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.
I thought Apple was supposedly eyeing land on the southern end of RTP, all on the Wake County side, in or near Cary?
Raleigh City Council would have no authority over that part of Wake County. I'm not saying that Apple didn't change their tune and now wants to build within the Raleigh city limits, but with their expansion in Cupertino, I see them more of a "burb", office park type of company.
Look at their location in Austin, yes Apple is within the city limits, but on the extreme northern edge far from downtown Austin, basically right next to Round Rock.
When I think of Amazon, I think city; Apple, I think suburbs.
You're right, Apple is clearly looking at space outside of city jurisdiction, but from the sound of the article this would be a substantial project having a significant economic impact.
Still with the bathrooms? Jesus, isn’t this issue resolved? I’m gay and I’m so over the HRC crusading every city that isn’t in Cali or NY...
Quote:
Perhaps more notable is a potential PR backlash to the location. When the initial rumors started up, LGBT publication The Advocate reported that gay rights activists were “livid” about the possibility that Apple may be considering moving to the area.
This is the result of the area’s history of anti-LGBT laws. Most infamous of these was the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, which made it law for people to use the public restrooms and changing rooms which correspond with their birth certificate sex, as opposed to their self-identified gender.
Apple has always presented itself as a very pro-LGBT company, which could trigger some blowback should it decide to announce its new HQ location is in an area with a less-than-sterling record in this area.
Surely Apple wouldn’t base decisions based on years old pee pee bills.
At the end of the day it's probably going to come down to the fact that this area just isn't an existing hub for computing / semiconductors nor do you see any appreciable outflow of resources from Silicon Valley to this area by other established companies.
If you look at a map of where Bay Area companies have invested in recent years (in terms of establishing other footprints), the list includes Boston, NYC, D.C., Austin, L.A., Portland and Seattle. The Triangle doesn't even show up as a blip on the map. Why would a company stick its neck out when the "safe" play would be to go to one of those other cities where the trail has already been blazed and it's clear you can attract and keep the type of talent necessary to sustain the Bay Area ethos.
RTP hasn't seen a new computing tech. giant in a generation. You have old dinosaurs IBM and Cisco that are slowly dying on the vine. There are literally hundreds of top-drawer computing companies that have emerged since and all but one or two haven't even considered for a moment that it would be prudent to establish a footprint here. If this area made so much sense as good for business in that space, they would have.
If you look at a map of where Bay Area companies have invested in recent years (in terms of establishing other footprints), the list includes Boston, NYC, D.C., Austin, L.A., Portland and Seattle. The Triangle doesn't even show up as a blip on the map.
Maybe this map, compiled by a major real estate brokerage from actual leases signed by Bay Area companies?
Note that almost all are high-cost areas, #10 Phoenix (and maybe #6 Chicago) being the sole exception. Evidently, the people making these decisions are rather less concerned about cost of living than participants in C-D forum.
To give you some scope: the graph accounts for 18 million square feet of offices -- nearly as much as all of RTP.
Maybe this map, compiled by a major real estate brokerage from actual leases signed by Bay Area companies?
Note that almost all are high-cost areas, #10 Phoenix (and maybe #6 Chicago) being the sole exception. Evidently, the people making these decisions are rather less concerned about cost of living than participants in C-D forum.
To give you some scope: the graph accounts for 18 million square feet of offices -- nearly as much as all of RTP.
Its says expansion markets, perhaps it's noting the recent blossoming while Raleigh is a stalwart.
I'm counting on Tim Cook, a gay Alabama native and Duke alumni to bring it home to the Triangle.
HB2 probably doesn't outweigh his fondness for the Triangle.
Its says expansion markets, perhaps it's noting the recent blossoming while Raleigh is a stalwart.
Yeah because Boston, Austin and Seattle are real johnnie-come-latelies to the tech scene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by architect77
I'm counting on Tim Cook, a gay Alabama native and Duke alumni to bring it home to the Triangle.
You seriously think the fact that he got his MBA from Duke has anything to do with the siting of this project? And what does being a gay, Alabama native have to do with anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by architect77
HB2 probably doesn't outweigh his fondness for the Triangle.
You know him personally and have actual knowledge of his fondness for the Triangle?
At the end of the day it's probably going to come down to the fact that this area just isn't an existing hub for computing / semiconductors nor do you see any appreciable outflow of resources from Silicon Valley to this area by other established companies.
If you look at a map of where Bay Area companies have invested in recent years (in terms of establishing other footprints), the list includes Boston, NYC, D.C., Austin, L.A., Portland and Seattle. The Triangle doesn't even show up as a blip on the map. Why would a company stick its neck out when the "safe" play would be to go to one of those other cities where the trail has already been blazed and it's clear you can attract and keep the type of talent necessary to sustain the Bay Area ethos.
RTP hasn't seen a new computing tech. giant in a generation. You have old dinosaurs IBM and Cisco that are slowly dying on the vine. There are literally hundreds of top-drawer computing companies that have emerged since and all but one or two haven't even considered for a moment that it would be prudent to establish a footprint here. If this area made so much sense as good for business in that space, they would have.
Yes, attend any tech sector finance talk and they label Cisco’s heyday as 1995-2010. Cisco is not considered a tech leader anymore. That’s why you see them routinely lay off folks in the thousands during a booming tech economy to protect their share price instead of doing it through growth / new disruptive products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paytonc
Maybe this map, compiled by a major real estate brokerage from actual leases signed by Bay Area companies?
Yes! Incredible that you found it. I was shocked that Raleigh is a non-player in Bay Area companies leasing for second office/satellite office operations. Every other major tech player you’d expect is on that map.
To quote the study: “Access to innovative tech talent was the primary reason for many of these expansions, as tight labor market conditions for highly skilled individuals necessitate a more geographically distributed workforce.” That’s exactly what Apple and Amazon are looking for, but no peer company has looked here for that recently even on a smaller scale. Not a good sign.
Last edited by blueheronNC; 07-13-2018 at 06:07 AM..
Yes, attend any tech sector finance talk and they label Cisco’s heyday as 1995-2010. Cisco is not considered a tech leader anymore. That’s why you see them routinely lay off folks in the thousands during a booming tech economy to protect their share price instead of doing it through growth / new disruptive products.
Yes! Incredible that you found it. I was shocked that Raleigh is a non-player in Bay Area companies leasing for second office/satellite office operations. Every other major tech player you’d expect is on that map.
To quote the study: “Access to innovative tech talent was the primary reason for many of these expansions, as tight labor market conditions for highly skilled individuals necessitate a more geographically distributed workforce.” That’s exactly what Apple and Amazon are looking for, but no peer company has looked here for that recently even on a smaller scale. Not a good sign.
Cisco is not going anywhere.
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.
