On the contrary, the municipal government very loudly believed that it would have been possible. Unfortunately it appears that, for some reason I don't understand, New York City's Council doesn't have any input into those sort of incentive programs.
Yep. The State officials can run roughshod over you whenever they like.
We just need a nation wide system where politicians can make these Foxconn type deals, but the deals would be null and void until voters actually signaled approval in some kind of referendum.
Oh yeah, that one's great. My two favorite uses of this sign - first, on the jetway, when you're stuck in line, and second, in the baby food aisle at our local grocery store. I guess you could think of it like a memento mori, though: "Everything is killing you, slowly".
Colorado is another state where the ballot initiatives are getting out of hand. Very conflicted because there are some decisions I believe should go directly to the people.
My ballot this year was pages long. Took me over half an hour to fill it all out. The wording on some of the initiatives are so confusing you have to read them numerous times to decipher.
For historical reasons, the State and City have never gotten along well. If you read the State constitution, you will see a lot of (now unconstitutional) clauses that target the City in all but name only.
The state has arcane mechanisms to override city home rule because home rule is generously interpreted by state courts to mean nothing at all. I think the most surprising thing is that Bill De Blasio agreed to this at all, but he can't politick his way out of a paper bag.
Not only that, but soon after Google bought the main NYC building, the tax bill went up for a small number of the largest properties in the city, which of course included Google's. The valuation has since fluctuated a number of times because of byzantine rules in how properties are assessed, especially when the owner is also a tenant.
Well in fairness, tax bills are based on market values, and ought to respond to events in the market.
In competitive markets with lots of supply and demand, you'd expect many transactions, and the effect of any one comparable transaction on the price of a given property would be quite small.
In niche markets where transactions are rare (like, say, “commercial properties in mid to lower Manhattan with >2.5mm sq ft of floor space”), individual transactions involving comparable properties can be expected to have an outsized effect.
The net impact is going to be different. Amazon wanted to move to a part of town most tech companies aren't already and announced a significantly larger headcount.
I know you're being sarcastic, but as someone who lived in NYC and California there is not even a comparison on how better is NYC when it comes to the amount of options you get to flexibly spend your money and smartly extend your paycheck. All this while still living in one of the boroughs.
I lived for a year in Manhattan with a $50K salary. I wasn't living like a king at all and definitely not saving money, but still managed to have a lifestyle that I would consider comfortable and healthy. This was 2015.
Now, compare that to San Francisco. $50K it's basically one level above homelessness.
My rent in NYC was $1500 with utilities included. I was renting one bedroom in a 2 bedrooms apartment in 75th street.
Only downside is that it was a semi-basement (Those apartments with tiny windows that are the same height of the street level---Probably a huge fire hazard). The plus was that I lived three blocks away from Central Park.
Some people said that I was lucky to find that place, but in my search I saw similar places that ranged between 1400 without utilities to 2000 in Upper East, some areas of Midtown and East Village. I even saw one guy renting a room for 700 in Upper West.
So yes, I was probably lucky to find that place, but not extremely lucky.
People always forget that Manhattan goes all the way up into the 200s of streets. You can live in Manhattan on pretty much any budget imaginable. Whether you should is another question.
The East Village also goes all the way out to Avenue D, and the West Side, to 12th Avenue. These are transit deserts relative to the rest of the island, and priced accordingly.
I never know why people trot these prices out. Literally nobody I know actually pays 3.5k a month for rent, and a majority of my friends are in the software field in one way or another.
Yeah it's basically the suburbs, but a 10 min walk from the subway. And within the last two years there are actually lots of good restaurants in the area now.
> Literally nobody I know actually pays 3.5k a month for rent
Thats because rent numbers are based on the 1.34% rental vacancy supply on the market at that point in time, self-reported by landlords.
People very frequently move in with people and other arrangements. So less than half or even 1/4th of new renters any given year actually pay the "market rent".
I pay $2.6k a month in rent. I have friends that pay $3.1k+ in New York and Boston and Seattle (Seattle is a bit of a different story but nonetheless).
