"Why Are America's Most Innovative Companies Still Stuck in 1950s Suburbia?" (major, park)

[46H]

The CEO/Owner is usually one of the most important factors in choosing a business location. In my experience it is that simple.

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

Except the article wasn't making a central city-vs-suburb argument. It was describing suburban office campuses, places initially built to be a walled, if pastoral, city of sorts. You drive there, sit in your office for the day, then drive home. You could also do those core isolating features in an office tower, really, so, again, it's not city-vs-suburb. And not every article or argument has to offer a counter-proposal; it's of great value to sometimes simply describe how something happened or how something touted as new and different is actually just a repackaging of something old.

No, it's not merely descriptive; it's saying these suburban office campuses are somehow bad and it would somehow be different if they were in the city. Which is nonsense.

Originally Posted by AlfieBoy

They are totally car centric -- there is no place to go without using a car.

And you know who this is a problem for? No one. Because everyone there has cars.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

This is north east America life. Not the same in other parts of the country. They put their facilities, where the quality of worker lives, for an easy commute, to attract employees.

You need to get out more. Lots of cities outside of the NE have commuter rail, light rail, etc these days. EX: Chicago (extensive public transit system), Denver, SF, Portland, Seattle, no doubt many others.

[chirack]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

You need to get out more. Lots of cities outside of the NE have commuter rail, light rail, etc these days. EX: Chicago (extensive public transit system), Denver, SF, Portland, Seattle, no doubt many others.

And even more, there are offices located through the City of Chicago and it's burbs not just the CBD!

[Escort Rider]

It is all about ideology. If you demonize "solo commuters" and elevate "encountering strangers" by sitting next to people you don't know and don't interact with on commuter rail, and if you pretend that people who "do not desire to own or dirve cars" somehow make better employees (as one poster actually stated), then all sorts of silliness becomes possible.

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by AlfieBoy

I do. I consult so I have a number of clients in these hideous green outposts, largely in Rhode Island and the Boston area. They are totally car centric -- there is no place to go without using a car. They are all without public transit options. There is no cultural swag, no opportunity to interact with society. And being car- centric and lacking public transit, these fortresses are typical white and suburban, apart from the Indian enclaves of developers, bussed in en masse from their temporary residential apartments by their contractor.

I could not survive working in such a desolate environment, but then I'm not addicted to a car, I know how to walk and to enjoy an urban experience.

I got so sick of driving to these office parks as a consultant that I cashed in and took a full-time position with a client that is in Center City Philly. Now I walk to work and will never ever take any kind of job that requires me to go to those office parks on a consistent basis.

And the cool thing is that there are quite a few others who are doing the same. Some great talent has had enough of the driving to office outposts and are choosing something more urban and simple. Two others followed me and now we grab lunch in Rittenhouse Square two blocks over, and commute by either taking transit or walking to work. Employers are taking notice of this trend too.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

You need to get out more. Lots of cities outside of the NE have commuter rail, light rail, etc these days. EX: Chicago (extensive public transit system), Denver, SF, Portland, Seattle, no doubt many others.

Looking at the poster's history, I think he's from California.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by nei

Looking at the poster's history, I think he's from California.

Well, maybe he has some funny ideas about "flyover country".

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by nybbler

No, it's not merely descriptive; it's saying these suburban office campuses are somehow bad and it would somehow be different if they were in the city. Which is nonsense.

You keep getting stuck on some key errors. It's not city vs. suburb. Yes, it talks about suburban office parks, but that is because the edge was where you could build sprawling pastoral office campuses. But that's not the core of the piece. The main thrust of the piece is that, despite being architecturally modern, places like Apple's new campus here in Cupertino are not fundamentally different from the suburban campuses that preceded them; each still seeks to be a place people drive to (or, in the SFBA, ride a corporate bus to), stay within the bounds of all day, then do the reverse commute home at the end of the day. But it's, again, not city vs. suburb; the GM headquarters, for example, could be every bit as much a fortress as a suburban office campus.

Posters can knee-jerk at the word "suburban" all day, but if they take this is an attack on driving or the suburbs, they're missing the point.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

You keep getting stuck on some key errors. It's not city vs. suburb. Yes, it talks about suburban office parks, but that is because the edge was where you could build sprawling pastoral office campuses. But that's not the core of the piece. The main thrust of the piece is that, despite being architecturally modern, places like Apple's new campus here in Cupertino are not fundamentally different from the suburban campuses that preceded them; each still seeks to be a place people drive to (or, in the SFBA, ride a corporate bus to), stay within the bounds of all day, then do the reverse commute home at the end of the day. But it's, again, not city vs. suburb; the GM headquarters, for example, could be every bit as much a fortress as a suburban office campus.

Posters can knee-jerk at the word "suburban" all day, but if they take this is an attack on driving or the suburbs, they're missing the point.

The title of the thread and the title of the article in the link are the same and both reference "1950s Suburbia".

I will point out too, that Google, supposedly so innovative, attempts to keep the employees around day and night, feeding them, providing on site dry-cleaning, etc.