CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[the urban politician]

Old Post Office. Period.

And screw Amazon. I don't care what they do with their HQ, I hate corporate welfare. They are turning into a monopoly and they should be broken up by the Dept of Justice before they pit every town and city in America against each other so they can "land" an Amazon office. It's just stupid how much we kowtow to big corporations these days.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Old Post Office. Period.

And screw Amazon. I don't care what they do with their HQ, I hate corporate welfare. They are turning into a monopoly and they should be broken up by the Dept of Justice before they pit every town and city in America against each other so they can "land" an Amazon office. It's just stupid how much we kowtow to big corporations these days.

Lol, I figured this would be your response .

I'm also increasingly skeptical of Amazon. I would welcome the 50,000 high-paying jobs though, so .

[left of center]

Originally Posted by emathias

I agree. Crime perception and winter are probably Chicago's only big drawbacks. And the crime thing is more of a perception issue than day-to-day reality for people in Amazon income brackets, and the weather, well, you can always put on a coat ...

I would say neither of those factors would even be considered much at all.

The biggest drawback for Chicago is the financial & political instability of the city and state. Amazon stated they want "a stable and business-friendly environment". With Rauner and Madigan at each other's throats, we definitely lack political stability. And with the constant threat of ever increasing taxes on the horizon due to the sad state of the public employee pensions, we aren't particularly business friendly either. It doesn't help that the city's and state's financial situation will not allow for very generous financial aid packages.

Hopefully, Amazon will see through all that doom and gloom and see a city with excellent cultural, labor and transportation resources with an excellent quality of life. This would be a big win for the city, and one that could help it shake off the bad reputation we're garnered as of late.

[ardecila]

Crain's listed out a couple of possible sites.

Riverside Park, Old Post Office, Finkl Steel, Tribune/Freedom Center. Also Michael Reese, which I wasn't thinking about, but which would solve a big problem for the city.

One that wasn't mentioned was the large swath of vacant land in the Illinois Medical District south of Roosevelt. Lots of land, easy to construct a Pink Line infill station, Ashland/Damen buses to North Side neighborhoods. Already a street grid in place. Metra BNSF runs next to the site. Certainly an Amazon campus would be a lot better than the smorgasbord of shitty development we've gotten there so far (Costco, heliport, strip mall, etc). The noise from the heliport might be a dealbreaker, though.

[Kngkyle]

It really does seem like Chicago is one of the top 3 if not the absolute best choice for them when you consider airport connections, mass transit, cost of living, developable land, and access to talent. If those are their main criteria who is in a better position than Chicago? I can think of none. The closest is probably Atlanta.. but their mass transit is not great and talent isn't on par with Chicago. If one of their main considerations is what city/state can offer the most $$ to them (in the form of incentives and low taxes) then that makes it more difficult for Chicago to compete.

One thing is for sure though, Amazon is no Foxconn. This is a much much bigger and more secure prize than the ripoff Wisconsin got with Foxconn. I would support the city and state offering a reasonable incentive package. Our fundamentals are strong though, so we shouldn't have to compensate with some ridiculous incentive package.

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Crain's listed out a couple of possible sites.

Riverside Park, Old Post Office, Finkl Steel, Tribune/Freedom Center. Also Michael Reese, which I wasn't thinking about, but which would solve a big problem for the city.

One that wasn't mentioned was the large swath of vacant land in the Illinois Medical District south of Roosevelt. Lots of land, easy to construct a Pink Line infill station, Ashland/Damen buses to North Side neighborhoods. Already a street grid in place. Metra BNSF runs next to the site. Certainly an Amazon campus would be a lot better than the smorgasbord of shitty development we've gotten there so far (Costco, heliport, strip mall, etc). The noise from the heliport might be a dealbreaker, though.

This is the kind of stuff that sinks Chicago from these big wins. Every major newspaper in Chicago has talked about the Finkle Steel site, Michael Reese, or some other doofus idea on the south side. No sane CEO or company (or grocery store for the matter) will locate within a couple miles of a war zone.
These are foreign concepts for most people, let alone those from Seattle.

