Amazon HQ2 thread

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by 10023

Many of us on this forum are urbanites, and live in quite modest spaces, but let's not pretend for a moment that any of us wouldn't buy a 30,000 square foot apartment if we could.

I can think of plenty of things to do with that space, from a gym, to a home cinema, to a wine cellar the size of my current apartment.

A 30,000-SF estate right on the beach in Sagaponack? Maybe. A 30,000-SF penthouse in Manhattan? No thanks. You should be spending more time out on the town than in your living room watching TV.

[bnk]

Air connectivity





https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news...q2-finalist-cities-rate-in-terms-of.html


How Amazon's HQ2 finalist cities rate in terms of airline connectivity





Which location did finish first? New York and Newark, New Jersey — which are independently competing for HQ2 — shared the top spot. OAG considered the three major airports in the region — John F. Kennedy International (JFK), LaGuardia (LGA) and Newark Liberty International (EWR) — to be serving both New York City and Newark.



As OAG points out in a blog posting tied to its study, the combined airport system of JFK, LGA and EWR is what gave New York and Newark the highest marks.

But Chicago's two airports, O'Hare International and Midway International, together also generate a lot of connectivity (201 city pairs) while O'Hare alone serves 43 international markets.

Chicago ranked second on the list in terms of the number of city pairs connected via its two airports, third in non-stops to Seattle (Amazon's home base) and fifth in number of international flights — all considered important points for an Amazon HQ2 city.

Los Angeles was third in OAG's ranking.

Atlanta, believed to be a strong contender for HQ2 among many observers, wound up a solid No. 4 in OAG's ranking. Dallas was No. 5, and Denver was No. 6.

And what about Indianapolis, which, to the surprise of many, made Amazon's list of 20? It finished last in OAG's ranking.

[bnk]

https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/oth...-amazon-hq2-shortlist-much-shorter-84115

Unprecedented’ Hiring Could Make The Amazon HQ2 Shortlist Much Shorter

...

When this first came out, our reaction was: ‘Holy cow. That’s big, and it’s quick. Can they do it?’” Everest Group Managing Partner Eric Simonson said.

Amazon's aggressive HQ2 building plans, coupled with its desire to hire 50,000 employees, would be a difficult task for any city to fulfill, Simonson said — but particularly those smaller markets like Columbus, Ohio; Raleigh, North Carolina; Nashville, Tennessee; and Indianapolis. An Everest Group report on HQ2 bidders said Amazon is going to struggle with filling seats if it considers regions with populations of less than 4 million people.

“Scaling technology workers is very hard and, outside a few places in Asia, getting the facilities that have even five-, 10- or even 15,000 people is quite unusual,” Simonson said.

Even building a ground-up second headquarters half the size of HQ2’s specifications would be unprecedented, per Everest's report.

Everest came up with its own shortlist of six cities and a wild card for being the best HQ2 incubators: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, New York, Washington, D.C., and the wild card of Toronto.

“Talent is going to drive this,” Simonson said.

...

[Kenneth]

������������������������������������������������������������

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by bnk

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news...q2-finalist-cities-rate-in-terms-of.html

How Amazon's HQ2 finalist cities rate in terms of airline connectivity


Which location did finish first? New York and Newark, New Jersey — which are independently competing for HQ2 — shared the top spot. OAG considered the three major airports in the region — John F. Kennedy International (JFK), LaGuardia (LGA) and Newark Liberty International (EWR) — to be serving both New York City and Newark.

Chicago ranked second on the list in terms of the number of city pairs connected via its two airports, third in non-stops to Seattle (Amazon's home base) and fifth in number of international flights — all considered important points for an Amazon HQ2 city. Los Angeles was third in OAG's ranking. Atlanta, believed to be a strong contender for HQ2 among many observers, wound up a solid No. 4 in OAG's ranking. Dallas was No. 5, and Denver was No. 6. And what about Indianapolis, which, to the surprise of many, made Amazon's list of 20? It finished last in OAG's ranking.

Pearson was ranked as the 5th best connected airport in the world by OAG behind Heathrow, Frankfurt, Schiphol, and O'Hare. If New York's 3 airports together launch it ahead of O'Hare and Pearson, it stands that Pearson would be 3rd amongst the HQ2 city finalists just a little behind O'Hare.

Air Canada is early on in its strategy of turning Pearson into a global hub with lots of new destinations being added. Pearson will likely be in 2nd spot soon and bring Toronto closer to the New York City area in overall connectivity.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/business/l...oronto-s-pearson-is-5th-report-1.3606967

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 10023

Many of us on this forum are urbanites, and live in quite modest spaces, but let's not pretend for a moment that any of us wouldn't buy a 30,000 square foot apartment if we could.

