Amazon HQ2 thread

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

Only in NY? The hell are you talking about? It doesn't matter where they put it, be it in New York, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Philly, wherever, there will be locals objecting. It doesn't matter how big they are, they're going to be heard no matter what. Hell, IIRC, there were anti-Amazon groups popping up in Pittsburgh and somewhere else months ago. Crystal City is kind of an exception, though, because it's essentially a giant office park.




I'll admit, part of me is hoping for an M. Night Shyamalan style twist where it does go to a non-elitist city (eg. anywhere that's not New York or DC). I really do think we were one of the top-tier contenders, for the reasons you listed. What I was really hoping for was that it would go somewhere where it would make a substantial impact and turn a different city that struggled in the post-WWII era into a next-level tech city. It could've been us, it could have been Chicago, it could have been Newark. But honestly, we should've seen this coming all along.

oh please. there would be a lot more falling over each other in joy than complaining. complaining about everything in ny is a well known bloodsport.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

I think the winning city or cities will realize this whole HQ2 contest was a joke when they announce HQ4 and HQ5

This.

I can imagine one reason Denver didn't get much, or has had advanced talks (unless news comes out that changes that), is because Denver/CO can't just easily give out billions of dollars to companies in tax incentives like in other cities/states. We usually have to vote on all tax increases or major debts, etc. Last night we defeated two measures that would have increased taxes for infrastructure and public education. I would hypothesize it's one reason Denver doesn't have a huge pile of Fortune 500 companies. But.... if Amazon decided to come out and split this thing up even further, then yes, Denver could easily get a smaller CO outpost.......

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

I think the winning city or cities will realize this whole HQ2 contest was a joke when they announce HQ4 and HQ5

ha yeah -- that or when it pans out that the dc hq2 is an office for lobbyists and the lic hq2 is for financial staff. i dont see seattle hq giving up any juicy tech fun to those sites, just the boring stuff.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Seattle was a "lower tier dump" of a city too when Jeff Bezos started Amazon there.

Seattle was more middle class in the 1990s, but already had juggernauts in Microsoft and Boeing, and was already an "it" city as well as an IT city. It was certainly smaller, less dense, less diverse, etc.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I'm not sure why people get so bent out of shape by the word "talent". Some cities just have more and better talent than others in the tech industry. That's just a fact. It has nothing to do with the quality of the city. It doesn't mean a city with more tech talent is better than a city with less. Are people really that insecure?

All that "talent" creates "synergy".

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

All that "talent" creates "synergy".

good one!

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

New York and Boston were always the clear number 2 tech cities outside of the Silicon Valley region, even though NY, to my knowledge, was empirically ahead of Beantown.

Anyway, I think that Amazon's decision to come to NY really seals NY's status as the No. 2 tech capital. Google and Facebook, for example, have a bigger presence here than anywhere else outside of California. Also, IBM is based here, etc.

Seattle is the #2 tech city. Of the top four companies, two are based here...these might be the top two HQs on earth in terms of office headcount with about 100,000 between them. We also have a lot of mid-majors like Expedia (dominating travel) and Tableau (4,000 people).

We might be down a couple rungs with Google at about 1,200,000 sf of offices including work underway. But we're #2 for Facebook with about 3,500,000 sf including some recent announcements:
-1.13 msf in Seattle core
-650 ksf in Redmond

[mhays]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

ha yeah -- that or when it pans out that the dc hq2 is an office for lobbyists and the lic hq2 is for financial staff. i dont see seattle hq giving up any juicy tech fun to those sites, just the boring stuff.

Talent on all of these fronts needs to be the best they can get. They would probably give each type of talent multiple location options. Maybe NYC is stronger on financial stuff for example, but I bet software developers have lots of options in all the major locations.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Jesus. Obviously I don't mean Crystal City has more people walking around than Dallas. I am talking about intensity.

Gotta love when someone literally states one thing, and proceeds to claim they "obviously" meant the exact opposite when called out on it.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Talent on all of these fronts needs to be the best they can get. They would probably give each type of talent multiple location options. Maybe NYC is stronger on financial stuff for example, but I bet software developers have lots of options in all the major locations.

yeah no doubt there will be space for all at both of these hq2 sites. i just expect the major focus with be divided up that way. who knows though? we have to wait and see.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle is the #2 tech city. Of the top four companies, two are based here...these might be the top two HQs on earth in terms of office headcount with about 100,000 between them. We also have a lot of mid-majors like Expedia (dominating travel) and Tableau (4,000 people).

We might be down a couple rungs with Google at about 1,200,000 sf of offices including work underway. But we're #2 for Facebook with about 3,500,000 sf including some recent announcements:
-1.13 msf in Seattle core
-650 ksf in Redmond

remember google just bought the chelsea market earlier this year for $2.5B in one of the biggest real estate deals in nyc history. i think that's about 550k square feet. a few days later they bought pier 57, which will have about 350k sq ft of googley offices (on quite an interesting site). that's on top of the port authority building they have been in since 2010, which at 3M sq ft is one of the largest office buildings in town.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle is the #2 tech city. Of the top four companies, two are based here...these might be the top two HQs on earth in terms of office headcount with about 100,000 between them. We also have a lot of mid-majors like Expedia (dominating travel) and Tableau (4,000 people).