Why on Earth would I want to commute to a site south of Roosevelt if I'm working for Amazon--on top of that, with 50,000 people? Amazon's Seattle campus is urban, with walkers and bikers moving in all hours of the day. Instead of large open spaces, Chicago should pitch the still empty lots on the west loop that can be infilled with Amazon offices (including some buildings ready for a tear down). Or the old post office, connected to the new union station redevelopment. If I were Rahm, I'd push for new and more inspiring union station redevelopment now, with Amazon in mind.

Chicago offers Amazon a downtown Seattle-type of development opportunity, with the amenities of Manhattan, direct rail to both airports and the entire metro area with commuter rail. Nothing beats Chicago for what Amazon wants, in my view. The politicians really need to come together for this one; yes, Chicago will do fine without Amazon, but it'll be a huge, tangible loss if it goes somewhere else. You can't argue that 50,000 tech workers adding to the city 500 at a time through small startups is better, while 50,000 added in a matter of years by one behemoth is worse.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by chiphile

This is the kind of stuff that sinks Chicago from these big wins. Every major newspaper in Chicago has talked about the Finkle Steel site, Michael Reese, or some other doofus idea on the south side. No sane CEO or company (or grocery store for the matter) will locate within a couple miles of a war zone.
These are foreign concepts for most people, let alone those from Seattle.

Why on Earth would I want to commute to a site south of Roosevelt if I'm working for Amazon--on top of that, with 50,000 people? Amazon's Seattle campus is urban, with walkers and bikers moving in all hours of the day. Instead of large open spaces, Chicago should pitch the still empty lots on the west loop that can be infilled with Amazon offices (including some buildings ready for a tear down). Or the old post office, connected to the new union station redevelopment. If I were Rahm, I'd push for new and more inspiring union station redevelopment now, with Amazon in mind.

Chicago offers Amazon a downtown Seattle-type of development opportunity, with the amenities of Manhattan, direct rail to both airports and the entire metro area with commuter rail. Nothing beats Chicago for what Amazon wants, in my view. The politicians really need to come together for this one; yes, Chicago will do fine without Amazon, but it'll be a huge, tangible loss if it goes somewhere else. You can't argue that 50,000 tech workers adding to the city 500 at a time through small startups is better, while 50,000 added in a matter of years by one behemoth is worse.

Finkle is a real option - public and private money are being pushed to make it essentially an environment very similar to the South Lake Union area of Seattle that is very popular with all sorts of people in Seattle. South Lake Union was basically nothing ten years ago and now it's packed with knowledge economy workers and nice residences in 5-15 story buildings. That's kinda what I think Goose Island and Finkle are aiming for, and it's the sort of area you see in Seattle with tech companies, that you see in the waterfront parts of San Francisco for tech companies, that you see in Cambridge, for tech companies. It's a desirable model, and Chicago should offer sometime along those lines for companies that want that.

That said, I think Amazon would be better served choosing one of the several Loop-adjacent spots, and the Old Post Office is really possibly exactly what they want - it'll have 500,000 square feet in the timeframe they want, then a million or so more shortly after, then the adjacent Union Station redevelopment can get them close to the claimed 8 million they want to ultimately end up with, and the other vacant lots nearby could easily provide the difference to get them to that.

But, we have to remember, Amazon, if they do what they say they're going to do, will also pull in nearly as many supporting jobs in other companies, plus if even only 1/4 of their workforce wants to live near downtown in Chicago, that's many thousands of additional residential to support sites like Reese or Tri-Taylor. Adventurous individuals will choose locations that the corporation itself may not. Smaller companies will choose less-prime spots to be close but have cheap rent. This, as advertised at least, is much bigger than just Amazon. And if Amazon located here and drew in a large number of top-shelf tech talent, Google, Facebook, etc, will expand their offices here - it happened in Seattle, it would happen here. All said and done, if Amazon is serious about their goals, this is probably something capable of generating more in the range of 150,000-200,000 new high-paying jobs in whatever city wins over the next two decades. The only real question is whether Amazon is serious or just fluffing things up to draw in strong competitive offers. If they're serious, Chicago and Illinois could let the corporation locate here tax free for 20 years and still come out ahead - I believe it really would be that significant if Amazon is being truthful about their goals.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by chiphile

This is the kind of stuff that sinks Chicago from these big wins. Every major newspaper in Chicago has talked about the Finkle Steel site, Michael Reese, or some other doofus idea on the south side. No sane CEO or company (or grocery store for the matter) will locate within a couple miles of a war zone.
These are foreign concepts for most people, let alone those from Seattle.

