
From a geographic perspective Columbia is a lot better. Charleston is just a bad location with the low elevation and earthquake risk.
They miss the boat omitting Charleston. MUSC is a research center if that’s a requirement. Life sciences and tech have a strong marriage. BTW, the city pictured in the photo accompanying the executive summary in their report is King Street in Charleston. Maybe they’re saying Charleston’s already a tech hub, although I looked for that in the report and didn’t see it. Columbia is more than 100 miles from here.
The stratification towards the bottom was getting a bit muddy as the scores were all similarly low. It's possible Charleston was right on the edge and simply didn't make it based on the study's parameters. I don't know where it stands on patents and research R&D. A different set of criteria could shake up the bottom of the list. I think the top of the list is probably looking good, it will likely be a push to see which politicians back which places.
I hope it gets split out to many locations rather than dumped onto one spot. Wherever gets selected, I just hope they have a gameplan to add housing so workers can actually move into where these new opportunities get created.
From a geographic perspective Columbia is a lot better. Charleston is just a bad location with the low elevation and earthquake risk.
While Charleston begins to plan its future around retreating from the water’s edge, there’s plenty of higher-elevation land to develop, both in the city and suburbs. Earthquakes were rumbling for months near Columbia until recently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
