Amazon HQ2 thread

[TowerSpotter]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

The distribution centers are everywhere. I think there are something like 8,000 Amazon employees in Chicagoland alone.

Whether or not being located near Whole Foods is of importance to Amazon is TBD. I feel as though Amazon is the kind of company that will need a national presence given their goal is to dominate the retail industry nationally. I see no need for them to be near Whole Foods, which is a struggling grocer and had been prior to Amazon buying them out.

Anyone know when the decision was supposed to be made? Wasn't it early 2018?

Dude I was adding onto the connections Bezos has to Texas. Whole Foods is just one of them. If anyone could make it successful its Bezos. Surprisingly Houston just got a distribution center, I feel like we should have gotten one long ago. Not that it matters now anyways.

Theres 238 bids, it doesn't necessarily mean the top 10 that ranked on Moody's will get it. Plenty other cities nationwide may offer other unique perks.

[JManc]

^ Houston has two. Or will soon. Mainly because my wife and I order so much stuff from them..

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I really don't think that means much at this point. Bezos is going to set up shop where he thinks he's getting the best deal (incentives, talent acquisition/retention, etc.). If that's Texas, it's Texas, but the only aspects of the RFP that any city in Texas truly nails is access to globally connected airports (DFW). DFW is far from the only metro area that can sell their airport as an asset. Chicago, Atlanta, and even Philadelphia/NJ can all play that card. The three Texas front runners will score considerably lower on housing and transit, which are of critical importance if Amazon wants to grow by an additional 50,000 employees at the HQ2. There's greater access to talent in Chicago and Philadelphia IMO, but I suspect many people would be willing to relocate for the right opportunity.

Atlanta (or Philly) doesn't have an issue with housing and transit but Dallas and Houston does? All three cities airports are well connected globally. I've flown all over the world, direct, out of Houston. DFW and ATL just happen to be the main hubs for AA and Delta, respectively. Housing and transit for 50,000 new employees will be a challenge anywhere. They're not all going to live downtown and take the subway/train into the office. Most will have houses and drive.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by JManc

^ Houston has two. Or will soon. Mainly because my wife and I order so much stuff from them..



Atlanta (or Philly) doesn't have an issue with housing and transit but Dallas and Houston does? All three cities airports are well connected globally. I've flown all over the world, direct, out of Houston. DFW and ATL just happen to be the main hubs for AA and Delta, respectively. Housing and transit for 50,000 new employees will be a challenge anywhere. They're not all going to live downtown and take the subway/train into the office. Most will have houses and drive.

Atlanta is also experiencing some growing pains, yes. Philadelphia and Chicago are best positioned to absorb an extra 50,000 workers IMO. They have the density and the space to easily accommodate more people. That's a little more challenging in places that are totally dominated by SFHs and comparatively low density MF.

Not all of the workers will live downtown, but many will live in the downtown and surrounding areas of wherever HQ2 ends up given the profile of techies. Chicago and Philadelphia offer both suburban and urban lifestyles. You won't find in Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston, which are almost exclusively suburban. Even then, suburban Chicago and Philadelphia are well served by transit. If Amazon does select a site in either downtown, employees will have plenty of commuting options.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Atlanta is also experiencing some growing pains, yes. Philadelphia and Chicago are best positioned to absorb an extra 50,000 workers IMO. They have the density and the space to easily accommodate more people. That's a little more challenging in places that are totally dominated by SFHs and comparatively low density MF.

Not all of the workers will live downtown, but many will live in the downtown and surrounding areas of wherever HQ2 ends up given the profile of techies. Chicago and Philadelphia offer both suburban and urban lifestyles. You won't find in Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston, which are almost exclusively suburban. Even then, suburban Chicago and Philadelphia are well served by transit. If Amazon does select a site in either downtown, employees will have plenty of commuting options.

Chicago, yes, Philly not so sure. I'm not sure what it has that other (as large) metros do not..like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta. All of these areas have suburban and urban lifestyles. No, there are no brownstones or rowhouses in Dallas but there are a lot of options in the city and they're constantly growing with new development. And techies are not necessarily a bunch of urbanites...Silicon Valley is Sprawlville USA and Facebook, Apple, and Google plus the crap load of other tech companies there love them some suburban office parks. I think we are putting too much weight on whether or not a city is a viable candidate because it has a lot of pre-war density and Dallas and ATL have a pretty developed transit system. Probably comparable to Philly. Houston's is shit.

[TowerSpotter]

Originally Posted by JManc

Chicago, yes, Philly not so sure. I'm not sure what it has that other (as large) metros do not..like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta. All of these areas have suburban and urban lifestyles. No, there are no brownstones or rowhouses in Dallas but there are a lot of options in the city and they're constantly growing with new development. And techies are not necessarily a bunch of urbanites...Silicon Valley is Sprawlville USA and Facebook, Apple, and Google plus the crap load of other tech companies there love them some suburban office parks. I think we are putting too much weight on whether or not a city is a viable candidate because it has a lot of pre-war density and Dallas and ATL have a pretty developed transit system. Probably comparable to Philly. Houston's is shit.

