2nd Amazon HQ Finalists - No SEA-CMH

Indy · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:25 pm

dc10lover wrote:
Austin is in the running and wouldn't be surprised if Austin is chosen. Even amazes me how much and how fast Austin Airport is growing.

I've never been but Austin looks like a gorgeous city. I wonder if the lack of interstate highway access is going to hurt their chances. But I do think it will be a city the size of Austin that wins this.

dc10lover · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:25 pm

Austin is in the running and wouldn't be surprised if Austin is chosen. Even amazes me how much and how fast Austin Airport is growing.

airbazar · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:30 pm

chrisnh wrote:
Anything in Boston has ‘Urban blight’ all over it. All the locations in the Boston area essentially screamed, “Let’s see if we get this big rich company to fix up our urban blight so we don’t have to.” I mean, LAWRENCE...the drug capital of New England...was floated.

Lawrence was a joint application for Lawrence/Haverhill/N.Andover. I live in one of these cities. The location is as good as any in New England if not the best.
Lawrence airport (LWM) could handle all the executive jets and it's literally, right in town. Easy access to I-495, I-95, and I-93. Skiing 1,5 hours away. Beaches 30 mins away. Logan Airport and MHT are equally 45 mins away. Commuter rail in town and a huge range of housing options and prices from new luxury condos in downtown Haverhill for city living to the multi-million $ mansions in Andover. Converse just vacated their HQ in N.Andover which means, Amazon has something in move-in condition right now if they want to but there is no shortage of land to build something brand new. Andover and N.Andover have some of the best public schools in MA. The Boston location can't offer any of this other than being closer to Logan airport.

slcdeltarumd11 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:33 pm

I think we can say with confidence it won't be NYC. The place is too expensive and they are not offering enough. This move is to save money, Amazon wants a good deal and save money for years with HQ2.

Newark on the other hand makes alot of sense however if they want the talent pool in the Northeast.

Notice how two places outside DC made the cut, I think that is very telling they are considering a non city location it just has to be near major airports and be offering a good deal.

winginit · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:34 pm

neomax wrote:
2. Dude, ATL is the hip hop capital of America. LA and NYC are peanuts compared to ATL in this regard.

I think this comment was made in jest, but if not just because numerous hip hop artists come from Atlanta doesn't make it the hip hop capital of America. Virtually all of the studios and label companies are in Los Angeles or New York; and literal hip-hop aside, no one will argue with a straight face that Atlanta even competes in the 'cool factor' category compared to NYC and LAX.

DeltaRules · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:37 pm

loisencroach wrote:
The list of cities for the 2nd Amazon headquarters has been released and the only city or area to NOT have nonstop service to SEA is CMH. PIT is on the list and it's possible that they are because of Alaska's recent SEA-PIT announcement. Word was that a prerequisite for any of these cities was nonstop service to SEA. 1) How did Columbus make the list, and 2) Has anybody heard of any plans for AS at CMH?

I seem to remember service to NYC, DC, the Bay Area, and SEA was "optional, but not required".

I have a friend who's worked for DL at CMH for 20 years and his prediction last year was CMH-SEA was two years away with them, so we're halfway through that. I've felt all along it's a drag race between DL and AS, with the question of who actually wants to jump out of line and start the route- I was actually slightly disappointed to see DL start SEA-IND before CMH (though it's not the first time CMH as an untapped market has been passed up). I've often wondered if a wild card might be the one to follow through on doing it; F9 (seeing as they throw darts at the wall to determine routes, it seems), WN (good-sized operation at CMH) or, if things go well, NK (starting with 7 destinations out of the gate next month).

zakuivcustom wrote:
boscmh wrote:
Lol. If CMH is chosen, multiple carriers would announce the route almost instantly. Come on...

IMO if CMH is chosen, you would not only see JUST SEA-CMH being added. I'm actually thinking that they may actually get a TATL flight

This may happen anyway. CRAA has been saying for a while they've been talking to BA for LHR, but they recently made public they're talking to DL about AMS or CDG, which seems more likely.

Kno · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:45 pm

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.

You're right about the upsides. Don't know why you'd count out ATL based on hipness, ATL is a pop culture hub close behind LA and NYC and one of the hippest cities in America - it's known for its night life and has become the global urban music capital. It's today's Motown with a huge night life scene.

winginit · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:47 pm

If anyone is curious, PaddyPower actually has odds:

blockski · Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:55 pm

Indy wrote:
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).

I call places like Atlanta, NYC, Chicago major metro areas. Amazon explicitly wants 100 acres to build on. They are not looking for existing office space.

