Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I use to live outside of Atlanta. The south is becoming what the midwest once was which is blue collar factory jobs. As far as HQ jobs no way in heck would I choose Atlanta. It's the lowest educated part of the country and it shows for the most part when you live down there. I know a lot of companies have already picked, or moved their headquarters in and around Atlanta. If you're looking for the highest educated individuals you either are picking the northwest, northeast, or Canada, since they said North America. You can get all the incentives on the planet, but if you know you can't find the talent before hand, you aren't choosing that area. Some companies bring in the talent before hand from the Northeast, but those are not usually hundreds of jobs, normally just a few. You can't move around Atlanta now as it is and you think they'll be able to support 50,000 jobs roflmfao.
Hey buddy-
Review the thread. Where did I state in any way that Atlanta was the frontrunner?
I was correcting your silly notion that HQ2 would magically appear in Canada.
I think people from outside of Chicago generally overstate things like crime and corruption with respect to this Amazon decision (as that shows a complete lack of understanding of the strength of the city’s downtown and where our crime problems are located), generally properly state the risks of the fiscal health of the state and city (which are legitimate negatives) and underrate (or even ignore) the urban amenities that Chicago arguably has a greater advantage in over every other competitor besides maybe Toronto (and I just don’t see this office going to Canada) that Amazon explicitly stated that it wanted in its RFP. Most non-Chicago people also don’t realize just how highly-ranked many of the Big Ten schools are in computer science specifically and they churn out way more top level high tech Silicon Valley employees than the Ivy League. Illinois, Michigan, Purdue and Wisconsin are all perennially top 10 computer science and engineering schools and every one of them by themselves graduates more engineers than the *entire* Ivy League. That depth and breadth of high tech talent within a 2 to 3 hour radius of Chicago is a huge attribute that I think a lot of people (even many Chicagoans) miss.
I think Chicago partisans (and I count myself among them) generally do understate the impact of the fiscal health of the state and city along with the perceived business climate (e.g. whether it’s actually true or not, other cities like Atlanta and Dallas have very strong perceptions of being “business-friendly” compared to Chicago). Atlanta is very much a strong competitor for Amazon HQ2 and everyone here would be remiss to dismiss them - they’re just competitive for different reasons than Chicago is here.
FWIW, I have a college friend that has worked at Amazon in Seattle for the last decade. He doesn’t have specific inside info, but knows the company culture well. If he had to put a wager on where Amazon would put HQ2, it would be Austin, Texas: business-friendly location but with a progressive culture, very highly-educated workforce with direct access to the University of Texas and good cost of living (at least for now compared to Seattle, Boston, DC and some of the other options).
I think people from outside of Chicago generally overstate things like crime and corruption with respect to this Amazon decision (as that shows a complete lack of understanding of the strength of the city’s downtown and where our crime problems are located), generally properly state the risks of the fiscal health of the state and city (which are legitimate negatives) and underrate (or even ignore) the urban amenities that Chicago arguably has a greater advantage in over every other competitor besides maybe Toronto (and I just don’t see this office going to Canada) that Amazon explicitly stated that it wanted in its RFP. Most non-Chicago people also don’t realize just how highly-ranked many of the Big Ten schools are in computer science specifically and they churn out way more top level high tech Silicon Valley employees than the Ivy League. Illinois, Michigan, Purdue and Wisconsin are all perennially top 10 computer science and engineering schools and every one of them by themselves graduates more engineers than the *entire* Ivy League. That depth and breadth of high tech talent within a 2 to 3 hour radius of Chicago is a huge attribute that I think a lot of people (even many Chicagoans) miss.
I think Chicago partisans (and I count myself among them) generally do understate the impact of the fiscal health of the state and city along with the perceived business climate (e.g. whether it’s actually true or not, other cities like Atlanta and Dallas have very strong perceptions of being “business-friendly” compared to Chicago). Atlanta is very much a strong competitor for Amazon HQ2 and everyone here would be remiss to dismiss them - they’re just competitive for different reasons than Chicago is here.
FWIW, I have a college friend that has worked at Amazon in Seattle for the last decade. He doesn’t have specific inside info, but knows the company culture well. If he had to put a wager on where Amazon would put HQ2, it would be Austin, Texas: business-friendly location but with a progressive culture, very highly-educated workforce with direct access to the University of Texas and good cost of living (at least for now compared to Seattle, Boston, DC and some of the other options).
Austin is very hip right now but it has exploded in growth, creating sprawl and massive traffic issues. It also lacks mass transit, meaning car dependency for much of it. These are big 21st Century urbanist no-nos. And O'Hare offers a major advantage over Bergstrom, which is the 35th busiest in the country and only the 3rd busiest in Texas.
No one of course knows what Amazon will do and I still think it's going to be tough for us to get it for the reasons you cite. I do agree with you that Chicagoans, particularly those who live in the Emerald City, underestimate, or do not fully comprehend, the fiscal issues the City and state are facing, which is reflected in how they're voting. But I wouldn't put Austin at the top of the heap. IMHO of course.
