CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[the urban politician]

Speak of the devil, a Bay Area tech company doubling its local headcount:

https://www.rejournals.com/colliers-...cenow-20190522

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Handro

Not sure if this is exactly what you were getting at, but basic beautification should be a priority of City Hall. It's too easy for coastal to write off Chicago as a dismal, grey hinterland because for much of the year, huge swaths of the city ARE that way. We are flat and cold.

More colorful murals, architecture and infrastructure that play up our prairie land roots could do a lot to make the city appealing to urbanites from other cities. Northern European cities have a lot of characteristics to look to.

No, no. Architecture and public art is essential to the city's identity. But other art forms are less geographically bound to the area, and the city doesn't have a ton of major institutions to monetize Chicago's culture and link it to the city itself. Institutions like Hollywood Studios, record studios, publishers, art fairs and auctions, with an international presence that can lure tourists are very hard to establish.

Chicago's arts scene is very creative, but extremely fragmented, and artists have regularly departed for other more financially supportive cities.

So you'll have iconic American institutions like Disneyworld, for example, that are just oozing Chicago culture, but benefiting other states and other countries.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Speak of the devil, a Bay Area tech company doubling its local headcount:

https://www.rejournals.com/colliers-...cenow-20190522

It's interesting how late some sites report on these things. They announced this over 2 months ago LOL:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...-fulton-market

By the way, ServiceNow has $2.6B in revenue - Fortune 1000 company at #837. If they increase their revenue the same this year as last, they'd jump up a few hundred spots into the 600s.

[Chisouthside]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I think what you're saying about IP is true of companies like Facebook and maybe ones like Snapchat - that it's more about that. I'd like to think that companies like Salesforce and Apple, who have actual products that make money that don't rely on advertising, is a bit more varied and they have more than just worker skills. These companies have actual products that have gone through an actual legit product process and actually directly make money from these. Facebook for example might have the worker skills, but even that's debatable if you are going for an absolute skills assessment.


The whole shift away from Silicon Valley as far as offices go has already started. There is a reason why NYC has increased so much the last handful of years with tech - not only big companies opening big offices, but also a big boost in VC. What NYC has going for it over SF is actual infrastructure though so it can afford this. I have some friends in Sunnyvale,CA (near San Jose) who are paying more for their 1 bedroom apartment (not luxury) than I was paying in Upper West Side in Manhattan for a similar sized place.

Another issue I've heard in the Bay is that a lot of people are kind of full of themselves, think they are the best, and believe they don't deserve anything less than a Google, Apple, or Facebook. For the companies just starting out or who are smaller, this presents an issue of trying to find talent. This type of issue is not even close to as much of an issue in Chicago or even NYC.

To continue this discussion it seems that alot of the smaller companies in the bay will poach off some of the contractor level tech workers from the bigger companies with full time positions. But it seems like theres still a need for tech workers of all levels. I know most of my contractor buddies had jobs either lined up at the end of their contract or within a week. I worked as a QA at apple and I had a job lined up before i decided to move back to Chicago as well as getting at least one email or call a week from recruiters for other bay area jobs. and that rang true as well for alot of my other coworkers. In Chicago I found it more difficult to find a job or interviews despite being more than qualified for alot of the jobs i applied for. I've had a discussion with other tech people with experience in other job markets that also had difficulties in chicago. And regarding new york, it seems for some of my colleagues that it was also easier to be hired there than in Chicago. Someone mentioned that there was a gatekeeping mentality here in Chicago.

and regarding people being full of themselves in the Bay, thats partially true. But i would say that divide is more based on geography rather than what companies one works for. Most people i met that worked for facebook, apple and google were nice and humble if they lived in the peninsula or southbay whereas the more obnoxious full of themselves ones you described typically lived in SF or East Bay. Obviously there were exceptions but that was the vibe i got. I think even though the southbay is almost just as expensive as SF, people lived there to be practical and be close to work whereas others wanted the status or fun of living in the city and didnt mind the 2 hour commute home.
Also i think google is even more sought after to work for than apple or facebook, at least in the bay.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Chisouthside

Someone mentioned that there was a gatekeeping mentality here in Chicago.

