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.
There are a bunch of proposals from New England cities, but New Hampshire's proposal takes a huge dump on Boston.
“Choose Boston and next year when you leave your tiny $4,000-a-month apartment only to sit in 2 hours of traffic trying to make your way to an overburdened airport, you’ll be wishing you were in New Hampshire,” they wrote.
It doesn't make 100% sense. If you're living in a tiny $4,000 a month apartment, I would hope it would be in Boston. I don't think anybody's paying that to live 2 hours away from Boston.
I can see how you might think that and I also would tend to agree, but really they dont even need 2 HQs to begin with, which begs the question: Why?
Quote:
"Starting a second base somewhere else could allow it to lower costs through tax breaks and operate in a cheaper area, and gets lots of positive PR by creating new jobs outside its traditional base," Dawson noted.
Amazon is also trying to gain access to new markets like healthcare and entertainment and might be using its second headquarters as a strategy to do so. For example, Amazon has been doubling down on original content production, and might put the new facility in Los Angeles to better tap into Hollywood talent, Alvarez said. Companies like Facebook, Amazon and Google are morphing into more than just tech companies and doing so may require them to look beyond Silicon Valley, he noted.
I can see how you might think that and I also would tend to agree, but really they dont even need 2 HQs to begin with, which begs the question: Why?
probably two-fold
A rapidly expanding company and required workforce is starting to have some real challenges staffing in an area where relos are a bog chunk. Also the tech workforce is highly competitive
So, 1. looking to see if another area can make things easier to scale up employees (potentially in a less competitive city for the employment types)
and 2. while this isn't really a HQ2 it is a desire to have a large operational/development employment center and given their ask they probably felt they could get a substantially beneficial package in a place that meets a lot of their needs
I also am not so sure that an EC facility is really a requirement though if Europe is a play maybe makes a little more sense. I think it has more to do with a place that can scale, have employee resources, and a big package wherever that may be
with all that said I do think a place like Austin may still be too small
places like a DFW, Atlanta, even a Philly or Chicago are large enough that could absorb the growth more easily
on the talent resources I do think a place like Philly is interesting as even if relos required many would not have to move far to dip into huge talent pools within an hour or so even outside the metro
I have heard from a decent source in the real estate business that TX has this, likely DFW guess we will see
If the bolded is true, Atlanta would make even more sense. Also obviously closer to the country's center of gravity.
and Healthcare distribution would be a big pool in the philly area etc.
they clearly want to make a big splash in pharmacy distribution and that is a much more complex distribution model from a regulatory perspective and resource/employee intensive
I generally find creative can be more isolated from logistics in many ways. that said philly has potentially the fastest growing tech content segment with huge growth from Comcast and their content and deliver technologies etc.
Another advantage Atlanta has are large parcels of undeveloped land within close proximity of heavy rail. That's probably something no other city in the U.S. can offer. And it wouldn't even have to be in the suburbs. There are plots in/near Midtown and Downtown Atlanta where a new facility could be built.
There are a bunch of proposals from New England cities, but New Hampshire's proposal takes a huge dump on Boston.
“Choose Boston and next year when you leave your tiny $4,000-a-month apartment only to sit in 2 hours of traffic trying to make your way to an overburdened airport, you’ll be wishing you were in New Hampshire,” they wrote.
It doesn't make 100% sense. If you're living in a tiny $4,000 a month apartment, I would hope it would be in Boston. I don't think anybody's paying that to live 2 hours away from Boston.
Waterbury, CT put in a proposal too which is absolutely hilarious. Camden, NJ would be a better choice.
A rapidly expanding company and required workforce is starting to have some real challenges staffing in an area where relos are a bog chunk. Also the tech workforce is highly competitive
So, 1. looking to see if another area can make things easier to scale up employees (potentially in a less competitive city for the employment types)
and 2. while this isn't really a HQ2 it is a desire to have a large operational/development employment center and given their ask they probably felt they could get a substantially beneficial package in a place that meets a lot of their needs
I also am not so sure that an EC facility is really a requirement though if Europe is a play maybe makes a little more sense. I think it has more to do with a place that can scale, have employee resources, and a big package wherever that may be
with all that said I do think a place like Austin may still be too small
places like a DFW, Atlanta, even a Philly or Chicago are large enough that could absorb the growth more easily
on the talent resources I do think a place like Philly is interesting as even if relos required many would not have to move far to dip into huge talent pools within an hour or so even outside the metro
I have heard from a decent source in the real estate business that TX has this, likely DFW guess we will see
All plausible, but there's no particularly pressing reason to make this massive development an actual 'headquarters' unless Amazon knows cities and states will dole out billions in subsidies to have their HQ.
Furthermore, all told there will be what? upwards of 70,000 employees at their 2 HQs-that's really massive for any company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
If the bolded is true, Atlanta would make even more sense. Also obviously closer to the country's center of gravity.
I can see the part about Atlanta and it's tv/film production, but I dont really see the being 'closer to the country's center of gravity' argument. I dont think that matters in 2017.
But then none of us knows what their motivations are for sure, so you could be right.
Another advantage Atlanta has are large parcels of undeveloped land within close proximity of heavy rail. That's probably something no other city in the U.S. can offer. And it wouldn't even have to be in the suburbs. There are plots in/near Midtown and Downtown Atlanta where a new facility could be built.
For a suburban site, I think Doraville would be perfect, though a Waffle House would probably have to be sacrificed.
what about SYs and the 30th rail yard cap, on top of basically all rail transit in Philly - that is at least one that has more than 10M sq feet directly on the subways, regional rail, Amtrak, and trollys
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.
