Chicago tries to woo tech workers in Austin, elsewhere

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

Those 20-somethings might prefer an urban setting but they are going trip over themselves to work for Big Tech regardless of setting. Who is going to turn down a six-figure gig for Apple because their campus is in Cupertino? And not downtown San Francisco?

Yes, that's how it ACTUALLY works.

Companies obsess about attracting the best and brightest, and often it's specifically about the young workers. And many locate in urban areas specifically for that reason.

This isn't hidden or secret, even in in the mass media (to say nothing of commercial real estate, where it's a given). Many companies are very clear about it.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yes, that's how it ACTUALLY works.

Companies obsess about attracting the best and brightest, and often it's specifically about the young workers. And many locate in urban areas specifically for that reason.

This isn't hidden or secret, even in in the mass media (to say nothing of commercial real estate, where it's a given). Many companies are very clear about it.

Sure, they may open regional or satellite offices (specializing in specific interests) in more urban areas around the country but the bulk of their workforces are in these suburban office parks and that's unlikely to change. Again, no one is going to turn down a lucrative job a big tech company because it's out in the suburbs. Suburban Austin might have a tougher time competing with downtown Austin but Silicon Valley has a massive pull in talent.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

Sure, they may open regional or satellite offices (specializing in specific interests) in more urban areas around the country but the bulk of their workforces are in these suburban office parks and that's unlikely to change. Again, no one is going to turn down a lucrative job a big tech company because it's out in the suburbs. Suburban Austin might have a tougher time competing with downtown Austin but Silicon Valley has a massive pull in talent.

Just like how nobody would turn down a lucrative job at a big tech company because it's in a downtown skyscraper in Seattle or San Francisco or New York or Chicago, either. The growing trend is to open large downtown offices even if the tradition has been suburban campuses.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

Again, no one is going to turn down a lucrative job a big tech company because it's out in the suburbs. Suburban Austin might have a tougher time competing with downtown Austin but Silicon Valley has a massive pull in talent.

You can debate this on a fan board. It's not much of a debate at the tech firms, or among those of us who build buildings for them.

[10023]

“Winter? Never heard of it. Fake news. Anyway we really think you should come up and secure office space before the end of September, the market gets really challenging close to Christmas.”

[10023]

Originally Posted by JManc

Sure, they may open regional or satellite offices (specializing in specific interests) in more urban areas around the country but the bulk of their workforces are in these suburban office parks and that's unlikely to change. Again, no one is going to turn down a lucrative job a big tech company because it's out in the suburbs. Suburban Austin might have a tougher time competing with downtown Austin but Silicon Valley has a massive pull in talent.

Silicon Valley is also a bit different, if not unique, in that it’s been the center of the tech world for decades. Towns like Palo Alto and Mountain View are full of nice restaurants, good shopping, cultural venues, and most of the things that attract young people to cities (including other young people). The average person doesn’t care so much about the built environment and would probably rather drive a car. It’s not all that different from LA.

This is a far cry from convincing a 20-something to move to Schaumburg or some far-flung subdivision many miles from the “cool part” of Austin.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by 10023

Silicon Valley is also a bit different, if not unique, in that it’s been the center of the tech world for decades. Towns like Palo Alto and Mountain View are full of nice restaurants, good shopping, cultural venues, and most of the things that attract young people to cities (including other young people). The average person doesn’t care so much about the built environment and would probably rather drive a car. It’s not all that different from LA.

This is a far cry from convincing a 20-something to move to Schaumburg or some far-flung subdivision many miles from the “cool part” of Austin.

One project has gone up in Schaumberg over the past year - I literally can't keep track of the stuff going up in Fulton Market ( and I try ). The office parks may be nice for the older folk, but for the youngsters, given a choice of working in Schaumberg at the ( very cool ) Zurich Bank - or in Fulton market at the old Cold Storage building ( now Google ). Well....

Zurich Bank


Fulton Market

[JManc]

Originally Posted by craigs

Just like how nobody would turn down a lucrative job at a big tech company because it's in a downtown skyscraper in Seattle or San Francisco or New York or Chicago, either. The growing trend is to open large downtown offices even if the tradition has been suburban campuses.

Which proves my point is that people are going to go where the jobs are, not necessarily where they want to work. Urbanism is largely overrepresented on this forum but in general, it's a lower priority for most people...which explains why sunbelt cities are doing well.

[TexasPlaya]

What is tech? It seems pretty ubiquitous and you can find it headquartered everywhere. Places like Seattle, SF, and NY probably offer the most favorable version, but the suburbs are gobbling up the tech.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Chicago is wasting its time going after Austin and other tech heavy cities. I have not heard it doing that badly concerning lack of tech companies, plus it has a diverse amount of industries besides tech. If anything, it should develop its biotech industry, which I believe it is doing, its fintech industry, and its alt-energy industry (there are two big nuclear labs in the area). Chicago really needs to make an effort to stabilize the west and south sides, as its reputation is taking a hit from the bad publicity from those areas. For one, I don't understand why it is not offering a store like Aldi incentives to open grocery stores in those areas. It's hard to say how to stem the African-American outflow from those areas, but maybe a better effort to attract more recent immigrants to Chicago. It seems that Minneapolis and Columbus attract more of the recent immigrants than Chicago.

I understand going after Austin, but DFW has always seemed like Chicago’s main competition as a business and logistics hub.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Those 20-somethings might prefer an urban setting but they are going trip over themselves to work for Big Tech regardless of setting. Who is going to turn down a six-figure gig for Apple because their campus is in Cupertino? And not downtown San Francisco?

