- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Only a few cities could actually accommodate Amazon's second HQ
Posted on 9/9/17 at 12:10 pm to Cooter Davenport
Posted on 9/9/17 at 12:10 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:
Demographically and culturally? We're not talking about topography.
Seattle was a blue collar timber town before Microsoft and Amazon caused explosive growth there.
Yeah. I think Pittsburgh is the most similar to the way Seattle was prior to the tech boom as far as northeastern/midwestern cities go. Except it is steel instead of timber.
This post was edited on 9/9/17 at 12:11 pm
0
Posted on 9/9/17 at 12:12 pm to Cooter Davenport
Columbus is far from a rust belt city. That city is slowly becoming a tech and manufacturing hub.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 12:13 pm to deeprig9
Whoever downvoted me should know that I scope out data center sites for a living.... US, Canada, UK, Germany is my territory.
Punk arse bitch.
Punk arse bitch.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 12:14 pm to member12
quote:
Actually as far as eastern cities, Pittsburgh is probsboy most similar to how Seattle was before the tech industry caused explosive growth there.
Pittsburgh has an outside shot at this although my money is on a larger east coast city.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 12:24 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I mean Raleigh may not even be the best option in its own state (Charlotte) so you need to think a little harder.
I put Raleigh-Durham-Cary well above Charlotte and stand by it. UNC-Charlotte can't compete with the research triangle.
quote:
You're not sure how cities like Charlotte, Columbus, Cincinnati, Phoenix, Indianapolis, etc. couldn't compete?
I thought about Phoenix, Columbus, and Charlotte. They're great options for most companies, but are 2nd tier in terms of what Amazon likely wants. Phoenix is on the west coast and they're likely looking for something East of the Rockies. Columbus has a lot going for it (tOSU, close to AWS region) but it's not hip enough to overcome the fact that it's still the rust belt, and it's still Ohio. I considered Charlotte but Raleigh will beat them if it comes down to NC.
Pittsburg is also an interesting choice that I didn't consider.
The others you mentioned have no chance, imo. All we can really do is speculate. Only time (and Jeff Bezos) will tell, obviously.
I'm guessing they already have it narrowed down to one or two metros but just want to get the hype going so that state and local governments will throw more money at them.
This post was edited on 9/9/17 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 9/9/17 at 12:30 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:Charlotte has 17 Fortune 1000 companies, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill has 4. Charlotte's GDP is over 25% larger.
Raleigh is in the middle of a university research megacluster. It's also more attractive to granola type tech people. It's already a tech startup hotspot. It's definitely the better option
So Raleigh may have some advantages, but it's ridiculous to say it's "definitely" better when Charlotte leads in so many important economic metrics.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 12:54 pm to TH03
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/9/17 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 9/9/17 at 12:59 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Charlotte has 17 Fortune 1000 companies, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill has 4. Charlotte's GDP is over 25% larger.
Why would Amazon care about that? For the most part they hire young people and then other companies poach them. Not the other way around unless through acquisition.
This post was edited on 9/9/17 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 9/9/17 at 1:02 pm to deeprig9
Nobody spends $5 Billion on a plain old office building for cubicles.
This is going to double as a data center and/or distribution hub.
Atlanta wins.
This is going to double as a data center and/or distribution hub.
Atlanta wins.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 1:03 pm to deeprig9
I agree that Atlanta makes the most sense.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 1:06 pm to BeepNode
quote:Of course of its solely about the immediate metros higher ed, then you're argument makes sense. But it's not solely about that.
I put Raleigh-Durham-Cary well above Charlotte and stand by it. UNC-Charlotte can't compete with the research triangle.
Besides, UNC and Duke are a little over 2 hour drive from Charlotte, and 30 to 40 minutes to Raleigh. That's not that big of a difference, so given all that, I think you're placing too much emphasis on it.
quote:Amazon has already invested 1 to 2 billion here in 3 data centers, 2 fulfillment centers, and we are one of.the first cities that just opened an Amazon Prime store. With Facebook's $750 million data center investment and the $500 million "Smart City. Transportation" project (federal grant plus local private and public investment), there are some current projects and investment that would be aligned with Amazon.
Columbus has a lot going for it (tOSU, close to AWS region)
quote:Columbus isn't really a traditional rust belt city, and we have the fastest growing economy in the Midwest, and with 15 Fortune 1000 companies across a range of sectors, it's continues to diverge from those traditional rust belt cities.
but it's not hip enough to overcome the fact that it's still the rust belt,
I mean Ohio isn't some amazing state, at least in regards to climate and topograpically, but we have the 5th most Fortune 1000 companies and 25 Fortune 500 companies so clearly those factors may not be as important to business leaders.