Major or not, fine. But contrary to your assertion that "Amazon doesn't need office space," the entire point of their RFP was to look for locations to buy/build/lease office space.

Here's the RFP again: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com ... 43504_.pdf

Some highlights (Bold emphasis is mine):

Building/Site Requirements: Amazon is considering greenfield sites, infill sites, existing buildings, or a
combination for the Project. If existing buildings are available that can be retrofitted/expanded within
an acceptable budget and time schedule, Amazon may consider this option; however, the company
acknowledges that existing buildings may not be available to meet its requirements. As such, Amazon
will prioritize certified or shovel-ready greenfield sites and infill opportunities with appropriate
infrastructure and ability to meet the Project’s timeline and development demands, as set forth
below.

And regarding existing buildings:

Priority for Consideration (in no particular order):
Amazon will consider the following site/building categories for the Project:

1. Existing buildings of at least 500,000+ sq. ft., meeting the core requirements described
above and that are expandable or have additional options for development nearby.

About that 100 acre 'requirement':

2. A greenfield site of approximately 100 acres certified or pad ready, with utility infrastructure
in place. The sites do not have to be contiguous, but should be in proximity to each other to
foster a sense of place and be pedestrian-friendly.

3. Other infill, existing buildings, including opportunities for renovation/redevelopment and
greenfield sites, meeting the proximity and logistics requirements of the Project. This can
also be a combination of the above.

Remember that these were their priorities, listed "in no particular order." So, they're looking for something that meets their immediate needs and provides room for growth, either in an urban or suburban location, and encouraged bidders to present some combination of those things.

They're looking for up to 8 million square feet of space, to house up to 50,000 new employees. The back of the envelope math there is about 160 sf per employee, which is what you'd expect for office uses. In other words, it is absolutely a search for office space.

chrisnh · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:01 pm

Indy wrote:
dc10lover wrote:
Austin is in the running and wouldn't be surprised if Austin is chosen. Even amazes me how much and how fast Austin Airport is growing.

I've never been but Austin looks like a gorgeous city. I wonder if the lack of interstate highway access is going to hurt their chances. But I do think it will be a city the size of Austin that wins this.

Austin is nice, and has a broader range of home prices that Boston can’t match. Two other things: Austin > Boston in the winter; and there’s nothing ‘magic’ about HQ2 being on the east coast. Boston is floating near the top because people see it as most Seattle-like, which is a nonsensical reason to pick it.

777PHX · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:01 pm

Indy wrote:
I doubt Forbes is right. I also bet they wouldn't have picked a number of cities that made the top 20. They likely would have picked a bunch of other locations that didn't even make the list. There is a reason a number of smaller markets made the list. Clearly they have something that Amazon is looking for. The people that staff the new HQ2 are going to come from all over the U.S. and even the world. Most likely will not come from the local talent pool. Nobody has 52,000 highly skilled employees sitting around waiting for jobs. And whoever wins the bid will likely have 2 or 3 years (or more) to come up with the workers to fill the positions. It isn't like Amazon is going to open their new building and all the sudden people are going to discover there are new jobs and Amazon is going to have to hold an emergency job fair to fill the positions. Location, land, accessibility to land and air transportation, cost of living, and incentives are going to be what wins this for someone.

Because some backwater, third tier city in the midwest is far more desirable, right?

I'm not making this stuff up, it comes straight from their published criteria. Forbes isn't the only entity I've seen predict Boston is the front runner.

jfklganyc · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:01 pm

blockski wrote:
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.

I'm not sure why you characterize NYC's growth as 'unchecked.' It seems quite constrained and rather slow, to be honest. That's a single-digit growth rate. New York's own history includes much faster growth.

Plus, New York, like most major cities, had a population decline between 1950 and the 1980s, and only in 2000 got back to its 1950 population levels.

Look at numbers not growth rate. New York is so much bigger than everywhere else in the United States that the growth rate is a misnomer. Show me a city that’s added 1 million people in United States in 20 years. The infastructure(trains from 1920s, roads from 1940s/50s) simply can not handle that number.

Ask anyone that lives here everyone is talking about it. Subway is crumbling and roads are a disaster.

Things are so bad they’re about to pass a $13 toll to enter Manhattan.

It’s been a top story for six months now on local news.

As for comparison to Seattle from the poster above, Seattle has one of the worst mass transit systems and only recently gained a real subway system. One interstate as well. They also have real growth problems.

atcsundevil · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:05 pm

Since the discussion is almost completely Non Av, the thread has been moved so discussion can continue.

