Amazon HQ2 thread

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

We live in Lincoln Square with kids and absolutely love it.

Good to hear. We'll be in the 2500 block of W Eastwood, which puts us in the Waters school district. Where are you in LS? Where do your kids go to school?

One of the things that put LS on our map was the fact that one of my good friends has lived there with her family for about 8 years. She raves about how it's the perfect balance of being really family friendly while still being a fairly urban city neighborhood.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

omaha demolished its riverfront warehouse district in the hopes of keeping con-agra, gave them carte-blanche to build an office park/mud pond.

Yeah, and after holding a gun to omaha's head and leveling a national historic landmark warehouse district for a stupid suburban office park, con Agra moved it's HQ to chicago 25 years later anyway. Criminal.

[C.]

Originally Posted by chris08876

In all seriousness, I'd love for Newark to get it. It would be like winning the power ball for the city, not because of Amazon, but because of the contruction boom that would result.

Yeah - could you imagine the reverse commute for PATH? Just as many New Yorkers would be coming over to Newark for the workday as there is New Jerseyans going over to Manhattan... maybe.

I know when a new hospital opens up, it has an incredible economic multiplier. Amazon will not be as high as a hospital, but the economic multiplier will be just as important as the Amazon jobs. Is it too optimistic there may be another 50,000 support jobs that come with the 50,000 Amazon jobs? There'll be smaller companies that want to do business or have existing business relationships with Amazon that will come. They'll also be a need for massive hiring in the service industry. More doctors, dentists, teachers, whole foods employees... whatever services a younger, high-earning population will need.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yeah, and after holding a gun to omaha's head and leveling a national historic landmark warehouse district for a stupid suburban office park, con Agra moved it's HQ to chicago 25 years later anyway. Criminal.

One of the greatest urban planning sins. I always had a healthy skeptisisms of urban planning norms du jour. One decade they can convince everyone that a historic district is blighted and must be redeveloped into a spacious office park for the economic reasons. A few decades later they're like just kidding, after the damage is done.

I was probably in my teens and I asked an urban planner about the height of a building around a major TOD stop. He mentioned that they wanted people to live there to take transit, so I asked why was only 12 floors allowed, why not build taller. He gave me a look as if who was I to ask this question, and mentioned that taller buildings would have a negative impact on quality of life or some off nonsense. Fast forward 20 years and they're must taller buildings now in the area. Did the quality of life for the area decline? No. It's more vibrant than ever!

Not just planners, but it's also fun looking at old NIMBY comments for a project in the early 2000s and fast forward today and see how universally loved it is and how the NIMBY predictions of doom and gloom never panned out.

I digress...

[mhays]

The multiplier should be a hell of a lot more than x2.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^^^

Don't forget the "Is Newark a world class city?" thread. I just wish Newark would get it to end the question and settle the fight right there and now.

If Philly did get it, or any place within a 60 mile radius of my house, that's a win-win! Anywhere else, and its a loss for humanity.

In all seriousness, I'd love for Newark to get it. It would be like winning the power ball for the city, not because of Amazon, but because of the contruction boom that would result.

Not just that, but also all of the new jobs from the spinoff development that would be created from the support businesses, the surge in transplants (this is huge if you're trying to tip the political scales of your region, or bring in folks who have more creative ways to improve the area) and the doubling, if not tripling of home values virtually overnight.

As someone in an undervalued suburb of Atlanta looking to buy a home soon, to quote the infamous words of CEO Reggie Fils-Aime: "My body...My body is ready."

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by CIA

Yeah - could you imagine the reverse commute for PATH? Just as many New Yorkers would be coming over to Newark for the workday as there is New Jerseyans going over to Manhattan... maybe.

I know when a new hospital opens up, it has an incredible economic multiplier. Amazon will not be as high as a hospital, but the economic multiplier will be just as important as the Amazon jobs. Is it too optimistic there may be another 50,000 support jobs that come with the 50,000 Amazon jobs? There'll be smaller companies that want to do business or have existing business relationships with Amazon that will come. They'll also be a need for massive hiring in the service industry. More doctors, dentists, teachers, whole foods employees... whatever services a younger, high-earning population will need.

The bolded is interesting. My town is developing into a health care cluster for the region, but it hasn't been quite the boon that you describe (at least thus far). Granted, the infrastructure didn't start to fall into place until about 5 years ago.

[mhays]

Hospitals are NOT multipliers. The exception is when they bring money to the area that would have otherwise left or never come.

They're like retail stores. A new store doesn't cause more retail sales for the most part. It simply redistributes the same sales. Maybe one town gets sales over a neighboring town or neighborhood.

HQ2 is a payroll dramatically larger than any hospital, and nearly all of that money comes from around the country and world, not from locals.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

Hospitals are NOT multipliers. The exception is when they bring money to the area that would have otherwise left or never come.

