Haha...my thoughts exactly.eburress wrote:Awesome reporting, DMN. My "source," Amazon, already stated as much in their initial HQ2 requirements.
I don’t know why this comes as a surprise...
Haha...my thoughts exactly.eburress wrote:Awesome reporting, DMN. My "source," Amazon, already stated as much in their initial HQ2 requirements.
So true. I suppose this is only news to Fort Worth and Frisco.eburress wrote:Awesome reporting, DMN. My "source," Amazon, already stated as much in their initial HQ2 requirements.
On a moderately related note, one of my good friends and business partners also so happens to be Google's head of real estate. He's been making frequent trips to Dallas for "meetings" over the last few months. He was familiar with the Smart District, having also recently taken their tour.lakewoodhobo wrote:From what I saw on NBC5 last night, they were saying Amazon toured the Smart District site behind City Hall.
Interesting. This search has been under the radar. I just remember seeing one news story out of Chicago.eburress wrote:On a moderately related note, one of my good friends and business partners also so happens to be Google's head of real estate. He's been making frequent trips to Dallas for "meetings" over the last few months. He was familiar with the Smart District, having also recently taken their tour.lakewoodhobo wrote:From what I saw on NBC5 last night, they were saying Amazon toured the Smart District site behind City Hall.
(posting this here because there's no "Could Dallas land Google HQ2" thread)
Where in the RFP did they state that they required (or even preferred) a downtown site, or that they were "probably headed" to a downtown site? (If a downtown site is one of their requirements, it seems very odd they would include the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of DC as two of their 20 finalists.)eburress wrote:Awesome reporting, DMN. My "source," Amazon, already stated as much in their initial HQ2 requirements.
It was one of their base requirements, locating in a center city, urban location. There were a number of cities on Amazon's short list that don't meet all their stated requirements (Austin, the suburban DC sites, etc), which could say something about the chances of some of the short listed cities.Tucy wrote:Where in the RFP did they state that they required (or even preferred) a downtown site, or that they were "probably headed" to a downtown site? (If a downtown site is one of their requirements, it seems very odd they would include the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of DC as two of their 20 finalists.)eburress wrote:Awesome reporting, DMN. My "source," Amazon, already stated as much in their initial HQ2 requirements.
No. It was not. Nothing of the sort appears in the RFP.eburress wrote:It was one of their base requirements, locating in a center city, urban location.Tucy wrote:Where in the RFP did they state that they required (or even preferred) a downtown site, or that they were "probably headed" to a downtown site? (If a downtown site is one of their requirements, it seems very odd they would include the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of DC as two of their 20 finalists.)eburress wrote:
Awesome reporting, DMN. My "source," Amazon, already stated as much in their initial HQ2 requirements.
It would say that is putting to much in the political basket. I would think they want a friendly business climate, which you get here. Last I checked the point of a public company was to return value to shareholders not to advocate either way on social issues.Tivo_Kenevil wrote:It's going to DC... TX & GA political climates are going to be a deterrent for HQ2.
Many would argue that 'DC' political climate is a deterrent...Tivo_Kenevil wrote:It's going to DC... TX & GA political climates are going to be a deterrent for HQ2.
It was listed as a requirement on the HQ2 website, along with their requirements about international airport, being adjacent to transit, etc.Tucy wrote:No. It was not. Nothing of the sort appears in the RFP.eburress wrote:It was one of their base requirements, locating in a center city, urban location.Tucy wrote:
Where in the RFP did they state that they required (or even preferred) a downtown site, or that they were "probably headed" to a downtown site? (If a downtown site is one of their requirements, it seems very odd they would include the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of DC as two of their 20 finalists.)
Link? Quote? Anything? It seems unlikely they would have requirements listed on their website that are contrary to what is in the actual RFP.eburress wrote:It was listed as a requirement on the HQ2 website, along with their requirements about international airport, being adjacent to transit, etc.Tucy wrote:No. It was not. Nothing of the sort appears in the RFP.eburress wrote:
It was one of their base requirements, locating in a center city, urban location.
You are correct, the RFP says the following:Tucy wrote:eburress wrote:Tucy wrote: Link? Quote? Anything? It seems unlikely they would have requirements listed on their website that are contrary to what is in the actual RFP.
