Cities with the most tech funding

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by craigs

Alternatively, anyone is welcome to add up the combined land area of each constituent county in each of the 14 listed areas. For SF, that would be Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties.

I was able to complete this exercise, just for the heck of it.

Land Area (sq mi)
Alameda: 739
Contra Costa: 716
Marin: 520
San Francisco: 47
San Mateo: 448
Total: 2,470

Water Area (sq mi)
Alameda: 82
Contra Costa: 81
Marin: 308
San Francisco: 185
San Mateo: 293
Total: 949

And FWIW this is San Jose's MSA

Land Area (sq mi)
San Benito: 1,389
Santa Clara: 1,290
Total: 2,679

[homebucket]

And for Los Angeles' MSA.

Land Area (sq mi)
Los Angeles: 4,058
Orange: 799
Total: 4,857

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by homebucket

And for Los Angeles' MSA.

Land Area (sq mi)
Los Angeles: 4,058
Orange: 799
Total: 4,857

Why are counting water when most of LA county is a giant mountain range?
At least 60 percent is mountains (not hills), and another 20 is high desert. The populated part of LA county is actually minimal.
Probably 1000-1300 sq miles.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Why are counting water when most of LA county is a giant mountain range?
At least half it is mountains, if not more.

Apropos of nothing, physical size was introduced into this conversation only because some troll wanted to dismiss the LA MSA's 5th-place ranking for regional tech funding. It's not worth wasting any more time explaining, IMO.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Gordo

This is VC funding, and the list is pretty expected. Tech "funding" to me implies something more like capital investment, which would probably be even more centralized in the Bay Area (and Seattle) in terms of where dollars are coming from, but would be pretty distributed in where they're being spent. I saw some graphic recently that showed that 2024 is the first time that the big tech companies are all topping oil companies and electric utilities in capex, just from all the AI data center and chips building/buying.

Yeah, "tech funding" doesn't really say what this thread is about!

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by craigs

Apropos of nothing, physical size was introduced into this conversation only because some troll wanted to dismiss the LA MSA's 5th-place ranking for regional tech funding. It's not worth wasting any more time explaining, IMO.

Apropos of nothing, questioning logic does not make someone a troll.
If it’s not worth explaining, then why have you wasted all this time doing so?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Why are counting water when most of LA county is a giant mountain range?
At least 60 percent is mountains (not hills), and another 20 is high desert. The populated part of LA county is actually minimal.
Probably 1000-1300 sq miles.

Originally Posted by craigs

Apropos of nothing, physical size was introduced into this conversation only because some troll wanted to dismiss the LA MSA's 5th-place ranking for regional tech funding. It's not worth wasting any more time explaining, IMO.

I’m actually in agreement with both of you. Land area probably has little to do with “tech funding”. I just wanted to double check the numbers posted in the previous page since 6,576 square miles for SF seemed way off. The numbers for LA’s area was also overestimated in the previous list.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme

Apropos of nothing, questioning logic does not make someone a troll.

You wrote: "The geographic spread in some of these areas clearly skews the numbers -- for instance, LA-Long Beach-Santa Ana. That is just a vast area and despite it, its not a huge share." That isn't questioning anything. That is making a statement about an irrelevant metric that you think justifies your feeling that the Los Angeles MSA should not rank 5 out of 14 listed areas for tech/VC funding. And the statement itself isn't supported by the facts. LA ranks in the middle of the 14 listed metros for land area.

[Steely Dan]

"Land areas" of MSAs are pretty stupid because of the silly county mash-up game.

If you wanna meaningfully compare land areas of given "cities", it's a billion times more useful to look at UA land area data (California split issues aside).


The Chicago MSA is an utterly absurd 11,000 sq. miles.

But ~3/4 of that area is literal fucking cornfields.

Nearly 95% of the MSA population lives on just the 2,300 sq. miles of the Chicago UA. That is a monumentally more accurate definition of "how much land do Chicago and its suburbs occupy".

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by craigs

It's not as vast as you seem to think it is, relative to the other areas listed in the original post. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana is the 6th smallest of the 14. Meanwhile, it ranks 5th in funding--not that geographic size should matter when it comes to an area's share of tech funding.

1. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara covers 1,304 square miles.
2. Austin-Round Rock covers 4,285 square miles.
3. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos covers 4,526 square miles.
4. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy covers 4,814 square miles.
5. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria covers 5,564 square miles.
6. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana covers 5,699 square miles.
7. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach covers 6,137 square miles.
8. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington covers 6,385 square miles.
9. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont covers 6,576 square miles.
10. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue covers 8,186 square miles.
11. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta covers 8,376 square miles.
12. Denver-Aurora covers 8,414 square miles.
13. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet covers 10,857 square miles.
14. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island covers 13,318 square miles.

This list would be more useful if it was done using population instead of land area.

Also, there is "tech" and then there is "biotech." Boston is number one in the world for biotech NIH and VC funding as well as lab space. SF is right up there but the differentiation changes the data dramatically.
https://www.excedr.com/blog/top-cities-for-biotech

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by DZH22

This list would be more useful if it was done using population instead of land area.

Also, there is "tech" and then there is "biotech." Boston is number one in the world for biotech NIH and VC funding as well as lab space. SF is right up there but the differentiation changes the data dramatically.
https://www.excedr.com/blog/top-cities-for-biotech

Agree 100% - a much more useful metric for analyzing the presence of an industry within a metro even still it doesn’t tell the whole story as those numbers vary widely from metro to metro based on a number of factors like size and geography.

[ChiND]

https://nypost.com/2024/06/14/tech/t...ycs-tech-boom/


Move over, Silicon Valley: These neighborhoods are the epicenter of NYC’s tech boom

By Social Links for Lydia Moynihan
Published June 14, 2024, 6:00 a.m. ET

As New York sees a record number of tech employees flood into the city, neighborhoods downtown and in Brooklyn are gaining an influx of top talent.

Last year, the greater NYC area attracted 14.3% of all tech-sector employees who relocated in the US — more than any other city, according to an analysis of LinkedIn data by venture firm SignalFire.

“Tech is about human talent,” Kevin Ryan — who has been called the “godfather of NYC tech” for co-founding MongoDB, Gilt Group and Zola — told The Post. “New York City is just a better city… the talent wants to be here.”

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Austin looks really weak too.

Bizarre take. Another way to look at would be a smallish to midsize metro is punching way above it's weight.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

Bizarre take. Another way to look at would be a smallish to midsize metro is punching way above it's weight.

Is it? It has three million people. Per capita, its not above SF, SD, LA, Boston, NYC etc.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Is it? It has three million people. Per capita, its not above SF, SD, LA, Boston, NYC etc.

Less than 2 1/2 million.

[N90]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Is it? It has three million people. Per capita, it’s not above SF, SD, LA, Boston, NYC etc.

Your math is really far off, it’s per capita is higher than LA

[iheartthed]

Here's the per capita ordering and amounts:

1. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont: $35,772
2. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara: $24,724
3. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy: $12,506
4. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos: $5,931
5. Austin-Round Rock: $5,162
6. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island: $4,373
7. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue: $4,060
8. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana: $3,321
9. Denver-Aurora: $2,323
10. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria: $1,684
11. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington: $1,577
12. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta: $1,345
13. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet: $1,247
14. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach: $1,222

Austin definitely lands high on a per capita basis. It has the second highest amount of per capita funding for any city outside of California.

[PhillyRising]

The fact that Philadelphia is on the list is heartening.

The fact that the first programmable computer was built in Philadelphia at Penn and the chance to be the tech hub of America never happening is disheartening.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by PhillyRising

The fact that Philadelphia is on the list is heartening.

The fact that the first programmable computer was built in Philadelphia at Penn and the chance to be the tech hub of America never happening is disheartening.

Philly always ranks on these VC funding lists because of pharma and biotech.

[homebucket]

This is slightly older data (2022-2023), but here's how the VC funding, among other metrics, for biotech shakes down.



https://www.genengnews.com/topics/dr...a-clusters-10/