CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by k1052

I'd suspect that Sterling Bay/JP Morgan has a plan B and plan C for Lincoln Yards.
The rest of the big developments feel more tentative.

I'm curious to see if the leasing logjam breaks now that Amazon has finally decided. Lots of big names looking for space.

I think Plan B and Plan C for these parcels was always going to be less intensive and more residential, I expect they will acquiesce in part to the aldermen's demands for more park space. Other components like the soccer stadium only made sense in the context of a massive infrastructure package, which in turn only made sense in the context of a huge anchor tenant. TBH the Finkl area and the big FFM site, given their relative lack of transit access, are better suited to low-rise multifamily and townhouse developments. We've seen almost no new supply of townhouses since the recession. Of course, that conflicts with the city's new zoning so expect that to be controversial.

Maybe the North Branch as a whole can continue to develop office at the south end where train stations are reasonably walkable. The "River District" on the Tribune site and the O'Donnell project just north of it can attract office, they are a reasonable walk from the Blue Line and can easily run shuttles around the congestion to Union/Ogilvie with only a minor new road connection through the Blommer Chocolate property.

On the other hand, the 78 has the best transit access out of the various megaprojects, with the Red Line tracks literally right on site. If the construction cost of a new station doesn't literally destroy the city's budget.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I think Plan B and Plan C for these parcels was always going to be less intensive and more residential, I expect they will acquiesce in part to the aldermen's demands for more park space. Other components like the soccer stadium only made sense in the context of a massive infrastructure package, which in turn only made sense in the context of a huge anchor tenant. TBH the North Branch parcels, given their relative lack of transit access, are better suited to low-rise multifamily and townhouse developments. We've seen almost no new supply of townhouses since the recession.

Maybe the North Branch as a whole can continue to develop office at the south end where train stations are reasonably walkable. The "River District" on the Tribune site and the O'Donnell project just north of it can attract office, they are a reasonable walk from the Blue Line and can easily run shuttles around the congestion to Union/Ogilvie with only a minor new road connection through the Blommer Chocolate property.

On the other hand, the 78 has the best transit access out of the various megaprojects, with the Red Line tracks literally right on site. If the construction cost of a new station doesn't literally destroy the city's budget.

If somebody put a gun to my head I'd say plan B was a more traditional office user but one that takes up less sq ft. Rebalance with more residential on the LP side of the project. Plan C could be basically all residential but with significant gives to get approvals, mid-rise and townhomes pretty much for sure given the attitude of the neighbors. I only rate the odds at LY better than most given it's rather prime position straddling Bucktown and Lincoln Park with the 808 going to run right through the middle.

Absent a mega-tenant like Amazon (or someone of near caliber) I'd expect office development to largely proceed as it has in River North, West Loop, Loop, and Fulton Market. Which I've got no problem with since diverse steady growth is really healthier in the long run.

[BorisMolotov]

I was gonna say I just do it because its the cheapest and I usually travel light with only a duffel bag that I can fit under my seat. It's only a few hours of my life so why would I pay more?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by BorisMolotov

I was gonna say I just do it because its the cheapest and I usually travel light with only a duffel bag that I can fit under my seat. It's only a few hours of my life so why would I pay more?

If you travel more than a handful of times per year then it can be worth it, otherwise it's not if you're only flying once or twice maximum per year.

[Kngkyle]

People who think they are so much smarter than everyone else because they don't use credit cards are quite amusing.

[Baronvonellis]

Although the sad fact is the guy buying off the dollar menu who is lower income is probably the guy carrying a credit card balance and paying 22% interest on his balance and getting screwed over by the credit card companies and they are the least able to afford it. For people that can't pay off their balances it's better to use cash to not get screwed over with interest, and only use credit for emergencies.

Louis you should be getting at least 2% cash back if your spending so much for your business.

[the urban politician]

It's the same reason that casinos use tokens. You don't feel like you're losing money

[emathias]

Anyone else read the Opinion piece in Crains entitled "Amazon's HQ2 Will Help Other Cities, Too"?

