Indy advances to the final 20 in bid to win Amazon's 2nd HQ (Indianapolis: school, contractors)

[Dyadic]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Indys public transportation plans consist of another bus route.

You sound angry that Indy made the top 20 list. You'll blow a basket if the city was selected as top 5 ... Better yet, you wouldn't show your face.

[ischyros]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Indys public transportation plans consist of another bus route.

Bus-rapid transit is light rail but without the rail.

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by IndyDancer

Maybe I'm missing something, but I suspect Amazon will be underwhelmed.

They will, but trust me, Indiana politicians will do anything they want. What really would Amazon want/need mass transit wise? A dedicated line from the airport to their facility and possibly downtown Indy. At first I didn't think the GM plant area was big enough but I read that there are enough acres for what Amazon wants. So my thinking is that we'd either use those existing rail lines, add another set, and instead of building an elevated train, we'd likely be better off building at ground level and building more bridges over the tracks if need be. This would even be a better idea if CSX decides to do a 180 and actually run a lot more trails through town. I'm not saying this wouldn't cost money, but a rail line from the airport, first stop the GM plant area, then across the river to downtown would be plenty. Suburban folks could drive and parking could be dealt with by building large garages or whatever is needed. The area around the GM plant isn't all that great anyway. Between vacant housing and large light industrial areas, I'm sure some deal could be made for additional land if needed.

Originally Posted by Dyadic

The House panel voted to reverse the metropolitan area ban on light rail. Indy is rapidly moving in the right direction.

Makes sense since nothing will happen unless Amazon comes here. Light rail is too costly and voters in most of the surrounding counties won't vote for any sort of tax that is basically going to subsidize either Hamilton County folks and/or people going from the airport to downtown. Those are the only two locations where light rail makes any sense right now.

Originally Posted by Berteau

Most experts agree that Indy is not really in the running either. It is likely to go to the east coast or Austin.

I'm not sure we are in the running or not, but I don't see them moving to the actual coastal areas or anywhere near there really. The closest I see them going is Raleigh. I actually believe Raleigh and Nashville are the two favorites. Atlanta traffic sucks and I hear it is already costly to live there. I've seen examples of the recent housing boom in Nashville and I hear their traffic now sucks as well, so they might not even make it. Austin might, but then again, did their boom era jack up housing cost? Traffic? It definitely will be interesting to see where they land. Of course if the high tax, deep debt states just continue to kick the can down the road, they could give enough incentives to lure them in I guess.

Originally Posted by ischyros

Bus-rapid transit is light rail but without the rail.

Don't you know rails save cities? I mean Chicago is swimming in cash. Poverty is at an all time low, I think only five people were shot and killed last year. The mayor didn't have to jack up taxes and user fees because their lucrative public pensions and employee healthcare is funded three times over. Mass transit solves all of societies ills. If Indy had a few rail lines, I bet our homicide rate would drop to about two murders per year and everyone would be making at least $20/hour.

[hapaleeretired]

"I'm not sure we are in the running or not, but I don't see them moving to the actual coastal areas or anywhere near there really. The closest I see them going is Raleigh. I actually believe Raleigh and Nashville are the two favorites. Atlanta traffic sucks and I hear it is already costly to live there. I've seen examples of the recent housing boom in Nashville and I hear their traffic now sucks as well,"

My daughter is a cop in Raleigh and I have family in Nashville. Due to the "Research Triangle" Raleigh's traffic is already a nightmare and you are correct about Nashville's traffic......it does SUCK.
Enjoyed the sarcasm about Chicago.

[Berteau]

Originally Posted by hapaleeretired

"I'm not sure we are in the running or not, but I don't see them moving to the actual coastal areas or anywhere near there really. The closest I see them going is Raleigh. I actually believe Raleigh and Nashville are the two favorites. Atlanta traffic sucks and I hear it is already costly to live there. I've seen examples of the recent housing boom in Nashville and I hear their traffic now sucks as well,"

My daughter is a cop in Raleigh and I have family in Nashville. Due to the "Research Triangle" Raleigh's traffic is already a nightmare and you are correct about Nashville's traffic......it does SUCK.
Enjoyed the sarcasm about Chicago.

