Silicon Island

I was thinking about how there's always supposed to be "a new silicon valley" somewhere but it never really seems to materialize. What if Silicon Valley had arisen not in California but in New York. -Or perhaps in Boston, DC or Chicago? All of these places have certain potential to support tech industries. For example, Massachusetts has MIT and New York has obvious benefits in the area of talent, DC is of course the capital city and Chicago has always been a good place for industry. There are of course other places...

Anyway, if California is not the tech-capital of America, will it develop more slowly and rely on different industries (ie. agriculture)? I imagine that whatever already powerful city did become the tech-center of the world would become ever more influential than it already is.

Of course, I'm not entirely sure about the process by which silicon valley came to be as it is so maybe I'm ignoring some inherent advantage.

Any thoughts on this?
 
While no Silicon Valley would certainly reduce California's economy to a degree, it would'nt be by a major amount as by the time of Silicon Valley California already had a diversified economy with Agriculture, industry, trade, Hollywood and Tourism.

As to Silicon Valleys formation itself, well it was'nt random, it's roots can be traced back to the late 19th century, and quite alot of the early high tech stuff like Vacuum Tubes was developed there and many of the big Tech companies were founded there as well, so it's not a case of attracting the businesses to the region, it's the region developing as a result of the businesses being founded there.
 
Last edited:
While no Silicon Valley would certainly reduce California's economy to a degree, it would'nt be by a major amount as by the time of Silicon Valley California already had a diversified economy with Agriculture, industry, trade, Hollywood and Tourism.

As to Silicon Valleys formation itself, well it was'nt random, it's roots can be traced back to the late 19th century, any quite alot of the early high tech stuff like Vacuum Tubes was developed their and many of the big Tech companies were founded there as well, so it's not a case of attracting the businesses to the region, it's the region developing as a result of the businesses being founded there.

Why was all this innovation going on so far away from the Eats, where all the money was, where the best engineering schools were (at the time) and where many big and innovative companies were located. I mean, the ENIAC computer was built at Penn in Philidelphia...
 
Why was all this innovation going on so far away from the Eats, where all the money was, where the best engineering schools were (at the time) and where many big and innovative companies were located. I mean, the ENIAC computer was built at Penn in Philidelphia...

A mixture of stuff including Caltech supporting the development of local companies and cutting edge technology for the last century, regionalism, the U.S. military presence, space/land and economic reasons.

At some point to the State government most likely passed laws to further encourage it as well.
 
A mixture of stuff including Caltech supporting the development of local companies and cutting edge technology for the last century, regionalism, the U.S. military presence, space/land and economic reasons.

At some point to the State government most likely passed laws to further encourage it as well.
Doesn't quite seem inevitable. Furthermore, once the businesses start up, they might soon be tempted to move east. All those things could have been found in Chicago, New York, Boston and the Washington DC area.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't quite seem inevitable. Furthermore, once the businesses start up, they might soon be tempted to move east. All those things could have been found in Chicago, New York, Boston and the Washington DC area. Of course on this site, I could say "what if I dropped my sandwich last wednesday" and somebody would explain to me why it was inevitable that I did not drop it.

Alot of the businesses were founded by people from Caltech who from the get go intended to stay in California, HP for example.

Essentially California has had the infrastructire, economics, culture and overall support to allow for it, like I said, Silicon Valley did'nt just pop-up overnight.

Another thing to that allowed for it was that the East Coast was far more developed and interested in established industries and economic pursuits so it would be more difficult for Silicon Valley to develop in say Atlantic city on account of their being fewer people with an interest, less overall support and very likely more traditional groups lobbying against it.

Oh, and also, I really can't stress the importance of space/land, Silicon Valley is relatively spreadout and the companies that comprise its core take-up alot of room, which is not something you could do in the North-East on account of a mix of land prices and regulations.
 
Alot of the businesses were founded by people from Caltech who from the get go intended to stay in California, HP for example.

Essentially California has had the infrastructire, economics, culture and overall support to allow for it, like I said, Silicon Valley did'nt just pop-up overnight.

Another thing to that allowed for it was that the East Coast was far more developed and interested in established industries and economic pursuits so it would be more difficult for Silicon Valley to develop in say Atlantic city on account of their being fewer people with an interest, less overall support and very likely more traditional groups lobbying against it.

Oh, and also, I really can't stress the importance of space/land, Silicon Valley is relatively spreadout and the companies that comprise its core take-up alot of room, which is not something you could do in the North-East on account of a mix of land prices and regulations.
There are plenty of places to set up shop in the east and it has not stopped industry, inclusing very space-intesive aircraft industries, from setting up shop. Would it be more expewnsive than Claifornia? Yes. Would the price of land make it impossible to do it in the East? I don't think so.

There were plenty of old instrial areas as well as newly fluorishing suburban regions and commuter towns in the Northeast which were not built up and whose communities might well have welcomed any sort of new capital. In other countries, progress in early technologies has not killed progress in later ones. For example in Japan, Tokyo (not exactly full of space) was the amufacturing powerhouse and it was the technology powerhouse too. I think California got somewhat lucky in that it was smart enough to somehow see the potential of the industry and was especially lucky in regards to the level of talent at Caltech.
 
One of the things I'm wondering is whether it would have been possible for a Silicon Valley type city to be set up in a place such as New Orleans or somewhere down south. I think I had a TL set up where New Orleans is spared getting flooded by Katrina because many tech firms with lobbying clout strongarm the Corps of Engineers into making sure the levee system is built and maintained to a proper degree.

