CHICAGO | Salesforce Tower | 850 FT | 60 FLOORS

[jpIllInoIs]

My offer is this....NOTHING! (on the tax break-i dont care about the park access)

Why would Chicago give a 11mil tax break?
If SF thought they could accomplish their hiring goals elsewhere they would do so. They have a building in Indianapolis. Chicago's assets should be enough. And the prime riverfront real estate should not be compromised to a low ball offer.

[BonoboZill4]

Hmmmmm... this is a lot to digest. I guess if it means anything, it does show how much people want this lot. I'll wait to see how this develops, because I don't want to promulgate half-baked opinions about something that we might only have half the story for, such as this video wall.

I don't understand the tax incentives though... Definitely expect the city to give in there and give them some, but that just pure greed. :/

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

My offer is this....NOTHING! (on the tax break-i dont care about the park access)

Why would Chicago give a 11mil tax break?
If SF thought they could accomplish their hiring goals elsewhere they would do so. They have a building in Indianapolis. Chicago's assets should be enough. And the prime riverfront real estate should not be compromised to a low ball offer.

$10M* But anyway for argument's sake, why would they? Probably because 5000 new decently well paid or well paid workers to the city would generate a decent amount of money for the city with property tax, sales tax, and also to the state in terms of income tax (probably around $18M per year, probably more, to the state for income tax). So I guess it comes down to if Salesforce tells them "We won't hire this many people unless you agree." Yeah sure, you can argue about this type of thing, but $10M in tax abatement works out better than what people are throwing to HQ2 in terms of tax breaks. You can argue about the "taking hostage" type of thing which is always weird - these companies are pretty greedy - but they do have points if the state/city can agree on something that will make both parties work. The problem with these situations is that sometimes companies take state/city for a ride where only that company wins. In cases like that, the companies can go F themselves. In my rough math, $10M seems like the city/state could still win.

[TimeAgain]

I'm usually pretty cynical when it comes to announcements, but if this and One Chicago actually get built, then this will be such a remarkable time for Chicago architecture.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by harryc

Yes - this is NOT the riverwalk - this is private property.
Just as 321 N Clark closed off the heavily used path on the north bank from time to time.

Private property or not, they are required to keep it open to the public during Park Dietrict hours, correct?

Besides, this should not be a big deal. Even public parks get closed off from time to time for private events

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

My offer is this....NOTHING! (on the tax break-i dont care about the park access)

Why would Chicago give a 11mil tax break?
If SF thought they could accomplish their hiring goals elsewhere they would do so. They have a building in Indianapolis. Chicago's assets should be enough. And the prime riverfront real estate should not be compromised to a low ball offer.

I agree. Chicago has the upper hand here. They might ultimately move the needle a little bit here ($3 million?) but the full tax break is way too much

[marothisu]

I'm guessing they will settle on something as far as tax break - maybe not full $10M, but at least a few if not handful of millions. I just saw a rendering for what they want to do at the SF tower. If that's what they want to do here, then that's not bad at all. Only thing I find weird about their demands is about usage of the land that's supposed to be public. That's kind of over the edge IMO. If they want to hold private events on this stuff, they should have to go through the same process everyone else has to go through with the city.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I'm guessing they will settle on something as far as tax break - maybe not full $10M, but at least a few if not handful of millions. I just saw a rendering for what they want to do at the SF tower. If that's what they want to do here, then that's not bad at all. Only thing I find weird about their demands is about usage of the land that's supposed to be public. That's kind of over the edge IMO. If they want to hold private events on this stuff, they should have to go through the same process everyone else has to go through with the city.

Why is cordoning off their public space for occasional events a big deal? They do this all the time in the city for private events. You’ve got fairs, concerts, food tasting events, etc etc. How would this be any different?

The more I think about this, the more I think that SF’s requests won’t be that hard to fulfill, perhaps with a bit of negotiating here and there. We do need to keep the riverfront tasteful, after all

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Why is cordoning off their public space for occasional events a big deal? They do this all the time in the city for public events. You’ve got fairs, concerts, food tasting events, etc etc. How would this be any different?

The more I think about this, the more I think that SF’s requests won’t be that hard to fulfill, perhaps with a bit of negotiating here and there. We do need to keep the riverfront tasteful, after all

As far as I understand, it's different because it sounds as if they want to go around the actual process everything you stated actually does. I said in my statement I didn't care if they used it for that - just do what everyone else does as far as getting proper approvals for when they want to keep it private. It sounds more like a thing that if they want to have a fair in 3 days, they'll be able to do it pretty much on a whim without going through how everyone else in the city does it.

But if not, then whatever. I don't think their stuff is crazy and I don't think that $10M tax abatement is a massive deal when you have 5000 new decently well paid to well paid people coming (let's say half come in from elsewhere though). I think they can make it work where the city and/or state doesn't get screwed. It's also a hell of a lot better than what everyone wants to throw at Amazon in terms of tax breaks.

[lakeshoredrive]

What is the likelihood of the design being changed with Salesforce?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

As far as I understand, it's different because it sounds as if they want to go around the actual process everything you stated actually does. I said in my statement I didn't care if they used it for that - just do what everyone else does.

