Apple to Add $1 Billion Campus in Austin, Tex., in Broad U.S. Hiring Push

[ocman]

Apple to Add $1 Billion Campus in Austin, Tex., in Broad U.S. Hiring Push

Apple said Thursday that it would build a new $1 billion campus in Austin, Tex., where it could eventually employ 15,000 people, amid a broader expansion that will create thousands of jobs in several American cities.

The company, which has 90,000 workers in the United States, also plans to open 1,000-worker operations in San Diego, Seattle and Culver City, Calif., and add hundreds of employees in offices in New York, Pittsburgh and Boulder, Colo., in the next three years.

I’m not too surprised. The tech sector is such a robust economy in the bay area. There are so many jobs, but a lot of my former colleagues are terrified to move up here because the bay area as as whole is failing badly at supporting this growth.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ocman

[There are so many jobs, but a lot of my former colleagues are terrified to move up here because the bay area as as whole is failing badly at supporting this growth.

It's almost certainly because housing costs are daunting. I seriously doubt your colleagues aren't considering the Bay Area because of regional planning considerations.

Palo Alto and Mountain View aren't gonna be notably cheaper even if the region built more housing or transit. As long as they're five minutes from a bajillion high-paying jobs, and as long as people like this type of suburban lifestyle (alongside the sunny Peninsula with good schools) these communities will command very high prices.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's almost certainly because housing costs are daunting. I seriously doubt your colleagues aren't considering the Bay Area because of regional planning considerations.

Palo Alto and Mountain View aren't gonna be notably cheaper even if the region built more housing or transit. As long as they're five minutes from a bajillion high-paying jobs, and as long as people like this type of suburban lifestyle (alongside the sunny Peninsula with good schools) these communities will command very high prices.

That was obviously implied. Housing prices are about planning considerations. They’re not inseparable. Cities can plan for growth to remain at least not stratospherically expensive, and the bay area failed in that regard. This was not inevitable or a “could have happened to anyone” situation.

And of course it will be cheaper if you build more housing. But you need a real commitment to actually build a lot of housing, not the lip service and scrap gestures that’s currently going on.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ocman

Housing prices are about planning considerations. They’re not inseparable. Cities can plan for growth to remain at least not stratospherically expensive, and the bay area failed in that regard. This was not inevitable or a “could have happened to anyone” situation.

The Bay Area already produces a ton of housing, esp. multifamily, and has strong regional planning. I think it's Top 5 in housing construction by CSA.

If you could somehow create enough housing to lower prices (politically likely impossible), it would take years to filter down to, say, Palo Alto, and not clear why existing residents would benefit.

If lowering housing prices is the primary objective, then the best practice would be to force the Googles and Apples of the world to relocate employees somewhere else. As long as there are 20k (or whatever) Googlers in Mountain View, you're gonna pay a bucketload for a crappy SFH.

[TexasPlaya]

Good choice for Apple.

[AviationGuy]

The new facility will be in Williamson County, outside of Austin, although these days it might as well be Austin. There's a lot of concern that Williamson County is becoming like Austin because of massive traffic and increasing housing prices. But that never seems to stop new employees from coming. On the bright side, Williamson County is changing from an extremely conservative area to much less conservative due to changing demographics. The county even went for Beto instead of Cruz in November. As more Austinites are moving to Williamson County to take advantage of currently reasonable housing prices, they're taking Austin's social values with them, making Williamson County more attractive, especially for younger people.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by ocman

Apple to Add $1 Billion Campus in Austin, Tex., in Broad U.S. Hiring Push



I’m not too surprised. The tech sector is such a robust economy in the bay area. There are so many jobs, but a lot of my former colleagues are terrified to move up here because the bay area as as whole is failing badly at supporting this growth.

California is continually taking hits. The Apple move is smart, they are spreading out which is a good idea to even out their cost of business. Of course they received a load of corporate welfare just as Amazon did when they went to the east coast with hq2.
Off the top of my head we have had Toyota USA & Kubota leave LA for DFW, Nestle left Glendale, Bechtel which had been headquartered in SF for over 100 years left for Virginia, Fortune 500 company Core Mark recently left the Bay Area for DFW, NTT Data just landed in Plano, Tx. It seems to not stop and the reasons are exactly what you'd think they are.

[N90]

Originally Posted by SLO

California is continually taking hits. The Apple move is smart, they are spreading out which is a good idea to even out their cost of business. Of course they received a load of corporate welfare just as Amazon did when they went to the east coast with hq2.
Off the top of my head we have had Toyota USA & Kubota leave LA for DFW, Nestle left Glendale, Bechtel which had been headquartered in SF for over 100 years left for Virginia, Fortune 500 company Core Mark recently left the Bay Area for DFW, NTT Data just landed in Plano, Tx. It seems to not stop and the reasons are exactly what you'd think they are.

