Amazon HQ2

[pablog]

International Tower...?

[Houston19514]

11 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

You might be right regarding it just being too valuable to give up. However I'm not convinced Amazon wants a bland office building like Shell Plaza or 800 Bell. Are there any big tech companies occupying tall buildings right now in the US? Seems like they prefer wide open spaces not tall and narrow. I think their typical worker would prefer space for ping pong tables. 

 

Yes.   Amazon. 

[Houston19514]

16 hours ago, Pitts said:

One Shell Plaza? Shell's vacancy is putting a million square of primo class-A space on the market. Good access to mass transit. Lots of parks and amenities. And walking distance to city hall which will make future bribes very convenient.

 

Pretty sure there is not a million square feet available in One Shell Plaza.  I doubt they even have the 500,000 square feet Amazon wants on day one.  Even if there was a million square feet available, where would they put the other 7 million square feet of space they want?

[Naviguessor]

While, I certainly would love to see Amazon select Houston, I think that the ridiculous political climate in Austin will prevent Amazon from selecting any Texas city. The Government's obsured attemp at  "Bathroom Bills" and attacks on the LGBTQ community and never ending assault on Female Reproductive rights certainly will be seen as a misfit for the inclusive, 0progressuve culture at Amazon. Additionally, the repeal of HERO, will also be considered.   These things matter and I hope that Amazon makes it clear that Texas is not actually as business friendly as it thinks it is.  Please, Amazon...let it be known. 

[102IAHexpress]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Yes.   Amazon. 

 

That's true,  Amazon Tower I and II are both 37 stories. I guess that is tall for Seattle. The rest of their dozen or so buildings are not that tall though. 

[arbpro]

8 hours ago, Naviguessor said:

Texas is not actually as business friendly as it thinks it is.  Please, Amazon...let it be known. 

Yeah, let's have a political "feel good" moment and forget about all the jobs that Houstonians might otherwise have. 

[Gary]

Or, we could take this to the political forum. That's why it's there.

 

[Naviguessor]

^^ probably a good idea, mods. My intent was not to derail. It's a good thread. 

[htownbro]

On 9/8/2017 at 0:56 PM, 102IAHexpress said:

My two cents:

 

Houston is a strong contender. It's the most similar city to Seattle that can also offer lower business costs. Both are sea-port cities, Both are aerospace cities, Both have an urban core, heck, they both get a lot of rain.

 

Possible cons:

Tech talent available in Houston. We don't have as much compared to Austin or Boston for example. But we can argue it in our favor too.

Yes Austin or Boston may have more tech talent, but that also means they are easily poachable by Dell in Austin or GE in Boston. This is a problem Amazon currently faces in Seattle with Microsoft.

Also, Amazon as just a tech company is not true anymore. They are really a conglomerate and want to get into pretty much everything. One rumor is that Amazon wants to massively increase their healthcare business. Houston would be a great location for that.

 

Another Con is Houston's national Image:

Houston has an image problem. The recent floods complicate the marketing challenge. But again, we can argue it the other way too. Yes, there were bad floods but look how we all came together to assist one another. 

 

Should the city finance a proposal and incentive package?

Absolutely. This could be a once in a generation opportunity for Houston. An opportunity to diversify and grow an new market in Houston for our future is very rare. 

 

Which part of Houston is best for HQ2? I would think Downtown. Our downtown is a great commuter bus hub to bring in workers everyday. There's plenty of available office space and space to build new construction. You could also make a case for Midtown, but access to public to transportation is not that good in midtown, same goes foe EaDo.

 

What do ya'll think?  

 

I agree downtown would be the ideal location for Amazon.  There would be alot more people living in downtown and there is still alot of space available for a project of this magnitiude.  Houston officials should be getting a proposal set up to pitch to Amazon.  

[htownbro]

According to this website,  here are the potential cities.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-hq2-cities-location-choices-new-second-headquarters/

[cspwal]

I guess Houston's BS percentage is too low

[Houston19514]

8 minutes ago, htownbro said:

According to this website,  here are the potential cities.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-hq2-cities-location-choices-new-second-headquarters/

 

Like a lot of the articles being written about the Amazon HQ2 search, this is pretty much a waste of time.  Interesting factoids, but I suspect Amazon is more interested in the number of talented qualified educated potential employees, not so much in the percentage.  Houston is at 30.4% with bachelors degrees.  30.4% of 7 million in Houston gives them a much larger talent pool than 35.8% of 2.1 million people in Kansas City (just a random example from the CBS list). One presumes Amazon will conduct a more nuanced analysis of cities than CBS.

