Amazon narrows the field of candidates for its $5B second headquarters to 20 cities across...

Posted:
in General Discussion
Amazon has revealed its list of candidates for building a new headquarters in North America, publishing a shortlist of 20 cities and metropolitan areas that are still in the running to host the online retail giant's second base of operations.




The retail firm has whittled the list down from 238 initial applicants to 20, according to a statement released on Thursday. The list of contenders consists of 19 cities in the United States and one in Canada, with the list generally skewing towards the East Coast, the opposite side of the country to Amazon's existing headquarters in Seattle, WA.

The winning candidate stands to benefit from an influx of high-paid jobs, with Amazon claiming up to 50,000 employees may work at "HQ2" once it's operational. Amazon also plans to spend more than $5 billion on the new facility, an expenditure in the same ballpark as Apple Park, Apple's newest headquarters.

Along with Amazon's direct hiring and investment, it is also thought the construction and ongoing operation of the facility will create tens of thousands of additional jobs, and tens of billions of dollars in additional investment to the surrounding community.

The remaining applicant cities hoping to host Amazon are:
  • Atlanta, GA

  • Austin, TX

  • Boston, MA

  • Chicago, IL

  • Columbus, OH

  • Dallas, TX

  • Denver, CO

  • Indianapolis, IN

  • Los Angeles, CA

  • Miami, FL

  • Montgomery County, MD

  • Nashville, TN

  • Newark, NJ

  • New York City, NY

  • Northern Virginia, VA

  • Philadelphia, PA

  • Pittsburgh, PA

  • Raleigh, NC

  • Toronto, ON

  • Washington D.C.
"Thank you to all 238 communities that submitted proposals. Getting from 238 to 20 was very tough all the proposals showed tremendous enthusiasm and creativity," said Holly Sullivan of Amazon's Public Policy. "Through this process we learned about many new communities across North America that we will consider as locations for future infrastructure investment and job creation."

The Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C. locations are the ones with the tightest proximity, all within 20 miles of each other.

Amazon plans to spend the coming months working with each city to further examine their proposals, including whether the company's hiring plans can be accommodated, and how well the selection could benefit employees and the local community. A decision is expected to be made later in 2018.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    LA, Denver and Austin would be the best bets.
    The rest all have serious issues.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 2 of 43
    Depending on the number of skilled and educated workers they need some of these places will have more difficulty making it work. Since this isn't just warehouse jobs I would guess they will have to head to the place with the largest, youngest, most educated populations are. Maybe?
  • Reply 3 of 43
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,817member
    LA, Denver and Austin would be the best bets.
    The rest all have serious issues.
    What criteria did you use to come to that conclusion?
    Scot1anantksundaramboxcatcherjahbladedigital_guy
  • Reply 4 of 43
    Toronto, ON represent!

    Haven't formed an opinion if this would be good for the city or not.
  • Reply 5 of 43
    It appears to be 3 are DC metro area and 2 are New York metro, and Toronto is the only non US city, but I’d guess it’s be not in one of those 6 as going to US’s or Canada’s largest city doesn’t seem to be the goal of Amazons next headquarters in my opinion.
  • Reply 6 of 43
    It appears to be 3 are DC metro area and 2 are New York metro, and Toronto is the only non US city, but I’d guess it’s be not in one of those 6 as going to US’s or Canada’s largest city doesn’t seem to be the goal of Amazons next headquarters in my opinion.
    Bezos owns the Washington Post and has a (huge) new home in the DC area.  The single most important decision maker seems to have an affinity for the area, so that's relevant.
  • Reply 7 of 43
    Congratulations to Amazon on possibly the worst possible graphic showing the candidate locations, by the way.  By all means, clutter up the map with lines all over the darn place with the names no where near the actual locations.  Who knew that Nashville was between Denver and LA (the listing on the left side) and that Northern Virginia is between Raleigh and Atlanta (on the right side).
    edited January 2018 just cruisinwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 43
    Scot1Scot1 Posts: 39member
    LA, Denver and Austin would be the best bets.
    The rest all have serious issues.
    What serious issue does Toronto to Canada have ?


  • Reply 9 of 43
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,817member
    Congratulations to Amazon on possibly the worst possible graphic showing the candidate locations, by the way.  By all means, clutter up the map with lines all over the darn place with the names no where near the actual locations.  Who knew that Nashville was between Denver and LA (the listing on the left side) and that Northern Virginia is between Raleigh and Atlanta (on the right side).
    I like it. Since most are on the coast and most are clumped together around a smallish, geographical location in the New England--ish area, more than half would've been off to the side with lines as it is. 
  • Reply 10 of 43
    Soli said:
    Congratulations to Amazon on possibly the worst possible graphic showing the candidate locations, by the way.  By all means, clutter up the map with lines all over the darn place with the names no where near the actual locations.  Who knew that Nashville was between Denver and LA (the listing on the left side) and that Northern Virginia is between Raleigh and Atlanta (on the right side).
    I like it. Since most are on the coast and most are clumped together around a smallish, geographical location in the New England--ish area, more than half would've been off to the side with lines as it is. 
    I'm sorry, but that's crazy.  Having the label for Toronto in the Pacific Ocean and the label for Dallas being closer to LA than the label for LA?  Here's a MUCH better map:


    Which map better reveals that fact that Amazon excluded any city within 1000 miles of Seattle, for example?
    edited January 2018 StrangeDayswonkothesanedigital_guycurtis hannahiqatedowatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 43
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,817member
    Soli said:
    Congratulations to Amazon on possibly the worst possible graphic showing the candidate locations, by the way.  By all means, clutter up the map with lines all over the darn place with the names no where near the actual locations.  Who knew that Nashville was between Denver and LA (the listing on the left side) and that Northern Virginia is between Raleigh and Atlanta (on the right side).
    I like it. Since most are on the coast and most are clumped together around a smallish, geographical location in the New England--ish area, more than half would've been off to the side with lines as it is. 
    I'm sorry, but that's crazy.  Having the label for Toronto in the Pacific Ocean and the label for Dallas being closer to LA than the label for LA?  Here's a MUCH better map:



    Which map better reveals that fact that Amazon excluded any city within 1000 miles of Seattle, for example?
    1) To me, that map is busy as fuck and clutters up the actual map compared to the original.

    2) You still have lines coming off the East Coast, as I stated.

    3a) Why would you add Seattle to the map when Seattle isn't one of the 20 candidates?

    3b) In both maps I can easily see that there's no dot in Washington state, but the original map is much easier to see where the all the dots are because it isn't cluttered by a bunch of names.

    4) Is this an issue of you not knowing where these major North American cities/areas are located? If so, how can you can tell which dot is Montgomery Country, Northern VA, and DC, since there's a single line to represent all three of those locations? How is that a better than a separate line connecting each location to a name?
    edited January 2018
  • Reply 12 of 43
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,958member
    What the F*. Why we talking about this until Amazon narrows to 2 places to select from ? .But, I will put my two cents of openion. Raleigh/Charlotte or Atlanta might serve better to take care of Midwest to crowded East coast.
    edited January 2018 randominternetperson
  • Reply 13 of 43
    Scot1Scot1 Posts: 39member
    Shutterstock 685268803
    I think Toronto would be a good choice. 
  • Reply 14 of 43
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,817member
    Scot1 said:
    [image]
    I think Toronto would be a good choice. 
    A cityscape should have no bearing on whether it's an ideal place for setting up shop. There are countless factors to be considered and I don't see how that would be one of them.

    Proximity to a fast internet backbone if data traffic is key, or a cheap energy if there's a huge amount of energy needed, or access to an airport that can service cargo planes if we're talking about an Amazon warehouse facility, or affordable housing and a great location for families (e.g.: school districts) and public and private transportation to work if we're talking about a  standard operations facility, or adjacent to great technical schools if we're talking about interns and skunkworks engineering facilities, and, of course, low cost land, construction, all longterm facilities cost, licensing, and any tax breaks that be applied for bringing business to an area…. to name just a few off the top of my head. In no scenario can I imagine that Amazon would make a decision because "the city looks pretty on certain days from across a body of water.
    curtis hannah
  • Reply 15 of 43
    Scot1 said:
    Shutterstock 685268803
    I think Toronto would be a good choice. 
    Too many Canadians.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Congratulations to Amazon on possibly the worst possible graphic showing the candidate locations, by the way.  By all means, clutter up the map with lines all over the darn place with the names no where near the actual locations.  Who knew that Nashville was between Denver and LA (the listing on the left side) and that Northern Virginia is between Raleigh and Atlanta (on the right side).
    I like it. Since most are on the coast and most are clumped together around a smallish, geographical location in the New England--ish area, more than half would've been off to the side with lines as it is. 
    I'm sorry, but that's crazy.  Having the label for Toronto in the Pacific Ocean and the label for Dallas being closer to LA than the label for LA?  Here's a MUCH better map:



    Which map better reveals that fact that Amazon excluded any city within 1000 miles of Seattle, for example?
    1) To me, that map is busy as fuck and clutters up the actual map compared to the original.

    2) You still have lines coming off the East Coast, as I stated.

    3a) Why would you add Seattle to the map when Seattle isn't one of the 20 candidates?

    3b) In both maps I can easily see that there's no dot in Washington state, but the original map is much easier to see where the all the dots are because it isn't cluttered by a bunch of names.

    4) Is this an issue of you not knowing where these major North American cities/areas are located? If so, how can you can tell which dot is Montgomery Country, Northern VA, and DC, since there's a single line to represent all three of those locations? How is that a better than a separate line connecting each location to a name?
    Let's agree to disagree, but those us actually in the business of data visualization are having fun pointing out all the "rules" that the Amazon map breaks.  The WaPo map isn't perfect, but it's much better.
  • Reply 17 of 43
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member
    LA, Denver and Austin would be the best bets.
    The rest all have serious issues.
    I would say Dallas as well. Others? Not so much...Nashville? Can you even find hundreds of software engineers in Nashville? lol.
  • Reply 18 of 43
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,706member
    So....a biddng war. Just as well the US isn’t the EU and these “communities” aren’t  Ireland.
  • Reply 19 of 43
    xbitxbit Posts: 236member
    This stinks as bad an Olympics or FIFA World Cup bidding process. The “winning” city will see little long-term benefit.
  • Reply 20 of 43
    Personally, I think Raleigh.

    Centrally located.
    Huge high tech presence existing.
    Interstates out the ying yang.
    Rail
    Moderate climate.
    Younger dynamic cross section of workers.
    Plenty of larger, well located land tracts.
    Right-to-work state.
    I am prejudiced.

    Do not underestimate right-to-work.
    SpamSandwich
Sign In or Register to comment.