Amazon HQ2 thread

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

Now this is a real problem, and comes down to the fact that a ton of Chicago’s transit infrastructure runs through largely abandoned low income areas, while the lines through the more prosperous parts of town are bursting at the seams.

Chicago needs to be investing in new lines and more capacity in its more affluent neighborhoods, but you know that would just invite a lot of unjustified bitching from certain political elements.

What's up with your bourgeoisie fascination? Public transit isn't just for rich and upper middle class people. In fact, those demographics kind of have a history of being very anti-transit.

[mhays]

Is that like a shoo-in?

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Thats because other than the people who work in service jobs, most of the people living in those communities don’t need to commute downtown. That’s why these areas need to gentrify so that the rents can bump them out and people working in higher paying downtown jobs can live there

I only own one property west of Damen in Pilsen and it’s frustrating how low the rents are down there. People are such complainers in Chicago, really they are—bargain basement rents and they still bitch about affordability. We have the second most F1000 companies in the US but that prosperity still sits snug on the north side and the burbs, meanwhile our city leaders are whores for low income people concentrated on the south side, while the burbs shrewdly keep affordable housing to a minimum. It’s a shame. Our L lines are a treasure and should be used to their capacity—so if you live near one, the real estate you occupy should be expensive, whether you’re on the north, south, or west sides of the city.

Lol, yeah those poor low income assholes are ruining the city, they all need to be forced out of their homes, or better yet let's just incinerate them. Either way they need to go so I can get richer off my properties.

You gotta love the blatant hatred of poor people from some on this forum, I mean it's not like they are human beings or anything. Amazon pretends they might come to Chicago and all the resident slumlords get huge dollar signs in their eyes. What a concept if they were to actually care about any of the real residents in the city and the benefit this opportunity could provide the general public. Oh wait poor people aren't residents, they are obstacles and need to be excluded.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Thats because other than the people who work in service jobs, most of the people living in those communities don’t need to commute downtown. That’s why these areas need to gentrify so that the rents can bump them out and people working in higher paying downtown jobs can live there

I only own one property west of Damen in Pilsen and it’s frustrating how low the rents are down there. People are such complainers in Chicago, really they are—bargain basement rents and they still bitch about affordability. We have the second most F1000 companies in the US but that prosperity still sits snug on the north side and the burbs, meanwhile our city leaders are whores for low income people concentrated on the south side, while the burbs shrewdly keep affordable housing to a minimum. It’s a shame. Our L lines are a treasure and should be used to their capacity—so if you live near one, the real estate you occupy should be expensive, whether you’re on the north, south, or west sides of the city.

I've been following an anti-gentrify Instagram page where they post a lot about Pilsen(or maybe its one of the predominantly Hispanic areas near there). They are literally communist and racist. One of the poster boards at a protest said "NO BECKYS." They hate anyone who isn't poor. They are *proud* to call their neighborhood the "hood." These people belong in the hood, with that mentality, once poor always poor? Jesus.

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I've been following an anti-gentrify Instagram page where they post a lot about Pilsen(or maybe its one of the predominantly Hispanic areas near there). They are literally communist and racist. One of the poster boards at a protest said "NO BECKYS." They hate anyone who isn't poor. They are *proud* to call their neighborhood the "hood." These people belong in the hood, with that mentality, once poor always poor? Jesus.

Um maybe its because people who don't live there are advocating basically kicking them out of their homes,like the post you just quoted. How bout we kick you out of your house so someone richer can live there instead?

I'm not against gentrification, but some of you people seem to take delight in the poor suffering displacement. Pretty sick.

[10023]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What's up with your bourgeoisie fascination? Public transit isn't just for rich and upper middle class people. In fact, those demographics kind of have a history of being very anti-transit.

That’s not true. I think it was the mayor of Bogotá who said that the measure of a developed country was not that the poor have automobiles, but that the rich take public transportation, and he’s right.

And it’s not just “the rich”, but working people who commute that need and sustain public transportation, at least heavy rail. They could be lawyers, secretaries or janitors, but it’s still people who commute into the center of town for work.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

DC looks like a shoe in.

We'll see...

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

We'll see...

People from Atl seem to be the only ones who can't accept this. Where do you live?

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

People from Atl seem to be the only ones who can't accept this. Where do you live?

