Amazon HQ2 thread

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by 10023

What on earth was the purpose of this reply?

I would imagine it was just as valuable as you randomly calling a place dull.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^I'm not criticizing MARTA--never used it. And I'm not really singling out Atlanta for its bad traffic. Certainly other cities have bad traffic too. But my worst traffic experiences, maybe because I wasn't so much expecting them, have been in Atlanta and Houston.

Also, I agree it's not necessarily a deal breaker for Bezos. Just another factor but possibly a negative one.

The thing that gets me is that while Atlanta is not the only place with bad traffic, it's always the main topic of discussion amongst people who've visited (not referring to you). This doesn't happen witth the other cities I listed (at least not nearly as much).

BTW, if traffic were a dealbreaker, Detroit of all places would be at the top of the list. A study was done that focused on metro areas with 3+ million people, and due to Detroit's overbuilt road infrastructure, it was deemed as having the least amount of traffic congestion.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

atlanta is hardly dull. it has all the accoutrements of a big city.

it's very, very just poorly planned.

poorly planned does not mean there are no restaurants, universities, cool places to hang out, theater, orchestras, comedy shows, rock concerts, etc etc etc.

just that these these tend to occur at various car-centric points across the urban area, rather in a walkable proximity to eachother.

people who call houston or atlanta (well, maybe houston haha) dull don't really know what they're talking about.

hell yes it's got horrible planning. seeing the potential in watching some of it get sorted out is what's keeping me around personally.

[Tuckerman]

Yes, Atlanta traffic can be pretty awful, We have the road system that we had when the city was half the current population. In addition, we have an inordinate number of SUVs. nonetheless, although I always have a few unkind words to say when I am stuck in it (ask the wife!), it is just the same a every big city around the world. Try Paris on a weekday. DC is generally clogged; NYC is a nightmare, only to be surpassed by LA at almost anytime during the day. A recent article, I believe in the Post, compared all major cities in the US in terms of how far you could get from the downtown by car in an hour during the period of 4-7 pm. Boston was the worst as I recall, you might as we'll just stay downtown and wait until 10 before you move. With NYC it didn't depend much on what time you left Manhattan - you are not going to get very far. Of course that is by car, but commuting times buy any means are problematic at peak hours everywhere. I can only fondly, if that is the word, committing in Paris during peak hours for several years using the super efficient METRO;it was a lucky day when I got a seat for the 40 minute ride and I was thankful when my feet were actually on the floor. Atlanta traffic is bad, but c'mon folks commuting is a nightmare in many cities.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Yes, Atlanta traffic can be pretty awful, We have the road system that we had when the city was half the current population. In addition, we have an inordinate number of SUVs. nonetheless, although I always have a few unkind words to say when I am stuck in it (ask the wife!), it is just the same a every big city around the world. Try Paris on a weekday. DC is generally clogged; NYC is a nightmare, only to be surpassed by LA at almost anytime during the day. A recent article, I believe in the Post, compared all major cities in the US in terms of how far you could get from the downtown by car in an hour during the period of 4-7 pm. Boston was the worst as I recall, you might as we'll just stay downtown and wait until 10 before you move. With NYC it didn't depend much on what time you left Manhattan - you are not going to get very far. Of course that is by car, but commuting times buy any means are problematic at peak hours everywhere. I can only fondly, if that is the word, committing in Paris during peak hours for several years using the super efficient METRO;it was a lucky day when I got a seat for the 40 minute ride and I was thankful when my feet were actually on the floor. Atlanta traffic is bad, but c'mon folks commuting is a nightmare in many cities.

You can't really compare Atlanta's traffic to Paris or NYC... Most people who commute into the business centers in those cities do so by rail based transit, so road congestion is of little concern. I doubt that's the case in Atlanta.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

A recent article, I believe in the Post, compared all major cities in the US in terms of how far you could get from the downtown by car in an hour during the period of 4-7 pm. Boston was the worst as I recall, you might as we'll just stay downtown and wait until 10 before you move. With NYC it didn't depend much on what time you left Manhattan - you are not going to get very far.

SF was near the top of that list and, if anything, I think it understated the situation. The last couple of years I have found the city approaches to the Bay Bridge utterly gridlocked after midnight (forcing me to go through San Jose to get to I-5 heading south).

But, then, we aren't really in the competition for Amazon.

[atlwarrior]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Very impressive, but Chicago winters are brutal.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by atlwarrior

Very impressive, but Chicago winters are brutal.

They really aren't "brutal" unless you are a total pansy. Some years we don't really get winter at all. A few years ago it was less than 50 degrees like two weeks total. Besides, the crushing heat and humidity of the deep South in summer is far far worse. You can always put on another layer, you can only get so naked before you arrested.

Regardless, I don't recall "nice weather" being a requirement on the RFP. That would be particularly rich coming from a company based in the world's rain capital Seattle.

[the urban politician]

I personally think Chicago winters suck, but I will add the comment that Chicago is not alone in this. I really think New York and Boston winters suck ass as well. I think Christmas is cute but otherwise snowy winters with sub-freezing temperatures is meant for mooses, not humans.

Just my thoughts.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I personally think Chicago winters suck, but I will add the comment that Chicago is not alone in this. I really think New York and Boston winters suck ass as well. I think Christmas is cute but otherwise snowy winters with sub-freezing temperatures is meant for mooses, not humans.

Just my thoughts.

I agree. Winter in Chicago is brutal along with the entire northeast corridor. I hate taking a dump on a cold toilet seat. I used to turn the shower on for 10 minutes (wasting water and gas) just to heat up the bathroom tile floor and toilet seat. My carbon footprint was unacceptable compared to today.