I can think of plenty of things to do with that space, from a gym, to a home cinema, to a wine cellar the size of my current apartment.

"Money bin". You need space for a money bin like Scrooge McDuck:


https://www.simplemost.com/play-scrooge-mcducks-money-pit/

[James Bond Agent 007]

I had a dream before I woke up this morning that Newark got it.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

I had a dream before I woke up this morning that Newark got it.

Honestly,I think Newark is more likely to get it than New York. Same location, same talent pool, but more tax incentives, buildable land (where would NYC put it anyway?--Sunnyside Yards?) and adjacency to EWR.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by 10023

Many of us on this forum are urbanites, and live in quite modest spaces, but let's not pretend for a moment that any of us wouldn't buy a 30,000 square foot apartment if we could.

Speak for yourself. I sure as hell wouldn't buy a 30,000 sqft. apartment even if I could afford it, because I'm not an ostentatious piece of shit.

[mhays]

I'm continually amazed about major publications focusing on local workforce capacity. One of the most basic components of this whole HQ2 concept and it's just beyond them. Even beyond what's in the RFP, clearly Amazon and all the big tech HQs hire NATIONAL and GLOBAL talent. Aside from the lowest-end positions, local talent is a good start only.

The RFQ and other public statements suggest that they want access to people who won't move to Seattle. I'm guessing that's some mix of cost, rain, distance, and/or city type. The point about transit and the HQ1 culture of 20% walking/biking suggest inner city, unless they're going for contrast on that too.

Maybe they're trying to recruit cost-sensitive employees, with a focus on people with families who are hard to recruit to Seattle. Or maybe having a non-rainy base * is more important. (Most candidates get more rain than Seattle, but it's generally shorter/quicker.) Maybe they want the Eastern Time Zone and better access to Europe, though frankly European flights aren't that much shorter from the East Coast.

Regarding the "unprecedented" size of the facility, total BS. Amazon has built or is building more than HQ2's size in Seattle in a single decade...of the 12 msf or whatever they'll have when the current projects are done, off the top of my head I'd guesstimate that over 10 msf is new construction, including the various leased spaces, i.e. well over the 8 msf figure.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by 10023

Many of us on this forum are urbanites, and live in quite modest spaces, but let's not pretend for a moment that any of us wouldn't buy a 30,000 square foot apartment if we could.

I can think of plenty of things to do with that space, from a gym, to a home cinema, to a wine cellar the size of my current apartment.

i would feel shameful hoarding that much space for myself in a city. the whole point of city living is having access to so many shared resources - food, gyms, theatre, etc, no?

lol - pedestrian

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Quixote

That's what I was thinking earlier this morning after looking up his net worth. For me, the best part about having $115.8 billion would be figuring out how to put it toward the greater good (I'd start with extending the Purple Line to Santa Monica). One could pretty much buy all the homes, yachts, and luxury items they ever wanted with a net worth of *just* $1 billion. What the hell do you do with the rest?

At that point money is about power and playing the game, not buying things.

I'd probably use it for development of extremely high architectural quality, charity, maybe create a university and I'd buy off politicians to implement the most urban-friendly policies and infrastructure possible.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'm continually amazed about major publications focusing on local workforce capacity. One of the most basic components of this whole HQ2 concept and it's just beyond them. Even beyond what's in the RFP, clearly Amazon and all the big tech HQs hire NATIONAL and GLOBAL talent. Aside from the lowest-end positions, local talent is a good start only.

The RFQ and other public statements suggest that they want access to people who won't move to Seattle. I'm guessing that's some mix of cost, rain, distance, and/or city type. The point about transit and the HQ1 culture of 20% walking/biking suggest inner city, unless they're going for contrast on that too.

Maybe they're trying to recruit cost-sensitive employees, with a focus on people with families who are hard to recruit to Seattle. Or maybe having a non-rainy base * is more important. (Most candidates get more rain than Seattle, but it's generally shorter/quicker.) Maybe they want the Eastern Time Zone and better access to Europe, though frankly European flights aren't that much shorter from the East Coast.

Regarding the "unprecedented" size of the facility, total BS. Amazon has built or is building more than HQ2's size in Seattle in a single decade...of the 12 msf or whatever they'll have when the current projects are done, off the top of my head I'd guesstimate that over 10 msf is new construction, including the various leased spaces, i.e. well over the 8 msf figure.

