No. I think if anything, having an existing concentration of retail talent would have worked in our favor, given that Amazon is willing and able to siphon talent.Do we think Target was a factor one way or another here? I think most would have had us in the top 20 finalists, unless climate was the key factor.
My guess is that top-tier cities probably got in on their merits--if you're serious about locating in New York, it's not because of a tax break--whereas mid-tier cities like ours had to fight a bit more on the handouts to get noticed.I really don't think it came down to anything besides the tax breaks (except for maybe NYC? Don't remember what they offered), so I'm not too heartbroken to not have Minneapolis/St. Paul on the list.
It's a little relieving that we didn't lose out based on inadequate mass transit, though.
Well, the DC metro subway does extend substantially into both of those suburban areas, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. But I do think it's telling that NoVa, Maryland, and DC all made the cut with separate bids. Pretty blatantly trying to set off a bidding war between those three, IMO.If Amazon was willing to consider the suburbs of D.C. (NoVa and Maryland) as finalists, I don't see how any site we would have offered would have been worse as far as not being "urban" enough.
I think there's a decent chance that Amazon mostly had a shortlist predetermined before the whole thing started, and just wants the façade of proposals as a cover to get the cities on that shortlist to bid against each other. I would've welcomed the HQ in MSP and I think we would have been a good fit, but I'm glad we didn't get sucked into that.