Amazon HQ2 thread

[The North One]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

What "casual observers" think is irrevelant.

My apologies I forgot I was typing amongst the troll queen of England who's word is law, my bad.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by left of center

I hope no city gets it, and it turns out this was just an unorthodox marketing campaign by Amazon. People may be pissed, but boy will it sell Prime subscriptions!

Would it? I'm going to cancel my Prime membership because I've determined that I can just buy 1 month at $13 for holiday shipping needs, versus $120/year for service I don't actually need nor use.

Amazon music? Does anybody use that? Prime video? There are way too many other superior options out there.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Would it? I'm going to cancel my Prime membership because I've determined that I can just buy 1 month at $13 for holiday shipping needs, versus $120/year for service I don't actually need nor use.

Amazon music? Does anybody use that? Prime video? There are way too many other superior options out there.

Amazon figured out that Americans will pay $120/year out of pure laziness. I am one of those people. I'd rather have Amazon bring me something in a couple of days instead of having to go to a store and look for something.

That, and The Man in the High Castle is pretty goddamn addictive.

[SIGSEGV]

The amazon prime credit card is no slouch either...

[mrnyc]

this cuomo takedown is over the top, but essentially correct regarding amazon, tax breaks are not needed in a neighborhood that is already booming:

https://nypost.com/2018/10/31/cuomos-amazon-offer-is-a-sick-joke-on-new-york/

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by 10023

Amazon is a logistics, IT and advertising platform.

Amazon.com, Inc., doing business as Amazon (/ˈæməˌzɒn/), is an American electronic commerce and cloud computing company based in Seattle, Washington, that was founded by Jeff Bezos on July 5, 1994. The tech giant is the largest Internet retailer in the world as measured by revenue and market capitalization, and second largest after Alibaba Group in terms of total sales.

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

because thats literally what they said it was going to be.

I've only seen the original RFP. It mentioned only a "corporate HQ". Nothing about "tech".

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Maybe because their RFQ specifically stated that a large pool of tech talent (or the ability to attract a large pool of tech talent) was a requirement, and the fact that they dismissed every city (I.E. Detroit) that couldn't meet this requirement?

It said "Urban or suburban locations with the potential to attract and retain strong technical talent". That doesn't mean exactly "tech" talent as it's known. You all are just assuming this is a second "tech" HQ. Why would there be a need for that?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/Anything/test/images/usa/RFP_3._V516043504_.pdf

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by aderwent

It said "Urban or suburban locations with the potential to attract and retain strong technical talent". That doesn't mean exactly "tech" talent as it's known. You all are just assuming this is a second "tech" HQ. Why would there be a need for that?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/Anything/test/images/usa/RFP_3._V516043504_.pdf

Out of curiosity, how else would you interpret the meaning of "potential to attract and retain strong technical talent" other than what I said?

And before you respond, bear in mind the lack of strong tech talent or the ability to attract strong tech talent was the reason Amazom themselves gave several otherwise strong candidate cities for not making their HQ2 short list.

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Out of curiosity, how else would you interpret the meaning of "potential to attract and retain strong technical talent" other than what I said?

And before you respond, bear in mind the lack of strong tech talent or the ability to attract strong tech talent was the reason Amazom themselves gave several otherwise strong candidate cities for not making their HQ2 short list.

Is an accountant a "technical talent"?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Out of curiosity, how else would you interpret the meaning of "potential to attract and retain strong technical talent" other than what I said?

And before you respond, bear in mind the lack of strong tech talent or the ability to attract strong tech talent was the reason Amazom themselves gave several otherwise strong candidate cities for not making their HQ2 short list.

I don’t think anybody disputes that you are correct for the most part.

But it’s obvious around here that you use a particularly unforgiving tone when referring to Michigan cities. It seems as if you have some sort of axe to grind.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Is an accountant a "technical talent"?

No.

Now, HQ2 likely needs an accountant (or rather *accountants*) to support its function, but that doesn't mean they'll make up majority of the workforce or the primary function, nor does it mean the HQ won't be tech-centric.

That said, if they stressed the importance of strong technical talent for HQ2, it's fair to assume the primary function will be related to technologically advanced work.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by 10023

Amazon is a logistics, IT and advertising platform.

This is an important part of Amazon's business that everyone overlooks constantly. They are able to do what they are doing because of innovations in the delivery of goods, sure the website and cloud is integral to their business, but what makes Amazon Amazon is the ability to deliver anything on that website almost immediately anywhere in the US (and increasingly large portions of the globe).

