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.
One other area people may not be paying attention to is their desire to get in Pharma and healthcare distribution
of which another reason the Philly area would work well
AmerisourceBergen (the largest pharma distributer in the world and a top 20 F500 company most people have probably never heard of) is in Philly already
Pharma distribution is a 1.5 trillion dollar a year endeavor and growing
just some other thoughts but don't discount the Amazon desire to tackle this new endeavor
and with all the whole foods talk, their annual revenue is below 20B, the pharma distribution has significantly higher revenue potential
AmerisourceBergen revenues are ~ 150B just for some perspective on scale
again just another thought or area where Philly would have a talent and space potential potentially like no other as it relates to any Pharma endeavors
Atlanta - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Austin - Lack of transit could eliminate
Baltimore - High crime may eliminate Baltimore
Boston - Too expensive
Charlotte - Good option but lack of walkability. Lack of top tier universities.
Chicago - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Columbus - Lack of transit, weak airport, lack of walkability and lack of top tier universities
Dallas - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Denver - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Detroit - A good option, but I think crime may eliminate Detroit
Houston - A good option normally, but unfortunately, I think the recent hurricane may eliminate Houston
Miami - Ditto Houston. It's tough for a CEO to invest this kind of money to plop down a second HQ when the city was nearly devastated by a natural disaster.
Nashville - lack of transit and a weak airport may eliminate
New York City - Too expensive
Orlando - Lack of transit, and walkability. Lack of to tier universities
Philadelphia - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender.
Pittsburgh - Lack of transit and a weak airport may eliminate Pittsburgh
San Antonio - Lack of transit
San Diego - Lack of transit
San Jose - Lack of transit. Too expensive
Tampa - Lack of transit, lack of walkability, lack of a top tier University
Toronto - Everything Amazon is looking for, but do they want to be outside of the US?
Washington DC - Too expensive
Since the belief is Amazon is looking to expand outside of Seattle, because Seattle is becoming too costly, that would eliminate other cities that cost just as much or more than Seattle including NYC, DC, Bay Area, LA and Boston.
I think, with the requests/preferences/requirements from the RFP, the top 5 finalists are:
Atlanta
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Philadelphia
Top Canadian choices would be Toronto and Montreal, but I don't see Amazon picking an HQ2 site outside of the US.
Atlanta - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Austin - Lack of transit could eliminate
Baltimore - High crime may eliminate Baltimore
Boston - Too expensive
Charlotte - Good option but lack of walkability. Lack of top tier universities.
Chicago - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Columbus - Lack of transit, weak airport, lack of walkability and lack of top tier universities
Dallas - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Denver - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Detroit - A good option, but I think crime may eliminate Detroit
Houston - A good option normally, but unfortunately, I think the recent hurricane may eliminate Houston
Miami - Ditto Houston. It's tough for a CEO to invest this kind of money to plop down a second HQ when the city was nearly devastated by a natural disaster.
Nashville - lack of transit and a weak airport may eliminate
New York City - Too expensive
Orlando - Lack of transit, and walkability. Lack of to tier universities
Philadelphia - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender.
Pittsburgh - Lack of transit and a weak airport may eliminate Pittsburgh
San Antonio - Lack of transit
San Diego - Lack of transit
San Jose - Lack of transit. Too expensive
Tampa - Lack of transit, lack of walkability, lack of a top tier University
Toronto - Everything Amazon is looking for, but do they want to be outside of the US?
Washington DC - Too expensive
Since the belief is Amazon is looking to expand outside of Seattle, because Seattle is becoming too costly, that would eliminate other cities that cost just as much or more than Seattle including NYC, DC, Bay Area, LA and Boston.
I think, with the requests/preferences/requirements from the RFP, the top 5 finalists are:
Atlanta
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Philadelphia
Top Canadian choices would be Toronto and Montreal, but I don't see Amazon picking an HQ2 site outside of the US.
I agree with your top 5 finalists. However, I'm curious why you say "weak airport" as a Nashville weakness but you don't do the same for Austin, Columbus, Pittsburgh, or San Antonio, each with airports smaller than Nashville's.
2016 passenger volume:
Nashville - 12.98 million
Austin - 12.44 million
San Antonio - 8.5 million
Pittsburgh - 8.3 million
Columbus - 7.29 million
It's actually not a bad idea. Underdog and smaller cities that meet the basic requirements should absolutely not waste this opportunity to apply. I really think people are missing the forest for the trees. Amazon lists a number of criteria that can really be taken at face value. When they say transit connectivity, at least 1 million +, strong university presence, etc., they really do mean it. Is Amazon's European headquarters in London, Paris, or Berlin? Nope. It's in Luxembourg City (pop. 107,247) in Rives de Clausen. Why do you think they chose Luxembourg City? Sure, they have offices in those other higher-profile places, but Amazon elected Luxembourg to be the nerve center for some very obvious reasons.
So then, why not any place capable of offering what's asked for along with an innovative collection of worthwhile incentives? Any MSA of more than a million should be capable of absorbing 50,000 highly paid professionals over 5-10+ years; they're talking about many more years than that for full buildout. Yet not every MSA is going to be willing to be creative in providing incentives and the planning required to get them what they envision. At the end of the day, this isn't charity. They are still beholden to the shareholders and the bottom line.They can have a trendy Seattle headquarters, but their expansion may yield a more unexpected result and not necessarily the big boys.
I agree with your top 5 finalists. However, I'm curious why you say "weak airport" as a Nashville weakness but you don't do the same for Austin, Columbus, Pittsburgh, or San Antonio, each with airports smaller than Nashville's.
