Amazon HQ2 thread

[The North One]

Problem is Toronto is expensive and has pretty much the same growing pains Seattle does that an HQ would exacerbate.

[pm91]

Former Astroworld plot in Houston or the Hardy Yards north of Downtown. Maybe even a redux of the old Barbara Jordan post office?

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Just lots of speculation (or wishful thinking) about flights to Asia. Samsung has huge presence here in Austin, and there is a lot of business travel to other Asian cities by Austin business travelers. There is grumbling on Austin SSP pages about the lack of a direct flight to an Asian hub. The speculation, such as it is, is about a Japanese carrier.

In response to suggestions that Austin lacks many non stop flights to major US cities, I put together the following list: 11 non stops daily to LA area airports:4 to San Diego; 6 to SFO and 3 to San Jose; 5 to Las Vegas; 8 to Phoenix; 2 to SLC; 10 to Denver:1 to ABQ; 4 to MPS; 10 to Chicago, most of them to ORD; 3 to Detroit; 3 to Boston; 11 to NYC airports; 5 to DCA or Dulles; 2 to BWI; 4 to Charlotte; 1 to Raleigh/Durham; 2 to Nashville; 12 to Atlanta; 2 to Miami; 3 to Fort Lauderdale; 2 to Orlando: 2 to New Orleans; 1 to St. Louis; 22 to either DFW or DAL; and 15 to Intercontinental or Hobby in Houston. Also many flights to smaller cities in the region. Southwest has about 38% of the Austin passenger market. AA, UA, and DL about half that amount each. Surprisingly few flights to Mexico. There is a daily British Airways to London and a Condor flight to Frankfurt. The latter seems to cater to vacation travellers mostly. I think that another low cost carrier (Norwegian Air?) may have announced plans for a flight to Gatwick, but I am very fuzzy on that one. Not bad for an airport that is not a hub operation. Passenger growth is rapid at Austin Bergstrom, up from less than 8 million a decade ago to well over 12 million today.

Speculation doesn't mean much to Amazon. If i'm going to play tit for tat... 1/7th of the flash memory produced in the world is produced in Lehi, UT. Where is our flight? It would be incredibly hard for Austin to support a transpacific flight because its not a hub operation. Both Phoenix and Miami lack transpacific flights... and low cost carriers in Asia don't really operate the same way that we see Condor, WOW, Icelandic, etc. operate. Austin would have to be connecting on one end only and I don't really think Austin has the total capacity to Asia per day to support a transpacific flight. The fact that smaller airports are picking up transatlantic flights is a new occurrence, let alone a TPAC flight...

[dimondpark]

One has to wonder why they feel the need to have a 2nd HQ?

If they pick New York, I can totally see NYC taking over as the only HQ.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

One has to wonder why they feel the need to have a 2nd HQ?

Because, as noted earlier, Seattle is getting pretty expensive. Among other reasons.

If they pick New York, I can totally see NYC taking over as the only HQ.

As noted earlier, due to reason above, NYC may be unlikely, since it is even more expensive than Seattle.

[C.]

I just thought of something... what about somewhere in Florida. Super low cost of living and decent talent with schools. No real mass transit, which was a requirement in the RFP though.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Because, as noted earlier, Seattle is getting pretty expensive. Among other reasons.

There are a significant number of urbanist blogs focused on Seattle - based on reading them the last few years, it seems that the city has proven it is unwilling to allow more housing in the amounts needed to sustain the growth of Amazon. There's just no more room in Seattle to grow, unless the city starts building upwards - and developers have mostly lost that battle outside of a few limited neighborhoods. Other cities - Chicago, Philly, etc - still have endless swaths of neglected or low-income areas that could be redeveloped to house Amazon employees. (Even setting aside the issue of displacement, there's just tons of vacant land sitting unused in these places).

Also, Seattle is vulnerable to sea level rise and earthquakes. Since there appears to be no hope of arresting climate change, Bezos may be hedging his bets by establishing a second HQ in a more climate-stable location. Seattle, at the corner of the country, is also cut off from the biggest flows of goods across the continent whereas Midwestern cities are not.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Because, as noted earlier, Seattle is getting pretty expensive.

I dont really buy that as a reason. At all. The company has more than enough cash to build as much as they want in Seattle and environs if they really wanted to.

As noted earlier, due to reason above, NYC may be unlikely, since it is even more expensive than Seattle.

The company itself hasnt stated that lower cost of living is a criteria, that's speculation by the media.

I do think this open call for bids is more to elicit huge tax breaks.

[nature's calling]

Mid-sized cities don't have the necessary infrastructure to support a massive development such as this, so I don't expect Amazon to consider Austin, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, Pittsburgh and the like for HQ2.

[Emprise du Lion]

I expect we'll see proposals from every metro area above one million people going forward.

