Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
boscmh wrote:Lol. If CMH is chosen, multiple carriers would announce the route almost instantly. Come on...
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:I think cargo and shipments between the two will be huge, but people to fill a plane not so much.
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:In conclusion would this allow AS or DL to probably add an EMB 175 flights between SEA and CMH yes with the help of already existing o&d. Would we go from zero non-stops to some impressive showing like 4 738s
wjcandee wrote:Downtown Dallas has some amazing spaces that could put a very cool new headquarters right in the crosshairs of all the regional transportation options, plus an amazing quality of life for middle-income earners. And no income tax. And great sports and a surprising amount of culture and artists (because of said inexpensive living opportunities). And the hands-down best air service. But it's not "progressive", so it's out. New York would be pure hell for middle-level people because of COL, but hits many of the other requirements, including education and a feckless "progressive" goverment. Same for Boston. So it really depends on whether HQ2 is an ego bath for top management or truly an effort to give a great QOL to the people who do the real work. We'll see.
notdownnlocked wrote:So what is the big draw in having AMZNHQ2? Traffic? I now live with 2 and another one hiring for the 3rd facility close to the DFW Airport. It really sucks. Back to back truck traffic 24/7. Many bought their homes here for the schools and still continue to do so. Also at many nice homes people now open their front door to see a warehouse and lost 18 wheeler trucks driving through their neighborhoods. Saw an article on the news with a 3 year time lapse of what Amazon did in Seattle. Gridlock, apartments and complaints. In the last 3 years it was stated that 75 companies have moved to DFW. There are literally no homes here and prices are through the roof. Toyota HQ in Plano has wrecked that area too. Too much and too often. So I hope no AMZN2HQ in DFW.
N757ST wrote:notdownnlocked wrote:So what is the big draw in having AMZNHQ2? Traffic? I now live with 2 and another one hiring for the 3rd facility close to the DFW Airport. It really sucks. Back to back truck traffic 24/7. Many bought their homes here for the schools and still continue to do so. Also at many nice homes people now open their front door to see a warehouse and lost 18 wheeler trucks driving through their neighborhoods. Saw an article on the news with a 3 year time lapse of what Amazon did in Seattle. Gridlock, apartments and complaints. In the last 3 years it was stated that 75 companies have moved to DFW. There are literally no homes here and prices are through the roof. Toyota HQ in Plano has wrecked that area too. Too much and too often. So I hope no AMZN2HQ in DFW.
Ummm... what city doesn’t want 50,000 new high paying tech jobs. I’ll agree with the above, I’d guess Boston.
N757ST wrote:As in Boston has the edge in this competition. Though cost of living ain’t cheap.
neomax wrote:N757ST wrote:notdownnlocked wrote:So what is the big draw in having AMZNHQ2? Traffic? I now live with 2 and another one hiring for the 3rd facility close to the DFW Airport. It really sucks. Back to back truck traffic 24/7. Many bought their homes here for the schools and still continue to do so. Also at many nice homes people now open their front door to see a warehouse and lost 18 wheeler trucks driving through their neighborhoods. Saw an article on the news with a 3 year time lapse of what Amazon did in Seattle. Gridlock, apartments and complaints. In the last 3 years it was stated that 75 companies have moved to DFW. There are literally no homes here and prices are through the roof. Toyota HQ in Plano has wrecked that area too. Too much and too often. So I hope no AMZN2HQ in DFW.
Ummm... what city doesn’t want 50,000 new high paying tech jobs. I’ll agree with the above, I’d guess Boston.
Uh, I don't know, maybe Seattle! Have you been sleeping under a rock? While every city wants high paying tech jobs, the vast majority of Seattleites agree that the Amazon effect has done more harm than good.
Here are just a few minor problems:
Housing prices soar
Pay gap goes through the roof
Less livable for middle class
Gentrification of neighborhoods
Reduced diversity in population
Increase in traffic
Poverty and homelessness
Corporate influence in local politics
Big companies grow at expense of small biz
Taxpayer funds go to corporates instead of the city
You can choose if you want to believe it or not, but I've lived in Seattle so I know that it's not all its cracked up to be. Seattle is no stranger to big business, and it is way better with it than without it, but let's not pretend that there are VERY big issues that must be addressed when somebody like Amazon comes to a city.
