Amazon seeks proposals from cities for a second North American headquarters

[Shawn Knight]

When you’re a company with the size and influence of Amazon, you’ve got options. And when it comes time to scout locations for a second headquarters, you’d be a fool not to play the field.

Amazon on Thursday said it was doing just that – considering locations for a second headquarters to rival its existing facility in Seattle. The project could cost upwards of $5 billion to build but would bring as many as 50,000 “high-paying” jobs to whichever lucky community is selected.

Dubbed Amazon HQ2, the facility would also create tens of thousands of additional jobs and tens of billions of dollars in further investment in the surrounding community.

In Seattle, for example, Amazon estimates its investments from 2010 through 2016 have resulted in an additional $38 billion to the city’s economy. According to the company, every dollar invested in Amazon in Seattle has generated an additional 1.4 dollars for the city’s economy.

Amazon is now accepting proposal requests and has identified the following preferences in choosing a location:

• Metropolitan areas with more than one million people
• A stable and business-friendly environment
• Urban or suburban locations with the potential to attract and retain strong technical talent
• Communities that think big and creatively when considering locations and real estate options

Amazon adds that the project could be, but does not have to be:

• An urban or downtown campus
• A similar layout to Amazon’s Seattle campus
• A development-prepped site. We want to encourage states and communities to think creatively for viable real estate options, while not negatively affecting our preferred timeline.

Amazon didn’t supply a timeline for proposals or the project in general although given its scope, I would expect it to take several years to complete.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/70892-amazon-seeks-proposals-cities-second-north-american-headquarters.html

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Maybe they should just invade Vatican City or Monaco instead.

 

[stewi0001]

Not sure if I would want them in my city or not.

 

[captaincranky]

Just as a guess based on logistics, I'd say PA or NJ, halfway between NYC and Philly.

Based on land prices, I go with North Dakota, but the heating bill could be horrendous Land is cheap in places down South, but you'd better be way, way, inland.

In a practical sense, the location should be near where your biggest percentage of customers are. I'd say that's somewhere in the mid Atlantic region.

It doesn't make sense (to me at least), to consider anywhere west of the Mississippi..

 

[psycros]

Just as a guess based on logistics, I'd say PA or NJ, halfway between NYC and Philly.

Based on land prices, I go with North Dakota, but the heating bill could be horrendous Land is cheap in places down South, but you'd better be way, way, inland.

In a practical sense, the location should be near where your biggest percentage of customers are. I'd say that's somewhere in the mid Atlantic region.

It doesn't make sense (to me at least), to consider anywhere west of the Mississippi..

Why would a company need multiple headquarters in the same country? Do they have so many facilities scattered across the land that they need another place for the bean counters to roost between field trips to give employees the hairy eyeball?

 

[Reehahs]

California city seem to have the space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO3LUhFwx6k

 

[namesrejected]

Detroit

 

[captaincranky]

Why would a company need multiple headquarters in the same country? Do they have so many facilities scattered across the land that they need another place for the bean counters to roost between field trips to give employees the hairy eyeball?

They already have Amazon.uk. So why wouldn't you wan to shorten the shipping distance by building on the East Coast. I do realize they have "Fulfillment Centers" locally.

As to giving employees, "the hairy eyeball", I'd say it's the white collar staff who more than likely have unlimited internet access, and likely they're the ones who need "uber-managers", but then, who's going to watch them?

 

[seeprime]

Just as a guess based on logistics, I'd say PA or NJ, halfway between NYC and Philly.

Based on land prices, I go with North Dakota, but the heating bill could be horrendous Land is cheap in places down South, but you'd better be way, way, inland.

In a practical sense, the location should be near where your biggest percentage of customers are. I'd say that's somewhere in the mid Atlantic region.

It doesn't make sense (to me at least), to consider anywhere west of the Mississippi..

Why would a company need multiple headquarters in the same country? Do they have so many facilities scattered across the land that they need another place for the bean counters to roost between field trips to give employees the hairy eyeball?

I'd speculate that they're looking to split off some parts of the company, and have two firms under one holding company.

 

[captaincranky]

I'd speculate that they're looking to split off some parts of the company, and have two firms under one holding company.

they probably do have to be mindful of earning 'monopoly status", that being illegal and such.

 

[seeprime]

they probably do have to be mindful of earning 'monopoly status", that being illegal and such.

Google went the holding company route with Alphabet becoming the "master". The system has its advantages for large corporations that need to legally appear to be a number of smaller firms.

 

[TechnoSapien]

Detroit

LOL +1. That or Baltimore would really make my day.

 

[drjekelmrhyde]

Atlanta, Chicago, Memphis(FedEx hub), or Lexington(UPS hub).

My bad they said second HQ, but CNBC agrees with two of my choices https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/07/her...ns-wish-list-for-its-second-headquarters.html

 

[namesrejected]

Why would a company need multiple headquarters in the same country? Do they have so many facilities scattered across the land that they need another place for the bean counters to roost between field trips to give employees the hairy eyeball?

I think its redundancy in lieu of the North Korea threat.

 

[mailpup]

California city seem to have the space

That may be true but it seems unlikely. I think more large companies are moving out of California than going the other way. They still do business in California but their headquarters are somewhere else.

 

[Kenrick]

Alaska is my bet (/smirk).

Back to reality, looks like Toronto is the next amazon hub considering how successful Amazon is in Canada.

 

[Uncle Al]

Atlanta, Cincinnati, or even Nashville would be good candidates if they want to keep it in the US ... Toronto would also be good although I don't think they will like the "standard of citizens" there according to some of my friends with HP.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Just as a guess based on logistics, I'd say PA or NJ, halfway between NYC and Philly.

Based on land prices, I go with North Dakota, but the heating bill could be horrendous Land is cheap in places down South, but you'd better be way, way, inland.

In a practical sense, the location should be near where your biggest percentage of customers are. I'd say that's somewhere in the mid Atlantic region.

It doesn't make sense (to me at least), to consider anywhere west of the Mississippi..

Why would a company need multiple headquarters in the same country? Do they have so many facilities scattered across the land that they need another place for the bean counters to roost between field trips to give employees the hairy eyeball?

I'd speculate that they're looking to split off some parts of the company, and have two firms under one holding company.

I think the northeast is out of labor and it's expensive. They may follow Foxconn and look at Southeastern Wisconsin. Amazon has a big distribution center there already. Right between Milwaukee and Chicago (In WI) there's a lot of cheap land, with good access to labor via freeways in an area that's growing fast.