In choosing the location for HQ2, Amazon has a preference for:
Metropolitan areas with more than one million people
A stable and business-friendly environment
Urban or suburban locations with the potential to attract and retain strong technical talent
Communities that think big and creatively when considering locations and real estate options
HQ2 could be, but does not have to be:
An urban or downtown campus
A similar layout to Amazon’s Seattle campus
A development-prepped site. We want to encourage states/provinces and communities to think
creatively for viable real estate options, while not negatively affecting our preferred timeline
There is much, much more detail in the RFP. Many of the statements seem to suggest a more urban setting (diversity, transit, amenties, quality of life, reference to current downtown location, etc), but I wouldn't say it's specifically listed as a requirement. At least not from what I can tell.Core Preferences Quantity Units Description
Site Requirements
Proximity to population center 30 Miles
Proximity to International
airport Within approx. 45 Minutes
Proximity to major highways
and arterial roads Not more than 1-2 Miles
Close to major arterial
roads to provide optimal
access
Access to mass transit At site
Direct access to rail,
train, subway/metro,
bus routes
Building Requirements
Initial Square Foot Requirement 500,000+ Sq. Ft. Phase I (2019)
Total Square Foot
Requirement Up to 8,000,000 Sq. Ft. Beyond 2027
Relax dude. They took down the website once HQ2 fever took hold, but yes, it was clearly stated there.Tucy wrote:Link? Quote? Anything? It seems unlikely they would have requirements listed on their website that are contrary to what is in the actual RFP.eburress wrote:It was listed as a requirement on the HQ2 website, along with their requirements about international airport, being adjacent to transit, etc.Tucy wrote:
No. It was not. Nothing of the sort appears in the RFP.
eburress wrote:Relax dude. They took down the website once HQ2 fever took hold, but yes, it was clearly stated there.Tucy wrote:Link? Quote? Anything? It seems unlikely they would have requirements listed on their website that are contrary to what is in the actual RFP.eburress wrote:
It was listed as a requirement on the HQ2 website, along with their requirements about international airport, being adjacent to transit, etc.
It looks like you're misremembering. The website is still up, and it was frequently archived. It appears to have never said what you claim. And as I said earlier, it seems very unlikely they would say something on their website that is contrary to the information in the actual RFP.eburress wrote:Relax dude. They took down the website once HQ2 fever took hold, but yes, it was clearly stated there.Tucy wrote:Link? Quote? Anything? It seems unlikely they would have requirements listed on their website that are contrary to what is in the actual RFP.eburress wrote:
It was listed as a requirement on the HQ2 website, along with their requirements about international airport, being adjacent to transit, etc.
The "site" I was speaking of used to be amazon.com/hq2, which as far as I can tell, isn't still up. Are you referring to https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=17044620011, because if so, that's not what I'm talking about.Tucy wrote:It looks like you're misremembering. The website is still up, and it was frequently archived. It appears to have never said what you claim. And as I said earlier, it seems very unlikely they would say something on their website that is contrary to the information in the actual RFP.eburress wrote:Relax dude. They took down the website once HQ2 fever took hold, but yes, it was clearly stated there.Tucy wrote:
Link? Quote? Anything? It seems unlikely they would have requirements listed on their website that are contrary to what is in the actual RFP.
Except Las Colinas, which I heard was in the running at one point but a long shot.Tivo_Kenevil wrote:eburress wrote:Relax dude. They took down the website once HQ2 fever took hold, but yes, it was clearly stated there.Tucy wrote:
Link? Quote? Anything? It seems unlikely they would have requirements listed on their website that are contrary to what is in the actual RFP.
The internet saves everything.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... 2-RFP.html
The RFP states... That both Urban and Suburban are ok... (See page 1 & 2)..
BUT...
The site requirements are the following:
Access to transit at site..(Buses, train, subway etc .)
The document also states that infrastructure must be completed accorrding to THEIR project timeline(s). And that the project will begin by 2019..
This would virtually eliminates most suburban locations in DFW...
So the preference towards Downtown makes sense.
Ahh, yes the mysterious website that no longer exists contained information contrary to everything published elsewhere by Amazon. That seems likely... Still looks like you're misremembering.eburress wrote:The "site" I was speaking of used to be amazon.com/hq2, which as far as I can tell, isn't still up. Are you referring to https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=17044620011, because if so, that's not what I'm talking about.Tucy wrote:It looks like you're misremembering. The website is still up, and it was frequently archived. It appears to have never said what you claim. And as I said earlier, it seems very unlikely they would say something on their website that is contrary to the information in the actual RFP.eburress wrote:
Relax dude. They took down the website once HQ2 fever took hold, but yes, it was clearly stated there.
Surely I'm not the only person who visited Amazon's original HQ2 site. I'll let others chime in...Tucy wrote:Ahh, yes the mysterious website that no longer exists contained information contrary to everything published elsewhere by Amazon. That seems likely... Still looks like you're misremembering.eburress wrote:The "site" I was speaking of used to be amazon.com/hq2, which as far as I can tell, isn't still up. Are you referring to https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=17044620011, because if so, that's not what I'm talking about.Tucy wrote:
It looks like you're misremembering. The website is still up, and it was frequently archived. It appears to have never said what you claim. And as I said earlier, it seems very unlikely they would say something on their website that is contrary to the information in the actual RFP.
