Amazon HQ2 RFP

[tangent]

With respect, no way. Maintenance of the status quo (constant delays on the major transit lines, inability to deal with routine winter weather, constant peak congestion of the major roadways into the city) is going to cause attrition of the workforce over the medium to long term. Unless you mean bringing our current infrastructure up to a state of good repair, and operating it optimal levels.

No I mean in terms of "needs" versus "wants" or "nice to haves". The current system with all its apparent flaws is functional for the current number of people and current settlement patterns.

I agree we "want" to improve the system as a quality of life issue and so we can grow the population and move more people around more efficiently so we don't waste people's time and have greater flexibility to route around maintenance and construction and such. The point was just that approaching this as a "must have" or "need" is not a good approach. Better to keep an eye on how what we want to do will benefit people and how it is economically sustainable or more efficient to do it differently. Because the baseline for all its faults is actually working for people now.

And adding 50,000 anywhere? People would feel that. imagine pushing 50,000 more people through the core crossings. Those platforms don't seem like they can deal with it.

I don't think anywhere. But adding 50,000 people within a mile or half mile of Government Center or Downtown Crossing or Park Street (or maybe North or South Station) I think is doable without any major infrastructure reconfiguration. It isn't like we are talking about 50,000 people punching a clock at 5:00 and heading towards the same platform.

If this goes the way it should then we are talking about multiple buildings spread out a bit with people dispersing to go to different lines and in different directions. So something like an additional couple thousand people per station spread out over a couple hours in the morning and evening.

 

[GW]

I find the desire to win this competition baffling. Why would we want to massively increase the number of upper-middle class and rich residents in an area that's already starved for housing?

 

[stellarfun]

Between 2010 and 2015, Boston's total payroll and non-payroll jobs increased by about 100,000.

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/d835ad4c-e8a9-4f17-b342-468f02301c58

That's 20,000 a year, roughly. Amazon's 50,000 job creation is over about a 20 year period, averaging about 2,500 a year. 2,500 a year is about 12.5% of the average annual growth between 2010-2015, and yet this is going to bring about a transportation crisis, a housing crisis????

 

[dwash59]

Between 2010 and 2015, Boston's total payroll and non-payroll jobs increased by about 100,000.

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/d835ad4c-e8a9-4f17-b342-468f02301c58

That's 20,000 a year, roughly. Amazon's 50,000 job creation is over about a 20 year period, averaging about 2,500 a year. 2,500 a year is about 12.5% of the average annual growth between 2010-2015, and yet this is going to bring about a transportation crisis, a housing crisis????

Most people's opinions is that we already have a housing crisis. If you can't afford to pay $10,000/year for your car, should you go shopping for a car that costs $12,500/year?

 

[cadetcarl]

I don't think anywhere. But adding 50,000 people within a mile or half mile of Government Center or Downtown Crossing or Park Street (or maybe North or South Station) I think is doable without any major infrastructure reconfiguration. It isn't like we are talking about 50,000 people punching a clock at 5:00 and heading towards the same platform.

If this goes the way it should then we are talking about multiple buildings spread out a bit with people dispersing to go to different lines and in different directions. So something like an additional couple thousand people per station spread out over a couple hours in the morning and evening.

I think you're right that we could do this on the best days. But as an OL commuter I'm not as optimistic. A train carries about 1000 people, so even if we're talking about a couple of extra trains per hour I feel that that would strain our current resources. My experience in the mornings is that of consistently letting full trains pass as people get more desperate once they realize they're going to be late through no fault of their own. We're already doing things to address this with the OL/RL refresh but I remain skeptical.

Your general point is well taken though--right now it's not great but we're getting by with the system we have.

 

[HalcyonEra]

Between 2010 and 2015, Boston's total payroll and non-payroll jobs increased by about 100,000.

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/d835ad4c-e8a9-4f17-b342-468f02301c58

That's 20,000 a year, roughly. Amazon's 50,000 job creation is over about a 20 year period, averaging about 2,500 a year. 2,500 a year is about 12.5% of the average annual growth between 2010-2015, and yet this is going to bring about a transportation crisis, a housing crisis????