2016 passenger volume:
Nashville - 12.98 million
Austin - 12.44 million
San Antonio - 8.5 million
Pittsburgh - 8.3 million
Columbus - 7.29 million
Yes, they're all for sure weak airports... just not as familiar as the others as I am with Pittsburgh and Nashville. All of these cities could be disqualified for their airports.
Atlanta - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Austin - Lack of transit could eliminate
Baltimore - High crime may eliminate Baltimore
Boston - Too expensive
Charlotte - Good option but lack of walkability. Lack of top tier universities.
Chicago - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Columbus - Lack of transit, weak airport, lack of walkability and lack of top tier universities
Dallas - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Denver - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender
Detroit - A good option, but I think crime may eliminate Detroit
Houston - A good option normally, but unfortunately, I think the recent hurricane may eliminate Houston
Miami - Ditto Houston. It's tough for a CEO to invest this kind of money to plop down a second HQ when the city was nearly devastated by a natural disaster.
Nashville - lack of transit and a weak airport may eliminate
New York City - Too expensive
Orlando - Lack of transit, and walkability. Lack of to tier universities
Philadelphia - Everything Amazon is looking for. A top contender.
Pittsburgh - Lack of transit and a weak airport may eliminate Pittsburgh
San Antonio - Lack of transit
San Diego - Lack of transit
San Jose - Lack of transit. Too expensive
Tampa - Lack of transit, lack of walkability, lack of a top tier University
Toronto - Everything Amazon is looking for, but do they want to be outside of the US?
Washington DC - Too expensive
Since the belief is Amazon is looking to expand outside of Seattle, because Seattle is becoming too costly, that would eliminate other cities that cost just as much or more than Seattle including NYC, DC, Bay Area, LA and Boston.
I think, with the requests/preferences/requirements from the RFP, the top 5 finalists are:
Atlanta
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Philadelphia
Top Canadian choices would be Toronto and Montreal, but I don't see Amazon picking an HQ2 site outside of the US.
I don't recall seeing anywhere that Amazon is creating HQ2 due to costs in Seattle. I've mostly read it's because their outgrowing Seattle. Seattle can't handle much larger growth from Amazon, thus needing another space. I know everyone keeps mentioning cost but I doubt Amazon will select a place on cost only. They are a heavily culture conscious/focused company and the city also has to be a right fit for their work culture for their current and future employees i.e. no conservative cities or even perhaps states etc.
People are quite fired up about all the changes and it sucks - but if anything today the state is finally on solid footing financially speaking as we move forward, it's just not pretty.
Show us anything that says that Chicago and Illinois now are on solid financial footing. Based on my readings, the large increase in tax rates is just a stop-gap measure.
Based on this thread, many in Chicago and Illinois still don't understand the fiscal peril faced by Chicago and Illinois if the forecast of a massive increase in interest rates does indeed take place.
Fiscal irresponsibility has gripped Chicago and Illinois for over 15 years and the solution will be painful and long-term in nature.
Nothing has changed until the ratings agencies begin to raise the credit ratings for Illinois and Chicago.
The reality is that Chicago schools have a junk credit rating.
The outlook for the Illinois credit rating is still negative, even after the budget approval, and as the current rating teeters one notch above the junk level.
<<A major credit rating agency says Illinois' rating won't be lowered to "junk" but warns the state still faces serious financial challenges and long-term risks.Moody's Investors Service on Thursday affirmed Illinois' current rating with a negative outlook, saying a downgrade remains possible in the next two years.>>
U.S. fiscal difficulties will aggravate the problem in Illinois. E.g., financing U.S. deficits eventually will push Treasury, and all other rates, much higher, as bond expert Jeff Gundlach repeatedly has forecast for the long run. Congress will continue to slash domestic spending.
What I see in this thread by Chicago promoters is just more of the self-denial and a lack of understanding that has plagued the city and the state of Illinois in the 21st century.
Again, it will be shocking if Amazon jumps into this fiscal swamp. However, perhaps Amazon doesn't plan to pay income taxes ever as it is barely profitable. Regardless, if I were Amazon, I wouldn't count on Illinois developing human capital through an adequately funded educational system.
Apart from the fiscal mess, and educational issues, the positives of Chicago are obvious, but committing to Chicago is somewhat like marrying someone with a chronic, perhaps deadly, disease.
I don't recall seeing anywhere that Amazon is creating HQ2 due to costs in Seattle. I've mostly read it's because their outgrowing Seattle. Seattle can't handle much larger growth from Amazon, thus needing another space. I know everyone keeps mentioning cost but I doubt Amazon will select a place on cost only. They are a heavily culture focused company and the city also has to be a right fit i.e. no conservative cities or even perhaps states etc.
Sooo, if they're outgrowing Seattle, why would they pick a smaller city? Seattle ranks #15 in metro areas, so that means the only cities that could logically compete would be everything larger than Seattle.
I think they're growing fast, and Seattle is too expensive for them to keep expanding in, both from an office space standpoint, and a reasonable salary/reasonable cost of living for employees.
Cost of living was an important factor in their requirement for HQ2 as well, and I believe expensive cities will be eliminated.
Yes, they're all for sure weak airports... just not as familiar as the others as I am with Pittsburgh and Nashville. All of these cities could be disqualified for their airports
Adding flights is much easier than trying to come up with available land for a city that might not have such land.
Adding flights is much easier than making up for lack of a top tech university which Pittsburgh has in CMU, not to mention Pitt.
Who know what they will do, but the winning city will have built in demand for Seattle flights.
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.
