From The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/09/07/amazon-is-looking-for-a-city-to-site-a-second-5-billion-headquarters/):
Quote
Amazon is seeking a home for its HQ2, a $5 billion second headquarters somewhere in North America
September 7, 2017
Amazon.com is scouting North American cities for a second company headquarters, where it plans to hire as many as 50,000 full-time workers, the tech giant announced Thursday.
The Seattle-based company says it plans to invest $5 billion in construction and operation of the new location, which it is calling Amazon HQ2.
More details here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html/?node=17044620011
Quote
In choosing the location for HQ2, Amazon has a preference for:
- Metropolitan areas with more than one million people
- A stable and business-friendly environment
- Urban or suburban locations with the potential to attract and retain strong technical talent
Communities that think big and creatively when considering locations and real estate options
(https://i.imgur.com/H93mT0C.png)
HQ2 could be, but does not have to be:
- An urban or downtown campus
- A similar layout to Amazon's Seattle campus
- A development-prepped site. We want to encourage states and communities to think creatively for viable real estate options, while not negatively affecting our preferred timeline.
Amazon HQ2 will be a complete headquarters for Amazon — not a satellite office. Amazon expects to hire new teams and executives in HQ2, and will also let existing senior leaders across the company decide whether to locate their teams in HQ1, HQ2 or both. The company expects that employees who are currently working in HQ1 can choose to continue working there, or they could have an opportunity to move if they would prefer to be located in HQ2.
So...where should Amazon build their second headquarters? Keep in mind that it needs to be accessible from Seattle via direct flights, so a good airport is necessary.
The European HQ in Dublin doesn't have direct flights to Seattle and given that this is new teams rather than splitting teams, then I'm not sure the direct flights are a deal-breaker. Though I'd imagine that the other requirements mean that it is highly unlikely that the city chosen won't have them.
Louisiana is out.
Quote from: english si on September 07, 2017, 06:13:42 PM
The European HQ in Dublin doesn't have direct flights to Seattle and given that this is new teams rather than splitting teams, then I'm not sure the direct flights are a deal-breaker. Though I'd imagine that the other requirements mean that it is highly unlikely that the city chosen won't have them.
Given that this is a second headquarters in the same region, there will be some teams needing frequent face-to-face meetings. Direct (not necessarily non-stop) flights are a must.
My first thought was to make it international, since it was proposed for North America, not just the United States. Unfortunately, all areas along the border are either too close to the first location, not urban enough, or in the Rust Belt.
How about Lowell, MA? It is about 25 miles from the center of Boston (I assume "30" meant "approximately 30", not "30 or less"), an urban area (more than just a suburb of Boston), and the hub of a bus system and terminus of a Boston commuter rail line. A state university there probably also helps. Time to Logan Airport is a bit high; if low airport time is more important than not being too close to the city center, Burlington, MA (with I-95/MA 128) works. If there isn't space in Lowell, an adjacent town could work.
The east side of Richmond (Prince George/east Chesterfield/east Henrico) could work. I-295 provides access to the airport, the GRTC/PAT bus lines could be expanded to reach it, and there's already a presence in the area with the large Chester warehouse.
Quote from: Bruce on September 07, 2017, 06:22:45 PMGiven that this is a second headquarters in the same region, there will be some teams needing frequent face-to-face meetings.
This is far more the case when a global team is split up geographically, rather than between different teams that happen to be in different parts of the same continent. Amazon is fine with people having to take two planes to have a face-to-face with their direct supervisor, so I reckon 'direct flights to Seattle' is below 'has some kick ass local craft breweries' in Amazon's concerns when it comes to a location for HQ2.
Quote from: Bruce on September 07, 2017, 05:45:59 PM
From The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/09/07/amazon-is-looking-for-a-city-to-site-a-second-5-billion-headquarters/):
Quote
Amazon is seeking a home for its HQ2, a $5 billion second headquarters somewhere in North America
September 7, 2017
Amazon.com is scouting North American cities for a second company headquarters, where it plans to hire as many as 50,000 full-time workers, the tech giant announced Thursday.
The Seattle-based company says it plans to invest $5 billion in construction and operation of the new location, which it is calling Amazon HQ2.
More details here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html/?node=17044620011
Quote
In choosing the location for HQ2, Amazon has a preference for:
- Metropolitan areas with more than one million people
- A stable and business-friendly environment
- Urban or suburban locations with the potential to attract and retain strong technical talent
Communities that think big and creatively when considering locations and real estate options
(https://i.imgur.com/H93mT0C.png)
HQ2 could be, but does not have to be:
- An urban or downtown campus
- A similar layout to Amazon’s Seattle campus
- A development-prepped site. We want to encourage states and communities to think creatively for viable real estate options, while not negatively affecting our preferred timeline.
Amazon HQ2 will be a complete headquarters for Amazon – not a satellite office. Amazon expects to hire new teams and executives in HQ2, and will also let existing senior leaders across the company decide whether to locate their teams in HQ1, HQ2 or both. The company expects that employees who are currently working in HQ1 can choose to continue working there, or they could have an opportunity to move if they would prefer to be located in HQ2.
So...where should Amazon build their second headquarters? Keep in mind that it needs to be accessible from Seattle via direct flights, so a good airport is necessary.
If they're looking for N. America for HQ2, I can easily recommend Denver. There is a stop on the commuter rail from Union Station to DIA (61st and Pena) that has readily available land for at least the first stage of a HQ2 campus. Panasonic already has one part of this site for its solar panel business.
My first thought for a location was DFW. Might as well be out of the Snow Belt, not bombarded by hurricanes and have lots of ways to effect transport. Maybe Vegas too?
Rick
Quote from: english si on September 07, 2017, 08:01:11 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 07, 2017, 06:22:45 PMGiven that this is a second headquarters in the same region, there will be some teams needing frequent face-to-face meetings.
This is far more the case when a global team is split up geographically, rather than between different teams that happen to be in different parts of the same continent. Amazon is fine with people having to take two planes to have a face-to-face with their direct supervisor, so I reckon 'direct flights to Seattle' is below 'has some kick ass local craft breweries' in Amazon's concerns when it comes to a location for HQ2.
Seattle is a hub for Alaska airlines (115 destinations, more than 90 within continental US) and a focus city for Delta (about 30, if I got it correct).
If Amazon choose an urban area within US top 20, direct flight is readily available - or will become available within few weeks after formal announcement.
Quote from: 1 on September 07, 2017, 06:25:17 PM
My first thought was to make it international, since it was proposed for North America, not just the United States. Unfortunately, all areas along the border are either too close to the first location, not urban enough, or in the Rust Belt.
I'm pretty sure Toronto isn't close to Seattle, is urban, and is not in the Rust Belt.
And Windsor Locks is the best choice for Connecticut, not only is there a Amazon facility in the state, there's able land, and CT 20 and I-91 are bordering the area. There's also a Amtrak stop (and a upcoming commuter rail stop), they could also build better connections to Hartford, and Springfield.
Also Hartford and Springfield area is in the ballpark of 2 million people.
Here's a pic
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiIp8AAdg.png&hash=45d09bb8697c8c1d0c393e2a4384560be4a47b37)
Quote from: Takumi on September 07, 2017, 06:50:41 PM
The east side of Richmond (Prince George/east Chesterfield/east Henrico) could work. I-295 provides access to the airport, the GRTC/PAT bus lines could be expanded to reach it, and there's already a presence in the area with the large Chester warehouse.
^ Agreed. However sticking near the Richmond Area, I would like to nominate Caroline County, Virginia as a possibility. I know, I know it may seem crazy at first but just think about it:
Caroline County is located on Interstate 95 around 30 miles north of Richmond, 20 miles south of Fredricksburg, and most importantly 70 miles south of Wahington D.C, the capital of the economic engine of the world, yet far enough away to avoid all the infamous D.C traffic and possibly even create a reverse commute. Caroline County is also right smack in the middle of Virginia's "Urban Crescent" which is home to about 65% of the state's population, so finding potential employees shouldn't be a problem. Finally, Caroline County which is currently largely rural has more than enough open land to support such a large facility.
Lol at Caroline county..nobody would move there. If va, then somewhere on silver line (probably Tyson's)
Quote from: vdeane on September 07, 2017, 09:44:18 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 07, 2017, 06:25:17 PM
My first thought was to make it international, since it was proposed for North America, not just the United States. Unfortunately, all areas along the border are either too close to the first location, not urban enough, or in the Rust Belt.
I'm pretty sure Toronto isn't close to Seattle, is urban, and is not in the Rust Belt.
I must have misspoken. I meant a location that actually crossed the border, part United States and part Canada.
Apparently Dan Gilbert is trying to push Detroit:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/dan-gilbert-confirms-apos-trying-011540788.html
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2017, 10:45:11 PM
Apparently Dan Gilbert is trying to push Detroit:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/dan-gilbert-confirms-apos-trying-011540788.html
If Detroit does succeed, then that'll make people wake up and see that Detroit is making its return.
My prediction is that they'll pick Philadelphia. There are flights from SeaTac to PHL, and building an HQ there would give them a presence on the East Coast. The SEPTA Regional Rail provides the mass transit needed, and there's still a bit of space along roads like the Blue Route, although it's mostly residential area.
I haven't been to Philadelphia that often, so I might be wrong.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 07, 2017, 10:22:41 PM
Lol at Caroline county..nobody would move there. If va, then somewhere on silver line (probably Tyson's)
You'd be surprised. Caroline Country is pretty much the only rural area left in between Richmond and Washington DC and is growing quickly. Wouldn't be surprised if say 50 years from now, theres continuous suburban development along the whole 110 miles from D.C to Richmond.
Also to clarify, I was thinking the 2nd Amazon HQ would kinda be more or less similar to giant Capital One Campus off VA-288 in Goochland(in a rural area but close enough to the city to attract possible commuters).
However in the end I get this is a long shot and it is way more likely that if Amazon does pick VA it'd be in Tyson's no doubt. Just be prepared for the nightmare traffic that'll come along with it.
One key detail that I'm not seeing here: Amazon would prefer an urban location. Downtown or inner ring neighborhood where they can put 40-story office towers like they are doing in Seattle.
Frankly, if I was an Amazon employee, I would not want to commute out to a suburban office. Otherwise, I would be working for the many, many tech companies that already have suburban campuses.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them somewhere in or near NC's "Research Triangle" -- it's got a lot of corridors heading in several directions (road & rail) if they wish to append a warehousing operation along with the administrative, sales, and communication aspects of such an operation. Also, it's an academic hub as well -- access to research as well as potential hires. IMO it'd be a safe bet that this area is already on Amazon's radar -- and could well make the "finals" re site selection.
There are some incredible opportunities in Dallas and Irving for them that fit the requirements perfectly including rail stations(possibly including high speed) and new freeway infrastructure. They already have a large AWS and logistics presence in DFW. The region is already talking about throwing huge $$ at them and seems to have a good relationship. Hard to know what they really prefer though, but there's a great opportunity to mold the area and Dallas would give them what they want if they want a large population and infrastructure but would like to influence the city the way AT&T and Toyota have been rather than rely on existing institutions.
Maybe the DC area? DC itself is limited due to building height restrictions, but the surrounding municipalities could easily fit the requirements.
- Extremely good transit access (HSR and metro)
- Two airports that collectively serve most places that Amazon has interest in
- Prepped for development (they don't need to improve the infrastructure to accommodate Amazon)
- Well-educated populace in the area
- Access to DC for lobbying purposes? :-D
Rosslyn or Arlington, maybe. Perhaps even Bethesda or Silver Spring.
Ultimately, I think they'll end up somewhere obvious, like Dallas or Chicago.
Quote from: kalvado on September 07, 2017, 09:09:46 PMSeattle is a hub for Alaska airlines (115 destinations, more than 90 within continental US) and a focus city for Delta (about 30, if I got it correct).
If Amazon choose an urban area within US top 20, direct flight is readily available - or will become available within few weeks after formal announcement.
Oh, for sure - I even said as much in the post that Bruce took issue with. Direct flights is somewhat a given due to the other criteria, but there isn't a criteria for direct flights, and I don't think Amazon are that fussed if there wasn't.
There's really no area in the country bombarded by hurricanes or snowstorms. If there's frequent snow, the area knows how to handle it. Hurricanes are actually very rare in any one place that they hit. Not many people thought of Houston as an area that would be overcome by a hurricane, and New York is still recovering from Hurricane Sandy. If an area that doesn't get much snow actually gets a snowstorm (think, Dallas or the Carolinas), then it's a potentially crippling storm that close them down for several days. So you can remove weather from the equation, because they're either common systems or unique systems in any area that gets them.
Then again, it's Amazon. I think their employees will be able to work from home...or wherever they are.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 07, 2017, 11:03:45 PMMy prediction is that they'll pick Philadelphia. There are flights from SeaTac to PHL, and building an HQ there would give them a presence on the East Coast. The SEPTA Regional Rail provides the mass transit needed, and there's still a bit of space along roads like the Blue Route, although it's mostly residential area.
I haven't been to Philadelphia that often, so I might be wrong.
The Philly news stations have mentioned that Philly officials (the mayor along with the head of the Chamber of Commerce) are indeed trying to entice Amazon with incentives to set up shop there.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 08, 2017, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 07, 2017, 11:03:45 PMMy prediction is that they'll pick Philadelphia. There are flights from SeaTac to PHL, and building an HQ there would give them a presence on the East Coast. The SEPTA Regional Rail provides the mass transit needed, and there's still a bit of space along roads like the Blue Route, although it's mostly residential area.
I haven't been to Philadelphia that often, so I might be wrong.
The Philly news stations have mentioned that Philly officials (the mayor along with the head of the Chamber of Commerce) are indeed trying to entice Amazon with incentives to set up shop there.
The best thing (in Amazon's terms) about making this public is...the competition for which state/city/region will provide the most in financial incentives? Because...that really is the question. Those other things...population center, proximity to airports and transit...are requirements, yes, but...a very strong tax incentive will be the key...
Great, now cities across the country will be falling over each other to give Amazon the biggest handout. The race to the bottom begins!
The Twin Cities is officially throwing its hat in the ring.
At least around the people I work with (tech industry), there's this strong feeling that it's Raleigh's to lose. I'm not as confident but the Triangle a growing area with a lot to offer, and politicians here would be willing to throw tax incentives at their feet.
Probably the biggest weakness for Phoenix is mass transit. Much of where mass transit is more heavily concentrated in the Phoenix area are in central/south Phoenix, Tempe, and western Mesa.
Quote from: JJBers on September 07, 2017, 09:45:06 PM
And Windsor Locks is the best choice for Connecticut, not only is there a Amazon facility in the state, there's able land, and CT 20 and I-91 are bordering the area. There's also a Amtrak stop (and a upcoming commuter rail stop), they could also build better connections to Hartford, and Springfield.
Also Hartford and Springfield area is in the ballpark of 2 million people.
Here's a pic
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiIp8AAdg.png&hash=45d09bb8697c8c1d0c393e2a4384560be4a47b37)
That particular site (which was looked at as a potential casino location) does have a potential downside: it's location under the glidepath for one of BDL's runways will limit the height of any structure built there (which may or may not be a concern).
I've got to believe that most metros and states will be attempting to woo Amazon. Hartford and Springfield both qualify, with the added benefit of being in easy reach of many upper-tier colleges and universities, but the downside of onerous tax structures needing to be overcome. Downtown Hartford has a few nearly-vacant towers downtown, plenty of land in need of (re)development around the downtown core, etc.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 08, 2017, 11:59:47 AM
Great, now cities across the country will be falling over each other to give Amazon the biggest handout. The race to the bottom begins!
Yep. It's a brilliant move on Amazon's part to get the best-for-them development deal they can.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2017, 10:45:11 PM
Apparently Dan Gilbert is trying to push Detroit:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/dan-gilbert-confirms-apos-trying-011540788.html
Good. Detroit would be a very good location for them. Downtown and Midtown are close to Metro Airport, along easily accessible freeways, have bus routes, and now the new train running down Woodward, is right on an international border so it can serve both the US and Canada, is close to really good universities in-state (UM and MSU), and has the land requirements in that area.
Quote from: Brandon on September 08, 2017, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2017, 10:45:11 PM
Apparently Dan Gilbert is trying to push Detroit:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/dan-gilbert-confirms-apos-trying-011540788.html
Good. Detroit would be a very good location for them. Downtown and Midtown are close to Metro Airport, along easily accessible freeways, have bus routes, and now the new train running down Woodward, is right on an international border so it can serve both the US and Canada, is close to really good universities in-state (UM and MSU), and has the land requirements in that area.
Not only that but cheap land to build something new within the city or hell they could just buy an existing skyscraper. Essentially Quicken Loans just bought the land where Kern's Department store was once located. Really the infrastructure is still there with freeways and airport access, it actually is overbuilt considering how much Detroit has shrunk since the 1950s.
Quote from: rantanamo on September 08, 2017, 03:21:12 AM
There are some incredible opportunities in Dallas and Irving for them that fit the requirements perfectly including rail stations(possibly including high speed) and new freeway infrastructure. They already have a large AWS and logistics presence in DFW. The region is already talking about throwing huge $$ at them and seems to have a good relationship. Hard to know what they really prefer though, but there's a great opportunity to mold the area and Dallas would give them what they want if they want a large population and infrastructure but would like to influence the city the way AT&T and Toyota have been rather than rely on existing institutions.
Dallas would seem to be a great fit for the reasons you mentioned. I don't believe they would move to a rust belt city that is tied to unions. Other good choices may be OKC, which is up and coming and very central. Nashville is also very good location-wise being very accessible to most of the midwest and southeast.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 08, 2017, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 07, 2017, 11:03:45 PMMy prediction is that they'll pick Philadelphia. There are flights from SeaTac to PHL, and building an HQ there would give them a presence on the East Coast. The SEPTA Regional Rail provides the mass transit needed, and there's still a bit of space along roads like the Blue Route, although it's mostly residential area.
I haven't been to Philadelphia that often, so I might be wrong.
The Philly news stations have mentioned that Philly officials (the mayor along with the head of the Chamber of Commerce) are indeed trying to entice Amazon with incentives to set up shop there.
Can you imagine any single city or town saying "nah, we're not interested"?
Well, Seattle is not making a bet...
Quote from: kalvado on September 08, 2017, 02:18:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 08, 2017, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 07, 2017, 11:03:45 PMMy prediction is that they'll pick Philadelphia. There are flights from SeaTac to PHL, and building an HQ there would give them a presence on the East Coast. The SEPTA Regional Rail provides the mass transit needed, and there's still a bit of space along roads like the Blue Route, although it's mostly residential area.
I haven't been to Philadelphia that often, so I might be wrong.
The Philly news stations have mentioned that Philly officials (the mayor along with the head of the Chamber of Commerce) are indeed trying to entice Amazon with incentives to set up shop there.
Can you imagine any single city or town saying "nah, we're not interested"?
Well, Seattle is not making a bet...
Philly's best bet would be to entice them to the South Philly Navy Yard. All but abandoned, it's now home to corporate hq's and other businesses. One hotel is there (Marriott Courtyard). The area has a lot of potential for businesses that don't want to be in a center-city/downtown environment.
It offers very convenient access to I-95.
It offers very convenient access to PHL.
Philly and SEPTA have talked about extended the Broad Street Subway into the Navy Yard (about 1 or 1.5 miles from its existing Southern terminus. SEPTA buses already go into the Navy Yard. NJ Transit goes to Center City Philly. Adding a few routes to involve the Navy Yard wouldn't be overly tricky utilizing the Walt Whitman & Commodore Barry Bridges.
The Navy Yard definitely has the space requirements for the initial phases, and can probably easily fit all 8 million square feet of built-out space.
Why Philly won't work:
Unions.
Unions.
Unions.
Unions.
Unions.
Unions wouldn't really factor in (they don't play a major role for Amazon's corporate workers in Seattle, which is a union-heavy city itself).
Philly's Navy Yard does seem like a pretty good spot, though. Adjacent to downtown and likely able to support high-rise office development.
Quote from: Bruce on September 08, 2017, 03:21:57 PM
Philly's Navy Yard does seem like a pretty good spot, though. Adjacent to downtown and likely able to support high-rise office development.
If you look at the original post, they don't want to be adjacent to downtown. They say 30 miles away is ideal.
Quote from: 1 on September 08, 2017, 03:23:47 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 08, 2017, 03:21:57 PM
Philly's Navy Yard does seem like a pretty good spot, though. Adjacent to downtown and likely able to support high-rise office development.
If you look at the original post, they don't want to be adjacent to downtown. They say 30 miles away is ideal.
They want to be *within* 30 miles. An Urban/Suburban environment is what they're looking for. I don't see anything saying they don't want to be adjacent to downtown. The Navy Yard is about 10 -15 minutes away from Philly's central business district via driving; 20 - 25 minutes via the subway.
At 30 miles away, you are on the edge of the suburbs for most areas urban areas. That also puts areas outside of most mass-transit zones, especially trains and subways. You are also out of the 45 minute requirement for airports in most areas, unless the suburban location is near the airport.
There is no way Amazon would pass off a downtown-adjacent campus. That's what they've been building in Seattle since 2008 (going through two campus moves to make that happen) and they are very comfortable with that arrangement.
Quote from: Bruce on September 08, 2017, 03:21:57 PM
Unions wouldn't really factor in (they don't play a major role for Amazon's corporate workers in Seattle, which is a union-heavy city itself).
Philly's Navy Yard does seem like a pretty good spot, though. Adjacent to downtown and likely able to support high-rise office development.
The Navy Yard's located right in the glidepath of 2 of PHL's runways (8-26 & 9L-27R); so high-rise development there is out.
Does anyone really think Bezos will take AMZ HQ2 to a red state? Hate to bring that up but it's gotta be a factor.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 08, 2017, 06:31:13 PM
Does anyone really think Bezos will take AMZ HQ2 to a red state? Hate to bring that up but it's gotta be a factor.
States that were red in the 2016 presidential election:
Alabama:
Birmingham.
Alaska: Lol no.
Arizona: Will be swing in 2020 and blue in 2024.
Arkansas:
Memphis suburbs. Little Rock is not large enough.
Florida: Swing state.
Georgia: Will be swing in 2020 and blue in 2024.
Idaho: No cities large enough, and too close to the first location anyway.
Indiana: They won't go into the Rust Belt.
Iowa: They won't go into the Rust Belt.
Kansas: They won't go into the Rust Belt (eastern half), and the western half has no large cities.
Kentucky:
Louisville.
Louisiana:
New Orleans.
Michigan: Swing state, and in the Rust Belt anyway.
Mississippi:
Memphis suburbs. Jackson is not large enough.
Missouri: They won't go into the Rust Belt.
Montana: No cities large enough.
Nebraska: They won't go into the Rust Belt (eastern half), and the western half has no large cities.
North Carolina: Swing state.
North Dakota: No cities large enough.
Ohio: They won't go into the Rust Belt.
Oklahoma:
Oklahoma City,
Tulsa (yes, I know it's slightly under 1M).
Pennsylvania: Swing state.
South Carolina: No cities large enough, surprisingly.
South Dakota: No cities large enough.
Tennessee:
Memphis,
Nashville.
Texas: Will be swing in 2024 and blue in 2028.
Utah: Too close to first location.
West Virginia: No cities large enough.
Wisconsin: Swing state.
Wyoming: No cities large enough.
So, 7 cities (Birmingham, Memphis, Louisville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Nashville) would be negatively affected if red/blue states matter.
Don't see any of those making it...
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 08, 2017, 05:54:00 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 08, 2017, 03:21:57 PM
Unions wouldn't really factor in (they don't play a major role for Amazon's corporate workers in Seattle, which is a union-heavy city itself).
Philly's Navy Yard does seem like a pretty good spot, though. Adjacent to downtown and likely able to support high-rise office development.
The Navy Yard's located right in the glidepath of 2 of PHL's runways (8-26 & 9L-27R); so high-rise development there is out.
Based on what's there now, they'll at least be able to do about 8 stories.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2017, 07:42:01 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 08, 2017, 05:54:00 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 08, 2017, 03:21:57 PM
Unions wouldn't really factor in (they don't play a major role for Amazon's corporate workers in Seattle, which is a union-heavy city itself).
Philly's Navy Yard does seem like a pretty good spot, though. Adjacent to downtown and likely able to support high-rise office development.
The Navy Yard's located right in the glidepath of 2 of PHL's runways (8-26 & 9L-27R); so high-rise development there is out.
Based on what's there now, they'll at least be able to do about 8 stories.
Not enough, at least compared to what they're building in Seattle. Sprawling campuses are
sooooo 20th century.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2017, 09:24:11 PM
Sprawling campuses are sooooo 20th century.
I wouldn't say that's an absolute rule. Apple just opened this building–a mere four stories and sprawling over 175 acres–this year.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--VyZ2sISk--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/xswx4ergx718jniocbgk.jpg)
At least they have said a campus-like setting may be acceptable.
And based on a rough block calculation, one building 8 stories tall would be close to or meet their 8,000,000 square foot requirement.
Sounds like Milwaukee thinks it has a shot (along with about 50 other cities I'm sure).
https://twitter.com/mrtdoublen/status/905986583345713154
Quote from: briantroutman on September 08, 2017, 10:02:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2017, 09:24:11 PM
Sprawling campuses are sooooo 20th century.
I wouldn't say that's an absolute rule. Apple just opened this building–a mere four stories and sprawling over 175 acres–this year.
I mean "sprawling" like the HP buildings that this new Apple campus replaces. Dozens of 2-4 storey buildings spread out over a couple hundred acres. Amazon has several buildings in downtown Seattle, but three of them are skyscrapers.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2017, 11:57:35 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 08, 2017, 10:02:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2017, 09:24:11 PM
Sprawling campuses are sooooo 20th century.
I wouldn't say that's an absolute rule. Apple just opened this building–a mere four stories and sprawling over 175 acres–this year.
I mean "sprawling" like the HP buildings that this new Apple campus replaces. Dozens of 2-4 storey buildings spread out over a couple hundred acres. Amazon has several buildings in downtown Seattle, but three of them are skyscrapers.
It is really hard to have everything in a single building when facility is expected to grow.
To put things in perspective, Empire State Building has about 2.2 million sq feet; so Amazon wants 1/3 of ESB for phase 1, eventually growing to 3.5 ESB.
The best thing they can do, IMHO, is plan for intracampus connections from the start. But that requires either cheap suburban land, or having big gaps in city center for years and decades.
Quote from: 1 on September 07, 2017, 06:25:17 PM
How about Lowell, MA? It is about 25 miles from the center of Boston (I assume "30" meant "approximately 30", not "30 or less"), an urban area (more than just a suburb of Boston), and the hub of a bus system and terminus of a Boston commuter rail line. A state university there probably also helps. Time to Logan Airport is a bit high; if low airport time is more important than not being too close to the city center, Burlington, MA (with I-95/MA 128) works. If there isn't space in Lowell, an adjacent town could work.
Mayor Marty Walsh has been pushing hard as soon as it was reported to get it in Boston, but he has yet to realize there is no space at all for it there. Lowell would be interesting, but I think room there is even non-existent for the space they need. I see it going in the southeast part of the country.
The New York Times went through some of the requirements and determined that Portland, Boston, Washington DC, and Denver are the best candidates, with Denver winning out.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/09/upshot/where-should-amazon-new-headquarters-be.html
I do disagree with their quip about Portland. Having the second headquarters close by is something tech companies like (Intel built their Oregon campus on the assumption it was only a 90-minute flight from the Silicon Valley, or so the legend goes). Portland to Seattle is a future HSR corridor (if we ever find the funding and political will), so that makes for several inter-office transportation options.
^^
Glad to see my "DC" prediction wasn't considered crazy. The only thing I don't understand is why DC was eliminated based on land costs. Amazon has shitloads of money. Buying land for a headquarters is not going to be an issue. The only real issue with DC is height restrictions, hence my previous suggestion of locating the headquarters in one of the many nearby densely-populated urban centers, where taller buildings are acceptable (and necessary IMO).
I could see Southeastern US. Perhaps Jacksonville or Orlando.. Both have growing tech sectors..
Orlando seems to have a better game and more well known. Orlando is more " diverse" ( large Hispanic and African American communities)and has become a gay mecca of sorts.
Jax may be too conservative for Amazon having HQ. Also lack of transit and limited connections out of airport.
However Amazon is in the process of building 2 gigantic fulfillment centers in Jacksonville, but that is blue collar jobs. And they may want to be the start of something. There is quite a lot of vacant land in Jacksonville's urban core
It will probably come down to what city/state whores themselves out the most
LGMS428
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 08, 2017, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 07, 2017, 11:03:45 PMMy prediction is that they'll pick Philadelphia. There are flights from SeaTac to PHL, and building an HQ there would give them a presence on the East Coast. The SEPTA Regional Rail provides the mass transit needed, and there's still a bit of space along roads like the Blue Route, although it's mostly residential area.
I haven't been to Philadelphia that often, so I might be wrong.
The Philly news stations have mentioned that Philly officials (the mayor along with the head of the Chamber of Commerce) are indeed trying to entice Amazon with incentives to set up shop there.
If Philadelphia is indeed being considered as a destination within Amazon management circles, then I'll be willing to bet that Wilmington, DE (or the outskirts of such) is also under consideration if for nothing else than the favorable DE laws regarding corporations. As that's a relatively compact region, any area north of the C-D canal might be fair game (Glasgow, Bear, or the like).
Quote from: jwolfer on September 09, 2017, 11:34:59 PMIt will probably come down to what city/state whores themselves out the most
Bingo.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2017, 01:13:27 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 08, 2017, 11:59:47 AM
Great, now cities across the country will be falling over each other to give Amazon the biggest handout. The race to the bottom begins!
Yep. It's a brilliant move on Amazon's part to get the best-for-them development deal they can.
Wouldn't call it a brilliant move. More like the obvious move.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2017, 01:13:27 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 08, 2017, 11:59:47 AM
Great, now cities across the country will be falling over each other to give Amazon the biggest handout. The race to the bottom begins!
Yep. It's a brilliant move on Amazon's part to get the best-for-them development deal they can.
At the expense of taxpayers.
This is how companies get out of paying their fair share in society. They get gullible politicians to help them externalize their costs in the form of tax subsidies, low wages and lax environmental oversight so they can shift the burden onto the suckers. Everyone's like, "Yay, jobs!" but doesn't consider how much it's actually costing them.
Camden, NJ is also considering wooing Amazon.
I believe they're going with the tagline "We'll plow this entire fucking city into the river and start over if you choose us". :-D
http://www.phillyvoice.com/camden-plans-make-play-new-amazon-headquarters/
There are a few plusses: For a city of 77,000, it has subway access (PATCO), a light rail line (NJ Transit), ferry access from Philly, highway access (I-676) and a non-highway that functions as a limited access route and is actually wider than I-676 for much of its distance (US 30).
The big minus: It's Camden. A lot would need to be knocked down to create the campus setting or towers needed for their buildout. Amazon could definitely change Camden if they chose the city in many positive ways (I highly doubt they will choose Camden though).
Quote from: 1 on September 08, 2017, 07:00:13 PM
States that were red in the 2016 presidential election:
Arizona: Will be swing in 2020 and blue in 2024.
Texas: Will be swing in 2024 and blue in 2028.
In your dreams. They said that in 2016, and they still voted red.
One big strike against DFW is housing. With Toyota and others relocating to there, they're building new subdivisions everywhere on the north side of the Metroplex and it's still not enough. Property values and rent are sky high and often housing can't be found at any price. It's eventually going to be a drag on further growth.
Quote from: Road Hog on September 21, 2017, 08:50:32 AM
One big strike against DFW is housing. With Toyota and others relocating to there, they're building new subdivisions everywhere on the north side of the Metroplex and it's still not enough. Property values and rent are sky high and often housing can't be found at any price. It's eventually going to be a drag on further growth.
Couldn't be any worse than Amazon's current home base in Seattle. They can't build homes/condos/apartments fast enough to keep up with demand, so you see a lot of inflated home prices (although that's kind of how real estate works, so I'm not complaining).
I suspect that if DFW were to be more closely be considered, Amazon would prefer to see more urban housing, rather than suburban. Much of Amazon's workforce is young/unmarried, condo/apartment-types. Homes in the suburbs are not something they want.
Quote from: ParrDa on September 20, 2017, 08:01:07 PM
Before you laugh at the mere suggestion of Rochester NY as a potential location:
-We have land. Lots of it and they can pick between Kodak park, downtown, or a more suburban area.
-Land is cheap here. A lot cheaper than any other potential candidate city.
-Location. No other city east of the Mississippi has ease of access to both the east coast and Ontario's golden horseshoe like we do. It sounds funny, but we're surprisingly central to the eastern half of the continent.
-Climate. Bezos doesn't want a warm, humid climate.
-Schumer favors Rochester over both Brooklyn and Buffalo
-Our infrastructure (with the exception of mass transit) can handle it. We don't even know what traffic is.
-Adding a direct flight to Seattle is a non-issue
-We have a good economy. We replaced 60,000 Kodak jobs without missing a beat. Enough said.
-Finally, there's a pretty big local push. People here (both politicians and the community at large) don't want to miss this opportunity.
-Bonus: we meet all the criteria quoted in the OP :cool:
The transit is probably a dealbreaker for Amazon. In addition to cheaply building their campus, they want to live the urbanist dream.
