I just don't understand people's willingness to pooh-pooh 50,000 good paying jobs from a stable company. Hubris is a terrible thing in this case. Reminds me of my grandfather talking about growing up in Fall River in the 20's back when there were still lots of textile mills. The attitude as factories started fleeing to the South was "let the go. we don't need them. There's plenty of jobs here." Well, the time came when there were no longer any jobs there which all happened within his lifetime. You gotta keep growing and expanding or you're doomed as a city/region.
Amazon HQ2 RFP
- Thread starter Cobean
- Start date
- Status
I just don't understand people's willingness to pooh-pooh 50,000 good paying jobs from a stable company. Hubris is a terrible thing in this case. Reminds me of my grandfather talking about growing up in Fall River in the 20's back when there were still lots of textile mills. The attitude as factories started fleeing to the South was "let the go. we don't need them. There's plenty of jobs here." Well, the time came when there were no longer any jobs there which all happened within his lifetime. You gotta keep growing and expanding or you're doomed as a city/region.
I listened to a webinar yesterday (can't say precisely who it was, but it was one of the major ratings agencies) on where Amazon will likely locate HQ2, using their analytics software and systems inputs. They brought up some interesting points, summarised here:
-Rankings were determined across the following major categories: the business environment, human capital, cost of living, quality of life, transportation, and geography
-State incentives (part of biz environment) spent per person clearly favors southern cities, especially in Texas. Austin was number one in this category, but also Michigan popped up here. High technology job growth was also a key criteria, Boston was meh in this category falling outside of the top growth areas.
-The proximity of executive homes (Bezos) to potential sites for relocation has in the past had a statistically significant effect on the final choice for location of other corporations. Boston doesn't do so good in this category. NYC and Washington DC have an edge here. The neutral model didn't adjust for redundancies (like avoiding the northwest).
-I wasn't too impressed with the transportation analysis, I felt that it was lacking some important items like how far airports are from the CBD and whether there is mass transit. This category was based only on de-planings. Boston and Cambridge faired well on walking to work, public transit use, etc.
-Without adjusting for geography, the rankings were as follows: 1) Austin, 2) Atlanta, 3) Philadelphia, 4) Pittsburgh, 5) NYC, 6) Miami and 7) Boston. A few others, which were surprising to be so low: 16) Denver, 24) Chicago, 39) Washington DC, 57) Detroit. Denver, while attractive in a lot of ways to Amazon (the culture, in my opinion seems like a good fit), it is a city that must attract talent and is not already an existing base for it, which shows up in their human capital score.
-Adjusting for geography, the ranking becomes 1) Philadelphia, 2) Pittsburgh, 3) NYC, 4) Atlanta, 5) Boston. The presenters thought it highly unlikely that Amazon would pick a city outside of the top ten (which was dominated by the northeast), and unlikely out of the top five.
-One of my reactions to all of this: the obvious correlations with so many of these inputs: (negative correl) good human capital score most certainly means poor cost of living score, (positive correl) high tech job growth and high cost of living, traffic and business environment, etc. There's no precise way to look at this, even with these impressive analytics.
-Rankings were determined across the following major categories: the business environment, human capital, cost of living, quality of life, transportation, and geography
-State incentives (part of biz environment) spent per person clearly favors southern cities, especially in Texas. Austin was number one in this category, but also Michigan popped up here. High technology job growth was also a key criteria, Boston was meh in this category falling outside of the top growth areas.
-The proximity of executive homes (Bezos) to potential sites for relocation has in the past had a statistically significant effect on the final choice for location of other corporations. Boston doesn't do so good in this category. NYC and Washington DC have an edge here. The neutral model didn't adjust for redundancies (like avoiding the northwest).
-I wasn't too impressed with the transportation analysis, I felt that it was lacking some important items like how far airports are from the CBD and whether there is mass transit. This category was based only on de-planings. Boston and Cambridge faired well on walking to work, public transit use, etc.
-Without adjusting for geography, the rankings were as follows: 1) Austin, 2) Atlanta, 3) Philadelphia, 4) Pittsburgh, 5) NYC, 6) Miami and 7) Boston. A few others, which were surprising to be so low: 16) Denver, 24) Chicago, 39) Washington DC, 57) Detroit. Denver, while attractive in a lot of ways to Amazon (the culture, in my opinion seems like a good fit), it is a city that must attract talent and is not already an existing base for it, which shows up in their human capital score.
