Amazon Launches Search for a Second Headquarters City in North America... (Dallas: move, suburb)

[NoClueWho]

Originally Posted by BigDGeek

Exactly. I'm over 35, so Amazon would likely never hire me anyway...and if they wouldn't hire me, there's zero benefit to me to them being here and a long list of drawbacks. I personally do not put a lot of importance on prestige and I don't want to be inconvenienced for the sake of it.


Amazon moving to Midtown would be a disaster for those of us who live anywhere near it or have to commute past it.

I hear ya! I laugh at some of the folks who always cheer on constant, non-stop growth and skyrocketing cost of living, because you can tell some of them are either, a.) young and "free" and don't have much of the costs and responsibilities that being a firmly established adult brings (especially for those of us with families), or b.) are older and retired/close to retirement or sheltered or well off enough to the point where they don't have to worry so much about things like terrible traffic, not being able to find an affordable home and in a safe neighborhood (or at least not one that they won't get outbid on by 50 other people), pay raises not keeping up with the COL, etc.

[Alewife]

Diversified economy. Knowledge work. Vertical living. A freeway system that is the envy of the planet. Not in my backyard.

[HP48G]

As usual the NIMBY crowd wants things to remain static in time. They got theirs, so they don’t want anyone else to get it too.

I’ll take economic growth, vibrancy and the associated increase in costs, over decline, blight, depression and lack of opportunity for the young. Once decline sets in and the young flee to settle elsewhere, it’s very hard to reverse it.

[synchronicity]

Originally Posted by Alewife

I don't know about hipster, but there's this:
https://www.bizjournals.com/charlott...p-city-in.html
"Topping the list at No. 1 for most millennial growth is Charlotte, and it isn't even close."

Pittsburgh has a good quality of life but I'll bet Carnegie Mellon was influential in Stewart's choice. Where's the momentum in western PA though? And where are the flights out of its airport? Excluding DC, it's going to be a hub.

I'm confused by the last part, as Dulles Airport *is* a hub.

I agree that Pittsburgh would be an excellent contender (Eastern US, VERY reasonable COL, Carnegie Mellon and other tech-friendly parts of its overall economy, and it's a very pretty area [I think by now everyone is aware that the "smokestacks and steel mills" view of Pittsburgh is SO forty years ago. Back in 1989 a friend told me how much Pittsburgh resembled Portland, OR and it's likely become moreso ever since). However, that airport is a major issue that would seem to knock it out of the running.

If they go for a smaller city, I'd think Charlotte. Larger cities, DFW or Atlanta would probably be the top two choices. I don't think Denver or SLC as they're not terribly far from Seattle (I'd think they'd want something at least Midwest if not more to the East).

Obviously, when I mention these cities I mean the overall metro area - exactly WHERE in each metro, who really knows? Amazon could buy cheap land in an up-and-coming (or "sleepy overlooked") 'burb that is at the fringe of their requirements for proximity to an airport or population base and everyone would go "they're locating WHERE?!?!", but it would really be an exurb of whatever Metro they want.

I don't know Atlanta well enough, but in terms of transit options DFW is excellent, with two sizable airports (granted, only one really international, but the other busy for domestic) as well as airports specifically for cargo.

I don't think it would be Chicago. If they're going for larger established Eastern-ish city, I'd think they'd choose a DC or Boston instead. Given that they started in Seattle just as it was hitting the public consciousness, I think Charlotte or somewhere similar is more likely. But this is all guesses that are as (un)informed as anyone else's. We'll all find out in several months.

[Alewife]

Originally Posted by synchronicity

I'm confused by the last part, as Dulles Airport *is* a hub.

Fine.

Originally Posted by synchronicity

I agree that Pittsburgh would be an excellent contender (Eastern US, VERY reasonable COL, Carnegie Mellon and other tech-friendly parts of its overall economy, and it's a very pretty area [I think by now everyone is aware that the "smokestacks and steel mills" view of Pittsburgh is SO forty years ago. Back in 1989 a friend told me how much Pittsburgh resembled Portland, OR and it's likely become moreso ever since). However, that airport is a major issue that would seem to knock it out of the running.

I love Pittsburgh. It won't get Amazon; it's too off the beaten path.

Originally Posted by synchronicity

If they go for a smaller city, I'd think Charlotte.

If Amazon spends only a few days in that place, Dallas and Atlanta have real problems.

Originally Posted by synchronicity

Larger cities, DFW or Atlanta would probably be the top two choices. I don't think Denver or SLC as they're not terribly far from Seattle (I'd think they'd want something at least Midwest if not more to the East).

