Amazon HQ2 thread

[BrownTown]

Some people here really need to look at ridership numbers before making posts like, "X city has way better transit than Y" because half the posts aren't supported by reality at all. Most of the cities mentioned have more rail ridership than Seattle or at worst roughly equivalent. For instance everyone is shitting on MARTA, but it has several times the ridership of Link

[bnk]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The worst part is the bickering over what is an easily verifiable scientific fact. SAD is caused by vitamin D deficiency which means you are getting less UV light to allow you skin to synthesize the vitamin. This can happen because you see shorter days with light at a lower angle, but clouds absorb UV rays (which is why you don't get sunburn during a cloudy day). This is not a topic open for debate, this is fact. This also had literally nothing to do with Amazon.

I take 5000 units of vitamin D3 three times a week in winter, I would advise the same for you. I always take one or two vacations a year in Naples Florida and before I go I fake tan at least three times. This has also been proven to help SAD and prevents sunburns.

Also by the way every part of earth gets the same amount of sunlight time through out the year from the poles to the equator

It's the angle of sunlight that differs.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Some people here really need to look at ridership numbers before making posts like, "X city has way better transit than Y" because half the posts aren't supported by reality at all. Most of the cities mentioned have more rail ridership than Seattle or at worst roughly equivalent. For instance everyone is shitting on MARTA, but it has several times the ridership of Link

Seattle's overall transit ridership and commute share creams many cities that have more rail. Amazon knows the difference.

[Doady]

The transit ridership per capita of the Seattle urban area is one of the highest in the USA, more than twice that of Atlanta. It's not even close.

[skyscraperpage17]

I don't why people are getting so irritated about the weather-related discussion, as if it's not relevant.

It is most certainly a factor when companies and people consider relocation. That's why you don't see a ton of non-regional HQs in Lake-Effect Snow Belts or Alaska, because it would be a PITA trying to convince outside talent to come and work for them when they have to dig out of a ton of snow every weather and freeze their butt off (unless it's a place that's something special like NYC).

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by JManc

Chicago, yes, Philly not so sure. I'm not sure what it has that other (as large) metros do not..like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta. All of these areas have suburban and urban lifestyles. No, there are no brownstones or rowhouses in Dallas but there are a lot of options in the city and they're constantly growing with new development. And techies are not necessarily a bunch of urbanites...Silicon Valley is Sprawlville USA and Facebook, Apple, and Google plus the crap load of other tech companies there love them some suburban office parks. I think we are putting too much weight on whether or not a city is a viable candidate because it has a lot of pre-war density and Dallas and ATL have a pretty developed transit system. Probably comparable to Philly. Houston's is shit.

If they locate in Center City then adding 50,000 would not be a problem for Philly. It is very easy to get there for work with tons of different transit options and a huge amount of cheap housing within an hour commute. Just the city alone could absorb that growth over the time period we are talking about without seeing any major price hikes.

I also think that the 50,000 number is way overblown anyway since most of these jobs will most likely be filled by current residents. In reality all major metros in the US would be able to host HQ2.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I don't why people are getting so irritated about the weather-related discussion, as if it's not relevant.

It is most certainly a factor when companies and people consider relocation. That's why you don't see a ton of non-regional HQs in Lake-Effect Snow Belts or Alaska, because it would be a PITA trying to convince outside talent to come and work for them when they have to dig out of a ton of snow every weather and freeze their butt off (unless it's a place that's something special like NYC).

Are Philly, Chicago, or NYC in the Snowbelt or Alaska?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I don't why people are getting so irritated about the weather-related discussion, as if it's not relevant.

It is most certainly a factor when companies and people consider relocation. That's why you don't see a ton of non-regional HQs in Lake-Effect Snow Belts or Alaska, because it would be a PITA trying to convince outside talent to come and work for them when they have to dig out of a ton of snow every weather and freeze their butt off (unless it's a place that's something special like NYC).

There is much more to the quality of life of a city than winter weather conditions. The rainy Pacific Northwest may not get bone chilling cold and snow, but the lack of sunshine may not be any better than a city with cold sunny weather. And likewise, the deep south features unbearable heat and humidity and sometimes hurricanes that are as bad as or worse than winter cold and snow. Remember, most cities with cold winters also have beautiful summer weather.

I am from the north and three seasons of the year are very liveable and it is easy to enjoy winter if we are prepared to do so. Living with the seasons leads to a completely different and often a more diverse lifestyle and a better appreciation of warm weather than those who are accustomed to it year round.

I don't believe that winter weather should or will be a major determining factor.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Doady

Are Philly, Chicago, or NYC in the Snowbelt or Alaska?

Compared to 80% of the US, the weather in all 3 of those cities sucks. That's at least part of the reason they're seeing slow / stagnant growth compared to major cities in the South.

BTW, behind NYC (which is in a class of its own), it is sunbelt cities that lead the pack in terms of the number of Fortune 500 companies, not Chicago or Philadelphia.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mhays

Why do you say that? Most of HQ1 is transplants.

