[baltcode]

So why is it that many industries like software, electronics, finance are all located in the non-expanding, expensive cities? Sure, access to the beaches is nice for recreation and the ocean limits expansion, but surely there can be alternatives?

If the Bay Area won't build/expand, why not develop a hub somewhere that will?

[Finnucane]

The large demographic trend for the last few decades is that people are moving away from the center and toward the coast. Right now, about 40 percent of the US population lives in a county right on the coast, and that number is sill going up. For a variety of reasons--the industries that held the middle--agriculture and heavy manufacturing--don't employ as many people as before. The centers of media and finance are in port cities. So, in a sense, we don't have a housing problem, we have a distribution problem. The long-term environmental and infrastructure pressures on the coast are going to get worse, and no amount of new housing is going to change that, in fact, it contributes to it getting worse.

So yeah, you'd think there'd be opportunity there for cities to encourage startups and other businesses in need of relatively cheap space, if they can develop the culture and infrastructure needed to support it. Cities that have good academic centers and sources of funding are probably in the best position.

[TheCoelacanth]

Those industries mainly go to areas where there are large supplies of educated workers. And of course the workers go to where there are large numbers of jobs. It's difficult to start a new hub because neither group will move in large numbers without the other group already being present.

[baltcode]

True, it is a chicken and egg problem. However, it can be done, and there are some promising cases to build on like Austin, Salt Lake City etc. The way I see it, there are enough people looking for jobs not already tied down to the coasts who will gladly take a job that pays reasonably well in one of these proto-Hubs.