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.
They have no issues attracting talent to Seattle. They turn down a lot of applicants per job. This is them wanting to impact another city.
Unless you have an insider friend at Amazon Corporate, you have absolutely NO idea of what you are spouting off about. They currently have thousands of unfilled positions open in Seattle.
Unless you have an insider friend at Amazon Corporate, you have absolutely NO idea of what you are spouting off about. They currently have thousands of unfilled positions open in Seattle.
And they always will. Companies that size always will, but they're not going to hire any Tom, Dick or Harry. They have standards.
And nice use of the word "spouting," you sure are triggered down south. LMAO.
And yes, I know plenty of people that work at Amazon. You realize people will move to Seattle right?
They have no issues attracting talent to Seattle. They turn down a lot of applicants per job. This is them wanting to impact another city.
They've hired by the tens of thousands, yes. But they do better with some demographics than others. HQ1 skews to young adults, people who like our weather, international workers from Asian countries, urbanites, etc.
The "Seattle opposite" theory is about attracting people who aren't in the groups where they've excelled. For example mid-career types with kids who want a cheaper house in a different climate. Or maybe it's still about urbanites but with apartments at 60% of the price.
It's also about capacity. Amazon recently reported that they'll soon have 14,000,000 sf of offices in Seattle, which I think only included buildings under construction or done. That's nearly double the eventual HQ2. They haven't said whether they plan to keep growing beyond that or at what scale. The more they grow in Seattle's core the more difficult and expensive it gets. Land is harder to come by and at higher prices, now in the four figures per square foot. The City has piled on development fees by the millions per building. Another city would be much cheaper and easier. They'd be able to put the new space in one spot.
Based on differences in land value, development fees, and sales taxes (construction in Seattle pays sales tax; some cities don't do this), I'd guess a 1,000,000 sf office building might save $150,000,000 in a cheap city, or $100,000,000 once you factor the additional parking.
They've hired by the tens of thousands, yes. But they do better with some demographics than others. HQ1 skews to young adults, people who like our weather, international workers from Asian countries, urbanites, etc.
The "Seattle opposite" theory is about attracting people who aren't in the groups where they've excelled. For example mid-career types with kids who want a cheaper house in a different climate. Or maybe it's still about urbanites but with apartments at 60% of the price.
It's also about capacity. Amazon recently reported that they'll soon have 14,000,000 sf of offices in Seattle, which I think only included buildings under construction or done. That's nearly double the eventual HQ2. They haven't said whether they plan to keep growing beyond that or at what scale. The more they grow in Seattle's core the more difficult and expensive it gets. Land is harder to come by and at higher prices, now in the four figures per square foot. The City has piled on development fees by the millions per building. Another city would be much cheaper and easier. They'd be able to put the new space in one spot.
Based on differences in land value, development fees, and sales taxes (construction in Seattle pays sales tax; some cities don't do this), I'd guess a 1,000,000 sf office building might save $150,000,000 in a cheap city, or $100,000,000 once you factor the additional parking.
I wish I could give you another rep point, but this thing won't let me, and this was said perfectly. To the poster that said that Chicago doesn't offer anything special to make up for its faults, I agree, they don't have a clue about Chicago. I am a California transplant, and thought the weather would be my downfall here, but it turns out, it is much better than when I lived and went to school on the east coast, and the vibrancy and uniquely special attributes here make this place more than livable. On CD, Chicago takes a hit, and perhaps that is true nationally. My experience is that it has so many cool things going on, whether being a great sports town, being able to get from the suburbs and explore the city without a car, being affordable compared to so many overpriced overheated cities, having some unbelievably beautiful suburbs which most on CD pass over for flyover, having people here proud to be from here, having so many bar and restaurant choices, having a true Christmas scene with Chicago tradition, you name it.
Chicago is totally livable, and totally unique. Amazon would be lucky to land at the Lincoln Yards site, for it to be available for this "competition" is lucky for that company and for Chicago-perfect location, perfect planning. Between the building boom and now an enormous O'Hare expansion, this place will only get better. I am sure Bluefox, that as a Seattle resident, you realize that Amazon workers would have no problem adjusting to this city.
Yep, and to your last point, there is already data to bear that out:
The OP of this thread cited this article, I believe in the predecessor to this thread, which I found very interesting. Chicago was #2 on the list of places Seattleites searched for homes. LA was #1 by a large margin, but I think it's a foregone conclusion at this point that LA will not land HQ2.
Of course, the efficacy of this study is somewhat limited because well, it won't mostly be Seattleites filling those jobs. But there will be a lot of them moving over, no doubt about it. And Amazon should pay attention to the cities Seattleites like and/or want to move to.
Chicago definitely brings a lot to the table, and it's a really good fit overall. I've always been highly optimistic about its chances, though there are other worthy candidates as well.
All the top 5 cities have amazing culture, food scenes, vibrancy, urbanity, and diversity.
You're forgetting that Amazon has to convince 50k people to move and work in Chicago.
So while crime is generally localized, it does taint the city's image making it difficult for amazon to sell. Illinois political stability is not exactly confidence inducing either.
The last issue Chicago will have is attracting talent.
The last issue Chicago will have is attracting talent.
Exactly. Chicago is somewhat unique in that it really is the center of gravity for the Midwest, an area which encompasses some 65 million people. It would have no problem adding 50,000 people into its nearly 10,000,000 metro area, even from just the Midwest. But Chicago does attract people from all over the country. The Census numbers clearly show that Chicago does draw people from every region, so it can reasonably be expected that Amazon, if it relocated to Chicago, would fill positions from both Midwesterners and people from other parts of the country.
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.
