Amazon HQ2

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Right, but all of that is well after the RFP was released. Doesn't seem like there was a "select few" before the RFP as you implied.

In fact, your second link seems to contradict that as well

"Amazon, for its part, denies it has made any such requests for secrecy. A spokesman for the company says cities are free to share any details they would like to about their own bids. (Although the company has pledged to hold city bids as confidential if the submitter prefers.)

Amazon has sent some interested bidders nondisclosure agreements, according to several cities that have received them. But those agreements, Amazon and some of the cities say, bars release of corporate information that the company has provided to them, such as specific workforce projections, but doesn’t pertain to the city’s own activities or bid information."

I am not the enemy and I am not trying to talk down Austin or (un)knowingly providing conflicting quotes. To my knowledge, only 4 cities have publicly acknowledged a NDA with Amazon. These 4 cities made these statements to the media, whether Amazon wants to acknowledge it or not. Personally if I was Amazon I would not acknowledge it because it means the whole RFP process was a PR/financial move. Additionally, why would Amazon have select cities sign a NDA after the RFP? Clearly not all cities signed the NDA because several cites published their responses or financial incentive packages/or lack of (Toronto, Boston, San Jose, Denver, State of Pennsylvania, State of NJ...etc).

This was published in the Atlanta Business Chronicle over a month before Amazon's RFP. Any guesses?

https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...nt=firefox-b-1

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

I am not the enemy and I am not trying to talk down Austin or (un)knowingly providing conflicting quotes. To my knowledge, only 4 cities have publicly acknowledged a NDA with Amazon. These 4 cities made these statements to the media, whether Amazon wants to acknowledge it or not. Personally if I was Amazon I would not acknowledge it because it means the whole RFP process was a PR/financial move. Additionally, why would Amazon have select cities sign a NDA after the RFP? Clearly not all cities signed the NDA because several cites published their responses or financial incentive packages/or lack of (Toronto, Boston, San Jose, Denver, State of Pennsylvania, State of NJ...etc).

This was published in the Atlanta Business Chronicle over a month before Amazon's RFP. Any guesses?

https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...nt=firefox-b-1

Don't sweat it, we appreciate your contribution. We can be a bit, ah, argumentative at times.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

To my knowledge, only 4 cities have publicly acknowledged a NDA with Amazon.

Right, that's not what's under question. It's whether it happened _before_ the RFP or not.

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Additionally, why would Amazon have select cities sign a NDA after the RFP?

Because some (or all?) cities asked for specific details on Amazon's plans (to flesh our their proposal) that were proprietary.

And the RFP explicitly says that some (or all?) cities will get an NDA _after_ the RFP.

"While the existence of the Project is not confidential, certain aspects of the Project and details
regarding the company are confidential, proprietary, and constitute trade secrets. Amazon will
deliver a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement for execution at the appropriate time"

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....516043504_.pdf

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Clearly not all cities signed the NDA because several cites published their responses or financial incentive packages/or lack of (Toronto, Boston, San Jose, Denver, State of Pennsylvania, State of NJ...etc).

Or what they disclosed wasn't the Amazon-proprietary info that was covered by the RFP.

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

This was published in the Atlanta Business Chronicle over a month before Amazon's RFP. Any guesses?

https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...nt=firefox-b-1

Uh, not Amazon. Unless that site is next to 10 times as many empty lots (to provide the expansion required by Amazon).


And yes, I'm argumentative. But we're all just BSing on this site anyway, none of it is going to make a bit of difference what city is selected.

[brando]

This article put together an aggregate of what 18 of the public rankings we've seen said about the different cities. This should not be seen as a scientific ranking. Its more of a look at the similarities that different outlets have seen. Article contains links to all the different rankings. There is a lot to dive into if you have the time.

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studi..._new_home.aspx


Sperling's Amazon HQ Hyper-Ranking

1. Atlanta
2. Boston
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. Washington, D.C.
6. Austin
7. Dallas
8. Denver
9. New York City
10. Raleigh

[chundercracker]

I feel like the rankings that heavily weigh statistics and how they correspond to Amazon's stated quantifiable parameters are kind of missing the point. "Buzz", culture, QoL, and the ability to influence a city's development are what I think will drive their decision.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by chundercracker

, and the ability to influence a city's development are what I think will drive their decision.

Why?



(formally poster "brando")

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by chundercracker

I feel like the rankings that heavily weigh statistics and how they correspond to Amazon's stated quantifiable parameters are kind of missing the point. "Buzz", culture, QoL, and the ability to influence a city's development are what I think will drive their decision.

cc,

When you are a publicly traded company almost valued at $1 Trillion and $140 Billion a year in revenue, you are probably more concerned about more quantifiable metrics: cost of doing business, location, population, infrastructure, supply chain and STEM candidates. I don't think "Buzz" and/or ability to influence a city's development will be <or> should be a driving factor. Remember, this is not Jeff Bezos' company - it is owned by the shareholders.