We might be down a couple rungs with Google at about 1,200,000 sf of offices including work underway. But we're #2 for Facebook with about 3,500,000 sf including some recent announcements:
-1.13 msf in Seattle core
-650 ksf in Redmond

I would believe that yes, Seattle is the #2 tech region after the Bay Area (Silicon Valley+San Francisco+Oakland).

I would also argue that L.A. is closer to #3 in that conversation than people who automatically claim that N.Y., Boston or D.C. is might think. Between Facebook & Google in Playa Vista, Snapchat in Venice, and all the other startups sprouting up in Culver City, Santa Monica, Pasadena, etc., Greater L.A.'s tech influence is undoubtedly booming.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

I would believe that yes, Seattle is the #2 tech region after the Bay Area (Silicon Valley+San Francisco+Oakland).

I would also argue that L.A. is closer to #3 in that conversation than people who automatically claim that N.Y., Boston or D.C. is might think. Between Facebook & Google in Playa Vista, Snapchat in Venice, and all the other startups sprouting up in Culver City, Santa Monica, Pasadena, etc., Greater L.A.'s tech influence is undoubtedly booming.

There is no number 3. SF Bay Area is in a league of its own, and then Seattle is comfortably number 2. Beyond those two cities, no other region has produced any big tech winners.

[The North One]

Austin says hi.

[C.]

Amazon’s rumored Long Island City HQ2 could be located within the proposed Anable Basin megaproject, Politico has learned. Though neither Amazon or the city would comment on the rumors, Politico has learned that the project could located on the land owned by Plaxall Realty.

In November last year, Plaxall unveiled a nearly 15-acre rezoning proposal for this area of the Long Island City waterfront. The project would create 5,000 condos and rentals, 335,000 square feet of creative production and light manufacturing space, 3.1 acres of public waterfront esplanade, up to 30,000 square feet of community space, and a 700-seat public school.

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/7/18072094/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-anable-basin

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There is no number 3. SF Bay Area is in a league of its own, and then Seattle is comfortably number 2. Beyond those two cities, no other region has produced any big tech winners.

NYC has plenty of tech startups that are pretty big, but are not known because they are not consumer facing. For example, Infor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infor
There are other large NYC startups mostly in fashion, fintech, insurance, advertising, etc that are not household names but are very big nevertheless.

[JMKeynes]

A lot of people (outside of very cosmopolitan cities like SF, LA, DC, and Boston) have issues with NY being the ultra-dominant Alpha city, and the Amazon decision only compounds that. People from places like Atlanta, for example, were really hoping that this would help their claim to being a real city. People just need to accept that NY is in a league of its own.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Gantz

NYC has plenty of tech startups that are pretty big, but are not known because they are not consumer facing. For example, Infor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infor
There are other large NYC startups mostly in fashion, fintech, insurance, advertising, etc that are not household names but are very big nevertheless.

There isn't anything in NYC even remotely on the scale of a FAANG, and I can't even think of any predecessors to FAANG -- Microsoft, HP, Yahoo, etc. -- that were in NYC. New York has been trying hard to create a big one here, in order to compete with Silicon Valley, but the successes from NYC haven't shaken up the hierarchy. The successes in NYC also tend to just get sold off to a FAANG or behemoth in another industry. For instance, there are some health care tech startups that seems to be thriving in NYC (Oscar, Roman, Flatiron Health), but all seem poised to get swallowed up by a pharmaceutical at some point.

Tech had a slightly more diverse geography pre-mid 90s, when AOL (Virginia) and IBM (Connecticut) were bigger players. But for the past two decades it has been firmly entrenched in Silicon Valley, with no peer region anywhere else on Earth. This is both a function of talent, and, probably more importantly, the nature of venture capital in the success of tech companies now. Seattle managed to hang on a a major hub despite this consolidation into California...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Tech had a slightly more diverse geography pre-mid 90s, when AOL (Virginia) and IBM (Connecticut) were bigger players. But for the past two decades it has been firmly entrenched in Silicon Valley, with no peer region anywhere else on Earth. This is both a function of talent, and, probably more importantly, the nature of venture capital in the success of tech companies now. Seattle managed to hang on a a major hub despite this consolidation into California...

But the actual rapid growth of companies has been geographically pretty well dispersed: NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, etc

VC is a Silicon-Valley focused measure--after all, the VC model is in part what the Valley hangs its hat on, and will always be that way; yet it makes the Valley look unusually prodigious compared to the rest of the nation. I also think VC numbers have warped the impressions people have of regions above and beyond their actual levels of wealth and ability to produce new companies. In a way, VC is really just a measure of inbreeding. How much money are we ploughing back into ourselves?

I would imagine that a better measure is the Inc 5000 or something of the like, which is a list of the fastest growing small companies in the world. This list is far more dispersed

[C.]

Jumping in here -- when I think of tech and startup industries, I think of San Francisco and Austin. Happy to see NYC will now be added to the list!