Amazon HQ2 thread

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

If someone reliable and with the city's interest at heart controls the whole property assembly, then good. If not, that doesn't sound very solid.

A required EIS doesn't sound terribly promising either. It'll be up against options where that happened already on a project level or a neighborhood level. It's a very long process. Depending on who's making judgements based on it, the hurdle could be fairly serious. And even if it's just a rubber stamp item for the people in charge, it's an easy target for lawsuits.

To be clear, it was an "impact assessment" that was requested. While it can, it doesn't always include an environmental impact study.

In this case, according to the below article, the "impact assessment" is to evaluate infrastructure improvements that would be needed and added services that would be required (which of course is not the same as "zoning hurdles").

https://www.bisnow.com/atlanta/news/econ...-include-more-than-9m-sf-of-office-81143

The owners of the Atlanta Hawks and the Atlanta Falcons are collaborating on this project. They also have a developer lined up for the project (an executive of the development firm is the brother of the Atlanta Hawks owner), thus the renderings you see. Given that the site sits in front of stadiums they're going to lease and occupy for possibly several decades, they do have a significant interest in seeing this land (that's right now an eyesore) fully utilized.

It's a multi-billion dollar project, so of course it's not going to be happen overnight. But delayed doesn't necessarily mean denied. Obviously, having the right tenant or tenants commits to the development (I.E. Amazon) would help to move things along much faster.

EDIT: The only real issue has been convincing Norfolk Southern and CSX Railroads to either sell their rail lines or share it with the City of Atlanta. They've refused to do so thus far. While this may undermine the plans for a commuter rail hub specifically, it wouldn't derail the overall project. If Amazon or other prospective tenants wanted space *today*, they could easily adjust the scope of the project to exclude the rail lines.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

EDIT: The only real issue has been convincing Norfolk Southern and CSX Railroads to either sell their rail lines or share it with the City of Atlanta. They've refused to do so thus far. While this may undermine the plans for a commuter rail hub specifically, it woudn't derail the overall project.

Don't undersell the importance of transit here. It's probably the most emphasized point in the RFP.

[mhays]

I'm sure it's up there. But I'd guess the #1 might be "certainty." That speaks to my Atlanta questions.

Thanks for the clarification skyscraperpage17. That does sound like less of an issue than a formal EIS. But again it sounds like a really early concept with sizable hurdles. If other areas can offer a similar development potential without those hurdles (Chicago and Philly come to mind), they might have a key advantage.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Don't undersell the importance of transit here. It's probably the most emphasized point in the RFP.

The Gulch in Atlanta already has good transit connectivity via. MARTA. The planned transit hub and commuter rails would be in addition to MARTA.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'm sure it's up there. But I'd guess the #1 might be "certainty." That speaks to my Atlanta questions.

Thanks for the clarification skyscraperpage17. That does sound like less of an issue than a formal EIS. But again it sounds like a really early concept with sizable hurdles. If other areas can offer a similar development potential without those hurdles (Chicago and Philly come to mind), they might have a key advantage.

Assuming the property were sold to Amazon outright for them to develop it, the City of Atlanta already owns the vacant land in the Gulch (just not the rail lines). So there are no hurdles there.

[mhays]

That sentence was about a lot more than land ownership.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

That sentence was about a lot more than land ownership.

I'm not sure what other type of hurdles you're referring to. There are no zoning restrictions and the issue with the rail lines would not impede development on the parking lots.

Can you please elaborate?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

And they recanted.

Charlotte has now been told they won't be notified of a decision until early 2018.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/bu...m_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

If true, this discredits the theory that there was a pre-determined shortlist.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If true, this discredits the theory that there was a pre-determined shortlist.

Just because they're going through the motions of establishing a formal shortlist (to make the process seem fair) doesn't mean they didn't have a preferred list of cities before.

The CEO of this company bragged about planning stuff 4 years in advance, so I'm sure plenty of thought was put into possible cities for HQ2 before this whole ordeal with the RFP started.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Just because they're going through the motions of establishing a formal shortlist (to make the process seem fair) doesn't mean they didn't have a preferred list of cities before.

The CEO of this company bragged about planning stuff 4 years in advance, so I'm sure plenty of thought was put into possible cities for HQ2 before this whole ordeal with the RFP started.

The theory is that they had a list of candidates and they were just floating this to solicit subsidies from said cities. I did not think that was the case, and this is evidence that supports my opinion. There is no need for them to prolong this unless they truly are going to weigh a larger set of proposals than their initial deadline allowed.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I'm not sure what other type of hurdles you're referring to. There are no zoning restrictions and the issue with the rail lines would not impede development on the parking lots.

Can you please elaborate?

