urbanMSP

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that blocking HQ2 because Target doesn't like it is asinine, especially given some of Target's track record with things that Amazon clearly supports and are good for the city.

We needed state authorization for that transit sales tax and Target blocked it. They were eventually overruled, yes.

I mean in the end it's not that big a deal. I'm just pointing out that maybe all the political kowtowing to Target really isn't justified.

They didn't block it because it supported transit. They blocked it because they're a big retailer and they thought it was going to cut into their business -- wrong-headed, maybe, but hardly unique to them.

Meanwhile, guess who wasn't collecting sales taxes, using their resulting anti-competitive advantage to take market share, as well as denying revenue to state and local governments? Sure, they've changed their tune since then, but it took a while.

I don't like the political kowtowing either, but I'm not sure how trading one company with a lot of influence for one with five times as much is going to make things any better in that department. We'd just go from not doing things Target doesn't want to do, to not doing things Amazon wouldn't want to do.

We can certainly craft requirements in the bid that protect us from bad behavior. If Amazon doesn't like it, so be it.

This probably has interesting information but it's locked.

https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... ities.html?

This probably has interesting information but it's locked.

https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... ities.html?

That was very interesting! Mpls. comes in #18 in the cost to run annually a 50,000 person tech office. $4.22 billion a year in Mpls area. Amazon is has said they are setting aside $5 billion a year for this. 4 cities are already over that amount (the usual suspects).

Surprises: We are one step about Chicago in expense, but well below Denver. Toronto and Vancouver are #34 and #35 respectively (list was 35 long). Only $2.4 billion to run the office in Vancouver, Toronto a little more at around $2.6 billion.

New York throws its hat in the ring:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -the-burbs

Seems a bit of a straw man / elitist tone to dismiss other million-plus cities "burbs."

Well, New Yorkers are stereotypically the people who will give you the side-eye if you dare refer to any other place as a "city" so that checks out.

Wow, the TCAAP is a mess. They definitely are missing many of the things Amazon was looking for. I assume that the MSP decision makers would not offer up this site no matter how it's presented. There are so many better options locally.

I agree there are definitely better sites in MSP but at the same time I totally get why the TCAAP people are pushing the site. It would be a terrible decision for them not to at least try to.

Some evidence that NYC (and perhaps cities with similar attributes?) is to Amazon's liking, at least on a smaller scale. Seems like this is specifically tailored to NYC's talent-rich industries.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tan-office

$5 billion goes significantly farther in almost every other city in the country, though.

From the MSP Business Journal:

"Minneapolis submitted four sites to Greater MSP, according to the sources. The city’s list includes the Farmer’s Market area near Target Field; the area around Highway 280 and University Avenue, known as Towerside; the Bassett Creek Valley just west of downtown; and the Upper Harbor Terminal along the North Minneapolis riverfront, which is already being redeveloped by United Properties.

St. Paul, according to the sources, submitted three sites, including a downtown proposal involving several city-owned properties; the Ford site in Highland Park; and in the area surrounding the Minnesota United FC soccer stadium, which is under construction in the Midway neighborhood."

The Ford site was left out:

"The Ford site’s master plan — which could be adopted soon— only calls for 450,000 square feet of office space, so it couldn’t handle an entire 8 million-square-foot Amazon campus. A few sources have raised the idea of a bifurcated pitch to Amazon — splitting the 50,000 employees between two or three sites and connecting them with transit."

I also thought this was interesting,

"Clearly, many of the proposals are half-baked. Some of the sites already have tenants, and the odds of actually luring Amazon are so long that it would be tough to get a landlord to make any commitments about leased properties. Some of the proposals come nowhere near the 100 acres requested by Amazon."


Hopefully we have a serious, non-half baked proposal amongst all the dreamers.....

https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... sites.html

Clearly, many of the proposals are half-baked.

This could describe almost all of our boosterism in the past decade.

Those are basically all the sites you'd guess.

Ranked:
1. Mpls Farmer’s Market
2. Towerside
3. Midway
4. Downtown Saint Paul
5. Bassett Creek Valley
6. Ford Site
7. Upper Harbor Terminal

"The Ford site’s master plan — which could be adopted soon— only calls for 450,000 square feet of office space, so it couldn’t handle an entire 8 million-square-foot Amazon campus.

Isn't this kind of silly thinking? The site probably could handle the entire 8 million square foot Amazon campus, it just means they would have to deviate from their "master plan".

It's sillier thinking to assume a site that doesn't come close to meeting their mass transit criteria would be chosen anyway. And for all the whining Highland Park has been doing about the traffic they're worried about from the current site plans, what do they think 50,000 people commuting there would do?

The Ford site lacks freeway access -- I'd argue that makes it a non-starter. Even if it had great transit, which it doesn't, you're still going to have thousands and thousands of people driving.

It's sillier thinking to assume a site that doesn't come close to meeting their mass transit criteria would be chosen anyway. And for all the whining Highland Park has been doing about the traffic they're worried about from the current site plans, what do they think 50,000 people commuting there would do?

So, I'm aware that there is a river in the way, but doesn't the Ford plant sit within a few thousand feet of an existing light rail line? I'm sure there are lots of official reasons why the site doesn't meet their mass transit criteria, but are there any practical ones? Everything they seem to want is close, you'd just need to put the connections in. I understand that the site probably won't be an Amazon HQ, but it's one of those places that you can just see people twenty, thirty years down the line shaking their heads while thinking about what could have been.

doesn't the Ford plant sit within a few thousand feet of an existing light rail line?

No. No it doesn't. Maybe in a "shortest distance" sense, but in a realistic, trying to get there sense? No.

Everything they seem to want is close, you'd just need to put the connections in.

That's the problem though. According to the RFP, that's backwards. Amazon doesn't want to wait for the connections. They want to locate somewhere that has them now.

it's one of those places that you can just see people twenty, thirty years down the line shaking their heads while thinking about what could have been.

That's already going to happen with the way the StP mayoral candidates are giving in to the Highland Park NIMBYs on this site.