| Tyrone Slothrop |
02-15-2019 03:51 PM |
Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
(Post 520945)
Sure it is. You’re assuming we need and will always have offices where people get together. I disagree.
|
Speaking broadly, we will always need and have offices where people get together. Some people will not need them. The proportion of such people may go up.
Three data points:
My uncle is a consultant. Some years ago, he decided to work from his home in Taos, NM, on the theory that he could work remotely. It didn't work. Most days it worked, but on the days when it didn't work, it really didn't work. Some piece of office equipment would break and he'd have to have what he needed overnighted. Etc.
One of my colleagues, an exec at my level, works from home in another state. But she still needs to come to the office every month.
The price of real estate on Sand Hill Rd is crazy and all the VCs are there.
Silicon Valley is full of companies disrupting markets formerly limited by geography (think of eBay, Google, Cisco, and so on). In the middle of Silicon Valley, why should that real estate matter so much? Because sometimes as the leveling effect of geography that you see takes hold, the marginal competitive advantage from geography matters more, not less. If a bunch of VCs are chasing a deal, do you want to be the one who isn't on Sand Hill Rd and who tries to do it by telephone instead of in person? Of course not. |