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2017, 01:50:47 PM
The transit is probably a dealbreaker for Amazon. In addition to cheaply building their campus, they want to live the urbanist dream.
Well, then there are 37 cities with light rail in north America (of those, 4 in Canada, 2 in Mexico, 31 US) and some more with heavy rail - which may or may not fit Amazon definition of commute..
Quote from: HazMatt on September 08, 2017, 12:18:27 PM
At least around the people I work with (tech industry), there's this strong feeling that it's Raleigh's to lose. I'm not as confident but the Triangle a growing area with a lot to offer, and politicians here would be willing to throw tax incentives at their feet.
Of course, there's always the possibility that the NC legislature pulls some sort of boneheaded stunt like the one that caused them to lose out on the NCAA tournament, caused several tech firms to cancel expansion plans in NC, etc. Though that bill was repealed, it still might be a strike against NC because Amazon may be worried that they could try something similar in the future. Amazon isn't the sort of company that would tolerate such an environment for its employees.
Granted, they would run into the same problem in a lot of other states, especially Texas.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 08, 2017, 12:25:09 PM
Probably the biggest weakness for Phoenix is mass transit. Much of where mass transit is more heavily concentrated in the Phoenix area are in central/south Phoenix, Tempe, and western Mesa.
Tucson was so desperate to woo Amazon that they shipped to the company headquarters a live saguaro cactus as a gift. Not a metal sculpture of a saguaro, a real live saguaro dug out of the ground and shipped to Seattle. (Like Seattle's cold, rainy climate is perfect for desert plants like the saguaro cactus! :banghead: :pan:) Amazon headquarters decided they didn't want the gift and I think the poor plant ended up back in Tucson and was replanted somewhere.
Maybe they could grow the saguaro cactus indoors in their lobby?
Quote from: kkt on September 21, 2017, 05:59:15 PM
Maybe they could grow the saguaro cactus indoors in their lobby?
It was a rather large specimen; they can grow to forty or fifty feet tall.
Quote from: hm insulators on September 21, 2017, 06:24:22 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 21, 2017, 05:59:15 PM
Maybe they could grow the saguaro cactus indoors in their lobby?
It was a rather large specimen; they can grow to forty or fifty feet tall.
Part of Amazon's new Seattle HQ includes a few
very large spherical buildings that remind me a lot of greenhouses. I don't see why they couldn't have put them in there. Local news suggests that the spheres will hold exotic plants (https://goo.gl/4yk7N4)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcustomer.djc.com%2Fstories%2Fimages%2F20131210%2FAmazon1_big.jpg&hash=67c5619ed8adb0b6a2e2d623a6cdf7997270df0f)
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2017, 01:50:47 PMIn addition to cheaply building their campus, they want to live the urbanist dream.
When the story of Amazon looking for a 2nd city first broke out; one news station did a quick synopsis of how its presence changed Seattle over the past decade. Two things stood out (to me anyway): 1. Increased/inflated real estate prices (already discussed here) & 2. Increased traffic/congestion along the region's
highways.
So while Amazon may envision their employees working & residing in the same city (thereby utilizing the more available/frequent mass transit options); their effect (at least based on that news report) has actually created the
opposite... more people living further away (due to high/exorbitant real estate costs/rents in or close to the city) and driving to/from their either place of work or transit 'spoke' station (if the transit's schedule is compatible w/their work hours).
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_31322437/billerica-prime-spot-amazon-is-right-here?source=top_stories_bar
Not that this will happen, but if it does, I can piss away ever using Exit 37 on 495 to get to and from home. It also appears Billerica doesn't realize a significant chunk of this would be in Tewksbury and Lowell, and even the property is only accessible from Tewksbury.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 22, 2017, 08:38:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2017, 01:50:47 PMIn addition to cheaply building their campus, they want to live the urbanist dream.
When the story of Amazon looking for a 2nd city first broke out; one news station did a quick synopsis of how its presence changed Seattle over the past decade. Two things stood out (to me anyway): 1. Increased/inflated real estate prices (already discussed here) & 2. Increased traffic/congestion along the region's highways.
Traffic congestion in Seattle has gotten steadily worse due to the lack of available space to improve or widen existing highways. The population of the Seattle Metro continues to grow, no thanks to Amazon, but there's no way you could single-handedly blame Amazon for all of our real-estate and congestion woes. Right off the top of my head, Weyerhaeuser recently moved its headquarters from Federal Way (south of Seattle by about 30 minutes) right into Pioneer Square (downtown Seattle). That's several thousand people that now commute into the city that previously did not. This is in addition to the dozens (hundreds?) of other large businesses operating in the city. Surely they are just as much to blame.
^ Even if only a minority of Amazon employees actually do utilize subways or commuter trains for their daily commutes, it's not as if these assets can be easily replaced.
Sure, some companies do run employee busses as a form of private transit, but to the pool of talent that expects to live a car-free life, a job offer from Amazon in a car-dependent city might make another employer more attractive.
Most of my clients are tech companies in the Bay Area, and I've seen a little of that industry from the inside. There's such competition for high-end talent that a great deal of effort goes into attracting the top tier of the best and brightest candidates–not only escalating salaries and benefits, but companies in many cases opening offices in urban locations for young professionals who want to live a city-bound, transit-oriented lifestyle.
That's why I have doubts that any smaller dark horse candidate cities really have a chance. No matter how much money could be saved on land and building costs, the fear would be that they would lose far more by failing to attract the most talented candidates–that top few percent who will come up with the billion-dollar ideas.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2017, 09:17:20 PM
That's why I have doubts that any smaller dark horse candidate cities really have a chance. No matter how much money could be saved on land and building costs, the fear would be that they would lose far more by failing to attract the most talented candidates–that top few percent who will come up with the billion-dollar ideas.
You've perfectly identified the major flaw in Amazon's approach. Are they going to locate this HQ2 to please the top few percent, or to please the other 95% (or at least a large majority)?
The Amazon specification says "The jobs will likely be broken down into the following categories: executive/management, engineering with a preference for software development engineers (SDE), legal, accounting, and administrative."
This suggests that the vast majority of people at this campus will not be liberal millennial software engineers who like to live in trendy urban areas. They will be ordinary folks doing routine business work - accountants, business majors, managers and lawyers. If a majority of the workforce is family-oriented and prefers to live in a suburb with affordable housing and good schools, then does it make sense to place all these functions in one location in a downtown area just to satisfy the pre-family-phase millennials?
It seems like it makes more sense to have two or three hubs, each with a specific focus. The software hub would be in a place attractive to the top few percent, like San Francisco, Boston, NYC, Austin, Denver or maybe Raleigh-Durham. A logistics business hub would be in place like Atlanta or DFW. And the executive/legal/finance hub would be in a regional business center, and many cities could qualify (Chicago, numerous cities in the northeast, Atlanta, etc.)
Who knows, maybe they'll realize one-place-fits-all can't be done, and end up at multiple locations to optimize their position.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2017, 02:32:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 22, 2017, 08:38:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2017, 01:50:47 PMIn addition to cheaply building their campus, they want to live the urbanist dream.
When the story of Amazon looking for a 2nd city first broke out; one news station did a quick synopsis of how its presence changed Seattle over the past decade. Two things stood out (to me anyway): 1. Increased/inflated real estate prices (already discussed here) & 2. Increased traffic/congestion along the region's highways.
Traffic congestion in Seattle has gotten steadily worse due to the lack of available space to improve or widen existing highways. The population of the Seattle Metro continues to grow, no thanks to Amazon, but there's no way you could single-handedly blame Amazon for all of our real-estate and congestion woes. Right off the top of my head, Weyerhaeuser recently moved its headquarters from Federal Way (south of Seattle by about 30 minutes) right into Pioneer Square (downtown Seattle). That's several thousand people that now commute into the city that previously did not. This is in addition to the dozens (hundreds?) of other large businesses operating in the city. Surely they are just as much to blame.
Most new arrivals are choosing transit, instead of driving, so it's being offset. And there's tons of new housing oriented towards Amazon employees (and their high salaries) being built within a 10-block radius of the campus.
Quote from: Bruce on September 22, 2017, 10:23:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2017, 02:32:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 22, 2017, 08:38:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2017, 01:50:47 PMIn addition to cheaply building their campus, they want to live the urbanist dream.
When the story of Amazon looking for a 2nd city first broke out; one news station did a quick synopsis of how its presence changed Seattle over the past decade. Two things stood out (to me anyway): 1. Increased/inflated real estate prices (already discussed here) & 2. Increased traffic/congestion along the region's highways.
Traffic congestion in Seattle has gotten steadily worse due to the lack of available space to improve or widen existing highways. The population of the Seattle Metro continues to grow, no thanks to Amazon, but there's no way you could single-handedly blame Amazon for all of our real-estate and congestion woes. Right off the top of my head, Weyerhaeuser recently moved its headquarters from Federal Way (south of Seattle by about 30 minutes) right into Pioneer Square (downtown Seattle). That's several thousand people that now commute into the city that previously did not. This is in addition to the dozens (hundreds?) of other large businesses operating in the city. Surely they are just as much to blame.
Most new arrivals are choosing transit, instead of driving, so it's being offset. And there's tons of new housing oriented towards Amazon employees (and their high salaries) being built within a 10-block radius of the campus.
I seem to recall a stat that suggested three-quarters of all downtown commuters use transit? That's impressive if true. And ideal, since there's no room to expand roads. Not that we should consider doing so, given how much room the family wagon takes up compared to a full bus or train. But there will always be those who insist on driving, so naturally, congestion will always rise as a population center's economy booms (such is the case in Seattle -- back during the Boeing Bust years, traffic was great, but downtown was empty!)
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2017, 02:32:48 PMTraffic congestion in Seattle has gotten steadily worse due to the lack of available space to improve or widen existing highways.
Newsflash: other cities, particularly older ones have the same exact problem.
Quote from: ParrDa on September 22, 2017, 03:08:13 PMBased on this argument, it would be in Amazon's best interest to pick a city with cheap land and spare highway capacity. Rochester has both :sombrero:
And yet, there's serious discussion/consideration going on about removing one of its core highways (I-81 in Rochester) that would be beneficial to Amazon if they were to pick your city.Edit: realized the I was mistaking Syracuse for Rochester (it was a long week). My bad.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2017, 12:01:58 PM
And yet, there's serious discussion/consideration going on about removing one of its core highways (I-81 in Rochester) that would be beneficial to Amazon if they were to pick your city.
You're thinking of I-81 in Syracuse. I-81 does not go to Rochester; Rochester's freeway removal (of the Inner Loop) already happened.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2017, 12:01:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2017, 02:32:48 PM
Traffic congestion in Seattle has gotten steadily worse due to the lack of available space to improve or widen existing highways.
Newsflash: other cities, particularly older ones have the same exact problem.
No shit. It's the reason why any city with a booming economy suffers from traffic congestion. Not enough room to cope with demand. Amazon is simply part of the cog.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 23, 2017, 03:36:15 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 22, 2017, 10:23:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2017, 02:32:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 22, 2017, 08:38:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2017, 01:50:47 PMIn addition to cheaply building their campus, they want to live the urbanist dream.
When the story of Amazon looking for a 2nd city first broke out; one news station did a quick synopsis of how its presence changed Seattle over the past decade. Two things stood out (to me anyway): 1. Increased/inflated real estate prices (already discussed here) & 2. Increased traffic/congestion along the region's highways.
Traffic congestion in Seattle has gotten steadily worse due to the lack of available space to improve or widen existing highways. The population of the Seattle Metro continues to grow, no thanks to Amazon, but there's no way you could single-handedly blame Amazon for all of our real-estate and congestion woes. Right off the top of my head, Weyerhaeuser recently moved its headquarters from Federal Way (south of Seattle by about 30 minutes) right into Pioneer Square (downtown Seattle). That's several thousand people that now commute into the city that previously did not. This is in addition to the dozens (hundreds?) of other large businesses operating in the city. Surely they are just as much to blame.
Most new arrivals are choosing transit, instead of driving, so it's being offset. And there's tons of new housing oriented towards Amazon employees (and their high salaries) being built within a 10-block radius of the campus.
I seem to recall a stat that suggested three-quarters of all downtown commuters use transit? That's impressive if true. And ideal, since there's no room to expand roads. Not that we should consider doing so, given how much room the family wagon takes up compared to a full bus or train. But there will always be those who insist on driving, so naturally, congestion will always rise as a population center's economy booms (such is the case in Seattle -- back during the Boeing Bust years, traffic was great, but downtown was empty!)
Commute Seattle (https://commuteseattle.com/mediakit/2017-mode-split-press-release/) reports that 47 percent of downtown commuters use transit, followed by 30 percent driving alone, 9 percent carpooling/rideshare, 6 percent by foot, and 3 percent by bicycle.
Quote from: Bruce on September 23, 2017, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 23, 2017, 03:36:15 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 22, 2017, 10:23:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2017, 02:32:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 22, 2017, 08:38:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2017, 01:50:47 PMIn addition to cheaply building their campus, they want to live the urbanist dream.
When the story of Amazon looking for a 2nd city first broke out; one news station did a quick synopsis of how its presence changed Seattle over the past decade. Two things stood out (to me anyway): 1. Increased/inflated real estate prices (already discussed here) & 2. Increased traffic/congestion along the region's highways.
Traffic congestion in Seattle has gotten steadily worse due to the lack of available space to improve or widen existing highways. The population of the Seattle Metro continues to grow, no thanks to Amazon, but there's no way you could single-handedly blame Amazon for all of our real-estate and congestion woes. Right off the top of my head, Weyerhaeuser recently moved its headquarters from Federal Way (south of Seattle by about 30 minutes) right into Pioneer Square (downtown Seattle). That's several thousand people that now commute into the city that previously did not. This is in addition to the dozens (hundreds?) of other large businesses operating in the city. Surely they are just as much to blame.
Most new arrivals are choosing transit, instead of driving, so it's being offset. And there's tons of new housing oriented towards Amazon employees (and their high salaries) being built within a 10-block radius of the campus.
I seem to recall a stat that suggested three-quarters of all downtown commuters use transit? That's impressive if true. And ideal, since there's no room to expand roads. Not that we should consider doing so, given how much room the family wagon takes up compared to a full bus or train. But there will always be those who insist on driving, so naturally, congestion will always rise as a population center's economy booms (such is the case in Seattle -- back during the Boeing Bust years, traffic was great, but downtown was empty!)
Commute Seattle (https://commuteseattle.com/mediakit/2017-mode-split-press-release/) reports that 47 percent of downtown commuters use transit, followed by 30 percent driving alone, 9 percent carpooling/rideshare, 6 percent by foot, and 3 percent by bicycle.
What I must have read was that
around three-quarters of those who work in Seattle do not drive themselves (instead opting for public transit, carpooling, biking, walking, etc).
If I am reading it correctly, that report also mentions that 95% of new commutes between 2010-2016 were absorbed by things other than driving alone. That's crazy! Though, it's representative of how much money we've pumped into our non-driving infrastructure just in the last decade. Glad to see it paying off.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 23, 2017, 03:40:44 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2017, 12:01:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2017, 02:32:48 PM
Traffic congestion in Seattle has gotten steadily worse due to the lack of available space to improve or widen existing highways.
Newsflash: other cities, particularly older ones have the same exact problem.
No shit. It's the reason why any city with a booming economy suffers from traffic congestion. Not enough room to cope with demand. Amazon is simply part of the cog.
Whoa there! The only reason I replied to your comment the way I did was it appeared (to me anyway) that you were insinuating that Seattle was the only city that couldn't widen its highways; Amazon or no Amazon. If such wasn't the case; I apologize.
Quote from: 1 on September 23, 2017, 12:03:16 PMYou're thinking of I-81 in Syracuse. I-81 does not go to Rochester; Rochester's freeway removal (of the Inner Loop) already happened.
Yeah, I realized such about 2 hours after I logged off (it was a long week). I've since
lined out my prior post.
Anyway & FWIW, the
Philadelphia Inquirer posted another article regarding Amazon's effect had on the real estate market in Seattle (the article doesn't state that Amazon was solely responsible but it did
light the fuse as it were).
Beware, Philadelphia: Amazon could drive up housing prices (http://www.philly.com/philly/business/real_estate/residential/beware-philadelphia-amazon-could-drive-up-housing-prices-20170919.html)
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 25, 2017, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 23, 2017, 03:40:44 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2017, 12:01:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2017, 02:32:48 PM
Traffic congestion in Seattle has gotten steadily worse due to the lack of available space to improve or widen existing highways.
Newsflash: other cities, particularly older ones have the same exact problem.
No shit. It's the reason why any city with a booming economy suffers from traffic congestion. Not enough room to cope with demand. Amazon is simply part of the cog.
Whoa there! The only reason I replied to your comment the way I did was it appeared (to me anyway) that you were insinuating that Seattle was the only city that couldn't widen its highways; Amazon or no Amazon. If such wasn't the case; I apologize.
I think Seattle does suffer from a slightly unique problem. High housing costs force a lot of people out of the city, but the city is surrounded by water and lots of hills, so there's little space for new roads, and widening existing roads is expensive due to ROW costs. There are other cities with this issue (the Bay Area comes to mind) but it's certainly not a common situation.
Why not a place like Detroit? Lots of open land, highway capacity and it'd be a good feel good PR story for Amazon.
And also, it's not that far from Toronto and Chicago.
I think they want someplace with walkable downtowns with a lot of entertainment options, also excellent outdoor recreation areas within day trip range.
Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2017, 01:14:31 PM
I think they want someplace with walkable downtowns with a lot of entertainment options, also excellent outdoor recreation areas within day trip range.
Again, why not Detroit? All of those things are there. There's plenty of land near New Center and Midtown (which effectively are extensions of Downtown). It's walkable in those areas. There's entertainment options nearby (it's the only city to have all four major sports play in/near downtown - NHL, MLB, NFL, & NBA). And outdoors options are close by, starting with the Metroparks, and nearby state parks.
Quote from: Brandon on September 26, 2017, 01:20:12 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2017, 01:14:31 PM
I think they want someplace with walkable downtowns with a lot of entertainment options, also excellent outdoor recreation areas within day trip range.
Again, why not Detroit? All of those things are there. There's plenty of land near New Center and Midtown (which effectively are extensions of Downtown). It's walkable in those areas. There's entertainment options nearby (it's the only city to have all four major sports play in/near downtown - NHL, MLB, NFL, & NBA). And outdoors options are close by, starting with the Metroparks, and nearby state parks.
The Metroparks are actually a pretty nice feature to the Detroit area, I actually went to a couple on my recent trip for old times sake. Belle Isle has more or less become the defacto trendy city park near downtown Detroit. Imagine my surprise after almost 20 years of not living there to see cycling groups in downtown on their way to Belle Isle, I never thought I'd see that when I lived there.
Detroit is shooty.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 20, 2017, 03:21:10 PM
Camden, NJ is also considering wooing Amazon.
I believe they're going with the tagline "We'll plow this entire fucking city into the river and start over if you choose us". :-D
http://www.phillyvoice.com/camden-plans-make-play-new-amazon-headquarters/
There are a few plusses: For a city of 77,000, it has subway access (PATCO), a light rail line (NJ Transit), ferry access from Philly, highway access (I-676) and a non-highway that functions as a limited access route and is actually wider than I-676 for much of its distance (US 30).
The big minus: It's Camden. A lot would need to be knocked down to create the campus setting or towers needed for their buildout. Amazon could definitely change Camden if they chose the city in many positive ways (I highly doubt they will choose Camden though).
An article in the Philly Inquirer highlights some these qualities that Camden has going for them. I still believe Camden is a long shot though.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/kevin_riordan/what-scrappy-camden-offers-amazon-others-cant-a-chance-to-lift-up-an-entire-city-20171014.html?mobi=true
I've not really followed this closely, beyond our local news. That said, the local news here in SW PA is making a big deal about Pittsburgh's push to get Amazon here. The big reference points are space at the old Mellon Arena site (and potentially space at Pittsburgh International Airport) that Allegheny County has control over; the growth of the tech sector, including the presence of Google, Facebook, and driverless car programs; and the city's higher education pipeline, notably, among others, Carnegie Mellon.
Quote from: BigRedDog on October 15, 2017, 12:02:01 AM
I've not really followed this closely, beyond our local news. That said, the local news here in SW PA is making a big deal about Pittsburgh's push to get Amazon here. The big reference points are space at the old Mellon Arena site (and potentially space at Pittsburgh International Airport) that Allegheny County has control over; the growth of the tech sector, including the presence of Google, Facebook, and driverless car programs; and the city's higher education pipeline, notably, among others, Carnegie Mellon.
I wonder what this could mean in terms of Turnpike tolls: Amazon wants good transit, and we know why that is a sour point for Turnpike users...
On top of all the US cities pitching their stuff to Amazon, it seems, at least according to the news reports I've been listening to (primarily KCBS out of S.F.) 3 Canadian cities: Calgary, Hamilton, and Ottawa -- have been actively campaigning for "Amazon II" as well. No front-runner among these as of yet -- although Hamilton, being close enough to Toronto to avail one's self of that city's amenities, would seem to be the selection that would most fit Amazon's criteria.
Ottawa doesn't seem like such a bad choice. Puts Amazon in a nice position to be able to easily schmooze the Canadian Parliament. Good transit and a well educated populace as well.
My only reservation is the relative isolation of the area. Unlike Hamilton, Ottawa is basically by itself out in Eastern Ontario.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 10:12:11 AM
Ottawa doesn't seem like such a bad choice. Puts Amazon in a nice position to be able to easily schmooze the Canadian Parliament. Good transit and a well educated populace as well.
My only reservation is the relative isolation of the area. Unlike Hamilton, Ottawa is basically by itself out in Eastern Ontario.
I would be more concerned about political aspects of choosing Canada. Future is not very certain, and getting a second headquaters in area having about 10% of the market may be not so wise. Unless they would consider brexit and UK-Canada relations as a potential to have UK-Canada as a separate region...
Tech's a global business. If part(s) of the world build walls around them, then you don't want to be trapped inside those walls - you want to have presence inside them, for sure, but you also want to be outside them too.
Thus the best way to deal with a more insular US and a breakdown of NAFTA isn't to avoid Canada, but to go there.
QuoteTech's a global business.
Except that Amazon is principally a retailer, not a tech company.
Quote from: english si on October 19, 2017, 10:51:18 AM
Tech's a global business. If part(s) of the world build walls around them, then you don't want to be trapped inside those walls - you want to have presence inside them, for sure, but you also want to be outside them too.
Thus the best way to deal with a more insular US and a breakdown of NAFTA isn't to avoid Canada, but to go there.
This is also about market size - 36M population in Canada, 65M in UK, and 323M in US. How much that relates to headquarters location, associated cash flow and taxes is a whole different story..
Just saying that HQ2 in another country can become a wise step towards business diversification or a source of major headaches.... And how it would turn out - it would probably be apparent 20 years from now... Hindsight is 20/20 as usual.
If being near a national capital was important, they'd probably be in DC or its suburbs. I expect Amazon will have lobbying organizations in every capital regardless.
A total breakdown of NAFTA wouldn't be an issue in the tech industry. As NAFTA technically doesn't allow for movement for labor easily for its programmers. As an aside, the auto industry as we know it in Canada would be tremendously impacted, as the auto sector with the US and Canada has had "free trade" since the 1960s due to the now defunct Canada/US Auto-Pact
That being said, Amazon transferring employees from a Canadian campus to a US campus isn't too difficult even without NAFTA, they would simply organize them to be on L-1 visas. Which is in essence, the international transfer visa into the US for corporations.
Quote from: roadman on October 19, 2017, 11:24:52 AM
QuoteTech's a global business.
Except that Amazon is principally a retailer, not a tech company.
That was true for a while, but their ventures into hardware have been positioning themselves as more of an Apple or Google type company. Without a doubt, commission from their retail market and AWS makes them gobs of money. But they're slowly "pivoting" away from just being retail.
Quote from: roadman on October 19, 2017, 11:24:52 AMExcept that Amazon is principally a retailer, not a tech company.
What Jake said.
Quote from: kalvado on October 19, 2017, 11:29:32 AMThis is also about market size - 36M population in Canada, 65M in UK, and 323M in US. How much that relates to headquarters location, associated cash flow and taxes is a whole different story.
True, but HQ2 in Canada, if the US builds a protectionist-fortress gives an HQ outside the wall - it doesn't matter if it serves 100M or 500M people, if you have two HQs behind a wall and nothing outside of it, you will struggle to serve outside of it.
As such, if you worry about a trade wall, then you'd put something outside, not double down on inside.
I'd argue though, that Trump's NAFTA redo is about Mexico, not Canada.
Quote from: english si on October 19, 2017, 04:15:41 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 19, 2017, 11:24:52 AMExcept that Amazon is principally a retailer, not a tech company.
What Jake said.
Quote from: kalvado on October 19, 2017, 11:29:32 AMThis is also about market size - 36M population in Canada, 65M in UK, and 323M in US. How much that relates to headquarters location, associated cash flow and taxes is a whole different story.
True, but HQ2 in Canada, if the US builds a protectionist-fortress gives an HQ outside the wall - it doesn't matter if it serves 100M or 500M people, if you have two HQs behind a wall and nothing outside of it, you will struggle to serve outside of it.
As such, if you worry about a trade wall, then you'd put something outside, not double down on inside.
I'd argue though, that Trump's NAFTA redo is about Mexico, not Canada.
Of course you're right, but Canada will be collateral damage. Having said that, there has been a lot of heartbreaking losses regarding manufacturing to Mexico in Canada as well.
This discussion will dissolve into politics, and the PTB here do not like that.
Quote from: english si on October 19, 2017, 04:15:41 PM
I'd argue though, that Trump's NAFTA redo is about Mexico, not Canada.
With latest c-series Bombardier story , and Canada showing a well-deserved finger to US - there may be a bit more than a sour feeling left in Canada.
It seems neither major political party has wanted the Cross Border Trucking Program to succeed (speaking of NAFTA). The Democrats, because the Teamsters are involved in the drayage system and would rather keep the inefficient system that unnecessarily adds cost to goods. The Republicans, because Mexicans are apparently unregulated, dangerous criminals who need to be kept on the other side of a wall.
[/politics]
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2017, 04:50:02 PM
It seems neither major political party has wanted the Cross Border Trucking Program to succeed (speaking of NAFTA). The Democrats, because the Teamsters are involved in the drayage system and would rather keep the inefficient system that unnecessarily adds cost to goods. The Republicans, because Mexicans are apparently unregulated, dangerous criminals who need to be kept on the other side of a wall.
[/politics]
How does that program work, are Mexican carries and drivers allowed to cabotage within the cross border trucking zone? I would assume the answer is a solid no.
Cabotage to put it simply means a vehicle and/or person registered/from Country A moving something BETWEEN two points in Country B. Not just trucking but this same concept applies with airlines, buses, and even taxis. Cabotage is generally not allowed anywhere in the world, with the EU being a notable exception.
Well shit... Arkansas ain't getting Amazon! :no: Little Rock said, "No" (https://www.salon.com/2017/10/19/little-rock-says-no-to-amazon-other-cities-should-follow-suit/)
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 19, 2017, 06:41:56 PM
Well shit... Arkansas ain't getting Amazon! :no: Little Rock said, "No" (https://www.salon.com/2017/10/19/little-rock-says-no-to-amazon-other-cities-should-follow-suit/)
I think Little Rock knew they were out of the running from the start, so they just decided to go out with a bang.
Realistically, if Arkansas was going to get Amazon, it would probably go to Bentonville anyway.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 19, 2017, 06:41:56 PM
Well shit... Arkansas ain't getting Amazon! :no: Little Rock said, "No" (https://www.salon.com/2017/10/19/little-rock-says-no-to-amazon-other-cities-should-follow-suit/)
I think Little Rock knew they were out of the running from the start, so they just decided to go out with a bang.
By the report they used the opportunity to market to other businesses, good on them! :thumbsup:
Missouri offered three cities and the promise of Hyperloop (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-banking-on-futuristic-tube-travel-in-bid-for-amazon/article_6c99b0e8-8890-50df-9e26-3ec84b7e0c0d.html#tncms-source=home-featured). Their bid is likely sitting at the bottom of a recycling bin in Seattle.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on October 19, 2017, 05:29:58 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2017, 04:50:02 PM
It seems neither major political party has wanted the Cross Border Trucking Program to succeed (speaking of NAFTA). The Democrats, because the Teamsters are involved in the drayage system and would rather keep the inefficient system that unnecessarily adds cost to goods. The Republicans, because Mexicans are apparently unregulated, dangerous criminals who need to be kept on the other side of a wall.
[/politics]
How does that program work, are Mexican carries and drivers allowed to cabotage within the cross border trucking zone? I would assume the answer is a solid no.
Cabotage to put it simply means a vehicle and/or person registered/from Country A moving something BETWEEN two points in Country B. Not just trucking but this same concept applies with airlines, buses, and even taxis. Cabotage is generally not allowed anywhere in the world, with the EU being a notable exception.
I'm not sure about cabotage, but my understanding is that the USA is in compliance with the NAFTA regulations in regard to Canada but not in regard to Mexico. So, basically, whatever works across the northern border should work across the southern one too. But I think the program died in the water in 2014. Companies that were grandfathered in, having been dual-licensed for decades already, are still allowed to operate; so are those companies that were part of the pilot group from 2011 to 2014. The most recent Mexican-tagged trucks I've seen were [1] on southbound I-29 between Sioux City and Council Bluffs on Sunday of last week, and [2] on a Kellogg frontage road here in Wichita last week. Before that, I hadn't seen a single one in probably two or three years.
This morning the local AM radio news station featured a discussion about the pros and cons that'll be facing whatever city Amazon selects for their new facilities. The most striking of the negatives was simply that selecting a location that has a plethora of amenities and resources that might make Amazon select it would also likely feature higher-than-average housing costs for both purchase and rentals. Even though the initial projected 10K employees would most likely be phased in over several years, the housing market, especially in already burgeoning urban/suburban areas, tends to function as much on projection and perception as sheer "on the ground" demand. Some discussion participants suggested that even as little as 2K-3K "first wave" employees would likely instigate a spike in both property values and rental costs. For that reason, the consensus within the "talking heads" participating in the discussion was that Amazon would likely avoid locations already featuring exceptionally high housing costs (such as San Jose, greater Boston or New York, and even areas "on the rise" such as NC's Research Triangle) and instead select a somewhat more economically viable location -- of course, provided certain amenities were present. Locations mentioned as more or less fitting those criteria included the Cincinnati-Dayton (I-75) corridor in SW Ohio, northern Delaware, suburban Kansas City (someone specifically talked about Overland Park), or even Tennessee -- possibly outside Knoxville or in the Nashville-Columbia general vicinity. Of course, this discussion was merely speculation -- but apparently the bid process closed today (10/20) and the proposals are in the hands of Amazon management as this is written -- now we'll just have to see just what sort of weight Amazon assigns to the various characteristics of the applicant cities.
The bids are all in, officially, with at least 100 cities.
(https://i.imgur.com/vbP1Fat.png)
Most of them aren't going to survive the first round of cuts. A suburban campus is probably first to go, followed by sites with poor transit.
Quote from: Bruce on October 20, 2017, 04:38:57 PM
The bids are all in, officially, with at least 100 cities.
Most of them aren't going to survive the first round of cuts. A suburban campus is probably first to go, followed by sites with poor transit.
I hope they would put out some short list first. Really interesting is how they are going to filter it, even more interesting than final winner
Why not somewhere in California? You've got Google, Yahoo!, and so many more in Silicon Valley... So, why would they even bother with the East, Mid-West, Central, or South? Like I would go to a city where more people gave a fuck. No tech-based company will care about the other far reaching states... I'd say.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 20, 2017, 07:31:18 PM
Why not somewhere in California? You've got Google, Yahoo!, and so many more in Silicon Valley... So, why would they even bother with the East, Mid-West, Central, or South? Like I would go to a city where more people gave a fuck. No tech-based company will care about the other far reaching states... I'd say.
Too close to the first location.
Quote from: Bruce on October 20, 2017, 04:38:57 PM
The bids are all in, officially, with at least 100 cities.
(https://i.imgur.com/vbP1Fat.png)
Most of them aren't going to survive the first round of cuts. A suburban campus is probably first to go, followed by sites with poor transit.
You can go ahead and cross North Carolina off the map. The current state legislature (controlled by the GOP) has a very negative attitude toward incentives. They killed the film industry in Wilmington and refused to put any serious effort into luring Volvo, which ended up getting swiped by South Carolina during Nikki Haley's reign as SC governor.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 20, 2017, 07:31:18 PM
Why not somewhere in California? You've got Google, Yahoo!, and so many more in Silicon Valley... So, why would they even bother with the East, Mid-West, Central, or South? Like I would go to a city where more people gave a fuck. No tech-based company will care about the other far reaching states... I'd say.
Too close to EBay's headquarters if Amazon were to go to Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Jose and Santa Clara.
Quote from: bing101 on October 20, 2017, 08:11:34 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 20, 2017, 07:31:18 PM
Why not somewhere in California? You've got Google, Yahoo!, and so many more in Silicon Valley... So, why would they even bother with the East, Mid-West, Central, or South? Like I would go to a city where more people gave a fuck. No tech-based company will care about the other far reaching states... I'd say.
Too close to EBay's headquarters if Amazon were to go to Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Jose and Santa Clara.