:-)

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

They really aren't "brutal" unless you are a total pansy. Some years we don't really get winter at all. A few years ago it was less than 50 degrees like two weeks total. Besides, the crushing heat and humidity of the deep South in summer is far far worse. You can always put on another layer, you can only get so naked before you arrested.

Regardless, I don't recall "nice weather" being a requirement on the RFP. That would be particularly rich coming from a company based in the world's rain capital Seattle.

Always funny when people think Seattle rains a lot

And sorry, but worrying about how cold a city is is silly. There is so much more to cities than their weather. If anything, weather is a minor consideration, and I don't just mean for headquarters location, but for employees too. Not to mention that it's a total myth that everyone would choose hot weather over cold weather all else being equal. You guys are projecting your own preferences.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Whether you like it or not, NW Washington state is the rainiest part of the lower 48. The only places that beat it are in Alaska and Hawaii or one offs in the mountains like Mt. Washington NH. I don't think Seattle is a lousy city because of it, but it is, in fact, incredibly wet. Oh and I don't mean in terms of pure rainfall, I mean in terms of number of days of rain. Chicago might get 5 inches in a day, but it will happen in one torrential event, not a month of drizzle.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Whether you like it or not, NW Washington state is the rainiest part of the lower 48. The only places that beat it are in Alaska and Hawaii or one offs in the mountains like Mt. Washington NH. I don't think Seattle is a lousy city because of it, but it is, in fact, incredibly wet.

The lower 48 is not "the world" however. The reason I commented is because Vancouver rains 25% more (37in/year compared to 47).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Whether you like it or not, NW Washington state is the rainiest part of the lower 48. The only places that beat it are in Alaska and Hawaii or one offs in the mountains like Mt. Washington NH. I don't think Seattle is a lousy city because of it, but it is, in fact, incredibly wet. Oh and I don't mean in terms of pure rainfall, I mean in terms of number of days of rain. Chicago might get 5 inches in a day, but it will happen in one torrential event, not a month of drizzle.

But sometimes the Jet Stream moves south and then San Francisco gets that month or several of drizzle and it's because that can happen, and because I have a mild case of Seasonal Affective Disorder, that I now spend winter in sunny Tucson. Even here, though, I feel a lot better when the sun's shining than on the occasional gray day.

There's another side benefit too. I used to get about 3 colds every winter from I believe, being sneezed and coughed on on crowded transit. Hardly ever get a cold in Arizona.

But the thing is, I like snow. If it's gotta be gray, I want it to snow, not drizzle. So Chicago is better than, say, Seattle for me.

[emathias]

Maybe I'm an idiot (completely possible) but why would the fiscal health of a locality have any role in why one place was more or less suitable than another for site selection? Given that most places will make all sorts of exceptions for a primary business, what does it matter if the overall fiscal health of a metro area is excellent or not? Seriously, what does it do for or to a business if the metro area has its fiscal ducks in a row?

[10023]

Originally Posted by emathias

Maybe I'm an idiot (completely possible) but why would the fiscal health of a locality have any role in why one place was more or less suitable than another for site selection? Given that most places will make all sorts of exceptions for a primary business, what does it matter if the overall fiscal health of a metro area is excellent or not? Seriously, what does it do for or to a business if the metro area has its fiscal ducks in a row?

I don’t think you’re alone in this.

One fear that comes to mind is that a local government in dire straits could 1) decide that it needs to raise revenue and target local businesses or residents; or 2) decide that it needs to reduce expenses and cut local services.

The first wouldn’t apply to Amazon as they would have contractual exemptions from most local taxes anyway, and possibly commitments to fund infrastructure and other improvements.

Raising property taxes or local sales taxes could adversely affect Amazon employees, of course. But this is easy to consider as a downside case in the analysis - simply take into consideration how a city would fare on the “local tax burden” metric if they were to, you know, raise taxes a bit.

For that reason I don’t think it would be a factor that could disqualify any city, but it does create uncertainty and downside risk versus the status quo.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by emathias

Maybe I'm an idiot (completely possible) but why would the fiscal health of a locality have any role in why one place was more or less suitable than another for site selection? Given that most places will make all sorts of exceptions for a primary business, what does it matter if the overall fiscal health of a metro area is excellent or not? Seriously, what does it do for or to a business if the metro area has its fiscal ducks in a row?

It's not just about the taxes for the company itself.

In a city that's not fiscally healthy, there's the risk of vital services being cut or eliminated (fire, ambulance, police, etc.). Companies aren't exempt from the cost of insurance for their property, and this would increase their expenses heavily if adjusters find out your building is at a higher risk of being destroyed due to the poor emergency response times your company relies on.

Also, you have to consider your employees as well. Do you really want to force your workers to live in an environment where the government's going to suck them dry for tax revenue and they're at higher risk of becoming crime victims due to the reduced level of police protection? What does that say about you as a company?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by emathias

Maybe I'm an idiot (completely possible) but why would the fiscal health of a locality have any role in why one place was more or less suitable than another for site selection? Given that most places will make all sorts of exceptions for a primary business, what does it matter if the overall fiscal health of a metro area is excellent or not? Seriously, what does it do for or to a business if the metro area has its fiscal ducks in a row?

It affects the ability of politicians to be able to hand out tax incentives...

[Martin Mtl]

Just watched a Radio-Canada report report that says that Montreal has a shortage of IT employees, with companies having to lure employees from other companies to fill positions. National bank HQ alone has 300 IT positions that they can't fill. The report says that Amazon would be a disaster, the whole sector would canabalises itself for employees.the report concluded that it would be absurb to put in peril local IT companies and start-ups to accomodate an American company, instead of putting our effort to grow local companies with the intel and research staying here instead of being exported to the the South.

[James Bond Agent 007]

The exchange about heating-vs-cooling costs was getting too long and was off-topic. It belongs in another thread.