There are more than a few articles that have covered this subject. I suggest you read some of them.
http://komonews.com/news/local/seattle- ... ost-cities
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... 80d9b2007c
https://www.reuters.com/article/scruggs ... SKCN1BP2F8
https://www.geekwire.com/2017/seattle-m ... mazon-hq2/
http://www.post-gazette.com/business/de ... 1710150037
https://whyy.org/articles/seattle-amazo ... influence/
777PHX wrote:Rumor has it, Boston has the inside track. I'd be shocked if the new location wasn't on the east coast, in any event.
thomacf wrote:This whole thing is a circus by Amazon but smart on their part from a business standpoint. So they had to break it down to 20 and make it look fair, keep this story going and spread the love around geographically ranging across a spectrum of cities.
jfklganyc wrote:No way it's NYC.
I'm shocked it even made the short list.
It has simply gotten too expensive and too hard to live here...even for techies.
NY is a city under siege from unchecked population growth without proper infrastructure growth. Our roads, subways, commuter rails, airports and bus system are collapsing under the weight of unchecked, large-scale developments (WTC, Hudson Yards, Atlantic Yards, LIC, Downtown Brooklyn). Furthermore, the housing stock coming online is totally unaffordable to middle class people that Amazon is targeting. Their employees would end up living in shoebox apartments with long, slow, expensive and unreliable commutes. Like many NYers, they would become the working poor.
City-Only Population:
1980: 7 million
1990: 7.3 million
2000: 8 million
2016: 8.5 million
You simply can not have that rate of growth (most of it in last 25 years) and do next to nothing with infrastructure.
To use an infrastructure example we are all very familiar with on a.net: Airtrain JFK; Airtrain EWR. Both projects came to fruition decades after they were needed; both projects were half-baked attempts at solving access to airports; and the EWR project, although only 20 years old, is already failing and in need of replacement. NYers today are very dependent on both systems. The Van Wyck (particularly northbound) now has traffic from 5am-11pm on a daily basis.
The NYC reality is summed up on the AirTrain: you have a maligned train system that has become a total necessity to avoid round the clock traffic jams on streets. It is expensive and slow and doesnt take you where you ultimately want to go in a timely fashion.
stlgph wrote:I'm going with Newark.
You have the access to the benefits and resources of NYC, access to an airport(s), the city and the state is probably on the cusp of offering hella deals, and probably the two biggest positives for them 1) diversity in their workforce (because you know, it's all the rage these days) and 2) for a long period of time, Newark has been hurting and has been trying to find a major revitalization to the downtown neighborhood. Amazon would love to pat themselves on the back for coming in and making it happen.
tlecam wrote:I can’t imagine how any rumors would be swirling with a “short list” of 20 cities.
Midwestindy wrote:[
It's amusing that you think Amazon somehow needs the PR created by this search for HQ2, Amazon is a household name, they don't need to desperately search for ways to get their name known around the country. .
jfklganyc wrote:No way it's NYC.
I'm shocked it even made the short list.
It has simply gotten too expensive and too hard to live here...even for techies.
NY is a city under siege from unchecked population growth without proper infrastructure growth. Our roads, subways, commuter rails, airports and bus system are collapsing under the weight of unchecked, large-scale developments (WTC, Hudson Yards, Atlantic Yards, LIC, Downtown Brooklyn). Furthermore, the housing stock coming online is totally unaffordable to middle class people that Amazon is targeting. Their employees would end up living in shoebox apartments with long, slow, expensive and unreliable commutes. Like many NYers, they would become the working poor.
City-Only Population:
1980: 7 million
1990: 7.3 million
2000: 8 million
2016: 8.5 million
You simply can not have that rate of growth (most of it in last 25 years) and do next to nothing with infrastructure.
To use an infrastructure example we are all very familiar with on a.net: Airtrain JFK; Airtrain EWR. Both projects came to fruition decades after they were needed; both projects were half-baked attempts at solving access to airports; and the EWR project, although only 20 years old, is already failing and in need of replacement. NYers today are very dependent on both systems. The Van Wyck (particularly northbound) now has traffic from 5am-11pm on a daily basis.
The NYC reality is summed up on the AirTrain: you have a maligned train system that has become a total necessity to avoid round the clock traffic jams on streets. It is expensive and slow and doesnt take you where you ultimately want to go in a timely fashion.
cranberrysaus wrote:My personal biased opinion would be Atlanta as the front runner. Just seems like it checks off a lot of boxes.
- Fairly cheap housing and real estate (for now)
- Available downtown location with access to mass transit
- Heavy rail system with direct connection to a large international airport
- Close to many large universities
- Sizeable young, educated population
- Fair weather most of the year
- Local and state government that's willing to throw money at them to make it happen
Downsides would probably be traffic, and that ATL isn't as "hip" as LA or NYC.