✈️ atcsundevil

GulfstreamFive · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:07 pm

Notice that the Washington, DC area was listed 3 times? (MoGo County, MD; NoVa; and the District)?

If this is a lottery, best to have the most tickets!

LTCM · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:08 pm

Indy wrote:
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).

I call places like Atlanta, NYC, Chicago major metro areas. Amazon explicitly wants 100 acres to build on. They are not looking for existing office space.

100 acres was a suggestion, not a requirement. Amazon is considering everything from greenfield to existing space.

osupoke07 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:09 pm

boscmh wrote:
Lol. If CMH is chosen, multiple carriers would announce the route almost instantly. Come on...

Yeah, I imagine all three of Delta, Alaska, and Southwest would eventually start service on that route.

casinterest · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:14 pm

LTCM wrote:
Indy wrote:
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).

I call places like Atlanta, NYC, Chicago major metro areas. Amazon explicitly wants 100 acres to build on. They are not looking for existing office space.

Provide some backup for "amazon explicitly wants 100 acres." Nothing I've read says that. The number of places where you have 100 acres of buildable land close to major transit in a major city is so small that they couldn't get 20 names with that requirement. Unless they are willing to do demo which they haven't indicated they want to do.

100 acres is nothing. Especially in Raleigh. There are countless Warehouse/natural areas near airports in many of these cities upon which to build.

All of these cities are going to be in the running, and at the end of the day, Amazon will choose one that can get them the best labor for the best price with the best supporting fundamentals for a headquarters. I think it will be East coast, and either in Raleigh,Pittsburg or DC area.

DeltaRules · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:21 pm

777PHX wrote:
Indy wrote:
I doubt Forbes is right. I also bet they wouldn't have picked a number of cities that made the top 20. They likely would have picked a bunch of other locations that didn't even make the list. There is a reason a number of smaller markets made the list. Clearly they have something that Amazon is looking for. The people that staff the new HQ2 are going to come from all over the U.S. and even the world. Most likely will not come from the local talent pool. Nobody has 52,000 highly skilled employees sitting around waiting for jobs. And whoever wins the bid will likely have 2 or 3 years (or more) to come up with the workers to fill the positions. It isn't like Amazon is going to open their new building and all the sudden people are going to discover there are new jobs and Amazon is going to have to hold an emergency job fair to fill the positions. Location, land, accessibility to land and air transportation, cost of living, and incentives are going to be what wins this for someone.

Because some backwater, third tier city in the midwest is far more desirable, right?

I'm not making this stuff up, it comes straight from their published criteria. Forbes isn't the only entity I've seen predict Boston is the front runner.

I'd rather live in backwater, third-world cesspool Columbus or Indianapolis than pay for the privilege of Washington, New York, Boston, Chicago, or LA living.

cranberrysaus · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:24 pm

Kno 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.

You're right about the upsides. Don't know why you'd count out ATL based on hipness, ATL is a pop culture hub close behind LA and NYC and one of the hippest cities in America - it's known for its night life and has become the global urban music capital. It's today's Motown with a huge night life scene.

I fully agree with you, Full disclosure - I live in metro Atlanta so I know what a cultural powerhouse it is. But misguided stereotypes do exist. Just today on Reddit I saw someone from Chicago try to claim racism as a reason Amazon shouldn't pick Atlanta. You know - the city "too busy to hate".

N717TW · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:25 pm

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.

Umm...there is a subway stop already there and the Commonwealth has agreed as part of the plan to connect the blue line with the red line on Cambridge street...meaning (which is the key here) one line, one seat service to MIT and Harvard. Plus same one line, one seat service to Logan. Not saying Boston will get the deal and frankly Apple's HQ2 is more appealing to me, but a fairly undeveloped parcel of land that size in a major City is worth a lot. Plus Boston is a great place to be if you want access to great tech talent.

neomax · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:32 pm

winginit wrote:
neomax wrote:
2. Dude, ATL is the hip hop capital of America. LA and NYC are peanuts compared to ATL in this regard.

I think this comment was made in jest, but if not just because numerous hip hop artists come from Atlanta doesn't make it the hip hop capital of America. Virtually all of the studios and label companies are in Los Angeles or New York; and literal hip-hop aside, no one will argue with a straight face that Atlanta even competes in the 'cool factor' category compared to NYC and LAX.