Easy to fix. Pre-approve them for x number of events per year of x size and duration. Make an agreement about cleaning, security, etc etc. Bada boom bada bing! Agreement in hand.

I swear I could be mayor of this place, we’d already halfway through constructing their new tower by December with me doing the negotiating

[rlw777]

If the "Video Wall" an art installation like what's at the top of their San Francisco tower then I am down with that.

[munchymunch]

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive

What is the likelihood of the design being changed with Salesforce?

The designs that have been released are conceptual, they’ll probably stick with Pelli Clarke Pelli too considering he designed their HQ in San Fransico.

[marothisu]

BTW, the Tribune article states that the city already refused their $10M abatement request. It also says that they're considering the fire station site at Dearborn & Illinois and that they wanted to go to the new Bank of America Tower, but B of A got naming rights instead. Sounds like Sales Force really wants their name on things. I'm wondering if the fire station redevelopment might win out..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-salesforce-chicago-expansion-20180822-story.html

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

BTW, the Tribune article states that the city already refused their $10M abatement request. It also says that they're considering the fire station site at Dearborn & Illinois and that they wanted to go to the new Bank of America Tower, but B of A got naming rights instead. Sounds like Sales Force really wants their name on things. I'm wondering if the fire station redevelopment might win out..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-salesforce-chicago-expansion-20180822-story.html

Negotiations, my friend. You never enter into them asking what you really want. That’s my speculation.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Negotiations, my friend. You never enter into them asking what you really want. That’s my speculation.

Of course - you always throw out a number higher than what you actually need. They'll probably come to somewhere closer to $5M if SF is willing for that. I think they obviously want WPS more as it's a more prominent site, especially if they are able to in any way signify that they're in the building (i.e. video board).

Either way, this is pretty huge - 5000 workers. I mean even if just 1/10th of that is new to the city, it could easily justify development of a new residential high rise or two.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Wow, this Salesforce news is tremendous! Lets hope the city moves this zoning forward.

I hope Salesforce is a tad negotiable on some of the things they are asking for, however

Besides the money, what they are looking sounds lame. Lots of promotion nonsense shouldn't be a requirement to locate in the city. I haven't seen them do anything that gaudy in the Bay Area. Maybe the city should have a Times Square kind of corporate video and promo signage area, but the River isn't that. And the downside of public riverwalks that aren't really public: no guarantees they will always be there.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by marothisu

BTW, the Tribune article states that the city already refused their $10M abatement request. It also says that they're considering the fire station site at Dearborn & Illinois and that they wanted to go to the new Bank of America Tower, but B of A got naming rights instead. Sounds like Sales Force really wants their name on things. I'm wondering if the fire station redevelopment might win out..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-salesforce-chicago-expansion-20180822-story.html

Would be dumb if they went to the fire station site. The fundamentals are not as good, and the proposal there is arguably worse for their branding. It's closer to the Red Line but much further from Metra and from all other rail lines. That proposal as currently designed will blend into the River North plateau... Wolf Point South is much more distinctive and will dominate the skyline from anywhere to the west or north, including the postcard view from the Kennedy at Ashland - not to mention the place of pride at the confluence and the view termination down the river corridors.

I would argue the naming rights + prominent landmark tower at Wolf Point, even without a sign or video wall, are better for Salesforce's branding than a middle-height tower covered in Salesforce logos that gets lost in the shuffle.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Would be dumb if they went to the fire station site. It's closer to the Red Line but much further from Metra and from all other rail lines.

I'm not completely sold.

1) The walk from Union Station to WPS would be 1 mile. From Ogilvie it's around 3/4 of a mile. I would bet money that if they had enough people coming into those stations, they'd just run some shuttle service. There are people who would walk that, but I don't think it's as close as you think maybe. If they don't have a lot of people coming from the suburbs, then the Fire Station is arguably a better site only because it's in between the Red, Brown, and Purple lines. Although I think WPS is better in terms of statement making, beauty (i.e. the river), and the potential to advertise if they were allowed to.

My office in Chicago was at the Hyatt Center (Wacker & Monroe). Straight shot walk to the Red Line was a half mile. Great when it was nice out, but it was kind of pushing it for that walk during winter. I would hate to walk double that in winter.

Personally from a pure location standpoint, I would love to work in a tower at WPS with an amazing view though.

2) The current Salesforce Office in Chicago is at 111 W Illinois. The Fire Station redevelopment is at 444 N Dearborn, which is basically around 50 W Illinois. This is literally less than 500 feet east of their current office, where they have over 1000 employees.

[PittsburghPA]

Originally Posted by rlw777

If the "Video Wall" an art installation like what's at the top of their San Francisco tower then I am down with that.

They are calling the SF Tower crown a "Video Wall" which is essentially just a screen covered in LED's but the tests they ran were fantastic. If I'm not mistaken they can play HD video on it. I think that would be great for Chicago and this site. Making the skyline a little more sci-fi (not that sci-fi is my thing) could be cool.

I have no problem with them shutting down the park for private events but they should be careful to not let them find a loop hole to make it private year round. As far as the taxes, they'll definitely get something out of it but not the original ask.

Just my opinions.