What's ironic is that of all the ones you named it still didn't include the most important one. DFW also snagged McKesson, Fortune 6 cos.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...uarters-irving

Austin didn't give Apple any incentives but the state of TX did with $25 million for a campus with 15k jobs.... its pennies compared to the $8 billion WA gave Boeing and $3 billion WI gave to Foxconn to build factories near Milwaukee....

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SLO

It seems to not stop and the reasons are exactly what you'd think they are.

Because CA is basically the most prosperous place on the planet, and cannot handle all the massive expansions internally? Apple isn't gonna put 100k people in Cupertino, obviously.

The only other place on the planet that might top CA economically is the NE Corridor, and the NE Corridor has been exporting wealth and jobs for 80 years now.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Because CA is basically the most prosperous place on the planet, and cannot handle all the massive expansions internally? Apple isn't gonna put 100k people in Cupertino, obviously.

The only other place on the planet that might top CA economically is the NE Corridor, and the NE Corridor has been exporting wealth and jobs for 80 years now.

The mood here about those HQ relocations have been largely meh. In 2019, Uber, Lyft, Palantir and Airbnb are all expected to have IPOs that will have valuations all higher than McKesson and Core-Mark.

WeWork, another superstar unicorn, has already gobbled up a huge chunk of McKesson's HQ.

Cutting edge companies are always birthed in creative capitals like the NE and CA.

All of that said, the Bay Area is not being nearly as bold as ir needs to be when it comes to addressing housing costs and we will continue bleeding old economy businesses to eager poacher states, which is unfortunate I suppose.

[mhays]

WeWork is a reseller of space, not an occupier of space. That's technically absorption but not really.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The mood here about those HQ relocations have been largely meh. In 2019, Uber, Lyft, Palantir and Airbnb are all expected to have IPOs that will have valuations all higher than McKesson and Core-Mark.

WeWork, another superstar unicorn, has already gobbled up a huge chunk of McKesson's HQ.

Cutting edge companies are always birthed in creative capitals like the NE and CA.

All of that said, the Bay Area is not being nearly as bold as ir needs to be when it comes to addressing housing costs and we will continue bleeding old economy businesses to eager poacher states, which is unfortunate I suppose.

Yeah, that's typical of certain Californians, they'll keep saying meh until they think its a problem.
Plus it'll cut down on this years list of Fortune 500s based in the Bay Area

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by mhays

WeWork is a reseller of space, not an occupier of space. That's technically absorption but not really.

WeWork actually opened their 'HQ2'(lmao) in SF...

WeWork opens SF headquarters in Salesforce Tower
Roland Li | on December 11, 2018

WeWork has opened offices in San Francisco’s Salesforce Tower — another milestone for a young company that is now the city’s fourth-largest office tenant.

The three-story space in the city’s tallest building isn’t just rented out to clients; it will house a major cluster of WeWork employees, and will share headquarters status with New York, where the company was founded in 2010.

...In less than a decade, WeWork has become the world’s largest operator of co-working space. It has transformed real estate around the world by building out shared offices and renting them out to both single-person startups and major companies like Facebook and Bank of America...

WeWork says it now has 1.43 million square feet leased and owned in San Francisco, behind only Salesforce, Wells Fargo and Uber, according to brokerage data. WeWork has almost twice as much space in San Francisco as it did at the end of last year, and also has offices in Berkeley, Emeryville, Mill Valley, Mountain View, Oakland, San Mateo and San Jose.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...r-13455609.php

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by SLO

Yeah, that's typical of certain Californians, they'll keep saying meh until they think its a problem.

How is a company choosing to move somewhere else a 'problem'? I dont understand.

The Bay Area has a lower unemployment rate than any large TX metro. The local economy is booming and we have a slew of large start ups slated to go public next year, SF and the surrounding area is bursting at the seams with new development, so if McKesson and whoever else wants to move to TX for tax breaks, then so be it.

Plus it'll cut down on this years list of Fortune 500s based in the Bay Area

That's okay, nothing is set in stone but Uber's revenue would qualify as an F500.

Ijs, we keep it moving.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Because CA is basically the most prosperous place on the planet, and cannot handle all the massive expansions internally? Apple isn't gonna put 100k people in Cupertino, obviously.

The only other place on the planet that might top CA economically is the NE Corridor, and the NE Corridor has been exporting wealth and jobs for 80 years now.

Exactly. Its a race to the bottom as well. All these incentives and tax breaks for these companies... Can you blame them for taking free money?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by mhays

WeWork is a reseller of space, not an occupier of space. That's technically absorption but not really.