They're like retail stores. A new store doesn't cause more retail sales for the most part. It simply redistributes the same sales. Maybe one town gets sales over a neighboring town or neighborhood.

HQ2 is a payroll dramatically larger than any hospital, and nearly all of that money comes from around the country and world, not from locals.

That's also not completely true. It does lead to some spinoff development / growth that wouldn't otherwise happen, especially if you're in a location that didn't have much of healthcare industry to begin with.

Where I live, a new mega hospital for general treatment was recently built near the highway. It forced the hands of local leaders to build a new interchange. Within the next 5-10 years, I know for a fact that it will be surrounded by a ton of subdivisions and strip malls because of the interstate access.

It also depends on the type of hospital as well. My town is also home to the only CTCA in the Southeast US. To accomodate all of the patients and their families who travel out of their way to receive treatment there, a ton of new hotels (with more on the way) have popped up since it opened several years ago.

Not to mention, given the close proximity of the new hospital, off-site facilities are built for rehab, pediatric care, specialists, psychiatric care, etc. This boosts the demand for construction workers too, which creates more jobs for unskilled labor as well as increases their wages. The workers will need restaurants to eat at for lunch too.

That said, the economic multiplier is dwarfed in comparison to what a behemoth like Amazon would produce. A hospital may only produce several hundred good-paying jobs directly and several million dollars in direct economic investment. So it's no contest at all there.

[Xelebes]

Hospitals have plenty of multiplication. Remember, the key to multiplication is that debt is required to build it and the people who work there have access to credit. Hospital nurses and doctors are paid pretty well and a lot of them are hired to work in the hospital. They will buy houses and other durable goods.

Retail development is often not as strong as a hospital as the workers there tend to be paid lower. They get minimal, high-interest credit and often do not buy houses. Since the workers being attracted are getting so little gain, there is a muted demand for new housing for the new workers.

[10023]

Hospitals are multipliers if they are specialists or world renowned in particular area(s). A Johns Hopkins or Mayo Clinic provides an economic multiplier, because people are coming from all over the country and the world to buy their services. A typical county hospital, or anything for-profit, does not provide that multiplier. It has to be a teaching hospital.

[C.]

Economics is not my specialty, and I'm having trouble to separate facts from opinion at times. Can we start posting links for further information to backup some of the statements that are being made?

Here's one I found which suggests that for every dollar spent by a hospital, it creates 2.3 times the amount in additional business activity as an economic multiple. That sounds like a good multiplier to me, and it's in inline with my what I've been told in professional circulars. If I have it all wrong or am missing a critical element, please post links to additional information on the subject as I would like to read more on this topic.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by CIA

I'd like to nominate this thread as the greatest in the history of SSP! The sheer boosterism never fails to disappoint. I'm just sad my town (Jersey City) didn't submit a bid, so I can't join the parade. I guess maybe I'll join team Newark instead (because Bayonne sucks). My heart and mind tell me Philly is going to get it or someone that hasn't been talked about much at all. All these WSJ analyses are bunk, in my opinion.

Does anyone know if Amazon will reveal a shortlist of finalists before announcing the winning candidate?

After reading many, many articles about the HQ2 and of course studying cities for years on this site, I honestly think Philly is the best contender. It's a very large metro, bigger than metro Seattle so it could absorb this size corporate expansion. It's the most affordable major city in the Bos-Wash metro and could thus draw talented workers from all of the other Bos-Wash cities. It has a huge amount of university students and graduates every year. It has space to build. It just seems like the best choice.

Of course I really hope Pittsburgh gets it. Our city has one of the top tech schools in the world, a super unique cityscape that is dense and historic and several good options to build a large campus right in the middle of the city. Biggest problem is size; I don't know if we could accommodate the number of new residents without our roads and public transportation being crushed to the breaking point. I would love for them to come and force the city into massive spending on public transport as is happening right now in Seattle. Time will tell I guess.

Honestly, I think an interesting option would be a joint HQ between Philly and Pittsburgh. Maybe a larger Philly presence with a smaller but still significant R&D presence in Pittsburgh like many other companies have done such as Intel, Apple, Google, Facebook, Uber, Disney and more.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by CIA

Economics is not my specialty, and I'm having trouble to separate facts from opinion at times. Can we start posting links for further information to backup some of the statements that are being made?

Here's one I found which suggests that for every dollar spent by a hospital, it creates 2.3 times the amount in additional business activity as an economic multiple. That sounds like a good multiplier to me, and it's in inline with my what I've been told in professional circulars. If I have it all wrong or am missing a critical element, please post links to additional information on the subject as I would like to read more on this topic.

Hospitals definitely generate an economic multiplier.

The point I was making is that it pales in comparison to what something.like Amazon would produce (contrary to what someone implied earlier).

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

heh. sad thing is midwestern cities actually did this. omaha demolished its riverfront warehouse district in the hopes of keeping con-agra, gave them carte-blanche to build an office park/mud pond.


https://images14.fotki.com


bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com

Fucking criminal

[mhays]

Some people aren't getting the multiplier thing.