Comparing the hip hop scene with studios and label companies is like comparing a Mustang with a McLaren; you're comparing apples and oranges, NYC and LAX have the stronger "industry", but ATL has a much stronger natural "cool factor" because of its organic growth in hip hop. ATL has made a name for itself in this, and my comment was hardly in jest.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013 ... right-now/

blockski · Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:41 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Look at numbers not growth rate. New York is so much bigger than everywhere else in the United States that the growth rate is a misnomer. Show me a city that’s added 1 million people in United States in 20 years. The infastructure(trains from 1920s, roads from 1940s/50s) simply can not handle that number.

Ask anyone that lives here everyone is talking about it. Subway is crumbling and roads are a disaster.

Things are so bad they’re about to pass a $13 toll to enter Manhattan.

It’s been a top story for six months now on local news.

As for comparison to Seattle from the poster above, Seattle has one of the worst mass transit systems and only recently gained a real subway system. One interstate as well. They also have real growth problems.

The subways are crumbling due to poor maintenance practices and bad governance; not population growth.

The toll to enter Manhattan is a great policy. Congestion pricing is smart. That's a sign of NY doing the right thing; not a sign that things are bad.

Anyway, that's all tangential to Amazon. The larger point is that New York's current growth is both a) not that fast, and b) not unprecedented. People's perception of growth is skewed.

lightsaber · Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:54 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
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.

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....

The PR is smart free advertising.

I'm with others, wherever Amazon selects will have plenty of flights.

DenverA330 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:12 pm

If land availability and an established metro transit system are paramount, I wouldn't be suprised to see Denver. DIA is about to start a new expansion project, the light rail lines and bus lanes around Denver are starting to open up, although the current road and highway networks in the area are already saturated, which is one reason I wouldn't like to see Amazon here.

My personal bet is either Atlanta or Boston.

wjcandee · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:15 pm

blockski wrote:

Plus, New York, like most major cities, had a population decline between 1950 and the 1980s, and only in 2000 got back to its 1950 population levels.

Thank you. New York has plenty of infrastructure. Water, gas, electricity, dedicated mass transit. The MTA needs not more money but better operation. The only real congestion is in a car, and that's because they keep narrowing the major streets to put in bike lanes, bus lanes, etc. FIrst Avenue goes from six lanes to, effectively, three or two, with the unpoliced double-parking, etc. Then the city leaders complain that traffic sucks, and the governor wants to start charging for driving in the city. Progressive Utopia!!

cledaybuck · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:19 pm

winginit wrote:
If anyone is curious, PaddyPower actually has odds:

Those are some terrible odds if anyone was actually betting (great for the house though).

StarAC17 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:36 pm

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/

Hold by Beer.

Signed,

San Francisco. :mrgreen:

StarAC17 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:00 pm

thomacf wrote:
This whole thing is a circus by Amazon but smart on their part from a business standpoint. Competition is going to get them the best deal. If you look at the list, there are so many contradictions to what the RFP requested and what the final list of 20 was. 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.

Majors
NYC, LA, Chicago and DC - obviously
Tech Hubs
Boston (they are already putting in a large campus), Austin, Raleigh, Denver
Majors if you don't want to be in LA/Chicago/DC or NYC Area but want everything a major city can offer
ATL, DAL, MIA & PHL - I believe the winner comes out of this group
Wild Cards to make it look like some smaller cities have a chance and keep the suspense building
CMH, IND, Nashville & PIT - (you could have swapped any of these out with the likes of MSP, CLE, DET, KC, STL, MEM or Cincy for example) but you pick a few smaller up and coming towns to build the excitement
International
Toronto - just because. No way they pick a Canadian city and deal with the currency and labor US vs Canada headache for so many employees

I don't think Toronto will get the HQ but here are some benefits to opening it in the Toronto Area.

While Toronto is also expensive and not offering any tax incentives to Amazon here are some benefits.

- 20-25% discount on currency right off the bat.
- No requirement for health insurance for employees like needed in the US. Amazon would have to provide extended health packages that cover prescription drugs and dental, and that's it.
- Canada is far more immigrant friendly than the US at this time.
- The GTA, especially the Kitchener/Waterloo area (an hour west of Toronto) has many tech startups and the universities graduate a lot of local talent in tech.
- Canada is negotiating or has negotiated Free Trade Agreements with Great Britain (post-brexit), the EU and China, whereas the US in becoming more insular.
- Bezos does not like Trump and might want to stick it to him.

jfklganyc · Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:08 pm

blockski wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Look at numbers not growth rate. New York is so much bigger than everywhere else in the United States that the growth rate is a misnomer. Show me a city that’s added 1 million people in United States in 20 years. The infastructure(trains from 1920s, roads from 1940s/50s) simply can not handle that number.

Ask anyone that lives here everyone is talking about it. Subway is crumbling and roads are a disaster.

