Amazon HQ2 thread

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Agreed. "Controlled expansion" by one municipality is typically no less sprawling than metro areas with many municipalities. In Canada's bigger metro areas the ones with essentially a single municipaly are much more spread out than the ones with a bunch of different ones.

Technically, the definition of urban sprawl is *uncontrolled* expansion.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Technically, the definition of urban sprawl is *uncontrolled* expansion.

Sprawl by definition is poorly-serviced urban land as a result of lower density. Nothing to do with political boundaries.

[mhays]

It's a common word used in many contexts, and has multiple definitions. However none of its mainstream uses relate to administrative boundaries.

[Doady]

No one says Paris, France is sprawlier than Calgary, Alberta because of the amount of municipalities. That's just absurd.

There are only many definitions of "sprawl" because people keep coming up with their own definitions like that. Sprawl is about low density and the consequences of low density and the causes of low density.

Maybe it is better for an urban area to be united instead of fragmented to control sprawl, but you can also see examples where the exact opposite happens (e.g. Hamilton, ON). Maybe there are disadvantages too if the suburbs lack their own identity.

[mhays]

Most definitions are nuanced versions of the original, or based on shades-of-gray opinions about what counts as organized, suburban, etc. That one isn't.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Doady

Maybe there are disadvantages too if the suburbs lack their own identity.

Not really. In fact, I'd argue it's simply a de-facto form of segregation.

[10023]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

That's controlled expansion, as everything being managed by one government entity which leads to less bureaucracy and a much easier time getting things done.

On the flip side, the other extreme is having to deal with "too many cooks" in cities such as Atlanta and Detroit because everyone wants to have their say in what gets done or fight over where investment should happen, thus nothing important gets accomplished (such as building extensive mass transit).

Then why is, say, Houston a mess despite having such a huge single municipality?

Your definition is apparently unique to you and makes no sense.

[10023]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

What exactly is the point then?

Amazon is doing a hell of a lot more than online shopping, for starters. But I can tell this is not going to be a fruitful conversation.

[pico44]

The Times is on to something when they put Pittsburgh and Philadelphia out front. My money is on Philly. Think about it, you've got D.C., New York and Boston all in a row; and all grade-a world-class cities with tremendously bright futures. All growing and densifying and becoming wealthier at increasingly rapid rates. And in the middle you have poor Philly. A grand olde dame with history spilling out of its pores and great bones and great culture in a great location but missing that bright future and that je ne sai quai that makes it an elite city. It just needs something to push it over the top. Not to mention that land in DC//NYC/Boston is prohibitively expensive, yet in Philidelphia it's dirt cheap and copious. And maybe, just maybe, the powers that be will come to their senses and realize that the fact that the US doesn't have super-high-speed transit between Boston and DC--at least on the same level as Europe and the East--is insane. So in the future, there will be a corridor of density, wealth and interconnectedness unlike anything the world has ever seen. And this is the last big house on the block, and its for sale! And lastly, and perhaps most importantly of all; it lies in Pennsylvania, a state with a whole mess of electoral college votes. A state that very frequently votes republican. Heck, they voted for Trump. He won by 50,000 votes

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by 10023

Then why is, say, Houston a mess despite having such a huge single municipality?

Who said Houston is a mess?

It's a vibrant and growing city, the complete opposite of a "mess."

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by pico44

The Times is on to something when they put Pittsburgh and Philadelphia out front. My money is on Philly. Think about it, you've got D.C., New York and Boston all in a row; and all grade-a world-class cities with tremendously bright futures. All growing and densifying and becoming wealthier at increasingly rapid rates. And in the middle you have poor Philly. A grand olde dame with history spilling out of its pores and great bones and great culture in a great location but missing that bright future and that je ne sai quai that makes it an elite city. It just needs something to push it over the top. Not to mention that land in DC//NYC/Boston is prohibitively expensive, yet in Philidelphia it's dirt cheap and copious. And maybe, just maybe, the powers that be will come to their senses and realize that the fact that the US doesn't have super-high-speed transit between Boston and DC--at least on the same level as Europe and the East--is insane. So in the future, there will be a corridor of density, wealth and interconnectedness unlike anything the world has ever seen. And this is the last big house on the block, and its for sale! And lastly, and perhaps most importantly of all; it lies in Pennsylvania, a state with a whole mess of electoral college votes. A state that very frequently votes republican. Heck, they voted for Trump. He won by 50,000 votes

Could you expand on the bolded?

What does the 2016 election results have to do with Amazon's HQ2?

[pico44]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Could you expand on the bolded?

What does the 2016 election results have to do with Amazon's HQ2?

Bezos is a famous liberal. It is my feeling that he might like to create an influx of young, progressively minded professionals into a state that has an outsized influence on the politics of our country. It's a crazy thought I had.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by pico44

Bezos is a famous liberal. It is my feeling that he might like to create an influx of young, progressively minded young adults into a state that has an outsized influence on the politics of our country. It's a crazy thought I had.

