[protomyth]

I am a little confused, not living in SF (visited once by accident in the 80's). If I read this right, most of the tech companies are not in SF, but the employees really like to live in SF. So, the tech companies bus their people on exclusive transportation to the tech company.

Is part of the problem that the suburbs (that I would imagine benefit tax-wise) are not doing a good job at being an attractive place to live? Is it an industrial park situation? It seems like some land developer has a custom audience for a development.

I have read jwz's blog for the DNA Lounge for a long time and get the vibe SF doesn't want those type of venues. It would seem a more entertainment friendly community would prosper in attracting young SF residents.

[ZanyProgrammer]

Its because lots of young people don't want to live in Silicon Valley proper (basically Santa Clara County to the south). Santa Clara County is heavily suburban, with some very poor areas mixed in with some very affluent areas (Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills). I find it hard to believe that rent is higher in SF than Sunnyvale, for example-young people just want to have their cake and eat it too-high paying tech jobs AND living in SF.

[toyg]

And why wouldn't they? Why should they be shackled to SV, considering the tenuous logistical and geographical requirements of their jobs?

I agree with parent, SV is missing a trick here: it doesn't need to be as soulless as it is.

[aidenn0]

I've visited SV a few times and the impression I got is that a lot of it is all of the worst parts of suburbia turned up to 11. Lots of strip-malls, largely unwalkable and concrete as far as the eye can see.

That's not all of SV, but quite a bit of it.