....and lo and behold, right here is an example:

Illinois Supreme Court upholds Chicago food truck restrictions:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...523-story.html



I swear, stifling entrepreneurial activity seems to be a pastime around here

[Tom In Chicago]

^Agree. . . stuff like that is petty and over-reaching. . . archaic protectionist attitudes. . . very sad. . .

. . .

[SIGSEGV]

^ That explains where the UChicago food trucks line up on Ellis I guess!

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

DC somehow has shedded its high crime perception (even though the reality is that it has a similar or higher homicide rate than Chicago). How did that happen?

This one is easy - media doesn't care about homicide rates, total number of murders is the story, and Chicago had more murders than NYC + LA COMBINED!!

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^Agree. . . stuff like that is petty and over-reaching. . . archaic protectionist attitudes. . . very sad. . .

. . .

If you spend a bit of time gleaning the Supreme Court's arguments, it literally reads like a) they already had made their mind within the first 5 minutes, and b) spent the rest of the document trying to defend their stance. I felt the same way reading a local court's explanation for rejecting Brian Strauss' lawsuit against Ald Moreno for his blatant abuse of power to protect 1 business against another.

Sadly, it appears more and more evident that our Courts are not actually reading the Constitution, hence failing to protect us from Government overreach, particularly when it favors one private party over another...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Chisouthside

To continue this discussion it seems that alot of the smaller companies in the bay will poach off some of the contractor level tech workers from the bigger companies with full time positions. But it seems like theres still a need for tech workers of all levels. I know most of my contractor buddies had jobs either lined up at the end of their contract or within a week. I worked as a QA at apple and I had a job lined up before i decided to move back to Chicago as well as getting at least one email or call a week from recruiters for other bay area jobs. and that rang true as well for alot of my other coworkers. In Chicago I found it more difficult to find a job or interviews despite being more than qualified for alot of the jobs i applied for. I've had a discussion with other tech people with experience in other job markets that also had difficulties in chicago. And regarding new york, it seems for some of my colleagues that it was also easier to be hired there than in Chicago. Someone mentioned that there was a gatekeeping mentality here in Chicago.

and regarding people being full of themselves in the Bay, thats partially true. But i would say that divide is more based on geography rather than what companies one works for. Most people i met that worked for facebook, apple and google were nice and humble if they lived in the peninsula or southbay whereas the more obnoxious full of themselves ones you described typically lived in SF or East Bay. Obviously there were exceptions but that was the vibe i got. I think even though the southbay is almost just as expensive as SF, people lived there to be practical and be close to work whereas others wanted the status or fun of living in the city and didnt mind the 2 hour commute home.
Also i think google is even more sought after to work for than apple or facebook, at least in the bay.

That's interesting. I'm wondering if companies in Chicago are more likely to trust hiring someone from a big and/or very reputable company over those who just do smaller startups.

I worked for IBM for many years and had no problem getting headhunted by all sorts of companies on Chicago. I actually still do even though I don't live in Chicago. A lot of my friends who work for larger companies in Chicago have had no issues getting other jobs after working for the big companies, like IBM, Accenture, Google, etc. Many have gone to work for startups.

The statement regarding contractors is true of everywhere. It's not a bay area thing. I work for a very large company now and we have converted many contractors to FTE at all of our offices I work with - this includes our Chicago office. Some very quickly, and some over a longer period. It completely depends on a variety of things including the contract.

Chicago is a very much big business town as far as these industries go. I'm guessing it's still more of a "go only for the guys who worked FTE for big companies" place. With more and more startups coming up, hopefully it'll change more and more. I always have a laugh at when I get contacted on LinkedIn and the person says "You have a very impressive resume!" I have almost 0 information on there about what I've been doing for the last 5 years other than company names. It's so dumb it's comical that they tell me things like this.

Also that's interesting regarding the geography in the Bay Area. I work with offices in Santa Clara and SF, and on average the ones in Santa Clara seem more full of themselves.

