SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126473)

SDfan Sep 8, 2017 8:41 PM

The more I read about this whole Amazon situation the less I feel like San Diego would be selected.

SDfan Sep 8, 2017 9:37 PM

Tijuana news:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...908-story.html

ucsbgaucho Sep 8, 2017 9:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7916255)
The more I read about this whole Amazon situation the less I feel like San Diego would be selected.

San Diego loses immediately because it's in California. No big corporations are moving HQs TO California, they're all moving out. Nowhere in CA can match the tax incentives, cost of living, building costs etc of other states like Texas, Utah, Florida, etc.

spoonman Sep 8, 2017 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7916255)
The more I read about this whole Amazon situation the less I feel like San Diego would be selected.

I'm thinking that the city Amazon selects will be more strategic and less financial in nature. What I mean is that Amazon has tons of cash and doesn't need handouts as nice as handouts are.

Amazon likely wants to keep moving into other industries (Grocery, Movies/TV, etc.). The place that they select (if any) will likely have a lot to do with attracting talent for new ventures as well as supporting the existing business.

Most of us think Amazon will move to any number of techie/hipster cities, however they could surprise everyone and move to a place totally unexpected for much more strategic reasons.

SDCAL Sep 9, 2017 1:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 7916207)
I'm very excited to see the proposals for the old courthouse site and man would that be a perfect spot for 700 to 800 foot tower right smack in the middle of the skyline would be an amazing Pinnacle and take our skyline to a whole other level.

Regarding Amazon HQ2 I see Nashville getting it, hip young city tons of people want to move there and housing is still cheap, many people forget that Tennessee has no state income tax. I heard they want to be in a city that doesn't have outrageous housing costs. Charlotte may work but it is kind of a boring sterile place where as Nashville has soul.

What could San Diego realistically offer? The whole Qualcomm site so they could build office and housing? All of Tailgate Park and The MTS busyard that is about 8 city blocks?? Would JMI be willing to give Amazon that land he controls it is such a waste just sitting there as a parking lot should be an Arena or Corporate HQ for sure.

Charlotte will never be picked. It's a political football with the right wing state government. Remember all the stuff with transgendered bathrooms bill and major companies/sporting events etc. threatening to leave and cancelling conferences there. It cost the state over $3 billion. Amazon, which now owns Whole Foods and has a huge millennial customer base, is not going to risk going to a conservative state, especially one with a recent history of high profile controversy like NC. I could see maybe Austin and merging with the WF headquarters there. Maybe Philadelphia.

SDCAL Sep 9, 2017 1:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho (Post 7916344)
San Diego loses immediately because it's in California. No big corporations are moving HQs TO California, they're all moving out. Nowhere in CA can match the tax incentives, cost of living, building costs etc of other states like Texas, Utah, Florida, etc.

They also don't want to move to politically conservative states where there could be controversy with backwards laws that they then have to condemn like we saw with North Carolina. They used the term "progressive" in their list of desirable attributes. Can't picture Utah being in the running.

The NYT did elimination brackets on their criteria and concluded DENVER should be their pick.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-be.html?_r=0

eburress Sep 13, 2017 3:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7916255)
The more I read about this whole Amazon situation the less I feel like San Diego would be selected.

How do you figure that? According to Amazon's requirements, San Diego falls short in almost every possible way.

eburress Sep 13, 2017 4:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 7916348)
I'm thinking that the city Amazon selects will be more strategic and less financial in nature. What I mean is that Amazon has tons of cash and doesn't need handouts as nice as handouts are.

You guys should read their requirements. Financial incentives most certainly are one of their considerations.

SDfan Sep 13, 2017 4:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7920352)
How do you figure that? According to Amazon's requirements, San Diego falls short in almost every possible way.

That's exactly what I meant.

IMBY Sep 13, 2017 7:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7916339)

Muchos, muchos gracias for the updates!

I guess these updates dashes my dreams of Central Tijuana ever becoming the real core of Tijuana. It's obvious they've abandoned Centro and all the future construction activity will be in the Rio Zona district, or I call it the Americana district.

