Amazon HQ2 thread

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i'd guess boston, with chicago/dc area as wildcards.

My guess......

1) Philly
1a) Chicago

3a) NYC/NJ
3b) DC
3C) Boston

4) Atlanta
5) Raleigh-Durham
6) Austin
7) Dallas
8) Denver

It depends on how much cost of living (and keeping it low) is a real priority for them.

If they go to Boston/DC they may as well just go to NYC as far as I see it unless if they want to be a big fish in a smaller pond. If they care for a big market that ticks off most of the boxes on the East Coast while still keeping the cost of living low than I would say the obvious would seem to be Philadelphia.

If they want a bigger more centralized/isolated metro not named Philadelphia then they will go with Chicago. If there focus is being closer to the corridors of political/financial power or more a priority rather than a centralized intermodal logistics air/rail/transit hub could very well be an important difference between the two.

And if metro transit isn't really important priority for them as they claim then I think that opens up the usual southern hot spots.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But SF, Seattle, Boston, etc aren’t among the “five biggest cities”. They are big “metros”.

What Bnk posted above illustrates how much a disconnect there is between how Chicago is being portrayed by the media/its perception by fly-by observers who simply see murders and declining population, and the other noteworthy story that it is undergoing significant restructuring into a much wealthier and educated city, and at a rate far more dramatic (when compared to its own metro) than anywhere else.

That story doesn’t get much attention, hence the false perception among the general public that it’s simply an aging rustbelt city that’s mostly blue collar, but with a really nice skyline.

Any of us in the "bicoastal elite" know that it's the center of options and commodity trading and the home of the U. of Chicago. Those 2 facts alone lift it well out of the "aging blue collar rust belt city" category.

[mhays]

Your top two are really compelling, if they go for the "most urban" scenario. These are larger cities that wouldn't be overwhelmed, with sites that are already planned for the necessary scale, great transit, moderate prices, and enough differences vs. Seattle that they might attract people who won't come here. Maybe DC too. NYC and Boston seem a little full and expensive.

Even if they go the urban route, I suspect they'll try to attract mid-career people who care about the price of a house, in addition to 20-somethings who might be ok with plentiful $2,500 apartments but not hard-to-find $4,000 apartments. This seems like a challenge for Manhattan.

[Centropolis]

i'd really like to see philadelphia OR chicago, personally.

what i don't really want to see is austin/denver.

as a midwesterner i'd like to see a healthier illinois (which my metro is part of), ergo chicago is in "my" best interest. it would be a perfectly good fit, anyway, with the "capacity" to properly handle something like this.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i'd really like to see philadelphia OR chicago, personally.

what i don't really want to see is austin/denver.

Why?

Austin and Denver could become a Philadelphia or Chicago if they land this 100 years out. Would that be better or worse for America to have so many influential cities across the continent.

[C.]

Will Amazon release a short list of finalists at some point?

[Steely Dan]

selfishly, i want them to choose chicago because more skyscrapers!!!!!



but if it ain't gonna be chicago, i'd be head over heels to see it go to a city like detroit that could really use a shot in the arm like that. "transformative" would be an understatement.

it'll probably end up in austin or denver or dallas or atlanta or wherever. meh.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Why?

Austin and Denver could become a Philadelphia or Chicago if they land this 100 years out. Would that be better or worse for America to have so many influential cities across the continent.

let's be honest, who *really* is rooting for austin? it's already going through some serious growing pains for most of the residents who aren't downtown condo owners. there's essentially no urban housing reservoir to absorb something like this without pushing out everyone who once made austin interesting.

that being said: moody's is saying austin, followed by atlanta and philly.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

let's be honest, who *really* is rooting for austin? it's already going through some serious growing pains for most of the residents who aren't downtown condo owners. there's essentially no urban housing reservoir to absorb something like this without pushing out everyone who once made austin interesting.

that being said: moody's is saying austin, followed by atlanta and philly.

I agree - Austin is already growing super fast. How would it be possible to absorb another 50,000. Give it to another area of the country that needs the growth. Philly or Tampa are my two bets.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Why?

Austin and Denver could become a Philadelphia or Chicago if they land this 100 years out. Would that be better or worse for America to have so many influential cities across the continent.

Good point.

My only rebuttal to that is that my faith in city planners (not only in sun-belt cities) is rather low that I have low confidence that they would make the best planning decisions out of such growth.

If it goes to a city with the logistics and transit skeleton propped up to support and develop that growth they are less likely to screw up.

[dc_denizen]

austin makes no sense. the traffic there is already horrible. plus only UofT.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

austin makes no sense. the traffic there is already horrible. plus only UofT.

Traffic may be bad today, but the future is totally unknown. We have drones. We have rideshare. If Austin were to land something like HQ2, would that not be a catalyst for some sort of mass transit system to break ground?

[Pedestrian]

The Chicago contingent here seems somehow awfully desperate for this.