[sixo1]

I often travel to Southeast Asia and when I mention Chicago, this is what people usually say: Oh, the land of gangsters (i.e., Al Capone). Maybe that is not necessarily a bad thing. I have even seen the Chicago gangster tour bus. Sometimes, when I watch American films with my friends in Southeast Asia, they are quick to say, "Wow, look at New York City's skyline!" I correct them and say, "That’s actually Chicago," which surprises them.

Chicago should be known for its historical engineering feats (e.g., building the first skyscraper, filling in the lake, reversing the river). How residents perceive the city is the problem. Most Europeans I have met, who moved to Chicago, love the city. They say Chicagoans are friendlier and really know how to have fun. It’s a true American city. (I have yet to meet a European who dislikes Chicago.) However, when I talk to African Americans, including some of my relatives, they are quick to say Chicago is a hellhole. Chicagoans have the choice to perceive whether the city is an enjoyable place or a hellhole. When I lived in Washington State, I would often visit Seattle. IMO, Seattle is quite depressing compared to Chicago. Maybe because Chicago is cleaner! My two cents...

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by sixo1

. How residents perceive the city is the problem. Most Europeans I have met, who moved to Chicago, love the city. They say Chicagoans are friendlier and really know how to have fun. It’s a true American city. (I have yet to meet a European who dislikes Chicago.) However, when I talk to African Americans, including some of my relatives, they are quick to say Chicago is a hellhole. Chicagoans have the choice to perceive whether the city is an enjoyable place or a hellhole. When I lived in Washington State, I would often visit Seattle. IMO, Seattle is quite depressing compared to Chicago. Maybe because Chicago is cleaner! My two cents...

Seattle has shipping port docks like NYC wich are not exactly pretty or clean

I think native Chicagoans bitch more about everything about Chicago, although most are still secretly impressed by the way it looks and how big it is. I work with a lot of people from California and they rarely bitch about the weather or crime as bad as the "natives". They also love the city, but not so much the winter weather and they just deal with it. So who are the wimps? The real Chicagoans who all say they want to move to Arizona or Cali or Texass?? And yes Europeans love Chicago better than people from the USA in general.


By the way this is really off topic....

[sixo1]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

By the way this is really off topic....

Yeah, I was quite late to the discussion on tourism and Chicago's identity.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by marothisu

...

I worked for IBM for many years and had no problem getting headhunted by all sorts of companies on Chicago. I actually still do even though I don't live in Chicago. A lot of my friends who work for larger companies in Chicago have had no issues getting other jobs after working for the big companies, like IBM, Accenture, Google, etc. Many have gone to work for startups.

The statement regarding contractors is true of everywhere. It's not a bay area thing. I work for a very large company now and we have converted many contractors to FTE at all of our offices I work with - this includes our Chicago office. Some very quickly, and some over a longer period. It completely depends on a variety of things including the contract.

Chicago is a very much big business town as far as these industries go. I'm guessing it's still more of a "go only for the guys who worked FTE for big companies" place. With more and more startups coming up, hopefully it'll change more and more. I always have a laugh at when I get contacted on LinkedIn and the person says "You have a very impressive resume!" I have almost 0 information on there about what I've been doing for the last 5 years other than company names. It's so dumb it's comical that they tell me things like this.

Also that's interesting regarding the geography in the Bay Area. I work with offices in Santa Clara and SF, and on average the ones in Santa Clara seem more full of themselves.

I've worked for smaller companies most of my career. The startups actually counted work for a mega-corporation as a minus unless that megacorp was Google or Amazon or other top-tier tech-oriented company - and even then, depending on the role, it might not actually be a plus so much as just not a minus compared to, say, time at Walgreens or Allstate or Sears. The concern was that people who worked for huge corporations were frequently less used to being responsible as an individual as opposed to having purely team responsibility. In a startup, every individual has to have ownership - you can't run a small company with people used to being able to pass the buck to another team.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by emathias

I've worked for smaller companies most of my career. The startups actually counted work for a mega-corporation as a minus unless that megacorp was Google or Amazon or other top-tier tech-oriented company - and even then, depending on the role, it might not actually be a plus so much as just not a minus compared to, say, time at Walgreens or Allstate or Sears. The concern was that people who worked for huge corporations were frequently less used to being responsible as an individual as opposed to having purely team responsibility. In a startup, every individual has to have ownership - you can't run a small company with people used to being able to pass the buck to another team.

