CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[the urban politician]

^ Lake County is a great place to live if you want to live in the suburbs. That's all there is to it.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by killaviews

What's the benefit in being in Lake County as opposed to Cook County?

Is there a tax in city or Cook county that sends businesses just across the county line? Lake County is far. I don't get it. Lake County is punching far above it's weight class in terms of Fortune 500 companies. There must be a reason.

"Lake County is far." No, it's far from Chicago. Not everyone thinks like that and not everyone even cares about being in the city. Evidenced by the large amount of mansions in Lake County and HNW individuals. As far as suburbs go, if you are wealthy and want a nice $5M mansion in that setting, it's a great place.

My guess is some of the top people at the company wanted this, and wanted their homes "close" to the office. One of the major factors was being close to O'Hare. Deerfield is 17 miles from O'Hare. The Loop is 18 miles along I-90. Basically the same. It probably comes down to most of the c-suite wanted their $5M mansions with land instead of $5M condos with views and they got a better deal on real estate price in Deerfield. The distance to the airport is basically the same.

[nomarandlee]

I read that they hope to be in their offices 3rd Q of 18. And that they also chose Deerfield because of their train connection. I can't think of any major unoccupied buildings at either Deerfield station and it seems a bit quick to construct a new office.

I've always thought that the Lake-Cook Metra station would make an excellent suburban TOD commercial center with plenty of growth potential. Given the early move in estimate, I guess we won't be seen that here though unfortunately.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I read that they hope to be in their offices 3rd Q of 18. And that they also chose Deerfield because of their train connection. I can't think of any major unoccupied buildings at either Deerfield station and it seems a bit quick to construct a new office.

I've always thought that the Lake-Cook Metra station would make an excellent suburban TOD commercial center with plenty of growth potential. Given the early move in estimate, I guess we won't be seen that here though unfortunately.

Looks like they're picking an office a block or two from the Lake-Cook Metra station. Moving into the office space vacated by Beam Suntory when they relocated to Chicago.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...erfield-for-hq
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...419-story.html

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Looks like they're picking an office a block or two from the Lake-Cook Metra station.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...erfield-for-hq
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...419-story.html

yeah, it's located ~1/4 mile north of the north end of the lake-cook platforms, across a parking lot.

it's a bummer they passed on a downtown location, but this location is petty easy for reverse metra commuters.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

"Lake County is far." No, it's far from Chicago. Not everyone thinks like that and not everyone even cares about being in the city. Evidenced by the large amount of mansions in Lake County and HNW individuals. As far as suburbs go, if you are wealthy and want a nice $5M mansion in that setting, it's a great place.

My guess is some of the top people at the company wanted this, and wanted their homes "close" to the office. One of the major factors was being close to O'Hare. Deerfield is 17 miles from O'Hare. The Loop is 18 miles along I-90. Basically the same. It probably comes down to most of the c-suite wanted their $5M mansions with land instead of $5M condos with views and they got a better deal on real estate price in Deerfield. The distance to the airport is basically the same.

Not to mention that these execs are coming from Peoria, so it's not like they are die hard urbanists to begin with

[sukwoo]

Is Lake-Cook literally the only Metra station within walking distance of an office campus? I can't think of any others.

[sentinel]

I agree with this, and have been (ineloquently) saying this in the forum a couple of times - any bragging rights about size are secondary, I've highlighted what I think are critical benefits - come at me, doubter-bros:

Commentary: Chicago should annex adjoining suburbs
By Edward McClelland

"...There's more than simple civic pride on the line here. Sitting atop the standings with the anchors of the East and West coasts is essential to Chicago's reputation as a global city.

"The farther we fall down that list, the less appeal the city and region have," says Alden Loury, director of research and evaluation for the Metropolitan Planning Council...