I definitely agree Houston's transit system is shit, Amazon for sure probably gave the city leader's a reality check and hopefully something is done in the future so transit isn't an issue. Kind of crazy considering its the 4th largest city.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by JManc

Chicago, yes, Philly not so sure. I'm not sure what it has that other (as large) metros do not..like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta. All of these areas have suburban and urban lifestyles.

It's not fair to compare the most urban, vibrant neighborhoods in Dallas, Atlanta, or Houston, to those in Philadelphia IMO. The city of Philadelphia has an average density of 11,700 people per square mile. Houston (3,700 ppsm), Dallas (3,900 ppsm), and Atlanta (3,400 ppsm) are all significantly less dense. The point is that Philadelphia can check both boxes whereas Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta only truly check one. Most of Philadelphia's suburbs are as dense as the cities of Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta.

Originally Posted by JManc

No, there are no brownstones or rowhouses in Dallas but there are a lot of options in the city and they're constantly growing with new development. And techies are not necessarily a bunch of urbanites...Silicon Valley is Sprawlville USA and Facebook, Apple, and Google plus the crap load of other tech companies there love them some suburban office parks. I think we are putting too much weight on whether or not a city is a viable candidate because it has a lot of pre-war density and Dallas and ATL have a pretty developed transit system. Probably comparable to Philly. Houston's is shit.

Multi-family developments in sunbelt metros aren't really urban though. Multi-family development =/= "urban".

Silicon Valley does have quite a few suburban office parks with tech company anchors, but Amazon isn't located in Silicon Valley. Amazon is almost single-handedly responsible for DT Seattle's revitalization. Google is following Amazon's model with new offices outside of the Bay Area. The culture at the Amazon HQ suggests that an urban environment is preferred, but whether or not they shy away from that model for HQ2 is pure speculation.

SEPTA and PATCO are far better systems than MARTA or DART. The latter are not at all comparable to Philadelphia. Transit in Philadelphia is used more than twice as much as MARTA and over four times as much as DART. Philadelphia's system has gaps in coverage, but nothing like MARTA/DART.

[blorkishdork]

Philly has a more significant transit system than both Dallas and Atlanta. Philly's is more equivalent to Boston than the former.

As for Philadelphia having room for growth. I absolutely believe that there is room to absorb. especially when you consider how much Philly hollowed out, especially North Philly. To give you an idea, Philly's population was 2 Million in 1960 (now 1.6 million), and that was prior to the development of Northeast Philly, which currently has over 500,000 residences. Yes, family size is much smaller now, however, average family size only changed by about a half a person, not half. (3.67 to 3.14)(https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ily-in-the-us/). So by my calculation, the rest of philadelphia (excluding the northeast) could hold 1.7 million people (2million * 3.14/3.67), when you include the Northeast, you are looking at 2.2 million residences, so I would imagine you could increase the population of philadelphia by 600,000. Obviously this is a rough estimate, but regardless, I don't think people realize just how big philadelphia is, how much it emptied out (sadly), and how many residences the city can still accommodate. I know Dallas and Atlanta can density, but for Philly, it would be more infill and you would not really need to increase infrastructure.

With that said, good things don't happen to philly, even tho it would be good for it.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

It's not fair to compare the most urban, vibrant neighborhoods in Dallas, Atlanta, or Houston, to those in Philadelphia IMO. The city of Philadelphia has an average density of 11,700 people per square mile. Houston (3,700 ppsm), Dallas (3,900 ppsm), and Atlanta (3,400 ppsm) are all significantly less dense. The point is that Philadelphia can check both boxes whereas Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta only truly check one. Most of Philadelphia's suburbs are as dense as the cities of Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta.



Multi-family developments in sunbelt metros aren't really urban though. Multi-family development =/= "urban".

Silicon Valley does have quite a few suburban office parks with tech company anchors, but Amazon isn't located in Silicon Valley. Amazon is almost single-handedly responsible for DT Seattle's revitalization. Google is following Amazon's model with new offices outside of the Bay Area. The culture at the Amazon HQ suggests that an urban environment is preferred, but whether or not they shy away from that model for HQ2 is pure speculation.

SEPTA and PATCO are far better systems than MARTA or DART. The latter are not at all comparable to Philadelphia. Transit in Philadelphia is used more than twice as much as MARTA and over four times as much as DART. Philadelphia's system has gaps in coverage, but nothing like MARTA/DART.