I was talking to a guy the other day living in a sub400 sqft place in lower manhattan in a non-luxury unit paying $2.5k.
I moved to NYC in March. I pay more than 3.5k a month for rent.
The reason for that is that places with a reasonable commute time to and from flatiron are really terrible below ~3k, by the standards of most places which are not NYC or SF.
I worked remotely for more than two years before that, so my tolerance for commute was quite low (my NYC commute is about 20 minutes on average, and when I first moved here, it was sooo long), and I was coming from a place where ~1K/mo can get you 3000 sq ft plus a basement and over half an acre.
If you would like a package room, that's extra.
In unit washer dryer, that's extra.
Doorman - extra.
Reasonable commute - extra.
AC - extra.
Even more money if you want to live in a fashionable neigborhood (Chelsea, Hell's Kitchen) or spitting distance from a university (Washington Square, Union Square, Morningside Heights) or both (St. Mark's)
I was just wondering - how difficult is it to commute by bike in from e.g. Brooklyn? NYC seems pretty flat, so biking could get you there quicker than by car if there's a lot of traffic.
Hell, I managed Manhattan for three years on <30K during grad school with money leftover to take trips here and there and party a bit on the weekends. I wasn’t living like a king, but it’s 100% doable. Get a roommate in Washington heights near the A, be smart about your grocery purchases, get an unlimited metro card and don’t take cabs or Uber.
As someone who currently lives in NYC, I personally prefer it to San Francisco, but I wouldn't call it better without comparison. A lot of the cheap rent is a longer commute away-- like is the case with SF.
In the case of Google, they have shuttles in California, and I would personally take a shuttle over the subway any day.
I'm not living in the cheapest apartment I could find (tried that before and regretted it twice, both because it wasn't that cheap, and because it was horrible), and as far as I've researched I'd pay about the same as I would in San Francisco.
No, Google does not have shuttles in NYC. There is no need for them (the Port Authority building literally stands on top of a subway station) and it would be nearly impossible to run them (even if you ignore the traffic, there isn't any space next to the building to legally park a shuttle).
Took that shuttle for 2 years. It's nice but ... it's still a bus. There's no nice way to be on a bus for 3hr a day. I'd much prefer the subway, which is much faster.
SF really has no low end on anything. There's no $1 pizza slice when you really need a cheap meal and there's nowhere cheap to live without a punishing commute.
The high end of NY is also much higher than SF. NY is where the first $100M apartment is.
NY is as expensive on average but it's an average of a much wider and range.
"on the north side of SF" is really "over in Fisherman's Wharf", which is a notorious tourist trap that's not convenient to get to in the slightest. It can't be compared to a pizza slice joint or falafel or what have you.
Most things being sold for more than 20M are probably being sold for money laundering purposes. A more fair comparison would be looking at only apartments that people actually live in full time; a pied-à-terre isn’t really part of basic living expenses.
I did the research when interviewing for a job in NYC.
What would cost ~3500 in SF was more like 1500-2000.
NYC has much better transit - I could commute in from Park Slope to Manhattan and have a 1500 studio which would have been much much more expensive if I say, commuted from Mission to Civic center on BART.
It is significantly cheaper if you don't live in Manhattan, and transit allows that
Sure, but you could commute from Millbrae to Civic Center in the same time as Park slope to manhattan (depending on the exact stop obviously), and that's uhh, cheaper, than Mission.
And living in Park Slope is much nicer than living in Millbrae, at least if you're looking for an urban lifestyle with walkable amenities. New York City just has that everywhere, for miles and miles.
Also the parts of Millbrae that rival Park Slope in cost are not walkable to the subway (well technically walkable but quite a walk) vs the places I was looking at were a 5-10 min walk to the subway station.
Trains in NYC come much more often, later, and frankly Millbrae is no Park Slope ;)
Yea but transit in the Bay shuts down hella early. Getting to Park Slope at 2am from Manhattan is significantly easier (and safer) than Millbrae (or Oakland or wherever) from San Francisco.
As all of the comments below are comparing the San Francisco Bay Area with New York City in terms of real estate, transit time, etc. it's worth noting the stark differences between the two.