Here's what St. Louis has had to say.

St. Louis will put together 'a very competitive' bid for new Amazon HQ, local officials say

...

“We’re all abuzz this morning about Amazon’s announcement,” St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson said at the Governor’s Conference on Economic Development, which is being held the Hilton at the Ballpark in downtown St. Louis.

Krewson said local officials are “putting together a team right now to make a very competitive” proposal.

The St. Louis Economic Development Partnership, the economic development agency serving the city and St. Louis County, will submit a single bid in response to Amazon’s RFP, said Katy Jamboretz, the partnership’s spokeswoman.

To that end, Krewson, St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger, St. Louis Economic Development Partnership CEO Sheila Sweeney, Regional Chamber President and CEO Joe Reagan and the city’s Deputy Mayor for Development Linda Martinez held a conference call Thursday morning to begin discussions about attracting Amazon’s corporate facilities to the St. Louis region.

“The new Amazon headquarters is the kind of opportunity that can transform a community,” Stenger said in a statement. “We want this facility in the St. Louis region.”

Enthusiasm for the project wasn’t limited to elected officials. On Twitter Thursday, the St. Louis Cardinals tweeted: “@amazon, you belong in St. Louis,” and the Tweet included a map of the Ballpark Village mixed-use development next to team’s downtown stadium.

Sites that may be offered as potential locations for Amazon, or incentives that may be offered to the corporation, were not disclosed.

“We will be continuing to work together throughout today and in the weeks ahead to ensure our region is best-positioned to secure this significant economic development opportunity and the resulting benefits for our community,” Stenger’s statement continued.

Sweeney said St. Louis will make an “aggressive, out-of-the box creative” proposal.

“Amazon as a tech company has grown by out-of-the-box thinking and to equate with their mentality, we need to as well,” Sweeney said. The region’s rivers, railroads and interstates make St. Louis a contender from a logistics perspective, she said. “We have a lot of the infrastructure in place they’d be looking for.”

...

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/k...9f6d958-1ac2-5678-82fd-2c3fcb4332b2.html

Metro St. Louis is already fucking up though because St. Clair County, IL plans on submitting its own proposal separate from St. Louis City and County's. Madison County, IL plans on working with the City/County's bid.

I'd die if they picked St. Louis, and I know officials there would give them half the city if it meant they could land Amazon, but my money is on Chicago. Rahm is a barracuda.

[dc_denizen]

hope it's not Dallas. they have poached enough recently.

I can see an argument for Toronto - they need something to replace the loss of Nortel and RIM. but politically, Bezos is already in hot water for amazon's destruction of the American retail sector and a HQ outside the US would put him on trump's shitlist.

Chicago seems to have the right combination of urban attributes, low cost of living, and some big empty spaces for development.

Detroit as well, but I doubt Amazon can get over the blight and crime factor.

DC is in the same position as Toronto. they need something to diversify the economy with the loss of many HQs (AOL, Mobil, Worldcom etc). but not good to further concentrate prosperity in the capital. Not sure where they would put this.

Philly would be a great option if they had their act together a bit more. but maybe Comcast offers a good template.

Boston, probably too far east and hard to assemble big acreages. Same NIMBY problems as Seattle.

Baltimore, too small.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by dave8721

The first 2 cities that came to mind were actually Austin (where every other tech firm is going nowadays) or the Research Triangle. Boston would make sense but Amazons entire business model is based on cutting costs everywhere they can so I assume they would prefer a lower costing area.
The numbers being bandied about are a little silly. No one needs 8 million square feet for a non HQ office these days. Or employs 50K people in a single non-HQ or even full HQ office. Apple and Microsoft massive HQ campuses don't employ anywhere near that much. Apples is like 12k. Microsoft employs only 30k at its HQ that is actually 8 million sq ft.

Microsoft employs 50,000 in 14,000,000 sf in Redmond and Bellevue. That counts contract workers.

Amazon employs 40,000 and will soon have space for 80,000 in Downtown Seattle plus a little in Bellevue. About 12,000,000 sf.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Detroit as well, but I doubt Amazon can get over the blight and crime factor.

I'd be more worried about the crime/blight perception if Amazon didn't already have an office in the city. I think they're more knowledgeable of the situation and know where to be located.

You'd also have to rule out Baltimore, Chicago, Philly, St. Louis and possibly Milwaukee if you'd rule out Detroit for that.

Detroit at least shows a steady decrease in crime and hasn't had a riot in half a century, unlike many other cities.

[bnk]

You know Amazon is really an modern new old school catalog company like The Big ones of old. f

or Sears, Roebuck & Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears













Montgomery Ward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Ward





Those old very successful monsters of companies back than were the Amazons of their day. They sold everything, even the kitchen singk


You could ship a model home half way across the country in less than a week. I personally have family that purchased catalog homes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears_Catalog_Home

The house would cost unbelievably inexpensive even in this day and age with inflation. You could get anything from them by mail back in the day, kind of like Amazon, except for perishable foods, but that's modern and needs freezers and air conditioners.