HQ2 could be, but does not have to be:
An urban or downtown campus
A similar layout to Amazon’s Seattle campus
Sure, Amazon has obviously tweaked their language in the RFP, potentially opening up a broader set of options for themselves than what was originally stated on their HQ2 site. And as Tivo_Kenevil points out, there are a number of preferences/requirements stated in the RFP which could still suggest at least an inclination for a Downtown/center city locale, which has been a consistent theme.cowboyeagle05 wrote:What are we trying to prove at this point? The RFP clearly shows a preference for an urban campus but they are open to new creative ideas blah blah. The simple fact that they say it could be a downtown campus but doesn't have to be shows their preference for an urban site with an open mind to a site that shows promise that is outside of their expected qualifying sites. Show us how we are wrong kinda thing. As stated above their requirements of transportation options are urban in nature but Las Colinas is many ways could qualify as well. I am confused why this is such an issue.
HQ2 could be, but does not have to be:
An urban or downtown campus
A similar layout to Amazon’s Seattle campus
I wholeheartedly agree and if someone wants to fight over whether language tweaks happened or not is wasting time. I think what matters at now is looking at the current RFP which clearly shows an inclination towards urban sites with room for creative proposals that are otherwise outside of those expectations.eburress wrote:Sure, Amazon has obviously tweaked their language in the RFP, potentially opening up a broader set of options for themselves than what was originally stated on their HQ2 site. And as Tivo_Kenevil points out, there are a number of preferences/requirements stated in the RFP which could still suggest at least an inclination for a Downtown/center city locale, which has been a consistent theme.cowboyeagle05 wrote:What are we trying to prove at this point? The RFP clearly shows a preference for an urban campus but they are open to new creative ideas blah blah. The simple fact that they say it could be a downtown campus but doesn't have to be shows their preference for an urban site with an open mind to a site that shows promise that is outside of their expected qualifying sites. Show us how we are wrong kinda thing. As stated above their requirements of transportation options are urban in nature but Las Colinas is many ways could qualify as well. I am confused why this is such an issue.
HQ2 could be, but does not have to be:
An urban or downtown campus
A similar layout to Amazon’s Seattle campus
If you didn't see Amazon's original HQ2 site, how are you in any position to speak to whether it's true, false, or otherwise? You're obviously having a hard time distinguishing between the notions of IS and WAS but regardless, we can take it offline if need be since this pissing match has little relevance at this point.Tucy wrote:One might be able to infer a preference for an urban setting from some of the RFP language, but that is quite different from what was stated above, to-wit: that a downtown location was one of their stated requirements. That is simply not true.
Because even IF there once existed an Amazon.com/HQ2 site, and even if that site once said something that made you think they wanted a downtown location, it is irrelevant because no such requirement made it into the RFP. The RFP sets forth Amazon's desires and requirements. They didn't tweak the RFP (as some suggested above).eburress wrote:If you didn't see Amazon's original HQ2 site, how are you in any position to speak to whether it's true, false, or otherwise? You're obviously having a hard time distinguishing between the notions of IS and WAS but regardless, we can take it offline if need be since this pissing match has little relevance at this point.Tucy wrote:One might be able to infer a preference for an urban setting from some of the RFP language, but that is quite different from what was stated above, to-wit: that a downtown location was one of their stated requirements. That is simply not true.
Good lord, I'm not sure who hurt you, but I'm not saying the RFP was changed. Let it go.Tucy wrote:Because even IF there once existed an Amazon.com/HQ2 site, and even if that site once said something that made you think they wanted a downtown location, it is irrelevant because no such requirement made it into the RFP. The RFP sets forth Amazon's desires and requirements. They didn't tweak the RFP (as some suggested above).eburress wrote:If you didn't see Amazon's original HQ2 site, how are you in any position to speak to whether it's true, false, or otherwise? You're obviously having a hard time distinguishing between the notions of IS and WAS but regardless, we can take it offline if need be since this pissing match has little relevance at this point.Tucy wrote:One might be able to infer a preference for an urban setting from some of the RFP language, but that is quite different from what was stated above, to-wit: that a downtown location was one of their stated requirements. That is simply not true.
The RFP has not changed. The RFP does not include and has never included a downtown site requirement. That is why I can say with complete confidence that it is not true that a downtown site was or is one of Amazon's requirements.
"The market is carrying some baggage," he added. "We have seen rapid price appreciation in the last few years that has taken the market to record highs compared with the rest of the country."
For single-family homes, North Texas also doesn't have the inventory on the ground and ready to go for a massive influx of Amazon employees, he said. That could further shoot up home prices even further.
"Dallas couldn't sustain an Amazon HQ2 campus," he said. "The market is already adding jobs and doesn't need it as bad as other places."