The Bay Area is of size 6,000-10,000 sq. mi. with a population of 7.7-8.8 million people[1]. NYC is of size 302 sq. mi. (yes, really! That's 20x-50x smaller) with a population of 8.1-8.6 million people[2]. Perhaps it's easy to underestimate just how much of a big world city NYC is and how varied its people and industries are compared to what they might be used to on the west coast.
Why are you comparing the SF bay area to the city limits of New York? Better would be to compare SF bay area to New York Metro Area, which is far bigger than the SF bay area.
I originally had the same reaction as you, but reading the parent's comment charitably I believe he's getting at "the population of the entire Bay Area is actually comparable to the population of just NYC proper with it's much tinier (relatively) area)."
In other words, some people tend to think of NYC as "huge major East Coast city" and SF as "huge major West Coast city", but the sheer enormous density of NYC makes it actually on a whole other level than SF.
Even coming from the Midwest SF feels like a midsize city. I've visited SF, I considered doing the SF software dev thing, but SF just feels like if Cincinnati developed a tech sector.
Chicago's urban population is 8.66m, and the urban area is 2,200 sq miles. I feel like I'm in a city here. When I go to West Coast cities I feel like I'm in a giant (sometimes quaint and charming) suburb. There's no density.
Boulder has a lot of policies in place that actually prevent growth (height limits, limits on suburban growth, etc.). They seem to literally not want Boulder to grow.
Pittsburgh and Madison are both low COL cities with great engineering schools where only a small handful of companies are soaking up all the talent. Definitely underrated.
Don't know about CS graduates per se, but Madison has the reputation of being a place where people come to attend school, and then don't want to leave. I don't want to leave here either. ;-)
You guys drink/ booze like it's going out of fashion. Must be all those cold long Wisconsin winters. Madison is an OK place in summer, but not a place I would like to live in. And this coming from a guy who grew up in Michigan. I prefer Ann Arbor for that reason.
Wisc-Madison has a great reputation for mech/industrial/ops types of degrees.
To be honest, both suck compared to NYC and SF. There's just no comparison. NYC and SF have high numbers of PhD level tech talent, neither Pittsburgh nor Madison have anywhere near the number of the MIT-Stanford-Caltech PhD crowd. NYC and SF have higher density. And NYC, for example, has far more jobs in industries unrelated to tech. Not only more jobs in other industries, but way more other industries in general. Which is always attractive for the significant other.
The name of the game is to get high end tech talent. So sure, the University of Wisconsin can crank out code monkees for you. That's fine if that's all you need. But all the PhDs from the elite tech schools will sit down with their spouses or significant others to think about where to live and Madison and Pittsburgh just won't be terribly high on those lists. It's not all about the PhD that Google wants to hire, you have to have something for his or her spouse too. It's a lot easier to do that in NYC or SF. Just kind of the reality right now.
I'm waiting for Minneapolis to get that break. It's happening.. the big techies are coming (Amazon is here), as well as a lot of home grown tech. I think the new 2040 plan will drive a lot of tech growth.
Affordable housing isn't far away, but yes, in-Boulder rates are getting much worse. I work out of the Boulder office and have a 4BR house a 25 minute commute away for a lot less than I'd spend in CA.
There is no way that's true. I looked at numbeo.com and it says Sunnyvale rents are 60% higher than boulder. Insert your favourite Silicon Valley suburb in place of Sunnyvale.
Why do you think it's Google's responsibility to aid in the development of one city?
I think everyone could benefit a lot more if Google did what was most optimal for itself to make better products and compete with Apple/Netflix/Amazon/Uber/Comcast/etc.
how confident are we that spending $1B on real estate in a market where you already have a strong footprint is optimal?
I guess at what point does it make more sense to locate to a less pricy metro and pay engineering talent to come (basically pick Amazon's reject list other than the VA and NY winners)?
Companies are building in NYC because the people that make decisions in those companies want to be in NYC.
And not Boulder.
The whole point of Jeff Bezos' fake contest was to make it abundantly clear to the whole country and end this tired trope that Silicon Rockies - or whatever nearby geographical feature sounds catchy - ever had a chance.