Where I live is irrelevant.

Until an official announcement comes from Amazon (or unless you can verify that you're a high-level employee of Amazon that's involved in the decision-making process for HQ2), nothing has changed since the short list was released back in January as far as what cities are still in the running.

Thus, as I said, we'll see. Don't read too deep into stuff.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

That’s not true. I think it was the mayor of Bogotá who said that the measure of a developed country was not that the poor have automobiles, but that the rich take public transportation, and he’s right.

And it’s not just “the rich”, but working people who commute that need and sustain public transportation, at least heavy rail. They could be lawyers, secretaries or janitors, but it’s still people who commute into the center of town for work.

But your comment implied that more transit resources should be poured into the neighborhoods of doctors and lawyers and at the expense of the neighborhoods of janitors and secretaries. Public transit -- or a public resource in general -- is meant to be egalitarian with respect to who can access it.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Where I live is irrelevant.

Until an official announcement comes from Amazon (or unless you can verify that you're a high-level employee of Amazon that's involved in the decision-making process for HQ2), nothing has changed since the short list was released back in January as far as what cities are still in the running.

Thus, as I said, we'll see. Don't read too deep into stuff.

I like Atl., but is has a serious inferiority complex, which cities like NY. SF, Boston, and DC don't, and, therefore, it feels like it needs HQ2 to prove that it's a real city. Most people in places like NY, SF, etc. don't even want Amazon or even care about this process.

[10023]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But your comment implied that more transit resources should be poured into the neighborhoods of doctors and lawyers and at the expense of the neighborhoods of janitors and secretaries. Public transit -- or a public resource in general -- is meant to be egalitarian with respect to who can access it.

Public transportation investment should be directed to those areas where it is needed and used. That can be an upper income area or a lower income area, or both. But when trains in certain areas are jam packed and trains in other areas are half empty, it’s pretty clear where investment needs to go.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I like Atl.

Ok.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I like Atl., but is has a serious inferiority complex, which cities like NY. SF, Boston, and DC don't, and, therefore, it feels like it needs HQ2 to prove that it's a real city. Most people in places like NY, SF, etc. don't even want Amazon or even care about this process.

I get the sense that Atlanta media has hyped up the city's chances for landing it based on nothing but speculation. I haven't seen any concrete signal from Amazon, in a year of following this, that leads me to believe Atlanta is especially well positioned to land HQ2. It's a strong contender by virtue of being a big city, but I don't see what quality there is that would make Atlanta an exceptional candidate.

Speaking of exceptional qualities: it'll be Boston or Toronto.

[mhays]

Atlanta seems like one of the stronger 7-8 candidates to me. Because:
--You can build 8 msf right Downtown without much effort (I suspect downtown locations might score well).
--Great air service, which is useful for business connections and a workforce that comes from around the globe.
--Very different climate than Seattle. Part of the point is attracting workers that won't move to Seattle.
--Low housing prices. Again, like above.

I'd rank others higher based on similar criteria, but it certainly seems like a good candidate.

[skyscraperpage17]

My intent wasn't to turn this discussion into a diagnostic check of Atlanta.

I was simply expressing that the posts about certain cities being a "shoe in" without any evidence (as in direct quotes from Amazon officials involved in the decision making) to back up those claims are getting ridiculous. That's all.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

My intent wasn't to turn this discussion into a diagnostic check of Atlanta.

I was simply expressing that the posts about certain cities being a "shoe in" without any evidence (as in direct quotes from Amazon officials involved in the decision making) to back up those claims are getting ridiculous. That's all.

I think that it should go to Boston, but the media almost uniformly believes that it's going to the DC metro in order to be close to the power of lobbying.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I think that it should go to Boston, but the media almost uniformly believes that it's going to the DC metro in order to be close to the power of lobbying.

Why does a company need to be in D.C. to have powerful lobbyists? No other powerful lobbying industry has needed that.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

I get the feeling that HQ2 will land in DC, but I think Atlanta is the better candidate. If Amazon wants to make a true impact on their new territory, Atlanta is the perfect canvas. The impact on the city would extend far beyond the ATL metro. Certainly, surrounding states would be impacted and have to react accordingly.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Why does a company need to be in D.C. to have powerful lobbyists? No other powerful lobbying industry has needed that.

That's boggled my mind as well