The only problem is that the South being what it is, it would be difficult to attract an educated populace to the region.

Of course, the reason why Silicon Valley exists is because Westerners wanted more economic independence from Eastern Interests. If we can somehow move the same spirit to the South....
 
Last edited:
Shot in the Dark: Would Detroit have any chance? The city is dead with nothing to keep it alive. It would be something merciful to give it life.
 
Why was all this innovation going on so far away from the Eats, where all the money was, where the best engineering schools were (at the time) and where many big and innovative companies were located. I mean, the ENIAC computer was built at Penn in Philidelphia...

I just wanted to add my two cents that might not be relevant at all but historically companies have fled west, especially the movie industry, because of Edison's monopoly of patents out East
 
Does anyone remember that banal Turner cable movie about Gates and Jobs from about 15 years ago? The thesis was that Gates just drove around Santa Clara stealing ideas from existing companies. I have no idea if this is the case (though it's fun to think it's true:D) but that would certainly imply a pre-existing concentration of tech companies.

The DC land market is crazy-expensive. Nevertheless, there are plenty of computer companies around the outer 'burbs, even a few major players. In fact there are so many computer companies it makes me wonder what sort of concentration you have to have to be considered *the* center of the tech world (techa-mecca, if you will.)

If concentration of tech companies increased in DC in, say, the early 80s, already high rents would go through the roof. All those suburban office parks built out in the 90s would be built 10 years earlier and you'd still need more space. They're currently trying to build an entire new city in Tyson's Corner, VA and another in MD between Rockville and Bethesda. I imagine those would get off the ground much earlier. Maybe denser Frederick MD and Manassas VA as well. Expect I-270 and I-66 to be coated in office space.

It would be a very high-cost development and tech companies certainly wouldn't get a deal out of it. Where they're going to put the housing I have no idea. African American flight from Baltimore and DC might stop just because the market's too competitive. OTOH San Francisco gentrification benefited immensely from the tech boom. DC and Baltimore might find themselves wholly repopulated.

The existing tech companies in DC bend (but don't entirely break) toward government services and contracting. I would assume if the move happened, you'd see every new tech shop have a dedicated government contract wing, attempting to win federal dollars from each other, perhaps even just as a side project.

Tech companies get into the lobbying game earlier on. Expect a more regressive fight over intellectual property than OTL (and we're pretty regressive already.)
 
Austin or Dalls-Ft. Worth, Texas - large university, lots of space, large state with clout and ability to pull resources and strings.

Also, AH butterfly plus - the UT-Austin Superconducting Super Collider goes ahead! :cool:
 
The Route 128 corridor outside of Boston was and is a major tech competitor to Silicon Valley... as one would expect given how MIT and Harvard are both in driving distance. However, a lot of computer people were involved in the counterculture back in the 70s, and the stodgier corporate culture of the East Coast was never a good fit with the tech-entrepreneurs (no showing up at noon with a T-shirt and sandals) while California's laid-back culture was.
 
Austin or Dalls-Ft. Worth, Texas - large university, lots of space, large state with clout and ability to pull resources and strings.

Also, AH butterfly plus - the UT-Austin Superconducting Super Collider goes ahead! :cool:

Yeah, I think the Texas Triangle region is probably the best potential alt-Silicon Valley.
 
That has to have some effect on Texas politics as well, right? It's such a large state that even a wholesale move by the tech industry isn't enough to turn it blue right away. But that's at least a few congressional districts turned and a lot of Democratic money.

Latest election analysis has Texas potentially competitive by 2020. Maybe that happens by 2012 here?
 
That has to have some effect on Texas politics as well, right? It's such a large state that even a wholesale move by the tech industry isn't enough to turn it blue right away. But that's at least a few congressional districts turned and a lot of Democratic money.

Latest election analysis has Texas potentially competitive by 2020. Maybe that happens by 2012 here?

I'd consider that possible, basically what happened to North Carolina becuase of their Research Triangle, but bigger?

California may be slightly more GOP competitive on the other hand (maybe not).
 
I'd consider that possible, basically what happened to North Carolina becuase of their Research Triangle, but bigger?

California may be slightly more GOP competitive on the other hand (maybe not).

Yes, but those California-style liberal Republicans. Add in some moderate Texas Democrats and that's a net shift to the left.

The really interesting political arena would be the culture war in Texas, as you will find many libertarians and liberals in the tech industry but not a lot of social conservatives. If the POD is the 1980s the Texas GOP is probably already irrevocably wed to the Christian Coalition. A more libertarian strain of Texas Democrat might be one possible development.

Another thing to consider is primary education. Policies adopted by Texas are quite frequently de facto national education policies simply by dint of its size. Text book choice is a good example; the volume of orders to Texas make it cheaper for other states to simply order the same books. New York and California aren't homogeneous enough to pull off this kind of clout.

Tech industry influence on Texas education could have knock-on effects across the nation, leading to earlier adoption of computer education.
 
Another thing to consider is primary education. Policies adopted by Texas are quite frequently de facto national education policies simply by dint of its size. Text book choice is a good example; the volume of orders to Texas make it cheaper for other states to simply order the same books. New York and California aren't homogeneous enough to pull off this kind of clout.

Tech industry influence on Texas education could have knock-on effects across the nation, leading to earlier adoption of computer education.

Or at least give us a Texas Board of Education that isn't opposed to critical thinking...
 
Top