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.
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.
As a local, I can tell you you're spot on. The only difference is that Google's campus grew organically and they have yet to build their monument to their greatness (like, say, GM, Salesforce, Apple...).
As a local, I can tell you you're spot on. The only difference is that Google's campus grew organically and they have yet to build their monument to their greatness (like, say, GM, Salesforce, Apple...).
There are several reason for the industrial and other large facilities are in Suburbia.
1: Available land, at a much more attractive price than in CBD.
2: They want to locate where the majority of their employees want to live. Where employees can buy homes and commute in minutes. Helps save employees from doing much job hopping. Young people that want to live in the CBD become married with children, and want to move to the suburbs. Their employees don't want to fight traffic to just get to work if they can avoid it as going into the city centers is one mess at starting and quitting time.
3: The top people like the facility to be close to their homes, making it easy for them to commute to the office.
4: The facility stands out and is much easier to identify, than to try to cram it into a tight urban environment. Apple's spaceship headquarters would not be feasible in the inner city.
Well, if you're content to pass over the best and brightest who may be in that 13%, then there isn't a problem.
There are times when I wish I had taken debate in high school or college, so I could come up with the right word for the logical fallacy of such a statement.
Do you really think "the best and the brightest" would not learn to drive if they needed to do so for a job? And keep in mind that's people >16. If I could have found a figure for people over 25, I'd have posted it. I suspect it's much smaller, and contains far fewer of "the best and the brightest".
As figure 4-3 shows, the number of licensed drivers nearly doubles from <19 to 20-24. What happens during those years? Why, college graduation and the procurement of jobs! Not to mention there is ride-sharing, bicycling, and other ways to get to work.
I don't have a driver's license due to a disability. But I may not be one of the best or brightest.
I realize he's not a US citizen, but I think it's unlikely that Stephen Hawking has a driver's license, and he is certainly one of the brightest.
No comment on you, my friend. Stephen Hawking, yeah. Do you think he could walk or take a bus to work, either? No, he'd have to be driven.
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.