As far as the bolded, I'm thinking of folks who like seeing sunshine for most of the year. Seattle tends to goes 3/4 of the year with overcast skies. I would slit my wrist if that type of torture was forced upon me (it's part of the reason I had to get out of Michigan with its lake effect clouds).

That's part of the reason lot of people think Amazon's focusing on a location in the Sun Belt. And it's not so much the rain that's the problem. Atlanta for example sees a ton of rain, but it's generally of the convective type where plenty of sunshine proceed it and breaks out rapidly once it's done. (versus the steady / light stratiform rains in Seattle).

And yes, I also think they're focusing on a location that attracts the type of worker who wants to have a suburban lifestyle. That means a place with a low COL and ton of land to absorb future growth.

[Kngkyle]

I would say the overwhelming majority of people Amazon would be interested in hiring don't place weather too high on their list of priorities. These aren't baby boomers and Gen-Xers who are dreaming of retirement in Florida or Arizona. Being in a 'cool' city (which Seattle is) and being relatively close to family/friends (which Seattle is not for most of the country) is probably the two biggest priorities.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'm continually amazed about major publications focusing on local workforce capacity. One of the most basic components of this whole HQ2 concept and it's just beyond them. Even beyond what's in the RFP, clearly Amazon and all the big tech HQs hire NATIONAL and GLOBAL talent. Aside from the lowest-end positions, local talent is a good start only.

The RFQ and other public statements suggest that they want access to people who won't move to Seattle. I'm guessing that's some mix of cost, rain, distance, and/or city type. The point about transit and the HQ1 culture of 20% walking/biking suggest inner city, unless they're going for contrast on that too.

Maybe they're trying to recruit cost-sensitive employees, with a focus on people with families who are hard to recruit to Seattle. Or maybe having a non-rainy base * is more important. (Most candidates get more rain than Seattle, but it's generally shorter/quicker.) Maybe they want the Eastern Time Zone and better access to Europe, though frankly European flights aren't that much shorter from the East Coast.

Regarding the "unprecedented" size of the facility, total BS. Amazon has built or is building more than HQ2's size in Seattle in a single decade...of the 12 msf or whatever they'll have when the current projects are done, off the top of my head I'd guesstimate that over 10 msf is new construction, including the various leased spaces, i.e. well over the 8 msf figure.

Agreed with all of this. Wherever Amazon decides to go, it will add to the growth and economy of that city and metro area.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Being in a 'cool' city (which Seattle is) and being relatively close to family/friends (which Seattle is not for most of the country) is probably the two biggest priorities.

I think a certain type of weather is part of most "cool cities" and the folks attracted by that weather are much of what makes them "cool". Proximity to outdoor activities like skiing, hiking, mountain climbing, beach activities and so on are the sort of thing I'm talking about and the Pacific Northwest--Seattle in other words--has it in spades. For the most part, these activities and the weather and geography that facilitate them appeal primarily to the youthful.

[10023]

Originally Posted by cabasse

i would feel shameful hoarding that much space for myself in a city. the whole point of city living is having access to so many shared resources - food, gyms, theatre, etc, no?

lol - pedestrian

Yes. But cinema is not theater. It's recorded media, not a live performance. And who would want to use a public gym, or especially a pool, if they could have a private one?

People with that kind of profile are also, unfortunately for them, unable to just go out and take advantage of these things. Jeff Bezos can't just go work out at an Equinox in peace, even if he wanted to.

[skyscraperpage17]

I just heard something that I think is interesting.

Take it with a grain of salt, but one way to get a clue of which city Amazon will select for HQ2 is to keep tabs of where the wife and/or family of the C-level executives are looking for homes.

Apparently, someone spotted the Boeing CEO's wife home shopping in Chicago, which in hindsight was a telltale sign that they were selected for the new HQ.

[10023]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I just heard something that I think is interesting.

Take it with a grain of salt, but one way to get a clue of which city Amazon will select for HQ2 is to keep tabs of where the wife and/or family of the C-level executives are looking for homes.

Apparently, someone spotted the Boeing CEO's wife home shopping in Chicago, which in hindsight was a telltale sign that they were selected for the new HQ.

That's probably true in the case of Boeing, because Phil Condit was a mere millionaire. Jeff Bezos can buy as many homes as he wants, for whatever reason.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Honestly,I think Newark is more likely to get it than New York. Same location, same talent pool, but more tax incentives, buildable land (where would NYC put it anyway?--Sunnyside Yards?) and adjacency to EWR.

I can think of $7 billion reasons Newark might get it. Crazy thing is they'll give a lot more too if asked.