Everything has a capacity, especially transportation and housing. A better indicator is looking at the previous high for jobs, in 2007, and not the post recession numbers of 2010. You are then looking at 72K jobs over 8 years which is 9,000 jobs per year and then 2,500 per year from Amazon would represent 27.7% of the average growth. Who knows what the last two years are, but the job #s have increased for sure.

It's not so much that Amazon would represent a % of job growth from the chart, it's that Amazon's #s will be in addition to the existing growth and that is where people question capacity and declare an impending crisis. Just because people resist change doesn't mean there is a crisis by change. You really have to consolidate the job growth, housing stats, highway #s and mbta #s to really determine if there would be a crisis or not.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Why does everyone assume that Amazon growth would be on top of existing growth?

A lot of existing growth is because companies are moving operations into the city. Amazon would just be another (albeit large) move into the city. It would be part of the trend, not purely additive.

There may be some additive amount in an Amazon bid win, but it is certainly not 100% additive on top of the current trend. Some companies, for example, are going to fill up the Hym Suffolk Downs development, and Cambridge Crossing (Northpoint), whether or not it is Amazon.

 

[GW]

Most people's opinions is that we already have a housing crisis. If you can't afford to pay $10,000/year for your car, should you go shopping for a car that costs $12,500/year?

Yes, this is the point I was making. I wrote that we're "already starved for housing," not "Amazon is going to bring on a housing crisis."

We're already in a housing crisis and that should be our priority--and not that the word of a politician should mean anything, but that's what the mayor claimed when he ran for office as well.

Why does everyone assume that Amazon growth would be on top of existing growth?

A lot of existing growth is because companies are moving operations into the city. Amazon would just be another (albeit large) move into the city. It would be part of the trend, not purely additive.

There may be some additive amount in an Amazon bid win, but it is certainly not 100% additive on top of the current trend. Some companies, for example, are going to fill up the Hym Suffolk Downs development, and Cambridge Crossing (Northpoint), whether or not it is Amazon.

There's a massive amount of space between those two bolded statements. And by your own logic, if it's an unusually large addition (and it is), then it's additive. We don't know what the real number would be and we never will, but it's a positive number, and probably a large number, given the nature of the addition Amazon is proposing. Taken in context (the housing crisis), I think this is a very bad thing. We shouldn't waste time and energy courting a corporate move that's going to raise housing prices and extract massive concessions from the government.

 

[Rover]

Taken in context (the housing crisis), I think this is a very bad thing. We shouldn't waste time and energy courting a corporate move that's going to raise housing prices and extract massive concessions from the government.

This is stupid, short-sighted and asinine. And I'm trying to be polite!

The city has a "housing crisis" because everybody feels the need to live in the middle of it. If you're commuting into Boston from Worcester, where there's plenty of public transit that we all love, the housing is a lot more affordable. Nobody has the right to live downtown and whatever price point they choose.

What's idiotic in your statement is that the city should shut down to new and large business re-locations. Would you prefer Boston become Detroit or Baltimore, where there's plenty of cheap housing available because all the jobs have left? Cities either need to grow, or stagnate, and with less and less money coming from the feds, the only way you get funding to build affordable housing and other subsidies is through economic and population growth.

 

[akmags]

Have to agree with Rover. If you are able to look beyond the realm of 'downtown' housing does become more affordable -- you don't even need to leave city limits (Hyde Park, Mattapan)

 

[statler]

What people have a 'right to' and what is good for a healthy, well-functioning society are two different issues.

So yes, it's true that people don't have 'a right' to housing near major job centers but it generally unhealthy for a community to push all the poors out to the outskirts of town or packed into poorly maintained neighborhoods.

 

[odurandina]

Boston has a hard time saying no to anyone (except developers).

"Yeah, we will make sure Copley Tower, Fenway Ctr main tower & Columbus Ctr don't go an extra 5 floors," (so it never gets built).

No takers at the DOT/Kneeland parcels.... No 45 Worthington which was to achieve over 30% affordable.