-Adjusting for geography, the ranking becomes 1) Philadelphia, 2) Pittsburgh, 3) NYC, 4) Atlanta, 5) Boston. The presenters thought it highly unlikely that Amazon would pick a city outside of the top ten (which was dominated by the northeast), and unlikely out of the top five.
-One of my reactions to all of this: the obvious correlations with so many of these inputs: (negative correl) good human capital score most certainly means poor cost of living score, (positive correl) high tech job growth and high cost of living, traffic and business environment, etc. There's no precise way to look at this, even with these impressive analytics.
Who is 'pooh-poohing 50,000 good paying jobs from a stable economy'?
I want Boston to gain hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs.
Only question is how to grow that - - do you give huge monetary incentives to one big company, or do you make infrastructure investments to lure 100's of companies?
Long-term, I think the latter is the healthier and stronger way to grow.
.
Archibald "Harry" Tuttle
New member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2011
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 0
This is a more than a little concerning:
"State officials are literally afraid to collect taxes from Amazon."
https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/918882897737732096
"State officials are literally afraid to collect taxes from Amazon."
https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/918882897737732096
JumboBuc
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 1,510
Massachusetts is currently taking Amazon to court over that exact issue.
Officials is some states may be afraid to tangle with Amazon over this. Officials in Massachusetts clearly aren't.
The relevant concerns that many of us have regarding the "50,000 good paying jobs" is that you have to consider the balance between jobs and housing. The benefits of job creation hit enormous diminishing returns when housing supply is constricted.
Last edited:
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
This is a false choice fallacy. It doesn't have to be one or the other; there are numerous options that you failed to consider.
1. Give Amazon lots of tax breaks AND spend money on infrastructure
2. Get Amazon with minimal tax breaks and spend money on infrastructure
3. Spend lots of money on infrastructure but Boston fails to get "100's of companies"
4. Give Amazon lots of tax breaks, spend no money on infrastructure, but attract "100's of companies" anyway
etc. etc.
There are lots of possibilities here, limiting your argument to two isn't very persuasive.
Last edited:
bobthebuilder
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2013
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 158
Sounds like you're referencing the Moody's Analytics Rankings.
You can actually download the file and play with the weightings yourself to see how things affect the ratings. It's a fun little way to kill some time.
The way Moody weighed it is completely unrealistic to what Amazon wants.
EdMc
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 323
- Reaction score
- 680
This should give Boston serious consideration by Amazon for the HQ2 location.
Boston Business Journal, Oct 12
Boston is No. 1 in the country for startups (again), says U.S. Chamber
“For the second year in a row, Boston was named the top place in the country for startups by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation in a new report.”
"A constant inflow of capital has fueled the rapid growth of the city’s startup ecosystem, while having some of America’s top universities (including Harvard University, Boston University and MIT) in its backyard produces a steady stream of new tech talent," the report noted.”
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...s-no-1-in-the-country-for-startups-again.html
A second BBJ article is encouraging for Boston. Oct 13
Amazon's portfolio of tech hubs hints at top U.S. contenders for HQ2
“But the company’s covert technology offices are perhaps the strongest indication as to where Amazon could be looking for HQ2 ....”
Article lists Boston as one of six cities with these offices.
“Amazon has made clear that HQ2 will be located in a city with a talented workforce and world-class universities, a combination of resources that is abundant in all its R&D outposts.”
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...-portfolio-of-tech-hubs-hints-at-top-u-s.html
About Boston, the article states, “Historically what we found each year, Amazon leaders in Seattle will kind of look at hiring success we’re having here and the talent pool and they’ll just say like ‘I want to build a team there’ and they’ll keep popping up.”
One concern I have about the Boston selection is lack of enough centrally located land acreage, unless Amazon is willing to go vertical. Boston is a compact city, especially compared to a few of the other cities mentioned in the article. Fifty thousand employees envisions a sprawling campus to me.
Without Amazon, Boston’s tech economy is on solid ground based on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation report.
Boston Business Journal, Oct 12
Boston is No. 1 in the country for startups (again), says U.S. Chamber
“For the second year in a row, Boston was named the top place in the country for startups by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation in a new report.”
"A constant inflow of capital has fueled the rapid growth of the city’s startup ecosystem, while having some of America’s top universities (including Harvard University, Boston University and MIT) in its backyard produces a steady stream of new tech talent," the report noted.”