Why on Earth would I want to commute to a site south of Roosevelt if I'm working for Amazon--on top of that, with 50,000 people? Amazon's Seattle campus is urban, with walkers and bikers moving in all hours of the day. Instead of large open spaces, Chicago should pitch the still empty lots on the west loop that can be infilled with Amazon offices (including some buildings ready for a tear down). Or the old post office, connected to the new union station redevelopment. If I were Rahm, I'd push for new and more inspiring union station redevelopment now, with Amazon in mind.

Chicago offers Amazon a downtown Seattle-type of development opportunity, with the amenities of Manhattan, direct rail to both airports and the entire metro area with commuter rail. Nothing beats Chicago for what Amazon wants, in my view. The politicians really need to come together for this one; yes, Chicago will do fine without Amazon, but it'll be a huge, tangible loss if it goes somewhere else. You can't argue that 50,000 tech workers adding to the city 500 at a time through small startups is better, while 50,000 added in a matter of years by one behemoth is worse.

^ I tend to agree that their best bet is to go with an Old Post Office, Union Station type of location.

Every time there is ANY discussion about any potential large project in Chicago (casino, etc), the local media like clockwork brings up the same 4 or 5 lame ass sites--Michael Reese, US Steel, Riverside Park, etc--as if it's the first time those sites have ever been considered. To hell with the Michael Reese site! Stop planning mega-developments there--just let people build townhomes and condos, admit that Daley fucked up big time, and move on.

Regarding Corporate Welf-azon and their "HQ2", if the city is going to do this then enough with the lazy journalism. Be sharp and focus on 1 or 2 very strong sites and get the developers/owners on board quickly. And the Old Post Office and Union Station are clearly the best sites.

[marothisu]

Given all the criteria, I'd agree that Chicago is maybe in the top 5. I think there have been cities like Atlanta and Dallas floated around, but I think ultimately they will lose out due to their vastly inferior public transit options when compared to other cities/areas. Some of the areas that have been floated around like Michael Reese are not going to work probably, but could. For this though, doubtful. I don't think Finkl Steel would either and US Steel is such a terrible choice it's not even funny. Old Post Office area is the clear winner here IMO. Quite honestly, some of these criteria make me believe that they know Chicago is one of the tops but have to go through RFP by law or to maintain a certain illusion. In the business world, I've seen this happen due to a few laws.

1) Amazon wants 500K sq ft of space in an already existing building plus they want to be close to public transit and major expressways. First of all, this obviously screams Old Post Office site. My question is - what other cities have this to offer right now? It's a serious question and I think an important one, but I also don't know.

That is not a small amount of space, but given the other requirements, it severely narrows the field down. I am not familiar with other areas' sites, but I'd really be impressed if cities like Dallas, Austin, Denver, Atlanta, etc had this already given all the criteria. Also, can their systems handle an increase load of this many people? 3000 to start with, but by the end of it - 50K. Truly how many systems can handle this in the US? The answer is not many - Chicago probably could but there's no way in hell that Atlanta, Dallas, Austin, Denver, etc could handle that. They would have to have a lot of work done and there's no way Amazon is paying for that (well maybe, but doubtful).

2) The OPO is 2.5 or 2.7 million square feet and can expand. I know there's some vacant/parking lots around there which I'm sure could be sold to Amazon. Some other buildings might cash out too - who knows. Is this adequate though given they want up to 8 million sq ft by the end of it? They'd probably need to go more vertical which means they'd probably need to build multiple skyscrapers for that much space.

3) Is there any way you'd think they'd take up the Old Post Office first and then build a bunch of stuff down on the 62 acre site just south of Roosevelt? That site I believe was slated to handle something like 10 million sq ft of space. It's already close to public transit and expressways - really close to Old Post Office. Wondering how likely it is that this would happen and then eventually Amazon would abandon the OPO for this area once more is built.

4) They want a place with good COL - that doesn't bode well for NYC and Boston. Chicago and Seattle have very similar COL so they already know what they're working with. Dallas, Austin, and Atlanta are probably just as good if not better than Chicago for this. However, they all come with car culture which increases the COL.