Ebay is a dead meme! We have Amazon and Craig's List now.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 20, 2017, 07:31:18 PM
Why not somewhere in California? You've got Google, Yahoo!, and so many more in Silicon Valley... So, why would they even bother with the East, Mid-West, Central, or South? Like I would go to a city where more people gave a fuck. No tech-based company will care about the other far reaching states... I'd say.
They might think about a place where there's a little more unemployment to help with hiring people without having to pay them sky-high wages, and where real estate isn't already at sky-high levels.
Another west-coast city might be a weakness too, if part of their goal is some diversity in decision making.
Interesting to note the massive number of submissions in the Seattle area, despite Amazon already having their headquarters there. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But surprising because nowhere outside of Seattle (except downtown Tacoma) is there decent public transportation (IMO).
Of course, if they're basing their choice off of future public transit systems, most of the Seattle-area submissions would actually have a good argument.
All of this wild guessing about Amazon's pick for HQ2 is fueled by the fact that the company is being so opaque as to the true motivations behind this search.
Either Amazon's trying to dodge taxes and high land costs–or–it's seeking another world-class city with preeminent institutions of higher education. The company is trying to save on wages–or–it's trying to attract world-class tech talent. Amazon's looking for a "business-friendly" government that will let them trample over workers and regulations–or–it wants a progressive political environment that would never pass a NC/TX-style bathroom bill or AZ "papers please" law.
But Amazon's not getting all of these things one place.
The civic boosters in Philadelphia are largely hoping that Amazon truly does want all of the conflicting items on its wish list and that the city has just enough of enough of them (location, transit, higher ed., moderate cost of living) to make it a contender. But if the company was to admit, for example, that this is solely an effort to dodge taxes and costs, that would color the search in an entirely different light.
It's probably about being less vulnerable to something happening in Seattle. Whether a natural disaster (long overdue earthquakes and volcanoes) or the changing political landscape (where city councilmembers openly call for seizing the Boeing factory) or just being unable to grow further in the Seattle market without risking economic ruin.
It probably also helps that this race to the bottom allows them to reap a lot of benefits out of a new city that doesn't quite know what Amazon will bring with it.
While I can see geographic diversification/risk mitigation as being a consideration, I've got to believe that the primary motivation for looking for a second home is balancing a desire to concentrate their employees on a common campus versus Seattle becoming too expensive for them to attract enough additional talent.
"Hey, we've tapped out the local supply of labor, and we've made the local real estate too expensive for us to get more people to move here and for us to expand our office space. Let's see where we can get some cheap real estate and attract more people."
Amazon isn't 100% to blame for Seattle's home-price woes. The city has been growing at a steady pace for many years (Amazon undoubtedly sped things up a little), but the number of homes for sale has not kept up. This is almost entirely the result of poor zoning. If Seattle let areas outside of downtown and SLU grow tall, we'd see a lot less competition for homes, and, therefore, lower home prices. There's only so much land, and the city is limiting its potential.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2017, 02:20:06 AM
Amazon isn't 100% to blame for Seattle's home-price woes. The city has been growing at a steady pace for many years (Amazon undoubtedly sped things up a little), but the number of homes for sale has not kept up. This is almost entirely the result of poor zoning. If Seattle let areas outside of downtown and SLU grow tall, we'd see a lot less competition for homes, and, therefore, lower home prices. There's only so much land, and the city is limiting its potential.
This phenomenon is remarkably similar to what's happening down here in San Jose; building height downtown is limited by the fact that the area is under the approach path to Mineta International Airport, so the city has zoned the area immediately west of downtown and sandwiched between San Carlos Avenue and I-280 (a strip about 3/4 mile wide) for high-rise, along with several developments interspersed with a number of the major tech companies' campuses on the north side of town (within the triangle formed by US 101, I-880, and CA 237) -- but has "zoned out" the remainder of the sprawling city to avoid conflicts with the residents in those areas. So San Jose, like Seattle, is severely limiting the possibilities of density increases within its boundaries -- with the result that the only winners in this scenario are present property owners who have seen the value of their parcels increase almost logarithmically! And several of the adjacent cities (Santa Clara, Campbell, and Milpitas) haven't seen fit to take up the slack; what
they have been doing is rezoning many of their neighborhoods to allow clusters of closely-spaced single-unit "row houses" on previously larger lots (San Jose does this as well but to a lesser extent). But even those relatively compact housing units are selling for about $700K+ these days. A potential buyer needs to venture as far afield as Gilroy or even Brentwood/Discovery Bay to find much of anything under a half-million!
The odds of Amazon moving within 50 miles of the Bay -- although Fremont was one of the first cities to put in a bid -- are long indeed; there's virtually no affordable housing available around here!
What about Austin or Dallas as alternative sites for Amazon. It's been the place where it's been seen as more affordable than California though.
Quote from: bing101 on October 21, 2017, 05:41:53 PM
What about Austin or Dallas as alternative sites for Amazon. It's been the place where it's been seen as more affordable than California though.
Austin might work for them.
DFW is not a good choice simply because it's overbooked. With Toyota and other companies moving in, they can't build new houses and new subdivisions fast enough. Throw in another huge company and DFW can't handle the influx.
Quote from: Road Hog on October 23, 2017, 02:17:31 AM
DFW is not a good choice simply because it's overbooked. With Toyota and other companies moving in, they can't build new houses and new subdivisions fast enough. Throw in another huge company and DFW can't handle the influx.
That's part of what makes a city, a city. Growth is as inevitable as the next sunrise.
DFW would be able to deal with growth better if it didn't focus so much of its residential growth away from where these companies are locating themselves. I'm not sure if local zoning laws prohibit skyscrapers outside of certain areas, but they should take a page out of Vancouverism and just start building skyscrapers everywhere. Make things more urban. Put less strain on the highways.
Since the new Amazon facility is projecting 10K employees right at start-up, it's likely that there will be a broad cross-section of housing preferences among those employees; like in other cities hosting tech and/or web-based firms, there will be some employees -- generally younger and mainly single -- who are prime candidates for high-rise downtown apartments and condos -- but there will be others for whom separate "single-family" housing is desirable, particularly family members with children (especially those with more than one child), where greater living space coupled with usable yards is sought. A metro area that offers a reasonable selection of both types of housing facility -- preferably with a decent affordability factor -- would likely be one that would make the "finals" of Amazon's winnowing process.
Amazon has collected 238 bids, including a few from places like Alaska, Nova Scotia, and parts of Mexico.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/Anything/test/images/usa/HQ2-Map-Hero.png)
Half of the U.S. states should be immediately eliminated by the metro area and transit requirements.
Quote from: Bruce on October 23, 2017, 06:47:25 PM
Amazon has collected 238 bids
Hmmm...238 you say? I think Amazon fudged the numbers a bit, and is hinting at a Bay Area HQ.
Plot twist: Amazon has already picked their spot and is just milking all the PR it can get.
Quote from: HazMatt on September 08, 2017, 12:18:27 PM
At least around the people I work with (tech industry), there's this strong feeling that it's Raleigh's to lose. I'm not as confident but the Triangle a growing area with a lot to offer, and politicians here would be willing to throw tax incentives at their feet.
If Phil Berger and Tim Moore weren't willing to loosen the purse strings to lure Volvo and to save the film industry in Wilmington, there's no way in hell they'll be willing to throw tax incentives at Amazon and if they do offer anything, it'll likely be laughable compared to what other states are offering. NC has no chance.
Quote from: LM117 on October 24, 2017, 04:47:45 AM
Plot twist: Amazon has already picked their spot and is just milking all the PR it can get.
Yep.
Quote from: LM117 on October 24, 2017, 04:47:45 AM
Plot twist: Amazon has already picked their spot and is just milking all the PR it can get.
More likely they're fishing for good tax incentives from a shortlist of preferred options.
Quote from: LM117 on October 24, 2017, 04:47:45 AM
Plot twist: Amazon has already picked their spot and is just milking all the PR it can get.
Super-twist: that place didn't apply...
Quote from: LM117 on October 24, 2017, 04:47:45 AM
Plot twist: Amazon has already picked their spot and is just milking all the PR it can get.
Alanland, anyone? :hmmm: :bigass: :banghead:
C'mon, Winnipeg!!
:-D
They won't be coming to Wisconsin since the state already gave away the farm to FoxCon. (misspelled on purpose)
There was a segment tonight on "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" (a comedy show on CBC) about various places in Canada that Amazon should build their second headquarters. It ended with Dildo, Newfoundland, since "everyone wants a larger Dildo"! :-D
From The Onion (https://www.theonion.com/jeff-bezos-heart-breaks-a-little-reading-albany-s-amaz-1819819152?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing)...
I love Albany and I'm not afraid to share it, but all of us here LOLed because, unlike Buffalo, we're fine laughing along with the jokes about our city.
I just read that of all places, Kankakee, IL put in a bid.
Quote from: inkyatari on October 27, 2017, 01:38:53 PM
I just read that of all places, Kankakee, IL put in a bid.
Their bid was probably tossed immediately. This news article (https://www.ilnews.org/news/economy/amazon-city-how-kankakee-county-would-give-amazon-the-keys/article_dc01bdce-b510-11e7-84f9-1fb925f20900.html) has quotes from the officials, and they seem to be confusing the headquarters (where executives, IT/developers, and white collar work is done) with a distribution center. An airport outside Chicago's flight path is fine for the latter, but there's no use if you can't fly cheaply and directly to HQ1 in Seattle for face-to-face meetings.
A lot of these bids are going to get tossed. It's as if these small towns didn't read the requirements.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/amazon-files-plan-to-open-brick-and-mortar-book-store-in-atlanta/637384200
Update
Amazon Books is unrelated to the Amazon HQ bidding.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/this-city-hall-brought-to-you-by-amazon/
Update on the Amazon issue.
I would say that Franklin TN followed by Murfreesboro TN followed by Clarksville TN would be in order for the Metropolitan Nashville TN area.
Nissan has it's NA HQ in Franklin TN along other companies.
Quote from: Bruce on October 27, 2017, 07:26:46 PMAn airport outside Chicago's flight path is fine for the latter, but there's no use if you can't fly cheaply and directly to HQ1 in Seattle for face-to-face meetings.
Amazon isn't asking for direct flights to Seattle as a requirement and I've explained at length that they don't care about that and why it matters less with HQ2 that won't even share teams with HQ1. But again you go with this 'requirement'. :banghead:
As for cheaply, I don't believe that they care that much and those flying Dublin to Seattle to meet their
immediate bosses face-to-face can put their layover (no direct flights) where they want and fly whatever airline they want as long as it is a reasonable route that isn't overly expensive. They don't have to do Ryanair to Gatwick then Norwegian Air to SeaTac to keep it low cost!
I imagine direct flights to Seattle may be set up by the airlines soon after Amazon announces the location picked to take advantage of their business.
Quote from: vdeane on November 28, 2017, 02:06:27 PM
I imagine direct flights to Seattle may be set up by the airlines soon after Amazon announces the location picked to take advantage of their business.
Direct flight to Seattle may be one easy thing, ability to fly across US and all over the world may be a more difficult issue.
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 03:14:15 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 28, 2017, 02:06:27 PM
I imagine direct flights to Seattle may be set up by the airlines soon after Amazon announces the location picked to take advantage of their business.
Direct flight to Seattle may be one easy thing, ability to fly across US and all over the world may be a more difficult issue.
At present & even before Amazon set up shop in Seattle, the only airline that has a hub at Seattle-Tacoma Airport (SEA) is Alaska Airlines; which recently acquired Virgin America.
Based on their route map (https://www.alaskaair.com/content/route-map?INT=sitemap); they don't serve every major city in the US.
That said, should Amazon choose a city that either is not on Alaska Airlines' route map nor a hub airport for any of the three legacy carriers (American, Delta and/or United); I would expect Alaska to add non-stop service to that city in short order.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 29, 2017, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 03:14:15 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 28, 2017, 02:06:27 PM
I imagine direct flights to Seattle may be set up by the airlines soon after Amazon announces the location picked to take advantage of their business.
Direct flight to Seattle may be one easy thing, ability to fly across US and all over the world may be a more difficult issue.
At present & even before Amazon set up shop in Seattle, the only airline that has a hub at Seattle-Tacoma Airport (SEA) is Alaska Airlines; which recently acquired Virgin America.
Based on their route map (https://www.alaskaair.com/content/route-map?INT=sitemap); they don't serve every major city in the US.
That said, should Amazon choose a city that either is not on Alaska Airlines' route map nor a hub airport for any of the three legacy carriers (American, Delta and/or United); I would expect Alaska to add non-stop service to that city in short order.
Alaska and/or Delta service to Seattle is a no-brainer. I am more thinking about transatlantic service, possibly transpacific - and I believe SEA has both. Many places that applied - e.g. all upstate NY cities - do not have international service beyond Canada.
British Airways operates a nonstop flight Sea-Tac to London Heathrow and back. I'm not sure how much Amazon really cares about nonstop service as opposed to a layover though.
Quote from: kkt on November 29, 2017, 02:01:39 PMBritish Airways operates a nonstop flight Sea-Tac to London Heathrow and back.
And Virgin Atlantic (with Delta doing a code share?). However the European HQ for Amazon - with many teams shared with Seattle - is in Dublin, which will have direct flights to Sea-Tac from May - years after the office was built.
I think kalvado is onto something that inter-continental flights are more important. It's easy to add an air route from a couple of thousand miles away if needed, but it's harder to add flights several thousand miles across an ocean.
Quote from: english si on November 29, 2017, 04:45:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 29, 2017, 02:01:39 PMBritish Airways operates a nonstop flight Sea-Tac to London Heathrow and back.
And Virgin Atlantic (with Delta doing a code share?). However the European HQ for Amazon - with many teams shared with Seattle - is in Dublin, which will have direct flights to Sea-Tac from May - years after the office was built.
I think kalvado is onto something that inter-continental flights are more important. It's easy to add an air route from a couple of thousand miles away if needed, but it's harder to add flights several thousand miles across an ocean.
Starting this May? Cool. Maybe Ireland this summer!
Delta has been making huge waves in Seattle, trying to eat up Alaska's market share, and it's resulted in a lot of high-frequency service to new markets opening up over the last four years. Sea-Tac itself is near capacity (with some minor expansions coming up), so it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.
Quote from: Bruce on November 30, 2017, 08:36:30 PM...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.
For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a
direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes. A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.
Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term
direct when they actually mean
non-stop. Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 01, 2017, 10:19:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 30, 2017, 08:36:30 PM...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.
For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes. A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.
Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop. Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.
Just a nit-pick, while generally purists will only use the term "direct flight" when there is an enroute stop, technically "direct flight" also includes non-stop flights.
"Direct flight" = the same plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate deplaning/reboarding
"Nonstop flight" = the plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate stops
Direct is a superset of nonstop.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 01, 2017, 07:42:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 01, 2017, 10:19:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 30, 2017, 08:36:30 PM...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.
For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes. A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.
Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop. Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.
Just a nit-pick, while generally purists will only use the term "direct flight" when there is an enroute stop, technically "direct flight" also includes non-stop flights.
"Direct flight" = the same plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate deplaning/reboarding
"Nonstop flight" = the plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate stops
Direct is a superset of nonstop.
Actually a direct flight is just the same flight number. Unscrupulous airlines may use the same flight number when you actually have to get off the aircraft and get on a different one.
Quote from: kkt on December 01, 2017, 08:34:54 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 01, 2017, 07:42:23 PM
Just a nit-pick, while generally purists will only use the term "direct flight" when there is an enroute stop, technically "direct flight" also includes non-stop flights.
"Direct flight" = the same plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate deplaning/reboarding
"Nonstop flight" = the plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate stops
Direct is a superset of nonstop.
Actually a direct flight is just the same flight number. Unscrupulous airlines may use the same flight number when you actually have to get off the aircraft and get on a different one.
I thought that practice had pretty much ended, aside from those situations where maintenance issues, or fleet scheduling complications, or... require an equipment change.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 01, 2017, 10:19:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 30, 2017, 08:36:30 PM...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.
For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes. A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.
Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop. Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.
George Carlin said he never wanted to get on a non-stop flight. Each flight should have at least one stop, at the end.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 01, 2017, 08:44:15 PMI thought that practice had pretty much ended, aside from those situations where maintenance issues, or fleet scheduling complications, or... require an equipment change.
Island hoppers? And perhaps some commuter flights.
The Channel Islands here have several flights that serve both Jersey and Guernsey from, say, Birmingham. It goes to one then the other. They also have flights that only serve their island (eg from Heathrow), but for lesser destinations, having the plane go to both fills it up, as well as increasing inter-island traffic.
And (oddly taking me a while to remember - despite having the cricket coverage from Australia on), there's obviously the very long flights. NZ001 is London Heathrow - Los Angeles - Auckland, various airlines do Heathrow - SE Asian hub - Australian/Kiwi destination with one code (but you can buy partial tickets) as it's one plane, refuelling at Hong Kong, Singapore, etc for a couple of hours.
Quote from: kkt on December 01, 2017, 08:34:54 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 01, 2017, 07:42:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 01, 2017, 10:19:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 30, 2017, 08:36:30 PM...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.
For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes. A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.
Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop. Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.
Just a nit-pick, while generally purists will only use the term "direct flight" when there is an enroute stop, technically "direct flight" also includes non-stop flights.
"Direct flight" = the same plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate deplaning/reboarding
"Nonstop flight" = the plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate stops
Direct is a superset of nonstop.
Actually a direct flight is just the same flight number. Unscrupulous airlines may use the same flight number when you actually have to get off the aircraft and get on a different one.
I recall some of these situations but cannot really recall which ones specifically at the moment.
Quote from: english si on December 03, 2017, 05:12:08 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 01, 2017, 08:44:15 PMI thought that practice had pretty much ended, aside from those situations where maintenance issues, or fleet scheduling complications, or... require an equipment change.
Island hoppers? And perhaps some commuter flights.
The Channel Islands here have several flights that serve both Jersey and Guernsey from, say, Birmingham. It goes to one then the other. They also have flights that only serve their island (eg from Heathrow), but for lesser destinations, having the plane go to both fills it up, as well as increasing inter-island traffic.
And (oddly taking me a while to remember - despite having the cricket coverage from Australia on), there's obviously the very long flights. NZ001 is London Heathrow - Los Angeles - Auckland, various airlines do Heathrow - SE Asian hub - Australian/Kiwi destination with one code (but you can buy partial tickets) as it's one plane, refuelling at Hong Kong, Singapore, etc for a couple of hours.
What you're describing is the normal concept of "direct" flights, along with the sharing/cross-marketing of certain flights within an airline alliance or other relationship.
In the US there also used to be a rather annoying practice where airlines would market a pair of connecting flights under a common flight number, giving it the appearance of a direct flight.
Two examples:
First, "Flight 111" could be scheduled as a DC-8 between City1 and City2, but a DC-9 between City2 and City3 -- an intentional, pre-ordained change in plane at City 2
Or..for a while it was popular for an airline to market international flights like this:
Flight 100 = JFK-LHR
Flight 1001 = City1 - LHR (1 stop @ JFK)
Flight 1002 = City2 - LHR (1 stop @ JFK)
Flight 1003 = City3 - LHR (1 stop @ JFK)
Flight 1004 = City4 - LHR (1 stop @ JFK)
...
Giving City1-City# the appearance of having "direct" flights to London, when in fact they only had non-stop flights to JFK, where you made a connection to flight 100 to LHR.
It's been a few years since I saw either practice in the US, which is what I was referring to.
1- or 2-stop direct flights are still relatively common in the States. While they aren't as desirable as a nonstop flight (unless you're a county-counter or transportation geek), they are still preferable to having to change planes...at least to those of us who have learned the hard way of the "joy" of an unplanned night on the floor of the airport where you missed your connection.
Quote from: kkt on December 01, 2017, 08:34:54 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 01, 2017, 07:42:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 01, 2017, 10:19:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 30, 2017, 08:36:30 PM...it'll be hard to establish a new direct route with good frequency.
For the benefit of those that aren't familiar with commercial airline/aviation terms; a direct flight is one that has stops along the way but has the same flight number & does not involve changing planes. A non-stop flight is one that links two cities/airports without such.
Based on some of the above-posts, those unfamiliar with the above may be erroneously using the term direct when they actually mean non-stop. Those on Airliners.net (aka A.net) would point that difference out right away.
Just a nit-pick, while generally purists will only use the term "direct flight" when there is an enroute stop, technically "direct flight" also includes non-stop flights.
"Direct flight" = the same plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate deplaning/reboarding
"Nonstop flight" = the plane takes you from origin to destination, with no intermediate stops
Direct is a superset of nonstop.
Actually a direct flight is just the same flight number. Unscrupulous airlines may use the same flight number when you actually have to get off the aircraft and get on a different one.
No, I was on a direct flight on Southwest from Nashville (BNA) to Kansas City (MCI) to Portland, OR (PDX) about 8 years ago. Same flight number, same plane & I did not have to deboard/reboard at MCI. I've also seen similar on other carriers as well, so such is not
just a Southwest thing. From what I've seen, the situation you described (same flight number but different aircraft) seems to be the exception and not the rule in terms of direct flights.
At least Nashville to Kansas City to Portland, OR is a fairly logical routing, even if it does involve a stop en route. I've been on a number of Southwest flights in which the same flight number (same aircraft, same crew) continues to a third destination that's in the opposite direction. I recall a recent flight from Philadelphia to Dallas, and just before deplaning at Dallas, a flight attendant said something like "If you're continuing with us to Buffalo..."
Consider Southwest flight #149, for example. The same flight number goes from Tampa to Chicago to Louisville...then to Orlando. So assumably, you could buy a "direct" flight from Tampa to Orlando that's 7 hours from gate to gate.
I've sometimes wondered what leads to the decision to terminate a flight number at a specific point. Unless I'm mistaken, I've seen all of the following combinations on Southwest flights:
- flight number continues to a logical third point: same aircraft, same crew
- flight number continues to a logical third point: same aircraft, different crew
- flight number continues to an illogical third point: same aircraft, same crew
- flight number continues to an illogical third point: same aircraft, different crew
A map of the finalists is here (https://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?redirect=true&node=17044620011&sa-no-redirect=1&pldnSite=1). Three are in a metropolitan area where Jeff Bezos owns the biggest private house and the major local newspaper.
As predicted Nashville is a finalist.
Nearly every major city at least several hundred miles away from Seattle is a finalist.
Basically, they weeded out the 218 Anytown, USA proposals that were pipedreams, with towns and counties saying "Yeah, we got the space" without saying how they would be able to get or pay for the necessary utilities and infrastructure to such a large employer.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2018, 02:16:47 PM
Nearly every major city at least several hundred miles away from Seattle is a finalist.
Basically, they weeded out the 218 Anytown, USA proposals that were pipedreams, with towns and counties saying "Yeah, we got the space" without saying how they would be able to get or pay for the necessary utilities and infrastructure to such a large employer.
Basically, yes. I laughed hysterically at most of the proposals. I love Albany, but we're not large enough for Amazon (and the Onion even parodied our application, as one of their writers is from here).
That's a lot of finalists.
Interesting that all but four are east of the Mississippi.
Some token flyover locations but it's looking like a major east coast city for the selection. Can't imagine there's too much demand among Amazon workforce to not be on the East Coast anyway. The only possible exception I see is Austin.
I wonder if the three locations in the DC area (DC proper, Northern VA, Montgomery County) portend further round of cuts to the list, resulting in the three jurisdictions competing/pooling resources for a super-plan (it's already been speculated that DC is the one due to Bezos' house purchase there and obvious government connections).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2018, 02:16:47 PM
Nearly every major city at least several hundred miles away from Seattle is a finalist.
That's the sense you get looking at the list, but when you look it on a map, you start to notice gaps.
Just in terms of major cities (metro areas over 2 million) that are east of the Rockies, there are some noticeable omissions. Houston's a big one. Detroit was suggested by numerous people as an ideal "bulldoze and build" location; apparently not. Minneapolis and St. Paul aren't on the list. Tampa made at least a few so-called pundits "top picks" lists, but it's not on the list.. And to listen to others, it was a done deal and Charlotte was the choice–but it was eliminated. Neither KC nor St. Louis were on the list, nor is Cincinnati, Cleveland, or Baltimore.
Looks like Phoenix is out as I expected. Probably inadequate mass transit is what killed its chances.
Houston probably didn't make it because of Hurricane Harvey.
Portland and the San Francisco Bay area probably didn't make it because of their proximity to Seattle.
Phoenix and Minneapolis could loose on climate basis. San Francisco and bay area are already overloaded...
Quote from: kalvado on January 18, 2018, 02:40:12 PM
Phoenix and Minneapolis could loose on climate basis. San Francisco and bay area are already overloaded...
As for climate, Miami made the list. Miami doesn't get as hot as Phoenix temperature wise, but when you factor in the heat index, sometimes Miami can feel hotter. In addition, Miami usually stays warmer in the winter than Phoenix.
When you look at lists like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas , you see the 11 sites within the top 10 metro areas are listed, with Houston being the exception.
However, after that, it appears at quick glance only 2 of the next 22 metro areas made the cut.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 18, 2018, 02:19:37 PM
I wonder if the three locations in the DC area (DC proper, Northern VA, Montgomery County) portend further round of cuts to the list, resulting in the three jurisdictions competing/pooling resources for a super-plan (it's already been speculated that DC is the one due to Bezos' house purchase there and obvious government connections).
Three spots in the same metro? Yeah, I think they've tipped their hand.
I think Nashville will win out on this one. The legislature here in Tennessee is changing laws left and right to suit business interests. The infrastructure is in place and we have a booming economy here to support such a facility.
It'll probably come down to Maryland vs. NoVa, with the prize going to whoever provides the most incentives (deferred taxes, zoning waivers, transit augmentation to the selected site, etc.) to Bezos and crew. The potential to impress (or intimidate!) Congressfolks and federal regulators via a show of resources and wherewithal is probably too tempting for Amazon to pass up.
I think it's a no brainer that Toronto is out for obvious reasons, even though Toronto is more of the kind of place they belong. Techies have made SF and Seattle soulless and sterile places, and well, Toronto is a soulless place already.
To spell it out, Toronto doesn't get it because if they did, it'd be bad PR for Mr Bezos, as a certain individual who uses twitter will not be happy about this.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 18, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
I think it's a no brainer that Toronto is out for obvious reasons, even though Toronto is more of the kind of place they belong. Techies have made SF and Seattle soulless and sterile places, and well, Toronto is a soulless place already.
By that definition, no city has a soul. Seattle has a lively culture that has absorbed the tech scene over the last few decades and adapted to it, rather than trying to fight it.
I'm torn between being proud that Chicago made the top 20 and being disgusted that everything has to be run like it's a fucking reality show these days.
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 19, 2018, 10:54:11 AM
I'm torn between being proud that Chicago made the top 20 and being disgusted that everything has to be run like it's a fucking reality show these days.
To be fair, the IOC has had a bidding process for the Olympics where a shortlist is created long before reality tv was ever dreamed of.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 18, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
I think it's a no brainer that Toronto is out for obvious reasons, even though Toronto is more of the kind of place they belong. Techies have made SF and Seattle soulless and sterile places, and well, Toronto is a soulless place already.
To spell it out, Toronto doesn't get it because if they did, it'd be bad PR for Mr Bezos, as a certain individual who uses twitter will not be happy about this.
I wonder how many of Amazon's past hires were in Seattle because of H1B visas.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 19, 2018, 09:28:34 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 18, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
I think it's a no brainer that Toronto is out for obvious reasons, even though Toronto is more of the kind of place they belong. Techies have made SF and Seattle soulless and sterile places, and well, Toronto is a soulless place already.
To spell it out, Toronto doesn't get it because if they did, it'd be bad PR for Mr Bezos, as a certain individual who uses twitter will not be happy about this.
I wonder how many of Amazon's past hires were in Seattle because of H1B visas.
That sums up a lot of the workforce on the west coast. Seattle is full of Asian nationals who have jobs working at tech companies. Not enough qualified workers in the area, I guess.
According to the wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Top_H-1B_employers_by_visas_approved) on the H-1B visa, Microsoft and Amazon are numbers 1 and 3 (on the west coast) for most amount of H-1B employees.
I kind of hope Indianapolis gets it, so that OKC loses its shit over being beaten out by them for a major corporate facility a
second time.
(Basically all of the cool stuff in downtown OKC was built in a fit of pique after losing a United Airlines maintenance facility to Indy in the early 90s. Then everyone was like "wtf I love downtown now" so we've just kind of kept on with it.)
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 05:09:38 PM
I think Nashville will win out on this one. The legislature here in Tennessee is changing laws left and right to suit business interests. The infrastructure is in place and we have a booming economy here to support such a facility.
All of this is true of Oklahoma, yet OKC didn't make the cut. The problem is that changing laws to suit business interests tends to degrade quality-of-life interests, which larger corporations also take into account, as it directly impacts ease of recruitment.
Case in point, we cut a bunch of taxes to be business friendly. But we cut taxes too much, and now we can't pay for education. This is a major turn-off for out-of-state businesses, as it makes it more difficult to hire locally (lack of educated workforce) or recruit workers from out of state (what parent would want to move to a state where their children won't get a good education? the offer would have to be big enough to make private education affordable; i.e. too expensive for the company).
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 18, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
To spell it out, Toronto doesn't get it because if they did, it'd be bad PR for Mr Bezos, as a certain individual who uses twitter will not be happy about this.
From what I can tell by reading the output of the
other famous Bezos-owned company, if Bezos arrived at a decision and came to believe that particular Twitter user would be upset by it, it would probably make him reach for the pen
faster.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 19, 2018, 05:04:57 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 19, 2018, 10:54:11 AM
I'm torn between being proud that Chicago made the top 20 and being disgusted that everything has to be run like it's a fucking reality show these days.
To be fair, the IOC has had a bidding process for the Olympics where a shortlist is created long before reality tv was ever dreamed of.
To me this is far more embarrassing than anything done for the IOC. Illinois agreed to take all the money it would otherwise receive from Amazon employees and give it back to Amazon. To the best of my knowledge, no one offered so substantial a cash bribe to the IOC.
Someone made the point on Reddit that the HQ location has likely already been chosen internally, if not years ago, and that this whole bid process is just a charade to extract more concessions out of the pre-chosen winner. I'd agree with this assessment.
It'll either be Boston, DC, or Austin, IMO.
The difference between wooing big companies and wooing the Olympics is that the big companies *might* stick around for a while. You know for sure the Olympics won't.
Quote from: kkt on January 22, 2018, 06:13:54 PM
The difference between wooing big companies and wooing the Olympics is that the big companies *might* stick around for a while. You know for sure the Olympics won't.
Right, which is why they try to sell it as "all this new infrastructure we're building will be a license to print money for the host city!" Sometimes this is true, sometimes it isn't.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/amazon-spheres-indoor-rainforest-opens-monday.html
Here is an update Amazon's corporate offices are going to the new spheres building in Downtown Seattle.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on January 22, 2018, 01:56:31 PM
Someone made the point on Reddit that the HQ location has likely already been chosen internally, if not years ago, and that this whole bid process is just a charade to extract more concessions out of the pre-chosen winner. I'd agree with this assessment.
It'll either be Boston, DC, or Austin, IMO.
I agree... I think Washington DC region is where they want. Bezos owns the Washington Post already. Amazon has more power than the government already
Z981
The spheres are merely an employee lounge and meeting space (with some restaurants), not where the offices are. The two (soon to be five) towers adjacent to them have the offices.
I got myself a reservation to see them in the first week of public tours. Pays to have connections.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Amazon_Spheres_from_6th_Avenue%2C_March_2017.jpg/1024px-Amazon_Spheres_from_6th_Avenue%2C_March_2017.jpg)
Quote from: jwolfer on January 27, 2018, 05:43:43 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on January 22, 2018, 01:56:31 PM
Someone made the point on Reddit that the HQ location has likely already been chosen internally, if not years ago, and that this whole bid process is just a charade to extract more concessions out of the pre-chosen winner. I'd agree with this assessment.
It'll either be Boston, DC, or Austin, IMO.
I agree... I think Washington DC region is where they want. Bezos owns the Washington Post already. Amazon has more power than the government already
Z981
Just great! They'll move to NoVa, bring 40-50K more folks with them, resulting in more transportation money funneled to the area and leaving the outlying portions of the state higher & drier than they are today (the Roanoke folks who originally pressed for I-73 to come through their fair city probably won't live to see that project even off the ground!). Oh well -- the rich (regions) get even richer; so it goes in these times!
Quote from: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 18, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
I think it's a no brainer that Toronto is out for obvious reasons, even though Toronto is more of the kind of place they belong. Techies have made SF and Seattle soulless and sterile places, and well, Toronto is a soulless place already.
By that definition, no city has a soul. Seattle has a lively culture that has absorbed the tech scene over the last few decades and adapted to it, rather than trying to fight it.
I don't know, but cities such as Seattle and San Francisco (which the techies have now exclusively rebranded as "SF") used to have cultural identity before, but have since been replaced by the sterile tech culture. In other words, what we like to call gentrification. That is how you ruin a city.
The grunge movement is slightly before your time, but Seattle not too long ago was associated with the grunge scene, like of course Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains. Let's not also mention that Jimi Hendrix was from Seattle.
I once read that Amazon owns roughly 22% of all office space in Seattle, that seems to be quite shocking in my opinion. Perhaps Seattle ought to be remained "Amazonia".