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...s-no-1-in-the-country-for-startups-again.html
A second BBJ article is encouraging for Boston. Oct 13
Amazon's portfolio of tech hubs hints at top U.S. contenders for HQ2
“But the company’s covert technology offices are perhaps the strongest indication as to where Amazon could be looking for HQ2 ....”
Article lists Boston as one of six cities with these offices.
“Amazon has made clear that HQ2 will be located in a city with a talented workforce and world-class universities, a combination of resources that is abundant in all its R&D outposts.”
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...-portfolio-of-tech-hubs-hints-at-top-u-s.html
About Boston, the article states, “Historically what we found each year, Amazon leaders in Seattle will kind of look at hiring success we’re having here and the talent pool and they’ll just say like ‘I want to build a team there’ and they’ll keep popping up.”
One concern I have about the Boston selection is lack of enough centrally located land acreage, unless Amazon is willing to go vertical. Boston is a compact city, especially compared to a few of the other cities mentioned in the article. Fifty thousand employees envisions a sprawling campus to me.
Without Amazon, Boston’s tech economy is on solid ground based on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation report.
Actually of those you listed , only one is realistic, possible and long-term successful - - #2.
#4 is a teenager dream.
#1 is not going to happen, fiscally
#3 is unrealistic also. Transportation Infrastructure is the only thing holding Boston back from further boom. The N-S Raillink, among other efficient projects would free up developable land and allow more residents/businesses in the city. The corporations of the 21st century want to be in an ecosystem with healthy arteries. Clogged arteries = death.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,613
- Reaction score
- 1,353
The bizhournal 40 city survey of Amazon's covert technology centers seems not to have found all of them. Of the six identified, Boston is far and away ahead of the other five mentioned, and that's without including Amazon's robotics in the Boston 'burbs.
Its my belief that Amazon Seattle will oversee traditional Amazon (logistics, distribution, and Amazon Cloud) and HQ2 will oversee new technologies Amazon.
Its my belief that Amazon Seattle will oversee traditional Amazon (logistics, distribution, and Amazon Cloud) and HQ2 will oversee new technologies Amazon.
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
At one point i thought Boston would win. Still believe Boston would be their best choice, for the lesser understood value of having so much intellectual capital, and potential research partners just a few T stops away.
But now, i'm afraid the deal for Boston is being poorly formulated, lacks the 'iconic' aspect and is being clumsily packaged. How Boston and Cambridge aren't submitting a joint proposal is disappointing (to say the least). The bid would be that much stronger in the early stage/s and possibly be named the winner, imo.
Then i worry Philly or Baltimore actually may surprise. They hold some serious advantages over Boston. If anything, the gap likely worsens over time.... 1. they're able to integrate lower paid sectors of regional management with higher paid engineers and research staff while offering far better housing choices for both. 2. they both have tons of cheap land, and 3. are better located near eastern population centers.
Curbed also referenced Moody's ratings.... Boston 9th... Austin, Atlanta and Philly way ahead of Boston.
https://boston.curbed.com/2017/10/13/16466518/boston-chances-amazon-headquarters
Moody's seems to weigh Boston's weaknesses heavily; but, are they smoking dope? What about the access to the potential to link with other tech partners here? For mass transportation, Austin, Atlanta and Portland will-forever be a joke. If they choose a city like Atlanta or Austin, i'll have to admit being way off. And, does Amazon really want to stay all west of the Mississippi?
But now, i'm afraid the deal for Boston is being poorly formulated, lacks the 'iconic' aspect and is being clumsily packaged. How Boston and Cambridge aren't submitting a joint proposal is disappointing (to say the least). The bid would be that much stronger in the early stage/s and possibly be named the winner, imo.
Then i worry Philly or Baltimore actually may surprise. They hold some serious advantages over Boston. If anything, the gap likely worsens over time.... 1. they're able to integrate lower paid sectors of regional management with higher paid engineers and research staff while offering far better housing choices for both. 2. they both have tons of cheap land, and 3. are better located near eastern population centers.
Curbed also referenced Moody's ratings.... Boston 9th... Austin, Atlanta and Philly way ahead of Boston.
https://boston.curbed.com/2017/10/13/16466518/boston-chances-amazon-headquarters
Moody's seems to weigh Boston's weaknesses heavily; but, are they smoking dope? What about the access to the potential to link with other tech partners here? For mass transportation, Austin, Atlanta and Portland will-forever be a joke. If they choose a city like Atlanta or Austin, i'll have to admit being way off. And, does Amazon really want to stay all west of the Mississippi?