Then say; "Yeah, you should be able to live in the same building as everyone making 5x your income."

 

[statler]

Once again, this isn't some goody-goody, feel good scheme. There are very real, practical reasons why city leaders should push for affordable housing throughout the city.

 

[Rover]

What people have a 'right to' and what is good for a healthy, well-functioning society are two different issues.

So yes, it's true that people don't have 'a right' to housing near major job centers but it generally unhealthy for a community to push all the poors out to the outskirts of town or packed into poorly maintained neighborhoods.

Talking about two different things here I think. Pushing "all the poors" out of town means low income to me, and to that point I think yes affordable housing opportunities should be spread throughout the city as new building get built. Frankly I'd like to see more of them in the new construction themselves as opposed to donating to a housing fund.

But to my point, it seems a lot of people are lamenting that more middle to upper middle class people can't live in the heart of the city unlike maybe 50 years ago where it was more feasible. My answer to that is if you're making 100K a year you're not poor, and you have plenty of options in the region to both earn that high salary in town but live in a more affordable place (the Worcester example). Having people of means living in these places raises them up as well, so everybody wins.

 

[GW2500]

It’s more than the city that has a housing crisis. It’s the whole damn metro region. IMO is the main cause of it is all the close suburbs along 95 unwilling to transform into a denser, more urban comunity. Medford was once more like Woburn density, now The Woburn and Stonehams need to be willing to transform to a Medford and I don’t think that will ever happen. So the prices will get more and more rediculous. I mean you and your spouse staying in school till your 25, staying with your folks also till your 25 and not having kids till your 30 is a bullshit path to get your starter home, and seems to be turning into par for the course.

 

[LeTaureau]

I see this as a great opportunity for Boston and it's region to reinvest in its future. Boston should be planning for more growth, in line with long-term demographic trends in America, and also to its own economic success. Winning a major relocation like HQ2 would help to propel forward, and provide more funding, for needed infrastructure modernization and expansion. Let's stop thinking about this as just plus 50,000 workers, but part of a long-term plan for growth, and what those implications would be. An HQ2 win, fine just increase the base-case growth assumption, but the base-case is for growth and needed investment.

There are large parts of the city that are underserved by efficient public transportation, this needs to be corrected with further investment and expansion. You only have to look beyond the borders of the US to see that other countries get it. The city of Paris, for example (read Grand Paris) has a long-term plan for expanding infrastructure services, with an explicit goal to correct territorial inequalities. The G20 is even talking about the importance of connectivity infrastructure. This is the type of planning that is needed, and reading the RFP issued by Amazon, is what it would be seeking in a host city.

 

[Rover]

It’s more than the city that has a housing crisis. It’s the whole damn metro region. IMO is the main cause of it is all the close suburbs along 95 unwilling to transform into a denser, more urban comunity. Medford was once more like Woburn density, now The Woburn and Stonehams need to be willing to transform to a Medford and I don’t think that will ever happen. So the prices will get more and more rediculous. I mean you and your spouse staying in school till your 25, staying with your folks also till your 25 and not having kids till your 30 is a bullshit path to get your starter home, and seems to be turning into par for the course.

Slightly different take on it. Woburn, Stoneham, etc could certainly do more, but to me people need to take advantage more of cheaper places with decent commuter options. Rowley, Hamilton, etc have direct commuter rail and are beautiful towns with good school systems that are cheaper than downtown. On the other side Braintree is the end of the Red Line. People can still get to work in a decent amount of time and locate outside of 128 even while admitting the problems of the rail system.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Yes, this is the point I was making. I wrote that we're "already starved for housing," not "Amazon is going to bring on a housing crisis."

We're already in a housing crisis and that should be our priority--and not that the word of a politician should mean anything, but that's what the mayor claimed when he ran for office as well.



There's a massive amount of space between those two bolded statements. And by your own logic, if it's an unusually large addition (and it is), then it's additive. We don't know what the real number would be and we never will, but it's a positive number, and probably a large number, given the nature of the addition Amazon is proposing. Taken in context (the housing crisis), I think this is a very bad thing. We shouldn't waste time and energy courting a corporate move that's going to raise housing prices and extract massive concessions from the government.