...Unlike our fellow Midwestern population losers Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis, Chicago has something to offer its suburbs: lower taxes. Because it contains so much valuable commercial, industrial and residential property, Chicago's 6.9 percent property tax rate is the lowest in Cook County, according to the Cook County clerk's office. The village of Riverdale, which lies across the Calumet River from a Chicago neighborhood of the same name, pays 29.7 percent. There's a long list of border suburbs where property tax rates are double those of the city, including Cicero, Stickney, Bridgeview, Bedford Park, Evergreen Park, Oak Lawn, Blue Island, Calumet Park and Dolton.(Suburbs that join the city would be able to keep their school districts, since those entities are separate from municipalities.)...

...What does Chicago have to gain? More people mean more tax dollars from the state and federal government. And vacant suburban land would become more desirable at the city's lower tax rate.."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...413-story.html

If you have a valid counter-argument as to why this isn't a good idea, let's hear it; this is a discussion forum.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I agree with this, and have been (ineloquently) saying this in the forum a couple of times - any bragging rights about size are secondary, I've highlighted what I think are critical benefits - come at me, doubter-bros:

Commentary: Chicago should annex adjoining suburbs
By Edward McClelland

"...There's more than simple civic pride on the line here. Sitting atop the standings with the anchors of the East and West coasts is essential to Chicago's reputation as a global city.

"The farther we fall down that list, the less appeal the city and region have," says Alden Loury, director of research and evaluation for the Metropolitan Planning Council...

...Unlike our fellow Midwestern population losers Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis, Chicago has something to offer its suburbs: lower taxes. Because it contains so much valuable commercial, industrial and residential property, Chicago's 6.9 percent property tax rate is the lowest in Cook County, according to the Cook County clerk's office. The village of Riverdale, which lies across the Calumet River from a Chicago neighborhood of the same name, pays 29.7 percent. There's a long list of border suburbs where property tax rates are double those of the city, including Cicero, Stickney, Bridgeview, Bedford Park, Evergreen Park, Oak Lawn, Blue Island, Calumet Park and Dolton.(Suburbs that join the city would be able to keep their school districts, since those entities are separate from municipalities.)...

...What does Chicago have to gain? More people mean more tax dollars from the state and federal government. And vacant suburban land would become more desirable at the city's lower tax rate.."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...413-story.html

If you have a valid counter-argument as to why this isn't a good idea, let's hear it; this is a discussion forum.

If the pre-existing suburban school districts are maintained as independent entities, I don't see the tax savings.

[sentinel]

^Why assume that they would be maintained as independent entities?

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by sentinel

^Why assume that they would be maintained as independent entities?

Because that's what this proposal proposes.

From the article:
"There's a long list of border suburbs where property tax rates are double those of the city, including Cicero, Stickney, Bridgeview, Bedford Park, Evergreen Park, Oak Lawn, Blue Island, Calumet Park and Dolton.(Suburbs that join the city would be able to keep their school districts, since those entities are separate from municipalities.)"

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Because that's what this proposal proposes.

From the article:
"There's a long list of border suburbs where property tax rates are double those of the city, including Cicero, Stickney, Bridgeview, Bedford Park, Evergreen Park, Oak Lawn, Blue Island, Calumet Park and Dolton.(Suburbs that join the city would be able to keep their school districts, since those entities are separate from municipalities.)"

Okay, you can reset/lower the tax rate to a consistent one for an entire 'greater Chicago', while maintaining the individual school districts...and potentially not just for real estate taxes. Because the individual suburban school districts are already doing better than CPS, so whenever a district tries to pass a referendum (like the recent successful ones in Brookfield, Oak Park and Evanston), the tax rate can theoretically not go up nearly as much if there is already a lower baseline because they are all part of a 'greater Chicago.' In Brookfield, for example, for the past few years there has been a decent influx of younger families replacing older retirees that have moved to the Sun Belt or passed away. The schools are overcrowded, so the $20 million referendum is to build annexes for the grade school and middle school. For close family members that live there and have two small children that will be going to those schools in the next few years, it will add $260 a year to their taxes ($7,000). But if Brookfield was part of Chicago, why can't that annual real estate tax be lowered by, let's say a conservative 15% (or more), while still maintaining the separate school district (Riverside-Brookfield)?