Does anyone know why Google, Amazon, and Apple have all announced large incentive programs recently? Is there something about it being the end of the fiscal year? Or are there other possible reasons?
I think the tax bill from last year helped some with this[0]. Apple announced that they would be bringing back billions of $ from overseas holdings due to changes in the laws, and investing it in the US.
Google has been expanding in NYC for a while. Back in February, they bought their existing building for $2 billion[1].
Google, Apple, Amazon had been hiring like crazy well before Trump came into office. Google and Amazon revenues have gone through the roof in the last decade and they have doubled quadrupled their workforce. This is largely a PR move to respond to Amazon's show. And Amazon itself got started to extract maximum tax incentives from cities. Their HQ2 RFP was announced before the tax bill was passed
Mitch McConnell stated that the tax cuts increased employment. Politifact rates that statement as Half True[0]. In reality, it's fair to say tax cuts created an environment that was conducive to hiring, but also, the levels of hiring have been pretty steady since 2010.
That being said, there's even less evidence that this is even Half True in the tech industry.
My guess is Google realized how many of their employees really, really want to live in NYC for some reason. I don't get it but literally everybody I've talked to wants to work in New York.
If you are a single guy who dates women, NYC is where you want to live demographically. The dating pool is much larger and the female to male ratio is in your favor.
I can't be the only one concluding that we're near the end of a nice run for tech, with all these expensive real estate moves. I don't know, maybe we've been there for a while now.
What better way to spend piles of cash you have no idea what to do with than extort local governments for billions in tax breaks and park that money in a some commercial real estate you can depreciate? I'm not judging these companies for doing this per se (Amazon, Apple, and Google have all recently done this as far as I can tell - haven't noticed anything from Microsoft), but I do consider it a bit ominous that they've all picked expensive places that certainly seem like good picks.
It really does seem like these companies have no idea what to do with their money. Buying up land and taking the next 3-5 years to build billion dollar campuses seems so boring to me.
What do you want them to do without people? Spend money on what? Raw materials? They need people to develop IP. And they need somewhere to put those people.
If a FAANG's fundamental bottleneck is people, then the money should first be spent on improving the hiring pipeline. If traditional pipeline sources are insufficient or non-compliant, that means building their own pipeline sources - in-house degree or certification programs. The most well-known case study is the military, which runs all of its own training, the question is only whether a) a given FAANG company has reached an organizational scale where this makes sense and b) how to tinker with the military's model given that the military relies on people not leaving after finishing training but only after enough value has been extracted from their education.
>Liccardo says, the city didn’t offer the company any tax incentives in exchange for its business. “More importantly,” he added in a Medium post, “Google never asked for a dime.”
>While Google won’t get outright public subsidies, as Liccardo noted, the company will benefit as much as the community from Diridon Station, which will cost taxpayers $10 billion.
Where do you think they should put all the new people they are hiring? Or maybe they should stop hiring? That would not be good for us, their demand keeps the market rate for programmers absurdly high.
There is no bleeding out. Google is actually expanding massively in the Bay Area with a huge purchase in San Jose, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and SF. They are adding space for 50k more employees in the Bay, far more than in NY. Facebook is building out its Menlo Park campus and also signed the largest lease in SF history. Tesla has basically taken over every bit of office space in Fremont. Apple recently opened their $5bn campus.Bay Area can only accommodate 8mn people and with housing push perhaps 10mn at max. So obviously the biggest companies in the world needs to expand somewhere else as well
Amazing. Driving through the Penninsula is already a total nightmare. Took me 90 minutes to get from San Bruno to San Jose last week. The drive back to the city took 35 minutes in the late evening.
How people ride these shuttles, drive, and deal with these commutes blows my mind. It’s only going to get way worse. Most expensive traffic jam in the country. No thanks.
Not sure if this was your point, but when we can make such a big deal about how a meeting with ten people costs the company ten man-hours and therefore meetings are sooo expensive yet everyone at the entire company goes and sits in traffic twice a day. The macroeconomic cost must be astronomical.