Anyone who did read it, feel like it was an argument that anyone who's actually good at their job should leave Chicago? That's how it came across to me. I'm not one who believes the local papers should be actively boosters for the City, but it might be nice if they didn't print things that are actively tearing the city down.

For those without a subscription and can't figure out how to get behind the paywall for free, here's the second paragraph:

Right? Not exactly. As well-compensated employees drive up costs in these cities, they will create incentives for workers and companies who can't afford San Francisco rents or Google salaries. “Trickle down economic development” will create winners out of the cities that aren’t landing new tech jobs or headquarters.

The implication seems to be that Chicago is one of those second-tier cities and will only ever get second-tier jobs and pay second-tier wages. And if that be true, and you're a first-tier worker, why on Earth would you even consider staying in Chicago?

I don't disagree with the idea that wages will trickle down to other cities, but the timing and placement of this opinion piece seems to me to be meant to apply to Chicago. So my question is why would Crains do that?

[marothisu]

As predicted by many people, Crains and the Tribune especially would be full of this type of stuff. I've lived in other cities, and I don't know - it just feels like Chicago bitches more than most places I've lived in as if the city is the only place facing X, Y, and Z problem. People need to get out more. It's like they don't understand that Amazon fielded over 200 applications, and in the end they only chose 2 cities (and Nashville, but that's not the same as it's not a tech hub, but still a sizable presence no matter what). That's not an excuse to not win and not be a little upset if you really wanted the thing, but it's also not an excuse to go into meltdown mode either and play the "oh woe is me" card.

Some of the mood that Chicagoans have today remind me of the person that is a very good person - not perfect, has some big flaws, but for the most part is a very good person - and have gotten into this depressive mood where every little thing that doesn't go their way, they just start beating themselves up on not realizing how many other people go through the same exact things not realizing all the good things they have going for them.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by emathias

Anyone else read the Opinion piece in Crains entitled "Amazon's HQ2 Will Help Other Cities, Too"?

The implication seems to be that Chicago is one of those second-tier cities and will only ever get second-tier jobs and pay second-tier wages. And if that be true, and you're a first-tier worker, why on Earth would you even consider staying in Chicago?

So my question is why would Crains do that?

Sounds like the editorial staff at Crains forgot to take their Prozac prescriptions. Chicago is a world class city and a great bargain still. Hope J.B. does not change that with taxes.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by emathias

Anyone else read the Opinion piece in Crains entitled "Amazon's HQ2 Will Help Other Cities, Too"?

Anyone who did read it, feel like it was an argument that anyone who's actually good at their job should leave Chicago? That's how it came across to me. I'm not one who believes the local papers should be actively boosters for the City, but it might be nice if they didn't print things that are actively tearing the city down.

For those without a subscription and can't figure out how to get behind the paywall for free, here's the second paragraph:



The implication seems to be that Chicago is one of those second-tier cities and will only ever get second-tier jobs and pay second-tier wages. And if that be true, and you're a first-tier worker, why on Earth would you even consider staying in Chicago?

I don't disagree with the idea that wages will trickle down to other cities, but the timing and placement of this opinion piece seems to me to be meant to apply to Chicago. So my question is why would Crains do that?

I read this article and that wasn’t my read—at all.

They are simply saying that the high cost of talent in coastal cities will inevitably lead to overflow employment in lower cost cities. Chicago will naturally benefit from this. I didn’t see this as a knock on Chicago’s talent.

Truth is, we have top Universities in our region, the biggest issue is that we don’t have as many top paying jobs to attract the best the the brightest as NY or SF do. If we did, they would come. But companies here just don’t seem to be willing to pay top dollar, at least that’s what I seem to be hearing.