There is lot more to landing this thing than whether or not a city has more people per square mile or it its transit system is slightly better than someone else's. I'm sure it factors somewhat but not the deciding factor...not when it comes to the well-being of a $500bln company and its shareholders...the latter of whom couldn't care less if it was suburban Phoenix or Center City Philly as long as it made economic and logistical sense. All that other stuff is gravy. I don't see any of your points about DART/ SEPTA and population densities knocking a city like Dallas out of the running in favor of Philly other than speculations here on the forum. I think if Philly were to get it, it would be a huge (much needed) shot in the arm to their economy and an opportunity to revitalize a lot of transitional areas. And places like Rittenhouse Square will even be more crazy expensive...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Correct, Montrealers are now proudly bilingual. .

Well, 50-60% of them anyway.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CIA

I kinda hope Montreal doesn't win HQ2. It would be an excellent location, but I worry about how 50,000 transplants plus tens of thousands employed in auxiliary businesses would change the feel of that special city.

The staff won't be primarily made up of 50,000 transplants. Most will be local or regional hires.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by JManc

There is lot more to landing this thing than whether or not a city has more people per square mile or it its transit system is slightly better than someone else's. I'm sure it factors somewhat but not the deciding factor...not when it comes to the well-being of a $500bln company and its shareholders...the latter of whom couldn't care less if it was suburban Phoenix or Center City Philly as long as it made economic and logistical sense. All that other stuff is gravy. I don't see any of your points about DART/ SEPTA and population densities knocking a city like Dallas out of the running in favor of Philly other than speculations here on the forum. I think if Philly were to get it, it would be a huge (much needed) shot in the arm to their economy and an opportunity to revitalize a lot of transitional areas. And places like Rittenhouse Square will even be more crazy expensive...

The shareholders may not care where it is per se, but they do care about Amazon paying out. In order for Amazon to do that, Amazon needs to consider talent acquisition and retention. Talent has shown preference for higher density, amenity-rich neighborhoods that are walkable and well served by transit. That's why places like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are trying to build up their cores. If the talent didn't care to have those things, developers wouldn't be throwing up multi-family buildings in and around CBDs.

Sunbelt cities are a ways behind on transit. Whether or not they can ever catch up is questionable. I'm not saying a sunbelt metro doesn't have a shot at the HQ2, I'm just saying that based on Amazon's current arrangement in Seattle and the qualifications provided in the RFP, they're looking for a place with excellent transit infrastructure and the ability to expand in an urban environment without totally screwing the housing market. That's a much easier feat to accomplish in Chicago or Philadelphia than Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston, which are currently seeing housing prices rise quickly as it's almost impossible to satisfy demand when you're almost exclusively building SFHs.

[mhays]

At HQ1, most don't drive, or don't drive alone.

This early 2017 article shows averages by neighborhood. It's not specific to Amazon but they're the largest employer in both South Lake Union and the Denny Triangle. The first had 37.5% SOV and the second 21.5% SOV. I'd guess the numbers are better for Amazon workers vs. the overall, because they tend to have less onsite parking per capita than others, their workers tilt toward 20-somethings, and they're not in the farthest parts of SLU.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...re-to-transit/

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The staff won't be primarily made up of 50,000 transplants. Most will be local or regional hires.

Why do you say that? Most of HQ1 is transplants.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

The shareholders may not care where it is per se, but they do care about Amazon paying out. In order for Amazon to do that, Amazon needs to consider talent acquisition and retention. Talent has shown preference for higher density, amenity-rich neighborhoods that are walkable and well served by transit. That's why places like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are trying to build up their cores. If the talent didn't care to have those things, developers wouldn't be throwing up multi-family buildings in and around CBDs.

Sunbelt cities are a ways behind on transit. Whether or not they can ever catch up is questionable. I'm not saying a sunbelt metro doesn't have a shot at the HQ2, I'm just saying that based on Amazon's current arrangement in Seattle and the qualifications provided in the RFP, they're looking for a place with excellent transit infrastructure and the ability to expand in an urban environment without totally screwing the housing market. That's a much easier feat to accomplish in Chicago or Philadelphia than Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston, which are currently seeing housing prices rise quickly as it's almost impossible to satisfy demand when you're almost exclusively building SFHs.

Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are building out their cores because that's where the housing demand has been for the past decade or so. Not just these cities but those with traditional urbanity already (NY, Chicago, Boston, Philly) are building up their own as well. Companies will go to where the talent is. A company is not going to snub a booming economy like Houston or Austin simply because they are sprawlly. Amazon is probably going to give Houston a thumbs down because it's not high tech and does not have the talent pool for such an industry and we just had a major natural disaster.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by JManc

Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are building out their cores because that's where the housing demand has been for the past decade or so. Not just these cities but those with traditional urbanity already (NY, Chicago, Boston, Philly) are building up their own as well. Companies will go to where the talent is. A company is not going to snub a booming economy like Houston or Austin simply because they are sprawlly. Amazon is probably going to give Houston a thumbs down because it's not high tech and does not have the talent pool for such an industry and we just had a major natural disaster.

