Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

What do you think public transit runs on? Air kisses?

Another dumbass statement.

The subway runs on electricity and buses run on clean natural gas (domestically produced).

Anonymous wrote:

What do you think public transit runs on? Air kisses?

Another dumbass statement.

The subway runs on electricity and buses run on clean natural gas (domestically produced).

What do you think public transit runs on? Air kisses?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Companies want to make the most amount of money with the lowest cost (overhead) to maximize profit. That's what a company cares about.

The problem with "metro accessible" or more specifically
"walkable" likely means more urban/city like, which likely means higher $/sq ft costs. This is a big factor for companies (like say NG) and why they don't have their headquarters in DC proper. It's why you've seen companies leave high cost areas and move to others, be it the suburbs or relocate to another area.

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!

The big NYC banks like Goldman Sacs often have huge back offices out in the suburbs or other places where most people commute by car. It's not uncommon for big corporations to have a premier HQ in a fancy downtown building and most of the employees in back offices elsewhere. General Electric made a lot of fanfare when they moved their HQ to downtown Boston, but only 800 employees work in that building, the rest of the 36,000 employees work in mostly suburban office parks.

But even in the case of premier HQs in downtown locations, take New York, for example, most employees are commuting from elsewhere and those are long commutes (New York City has the longest average commutes in the country). Not everyone is a young 20-something happy to live in cramped shared apartments, or very highly paid executives who can afford 1+ million for still small apartments plus private schools. I love urban walkable areas but I'd rather have a quick 20 minute commute by car than a hour plus on cramped transit lines. And, of course, for most families, the suburban environment remains the best deal with the best combination of affordability, space and schools.

Offices with high-status, high-income employees are the most likely to locate in downtowns. The GS satellite offices are for, as you rightly point out while missing the meaning, for back-office employees, that is the low-status, low-income employees. And if you actually know anything about GS, you know that a huge % of its high-earning employees live in a handful of Manhattan buildings. And yes, I know GS types who live in Morris, Nassau, Westchester, and Fairfield, they have trophy wives to placate! But money people get that time=money, which means they value their urban lives, even if it's just a M-F pied-à-terre.

Exactly. The elite do this. Most of us are not in this category. The gentrified downtowns are increasingly playgrounds for the rich. Normal people are just tourists or visitors.

The part you miss: most of what you see is the result of political machinations. Suburbs are subsidized because land+petro interests own you, everything else in this discussion is noise.

Governments subsidize what they see fit, that's normally how policy is made.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Liberals take transit. American patriots don't have liberal guilt about driving. The company is tailoring its location to its target workforce.

OP here:

My message to the dumbass who wrote this.

I am young conservation, and I voted for Trump, but unlike an ignorant POS like you, I am well informed. For instance, did you know that America still imports 25% of its fuel? Driving a car alone does not make you a patriot it just makes you a deplorable who is uneducated on the facts. We still import most of our fuel from OPEC nations that indirectly goes to funding terrorism. A walkable neighborhood is not only for liberals. Using public transport is in the best interest of society and uses domestic resources.

If you want to live in the suburbs and own a car that is perfectly fine but dont attach a patriotic annotation to that.

Liberals take transit. American patriots don't have liberal guilt about driving. The company is tailoring its location to its target workforce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Companies want to make the most amount of money with the lowest cost (overhead) to maximize profit. That's what a company cares about.

The problem with "metro accessible" or more specifically
"walkable" likely means more urban/city like, which likely means higher $/sq ft costs. This is a big factor for companies (like say NG) and why they don't have their headquarters in DC proper. It's why you've seen companies leave high cost areas and move to others, be it the suburbs or relocate to another area.

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!

The big NYC banks like Goldman Sacs often have huge back offices out in the suburbs or other places where most people commute by car. It's not uncommon for big corporations to have a premier HQ in a fancy downtown building and most of the employees in back offices elsewhere. General Electric made a lot of fanfare when they moved their HQ to downtown Boston, but only 800 employees work in that building, the rest of the 36,000 employees work in mostly suburban office parks.

But even in the case of premier HQs in downtown locations, take New York, for example, most employees are commuting from elsewhere and those are long commutes (New York City has the longest average commutes in the country). Not everyone is a young 20-something happy to live in cramped shared apartments, or very highly paid executives who can afford 1+ million for still small apartments plus private schools. I love urban walkable areas but I'd rather have a quick 20 minute commute by car than a hour plus on cramped transit lines. And, of course, for most families, the suburban environment remains the best deal with the best combination of affordability, space and schools.

Offices with high-status, high-income employees are the most likely to locate in downtowns. The GS satellite offices are for, as you rightly point out while missing the meaning, for back-office employees, that is the low-status, low-income employees. And if you actually know anything about GS, you know that a huge % of its high-earning employees live in a handful of Manhattan buildings. And yes, I know GS types who live in Morris, Nassau, Westchester, and Fairfield, they have trophy wives to placate! But money people get that time=money, which means they value their urban lives, even if it's just a M-F pied-à-terre.

Exactly. The elite do this. Most of us are not in this category. The gentrified downtowns are increasingly playgrounds for the rich. Normal people are just tourists or visitors.

The part you miss: most of what you see is the result of political machinations. Suburbs are subsidized because land+petro interests own you, everything else in this discussion is noise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Companies want to make the most amount of money with the lowest cost (overhead) to maximize profit. That's what a company cares about.