I'll be blunt and say that I really dislike tech culture, and especially the title "software engineer" but that's a story for another day.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 22, 2018, 05:56:55 AM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 18, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
To spell it out, Toronto doesn't get it because if they did, it'd be bad PR for Mr Bezos, as a certain individual who uses twitter will not be happy about this.
From what I can tell by reading the output of the other famous Bezos-owned company, if Bezos arrived at a decision and came to believe that particular Twitter user would be upset by it, it would probably make him reach for the pen faster.
The problem is, like it or not, that certain Twitter user, whether you like it or not has strong support behind him. Indeed, look at what has happened regarding the National Football League for instance. Alienating a huge chunk of your customers is something you definitely DO NOT WANT to do.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 27, 2018, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 18, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
I think it's a no brainer that Toronto is out for obvious reasons, even though Toronto is more of the kind of place they belong. Techies have made SF and Seattle soulless and sterile places, and well, Toronto is a soulless place already.
By that definition, no city has a soul. Seattle has a lively culture that has absorbed the tech scene over the last few decades and adapted to it, rather than trying to fight it.
I don't know, but cities such as Seattle and San Francisco (which the techies have now exclusively rebranded as "SF") used to have cultural identity before, but have since been replaced by the sterile tech culture. In other words, what we like to call gentrification. That is how you ruin a city.
The grunge movement is slightly before your time, but Seattle not too long ago was associated with the grunge scene, like of course Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains. Let's not also mention that Jimi Hendrix was from Seattle.
I once read that Amazon owns roughly 22% of all office space in Seattle, that seems to be quite shocking in my opinion. Perhaps Seattle ought to be remained "Amazonia".
I'll be blunt and say that I really dislike tech culture, and especially the title "software engineer" but that's a story for another day.
Don't believe everything you read from the national news media, or even the Seattle media for that matter. There is a noticeable bias against Amazon and the new wave of tech, but a hypocritical pass given to older tech (Microsoft, mainly). While Amazon does lease a lot of office space in Seattle proper (it only owns a handful of buildings), Seattle is very used to being a one-company town. In various eras, it was lumber, mining, shipbuilding, aerospace, and even tech. If Amazon were to rapidly downsize like Boeing did in the 1970s, Seattle would fare much better thanks to the diversification of the economy, which has been happening quietly while Amazon takes up new office space (and thus not displacing other industries).
Microsoft garnered the same complaints when it expanded on the Eastside in the early 1990s. Seattle did not lose its culture then (since this was as grunge and coffee culture were both booming) and it sure as hell isn't losing it now. There's still an active art community, though they have moved further from downtown and into more affordable neighborhoods, bringing their experiences to a different subset of people.
Without the influx and movement of people around the city, it can get really stale. Not to mention the social implications of blocking housing and progress in the name of gentrification and status quo, which only serves to shut out the poor who have nowhere else to go.
Quote from: Bruce on January 28, 2018, 12:10:51 AM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 27, 2018, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 18, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
I think it's a no brainer that Toronto is out for obvious reasons, even though Toronto is more of the kind of place they belong. Techies have made SF and Seattle soulless and sterile places, and well, Toronto is a soulless place already.
By that definition, no city has a soul. Seattle has a lively culture that has absorbed the tech scene over the last few decades and adapted to it, rather than trying to fight it.
I don't know, but cities such as Seattle and San Francisco (which the techies have now exclusively rebranded as "SF") used to have cultural identity before, but have since been replaced by the sterile tech culture. In other words, what we like to call gentrification. That is how you ruin a city.
The grunge movement is slightly before your time, but Seattle not too long ago was associated with the grunge scene, like of course Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains. Let's not also mention that Jimi Hendrix was from Seattle.
I once read that Amazon owns roughly 22% of all office space in Seattle, that seems to be quite shocking in my opinion. Perhaps Seattle ought to be remained "Amazonia".
I'll be blunt and say that I really dislike tech culture, and especially the title "software engineer" but that's a story for another day.
Don't believe everything you read from the national news media, or even the Seattle media for that matter. There is a noticeable bias against Amazon and the new wave of tech, but a hypocritical pass given to older tech (Microsoft, mainly). While Amazon does lease a lot of office space in Seattle proper (it only owns a handful of buildings), Seattle is very used to being a one-company town. In various eras, it was lumber, mining, shipbuilding, aerospace, and even tech. If Amazon were to rapidly downsize like Boeing did in the 1970s, Seattle would fare much better thanks to the diversification of the economy, which has been happening quietly while Amazon takes up new office space (and thus not displacing other industries).
Microsoft garnered the same complaints when it expanded on the Eastside in the early 1990s. Seattle did not lose its culture then (since this was as grunge and coffee culture were both booming) and it sure as hell isn't losing it now. There's still an active art community, though they have moved further from downtown and into more affordable neighborhoods, bringing their experiences to a different subset of people.
Without the influx and movement of people around the city, it can get really stale. Not to mention the social implications of blocking housing and progress in the name of gentrification and status quo, which only serves to shut out the poor who have nowhere else to go.
San Francisco was once a ship building town too but that changed as soon as venture capitalists, various west coast branches of financial services, tech, biotech came to the region things had to change via various reforms over the years.
San Jose had shipbuilding? Really? I knew SF did.
Quote from: kkt on January 28, 2018, 03:19:01 PM
San Jose had shipbuilding? Really? I knew SF did.
OK I did remember one thing about the San Jose area it was once the farming community the Bay Area. San Jose was never Shipbuilding and you are correct like San Francisco, South San Francisco were ship building cities before Biotech and VC's came to town.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Jose,_California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Jose,_California)
Quote from: Bruce on January 28, 2018, 12:10:51 AM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 27, 2018, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 18, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
I think it's a no brainer that Toronto is out for obvious reasons, even though Toronto is more of the kind of place they belong. Techies have made SF and Seattle soulless and sterile places, and well, Toronto is a soulless place already.
By that definition, no city has a soul. Seattle has a lively culture that has absorbed the tech scene over the last few decades and adapted to it, rather than trying to fight it.
I don't know, but cities such as Seattle and San Francisco (which the techies have now exclusively rebranded as "SF") used to have cultural identity before, but have since been replaced by the sterile tech culture. In other words, what we like to call gentrification. That is how you ruin a city.
The grunge movement is slightly before your time, but Seattle not too long ago was associated with the grunge scene, like of course Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains. Let's not also mention that Jimi Hendrix was from Seattle.
I once read that Amazon owns roughly 22% of all office space in Seattle, that seems to be quite shocking in my opinion. Perhaps Seattle ought to be remained "Amazonia".
I'll be blunt and say that I really dislike tech culture, and especially the title "software engineer" but that's a story for another day.
Don't believe everything you read from the national news media, or even the Seattle media for that matter. There is a noticeable bias against Amazon and the new wave of tech, but a hypocritical pass given to older tech (Microsoft, mainly). While Amazon does lease a lot of office space in Seattle proper (it only owns a handful of buildings), Seattle is very used to being a one-company town. In various eras, it was lumber, mining, shipbuilding, aerospace, and even tech. If Amazon were to rapidly downsize like Boeing did in the 1970s, Seattle would fare much better thanks to the diversification of the economy, which has been happening quietly while Amazon takes up new office space (and thus not displacing other industries).
Microsoft garnered the same complaints when it expanded on the Eastside in the early 1990s. Seattle did not lose its culture then (since this was as grunge and coffee culture were both booming) and it sure as hell isn't losing it now. There's still an active art community, though they have moved further from downtown and into more affordable neighborhoods, bringing their experiences to a different subset of people.
Without the influx and movement of people around the city, it can get really stale. Not to mention the social implications of blocking housing and progress in the name of gentrification and status quo, which only serves to shut out the poor who have nowhere else to go.
But wait the Venture Capitalists are running the show over Tech Culture in San Francisco not the Software Engineers, computer programmers and Biotech workers. Remember San Francisco in the 1990's like the district that now contains AT&T Park and the soon to be Chase Center. That was once a dumping ground for old Loma Prieta Rubble and back then all the Tech companies were confined to south of the San Mateo Bridge and biotech companies were confined to that same approximate areas back then. It was some time once AT&T park was built then there was incentives by various leaders of San Francisco to bring the Venture capitalists, the tech companies and biotech companies to open San Francisco headquarters and branches to that area near AT&T park.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 27, 2018, 11:45:15 PM
The problem is, like it or not, that certain Twitter user, whether you like it or not has strong support behind him. Indeed, look at what has happened regarding the National Football League for instance. Alienating a huge chunk of your customers is something you definitely DO NOT WANT to do.
Fortunately, unlike most Twitter users, we do have data on how people feel about that particular one, which shows a fluctuation between 44% and 37% support (currently at 38.8%)–not what I'd call "strong support". Of course, the opinions on this guy are geographically segregated in such a way that depending on your target market area, you could realistically expect to see a
rise in sales by taking a provocative stance against him. The NFL has been having other problems unrelated to the Twitter user, which I think are probably more responsible for their revenue problems more than anything else.
But that's probably enough on that Twitter user.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2018, 02:44:28 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 27, 2018, 11:45:15 PM
The problem is, like it or not, that certain Twitter user, whether you like it or not has strong support behind him. Indeed, look at what has happened regarding the National Football League for instance. Alienating a huge chunk of your customers is something you definitely DO NOT WANT to do.
Fortunately, unlike most Twitter users, we do have data on how people feel about that particular one, which shows a fluctuation between 44% and 37% support (currently at 38.8%)–not what I'd call "strong support". Of course, the opinions on this guy are geographically segregated in such a way that depending on your target market area, you could realistically expect to see a rise in sales by taking a provocative stance against him. The NFL has been having other problems unrelated to the Twitter user, which I think are probably more responsible for their revenue problems more than anything else.
But that's probably enough on that Twitter user.
That number of 38.8% is "fake news", and the "real" number is 45%.
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2018, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2018, 02:44:28 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 27, 2018, 11:45:15 PM
The problem is, like it or not, that certain Twitter user, whether you like it or not has strong support behind him. Indeed, look at what has happened regarding the National Football League for instance. Alienating a huge chunk of your customers is something you definitely DO NOT WANT to do.
Fortunately, unlike most Twitter users, we do have data on how people feel about that particular one, which shows a fluctuation between 44% and 37% support (currently at 38.8%)–not what I'd call "strong support". Of course, the opinions on this guy are geographically segregated in such a way that depending on your target market area, you could realistically expect to see a rise in sales by taking a provocative stance against him. The NFL has been having other problems unrelated to the Twitter user, which I think are probably more responsible for their revenue problems more than anything else.
But that's probably enough on that Twitter user.
That number of 38.8% is "fake news", and the "real" number is 45%.
And you know that because?
Quote from: kkt on January 30, 2018, 04:39:54 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2018, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2018, 02:44:28 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on January 27, 2018, 11:45:15 PM
The problem is, like it or not, that certain Twitter user, whether you like it or not has strong support behind him. Indeed, look at what has happened regarding the National Football League for instance. Alienating a huge chunk of your customers is something you definitely DO NOT WANT to do.
Fortunately, unlike most Twitter users, we do have data on how people feel about that particular one, which shows a fluctuation between 44% and 37% support (currently at 38.8%)–not what I'd call "strong support". Of course, the opinions on this guy are geographically segregated in such a way that depending on your target market area, you could realistically expect to see a rise in sales by taking a provocative stance against him. The NFL has been having other problems unrelated to the Twitter user, which I think are probably more responsible for their revenue problems more than anything else.
But that's probably enough on that Twitter user.
That number of 38.8% is "fake news", and the "real" number is 45%.
And you know that because?
whoosh
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/12/technology/amazon-layoffs/index.html
Update Amazon Layoffs are being announced.
Quote from: bing101 on February 13, 2018, 12:32:38 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/12/technology/amazon-layoffs/index.html
Update Amazon Layoffs are being announced.
Had to read that 3 times before I realized this is not another service by Amazon
Quote from: bing101 on February 13, 2018, 12:32:38 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/12/technology/amazon-layoffs/index.html
Update Amazon Layoffs are being announced.
To quote your article...
Quote from: CNN
"As part of our annual planning process, we are making headcount adjustments across the company – small reductions in a couple of places and aggressive hiring in many others,"
....
It appears the company isn't looking to reduce its overall headcount. It currently has 3,900 open corporate job listings in Seattle and 12,000 open positions worldwide
Basically, the employees who are being "laid off" are being moved to areas that need more people. They're just being laid off first, before being re-hired. Not my favorite way of conducting business, but that's the way it is.
Quote from: kalvado on February 13, 2018, 01:35:06 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 13, 2018, 12:32:38 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/12/technology/amazon-layoffs/index.html
Update Amazon Layoffs are being announced.
Had to read that 3 times before I realized this is not another service by Amazon
Presenting all-new Amazon Layoffs™
- drone to pick up your redundant resources
- assist in relocating their personal effects
- Amazon Web Services (AWS) can restrict access and leave no online trace of ex-employees
- send flowers to significant others if drone relocation falters due to restricted airspace
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/amazon-local-retail/554681/
Here is an update Greenfield, Massachusetts is one of the cities named in this article fighting to keep Amazon out of their city. Note they were notable for keeping Wal-Mart and other big boxes from their city in this link though now its Amazon.
That isn't about keeping the HQ out. That is about their struggle to keep their main street viable when Amazon keeps customers in their homes.
Frankly, as someone who grew up in the area, I always found Greenfield's main street strength to be tenuous and more hype than reality. Not surprised that some of their stores are finally folding. They probably were partially propped up by community grants as well.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2018, 02:09:01 PM
That isn't about keeping the HQ out. That is about their struggle to keep their main street viable when Amazon keeps customers in their homes.
Frankly, as someone who grew up in the area, I always found Greenfield's main street strength to be tenuous and more hype than reality. Not surprised that some of their stores are finally folding. They probably were partially propped up by community grants as well.
But thinking about it... Despite temporary advances of bronze and steel, stone age is making a comeback. Half of my kitchen knives are metal-free ceramic.
Amazon, you should take notice!
In actual Amazon HQ2 news, the company's teams are starting to visit the candidate cities (beginning with Toronto and Washington D.C. (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2018/03/05/Amazon-HQ2-visits-have-begun-PGHQ2/stories/201803050179)).
In other news, Indiana just failed to repeal its ban on light rail (https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/05/pothole-concerns-derail-effort-end-light-rail-ban-central-indiana/395288002/), so Indianapolis sinks to the bottom of consideration.
There was a recent spat between the Georgia legislature and Delta, in which Delta cancelled a discount program against the Lieutenant Governor's wishes, leading to a tax cut that Delta would benefit from being stripped out of a tax bill. I've seen some speculation this might put a damper on Atlanta's chances for HQ2, as Amazon may be leery of locating in a state that's willing to try to directly influence the company's policies in such a way.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2018, 02:37:12 AM
There was a recent spat between the Georgia legislature and Delta, in which Delta cancelled a discount program against the Lieutenant Governor's wishes, leading to a tax cut that Delta would benefit from being stripped out of a tax bill. I've seen some speculation this might put a damper on Atlanta's chances for HQ2, as Amazon may be leery of locating in a state that's willing to try to directly influence the company's policies in such a way.
In other news: 51st state.
Similar to federal government forming a separate district to avoid interference from any state, Amazon considers....
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2018, 02:37:12 AM
There was a recent spat between the Georgia legislature and Delta, in which Delta cancelled a discount program against the Lieutenant Governor's wishes, leading to a tax cut that Delta would benefit from being stripped out of a tax bill. I've seen some speculation this might put a damper on Atlanta's chances for HQ2, as Amazon may be leery of locating in a state that's willing to try to directly influence the company's policies in such a way.
There's also an anti-LGBT bill winding its way through the legislature that won't help matters if it passes. Which is fine, Amazon can locate elsewhere, and GA can find another company willing to create thousands of jobs.
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 08, 2018, 11:21:55 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2018, 02:37:12 AM
There was a recent spat between the Georgia legislature and Delta, in which Delta cancelled a discount program against the Lieutenant Governor's wishes, leading to a tax cut that Delta would benefit from being stripped out of a tax bill. I've seen some speculation this might put a damper on Atlanta's chances for HQ2, as Amazon may be leery of locating in a state that's willing to try to directly influence the company's policies in such a way.
There's also an anti-LGBT bill winding its way through the legislature that won't help matters if it passes. Which is fine, Amazon can locate elsewhere, and GA can find another company willing to create thousands of jobs.
Yeah, that's not gonna go over well with Amazon or other businesses. Georgia obviously did not pay attention to what happened in North Carolina when it's GOP-controlled General Assembly passed it's infamous HB2 bill in March 2016, which later resulted in Pat McCrory becoming the first NC governor to lose a re-election bid since 1850. He's persona non grata in Charlotte.
Quote from: LM117 on March 09, 2018, 02:14:17 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 08, 2018, 11:21:55 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2018, 02:37:12 AM
There was a recent spat between the Georgia legislature and Delta, in which Delta cancelled a discount program against the Lieutenant Governor's wishes, leading to a tax cut that Delta would benefit from being stripped out of a tax bill. I've seen some speculation this might put a damper on Atlanta's chances for HQ2, as Amazon may be leery of locating in a state that's willing to try to directly influence the company's policies in such a way.
There's also an anti-LGBT bill winding its way through the legislature that won't help matters if it passes. Which is fine, Amazon can locate elsewhere, and GA can find another company willing to create thousands of jobs.
Yeah, that's not gonna go over well with Amazon or other businesses. Georgia obviously did not pay attention to what happened in North Carolina when it's GOP-controlled General Assembly passed it's infamous HB2 bill in March 2016, which later resulted in Pat McCrory becoming the first NC governor to lose a re-election bid since 1850. He's persona non grata in Charlotte.
Short sighted to have bills like this.. have your religious beliefs but no need to force the world to follow your beliefs. It would be like Utah outlawing coffee and tea because of LDS rules against caffeine or 'hot drinks'
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on March 10, 2018, 06:43:59 PM
Short sighted to have bills like this.. have your religious beliefs but no need to force the world to follow your beliefs. It would be like Utah outlawing coffee and tea because of LDS rules against caffeine or 'hot drinks'
Or alcohol. Oh wait....
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 11, 2018, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 10, 2018, 06:43:59 PM
Short sighted to have bills like this.. have your religious beliefs but no need to force the world to follow your beliefs. It would be like Utah outlawing coffee and tea because of LDS rules against caffeine or 'hot drinks'
Or alcohol. Oh wait....
Alcohol is a whole other story.. lots of religions prohibit alcohol, and there are restrictions on Sunday sales etc. The county I live in used to have 2pm starting alcohol sales on Sunday because of all the good Baptists in the county. We had a vote a few years ago and the hours are the same everyday. BUT there is still no alcohol sales on Christmas Day, because it's Jesus' Birthday, makes no sense for me, especially since I was raised E-wiske-palian, we have real wine not grape juice for communion .
And we have the myriad of dry counties from Prohibition days. Then there is the places like NJ where liquor licences are limited and governments make lots of money off the sale of them.
Z981
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 11, 2018, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 10, 2018, 06:43:59 PM
Short sighted to have bills like this.. have your religious beliefs but no need to force the world to follow your beliefs. It would be like Utah outlawing coffee and tea because of LDS rules against caffeine or 'hot drinks'
Or alcohol. Oh wait....
AFAIK there are far less restrictions on consumption of alcohol in bars in Utah than there were 25 years ago. Brewpubs abound, and none require you to become a member in order to drink there.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2018, 02:37:12 AM
There was a recent spat between the Georgia legislature and Delta, in which Delta cancelled a discount program against the Lieutenant Governor's wishes, leading to a tax cut that Delta would benefit from being stripped out of a tax bill. I've seen some speculation this might put a damper on Atlanta's chances for HQ2, as Amazon may be leery of locating in a state that's willing to try to directly influence the company's policies in such a way.
Can someone eloquently explain how a government entity is allowed to get involved in the opinions of a private entity, especially after approving the tax break? If you detest Big Government and Freedoms, you go along with honoring an agreement and performing your jobs, regardless of the alignment of your beliefs. Delta Air Lines is a private company, and they're entitled to their beliefs without the fear of government repercussions. The National Rife Association is not a government entity and neither is DL.
As one of their prime customers (by golly, I can actually say that (https://flic.kr/p/Eo9Z7q), though not about much of anything else), they're probably not going to be hurt very much; they've quietly gone to bat on a few social issues before, but that's what big companies do. To a much lesser degree, other airlines would be somewhat affected, though their combined presence is a mere quarter of Delta's consumption in Georgia. The irony that essentially no two individuals pay the same amount for airfare unless it's the same itinerary at the same booking time - price discrimination yet market demand - isn't lost on me, either. Airlines have their lobbying groups, too.
Of course, the whole matter about why they're getting a fuel tax break, of which Delta gets the biggest share from buying so much of it, is quite up for debate...'prolly jobs jobs jobs.
Quote from: formulanone on March 13, 2018, 07:19:32 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2018, 02:37:12 AM
There was a recent spat between the Georgia legislature and Delta, in which Delta cancelled a discount program against the Lieutenant Governor's wishes, leading to a tax cut that Delta would benefit from being stripped out of a tax bill. I've seen some speculation this might put a damper on Atlanta's chances for HQ2, as Amazon may be leery of locating in a state that's willing to try to directly influence the company's policies in such a way.
Can someone eloquently explain how a government entity is allowed to get involved in the opinions of a private entity, especially after approving the tax break? If you detest Big Government and Freedoms, you go along with honoring an agreement and performing your jobs, regardless of the alignment of your beliefs. Delta Air Lines is a private company, and they're entitled to their beliefs without the fear of government repercussions. The National Rife Association is not a government entity and neither is DL.
As one of their prime customers (by golly, I can actually say that (https://flic.kr/p/Eo9Z7q), though not about much of anything else), they're probably not going to be hurt very much; they've quietly gone to bat on a few social issues before, but that's what big companies do. To a much lesser degree, other airlines would be somewhat affected, though their combined presence is a mere quarter of Delta's consumption in Georgia. The irony that essentially no two individuals pay the same amount for airfare unless it's the same itinerary at the same booking time - price discrimination yet market demand - isn't lost on me, either. Airlines have their lobbying groups, too.
Of course, the whole matter about why they're getting a fuel tax break, of which Delta gets the biggest share from buying so much of it, is quite up for debate...'prolly jobs jobs jobs.
First of all, was there an agreement or was there a law which was lobbied by a certain company not to be named? That law provided what is known as "government subsidy" if happening outside of US, as three big US airlines keep telling everyone. Now playing field is leveled. Great!
And this is not a repercussion - no new unfair policies are implemented. Airlines would pay what everyone else pays.
Dirty and disproportional overall? Sure. Uncommon? Nope. Look up NY and CA travel bans for example. Or NY state boycott on companies with certain views on Israel policies, net neutrality, or a bunch of other issues.
Quote from: formulanone on March 13, 2018, 07:19:32 PM
Can someone eloquently explain how a government entity is allowed to get involved in the opinions of a private entity, especially after approving the tax break? If you detest Big Government and Freedoms, you go along with honoring an agreement and performing your jobs, regardless of the alignment of your beliefs. Delta Air Lines is a private company, and they're entitled to their beliefs without the fear of government repercussions. The National Rife Association is not a government entity and neither is DL.
Pfft. Next you'll be telling me people who are all about states' rights support a federal gay marriage ban.
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 12, 2018, 10:28:59 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 11, 2018, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 10, 2018, 06:43:59 PM
Short sighted to have bills like this.. have your religious beliefs but no need to force the world to follow your beliefs. It would be like Utah outlawing coffee and tea because of LDS rules against caffeine or 'hot drinks'
Or alcohol. Oh wait....
AFAIK there are far less restrictions on consumption of alcohol in bars in Utah than there were 25 years ago. Brewpubs abound, and none require you to become a member in order to drink there.
Yeah, they fixed it. Mostly.
http://time.com/money/5222986/amazon-hq2-bullseye-internet/
Here is an update on Amazon
I'm just a little glad that DFW appears out of the running. While I do enjoy the value of my house skyrocketing, traffic is a mess just with the companies here now.
Yeah, Amazon is totally going to relocate in a far-flung suburb next to its data centers. And will telegraph it by increasing its presence (hint: it's been doing that in nearly every city that already has Amazon offices...Boston just got 2,000 new positions this past week). I'm extremely skeptical.
I think these stories have been written for just about every location people have proposed. And most of them have been wrong.
If it is DC, I would be stoked to have correctly predicted the location. I still think it makes more sense than a lot of their other data hubs.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2017, 03:58:02 AM
Maybe the DC area? DC itself is limited due to building height restrictions, but the surrounding municipalities could easily fit the requirements.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 01, 2018, 09:32:50 PM
If it is DC, I would be stoked to have correctly predicted the location. I still think it makes more sense than a lot of their other data hubs.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2017, 03:58:02 AM
Maybe the DC area? DC itself is limited due to building height restrictions, but the surrounding municipalities could easily fit the requirements.
Even with a height limit, there's plenty of current and potential office capacity in DC proper.
More convenient to lobby Congress, as I'm sure others have pointed out.
Amazon is getting big enough to tip over into evil, so that is probably a factor for them in deciding where to go.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 02, 2018, 01:29:34 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 01, 2018, 09:32:50 PM
If it is DC, I would be stoked to have correctly predicted the location. I still think it makes more sense than a lot of their other data hubs.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2017, 03:58:02 AM
Maybe the DC area? DC itself is limited due to building height restrictions, but the surrounding municipalities could easily fit the requirements.
Even with a height limit, there's plenty of current and potential office capacity in DC proper.
Based on what they're building in Seattle, I wouldn't bet on them limiting themselves when they can just as easily locate across the river from DC and not have to worry about limits. I'm sure Amazon is more interested in going up than out.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 02, 2018, 02:12:26 PM
Amazon is getting big enough to tip over into evil, so that is probably a factor for them in deciding where to go.
Evil enough that I'm sure they could convince DC to eliminate their building height limits just for them!
Quote from: jakeroot on April 03, 2018, 01:09:53 AMEvil enough that I'm sure they could convince DC to eliminate their building height limits just for them!
Building height limits in DC is unbelievably controversial. So, so controversial. Not even Amazon could eliminate them.
Quote from: abefroman329 on April 03, 2018, 09:47:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 03, 2018, 01:09:53 AMEvil enough that I'm sure they could convince DC to eliminate their building height limits just for them!
Building height limits in DC is unbelievably controversial. So, so controversial. Not even Amazon could eliminate them.
Not really...there's little local political mobilization to get rid of them. Even when Congress opened up the prospect recently, DC's unique planning commission passed on pushing the issue:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/major-dc-building-height-changes-are-rejected-by-planning-commission/2013/11/19/6eedea84-5176-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html?utm_term=.a9d7e9d5cf97
QuoteA planning body charged with examining changes to the federal law restricting building heights in the District declined to endorse major changes Tuesday, voting to reject a recommendation to potentially allow higher structures in outlying parts of the city.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-amazon-battle-jeff-bezos-implications-2018-4
Here is an update.
Amazon also may want good schools for its employees with kids to attend, and being closer to the major airport.
^Bingo; Amazon has reportedly asked for separate briefing sessions on quality of local education, including ACT/SAT scores in area high schools. https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2018/04/02/in-hq2-site-visits-amazon-focuses-on-education.html
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 02, 2018, 02:12:26 PM
More convenient to lobby Congress, as I'm sure others have pointed out.
Amazon is getting big enough to tip over into evil, so that is probably a factor for them in deciding where to go.
Finally someone else agrees with me on Amazon, I NEVER buy anything from them. Perhaps if everyone wasn't so lazy and quit buying from Amazon, then they'd be finished, but I can't see that happening.
I stopped getting anything other than mp3s and Kindle books from Amazon when they decided to pull that stunt where certain items became Prime-only. Making something I want to buy Prime-only isn't a good way to get me to (re)join Prime, but it is a good way to make me buy that item at Target or Barnes and Noble instead.
Quote from: vdeane on April 03, 2018, 08:38:19 PM
I stopped getting anything other than mp3s and Kindle books from Amazon when they decided to pull that stunt where certain items became Prime-only. Making something I want to buy Prime-only isn't a good way to get me to (re)join Prime, but it is a good way to make me buy that item at Target or Barnes and Noble instead.
Barnes & Noble is still around?
Sigh, it makes me sad, the epic flagship store locations of Chapters (very similar store to B&N up here, Starbucks in every location) in downtown Toronto have all been shuttered, victims of Amazon of course.
One thing Amazon can never replicate, is the simple concept of browsing a store like this.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/World%27s_Biggest_Bookstore.JPG)
Yes, there's still Barnes and Nobles around. There are two that I can think of just in Seattle, ground zero for Amazon.
Amazon is a godsend to someone looking to replace phone parts or accessories for a model that is years out of date. Otherwise, I'd be adding yet another phone to the landfills or e-cycle dumps.
It's also really nice having a decent customer support system when the nameless Chinese manufacturer for these products doesn't deliver or delivers a faulty product.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 03, 2018, 08:46:37 PM
victims of Amazon of course.
Really? Amazon is
100% to blame for Chapter's failures in Downtown Toronto? The Indigo in downtown Vancouver is doing just fine. I think it's a Toronto issue.
In your defence, Amazon's original venture was books, so if there was a part of the market most dominated by Amazon, this is certainly it. But physical bookstores still have their place. And Amazon knows this, as they operate 15 brick-and-mortar bookstores in the US. The location in Bellevue, WA is packed all the time.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 03, 2018, 08:32:23 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 02, 2018, 02:12:26 PM
More convenient to lobby Congress, as I'm sure others have pointed out.
Amazon is getting big enough to tip over into evil, so that is probably a factor for them in deciding where to go.
Finally someone else agrees with me on Amazon, I NEVER buy anything from them. Perhaps if everyone wasn't so lazy and quit buying from Amazon, then they'd be finished, but I can't see that happening.
People moan about losing local stores and jobs, but many, many jobs have been created from Amazon as well. If we closed Amazon, there's still going to be thousands of people out of jobs. And while you may think of those jobs as from not being in the area, they still employ truck drivers, delivery drivers, and other people that live and work in your area. My town is getting a new Amazon warehouse soon, which will employ quite a number of local and area residents.
Seeing people moan about Amazon destroying small businesses while happily shopping at Walmart or Home Depot is hilarious. Particularly since the loss of independent hardware stores, electronics stores, etc. is actually to the detriment of anyone who needs help diagnosing a problem and has to rely on the minimum-wage bots employed by these chains who don't know a damn thing about fuses or toilet handles. And I'm not sure the actual bookstores who have found a second life by selling books through Amazon are complaining.
The retail component of Amazon isn't as important as it once was, especially in the context of HQ2. For example, Amazon Web Services is a huge player in the cloud computing industry and brings in some $17 billion in revenue and holds 34% of the market share.
Quote from: abefroman329 on April 04, 2018, 09:24:13 AM
Seeing people moan about Amazon destroying small businesses while happily shopping at Walmart or Home Depot is hilarious. Particularly since the loss of independent hardware stores, electronics stores, etc. is actually to the detriment of anyone who needs help diagnosing a problem and has to rely on the minimum-wage bots employed by these chains who don't know a damn thing about fuses or toilet handles. And I'm not sure the actual bookstores who have found a second life by selling books through Amazon are complaining.
Not to mention that many of the small, local bookstores are doing just fine
because they specialize in providing a solid customer experience rather than the lowest price.
One maxim you hear when you get advice from small-business groups is to never try to compete on price. The bigger businesses have the means to beat you every time, and you'll lose. Instead, focus on what small businesses can do better, which is customer service and quality products.
A little preview of what HQ2 might bring to the chosen city:
Amazon's new Seattle headquarters campus has three giant glass domes that house a few thousand tropical plants. It's a giant employee lounge that is open to the public on a very limited basis (at least for now), but I was lucky enough to get a tour through the official headquarters tour.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/818/41246595761_d77e5b2ac9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25QPzUM)
Amazon Spheres from Day 1 (https://flic.kr/p/25QPzUM) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4711/40019103502_4d131ff38f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23Ymne9)
Amazon Spheres from Doppler (https://flic.kr/p/23Ymne9) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4610/40019104902_a6fe9821f3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23YmnDh)
Amazon Spheres from Doppler (https://flic.kr/p/23YmnDh) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/866/41246510591_8a10e1aab6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25QP9Ak)
Inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/25QP9Ak) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/895/26373149657_1d0f5a2b7a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GbvhyR)
Inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/GbvhyR) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/785/40531820014_f4eecd5183_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24KEaZ1)
Inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/24KEaZ1) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/901/41246512081_917d9d7256_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25QPa32)
Birds' nest inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/25QPa32) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/902/27372360768_070d89207f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HGNvdC)
View from inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/HGNvdC) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/898/27372362328_d747ef1369_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HGNvFw)
Inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/HGNvFw) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/783/40531822934_6a1efcd8fb_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24KEbRm)
Inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/24KEbRm) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/898/27372363778_9867ff0e29_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HGNw7w)
Humidity control inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/HGNw7w) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/876/40531824124_1b9ef4ac43_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24KEccS)
Humidity control inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/24KEccS) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/788/27372365518_471288eff1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HGNwCw)
Plant label inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/HGNwCw) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/869/40531821654_977e9b74b6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24KEbth)
Amazon Tower III from inside the Amazon Spheres (https://flic.kr/p/24KEbth) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
Quote from: Bruce on April 06, 2018, 11:47:15 PM
Amazon's new Seattle headquarters campus has three giant glass domes that house a few thousand tropical plants.
