I've had the chance to talk to a number of people about their thoughts on Amazon's HQ2 location. They agree on one thing - that Amazon's displaying some skill in the art of showmanship. This whittling down of contestants is akin to a long-term game show. It's also interesting that they're choosing to keep several smaller midwestern cities (Columbus and Indianapolis) in the running. My theory is that these are not real contenders, but are there to keep the field interesting.
Anyway, here are my thoughts on the HQ2 finalists:
Columbus, Ohio: This is a great, up-and-coming city with a diverse economy, a vibrant fashion industry, and a lot of startups for its size. However, Columbus is simply too small a pond for such a big fish. I mean this in several senses. First, it may not be enough of an established metropolis to attract the sorts of elites Amazon will hope to attract as executives, and directors. Its size raises a lot of questions - I can't think of another time when such a large headquarters with such an elite work force was ever dumped in a city Columbus's size. This spawns uncertainty, and does not bode well for Columbus's chances as an HQ2 winner.
Indianapolis, IN: Indianapolis, like Columbus, is a fairly vibrant midwestern City. Lots of entrepreneurial spirit, and some pretty big businesses are headquartered there. However, the drawbacks I mentioned in connection with Columbus apply equally to Indianapolis. Actually, it's probably less competitive, since I believe Columbus is a much hipper city at this point.
Los Angeles, CA: I doubt HQ2 will find it's home here. LA is great, but it would be a strange choice. Amazon has a big presence on the West Coast, and it just does not strike me as a SoCal company. LA is also not what most people think of as a tech city. And it's a behemoth that probably doesn't need or want the additional people and traffic that an HQ2 would bring.
Atlanta, GA: Similar issues abound with Atlanta. The culture is so different from Seattle's, that I think it causes lots of unwelcome uncertainties. Georgians (even Atlantans) don't want $7 lattes and liberal attitudes. They probably wouldn't appreciate the social impact of HQ2, and I'm guessing Amazon realizes this.
Miami, FL: Miami is not a tech hub or brain trust. Smart young people tend to leave after graduating from school there. It's also got a sort of seedy vibe that I think will turn off the Amazon folks. Finally, in the long term, climate change could mean serious problems for this city, which sits not far above sea level. Amazon wants their investment secure for the long term.
Nashville, TN: This city might have a shot. It's very different, culturally, from Seattle. However, it's fairly progressive, and a presence there would add a very interesting new dimension to the company. I think the hipster/country flair of Nashville would be a great juxtaposition for the north-west coastal vibe the company's currently got. However, as with Columbus and Indianapolis, I'm not sure if the city's a big enough pond for a 50,000 man HQ.
Newark, NJ and Philladelphia, PA: These two cities are interesting because both are somewhat economically depressed (especially Newark). Part of me thinks Bezos's philanthropic mindset could nudge him into choosing one of these in part to value to a city which struggles with certain economic challenges. I think Newark might be a bit too gritty to get the prize, but Philly could make the cut. It doesn't have a super vibrant tech scene that I know of, so Amazon would have to have a slightly more pioneering attitude to go here than, say, Austin or Boston. But I think it's possible.
Austin, TX: This city has a shot, but I think it will not make the cut for two reasons: First, it's infrastructure is already severely overburdened with a population has skyrocketed in the past decade. Second, this city seems sort of like it's in a fad phase. I'm not sure how long Austin will stay in the limelight, but I think Amazon will want to go with a city which does have a cool factor, but which also has a better-established metropolitan pedigree.
Boston, MA: I think Boston has a very good chance of taking the cake. It's got a burgeoning tech scene, PLENTY of talent, and it's a lot like Seattle in a lot of ways (allaying the culture shock worries I described earlier). The only thing boding against Boston is that it seems a little too easy. Bezos might want a bit more of a challenge or a surprise for the nation. He seems like a legacy guy, and uplifting a city like Philly or Newark might appeal to him in a way that an easy choice like Boston might not.
Raleigh and Northern Virginia: Two very strong candidates for HQ2. They're in good part of the country - blending elite/academic vibes with southern vibes, this diversity may be appealing because it will give new dimensions to the company. Both locations will attract talent.
Pittsburgh, PA: This is a decent candidate. Carnegie Mellon U. produces top-notch engineers and developers. The city is an up-and-comer, and is quite vibrant. It's similar to Columbus, only larger, and with somewhat better access to top tech talent.
I've left some contenders out of this analysis, but that's just because I'm a busy guy. Sorry. As always, these opinions are totally subject to debate.
