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'd love to see a recruiting scenario over that prospect.
Mexico City is better than most cities in the US they'd be considering. The public transit system would probably rank right behind New York. Having a secondary headquarters in the defacto capital of Latin America makes a lot of sense, honestly. If people don't want to move to one of the most exciting and dynamic cities in the world, that's their loss.
That said, I think a city closer to the East Coast is more likely.
I would never be happy of my city for providing corporate welfare to a large multi-national corporation that has a huge sum of capital already. Let them pay for their supposed relocation themselves.
There is nothing great about having to pay someone or something to come to your city, it just shows how the place isn't really sought after when you have to do that. Facebook decamped from Boston to San Francisco, not because San Francisco held a silver platter with gold and platinum on it but because Facebook needed the city more than the city needed them. San Francisco was the location that would take Facebook to the next level up and it did because it has more capital, talent, and resources to do so. Oxy Petroleum decamped from Los Angeles to Houston, not because Houston came to them with a juicy relocation package but because Houston is where the capital and engineering talent in the energy sector is. They needed Houston, Houston didn't need them. Same goes for New York. New York never hands a relocation package to any companies because those companies need New York more than New York needs them. CNN is based in Atlanta but all the high level executives are in New York. Same with Bank of America, based in Charlotte, but all the high level executives live and operate out of New York or Boston. Why? Because they need New York.
When you are a captain of industry, they come to you, you don't go to them and you especially don't go to them with a briefcase of money for incentives.
Obviously Bank of America and CNN are still based in Charlotte and Atlanta respectively and will remain as such, but the leadership and executives have started leaving for New York (or Boston in the case of Bank of America) because they need to be in those cities more. Capital, resources, market share, talent, and international portfolio - that's largely why.
Let me know when Amazon makes their decision, would be interested to know what second tier city unloaded a brinks truck for a glorified satellite office. I bet Amazon wont even register this second headquarters as an official headquarters when they report their earnings to Forbes and other trackers. If they would, they would be advertising this move as the creation of a dual headquarters, instead this makes it seem like the Seattle one is still tops and the second one is just the second largest concentration of Amazon operations and resources, that's all. Amazon hasn't made any mention of this being an official dual headquarters and because it says most of the corporate leaders will stay put, I firmly think Amazon is doing this to strategize future growth by getting some sucker of a city to pay for it. They are probably doing this because Seattle may be tapped out in growth.
Amazon published a document planning the HQ2 to have 50,000 employees and up to 8 million square feet in the future, but starting at 500,000 square feet right now.
Amazon's HQ in Seattle has 8.1 million square feet that spans 33 buildings and employs under 50,000 people, but more than 40,000.
So yes it will be more like a dual headquarters.
I do agree that cities shouldn't pay incentives for a business to locate offices, especially Amazon, but that's what is going to happen.
I believe it will be in the Southeast, most likely Atlanta.
Here's a question, how much will real estate rise in the selected in the 1st year following the announcement an then after 5 years? I'm guessing 20% increase in the 1st year and then doubling in 5 years unless it's in a huge city like NYC, LA or Chicago which will see increases but can absorb the increase without impacting the overall market to that degree.
Do you mean commercial development sites? Office property values? Office rents? Apartment rents? House sale prices? Condo sale prices? All will have different trajectories.
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.
