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.
It comes down to Amazon having needs and the best possible location that they can go to to fulfill their needs. Clearly when a company decides that they want to go the dual headquarter route, it is because they feel a second location will close the gaps that they cannot close with the first location.
As was mentioned in the Baltimore and Cincinnati post-bid explanations for why they didn't make the cut, talent is the number one factor, by far.
Amazon's choice will be a place with an excellent university program, but it's not just the university that keys a place in for this, but rather it's the emphasis on computer science, engineering, programming, and software development that will win it for the location that will be picked. In addition to that, a place's ability to draw said talent in said industry and retain it. It will also be a city that already has a massive tech industry workforce, Amazon has a bit of a habit of poaching employees from rival companies.
Really only 3-5 actual contenders for this.
Anyhow, I said it would be Boston from the moment I found out about Amazon's HQ2 search but things have changed. I am going to change my choice from Boston to Washington D.C. (all 3 of its metropolitan area's bid) as the frontrunner. While Amazon said that its recently announced expansion plans in Boston is separate from their HQ2 search, I don't think they'll award the same place both that AND HQ2. I could be wrong but those are the vibes I am getting from that. So for me, it is further indication that Boston is out of the running and real estate analysts don't seem to have faith in its bid either due to the housing situation. I think the top contenders are the 3 Washington D.C. area bids, Austin, and Atlanta. The more I think about it, the more I think it will be one of these. I still give Boston an outside chance of landing HQ2, but I feel less certain about it by the day.
It comes down to Amazon having needs and the best possible location that they can go to to fulfill their needs. Clearly when a company decides that they want to go the dual headquarter route, it is because they feel a second location will close the gaps that they cannot close with the first location.
As was mentioned in the Baltimore and Cincinnati post-bid explanations for why they didn't make the cut, talent is the number one factor, by far.
Amazon's choice will be a place with an excellent university program, but it's not just the university that keys a place in for this, but rather it's the emphasis on computer science, engineering, programming, and software development that will win it for the location that will be picked. In addition to that, a place's ability to draw said talent in said industry and retain it. It will also be a city that already has a massive tech industry workforce, Amazon has a bit of a habit of poaching employees from rival companies.
Really only 3-5 actual contenders for this.
Anyhow, I said it would be Boston from the moment I found out about Amazon's HQ2 search but things have changed. I am going to change my choice from Boston to Washington D.C. (all 3 of its metropolitan area's bid) as the frontrunner. While Amazon said that its recently announced expansion plans in Boston is separate from their HQ2 search, I don't think they'll award the same place both that AND HQ2. I could be wrong but those are the vibes I am getting from that. So for me, it is further indication that Boston is out of the running and real estate analysts don't seem to have faith in its bid either due to the housing situation. I think the top contenders are the 3 Washington D.C. area bids, Austin, and Atlanta. The more I think about it, the more I think it will be one of these. I still give Boston an outside chance of landing HQ2, but I feel less certain about it by the day.
It comes down to Amazon having needs and the best possible location that they can go to to fulfill their needs. Clearly when a company decides that they want to go the dual headquarter route, it is because they feel a second location will close the gaps that they cannot close with the first location.
As was mentioned in the Baltimore and Cincinnati post-bid explanations for why they didn't make the cut, talent is the number one factor, by far.
Amazon's choice will be a place with an excellent university program, but it's not just the university that keys a place in for this, but rather it's the emphasis on computer science, engineering, programming, and software development that will win it for the location that will be picked. In addition to that, a place's ability to draw said talent in said industry and retain it. It will also be a city that already has a massive tech industry workforce, Amazon has a bit of a habit of poaching employees from rival companies.
Really only 3-5 actual contenders for this.
