Why suburbs, not cities, are the answer

[finehoe]

Thoughts?

Nor is the much-vaunted "urban core" the only game in town. Innovators of all kinds seek to avoid the high property prices, overcrowding, and often harsh anti-business climates of the city center. Britain's recent strides in technology and design-led manufacturing have been concentrated not in London, but along the outer reaches of the Thames Valley and the areas around Cambridge. It's the same story in continental Europe, from the exurban Grand-Couronne outside of Paris to the "edge cities" that have sprung up around Amsterdam and Rotterdam. In India, the bulk of new tech companies cluster in campus-like developments around -- but not necessarily in -- Bangalore, Hyderabad, and New Delhi. And let's not forget that Silicon Valley, the granddaddy of global tech centers and still home to the world's largest concentration of high-tech workers, remains essentially a vast suburb. Apple, Google, and Intel don't seem to mind. Those relative few who choose to live in San Francisco can always take the company-provided bus.

In fact, the suburbs are not as terrible as urban boosters frequently insist.

Full article here:  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/urban_legends

[BridgeTroll]

While I cannot comment on Bangalore, Hyderabad, and New Delhi... I am keenly familiar with Silicon Valley.  In fact from San Jose to San francisco and San Jose to Oakland... it is one giant suburb.  The saving grace of this area is interconnectivity by rail.  BART, Cable car, trolley, Caltrain, and San Jose's Light rail system interconnect with bus.

BTW... the highway system is still jam packed...