At the concept stage of any project, a ton of work remains. In this case it seems like:
--99% of the design work
--Land use permits, which can be a lengthy process even if the buildings meet basic zoning
--Deals with the railroads, who typically have tons of leverage for anything in their RoWs
--Geotech studies
--The impact topics you mentioned, with local decisions required about how to address them
--Hiring the rest of the team, and digging into sizable design issues such as structural types, shoring methods, sustainability goals, enclosure, etc., all dependent on the details of those railway agreements, zoning variances, etc. I mean general contractor(s), engineering firms, key early subcontractors, etc. (I don't know who's on board yet.)
--Figuring out the general price and schedule parameters, which will be extremely vague at this point.
--Building permits (probably quick, toward the end on a per-building basis)

This might all be streamlined and easy, but at this stage barriers can go up, anything from a political backlash to lawsuits to simply being wrong about cost. I'm imagining that Amazon might give points to a place where much of this work has already happened and there are fewer potential wildcards.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

At the concept stage of any project, a ton of work remains. In this case it seems like:
--99% of the design work
--Land use permits, which can be a lengthy process even if the buildings meet basic zoning
--Deals with the railroads, who typically have tons of leverage for anything in their RoWs
--Geotech studies
--The impact topics you mentioned, with local decisions required about how to address them
--Hiring the rest of the team, and digging into sizable design issues such as structural types, shoring methods, sustainability goals, enclosure, etc., all dependent on the details of those railway agreements, zoning variances, etc. I mean general contractor(s), engineering firms, key early subcontractors, etc. (I don't know who's on board yet.)
--Figuring out the general price and schedule parameters, which will be extremely vague at this point.
--Building permits (probably quick, toward the end on a per-building basis)

This might all be streamlined and easy, but at this stage barriers can go up, anything from a political backlash to lawsuits to simply being wrong about cost. I'm imagining that Amazon might give points to a place where much of this work has already happened and there are fewer potential wildcards.

Those hurdles you list are going to be faced in any city Amazon selects though. So I don't see how these hurdles alone would handicap Atlanta's bid or Atlanta's potential sites compared to other locales.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The theory is that they had a list of candidates and they were just floating this to solicit subsidies from said cities. I did not think that was the case, and this is evidence that supports my opinion. There is no need for them to prolong this unless they truly are going to weigh a larger set of proposals than their initial deadline allowed.

The thing is, if Amazon did what you suggested, they would lose leverage in pitting their preferred cities against each other for the best incentives (as other cities would know the fix is in and would withdrawal their proposals).

That being said, I think the reason the deadline was extended is because of the overwhelming response. They probably didn't expect every town with a stoplight and bus stop to submit a bid

This is all assuming Amazon already had a preferred list of cities (we don't know for certain one way or another).

[mhays]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Those hurdles you list are going to be faced in any city Amazon selects though. So I don't see how these hurdles alone would handicap Atlanta's bid or Atlanta's potential sites compared to other locales.

I believe some are much further along, having planned similar-scaled developments long before Amazon. Philly's University City and at least one site in Chicago come to mind.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

I believe some are much further along, having planned similar-scaled developments long before Amazon. Philly's University City and at least one site in Chicago come to mind.

I'm not sure how much that will matter. Amazon simply said they just need enough space that will allow them to expand over a span of 10 years (which is a long time). I'm pretty sure the wheels of bureaucracy will move fast enough to accommodate this requirement in any city Amazon selects.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I'm not sure how much that will matter. Amazon simply said they just need enough space that will allow them to expand over a span of 10 years (which is a long time). I'm pretty sure the wheels of bureaucracy will move fast enough to accommodate this requirement in any city Amazon selects.

I think there are more transit friendly, shovel ready sites in both Chicago and Philadelphia that would be more attractive than this site in Atlanta, which still has quite a ways to go, even if everything went according to plan.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

The thing is, if Amazon did what you suggested, they would lose leverage in pitting their preferred cities against each other for the best incentives (as other cities would know the fix is in and would withdrawal their proposals).

That being said, I think the reason the deadline was extended is because of the overwhelming response. They probably didn't expect every town with a stoplight and bus stop to submit a bid

This is all assuming Amazon already had a preferred list of cities (we don't know for certain one way or another).

No city that has reason to believe they are a finalist would withdraw their bid and risk losing altogether. This is true with or without the long shots remaining in the race.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

No city that has reason to believe they are a finalist would withdraw their bid and risk losing altogether. This is true with or without the long shots remaining in the race.

But with the long shots remaining in the race, it pressures those who believe they are finalist to sweeten their proposal more than they normally would.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

But with the long shots remaining in the race, it pressures those who believe they are finalist to sweeten their proposal more than they normally would.

Are they allowed to resubmit a sweetened bid now?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I'm not sure how much that will matter. Amazon simply said they just need enough space that will allow them to expand over a span of 10 years (which is a long time). I'm pretty sure the wheels of bureaucracy will move fast enough to accommodate this requirement in any city Amazon selects.

The time isn't the point. It's the uncertainties and variables.