Right - which makes sense to me on some levels. The culture can be a bit different in so many ways. I've always instilled in people on my teams to take ownership of things - be proactive about everything at work and never sit around claiming there's nothing to do. Actually in a professional setting, that's what pisses me off the most - there's always things to do. Do it in a way that won't kill yourself though. With us a few years ago, some very high up people were all about "The Amazon Way" which was code for "if you see something wrong, fix it yourself in whatever way you can." The idea behind that is good, except not everyone was buying into it. For example, it resulted in me managing issues for teams that I was not on while the people "in charge" of those teams basically sat there watching me do it and not saying anything. It basically burned out everyone who was committed to it because not everyone was all in.

We've been in the middle of huge cultural changes like this - my company is monolithic and in my organization, we have many people committed to change it so it's not like that anymore. When I first started working for them, things were slow - go to this person, then this person, then that person, then this other, then finally maybe something can get done. Now it's nothing like that - people take ownership over things fast. But even then, it's complicated when you're dealing with politics, budget, etc etc. A lot of large companies aren't necessarily like this though. And I can understand startups being wary of people having not worked in startups for these reasons. I think that the type of mentality that you are talking about is not necessarily learned, but also to think you can't learn it at a big company could be misguided. Of course, if you have never worked for a big company where people have that type of mentality then it's hard to believe.

The larger you get, the more "structured" you get though IMO. A company like Facebook probably didn't start out like this - but now that they're very large, they are kind of forced to. The software I work on is very large and requires a ton of different domain/business knowledge. There's many times I have to defer work to the originating team not because I don't want to help but because I literally have next to no knowledge in their part of the product. There's a difference between knowing how to do something technically and implementing the actual business requirement. On a technical level I could fix something for them - but I might completely get the business requirement wrong and end up completely screwing up something even if it doesn't "break" on a technical level (I think you know what I mean..).

I suspect the companies contacting me are those being led by people who have worked for large companies before and didn't have a problem with that. And the crappy thing is that many large companies are wary of people who have worked in startups most of their career because they believe they can't play the BS politics sometimes needed at certain levels in a large corporation.

[sixo1]

As a postdoc at UChicago, I often receive emails from the Polsky Exchange on which companies have raised capital. These companies are currently or were previously affiliated with the exchange or UChicago. Even though they don't mention about the number of new jobs, would it be okay to post which Chicago companies have raised capital?

[the urban politician]

The SW corner of the Loop is suddenly on fire:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...-suddenly-fire

[animositisomina]

Illinois is hoping it can attract a Netflix production hub:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...524-story.html

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by animositisomina

Illinois is hoping it can attract a Netflix production hub:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...524-story.html

Didn't a poster on here say something was already in the works with Netflix? Anyway, why wouldn't they? Chicago has the largest soundstage outside of LA now and thousands of people working in the industry. The work force is already here and could attract more. It would be nice to see.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Somehow blatantly inaccurate negative portrayals about Chicago are allowed to spread without a peep of protest, yet some people here seem to get more bothered when anybody proposes (arguably accurate) positive portrayals of our city.

We either reinvent Chicago's narrative, even if it involves just a tad bit of boasting, or we let the (equally inaccurate) negative headlines cast us in such a poor light.

Pretty much this. Couldn't agree more with you, tup, as long as the boastfulness is relatively tame and not TOO obnoxious, of course!

Something's got to be done about the horrifically bad reputation Chicago has for it's (perceived OR real) crime statistics. And the media is nothing but a hindrance for the most part, since it doesn't suit the narrative at this moment in time politically.

Aaron (Glowrock)