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... e=multipleAaron Terrazas, a senior economist with Seattle-based Zillow Group Inc., said he's concerned about DFW's ability to fulfill the labor force needs of Amazon's HQ2 campus, which could bring ultimately 50,000 new jobs to a North American city upon full build out.
"I think people would be unwilling to relocate there."
Dallas-Fort Worth is seen as a central location in the country with easy access to the East and West coasts, but Dallas ranked at No. 4 on the informal survey behind the two winning markets, as well as Austin (at No. 2) and Denver (No. 3), based on the other markets' relatively deep pool of tech talent and the potential time zone advantages of being on the East Coast.
While it's a good thing for the metro that we're bringing in even more than we produce, it's a negative factor for HQ2. It means that local demand *already* outstrips supply, never mind after adding your x number of additional positions to fill. It means you're going to have to import a much higher percentage of your workforce than you would in a place with a large number of grads in excess of local demand.Tivo_Kenevil wrote: As for point 3, isn't like DFW number #1 I'm brain gain?
..because a survey said somuncien wrote:#3 is laughably silly... People have been relocating here in droves, but are somehow unwilling to relocate here...? huh?
Imagine how much new construction would occur Downtown if this is what happened (Amazon setting up shop there). From an article about Amazon's impact on Seattle:DPatel304 wrote:Assuming they come to Downtown Dallas, then that automatically adds a lot more people on the streets which, I'd imagine, brings more things to do.
I saw a presentation recently on the plans for Hyperloop in Texas, the subject of Amazon came up and if the plans for the massive Hyperloop were a contributing factor. The answer was yes, primarily because of the ability of such a rapid and inexpensive transportation option would link 6 cities in one state. The trip between Austin and Dallas would be 19 minutes at a cost of $50 which makes the prospect of supercommuters much more realistic. Texas is also the easiest and cost effective location to build such a contraption because it is flat and connects several large metro areas basically making 6 independent regions one. Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Laredo are all under consideration. Laredo is primarily being considered for freight purposes while the rest of the cities are close enough together that linking all of them together with a rapid and cheap means to move people between them makes a company like Amazon look at a location in Dallas more likely because of the access it would have to all of the population centers in Texas. The only direct link not being considered it the Dallas-Houston link because the rail is so far along. However, the Hyperloop would still be an option as one could route through Austin to get to Dallas. That does not mean a stop in Austin as all Hyperloop trips are non-stop.whit5125 wrote:Here is something to consider..
Do we think Dallas having a high speed rail to Houston and potentially Ft. worth, Austin and San Antonio with the planned station right next to downtown is a major advantage or factor that Amazon is taking into consideration?
Or is it such a unique thing to America that companies don't know how to utilize it or model it into accounting for regional transport among other advantages?
So I live in a suburb of San Francisco and there is essential no change noticeable here. Actually most people you talk to are saying how bad traffic is with all the new residents. Yes the housing is expensive, but people are still buying and selling home like nothing has changed. Tech companies are still opening left and right as well as a huge biotech center south of San Francisco that is full of cranes. Interesting article I guess because I just don't see any change here.Cord1936 wrote:While not directly related to Dallas attracting Amazon's HQ2, it is eye-opening to read this concerning San Francisco!
San Francisco's housing affordability crisis is reaching a critical juncture when it is beginning to affect San Francisco's ability to attract and retain the best tech talent from outside the region ... this is occurring while Dallas' tech community is swelling in size, growing from 5th largest pool of tech workers in 2017 to 4th largest in 2018.
This just highlights the extreme competitiveness that Dallas affords Amazon in its search for a new HQ2!
San Francisco is so expensive that more people are leaving than moving in — and it could mean disaster for the nation's tech capital
Business Insider, by MELIA ROBINSON, Mar 23rd 2018 4:00PM
US census data shows the region that includes San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward — a city in the East Bay that offers a quicker commute to Silicon Valley — lost more residents than it attracted between 2016 and 2017. And the migration is worsening in the Bay Area's urban core.
The Wall Street Journal reported that in the year ending July 1, census data shows the area had a net loss of almost 24,000 residents who moved into other parts of California or the US.
...
A critical lack of affordable housing and sky-high rent prices have made the San Francisco Bay Area unlivable for many artists, artisans, longtime residents, and even tech entrepreneurs.
...
The Housing Crisis Could Put Silicon Valley at risk
The San Francisco Bay Area, recognized as a global hub of tech finance and innovation, may be at risk of losing top tech workers if they can't afford to live there, even on six-figure salaries.
...
Brian Brennan, senior vice president at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, told the Wall Street Journal that while the area's high-paying jobs and lifestyle still bring tech workers to the Bay Area, "it is hard to get the best talent outside of this region to come here and stay here."
Article: https://www.aol.com/article/finance/201 ... /23393939/