Amazon HQ2 RFP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looking at the map, you could conceivably bundle Kendall Sq/Volpe with North Point and nearby properties for the Cambridge option. (Green line branch on Grand Junction or at least BRT would tie it together nicely)
 
Re: The New Office Thread

Mongo said:
I don't really understand their airport ranking either, why would New York's airport be ranked that much better than ours?
Click to expand...

I would not agree with the reasoning, but perhaps because they have 3 instead of our one? Logan's proximity and the far easier drive in should win out, however.
 
Can't picture Boston not being in the final 3 for this, assuming several things beyond what the company has already stated.

1) Amazon won't want another HQ on the west coast (so no SF or LA).
2) Bezos is too liberal to give HQ to Trump loons (so no Austin, Charlotte, or Atl)
3) Amazon needs an already thriving metropolis, and not a dump (so no Philly, Baltimore, Detroit, etc)

By that measure you're looking at places like Denver, Minny, Toronto, Chicago, Boston, NY and DC which isn't getting enough mention.

I find it hard to picture for political reasons locating in Canada. The negative press would be brutal despite our friendship with our northern neighbors. Chicago is a shooting gallery in a state in about the worst fiscal condition of any other. There's also brutal political infighting going on that will probably prevent a decent bid from being put forward. I've read that Denver doesn't have a strong tech base but I don't know that first hand.

That would leave me with front runner DC, which has better airports, a transit system that works, a similar cost of living, a bunch of tech talent with all the government employees there, and the fact that he owns the Post. The only drawbacks would be space (have no idea but know you can't build skyscrapers in DC due to height restrictions) and I'm uncertain how the tax incentives would work there.

NY vs Boston is a jump ball. Seems like they've been competing a lot lately (GE, Aetna) and it would depend on what size city and cost of living Amazon would like to locate in. Boston is a lot more similar to Seattle than NYC is in terms of size but that could cut both ways. I would put Minny as the dark horse in all of this. They might just sneak in.
 
Rover said:
That would leave me with front runner DC, which has ... a transit system that works,
Click to expand...

Sounds like you need to catch up on the current state of WMATA, which is in dire straits right now with a funding crisis and headways even worse than the MBTA/service being slashed left & right.
 
datadyne007 said:
Sounds like you need to catch up on the current state of WMATA, which is in dire straits right now with a funding crisis and headways even worse than the MBTA/service being slashed left & right.
Click to expand...

Has it changed a lot in the last couple of years (maybe 3 for me?). The T is arguably the worst transit system in the country. If DC had horses pulling the trains it would have an advantage over the MBTA.
 
Rover said:
Has it changed a lot in the last couple of years (maybe 3 for me?). The T is arguably the worst transit system in the country. If DC had horses pulling the trains it would have an advantage over the MBTA.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has. The DC system is a complete mess. They're talking about shutting down entire lines for months at a time. Boston's problems are nothing compared to theirs.

tangent said:
Looking at the map, you could conceivably bundle Kendall Sq/Volpe with North Point and nearby properties for the Cambridge option. (Green line branch on Grand Junction or at least BRT would tie it together nicely)
Click to expand...

As people propose bundling together a whole bunch of Boston's (scarce) buildable lots for an Amazon bid, remember that a healthy real estate market needs space to grow. Lots like North Point, Volpe, and Suffolk Downs are needed to satisfy the organic growth of our economy at large. Tying all of that space to Amazon's plans wouldn't necessarily be a good thing for the city.

Amazon's HQ would ideally go to a space that wouldn't necessarily be filled by anyone else in the near- to medium- (think: 10 years) term. It would also ideally be a space owned by a public entity, or owned by a landlord looking to play ball with them. Owners like MIT (Volpe) and Harvard (Beacon Yards) don't fit that bill; Divco West (North Point) and HYM (Suffolk Downs) might. Amazon also needs a huge (100ish acres) area. I just don't think Boston has many (any?) of these spaces. The best fit I can think of is the Weymouth air station (big enough, no imminent plans, willing landlord) but that's pretty far out from the urban core where Amazon'll want to be...

The more I think about it, the better Chicago sounds for this. Something like the Michael Reese Hospital site would be perfect.
 
Last edited:
JumboBuc said:
As people propose bundling together a whole bunch of Boston's (scarce) buildable lots for an Amazon bid, remember that a healthy real estate market needs space to grow. Lots like North Point, Volpe, and Suffolk Downs are needed to satisfy the organic growth of our economy at large. Tying all of that space to Amazon's plans wouldn't necessarily be a good thing for the city.

Amazon's HQ would ideally go to a space that wouldn't necessarily be filled by anyone else in the near- to medium- (think: 10 years) term. It would also ideally be a space owned by a public entity, or owned by a landlord looking to play ball with them. Owners like MIT (Volpe) and Harvard (Beacon Yards) don't fit that bill; Divco West (North Point) and HYM (Suffolk Downs) might. Amazon also needs a huge (100ish acres) area. I just don't think Boston has many (any?) of these spaces. The best fit I can think of is the Weymouth air station (big enough, no imminent plans, willing landlord) but that's pretty far out from the urban core where Amazon'll want to be...

The more I think about it, the better Chicago sounds for this. Something like the Michael Reese Hospital site would be perfect.
Click to expand...

All of the places being talked about here constitute millions of square feet of planned development that probably won't get built in the next ten years without large anchor tenants like Amazon.

And if you look at HQ1 in Seattle they didn't make a campus on hundreds of contiguous acres, they just built or bought multiple buildings on city blocks. And for HQ2 phase 1 it appears they are just looking for a single large building or multiple medium sized buildings.

So it shouldn't just be green fields in the running.

