Amazon is looking for a second headquarters (St. Louis, St. Charles: real estate market, leases)

[1764]

St.Louis is a dark horse in the entire process of landing the 2HQ for Amazon. St.Louis has more positives than negative we can always gripe about crime protesters a weak mayor or how fragmented our region is but the truth is St.Louis still boost close to 10 fortunate 500 companies and plenty of fortune 1000 companies for a region thats rather stagnant. I don't believe St.Louis needs Amazon what St.Louis needs is inclusion and for its people to come together and embrace each other no matter what your ethnic background is what high school you gone too the petty stuff!

I think we all know Amazon will do whats best for Amazon and usually cities like St.Louis are nothing but average women with a bit of make up to cover their blemish's.

St.Louis will be good with or without Amazon however i don't think its a waste of money for the region trying lure something so tantalizing that its irresistible and missed opportunity.

I mean if cities such as Dayton Buffalo Birmingham Albany Grand Rapids Omaha Des Moines are going all in then why should St.Louis just take a back seat?

I have no expectations for St.Louis to come out on top either way I'm pleased with the developments that are currently taking place all over the city.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

I think the bigger concern is sprawl simply collapsing under its own weight. At some point you have a metro area of a million people that takes five hours to drive across with no traffic, and that just doesn't make physical or financial sense. People will start preferring a tear-down in Maryland Heights to new construction in Wright City that is barely cheaper and takes an extra hour to commute from. Especially if budget pressures halt subsidies to the exurbs.

Believe me, I'm not advocating for more sprawl in the St. Louis metro.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by STL1980

good points MUTGR, I don't disagree. In many of those cities where there is so much growth, i think that is the reason for the sprawl.
But back to Amazon, what would be the biggest reason for them NOT picking St. Louis? There are a lot of reasons FOR them: airport capacity is already there to be expanded upon, existing gates, etc. logistically centered, the most available vacant space in a Central Business District (Downtown) of any top 20 US city, low housing costs, mass transit (not perfect, but it does exist), and many other reasons.

The other thing about St. Louis is not only have the people dispersed all over the metro, the jobs have too.


I read millennials don't want the long commutes to work, but the days when almost everyone worked downtown are long gone.

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

I think the bigger concern is sprawl simply collapsing under its own weight. At some point you have a metro area of a million people that takes five hours to drive across with no traffic, and that just doesn't make physical or financial sense. People will start preferring a tear-down in Maryland Heights to new construction in Wright City that is barely cheaper and takes an extra hour to commute from. Especially if budget pressures halt subsidies to the exurbs.

It makes perfect sense for those that live in rural areas. For example, instead of driving to Chesterfield for shopping and dining, it's much easier to drive to Wentzville. That means less traffic congestion for Chesterfield residents. And since Chesterfield has nice options, that means less traffic to the Galleria, which means less traffic congestion for Clayton residents. Topography plays a major role as well. There isn't much you can do with a bunch of hills and trees, like in Eureka and Wildwood, except for putting in subdivisions along the ridges. There is more than one way to look at all of this. Landowners for the most part want to maximize the return/productivity of their asset. They don't really care about what some bureaucrat thinks. If farming isn't paying much, then it might make financial sense to sell agricultural land to a developer. A lot of it comes down to supply and demand, the cornerstone of the free market system. Why do you care if it takes 5 hours to drive across a metro, nobody is forcing you to make that commute.

Ironically, Amazon is contributing to and benefiting from sprawl. Many of their fulfillment and distribution centers are located further out, beyond even the suburbs in many cases. If they had to pay more for warehousing and distribution, would they even be in the financial position to build a new headquarters? If everyone lived within 5 miles of the Galleria, would Amazon even exist?

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

It makes perfect sense for those that live in rural areas. For example, instead of driving to Chesterfield for shopping and dining, it's much easier to drive to Wentzville. That means less traffic congestion for Chesterfield residents. And since Chesterfield has nice options, that means less traffic to the Galleria, which means less traffic congestion for Clayton residents. Topography plays a major role as well. There isn't much you can do with a bunch of hills and trees, like in Eureka and Wildwood, except for putting in subdivisions along the ridges. There is more than one way to look at all of this. Landowners for the most part want to maximize the return/productivity of their asset. They don't really care about what some bureaucrat thinks. If farming isn't paying much, then it might make financial sense to sell agricultural land to a developer. A lot of it comes down to supply and demand, the cornerstone of the free market system. Why do you care if it takes 5 hours to drive across a metro, nobody is forcing you to make that commute.