Having the second most Fortune 1000 companies in the nation means there are abundant opportunities to become obscenely wealthy here, but via a traditional path of rising up the corporate ladder. You see a lot of old people with white hair with tons of wealth in our region. What you see less of is a 20 or 30 somethings worth tens of millions. That’s something you see more of on the coasts, and I think the younger generation finds that more appealing these days.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I read this article and that wasn’t my read—at all.

They are simply saying that the high cost of talent in coastal cities will inevitably lead to overflow employment in lower cost cities. Chicago will naturally benefit from this. I didn’t see this as a knock on Chicago’s talent.

I actually read it this way too, but don't blame emathias for reading it the way he did.

Truth is, we have top Universities in our region, the biggest issue is that we don’t have as many top paying jobs to attract the best the the brightest as NY or SF do. If we did, they would come. But companies here just don’t seem to be willing to pay top dollar, at least that’s what I seem to be hearing.

I think that's only partially true but it's more complicated than that IMO. It depends on where you are at in your career and what industry, and what kind of company you're going to. If you are senior and good at what you do, then some of the companies with actual money who don't have a problem spending it will pay you well. Some of the ones who might not be like that, maybe not as much. Chicago is a cheaper city than others, so the difference in salary can be explained sometimes with that. In all honesty, you can live in a better place alone in downtown Chicago on $100K per year than in Manhattan on $140K per year.

Let's put it this way. If I made $35K per year less in Chicago than what I currently make in NYC and paid the rent I was paying before I moved (downtown renovated luxury building), then I'd take home almost the same amount of money after rent and taxes in Chicago than I do in NYC currently on $35K less. The place I lived in Chicago was also nicer and bigger with more amenities than what I have here in Manhattan. So point being, even if that was let's say $25K difference in salary, then I'd make more money in Chicago than NYC on a lower salary. I think companies kind of know these things.......

[the urban politician]

Speak of the devil, some local companies discussing how they are faring attracting talent:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/empl...hiring-secrets

[LouisVanDerWright]

Also I've posted this a few times, but it keeps getting deleted: Amazon is taking 1,000,000 in LIC, for example. The new Salesforce, Google, and Facebook leases just announced already total up to 900,000 SF. We are getting our HQ2, but it's coming in the form or large back offices from many giant tech companies. I would rather have that than one HQ2 because any of those offices could balloon into similar requirements if the situation in terms of labor and cost of living continues to get more out of control elsewhere.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Also I've posted this a few times, but it keeps getting deleted: Amazon is taking 1,000,000 in LIC, for example. The new Salesforce, Google, and Facebook leases just announced already total up to 900,000 SF. We are getting our HQ2, but it's coming in the form or large back offices from many giant tech companies. I would rather have that than one HQ2 because any of those offices could balloon into similar requirements if the situation in terms of labor and cost of living continues to get more out of control elsewhere.

I agree with this. Go after more offices, more companies.

[Baronvonellis]

Yea, it's pretty common knowledge that NYC is super expensive. I'd have to pay double or more in rent to get a similar place and then the neighborhood wouldn't be as nice as where I am on the northside. I don't see what the big appeal of NYC is, it's super crowded and has about the same amenities as Chicago.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Yea, it's pretty common knowledge that NYC is super expensive. I'd have to pay double or more in rent to get a similar place and then the neighborhood wouldn't be as nice as where I am on the northside. I don't see what the big appeal of NYC is, it's super crowded and has about the same amenities as Chicago.

Not according to Crawford who literally just said "I've never heard a Millennial complain about the cost of housing in NYC" in the HQ2 thread, Lol.

I don't know what's more dubious, that or to claim you've never heard a Millenial complain about the cost of housing period.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Not according to Crawford who literally just said "I've never heard a Millennial complain about the cost of housing in NYC" in the HQ2 thread, Lol.

I don't know what's more dubious, that or to claim you've never heard a Millenial complain about the cost of housing period.

ROFL. Bullshit. I work with numerous people who graduated less than 5 years ago. They complain about rent prices all the time. Every single one of them I showed Chicago prices to had the same reaction along the lines of "Why don't I live in Chicago?" In fact, I work with numerous people, millenials, who have moved to Dallas within our company and the #1 factor in every single one was the high COL in the NYC area.

