Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Amazon in search of 2nd headquarters


  • Please log in to reply
268 replies to this topic

#201 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,425 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 06 October 2017 - 08:05 PM

Those restrictions are broken, circumvented, and worked around on a fairly regular basis. Fort Worth spent the last 2 decades giving tax incentives for everything.  Even bad developments.  They found a way to give Cabelas tax breaks.



#202 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 06 October 2017 - 10:13 PM

It is angle that is being overlooked.

 

It is also seem that it does not bother some that incentives are given out so casually or that practice would be liked.

 

This is not your run of the mill, routine case.  Incentives still must have some fundamental attachment to the Public Good; and the case that a private landholder, which is what many of the propose sites are, can make the case that selecting their particular site is in the Public Good may be something that you sloth off, but it is a matter of law. If your site is a skyscraper, how do you demonstrate that it is in the Public Good to get publicly funded incentives.

 

A lot of attention has been given to transit, workforce, but greater attention should be given to incentives.  Incentives are going to be a real sticking point; who gets them, why and how will be anything but a routine matter.  The Amazon Project will be three dimensional.

 

In the sweepstakes for Amazon, Panther Island should have a leg up because it is a less controversial and far less complicated choice for a company like Amazon who must decide first whether a private landholder can or will receive publicly funded incentives or whether a site like Panther Island/TRVA that already has public backing is the better choice. 

 

Publicly owned sites have a built in advantage because there is no question about the availability of incentives.

 

I'm for Panther Island whose stated purpose is the Public Good.  I'm not for private developers who have no obligation at all to the Public Good and instead have an obligation to making a profit and are hoping for public incentives to do so.

 

I'm for Panther Island first but support sites like it. No apology coming.


  • JBB likes this

#203 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,425 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 06 October 2017 - 10:21 PM

Yeah, it's a matter of law that's ignored regularly.  I've never heard of a local case of tax incentives being challenged on a legal basis.  I doubt it happens with Amazon in any location.  

 

I'm for Panther Island too (who's asking you to apologize for being a Panther Island cheerleader) and I agree that incentives are the difference maker since no one location is likely to be a perfect fit to all of the requirements.  



#204 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 06 October 2017 - 10:48 PM

Public incentives always come with stipulations; that is how they are challenged.  When an agreement is made to satisfy those stipulations, then the incentives are granted. 

 

If a mall wants a tenant in its private mall, it does not seek or should it have means to public funds.  If Sundance Square or Hillwood wants a tenant, Amazon, they should not seeking public funds; they should provide all of the incentives from their own resources or borrowing them.

 

Yeah, I'm a cheerleader for Fort Worth and Panther Island; but I am also a cheerleader for the taxpayer when it comes to corporate welfare and it being given out without any assurance that it will be in the Public Good.

 

None of privately held sites meet the qualifications to receive the incentives that they would seek and that Amazon expects; and these privately held sites have no guarantee that they will receive public incentives given that they do not exist for the Public Good. On the other hand,  Fair Park/Dallas; Texas Stadium Site/Irving; and Panther Island/Fort Worth do have a guarantee as they exists for the Public Good or they exist as a result of prior public investments.  The battle becomes one between publicly owned sites v. privately held sites.

 

JBB, your points are valid. I simply believe that the Amazon Project is like nothing that has come before and requires pointing out every advantage that Fort Worth has to sway Amazon to locate here. 

 

"Incentives in hand are better than incentives in the bush".



#205 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 07 October 2017 - 08:35 AM

Panther Island is a strong candidate, but I'm more drawn to PI's heavily residential potential should Amazon move to town by the train stations and convention center. As the catalyst, HQ2 flanking the I-30 side of downtown would kick-off a dramatic residential growth along 7th-Lancaster to the Cultural District and Panther Island. 



#206 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 07 October 2017 - 09:36 AM

Panther Island is a strong candidate, but I'm more drawn to PI's heavily residential potential should Amazon move to town by the train stations and convention center. As the catalyst, HQ2 flanking the I-30 side of downtown would kick-off a dramatic residential growth along 7th-Lancaster to the Cultural District and Panther Island. 

 

How likely is it that Amazon will want to acquire land and all that that entails from a patchwork of private landowners?  I think that Amazon will prefer a shovel ready site of 200+ acres that is already in the hands of one group.