Things are so bad they’re about to pass a $13 toll to enter Manhattan.

It’s been a top story for six months now on local news.

As for comparison to Seattle from the poster above, Seattle has one of the worst mass transit systems and only recently gained a real subway system. One interstate as well. They also have real growth problems.

The subways are crumbling due to poor maintenance practices and bad governance; not population growth.

The toll to enter Manhattan is a great policy. Congestion pricing is smart. That's a sign of NY doing the right thing; not a sign that things are bad.

Anyway, that's all tangential to Amazon. The larger point is that New York's current growth is both a) not that fast, and b) not unprecedented. People's perception of growth is skewed.

On stop as an example. Queensboro Plaza opened in 1916. 101 years ago.

12,000 new apartments just came online in LIC. Same subway stop...since 1916.

You can not “maintain” your way out of that. That is unchecked growth with no infrastructure plan.

blockski · Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:17 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
blockski wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Look at numbers not growth rate. New York is so much bigger than everywhere else in the United States that the growth rate is a misnomer. Show me a city that’s added 1 million people in United States in 20 years. The infastructure(trains from 1920s, roads from 1940s/50s) simply can not handle that number.

Ask anyone that lives here everyone is talking about it. Subway is crumbling and roads are a disaster.

Things are so bad they’re about to pass a $13 toll to enter Manhattan.

It’s been a top story for six months now on local news.

As for comparison to Seattle from the poster above, Seattle has one of the worst mass transit systems and only recently gained a real subway system. One interstate as well. They also have real growth problems.

The subways are crumbling due to poor maintenance practices and bad governance; not population growth.

The toll to enter Manhattan is a great policy. Congestion pricing is smart. That's a sign of NY doing the right thing; not a sign that things are bad.

Anyway, that's all tangential to Amazon. The larger point is that New York's current growth is both a) not that fast, and b) not unprecedented. People's perception of growth is skewed.

On stop as an example. Queensboro Plaza opened in 1916. 101 years ago.

12,000 new apartments just came online in LIC. Same subway stop...since 1916.

You can not “maintain” your way out of that. That is unchecked growth with no infrastructure plan.

Queensboro Plaza is the 125th busiest subway station in NYC.

Subways are great at handling lots of people. They put the 'mass' in mass transit. There are lots of issues with subway maintenance, funding, and governance - but the problem is absolutely not the population growth of NYC.

ER757 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:33 pm

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.

As Neomax nicely pointed out a few posts down from the above - a lot of us in the Seattle are very happy Amazon isn't considering an HQ2 anywhere near here. There's far too much traffic here as it is and housing prices are ridiculous so no thanks to more yuppies wanting to come this direction. I live near Amazon's new distribution center in the area and it's made a huge difference in the amount of traffic and they're a 7 day a week operation so even weekends can be nuts. Good luck Atlanta (where I think they'll go) or wherever it ends up

dfwjim1 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:36 pm

Slightly off topic but I read somewhere that Las Vegas is laying odds on which city Amazon will choose for HQ2.

Route66 · Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:15 pm

StarAC17 wrote:
neomax wrote:
N757ST wrote:

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/

Hold by Beer.

Signed,

San Francisco.

And 40% of silicon valley residents want to leave.

ORDfan · Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:36 am

neomax wrote:
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

Very good points, I totally agree... only thing is I wouldn't call these 'minor' problems. I think they are major problems.

Will go on record: please DO NOT come to CHI. No interest in having them here.. Lots of warts under the shiny, exterior as noted above. No thank you...please move along.

Was rooting for Detroit. Bummer....

jfklganyc · Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:05 am

blockski wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
blockski wrote:

The subways are crumbling due to poor maintenance practices and bad governance; not population growth.

The toll to enter Manhattan is a great policy. Congestion pricing is smart. That's a sign of NY doing the right thing; not a sign that things are bad.

Anyway, that's all tangential to Amazon. The larger point is that New York's current growth is both a) not that fast, and b) not unprecedented. People's perception of growth is skewed.

On stop as an example. Queensboro Plaza opened in 1916. 101 years ago.

12,000 new apartments just came online in LIC. Same subway stop...since 1916.

You can not “maintain” your way out of that. That is unchecked growth with no infrastructure plan.

Queensboro Plaza is the 125th busiest subway station in NYC.

Subways are great at handling lots of people. They put the 'mass' in mass transit. There are lots of issues with subway maintenance, funding, and governance - but the problem is absolutely not the population growth of NYC.

Im just curious how you can declare anything “absolute?” On what grounds are you so “absolutely” sure.