Well, yes, but most of their spaces are occupied

[k1052]

I'm more surprised by the intention to create satellite campuses than the big expansion in Austin. This is a major departure for how they think about things. I'd also love to hear the inside story on what exactly scuttled the possible deal in NC but I'll assume extremely problematic state politics.

SD/LA will appeal to a lot of perspective employees (and bolster retention) who don't want to live in the Bay Area but like California.

[caligrad]

Its honestly simple. The big two in CA need to do two things to stop the purge.

1. ADD MORE HOUSING. Simple, all of these mandatory requirements drive developers away "Must include x ammount of affordable housing, must have x ammount of parking, must be this, must be that, must have this, must have that. STOP! make sure the darn thing doesnt tip over in earthquakes and wont lite up like a christmas tree in a fire and youre fine !. And then the bureaucratic slug fest that is permitting and approvals is just insanse, it shouldnt take more than 6 months for a building to be approved and consturction to start. In some cases its taking 3-4 years just for a simple box building to get off the ground.

And.

2. Transit. I know LA is adding hundreds of miles of new rail, but honestly, is it even being done properly ? nope. common sense rail should be easy and inexpensive, instesd we have a bunch of idiots drawing random lines for where they think rail should go with dumb " studies" that prove nothing. We'er wasting money on rail thats not even putting a dent into our traffic problems. The bay areas bart is good. But it needs a serious upgrade and expansion.

Our biggest cities are becoming unlivable because our politicians wont get out of the way. Im not saying give away over sight. Im saying, spped up the process.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

The new facility will be in Williamson County, outside of Austin, although these days it might as well be Austin. There's a lot of concern that Williamson County is becoming like Austin because of massive traffic and increasing housing prices. But that never seems to stop new employees from coming. On the bright side, Williamson County is changing from an extremely conservative area to much less conservative due to changing demographics. The county even went for Beto instead of Cruz in November. As more Austinites are moving to Williamson County to take advantage of currently reasonable housing prices, they're taking Austin's social values with them, making Williamson County more attractive, especially for younger people.

Liberals inject politics into everything. Its yalls religion.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by k1052

SD/LA will appeal to a lot of perspective employees (and bolster retention) who don't want to live in the Bay Area but like California.

The Bay Area doesnt need help in retention-on the contrary.

Originally Posted by Brookings

Tech is (still) concentrating in the Bay Area: An update on America’s winner-take-most economic phenomenon
Mark Muro and Jacob WhitonMonday, December 17, 2018

The hope persists among tech and urban optimists for what Revolution LLC funder Steve Case calls “the rise of the rest“—the spread of tech companies into the Heartland.

In fact, recent announcements from Amazon, Google, and Apple—which are adding high-level jobs away from Seattle and the Bay Area—encourage such hope, with their hints that the tech giants are increasingly outgrowing their West Coast roots. Maybe Big Tech really is going to take its incessant talent hunt—and economic contributions—into new places and seed wider-spread economic vitality at a time of economic divides.

So what’s the reality when we look closer? Unfortunately, the story isn’t great, despite the recent news. Building on our last look at tech locational trends from March 2017, this new analysis of job-creation in four key digital services industries—software publishing, data processing and hosting, computer systems design, and web-publishing/search—finds again that while employment in tech is growing all over America, it really isn’t “spreading out” in terms of more cities gained increased shares of the tech pie. To the contrary: By our measure tech has continued to concentrate in a short list of metros during the last few years. The upshot: “Winner-take-most” in tech seems more the rule than the hoped-for “rise of the rest.”

The top five metros with the highest share of digital services account for 28 percent of all of these jobs nationwide, and the top 10 metros with the highest share of digital services now encompass 44.3 percent of all of these jobs across the nation (based on their national shares of such sectors in 2017). The same top 10 metros captured almost half (49.1 percent) of the new tech jobs created from 2015 to 2017, with eight of these metros—including San Francisco, Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles, and Austin—all increasing their share of the nation’s tech work. Those five metros alone captured 34 percent of all new digital services job growth and increased their share of the nation’s core tech employment by 1.2 percentage points.

Consider further that the super-rich tech folks—epitomized by San Francisco and San Jose—got even richer in the last two years. San Francisco alone added over a tenth of the entire nation’s new digital services jobs (over 25,000), and San Jose increased its share of the nation’s sector by nearly 18,000 jobs. Together, the two Bay Area hubs now encompass 10.7 percent of the nation’s digital services employment, up from 10.1 percent in 2015, 8.9 percent in 2013, and 7.5 percent in 2010. Note too that virtually all of Amazon’s and Apple’s newly announced workforce locations will take place in the biggest 10 of America’s “superstar” metros...

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...ic-phenomenon/

What we need is about 500,000 new housing units.