EdMc
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 323
- Reaction score
- 680
Let’s talk perspective.
HELLO, APPLE!
Wikipedia
On June 7, 2011, Apple's then-CEO Steve Jobs presented to Cupertino City Council details of the architectural design of the new buildings and their environs. The new campus, on a site now totalling 176 acres (0.71*km2), is planned to house up to 13,000 employees in one central four-storied circular building of approximately 2,800,000 square feet (260,000*m2), which will include a café for 3,000 sitting people, be surrounded by extensive landscaping, and offer parking both underground and in a parking structure.
Apple’s second campus has a whopping 2,800,000 square feet for 13,000 employees. Of course, Amazon’s second campus can have a more condensed cluster of buildings. But, Amazon wants to staff upwards of 50,000 employees. Yikes! How can Boston accommodate a volume such as this?
In my dreams, I would love to see Amazon continue the high spine over the Massachusetts Turnpike with several moderately-sized office buildings containing urban amenities that would benefit their employees and neighboring residents, for example, a grocery store, restaurants and shops and, perhaps, a gym and winter garden. Have to be sensitive to the neighborhoods. Small businesses downtown would salivate over the prospects of potentially 50,000 more customers.
Instead of Massachusetts offering monetary payments to Amazon, have the State offer to build a portion of the Turnpike decking.
I have expressed the opinion before that I think another subway line from the Back Bay down Kneeland Street passing by the Hynes Auditorium, South End Gateway at Back Bay Station, Theater District, South Station, Boston Convention Center, Boston Design Center/Black Falcon Cruise Terminal and on to Logan and, now, possibly, past the Amazon Headquarters, is necessary. Talk about a subway mining gold, I would label it the Gold Line.
The Imagine Boston 2030 plan foresees a lot more housing downtown, anyway. Amazon employees would fall in line wanting this housing, thereby, reducing some of the traffic flow to headquarters.
As a Republican, Governor Charlie Baker wouldn’t spend money on a big-ticket item. He might if Amazon insists on better transportation in downtown Boston.
The State keeps wringing their hands about not having enough money for big transportation projects and, yet, polls show that Massachusetts residents support a tax to reduce traffic congestion. Los Angeles and Denver residents voted for a sales tax many years ago and now have extensive rail systems.
What politician wouldn’t want to spend money that citizens approve of?
HELLO, APPLE!
Wikipedia
On June 7, 2011, Apple's then-CEO Steve Jobs presented to Cupertino City Council details of the architectural design of the new buildings and their environs. The new campus, on a site now totalling 176 acres (0.71*km2), is planned to house up to 13,000 employees in one central four-storied circular building of approximately 2,800,000 square feet (260,000*m2), which will include a café for 3,000 sitting people, be surrounded by extensive landscaping, and offer parking both underground and in a parking structure.
Apple’s second campus has a whopping 2,800,000 square feet for 13,000 employees. Of course, Amazon’s second campus can have a more condensed cluster of buildings. But, Amazon wants to staff upwards of 50,000 employees. Yikes! How can Boston accommodate a volume such as this?
In my dreams, I would love to see Amazon continue the high spine over the Massachusetts Turnpike with several moderately-sized office buildings containing urban amenities that would benefit their employees and neighboring residents, for example, a grocery store, restaurants and shops and, perhaps, a gym and winter garden. Have to be sensitive to the neighborhoods. Small businesses downtown would salivate over the prospects of potentially 50,000 more customers.
Instead of Massachusetts offering monetary payments to Amazon, have the State offer to build a portion of the Turnpike decking.
I have expressed the opinion before that I think another subway line from the Back Bay down Kneeland Street passing by the Hynes Auditorium, South End Gateway at Back Bay Station, Theater District, South Station, Boston Convention Center, Boston Design Center/Black Falcon Cruise Terminal and on to Logan and, now, possibly, past the Amazon Headquarters, is necessary. Talk about a subway mining gold, I would label it the Gold Line.
The Imagine Boston 2030 plan foresees a lot more housing downtown, anyway. Amazon employees would fall in line wanting this housing, thereby, reducing some of the traffic flow to headquarters.
As a Republican, Governor Charlie Baker wouldn’t spend money on a big-ticket item. He might if Amazon insists on better transportation in downtown Boston.