[H-Town Man]

35 minutes ago, htownbro said:

According to this website,  here are the potential cities.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-hq2-cities-location-choices-new-second-headquarters/

 

There's been several articles like this. They are assuming Amazon will eliminate any metro areas where 33% of the workforce does not have a B.A. Houston is at 31.5% as of 2015. But I am skeptical it would be that simple, since due to the size of Houston's workforce, that's more people who have a B.A. than the entire workforce for many of the cities they list. The total number must be considered along with the percentage.

 

[Mr.Clean19]

I dont think they would rush a site with this much potential. If Amazon could provide a foundation on the west side of the property, they would have water access for loadout and all major Freeway connectors in a 2 mile stretch and all counter-flow. Its probably the most logistically efficient location in houston within Beltway 8. 

[Timoric]

-

 

[Elseed]

Man it would suck if Dallas or Austin gets this.

[houstontexasjack]

13 minutes ago, Elseed said:

Man it would suck if Dallas or Austin gets this.

I'd have no problem with Austin.  From a pride standpoint, it would indeed suck royally if Dallas got Amazon.  Professionally, it would bring more legal jobs to Texas and would probably provide a benefit to the other cities as well such that I should root for Texas cities over places in other states.  But, my pride is not rational. Duck Fallas. 

[Sparrow]

It sure would be a boost for the high speed rail folks for Amazon to build on North Post Oak where they plan the rail station. 

 

Perhaps the best real chance of landing HQ2 in the Houston area would be Springwoods Village up in Spring--they already have ExxonMobil (not HQ, but 10k strong), HP, ABS, and Southwestern Energy.

[KinkaidAlum]

We're not getting Amazon and I am not bothered by that at all. Sure, it would be nice if they took up the old Exxon Building and filled in the surrounding blocks but it isn't happening unless we give them everything for free and promise not to be mean on taxes. Even then, they ain't coming to H-town. 

 

Just more corporate extortion. 

[MaxConcrete]

Realistically, I don't see HQ2 coming to Houston. The competition will be great, other regions will offer huge incentives (including probably Chicago), we have the hurricane risk which has been poignantly publicized by Harvey, other regions will score better in the education category, other regions will score better in the mass transit category, other regions have more software developers in the workforce,  and other regions will have politics more suitable for Amazon.  And one more time: the hurricane and flooding risk!

 

That being said, it appears that the Greater Houston Partnership will submit a proposal. I don't see any sites in Houston that ideally meet Amazon's wishful wish list, although I don't think any city will have a perfect site.

 

Here is my analysis of the  official request for proposals

• The site can be a greenfield suburban site up to 30 miles "proximity to population center", a collection downtown high-rises, or anything in between. For existing buildings, there must be space for expansion for the long term potential build-out. The document really does not give any preference to urban or suburban, but my interpretation is that they would like plenty of land to build exactly what they want.
• Greenfield sites must be approximately 100 acres and "pad ready, with utility infrastructure in place". Also on page 5: "sites with the requisite access, utility infrastructure, and zoning are critical". This seems to preclude an all-new site starting from scratch, and would probably preclude the KBR site (or is it already ready for development?). A greenfield site would have to be an existing corporate park with plenty of land available.
• The requirement is "Within approx 45" minutes from an international airport. It is unclear if this applies during rush hour. If so, for Bush airport that would seem to exclude anything south of downtown and Interstate 10.
• The transit requirement is vague, just stating "Direct access to rail, train, subway/metro, bus routes". I read this to mean that bus routes alone could satisfy this requirement, and transit seems to be a lesser requirement. Even so, that could knock out many suburban campus sites.
• Page 5 says "finding suitable buildings/sites is of paramount importance." The word "paramount" is the strongest adjective they use in the document, so that suggests to me that they want a signature office property. I'm thinking that a greenfield site to build an all-new campus in a close-in location may be most competitive.
• Page 5: "A highly educated labor pool is critical and a strong university system is required". While Rice and UH are solid, many competing cities will score better than Houston.
• The Cultural Community Fit section on page 5 once again emphasizes "excellent institutions of higher education". It also seems to emphasize a good pro-business climate rather than liberal government policies (e.g. Chicago, NYC). I view this as the most favorable requirement for cities like Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and Atlanta.
• Community/Quality of Life section on page 5: This is vague and seems to be not as important as press reports have suggested.
• Page 2: "The jobs will likely be broken down into the following categories: executive/management, engineering with a preference for software development engineers (SDE), legal, accounting, and administrative." If this campus will cater more to the executive, legal, accounting and administrative needs, then being in a tech hub becomes much less important and being in a regional business hub (Chicago, Atlanta, DFW) makes more sense.
• Observation: Nowhere in the document is there a mention of affordable housing, ability to construct new housing, or low-to-moderate cost of living. This of course is a quality of life issue, but does not seem worthy of specific mention. So that seems to work in favor of the high-cost locations (e.g. Boston, NYC)