5) Amazon in the RFP wants consideration of outdoor activities. Dallas has a few nice lakes, but nothing compared to Lake Michigan. Atlanta and Austin don't really compete with this. Boston has Vermont and what not close by and the bay - not bad. Bay area probably is best for this but other criteria don't go well for it. We all know Lake Michigan but think about it this way too - OPO is right on the river. People working there could literally go kayaking, canoe, boating, etc right from the office. The lake and all that is close too. Some places can boast stuff like "You can be skiing in Vermont in 4 hours" but few places can probably boast that level of the nature being right there given everything else.

6) They apparently are asking for crime statistics which doesn't exactly bode well for Chicago, but I'm pretty sure that given each site that Chicago has in the RFP they'll run the statistics given a mile or so radius. That will make things look a little better. However, don't forget that some of these cities like Atlanta actually have high crime rates too. Cities like Austin have pretty low rates though for violent crime.

7) They apparently want some incentives. I don't buy the "it doesn't bode well for Chicago/Illinois" thing actually. I think that people are too used to a corporate HQ moving here with only 100 people. If that were the case then I'd completely and utterly agree. However, we are talking about 50K people here and that works out well for the state and city well enough to offer incentives.

At the peak let's say the average worker gets $100K per year and there are 50K workers - at a (upcoming) 4.95% income tax rate in Illinois, that means the state will be getting an extra nearly $250M per year in income tax revenue alone. After 10 years, that's nearly $2.5B. This isn't counting anything else - let's say those 50K workers spend an average of $2000 per year in the city of Chicago on things at the highest sales tax - that's over $10M per year in sales tax revenue for the city. Then you factor in all the business visitors and hotel taxes - say you get 1000 business travelers to Chicago per week at an average of $250 per night - that's another over $2M in hotel tax revenue. This isn't even counting people buying and the property tax that comes with that. Point being, with this many people in the long run the state and city would definitely benefit from giving something like a tax break. If this was just 100 corporate C-suite people then I'd totally agree that it doesn't work in the favor of the city state. This is vastly different though.

Depending on what type of break they'd be offered, this could basically in the end even it up in the fairly short term and in the long run definitely work in the city's favor. What's the alternative? 0 new workers and $0 in new taxes for the city and state. Or...you could get 50K pretty well paid workers and get tons of new tax revenue from the workers alone - not even counting business taxes. Chicago and Illinois don't have to offer up actual money right now. They offer up in the form of tax breaks. If Amazon doesn't come here, the city and state gets $0. It's completely in their best interest in this case to offer reasonable incentives to Amazon.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Given all the criteria, I'd agree that Chicago is maybe in the top 5. I think there have been cities like Atlanta and Dallas floated around, but I think ultimately they will lose out due to their vastly inferior public transit options when compared to other cities/areas. Some of the areas that have been floated around like Michael Reese are not going to work probably, but could. For this though, doubtful. I don't think Finkl Steel would either and US Steel is such a terrible choice it's not even funny. Old Post Office area is the clear winner here IMO. Quite honestly, some of these criteria make me believe that they know Chicago is one of the tops but have to go through RFP by law or to maintain a certain illusion. In the business world, I've seen this happen due to a few laws.

1) Amazon wants 500K sq ft of space in an already existing building plus they want to be close to public transit and major expressways. First of all, this obviously screams Old Post Office site. My question is - what other cities have this to offer right now? It's a serious question and I think an important one, but I also don't know.

That is not a small amount of space, but given the other requirements, it severely narrows the field down. I am not familiar with other areas' sites, but I'd really be impressed if cities like Dallas, Austin, Denver, Atlanta, etc had this already given all the criteria. Also, can their systems handle an increase load of this many people? 3000 to start with, but by the end of it - 50K. Truly how many systems can handle this in the US? The answer is not many - Chicago probably could but there's no way in hell that Atlanta, Dallas, Austin, Denver, etc could handle that. They would have to have a lot of work done and there's no way Amazon is paying for that (well maybe, but doubtful).

