Hacker News Reader

I did go down that list. See the second section of http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html .

Right, that's exactly my point. None of those places can really compare with the size and power of Silicon Valley. The fact that there's only one Silicon Valley is proof enough. The rest are smaller tech hubs. So there must be some other factor working in favor of Silicon Valley.

The most likely is also the most obvious - Silicon Valley has had longer to grow.

Wrong again. Harvard and MIT were founded in 1636 and 1861. Stanford and UC Berkeley were founded in 1885 and 1868. The Boston area saw much of its population growth occur in the 19th century. The Bay Area saw much of its growth in the 20th.

So, the Boston area has had more time with its universities, rich people, and population base to develop. Yet Silicon Valley developed faster and came to be the bigger innovation center. Again, I suggest there's something else at work besides the presence of top-flight universities, rich people, and time.

What is interesting is that New England was a major force in innovation during the second half of the 19th century, helping to drive the industrialization of the US. So, whatever factor that brought innovation to the Bay Area had to have been strong enough to unseat the existing innovation centers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com