[ATXboom]

Well if you buy into Mark Cuban - he doesn't think its coming to Dallas or Austin due to the "bathroom bill". https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...y-scare-amazon

[chundercracker]

Originally Posted by freerover

Why?



(formally poster "brando")

Mostly a hunch. I do a lot of reading on financial news and there's been some whispers of Bezos taking a political angle on the choice for HQ2. This seems to infer that their choice goes beyond simply asking "what can you do for me" and monetary incentives.

To refer to the employee/employer analogy that someone else mentioned... if I were searching for a job, I'd like to know not just what the company can do for me, but whether I'll be in a position to eventually influence decisions of the company.

Again, all speculation but worth considering.

[chundercracker]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

cc,

When you are a publicly traded company almost valued at $1 Trillion and $140 Billion a year in revenue, you are probably more concerned about more quantifiable metrics: cost of doing business, location, population, infrastructure, supply chain and STEM candidates. I don't think "Buzz" and/or ability to influence a city's development will be <or> should be a driving factor. Remember, this is not Jeff Bezos' company - it is owned by the shareholders.

Just because they're a large publicly traded company doesn't mean their strategy is based purely on "business" decisions. Take Facebook's recent announcement to police fake news in their content... the side effect of that decision is that FB is now effectively a censor for media (press). Since the media is often considered our 4th branch of government, this puts them in a very unique position as a "tech" company.

Amazon is getting large enough that anti-trust issues are starting to crop up. Why wouldn't political influence in state commerce laws play a factor in their choice? If they're smart, they're going to choose a city for what kind of company they envision becoming in the next 50 years, not for what they're doing now.

Like it or not, cities are somewhat "branded" by public perception... A company that bases their company in that city will also absorb some of that city's brand as well. So yes "buzz" directly affects the marketability of a company, which makes it a business decision.

[We vs us]

I agree with this. You can find HQ2 criteria in a lot of places in the US, IMHO. And no doubt, Amazon would have the pick of any of them.

HQ2's location is going to be more about a statement of self and purpose than anything else related to incentives or margins on data points. In the end, Amazon doesn't give two hoots about who has more outbound or international flights, so long as it's within an acceptable range. Same for numbers of high tech graduates, or public transit lift. Or cost of living, or etc. These are just numbers. HQ2 is all about how Amazon views itself now and projects how it wants to be in the future. The city it chooses has to match whatever they decide that brand will be inevitably be.

This is why Austin -- aside from all the data point wrangling -- is still one of their top choices. The Austin brand is exceptionally strong. Like, exceptionally. This is in addition to meeting -- broadly -- all of their criteria. It's another reason why I think cities like Dallas continue to be a longshot, because selecting Dallas doesn't actually say anything about Amazon's future or past, or really anything at all. It'd be just another cost control measure.

And to be honest, this is why I secretly don't give Atlanta much of a chance. Atlanta is the choice of pundits and consultants who are crunching raw numbers from wikipedia and putting them in columns to compare. There's not a lot of sexiness to it, and there's no real sense of place-putting. Until I hear differently, I think that's what HQ2 will be about, rather than whatever numbers work best.

[brando]

Originally Posted by We vs us

This is why Austin -- aside from all the data point wrangling -- is still one of their top choices. The Austin brand is exceptionally strong. Like, exceptionally. This is in addition to meeting -- broadly -- all of their criteria. It's another reason why I think cities like Dallas continue to be a longshot, because selecting Dallas doesn't actually say anything about Amazon's future or past, or really anything at all. It'd be just another cost control measure.

And to be honest, this is why I secretly don't give Atlanta much of a chance. Atlanta is the choice of pundits and consultants who are crunching raw numbers from wikipedia and putting them in columns to compare. There's not a lot of sexiness to it, and there's no real sense of place-putting. Until I hear differently, I think that's what HQ2 will be about, rather than whatever numbers work best.

I think this is a mentality that would be much bigger when they are deciding where to open new satellite offices like they did in Austin in 2015.

This is a one of the most consequential decisions and biggest investments they are going to make. They need to do what is in the best financial interest of the company and that offers a low chance of risk.

IF Austin doesn't make it to the negotiation round then I hope it will cause some to look more critically at Austin in what things it has going for it and what things is needs to improve upon. I hope the reaction isn't just to put some excuse on Amazon without any serious self reflection. Not getting to be a finalist for a chance to add a company that will eventually add 50,000 jobs when your biggest employer (HEB) only as 12,000 would be a huge disappointment. It needs to be a wakeup call that we can't take assume people will jump at the chance to move their company here and that we still have to work to attract businesses like we've worked to attract a lot of the tech businesses we currently have.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I agree with this. You can find HQ2 criteria in a lot of places in the US, IMHO. And no doubt, Amazon would have the pick of any of them.

HQ2's location is going to be more about a statement of self and purpose than anything else related to incentives or margins on data points. In the end, Amazon doesn't give two hoots about who has more outbound or international flights, so long as it's within an acceptable range. Same for numbers of high tech graduates, or public transit lift. Or cost of living, or etc. These are just numbers. HQ2 is all about how Amazon views itself now and projects how it wants to be in the future. The city it chooses has to match whatever they decide that brand will be inevitably be.

