Emlyn writes:
> I guess so. But then, the workers have to put up with crappy conditions
> (commuting, parking, or expensive living). I guess it's desirable; a city
> gives you lots of job opportunity in a confined area. In turn, a city gives
> you lots of potential employees in a confined area.
>
> Funny thing is, if you spread it all out a bit, commutes would probably take
> just as long in the worst cases (longer distances, but faster travel because
> of emptier roads, so less agravation), no parking hassles (and costs),
> cheaper housing near work (which cancels out the commute quite often). I
> just can't really grasp the sense of the mega high density city as a place
> to put a knowledge-based business. But then, I haven't worked in the city
> for a long time now; can't remember what those elusive benefits are.
Keep in mind that the Silicon Valley is hardly Manhattan. The businesses
are not stacked up in towers across the street from each other. There are
hi tech companies scattered over a couple hundred square miles. This puts
most of them within 10-20 miles of each other.
The real problem with the area is the overtaxed freeway system. The rapid
growth has completely overloaded the surface transportation, making
commutes a nightmare and further penalizing people who live farther away.
Probably other infrastructure elements are similarly strained. But this
is really due to growth rate, not density per se.
I work for an SV company, but I live in Santa Barbara, 400 miles away,
and telecommute. The office is barely over a mile from the airport as the
crow flies, but during rush hour you're lucky to make the drive in less
than half an hour. It seems that many of the people in our division,
even the ones who live in the area, go into the office as little as
possible, just once or twice a week for meetings.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:36 MDT