Why do fortune 500 companies Like Northrop Grumman have HQ in non metro accessible location?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kind of people that work at Northrop Grumman are the kind of people that want to drive. The kind of people that work at Amazon are the kind of people that would like to take the metro.

I was sort of thinking the same thing. I just read that they're a defense contractor (didn't know, lol--live in DC and don't know anyone in that line of work), and that they've donated more to Republicans' campaigns than Democrats, and that several former employees have served in the Bush administration. Seems more like they'll attract a NoVa type of worker more than any other DC area.

NG also rents space in MD, IME in office parks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some of what you say is probably correct, but your implied premise is that the best are those living in the city. Probably false.

I dont mean to say people who live in cities are the best and I dont want to start a debate about that. What I mean to say that younger people and Millenials mostly live in the city and want to live car-free.[i][u] You are cutting yourself from a broad demographics, and I do not see the value of an off-metro location. Reducing cars on the road benefits everyone including those who drive to work.

My theory is that these companies are run by old school execs who have not adapted to the new car-free generation.

And pretty soon, the younger people and the millenials will have kids and move to the suburbs and be thrilled they can work flex hours and park for free at the large parking lot at NG.
Ask some GenXers where they lived in their 20s... (hint: they too loved the urban life at one point, and eventually life and priorities changed.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I imagine it's expensive to hold that much real estate in a location accessible to a metro station, especially when a significant portion of your workers will still want parking.

Right. This also means jobs for high value workers are more likely to be near metros because they can afford the rent. Low value work is more likely to be done in a more remote location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Some of what you say is probably correct, but your implied premise is that the best are those living in the city. Probably false.

I dont mean to say people who live in cities are the best and I dont want to start a debate about that. What I mean to say that younger people and Millenials mostly live in the city and want to live car-free.[i][u] You are cutting yourself from a broad demographics, and I do not see the value of an off-metro location. Reducing cars on the road benefits everyone including those who drive to work.

My theory is that these companies are run by old school execs who have not adapted to the new car-free generation.

And pretty soon, the younger people and the millenials will have kids and move to the suburbs and be thrilled they can work flex hours and park for free at the large parking lot at NG.
Ask some GenXers where they lived in their 20s... (hint: they too loved the urban life at one point, and eventually life and priorities changed.)

And the market provided by the existing regulatory regime was increasingly hostile to their living the urban life. There's a major chicken/egg problem in these discussions.

[Anonymous]

And pretty soon, the younger people and the millenials will have kids and move to the suburbs and be thrilled they can work flex hours and park for free at the large parking lot at NG.
Ask some GenXers where they lived in their 20s... (hint: they too loved the urban life at one point, and eventually life and priorities changed.)

I hear this argument over and over again and it is plain wrong. Even if existing emps settled down and move to the suburbs a company will always want to have access a younger generation workforce. What you are saying will help in retaining * existing* staff but not in drawing new younger talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on your thoughtless embrace of propaganda, I'll guess you're expecting Goldman Sachs and Google to decamp to Mississippi. LOL! There's more texture to the reality than you simpletons can imagine!

Huh? There's a certain level of "aptitude" required for different types of jobs. It's why companies can't just pickup and move to the middle of nowhere and pay the cheapest rent possible. This is pretty obvious. However, there are certainly lower cost options available to companies that have some mobility within an area. With that said, as someone else pointed out, money is largely the driving force. Using an example from this area.. AOL had a large campus out in Reston and Dulles in the 90's. They didn't have a problem with hiring qualified employees. The point is, while some people may not want to drive a car to work, the vast majority of people don't care. As self driving cars become commonplace, people will likely care even less.

[Anonymous]

Arlington resident - I would guess less than 20% of Arlintonians are truly car-free.

This is plain wrong, most young people(not fams) I know who live in Arlington live car-free. Here are the stats

https://ggwash.org/view/35905/88-of-new-dc-households-are-car-free

About 40% of household in DC dont have cars.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-of-vehicles-by-city-map.html

https://ggwash.org/view/33531/the-american-cities-with-the-most-growth-in-car-free-households


I love cars, but I just can't afford the upkeep, parking car payments etc. If I have to buy a car I have to move out of my Arlington apt and move to the suburbs where the rent is cheaper.