Because it's Amazon. Hahahaha...ha.....ha............ I see what they did there.
That reminds me of the Mitchell Park Horticultural Conservatory (aka "The Domes") in Milwaukee.
https://www.milwaukeemag.com/ideas-ways-transform-domes/
Yeah, those copycats. :-D
Unlike Amazon, though, the Mitchell Park Domes are very much open to the public. ;)
The Amazon Spheres are actually open to the public, you just have to make a reservation (and it's free). Access is limited, since it's mainly an employee workspace and Amazon is not required to grant public access indoors. Heck, the turf lawn and plaza space between the spheres and building is a POPS that Amazon allows for all use, even for anti-Amazon protests that happen from time to time:
https://twitter.com/MarcusQ13Fox/status/983872541323214848
We just moved into a new house, and for reasons that are too boring to get into, we have an extra king-sized box spring set, but are in need of a mattress and frame so we can set up a place to sleep in our in-law suite. We went to the local mattress company's outlet store, and told them we weren't interested in spending a lot of money on a mattress that would be slept on, at most, by one person, once a week. Numerous times. After 20 minutes of the salesman trying to upsell us to a mattress we were not interested in buying, we left and bought what we needed on Amazon. It'll be at our front door on Thursday.
The worst part was, we're probably going to need to replace our current mattress in a few years, and if the salesman hadn't been such a, well, salesman about the transaction, I would've gone back to him personally to buy the much more expensive mattress.
...Since when did this turn into a catch-all Amazon thread? Can we at least keep this to Amazon's headquarters?
Quote from: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 03:31:19 PM
Can we at least keep this to Amazon's headquarters?
Here's something related to "large buildings that house white-collar Amazon employees" (but aren't necessarily headquarters):
https://twitter.com/NEWS1130/status/990995554049048576
With the Seattle City Council trying to pass a head tax that is targeted at large employers (basically just Amazon), the company has put its foot down and suspended construction on its fifth tower.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/amazon-pauses-seattle-construction-pending-city-hall-head-tax-vote/
Seems kind of silly. Even if they wanted to reverse expansion plans in Seattle, it would be easier to sell off (or rent out) a completed building they have no use for than a half-built one.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 02, 2018, 06:48:59 PM
Seems kind of silly. Even if they wanted to reverse expansion plans in Seattle, it would be easier to sell off (or rent out) a completed building they have no use for than a half-built one.
I'm sure the building will be finished eventually, by someone. Amazon is just stomping its feet.
Quote from: kkt on May 02, 2018, 07:20:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 02, 2018, 06:48:59 PM
Seems kind of silly. Even if they wanted to reverse expansion plans in Seattle, it would be easier to sell off (or rent out) a completed building they have no use for than a half-built one.
I'm sure the building will be finished eventually, by someone. Amazon is just stomping its feet.
Considering how many jobs Amazon has brought to Seattle, I think it's wise to give in to a few of its demands.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 02, 2018, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 02, 2018, 07:20:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 02, 2018, 06:48:59 PM
Seems kind of silly. Even if they wanted to reverse expansion plans in Seattle, it would be easier to sell off (or rent out) a completed building they have no use for than a half-built one.
I'm sure the building will be finished eventually, by someone. Amazon is just stomping its feet.
Considering how many jobs Amazon has brought to Seattle, I think it's wise to give in to a few of its demands.
Yes and no. You don't want to antagonize them unnecessarily, but you also don't want to let them buy the city council. Amazon is in it for their own profits, and not the well-being of the city of Seattle. If what's best for the city doesn't match up with what's best for Amazon, the city council should cut them loose.
Seattle is getting very little from Amazon's development. School enrollment is increasing rapidly, in part because of all the families moving to where Amazon jobs are. Do the developments pay impact fees to support schools? No, they do not. And the schools don't get money to build new schools from the state. Result, they don't get built until long after they're desperately needed, and when they do they are paid for by general property taxes, not development fees.
Quote from: kkt on May 04, 2018, 01:06:42 AM
Seattle is getting very little from Amazon's development. School enrollment is increasing rapidly, in part because of all the families moving to where Amazon jobs are. Do the developments pay impact fees to support schools? No, they do not. And the schools don't get money to build new schools from the state. Result, they don't get built until long after they're desperately needed, and when they do they are paid for by general property taxes, not development fees.
Frankly speaking, city of Seattle is RICH. City budget is just shy of $10k per capita, which is also slightly below $12K federal per capita values. For comparison, our area has municipal budgets of about $2k and below.
Quote from: kalvado on May 04, 2018, 08:00:41 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 04, 2018, 01:06:42 AM
Seattle is getting very little from Amazon's development. School enrollment is increasing rapidly, in part because of all the families moving to where Amazon jobs are. Do the developments pay impact fees to support schools? No, they do not. And the schools don't get money to build new schools from the state. Result, they don't get built until long after they're desperately needed, and when they do they are paid for by general property taxes, not development fees.
Frankly speaking, city of Seattle is RICH. City budget is just shy of $10k per capita, which is also slightly below $12K federal per capita values. For comparison, our area has municipal budgets of about $2k and below.
I don't know where you get those numbers or what services they include. I will note, however, that it's more expensive to grow than to stay static or shrink.
Quote from: kkt on May 04, 2018, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 04, 2018, 08:00:41 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 04, 2018, 01:06:42 AM
Seattle is getting very little from Amazon's development. School enrollment is increasing rapidly, in part because of all the families moving to where Amazon jobs are. Do the developments pay impact fees to support schools? No, they do not. And the schools don't get money to build new schools from the state. Result, they don't get built until long after they're desperately needed, and when they do they are paid for by general property taxes, not development fees.
Frankly speaking, city of Seattle is RICH. City budget is just shy of $10k per capita, which is also slightly below $12K federal per capita values. For comparison, our area has municipal budgets of about $2k and below.
I don't know where you get those numbers or what services they include. I will note, however, that it's more expensive to grow than to stay static or shrink.
Numbers come from official Seattle budget. Yes, it costs a lot to grow - but its a question of how much can government collect from taxpayers. My impression is that with $10k per capita budget, new schools should be only that big of an issue. Asking state - e.g. mostly people outside of the area with high-tech growth - to subsidize Seattle activities, while WA state per capita budget is about half of that for city of Seattle - is an interesting way of running things.
Update: looks like Amazon executives are visiting some of the finalist cities.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/19/amazon-executives-revisit-hq2-shortlist-cities.html
I'm still putting my money on the DMV. Doubt they'll locate in the District, but within a stone's throw, and near the metro.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 11:52:21 PM
I'm still putting my money on the DMV. Doubt they'll locate in the District, but within a stone's throw, and near the metro.
One of the proposed sites is the former site of the White Flint Mall in Kensington, MD.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on October 20, 2018, 12:48:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 11:52:21 PM
I'm still putting my money on the DMV. Doubt they'll locate in the District, but within a stone's throw, and near the metro.
One of the proposed sites is the former site of the White Flint Mall in Kensington, MD.
Seems odd to want to locate outside the beltway. Not sure if they want a suburban or urban campus, but Rosslyn or Court House would make great locations. Arlington County, in general, would be my pick.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2018, 03:53:13 AM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on October 20, 2018, 12:48:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 11:52:21 PM
I'm still putting my money on the DMV. Doubt they'll locate in the District, but within a stone's throw, and near the metro.
One of the proposed sites is the former site of the White Flint Mall in Kensington, MD.
Seems odd to want to locate outside the beltway. Not sure if they want a suburban or urban campus, but Rosslyn or Court House would make great locations. Arlington County, in general, would be my pick.
Yeah Arlington wouldn't be a bad place for Amazon's HQ2. The Court House location would give them a presence around the county government itself. Rosslyn would give them a presence close enough to Washington, D.C. directly across the Potomac River.
Crystal City (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/business/amazon-hq2-virginia-finalists.html) also appears to be a strong contender.
Quote from: Doctor Whom on October 22, 2018, 03:06:42 PM
Crystal City (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/business/amazon-hq2-virginia-finalists.html) also appears to be a strong contender.
Article makes good points. Certainly less cramped than other areas of Arlington.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 22, 2018, 11:58:46 PM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on October 22, 2018, 03:06:42 PM
Crystal City (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/business/amazon-hq2-virginia-finalists.html) also appears to be a strong contender.
Article makes good points. Certainly less cramped than other areas of Arlington.
Crystal City would be nice for access to/from DCA aka Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on October 23, 2018, 03:00:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 22, 2018, 11:58:46 PM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on October 22, 2018, 03:06:42 PM
Crystal City (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/business/amazon-hq2-virginia-finalists.html) also appears to be a strong contender.
Article makes good points. Certainly less cramped than other areas of Arlington.
Crystal City would be nice for access to/from DCA aka Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Assuming National can support a potentially massive increase in Amazon-related traffic. At least there (will be?) a Yellow > Blue > Silver Metrorail connection to Dulles too, just in case.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 04:47:14 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on October 23, 2018, 03:00:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 22, 2018, 11:58:46 PM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on October 22, 2018, 03:06:42 PM
Crystal City (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/business/amazon-hq2-virginia-finalists.html) also appears to be a strong contender.
Article makes good points. Certainly less cramped than other areas of Arlington.
Crystal City would be nice for access to/from DCA aka Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Assuming National can support a potentially massive increase in Amazon-related traffic. At least there (will be?) a Yellow > Blue > Silver Metrorail connection to Dulles too, just in case.
It's just Blue -> Silver from Crystal City.
Quote from: abefroman329 on October 23, 2018, 05:00:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 04:47:14 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on October 23, 2018, 03:00:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 22, 2018, 11:58:46 PM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on October 22, 2018, 03:06:42 PM
Crystal City (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/business/amazon-hq2-virginia-finalists.html) also appears to be a strong contender.
Article makes good points. Certainly less cramped than other areas of Arlington.
Crystal City would be nice for access to/from DCA aka Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Assuming National can support a potentially massive increase in Amazon-related traffic. At least there (will be?) a Yellow > Blue > Silver Metrorail connection to Dulles too, just in case.
It's just Blue -> Silver from Crystal City.
Of course. Thanks. In my head I keep thinking Blue ends at Pentagon. No idea why.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 09:19:07 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on October 23, 2018, 05:00:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 04:47:14 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on October 23, 2018, 03:00:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 22, 2018, 11:58:46 PM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on October 22, 2018, 03:06:42 PM
Crystal City (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/business/amazon-hq2-virginia-finalists.html) also appears to be a strong contender.
Article makes good points. Certainly less cramped than other areas of Arlington.
Crystal City would be nice for access to/from DCA aka Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Assuming National can support a potentially massive increase in Amazon-related traffic. At least there (will be?) a Yellow > Blue > Silver Metrorail connection to Dulles too, just in case.
It's just Blue -> Silver from Crystal City.
Of course. Thanks. In my head I keep thinking Blue ends at Pentagon. No idea why.
If you were around during the summer when they were doing track work, you probably encountered the truncated Blue Line and have that map in your head. Understandable. The Blue ended at Arlington Cemetery during that period, but for practical purposes everyone had to change at the Pentagon (or sooner).
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 23, 2018, 09:36:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 09:19:07 PM
In my head I keep thinking Blue ends at Pentagon. No idea why.
If you were around during the summer when they were doing track work, you probably encountered the truncated Blue Line and have that map in your head. Understandable. The Blue ended at Arlington Cemetery during that period, but for practical purposes everyone had to change at the Pentagon (or sooner).
Could be. A neighbor of ours in Court House was complaining about the blue line either be truncated, or only running every 20 minutes or something, and how he had to drive to work when he normally didn't need to. Basically, I got used to ignoring the blue line. I was last there in August for about four weeks, and the construction ended not long before I left. I
did go from L'Enfant > Pentagon on yellow, and then blue to the Cemetery to get some pics for the VA thread. In my head, might have just incorrectly assumed that blue ended at Pentagon since that's where I switched...I'm obviously not used to the metro yet.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on October 23, 2018, 03:00:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 22, 2018, 11:58:46 PM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on October 22, 2018, 03:06:42 PM
Crystal City (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/business/amazon-hq2-virginia-finalists.html) also appears to be a strong contender.
Article makes good points. Certainly less cramped than other areas of Arlington.
Crystal City would be nice for access to/from DCA aka Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
DCA's non-stop route map:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flyreagan.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdca_nov2018.png&hash=952b47ad793544743ffec10f0eecb7ee59c576f2)
While the above-route map for DCA
looks impressive; one needs to keep in mind that DCA has slot/perimeter restrictions (http://www.flyreagan.com/dca/dca-reagan-national-slot-perimeter-rules). As a result, the longer DCA routes are usually flown with less frequency.
Looks like northern VA is likely: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/03/amazon-reportedly-in-advanced-stages-of-naming-va-as-2nd-headquarters.html
Quote from: vdeane on November 03, 2018, 10:18:14 PM
Looks like northern VA is likely: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/03/amazon-reportedly-in-advanced-stages-of-naming-va-as-2nd-headquarters.html
I read a comment on a recent Washington Post article suggesting Eisenhower Avenue in Alexandria. Not a bad place for HQ2 (there is still plenty of space available on which to build one). Potomac Yard on the city line between Arlington and Alexandria would also work.
Looking around at both areas, it doesn't look like there's enough room for Amazon's planned campus in either spot, unless it was split or stretched (which is probably not as desirable). Unless they're able to build a few 30-story highrises like they've done in Seattle, it'll need a lot more space.
Quote from: Bruce on November 04, 2018, 01:24:56 AM
Looking around at both areas, it doesn't look like there's enough room for Amazon's planned campus in either spot, unless it was split or stretched (which is probably not as desirable). Unless they're able to build a few 30-story highrises like they've done in Seattle, it'll need a lot more space.
If we are being loose in our definition of "Crystal City", there's a massive open spot of land near the Fashion Centre which could accommodate a well-sized campus.
A lot of the structures in Crystal City are also pretty old, at least compared to the age of other tall buildings in the DMV. It's possible they might knock a few down to clear some room for some new tall buildings.
Looks like Amazon is going to choose not one, but two cities: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/05/amazon-will-reportedly-create-two-new-headquarters-instead-of-one.html
Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2018, 08:57:14 PM
Looks like Amazon is going to choose not one, but two cities: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/05/amazon-will-reportedly-create-two-new-headquarters-instead-of-one.html
I wish they would make up their fucking mind already and get it over with. They're milking the PR for all it's worth at this point. :meh:
Quote from: LM117 on November 05, 2018, 09:00:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2018, 08:57:14 PM
Looks like Amazon is going to choose not one, but two cities: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/05/amazon-will-reportedly-create-two-new-headquarters-instead-of-one.html
I wish they would make up their fucking mind already and get it over with. They're milking the PR for all it's worth at this point. :meh:
I really don't know if they (Amazon) can pull that off.
Wait are they going for HQ2 and HQ3? Or two equal mini-HQs that together are equal to a single HQ?
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2018, 10:08:44 PM
Wait are they going for HQ2 and HQ3? Or two equal mini-HQs that together are equal to a single HQ?
Probably just HQ2 in two different locations which IDK if it can work out for Amazon or not. Bloomberg has just mentioned on TV that Amazon is zeroing in on New York and Arlington for HQ2. Not surprising but I would bet on one of the outer boroughs for HQ2 in New York because it just wouldn't work for them in Manhattan.
The New York City bid specifies Long Island City, which is just across from Midtown Manhattan. Arlington's would be in Crystal City, which is a bit removed from the high-rise district in Rosslyn.
Seattle is claiming that this is a huge win, given that we'd remain the largest Amazon base by far. Trying to accommodate 50K tech employees in one location would have been too ambitious, even for one of the largest companies around.
Quote from: Bruce on November 05, 2018, 10:24:55 PM
The New York City bid specifies Long Island City, which is just across from Midtown Manhattan. Arlington's would be in Crystal City, which is a bit removed from the high-rise district in Rosslyn.
Seattle is claiming that this is a huge win, given that we'd remain the largest Amazon base by far. Trying to accommodate 50K tech employees in one location would have been too ambitious, even for one of the largest companies around.
Yeah LIC is what I'd have in mind for HQ2. Same with Crystal City. And yeah Seattle will still be home to HQ1.
Quote from: Bruce on November 05, 2018, 10:24:55 PM
Arlington's would be in Crystal City, which is a bit removed from the high-rise district in Rosslyn.
There are quite a few high rise districts outside of Rosslyn. The DMV is a lot like Vancouver. Rosslyn is downtown Vancouver, but there are lots of other high rise areas, like Court House, Crystal City, and Arlington proper.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2018, 11:01:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 05, 2018, 10:24:55 PM
Arlington's would be in Crystal City, which is a bit removed from the high-rise district in Rosslyn.
There are quite a few high rise districts outside of Rosslyn. The DMV is a lot like Vancouver. Rosslyn is downtown Vancouver, but there are lots of other high rise areas, like Court House, Crystal City, and Arlington proper.
Interesting comparison. Haven't been to Vancouver so I have no idea what it's like up and over there.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on November 05, 2018, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2018, 11:01:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 05, 2018, 10:24:55 PM
Arlington's would be in Crystal City, which is a bit removed from the high-rise district in Rosslyn.
There are quite a few high rise districts outside of Rosslyn. The DMV is a lot like Vancouver. Rosslyn is downtown Vancouver, but there are lots of other high rise areas, like Court House, Crystal City, and Arlington proper.
Interesting comparison. Haven't been to Vancouver so I have no idea what it's like up and over there.
Vancouver's skyscraper situation is reminiscent of some Asian cities. There's a main city centre but there's a ton of other smaller hubs with shopping and housing, usually in the form of 30+ storey buildings. Check out "Vancouverism" on Wikipedia.
If you plop down street view anywhere in Vancouver with an open view, there's a good chance of a skyscraper being in view. Looking across the border from Whatcom County is especially funny as it's all farmland.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2018, 11:23:47 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on November 05, 2018, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2018, 11:01:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 05, 2018, 10:24:55 PM
Arlington's would be in Crystal City, which is a bit removed from the high-rise district in Rosslyn.
There are quite a few high rise districts outside of Rosslyn. The DMV is a lot like Vancouver. Rosslyn is downtown Vancouver, but there are lots of other high rise areas, like Court House, Crystal City, and Arlington proper.
Interesting comparison. Haven't been to Vancouver so I have no idea what it's like up and over there.
Vancouver's skyscraper situation is reminiscent of some Asian cities. There's a main city centre but there's a ton of other smaller hubs with shopping and housing, usually in the form of 30+ storey buildings. Check out "Vancouverism" on Wikipedia.
If you plop down street view anywhere in Vancouver with an open view, there's a good chance of a skyscraper being in view. Looking across the border from Whatcom County is especially funny as it's all farmland.
Yeah it's pretty rural out there AFAIK.
https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/02E465EA-E139-11E8-A5F4-C69C003E438C
According to MarketWatch there have been gripes and laughter in the wake of recent reports on HQ2 being split between two areas (NYC and Arlington).
Quote from: kevinb1994 on November 05, 2018, 11:35:35 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2018, 11:23:47 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on November 05, 2018, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2018, 11:01:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 05, 2018, 10:24:55 PM
Arlington's would be in Crystal City, which is a bit removed from the high-rise district in Rosslyn.
There are quite a few high rise districts outside of Rosslyn. The DMV is a lot like Vancouver. Rosslyn is downtown Vancouver, but there are lots of other high rise areas, like Court House, Crystal City, and Arlington proper.
Interesting comparison. Haven't been to Vancouver so I have no idea what it's like up and over there.
Vancouver's skyscraper situation is reminiscent of some Asian cities. There's a main city centre but there's a ton of other smaller hubs with shopping and housing, usually in the form of 30+ storey buildings. Check out "Vancouverism" on Wikipedia.
If you plop down street view anywhere in Vancouver with an open view, there's a good chance of a skyscraper being in view. Looking across the border from Whatcom County is especially funny as it's all farmland.
Yeah it's pretty rural out there AFAIK.
The rural part being Whatcom County. Apparently, per capita, Vancouver has the most residential skyscrapers of any city in North America as well.
I've gotten the impression from living in Arlington that DC has similar levels of density in certain pockets, unlike my hometown of Seattle where tall buildings are pretty much only in Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:38:46 AMI've gotten the impression from living in Arlington that DC has similar levels of density in certain pockets, unlike my hometown of Seattle where tall buildings are pretty much only in Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett.
Population density within the District is lower than it might be otherwise due to the ban on skyscrapers that are taller than 13 stories.
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 06, 2018, 09:28:28 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:38:46 AMI've gotten the impression from living in Arlington that DC has similar levels of density in certain pockets, unlike my hometown of Seattle where tall buildings are pretty much only in Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett.
Population density within the District is lower than it might be otherwise due to the ban on skyscrapers that are taller than 13 stories.
Precisely. Arlington and a few other areas just outside the District are actually DENSER because of the ban (14 stories including the ground floor). It's quite weird walking around and having every building be the same height.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on November 06, 2018, 12:25:44 AM
https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/02E465EA-E139-11E8-A5F4-C69C003E438C
According to MarketWatch there have been gripes and laughter in the wake of recent reports on HQ2 being split between two areas (NYC and Arlington).
>>when you take so long deciding on a location for HQ2 that the need for an HQ3 arises...
Also why would they choose two locations that are almost in the same region. I'm from the Midwest, so I'm biased toward a more central location--like Dallas? Weren't they also considering Dallas, too?
About time they picked a location! I wouldn't be surprised if HQ3 is eventually created, so that the cities that didn't get HQ2 could get a chance to bid again.
You have to order two HQ2s in case someone steals one of them off your front porch.
Quote from: Henry on November 06, 2018, 09:58:58 AM
About time they picked a location! I wouldn't be surprised if HQ3 is eventually created, so that the cities that didn't get HQ2 could get a chance to bid again.
If they're creating two HQ2s, then hasn't HQ3 already been created? Unless one is HQ2.1
Quote from: spooky on November 06, 2018, 10:45:44 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 06, 2018, 09:58:58 AM
About time they picked a location! I wouldn't be surprised if HQ3 is eventually created, so that the cities that didn't get HQ2 could get a chance to bid again.
If they're creating two HQ2s, then hasn't HQ3 already been created? Unless one is HQ2.1
HQ2.1 and HQ2.2.018.a
Pretty clear this decision is coming down to talent and transport. NYC and DC are two of the biggest tech markets in the east, and have very good transit compared to places like Dallas. NYC and DC are also global centers, no other east coast or midwest cities attract talent like they can already.
Quote from: westerninterloper on November 06, 2018, 11:00:22 AM
Pretty clear this decision is coming down to talent and transport. NYC and DC are two of the biggest tech markets in the east, and have very good transit compared to places like Dallas. NYC and DC are also global centers, no other east coast or midwest cities attract talent like they can already.
It's because Bezos knows his fortunes are tied to Wall Street and the national security state.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 06, 2018, 09:31:33 AM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on November 06, 2018, 12:25:44 AM
https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/02E465EA-E139-11E8-A5F4-C69C003E438C
According to MarketWatch there have been gripes and laughter in the wake of recent reports on HQ2 being split between two areas (NYC and Arlington).
>>when you take so long deciding on a location for HQ2 that the need for an HQ3 arises...
Also why would they choose two locations that are almost in the same region. I'm from the Midwest, so I'm biased toward a more central location--like Dallas? Weren't they also considering Dallas, too?
They didn't return to Dallas, so they're out. They did revisit Chicago, though. Also between Arlington and NYC is the Northeast Corridor-Northeast Regional Amtrak-NJ Transit line (originally lines built by predecessors of the Pennsylvania Railroad, except for the Pennsylvania Tunnel and Terminal Railroad built and opened in 1910 for the original Pennsylvania Railroad Station in Midtown Manhattan).
Quote from: westerninterloper on November 06, 2018, 11:00:22 AM
Pretty clear this decision is coming down to talent and transport. NYC and DC are two of the biggest tech markets in the east, and have very good transit compared to places like Dallas. NYC and DC are also global centers, no other east coast or midwest cities attract talent like they can already.
Chicago's got a pretty good attraction too, but the crime makes DC look like Beverly Hills.
Quote from: cl94 on November 06, 2018, 09:31:30 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 06, 2018, 09:28:28 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:38:46 AMI've gotten the impression from living in Arlington that DC has similar levels of density in certain pockets, unlike my hometown of Seattle where tall buildings are pretty much only in Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett.
Population density within the District is lower than it might be otherwise due to the ban on skyscrapers that are taller than 13 stories.
Precisely. Arlington and a few other areas just outside the District are actually DENSER because of the ban (14 stories including the ground floor). It's quite weird walking around and having every building be the same height.
In terms of pure density, even with its lower height buildings DC is still pretty dense. those middle height buildings are everywhere, unlike some other urban areas, where single family housing picks up 10 blocks from the center of the city. DC still has single family housing, but they're in the form of townhouses for the most part.
I'm sure everyone already knows this, but when L'Enfant design DC, he was emulating Haussmann's Parisian boulevards. Paris has since built La Defense, to make up for a similar building height restriction. DC made up for it by having two jurisdictions close by which did not have height restrictions.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:08:37 PM
Quote from: westerninterloper on November 06, 2018, 11:00:22 AM
Pretty clear this decision is coming down to talent and transport. NYC and DC are two of the biggest tech markets in the east, and have very good transit compared to places like Dallas. NYC and DC are also global centers, no other east coast or midwest cities attract talent like they can already.
Chicago's got a pretty good attraction too, but the crime makes DC look like Beverly Hills.
Quote from: cl94 on November 06, 2018, 09:31:30 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 06, 2018, 09:28:28 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:38:46 AMI've gotten the impression from living in Arlington that DC has similar levels of density in certain pockets, unlike my hometown of Seattle where tall buildings are pretty much only in Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett.
Population density within the District is lower than it might be otherwise due to the ban on skyscrapers that are taller than 13 stories.
Precisely. Arlington and a few other areas just outside the District are actually DENSER because of the ban (14 stories including the ground floor). It's quite weird walking around and having every building be the same height.
In terms of pure density, even with its lower height buildings DC is still pretty dense. those middle height buildings are everywhere, unlike some other urban areas, where single family housing picks up 10 blocks from the center of the city. DC still has single family housing, but they're in the form of townhouses for the most part.
I'm sure everyone already knows this, but when L'Enfant design DC, he was emulating Haussmann's Parisian boulevards. Paris has since built La Defense, to make up for a similar building height restriction. DC made up for it by having two jurisdictions close by which did not have height restrictions.
And to draw further comparison(s) between the two, both are the capitals of the countries they are located in.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on November 06, 2018, 12:34:02 PM
And to draw further comparison(s) between the two, both are the capitals of the countries they are located in.
Hence why Napolean dropped all that cash on Paris in the mid-19th Century. Grand Boulevards for the Capital! L'Enfant wanted the same thing.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:08:37 PMI'm sure everyone already knows this, but when L'Enfant design DC, he was emulating Haussmann's Parisian boulevards. Paris has since built La Defense, to make up for a similar building height restriction. DC made up for it by having two jurisdictions close by which did not have height restrictions.
Whoa - that timeline is way out of whack. DC was designed in 1791, while the Haussmannian renovation wasn't commissioned until 1853, a direct response to the cloistered street barricades that made suppressing the 1848 revolts so difficult.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on November 06, 2018, 01:37:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:08:37 PMI'm sure everyone already knows this, but when L'Enfant design DC, he was emulating Haussmann's Parisian boulevards. Paris has since built La Defense, to make up for a similar building height restriction. DC made up for it by having two jurisdictions close by which did not have height restrictions.
Whoa - that timeline is way out of whack. DC was designed in 1791, while the Haussmannian renovation wasn't commissioned until 1853, a direct response to the cloistered street barricades that made suppressing the 1848 revolts so difficult.
Whoops. Didn't know that that was the case.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:08:37 PM
Quote from: westerninterloper on November 06, 2018, 11:00:22 AM
Pretty clear this decision is coming down to talent and transport. NYC and DC are two of the biggest tech markets in the east, and have very good transit compared to places like Dallas. NYC and DC are also global centers, no other east coast or midwest cities attract talent like they can already.
Chicago's got a pretty good attraction too, but the crime makes DC look like Beverly Hills.
Not really. I just picked three types of crime and compared the three cities in question. Chicago and DC are pretty comparable when it comes to crime. NYC is the outlier of the three, with significantly lower crime.
Always fact-check the media hype.
(https://i.imgur.com/8opesNp.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/TICuNqe.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XkCHYEz.png)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2018, 11:23:47 PM
Vancouver's skyscraper situation is reminiscent of some Asian cities. There's a main city centre but there's a ton of other smaller hubs with shopping and housing, usually in the form of 30+ storey buildings. Check out "Vancouverism" on Wikipedia.
Well put. I remember thinking, when I was in Vancouver, that its city center looks like what I imagine large Japanese cities to look like.
Quote from: kphoger on November 06, 2018, 02:22:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:08:37 PM
Quote from: westerninterloper on November 06, 2018, 11:00:22 AM
Pretty clear this decision is coming down to talent and transport. NYC and DC are two of the biggest tech markets in the east, and have very good transit compared to places like Dallas. NYC and DC are also global centers, no other east coast or midwest cities attract talent like they can already.
Chicago's got a pretty good attraction too, but the crime makes DC look like Beverly Hills.
Not really. I just picked three types of crime and compared the three cities in question. Chicago and DC are pretty comparable when it comes to crime. NYC is the outlier of the three, with significantly lower crime.
Always fact-check the media hype.
(https://i.imgur.com/8opesNp.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/TICuNqe.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XkCHYEz.png)
Yeah NYC does has lower crime as compared to Chicago and DC. It hasn't always been this way, though. Back when my father was growing up in Parsippany-Troy Hills (technically in Troy Hills Village) in the 60s and 70s (my mother and her family arrived from Taichung-Taipei-Taoyuan via SFO->JFK in the early-mid 70s and settled in Jackson) it wasn't as safe due to lead poisoning of children and the notorious crack epidemic.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on November 06, 2018, 03:06:49 PM
Yeah NYC does has lower crime as compared to Chicago and DC. It hasn't always been this way, though. Back when my father was growing up in Parsippany-Troy Hills (technically in Troy Hills Village) in the 60s and 70s (my mother and her family arrived from Taichung-Taipei-Taoyuan via SFO->JFK in the early-mid 70s and settled in Jackson) it wasn't as safe due to lead poisoning of children and the notorious crack epidemic.
I can only easily find data back as far as 1985 but, FYI, it was a tighter bunch back then.
(https://i.imgur.com/PZ0ef37.png)
Quote from: TXtoNJ on November 06, 2018, 01:37:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:08:37 PMI'm sure everyone already knows this, but when L'Enfant design DC, he was emulating Haussmann's Parisian boulevards. Paris has since built La Defense, to make up for a similar building height restriction. DC made up for it by having two jurisdictions close by which did not have height restrictions.
Whoa - that timeline is way out of whack. DC was designed in 1791, while the Haussmannian renovation wasn't commissioned until 1853, a direct response to the cloistered street barricades that made suppressing the 1848 revolts so difficult.
Yes, this is true. Thanks for pointing that out. Got my dates and names mixed up. They both had similar ideas in mind with troops movement and line of sight ideals. Being able to see the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, or being able to see the Capitol building in DC, for example.
Quote from: kphoger on November 06, 2018, 02:22:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 12:08:37 PM
Quote from: westerninterloper on November 06, 2018, 11:00:22 AM
Pretty clear this decision is coming down to talent and transport. NYC and DC are two of the biggest tech markets in the east, and have very good transit compared to places like Dallas. NYC and DC are also global centers, no other east coast or midwest cities attract talent like they can already.
Chicago's got a pretty good attraction too, but the crime makes DC look like Beverly Hills.
Not really. I just picked three types of crime and compared the three cities in question. Chicago and DC are pretty comparable when it comes to crime. NYC is the outlier of the three, with significantly lower crime.
Always fact-check the media hype.
I should have said Arlington (since that's where Amazon would be). Murder rate in Arlington, per 100k persons, is 5.3 (same as national average) according to FBI data from this September. It also shows a rate of 16.7 for DC: https://goo.gl/UyU5Vn
Quote from: kphoger on November 06, 2018, 02:22:55 PM
Not really. I just picked three types of crime and compared the three cities in question. Chicago and DC are pretty comparable when it comes to crime. NYC is the outlier of the three, with significantly lower crime.
Always fact-check the media hype.
(graphs)
Pretty sure Amazon isn't going to put their HQ in a crime-ridden poor neighborhood of ANY city.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 04:20:12 PM
I should have said Arlington (since that's where Amazon would be). Murder rate in Arlington, per 100k persons, is 5.3 (same as national average) according to FBI data from this September. It also shows a rate of 16.7 for DC: https://goo.gl/UyU5Vn
Would an HQ2 in Chicago be in the city itself or in one of the suburbs? I remember both possibilities in the original bids.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 06, 2018, 04:25:53 PM
Pretty sure Amazon isn't going to put their HQ in a crime-ridden poor neighborhood of ANY city.
This highlights the limited usefulness of crime statistics. Some neighborhoods are much more violent than others, even within the same city. Furthermore, comparing city to city (or neighborhood to neighborhood) doesn't give you any understanding of whether those numbers you're comparing are high or low–just how they compare to
each other. Unless you have some sort of baseline for what "normal" is, than the statistics only mean so much.
