Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
RTP needs to evolve to a full "Live, Work, Play" area, with internal mixed use and dedicated internal mass transit that is connected to regional transit via hubs.
Of course, regional transit is woeful, but maybe? Some day?
I agree with this, 100%
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
This is why they chose Austin. I know we think that Austin isn't offering them incentives, but they have and I am pretty sure those are ongoing, possibly with stipulations of further expansion.
RTP needs to evolve to a full "Live, Work, Play" area, with internal mixed use and dedicated internal mass transit that is connected to regional transit via hubs.
Of course, regional transit is woeful, but maybe? Some day?
Absolutely.........if RTP wants to stay relevant, eventually they'll need to make that happen somehow.
This is why they chose Austin. I know we think that Austin isn't offering them incentives, but they have and I am pretty sure those are ongoing, possibly with stipulations of further expansion.
The incentives last time were also fairly minimal. The new site isn't within the city of Austin.
However, it's telling that the new campus is just across the street from their existing campus, which they've just tripled in size. This is just Phase 3 of an existing site.
To make it clear: just the state of NC definitely offered incentives that were at least 3X as much as what Apple is claiming from the state of Texas & Williamson County. (Because they're structured differently, it's difficult to make apples-to-apples comparisons.) But incentives are the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
If incentives/costs were the key consideration, these expansions wouldn't be going to high-cost cities (e.g., Apple expanding in Seattle, San Diego, Culver City/West LA, NYC, Boston).
This is why they chose Austin. I know we think that Austin isn't offering them incentives, but they have and I am pretty sure those are ongoing, possibly with stipulations of further expansion.
So what? Everybody offers incentives. You want to think Apple made their decision only because of incentives, but thats not the case. Austin was the most attractive location, overall, i.e. it was a better location than the Triangle. NC and the Triangle need to figure out why that is, and start doing what can be done to improve the situation for the future.
So what? Everybody offers incentives. You want to think Apple made their decision only because of incentives, but thats not the case. Austin was the most attractive location, overall, i.e. it was a better location than the Triangle. NC and the Triangle need to figure out why that is, and start doing what can be done to improve the situation for the future.
No. That's not what I was talking about at all. I was referring to the site of the existing campus and proximity to the existing Apple infrastructure. I have no doubt Austin offered SOMETHING when they originally came to Austin and that they offered more to expand and that little bit, combined with the desirability of an expansion, rather than setting down substantial roots in an unknown area, is why they went with Austin.
I know it because it's common sense and because, frankly, Apple was never doing this based on cash incentives in the first place.
I assumed they considered this area for the talent pool and the cost of real estate. I'm sure I'm not wrong about that. If Austin didn't already have the large presence it does, there is every chance we would have gotten a campus here.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The incentives last time were also fairly minimal. The new site isn't within the city of Austin.
However, it's telling that the new campus is just across the street from their existing campus, which they've just tripled in size. This is just Phase 3 of an existing site.
To make it clear: just the state of NC definitely offered incentives that were at least 3X as much as what Apple is claiming from the state of Texas & Williamson County. (Because they're structured differently, it's difficult to make apples-to-apples comparisons.) But incentives are the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
If incentives/costs were the key consideration, these expansions wouldn't be going to high-cost cities (e.g., Apple expanding in Seattle, San Diego, Culver City/West LA, NYC, Boston).
The bolded was the major thrust of that article, to me. In Cupertino, Apple slowly expanded to suck up a good amount of real estate before they finally got to the point that building the spaceship was what they needed in order to house their operations there.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
If Austin didn't already have the large presence it does, there is every chance we would have gotten a campus here.
Why was the Triangle left out then but Pittsburgh, Boulder, Culver City, Boston, New York City, San Diego, Portland, etc... were also part of the announcement getting thousands of jobs?
Seattle, San Diego, and Culver City currently have zero corporate Apple presence so it is 100% new growth (like the Triangle would have been) to 1,000 employees in each location. Pittsburgh, will grow to around 1,000 Apple employees from 50 today.
The rumor was Apple was strongly considering the Triangle for the ultimate prize, but then it didn't even get a consolation prize of a 1,000 person campus. Instead Pittsburgh came out of nowhere and got 1,000 jobs.
Why was the Triangle left out then but Pittsburgh, Boulder, Culver City, Boston, New York City, San Diego, Portland, etc... were also part of the announcement getting thousands of jobs?
Seattle, San Diego, and Culver City currently have zero corporate Apple presence so it is 100% new growth (like the Triangle would have been) to 1,000 employees in each location. Pittsburgh, will grow to around 1,000 Apple employees from 50 today.
The rumor was Apple was strongly considering the Triangle for the ultimate prize, but then it didn't even get a consolation prize of a 1,000 person campus. Instead Pittsburgh came out of nowhere and got 1,000 jobs.
That I'm not sure about, but Apple does have a presence in NC.
I find it hard to believe that their whole corporate strategy was "college students fresh out and looking for work won't live in NC" or "they used to have some stupid bathroom bill so we're gonna psych them."
May well have been a case of "we may expand there later, but we were considering them for a large site project and now we want to wait and expand Austin first."
The jobs that went to other cities may have been already slated for those regardless. I cannot see why Apple is supposed to give us a "consolation prize" in the way of something they never had in mind for us to begin with.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
If Austin didn't already have the large presence it does, there is every chance we would have gotten a campus here.
Thats wishful thinking. And as I've said before, it ignores the fact that Apple could have selected the Triangle over Austin when they located the first facility. It also ignores the fact that in addition to selecting Austin this time around, they bypassed the Triangle in favor of 6 other cities for new investment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