I don't disagree with that idea, but I think if Bezos wanted to target any place for something like that, it would be Georgia.

Atlanta, which for a long time has been known as a very progressive city, doesn't have to compete with a more conservative major city in its state for political clout. Besides, the continued flood of transplants from Chicago, Detroit and NYC has already begun to shift politics at the county level around Metro Atlanta blue. Not to mention, Jon Ossoff only lost a seat that's been held by a Republican for over 30 years by a mere 3,000 votes.

Besides, Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia will continue to be a tough nut to crack (same with Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan) as long as the manufacturing industry continues to decline and labor unions continue to get screwed over/ignored by Democrats.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by pico44

And in the middle you have poor Philly. A grand olde dame with history spilling out of its pores and great bones and great culture in a great location but missing that bright future and that je ne sai quai that makes it an elite city. It just needs something to push it over the top. Not to mention that land in DC//NYC/Boston is prohibitively expensive, yet in Philidelphia it's dirt cheap and copious.

I think you're over-stating the "economic gap" between Philly and the rest of the Northeast Corridor major metros. Certainly it's cheaper, and definitely presents more of an opportunity for growing business at a much better value, but Philly still isn't exactly "cheap" by national standards.

Don't mean to nitpick, because your underlying point is absolutely right. Philly has the fundamental assets to be very globally competitive (i.e., comprehensive public transit, access to very high quality talent/workforce, and one of America's top walkable and vibrant urban cores), but is still economically accessible to the broad range of economic strata. That's why it's aptly referred to itself as the "Goldilocks" tale of cities.

Originally Posted by pico44

A state that very frequently votes republican. Heck, they voted for Trump. He won by 50,000 votes

2016 marked the first time Pennsylvania went to the Republican column (even then, it was by a plurality, not majority, of votes) since 1988. In federal elections, it's still fundamentally a Democratic-leaning state.

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Besides, Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia will continue to be a tough nut to crack (same with Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan) as long as the manufacturing industry continues to decline and labor unions continue to get screwed over/ignored by Democrats.

Not sure where you're coming from with this. Despite being conflated in the media, Pennsylvania has a fundamentally different economy, and therefore political environment, than the vast majority of the Midwest. It relies far less today on manufacturing than Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan.

If Pennsylvania had to be compared to a Midwestern state, it would be Illinois--very similar in scale, industry mix, has a metro much larger than WI, MI and OH trifecta. In essence, Pennsylvania is farther along in its post-industrialization.

Despite the fluke of 2016, Pennsylvania is trending towards the standard Northeast political baseline due to demographic shifts: it still has upwards of 1 million more registered Democrats than Republicans (despite some D-to-R attrition in 2016, the gap is bound to grow again as deep-blue state transplants from NY, NJ and MD resume in full force and the state continues to do much better at college graduate retention), is gaining college-educated residents and foreign-born residents at one of the fastest rates in the US (according to Census data), and actually has one of the fastest declining white populations in the US.

This is all to say that, combining trends that have already long been occurring with future trends, Pennsylvania arguably shows the most potential of being the next solidly "blue" state in the US moving forward.

[Late1]

^^Yeah but Trump won Georgia by over 200k votes; an influx of more liberal types from a total possible workforce of 50k wouldn't have swayed Georgia as it might have done with Pennsylvania.

I'm not saying Amazon is factoring this into their HQ2 plans; just saying that if they were to do so, PA is more of a swing state (and a bigger electoral prize) than GA.

For what it's worth, I also agree with everything else pico44 said. Sadly, I don't think Amazon *will* pick Philly (even though I think it's the best choice for them) - because Philly never manages to come out on top in major corporate moves.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I've speculated that the Washington DC region has been able to densify their suburbs precisely because power is concentrated at the county level in both Virginia and Maryland - Montgomery, PG, Arlington, and Fairfax. County governments have less incentive to listen to individual neighbor complaints.

But they're only able to do this because there is a vague, broad political consensus around public transportation and TOD - and in Maryland, there are even greenbelt laws to preserve prime farmland from development.

In a region like Houston, the consensus is around continual sprawl development and highway expansion, but the centralization of government in City of Houston/Harris County also makes this easier politically. Compare this to Chicago, where the region is split over seven counties and each county government is relatively weak compared to municipal governments.

A fragmented government is going to be dysfunctional and ineffective, regardless of whether the goal is perfect urbanism or perfect sprawl.

Government fragmentation and stupid municipal beefs are literally killing the St. Louis region. I would argue that places like Indianapolis and Nashville have benefited from St. Louis' dysfunction over the past 50 years, ironically the later have unigov systems.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Late1

^^Yeah but Trump won Georgia by over 200k votes; an influx of more liberal types from a total possible workforce of 50k wouldn't have swayed Georgia as it might have done with Pennsylvania.

