Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 253 posts

Re: Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You

#141

Post by kyledrake »

The Twin Cities (AKA Minneapolis) perhaps doesn't scale well on the "raw growth" charts, but the region has a strong track record for being a very good place for corporate headquarters. By metropolitan area, it ranks first among the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the number of Fortune 500 companies per capita. It's also a major knowledge hub for shipping logistics, which is why Amazon opened an office there related to that work.

I'm not really jazzed about the idea of Amazon moving in, but don't discount the Twin Cities here, it's a very strong contender.

Re: Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You

#142

Post by troydavis »

querulous wrote: post #138

I think Amazon has already selected Toronto (or possibly somewhere else in Ontario like Kitchener-Waterloo or Windsor) and is just running this 'contest' to extract the best deal they can get. I don't see any reason for dual HQs unless they are hedging against the risk they may have to abandon their current HQ and the biggest threat they face is anti-monopoly actions by a hostile government. Any secondary HQ is going…

> I don't see any reason for dual HQs unless

A huge one: Seattle is starting to feel a bit like a company town. This has all sorts of practical considerations, like labor cost and real estate availability.

For example, from https://www.geekwire.com/2017/how-seattles-office-market-bec...: Amazon "takes up approximately 20 percent of Seattle’s office inventory, one of the highest concentrations in the country by a single corporate entity," and Amazon anticipates 50% growth in square footage between 2016 and 2020.

tl;dr: the strongest reasons for 2 HQs aren't political.

Re: Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You

#143

Post by kitten_mittens_ »

skookumchuck wrote: post #62

Or, Amazon's announcement could just be a move to get Seattle to stop their attacks on local businesses. The Seattle Times has routinely run pretty negative articles on Amazon, and suddenly today they ran a positive one. I think the Times has gotten the message. http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/end-of-amazon...

It's pretty hard to argue that Amazon's relationship with the city is not toxic.

Re: Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You

#144

Post by sevenfive »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #65
virtuallynathan wrote: post #17

I'm surprised to see Philadelphia eliminated so quickly, it ticks almost all of the boxes, and has a very large number of engineering schools (UPenn, Penn State, Drexel, Temple, Princeton, Rutgers, etc). It's transit is better than many of the other cities, and it has 2 major development plots in the city with existing full tax abatements. Not to mention its proximity to NYC and Washington, DC via Amtrak (~1h20m to N…

Philly was dropped by the "job growth is strong" rule, which is also drops many other cities which would otherwise be fully qualified. So the question really is why would Amazon have that rule and how willing are they to bend in it. Why would Amazon want that rule? Wouldn't it just mean there's more competition for employees? It strikes me as the type of rule put in to ensure their secret favorite gets chosen.

Yeah, I balked when they made the first cut with such a criterion, that doesn't make sense and probably isn't what Amazon intended.

Re: Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You

#145

Post by flamedoge »

curiouscat321 wrote: post #6
rmason wrote: post #2

This really burns me. The Times compared the metro population of Grand Rapids (1 million) to Detroit's population (670,000) in order to disqualify the city in their first round. But metro Detroit has a population of 4.5 million so the Times either was sloppy with their criteria or they deliberately snubbed Detroit. Detroit may be a dark horse in this competition but with Dan Gilbert going all out to win I don't think…

I think this is an excellent point. While Detroit has a relatively small population, it's metropolitan area does not. It's large metropolitan area has a large STEM talent pool thanks to the automotive sector, the second largest Delta hub (behind Atlanta and just a giant airport anyways), and has a very willing government plus Dan Gilbert. It'll be a uphill battle, but I think Detroit is a serious dark horse.

but big question is, will Amazon go into automotive sector? otherwise, I don't see Detroit being their pick.

Re: Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You

#146

Post by muninn_ »

querulous wrote: post #138

I think Amazon has already selected Toronto (or possibly somewhere else in Ontario like Kitchener-Waterloo or Windsor) and is just running this 'contest' to extract the best deal they can get. I don't see any reason for dual HQs unless they are hedging against the risk they may have to abandon their current HQ and the biggest threat they face is anti-monopoly actions by a hostile government. Any secondary HQ is going…

Not sure why people are down voting this? Wtf.

Toronto is definitely a top choice and it makes sense. You added some other considerations I hadn't immediately thought of as well.

Re: Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You

#147

Post by acranox »

rmason wrote: post #2

This really burns me. The Times compared the metro population of Grand Rapids (1 million) to Detroit's population (670,000) in order to disqualify the city in their first round. But metro Detroit has a population of 4.5 million so the Times either was sloppy with their criteria or they deliberately snubbed Detroit. Detroit may be a dark horse in this competition but with Dan Gilbert going all out to win I don't think…

Well, Boston also has a population of only 600K, so they must have used some other criteria to include the metro areas of the cities.

Re: Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You

#148

Post by mcbits »

Instead of two headquarters, why not 50 headquarters? They have one of the largest and most reliable networks in the world - use it! With offices spread across the country (continent, even), they could hire from a talent pool that dwarfs Seattle and Denver. They wouldn't have to find 100+ contiguous acres for sale in one metropolis. City Council elections wouldn't have to be of strategic importance. Likewise for disaster preparedness. They already have distribution centers all over the place.

Re: Dear Amazon, We Picked Your New Headquarters for You

#149

Post by muninn_ »

I know it won't happen because of the "amenities" clause but it would be so great to see a HQ dropped in a state like Ohio or Michigan. There are tech workers in those areas and it would draw in even more, while providing a boost to the economies that have been getting screwed up. But Denver makes sense, as does Austin, Chicago, or Toronto. Places like Houston or Atlanta have no chance. Nobody wants to live in car land. NYC and the like are too expensive. Denver university system is weak compared to a Columbus, Austin, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, type area. For Denver I'm also a little concerned because it is kind of far away from everything.
Post reply on HN