Midwestindy wrote:It's amusing that you think Amazon somehow needs the PR created by this search for HQ2, Amazon is a household name, they don't need to desperately search for ways to get their name known around the country. You think Amazon, who basically owns e-comerce, has nothing better to do, then to randomly create excitment for a new HQ? C'mon....
777Mech wrote:This is a fairly ignorant statement, "it's pretty funny DTW didn't make the short list." Basically what you're saying here is the same as saying, "it's pretty funny DTW got hit the hardest during the recession." I like how you also refer to "folks" as in several people, which makes your statement wrong again. Amazon isn't missing out with Detroit just as they aren't in my area. I bet you, if Google looks to expand into a 2nd HQ, Detroit will be on the short list guaranteed.It's pretty funny DTW didn't make the short list. Surprise our resident DTW folks haven't chimed in claiming Amazon is missing out.
cranberrysaus wrote:My personal biased opinion would be Atlanta as the front runner. Just seems like it checks off a lot of boxes.
- Fairly cheap housing and real estate (for now)
- Available downtown location with access to mass transit
- Heavy rail system with direct connection to a large international airport
- Close to many large universities
- Sizeable young, educated population
- Fair weather most of the year
- Local and state government that's willing to throw money at them to make it happen
Downsides would probably be traffic, and that ATL isn't as "hip" as LA or NYC.
Indy wrote:777PHX wrote:Rumor has it, Boston has the inside track. I'd be shocked if the new location wasn't on the east coast, in any event.
Likely an unreliable rumor since Amazon just announced the finalists and they haven't even started working with the 20 cities to finalize bids. Cost of living and congestion is likely going to work against Boston. Another issue that almost every major city on the list will have is the ability to provide a 100 acre site for the campus without getting away from the city center.
neomax wrote:cranberrysaus wrote:My personal biased opinion would be Atlanta as the front runner. Just seems like it checks off a lot of boxes.
- Fairly cheap housing and real estate (for now)
- Available downtown location with access to mass transit
- Heavy rail system with direct connection to a large international airport
- Close to many large universities
- Sizeable young, educated population
- Fair weather most of the year
- Local and state government that's willing to throw money at them to make it happen
Downsides would probably be traffic, and that ATL isn't as "hip" as LA or NYC.
1. "Large international airport" is the understatement of the century, this is the world's busiest airport we're talking about. That's gotta be worth something.
2. Dude, ATL is the hip hop capital of America. LA and NYC are peanuts compared to ATL in this regard.
airbazar wrote:N757ST wrote:As in Boston has the edge in this competition. Though cost of living ain’t cheap.
On top of the expensive cost of living, the location that Boston proposed is absolutely horrendous. Landlocked in a very densely populated residential neighborhood without easy access to any highway and very poor public transit access. If they end up here it's because they had already decided to come here and this entire process was nothing but a publicity stunt.
flyguy84 wrote:wjcandee wrote:Downtown Dallas has some amazing spaces that could put a very cool new headquarters right in the crosshairs of all the regional transportation options, plus an amazing quality of life for middle-income earners. And no income tax. And great sports and a surprising amount of culture and artists (because of said inexpensive living opportunities). And the hands-down best air service. But it's not "progressive", so it's out. New York would be pure hell for middle-level people because of COL, but hits many of the other requirements, including education and a feckless "progressive" goverment. Same for Boston. So it really depends on whether HQ2 is an ego bath for top management or truly an effort to give a great QOL to the people who do the real work. We'll see.
Have you been to Dallas lately? It's pretty progressive these days...
Indy wrote:I find it unlikely that the winner will be a major metro area. Cost of living is typically much higher.
Traffic is bad, and good luck finding 100 acres of open space downtown.
smaller markets are likely to cough up more incentive money than the major metro areas.
Indy wrote:I find it unlikely that the winner will be a major metro area. Cost of living is typically much higher. Traffic is bad, and good luck finding 100 acres of open space downtown. Amazon doesn't need office space. The bid requires 100 acres of land. And money..... smaller markets are likely to cough up more incentive money than the major metro areas. Major markets typically don't have to play that game to attract businesses.
blockski wrote:Given that Amazon's short list is nothing but a list of 'major metro areas,' I'm not sure why you think one won't be selected. I also don't know what you're calling a 'major' Metro area.
Did you read the RFP closely? Amazon is explicitly looking for office space. That's the whole reason for this process - they want more office space to house a second headquarters.
The RFP did not require 100 acres of land; that was a suggested size for a bid in a suburban location (and remember - that was for an office park, to host more office space).