Furthermore, only someone that was disinterested in facts could disregard these numbers:

Annual Subway ridership

1980: 951 million
2015: 1.7 billion

For much of the 90s there was LESS trackage available than in decades prior.

Since then, the Z was extended to Jamaica, the F opened through Roosevelt Island and 63 Street to Queens, Second Ave just opened 3 stations, Hudson Yards just opened.

Too not acknowledge the toll of increased ridership and overcrowding on an ancient system is foolish and, no offense, displays a willful ignorance. I say willful as you are obviously well-informed of the subway...you are just choosing to ignore numbers that are readily available.

airbazar · Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:42 am

N717TW wrote:
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.

Umm...there is a subway stop already there and the Commonwealth has agreed as part of the plan to connect the blue line with the red line on Cambridge street...meaning (which is the key here) one line, one seat service to MIT and Harvard. Plus same one line, one seat service to Logan. Not saying Boston will get the deal and frankly Apple's HQ2 is more appealing to me, but a fairly undeveloped parcel of land that size in a major City is worth a lot. Plus Boston is a great place to be if you want access to great tech talent.

I'm not disagreeing that Boston/MA is a great place to be. I'm just saying that the actual place they are offering is in a terrible location.
The blue line is worthless because it only goes into downtown Boston. Most people working at that location are highly unlikely to go live in Boston. They are far more likely to live in the suburbs and will have to drive. And as for the connection to the red line, come on. How long has it taken them just on studies to extend the green line to Somerville? And that's a surface trolley. Amazon will be looking for HQ3 before that connection is made

Midwestindy · Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:30 am

777PHX wrote:
Indy wrote:
I doubt Forbes is right. I also bet they wouldn't have picked a number of cities that made the top 20. They likely would have picked a bunch of other locations that didn't even make the list. There is a reason a number of smaller markets made the list. Clearly they have something that Amazon is looking for. The people that staff the new HQ2 are going to come from all over the U.S. and even the world. Most likely will not come from the local talent pool. Nobody has 52,000 highly skilled employees sitting around waiting for jobs. And whoever wins the bid will likely have 2 or 3 years (or more) to come up with the workers to fill the positions. It isn't like Amazon is going to open their new building and all the sudden people are going to discover there are new jobs and Amazon is going to have to hold an emergency job fair to fill the positions. Location, land, accessibility to land and air transportation, cost of living, and incentives are going to be what wins this for someone.

Because some backwater, third tier city in the midwest is far more desirable, right?

I'm not making this stuff up, it comes straight from their published criteria. Forbes isn't the only entity I've seen predict Boston is the front runner.

Lol, judging by your username it sounds like you are a bit bitter that Phoenix didn't make the cut....

tlecam · Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:41 am

airbazar wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
Anything in Boston has ‘Urban blight’ all over it. All the locations in the Boston area essentially screamed, “Let’s see if we get this big rich company to fix up our urban blight so we don’t have to.” I mean, LAWRENCE...the drug capital of New England...was floated.

Lawrence was a joint application for Lawrence/Haverhill/N.Andover. I live in one of these cities. The location is as good as any in New England if not the best.
Lawrence airport (LWM) could handle all the executive jets and it's literally, right in town. Easy access to I-495, I-95, and I-93. Skiing 1,5 hours away. Beaches 30 mins away. Logan Airport and MHT are equally 45 mins away. Commuter rail in town and a huge range of housing options and prices from new luxury condos in downtown Haverhill for city living to the multi-million $ mansions in Andover. Converse just vacated their HQ in N.Andover which means, Amazon has something in move-in condition right now if they want to but there is no shortage of land to build something brand new. Andover and N.Andover have some of the best public schools in MA. The Boston location can't offer any of this other than being closer to Logan airport.

The problem with the Merrimack Valley for Amazon is the talent attraction piece. All of the macro-economic trends (at least that I see at work) show an ever continuing migration towards the urban centers and the very near suburbs for the foreseeable future. Sadly, there’s a reason why Converse moved to North Station.

(BTW, I grew up in the Merrimack Valley and have a craving for Harrison’s roast beef and Tripoli pizza.)

blockski · Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:21 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
blockski wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

On stop as an example. Queensboro Plaza opened in 1916. 101 years ago.

12,000 new apartments just came online in LIC. Same subway stop...since 1916.

You can not “maintain” your way out of that. That is unchecked growth with no infrastructure plan.

Queensboro Plaza is the 125th busiest subway station in NYC.

Subways are great at handling lots of people. They put the 'mass' in mass transit. There are lots of issues with subway maintenance, funding, and governance - but the problem is absolutely not the population growth of NYC.