Funny thing is that these stoic companies refused to envision the future and now all of the " catalog shipping companies not on line are pretty much dead."


Its weird they couldn't buy out the Amazons of the world in the early days nor have the foresight to do so.

Many years ago Sears owned and occupied the Sears Tower in Chicago. The tallest floor building in North America since it was completed in the 70's.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

This is NOT a Socratic question--I don't know the answer.

Are there 50,000 unemployed or underemployed Canadians with the sort of skills Amazon might need in a headquarters? If not, would Canadian law allow the hiring of Americans to work in Canada for Amazon?

I don't really know enough about the laws in the 3 North American countries other than my own, but generally there are retrictions on employment of non-citizens in most countries. That tends to mean putting something like this in the country with the largest pool of potential employees.

Seattle never had that either. It's all about recruiting people from elsewhere. We've been very successful at drawing 20-somethings from the US, India, China, etc. Another city might have more success drawing families, because our prices are a hurdle for that.

[The North One]

Why Amazon's plan to build a second headquarters could be a 'marketing ploy'
Eugene Kim

Amazon's plans to build a second North American headquarters, announced on Thursday, is highly unusual, even for a company this big, and could be more of a "marketing ploy," some academics said.

Amazon's potential goal: to generate enough buzz to attract more offers with better benefits, including steep tax breaks. The announcement opened up a bidding process for cities across the region.

But the academics noted most of Amazon's executive team will remain in Seattle.

"I think the name 'headquarters' is a little bit of a marketing ploy. I mean they just want to have a big office in another city," Felipe Caro, a professor at UCLA's school of management, told CNBC.

Caro said cities and states are willing to do anything to attract tech companies these days because they create lots of new jobs and could spur other companies to open shop as well, boosting the region's overall economy. In return, companies are given outsize benefits, mostly in the form of tax breaks, but their economic impact far outweighs the loss in taxes, he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/07/why-amaz...dquarters-could-be-a-marketing-ploy.html

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by The North One

I'd be more worried about the crime/blight perception if Amazon didn't already have an office in the city. I think they're more knowledgeable of the situation and know where to be located.

You'd also have to rule out Baltimore, Chicago, Philly, St. Louis and possibly Milwaukee if you'd rule out Detroit for that.

Detroit at least shows a steady decrease in crime and hasn't had a riot in half a century, unlike many other cities.

Detroit is far more blighted than Chicago and Philadelphia for sure.

Detroit murder rate: 46 per 100,000
Philadelphia murder rate: 18 per 100,000

Detroit crime rate: 759 100,000
Philadelphia crime rate: 486 per 100,000

One of these is not like the other.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Detroit is far more blighted than Chicago and Philadelphia for sure.

Detroit murder rate: 46 per 100,000
Philadelphia murder rate: 18 per 100,000

Detroit crime rate: 759 100,000
Philadelphia crime rate: 486 per 100,000

One of these is not like the other.

Uh, yeah, but the city's trajectory is much more stable when you compare to cities that have had dramatic spikes in crime and riots in the last couple years alone which Detroit is so far immune to. Philly is doing better in terms of crime and not having riots but crime could just as easily be used as reasoning against the city as well.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by The North One

Uh, yeah, but the city's trajectory is much more stable when you compare to cities that have had dramatic spikes in crime and riots in the last couple years alone which Detroit is so far immune to. Philly is doing better in terms of crime and not having riots but crime could just as easily be used as reasoning against the city as well.

Yes, Detroit is on a positive, upward trajectory. Definitely not denying that. Just saying that they shouldn't be compared crimewise. Detroit is 3 times higher in crime rate. Baltimore, St Louis, New Orleans all have significantly higher crime rates. Chicago, DC, Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, Memphis, etc. all have higher crime rates than Philadelphia. Therefore, I guess most cities who submitted bids to Amazon could be considered to have high crime rates.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by The North One

Problem is Toronto is expensive and has pretty much the same growing pains Seattle does that an HQ would exacerbate.

Toronto's real estate is expensive, but it's salaries are not. They are 30-40% lower than Seattle salaries, more if you account for the exchange rate. Between salaries, taxes, and insurance, I think it would would be relatively low cost.

The big problem I see for Toronto is that it is not in the US. Labour mobility will be a big pain to deal with.


In terms of sites, there is a 10 million square foot office campus already under development just east of downtown. It will feature a subway stop in a few years as well as a commuter rail station and streetcar line. Easy access to the highway network (albeit congested ones), to both a downtown airport and a large international airport, etc. etc., etc.