Sorry, I still disagree. The Amazon bid is just part of the overall trend of companies moving into Boston. Because we have limited space to build more offices, it would crowd out other moves. So it would be no where close to 100% additive, and likely only minimally additive at best.

The trend for moves into Boston will continue to put pressure on housing and infrastructure with or without Amazon. We need to deal with that trend by building more housing and reinvesting in our infrastructure, not by blocking company moves (although I do question incentives, unless they are a package of infrastructure stuff we should be doing anyway, like Blue Red Connector, Blue Line to Lynn, 1 A upgrades...).

 

[tangent]

Slightly different take on it. Woburn, Stoneham, etc could certainly do more, but to me people need to take advantage more of cheaper places with decent commuter options. Rowley, Hamilton, etc have direct commuter rail and are beautiful towns with good school systems that are cheaper than downtown. On the other side Braintree is the end of the Red Line. People can still get to work in a decent amount of time and locate outside of 128 even while admitting the problems of the rail system.

Woburn has a bit of an issue where the commuter rail station(s) are mostly in a commercial industrial area that doesn't seem to really have much of a viable mixed use plan to put many more people in walking distance of those stations.

And while it makes more sense for light industrial and commercial I think the number of contaminated sites and lack of amenities to make it a walkable pleasant area for people to live would depress housing prices and just wouldn't work (as nice streets to live on) without a major and expensive overhaul of the area. An infill commuter rail stop on Montvale Ave could work in conjunction with some higher density mixed use redevelopment between there and I-93. Haven't heard anything about plans for redevelopment of the old kraft foods plant there.

If anything I would look at Winchester Center as not pulling its regional weight for allowing in additional housing. Very nice mixed use downtown area on the commuter rail and yes it would be a shame to screw that up, but Winchester is so close to Boston. I could see them pretty easily fit in another couple hundred units in some nice higher end apartment buildings with some subsidized units. Maybe even push into the 500 or more units range with some buildings scattered around the Winchester center area. Much potential there and so much likely push back.

 

[odurandina]

Sorry, I still disagree. The Amazon bid is just part of the overall trend of companies moving into Boston. Because we have limited space to build more offices, it would crowd out other moves. So it would be no where close to 100% additive, and likely only minimally additive at best.

The trend for moves into Boston will continue to put pressure on housing and infrastructure with or without Amazon. We need to deal with that trend by building more housing and reinvesting in our infrastructure, not by blocking company moves (although I do question incentives, unless they are a package of infrastructure stuff we should be doing anyway, like Blue Red Connector, Blue Line to Lynn, 1 A upgrades...).

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...ind-startup/95aiqQXbq2ZNN6O0d1rSBM/story.html

Rising from Boston’s building boom, a new kind of startup
By Scott Kirsner GLOBE CORRESPONDENT FEBRUARY 09, 2018

Boston has been Crane City for the last five years or more: construction everywhere you look, and detour signs, too.

Much less noticeable has been a boom in startups focused on buildings. Entrepreneurs are looking at a massive industry and seeing opportunity — construction spending on private projects in the US hit a record high of $1.25 trillion in December, according to the Commerce Department. And while that enormous number includes everything from architectural design to laying bricks, it doesn’t include the cost of renting out the space or managing it once the work is complete. That equals even more opportunity for entrepreneurs.

The venture capital firm Borealis Ventures says it is tracking more than 70 companies in the Boston area that are focused on construction, real estate technology, and “smart cities,” a term for applying software and sensors to gather data from the urban environment.

“The most common challenges across the world — sea level rise, urbanization, the affordability of housing, and everything in between — we see it all in Boston,” says Jesse Devitte, managing director at Borealis, based in Boston and Hanover, NH. “Never before has our modern existence been under the pressure it is under today, with changes in the environment, and billions of people piling into cities. It creates a unique moment....”

contd in the Globe