Quote from: kphoger on November 06, 2018, 04:29:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2018, 04:20:12 PM
I should have said Arlington (since that's where Amazon would be). Murder rate in Arlington, per 100k persons, is 5.3 (same as national average) according to FBI data from this September. It also shows a rate of 16.7 for DC: https://goo.gl/UyU5Vn
Would an HQ2 in Chicago be in the city itself or in one of the suburbs? I remember both possibilities in the original bids.
If Chicago, it would be only in Chicago. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is heading up the bid. I sincerely doubt he'll want any part of it in any suburb.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 06, 2018, 04:25:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 06, 2018, 02:22:55 PM
Not really. I just picked three types of crime and compared the three cities in question. Chicago and DC are pretty comparable when it comes to crime. NYC is the outlier of the three, with significantly lower crime.
Always fact-check the media hype.
(graphs)
Pretty sure Amazon isn't going to put their HQ in a crime-ridden poor neighborhood of ANY city.
Actually, that's how urban regeneration frequently works, because the land is cheap there. That's exactly how it worked in several neighborhoods in DC.
Tuesday announcement expected for Long Island City and Crystal City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/business/amazon-hq2-cities.html
Here we go. Nashville gets a smaller swag bag.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/amazon-hq2-decision-amazon-splits-hq2-prize-between-crystal-city-and-new-york/2018/11/12/316d2a32-e2c9-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?utm_term=.1bc33661ce3e
Amazon's press release.
https://blog.aboutamazon.com/company-news/amazon-selects-new-york-city-and-northern-virginia-for-new-headquarters (https://blog.aboutamazon.com/company-news/amazon-selects-new-york-city-and-northern-virginia-for-new-headquarters)
Amazon is calling Crystal City "National Landing." I think I'll call it "Reagan National Landing" just to irk the people who don't like it when you say "Reagan Airport."
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2018, 08:09:03 PM
Amazon is calling Crystal City "National Landing." I think I'll call it "Reagan National Landing" just to irk the people who don't like it when you say "Reagan Airport."
Those people would include the local governments that are subsidizing the Amazon project, and would rather you call the airport by its old name "National Airport". It took an Act of Congress to jam the Reagan airport name down their throats.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2018, 08:09:03 PM
Amazon is calling Crystal City "National Landing." I think I'll call it "Reagan National Landing" just to irk the people who don't like it when you say "Reagan Airport."
I've been talking to my mom all day and we cannot figure out what the hell they're talking about...National Landing?? My first thought was some development like National Harbor but no one's bothered to mention "National Landing" until now.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2018, 10:31:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2018, 08:09:03 PM
Amazon is calling Crystal City "National Landing." I think I'll call it "Reagan National Landing" just to irk the people who don't like it when you say "Reagan Airport."
I've been talking to my mom all day and we cannot figure out what the hell they're talking about...National Landing?? My first thought was some development like National Harbor but no one's bothered to mention "National Landing" until now.
Wouldn't be surprised if the name "National Landing" was somewhat influenced by wanting to be associated with the popular and prosperous National Harbor just down the river.
Here are some of the likely transportation improvements the area will see as a result:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/amazons-hq2-could-be-boon-or-bust-for-metro-and-the-regions-transportation-infrastructure/2018/11/13/748efa5c-e2d3-11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html?utm_term=.7c18c963f87c
QuoteVirginia, Arlington and Alexandria said they were spending more than half a billion dollars to support Amazon's plans, much of it on existing projects. The plans included an additional entrance to the Crystal City Metro station and a second entrance for the planned Potomac Yard station.
The plans also include a pedestrian bridge from Reagan National Airport to Crystal City and a transit-way expansion in a corridor with the region's only bus rapid transit system, along with improvements to Route 1.
Arlington and Alexandria's pledged investments totaled $570 million, while Virginia said it was investing $195 million in improvements; the funding would go to new projects and the expansion of existing ones. The plan would tie new transportation funding levels from the state to the number of jobs Amazon creates.
Overall very excited that half of HQ2 is coming to NOVA. Since there are obviously limited highway improvements that can be done due to the physical constraints of the area, improvements to Metro and VRE need to be on the top of the list.
It really took them that long to choose NYC and DC?
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2018, 11:37:18 PM
It really took them that long to choose NYC and DC?
The conspiracy theorist in me says no.
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 14, 2018, 06:44:04 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2018, 11:37:18 PM
It really took them that long to choose NYC and DC?
The conspiracy theorist in me says no.
All just a ruse to pump up the tax breaks. And it'll probably work again when they need a couple more satellite offices elsewhere in the country.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2018, 11:37:18 PM
It really took them that long to choose NYC and DC?
I'm sure they knew 3 months ago.... so conspiracy me thinks no :-D :-D :pan:
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 14, 2018, 08:37:46 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 14, 2018, 06:44:04 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2018, 11:37:18 PM
It really took them that long to choose NYC and DC?
The conspiracy theorist in me says no.
All just a ruse to pump up the tax breaks. And it'll probably work again when they need a couple more satellite offices elsewhere in the country.
Agreed. There's no way in hell it took this long for Bezos to make up his mind. Almost everybody knew from the start HQ2 would go to NoVA since Congress is right next door. The only real plot twist was the decision to split HQ2, along with Nashville being thrown a bone.
Quote from: LM117 on November 14, 2018, 08:51:18 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 14, 2018, 08:37:46 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 14, 2018, 06:44:04 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2018, 11:37:18 PM
It really took them that long to choose NYC and DC?
The conspiracy theorist in me says no.
All just a ruse to pump up the tax breaks. And it'll probably work again when they need a couple more satellite offices elsewhere in the country.
Agreed. There’s no way in hell it took this long for Bezos to make up his mind. Almost everybody knew from the start HQ2 would go to NoVA since Congress is right next door. The only real plot twist was the decision to split HQ2, along with Nashville being thrown a bone.
I'd like to go back a year ago and see if truly "everybody knew". Because while there were some strong prospects, it was hardly a given.
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 14, 2018, 08:37:46 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 14, 2018, 06:44:04 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 13, 2018, 11:37:18 PM
It really took them that long to choose NYC and DC?
The conspiracy theorist in me says no.
All just a ruse to pump up the tax breaks. And it'll probably work again when they need a couple more satellite offices elsewhere in the country.
Considering one of the incentives Illinois offered Amazon was that Amazon could keep the state taxes its employees in Illinois would have otherwise paid to Illinois, that employees' earnings in Illinois literally would've gone back to Amazon, I'm perfectly fine with them not choosing Illinois.
It's quite possible Long Island is logistically the worst possible place they could have put an HQ. Getting through NYC is damn near impossible from a freight standpoint. Way to dump an unneeded load on an already expensive and stretched-thin transportation system. Not to mention the people of NYC are more likely to revile at an installation of a new Amazon HQ than the people of most anywhere else in America, if I'm reading the situation correctly.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 14, 2018, 09:46:24 AM
It's quite possible Long Island is logistically the worst possible place they could have put an HQ. Getting through NYC is damn near impossible from a freight standpoint. Way to dump an unneeded load on an already expensive and stretched-thin transportation system. Not to mention the people of NYC are more likely to revile at an installation of a new Amazon HQ than the people of most anywhere else in America, if I'm reading the situation correctly.
Amazon could completely fund two Long Island bridges: one to New Jersey and one to Connecticut. $40 million is almost nothing to them.
Quote from: 1 on November 14, 2018, 09:49:25 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 14, 2018, 09:46:24 AM
It's quite possible Long Island is logistically the worst possible place they could have put an HQ. Getting through NYC is damn near impossible from a freight standpoint. Way to dump an unneeded load on an already expensive and stretched-thin transportation system. Not to mention the people of NYC are more likely to revile at an installation of a new Amazon HQ than the people of most anywhere else in America, if I'm reading the situation correctly.
Amazon could completely fund two Long Island bridges: one to New Jersey and one to Connecticut. $40 million is almost nothing to them.
If only bridges were that cheap these days. And Amazon doesn't get to spend shareholder money in ways like that.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 14, 2018, 09:46:24 AM
It's quite possible Long Island is logistically the worst possible place they could have put an HQ. Getting through NYC is damn near impossible from a freight standpoint. Way to dump an unneeded load on an already expensive and stretched-thin transportation system. Not to mention the people of NYC are more likely to revile at an installation of a new Amazon HQ than the people of most anywhere else in America, if I'm reading the situation correctly.
Drone delivery, even though we're realistically 10+ years away from that replacing traditional delivery methods.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2018, 08:09:03 PM
Amazon is calling Crystal City "National Landing."
If people could be persuaded to refer to "North Bethesda" unironically, anything is possible.
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 14, 2018, 08:37:46 AM
All just a ruse to pump up the tax breaks.
That's the oft-repeated narrative, but the evidence would suggest otherwise.
Among the top 20 finalists, neither New York nor Virginia were anywhere near the top. NY's $1.5 billion and VA's roughly $600 million were dwarfed by the $7 billion offered by New Jersey and over $8 billion offered by Maryland. It's notable that in both cases, Amazon still would have landed in the same metro areas (NYC and Washington, respectively) if they had taken the much more generous NJ or MD offers.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2018, 10:31:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2018, 08:09:03 PM
Amazon is calling Crystal City "National Landing." I think I'll call it "Reagan National Landing" just to irk the people who don't like it when you say "Reagan Airport."
I've been talking to my mom all day and we cannot figure out what the hell they're talking about...National Landing?? My first thought was some development like National Harbor but no one's bothered to mention "National Landing" until now.
It's a new name. Nobody here has ever heard "National Landing" before (I've lived here since 1974). The news last night said Alexandria and Arlington came up with the name as a way of referring to the entire area of Crystal City, Pentagon City, and Potomac Yard as a single area, I guess to emphasize how they're all close to each other.
I saw something yesterday joking that the Nationals will move to a new ballpark there and rebrand themselves as the National Landing Nationals and that they'd then become the airport's corporate sponsor, which led me to joke that the airport would become "Ronald Reagan National Landing Nationals Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport." :-D
Quote from: 1 on November 14, 2018, 09:49:25 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 14, 2018, 09:46:24 AM
It's quite possible Long Island is logistically the worst possible place they could have put an HQ. Getting through NYC is damn near impossible from a freight standpoint. Way to dump an unneeded load on an already expensive and stretched-thin transportation system. Not to mention the people of NYC are more likely to revile at an installation of a new Amazon HQ than the people of most anywhere else in America, if I'm reading the situation correctly.
Amazon could completely fund two Long Island bridges: one to New Jersey and one to Connecticut. $40 million is almost nothing to them.
Long Island City is a neighborhood in Queens right next to Manhattan (although it is on geographic Long Island, just not the part the post people think of when they think of Long Island). Those bridges would be a little too far east to help.
The people in the neighborhood ARE against it, but because they think they money spent on incentives would be better spent directly investing in the community.
I'm sure that I'll continue to call it Crystal City, much like I still call the nearby airport as "National" out of habit, but to prove it has nothing to do with politics, I still call the arena on 7th St in DC the "MCI Center".
What's funny is that some of my friends would give me a hard time for calling it the MCI Center rather than the "Verizon Center", but recently some of those same friends have slipped up, by calling it the Verizon Center rather than the "Capital One Arena"
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 14, 2018, 09:46:24 AM
It's quite possible Long Island is logistically the worst possible place they could have put an HQ. Getting through NYC is damn near impossible from a freight standpoint. Way to dump an unneeded load on an already expensive and stretched-thin transportation system. Not to mention the people of NYC are more likely to revile at an installation of a new Amazon HQ than the people of most anywhere else in America, if I'm reading the situation correctly.
Not Long Island, but Long Island City. Western Queens, right across the river from Manhattan.
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2018, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 14, 2018, 09:46:24 AM
It's quite possible Long Island is logistically the worst possible place they could have put an HQ. Getting through NYC is damn near impossible from a freight standpoint. Way to dump an unneeded load on an already expensive and stretched-thin transportation system. Not to mention the people of NYC are more likely to revile at an installation of a new Amazon HQ than the people of most anywhere else in America, if I'm reading the situation correctly.
Not Long Island, but Long Island City. Eastern Queens, right across the river from Manhattan.
I think you meant Western Queens.
Queens is on Long Island.
*ducks and runs*
:D
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 14, 2018, 11:34:19 AM
It's a new name. Nobody here has ever heard "National Landing" before (I've lived here since 1974). The news last night said Alexandria and Arlington came up with the name as a way of referring to the entire area of Crystal City, Pentagon City, and Potomac Yard as a single area, I guess to emphasize how they're all close to each other.
Read it and weep. :coffee:
https://nationallanding.com/
What is a "landing" anyhow? A waterfront area with dockage can utilize this term and it has been done in the past.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 14, 2018, 11:34:19 AM
I saw something yesterday joking that the Nationals will move to a new ballpark there and rebrand themselves as the National Landing Nationals and that they'd then become the airport's corporate sponsor, which led me to joke that the airport would become "Ronald Reagan National Landing Nationals Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport." :-D
ded
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 14, 2018, 09:46:24 AM
It's quite possible Long Island is logistically the worst possible place they could have put an HQ. Getting through NYC is damn near impossible from a freight standpoint. Way to dump an unneeded load on an already expensive and stretched-thin transportation system. Not to mention the people of NYC are more likely to revile at an installation of a new Amazon HQ than the people of most anywhere else in America, if I'm reading the situation correctly.
HQ2 is
not a giant warehouse, as I've explained earlier. It's a corporate headquarters with tech workers being moved around, not packages. A centralized location with good transit and nearby walkable neighborhoods was key to all of this, after all.
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2018, 11:03:57 PM
What is a "landing" anyhow? A waterfront area with dockage can utilize this term and it has been done in the past.
Branson Landing is a waterfront area of Branson (MO)
without dockage. It's that part of Branson where they ripped up part of the historic downtown and replaced it with parking garages and malls.
Quote from: kphoger on November 15, 2018, 10:23:55 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2018, 11:03:57 PM
What is a "landing" anyhow? A waterfront area with dockage can utilize this term and it has been done in the past.
Branson Landing is a waterfront area of Branson (MO) without dockage. It's that part of Branson where they ripped up part of the historic downtown and replaced it with parking garages and malls.
Then maybe the correlation is being at or near a waterfront.
Richmond VA has a development called Rocketts Landing that is being built along the James River. It does have a couple small marinas. http://rockettsvillage.com/
Definition of landing
1: an act or process of one that lands
especially : a going or bringing to a surface (such as land or shore) after a voyage or flight
2: a place for discharging and taking on passengers and cargo
3: a level part of a staircase (as at the end of a flight of stairs)
4: landings plural : the amount of fish or shellfish landed annually in a particular area
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landing
I suppose that #2 could include an airport. But I question whether Crystal City or Potomac Yards could be considered waterfront, certainly not in a direct sense.
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2018, 12:05:48 PMBut I question whether Crystal City or Potomac Yards could be considered waterfront, certainly not in a direct sense.
The Potomac River is (a) very close by and (b) navigable at this point, so I don't see why not.
Quote from: Bruce on November 15, 2018, 03:40:52 AM
HQ2 is not a giant warehouse, as I've explained earlier. It's a corporate headquarters with tech workers being moved around, not packages. A centralized location with good transit and nearby walkable neighborhoods was key to all of this, after all.
Is it near the Queens station on the East Side Access project? That project is tentatively scheduled to start service in December 2022. That would increase the accessibility to HQ2.
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 15, 2018, 12:10:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2018, 12:05:48 PMBut I question whether Crystal City or Potomac Yards could be considered waterfront, certainly not in a direct sense.
The Potomac River is (a) very close by and (b) navigable at this point, so I don't see why not.
Within half mile or so, but intervening highways and airport land prevent practical access between those sites and the edge of the river.
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2018, 12:12:41 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 15, 2018, 03:40:52 AM
HQ2 is not a giant warehouse, as I've explained earlier. It's a corporate headquarters with tech workers being moved around, not packages. A centralized location with good transit and nearby walkable neighborhoods was key to all of this, after all.
Is it near the Queens station on the East Side Access project? That project is tentatively scheduled to start service in December 2022. That would increase the accessibility to HQ2.
No, but it is near the Long Island City terminus of the LIRR. Which is better, since they'd only need to boost service on that branch, perhaps with shuttle trains from Jamaica.
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 15, 2018, 01:29:26 PM
No, but ... they'd only need to boost service on ... trains from Jamaica.
(https://s1.stabroeknews.com/images/2011/04/20110418train.jpg)
:bigass:
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 15, 2018, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2018, 12:12:41 PM
Is it near the Queens station on the East Side Access project? That project is tentatively scheduled to start service in December 2022. That would increase the accessibility to HQ2.
No, but it is near the Long Island City terminus of the LIRR. Which is better, since they'd only need to boost service on that branch, perhaps with shuttle trains from Jamaica.
The project will extend the LIRR to Grand Central Station, with a new station below GCS. I thought that the extension will include a new station in Queens as well. Also, will the current terminus be abandoned when the extension opens?
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2018, 01:48:36 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 15, 2018, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2018, 12:12:41 PM
Is it near the Queens station on the East Side Access project? That project is tentatively scheduled to start service in December 2022. That would increase the accessibility to HQ2.
No, but it is near the Long Island City terminus of the LIRR. Which is better, since they'd only need to boost service on that branch, perhaps with shuttle trains from Jamaica.
The project will extend the LIRR to Grand Central Station, with a new station below GCS. I thought that the extension will include a new station in Queens as well. Also, will the current terminus be abandoned when the extension opens?
I doubt it, as trains will continue to terminate at both Penn Station and Long Island City station.
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2018, 01:48:36 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 15, 2018, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2018, 12:12:41 PM
Is it near the Queens station on the East Side Access project? That project is tentatively scheduled to start service in December 2022. That would increase the accessibility to HQ2.
No, but it is near the Long Island City terminus of the LIRR. Which is better, since they'd only need to boost service on that branch, perhaps with shuttle trains from Jamaica.
The project will extend the LIRR to Grand Central Station, with a new station below GCS. I thought that the extension will include a new station in Queens as well. Also, will the current terminus be abandoned when the extension opens?
(1) Yes, the ESA Project includes a new station in Queens
(2) No, it isn't particularly close to the Amazon site
Looks like Amazon is having second thoughts about NYC...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/tech/amazon-new-york-hq/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/tech/amazon-new-york-hq/index.html)
Quote from: LM117 on February 08, 2019, 02:11:17 PM
Looks like Amazon is having second thoughts about NYC...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/tech/amazon-new-york-hq/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/tech/amazon-new-york-hq/index.html)
More like NYS having second thought about Amazon. Initially, a very generous insensitive package was offered, but after the elections there is some skepticism about handing out billions of dollars to richest man on the earth.
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2019, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 08, 2019, 02:11:17 PM
Looks like Amazon is having second thoughts about NYC...
More like NYS having second thought about Amazon.
I think it's both. Amazon feels unwelcome, despite the incentives; NYS/NYC feel chumped for giving a billion-dollar-company tax incentives.
The whole process was completely fucked from the get-go. How likely is it, really, that the economic benefit of Amazon would offset the $750m/$1.5b tax cuts that they were given? Seems to me like a stretch.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 08, 2019, 02:28:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2019, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 08, 2019, 02:11:17 PM
Looks like Amazon is having second thoughts about NYC...
More like NYS having second thought about Amazon.
I think it's both. Amazon feels unwelcome, despite the incentives; NYS/NYC feel chumped for giving a billion-dollar-company tax incentives.
The whole process was completely fucked from the get-go. How likely is it, really, that the economic benefit of Amazon would offset the $750m/$1.5b tax cuts that they were given? Seems to me like a stretch.
It could be a huge deal upstate, but NYC... Not really a job shortage area.
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2019, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 08, 2019, 02:11:17 PM
Looks like Amazon is having second thoughts about NYC...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/tech/amazon-new-york-hq/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/tech/amazon-new-york-hq/index.html)
More like NYS having second thought about Amazon. Initially, a very generous insensitive package was offered, but after the elections there is some skepticism about handing out billions of dollars to richest man on the earth.
Oooh, that's gotta hurt!
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2019, 02:34:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 08, 2019, 02:28:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 08, 2019, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 08, 2019, 02:11:17 PM
Looks like Amazon is having second thoughts about NYC...
More like NYS having second thought about Amazon.
I think it's both. Amazon feels unwelcome, despite the incentives; NYS/NYC feel chumped for giving a billion-dollar-company tax incentives.
The whole process was completely fucked from the get-go. How likely is it, really, that the economic benefit of Amazon would offset the $750m/$1.5b tax cuts that they were given? Seems to me like a stretch.
It could be a huge deal upstate, but NYC... Not really a job shortage area.
Exactly. 25k jobs is cool, but I don't know if it would be $1.5b-in-incentives cool.
I love how Amazon spent the bulk of a long time deciding that NYC and Arlington would split the HQ2 and giving any other city hope that they'd win the bid.
If Amazon backs out of its plan to have part of HQ2 in New York, then where would it go? Would it just be in NOVA? Or do they have another place to put HQ2?
This whole thing reminds me of the Foxconn deal.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/tennessee-very-interested-in-amazon-hq2-after-nyc-strife
Nashville appears to be interested in adding on to their initial deal for a mini HQ2 and turn it into a regular HQ2.
Also I read that Upstate NY is also interested if the NYC HQ2 deal continues to fail.
IMO Los Angeles could also work for an HQ2 instead of NYC.
I doubt they want LA, simply because the megapolis is the center of US finance and policy.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 13, 2019, 08:01:16 PM
I doubt they want LA, simply because the megapolis is the center of US finance and policy.
Yeah I know, but still, it could be worth another look in case the NYC HQ2 continues to fail.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 13, 2019, 07:52:08 PM
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/tennessee-very-interested-in-amazon-hq2-after-nyc-strife
Nashville appears to be interested in adding on to their initial deal for a mini HQ2 and turn it into a regular HQ2.
Also I read that Upstate NY is also interested if the NYC HQ2 deal continues to fail.
IMO Los Angeles could also work for an HQ2 instead of NYC.
They have their main HQ on the west coast. I think they want HQ2 to be entirely on the east coast.
Unless NoVA isn't able to provide, it's entirely reasonable to think that a failed Queens deal would result in more jobs at the DC headquarters. Knowing the Crystal City area quite well personally, I can think of a surprising amount of land available for Amazon to develop if they chose to increase the proposed headquarters size there.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 13, 2019, 10:01:34 PM...the local community has not exactly been pro-Amazon either. Do their voices not count?
The point of contention isn't Amazon locating in Long Island City. It is the fact that they are receiving an absolutely enormous tax break for doing so.
Count me as a member of the local community who is not pleased with that.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 13, 2019, 11:07:01 PM
The point of contention isn't Amazon locating in Long Island City. It is the fact that they are receiving an absolutely enormous tax break for doing so.
Count me as a member of the local community who is not pleased with that.
Well there's that too. But consider how the land value and land use might change in the neighborhood where they'd locate.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2019, 01:20:20 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 13, 2019, 11:07:01 PM
The point of contention isn't Amazon locating in Long Island City. It is the fact that they are receiving an absolutely enormous tax break for doing so.
Count me as a member of the local community who is not pleased with that.
Well there's that too. But consider how the land value and land use might change in the neighborhood where they'd locate.
It is about NYC. Land values are already somewhat limited by how many digits fit on check.
Why are there a bunch of posts quoting a post that was deleted?
Quote from: tribar on February 13, 2019, 08:56:09 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 13, 2019, 07:52:08 PM
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/tennessee-very-interested-in-amazon-hq2-after-nyc-strife
Nashville appears to be interested in adding on to their initial deal for a mini HQ2 and turn it into a regular HQ2.
Also I read that Upstate NY is also interested if the NYC HQ2 deal continues to fail.
IMO Los Angeles could also work for an HQ2 instead of NYC.
They have their main HQ on the west coast. I think they want HQ2 to be entirely on the east coast.
Yeah but LA could work if they decide to move their main HQ away from Seattle if the need ever arises.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 08:09:22 AM
Why are there a bunch of posts quoting a post that was deleted?
What was the post in question about?
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 08:34:09 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 08:09:22 AM
Why are there a bunch of posts quoting a post that was deleted?
What was the post in question about?
A politician being an idiot.
If the poster deleted it, it'd be out of character for the poster, and if it was deleted by a mod, (a) that's overmodding and (b) that's crappy modding.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 08:34:09 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 08:09:22 AM
Why are there a bunch of posts quoting a post that was deleted?
What was the post in question about?
A politician being an idiot.
If the poster deleted it, it'd be out of character for the poster, and if it was deleted by a mod, (a) that's overmodding and (b) that's crappy modding.
No, I didn't delete it. Why would I delete the truth? (That AOC is clueless, that she's made statements in opposition to Amazon, and the company would naturally be more interested in going where it's welcome.)
One of the complaints I saw about Amazon is the possible gentrification in the area. I've never understood why gentrification is considered to be a bad thing, unless people are happy living in crappy neighborhoods and don't want to see them improved. It's awful if someone buys up a bunch of dilapidated houses and apartments and fixes them up into something nicer. Just horrible.
At any rate, if Amazon wants to abandon NYC, then I'd love to see them locate in Kentucky. We'll take the jobs NYC apparently doesn't want.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AMAt any rate, if Amazon wants to abandon NYC, then I'd love to see them locate in Kentucky. We'll take the jobs NYC apparently doesn't want.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say they don't want to employ a bunch of inbred, semi-literate hillbillies.
And it's actually two posts that aren't showing up. I see one time-stamped last night at 9:10 and then the next one is time-stamped at 11:07. There were two posts in between those two that are nowhere to be found.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 10:14:52 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AMAt any rate, if Amazon wants to abandon NYC, then I'd love to see them locate in Kentucky. We'll take the jobs NYC apparently doesn't want.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say they don't want to employ a bunch of inbred, semi-literate hillbillies.
And it's actually two posts that aren't showing up. I see one time-stamped last night at 9:10 and then the next one is time-stamped at 11:07. There were two posts in between those two that are nowhere to be found.
Normally I'd agree with you but they are opening a satellite location in Nashville so apparently they're fine with it.
Quote from: tribar on February 14, 2019, 10:33:21 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 10:14:52 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AMAt any rate, if Amazon wants to abandon NYC, then I'd love to see them locate in Kentucky. We'll take the jobs NYC apparently doesn't want.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say they don't want to employ a bunch of inbred, semi-literate hillbillies.
And it's actually two posts that aren't showing up. I see one time-stamped last night at 9:10 and then the next one is time-stamped at 11:07. There were two posts in between those two that are nowhere to be found.
Normally I'd agree with you but they are opening a satellite location in Nashville so apparently they're fine with it.
"More cosmpolitan than Kentucky" is a pretty low hurdle to clear.
OK, looks like NYC is no more. Amazon was quick to respond...
Quote from: kalvado on February 14, 2019, 11:56:32 AM
OK, looks like NYC is no more. Amazon was quick to respond...
They also said they're not reopening the search for another location.
RIP split HQ2. It was nice knowing that there was going to be two HQ2 locations plus the mini HQ2 in Nashville, but then NYC politics got in the way of that happening. Oh well, the south wins on this deal.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 12:10:31 PM
RIP split HQ2. It was nice knowing that there was going to be two HQ2 locations plus the mini HQ2 in Nashville, but then NYC politics got in the way of that happening. Oh well, the south wins on this deal.
Judging by the number of protesters, there's a fair number of people in NYC who also feel they won.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 10:14:52 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AMAt any rate, if Amazon wants to abandon NYC, then I'd love to see them locate in Kentucky. We'll take the jobs NYC apparently doesn't want.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say they don't want to employ a bunch of inbred, semi-literate hillbillies.
Stereotype much?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 01:38:58 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 10:14:52 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AMAt any rate, if Amazon wants to abandon NYC, then I'd love to see them locate in Kentucky. We'll take the jobs NYC apparently doesn't want.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say they don't want to employ a bunch of inbred, semi-literate hillbillies.
Stereotype much?
I would agree that stereotyping isn't going to get us anywhere. Though Louisville does have substantially fewer post-HS degree holders than NYC, Seattle, or (particularly) Arlington. Their pool of talent wouldn't be as wide in Louisville. There also doesn't seem to be a great transit system in Kentucky like there is in Seattle, Arlington, or NYC.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AM
One of the complaints I saw about Amazon is the possible gentrification in the area. I've never understood why gentrification is considered to be a bad thing, unless people are happy living in crappy neighborhoods and don't want to see them improved. It's awful if someone buys up a bunch of dilapidated houses and apartments and fixes them up into something nicer. Just horrible.
Rents. While rising property values are good for homeowners, for people who rent apartments, they drive people out who can't afford (or don't want to pay) the increased rent.
Quote from: vdeane on February 14, 2019, 02:07:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AM
One of the complaints I saw about Amazon is the possible gentrification in the area. I've never understood why gentrification is considered to be a bad thing, unless people are happy living in crappy neighborhoods and don't want to see them improved. It's awful if someone buys up a bunch of dilapidated houses and apartments and fixes them up into something nicer. Just horrible.
Rents. While rising property values are good for homeowners, for people who rent apartments, they drive people out who can't afford (or don't want to pay) the increased rent.
Plus, where do all the original inhabitants go? To most, it's "not our problem", but I don't see it that way.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2019, 02:03:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 01:38:58 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 10:14:52 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AMAt any rate, if Amazon wants to abandon NYC, then I'd love to see them locate in Kentucky. We'll take the jobs NYC apparently doesn't want.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say they don't want to employ a bunch of inbred, semi-literate hillbillies.
Stereotype much?
I would agree that stereotyping isn't going to get us anywhere. Though Louisville does have substantially fewer post-HS degree holders than NYC, Seattle, or (particularly) Arlington. Their pool of talent wouldn't be as wide in Louisville. There also doesn't seem to be a great transit system in Kentucky like there is in Seattle, Arlington, or NYC.
Why would it have to go to Louisville?
Why not the Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati?
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 02:41:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2019, 02:03:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 01:38:58 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 10:14:52 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AMAt any rate, if Amazon wants to abandon NYC, then I'd love to see them locate in Kentucky. We'll take the jobs NYC apparently doesn't want.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say they don't want to employ a bunch of inbred, semi-literate hillbillies.
Stereotype much?
I would agree that stereotyping isn't going to get us anywhere. Though Louisville does have substantially fewer post-HS degree holders than NYC, Seattle, or (particularly) Arlington. Their pool of talent wouldn't be as wide in Louisville. There also doesn't seem to be a great transit system in Kentucky like there is in Seattle, Arlington, or NYC.
Why would it have to go to Louisville?
Why not the Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati?
Cincinnati itself tried to land HQ2, but the current state of public transit in the city pretty much killed that idea. I doubt northern Kentucky would have any more success.
Quote from: JMoses24 on February 14, 2019, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 02:41:38 PM
Why would it have to go to Louisville?
Why not the Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati?
Cincinnati itself tried to land HQ2, but the current state of public transit in the city pretty much killed that idea. I doubt northern Kentucky would have any more success.
So how much public transit does Amazon want ... a full-blown heavy rail transit metro system?
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:02:08 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on February 14, 2019, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 02:41:38 PM
Why would it have to go to Louisville?
Why not the Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati?
Cincinnati itself tried to land HQ2, but the current state of public transit in the city pretty much killed that idea. I doubt northern Kentucky would have any more success.
So how much public transit does Amazon want ... a full-blown heavy rail transit metro system?
LIC and Crystal City had links to heavy rail and commuter rail, so probably something similar, yeah.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:02:08 PM
So how much public transit does Amazon want ... a full-blown heavy rail transit metro system?
LIC and Crystal City had links to heavy rail and commuter rail, so probably something similar, yeah.
Does the current Seattle headquarters have any rail transit service?
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:02:08 PM
So how much public transit does Amazon want ... a full-blown heavy rail transit metro system?
LIC and Crystal City had links to heavy rail and commuter rail, so probably something similar, yeah.
Does the current Seattle headquarters have any rail transit service?
Yes.
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:02:08 PM
So how much public transit does Amazon want ... a full-blown heavy rail transit metro system?
LIC and Crystal City had links to heavy rail and commuter rail, so probably something similar, yeah.
Does the current Seattle headquarters have any rail transit service?
It looks like the campus is served by light rail.
Quote from: 1 on February 14, 2019, 03:09:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:02:08 PM
So how much public transit does Amazon want ... a full-blown heavy rail transit metro system?
LIC and Crystal City had links to heavy rail and commuter rail, so probably something similar, yeah.
Does the current Seattle headquarters have any rail transit service?
Yes.
How close, what type (I know they don't have heavy rail transit in that metro), and what level of capacity?
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:02:08 PM
So how much public transit does Amazon want ... a full-blown heavy rail transit metro system?
LIC and Crystal City had links to heavy rail and commuter rail, so probably something similar, yeah.
Does the current Seattle headquarters have any rail transit service?
In several forms. Sounder commuter rail to the north and south. LINK light rail (mostly grade-separated) running 22 miles across 22 stations (eventually 116 miles across 59 stations). Plus a very robust bus and BRT network. Most downtown Seattle commuters use transit (only 25% drive alone).
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:02:08 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on February 14, 2019, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 02:41:38 PM
Why would it have to go to Louisville?
