Amazon HQ2 thread

[montréaliste]

Montréal is a prominent city in the leader category of A.I. research and applications, a high number of PHd's from UdeMontreal and McGill now establishing clusters outside of academia reaching out to industry. Amazon built one one of its data centers here and the energy costs are among the lowest in the world. There are many more data centers predicted in the short to long term. Coupled with Mirabel, a massive cargo dedicated airport North of the city, the second University student population rank after Boston's on the continent, the city is poised for a high ranking. Multilingual French, English and Spanish spoken fluently by a vast number of people. Perhaps the most polyglot city in North America on a daily working basis.

[YSL]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I don't think NYC has a chance. Technically it crosses all the boxes but NYC has a reputation of Wall Street which is what Amazon doesn't want. Claiming to be an innovative 21st century company and then becoming yet another old established Wall Street corporation doesn't elude the kind of difference with the old boys network that Amazon will be looking for.

For me it's {no order} Boston, Toronto, or Washington with Atlanta being a more distant 4th and then Dallas.

Wouldn't that eliminate Washington?

I highly doubt Amazon wants to be associated with politics, especially now that our moronic president has dragged them into it. When you think of NYC, you think of different things - Wall Street, Fashion, Media, Law, Entertainment. It also ranks behind SF and Silicon Valley in high tech employment and venture capital. When you think of Washington, DC , you immediately think of politics. NYC isn't a one industry town like DC.

[Parkway]

I think the big question that needs to be answered is, do they want a bi-coastal set-up or just another place with a bunch of offices?

[YSL]

Without being flamed, why is Atlanta always mentioned on this thread? Why would they want to be in Atlanta and what is the attraction? If they were going for 'cheap', why would they pick it over Dallas? Dallas has a bigger tech industry than Atlanta and is probably cheaper.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Montréal is a prominent city in the leader category of A.I. research and applications...

It is. Not only that, the French Canadians are generous and patient enough to share knowledge as a nice introduction to IT methods.
Pages like this for example are very good.

http://h-deb.clg.qc.ca/

This is free, accessible to anyone that can read both French and English, while colleges in Paris would secretly keep some of this only for their own students... Because competition.
Honestly, the Canadian attitude is better on that one.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by YSL

Without being flamed, why is Atlanta always mentioned on this thread? Why would they want to be in Atlanta and what is the attraction?

It's cheaper than Seattle, SF, LA, Boston, DC, and NYC. Probably about the same as Philadelphia and Chicago. I think ATL will have a hard time competing with those two, but they are a strong contender.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by YSL

Without being flamed, why is Atlanta always mentioned on this thread? Why would they want to be in Atlanta and what is the attraction?

no political BS like DC or Philly
low cost of living; "desireable" lifestyle.
MAARTA
airport
they know how to poach companies (similar to Dallas)

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

"They" being CNBC's Jim Cramer who invented the FAANG name before Google changed its name.

But actually, "Wall Street" investment banks nearly all now have massive satellite offices in San Francisco, not New York, to handle their business with the companies you listed.

Jim Cramer, a former hedge fund manager and Wall Street establishment but no surprise all those investment banks have offices in San Francisco.

[subterranean]

Bezos and his lieutenants may be reacting to our extreme political, social and cultural polarization by seeking a second base in a red state such as Texas. This would potentially give Amazon more political protection from Republican lawmakers — remember, President Donald Trump has threatened antitrust action against Bezos

Seattle Times

[tdawg]

Responding to YSL above: a) world's busiest airport b) heavy rail transit system c) Georgia Tech is ranked #7 globally in STEM graduates d) 9th largest US metro e) much lower cost of living than other peers on the East Coast f) one of the highest concentrations of Fortune 1000 HQs g) very business-friendly h) Atlanta and Georgia are #3 in the world in film and television production, an industry Amazon has been making a huge push into

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

My guess is that Amazon has already set its sights on Chicago and this whole HQ2 deal is to try to shake the bushes to see if maybe there's a better location their team hadn't properly considered. It's not really evidence, but the mayors of all these towns are making full throated statements and Rahm had his office release a boilerplate. Then it emerges he's had multiple discussions with Bezos about relocation before the while HQ2 thing was even announced.

it would be wise not to read too much into rahm's alleged phone calls with bezos. for all we know other political leaders in other locales have also had such conversations with bezos, but rahm's were the only ones leaked to the press. the fact that rahm's prior calls to bezos were leaked could actually turn out to be a potential strike against chicago.

i think those falling into the trap of thinking chicago is the shoe in for this are fooling themselves. as a dyed-in-the-wool homer, i of course think that chicago would be a good fit for the criteria laid out by amazon for HQ2, but there are many other very qualified cities in the mix too, many of whom will likely have much more money to put on the table compared to damn near fiscally insolvent chicago/illinois.

[C.]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Seattle Times

If Texas than Austin or DFW. I still think people are underestimating Tampa - St. Pete's chances.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by YSL

Wouldn't that eliminate Washington?

I highly doubt Amazon wants to be associated with politics, especially now that our moronic president has dragged them into it. When you think of NYC, you think of different things - Wall Street, Fashion, Media, Law, Entertainment. It also ranks behind SF and Silicon Valley in high tech employment and venture capital. When you think of Washington, DC , you immediately think of politics. NYC isn't a one industry town like DC.

They're knee deep in politics. This move to be inclusive of all North American cities is deeply rooted in politics. That Toronto has emerged as a serious contender to even the frontrunner in some speculations and polls is entirely political.