2) The OPO is 2.5 or 2.7 million square feet and can expand. I know there's some vacant/parking lots around there which I'm sure could be sold to Amazon. Some other buildings might cash out too - who knows. Is this adequate though given they want up to 8 million sq ft by the end of it? They'd probably need to go more vertical which means they'd probably need to build multiple skyscrapers for that much space.

3) Is there any way you'd think they'd take up the Old Post Office first and then build a bunch of stuff down on the 62 acre site just south of Roosevelt? That site I believe was slated to handle something like 10 million sq ft of space. It's already close to public transit and expressways - really close to Old Post Office. Wondering how likely it is that this would happen and then eventually Amazon would abandon the OPO for this area once more is built.

4) They want a place with good COL - that doesn't bode well for NYC and Boston. Chicago and Seattle have very similar COL so they already know what they're working with. Dallas, Austin, and Atlanta are probably just as good if not better than Chicago for this. However, they all come with car culture which increases the COL.

5) Amazon in the RFP wants consideration of outdoor activities. Dallas has a few nice lakes, but nothing compared to Lake Michigan. Atlanta and Austin don't really compete with this. Boston has Vermont and what not close by and the bay - not bad. Bay area probably is best for this but other criteria don't go well for it. We all know Lake Michigan but think about it this way too - OPO is right on the river. People working there could literally go kayaking, canoe, boating, etc right from the office. The lake and all that is close too. Some places can boast stuff like "You can be skiing in Vermont in 4 hours" but few places can probably boast that level of the nature being right there given everything else.

6) They apparently are asking for crime statistics which doesn't exactly bode well for Chicago, but I'm pretty sure that given each site that Chicago has in the RFP they'll run the statistics given a mile or so radius. That will make things look a little better. However, don't forget that some of these cities like Atlanta actually have high crime rates too. Cities like Austin have pretty low rates though for violent crime.

7) They apparently want some incentives. I don't buy the "it doesn't bode well for Chicago/Illinois" thing actually. I think that people are too used to a corporate HQ moving here with only 100 people. If that were the case then I'd completely and utterly agree. However, we are talking about 50K people here and that works out well for the state and city well enough to offer incentives.

At the peak let's say the average worker gets $100K per year and there are 50K workers - at a (upcoming) 4.95% income tax rate in Illinois, that means the state will be getting an extra nearly $250M per year in income tax revenue alone. After 10 years, that's nearly $2.5B. This isn't counting anything else - let's say those 50K workers spend an average of $2000 per year in the city of Chicago on things at the highest sales tax - that's over $10M per year in sales tax revenue for the city. Then you factor in all the business visitors and hotel taxes - say you get 1000 business travelers to Chicago per week at an average of $250 per night - that's another over $2M in hotel tax revenue. This isn't even counting people buying and the property tax that comes with that. Point being, with this many people in the long run the state and city would definitely benefit from giving something like a tax break. If this was just 100 corporate C-suite people then I'd totally agree that it doesn't work in the favor of the city state. This is vastly different though.

Depending on what type of break they'd be offered, this could basically in the end even it up in the fairly short term and in the long run definitely work in the city's favor. What's the alternative? 0 new workers and $0 in new taxes for the city and state. Or...you could get 50K pretty well paid workers and get tons of new tax revenue from the workers alone - not even counting business taxes. Chicago and Illinois don't have to offer up actual money right now. They offer up in the form of tax breaks. If Amazon doesn't come here, the city and state gets $0. It's completely in their best interest in this case to offer reasonable incentives to Amazon.

Housing is considerably more affordable in Chicago than in Seattle these days. I'm not sure on operating costs. Probably about the same. I still feel this is something we have a great shot at. Rahm better be working around the clock to make this happen. Would be a huge talking point for his reelection should he decide to run. I wonder if Rauner is involved at all. He could certainly use the win as well...

[bnk]

I got to be thinking Rahm who was a chief of staff has Obama's ear.

Obama needs to sit down with Bezos invite him over. I know he isn't the president anymore but he certainly has a lot of clout and respect.

Obama's Chicago put him in the White House. He's building his library here.

This needs a sell from all parties from Rahm with Rauner to Obama to the many CEO's and Pritzkers of the city come together.

No Friends of the Parking lots needed. No alderman from the SE wastelands

• Video Link

If Obama can fly to Copenhagen to sell Chicago I'm sure he can make it out to Seattle.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by marothisu

...

