In my mind, there is a difference between a tech scene and a startup scene. To me, where I live near Provo, UT is a tech scene. Almost everyone under 40 works for a tech company, some large ones like Adobe or Novell, and many small companies. Most of the small companies are stable. We are not high growth, we are solid small companies making a few million a year for a small group of employees, and have been around for more than 5 or even 10 years. We are not full of VCs. We are full of smart entrepreneurs who quietly work hard and make good livings. We do have a local university, which routinely graduates new people starting new companies.
To me, that is a tech scene.
I see no way that VCs and rapid growth / rapid failing companies would be better than this for the local community. If people want that scene, SV has it, and seems to enjoy it. Fine, more power to y'all. I just see no reason to try to reproduce it.
Despite the efforts of many a civic leader or politician to create their own 'Silicon' whatever, I would argue that Pittsburgh's success proves that you cannot create a tech start-up scene (at least one that centers around non-trivial technology like canine robots). As the article illustrates point by point, a world-class research university (or more than one), is the keystone.
You can't simply throw hundreds of millions to create a world-class research university.
"Meanwhile, other wealthy city states such as Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Qatar, which have invested huge sums in luring prestigious Western universities to their shores, have conspicuously failed to make the same impact on the global research stage."
To me, that is a tech scene.
I see no way that VCs and rapid growth / rapid failing companies would be better than this for the local community. If people want that scene, SV has it, and seems to enjoy it. Fine, more power to y'all. I just see no reason to try to reproduce it.