Why not the Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati?
Cincinnati itself tried to land HQ2, but the current state of public transit in the city pretty much killed that idea. I doubt northern Kentucky would have any more success.
So how much public transit does Amazon want ... a full-blown heavy rail transit metro system?
It wasn't so much the type. There are concerns about the state of funding for the Cincinnati Metro bus system. So much so, a local grassroots organization called the Better Bus Coalition is organizing a petition drive to raise Cincinnati's city earnings tax.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: I have been involved with the Better Bus Coalition, but not as much now with my move to Oklahoma in late 2017.)
Quote from: JMoses24 on February 14, 2019, 03:25:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:02:08 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on February 14, 2019, 02:47:39 PM
Cincinnati itself tried to land HQ2, but the current state of public transit in the city pretty much killed that idea. I doubt northern Kentucky would have any more success.
So how much public transit does Amazon want ... a full-blown heavy rail transit metro system?
It wasn't so much the type. There are concerns about the state of funding for the Cincinnati Metro bus system. So much so, a local grassroots organization called the Better Bus Coalition is organizing a petition drive to raise Cincinnati's city earnings tax.
Then how about Atlanta (MARTA heavy rail transit system and robust bus system), or Dallas (DART 92-mile light rail transit system and robust bus system)? Extensive urban freeway systems as well.
^ Amazon has no plans to go back to the finalists for another HQ2 (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/tech/amazon-hq2-nyc/index.html):
QuoteIn its statement, Amazon said it has no plans to "reopen the HQ2 search at this time." Instead, it plans to move forward with its office expansions in Virginia as well as Nashville, where it is building a new hub expected to employ 5,000 people.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2019, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 12:10:31 PM
RIP split HQ2. It was nice knowing that there was going to be two HQ2 locations plus the mini HQ2 in Nashville, but then NYC politics got in the way of that happening. Oh well, the south wins on this deal.
Judging by the number of protesters, there's a fair number of people in NYC who also feel they won.
Yeah but let's face it: they think they won only because they protested something that would've happened otherwise.
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 14, 2019, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2019, 03:02:08 PM
So how much public transit does Amazon want ... a full-blown heavy rail transit metro system?
LIC and Crystal City had links to heavy rail and commuter rail, so probably something similar, yeah.
Does the current Seattle headquarters have any rail transit service?
It is served directly by the South Lake Union Streetcar, and is only a few blocks from Westlake Station, where the light rail and monorail systems intersect. The light rail system in Seattle is growing and is being built as a light metro, with long stretches of grade-separated ROW (tunnels and viaducts), and the Amazon campus is slated to get another station in 2030. There's also plenty of bus service, including Amazon's own shuttles that go around the offices spread around Seattle, as well as larger shuttles to the suburbs.
Amazon also made a little noise (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-puts-cap-on-growth-in-seattle-canceled-new-york-jobs-will-likely-go-elsewhere/) today about "cancelling" further growth in Seattle, but then rescinded its comments. The betting man says that they're targeting growth in the suburbs around Seattle, particularly Bellevue in Microsoft territory (where they have a single high-rise). Plenty of new high-rise towers are planned in Bellevue already, so it could make the market there very interesting.
Quote from: vdeane on February 14, 2019, 02:07:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AM
One of the complaints I saw about Amazon is the possible gentrification in the area. I've never understood why gentrification is considered to be a bad thing, unless people are happy living in crappy neighborhoods and don't want to see them improved. It's awful if someone buys up a bunch of dilapidated houses and apartments and fixes them up into something nicer. Just horrible.
Rents. While rising property values are good for homeowners, for people who rent apartments, they drive people out who can't afford (or don't want to pay) the increased rent.
Not that tons of gentrification in Long Island City isn't already happening anyway. It's inevitable trend that didn't require Amazon to drive it.
Valerie is on the money with why it's contentious though - gentrification does not improve life for the people who are residents of the neighborhood when the process starts. It inconveniences them greatly by forcing them to move to another neighborhood that they can still afford. The beneficiaries of the process are newcomers to the neighborhood moving in from elsewhere (and, of course, real estate developers).
Imagine, for example, that a bunch of wealthy Wall Street types and people of similar means decided that your town in Kentucky was a great place to retire to. They start buying up property in and around the town left and right and building McMansions. Before you know what's happening the value of the property you live on has tripled in value... but now imagine you rent your home rather than owning it (often the norm in cities). So rather than you being able to sell the property and cash in for a huge payday, you find instead that your landlord is demanding triple the rent the next time your lease is up for renewal. You can't afford that, so you have to pack up the home you've lived in for decades and move to another town that's more affordable and the quality of life is no different than it was in the place you let before the Wall Street types started moving in. They get what was your home, you get nothing and no say in the matter.
This is gentrification.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AM
One of the complaints I saw about Amazon is the possible gentrification in the area. I've never understood why gentrification is considered to be a bad thing, unless people are happy living in crappy neighborhoods and don't want to see them improved. It's awful if someone buys up a bunch of dilapidated houses and apartments and fixes them up into something nicer. Just horrible.
At any rate, if Amazon wants to abandon NYC, then I'd love to see them locate in Kentucky. We'll take the jobs NYC apparently doesn't want.
Adding on to what Duke said, gentrification also strikes communities of color particularly hard. In cities where the number of non-whites are dwindling (because they're pushed out to less-expensive suburbs without the social support structures they've grown used to in the cities), it can worsen racial income disparity.
While the redevelopment is needed in order to increase density and create enough room for new residents, it often times is pushed towards communities that won't put up much of a fight over zoning changes. The vast tracts of single-family only zoning in cities like Seattle are left untouched because the homeowners there organize and fight kicking and screaming at every council meeting and every public hearing. The city just gets sick of it and skirts the issue while placing more burdens on other areas.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 05:45:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2019, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 12:10:31 PM
RIP split HQ2. It was nice knowing that there was going to be two HQ2 locations plus the mini HQ2 in Nashville, but then NYC politics got in the way of that happening. Oh well, the south wins on this deal.
Judging by the number of protesters, there's a fair number of people in NYC who also feel they won.
Yeah but let's face it: they think they won only because they protested something that would've happened otherwise.
Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be celebrating the fact that they achieved their goal?
Meanwhile in other news:
QuoteAmazon To Pay $0 In Federal Taxes In 2019
Quote from: kalvado on February 15, 2019, 08:25:32 AM
Meanwhile in other news:
QuoteAmazon To Pay $0 In Federal Taxes In 2019
I find that hard to believe. Not the fact that they're paying $0 in Fed Taxes, but that an international business knows their enter tax position just 45 days into the year.
Oh, and they have paid federal taxes all year long - payroll taxes.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 15, 2019, 01:48:07 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 14, 2019, 02:07:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2019, 09:47:49 AM
One of the complaints I saw about Amazon is the possible gentrification in the area. I've never understood why gentrification is considered to be a bad thing, unless people are happy living in crappy neighborhoods and don't want to see them improved. It's awful if someone buys up a bunch of dilapidated houses and apartments and fixes them up into something nicer. Just horrible.
Rents. While rising property values are good for homeowners, for people who rent apartments, they drive people out who can't afford (or don't want to pay) the increased rent.
Not that tons of gentrification in Long Island City isn't already happening anyway. It's inevitable trend that didn't require Amazon to drive it.
Valerie is on the money with why it's contentious though - gentrification does not improve life for the people who are residents of the neighborhood when the process starts. It inconveniences them greatly by forcing them to move to another neighborhood that they can still afford. The beneficiaries of the process are newcomers to the neighborhood moving in from elsewhere (and, of course, real estate developers).
Imagine, for example, that a bunch of wealthy Wall Street types and people of similar means decided that your town in Kentucky was a great place to retire to. They start buying up property in and around the town left and right and building McMansions. Before you know what's happening the value of the property you live on has tripled in value... but now imagine you rent your home rather than owning it (often the norm in cities). So rather than you being able to sell the property and cash in for a huge payday, you find instead that your landlord is demanding triple the rent the next time your lease is up for renewal. You can't afford that, so you have to pack up the home you've lived in for decades and move to another town that's more affordable and the quality of life is no different than it was in the place you let before the Wall Street types started moving in. They get what was your home, you get nothing and no say in the matter.
This is gentrification.
Ever watch "Grapes Of Wrath" Duke? People had to move. Why? The Dust Bowl happened! Sometimes prosperity causes population shifts, other times it is poverty brought about by the conditions. People are on the move all the time. I would rather see a city gentrified than turn into a slum disaster like Detroit did for so long. Either way, people have to move but if you are going to move, at least let something good come from it.
Rick
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2019, 08:32:37 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 15, 2019, 08:25:32 AM
Meanwhile in other news:
QuoteAmazon To Pay $0 In Federal Taxes In 2019
I find that hard to believe. Not the fact that they're paying $0 in Fed Taxes, but that an international business knows their enter tax position just 45 days into the year.
Oh, and they have paid federal taxes all year long - payroll taxes.
They're expected to pay $0 in 2019. They received a $129 million dollar refund in 2018; if that isn't already offset against payroll taxes, it probably offsets them rather nicely.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 15, 2019, 08:01:17 AM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 05:45:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2019, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 12:10:31 PM
RIP split HQ2. It was nice knowing that there was going to be two HQ2 locations plus the mini HQ2 in Nashville, but then NYC politics got in the way of that happening. Oh well, the south wins on this deal.
Judging by the number of protesters, there's a fair number of people in NYC who also feel they won.
Yeah but let's face it: they think they won only because they protested something that would've happened otherwise.
Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be celebrating the fact that they achieved their goal?
Nah just wondering what the other outcome would've been.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 15, 2019, 12:34:31 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 15, 2019, 08:01:17 AM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 05:45:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2019, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 12:10:31 PM
RIP split HQ2. It was nice knowing that there was going to be two HQ2 locations plus the mini HQ2 in Nashville, but then NYC politics got in the way of that happening. Oh well, the south wins on this deal.
Judging by the number of protesters, there's a fair number of people in NYC who also feel they won.
Yeah but let’s face it: they think they won only because they protested something that would’ve happened otherwise.
Are you suggesting that they shouldn’t be celebrating the fact that they achieved their goal?
Nah just wondering what the other outcome would’ve been.
Not that I've been following this very closely, but I think people were worried housing prices would go thru the roof. But if they're already living there, they would make a lot more money when it came time to sell. So it would've been a win for those already living there.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2019, 12:41:23 PMNot that I've been following this very closely, but I think people were worried housing prices would go thru the roof. But if they're already living there, they would make a lot more money when it came time to sell. So it would've been a win for those already living there.
You appear to have omitted a significant category of people from this statement.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 15, 2019, 12:44:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2019, 12:41:23 PMNot that I've been following this very closely, but I think people were worried housing prices would go thru the roof. But if they're already living there, they would make a lot more money when it came time to sell. So it would've been a win for those already living there.
You appear to have omitted a significant category of people from this statement.
That's what she said. :bigass:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2019, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 15, 2019, 12:34:31 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 15, 2019, 08:01:17 AM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 05:45:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2019, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 14, 2019, 12:10:31 PM
RIP split HQ2. It was nice knowing that there was going to be two HQ2 locations plus the mini HQ2 in Nashville, but then NYC politics got in the way of that happening. Oh well, the south wins on this deal.
Judging by the number of protesters, there's a fair number of people in NYC who also feel they won.
Yeah but let’s face it: they think they won only because they protested something that would’ve happened otherwise.
Are you suggesting that they shouldn’t be celebrating the fact that they achieved their goal?
Nah just wondering what the other outcome would’ve been.
Not that I've been following this very closely, but I think people were worried housing prices would go thru the roof. But if they're already living there, they would make a lot more money when it came time to sell. So it would've been a win for those already living there.
If you chose to remain living there, would't you property taxes really go up as the property value skyrocketed?
Yeah, even homeowners are hurt by gentrification. The only people who benefit are newcomers, developers, and homeowners who cash out on the increased property value and move.
It's amazing how some treat moving like it's nothing. People naturally form an emotional attachment to where they live, their lives are based around that, and moving is a hassle. When I look for a place to live, I don't think "I'll live here until the next move", I look for a place where I might spend the rest of my life, as long as I'm not forced otherwise. I've never moved absent a significant life change (job changes, mainly).
When I think of companies moving to Kentucky, I don't think about Louisville or the Cincinnati suburbs, or mass transit or anything like that. I think about communities where unemployment is still a big problem, and those places don't qualify. I think about smaller communities with plenty of cheap land (many with already-developed industrial parks that have vacant property available, if not vacant buildings or unused spec buildings), lower costs of living and lower tax rates, and a workforce that would love to see some decent-paying jobs come into the area.
Trouble is, companies these days aren't looking to hire unemployed locals, train them, and keep them around until they retire. They're looking to poach their competitor's top employees, keeping them around only for however long they're needed or until they get poached again, whichever comes first. Hence the tendency of employers to concentrate in the largest cities, where the poaching supply is plentiful.
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2019, 01:35:51 PMTrouble is, companies these days aren't looking to hire unemployed locals, train them, and keep them around until they retire.
I've now worked for two financial services companies with significant call center operations in parts of the country where both land and labor are cheap (one had a significant presence in Owensboro, KY), and they're absolutely willing to hire and train unemployed locals (and keep them on the payroll as long as employee and employer are happy, including, but not limited to, retirement). None of this is altruistic, of course, but it's pretty damn close.
However, by and large, the senior management that supervises them and their supervisors are in headquarters.
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2019, 01:35:51 PM
Trouble is, companies these days aren't looking to hire unemployed locals, train them, and keep them around until they retire. They're looking to poach their competitor's top employees, keeping them around only for however long they're needed or until they get poached again, whichever comes first. Hence the tendency of employers to concentrate in the largest cities, where the poaching supply is plentiful.
I wouldn't over-generalize. But Amazon definitely is not one of the companies described in the first sentence. It wants already highly-skilled workers, commanding very high salaries (one of the benefits touted to the places vying for a HQ2), in a good place to live that would help it poach such workers from other metro areas in addition to the ones already living near the HQ2 site.
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2019, 01:05:54 PM
Yeah, even homeowners are hurt by gentrification. The only people who benefit are newcomers, developers, and homeowners who cash out on the increased property value and move.
Most of the buildings (business, home and rental) in those areas are 100+ years old and are already in serious structural and infrastructure decline to the point where some of the buildings are uninhabitable and unusable and many others are close to being uninhabitable and unusable. The cities should be thankful that investors will come in and perform the needed upgrades and replacements to provide livable buildings and neighborhoods. The buildings won't just improve themselves. Those building projects are very expensive. The South Bronx is one of the best examples of a disaster zone that was gradually improved by investors over a couple decades to make it livable again.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:23:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2019, 01:05:54 PM
Yeah, even homeowners are hurt by gentrification. The only people who benefit are newcomers, developers, and homeowners who cash out on the increased property value and move.
Most of the buildings (business, home and rental) in those areas are 100+ years old and are already in serious structural and infrastructure decline to the point where some of the buildings are uninhabitable and unusable and many others are close to being uninhabitable and unusable. The cities should be thankful that investors will come in and perform the needed upgrades and replacements to provide livable buildings and neighborhoods. The buildings won't just improve themselves. Those building projects are very expensive. The South Bronx is one of the best examples of a disaster zone that was gradually improved by investors over a couple decades to make it livable again.
OK. Let's evict everyone and send them....where? Perhaps it's not the developers' problems, but it's certainly the problems of the borough reps and city councillors.
Don't think for even a second that land-use and zoning changes are easy.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2019, 01:24:24 PM
When I think of companies moving to Kentucky, I don't think about Louisville or the Cincinnati suburbs, or mass transit or anything like that. I think about communities where unemployment is still a big problem, and those places don't qualify. I think about smaller communities with plenty of cheap land (many with already-developed industrial parks that have vacant property available, if not vacant buildings or unused spec buildings), lower costs of living and lower tax rates, and a workforce that would love to see some decent-paying jobs come into the area.
Companies choose where to expand based on their needs, not those of the town they're expanding into. Companies looking into moving aren't thinking about places like the small towns in Kentucky you talk about, because they
are thinking about mass transit and things like that. A good mass transit system means lower absenteeism by employees because of things like "my car broke down" "my wife needed to use the car to take her mom to a doctor's appointment 90 miles away" or things like that.
Additionally, smaller towns mean smaller labor pools. Once you employ everyone in town that wants to work there and still need more employees, what's left? You've got to convince people to move there, and if your list of
recreation options include things like Walmart or Dollar General, then you're going to have trouble filling positions.
Even if a company were to want to roll into town and basically remake it in their own image, it's likely there are bunches of town that
still wouldn't qualify because of a lack of easy road access. There's no good reason to put a business in Ava, Missouri, for instance.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:23:52 PM
Most of the buildings (business, home and rental) in those areas are 100+ years old and are already in serious structural and infrastructure decline to the point where some of the buildings are uninhabitable and unusable and many others are close to being uninhabitable and unusable. The cities should be thankful that investors will come in and perform the needed upgrades and replacements to provide livable buildings and neighborhoods. The buildings won't just improve themselves. Those building projects are very expensive. The South Bronx is one of the best examples of a disaster zone that was gradually improved by investors over a couple decades to make it livable again.
OK. Let's evict everyone and send them....where? Perhaps it's not the developers' problems, but it's certainly the problems of the borough reps and city councillors.
Don't think for even a second that land-use and zoning changes are easy.
Strawman. The reverse strawman would be, "So let's just let the city become uninhabitable, huh?"
These aren't sudden and global decisions, these are incremental decisions taken by building or small groups of buildings, taken over a period of years or even decades.
Quote from: oscar on February 15, 2019, 01:49:53 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2019, 01:35:51 PM
Trouble is, companies these days aren't looking to hire unemployed locals, train them, and keep them around until they retire. They're looking to poach their competitor's top employees, keeping them around only for however long they're needed or until they get poached again, whichever comes first. Hence the tendency of employers to concentrate in the largest cities, where the poaching supply is plentiful.
I wouldn't over-generalize. But Amazon definitely is not one of the companies described in the first sentence. It wants already highly-skilled workers, commanding very high salaries (one of the benefits touted to the places vying for a HQ2), in a good place to live that would help it poach such workers from other metro areas in addition to the ones already living near the HQ2 site.
I hate that many of the largest companies are like this. Amazon had been looking for the largest cities who already had the work put in to build the infrastructure and develop the talent pool, instead of trying to invest in it themselves, and even then still demanded major tax breaks from those cities. If only the largest cities are considered eligible for attracting this kind of employment, then we only have an economy that works for a small percentage of people.
That's why I wanted Amazon to consider moving their HQ2 somewhere in the Rust Belt, where they at least invest in the physical and talent infrastructure and potentially revitalize those cities. But no, they want the easy way out, and it leaves most of us behind.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:58:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:23:52 PM
Most of the buildings (business, home and rental) in those areas are 100+ years old and are already in serious structural and infrastructure decline to the point where some of the buildings are uninhabitable and unusable and many others are close to being uninhabitable and unusable. The cities should be thankful that investors will come in and perform the needed upgrades and replacements to provide livable buildings and neighborhoods. The buildings won't just improve themselves. Those building projects are very expensive. The South Bronx is one of the best examples of a disaster zone that was gradually improved by investors over a couple decades to make it livable again.
OK. Let's evict everyone and send them....where? Perhaps it's not the developers' problems, but it's certainly the problems of the borough reps and city councillors.
Don't think for even a second that land-use and zoning changes are easy.
Strawman. The reverse strawman would be, "So let's just let the city become uninhabitable, huh?"
These aren't sudden and global decisions, these are incremental decisions taken by building or small groups of buildings, taken over a period of years or even decades.
Fair point. But any time a large corporation moves in, there's going to be sudden changes that the locals cannot deal with. In some cases, this is skyrocketing rent. In others, it's a cheque (from, perhaps, Amazon) telling them to get out, or at worst, the government telling them to get lost through some form of eminent domain. The latter process was how the Barclays Center was built.
A smarter move by Amazon wouldn't be to create some city-vs-city competition. Amazon should find an area that fits their wish-list, and slowly set up shop over decades. These competitions get landlords particularly excited, which is not good for renters.
HQs can be in smaller towns and cities, but without amenities and entertainment, they have to draw from other cities in the area or pay enough to draw from other areas and allow for folks to take out of town vacations. I worked in Wal-Mart's Information Systems Division in Bentonville back in 1997-2004 when Bentonville was 15,000 people and nothing at all to do there. Coincidentally, that's when Amazon was poaching a lot of the folks I worked with to get their business ramped up. Most everyone who worked for Wal-Mart lived in other cities in the area like Fayetteville with more things to do, but the transit situation in Northwest Arkansas is laughable at best. Fayetteville has decent transit, but the freely available service doesn't leave the city limits. There is a regional transit bus service that does serve all of the major cities in NWA, but it isn't free and isn't very extensive in the areas it serves. So, in a nutshell, the largest company in the world can have an HQ in a small town and do just fine without transit and other services and amenities, but has to pay more than the going rate that others in the area do to draw in talent. This has changed dramatically in the last 15 years as there's a bounty of amenities, services, and things to do now, mainly because the Walton family has invested in their hometown and area to make it a destination, but it certainly isn't what caused the company to grow and flourish in the first place. They even have an embarrassment of a Home Office for their HQ, but buildings aren't what builds a business up anyway.
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?
The dictionary definition doesn't include such usage.
Poaching has been defined as the illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals, usually associated with land use rights.
Since the 1980s, the term "poaching" has also referred to the illegal harvesting of wild plant species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaching
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 05:31:31 PM
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?
Probably the best word to describe the situation, which is, businesses moving to an area with the expressed interest of capturing employees from other nearby companies.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 03:26:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:58:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:23:52 PM
Most of the buildings (business, home and rental) in those areas are 100+ years old and are already in serious structural and infrastructure decline to the point where some of the buildings are uninhabitable and unusable and many others are close to being uninhabitable and unusable. The cities should be thankful that investors will come in and perform the needed upgrades and replacements to provide livable buildings and neighborhoods. The buildings won't just improve themselves. Those building projects are very expensive. The South Bronx is one of the best examples of a disaster zone that was gradually improved by investors over a couple decades to make it livable again.
OK. Let's evict everyone and send them....where? Perhaps it's not the developers' problems, but it's certainly the problems of the borough reps and city councillors.
Don't think for even a second that land-use and zoning changes are easy.
Strawman. The reverse strawman would be, "So let's just let the city become uninhabitable, huh?"
These aren't sudden and global decisions, these are incremental decisions taken by building or small groups of buildings, taken over a period of years or even decades.
Fair point. But any time a large corporation moves in, there's going to be sudden changes that the locals cannot deal with. In some cases, this is skyrocketing rent. In others, it's a cheque (from, perhaps, Amazon) telling them to get out, or at worst, the government telling them to get lost through some form of eminent domain. The latter process was how the Barclays Center was built.
A smarter move by Amazon wouldn't be to create some city-vs-city competition. Amazon should find an area that fits their wish-list, and slowly set up shop over decades. These competitions get landlords particularly excited, which is not good for renters.
The worst part about the whole HQ2 fiasco was this. Pitting cities against each other, that way only the cities that can offer the most (ie, pre-built infrastructure and talent, as well as the most tax breaks) can reap the rewards. And it doesn't benefit the people already living there, especially Long Island City before they pulled out of there. They should've been more upfront about it instead of pretending the competition was fair from the start.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 05:40:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 05:31:31 PM
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?
Probably the best word to describe the situation, which is, businesses moving to an area with the expressed interest of capturing employees from other nearby companies.
Poaching is -stealing-, and is -illegal-. A rather demagogic word to use for trying to attract employees, which could be from anywhere and not just nearby.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 06:15:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 05:40:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 05:31:31 PM
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?
Probably the best word to describe the situation, which is, businesses moving to an area with the expressed interest of capturing employees from other nearby companies.
Poaching is -stealing-, and is -illegal-. A rather demagogic word to use for trying to attract employees, which could be from anywhere and not just nearby.
Oh for god's sake. Could you think less literally for half a second?
Amazon is seeking to move to an area with well-trained workers, who are probably not unemployed (and therefore more skilled than just college graduates). Yes, they will attract employees from outside the area, but so will other area companies, filling positions that were vacated by employees who left for Amazon.
Amazon is, effectively, poaching workers from other companies. Is it an entirely legal form of it? Yeah, of course. The employees are choosing to move. But looking at it from the perspective of other companies, they feel like Amazon is stealing their workforce.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 06:33:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 06:15:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 05:40:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 05:31:31 PM
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?
Probably the best word to describe the situation, which is, businesses moving to an area with the expressed interest of capturing employees from other nearby companies.
Poaching is -stealing-, and is -illegal-. A rather demagogic word to use for trying to attract employees, which could be from anywhere and not just nearby.
Oh for god's sake. Could you think less literally for half a second?
Amazon is seeking to move to an area with well-trained workers, who are probably not unemployed (and therefore more skilled than just college graduates). Yes, they will attract employees from outside the area, but so will other area companies, filling positions that were vacated by employees who left for Amazon.
Amazon is, effectively, poaching workers from other companies. Is it an entirely legal form of it? Yeah, of course. The employees are choosing to move. But looking at it from the perspective of other companies, they feel like Amazon is stealing their workforce.
Companies don't "own" employees, so there is no such thing as "stealing" employees. Companies have the ability to offer incentives to retain employees, such as a higher salary and/or higher benefits.
Companies that are in the buildup phase recruit from all over the country and the world. I grew up near Cape Canaveral in the 1960s, by my dad being recruited in the 1950s for a job at an aerospace company near there, and we moved from the Chicago area to there. Things were really ramping up for the space program there then, and the vast majority of the tens of thousands of space program employees came from places all over the country.
The word "poaching" means literally stealing, and in the context of business the word sounds like something cooked up by socialists.
If you want to get over-literal, you could claim that the companies that already exist "stole" employees from other companies.
But it is not a zero-sum game. What about young early-career employees that don't have any long-term relationship with a company due to their age? Amazon recruits lots of employees in that group.
Let's just look at this from another perspective.
Let's pretend you're a DC-area business with a highly-trained workforce. You hear that Amazon is moving to the area because of all the highly skilled workers, plus the great schools, transit, etc. You also hear that Amazon, thanks to their massive tax breaks, will be able to offer some pretty incredible incentives to potential hires, incentives that you cannot possibly match. Next thing you know, you start losing workers every couple of weeks to Amazon. You're powerless to stop it, because you don't have all the free cash that Amazon does. You feel like Amazon just showed up and started stealing your workers.
Get it? I've highlighted a key term here because you keep taking things too literally.
If you don't like the term "poaching", which word would you rather use? If you cannot offer an alternative, then, well, bugger off.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 11:48:02 PM
Let's just look at this from another perspective.
Let's pretend you're a DC-area business with a highly-trained workforce. You hear that Amazon is moving to the area because of all the highly skilled workers, plus the great schools, transit, etc. You also hear that Amazon, thanks to their massive tax breaks, will be able to offer some pretty incredible incentives to potential hires, incentives that you cannot possibly match. Next thing you know, you start losing workers every couple of weeks to Amazon. You're powerless to stop it, because you don't have all the free cash that Amazon does. You feel like Amazon just showed up and started stealing your workers.
The incentive for NYC HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 10 years of operation of HQ2. Now that they canceled, those figures have evaporated.
You are also assuming that those hires are all coming from one company and not from hundreds all over the country.
You are also assuming that those are long-term employees when in fact most employees change employers every 5 years or so, on average.
You are also assuming that many other companies don't get any tax breaks themselves.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 11:48:02 PM
Get it? I've highlighted a key term here because you keep taking things too literally.
If you don't like the term "poaching", which word would you rather use? If you cannot offer an alternative, then, well, bugger off.
Business competition.
If you want to blame someone then that would be the state and local governments.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
The incentive for NYC HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 10 years of operation of HQ2. Now that they canceled, those figures have evaporated.
If I remember correctly, they were talking 25 k jobs. $2.7B/year means each job generate more than $100k in taxes a year. WHich I find hard to believe, even if all the taxes paid by those folks are included. Especially given how big companies manage to optimize their taxation
And, as it is already discussed, those taxes not necessarily disappear as NYC is not limited by available jobs.
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 02:55:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
The incentive for NYC HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 10 years of operation of HQ2. Now that they canceled, those figures have evaporated.
If I remember correctly, they were talking 25 k jobs. $2.7B/year means each job generate more than $100k in taxes a year. WHich I find hard to believe, even if all the taxes paid by those folks are included. Especially given how big companies manage to optimize their taxation
Overall increased economic activity from the complex and the employees, secondary and cumulative impacts. Very conceivable estimates.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:15:23 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 02:55:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
The incentive for NYC HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 10 years of operation of HQ2. Now that they canceled, those figures have evaporated.
If I remember correctly, they were talking 25 k jobs. $2.7B/year means each job generate more than $100k in taxes a year. WHich I find hard to believe, even if all the taxes paid by those folks are included. Especially given how big companies manage to optimize their taxation
Overall increased economic activity from the complex and the employees, secondary and cumulative impacts. Very conceivable estimates.
Such estimates make little, if any, assumptions about factors outside the scope of the project. Would be correct for a random spot on a map. But it is NYC of all places.
Economy is limited by whatever else, including subway throughput and the amount of land available for residences.
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 08:52:47 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:15:23 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 02:55:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
The incentive for NYC HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 10 years of operation of HQ2. Now that they canceled, those figures have evaporated.
If I remember correctly, they were talking 25 k jobs. $2.7B/year means each job generate more than $100k in taxes a year. WHich I find hard to believe, even if all the taxes paid by those folks are included. Especially given how big companies manage to optimize their taxation
Overall increased economic activity from the complex and the employees, secondary and cumulative impacts. Very conceivable estimates.
Such estimates make little, if any, assumptions about factors outside the scope of the project. Would be correct for a random spot on a map. But it is NYC of all places. Economy is limited by whatever else, including subway throughput and the amount of land available for residences.
The so-called news media has done a poor job of reporting on this. Apparently the incentive for NYC Amazon HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first
25 years of operation of HQ2.
Those numbers do pass a reasonableness test. With the massive budget deficits at the city and state level, they are only hurting themselves when the sabotage a plan like this. Not like they can't benefit from a new corporate headquarters in their city.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:54:08 PM
The so-called news media has done a poor job of reporting on this. Apparently the incentive for NYC Amazon HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 25 years of operation of HQ2.
Those numbers do pass a reasonableness test. With the massive budget deficits at the city and state level, they are only hurting themselves when the sabotage a plan like this. Not like they can't benefit from a new corporate headquarters in their city.
Wake me up when it is 100 years. And adjust for inflation - tax incentives usually kick in early in the project, and tax revenue usually comes towards the end.
And NYC doesn't need new revenue - it needs spending control. School system spending driven by a strong union is the biggest problem.
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 01:29:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:54:08 PM
The so-called news media has done a poor job of reporting on this. Apparently the incentive for NYC Amazon HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 25 years of operation of HQ2.
Those numbers do pass a reasonableness test. With the massive budget deficits at the city and state level, they are only hurting themselves when the sabotage a plan like this. Not like they can't benefit from a new corporate headquarters in their city.
Wake me up when it is 100 years. And adjust for inflation - tax incentives usually kick in early in the project, and tax revenue usually comes towards the end.
And NYC doesn't need new revenue - it needs spending control. School system spending driven by a strong union is the biggest problem.
Having just a little bit of socialism is like being just a little bit pregnant. Mr. DeBlasio seems to think that when it comes to socialism, he can control just how much of it is OK. It don't work that way. Countries that have tried socialism find out that, sooner or later, they have to backtrack toward capitalism after finding out the hard way that socialism doesn't work. Sweden has lowered taxes, de-regulated business laws, privatized social security, and is trying to control immigration. They lowered their standard of living to uncomfortable levels and are now trying to walk their socialism back. They may succeed, good luck to them.
My question is why try policies that have failed everywhere they have been tried, every time they have been tried, by everyone that has tried them? Venezuela may survive and recover from the nightmares of Chavez and Maduro, but it could take decades. They were once one of the wealthiest countries in the world - now one of the poorest. Why subject your population to that misery and suffering?
Just how long will Mr. DeBlasio keep his soda tax in place? From everything I have read, it is another failure (socialism always mandates behaviors "for your own good").
The idea that those estimates of revenue are to be trusted baffles the mind.
I found The New York Times' Editorial Board's opinion on the matter to be ridiculously naive. The idea that even if those funds were realized that they would be easily funneled into the subway (MTA) was outright childish.
I'm just laughing at Cuomo throwing AOC under the bus on this.
QuoteHaving just a little bit of socialism is like being just a little bit pregnant.
Ehhh...I can’t agree with that. Some government oversight is fine in most areas. Too much in the other direction and you end up with The Jungle.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 01:29:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:54:08 PM
The so-called news media has done a poor job of reporting on this. Apparently the incentive for NYC Amazon HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 25 years of operation of HQ2.
Those numbers do pass a reasonableness test. With the massive budget deficits at the city and state level, they are only hurting themselves when the sabotage a plan like this. Not like they can't benefit from a new corporate headquarters in their city.
Wake me up when it is 100 years. And adjust for inflation - tax incentives usually kick in early in the project, and tax revenue usually comes towards the end.
And NYC doesn't need new revenue - it needs spending control. School system spending driven by a strong union is the biggest problem.
