Pittsburgh's good times carry a corporate asterisk (Philadelphia, York: best cities, university)

[_Buster]

Originally Posted by zman63

Pittsburgh keeps thinking New York, Chicago, LA, Philadelphia when it should be thinking Raleigh, Columbus, Portland or Salt Lake City.

So Pittsburgh should aim to be smaller than it is already? One of the reason those cities grow faster is because they were not built up to a large extent in earlier decades, and many new developments are on empty land (but their growth will slow over time). Cities like Pittsburgh generally do not have that advantage, so new development is harder and takes longer, since existing structures, owners, and infrastructure get in the way.

I agree small business should be targeted, but there is no reason for Pittsburgh not to go after medium and large companies as well. If you don't think big, you'll always be small.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by pman

related
The Surprising Cities Leading America's Start-Up Revolution - Richard Florida - The Atlantic Cities

I have no problem with measuring density, but it can be a bit misleading if a place is small. But according to that map the best places in PA are Philly and State College. From that one can infer that universities are largely due the credit. Same is true in Ohio where Columbus leads and they have the 60k student Ohio State. Texas...Austin with the University of Texas. But that also suggests that Pitt and CMU aren't fueling enough startups or that the Pittsburgh region is too dependent on them. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and St Louis don't seem to have much of a entrepreneurial spirit.

It should be noted however that Columbus, Philly, State College, or even Atlanta are not leading start-up centers.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by _Buster

So Pittsburgh should aim to be smaller than it is already? One of the reason those cities grow faster is because they were not built up to a large extent in earlier decades, and many new developments are on empty land (but their growth will slow over time). Cities like Pittsburgh generally do not have that advantage, so new development is harder and takes longer, since existing structures, owners, and infrastructure get in the way.

I agree small business should be targeted, but there is no reason for Pittsburgh not to go after medium and large companies as well. If you don't think big, you'll always be small.

I do think pittsburgh should try to retain or attract big companies. The article states in a roundabout way that the big corporate hq and pittsburgh marriage seems to be ending. The future growth will come from small business start ups. Pittsburgh is smaller than all of the cities i mentioned other than salt lake city, which is pushing 200k in population.

If we can retain or attract the big hq by all means do it. I just think we could be much further ahead if we made small business startup less cumbersome

[zman63]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I have no problem with measuring density, but it can be a bit misleading if a place is small. But according to that map the best places in PA are Philly and State College. From that one can infer that universities are largely due the credit. Same is true in Ohio where Columbus leads and they have the 60k student Ohio State. Texas...Austin with the University of Texas. But that also suggests that Pitt and CMU aren't fueling enough startups or that the Pittsburgh region is too dependent on them. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and St Louis don't seem to have much of a entrepreneurial spirit.

It should be noted however that Columbus, Philly, State College, or even Atlanta are not leading start-up centers.

True. Cleveland and pittsburgh business startup is anemic according to the graphic. There are lots of colleges around both cities

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by zman63

True. Cleveland and pittsburgh business startup is anemic according to the graphic. There are lots of colleges around both cities

What's more important is the universities' brain power. Hence the strength of Boston. I don't think Cleveland measures up to Pittsburgh though. Their only really good school is Case Western and CMU has them beat. And they have no counter to Pitt. The strengths of CMU and Pitt together should create a synergy to fuel startups. They just haven't been as effective as they should be.

If Penn State was in Harrisburg, maybe Harrisburg would have grown like Columbus.

[Geeo]

There was an interesting article in Atlantic Cities a few weeks back about Detroit and its lack major research universities like Pitt and CMU (and it mentioned other reseach institutions in other cities, as well). U. of Michigan is too far away from Detroit to have an impact. The article questioned if the lack of a research university also was a factor in why Detroit was not able to transition from heavy manufacturing to knowledge in the last 50 years. For example, Andrew Carnegie established CMU here, but there is nothing called "Ford University" in Detroit. Was it that the auto companies only needed brawn and not brain in the old days? It could be said that Pittsburgh was the same type of city as Detroit back then and only needed workers for the steel mills and had no use for higher education. CMU began as a technical school, so maybe Carnegie was on to something in 1905.

[pman]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

What's more important is the universities' brain power. Hence the strength of Boston. I don't think Cleveland measures up to Pittsburgh though. Their only really good school is Case Western and CMU has them beat. And they have no counter to Pitt. The strengths of CMU and Pitt together should create a synergy to fuel startups. They just haven't been as effective as they should be.

If Penn State was in Harrisburg, maybe Harrisburg would have grown like Columbus.

Boston also has something else that neither Philly nor Pittsburgh has...excellent access to capital and many firms specializing in funding startups. Philly recently made a minor tax change aimed at excluding those companies from some of that city's onerous business taxes. I know access to capital is on some people's radar though I'm not entirely sure how to address it in Pittsburgh's case (which doesn't have the tax problems that Philly has).

[markson33]

I don't think this is that unusual. The big cities have a certain je ne sais quoi that Pittsburgh does not. I have friends and family that are from Pittsburgh, and generally like it, but yearn for the big city atmosphere that Pittsburgh just can not recreate.

I also think that the CEO's want/need to be where the money (and other CEOs) is. If you have a billion dollar organization, you need to have access to the banks and organizations that deal with business on that level.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

What's more important is the universities' brain power. Hence the strength of Boston. I don't think Cleveland measures up to Pittsburgh though. Their only really good school is Case Western and CMU has them beat. And they have no counter to Pitt. The strengths of CMU and Pitt together should create a synergy to fuel startups. They just haven't been as effective as they should be.

If Penn State was in Harrisburg, maybe Harrisburg would have grown like Columbus.

The University of Akron is 35 miles south of cleveland in akron. They are known for engineering, nursing and law school programs. First Energy's HQ is Akron and they hire a lot of U of Akron grads. While the u of a probably doesn't come close to Pitt in national recognition it boasts a huge student body of 28,000.

I would put Case and CMU even as far high prestige. They appear to mirror each other.

Irregardless, both regions produce a lot of college grads. You cannot sleep through classes to obtain a degree. Yet, both regions are low in startups.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by pman

Boston also has something else that neither Philly nor Pittsburgh has...excellent access to capital and many firms specializing in funding startups. Philly recently made a minor tax change aimed at excluding those companies from some of that city's onerous business taxes. I know access to capital is on some people's radar though I'm not entirely sure how to address it in Pittsburgh's case (which doesn't have the tax problems that Philly has).

That's true. Some people in Pittsburgh with a great idea have left simply because they had to go where the venture capital was. That's why Lycos left...although Lycos hasn't lived up to its promising start.