Jump to content

Amazon: The Thread | 5,000 Jobs | 1M SQFT in Nashville Yards


ZestyEd

Recommended Posts


According to Moodys Analytics  AUSTIN TX is the HQ2 winner, runner up Atlanta, Philadelphia number 3 etc.  

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2017/10/13/when-it-comes-to-amazon-hq2-moodys-thinks-austin.html?ana=e_aus_bn&u=oAaDx%2B74FoP4qOJ%2By4AU6dhJPpc&t=1507927113&j=78988481

Austin is VERY WEAK in mass transit having one commuter rail line north from downtown with no other current plans underway.  Their airport is average but is no hub and is also is in the Central time zone.  Still think in my opinion it will go out southeast with ATL being their top choice.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, NashRugger said:

As mentioned above, Austin has less than stellar mass transit and voted DOWN a sales tax increase to fund expansion, thus killing any near-term chances of that. Also, housing is expensive and only increasing there, in addition to terrible traffic. You think Nashville is bad, try Austin...

Austin's traffic sucks and is always getting worse, and there is not much hope for any viable mass transit in the near future.  Home prices are rapidly increasing and have been the most expensive in Texas for a while.  But the population boom is unrelenting because people and companies keep moving here.  The traffic nightmare pisses me off every day on my commute to downtown, and the fact that I have to live closer to the San Antonio Metro than Downtown Austin to have have a decent sized home that doesn't suck all my income away pisses me off as well.  But neither of those problems seem to be even close to being bad enough to stop the population from increasing by about 1.1K people per week, every week, since the 2010 census.  Austin has a better chance than most cities for HQ2, but I don't think Austin will be selected.  The best places for a corporate campus of this magnitude IMO are Atlanta, NoVa and  DFW.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, titanhog said:

Austin was the first city that popped in my mind when I heard about HQ2.  Just seems like they've been priming themselves for something like this the past 20 years or so.  Plus...being the one big liberal hotspot in conservative Texas...I could see Bezos liking that.

Austin and Nashville are twin cities separated at birth.  Nashville has replaced Portland among the big three "it" cities which IMO are now Seattle, Austin and Nashville.  I don't think we have any Portland posters on UP to dispute that.  :) 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet is still on Atlanta and Northern VA but if I had to choose 1 it would Atlanta.  Much larger population size more comparable to Seattle.  Low cost of living, busiest airport on earth able to absorb huge numbers of people. That being said it will not affect Austin with its all it tech growth homegrown and Silicon Valley outposts like Apple  or Facebook or Nashville with its health IT, or Raleigh Durham with its huge tech hub with SAS, Red Hat, life sciences or even Charlotte with its Fintech hub AvidXchange, CreditKarma , huge banks etc.  

Whatever city gets this HQ2 some other companies will want to go elsewhere not to compete with Amazon in the labor pool and worries about attracting their own talent.  There is plenty of tech growth in the economy and every city mentioned above has had great luck attracting California companies where the costs of doing business are skyhigh and cost of living even more.  One of the reasons Silicon Valley and now even Seattle companies are spreading around the country is that competition for labor is very tough in those 2 markets and high costs of living in both makes it harder to attract people who make $100,000 a year But in those markets you have to have roommates in a cramped apartments whereas you can be homeowners or at least living on your own in any of the above cities.  Why do you think WeWork opened one of their communal living places WeLive in Seattle due to their high cost of living. 

Edited by KJHburg
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The ATX said:

Austin's traffic sucks and is always getting worse, and there is not much hope for any viable mass transit in the near future.  Home prices are rapidly increasing and have been the most expensive in Texas for a while.  But the population boom is unrelenting because people and companies keep moving here.  The traffic nightmare pisses me off every day on my commute to downtown, and the fact that I have to live closer to the San Antonio Metro than Downtown Austin to have have a decent sized home that doesn't suck all my income away pisses me off as well.  But neither of those problems seem to be even close to being bad enough to stop the population from increasing by about 1.1K people per week, every week, since the 2010 census.  Austin has a better chance than most cities for HQ2, but I don't think Austin will be selected.  The best places for a corporate campus of this magnitude IMO are Atlanta, NoVa and  DFW.

I'm not sure NoVa will be it. Unless they want to have a campus out past Tyson's Corner, I'm not sure where they'd fit one in near Metro without a ton of demolition or reuse. Maybe between Potomac Yards and Crystal City? Either way, cost of property and housing is way above what you'd find in DFW, ATL, Austin, or Nashville, or even Philadelphia.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ties in with some of the discussion on this thread: Nashville is emerging as a tech hub according to a new study by BIP-Capital, an Atlanta-based venture capitol firm.