7) They apparently want some incentives. I don't buy the "it doesn't bode well for Chicago/Illinois" thing actually. I think that people are too used to a corporate HQ moving here with only 100 people. If that were the case then I'd completely and utterly agree. However, we are talking about 50K people here and that works out well for the state and city well enough to offer incentives.

At the peak let's say the average worker gets $100K per year and there are 50K workers - at a (upcoming) 4.95% income tax rate in Illinois, that means the state will be getting an extra nearly $250M per year in income tax revenue alone. After 10 years, that's nearly $2.5B. This isn't counting anything else - let's say those 50K workers spend an average of $2000 per year in the city of Chicago on things at the highest sales tax - that's over $10M per year in sales tax revenue for the city. Then you factor in all the business visitors and hotel taxes - say you get 1000 business travelers to Chicago per week at an average of $250 per night - that's another over $2M in hotel tax revenue. This isn't even counting people buying and the property tax that comes with that. Point being, with this many people in the long run the state and city would definitely benefit from giving something like a tax break. If this was just 100 corporate C-suite people then I'd totally agree that it doesn't work in the favor of the city state. This is vastly different though.

Depending on what type of break they'd be offered, this could basically in the end even it up in the fairly short term and in the long run definitely work in the city's favor. What's the alternative? 0 new workers and $0 in new taxes for the city and state. Or...you could get 50K pretty well paid workers and get tons of new tax revenue from the workers alone - not even counting business taxes. Chicago and Illinois don't have to offer up actual money right now. They offer up in the form of tax breaks. If Amazon doesn't come here, the city and state gets $0. It's completely in their best interest in this case to offer reasonable incentives to Amazon.

This whole post was great but who ever poo poo's Chicago's bid because we are so awe poor... There's ways of giving incentive without writing Billion dollar checks ala Foxconn scam.
How about like 20 years of no corporate tax for Amazon. Its still a massive win.

[bnk]

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/pri...-headquarters/



Could Amazon deliver new HQ to Chicago? Emanuel is making his pitch
Business 09/07/2017, 05:41pm

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has had several conversations with CEO Jeff Bezos about putting Amazon's second headquarters in Chicago, according to a City

Fran Spielman


Mayor Rahm Emanuel is pitching Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos about building the company’s second North American headquarters in Chicago amid speculation that the e-commerce giant may be eyeing the North Branch industrial corridor.


Competition for the $5 billion prize and as many as 50,000 jobs is certain to be intense. But Emanuel, a former White House chief of staff with a national reputation, is hoping he has the clout to bring the bonanza home.
Mayoral spokesman Grant Klinzman disclosed Thursday that Emanuel has had several conversations with Bezos about choosing Chicago for a project the company has described as a “full equal” to its sprawling Seattle headquarters.

Klinzman refused to say what, if any, city subsidies Emanuel was prepared to offer Amazon to bring the project to Chicago.
“Chicago’s unmatched workforce, world-class universities and unparalleled access to destinations throughout the world make it the perfect headquarters location for companies large and small. That’s also why Chicago has led the nation in corporate relocations for the last four years,” Klinzman wrote in an email to the Sun-Times.

Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd) said Amazon is,” Hopkins said.


“one of the companies rumored to be interested” in the North Branch Industrial corridor.
That’s 760 acres of protected industrial land near the Chicago River that the City Council recently opened to residential and commercial use.
Hopkins said there is plenty of land available and the North Branch makes more sense than any other site because of its proximity to the Loop.
“The new workforce wants to live and work in an urban community that has everything to offer their lifestyle. It’s recent college graduates who want to live and work in campus-like environments
...

Other possibilities in Chicago include: the Old Main Post Office; the Michael Reese Hospital site; a 62-acre South Loop parcel once owned by convicted developer Tony Rezko and the McCormick Place East site that Emanuel offered to demolish in a failed attempt to keep the Lucas Museum in Chicago.
Cities have until next month to apply through a special website, and the company said it will make a final decision next year.