But if the current President ever makes good on his promise to building housing complexes for the lower classes in the inner cities, rather than building complexes for the poor on the outskirts, then perhaps Central Tijuana may yet have a chance to be revitalized.

Why should the murder rate be an impediment to future construction in Tijuana, as don't we all know who's shooting/killing who? It's certainly not stopping construction in Chicago!

eburress Sep 13, 2017 3:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7920376)
That's exactly what I meant.

My bad...I misread your post. I agree. :)

mello Sep 13, 2017 8:37 PM

What if they give Amazon the entire Qualcomm site for free? Or the MTS busyard site. My gut tells me Philly is going to get it anyway with that Shcullkyll Yards crap or whatever its called lol.

eburress Sep 14, 2017 4:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello (Post 7921295)
What if they give Amazon the entire Qualcomm site for free? Or the MTS busyard site. My gut tells me Philly is going to get it anyway with that Shcullkyll Yards crap or whatever its called lol.

San Diego doesn't meet Amazon's requirements (no major international airport, awful business climate, high cost of living, etc...) so it's a moot point. It's not happening here.


My guess is Dallas/Fort Worth. With the State's business friendly environment, no income tax, DFW airport, available land near both cities' downtowns, the buttloads of cash the cities and State will throw at Amazon, the large tech worker population (3x that of Austin's), low housing costs, etc.

Other realistic options are Atlanta, Chicago, Washington DC, and maybe Denver. I hear Amazon employees are pulling for Austin, which minus the airport requirement, seems like a strong possibility.

Nerv Sep 14, 2017 6:05 AM

Here's a viewpoint from the Business Insider on the Amazon city shopping:

Cities are in a vicious, $5 billion battle over Amazon's headquarters — here's why they're crazy


Cities across America are vying to be chosen as the site of a second Amazon headquarters, but the opportunity also comes with some drawbacks.

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik writes that Amazon is taking advantage of the local communities that are putting together bids — which will presumably include generous tax incentives — for a planned $5 billion, 50,000-job facility.

"The company's approach is arrogant, naive and more than a teensy bit cynical," Hiltzik writes. "Rather than be offered bribes to move its headquarters into a community, Amazon should be made to pay for the privilege."

Hiltzik also points out that existing local businesses will face consequences for hosting Amazon.

"Communities that boast of relatively modest costs of living and reasonable labor costs as come-ons should recognize that Amazon's arrival will push up land values, and therefore the cost of housing and office space, and produce upward pressure on wages," Hiltzik writes. "That's good for workers, not so much for existing employers."

Amazon's headquarters in Seattle has certainly caused some tension, with some local residents calling the effects on traffic and housing prices "Amageddon."


Analysis by the software and traffic-data company Inrix found that Seattle drivers on average spent 55 hours stuck in traffic in 2016, placing Seattle among the 10 worst US cities for congestion, Business Insider's Madeline Stone reported in April.

The city-focused news website CityLab reported in 2015 that there was also a slight gender disparity in Seattle — about 1,068 single men for every 1,000 single women.

Rents have also increased, reaching an average in downtown Seattle of $42.08 a square foot, compared with $39.79 in 2015 and $31.38 in 2009. Rising rents could pose a challenge to small businesses and young startups searching for office space.

Bloomberg reported that Boston was the frontrunner for the new headquarters, a claim Amazon subsequently denied. Cities like Chicago and Denver are also reportedly in the running.

But hosting Amazon may not be all it's cracked up to be in the long term.



This viewpoint on Amazon I've seen on several business sites now. So it's possible the real winners are the losers.

spoonman Sep 14, 2017 6:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eburress (Post 7921820)
San Diego doesn't meet Amazon's requirements (no major international airport, awful business climate, high cost of living, etc...) so it's a moot point. It's not happening here.

You made some good points, but I don't agree with the bolded at all.

SD International has tons of service to pretty much anywhere you'd want to go in the US as well as a constantly growing number of international flights to Brittain, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, plus talk of new flights next year to China (you can already get to Shanghai through the TIJ CBX terminal), Korea, and South America. Also there's Canada and Mexico. These are just direct flights. Also, Alaska Airlines (HQ & Hub in Seattle) has also built and is growing a significant focus city at SDIA. I agree that there are better connected hub airports, but to say that SDIA is not a major international airport isn't true.

eburress Sep 14, 2017 7:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 7922521)
You made some good points, but I don't agree with the bolded at all.