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/10/16/report-praises-nashville-as-an-emerging-tech-hub.html

Full report here:

http://bip-capital.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BIP-the-state-of-startups.pdf#gf_2

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2017 at 8:40 AM, KJHburg said:

My bet is still on Atlanta and Northern VA but if I had to choose 1 it would Atlanta.  Much larger population size more comparable to Seattle.  Low cost of living, busiest airport on earth able to absorb huge numbers of people. That being said it will not affect Austin with its all it tech growth homegrown and Silicon Valley outposts like Apple  or Facebook or Nashville with its health IT, or Raleigh Durham with its huge tech hub with SAS, Red Hat, life sciences or even Charlotte with its Fintech hub AvidXchange, CreditKarma , huge banks etc.  

Whatever city gets this HQ2 some other companies will want to go elsewhere not to compete with Amazon in the labor pool and worries about attracting their own talent.  There is plenty of tech growth in the economy and every city mentioned above has had great luck attracting California companies where the costs of doing business are skyhigh and cost of living even more.  One of the reasons Silicon Valley and now even Seattle companies are spreading around the country is that competition for labor is very tough in those 2 markets and high costs of living in both makes it harder to attract people who make $100,000 a year But in those markets you have to have roommates in a cramped apartments whereas you can be homeowners or at least living on your own in any of the above cities.  Why do you think WeWork opened one of their communal living places WeLive in Seattle due to their high cost of living. 

As far as Atlanta, the only company I'm aware of that hasn't been too enthused about the prospect of Amazon coming to town is Home Depot.

Frankly, I think the city would be ok with it being the sacrificial lamb. :lol:

Edited by urbanplanet17
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember if in Amazon's requirements it mentions that the contending city has to have a light rail line/mass transit via rail already in place, or just plans to have some in the near future. If the latter is the case, then Nashville may have a better chance then I thought considering other cities including Austin don't really have plans that match up to the Let's Move Nashville plans

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to an NPR piece about the "Amazon HQ Number 2" today on the radio and they mentioned several cities, but only mentioning why they wouldn't succeed. For instance, (among the small cities who have NO chance) one small city in Arizona sent Amazon a 20 ft cactus, one mayor in Washington or somewhere bought 1,000 Amazon products and reviewed them all all online for publicity.

But then there was Boston, which NPR lambasted for the "cost of living," which they hinted would only increase after the Amazon selection. They also lampooned San Antonio for many reasons, too numerous to mention. But there was no mention of Nashville, Atlanta, or New York. Also, no mention of the "tech" requirement, but a minute mention of the international airport requirement, followed by a few moments of commentary on how that is the least of Amazon's concerns. 

In the end though, they  went on and on about how landing the "HQ 2" deal, for whichever city is chosen, could turn out to be more of a burden than a boon. And I have to say, after listening to their reasoning, I quite agree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NashvilleObserver said:

I

In the end though, they  went on and on about how landing the "HQ 2" deal, for whichever city is chosen, could turn out to be more of a burden than a boon. And I have to say, after listening to their reasoning, I quite agree.

Very interesting.  Would you mind expounding on their (and your) reasoning there?  I have, at times, pondered whether being selected as the location would actually be a net positive for a city, at least one like Nashville that isn't a major global metropolis.  As crazy as that might sound given the billions of dollars in investment and the 50K jobs, would it really be good for the city in the long run?  For a city Nashville's size it seems like Amazon would essentially take over and own the city and scare away any competing companies from ever coming to the city., not to mention the billions in incentives it'll probably require to get them here.  Crazy or no?  

Edited by BnaBreaker
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NashvilleObserver said:

a minute mention of the international airport requirement, 

Maybe I'm not remembering it correctly, but I don't recall that Amazon listed an "international" airport among its requirements.  Didn't they say they needed an airport with direct connections to certain cities:  Seattle, San Francisco, Washington, New York, and I think also Boston and Chicago?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nashville won't get the headquarters, however, what I am hoping happens is that our proposal, growth, quality of life,  and availability of sites to build large corporate headquarters on  will give amazon a good impression at least and catch the eye of other big corporations who can move their headquarters here in the future. Nashville is a growing city that will land a corporate headquarters sometimes in he future, but not now as I believe it is too soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.