This is why Austin -- aside from all the data point wrangling -- is still one of their top choices. The Austin brand is exceptionally strong. Like, exceptionally. This is in addition to meeting -- broadly -- all of their criteria. It's another reason why I think cities like Dallas continue to be a longshot, because selecting Dallas doesn't actually say anything about Amazon's future or past, or really anything at all. It'd be just another cost control measure.

And to be honest, this is why I secretly don't give Atlanta much of a chance. Atlanta is the choice of pundits and consultants who are crunching raw numbers from wikipedia and putting them in columns to compare. There's not a lot of sexiness to it, and there's no real sense of place-putting. Until I hear differently, I think that's what HQ2 will be about, rather than whatever numbers work best.

I like to look at Amazon HQ2 threads on different city forums and don't post as I think it's wrong and tasteless and I shouldn't argue why certain cities shouldn't win it on another cities' HQ2 thread, but the bolded part struck me a bit.

I understand what you mean, but I think if they were going strictly for culture, I fully believe they wouldn't move from Seattle in the first place. Remember, this is a HQ2. Not a HQ. When we think about Amazon, we think about Seattle first. They made their name with Seattle. They are creating a second headquarters because the numbers don't work out in their favor if they continued to expand in Seattle.

So yes, I believe this HQ2 move is more about the numbers than about culture or perception of sexiness or trendiness else they wouldn't move from Seattle in the first place since Seattle is one of the trendiest cities in the states these days.

So for example, if we were strictly going based off the number crunching and Dallas' final total score averaged a 83 and Austin's averaged a 68 before accounting for culture or trendiness, then Dallas would win the HQ2 over Austin, but if the final total score was 79 for Dallas and 76 for Austin, then Austin would win it because culture and trendiness would tip the scales ever so slightly in it's favor.

I'm not going to argue with Austin posters in this thread about why Austin shouldn't win it or why my city should as again, I think it's tasteless and rather classless to do that, but my point is that the numbers matter more than you think. The numbers is why they are making this move in the first place. Just my personal opinion though.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

. . . but my point is that the numbers matter more than you think. The numbers is why they are making this move in the first place.

Welcome to the forum, thanks for cruising by!

I do want to clarify my post a bit because of your comment . . . . I don't think that the numbers mean nothing in this search, but I do think that Amazon will find generally the sort incentives they want from their short list of major metros/states, and any differences between them will (IMHO) be relatively small. I also think that, especially for smaller cities like Austin, an Amazon has the potential to shape it into what it wants and needs. So, for instance, I don't think it's particularly bad that our public trans is currently sub par. Same with our traffic, same with our international flight situation, etc. Much of that can and will change -- and probably quicker than we might think -- if we get selected.

Why do you think the numbers are forcing them to move from Seattle in the first place? Not enough developable land? High cost of living?

[MichaelB]

All these "algorithms" are useless for a company that, I think , IS looking for sense of place and a vibe. Why give up sexy.... ?

I called them and again suggested the Statesman property and asked them to build us a light rail.
Well, in my head anyway... just a useful!

Happy Guessing!

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I also think that, especially for smaller cities like Austin, an Amazon has the potential to shape it into what it wants and needs. So, for instance, I don't think it's particularly bad that our public trans is currently sub par. Same with our traffic, same with our international flight situation, etc. Much of that can and will change -- and probably quicker than we might think -- if we get selected.

I don't think it would be as easy for Amazon "to shape [Austin] into what it wants and needs" as you think it would be. There's cries of gentrification around every turn. Amazon is already having to deal with a hostile Seattle city council. I'm thinking they're looking at Austin city council and the way they made it really hard for Uber/Lyft to do business here, using the rallying cry slogan "don't let big business tell us what to in our own town", and thinking to themselves whether they want to deal with another hostile council.

As brando mentioned earlier, if we don't get this Amazon deal, we need to take a long and hard look at our current leadership. This deal was Austin's for taking.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

and the way they made it really hard for Uber/Lyft to do business here,

Not hard at all.

The fact that a several startups with 0 resources managed to comply shows that.


As does the fact that the freaking pedicabs comply.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Not hard at all.

The fact that a several startups with 0 resources managed to comply shows that.


As does the fact that the freaking pedicabs comply.

The last I checked, many of those upstarts are now either out of business or currently near bankruptcy.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by undergroundman

The last I checked, many of those upstarts are now either out of business or currently near bankruptcy.

yeah since our Fabulous Ledge decided to back Uber and force them back on the city.... less aware folks use them .... which helped the demise of some of the startups. And of course they did not all make it. It was an app race.

I still use Fasten.

[undergroundman]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Not hard at all.

The fact that a several startups with 0 resources managed to comply shows that.


As does the fact that the freaking pedicabs comply.

One other thing to add is that when they were operating without Uber in town, their prices were much more expensive than what Uber charges, presumably to compensate for the cost of doing business in a much regulated environment.