If it's a city in a foreign country and one that is primarily French speaking, it won't be primarily transplants working there.

Granted this fact in itself may be a deterrent to locating there.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by JManc

Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are building out their cores because that's where the housing demand has been for the past decade or so. Not just these cities but those with traditional urbanity already (NY, Chicago, Boston, Philly) are building up their own as well. Companies will go to where the talent is. A company is not going to snub a booming economy like Houston or Austin simply because they are sprawlly. Amazon is probably going to give Houston a thumbs down because it's not high tech and does not have the talent pool for such an industry and we just had a major natural disaster.

This.

We have the airports, the business climate, the affordability, and 50k-ish new employees over the next 10 years won't be noticed much. If they want enough space to take down half a million SF of office space with the ability to develop more on adjacent property, WITH direct rail (at the door) and park & ride access, we have three ideal sites in the CBD area alone. It's the one time that the remaining undeveloped surface lots surrounding downtown work to our advantage. We have tech talent, but it's all tied up in the energy business. That will be the pain point.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

BTW, behind NYC (which is in a class of its own), it is sunbelt cities that lead the pack in terms of the number of Fortune 500 companies, not Chicago or Philadelphia.

Not really true when you pull up metro data.

It's kind of silly to compare older cities with newer cities when we all know that the only real difference is that newer cities have centralized much more of their sprawl into a single political entity than the older cities have.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Compared to 80% of the US, the weather in all 3 of those cities sucks. That's at least part of the reason they're seeing slow / stagnant growth compared to major cities in the South.

BTW, behind NYC (which is in a class of its own), it is sunbelt cities that lead the pack in terms of the number of Fortune 500 companies, not Chicago or Philadelphia.

Measured by metro area I believe Chicago is #2. And only 2 Sun Belt states rank among top 10 of states with Fortune 500 companies -- Illinois is #4 and Pennsylvania is #6.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Measured by metro area I believe Chicago is #2. And only 2 Sun Belt states rank among top 10 of states with Fortune 500 companies -- Illinois is #4 and Pennsylvania is #6.

Yep, and when you increase to Fortune 1000 metro Chicago does even better (it has a lot of older economy type corporations that are in slow growth mode and aren't as sexy and dazzling as Amazon or Uber, with insane market caps based on what somebody pulled out of his ass)

Regarding F500 per State, it has consistently been:

1. NY
2. Texas
3. California
4. Illinois
5. Ohio

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Not really true when you pull up metro data.

It's kind of silly to compare older cities with newer cities when we all know that the only real difference is that newer cities have centralized much more of their sprawl into a single political entity than the older cities have.

What does "centralized much more of their sprawl" even mean? You either have sprawl or centralization, not both.

And while it is true that *states* up north have more Fortune 500 HQs now, the indisputable fact is that the US's overall economic gravity continues to move south and west.

[bnk]

...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

What does "centralized much more of their sprawl" even mean? You either have sprawl or centralization, not both.

I already made it clear in the previous post, but to state it again:

Having a whole lot of suburbs as one giant entity versus older entities that haven't annexed many of their suburbs.

Point being, metro data is all we should be looking at in regards to things such as F500 HQ, not city data.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Compared to 80% of the US, the weather in all 3 of those cities sucks. That's at least part of the reason they're seeing slow / stagnant growth compared to major cities in the South.

BTW, behind NYC (which is in a class of its own), it is sunbelt cities that lead the pack in terms of the number of Fortune 500 companies, not Chicago or Philadelphia.

Chicago and Philly didn't run into hard times because of their climates. And F500 companies did not move or expand into Texas because it's warm. Climate has nothing to do with anything beyond old farts from Columbus and Indiana moving to Mesa AZ or Destin FL to retire. I did not move to texas from New York because of the weather but I could not find a decent paying job. Not having to shovel is nice but would have never left if I found a decent job back home. My sentiment is not that uncommon...

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by JManc

Chicago and Philly didn't run into hard times because of their climates. And F500 companies did not move or expand into Texas because it's warm. Climate has nothing to do with anything beyond old farts from Columbus and Indiana moving to Mesa AZ or Destin FL to retire. I did not move to texas from New York because of the weather but I could not find a decent paying job. Not having to shovel is nice but would have never left if I found a decent job back home. My sentiment is not that uncommon...

Very true, and as many who have moved south have noticed they have a lot more natural disasters that can leave a bad taste in your mouth. I really think Amazon is just playing us and they have already picked a new location. My guess is somewhere in Texas. It would be strange if it was Austin as they don't have a very big airport and have very few international flights. Austin reminds me of what Chicago and its politicians were like in the 1870's... They like to blow a lot about how great they are when they are really still very small by comparison to the big cities. An 1870's Windy City Mini Me.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

BTW, behind NYC (which is in a class of its own), it is sunbelt cities that lead the pack in terms of the number of Fortune 500 companies, not Chicago or Philadelphia.

BTW, Chicagoland is home to the 2nd largest number of F500 HQs after NYC. the bay area is 3rd.