I've been in Austin twice, and while it has its charms, it sprawls tremendously, for many miles in all directions. Their transit options, which are few and far between, would have to be enhanced a bit for this to work. I still think that Chicago has a good chance here...
I've been in Austin twice, and while it has its charms, it sprawls tremendously, for many miles in all directions. Their transit options, which are few and far between, would have to be enhanced a bit for this to work. I still think that Chicago has a good chance here...
We just need to hope that Amazon overlooks the financial issues, or that the incentives which were offered to them offset those concerns, or that they accept that major urban areas are going to be progressive and have high taxes, or whatever. I think beyond the fiscal issues, Chicago is an absolute top choice.
I really wish people would stop saying that Atlanta has a lower COL. It really doesn't--at least not as far as housing.
The sales tax, fuel tax, and property tax differences between the two cities can add up to thousands of dollars a year. Food, groceries, and just about everything costs less in the Atlanta area as well.
If you have a budget of $300K for a home, you're pretty much priced out of most Chicago north side neighborhoods unless you want a small condo with a $600/mo HOA fee. That budget will land you a single family home in Bridgeport, Beverly, McKinley Park, or Jefferson Park, but it will be an older bungalow style home. Something like a 3br 2ba with 1300sqft.
I haven't seen what's available in the city of Atlanta, but the suburbs is where your money goes a lot further. I haven't been in a few years, but most Atlanta suburbs felt brand new and are growing at a rapid pace. The only thing I dislike is that all of the strip centers and cookie cutter homes feel somewhat characterless.
For comparison, many Chicago suburbs feel like they are dying (and according to the population numbers, they actually are). I went to Oak Lawn a few days ago and wow is that place depressing. The strip centers off Cicero Ave are dated and half vacant. It's the same deal in places like Franklin Park, Cicero, Berwyn.
You have to go way further out to places like Tinley Park, Schaumburg, Naperville, and Evanston to find nice suburbs comparable to Atlanta's suburbs.
But yes, Atlanta isn't as affordable as some claim it to be. There's probably about a 10% different in cost of living between Atlanta and Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt
I've been in Austin twice, and while it has its charms, it sprawls tremendously, for many miles in all directions. Their transit options, which are few and far between, would have to be enhanced a bit for this to work. I still think that Chicago has a good chance here...
Austin is such a confusing place to me. Most people my age seem to want to live in a big city with decent transit. But Austin is booming with millennials. Makes no sense to me.
Austin is such a confusing place to me. Most people my age seem to want to live in a big city with decent transit. But Austin is booming with millennials. Makes no sense to me.
Austin has done a great job, intentionally or not, of cultivating an image of an offbeat and funky place ("Keep Austin Weird") with good music, culture, and being a progressive oasis in the heart of red country. It has also done well in attracting tech jobs and entrepreneurs. I think Millennials are thus drawn to that.
The question will be whether Austin can keep that up, or whether it will collapse under the weight of higher housing costs and increased sprawl. If they do get Amazon HQ2, it'll be very interesting indeed to see what happens there.
The weather, the biotech, the "weird" culture, the low crime, the economic progress, the population boom of the educated, the friendliness of the people, the cost of living, the overall momentum -- there is so much to like about Austin. Sure some millennials may prefer some kind of light rail system, but that's just one factor of many and probably not a deal breaker for anyone.
I'd move there in a heartbeat if given the opportunity - Chicago isn't inherently a bad city, but it sure isn't easy living here, and Austin manages to avoid so many of our tensions - political, social, racial, financial - that we see day in day out.
The weather, the biotech, the "weird" culture, the low crime, the economic progress, the population boom of the educated, the friendliness of the people, the cost of living, the overall momentum -- there is so much to like about Austin. Sure some millennials may prefer some kind of light rail system, but that's just one factor of many and probably not a deal breaker for anyone.
I'd move there in a heartbeat if given the opportunity - Chicago isn't inherently a bad city, but it sure isn't easy living here, and Austin manages to avoid so many of our tensions - political, social, racial, financial - that we see day in day out.
I think that's probably the right way at looking at this. From the Chicago perspective, public transportation is a huge advantage over most of its competitors, so it ought to be a point of emphasis in its bid. However, that certainly isn't the only factor, which is why anyone here that is discounting Austin, Atlanta, Dallas or other car-centric Sun Belt cities predominantly on that item is doing so at its own risk. The reality is that there isn't a city out there that fits 100% of the criteria that Amazon set out in its RFP. There is no place that has ALL of the requisite urban amenities, low cost of living, great public transportation, low business costs, low taxes, strong government health, etc. that Amazon is asking for. Whoever Amazon picks is going to fall short on at least of few of those factors. Boston and DC have great urban amenities and public transportation, but cost of living is worse in both places than Seattle. Austin has urban amenities and better cost of living, but doesn't have good public transportation. Atlanta and Dallas have terrible public transportation, but they both do very well when considering business costs and have well-educated workforces. Chicago fits a great amount of the criteria, but its business cost and tax situations are very unstable. We'll just have to see what Amazon really prioritizes because no city can really have it all (because if it really did have it all, so it would attract so many people that it would drive up costs and it would no longer have it all).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