118 comments
[ 5.9 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadWe just need a nation wide system where politicians can make these Foxconn type deals, but the deals would be null and void until voters actually signaled approval in some kind of referendum.
> This [literally any object imaginable] contains materials known to the State of California to cause cancer.
My ballot this year was pages long. Took me over half an hour to fill it all out. The wording on some of the initiatives are so confusing you have to read them numerous times to decipher.
Worked so well with Brexit
The state has arcane mechanisms to override city home rule because home rule is generously interpreted by state courts to mean nothing at all. I think the most surprising thing is that Bill De Blasio agreed to this at all, but he can't politick his way out of a paper bag.
In competitive markets with lots of supply and demand, you'd expect many transactions, and the effect of any one comparable transaction on the price of a given property would be quite small.
In niche markets where transactions are rare (like, say, “commercial properties in mid to lower Manhattan with >2.5mm sq ft of floor space”), individual transactions involving comparable properties can be expected to have an outsized effect.
I lived for a year in Manhattan with a $50K salary. I wasn't living like a king at all and definitely not saving money, but still managed to have a lifestyle that I would consider comfortable and healthy. This was 2015.
Now, compare that to San Francisco. $50K it's basically one level above homelessness.
Only downside is that it was a semi-basement (Those apartments with tiny windows that are the same height of the street level---Probably a huge fire hazard). The plus was that I lived three blocks away from Central Park.
Some people said that I was lucky to find that place, but in my search I saw similar places that ranged between 1400 without utilities to 2000 in Upper East, some areas of Midtown and East Village. I even saw one guy renting a room for 700 in Upper West.
So yes, I was probably lucky to find that place, but not extremely lucky.
The East Village also goes all the way out to Avenue D, and the West Side, to 12th Avenue. These are transit deserts relative to the rest of the island, and priced accordingly.
The most that anyone pays is like 1.8k
I find generally fiscal rationality trumps not having a roommate.
If I need a roommate to make things work financially, I’m in the wrong job or the wrong city.
Thats because rent numbers are based on the 1.34% rental vacancy supply on the market at that point in time, self-reported by landlords.
People very frequently move in with people and other arrangements. So less than half or even 1/4th of new renters any given year actually pay the "market rent".
I was talking to a guy the other day living in a sub400 sqft place in lower manhattan in a non-luxury unit paying $2.5k.
The reason for that is that places with a reasonable commute time to and from flatiron are really terrible below ~3k, by the standards of most places which are not NYC or SF.
I worked remotely for more than two years before that, so my tolerance for commute was quite low (my NYC commute is about 20 minutes on average, and when I first moved here, it was sooo long), and I was coming from a place where ~1K/mo can get you 3000 sq ft plus a basement and over half an acre.
If you would like a package room, that's extra. In unit washer dryer, that's extra. Doorman - extra. Reasonable commute - extra. AC - extra.
Even more money if you want to live in a fashionable neigborhood (Chelsea, Hell's Kitchen) or spitting distance from a university (Washington Square, Union Square, Morningside Heights) or both (St. Mark's)
In the case of Google, they have shuttles in California, and I would personally take a shuttle over the subway any day.
I'm not living in the cheapest apartment I could find (tried that before and regretted it twice, both because it wasn't that cheap, and because it was horrible), and as far as I've researched I'd pay about the same as I would in San Francisco.
I live in Boston and my company has shuttles to the suburbs as well. All of the Big4 do.
If you're crossing any bridges or tunnels, a 15 minute train ride could easily be 45 minutes in a shuttle or car.
The high end of NY is also much higher than SF. NY is where the first $100M apartment is.
NY is as expensive on average but it's an average of a much wider and range.
SF strongly limits fast food (which I find annoying). My suburb home town had more McDonald's locations than SF does.
Chinatown, yes.
I’ve even heard there is multiple of those in the city !
Most things being sold for more than 20M are probably being sold for money laundering purposes. A more fair comparison would be looking at only apartments that people actually live in full time; a pied-à-terre isn’t really part of basic living expenses.