The State keeps wringing their hands about not having enough money for big transportation projects and, yet, polls show that Massachusetts residents support a tax to reduce traffic congestion. Los Angeles and Denver residents voted for a sales tax many years ago and now have extensive rail systems.
What politician wouldn’t want to spend money that citizens approve of?
Last edited:
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 65
I like the idea, though I doubt it would be considered so long as there are terra firma parcels that can be built out.
Elsewhere on the board I drafted this idea (ignore the Back Bay area, which is now impossible because of the station build-out)... Davem had something similar in the same thread which much more clearly demonstrated how the roadways would be re-aligned.
EdMc
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 323
- Reaction score
- 680
I appreciate the boulevard thought, but, Amazon would require the density needed that air rights over the Turnpike would provide. Also, when Copley Place was built, the development was applauded for knitting together part of Back Bay with the South End. A boulevard would still leave a gash, although a more attractive gash.
With air rights, it may be possible to exit from the Turnpike directly into a garage, thereby reducing some local street congestion due to the development.
Amazon is a Goliath revenue maker, this may be the only near term possibility to make good on the high-spine concept.
Amazon may be able to get a quicker deal from the State to obtain the air rights parcels in one agreement than having to deal with several land owners in assembling terra firma parcels. Having the State land Amazon in downtown Boston is something Charlie Baker can crow about. He would boast about any Massachusetts location, but, an Amazon headquarters in downtown is a crowning jewel for Boston, just look at the competition across the country.
I like the naming of your boulevard, Motte Parade. I wish more streets and bridges had names representing features or historical aspects of the area they are located. I have visualized a dedicated busway using existing streets, a bridge over the Charles River and short underpasses roughly following the Urban Ring proposal from Assembly Row to UMass Boston and called it The Athenian Busway because it passes UMass, Northeastern, Boston University and MIT. Fun to think about.
With air rights, it may be possible to exit from the Turnpike directly into a garage, thereby reducing some local street congestion due to the development.
Amazon is a Goliath revenue maker, this may be the only near term possibility to make good on the high-spine concept.
Amazon may be able to get a quicker deal from the State to obtain the air rights parcels in one agreement than having to deal with several land owners in assembling terra firma parcels. Having the State land Amazon in downtown Boston is something Charlie Baker can crow about. He would boast about any Massachusetts location, but, an Amazon headquarters in downtown is a crowning jewel for Boston, just look at the competition across the country.
I like the naming of your boulevard, Motte Parade. I wish more streets and bridges had names representing features or historical aspects of the area they are located. I have visualized a dedicated busway using existing streets, a bridge over the Charles River and short underpasses roughly following the Urban Ring proposal from Assembly Row to UMass Boston and called it The Athenian Busway because it passes UMass, Northeastern, Boston University and MIT. Fun to think about.
Last edited:
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
This has been my biggest concern in all of this. I was/am hoping the state would be submitting a single proposal with all the potential real estate that could be of interest to Amazon rather than each city down selecting to a single location based on some aspect of the RFP they focus on.
Boston is bigger than the City of Boston. And even within Boston it would be a real shame if the City put forward Sufolk Downs when Harvard's Beacon Yards would be more of interest to Amazon...
50,000 Jobs will benefit more than just the immediate vicinity of whichever site or sites are chosen so this is a real situation where even if Amazon went into Cambridge primarily thousands of Boston residents would benefit from the jobs and direct effects on the local economy.
If ever there was a moment for some good coopetition (cooperation and competition) this is it. Highlight the benefits of each community to try and gain the most benefits from a win, but Amazon coming to anyplace in Massachusetts is a win for the region.
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
According to Shirley, Bezos has already made up his mind.....
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ston-better/OFk4l4SdJgh4hbopyVvL0H/story.html
do you concur?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ston-better/OFk4l4SdJgh4hbopyVvL0H/story.html
do you concur?
I do. Shirley is right. The 2024 Olympics walk-away should have been a clarion call to Boston to get it's shit in order and to concentrate on very do-able infrastructure to turbo charge a high-growth and efficient future.
Just walking away from the Olympics wasn't enough. Step 2 was supposed to be to get this city into a competitive position for big things in the future. Merely walking away is so 1950's/1960's old-timey Boston.
.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 65
What's the gist of the article? (I can't and won't read the globe)
Why not? Maybe I can help.
Oh.
I refuse to read that news source. Someone please do so for me!
- Status