[Anonymous]

capital one, freddie mac, and hilton all fortune 500 companies with HQ in tysons long before metro were built....

guess what, people moved to mclean/tysons so they have a less than 10 mins commute to capital one/freddie mac/hilton

[Anonymous]

Only 500 people work in the HQ in Falls Church.

They can take a free shuttle from West Falls Church to HQ if they are "car free".

Hope this causes your panties to unbundle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Some of what you say is probably correct, but your implied premise is that the best are those living in the city. Probably false.

I dont mean to say people who live in cities are the best and I dont want to start a debate about that. What I mean to say that younger people and Millenials mostly live in the city and want to live car-free. You are cutting yourself from a broad demographics, and I do not see the value of an off-metro location. Reducing cars on the road benefits everyone including those who drive to work.

My theory is that these companies are run by old school execs who have not adapted to the new car-free generation.

The new care free generation will one day have strollers, go to Home Depot, and have to buy groceries instead of avocado toast at bus boys. Plenty of young families have, do, and will continue to choose the suburbs.

Don't fool yourself that anyone actually wants to make that move. Young families move to the car-dependent suburbs because 99% of them are totally priced out of the 2-3 neighborhoods that combine a truly car-optional lifestyle with halfway decent schools.

There is a huge demand for such places but until all the Boomer NIMBYs finally die off and take their car fetish with them, the supply will not expand to make them affordable for most families.

You must not have kids. Unless you have the density of services and stores like NYC, going carfree makes little sense with kids. Each kid needs a car seat installed for their age and weight, you often keep a stroller or diapers in the car, and going to different activities, stores, classes on foot with kids in tow would be an enormous time suck. Even uber not an option b/c each car seat must be installed when they pick you up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Twenty years ago, being in the city was not desirable. A lot of these companies located in the burbs back when that was desirable. Moving an HQ is not cheap, especially when metro accessible real estate is expensive.

Also, look at Apple's new HQ in Cupertino- it's a suburban island and not really transit accessible. And Google in Mountain View is still more of a suburban campus vs an urban environment. There must be advantages to the companies.

This.

[Anonymous]

You can still get there by Metro. Take the Orange line to Dunn Loring and then take the bus to NG HQ.

Did it for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You must not have kids. Unless you have the density of services and stores like NYC, going carfree makes little sense with kids. Each kid needs a car seat installed for their age and weight, you often keep a stroller or diapers in the car, and going to different activities, stores, classes on foot with kids in tow would be an enormous time suck. Even uber not an option b/c each car seat must be installed when they pick you up.

Seriously.. Believe it or not, some people don't like living in a tiny space and actually like a yard and space. I swear, the older I get the more land I want. My brother lives in NYC and it's not my thing. $1M gets you 1400sq ft? Visiting with kids is fun but to do it everyday would drive me nuts. Could we have bought a ~$1M place in Arlington with no yard and been comfortable? Sure.. but that's just not my cup of tea. I like my Mcmansion, 3 car garage, and big yard. I really wouldn't trade it for anything. With kids it's wonderful. I've lived in Arlington before kids, and it was fun for a little bit, but with kids the space and yard is awesome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some of what you say is probably correct, but your implied premise is that the best are those living in the city. Probably false.

I dont mean to say people who live in cities are the best and I dont want to start a debate about that. What I mean to say that younger people and Millenials mostly live in the city and want to live car-free. You are cutting yourself from a broad demographics, and I do not see the value of an off-metro location. Reducing cars on the road benefits everyone including those who drive to work.

My theory is that these companies are run by old school execs who have not adapted to the new car-free generation.

You say that but every young family I know owns a car. Sometimes two. You have to accept that younger people and millennials might just want things you don't suspect. Or they don't mind NOT living in a city and driving. Or they actually prefer it. Or NG has no trouble filling vacancies and as such, sees no need to change anything. You may not see the value in an off-metro location, but what do they care? It works for them and their workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And pretty soon, the younger people and the millenials will have kids and move to the suburbs and be thrilled they can work flex hours and park for free at the large parking lot at NG.
Ask some GenXers where they lived in their 20s... (hint: they too loved the urban life at one point, and eventually life and priorities changed.)

I hear this argument over and over again and it is plain wrong. Even if existing emps settled down and move to the suburbs a company will always want to have access a younger generation workforce. What you are saying will help in retaining * existing* staff but not in drawing new younger talent.

You mean new CHEAPER talent.