I think the comparison between Amazon and Sears is the most interesting of all. The gigantic Old US Post Office in Chicago (which is ironically now being redeveloped, all 2.8 million SF of it, and is a candidate site for HQ2 in Chicago) was built essentially to service Sears (and Montgomery Wards) massive mail order business which was literally analogue Amazon 100+ years ago. Instead of a website, they mailed out a catalog, but what set Sears apart wasn't the catalog, it was the way in which they leveraged that catalog and superior logistics to make it possible for you to mail order anything, an entire house even, and have it show up at your farm a few weeks later.

This bit of history I think is a big positive in Chicago's bid, there's a reason Sears and Montgomery Ward arose in Chicago and not Nashville or NYC or Denver. Chicago is the indisputable center of North American trade and logistics and has dominated that position continually since the mid 1800's. That has resulted in an extremely strong logistics industry in Chicago and I think that talent pool, above tech or accounting or big ten grads or whatever, matters more than anyone realizes.

In theory HQ2 is to allow Amazon to continue to expand, to continue their campaign of global domination. More than just web developers and coders, that's going to take people with hard skills in managing their vast and rapidly growing logistics networks. Not only does Chicago have old school logistics companies like CH Robinson, we also have several of the new age leaders in the industry that are trying to disrupt the old ways of doing things like Coyote Logistics and Echo Logistics. There's plenty of talent here for that arm of Amazon's business.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

This is an important part of Amazon's business that everyone overlooks constantly. They are able to do what they are doing because of innovations in the delivery of goods, sure the website and cloud is integral to their business, but what makes Amazon Amazon is the ability to deliver anything on that website almost immediately anywhere in the US (and increasingly large portions of the globe).

I think the comparison between Amazon and Sears is the most interesting of all. The gigantic Old US Post Office in Chicago (which is ironically now being redeveloped, all 2.8 million SF of it, and is a candidate site for HQ2 in Chicago) was built essentially to service Sears (and Montgomery Wards) massive mail order business which was literally analogue Amazon 100+ years ago. Instead of a website, they mailed out a catalog, but what set Sears apart wasn't the catalog, it was the way in which they leveraged that catalog and superior logistics to make it possible for you to mail order anything, an entire house even, and have it show up at your farm a few weeks later.

This bit of history I think is a big positive in Chicago's bid, there's a reason Sears and Montgomery Ward arose in Chicago and not Nashville or NYC or Denver. Chicago is the indisputable center of North American trade and logistics and has dominated that position continually since the mid 1800's. That has resulted in an extremely strong logistics industry in Chicago and I think that talent pool, above tech or accounting or big ten grads or whatever, matters more than anyone realizes.

In theory HQ2 is to allow Amazon to continue to expand, to continue their campaign of global domination. More than just web developers and coders, that's going to take people with hard skills in managing their vast and rapidly growing logistics networks. Not only does Chicago have old school logistics companies like CH Robinson, we also have several of the new age leaders in the industry that are trying to disrupt the old ways of doing things like Coyote Logistics and Echo Logistics. There's plenty of talent here for that arm of Amazon's business.

Before there's a knee jerk reaction that falsely accuses me, Iet me preface this by saying that overall, I do think Chicago is a top 4/5 candiate for landing HQ2 and this is not meant to disparage the city.

That being said:

1. C.H. Robinson is based out of Minneapolis, not Chicago.

2. There's nothing special about Sears or Montgomery Ward (other than the fact that they had leaders within their organization who were innovative enough to propel their stars higher than their competition), nor does the fact that they were based in Chicago mean anything relative to how special the city is. It just so happens that the men who discovered these companies had established their roots in Chicago at the time (just like Bezos so happened to establish his roots in Seattle when he founded Amazon).

In reality, every major city across the country had its own locally owned and operated department stores. Detroit had Hudson's and Crowley's, NYC had Macy's and Bloomingdale's, Atlanta had Rich's and Davison's, Minneapolis had Dayton's department store, etc.

To summarize, yes Chicago has a strong case for landing HQ2, but using weak arguments such as being home to Sears or laying claim to logistic companies that aren't even based Illinois is unnecessary.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Before there's a knee jerk reaction that falsely accuses me, Iet me preface this by saying that overall, I do think Chicago is a top 4/5 candiate for landing HQ2 and this is not meant to disparage the city.

That being said:

1. C.H. Robinson is based out of Minneapolis, not Chicago.

2. There's nothing special about Sears or Montgomery Ward (other than the fact that they had leaders within their organization who were innovative enough to propel their stars higher than their competition), nor does the fact that they were based in Chicago mean anything relative to how special the city is. It just so happens that thr men who discovered these companies had established their roots in Chicago at the time (just like Bezos so happened to establish his roots in Seattle when he founded Amazon).

