This morning Amazon announced they are looking for a city to build a second headquarters. $5 billion dollars to build and operate, along with 50,000 additional jobs.
I think Detroit may be a longshot, but is there a case for them to come here?
Printable View
This morning Amazon announced they are looking for a city to build a second headquarters. $5 billion dollars to build and operate, along with 50,000 additional jobs.
I think Detroit may be a longshot, but is there a case for them to come here?
I have no doubt that this is on Gilbert's radar. This would be bigger than anything he has done to date and could be a complete game changer for the city. I won't hold my breath though.
Yeah, cities like Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Chicago, Philly and others are probably a better fit. However, for the sake of remaining recklessly optimistic, I think Detroit has a few benefits.
-Plenty of population in the Metro Area
-Lots of cheap land/buildings downtown and in the city/suburbs
-Close to UofM for talent
-Opportunity to really transform a city with potential, instead of just being a cog in it [[I understand the negative connotations that come with this as well).
-Proximity to Big 3, which could be an interesting tech partnership
-Low cost of living
I'm sort of an Amazonaholic, every package comes from "Brownstown twp. distribution center".Quote:
Originally Posted by EGrant
The orders are delivered by Amazon as well.
TRU posted on their FB that one of their requirements is direct access to a transit stop. So yeah, no we're not getting this. A Woodward SMART stop in the thick of grass or a DDOT route that doesn't run [[and both using 25 year old buses) on time is not a viable option for Amazon.
It's possible with Gilbert as the ambassador of attracting business. I think the Coast cities are out like NYC or SF. Way too expensive to build and operate. I'd narrow the cities to Atlanta or Chicago. Any Texas city and possibly Denver as runner ups.
Detroit definitely performs well as a knowledge center, has a global airport, and relatively good for business. But it's greatly lacking in its technology eco-system, and also lacks the ancillary services and inventory of good residential stock to support 50,000 employees.
There's one issue with Amazon picking Detroit and the city and region lacks regional transit. Amazon's RFP wants direct access to rail, train, subway/metro and bus routes at the site. Detroit has just the QLine and People Mover and bus routes. No subway, no mass transit.
https://www.facebook.com/DetroitTransit/posts/1466058093484178
If Detroit were to not be picked, this would be the reason why. I truly hope Amazon looks past that and picks Detroit though.
There are several dozen cities that would be good hosts for this "second HQ", and Detroit is in that list of two dozen or so.
That being said, Amazon is probably going to take that list and award it to whoever on the list has the biggest checkbook of public subsidies. So unless the State or someone else wants to throw bonko public dollars at attracting this, Amazon will overlook us and just go to somewhere else that will.
Look at how much Wisconsin just spent on FoxedConn... and this is an even bigger economic stimulus.
Will Amazon expect states to engage in a Foxconn type bidding war?
Exactly. But it will be billed as an economic investment, and sugar coated as much as can be to minimize the public tax dollar scrutiny. We can talk about transit, crime, and other issues, but the reason Detroit probably won't get this is because some other city will pay more for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Don't get me wrong, I believe that attracting this would be worth "some" amount of tax dollar subsidy. The issue is that someone else will overpay.... as someone always does.
I think online shopping is ruining America, but I'd like to see this downtown. Welcome, Amazon, overlords. We'll roll out the red carpet for you.
Just heard the mayor of Toronto on the radio saying he would do everything in his power to attract Amazon. Toronto checks all the boxes. It would be interesting to see Trump's reaction if they picked Canada.
Their are a variety of boxes ticked indeed, and many good strategic reasons to pick Toronto.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
But, if this is dependent on big freebies, Toronto is very limited in what it can give, and I'm not sure about the optics for Ontario or the Can. Feds handing over billions, even for this.
In terms of the sheer size of the workforce, you're likely limited to about the top 10 Metro areas; apply a 'tech' lens over that, and it shrinks to maybe 5 or 6.
Of course, that depends on the speed of build-out.
Wherever they choose to locate, its a game-changer for that area. Provided they don't spend too much to attract the prize, it would be for the better.
It think the 50k employee number is a bit fluffy,their million plus sqft foot distribution centers have around 2500 employees and lots of robots.
Does a headquarters really use 50,000 employees,no city could handle that influx rapidly.