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Okay, you can reset/lower the tax rate to a consistent one for an entire 'greater Chicago', while maintaining the individual school districts...and potentially not just for real estate taxes. Because the individual suburban school districts are already doing better than CPS, so whenever a district tries to pass a referendum (like the recent successful ones in Brookfield, Oak Park and Evanston), the tax rate can theoretically not go up nearly as much if there is already a lower baseline because they are all part of a 'greater Chicago.' In Brookfield, for example, for the past few years there has been a decent influx of younger families replacing older retirees that have moved to the Sun Belt or passed away. The schools are overcrowded, so the $20 million referendum is to build annexes for the grade school and middle school. For close family members that live there and have two small children that will be going to those schools in the next few years, it will add $260 a year to their taxes ($7,000). But if Brookfield was part of Chicago, why can't that annual real estate tax be lowered by, let's say a conservative 15% (or more), while still maintaining the separate school district (Riverside-Brookfield)?

What you are suggesting is unprecedented and likely unconstitutional. You're essentially suggesting that, for example, Chicago taxpayers subsidize the (wealthier) taxpayers of Oak Park without having any say in the election of the Oak Park school district board. And of course even residents on the Chicago side of Austin Boulevard would be ineligible to attend Oak Park schools.

Asides from the schools issue (which at least in Oak Park represent 2/3 of the tax bill), I doubt village residents would be willing to trade OP Police with CPD. Perhaps some of the south suburbs which are truly dire financial straits would be willing to merge with Chicago, but then why would Chicago want the burden of providing services to these poverty-stricken towns?

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

What you are suggesting is unprecedented and likely unconstitutional. You're essentially suggesting that, for example, Chicago taxpayers subsidize the (wealthier) taxpayers of Oak Park without having any say in the election of the Oak Park school district board. And of course even residents on the Chicago side of Austin Boulevard would be ineligible to attend Oak Park schools.

Asides from the schools issue (which at least in Oak Park represent 2/3 of the tax bill), I doubt village residents would be willing to trade OP Police with CPD. Perhaps some of the south suburbs which are truly dire financial straits would be willing to merge with Chicago, but then why would Chicago want the burden of providing services to these poverty-stricken towns?

You're assuming that suburban schools are better than CPS schools which is not always the case.

[killaviews]

Originally Posted by marothisu

"Lake County is far." No, it's far from Chicago. Not everyone thinks like that and not everyone even cares about being in the city. Evidenced by the large amount of mansions in Lake County and HNW individuals. As far as suburbs go, if you are wealthy and want a nice $5M mansion in that setting, it's a great place.

My guess is some of the top people at the company wanted this, and wanted their homes "close" to the office. One of the major factors was being close to O'Hare. Deerfield is 17 miles from O'Hare. The Loop is 18 miles along I-90. Basically the same. It probably comes down to most of the c-suite wanted their $5M mansions with land instead of $5M condos with views and they got a better deal on real estate price in Deerfield. The distance to the airport is basically the same.

Chicago is the center of the metropolitan area. These companies in Lake County attract employees from places that are far - the South Side, the South Suburbs, Naperville, Aurora. It is close if you live in the North Shore, but I bet the vast majority of employees working in Lake County don't live in the North Shore. A lot of people will do whatever it takes to have a good job. So now there are thousands of people willing to put up with an awful commute because of a handful of senior executives with mansions on the North Shore.

That's a huge waste of resources.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by killaviews

Chicago is the center of the metropolitan area. These companies in Lake County attract employees from places that are far - the South Side, the South Suburbs, Naperville, Aurora. It is close if you live in the North Shore, but I bet the vast majority of employees working in Lake County don't live in the North Shore. A lot of people will do whatever it takes to have a good job. So now there are thousands of people willing to put up with an awful commute because of a handful of senior executives with mansions on the North Shore.

That's a huge waste of resources.

