What creates an innovation center is a concentration of talent. This usually occurs by having a number of top tier universities in close proximity. Their faculty provide much of the innovation, and their ventures are staffed with students from those universities.
While I agree with the sentiments of the authors, they are completely ignoring WHY Boston (MIT/Harvard/Wellesley), and Silicon Valley (Stanford/UC Berkeley) got that way. Not any university will do, as highly talented people want to join organizations (companies or universities) who already employ talented people. Talent attracts talent. Concentrated talent pools tend to create startups. Therein lies the flaw in the proposal. Spreading innovation centers makes each less attractive to new talent.
Finally, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of diversity. These world-class universities are melting pots, where the best graduate students from all over the world are brought together.
The existing innovation hubs have a long tradition of being relatively friendly to new immigrants.
You can't export innovation into Trump country.
28
@John Watlington
Seattle (my home town) has the University of Washington. A decent powerhouse (my alma mater) but it is not Harvard. And yet Seattle ranks as one of the superstars among superstars.
15
The last thing states and cities need to do is to offer more bribes to corporations. It's not the tax breaks that made Boston, Seattle, coastal California, Raleigh, and Madison job winners. In fact, Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle are relatively heavy taxers. What all the winners have in common is a great university or group of universities. They also offer natural beauty, a lively arts and music scene, and - wait for it - staunchly liberal politics. In other words, they are places educated, healthy, ambitious people, many of whom are not Christian, not white, and not heterosexual, want to live.
The issue here is culture, not economics.
43
I've wondered for years why the giants of high-tech have not yet gotten together and built a brand new city of their own, built from scratch, with all the high-tech, innovative features you would expect in a city of the future. There hasn't been a new major metropolitan area to emerge in the U.S. since Las Vegas. So, why not find a geographically desirable location with a suitable amount of vacant land and a favorable climate, and essentially build a theme park for their respective businesses and employees. And just like Disneyland, there could be separate "lands" for Amazon, Face Book, Apple, etc., each reflecting their respective corporate namesake. You get the picture. It could be just like the city of the future from 2036, as depicted in the 1936 movie, "Things To Come."
5
@Peter Because who would want to move there ? There is a catch-22. You would have to convince large numbers of companies and people to move there, in order to make it attractive for others to move there. Research Triangle Park, N.C. is well served by several universities, but in any given field, there are only two or three employers. Why would I move there knowing that if my job didn't work out I would probably have to move again ?
Much easier to stay in Boston, where I joke that while I've changed jobs over three decades, I haven't changed what subway stop I get off at.
And finally, you are missing the quality of life. Not only would those company towns have to supply great dining, they would have to have great schools, museums, theatre and music. The current technology hubs are also significant cultural hubs. That isn't a random coincidence.
23
@John Watlington You are missing the point. The giants of high-tech need to learn how to think really BIG. (Who ever imagined that Las Vegas would evolve from Sin City into a family destination?) This would be the ultimate test of their imagination and corporate prowess.
By the way, for anyone who watches "Things To Come," don't miss the very end of the movie when a Trump-like character manages to get on television and, in the span of a few minutes, sets in motion a revolt that nearly destroys the city of the future.
3