Anyhow, I said it would be Boston from the moment I found out about Amazon's HQ2 search but things have changed. I am going to change my choice from Boston to Washington D.C. (all 3 of its metropolitan area's bid) as the frontrunner. While Amazon said that its recently announced expansion plans in Boston is separate from their HQ2 search, I don't think they'll award the same place both that AND HQ2. I could be wrong but those are the vibes I am getting from that. So for me, it is further indication that Boston is out of the running and real estate analysts don't seem to have faith in its bid either due to the housing situation. I think the top contenders are the 3 Washington D.C. area bids, Austin, and Atlanta. The more I think about it, the more I think it will be one of these. I still give Boston an outside chance of landing HQ2, but I feel less certain about it by the day.
Why Austin and not DFW? I see Austin as a top contender, but DFW would be as well since it does everything better than Austin besides tech talent. It's no slouch in that department either though.
I started a new job at a Big 4 consulting firm and I now travel weekly to a all sorts of locations. HQ2 comes up all the time as many in the consulting industry have a interest in this race. These are people that have worked very close with the high ups of very large high profile companies around the country.
Most seem to agree with Atlanta, DC, and Philadelphia. Most also say the same things about Denver (I live here so it's been interesting). It's too small of a labor market and geographically, it makes no business sense. There are no metro areas between Seattle and Denver. Every business interaction would require a flight in. Amazon has admitted that recruitment/relocation/retention is the biggest challenge they face with their Seattle office. Currently Seattle has 1 million more people than Denver, and their current HQ is still short of 50K employees...and Seattle shares markets with Portland and Vancouver. Denver is literally as island with nothing around for 10 hours of driving, or about 2 hours of flying.
The benefit of a North East location is the labor market. In that region, you get to look beyond a metro population, and look into the overall population of the entire region. The North East has a total population of nearly 55 million. When it comes to recruitment, you could easily get a family to move a few hours down the road for a job at Amazon...a hell of a lot easier than getting a family to move to Seattle. With that, who cares if Amazon has a poor retention rate. They can easily cycle their 50K employees with that kind of labor pool. You wouldn't have to drop 10-15K per employee on relocation packages ever year for new hires.
The South East has an estimated population of about 87 Million...so that above and then some.
I started a new job at a Big 4 consulting firm and I now travel weekly to a all sorts of locations. HQ2 comes up all the time as many in the consulting industry have a interest in this race. These are people that have worked very close with the high ups of very large high profile companies around the country.
Most seem to agree with Atlanta, DC, and Philadelphia. Most also say the same things about Denver (I live here so it's been interesting). It's too small of a labor market and geographically, it makes no business sense. There are no metro areas between Seattle and Denver. Every business interaction would require a flight in. Amazon has admitted that recruitment/relocation/retention is the biggest challenge they face with their Seattle office. Currently Seattle has 1 million more people than Denver, and their current HQ is still short of 50K employees...and Seattle shares markets with Portland and Vancouver. Denver is literally as island with nothing around for 10 hours of driving, or about 2 hours of flying.
The benefit of a North East location is the labor market. In that region, you get to look beyond a metro population, and look into the overall population of the entire region. The North East has a total population of nearly 55 million. When it comes to recruitment, you could easily get a family to move a few hours down the road for a job at Amazon...a hell of a lot easier than getting a family to move to Seattle. With that, who cares if Amazon has a poor retention rate. They can easily cycle their 50K employees with that kind of labor pool. You wouldn't have to drop 10-15K per employee on relocation packages ever year for new hires.
The South East has an estimated population of about 87 Million...so that above and then some.
Presumably a business interaction between Seattle and the east coast would also require flying. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. What business trip doesn't require flying? Very few take up the time to drive.
I don't think so. A move is a move, especially when a family is involved. New schools, even a "few hours down the road". You might as well move to Seattle from wherever.
^ I'm referring more to interactions with other companies and professional services, especially other HQs. If HQ2 was in a large metro area of existing companies, they would be able to conduct a lot of business locally instead of always requiring to fly people in.
^ I'm referring more to interactions with other companies and professional services, especially other HQs. If HQ2 was in a large metro area of existing companies, they would be able to conduct a lot of business locally instead of always requiring to fly people in.
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.
