[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Certainly doesn’t hurt. I doubt an HQ2 but a smaller presence is possible.

Even a few hundred of these type jobs would be great.

My bet is there is just 1 HQ2 now. I expect Nashville to get >5k, due to AOC, but I would be shocked if any other city gets more than a small % of the lost 25k opportunity.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Stylo

She was CEO of Pepsi until rather recently and has only been on Lamont's team for a little over a month. These things take time.

Wasn’t she instrumental in getting Infosys to bring 1,000 jobs to Hartford? Jay

[jxzz]

Amazon reported to pull back the plan for Seattle skyscrapers. Actually Amazon plans to rent all 30 floors of its skyscraper there. News is that Amazon is likely to gradually reduce footprint in Seattle and increase in other places.

[mdovell]

I still say hartford would be great for it. Ct rail nearly assures access to over a million people. You have an airport and highways.

[jxzz]

Originally Posted by mdovell

I still say hartford would be great for it. Ct rail nearly assures access to over a million people. You have an airport and highways.

Wallingford already has large Amazon warehouse. Hartford too. But not very likely for Hartford, nor New London for HQ type of offices.

For HQ quite of set up, CT cities from Stamford to New Haven on metro north train line is best.

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by jxzz

Amazon reported to pull back the plan for Seattle skyscrapers. Actually Amazon plans to rent all 30 floors of its skyscraper there. News is that Amazon is likely to gradually reduce footprint in Seattle and increase in other places.

Cannot follow your post.


Amazon *is* canceling their plans to move into currently under construction Rainier Square building in Seattle.


https://therealdeal.com/la/2019/02/2...ainier-square/


That being said Amazon still has plenty of employees scattered all around Seattle, no word on a reduction of their footprint thus far.


Even if they wanted to go that route it could be long slow haul. By many accounts one reason Amazon easily pulled out of NYC was that not everyone in Seattle was thrilled about packing up and moving to NYC, much less the northeast period. This included no small number of key employees who likely would have left the company (and easily found work elsewhere), rather than leave Seattle.

[jxzz]

Originally Posted by BugsyPal

Cannot follow your post.


Amazon *is* canceling their plans to move into currently under construction Rainier Square building in Seattle.


https://therealdeal.com/la/2019/02/2...ainier-square/


That being said Amazon still has plenty of employees scattered all around Seattle, no word on a reduction of their footprint thus far.


Even if they wanted to go that route it could be long slow haul. By many accounts one reason Amazon easily pulled out of NYC was that not everyone in Seattle was thrilled about packing up and moving to NYC, much less the northeast period. This included no small number of key employees who likely would have left the company (and easily found work elsewhere), rather than leave Seattle.

Amazon had a lay off last year in Seattle, small amount. When I say foot print, really means future foot print. Amazon head counts in Seattle is still growing, just grow slower as originally planned

[wetnewspaper]

I would want nothing to do with Amazon. They ruined Seattle, which is now overrun with tech-bros, experiencing a spike a homelessness, a loss of culture and the arts, and sky high rents. The city is a giant outdoor mall for the rich, devoid of anything interesting.

In addition, Amazon has a troubled history w/ labor relations, asks for tax breaks it doesn't need, and pays nothing in federal taxes.

Think about it: the worlds richest man ran a perverted public campaign to get municipalities to compete against each other to bankrupt themselves. No thank you.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by wetnewspaper

I would want nothing to do with Amazon. They ruined Seattle, which is now overrun with tech-bros, experiencing a spike a homelessness, a loss of culture and the arts, and sky high rents. The city is a giant outdoor mall for the rich, devoid of anything interesting.

In addition, Amazon has a troubled history w/ labor relations, asks for tax breaks it doesn't need, and pays nothing in federal taxes.

Think about it: the worlds richest man ran a perverted public campaign to get municipalities to compete against each other to bankrupt themselves. No thank you.

He sold an asset-high paying jobs, and NOVA won, with Nashville getting a nifty prize of 5k jobs also.

[nico7]

Originally Posted by mdovell

I still say hartford would be great for it. Ct rail nearly assures access to over a million people. You have an airport and highways.

When Boston was in consideration, I was thinking Worcester would be even better, for the reasons you give. I think the main purpose for Amazon HQ2 is not shipping, but CSX does have a large rail cargo yard. It wouldn’t hurt the tech employees to be near & familiar with the distribution operations. There are a lot of young tech folks in Eastern MA, with costs being lower in Worcester.

For a CT location, wouldn’t Bridgeport have the most to gain? I don’t know it well, but it seems like there would be a capacity for large rail warehousing expansion. Tech employees might at least spend some money in the city, and some would live there.