Ironically, Amazon is contributing to and benefiting from sprawl. Many of their fulfillment and distribution centers are located further out, beyond even the suburbs in many cases. If they had to pay more for warehousing and distribution, would they even be in the financial position to build a new headquarters? If everyone lived within 5 miles of the Galleria, would Amazon even exist?

Amazon's business model supports sprawl. Why get in your car and drive to a mall or shopping district or even walk to one when you can buy everything you need from home?

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

Amazon's business model supports sprawl. Why get in your car and drive to a mall or shopping district or even walk to one when you can buy everything you need from home?

It's funny that the people that are complaining about sprawl, are the same people that desperately want the headquarters.


If I lived in Wright City and I didn't like the local grocers, then I'd probably drive to Wentzville to do the bulk of my grocery shopping. That would sure as hell beat having to drive to the Soulard farmers market. Now if I wanted a jar of organic grass fed ghee, then I'd check out Amazon instead of driving all over creation to find it. The same logic applies if I was buying school clothes and shoes for the kids. It would probably be more efficient to go to the Kohl's in Wentzville, than to drive all the way to the Galleria or mess around with return shipping to Amazon. However, some women just like to shop for the experience

[StellarOverdrive]

Detroit native living in St. Louis for a contract -
Watch the Motor City land Amazon and leave STL in the dust, because St. Louis is honestly the most complacent, ignorant, unhealthy and bass-ackwards town in America these days.
You would think that with Detroit, Indy, Cleveland, Buffalo and other Rust Belt contemporaries leading a major comeback, you'd jump on the bandwagon.
But no, you sit there with your incompetent government and weekly riots from fruitcakes and wonder "duh, how can we progress as a city????"

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by StellarOverdrive

Detroit native living in St. Louis for a contract -
Watch the Motor City land Amazon and leave STL in the dust, because St. Louis is honestly the most complacent, ignorant, unhealthy and bass-ackwards town in America these days.
You would think that with Detroit, Indy, Cleveland, Buffalo and other Rust Belt contemporaries leading a major comeback, you'd jump on the bandwagon.
But no, you sit there with your incompetent government and weekly riots from fruitcakes and wonder "duh, how can we progress as a city????"

We are definitely first in trolls, although I think it's one or two people .

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

It makes perfect sense for those that live in rural areas. For example, instead of driving to Chesterfield for shopping and dining, it's much easier to drive to Wentzville. That means less traffic congestion for Chesterfield residents. And since Chesterfield has nice options, that means less traffic to the Galleria, which means less traffic congestion for Clayton residents. Topography plays a major role as well. There isn't much you can do with a bunch of hills and trees, like in Eureka and Wildwood, except for putting in subdivisions along the ridges. There is more than one way to look at all of this. Landowners for the most part want to maximize the return/productivity of their asset. They don't really care about what some bureaucrat thinks. If farming isn't paying much, then it might make financial sense to sell agricultural land to a developer. A lot of it comes down to supply and demand, the cornerstone of the free market system. Why do you care if it takes 5 hours to drive across a metro, nobody is forcing you to make that commute.

Ironically, Amazon is contributing to and benefiting from sprawl. Many of their fulfillment and distribution centers are located further out, beyond even the suburbs in many cases. If they had to pay more for warehousing and distribution, would they even be in the financial position to build a new headquarters? If everyone lived within 5 miles of the Galleria, would Amazon even exist?

You're right that it makes great financial sense to individuals, despite being bad financially for the region and the state. That's why it's a problem. If it didn't benefit any individuals to build these disposable neighborhoods, they wouldn't get built and it wouldn't be a problem at all! That's the way all bubbles work: everyone profits, until they don't.

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

You're right that it makes great financial sense to individuals, despite being bad financially for the region and the state. That's why it's a problem. If it didn't benefit any individuals to build these disposable neighborhoods, they wouldn't get built and it wouldn't be a problem at all! That's the way all bubbles work: everyone profits, until they don't.

Our Founders decided a long time ago that interstate commerce should not be impeded. Development has occurred along major routes of transportation for thousands of years. That's the main reason why STL was settled in the first place. I'm not really sure what you're advocating for. The highway system allows goods to be delivered to cities like STL more efficiently, meaning stuff costs less than it would otherwise.

Bubbles are great if you're positioned well. Economies will always have cycles.