It didn’t hint about where it might land, but its requirements could rule out some places: It wants to be near a metropolitan area with more than a million people; be able to attract top technical talent; be within 45 minutes of an international airport; have direct access to mass transit; and wants to be able to expand that headquarters to as much as 8 million square feet in the next decade. That’s about the same size as its current home in Seattle. Co-headquarters, though, often come about as a result of mergers.
“We want to find a city that is excited to work with us and where our customers, employees, and the community can all benefit,” the company said on its search website, about why it was choosing its second headquarters through a public process.
...


Amazon plans to hire 2,000 Illinois workers over the next 14 months, pushing the online retail giant’s employment statewide to 7,000, said Kathleen Carroll, who heads Amazon’s recruitment efforts.
The hiring for full-time jobs is to be spread across nine Amazon fulfillment centers, the company’s downtown corporate office, its Lake View bookstore, an AmazonFresh site and a University of Illinois-Chicago campus pickup service.
Amazon’s current campus in Seattle has 33 buildings and 24 restaurants and is home to more than 40,000 employees. At the second headquarters, Amazon said it will hire up to 50,000 new full-time employees over the next 15 years who would have an average pay of more than $100,000 a year.

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by bnk

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/six-ci...-headquarters/

Six cities Amazon should consider for its second headquarters

by John Cook on September 7, 2017 at 7:14 am

...

# 5

Chicago: The Windy City already poached one Seattle area corporate titan when Boeing moved its headquarters to Chicago in 2001. Could it happen again? A big city, with big ambitions to grow its tech credibility, Chicago already employs over 143,000 people in its tech sector, including 44,000 in software engineering and development. It does not boast an MIT, Carnegie Mellon, University of Toronto or University of Texas, but Chicago’s cosmopolitan appeal, welcoming culture and central location could serve it well as a contender for Amazon’s second headquarters. Amazon plans to have more than 8,000 employees working in Illinois by the end of next year (most in fulfillment centers), and the state has shown a history of doling out massive tax incentives to lure the company. A transportation hub, Chicago could be a relatively easy commute from Seattle.

...




No mention of Northwestern or the University of Chicago?

Heh, funny given that UofC is often ranked above even MIT, and Northwestern above all but MIT. Pretty par-for-the-course for my alma mater, but I'd take UofC's campus over MIT any day of the week.

[k1052]

The North Branch Industrial Corridor would be an interesting option. Sterling Bay already owns a lot lot of (mostly) contiguous property and is able to move quickly. Probably the biggest issue would be no CTA rail right on site (though there is Metra) but extending the 606 trail though the site would be a tempting counter weight. Lincoln Park NIMBYs would have strokes en masse though even it would be impossible to block the project.

If Chicago was to be selected it would probably go there or the OPO/Union Station. Given their timetable I have to give the edge to OPO since delivered space in 2019 when the selection will presumably be done in early 2018 is quite a sprint unless you have suitable raw space already standing.

I have to assume that Amazon has been in active talks with multiple cities about this since just springing an RFP with a month to get it back is asking a lot for anyplace that needs to line up incentives and present a real plan that could plausibly start being executed next year. The Fran Spielman article would seem to indicate that is the case.

[killaviews]

Sterling Bay has the track record for attracting HQs. Transit options aren't great at the north branch, but would allow Amazon to have a true urban campus. I could see them using SF style shuttle buses from the brown, blue, and red lines. It would be like a 10min ride.

[Kngkyle]

I think there are 3 attractive sites in Chicago for this but only 1 really checks all of the boxes - OPO. The other two are each missing one or two key requests. The North Branch Industrial Corridor has relatively poor transit connections and no existing space; although Sterling Bay sure put together the McD HQ in short order. The Related site again has no space that could reasonable be built in time but is the most customizable option and, if desired, could have good transit connections. Related also being a hugely competent developer with a track record of pulling off enormous projects.

Basically, if they want a location that already has everything, then OPO. If they want a semi-built (utility and road infrastructure exist) and semi-customizable location, then North Branch. If they want a huge greenfield site where they can do whatever the fuck they want, then Related. All 3 right on the river.