While I view Houston as highly unlikely, DFW and Austin may be contenders. Las Colinas in Irving or the Texas Stadium redevelopment site come to mind as strong potential sites for DFW. The Texas Stadium site has 452 acres of land, including 77 owned by Irving which could be offered for free. It is on a light rail line, 7 miles to DFW airport, 5 miles to Love Field, a major freeway hub with expansion in progress, 7 miles to Uptown Dallas (urban living), and 7 miles to Oak Lawn (rainbow community). But I don't know if the infrastructure is ready yet. Nearby Las Colinas has plenty of shovel-ready sites, although I don't know if it still has 100 acres available.

 

A probable weakness for Texas will be lack of subsidies from the State of Texas due to Governor Abbott's distaste for corporate welfare. Of course, Governor Perry was just the opposite, throwing all kinds of money at incentives (and achieving many successes).

 

I'm also thinking that Amazon may already have preferred sites in mind and is running this competition to maximize the subsidies and incentives to be offered. I'm thinking most communities will be wasting their time with a proposal. I'm also thinking we many have 2 or 3 winners, since it would make more sense to create centers of excellence in logical locations. For example the software hub in Boston or Austin (in addition to Seattle), logistics in DFW or Atlanta, and business operations in any number of cities, probably the one with the best incentives (potentially Chicago).

[H-Town Man]

One thing not to overlook as far as university systems: we have two massive universities within 170 miles, UT and A&M. For a company looking to recruit new graduates, this distance does not seem problematic at all. It actually puts us in a very strong position for education, and we are stronger than Dallas in this area, even looking just within the metro areas.

 

Dallas leaders are apparently discussing sites in South Dallas for this, which doesn't sound too compelling; a bid for anything in Irving must come from Irving. Sometimes I think we have an unmerited inferiority complex when it comes to Dallas. 

 

The flooding is going to fade in the rearview mirror, especially when Houston treats the nation to a rousing World Series victory this fall, its stunning downtown on display. Convince yourself you deserve something and you will be amazed what you can get. Go for the hottest girl in the room.

[ToryGattis]

I'm as big a fan of Houston as they come, but honestly, don't see this as realistic or a good fit. Houston has a lot of pros and cons mentioned in this thread, but I think the ultimate deal killer is that no one wants to compete with energy companies for talent (both white and blue collar) if oil spikes back up towards $100/barrel (unlikely, but possible).  DFW, Austin, and Denver have the inside track (IMHO).

[102IAHexpress]

6 minutes ago, ToryGattis said:

I'm as big a fan of Houston as they come, but honestly, don't see this as realistic or a good fit. 

 

I don't understand your good fit comment. Last month you made the case for an innovation tech district in downtown. If I remember correctly you said it was critical for Houston's future. 

[HOUTEX]

Some opinions aren't surprising, if a little disappointing. It never ceases to amaze the complacency that the status quo can create. 

 

But moving on... in reading the RFP and a couple of articles it would seem like workforce availability, deal economics and ability to meet their schedule are the biggest deciders. If you just look at the percentage of the Houston workforce that's college educated or in a STEM field we lose pretty quickly to a lot of cities, but in terms of overall headcount working in STEM fields Houston ranks 7th nationally, and 4th if other west coast cities are ignored (I don't think they'll bother with another office in the same time zone). First place goes to NYC, then Washington DC and third Chicago. Dallas, Atlanta and Boston round out the next three after Houston. 

 

I don't know where you find 100+ acres in New York, so that means you're looking at inhabiting existing buildings or new construction in a heavily heavily regulated city. Timing and economics become a concern. Washington DC has a similar set of concerns, especially considering height restrictions. Chicago could be an interesting option and appears to check most boxes, but the rust belt doesn't feel like the right culture for this company. Cost of living makes a big difference here...for a global company workforce is just a payroll liability and all things equal the talent pool is cheaper outside of the coastal markets. 