Im just curious how you can declare anything “absolute?” On what grounds are you so “absolutely” sure.

Furthermore, only someone that was disinterested in facts could disregard these numbers:

Annual Subway ridership

1980: 951 million
2015: 1.7 billion

For much of the 90s there was LESS trackage available than in decades prior.

Since then, the Z was extended to Jamaica, the F opened through Roosevelt Island and 63 Street to Queens, Second Ave just opened 3 stations, Hudson Yards just opened.

Too not acknowledge the toll of increased ridership and overcrowding on an ancient system is foolish and, no offense, displays a willful ignorance. I say willful as you are obviously well-informed of the subway...you are just choosing to ignore numbers that are readily available.

2016 has the highest annual subway ridership since 1948. The idea that this is unprecedented simply doesn’t conform to the facts. I’m not sure why you’re picking 1980 as a baseline, the absolute low point for both the city's recent population and for the subway system's maintenance.

If you want to argue that the system is old, that’s true. But it also handled more passengers in the past. Again, they put the mass in mass transit for a reason. Yes, the subway literally was designed for this. Saying it wasn’t just because it’s old isn’t true.

Likewise, you’re right to suggest that the subway is crisis, but that’s a challenge of maintenance, funding, and governance. It is certainly not because or unprecedented population growth or unprecedented ridership, mainly because this level of ridership isn’t actually unprecedented.

N717TW · Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:25 pm

airbazar wrote:
N717TW wrote:
airbazar wrote:
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.

Umm...there is a subway stop already there and the Commonwealth has agreed as part of the plan to connect the blue line with the red line on Cambridge street...meaning (which is the key here) one line, one seat service to MIT and Harvard. Plus same one line, one seat service to Logan. Not saying Boston will get the deal and frankly Apple's HQ2 is more appealing to me, but a fairly undeveloped parcel of land that size in a major City is worth a lot. Plus Boston is a great place to be if you want access to great tech talent.

I'm not disagreeing that Boston/MA is a great place to be. I'm just saying that the actual place they are offering is in a terrible location.
The blue line is worthless because it only goes into downtown Boston. Most people working at that location are highly unlikely to go live in Boston. They are far more likely to live in the suburbs and will have to drive. And as for the connection to the red line, come on. How long has it taken them just on studies to extend the green line to Somerville? And that's a surface trolley. Amazon will be looking for HQ3 before that connection is made

Not sure I would compare the Green Line extension (who's backers left office) and ran in to Nimby opposition to a 1/2 mile tunnel down Cambridge street. Will it take longer than it should b/c MGH and some Beacon Hill folks will object? Yes. Will MGH (as the largest landowner on the street) fall in line? You bet. If Amazon (or Apple HQ2 for that mater) comes to Suffolk Downs, mark my word: the Blue Line connector will happen.

And I hate to break it to you, people want to live in the City and very close suburbs. Look at the values of houses in just about every neighborhood of Boston in the past 10 years never mind the crazy values of Sommerville (I grew up calling it Scummerville), Medford and other "urban core" cities that were once considered undesirable. That's the one problem with the bid, we're getting close to the point where average residential real estate is going for over $750/sq. ft. But for the jobs amazon is really building this facility for (the 100K+ jobs) that's still affordable. The good news for you is that it will translate to into higher values for people who live way out (and I admit to being Boston-centric and therefore thinking anything beyond 128 might as well be in Ohio).

dtw2hyd · Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:54 pm

What are Amazon HQ functions? WA(including HQ1) has 40K jobs, how can HQ2 create 50K more jobs?

dfwjim1 · Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:38 am

ORDfan wrote:
neomax wrote:
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

Very good points, I totally agree... only thing is I wouldn't call these 'minor' problems. I think they are major problems.

Will go on record: please DO NOT come to CHI. No interest in having them here.. Lots of warts under the shiny, exterior as noted above. No thank you...please move along.

Was rooting for Detroit. Bummer....

Just curious as to why poverty and homelessness would increase?

Tugger · Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:39 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
What are Amazon HQ functions? WA(including HQ1) has 40K jobs, how can HQ2 create 50K more jobs?

It will be years, probably a more than a decade, before AHQ2 has those numbers. And likely in that time HQ1 employment will likely increase, matching at least and probably well exceeding HQ2.

Tugg

ORDfan · Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:45 am

dfwjim1 wrote:
ORDfan wrote:
neomax wrote:
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

Very good points, I totally agree... only thing is I wouldn't call these 'minor' problems. I think they are major problems.