Most of the people who don't complain either already have enough money thanks to their parents, or are just out of school with next to no possessions, and have no problem rooming with 2 or 3 other people and having an 8x8 foot bedroom. I have a friend who lived in Herald Square and his bedroom was a converted living room - but the living room wasn't typical. It was more like someone's home office. Everytime he'd visit me in Chicago in my apartment, it was always the same: "Why the hell do I live in NYC when I could have this for way less?"

Sure my things are anecdotes, but I hear it at work all the damn time. People complain so much about the rent prices here. They also do a lot to convince themselves that it's all normal - like the trash on the sidewalks in various areas. People come from all over, so they have this romantic vision that NYC is literally the only place in America that's walkable so they come up with all sorts of crazy excuses for things like this. And it's the most walkable city in America, don't get me wrong - just not the only place.

[BVictor1]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...al-race-closes

GREG HINZ ON POLITICS
November 19, 2018 05:00 AM UPDATED 56 MINUTES AGO

Downtown jobs keep soaring as mayoral race closes in

Downtown Chicago has added the jobs equivalent of almost three Amazon HQ2s in just eight years, even as growth in other neighborhoods and some suburbs turns negative.


GREG HINZ

As the race for mayor of Chicago gets seriously underway, new data on job creation in the metropolitan area starkly underlines what will be at stake in a city and region where some areas are enjoying unprecedented growth but others remain stuck in an economic rut.

The data are from Where Workers Work, a publication of the Illinois Department of Employment Security, which, unlike much job data, is based not on a sample or a survey but a hard count of jobs—in this case private-sector positions covered by unemployment insurance, which IDES administers.

The topline is that, in the year ended in March, the six-county metropolitan area added just under 41,000 jobs, an uptick of 1.1 percent, somewhat behind national growth in that period of 1.8 percent. Since the Great Recession ended in 2010, the region has put an additional 463,820 people to work, an increase of 13.9 percent.

Rapid growth in downtown Chicago, the destination of an increasing number of employers in search of top talent, not only is continuing but accelerating. In the downtown area—a combination of the traditional Loop and adjoining Near North, West and South sides—private-sector employers added 19,249 jobs in the most recent year, a hefty 3.25 percent growth, for a new total of 612,914.

Since 2010, downtown has added an eye-popping 133,715 jobs—a figure almost equal to three of the HQ2 prize that Amazon promised to create until recently deciding to instead send 25,000 jobs each to New York and Washington, D.C.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Yea, it's pretty common knowledge that NYC is super expensive. I'd have to pay double or more in rent to get a similar place and then the neighborhood wouldn't be as nice as where I am on the northside. I don't see what the big appeal of NYC is, it's super crowded and has about the same amenities as Chicago.

My place in Chicago was around $2000 per month. Equivalent place in Manhattan (south of Harlem)on average would be at least $4500 per month (there is ONE building a few blocks north of me that's like $3500-$3700 but that's way out of the ordinary). In a comparative neighborhood (i.e. more outwardly glitzy), it might even be pushing more than that. In Long Island City near where HQ2 is going, it's $3200/mo minimum and up to $3600 for comparative size and everything. My place is currently just under $3000/mo for a 1 bedroom with no amenities other than an elevator and a few washing/drying machines. Long Island City is on the up and up, but comparing it to a place like Gold Coast is extremely laughable. Gold Coast has way more things to do, eat at, shop at, etc.

The funny thing is that I live the same distance away from a train stop as I did in Chicago, but in Chicago I had way more right outside my front door than I have here. Now, it's a 5-10 minute walk away, but still. I'd say that my life in Chicago was actually more active than here. It's not like that for everyone, but I actually go out way less in NYC than I did in Chicago. That could be a change with me though, not the city - however last time I was back in Chicago in late May, I wanted to be outside 24/7. Don't know what it is..