Right. Because Seattle isn't a coastal area is it? they would never have a headquarters there. Too much traffic and high cost of living. Now that I think of it, no corporation would have their headquarters in a coastal area, Lol

[W & C]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Right. Because Seattle isn't a coastal area is it? they would never have a headquarters there. Too much traffic and high cost of living. Now that I think of it, no corporation would have their headquarters in a coastal area, Lol

I don't really agree with what he's saying but I suspect that he thinks that Amazon is looking a place with more of a central location for HQ2.

[sheerbliss]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Oddsmakers are by far the most accurate way to predict probabilities. The odds are overwhelmingly set by fact based analysis. Public perception might only account for 1% of a spread.

Now you're not only appealing to authority, but cherry picking the authority you're appealing to.

Re: coastal areas and big cities. From what I've read, Seattle was in recovery and growth mode in the 90s when Amazon started, and so there were probably real estate bargains to be had, good potential for those bargains to appreciate in value, and for the city to attract quality people. Does that sound like another city you've heard of? Note that Bezos didn't start Amazon in New York City, where he was living and working before he decamped for Seattle. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos

[Berteau]

Originally Posted by sheerbliss

Now you're not only appealing to authority, but cherry picking the authority you're appealing to.

Re: coastal areas and big cities. From what I've read, Seattle was in recovery and growth mode in the 90s when Amazon started, and so there were probably real estate bargains to be had, good potential for those bargains to appreciate in value, and for the city to attract quality people. Does that sound like another city you've heard of? Note that Bezos didn't start Amazon in New York City, where he was living and working before he decamped for Seattle. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos

So amazon got lucky and the growth of Seattle helped it. Smaller companies like Amazon at the time do choose smaller cheaper cheaper rinky dink cities. Amazon would never had grown to the company it is today if it would have started in Indianapolis or a similar Midwest city.

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Right. Because Seattle isn't a coastal area is it? they would never have a headquarters there. Too much traffic and high cost of living. Now that I think of it, no corporation would have their headquarters in a coastal area, Lol

West coast vs east coast. You are building brand new. Continuity of business is important, right? How many hurricanes strike Seattle? How many hit San Francisco or LA? The only reason some areas of this country have businesses is because that is where the first Europeans settled. NYC is too big to just abandoned, but there are reasons companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and many others over the decades have decided against locating in the established cities of Boston, DC, NYC, Philadelphia, etc..

Originally Posted by W & C

I don't really agree with what he's saying but I suspect that he thinks that Amazon is looking a place with more of a central location for HQ2.

I'm mostly talking about risk and continuity of business for what is said to be brand new construction/facilities for what is one of the biggest companies around right now. This isn't saying that companies don't locate to east coast cities, but are there any major Fortune 100 companies that recently picked any on/near the east coast cities to start, build, or relocate to?

Originally Posted by Berteau

So amazon got lucky and the growth of Seattle helped it. Smaller companies like Amazon at the time do choose smaller cheaper cheaper rinky dink cities. Amazon would never had grown to the company it is today if it would have started in Indianapolis or a similar Midwest city.

Yup. Remember Eli Lilly and his drug company? Would've been a raging success had he picked Chicago or NYC to start. Oh, we can't forget Simon Property Group and their complete failure due to starting and staying in Indy.

[sheerbliss]

According to a few articles, Bezos' decision to start in Seattle had to do with proximity to a major book wholesaler in Oregon, access to a pool of talent (Microsoft), and low overhead. Also considered was an unspecified location in Nevada. The Northeast also had book distributors (New York) and tech talent (Boston)--but not low overhead. Would Amazon have become what it is today had it started in Indy? Probably not--because the resources weren't here in the 90s.

As for companies moving their headquarters to a big city--many of the 15 largest companies in the US are headquartered in the South and the Midwest. Most are in suburbs of large cities. Not one is in New York City or Chicago.

Sources:
https://twitter.com/pgcornwell/statu...2-years-ago%2F
https://www.geekwire.com/2011/meet-s...-employee-1/2/