A new hospital in a metro area doesn't mean more doctors and nurses. It means a similar number is spread out to an additional location. 10023 is correct in that customers from outside the area can be a net addition.

CIA, I can't open your link. But generally those "studies" are done with an agenda, and they typically count the whole payroll, tax base, etc., as net addition to the region, which it clearly isn't. The 2.3x multiplier sounds like they're counting everything. It's typically very dishonest, meant for a gullible electorate.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by CIA

I'd like to nominate this thread as the greatest in the history of SSP! The sheer boosterism never fails to disappoint. I'm just sad my town (Jersey City) didn't submit a bid, so I can't join the parade. I guess maybe I'll join team Newark instead (because Bayonne sucks). My heart and mind tell me Philly is going to get it or someone that hasn't been talked about much at all. All these WSJ analyses are bunk, in my opinion.

Does anyone know if Amazon will reveal a shortlist of finalists before announcing the winning candidate?

It's been mentioned in a couple news articles that the shortlist will be announced in early December.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

Some people aren't getting the multiplier thing.

A new hospital in a metro area doesn't mean more doctors and nurses. It means a similar number is spread out to an additional location. 10023 is correct in that customers from outside the area can be a net addition.

CIA, I can't open your link. But generally those "studies" are done with an agenda, and they typically count the whole payroll, tax base, etc., as net addition to the region, which it clearly isn't. The 2.3x multiplier sounds like they're counting everything. It's typically very dishonest, meant for a gullible electorate.

When the term multiplier is mentioned, one's referring to indirect economic output that is generated from an investment.

For example, let's say a local government approves the construction of a $5 billion convention center. To accomodate the increased number of conventioneers that will need lodging, developers come along and open $7 billion worth of hotel rooms. Thus, the effective economic multiplier from the investment would be 1.4x.

So yes, a hospital is a multiplier if it leads to the opening of more restaurants, hotels, etc.

[mhays]

It can refer to the number of jobs (I suspect the 2.3 was referring to that) or ROI or other things.

You'll illustrating the misunderstanding I'm talking about. If you build a new hospital out by the interchange it'll come with other stuff...a couple MOBs, some restaurants, etc. But most of that business will be pulled from other locations in the area. It's not a net increase.

Even with construction alone the net increase tends to be much smaller than the gross project value. As a builder of medical facilities (and apartments, offices, retail, etc.) I can assure you that a big investment in one place will often mean less construction in the rest of the area. There can be some initial competition pressure and shuffling at the older locations, but generally the trend is less as the dollars flow to the new location.

By contrast, not building a new hospital will often mean a need for other local hospitals to expand in place, which tends to mean a lot of incremental additions and renovations.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

It can refer to the number of jobs (I suspect the 2.3 was referring to that) or ROI or other things.

You'll illustrating the misunderstanding I'm talking about. If you build a new hospital out by the interchange it'll come with other stuff...a couple MOBs, some restaurants, etc. But most of that business will be pulled from other locations in the area. It's not a net increase.

Even with construction alone the net increase tends to be much smaller than the gross project value. As a builder of medical facilities (and apartments, offices, retail, etc.) I can assure you that a big investment in one place will often mean less construction in the rest of the area. There can be some initial competition pressure and shuffling at the older locations, but generally the trend is less as the dollars flow to the new location.

By contrast, not building a new hospital will often mean a need for other local hospitals to expand in place, which tends to mean a lot of incremental additions and renovations.

I guess we are talking about different things.

I still disagree with your conclusion. There are really so many variables involved that can affect the economic input. A hospital can certainly be a multiplier depending on the circumstances.

But we're getting off topic. As far as the economic impact Amazon would have, in their RFQ, they stated thy're responsible for $34 billion in indirect investment in Seattle. Assuming they've only invested $5 billion directly (I'm not sure of the exact number), the ROI is almost 7 times over. It's not just about the job creation or people's incomes, but also all of the places that will be contributing more in taxes to the local government and the quality of life improving for citizens within the locale due to the increased number of amenities that are readily available.


This is why everyone is making a big deal about the opportunity.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by mhays

Some people aren't getting the multiplier thing.

A new hospital in a metro area doesn't mean more doctors and nurses. It means a similar number is spread out to an additional location. 10023 is correct in that customers from outside the area can be a net addition.

CIA, I can't open your link. But generally those "studies" are done with an agenda, and they typically count the whole payroll, tax base, etc., as net addition to the region, which it clearly isn't. The 2.3x multiplier sounds like they're counting everything. It's typically very dishonest, meant for a gullible electorate.

Usually a new hospital means just that, additional beds, more nurses, more doctors, more patients paying with insurance money or government money.

We are an aging population. We're constantly opening and expanding hospitals everywhere.