What would cost ~3500 in SF was more like 1500-2000.
NYC has much better transit - I could commute in from Park Slope to Manhattan and have a 1500 studio which would have been much much more expensive if I say, commuted from Mission to Civic center on BART.
It is significantly cheaper if you don't live in Manhattan, and transit allows that
Trains in NYC come much more often, later, and frankly Millbrae is no Park Slope ;)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Google-s-Bay-Ar...
The Bay Area is of size 6,000-10,000 sq. mi. with a population of 7.7-8.8 million people[1]. NYC is of size 302 sq. mi. (yes, really! That's 20x-50x smaller) with a population of 8.1-8.6 million people[2]. Perhaps it's easy to underestimate just how much of a big world city NYC is and how varied its people and industries are compared to what they might be used to on the west coast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area
In other words, some people tend to think of NYC as "huge major East Coast city" and SF as "huge major West Coast city", but the sheer enormous density of NYC makes it actually on a whole other level than SF.
Chicago's urban population is 8.66m, and the urban area is 2,200 sq miles. I feel like I'm in a city here. When I go to West Coast cities I feel like I'm in a giant (sometimes quaint and charming) suburb. There's no density.
Why can't they pick some place that could actually use the growth? Boulder?
Pittsburgh I can somewhat agree.
Wisc-Madison has a great reputation for mech/industrial/ops types of degrees.
The name of the game is to get high end tech talent. So sure, the University of Wisconsin can crank out code monkees for you. That's fine if that's all you need. But all the PhDs from the elite tech schools will sit down with their spouses or significant others to think about where to live and Madison and Pittsburgh just won't be terribly high on those lists. It's not all about the PhD that Google wants to hire, you have to have something for his or her spouse too. It's a lot easier to do that in NYC or SF. Just kind of the reality right now.
Since that was literally the subject of the conversation, the obvious answer is "I hope all of them".
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2018-02-23/insid...
I think everyone could benefit a lot more if Google did what was most optimal for itself to make better products and compete with Apple/Netflix/Amazon/Uber/Comcast/etc.
I guess at what point does it make more sense to locate to a less pricy metro and pay engineering talent to come (basically pick Amazon's reject list other than the VA and NY winners)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JUAx445ReU
Companies are building in NYC because the people that make decisions in those companies want to be in NYC.
And not Boulder.
The whole point of Jeff Bezos' fake contest was to make it abundantly clear to the whole country and end this tired trope that Silicon Rockies - or whatever nearby geographical feature sounds catchy - ever had a chance.
Google has been expanding in NYC for a while. Back in February, they bought their existing building for $2 billion[1].
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill...
[1] https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/google-to-buy-chelsea-market-b...
Did he really help add about 100k high paying tech jobs and within the biggest tech companies on earth?
I was asking a question?
That being said, there's even less evidence that this is even Half True in the tech industry.
0. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun...
___
edit: Also, I assume you're being downvoted because your question was phrased as bait whether you meant it to or not.
What better way to spend piles of cash you have no idea what to do with than extort local governments for billions in tax breaks and park that money in a some commercial real estate you can depreciate? I'm not judging these companies for doing this per se (Amazon, Apple, and Google have all recently done this as far as I can tell - haven't noticed anything from Microsoft), but I do consider it a bit ominous that they've all picked expensive places that certainly seem like good picks.
It really does seem like these companies have no idea what to do with their money. Buying up land and taking the next 3-5 years to build billion dollar campuses seems so boring to me.
https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/12/san-jose-deal-google-ca...
>Liccardo says, the city didn’t offer the company any tax incentives in exchange for its business. “More importantly,” he added in a Medium post, “Google never asked for a dime.”
Why are you holding the bag for Google?
How people ride these shuttles, drive, and deal with these commutes blows my mind. It’s only going to get way worse. Most expensive traffic jam in the country. No thanks.
Not sure if this was your point, but when we can make such a big deal about how a meeting with ten people costs the company ten man-hours and therefore meetings are sooo expensive yet everyone at the entire company goes and sits in traffic twice a day. The macroeconomic cost must be astronomical.