The New York Times immediately removed Denver from contention by trying to preemptively divert the company's attention toward it for political reasons. Plus it's stagnant.

Originally Posted by synchronicity

Obviously, when I mention these cities I mean the overall metro area - exactly WHERE in each metro, who really knows? Amazon could buy cheap land in an up-and-coming (or "sleepy overlooked") 'burb that is at the fringe of their requirements for proximity to an airport or population base and everyone would go "they're locating WHERE?!?!", but it would really be an exurb of whatever Metro they want.

Exurbs, outtowns, suburbs, they're all part of the city. Cartographical formalities, descriptors of portions of the larger fabric of each Dallas, or Atlanta, or Charlotte.

Originally Posted by synchronicity

I don't know Atlanta well enough, but in terms of transit options DFW is excellent, with two sizable airports (granted, only one really international, but the other busy for domestic) as well as airports specifically for cargo.

In my book a 'city'/MSA is in the big leagues only if it has at least two passenger airports (in the same state--which disqualifies Boston, particularly since the smaller ones there aren't down the street but rather an hour and a half away. (Since DC is a district, not a state, that still counts)).

Originally Posted by synchronicity

I don't think it would be Chicago.

Chicago is a great city but a terrible choice for a company relo even if it's just an HQ2. I wonder if Boeing thinks it made the right choice.

Originally Posted by synchronicity

If they're going for larger established Eastern-ish city, I'd think they'd choose a DC or Boston instead.

Greater Boston is a place where students from outside the state come to go to school and then leave after finishing, not where they stay after graduation. It's also a difficult place for a corporation to justify an existence--especially one that wants to build.

Originally Posted by synchronicity

Given that they started in Seattle just as it was hitting the public consciousness, I think Charlotte or somewhere similar is more likely.

Agreed.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by numbersguy100

Certainly IF Amazon relocates there and invests in a significant amount of money and does lots of hiring, more and more flights could come back to the Pittsburgh airport. But as of today, it's an airport with more potential than current utility.

That's there's no hub operator in Pittsburg is a negative but far from being a deal-breaker. And that's a first class airport and little doubt that Alaskan and Delta would offer many Nonstop flights for Pit-Sea.
Seen gobs and gobs of NFL games from the stadium at 3 Rivers on TV in the past, but had no idea what a beautiful city Pittsburg was until I actually visited one weekend.
Yea I think Pittsburg is a legit dark horse in this race.

[Alewife]

1. Airlines aren't going to do anything more than the bare minimum for one operation in the size of a metropolitan area that Amazon is considering.

2. It's not 50,000 added to the local population right off--that's only over decades. If 5,000 start in this new location, that's optimistic.

3. Sea-Tac is easy enough to add gates for. Amazon isn't only going to want to go to Sea-Tac. It's going to want to go everywhere to deal with its lines of business--without having to deal with connecting flights; that's what a hub airport is good for.

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by Alewife

Boston's bid is a joke. Housing is non existent, and if it looks closer in than Revere for land, the local Redevelopment Authorities will make Amazon rue the day it chose Eastern Mass after its first building ever gets off the drawing board.

DC, Atlanta, Dallas, and Charlotte.

Agreed, being from the Boston area, the Revere area is a joke. As soon as anyone from Amazon looks at that area they will/should run fast. No way to get there and not the greatest area. If that is what Boston has to offer, it would take an idiot to decide on that site. They are basically trying to take a useless site and make it seem important.

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by diversityrules7

We all are collectively dumber as a result of your post. Investors are building projects as far as the eye can see north of Frisco and its not slowing down. Many people around the world consider Plano/Frisco to be the BEST area of DFW. Sounds like you are jealous

Your post as no merit. Most of the building was investment from year(s) ago. Yes, they will continue to develop that area, but they will be looking elsewhere for real return.

No Plano/Frisco is not the best of DFW, it is just the area that had cheap land originally and has given enough money to attract businesses. In a few years it will be in a complete different area.

[BigDGeek]

Originally Posted by Mentallect

I hear ya! I laugh at some of the folks who always cheer on constant, non-stop growth and skyrocketing cost of living, because you can tell some of them are either, a.) young and "free" and don't have much of the costs and responsibilities that being a firmly established adult brings (especially for those of us with families), or b.) are older and retired/close to retirement or sheltered or well off enough to the point where they don't have to worry so much about things like terrible traffic, not being able to find an affordable home and in a safe neighborhood (or at least not one that they won't get outbid on by 50 other people), pay raises not keeping up with the COL, etc.

Amen. It's not a gain for most of us; it's just more headaches. It'd be different if there were plausible options for working from home at least some of the time, but many companies are pulling back that benefit. Mine did and it sucks.