 

Where ever Amazon decides to locate its 2HQ, there will be a catalyst throughout that tow; and for train stations and convention centers will benefit regardless.



#207 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 07 October 2017 - 11:02 AM

Anything is likely at this point in the game. Getting to Round 2 is all that matters right now.

 

I think Amazon could appreciate, even relish, the creativity that comes through a 10 year expansion of "city building" the HQ2 campus within the existing bones a town like Fort Worth. 

 

...and if you're gonna spend $5 billion, building through the urban fabric versus building a self-contained campus spread might carry less than tertiary concern; a patchwork bidding process might even same money.

 

Trains to the airport (non-stop or not) as well as commuter trains to Irving and Dallas and SSW Fort Worth (?) add strengthen, but this bid picks up speed should The Cotton Belt to extend the reach of DTFW all the way to UTD.



#208 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 07 October 2017 - 12:08 PM

I agree with the urgency to get to the Round 2.

 

I don't think that you can get to Round 2 when you don't have a firm site with ownership of the site in hand.  The time it will take to bundle patches of land together or the possibility that ultimately you can not bundle the necessary space that Amazon is seeking will almost assuredly mean that your bid will not be competitive. I

 

I am hearing about a lot of pie in the sky scenarios based largely on "if and should" but it is in the best interest of Fort Worth, Dallas and Irving that they each submit their least complicated and most ready to go site for consideration. If sites like that near the ITC was available, you think that you would be hearing from its owner. Trains to the airport, commuter rail to suburbs and outlying neighborhoods is not what I take from the Amazon RFP.  Instead, it is looking for a urban/downtownish site which is by the way its Seattle site is today.  Think, if Amazon wanted a suburb or non-downtown location, it would simply move to the suburbs of Seattle.  Downtown Fort Worth does not have large blocks of single ownership land available; and if it does, it is difficult to get.  The years that it took Sundance Square to get the land that it needed to build the plaza should be instructive. 

 

Amazon plans to invest $5B.  It has almost certainly selected in own development and design team.  Amazon can build a 100 story tower or it can build a campus.  It seems like it has chosen to build itself a campus.  It needs the room to do so; and it needs that room to be available now and without going through the long and painstaking process of purchasing bits of land from dozens of title holders. 

 

Panther Island alone stands out as that room which has clear ownership and is ready today and does not require a ten year bundling process.  It is less than 5 minutes travel time from it to ITC.  It is also reasonable to either walk or bike to the ITC from P.I.



#209 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 08 October 2017 - 09:54 AM

How much un/under-developed land is Bass still holding onto in downtown?  Is Panther Island the only CBD-ish acreage coming close to the RFP real estate "in general" parameter? 

 

A million ways to approach the RFP, and the strong regional umbrella of possibilities sure seems like good way to place all corners of North Texas in the presumable quarter finals.... just like the half dozen peer metros will use. 

 

As the process rolls on, North Texas siblings will have the opportunity to tweak each other, putting out the best. Getting out of the Sweet 16 will require creativity from Fort Worth, it's the Cinderella team, the dark horse. I think the Panther Island tabula rosa will need some sort of boost from within downtown... somehow.



#210 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 October 2017 - 10:18 PM

How much un/under-developed land is Bass still holding onto in downtown?  Is Panther Island the only CBD-ish acreage coming close to the RFP real estate "in general" parameter? 

 

A million ways to approach the RFP, and the strong regional umbrella of possibilities sure seems like good way to place all corners of North Texas in the presumable quarter finals.... just like the half dozen peer metros will use. 

 

As the process rolls on, North Texas siblings will have the opportunity to tweak each other, putting out the best. Getting out of the Sweet 16 will require creativity from Fort Worth, it's the Cinderella team, the dark horse. I think the Panther Island tabula rosa will need some sort of boost from within downtown... somehow.

 

 The exact amount of Bass' holding in Downtown is unknown by me; but outsiders tend to think that Bass is all there is about Downtown and Fort Worth.  Like in Dallas, Downtown consists of blocks where ownership is held by individuals not associated with anyone but themselves. Besides, I don't believe that Sundance or Developers like it can make a winning argument for public incentives using the Public Good as their reasoning.

 

Yes. Panther Island is not only the CBD-ish acreage coming close to the RFP; it is the only acreage coming close to the RFP in North Texas and also which is under single ownership/control.  It is qualitatively different from any other site in the region.