SD International has tons of service to pretty much anywhere you'd want to go in the US as well as a constantly growing number of international flights to Brittain, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, plus talk of new flights next year to China (you can already get to Shanghai through the TIJ CBX terminal), Korea, and South America. Also there's Canada and Mexico. These are just direct flights. Also, Alaska Airlines (HQ & Hub in Seattle) has also built and is growing a significant focus city at SDIA. I agree that there are better connected hub airports, but to say that SDIA is not a major international airport isn't true.

San Diego International Airport is the 27th busiest airport in the US. Does #27 seem "major" to you?

eburress Sep 14, 2017 7:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv (Post 7921882)
Here's a viewpoint from the Business Insider on the Amazon city shopping:

Cities are in a vicious, $5 billion battle over Amazon's headquarters — here's why they're crazy


Cities across America are vying to be chosen as the site of a second Amazon headquarters, but the opportunity also comes with some drawbacks.

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik writes that Amazon is taking advantage of the local communities that are putting together bids — which will presumably include generous tax incentives — for a planned $5 billion, 50,000-job facility.

"The company's approach is arrogant, naive and more than a teensy bit cynical," Hiltzik writes. "Rather than be offered bribes to move its headquarters into a community, Amazon should be made to pay for the privilege."

Hiltzik also points out that existing local businesses will face consequences for hosting Amazon.

"Communities that boast of relatively modest costs of living and reasonable labor costs as come-ons should recognize that Amazon's arrival will push up land values, and therefore the cost of housing and office space, and produce upward pressure on wages," Hiltzik writes. "That's good for workers, not so much for existing employers."

Amazon's headquarters in Seattle has certainly caused some tension, with some local residents calling the effects on traffic and housing prices "Amageddon."


Analysis by the software and traffic-data company Inrix found that Seattle drivers on average spent 55 hours stuck in traffic in 2016, placing Seattle among the 10 worst US cities for congestion, Business Insider's Madeline Stone reported in April.

The city-focused news website CityLab reported in 2015 that there was also a slight gender disparity in Seattle — about 1,068 single men for every 1,000 single women.

Rents have also increased, reaching an average in downtown Seattle of $42.08 a square foot, compared with $39.79 in 2015 and $31.38 in 2009. Rising rents could pose a challenge to small businesses and young startups searching for office space.

Bloomberg reported that Boston was the frontrunner for the new headquarters, a claim Amazon subsequently denied. Cities like Chicago and Denver are also reportedly in the running.

But hosting Amazon may not be all it's cracked up to be in the long term.



This viewpoint on Amazon I've seen on several business sites now. So it's possible the real winners are the losers.

This sounds like an article written in a city not in the running for Amazon. Kind of like all the articles here in SD about how "we never wanted an NFL team anyway." Pulease.

Imagine the "armageddon" if instead of building a new HQ in Downtown Seattle, Amazon relocated to some other city. Seattle is delighted by their current armageddon.

spoonman Sep 14, 2017 7:36 PM

Comparing airports by "busiest" is a fools errand. Many of the "busiest" airports are due to geography/hub status meaning that most of the traffic going through the airport is connecting as opposed to O&D traffic. Moreover, the number of destinations an airport serves is more import than the number of passengers that are passing through.

eburress Sep 14, 2017 8:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 7922616)
Comparing airports by "busiest" is a fools errand. Many of the "busiest" airports are due to geography/hub status meaning that most of the traffic going through the airport is connecting as opposed to O&D traffic. Moreover, the number of destinations an airport serves is more import than the number of passengers that are passing through.

San Diego International Airport's geography and hub status are some of the factors contributing to its lack of size and/or status. It's not "major" in every measurable way. Land area, traffic, total movements, number of direct international flights, runways, hours of operation, etc...

Derek Sep 14, 2017 8:44 PM

According to the FAA, SAN is indeed a "major" airport.

https://www.faa.gov/airports/plannin...planements.pdf


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.