[40acres]

I don't understand people who are conflating the search for HQ2 with Olympic bids and sports stadium bids. The Olympics are most likely a one time thing for a month, although in the future I could forsee it revolving around qualified sites, it takes a lot to convert facilities used for the Olympics into regular infrastucture (see Atlanta and LA).

Stadiums I think overall have a better impact, as they can create or revitalize an economic area, provide longer terms jobs, and sports teams provide back to their communities.

Amazon is on a completely different level. They will bring thousands of skilled workers, and generate trillions in economic activity. HQ2 will stand for a long time, it can completely change the trajectory of a city. There are many many issues with bringing Amazon to your city, home prices and infrastructure to name a few -- but isn't this a problem you'd rather have than not?

[tbirrell]

As someone who will probably never work at Amazon, or in any way benefit from their presence, the issues of housing prices and infrastructure are important to me. I'm not willing to pay an effective Amazon-tax in both my rent and commute time for for the dubious honor of saying I live in the same city as HQ2.

[TheCowboy]

I'm not a fan of cities dishing out perks, but what you said amounts to NIMBYism. I'm sympathetic to those concerns but housing prices aren't solved by keeping out newcomers or being against development. There can also be an indirect income boost that comes with an increased demand for labor, and it can help make the local economy more robust.

I do think the concern about unforeseen infrastructure costs are warranted, especially if a city doesn't excel in urban planning or has problems with NIMBYism derailing good plans. But I think most of the cities on the shortlist are fair game and could handle a project of this scale.

[dragonwriter]

> housing prices aren't solved by keeping out newcomers or being against development.

Housing prices aren't solved by forcing homeowners to subsidize commercial development, either. Ml

[apercu]

What is the problem with NYMBYism? Why is that a bad word?

Because a bunch of jerks in SV won't let more housing go in?

[ghaff]

Because it's a cheap, lazy insult to throw out at people who have different preferences than you do. It originally applied more to things like power plants that we collectively need but that basically no one wants to live next to. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with a city not wanting an Amazon HQ because of its impact on current residents when plenty of other places do.

[apercu]

> Because it's a cheap, lazy insult to throw out at people who have different preferences than you do.

Agreed.

[nerfhammer]

Because there are tremendous social costs to intentionally causing housing shortages.

https://www.axios.com/the-great-stagnation-americans-stopped...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-...

[apercu]

Right, but we're not talking about housing, we're talking about Amazon.

[melq]

Well, no, you're talking about NIMBYism.

But bringing in Amazon is going to necessitate adding housing stock, and that just doesn't happen in like Boston that already have housing issues and rampant NIMBYism.

[tbirrell]

That fair. However, Austin is already behind the curve and can't keep up with the current influx of people and companies, adding Amazon to the mix will simply exacerbate the problem. Thus my concern. Maybe it'll be a good thing 10 years down the road, but that'll be a tough 10 years and I'm not confident that Austin will even be able to get to that point.

[skt5]

> "in any way benefit from their presence"

how did you reach that conclusion?

[zhjansbnas]

The whole point of cities is economic agglomeration. If you don’t want that, why live in a city at all?

[tbirrell]

Economic agglomeration is not bad, but if the city is unable to keep up with said agglomerating, then accelerating it is a bad idea. Austin is already behind the curve and can't keep up with the current influx of people and companies, adding Amazon to the mix will simply exacerbate the problem.

[conanbatt]

Its reasonable that if you are individually not profiting from it, you should vote against, but most people will benefit (every single landlord, lots of businesses that will sell stuff, and all the people that would move and get a job there). If it were to be put up to a vote, the vote would be positive. If it were to be put up for an economic analysis, the economic analysis would be positive.

[s73ver_]

"but most people will benefit (every single landlord, lots of businesses that will sell stuff, and all the people that would move and get a job there)"

That's far, far from "most people". Landlords, for instance, would benefit, due to being able to charge higher rents. But everyone else in that town that rents would not benefit. And I dare say there are more renters than there are landlords.

[conanbatt]

http://www.businessinsider.com/homeownership-rate-state-map-...

Most people are landlords..

[s73ver_]

That is not at all what that says. Someone who owns their house is not a landlord. A landlord is someone who rents out a property to someone else.

[d4rti]

Do you have any reputable sources on Stadiums being an economic benefit?

Everything I have seen suggests otherwise, eg. https://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stadium-economics-noll-...

[misterbowfinger]

Just a small counterpoint - the United Center in Chicago was supposed to revitalize the surrounding neighborhood, but in practice drove it down to the ground. Same deal with Yankee Stadium and Citi Field in New York.

[keepper]

The area around Shea stadium/Citi field was always an industrial area... Re-zoning hasn't happened. ( Shea Stadium was built in the 60s )

The area around Yankee Stadium has always been a vibrant community. Yankee stadium was built in the 1920's

Not sure that you are a new yorker with those two statements... Shea stadium was never re-zoned, so re-vitalization was never its intended goal... Yankee stadium surrounding area has gone thru the usual cycles every other nyc neighborhood has, and the stadium location is almost 100 years old!

[misterbowfinger]

I grew up in New York. Just wanted to add a data point that stadiums don't always "uplift" communities. There's a lot that goes into it.

[aeorgnoieang]

The current Yankee Stadium was built less than a decade ago. The stadium that was built in the '20s is just a block away tho (and now a park).