 

In my opinion the top options after filtering for size of overall STEM occupation headcount (not percentages), regional availability of labor, cost of living, etc. make Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and Boston the most interesting case studies. Denver and Austin have a higher % of the workforce in STEM jobs, but they're 1/2 and 1/3 the size of Houston's employment base, respectively. 

 

Flooding concern is a fleeting issue. Land prices will be a bigger concern. 

[H-Town Man]

47 minutes ago, ToryGattis said:

I'm as big a fan of Houston as they come, but honestly, don't see this as realistic or a good fit. Houston has a lot of pros and cons mentioned in this thread, but I think the ultimate deal killer is that no one wants to compete with energy companies for talent (both white and blue collar) if oil spikes back up towards $100/barrel (unlikely, but possible).  DFW, Austin, and Denver have the inside track (IMHO).

 

I've seen you mention this before about other companies not wanting to compete with energy companies for talent. Can you elaborate on how you know this? Is it anecdotal? Do you see Houston diversifying its economy as long as oil is strong? Have non-energy companies in the past (like Compaq or Continental) had problems in Houston? Genuinely curious.

[ToryGattis]

8 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

I don't understand your good fit comment. Last month you made the case for an innovation tech district in downtown. If I remember correctly you said it was critical for Houston's future. 

I do believe Houston still needs to cultivate a local startup scene, especially in our natural strengths like energy, biomedical, and enterprise IT. But Amazon is a completely different beast. It would be amazing to get Amazon, just like it would be amazing to win the lottery, but given the competition and probabilities, I just don't want to see Houston waste too much time and resources when there are much higher priorities for the city, especially right now.

 

8 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I've seen you mention this before about other companies not wanting to compete with energy companies for talent. Can you elaborate on how you know this? Is it anecdotal? Do you see Houston diversifying its economy as long as oil is strong? Have non-energy companies in the past (like Compaq or Continental) had problems in Houston? Genuinely curious.

 

It's mostly anecdotal. The official story is that Toyota picked San Antonio over Houston because of air pollution, but I've heard the real reason is that car factories require a stable work force, and they were worried a spike in oil prices would suck all of the workers out of their factory to work in higher paying refineries or offshore/onshore fields (ironically, that's exactly what happened with the Eagle Ford shale next to San Antonio, lol).  In their analysis, competing with tourism and the military to be the employer of choice in San Antonio was easy.  Amazon probably wants to be the employer of choice wherever they go (definitely the case in DFW and Denver), and not have to pay too much to attract and keep talent.  Normally, I think they could hold their own fine in Houston, but not if the oil companies suddenly start swimming in money again.

 

Honestly, as long as oil is a strong industry, I do see Houston having trouble substantially diversifying, just like you don't see non-tech companies rushing to set up shop in the SF Bay Area.

[102IAHexpress]

2 hours ago, ToryGattis said:

I do believe Houston still needs to cultivate a local startup scene, especially in our natural strengths like energy, biomedical, and enterprise IT. But Amazon is a completely different beast. It would be amazing to get Amazon, just like it would be amazing to win the lottery, but given the competition and probabilities, I just don't want to see Houston waste too much time and resources when there are much higher priorities for the city, especially right now.

 

Well, this a first. I've never disagreed with your posts on here or on your blog but I must disagree. Typically winning the lottery requires astronomical luck. Here Houston winning the Amazon lottery is at worst 1/50 or at best 1/10 or perhaps even better depending on what factors to include or exclude in a candidate city. Those are amazing odds in Houston's favor. Furthermore, Houston actually has a strong case relative to the competition. 

 

The 'Dallas' bid is one of many, including Fort Worth, Irving, Plano, etc. They lack a unified bid. 

Atlanta along with DFW are lacking a sea-port which Amazon currently has as part of their Seattle operation.

Austin pumps out a lot of tech graduates but their airport is lacking and cost of living is relatively high for a sunbelt state.

Denver along with Austin have local city councils that are similar to the one Amazon is currently feeling from in Seattle. 

 

Houston has everything Seattle has yet lacks Seattle's flaws. We have a sea-port, young educated work force, central core, we also have more space for new construction, lower cost of living, larger airports, a rational mayor and city council. I really don't see how the competition, even conceding Houston's flaws, is obviously better than Houston's bid. I've seen cities waste money on Olympic and Super Bowl bids, this bid is different however. 

