[davidw]

Hilliness is not an economic factor at all. Well, perhaps with the exception of some hill towns in central Italy that are still fairly inaccessible, I don't think it really matters in this day and age, in our industry, except for the fact that it makes a place more pleasant to live for many people, like me.

This is where I live now, and the economy isn't that bad:

http://www.welton.it/photos/innsbruck/innsbruck_panorama.htm...

[gravitycop]

Hilliness is not a factor at all.

Did you not just post several messages claiming the opposite?

[davidw]

Are you seriously arguing that Detroit is a better place to be a programmer/"knowledge worker" because it's flat?

[gravitycop]

My question was: "How is SV's topography better than Detroit's?". Your answer to that question was essentially that SV's advantage is hilliness:

SV has some things going for it [...] topography, that Detroit will never have. [...] The highest point in the entire state of Michigan is lower than the hills west of SV.

[davidw]

Am I chatting with M-x doctor or what?

Flat places are boring. Hills are nice. There are lots of sports where having some hills is more or less necessary. Who likes to go hiking in the corn fields? Grapes for wine are best grown on hills. Thus, SV (and California in general, outside of the valley) is better.

Subjective? Entirely.

But probably true for more people than those who absolutely love monotonous flat places. In terms of voting with their feet, SV beats the rust belt "hands down". If someone simply doesn't care about having some hills or mountains, than perhaps that's not an advantage for them in SV. But the climate is still quite nice, as well as access to the ocean, for some people.

I actually wouldn't want to go back there, but it's got a lot of attractive things.