In reality, every major city across the country had its own locally owned and operated department stores. Detroit had Hudson's and Crowley's, NYC had Macy's and Bloomingdale's, Atlanta had Rich's and Davison's, Minneapolis had Dayton's department store, etc.

To summarize, yes Chicago has a strong case for landing HQ2, but using weak arguments such as being home to Sears or laying claim to logistic companies that aren't even based Illinois is unnecessary.

I would read up a bit more on the history of this topic.

There is definitely something special about Sears as well as Montgomery Ward (especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) that set them apart from other department stores. I recommend you read the book Nature's Metropolis.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Before there's a knee jerk reaction that falsely accuses me, Iet me preface this by saying that overall, I do think Chicago is a top 4/5 candiate for landing HQ2 and this is not meant to disparage the city.

That being said:

1. C.H. Robinson is based out of Minneapolis, not Chicago.

2. There's nothing special about Sears or Montgomery Ward (other than the fact that they had leaders within their organization who were innovative enough to propel their stars higher than their competition), nor does the fact that they were based in Chicago mean anything relative to how special the city is. It just so happens that thr men who discovered these companies had established their roots in Chicago at the time (just like Bezos so happened to establish his roots in Seattle when he founded Amazon).

In reality, every major city across the country had its own locally owned and operated department stores. Detroit had Hudson's and Crowley's, NYC had Macy's and Bloomingdale's, Atlanta had Rich's and Davison's, Minneapolis had Dayton's department store, etc.

To summarize, yes Chicago has a strong case for landing HQ2, but using weak arguments such as being home to Sears or laying claim to logistic companies that aren't even based Illinois is unnecessary.

Sears and Montgomery Wards both made their mark on the retail landscape as a catalog mail-order companies decades before either went into the department store business.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Before there's a knee jerk reaction that falsely accuses me, Iet me preface this by saying that overall, I do think Chicago is a top 4/5 candiate for landing HQ2 and this is not meant to disparage the city.

That being said:

1. C.H. Robinson is based out of Minneapolis, not Chicago.

2. There's nothing special about Sears or Montgomery Ward (other than the fact that they had leaders within their organization who were innovative enough to propel their stars higher than their competition), nor does the fact that they were based in Chicago mean anything relative to how special the city is. It just so happens that the men who discovered these companies had established their roots in Chicago at the time (just like Bezos so happened to establish his roots in Seattle when he founded Amazon).

In reality, every major city across the country had its own locally owned and operated department stores. Detroit had Hudson's and Crowley's, NYC had Macy's and Bloomingdale's, Atlanta had Rich's and Davison's, Minneapolis had Dayton's department store, etc.

To summarize, yes Chicago has a strong case for landing HQ2, but using weak arguments such as being home to Sears or laying claim to logistic companies that aren't even based Illinois is unnecessary.

Sears did have to be in Chicago to do what it did. Chicago was (and is) the biggest rail hub in the country. Starting a mail order catalogue in Chicago allowed Sears to deliver products more efficiently to different parts of the country.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Sears did have to be in Chicago to do what it did. Chicago was (and is) the biggest rail hub in the country. Starting a mail order catalogue in Chicago allowed Sears to deliver products more efficiently to different parts of the country.

It didn't *HAVE* to be in Chicago. While it's true that Chicago was the biggest rail hub, every decent-sized city in the country was also a siginificant rail hub.

It's just as likely that Richard Sears initially settled on Chicago because it was the 2nd largest city in the country with a ton of networking opportunities (I.E. meeting A.C. Roebuck) and startup capital he could tap into.

Regardless, what differentiates Chicago from the rest of the HQ2 candidates is not trade/logistics (tons of cities check that box), but the fact that it has all of the amenities to attract top tech talent from all over the world with its extensive transit infrastructure, great urban bones, rich history and world class cultural attractions, all while having a relatively low COL and not having the rampant problems that pervades other rust belt cities.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

It didn't *HAVE* to be in Chicago. While it's true that Chicago was the biggest rail hub, every decent-sized city in the country was also a siginificant rail hub.

But those places didn't have access to infrastructure to be a national mail-order catalog. Many cities had local automakers, but eventually your car company had to be in Detroit to survive.

[jd3189]

Isn’t that Chicago point mute since Amazon was able to do the same thing Sears did but in Seattle. Therefore, especially in a more interconnected world today, location doesn’t matter as much anymore for logistics if you got connections everywhere.