The problem with "metro accessible" or more specifically
"walkable" likely means more urban/city like, which likely means higher $/sq ft costs. This is a big factor for companies (like say NG) and why they don't have their headquarters in DC proper. It's why you've seen companies leave high cost areas and move to others, be it the suburbs or relocate to another area.

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!

The big NYC banks like Goldman Sacs often have huge back offices out in the suburbs or other places where most people commute by car. It's not uncommon for big corporations to have a premier HQ in a fancy downtown building and most of the employees in back offices elsewhere. General Electric made a lot of fanfare when they moved their HQ to downtown Boston, but only 800 employees work in that building, the rest of the 36,000 employees work in mostly suburban office parks.

But even in the case of premier HQs in downtown locations, take New York, for example, most employees are commuting from elsewhere and those are long commutes (New York City has the longest average commutes in the country). Not everyone is a young 20-something happy to live in cramped shared apartments, or very highly paid executives who can afford 1+ million for still small apartments plus private schools. I love urban walkable areas but I'd rather have a quick 20 minute commute by car than a hour plus on cramped transit lines. And, of course, for most families, the suburban environment remains the best deal with the best combination of affordability, space and schools.

Offices with high-status, high-income employees are the most likely to locate in downtowns. The GS satellite offices are for, as you rightly point out while missing the meaning, for back-office employees, that is the low-status, low-income employees. And if you actually know anything about GS, you know that a huge % of its high-earning employees live in a handful of Manhattan buildings. And yes, I know GS types who live in Morris, Nassau, Westchester, and Fairfield, they have trophy wives to placate! But money people get that time=money, which means they value their urban lives, even if it's just a M-F pied-à-terre.

Exactly. The elite do this. Most of us are not in this category. The gentrified downtowns are increasingly playgrounds for the rich. Normal people are just tourists or visitors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Companies want to make the most amount of money with the lowest cost (overhead) to maximize profit. That's what a company cares about.

The problem with "metro accessible" or more specifically
"walkable" likely means more urban/city like, which likely means higher $/sq ft costs. This is a big factor for companies (like say NG) and why they don't have their headquarters in DC proper. It's why you've seen companies leave high cost areas and move to others, be it the suburbs or relocate to another area.

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!

The big NYC banks like Goldman Sacs often have huge back offices out in the suburbs or other places where most people commute by car. It's not uncommon for big corporations to have a premier HQ in a fancy downtown building and most of the employees in back offices elsewhere. General Electric made a lot of fanfare when they moved their HQ to downtown Boston, but only 800 employees work in that building, the rest of the 36,000 employees work in mostly suburban office parks.

But even in the case of premier HQs in downtown locations, take New York, for example, most employees are commuting from elsewhere and those are long commutes (New York City has the longest average commutes in the country). Not everyone is a young 20-something happy to live in cramped shared apartments, or very highly paid executives who can afford 1+ million for still small apartments plus private schools. I love urban walkable areas but I'd rather have a quick 20 minute commute by car than a hour plus on cramped transit lines. And, of course, for most families, the suburban environment remains the best deal with the best combination of affordability, space and schools.

Offices with high-status, high-income employees are the most likely to locate in downtowns. The GS satellite offices are for, as you rightly point out while missing the meaning, for back-office employees, that is the low-status, low-income employees. And if you actually know anything about GS, you know that a huge % of its high-earning employees live in a handful of Manhattan buildings. And yes, I know GS types who live in Morris, Nassau, Westchester, and Fairfield, they have trophy wives to placate! But money people get that time=money, which means they value their urban lives, even if it's just a M-F pied-à-terre.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Companies want to make the most amount of money with the lowest cost (overhead) to maximize profit. That's what a company cares about.

The problem with "metro accessible" or more specifically
"walkable" likely means more urban/city like, which likely means higher $/sq ft costs. This is a big factor for companies (like say NG) and why they don't have their headquarters in DC proper. It's why you've seen companies leave high cost areas and move to others, be it the suburbs or relocate to another area.

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!

The big NYC banks like Goldman Sacs often have huge back offices out in the suburbs or other places where most people commute by car. It's not uncommon for big corporations to have a premier HQ in a fancy downtown building and most of the employees in back offices elsewhere. General Electric made a lot of fanfare when they moved their HQ to downtown Boston, but only 800 employees work in that building, the rest of the 36,000 employees work in mostly suburban office parks.

But even in the case of premier HQs in downtown locations, take New York, for example, most employees are commuting from elsewhere and those are long commutes (New York City has the longest average commutes in the country). Not everyone is a young 20-something happy to live in cramped shared apartments, or very highly paid executives who can afford 1+ million for still small apartments plus private schools. I love urban walkable areas but I'd rather have a quick 20 minute commute by car than a hour plus on cramped transit lines. And, of course, for most families, the suburban environment remains the best deal with the best combination of affordability, space and schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

no one that works in suburbs use the metro. and why would anyone work in DC given the choice?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

It's not archaic to put your HQ in suburban areas when you're in the business of building hardware (some very large) that require huge spaces.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you're saying every single young family in MD & VA is only there because they desperately wanted to live in DC ...but couldn't afford it? You're lost in a fantasy of your own making. The car isn't going anywhere. In fact, when self-driving cars take hold it'll likely replace Metro as the most convenient way to get around. And getting back to the "tech talent" argument: if the suburbs are as undesirable as you make them out to be, why do hundreds of thousands of young, talented tech workers live in or near Mountain View, Menlo Park and Palo Alto? Because that's where the top companies are.