In addition, while it's not Austin, San Francisco, or Brooklyn, but its "hipness" is just like most major cities. Besides that's such a subjective factor anyways, so do you think Amazon is really going to base decisions on something so subjective especially since the differences are probably pretty minor overall anyways.
I guess my point is that I agree that all of the options you listed make perfect sense; however, given all of the potential factors at play (known and unknown) and with cities having various strengths and weaknesses regarding these factors, I don't think we can logically narrow it down to anything less than 20 or 25 options.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 1:10 pm to buckeye_vol
I understand the points you're making, I just have an extremely hard time seeing them choose Columbus. I think they're a long shot at best.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 1:10 pm to BeepNode
quote:Because it says something about the general infrastructure, conditions, and market of an area to support large, successful, and powerful companies. It's not the number itself per se, it's the factors that make that number.
Why would Amazon care about that?
Posted on 9/9/17 at 1:29 pm to buckeye_vol
One problem with this entire thread is that its based on the opinion of one writer and 90% of the posters have not read the actual RFP from Amazon. The RFP contains 4 core preferences:
Proximity to population center, Proximity to International Airport, Proximity to major highways and arterial roads, Access to mass transit at site.
All of the other stuff, education, culture, etc. is bonus. For anyone who knows how RFPs work if you don't meet the core/primary requirements you don't have a shot.
So it really comes down to probably 4-6 cities who can meet these requirements today (mainly a few east coast metros and maybe the bay area), and 10-15 more cities who with the right investments can meet these core preferences in probably 5 years. The right investments will include massive public transit and infrastructure projects, most of which will be paid for by the taxpayers.
Proximity to population center, Proximity to International Airport, Proximity to major highways and arterial roads, Access to mass transit at site.
All of the other stuff, education, culture, etc. is bonus. For anyone who knows how RFPs work if you don't meet the core/primary requirements you don't have a shot.
So it really comes down to probably 4-6 cities who can meet these requirements today (mainly a few east coast metros and maybe the bay area), and 10-15 more cities who with the right investments can meet these core preferences in probably 5 years. The right investments will include massive public transit and infrastructure projects, most of which will be paid for by the taxpayers.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 1:35 pm to NOLALGD
quote:
Proximity to population center, Proximity to International Airport, Proximity to major highways and arterial roads, Access to mass transit at site.
Boston checks all of these boxes already.
Atlanta would likely need to work on their mass transit system, but other than that they also check all the others.
Those are my two frontrunners (obviously just my opinion), with the advantage going to Atlanta.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 1:39 pm to buckeye_vol
And Charlotte has a massive airport advantage over Raleigh.
Not that I think either are real contenders
Not that I think either are real contenders
Posted on 9/9/17 at 1:42 pm to RedRifle
quote:
Amazon's second HQ
2 1/2 words: St. Tammany Parish
Posted on 9/9/17 at 1:47 pm to AnonymousTiger
quote:
Nashville meets all of the criteria the author lays out. Austin probably does as well.
I don't think you read the article.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 2:02 pm to AbitaFan08
quote:
Boston checks all of these boxes already.
Atlanta would likely need to work on their mass transit system, but other than that they also check all the others.
Those are my two frontrunners (obviously just my opinion), with the advantage going to Atlanta.
My guess at the cities'metros that are there today or would easily be there in 5 years if motivated: NYC, Boston, Chicago, Bay Area, Denver (with continued work on transit and highways) and Atlanta (with a regional expansion of MARTA). Could possibly add a Philly, B'more, DC pick'em but there would be huge transit and highway issues to work out.
Posted on 9/9/17 at 2:10 pm to NOLALGD
quote:Well and some places wouldn't need as much mass transit anyways, depending on the infrastructure and current transportation characteristics.
My guess at the cities'metros that are there today or would easily be there in 5 years if motivated: NYC, Boston, Chicago, Bay Area, Denver (with continued work on transit and highways) and Atlanta (with a regional expansion of MARTA). Could possibly add a Philly, B'more, DC pick'em but there would be huge transit and highway issues to work out.
And while I love rail systems, I think this is too backwards looking for the most part for cities who need to improve transportation. With the potential of self-driving cars and who knows what else, I think looking forward is the best option.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News