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.
Lol, this thread is fun for people, but some are taking it pretty seriously. MAYBE, Amazon will go into detail, as to why they choose their certain city, and why others were not chosen, maybe not. We're lucky that we have the time to spend on this, speculating, because really, it all means naught.
Far better? Maybe it's a little better, or maybe it's worse. Whatever it is it's not great. I agree with you that the Boston metro could absorb the Amazon jobs without chaos. But I think people in Boston feel like the city's already full and more full than they ever remember it ever being. They don't have the pro-growth attitude that some other cities have.
Even so, the Boston area could more easily absorb Amazon in a satellite location like Waltham or Lowell or Haverhill or Worcester. What's worrying people is the idea of putting it smack in the middle of Boston!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justabystander
Boston has 600,000 plus people. The average family has 2.1 or so members. 50,000 x 2.1= 105,000 potential people in an area that now is expensive and tight. Add the metro area which many would have to live on and there would be chaos on main roads like Rt. 9 going to downtown; if it was in an area like Burlington, no transit whatsoever. It would not be a company town, no one is saying that, but would be a different far more unlivable town because of its inablility to handle a number like that.
If Amazon were to end up developing in a parcel that was earmarked for housing then that is a major problem. Its the reason why I am not big on Suffolk Downs being pushed as one of the areas they could settle. That area is tailor made for housing and HYM's vision of another Assembly Row type development is right on the money.
As far as settling downtown, well in order to recruit the type of worker Amazon wants, they need to be as close to the core as possible. Look at how many companies have been closing their suburban locations to settle into downtown Boston and Cambridge in the past 5-10 years. There is a reason for that. Hell GE left a suburban location in another State to settle in the seaport. Also Amazon is already in Fort Point and Kendall square and adding 1000 plus jobs already to the area even without this HQ2 possibility.
Everyone is so stuck on this 50k jobs thing and it is not like Amazon wants to add 50k jobs immediately. Phase one in 2019 requests 500k-1m square feet (which is about 5000 employees) and projects to add 50k jobs over a 10 year plus period. The Pelli tower has about 1m square feet and South Station Tower is about 700k square feet as a couple examples. This is a gradual development.
Also finally add to that the fact that Boston produces way more talent that it can employ and you could easily fill the bulk of this hiring requirement just from graduates that end up elsewhere in the country and world after graduation. So many of these people are already living in the city attending University.
Lol, this thread is fun for people, but some are taking it pretty seriously. MAYBE, Amazon will go into detail, as to why they choose their certain city, and why others were not chosen, maybe not. We're lucky that we have the time to spend on this, speculating, because really, it all means naught.
Yeah Amazon is not reading city data to help make their decision. This is all for fun.
From what I've read, Amazon plans to move specific divisions to the new headquarters location but it will still require interaction with Seattle. I don't think they will pick somewhere on the East coast because the time difference would make that difficult. I'm betting on a Central time zone and Dallas is my guess but Chicago would be another contender.
...in order to recruit the type of worker Amazon wants, they need to be as close to the core as possible. Look at how many companies have been closing their suburban locations to settle into downtown Boston and Cambridge in the past 5-10 years. There is a reason for that. Hell GE left a suburban location in another State to settle in the seaport. Also Amazon is already in Fort Point and Kendall square and adding 1000 plus jobs already to the area even without this HQ2 possibility.
That is the dilemma exactly--They don't want to be in Worcester or Lowell; they want to be close-in to enjoy the proximity to universities and the synergies of the tech community. A site like Suffolk Downs may be close enough but that site in particular has extra challenges.
Quote:
...it is not like Amazon wants to add 50k jobs immediately. Phase one in 2019 requests 500k-1m square feet (which is about 5000 employees) and projects to add 50k jobs over a 10 year plus period...This is a gradual development...The new Green line trains start delivering this year, Orange Line in 2018 and Red Line in 2019... They will allow the MBTA to achieve their 3 min headway target once delivered.
Important part of it. They say Bezos wants things right away but within a ten year period it seems the city-state officials can plausibly commit to delivering some transit improvements such as these and the GLX; perhaps new signals too to support the shorter headways. Worth pointing out that many more streetcars funneled into the Boylston and Tremont St tunnels years ago than do now-- not only the Watertown cars but Tremont cars coming from Roxbury and the South End and probably others. New laws or regs mandated definite headways between cars--or trains--but with better signals those tunnels could accommodate more traffic again in the form of more frequent service on existing lines.
State should also commit to longer term transit improvements like N-S rail link and Bowdoin to Charles station connector. Those would be huge.
That is the dilemma exactly--They don't want to be in Worcester or Lowell; they want to be close-in to enjoy the proximity to universities and the synergies of the tech community. A site like Suffolk Downs may be close enough but that site in particular has extra challenges.
Important part of it. They say Bezos wants things right away but within a ten year period it seems the city-state officials can plausibly commit to delivering some transit improvements such as these and the GLX; perhaps new signals too to support the shorter headways. Worth pointing out that many more streetcars funneled into the Boylston and Tremont St tunnels years ago than do now-- not only the Watertown cars but Tremont cars coming from Roxbury and the South End and probably others. New laws or regs mandated definite headways between cars--or trains--but with better signals those tunnels could accommodate more traffic again in the form of more frequent service on existing lines.
State should also commit to longer term transit improvements like N-S rail link and Bowdoin to Charles station connector. Those would be huge.
If I'm. It mistaken isn't the current limit of headways more due to B and C lines being street running?
From what I've read, Amazon plans to move specific divisions to the new headquarters location but it will still require interaction with Seattle. I don't think they will pick somewhere on the East coast because the time difference would make that difficult. I'm betting on a Central time zone and Dallas is my guess but Chicago would be another contender.
That would be very different from typical bi-coastal HQ set ups where the time difference is an asset. The East coast is only 3 hours difference from the west, but a lot closer to European time than the west.
That would be very different from typical bi-coastal HQ set ups where the time difference is an asset. The East coast is only 3 hours difference from the west, but a lot closer to European time than the west.
Precisely. Not to slight other important cities of the US interior, but the East Coast is too critical of a business/population epicenter for any major multi-national corporation not to tap into on a significant level.
It's not a foregone conclusion, but it just makes the most practical sense.
Even though Chicago checks every box Amazon requested, and then some (top tier world class city, livability/affordability, first rate culture), I don't think Chicago will get the HQ. I think they won't be able to come up with an incentive package comparable to some other cities.
You understand for Boston or Toronto 50,000 jobs is something like 1.5-2% of the market right?
None of these cities (save Raleigh) would become company towns, this isn't a Kodac in Rochester situation where almost 20% of the city is going to work for this company it would be a welcome addition not a game changer.
Yep. And I wouldn't even call Seattle a company town. Very broad employment offerings.
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.