I'm not saying Amazon is factoring this into their HQ2 plans; just saying that if they were to do so, PA is more of a swing state (and a bigger electoral prize) than GA.

For what it's worth, I also agree with everything else pico44 said. Sadly, I don't think Amazon *will* pick Philly (even though I think it's the best choice for them) - because Philly never manages to come out on top in major corporate moves.

Considering how crazy this past election was (for a number of reasons), a 200K margin is fairly narrow IMO. You have to consider all of the folks that stayed home (who would have otherwise participated in the election) or voted 3rd party out of protest.

That said, the long-term trends are key IMO. In the state legislature (which is one of the measures I look at to determine the political future), Democrats have been steadily bleeding seats in Pennsylvania for the past several elections. Yes, there is a Democratic governor now, but that's only because he is a conservative and the previous Republican governor was pain-stakingly horrible. If a John Kasich-type of Republican came along, I think they would win easily.

Now, could Philadelphia becoming a bigger part of the state's population stop this trend? Possibly, especially if a game changer like Amazon happens. But for a while, Philadelphia has been spinning its wheels in terms of its size and demographics.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

Not sure where you're coming from with this. Despite being conflated in the media, Pennsylvania has a fundamentally different economy, and therefore political environment, than the vast majority of the Midwest. It relies far less today on manufacturing than Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan.

If Pennsylvania had to be compared to a Midwestern state, it would be Illinois--very similar in scale, industry mix, has a metro much larger than WI, MI and OH trifecta. In essence, Pennsylvania is farther along in its post-industrialization.

Despite the fluke of 2016, Pennsylvania is trending towards the standard Northeast political baseline due to demographic shifts: it still has upwards of 1 million more registered Democrats than Republicans (despite some D-to-R attrition in 2016, the gap is bound to grow again as deep-blue state transplants from NY, NJ and MD resume in full force and the state continues to do much better at college graduate retention), is gaining college-educated residents and foreign-born residents at one of the fastest rates in the US (according to Census data), and actually has one of the fastest declining white populations in the US.

This is all to say that, combining trends that have already long been occurring with future trends, Pennsylvania arguably shows the most potential of being the next solidly "blue" state in the US moving forward.

What you say as far as the economy may be true in Philadelphia, but my understanding is that the smaller cities (Harrisburg, Scranton, etc.) and western PA, including Pittsburgh, still depend quite a bit on manufacturing and the coal industry, even despite strong efforts to diversify the economy.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by 10023

Amazon is doing a hell of a lot more than online shopping, for starters. But I can tell this is not going to be a fruitful conversation.

If you're not going to answer the question then why respond at all just to make a snide comment?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

I think you're over-stating the "economic gap" between Philly and the rest of the Northeast Corridor major metros. Certainly it's cheaper, and definitely presents more of an opportunity for growing business at a much better value, but Philly still isn't exactly "cheap" by national standards.

Don't mean to nitpick, because your underlying point is absolutely right. Philly has the fundamental assets to be very globally competitive (i.e., comprehensive public transit, access to very high quality talent/workforce, and one of America's top walkable and vibrant urban cores), but is still economically accessible to the broad range of economic strata. That's why it's aptly referred to itself as the "Goldilocks" tale of cities.



2016 marked the first time Pennsylvania went to the Republican column (even then, it was by a plurality, not majority, of votes) since 1988. In federal elections, it's still fundamentally a Democratic-leaning state.


Not sure where you're coming from with this. Despite being conflated in the media, Pennsylvania has a fundamentally different economy, and therefore political environment, than the vast majority of the Midwest. It relies far less today on manufacturing than Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan.

If Pennsylvania had to be compared to a Midwestern state, it would be Illinois--very similar in scale, industry mix, has a metro much larger than WI, MI and OH trifecta. In essence, Pennsylvania is farther along in its post-industrialization.

Despite the fluke of 2016, Pennsylvania is trending towards the standard Northeast political baseline due to demographic shifts: it still has upwards of 1 million more registered Democrats than Republicans (despite some D-to-R attrition in 2016, the gap is bound to grow again as deep-blue state transplants from NY, NJ and MD resume in full force and the state continues to do much better at college graduate retention), is gaining college-educated residents and foreign-born residents at one of the fastest rates in the US (according to Census data), and actually has one of the fastest declining white populations in the US.

This is all to say that, combining trends that have already long been occurring with future trends, Pennsylvania arguably shows the most potential of being the next solidly "blue" state in the US moving forward.

Pennsylvania is far more of a twin to Michigan than to Illinois. It was no coincidence that Pennsylvania and Michigan both flipped to vote for Trump after neither state voted for a Republican since the 1980s. I'm even willing to say that it was way more likely for Trump to win Pennsylvania than it was for him to win Michigan. Pennsylvania also has a Republican senator, so I'm not quite sure it is a reliably blue state. Michigan hasn't elected a Republican senator in over 2 decades.