 

These features, size and ownership,  makes it a favorite in the sweepstakes if you are handicapping.



#211 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 08 October 2017 - 10:37 PM

I believe the Bass Family owns several contiguous blocks on the northeast side of downtown.  I can count at least 10 blocks, but I'm not sure how many they own.



#212 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 October 2017 - 10:46 PM

I believe the Bass Family owns several contiguous blocks on the northeast side of downtown.  I can count at least 10 blocks, but I'm not sure how many they own.

 

 Given that that is true, how does the Bass Family make a convincing argument that their potential windfall is in the Public Good?  Wouldn't BF have to forego the public funded incentives to avoid the appearance of self aggrandizing?  As a principal matter, all privately held developers will have face around of public scrutiny.

 

I have dropped in on several other metro areas take on the Amazon Project.  It has been revalatory.

 

Editorial pieces are urging against several big league cities to not make a bid.  There is too much cost to the taxpayer. There is too much growth to manage.  There is too much infighting among neighbors.   Some cities believe that they are actually doing fairly well without Amazon.  It is a growing backlash against a company that is asking so much and pitting developers against developers while placing a city's leadership in the middle of the fight.



#213 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 09 October 2017 - 09:35 AM

https://www.bizjourn...ts-to-lure.html

 

The Walsh developers need to just sit down and be quiet.  Fort Worth already has an up hill battle going...the last thing we need to spend energy on is a location another 15 miles further from EVERYTHING Amazon is asking for, and with even less of the things that we're already challenged on (ie mass transit).  It's a bedroom community in the making and that's the opposite of what Amazon will be looking for



#214 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 09 October 2017 - 09:56 AM

The Walsh developers need to just sit down and be quiet.....It's a bedroom community in the making and that's the opposite of what Amazon will be looking for

 

Agree.  The City is being disingenous accepting bids from private developers like Walsh knowing that these bidders will find it impossible to demonstrate a Public Good which will necessary to qualify for publicly funded incentives.

 

The assumption is that the City is just acting in a way as to not ruffle these guys feathers.



#215 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 987 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 09 October 2017 - 12:43 PM

https://www.bizjourn...ts-to-lure.html

 

The Walsh developers need to just sit down and be quiet.  Fort Worth already has an up hill battle going...the last thing we need to spend energy on is a location another 15 miles further from EVERYTHING Amazon is asking for, and with even less of the things that we're already challenged on (ie mass transit).  It's a bedroom community in the making and that's the opposite of what Amazon will be looking for

 

This same reporter Candace Carlisle. Who wrote this story. Also wrote. Texas Rangers, Dallas Cowboys could allure Amazon HQ2 to Arlington. McKinney making its move for Amazon second Headquarters. Lewisville looks to lure HQ2 with two development sites. UT-Dallas tech centric vision makes room for Amazon HQ2 campus. Higher education hub in Denton being pitched for Amazon HQ2. And don't forget Frisco's cheesy video pitch.

 

This is getting ridiculous. I am a big fan of Amazon HQ2 moving to Fort Worth. But what some cities are saying that makes them think they have the upper hand is Crazy. Collin County has no major University yet they landed big corporations. Rangers and the Cowboys in Arlington makes them alluring ? I don't think I want to follow the logic on that one ?  I can't wait till October 19th and this media circus is over. And in the hands of Amazon to decide. 



#216 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,425 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 09 October 2017 - 01:16 PM

The circus won't end on October 19th. That's the deadline for proposals.

#217 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 09 October 2017 - 02:09 PM

I'd really only want HQ2 in downtown Fort Worth or Dallas; Las Colinas is a possibility, too, but would be my third choice. While the phenomenal employment growth in Collin County certainly makes a prideful North Texas booster like me gleeful, I do think it's time in North Texas for a majority of office employment growth to concentrate and centralize in town, rather than continue to expand the edge.

 

I've cottoned to the notion of downtown Fort Worth growing as a recreational destination rather than employment. 



#218 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 09 October 2017 - 06:40 PM

I'd really only want HQ2 in downtown Fort Worth or Dallas; Las Colinas is a possibility, too, but would be my third choice. While the phenomenal employment growth in Collin County certainly makes a prideful North Texas booster like me gleeful, I do think it's time in North Texas for a majority of office employment growth to concentrate and centralize in town, rather than continue to expand the edge.