I guess one FAANGster out of 5 is satisfying.

[Parkway]

The big unknown is that they didn't provide a rubric with the RFP. We don't know how much weight they will put on each item or what is required v. just nice to have.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by CIA

I agree - Austin is already growing super fast. How would it be possible to absorb another 50,000. Give it to another area of the country that needs the growth. Philly or Tampa are my two bets.

If there is any state in the union Texas would be able to absorb 50,000 new comers.

Intersting, why would Tampa be on your hotlist? Not saying you're wrong, Florida is a very attractive place, but I could foresee a few other metros before Tampa.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

austin makes no sense. the traffic there is already horrible. plus only UofT.

How's that? There's more to Austin than UT though it has been a catalyst for much of the high tech industry and think tanks; large prestigious universities tend to have that effect. Stanford, Harvard/MIT, UNC, etc..

Traffic does suck and Bergstrom is limited which are the two main strikes against them.

[Centropolis]

residential housing prices aside...

Commercial real estate will no doubt be impacted, as well. With total Amazon spending on real estate reaching nearly $4 billion, the company now occupies 8.1 million square feet of office space spread across 33 buildings in Seattle, according to Seattle Times research, the largest footprint by both raw area and percentage of any single company in any single city. In the last three years, Amazon had gone from occupying 9% of the city’s prime office space to 19%.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazons...ning-citys-real-estate-market-2017-10-19

amazon could potentially swallow austin, turning it into a company town. and who would want that anyway after all of the hard lessons that the rustbelt learned?

relations between city/company could sour pretty fast in a smaller city like austin. if i were amazon i'd be only looking at the largest cities.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

If there is any state in the union Texas would be able to absorb 50,000 new comers.

Intersting, why would Tampa be on your hotlist? Not saying you're wrong, Florida is a very attractive place, but I could foresee a few other metros before Tampa.

It's almost as far from Seattle as you can get (except for maybe San Juan).

Has anybody else considered that Amazon needs a second HQ because of THIS:

Amazon Antitrust Concerns Emerge in Washington and Wall Street
By Spencer Soper
July 14, 2017, 9:42 AM MST July 14, 2017, 11:36 AM MST

Amazon.com Inc.’s expansion plans, including its agreement to buy Whole Foods Market Inc. for $13.7 billion, are raising hackles in Washington -- and Wall Street is taking notice.

A U.S. lawmaker has called for hearings on the proposed deal to consider its ramifications for shoppers and workers. Hedge-fund manager Doug Kass has taken a short position on the fast-growing online retailer, saying government antitrust concerns will erode its value . . . . Experts and analysts have largely dismissed antitrust threats for the world’s largest online retailer because the company doesn’t have large market concentration in any one product category and it has a track record of helping keep prices low for shoppers. A key legal question is whether Seattle-based Amazon has grown to the point of discouraging innovation from competitors.

“There’s a concern Amazon might be getting too big,” said Michael Carrier, antitrust expert at Rutgers University School of Law in New Jersey. “The odds are the Whole Foods acquisition will go through, but these political winds will create a bit of a fight.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...for-hearings-on-amazon-s-whole-foods-bid

Just as Aldi split ino Aldi Nord and Aldi Sud, we may someday see Amazon East and Amazon West.

[Pedestrian]

^^

A range of (Amazon's) particular actions over a few decades potentially makes out a claim, even under our current antitrust law, of illegal monopolization (in technical terms, a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, rather than a merger challenge under Section 7 of the Clayton Act). The claim would be that this new acquisition (of Whole Foods) and a series of prior acquisitions and other actions have delivered a market position in which Amazon is such a powerful buyer that it can force its suppliers to sell at subcompetitive prices. While monopsony claims are rare and difficult to bring, Amazon is no ordinary antitrust defendant. To prove the claim, the government could first show that Amazon has very large shares of sales in specific products and that those shares reflect actual market power because Amazon has acquired truly, historically unique economies of scope that no retail entrant could meaningfully challenge. The government could then show that these shares were acquired not by healthy, price-competitive vigor (in which case they would not be illegal). Rather, they were gotten through a series of acquisitions that may not have been individually illegal but in combination were monopolistic and by other exclusionary acts. A variety of the latter are well-documented, as, for example, Amazon’s use of its Amazon Marketplace platform to gather analytics on its Marketplace partners, then to enter their markets while using its data advantage and crushing terms to overtake the space . . . .

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/m...is_an_antitrust_case_against_amazon.html

[bigstick]

Atlanta...One odds maker puts it 2/1..NOT going to the NE, (COL), and Austin..really makes no sense, airport is not big or busy enough very few international flights..and no real transit.
ATL= BUSIEST AIRPORT IN THE WORLD, COL is low to moderate...Great climate, diversity, GA Tech, massive growth in the IT field.

http://fortune.com/2017/10/23/amazon-hq2-atlanta/