Will go on record: please DO NOT come to CHI. No interest in having them here.. Lots of warts under the shiny, exterior as noted above. No thank you...please move along.

Was rooting for Detroit. Bummer....

Just curious as to why poverty and homelessness would increase?

While touting high wages for its own workers, its been shown (proven) that high wages drive high rents, while simultaneously handicapping small businesses and lower-wage earners.

Seattle now has the 3rd largest homeless population, and Washington state has the 2nd fasting growing homeless population. It's no coincidence.

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/new-study ... tle-rents/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... ss-shelter

SuperGee · Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:13 am

I think it boils down to Austin, Dallas, Atlanta or No. Va, in that order. Austin is regarded as a “Hip” technological center (something which I suspect appeals to AM) and is becoming more popular in that regard. Furthermore, it is located in a large, populous state, has a reasonable cost of living, is surrounded by a considerable amount of land, has a number of universities including one major U (U of Texas) and has a good has a good climate. It also has fewer traffic problems than many of the other cities on the list.

Dallas is already a major commercial center with a good climate, good cost of living, plenty of wide open space and has great transportation. It is already the HQ for a number of major corporations for those same reasons as well as for a number of others which I am sure AM finds attractive.

Atlanta has many of the same benefits that Dallas offers plus it is closer to the east coast. No Va is becoming known as the "Silicone Valley of The East" because of it's attractiveness to major technological corporations (i.e. because of Va's favorable business climate and proximity to Dulles airport). I live in Montgomery Country, MD and frankly hope it DOESN'T come here for many of the reasons already pointed out in previous posts.

The “sleepers” I see on the list are Nashville, Raleigh and No. I just don’t see any of the other cities on the list being seriously in the mix unless they make some EXTREMELY attractive offers to AM.

Airstud · Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:53 am

ORDfan wrote:
dfwjim1 wrote:
ORDfan wrote:

Very good points, I totally agree... only thing is I wouldn't call these 'minor' problems. I think they are major problems.

Will go on record: please DO NOT come to CHI. No interest in having them here.. Lots of warts under the shiny, exterior as noted above. No thank you...please move along.

Was rooting for Detroit. Bummer....

Just curious as to why poverty and homelessness would increase?

While touting high wages for its own workers, its been shown (proven) that high wages drive high rents, while simultaneously handicapping small businesses and lower-wage earners.

Seattle now has the 3rd largest homeless population, and Washington state has the 2nd fasting growing homeless population. It's no coincidence.

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/new-study ... tle-rents/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... ss-shelter

Well the geekwire article A) relies pretty heavily on data from Zillow and not from anywhere else, and 2) concedes that rents are higher in Seattle also because of low housing inventory, which the same article says is not as much of an issue in Detroit or Atlanta.

luckyone · Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:14 pm

With regards to Atlanta, as an Atlanta native:

Housing is not cheap. It is grossly inflated. Housing prices have ballooned in the last 3 years. While it may be cheaper than Seattle, Boston, or New York, it is not cheap and the housing market is due for a check. A friend of mine lives well outside the Perimeter and her property value has nearly tripled in three years, and again she doesn't even live that close to Amazon's target. Which brings me to...

Atlanta's public transportation is not adequate for an operation that Amazon is requesting. What transit there is, is not comprehensive, and a patchwork of different providers because the good people of suburban Cobb and Gwinnett Counties somehow think that avoiding public transportation prevents crime and brown people from coming their way. This will further complicate affordable housing because the housing built along public transit will significantly increase in value, which is already the case as the suburbs have sprawled to the point of LA-style commutes, bringing people back into the city. The City of Atlanta is also not that big relative to the area around it, potentially hemming in development.

And traffic? The downtown connector is already ten lanes across. This will certainly increase due to truck traffic, and regardless of how much people tout MARTA most people moving to Atlanta will use private vehicles.

None of that may actually prevent Amazon from choosing Atlanta as their source, but they are not the benefits being discussed here.

flyPIT · Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:20 am

"Pittsburgh housing market a boon to attracting Amazon, real estate experts say"

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/development/2018/01/20/Pittsburgh-housing-market-a-boon-to-attracting-Amazon-real-estate-experts-say/stories/201801200045

einsteinboricua · Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:27 am

I hope it's Boston so that I finally have a reason to move there. I like the city and state overall.

If not Boston, then Columbus seems like a pretty decent option.

dc10lover · Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:42 am

Please don't flame me but what about maybe Moses Lake, Washington. Plenty of land, cheap electricity, closer to Seattle, Alaska or Delta can quickly add flights to Seattle.

Just a thought.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net