 

I've cottoned to the notion of downtown Fort Worth growing as a recreational destination rather than employment. 

 

Agree.

 

The edges have had an edge too long.

 

I think the market has all but spoken about downtown employment tipping in favor of Downtown Dallas and its immediate environs.  Downtown Fort Worth, sans Amazon, has a much brighter future as a tourist/hospitality/residential and convention destination which can be just as vibrant as a 9-5 cycle of employment.



#219 rriojas71

rriojas71

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 622 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 09 October 2017 - 10:30 PM

https://www.bizjourn...ts-to-lure.html
 
The Walsh developers need to just sit down and be quiet.  Fort Worth already has an up hill battle going...the last thing we need to spend energy on is a location another 15 miles further from EVERYTHING Amazon is asking for, and with even less of the things that we're already challenged on (ie mass transit).  It's a bedroom community in the making and that's the opposite of what Amazon will be looking for

 
This same reporter Candace Carlisle. Who wrote this story. Also wrote. Texas Rangers, Dallas Cowboys could allure Amazon HQ2 to Arlington. McKinney making its move for Amazon second Headquarters. Lewisville looks to lure HQ2 with two development sites. UT-Dallas tech centric vision makes room for Amazon HQ2 campus. Higher education hub in Denton being pitched for Amazon HQ2. And don't forget Frisco's cheesy video pitch.
 
This is getting ridiculous. I am a big fan of Amazon HQ2 moving to Fort Worth. But what some cities are saying that makes them think they have the upper hand is Crazy. Collin County has no major University yet they landed big corporations. Rangers and the Cowboys in Arlington makes them alluring ? I don't think I want to follow the logic on that one ?  I can't wait till October 19th and this media circus is over. And in the hands of Amazon to decide.

NID... I read those other articles as well and I just had to laugh. It was also a head scratcher from places like McKinney, Lewisville & especially the area in Arlington.

Did these cities not read Amazon’s wishlist? Amazon stressed an urban environment, mass transit and a area with a variety of activities for it’s employees... None of which any of them can offer. McKinney is cute but far from Urban and it lacks in any sort of cultural things to do. (i.e. museums, sporting events, symphony), Lewisville is a stereotypical example of a satellite town that only sprang up due to urban sprawl with little to no redeeming qualities for a company like Amazon to build a corporate campus. Arlington’s site is in a sea of parking lots and the city has no plan and no desire for mass transit. So now we’re supposed to think that all of a sudden they have seen the light. None of those sites stand a chance and all they are doing is taking away from the 2 cities that I think have a small glimmer of hope to land HQ2.

#220 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 10 October 2017 - 08:01 AM

I'd say most of the places making a run at Amazon know they dont meet the stated minimum requirements for HQ2, but they are trying to raise awareness among any/all entities following this game and scouting locations for expansion. 

 

Super important for Fort Worth et al to have a strong answer for Amazon. Playing through to the quarter finals in the Amazon game could easily be the winning proposal for another. Regardless of the choice for HQ2, this exercise really needs to bring even sharper focus on the Fort Worth-DFW-Las Colinas-Dallas linear business district. It's the North Texas Triangle, if you will. haha 



#221 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 10 October 2017 - 10:24 AM

I'd say most of the places making a run at Amazon know they dont meet the stated minimum requirements for HQ2, but they are trying to raise awareness among any/all entities following this game and scouting locations for expansion. 

 

Super important for Fort Worth et al to have a strong answer for Amazon. Playing through to the quarter finals in the Amazon game could easily be the winning proposal for another. Regardless of the choice for HQ2, this exercise really needs to bring even sharper focus on the Fort Worth-DFW-Las Colinas-Dallas linear business district. It's the North Texas Triangle, if you will. haha 

Interesting phrase.  It used to be called the "Golden Triangle," meaning Fort Worth-Denton-Dallas.  I know this may sound offensive to some but this whole "bowing" to all-mighty Amazon across the country doesn't sit right with me.



#222 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 10 October 2017 - 02:08 PM

....I know this may sound offensive to some but this whole "bowing" to all-mighty Amazon across the country doesn't sit right with me.

 

It isn't sitting right with me either.  If you drop in  and read the discussions underway now from metros all across the country, you will find that there is a growing backlash towards the way Amazon is pitting neighbors against neighbors; asking for incentives and suggesting that it will change the successful bidder into its culture. 



