That's more of a myth based on wishful thinking.

I am one of them and most people I know dont want to own a car. Not because we hate cars but because it will add $500+/month and I would rather live in the city right now.

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.

That's more of a myth based on wishful thinking.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

A lot have shuttles from metros. And the majority of employees want the ability to drive to work and park for free. That's huge in my opinion. Now that I have to do daycare drop off, I need to drive daily and need to park. I wouldn't take a job without parking.

If you had your office in a metro accessible location people who want to drive always have the option of parking at the metro station. (Most of the new silver line stations and sub urban metros have massive parking lots). Also, metro travel cost can be pre-taxed and/or company subsidized. But people who dont own cars especially millennials will have no choice.

If your HQ tower is located in non-metro accessible location one could argue that it is more expensive because you have to build a massive parking structure to accommodate thousands of cars? which means a larger footprint and more cost.

Why would people want to park at the metro and metro in if they didn't have to? Metro is $4 each way and parking is an extra $5. It also takes a lot of extra time to metro. Do you metro into work?

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

+1

I can't think of anyone I know in DC without a car either...

DC isn't the land of great public transportation unfortunately, so many people have cars. Maybe they don't use them every day but they aren't car-free.

Anonymous wrote:They just aren't concerned with drawing the "best" talent. NG isn't Google or Amazon, it's NG. They want good talent but they aren't looking to pay for Best of the Best talent. They can get that from people in the burbs with cars.

Yes! But I wouldn't say ANY company really thinks in terms of "best talent" so much as they think in terms of facilitating management's vision for the company. And that facilitation can have many forms. Putting people in office parks makes them massively more captive to the company. It also makes switching jobs much more fraught. It also selects more for people who value large homes/lots over street life and brings the political mindset one expects with say, Ashburn. Relatedly, it also selects for people who are more likely to be climate change deniers given the carbon inefficiency of the location. Guess who has major contracts in Saudi? NG!

The only factor with measurable reliability in predicting management decisions is how well they serve management. And you have to understand management's interests and inclinations to get what that might be.

A lot have shuttles from metros. And the majority of employees want the ability to drive to work and park for free. That's huge in my opinion. Now that I have to do daycare drop off, I need to drive daily and need to park. I wouldn't take a job without parking.

If you had your office in a metro accessible location people who want to drive always have the option of parking at the metro station. (Most of the new silver line stations and sub urban metros have massive parking lots). Also, metro travel cost can be pre-taxed and/or company subsidized. But people who dont own cars especially millennials will have no choice.

If your HQ tower is located in non-metro accessible location one could argue that it is more expensive because you have to build a massive parking structure to accommodate thousands of cars? which means a larger footprint and more cost.

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.

A govt contractor is not the same as commercial company. Just because they have 20k jobs in the metro area, only a small percentage of them are actually at the HQ (as opposed to what AMZN is proposing with building up a massive campus). NGC has buildings all over the area - many in metro accessible campuses (for instance their tysons one). And many many jobs are on customer sites (also which are metro accessible).

Anonymous wrote:They just aren't concerned with drawing the "best" talent. NG isn't Google or Amazon, it's NG. They want good talent but they aren't looking to pay for Best of the Best talent. They can get that from people in the burbs with cars.

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

A lot have shuttles from metros. And the majority of employees want the ability to drive to work and park for free. That's huge in my opinion. Now that I have to do day care drop off, I need to drive daily and need to park. I wouldn't take a job without parking.

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

They just aren't concerned with drawing the "best" talent. NG isn't Google or Amazon, it's NG. They want good talent but they aren't looking to pay for Best of the Best talent. They can get that from people in the burbs with cars.

One of my friends used to work for such a company. He quit his job and got a new one precisely because his commute from Capitol Hill to the middle of Fairfax required that he get up and drive or slug at 5AM to be able to get to work on time. There was no way for him to metro or bus out there so he just had an insane commute. Couple that with 'average' hours it meant he spent 5AM - 7PM either commuting or at work.

Amazon HQ2 had clear requirements that it had to be in a metro-accessible area which makes sense to me because they want to draw the best talent. However, some fortune 500 companies like Northrop Grumman still have a very archaic thought process. Take for instance the location of their HQ which is off of 495 and 50 intersections. They have 20k employees in the Metro DC area which means they will be adding 20k cars on the already congested roads. Also, how do DC residents and Arlington residents (most of whom live car-free) get to work? Even if you dont care about the environment, or dont believe in global warming, dont you want to draw the best talent?


North Grumman HQ
2980 Fairview Park Dr
Falls Church, VA 22042

Just curious?