[Via Chicago]

anyone not making 6 figures or above should be seriously concerned about the impact 50,000 additional people making those salaries will have on the fabric of the city. if it lands in chicago you can pretty much kiss that "we're so affordable compared to the coasts" mantra goodbye, and in all likelihood vast swaths of people will lose their ability to live here. we will see the acceleration of the destruction of Chicago's historic housing stock, a massive additional strain on city transportation resources, bidding wars over previously affordable apartments. i am not at all excited about the prospect, esp given the experiences ive heard from other people who have lived through the impact Amazon had on seattle. what good does the "economic impact" have if it pushes you out of the way in the process and strips away the things that make the city an interesting and diverse place to live?

"What good it is for a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?"

[mademan404]

Originally Posted by YSL

Without being flamed, why is Atlanta always mentioned on this thread? Why would they want to be in Atlanta and what is the attraction? If they were going for 'cheap', why would they pick it over Dallas? Dallas has a bigger tech industry than Atlanta and is probably cheaper.

They would be considering the talent pool and transit connections in their decisions. I'm not sure about the talent pool in Dallas, but the Atlanta metro offers a huge selection of highly skilled grads from GA Tech, Emory U, GA State, SCAD, and AUC at relatively low labor cost when compared to places like Boston and NYC. The heavy rail transit, although nowhere near as comprehensive as some of the other candidate cities, is a bit better suited to meet Amazon's criteria than a Dallas, or Denver. I don't see the land cost being much different between the two.

The real contenders here are Boston, Chicago, and NYC. They offer literally everything that Amazon is asking for (highly skilled talent pool, transit connectivity, etc). The space will come at a premium compared to other places though. The cost of real estate in more developed metro areas will be the main factor in Dallas and Atlanta remaining in the conversation. San Francisco checks all of the boxes, but it's expensive and tech heavy. Toronto is logistically disadvantaged when considering NAFTA, and visas.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

anyone not making 6 figures or above should be seriously concerned about the impact 50,000 additional people making those salaries will have on the fabric of the city. if it lands in chicago you can pretty much kiss that "we're so affordable compared to the coasts" mantra goodbye, and in all likelihood vast swaths of people will lose their ability to live here. we will see the acceleration of the destruction of Chicago's historic housing stock, a massive additional strain on city transportation resources, bidding wars over previously affordable apartments. i am not at all excited about the prospect, esp given the experiences ive heard from other people who have lived through the impact Amazon had on seattle. what good does the "economic impact" have if it pushes you out of the way in the process and strips away the things that make the city an interesting and diverse place to live?

I agree Chicago would become less affordable should Amazon choose to locate here. I also think the impacts would be less dramatic here than places like Dallas, Charlotte, or Atlanta. There is plenty of space to build, even within Chicago's core. The fact that commuter rail extends into essentially all of Chicago's suburbs means there would be plenty of places for these employees to live, which would help lessen the pressure to bid up housing costs throughout the metro. We'll see what happens. Still think we have a good shot here, but trying to temper my excitement.

[Parkway]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

anyone not making 6 figures or above should be seriously concerned about the impact 50,000 additional people making those salaries will have on the fabric of the city. if it lands in chicago you can pretty much kiss that "we're so affordable compared to the coasts" mantra goodbye, and in all likelihood vast swaths of people will lose their ability to live here. we will see the acceleration of the destruction of Chicago's historic housing stock, a massive additional strain on city transportation resources, bidding wars over previously affordable apartments. i am not at all excited about the prospect, esp given the experiences ive heard from other people who have lived through the impact Amazon had on seattle. what good does the "economic impact" have if it pushes you out of the way in the process and strips away the things that make the city an interesting and diverse place to live?

Except Chicago is 5x larger than Seattle. An advantage that both Philadelphia and Chicago have is that the cities and surrounding suburbs can absorb 50,000 people without it being a huge issue.

[Antares41]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Taking this list, and comparing it with the RFP

Dallas - lacking in Public transit, and walkability
Minneapolis - lacking in Public transit
Denver - lacking in Public transit

I been to all three of these cities and I think their public transportation is good and improving rapidly via recent light rail expansions. Plus, they all have lines that take you directly to their airports. If there an achilles heel for them, based on Amazon's criteria, it their lack of world class universities. But, I am impressed that both Denver and Minneapolis have over 40% of their population with BS degrees. My opinion, Minneapolis is an interesting "dark horse" with good amenities in a progressive state.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

The fact that commuter rail extends into essentially all of Chicago's suburbs means there would be plenty of places for these employees to live, which would help lessen the pressure to bid up housing costs throughout the metro.

thats not how it tends to work though. the young tech talent they are courting by and large wants to live in the city, hence why i assume they are looking at urban locations. and those people tend to want to all live in the same hip neighborhoods. they are not going to be commuting in from Fox River Grove. but you can be sure that if you are not at these income levels, theres a pretty good chance you'll find yourself on that train sooner rather than later. i can tell you without hesitation that vintage $1k apartment i have less than 2 blocks from the lake that i love dearly would cease to exist overnight.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

what good does the "economic impact" have if it pushes you out of the way in the process and strips away the things that make the city an interesting and diverse place to live?

oh please, chicago is over 227 square fucking miles, many of which are currently dangerously under-populated. we are not some small cute little boutique city with only 6 sq. miles of actual urbanism.

absolutely no one will get pushed out of chicago if amazon offers 50,000 new good-paying jobs here. sure, some may get priced out of lakeview or wicker park or whatever yuppie ghetto, but there's a vast, VAST city out there full of neighborhoods that are currently dying and wasting away.