#223 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 11 October 2017 - 08:52 AM

Well, only a matter of time before MSN would post a slideshow on the cities competing for the Amazon No. 2.   Guess what (not surprising)?  Fort Worth is not on the list.  Of course our city's regional proxy, Dallas, is on the list.

 

http://www.msn.com/e...tandhp#image=12



#224 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 11 October 2017 - 03:13 PM

Minneapolis-St.Paul or Raleigh-Durham but never Fort Worth-Dallas.  We live in a world of geographic morons. You would think that traveling to or through DFW would provide them with a clue.

 

MSN should be embarrassed airing this mindless material...[Dallas] "..its a shame that workers can't travel by horseback."

 

I do find Baltimore to be a very credible choice.



#225 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 12 October 2017 - 01:16 PM

San Antonio says "No thanks"

 

https://venturebeat....isnt-our-style/



#226 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 12 October 2017 - 02:00 PM

San Antonio says "No thanks"

 

https://venturebeat....isnt-our-style/

 

This is like me telling Robert Kraft that I'm going to pass on the Pats QB job.



#227 elpingüino

elpingüino

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts

Posted 13 October 2017 - 09:43 AM

These reports from the Dallas Business Journal are really worth reading. Long story short, $1.24 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies and incentives, not including state sales tax breaks.

"The Amazon Effect: How taxpayers are funding the disruption of the U.S. economy"
https://www.bizjourn...zon-effect.html

"As these cities can tell you, Amazon's benefits won't come cheap"
https://www.bizjourn...t-as-these.html

#228 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,425 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 13 October 2017 - 10:20 AM

Those are interesting articles. Thanks for sharing.

Denver's approach emphasizing factors other than incentives and San Antonio saying they're not interested in offering incentives made me wonder if a private partner could emerge that would offer to front the costs of developing HQ2 under some sort of lease/buy back arrangement. There's probably some factors of that type of arrangement where it might be more appealing than public incentives.

I know it's common with any large corporation, but I've heard rumblings that Amazon is not the greatest employer at the distribution/fulfillment center level. They seem to regularly hire on a temp-to-full time arrangement with very few people making the jump to full time.

#229 rriojas71

rriojas71

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 622 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 14 October 2017 - 09:01 AM

I know it's common with any large corporation, but I've heard rumblings that Amazon is not the greatest employer at the distribution/fulfillment center level. They seem to regularly hire on a temp-to-full time arrangement with very few people making the jump to full time.


I know of a friend who can vouch for that statement and she said that it was a horrible work environment at those centers. She had to take the job because of an unforseen foreseen financial situation and she said it felt like it was a couple of rungs up from slave labor. They time you when you go to the bathroom and mark it against you if you are late or take multiple bathroom breaks. You are marked up for any sort of ridiculous reason and their turnover rate is off the charts. From what she described to me it sounded nightmarish.

#230 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:26 AM

I've heard similar things about working for Google. I believe we're seeing foundation laid for the next phase of labor unions. The largest employers of unskilled and semi-skilled workers skirting responsibility through hiring and employment status classifications -- most retail workers are part-time and/or "gifted" part-time worker benefits, same with CSR, distribution, fulfillment positions... such that more than half the staff of large corporations work without normal benefits.

 

Continued automation, dwindling training, decision makers deciding fewer contributors deserve profit share, bonuses, fringe benefits.... boils down to the income inequity situation that's popular and strategic for some to talk about. Certainly interesting times, I'm looking forward to seeing how so much building pressure finds release. 

 

It's easy to compare Amazon to Sears-Roebuck. The service is exactly the same, the technology is different. Just like mail order catalogs did not eliminate but thoroughly reshaped stores, online buying will not eliminate brick-and-mortar stores just evolve it. For sure, companies will go out of  business if their employees cannot afford to buy anything!



#231 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:42 AM

A beautiful pitch from Dallas https://www.dallasne...llas-south-side

 

1508327121-smartdistrict2.jpg?auto=forma



#232 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 987 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:48 AM

Looks rather bland. I have seen other Dallas HQ2 renderings that looks much better. But as yet not seen any from Fort Worth ?



#233 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 19 October 2017 - 07:54 AM

An interesting negative take from an article on the NBC News website.  But the disruptions in traffic and housing on account of a big construction project envisioned in this article are more realistic if Amazon were to locate in a small community.  I doubt if either Fort Worth or Dallas would be materially affected in a negative way and would certainly benefit as a result of the increase in employment.