 

Yesterday was the 9/11 anniversary. One thing I remember after those attacks was that Mayor Giuliani repeatedly in his words and actions made the point that New York City was open for business. Like NYC, Houston can do multiple things at the same time. Houston can clean up after Harvey and make a strong bid for Amazon at the same time. 

 

 

[samagon]

5 hours ago, ToryGattis said:

It's mostly anecdotal. The official story is that Toyota picked San Antonio over Houston because of air pollution, but I've heard the real reason is that car factories require a stable work force, and they were worried a spike in oil prices would suck all of the workers out of their factory to work in higher paying refineries or offshore/onshore fields

 

The labor that Amazon is looking for is not the same labor that Toyota was looking for. Assembly line manufacturers may be willing to drop their air tools for an oil platform, but a desk jockey pushing code isn't going to drop his mouse to go work on a platform. Maybe the desk jockeys will come to industrial automation, but that threat is everywhere and not unique to Houston, or the oil industry. Slinging code is slinging code.

 

2 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

Houston has everything Seattle has yet lacks Seattle's flaws. We have a sea-port, young educated work force, central core, we also have more space for new construction, lower cost of living, larger airports, a rational mayor and city council. I really don't see how the competition, even conceding Houston's flaws, is obviously better than Houston's bid. I've seen cities waste money on Olympic and Super Bowl bids, this bid is different however. 

 

 

 

Where we lack the most is public transportation.

 

 

 

But maybe this could be something that helps push this town towards that goal.

 

Houston does indeed have a great assortment of locations that would fit their needs, but a downtown location makes the most sense, I think calling the BOA building the Amazon tower might take some getting used to though. Maybe the chron parking lot can be developed into a tower sooner than anticipated?

 

 

[MaxConcrete]

On 9/12/2017 at 1:09 PM, samagon said:

Where we lack the most is public transportation.

True, but if you look at the Amazon requirement, the only mention of public transit as a requirement is on page 2, and my interpretation of the description is that bus routes alone will suffice. There is no mention of public transit in the "Key preferences and decision drivers" section, but highways are mentioned in the "logistics" section. In the "information requested" section, they ask for public transit and bicycle information, but highway details (including congestion) is the main focus of item 7.

 

I think one item which has not received much attention is the difficulty in achieving the real estate requirement. Amazon occupies about 12 city blocks in downtown Seattle, although they may share some of those buildings. See this nice map.

 

The requirement calls for 500k square feet available very soon, and expandability to 8 million square feet. That's around eight 50-floor skyscrapers in a downtown setting, so let's assume you need a minimum of 10 city blocks. Greenfield/redevelopment sites must be around 100 acres.

 

How many places in a downtown or near-downtown setting will you be able to find 10 city blocks readily available, or 100 acres? Even in suburban settings, 100 acres readily available is difficult to find. To be near downtown areas, they'll need to look at distressed and blighted areas or string together a mix of existing buildings and buildable lots, which will be especially difficult in places like NYC, Boston and DC. For a close-in but non-downtown site, I'm thinking they may be able to work with something like 40 acres.

 

Here are some numbers for comparison

Houston downtown post office site: 14 acres, equivalent to around 10 city blocks

All of Greenway Plaza, Buffalo Speedway to Weslayan, including land used for streets: 102 acres

Chevron site at 610 and Fournace: 30 acres

Northwest Mall (excluding land designated for future Hempstead tollway): 41 acres

Greenspoint Mall: around 115 acres

 

Austin

Camp Mabry site (owned by State of Texas east of MoPac): around 65 acres (but you could never get approval for 8 million square feet, or bring in 50k workers)

 

North Texas

Las Colinas: Largest unbuilt contiguous tract is around 46 acres

Downtown Dallas Perot land (parking lot Woodall Rodgers @Griffin)) 6.5 acres

Downtown Dallas Reunion site: around 30 arcres, much of it slated for Texas Central, probably only 13 acres available

North Dallas Valley View Mall site: around 97 acres

Texas Stadium redevelopment site: 452 acres of buildable land, probably available very cheap since a lot of the property is owned by the City of Irving or Univ. of Dallas

Plano Legacy: largest unbuilt tract is around 80 acres

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cspwal]

55 minutes ago, MaxConcrete said:

The requirement calls for 500k square feet available very soon, and expandability to 8 million square feet. That's around eight 50-floor skyscrapers in a downtown setting, so let's assume you need a minimum of 10 city blocks. Greenfield/redevelopment sites must be around 100 acres.

 

There's for sure 10 available city blocks in downtown - south of Toyota center, it's all grass fields and parking lots.