Location can be a competitive disadvantage for companies when they're competing for talent. It's a major problem that Silicon Valley has been battling for years, hence why all those tech companies started running shuttles back and forth to San Francisco.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Location can be a competitive disadvantage for companies when they're competing for talent. It's a major problem that Silicon Valley has been battling for years, hence why all those tech companies started running shuttles back and forth to San Francisco.

It's also why they're putting big offices in other cities (often in their cores).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

Fair enough, but my point to more so that if branding is very weak, the COL angle won't make much of an impact.

For sure. Chicago finds itself in very deep hole on the branding front, from impacts both external and self-inflicted. No argument from me there.

[Gantz]

There is a reason why Chicago's real estate is so cheap, as the regulatory and tax environment is choking out all of the businesses and working people. If the business environment would be great, housing wouldn't be so cheap.

A big reason why Austin became a hub is because its in Texas.

Of course, IL will hit the founders who relocate from Austin to Chicago with a 5% cap gains tax, since they like to nickel and dime and squeeze all of the juice they can out of anything that remotely generates any money.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Gantz

There is a reason why Chicago's real estate is so cheap, as the regulatory and tax environment is choking out all of the businesses and working people. If the business environment would be great, housing wouldn't be so cheap.

A big reason why Austin became a hub is because its in Texas.

Of course, IL will hit the founders who relocate from Austin to Chicago with a 5% cap gains tax, since they like to nickel and dime and squeeze all of the juice they can out of anything that remotely generates any money.

Unfortunately with the financial problems the state has, it has to Nickle and dime in order to pay off those pensions and other debts. Very poorly(and corrupt) ran state...it's impressive Chicago is as successful as it is with the leadership it and it's home state has had. It goes to show the city's might and perseverance.

[the urban politician]

^ Most great cities are great because of their private sectors and early visionaries.

The political leadership are mostly just leeches. They want to take credit but people who’ve wisened up know that they really aren’t the reason why a city is great. It’s because of he people and companies who take risks with their own money.

The one caveat to that is when local leaders can pull in State/Federal funds for public works projects.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Most great cities are great because of their private sectors and early visionaries.

The political leadership are mostly just leeches. They want to take credit but people who’ve wisened up know that they really aren’t the reason why a city is great. It’s because of he people and companies who take risks with their own money.

The one caveat to that is when local leaders can pull in State/Federal funds for public works projects.

Well, it seems like Chicago really had many ingredients to have a great tech sector but missed some opportunities. For example, I am sure many of your remember the great Razr cell phones, built by the Motorola which invented the cell phone. Yet the build a huge factory in the rural area far from the city and could then fell behind Apple and Samsung. The factory is still empty:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realesta...e-fixer-upper/ar-AAKDSSX?ocid=uxbndlbing


Or Sears, which was the largest department store chain, which combined with one of the largest discount chains, Kmart, It's been bled to oblivion by the owner.

Lucent and AT&T had thousands in the suburbs - are they still there?

Even McDonalds, which is doing really well, once owned but divested Chipolte, which is doing phenomenal.

Interestingly, Boeing relocated HQ to Chicago from Seattle in a big coup. Seattle may have felt emotionally hurt, but its economy barely blinked from the move.

[the urban politician]

^ That’s because Chicago suffers from a mentality of being a huge corporate center where the focus is more on wages and wealth creation, and less so on innovation.

It was once one of the world’s premiere centers for industrial innovation perhaps a century ago. But everybody got all comfy and the focus gradually shifted to other things. Not only that, but much of the Chicago area workforce is not well schooled in the sciences. They are mostly involved in services, business administration, sales, etc.

Only recently are you really starting to see a plethora of engineers and software developer-type people. So the region is playing catch up. But it will always be playing catch up because the real innovation and risk taking just isn’t here any more, and I don’t think it really ever will be.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That’s because Chicago suffers from a mentality of being a huge corporate center where the focus is more on wages and wealth creation, and less so on innovation.

It was once one of the world’s premiere centers for industrial innovation perhaps a century ago. But everybody got all comfy and the focus gradually shifted to other things. Not only that, but much of the Chicago area workforce is not well schooled in the sciences. They are mostly involved in services, business administration, sales, etc.

Only recently are you really starting to see a plethora of engineers and software developer-type people. So the region is playing catch up. But it will always be playing catch up because the real innovation and risk taking just isn’t here any more, and I don’t think it really ever will be.

How do you believe the city economic base and brand is gonna shape up? Conservatively, it could probably wind up being the US's answer to Winnipeg if not already..

Some are counting on those quantum computing to labs to yields something, but that might take decades if anything happens at all. But I believe if there is eventually gonna be a new economic frontier, there's always a good chance.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That’s because Chicago suffers from a mentality of being a huge corporate center where the focus is more on wages and wealth creation, and less so on innovation.

It was once one of the world’s premiere centers for industrial innovation perhaps a century ago. But everybody got all comfy and the focus gradually shifted to other things. Not only that, but much of the Chicago area workforce is not well schooled in the sciences. They are mostly involved in services, business administration, sales, etc.

Only recently are you really starting to see a plethora of engineers and software developer-type people. So the region is playing catch up. But it will always be playing catch up because the real innovation and risk taking just isn’t here any more, and I don’t think it really ever will be.

I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of Chicago. Chicago has had a long history of innovations in a diverse set of areas such as the skyscraper, economics, and the cell phone, to name a few. Chicago certainly has its challenges, but in many areas it is still a vibrant city. I think your explanation may apply to a city like Detroit than Chicago, which was much more diversified and has more well-regarded universities and cultural institutions. Chicago's struggles may mirror much of the midwest, which no longer seems to be the human talent and manufacturing draw it used to be.