Having just a little bit of socialism is like being just a little bit pregnant. Mr. DeBlasio seems to think that when it comes to socialism, he can control just how much of it is OK. It don't work that way. Countries that have tried socialism find out that, sooner or later, they have to backtrack toward capitalism after finding out the hard way that socialism doesn't work. Sweden has lowered taxes, de-regulated business laws, privatized social security, and is trying to control immigration. They lowered their standard of living to uncomfortable levels and are now trying to walk their socialism back. They may succeed, good luck to them.
My question is why try policies that have failed everywhere they have been tried, every time they have been tried, by everyone that has tried them? Venezuela may survive and recover from the nightmares of Chavez and Maduro, but it could take decades. They were once one of the wealthiest countries in the world - now one of the poorest. Why subject your population to that misery and suffering?
Just how long will Mr. DeBlasio keep his soda tax in place? From everything I have read, it is another failure (socialism always mandates behaviors "for your own good").
I am still missing your point.
Amazon is acting in a way most private enterprises do: privatize profit, nationalize loss.
In this case, Amazon is talking about sharing vast amount of profits via taxes. WHich is, obviously, they would want to limit.
They are not talking about additional load on the school system, transit system - which would need to be paid by public funds, and housing - which would affect existing residents, and again require public funds (ever heard about public housing and rent control in NYC?)
I am pretty sure those billions of dollars in taxes are overestimated on one hand; and at least partially - if not mostly - would be offset by additional spending and reduction of taxes elsewhere as workforce is shifting between companies. WHich end up with a much less rosy picture than just "we will bring that much in tax!"
I am not sure if Amazon would end up as a net positive or net negative. But personal opinion is it would be breakeven at best.
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 03:35:43 PM
Amazon is acting in a way most private enterprises do: privatize profit, nationalize loss.
In this case, Amazon is talking about sharing vast amount of profits via taxes. WHich is, obviously, they would want to limit.
They are not talking about additional load on the school system, transit system - which would need to be paid by public funds, and housing - which would affect existing residents, and again require public funds (ever heard about public housing and rent control in NYC?)
I am pretty sure those billions of dollars in taxes are overestimated on one hand; and at least partially - if not mostly - would be offset by additional spending and reduction of taxes elsewhere as workforce is shifting between companies. WHich end up with a much less rosy picture than just "we will bring that much in tax!"
I am not sure if Amazon would end up as a net positive or net negative. But personal opinion is it would be breakeven at best.
If those future Amazon revenues are overestimated or don't happen, then those future tax breaks will be reduced or won't happen at all, as well.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 16, 2019, 03:05:31 PM
I'm just laughing at Cuomo throwing AOC under the bus on this.
Both the mayor and the governor are at odds with the local congressional delegation, on this matter.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:17:29 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 03:35:43 PM
Amazon is acting in a way most private enterprises do: privatize profit, nationalize loss.
In this case, Amazon is talking about sharing vast amount of profits via taxes. WHich is, obviously, they would want to limit.
They are not talking about additional load on the school system, transit system - which would need to be paid by public funds, and housing - which would affect existing residents, and again require public funds (ever heard about public housing and rent control in NYC?)
I am pretty sure those billions of dollars in taxes are overestimated on one hand; and at least partially - if not mostly - would be offset by additional spending and reduction of taxes elsewhere as workforce is shifting between companies. WHich end up with a much less rosy picture than just "we will bring that much in tax!"
I am not sure if Amazon would end up as a net positive or net negative. But personal opinion is it would be breakeven at best.
If those future Amazon revenues are overestimated or don't happen, then those future tax breaks will be reduced or won't happen at all, as well.
I doubt contracts would say that. There may be job count objectives at most.
Unless, of course, you're privileged to an actual draft and can somehow hint on actual provisions.
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 04:22:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:17:29 PM
If those future Amazon revenues are overestimated or don't happen, then those future tax breaks will be reduced or won't happen at all, as well.
I doubt contracts would say that. There may be job count objectives at most.
Unless, of course, you're privileged to an actual draft and can somehow hint on actual provisions.
You have to pay taxes before you can get a tax break. A company has to have a gross profit before they can pay taxes on it.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:28:56 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 04:22:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:17:29 PM
If those future Amazon revenues are overestimated or don't happen, then those future tax breaks will be reduced or won't happen at all, as well.
I doubt contracts would say that. There may be job count objectives at most.
Unless, of course, you're privileged to an actual draft and can somehow hint on actual provisions.
You have to pay taxes before you can get a tax break. A company has to have a gross profit before they can pay taxes on it.
Pardon? Are we still talking Amazon? FYI, they made $11B in 2018 with a total federal profit tax of $0. I bet NYS tax on profit for a company incorporated elsewhere and doing a complex business all over the world would be $0.00
And there is such a thing as real estate tax in NY, which is a fraction of property (land+buildings) assessed value, regardless of company profit. Usually a major piece of taxation for NYS businesses and the first one to be tweaked.
Oh, and there is direct cash insensitive in the Amazon welcome package as well.
SO my bet it will be a decade before first tax dollar from that campus actually would makes it to the state coffer. The first dollar not to be immediately returned to Amazon, to be precise. CUrrent deficits will not be affected by the deal falling apart.
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 05:39:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:28:56 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 04:22:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:17:29 PM
If those future Amazon revenues are overestimated or don't happen, then those future tax breaks will be reduced or won't happen at all, as well.
I doubt contracts would say that. There may be job count objectives at most.
Unless, of course, you're privileged to an actual draft and can somehow hint on actual provisions.
You have to pay taxes before you can get a tax break. A company has to have a gross profit before they can pay taxes on it.
Pardon? Are we still talking Amazon? FYI, they made $11B in 2018 with a total federal profit tax of $0.
Who came up with that "figure"? Some socialism advocacy group?
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:31:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 05:39:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:28:56 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 04:22:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:17:29 PM
If those future Amazon revenues are overestimated or don't happen, then those future tax breaks will be reduced or won't happen at all, as well.
I doubt contracts would say that. There may be job count objectives at most.
Unless, of course, you're privileged to an actual draft and can somehow hint on actual provisions.
You have to pay taxes before you can get a tax break. A company has to have a gross profit before they can pay taxes on it.
Pardon? Are we still talking Amazon? FYI, they made $11B in 2018 with a total federal profit tax of $0.
Who came up with that "figure"? Some socialism advocacy group?
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/13/amazon-zero-federal-income-tax-2019/
Quote from: nexus73 on February 15, 2019, 08:47:54 AM
Ever watch "Grapes Of Wrath" Duke? People had to move. Why? The Dust Bowl happened! Sometimes prosperity causes population shifts, other times it is poverty brought about by the conditions. People are on the move all the time. I would rather see a city gentrified than turn into a slum disaster like Detroit did for so long. Either way, people have to move but if you are going to move, at least let something good come from it.
Just because sometimes people have to move doesn't mean we should willfully and knowingly create more such situations without doing anything to help the people negatively impacted by them (the latter part here is key).
When the government decides to build a freeway where your house is, they need to help you relocate to somewhere comparable. When the government decides to give private companies huge tax breaks to alter the character of a neighborhood in a way that forces its existing residents to leave... they do no such thing. The displaced individuals are on their own.
If gentrification is going to naturally occur on its own due to the churn of things, fine, so be it - but governments are failing to serve the people they are supposed to serve if they throw huge incentives at wealthy corporations to actively encourage the process, and then do absolutely nothing to help the ordinary people who are negatively impacted by it.
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 05:31:31 PM
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?
The dictionary definition doesn't include such usage.
Regardless of what your dictionary says, the word "poaching"
is used in the business world to describe the process of actively seeking people who work for your competitors and offering them generous raises over their current salaries to come work for you instead. I've seen and heard it used plenty of places other than this thread.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 16, 2019, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:31:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 05:39:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:28:56 PM
You have to pay taxes before you can get a tax break. A company has to have a gross profit before they can pay taxes on it.
Pardon? Are we still talking Amazon? FYI, they made $11B in 2018 with a total federal profit tax of $0.
Who came up with that "figure"? Some socialism advocacy group?
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/13/amazon-zero-federal-income-tax-2019/
Drive-By News Media
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2019, 01:24:24 PM
When I think of companies moving to Kentucky, I don't think about Louisville or the Cincinnati suburbs, or mass transit or anything like that. I think about communities where unemployment is still a big problem, and those places don't qualify. I think about smaller communities with plenty of cheap land (many with already-developed industrial parks that have vacant property available, if not vacant buildings or unused spec buildings), lower costs of living and lower tax rates, and a workforce that would love to see some decent-paying jobs come into the area.
In case it wasn't clear already, Amazon HQ2
is a corporate headquarters. Not a warehouse. Most of its high-paying workers will be in the tech field, which means a standard warehouse would not fit the use case...they would need to be heavily renovated just to fit the bare basics that these workers demand.
Kentucky is already getting a $1.5 billion Amazon Prime Air (https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/news/companies/amazon-hq-prime-air-cvg-expansion/index.html) hub at CVG Airport, so it's not like they're not considering the area.
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 16, 2019, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:31:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 05:39:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:28:56 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 04:22:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:17:29 PM
If those future Amazon revenues are overestimated or don't happen, then those future tax breaks will be reduced or won't happen at all, as well.
I doubt contracts would say that. There may be job count objectives at most.
Unless, of course, you're privileged to an actual draft and can somehow hint on actual provisions.
You have to pay taxes before you can get a tax break. A company has to have a gross profit before they can pay taxes on it.
Pardon? Are we still talking Amazon? FYI, they made $11B in 2018 with a total federal profit tax of $0.
Who came up with that "figure"? Some socialism advocacy group?
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/13/amazon-zero-federal-income-tax-2019/
Exactly. The only reason Amazon even posts a profit is due to the tax breaks. Take them away, and Amazon is in the red.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 16, 2019, 09:22:02 PM
If gentrification is going to naturally occur on its own due to the churn of things, fine, so be it - but governments are failing to serve the people they are supposed to serve if they throw huge incentives at wealthy corporations to actively encourage the process, and then do absolutely nothing to help the ordinary people who are negatively impacted by it.
(https://i.imgur.com/0mKXcg1.gif)
Quote from: Brandon on February 16, 2019, 10:49:00 PM
Exactly. The only reason Amazon even posts a profit is due to the tax breaks. Take them away, and Amazon is in the red.
Otherwise known as gaming the system.
Quote from: vdeane on February 16, 2019, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 16, 2019, 10:49:00 PM
Exactly. The only reason Amazon even posts a profit is due to the tax breaks. Take them away, and Amazon is in the red.
Otherwise known as gaming the system.
...and that system of letting losses being carried forward for up to 20 years is how the system was gamed. Had there been no such tax laws, there would be no Amazon today. I would say these kinds of tax laws worked quite well in the case of Amazon.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on February 16, 2019, 11:33:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 16, 2019, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 16, 2019, 10:49:00 PM
Exactly. The only reason Amazon even posts a profit is due to the tax breaks. Take them away, and Amazon is in the red.
Otherwise known as gaming the system.
...and that system of letting losses being carried forward for up to 20 years is how the system was gamed. Had there been no such tax laws, there would be no Amazon today. I would say these kinds of tax laws worked quite well in the case of Amazon.
Rick
It's more than just Amazon. It says that New York City doesn't want the businesses of the 21st century.
New York has had economic leadership for 300 years. Now socialism has woven its way into the fabric of New York sufficiently that it is liquidating the city. That is what socialism does. It liquidated Venezuela; it liquidated Russia; it liquidated Cuba; it liquidated China; and now it is liquidating New York City.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 11:57:23 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 16, 2019, 11:33:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 16, 2019, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 16, 2019, 10:49:00 PM
Exactly. The only reason Amazon even posts a profit is due to the tax breaks. Take them away, and Amazon is in the red.
Otherwise known as gaming the system.
...and that system of letting losses being carried forward for up to 20 years is how the system was gamed. Had there been no such tax laws, there would be no Amazon today. I would say these kinds of tax laws worked quite well in the case of Amazon.
Rick
It's more than just Amazon. It says that New York City doesn't want the businesses of the 21st century.
New York has had economic leadership for 300 years. Now socialism has woven its way into the fabric of New York sufficiently that it is liquidating the city. That is what socialism does. It liquidated Venezuela; it liquidated Russia; it liquidated Cuba; it liquidated China; and now it is liquidating New York City.
If the business of 21st century means cashing out state money - then yes, it is smart not to want such a business.
Somehow you assume that NYC doesn't want HQ2. That is not the case; NYC does want tax paying HQ2, and not heavily subsidized HQ2.
it is a huge global problem - businesses shopping for low-tax operating environment, to the point where businesses want to be paid to operate at the location. An idea of all businesses operating on a level playing field and paying their fair share (whatever that "fair" means) strikes me as so out of date, though...
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 12:05:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 11:57:23 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 16, 2019, 11:33:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 16, 2019, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 16, 2019, 10:49:00 PM
Exactly. The only reason Amazon even posts a profit is due to the tax breaks. Take them away, and Amazon is in the red.
Otherwise known as gaming the system.
...and that system of letting losses being carried forward for up to 20 years is how the system was gamed. Had there been no such tax laws, there would be no Amazon today. I would say these kinds of tax laws worked quite well in the case of Amazon.
Rick
It's more than just Amazon. It says that New York City doesn't want the businesses of the 21st century.
New York has had economic leadership for 300 years. Now socialism has woven its way into the fabric of New York sufficiently that it is liquidating the city. That is what socialism does. It liquidated Venezuela; it liquidated Russia; it liquidated Cuba; it liquidated China; and now it is liquidating New York City.
If the business of 21st century means cashing out state money - then yes, it is smart not to want such a business.
Somehow you assume that NYC doesn't want HQ2. That is not the case; NYC does want tax paying HQ2, and not heavily subsidized HQ2.
it is a huge global problem - businesses shopping for low-tax operating environment, to the point where businesses want to be paid to operate at the location. An idea of all businesses operating on a level playing field and paying their fair share (whatever that "fair" means) strikes me as so out of date, though...
Neither de Blasio nor AOC show any comprehension of why businesses make decisions. Businesses do not exist to pay taxes, to employ people, nor even to make products or provide services. They certainly do not exist in order to "be a good neighbor" . They exist, and do the previously mentioned things, in order to provide a profit for the owners. No profit: no employees, no taxes, and certainly no being a good neighbor.
Amazon pulled out of NYC because their accountants figured out that they could not make money by locating their headquarters there. Probably because of the unionized labor, certainly because of the taxes, not to mention NYC's punitive regulatory environment.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:13:00 AM
Neither de Blasio nor AOC show any comprehension of why businesses make decisions. Businesses do not exist to pay taxes, to employ people, nor even to make products or provide services. They certainly do not exist in order to “be a good neighbor”. They exist, and do the previously mentioned things, in order to provide a profit for the owners. No profit: no employees, no taxes, and certainly no being a good neighbor.
Amazon pulled out of NYC because their accountants figured out that they could not make money by locating their headquarters there. Probably because of the unionized labor, certainly because of the taxes, not to mention NYC’s punitive regulatory environment.
And while that is perfectly true, governments do exist for their own reasons. Which is, among other things, collecting taxes to pay for shared services.
I agree with you on the accounting point of view. But I'm afraid you got reasons wrong.
I don't think any of high tech IT companies are unionized. Headquarter workers are not factory floor workers, you know. And it's not that primary selection process was focused on right-to-work states. Coming from WA, Amazon should be familiar with the deal.
Similarly, lots of regulations cover factory floor do's and don'ts - I don't believe HQ office environment is affected too much.
Taxes - yes, definitely. And it is a difference between paying taxes as written and getting a free ride which is being discussed. You were focused on additional revenue Amazon would bring - which I think is overestimated; I am more concerned with overspending. Partially, because with current level of spending even solid business can become a loss for either company or state (or both) as there is only that cash you can take away from business operation
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 11:57:23 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 16, 2019, 11:33:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 16, 2019, 10:54:57 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 16, 2019, 10:49:00 PM
Exactly. The only reason Amazon even posts a profit is due to the tax breaks. Take them away, and Amazon is in the red.
Otherwise known as gaming the system.
...and that system of letting losses being carried forward for up to 20 years is how the system was gamed. Had there been no such tax laws, there would be no Amazon today. I would say these kinds of tax laws worked quite well in the case of Amazon.
Rick
It's more than just Amazon. It says that New York City doesn't want the businesses of the 21st century.
New York has had economic leadership for 300 years. Now socialism has woven its way into the fabric of New York sufficiently that it is liquidating the city. That is what socialism does. It liquidated Venezuela; it liquidated Russia; it liquidated Cuba; it liquidated China; and now it is liquidating New York City.
Anyone who thinks NYC's government is on par with Chavez's, Stalin's or Castro's has no grasp of reality. NYC's government has not seized control of the City's means of production by any degree.
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2019, 12:49:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 11:57:23 PM
It's more than just Amazon. It says that New York City doesn't want the businesses of the 21st century.
New York has had economic leadership for 300 years. Now socialism has woven its way into the fabric of New York sufficiently that it is liquidating the city. That is what socialism does. It liquidated Venezuela; it liquidated Russia; it liquidated Cuba; it liquidated China; and now it is liquidating New York City.
Anyone who thinks NYC's government is on par with Chavez's, Stalin's or Castro's has no grasp of reality. NYC's government has not seized control of the City's means of production by any degree.
Right ... like I said, the process is not yet complete. Plus I didn't say that it was the government itself.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 01:03:57 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2019, 12:49:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 11:57:23 PM
It's more than just Amazon. It says that New York City doesn't want the businesses of the 21st century.
New York has had economic leadership for 300 years. Now socialism has woven its way into the fabric of New York sufficiently that it is liquidating the city. That is what socialism does. It liquidated Venezuela; it liquidated Russia; it liquidated Cuba; it liquidated China; and now it is liquidating New York City.
Anyone who thinks NYC's government is on par with Chavez's, Stalin's or Castro's has no grasp of reality. NYC's government has not seized control of the City's means of production by any degree.
Right ... like I said, the process is not yet complete. Plus I didn't say that it was the government itself.
You know, it may be high time for opening the cards. You seem way too upset for someone who lives not only in a different area - but in the area which, from your perspective may benefit from the situation via larger company presence in your area. I really don't understand you.
DO you own any Amazon shares? DO you work for Amazon? Otherwise affiliated with the company? (me: none of the above)
Otherwise, your attitude to the situation seems really strange..
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 01:09:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 01:03:57 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2019, 12:49:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 11:57:23 PM
It's more than just Amazon. It says that New York City doesn't want the businesses of the 21st century.
New York has had economic leadership for 300 years. Now socialism has woven its way into the fabric of New York sufficiently that it is liquidating the city. That is what socialism does. It liquidated Venezuela; it liquidated Russia; it liquidated Cuba; it liquidated China; and now it is liquidating New York City.
Anyone who thinks NYC's government is on par with Chavez's, Stalin's or Castro's has no grasp of reality. NYC's government has not seized control of the City's means of production by any degree.
Right … like I said, the process is not yet complete. Plus I didn't say that it was the government itself.
You know, it may be high time for opening the cards. You seem way too upset for someone who lives not only in a different area - but in the area which, from your perspective may benefit from the situation via larger company presence in your area. I really don't understand you.
DO you own any Amazon shares? DO you work for Amazon? Otherwise affiliated with the company? (me: none of the above)
Otherwise, your attitude to the situation seems really strange..
None of the above.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 01:31:56 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 01:09:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 01:03:57 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2019, 12:49:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 11:57:23 PM
It's more than just Amazon. It says that New York City doesn't want the businesses of the 21st century.
New York has had economic leadership for 300 years. Now socialism has woven its way into the fabric of New York sufficiently that it is liquidating the city. That is what socialism does. It liquidated Venezuela; it liquidated Russia; it liquidated Cuba; it liquidated China; and now it is liquidating New York City.
Anyone who thinks NYC's government is on par with Chavez's, Stalin's or Castro's has no grasp of reality. NYC's government has not seized control of the City's means of production by any degree.
Right ... like I said, the process is not yet complete. Plus I didn't say that it was the government itself.
You know, it may be high time for opening the cards. You seem way too upset for someone who lives not only in a different area - but in the area which, from your perspective may benefit from the situation via larger company presence in your area. I really don't understand you.
DO you own any Amazon shares? DO you work for Amazon? Otherwise affiliated with the company? (me: none of the above)
Otherwise, your attitude to the situation seems really strange..
None of the above.
Then I don't understand you at all.
There are at least 4 people from NYS in this thread, all of us are to a different extent skeptical towards Amazon situation. Possibly, because we saw rise and fall of such great endeavors (Tesla factory being the latest one); possibly because we somewhat know underlying problems in NYS governing.
You seem very excited about handing out money to a corporation - without even knowing details of the deal (such as which tax incentives are provided and how they work). If it is just a general pro-business approach, I suggest you look closer at the details of the situation to make up your mind based on facts, not general concepts. Otherwise.. Well, then I don't know.
Quote from: 1 on February 17, 2019, 08:05:29 AM
Re: socialism
What are you talking about? "Not being able to do whatever I want, whenever I want" is a perfectly reasonable definition of socialism.
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 09:44:39 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on February 16, 2019, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:31:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 05:39:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:28:56 PM
You have to pay taxes before you can get a tax break. A company has to have a gross profit before they can pay taxes on it.
Pardon? Are we still talking Amazon? FYI, they made $11B in 2018 with a total federal profit tax of $0.
Who came up with that "figure"? Some socialism advocacy group?
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/13/amazon-zero-federal-income-tax-2019/
Drive-By News Media
If you're trying to argue that the Daily fucking Caller is a liberal media source, then you've officially said goodbye to whatever shred of credibility you had prior to that.
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 01:43:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 01:31:56 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 01:09:58 AM
Otherwise, your attitude to the situation seems really strange..
None of the above.
Then I don't understand you at all.
There are at least 4 people from NYS in this thread, all of us are to a different extent skeptical towards Amazon situation. Possibly, because we saw rise and fall of such great endeavors (Tesla factory being the latest one); possibly because we somewhat know underlying problems in NYS governing.
You seem very excited about handing out money to a corporation - without even knowing details of the deal (such as which tax incentives are provided and how they work). If it is just a general pro-business approach, I suggest you look closer at the details of the situation to make up your mind based on facts, not general concepts. Otherwise.. Well, then I don't know.
The rot from New York City extends far beyond New York state's borders.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 09:14:39 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 01:43:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 01:31:56 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 01:09:58 AM
Otherwise, your attitude to the situation seems really strange..
None of the above.
Then I don't understand you at all.
There are at least 4 people from NYS in this thread, all of us are to a different extent skeptical towards Amazon situation. Possibly, because we saw rise and fall of such great endeavors (Tesla factory being the latest one); possibly because we somewhat know underlying problems in NYS governing.
You seem very excited about handing out money to a corporation - without even knowing details of the deal (such as which tax incentives are provided and how they work). If it is just a general pro-business approach, I suggest you look closer at the details of the situation to make up your mind based on facts, not general concepts. Otherwise.. Well, then I don't know.
The rot from New York City extends far beyond New York state's borders.
Easily. And then the question is - what exactly is
rot in this case. As you definitely need to diagnose the problem before treatment.
My point is that government subsidisation of private companies - of
selected private companies to make it worse - is actually much closer to the issue with socialism (government ownership of assets) than a concept of a level playing field. Because, you know, one of the biggest complains here is that small business cannot get anywhere close to support large companies do. That hurts business environment - and I would argue this is the type of rot which really hurts. There is another extreme of overregulating, especially overregulating for political reasons. Here I am with you, it is a bad idea. But it is exactly opposite to the case we discuss.
It is hard to draw a line between reasonable incentive and overly generous giveaway. At least some people do believe Amazon deal crossed the line.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 09:14:39 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 01:43:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 01:31:56 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 01:09:58 AM
Otherwise, your attitude to the situation seems really strange..
None of the above.
Then I don't understand you at all.
There are at least 4 people from NYS in this thread, all of us are to a different extent skeptical towards Amazon situation. Possibly, because we saw rise and fall of such great endeavors (Tesla factory being the latest one); possibly because we somewhat know underlying problems in NYS governing.
You seem very excited about handing out money to a corporation - without even knowing details of the deal (such as which tax incentives are provided and how they work). If it is just a general pro-business approach, I suggest you look closer at the details of the situation to make up your mind based on facts, not general concepts. Otherwise.. Well, then I don't know.
The rot from New York City extends far beyond New York state's borders.
This concept that NYC is rotting doesn't seem well-founded, either. The City is quite economically healthy.
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2019, 10:24:28 AM
This concept that NYC is rotting doesn't seem well-founded, either. The City is quite economically healthy.
NYC is a huge financial center, sucking out money from the entire country and most of the world. Being quite healthy means things are grossly mismanaged, it should be beyond flourishing.
And given amount of technical debt city accumulated - subway, roads, sewer, water (would you dare to drink tap water in NYC? I wouldn't), public housing - I would rate NYC as close to a failure. Even if currently ends do meet
Looking around the City, I see more evidence that it is flourishing than deterioration. MTA is a separate animal, being its own public authority.
And, in terms of its tap water, it is actually perrennially tested to be quite clean. Probably cleaner than your hometown's.
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2019, 10:46:34 AM
Looking around the City, I see more evidence that it is flourishing than deterioration. MTA is a separate animal, being its own public authority.
And, in terms of its tap water, it is actually perrennially tested to be quite clean. Probably cleaner than your hometown's.
My drinking water runs through a filter - that was the first thing we added after move in.
And I happened to find out what are the EPA waivers issued to NYC water supply. Yes, very likely it is safe. No, I am not drinking
that.
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 09:14:39 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 01:43:43 AM
Then I don't understand you at all.
There are at least 4 people from NYS in this thread, all of us are to a different extent skeptical towards Amazon situation. Possibly, because we saw rise and fall of such great endeavors (Tesla factory being the latest one); possibly because we somewhat know underlying problems in NYS governing.
You seem very excited about handing out money to a corporation - without even knowing details of the deal (such as which tax incentives are provided and how they work). If it is just a general pro-business approach, I suggest you look closer at the details of the situation to make up your mind based on facts, not general concepts. Otherwise.. Well, then I don't know.
The rot from New York City extends far beyond New York state's borders.
Easily. And then the question is - what exactly is rot in this case. As you definitely need to diagnose the problem before treatment.
My point is that government subsidisation of private companies - of selected private companies to make it worse - is actually much closer to the issue with socialism (government ownership of assets) than a concept of a level playing field. Because, you know, one of the biggest complains here is that small business cannot get anywhere close to support large companies do. That hurts business environment - and I would argue this is the type of rot which really hurts. There is another extreme of overregulating, especially overregulating for political reasons. Here I am with you, it is a bad idea. But it is exactly opposite to the case we discuss.
It is hard to draw a line between reasonable incentive and overly generous giveaway. At least some people do believe Amazon deal crossed the line.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio called Amazon's pullout from their planned Queens headquarters project "astounding," "disappointing," and "disrespectful to the people of New York City."
At the beginning of the month, de Blasio said Amazon should adapt to NYC's progressive culture in bringing a corporate headquarters to the city, and vowed to "hold their feet to the fire" to reap community benefits out of the online giant.
The Amazon announcement late last year promised to bring 25,000 jobs with an average salary of $150,000 a year, situating the hub in Queens. Yet the backroom negotiations and $3 billion in city and state tax subsidies prompted progressive protests and discontent among local residents.
"After much thought and deliberation, we've decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for Amazon in Long Island City, Queens," the online giant announced Thursday. "For Amazon, the commitment to build a new headquarters requires positive, collaborative relationships with state and local elected officials who will be supportive over the long-term. While polls show that 70 percent of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City."
Amazon added that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and de Blasio "worked tirelessly on behalf of New Yorkers to encourage local investment and job creation, and we can't speak positively enough about all their efforts."
The company said it doesn't plan to find a replacement city for the onetime New York headquarters, but would move ahead with its previously announced Northern Virginia and Nashville development plans.https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/de-blasio-blasts-progressives-who-think-its-a-good-idea-to-lose-jobs-disrespectful-amazon-after-pullout/
Quote from: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 12:47:25 PM
My drinking water runs through a filter - that was the first thing we added after move in.
And I happened to find out what are the EPA waivers issued to NYC water supply. Yes, very likely it is safe. No, I am not drinking that.
It may be tempting to interpret the existence of a waiver as the EPA letting NYC get away with having a substandard drinking water system, but this misunderstands the reality.
NYC's drinking water is regularly tested for a whole host of potential contaminants and 90% of it is granted a waiver from the filtration requirement because the tests continually show the water is clean
without being filtered.
NYC DEP has gone to great lengths to preserve this by buying as much land as they can upstream from upstate reservoirs and preventing it from being developed, as well as working with owners of developed properties in this area to create measures to filter their runoff. There are for example farmers that had earthen berms built at the edge of their property, entirely at NYC DEP's expense, to filter their runoff which would otherwise contain livestock excrement.
It should also be noted that the Croton system (the oldest and the closest to the city) did, about 15 years ago, start bumping up against the limits for measured contaminant levels. NYC DEP spent billions building a new water filtration plant in Van Cortlandt park to treat this water and remedy that situation.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:13:00 AM
Amazon pulled out of NYC because their accountants figured out that they could not make money by locating their headquarters there. Probably because of the unionized labor, certainly because of the taxes, not to mention NYC's punitive regulatory environment.
Ehhh I don't think any of that has anything to do with it. The basic financials of the move did not change at all between when Amazon announced it and when they cancelled it.
It's really more a matter of, Amazon came to the realization that if they pushed ahead with the NYC move, they were going to face a lot of bad publicity over it for years to come. They don't want to deal with politicians using them as a whipping boy and deliberately trying to make their life difficult. They don't want to deal with a local news media that is likely to be highly critical of them. They don't want to have to deal with having protest after protest staged in front of their offices.
Amazon could have made plenty of money with NYC offices... but they don't want to have to deal with the aggravation of operating somewhere that a lot of people in influential positions don't really want them, especially not when they can just as easily go somewhere else where they'll be welcomed with open arms and not have to deal with all that resistance.
It's the same basic reason why there are no Wal-Marts in New York City - Wal-Mart has made moves a couple times to open their first NYC store, but each time the idea has gotten the same reception Amazon HQ2 did, and Wal-Mart has backed down because they just didn't think it worth the effort of fighting that fight.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 16, 2019, 11:33:18 PM
...and that system of letting losses being carried forward for up to 20 years is how the system was gamed. Had there been no such tax laws, there would be no Amazon today. I would say these kinds of tax laws worked quite well in the case of Amazon.
Rick
I'm sure Amazon would still exist. They'd probably be more like they were 10-15 years ago, and far less dominant, but that doesn't really strike me as a bad thing.
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:13:00 AM
Neither de Blasio nor AOC show any comprehension of why businesses make decisions. Businesses do not exist to pay taxes, to employ people, nor even to make products or provide services. They certainly do not exist in order to "be a good neighbor" . They exist, and do the previously mentioned things, in order to provide a profit for the owners. No profit: no employees, no taxes, and certainly no being a good neighbor.
Amazon pulled out of NYC because their accountants figured out that they could not make money by locating their headquarters there. Probably because of the unionized labor, certainly because of the taxes, not to mention NYC's punitive regulatory environment.
Businesses existing for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder value to the exclusion of all else is actually a relatively recent societal change, and one we should undo before the damage is too great (if it isn't already).
Quote from: vdeane on February 17, 2019, 10:03:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 12:13:00 AM
Neither de Blasio nor AOC show any comprehension of why businesses make decisions. Businesses do not exist to pay taxes, to employ people, nor even to make products or provide services. They certainly do not exist in order to "be a good neighbor" . They exist, and do the previously mentioned things, in order to provide a profit for the owners. No profit: no employees, no taxes, and certainly no being a good neighbor.
Businesses existing for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder value to the exclusion of all else is actually a relatively recent societal change, and one we should undo before the damage is too great (if it isn't already).
I didn't say that it was for the "sole purpose of maximizing shareholder value to the exclusion of all else". I said that is why they exist, and that when they are able to successfully do that, then they can do and continue to do these things that benefit general society: pay taxes, employ people, and make products or provide services.
Quote from: vdeane on February 17, 2019, 10:03:03 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 16, 2019, 11:33:18 PM
...and that system of letting losses being carried forward for up to 20 years is how the system was gamed. Had there been no such tax laws, there would be no Amazon today. I would say these kinds of tax laws worked quite well in the case of Amazon.
Rick
I'm sure Amazon would still exist. They'd probably be more like they were 10-15 years ago, and far less dominant, but that doesn't really strike me as a bad thing.
Bezo's strategy was to forego quick profits in exchange for market share. The result was that a lot of bargains were available for the consumer and a lot of jobs were created that would not have been so numerous if your sentiment about Amazon had come about.
Take note, I am no friend of Bezo's politics. He is fakestream media personified due to his ownership of WaPo. However I am a person who likes his long term business strategy. It is ironic that such a supreme capitalist would take the side of the Socialists who enjoy 74% support in the Democratic Party. That makes it humorous to see him run out of the Big Apple in some part by those Socialists whose cause his paper supported so strongly.
Then add to that messing around on his wife. That is going to make for a huge hit to the bank account. Based on his political and marital choices, it appears he should have stuck to business. At least he did that well!
Rick
And when we start saying things like "fakestream media" to make our points, that means the thread has gotten too political.