Pretty clear to me that Amazon wants prime real estate and not something which for various reasons is way down on the list or has been way down on the list for decades.

Still I say why should anyone other than Amazon choose... let whichever private land owners and developers, municipalities, or public agencies which have potential real estate or sites that could fit any aspect of the RFP put forward their proposals and the governor should include whatever properties could be remotely viable into the response. Even properties cobbled together from multiple private landowners.

Yes it is harder to put together a prospectus of all potential real estate than just focusing on one property, but ultimately a plan that says we will give you tax breaks if you take undesirable property X off the market isn't worth it.
 
Rover said:
Has it changed a lot in the last couple of years (maybe 3 for me?). The T is arguably the worst transit system in the country. If DC had horses pulling the trains it would have an advantage over the MBTA.
Click to expand...

The MBTA is generally considered/ranked to be 3rd in the country. It might have its issues, but it is fairly far reaching and comprehensive combination of heavy and light rapid transit, commuter rail, and buses. In all the years I have taken it (currently high speed -> red -> green, previously orange and Needham Lines), it does get me to and from work reasonably most of the time.
 
DC has no real tech scene. It's hard enough for the few startups there to find talent as is. That's what you get for a gov't and defense contractors bribing gov't based economy

Also, anyone who says WMATA is better than the MBTA has not been to DC in years. Off peak headways are frequently 15+ minutes...that's not remotely useful transit anymore.
 
I think Boston, Atlanta, Denver and Dallas will be the finalists. As much as I'd like to see it here, I don't think Boston will overcome the other cities' advantages (airports, cost, incentives). As much as people are discounting the red states for their lack of inclusion, money talks. And amazon could have a lot of leverage to get a state like TX or GA to change policy.
 
tangent said:
And for HQ2 phase 1 it appears they are just looking for a single large building or multiple medium sized buildings.
Click to expand...

Why not South Station Tower? Directly on train lines and 3.5 hours to NYC. Expansion space could be the USPS site (air rights over track expansion) and/or Fort Point lots across the channel.
 
^^ I thought the same thing, SST and the USPS site (three or four towers), but added Parcels 25, 26,27 for additional future expansion. FAA height is 300, but you should be able to get three or four more towers on these parcels.

Also another reason for the N/S rail link.
 
ParkerChris said:
Why not South Station Tower? Directly on train lines and 3.5 hours to NYC. Expansion space could be the USPS site (air rights over track expansion) and/or Fort Point lots across the channel.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked the USPS site was still not a done deal and South Station expansion complicates it further, but sure go ahead put it on the list.

Maybe take the approach of identifying the different potential areas around Boston-Cambridge and then for each of those areas identify existing properties on the market along with their square footage, identify proposed projects and their potential square footage and then beyond that the other potential for expansion. So it is clear what is available now versus what is speculative.

No need to squabble over which site is best and end up in a political trap where we get locked into some notion of what is the "best" site to propose, just which sites might be of any relevance to include in a response to the RFP. Amazon is going to have to do the legwork at some point to make the property deals, the state proposal is just about the tax incentive packages and some ideas for locations.

Certainly something like the proposed South Station Tower across to Fort Point and the Seaport all have potential to meet Amazon's needs for multiple buildings in relatively close proximity.
 
I don't understand why people are acting like MIT at Volpe wouldn't want to be a landlord. How would it be any different than their arrangement with Pfizer? And for Harvard at Beacon Yards, they've stated Beacon Yards is part of their 1,000 year plan. Having Amazon as a tenant for 50 years very much fits into the long term thinking of a university, filling the space until they have a need for it.
 
dwash59 said:
I don't understand why people are acting like MIT at Volpe wouldn't want to be a landlord. How would it be any different than their arrangement with Pfizer? And for Harvard at Beacon Yards, they've stated Beacon Yards is part of their 1,000 year plan. Having Amazon as a tenant for 50 years very much fits into the long term thinking of a university, filling the space until they have a need for it.
Click to expand...

Not just filling the space. Enabling either University to bankroll a build-out of the space without necessarily having to invest their own money. Yet ultimately retaining control as the landlord.
 
Threyre a logistics company, hard to see how Chicago isnt the answer
 
CSTH said:
Threyre a logistics company, hard to see how Chicago isnt the answer
Click to expand...

Saying that Chicago is a good fit for Amazon because "they're a logistics company" is like saying that Detroit would be a good fit for Tesla because they're an auto company.

Amazon is first and foremost a tech company. Their HQ location will have no relation to their logistics operations.

I'm also bullish on Chicago, but "logistics" has nothing to do with it.
 
ParkerChris said:
Why not South Station Tower? Directly on train lines and 3.5 hours to NYC. Expansion space could be the USPS site (air rights over track expansion) and/or Fort Point lots across the channel.
Click to expand...

I do like the idea of SST for Amazon HQ. It is slated to have 704,000 SF of office space, which would be perfect for PH1. Hines is building the office on spec, so landing an anchor tenant like Amazon would be a huge win for them. The USPS site, while not immediately available, would fit into Amazon's long term plan. However it looks like there is only 2.5M SF available at max build-out beyond the tower, and that's mixed use, so not all of it would be for Amazon. Even if you assemble together what's left across the fort point channel, I don't think you get close to Amazon's desired 8M, and certainly not 100 acres.

Either way, I think SST is out just based on timeline. Hines has till the end of this year to get this thing approved. So assume that Hines gets approval and starts construction on 1/1/2018, and that when Amazon says '2019 for PH1', they mean they want to take delivery of that by 12/31/2019, giving you two years to put the tower up. I think you could do it in that time frame, however every month that gets lopped off on the front end waiting for approvals/construction start, or the back end based on Amazon's expectations makes completing SST for Amazon makes it much more difficult to complete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top