Thousands of people? The offices, at least according to what I read, will be a max of about 300 people. This is mostly C-suite, other executives, and operations people moving.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...erfield-for-hq

The new headquarters should house 100 employees by the end of the year; there will be 300 at the site in mid-2018.

Cat has an office downtown already in the Merchandise Mart (http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/bl....google.com%2F) which is full of the more "creative job people" which is where this is more important. If it was moving 3000 people, it would be different, but it's not. This is operations moving and just a few hundred people. It would be great if they were downtown, but after being in Peoria for so long, they still did very well for themselves and I doubt they're too concerned with people not wanting to do business with them because they're in Deerfield instead of the Loop.

[killaviews]

I was talking about Lake County corporations generally. Not just Cat.

[CastleScott]

Hey Chicago guys-got a question, did Metra move their maintenance car/locamotive yard form that area just south of Union Station (I understand that area will need a clean up before development will go forward) to somewhere else? On my travels to Chicago the Amtrak trains I usually take (the California Zephyr and sometimes the Southwest Chief) go right by there and after watching youtube videos of trains leaving Union Station and traveling south I noticed that Metra facility looks abandoned. Thanks

[bnk]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ves-to-chicago

Big water park operator plants HQ in Chicago

Greg Hinz



Chicago has picked up another corporate headquarters, and though the number of jobs involved may not be very large, it may bring back some family memories.
Great Wolf Resorts, the largest operator of indoor water resorts in North America, has moved into 14,000 square feet at 350 N. Orleans St. (the same building that houses the Chicago Sun-Times).
The company had been in Madison, not far from its Wisconsin Dells location. But it's been quietly moving staffers here for several months, including CEO Ruben Rodriguez.
It's now official, with Mayor Rahm Emanuel cutting a ribbon on the new office space.

"As we expand the company, bringing it to Chicago made perfect sense," said spokesman Jason Lasecki. Top talent is available here and, with 14 resorts now and three more on the way, "being able to get to them is substantially easier from Chicago than any other place," he added.
Chicago now has about 45 staffers and expects to expand to about 100 eventually.

The privately held company recently purchased property in Gurnee that it plans to develop into Great Wolf Lodge Illinois.

...

[marothisu]

Not exactly city or metro, but since Chicago is such a large portion of Illinois I think it's valid. The state unemployment rate dipped the most of any state from February to March - decreasing 0.5%. It's now 4.9% unemployment rate which is tied with California and slightly lower than Texas (5%). If you compare against March 2016, then Illinois is tied for 2nd highest decrease of any state, which is 1.2% lower.

Not terribly long ago, Illinois had one of the 3 worst (highest) unemployment rates. Right now it's tied for 36th highest (counting Puerto Rico) with California, North Carolina, and West Virginia. There's also 4 states that are at 4.8% and 1 at 4.7%.

For some reason I can't get to the database portion of the BLS right now, but kind of interesting to me at least. Will be curious about the city and metro area numbers, which I think are set to be released next week.


And now, in city job news:
Yagan moves ShopRunner's Silicon Valley ops to Chicago
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...eam-to-chicago

The e-commerce software company is shutting down its Silicon Valley office and moving about 30 jobs to Chicago. ShopRunner plans to grow from a couple dozen people to about 100 in the next 18 months, Yagan says. It just signed a lease for 9,000 square feet at 30 N. LaSalle St. The staff will run the gamut, but most of the jobs will be in technology and product roles. Employees in San Mateo, Calif., have been offered the chance to relocate to Chicago, and some will continue to work remotely from the West Coast.

"It's become clear our place in this labor market is so strong and our ability to recruit is more advantageous than in San Mateo," said Yagan, who got his MBA from Stanford University.

While Northern California has more tech talent than pretty much anywhere on the planet, it's hard to find and retain, Yagan said. "Everyone in Silicon Valley wants to work for the top handful of companies that are building bleeding-edge technology or have effectively infinite scale and resources—the ones creating combustion-free vehicles or those with billions of users. It's incredibly hard for merely 'great' companies to attract the top talent."