 

https://www.nbcnews....in-your-n811411



#234 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 987 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 19 October 2017 - 08:59 AM

Regional pitch

https://twitter.com/...025675489939456



#235 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 19 October 2017 - 10:04 AM

Looks rather bland. I have seen other Dallas HQ2 renderings that looks much better. But as yet not seen any from Fort Worth ?


Well those aren't the final designs. The tallest tower would become the new tallest in Dallas, so there could be some additions.

7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#236 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 19 October 2017 - 12:02 PM

Looks rather bland. I have seen other Dallas HQ2 renderings that looks much better. But as yet not seen any from Fort Worth ?

 

With so many private developers wanting their own development to be the regional site, I think that this is just another developer throwing its hat into the fray.  Color me skeptical about this and all the others.



#237 elpingüino

elpingüino

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 11:39 AM

Moody's Analytics has conducted data-driven research to rank the HQ2 candidates, based upon Amazon's stated criteria and economic factors.

 

According to Moody's analysis, Fort Worth ranks 55th out of 65. Other Texas cities: Austin ranks first, San Antonio ranks 14th, Dallas ranks 34th, and Houston ranks 49th. 

 

Analysis (free to read): https://www.economy....ters-Should-Go/

Full results (subscription required): https://www.economy....=economyFeature



#238 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,425 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 23 October 2017 - 06:59 PM

Amazon received 238 proposals:

 

http://www.reuters.c...s-idUSKBN1CS21O



#239 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 03 November 2017 - 09:04 AM

Speaking of Amazon, articles like this one are funny:
https://www.dallasne...reasons-fixable
 

So a New York real estate group puts out a ranking of the top candidates for relocation, and, shocker, DFW isn't on there but New York, Connecticut, etc. are represented?  Color me surprised.  Connecticut's economic situation is as bad as anything in the country right now...it's a complete disaster at the state level.  There is literally zero chance that Amazon would move there.  More here: https://www.bloomber...udget-in-crisis.

 

This is about the 5th "study" I've seen from East Coast groups that don't put any Texas location in the top 10.  They WAY overweight mass transportation, underweight everything else and, voila. 
I believe Amazon is forward-thinking enough that they realize where transportation is headed.  In 15 years we will have self-driving car-share in every major city and it's going to be a game-changer.  I'm starting to think more and more that new rail-based mass transportation is a bad idea in all but the densest of cities.


  • JBB likes this

#240 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 03 November 2017 - 09:32 AM

xmVtvJS.png

 

Amazon built an entire campus around rail-based transit and funded improvements to that transit


  • JBB likes this

- Architecture/urban planning/transit blogger, Fort Worth Weekly

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#241 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:42 AM

xmVtvJS.png

 

Amazon built an entire campus around rail-based transit and funded improvements to that transit

 

 

Yes, they gave $5.5 million for streetcar improvements (basically a rounding error).  There are also thousands of parking spots under those buildings.

 

I'm really talking about new billion dollar light and heavy rail projects here, not streetcars.  It seems to me that, given the changes that are coming in automobile-based efficiencies over the next couple of decades, one day people are going to turn around and say "Why do we have all these trains running at 30% capacity?  That's almost as dumb as the notion that people used to have unused cars parked everywhere."  In the future cars will go where they're needed, when they're needed.  Trains do not offer such flexibility.



#242 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,198 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:39 PM

Will self-driving ride-share be more affordable than existing ride-share? Maybe a few dollars less if you currently tip.

 

Ride-share isn't affordable for everyday use unless you're wealthy.


- Dylan


#243 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:45 PM

Rideshare will also never be able to move through dense areas as well as multipassenger vehicles, especially without dedicated right of ways.



#244 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:02 PM

Will self-driving ride-share be more affordable than existing ride-share? Maybe a few dollars less if you currently tip.

 

Ride-share isn't affordable for everyday use unless you're wealthy.

 

Right now car owners pay for usage of that car 100% of the time, when in reality they might be using the car 5% of the time.  Our automobile usage is probably the single most inefficient part of the U.S. economy, in terms of overall dollars.  I'm not saying this is going to happen, but just imagine a scenario where every car on the road is self-driving, with an efficient system of taking each person where they need to go at that point in time.  The efficiency gains would have to be 10x vs. the current system, at a minimum.  That means the pricing would be roughly 10% of what it is now.  It won't be just the rich that can afford it.  In fact, I think it will be only the rich that will still be driving their own cars in 25 years.