Unless they build up that is a very large piece of land they need,I am thinking the whole aero park thing,close to the airport,the new bridge,rail and distribution right there,easy enough for drone launch.
I also think somebody is going to pay dearly for their presence and they started a bidding war.
I still do not get them though Ali-baba shows billions in profit but yet Amazon shows little,I also do not use them because they like to throw the little guy under the bus in the race to the cheapest product.Even when they are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
With the vast majority of their labor pool and customer base in the U.S, I'm not sure a location North of the border would make sense.
Here they are in rural Ruskin ,red necks and high Mexican population,if you do not drive then you will not be working there.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
Unless they are trying to mirror a Goggle or Apple headquarters type situation.
Probably, and subsidies will be part of the formula, but definitely not the deciding factor. They will go to a place where an educated population wants to live and work. That's entirely the reason why certain businesses thrive in super expensive cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Foxconn is manufacturing and could have gone anywhere. HQ's need to be close to global airport hubs and fit within the economic ecosystem. Cities that are lacking in Amazon's criteria will try to sweeten the deal with tax breaks and publicly funded infrastructure improvements.
In Chicago's case, the city has 4,000,000 square feet of the state of the art, amenity rich technology office space above major rail stations coming online in the next two years....all of it nearly contiguous with a guaranteed delivery date. Plus tens of thousands of new apartment and condos in 52 skyscrapers under construction for that future workforce. And the cherry on top, a well connected global airport nearly at the top of most international flight in the US.
Kind of hard for many cities to say "come locate here" and have nothing to show for it.
I'm by no means convinced it will go here for a variety of reasons [[lesser tax incentives, optics in the U.S.) etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnny5
However, I don't think your argument is good one.
What they have said they want is access to higher-order transit, a global airport, a large supply of tech talent etc.
Toronto certainly checks those boxes, including being the global leader in A.I.
Another matter is considering what they haven't stated as clearly, access to global talent [[easier in Canada).
Lower corporate taxes [[much), particularly of note is that we allow repatriation of profits from other countries without double-taxing.
Also one may wish to add resilience [[an HQ not in an earthquake zone maybe......which would disqualify the Bay area)
***
All that said, I think at this point a US HQ is more likely......
But I wouldn't rule Toronto out. There's a massive office complex planned for east of downtown, which would have a dedicated subway stop and regional rail stop.....almost a perfect fit.
It's a bit absurd, but possible over the years. That's half of downtown Detroit's workforce population. At 200 sqft fte that's 10,000,000 sqft of required office space. That's two rencen complexes or three sears towers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Would this be a possible interesting solution to putting City Airport back into service? I don't know the area around DET, but heard that there were many old rail lines if that would be of any use. I know that they cannot land big planes there due to the short and narrow runways.
I thought the fight on the east side was hoarding property to extend the runways,piggyback to a airport would be ideal.
Here they contract delivery to Fed-X and USPS which would also need rail and flight hubs and trucking.
Imagine a parking lot alone that holds 50,000 cars,it would be,we need to tear down all of these old buildings to make more parking lots.
This would definitely a massive game changer.
And don't be too sure about this being a long shot. Detroit has quite a bit going for it:
1. Low cost of living for a city its size [[which would allow them to pay lower salaries to employees as well as attract talent who's turned off by Seattle's COL).
2. DTW being a Delta hub [[so is Seattle, which means a ton of direct flights between the cities).
3. Proximity to the University of Michigan
No need. See my post above regarding DTW, Sea-Tac and Delta.Quote:
Originally Posted by makischr
While Detroit is lacking in mass transit, one thing it does have going to it is an excellent road system that most cities lack [[including Seattle). That would make it convenient for them to live in the suburbs and commute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
The fact that you can get to most areas within the Metro area in roughly 30-45 minutes, even during rush hour, speaks to this fact.
Part of me thinks this is a stunt by Amazon to put pressure on Seattle, but if not then I would put Detroit's chances comfortably in the top 10, if not top 5.
Detroit has:
Population
Proximity to education
Relative low cost of living
Large airport and easy access to other population centers
Transit is the only box that it doesn't check well, and the only cities I can think of that would be able to do that well and still provide relatively lower costs of living are Chicago and Philly.
My guess is that the top competitors would look something like:
1. Chicago or Dallas
2. Toronto
3. Philadelphia
4. Atlanta or Charlotte
5. Detroit or Pittsburgh