[marothisu]

Fact is that they want 500K sq ft of space right away with the ability to expand to 1M sq ft shortly after. Their timeframe basically says that must be built now or being built right now. This puts OPO at the severe advantage over every other option. Not to mention that the transit options there could already handle the initial load of probably 3000 extra workers to the area with the near term expansion to another 3000+

Personally, if I am cities without already good public transit options then I am afraid of the Chicago bid IF Amazon puts decent emphasis on this. The thing is that if they put a lot of emphasis on it, then a lot of cities on the list like a Dallas, Atlanta, etc probably will need work on their transit systems in the long run. Not that their systems are super small, but I think the eventual load of let's just say 40K extra workers at various points will mean these systems in and of themselves would need investment in the millions to make them better handle everything. OPO is in a very, very good spot public transit wise as well as merely auto wise. I think the only place that could really compete would be somewhere in Manhattan regarding this, but the only places that might hold this would be on the west side. My office is in Hudson Yards - there is 1 train stop there but penn station is a 5-10 minute walk. I think you'd be hard pressed to find transit wise two places as good as that in the US right now that would be good for Amazon. I think if you are Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis, etc that you are hoping that Amazon places less emphasis on public transit than everyone thinks. I doubt that will be the case, but that's just my opinion.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Fact is that they want 500K sq ft of space right away with the ability to expand to 1M sq ft shortly after. Their timeframe basically says that must be built now or being built right now. This puts OPO at the severe advantage over every other option. Not to mention that the transit options there could already handle the initial load of probably 3000 extra workers to the area with the near term expansion to another 3000+

Personally, if I am cities without already good public transit options then I am afraid of the Chicago bid IF Amazon puts decent emphasis on this. The thing is that if they put a lot of emphasis on it, then a lot of cities on the list like a Dallas, Atlanta, etc probably will need work on their transit systems in the long run. Not that their systems are super small, but I think the eventual load of let's just say 40K extra workers at various points will mean these systems in and of themselves would need investment in the millions to make them better handle everything. OPO is in a very, very good spot public transit wise as well as merely auto wise. I think the only place that could really compete would be somewhere in Manhattan regarding this, but the only places that might hold this would be on the west side. My office is in Hudson Yards - there is 1 train stop there but penn station is a 5-10 minute walk. I think you'd be hard pressed to find transit wise two places as good as that in the US right now that would be good for Amazon. I think if you are Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis, etc that you are hoping that Amazon places less emphasis on public transit than everyone thinks. I doubt that will be the case, but that's just my opinion.

I agree. I think this is possibly where the sprawl of Dallas or Atlanta is a point against them. I don't think Houston is a contender given recent flooding events. Amazon is a very progressive company and I foresee them taking the threat of climate change seriously.

I'm still sticking with Chicago as the front runner, but wouldn't be surprised to see Philadelphia selected. I think we offer more than Philly though.

[bnk]

More render in link


https://chicago.curbed.com/chicago-d...ehouse-complex

Major distribution and warehouse complex proposed for Pullman
The project’s developer suggests that the industrial park could bring 1,000 jobs to Pullman

by AJ LaTrace Sep 11, 2017, 11:27am CDT




Chicago’s Pullman neighborhood on the far South Side has witnessed a steady trickle of big industrial developments over the last few years, but a new plan from developer Ryan Companies could be one of the biggest yet. The Naperville-based developer has formally announced plans to construct an industrial park which could span over 50 acres and bring 1,000 much needed jobs to the area.

The proposal, dubbed “Pullman Crossings,” would reshape a large stretch of land located adjacent to I-94 and Woodlawn Avenue. According to a press release from Ryan Companies, the developer claims that the site is the “largest undeveloped land site within 20 minutes of the Chicago Loop.” According to Ryan Companies, the new warehouse and distribution park could deliver a number of new industrial buildings which would total up to 1.2 million square feet of useable space.

The developer not only highlights the property’s location and proximity to Chicago’s central business district, but it also highlights the number of other major additions to Pullman Park in recent years, such as the new stores from Wal-Mart, Ross Dress for Less, Planet Fitness, and Advocate Health Care. In addition, Whole Foods is currently constructing their own distribution hub in Pullman. When completed, the Whole Foods project will span 140,000 square feet and will create 150 jobs.


In terms of economic output, Ryan Companies suggests that its Pullman Crossings industrial complex could generate more than $100 million in new investment in the area—a figure which dwarfs the $30 ......add further bolster Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s case to bring Amazon’s second headquarters to Chicago.