 

Austin55, yes a 50 person vehicle moving from point A to point B will always be more efficient than a 4 person vehicle.  Which is why I said "for all but the densest of cities" when saying that I don't think rail is the long-term answer.  For New York, yes the subway is great.  But I'm talking about a city like Fort Worth, where point A and point B are really more a matter of points A-Z. 

 

Picture a train line and now think about how much wasted space there is at any given second because trains are only occupying a small portion of a given track.  And that track only goes two directions.  Now picture an ant mound and think about how the ants can efficiently move around each other seamlessly to get exactly where they want to go.  This is the future of autonomous cars: no human error, perfect communication between vehicles, mass efficiency.  People are willing to pay for convenience, and the reality is that walking (x) blocks to a train station is not as convenient as having a car pick you up exactly where you stand, and deposit you exactly at your destination.  It eliminates bottlenecks like crowds as well.  This all sounds like science fiction, but given how much advancement we've seen in the past decade, one would be unwise to discount how quickly these technologies will be employed.  Companies like Google, Tesla, and Apple consider this the holy grail of transportation.  They are going to make it happen. 



#245 Bonfire98A

Bonfire98A

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:29 AM

 

Will self-driving ride-share be more affordable than existing ride-share? Maybe a few dollars less if you currently tip.

 

Ride-share isn't affordable for everyday use unless you're wealthy.

 

Right now car owners pay for usage of that car 100% of the time, when in reality they might be using the car 5% of the time.  Our automobile usage is probably the single most inefficient part of the U.S. economy, in terms of overall dollars.  I'm not saying this is going to happen, but just imagine a scenario where every car on the road is self-driving, with an efficient system of taking each person where they need to go at that point in time.  The efficiency gains would have to be 10x vs. the current system, at a minimum.  That means the pricing would be roughly 10% of what it is now.  It won't be just the rich that can afford it.  In fact, I think it will be only the rich that will still be driving their own cars in 25 years.

 

Austin55, yes a 50 person vehicle moving from point A to point B will always be more efficient than a 4 person vehicle.  Which is why I said "for all but the densest of cities" when saying that I don't think rail is the long-term answer.  For New York, yes the subway is great.  But I'm talking about a city like Fort Worth, where point A and point B are really more a matter of points A-Z. 

 

Picture a train line and now think about how much wasted space there is at any given second because trains are only occupying a small portion of a given track.  And that track only goes two directions.  Now picture an ant mound and think about how the ants can efficiently move around each other seamlessly to get exactly where they want to go.  This is the future of autonomous cars: no human error, perfect communication between vehicles, mass efficiency.  People are willing to pay for convenience, and the reality is that walking (x) blocks to a train station is not as convenient as having a car pick you up exactly where you stand, and deposit you exactly at your destination.  It eliminates bottlenecks like crowds as well.  This all sounds like science fiction, but given how much advancement we've seen in the past decade, one would be unwise to discount how quickly these technologies will be employed.  Companies like Google, Tesla, and Apple consider this the holy grail of transportation.  They are going to make it happen. 

 

 

I don't think anyone can argue that self-driving cars (SDCs) can lead to a far more efficient use of resources in getting people where they need to go, if they can indeed reach their full technological potential.  But efficiency should never be the only consideration.
 
It's true that I pay for 100% of the usage of my car, though most of its time is spent either in my garage at home or in a parking garage at work (indeed, occasionally there are days where I don't use it at all).  But it is my car, fully at my disposal to take where I want, when I want, fully on my terms (within traffic laws of course).  
 
I've long argued that the caveat to SDCs is the lack of control.  Obviously there has to be a central system controlling all these SDCs, which would probably be administered by an organization like DART or the T.  And centralized control of transportation at the local or regional level has the potential to have a chilling effect on individual freedom of movement.
 
For example, imagine getting into an SDC in Fort Worth and having it go like this:
 
SDC: Good morning!  Where can I take you today?
Me: 123 Main St. in McKinney.
SDC: I'm sorry, but today is a level orange ozone alert day, and regulations prohibit trips of 50 miles or greater without multiple passengers.
 