I didn't say Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston were building up their cores because other cities were. I said they were because that's what talent wanted. Sounds like we're on the same page there.

Again, I didn't say they would snub them because of sprawl. At least not entirely. Low density housing breeds unaffordability. You cannot continue to be a booming economy (largely onset by lower COL, although no longer the case) by providing almost SFHs exclusively. There is no way supply can keep pace with the current demand. It can take years to get a subdivision's entitlements. If you're only adding a few hundred homes at a time over a massive geographic area, you begin experiencing affordability problems and that stifles economic growth.

It's no different than the Bay Area, which has pockets of higher density housing, but is still mostly SFHs. At some point the housing is so expensive that new businesses and residents cannot afford to move in or stick around. You become a victim of your own success. These are stages literally every mature metro area goes through. Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta haven't really hit that yet. The hot shots today will likely not be hot shots in the near future.

I want to be clear that I'm not arguing with you or saying the sunbelt has no chance here. I'm just saying demands change. If a company 25 years ago stated in their RFP that they would like an office accessible by public transit in an urban environment people would have laughed it off as a joke. The very thing that so many US cities dismissed as a waste (transit) is now coming back into fashion and unfortunately many of our urban areas have been totally developed without it.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I think if Bezos felt any connection to Texas, Amazon would be there now. I'm really struggling to see a world where Austin, Dallas, or Houston are seriously considered (they lack the transit, are already experiencing growing pains/housing affordability issues, and the talent pipeline is certainly stronger in other parts of the country (not saying there's no talent in Texas)), but crazier things have happened!

I don't understand the notion that Dallas lacks transport. Sure, their system could be improved and the areas around LR could be improved upon, but the bones are there. The system is quite large and is connected to the airport.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I don't understand the notion that Dallas lacks transport. Sure, their system could be improved and the areas around LR could be improved upon, but the bones are there. The system is quite large and is connected to the airport.

DART isn't a great or even good transit system. The weekday ridership numbers speak for themselves. There are so few people who live and work within walking distance of stations that it's effectively useless to the vast majority of DFW residents. The bones aren't there IMO, but at least it's something. Incorporating transit after decades of suburban development is not easy. LA is significantly more dense than Dallas and they're struggling to make improvements to their transit system.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

DART isn't a great or even good transit system. The weekday ridership numbers speak for themselves. There are so few people who live and work within walking distance of stations that it's effectively useless to the vast majority of DFW residents. The bones aren't there IMO, but at least it's something. Incorporating transit after decades of suburban development is not easy. LA is significantly more dense than Dallas and they're struggling to make improvements to their transit system.

The transit numbers and open land next to the stations is exactly what I see as its positives. Sure, the transit usage numbers reveal that the system isn't great or that the connectivity around stations aren't good. But they also show there is a huge potential to add to the system, in terms of passengers. This isn't NYC, where the subways are packed already.

Also, the open land next to the stations, or even older apartments etc next to the stations, have great potential to create small urban nodes where people could at least walk and get some food locally, or take the train downtown for more entertainment/dining options or....go to work at Amazon or anywhere else downtown.

[Doady]

The Dallas urban area has worse transit ridership per capita than either Houston or Austin or San Antonio. It is the worst system of the big four in Texas, and certainly worse than Chicago and Philadelphia.

Urban Area    Pop'n (2010)  Rides (2013)  Per Capita
Austin        1,362,416     36,418,900    26.73
San Antonio   1,758,210     46,963,200    26.71
Houston       4,944,332     84,819,900    17.15
Dallas        5,121,892     80,662,000    15.75

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

The transit numbers and open land next to the stations is exactly what I see as its positives. Sure, the transit usage numbers reveal that the system isn't great or that the connectivity around stations aren't good. But they also show there is a huge potential to add to the system, in terms of passengers. This isn't NYC, where the subways are packed already.

Also, the open land next to the stations, or even older apartments etc next to the stations, have great potential to create small urban nodes where people could at least walk and get some food locally, or take the train downtown for more entertainment/dining options or....go to work at Amazon or anywhere else downtown.

The areas around the stations aren't virgin land though. The stations are surrounded by medium density commercial and residential buildings downtown, lower density commercial strip malls and residential buildings just outside of downtown, and lots and lots of parking lots almost everywhere. This is because the system is useless if you don't have a car to get to the station and work within walking distance of your departing station. There's definitely an opportunity to redevelop the area around the stations, but that makes the system even less user friendly for those not within walking distance. The point is that using DART is often more of a burden than just driving.