What business is it of the T or DART (or other governmental authority) whether or not I can go to McKinney by myself?  Suppose I wanted to visit my aged parents who live there and can't get out much (or who may be in the hospital!), for example?  Do I have to ride around waiting for the SDC to find and pick up someone else who happens to want to go there?  Currently, with regular cars, I can choose to carpool to McKinney if I can find people to share the ride with me.  But the operative word here is "choose."  No central authority should have the right to make that kind of decision for me.
 
And as far as efficiency, think about the places we live.  Whether we rent or own, we don't spend 100% of our time at home.  Should a housing authority have the right to more efficiently allocate housing space by requiring people to share?  For example, imagine having an 8-5 job, and only being allowed the use of an apartment from 7 pm to 7 am, so that someone working the graveyard shift can have it the other 12 hours of the day.  And again, there are often cases where people will choose this arrangement themselves to save on rent, but there's that magic word again, "choose."
 
While efficient allocation of resources is important, I just believe that personal freedom and liberty are far more important.


#246 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 06 November 2017 - 01:59 PM

 

 

Will self-driving ride-share be more affordable than existing ride-share? Maybe a few dollars less if you currently tip.

 

Ride-share isn't affordable for everyday use unless you're wealthy.

 

Right now car owners pay for usage of that car 100% of the time, when in reality they might be using the car 5% of the time.  Our automobile usage is probably the single most inefficient part of the U.S. economy, in terms of overall dollars.  I'm not saying this is going to happen, but just imagine a scenario where every car on the road is self-driving, with an efficient system of taking each person where they need to go at that point in time.  The efficiency gains would have to be 10x vs. the current system, at a minimum.  That means the pricing would be roughly 10% of what it is now.  It won't be just the rich that can afford it.  In fact, I think it will be only the rich that will still be driving their own cars in 25 years.

 

Austin55, yes a 50 person vehicle moving from point A to point B will always be more efficient than a 4 person vehicle.  Which is why I said "for all but the densest of cities" when saying that I don't think rail is the long-term answer.  For New York, yes the subway is great.  But I'm talking about a city like Fort Worth, where point A and point B are really more a matter of points A-Z. 

 

Picture a train line and now think about how much wasted space there is at any given second because trains are only occupying a small portion of a given track.  And that track only goes two directions.  Now picture an ant mound and think about how the ants can efficiently move around each other seamlessly to get exactly where they want to go.  This is the future of autonomous cars: no human error, perfect communication between vehicles, mass efficiency.  People are willing to pay for convenience, and the reality is that walking (x) blocks to a train station is not as convenient as having a car pick you up exactly where you stand, and deposit you exactly at your destination.  It eliminates bottlenecks like crowds as well.  This all sounds like science fiction, but given how much advancement we've seen in the past decade, one would be unwise to discount how quickly these technologies will be employed.  Companies like Google, Tesla, and Apple consider this the holy grail of transportation.  They are going to make it happen. 

 

 

Obviously there has to be a central system controlling all these SDCs, which would probably be administered by an organization like DART or the T. 

 

 

I actually don't think that's the way it will go down...municipalities/governments won't be involved except to the extent that they regulate.  The cars will talk to each other, and if anything the "central system" will be the software of the company or companies that are the winners.



#247 Bonfire98A

Bonfire98A

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 09 November 2017 - 09:02 AM

 

 

Obviously there has to be a central system controlling all these SDCs, which would probably be administered by an organization like DART or the T. 

 

 

I actually don't think that's the way it will go down...municipalities/governments won't be involved except to the extent that they regulate.  The cars will talk to each other, and if anything the "central system" will be the software of the company or companies that are the winners.

 

 

That's exactly what I'm saying -- though Google or another private entity would actually run the SDC networks, governments at any level (from federal to municipal or anywhere in between) would potentially be able to use the new technology to regulate who can and can't go where and when, which is an absolute non-starter.  



#248 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 09 November 2017 - 09:40 AM

This is morphing into a transportation debate rather than the debate over Amazon 2nd Headquarters. :unsure:



#249 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 09 November 2017 - 10:16 AM

That's okay, Amazon's not coming here anyway.


My blog: Doohickie

#250 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 09 November 2017 - 10:25 AM

Clicking on the thread expecting to read about a topic and finding something unrelated instead....nope, it isn't okay.

 

Its like watching cats; you never know what to expect.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users