CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[left of center]

Originally Posted by orulz

It's going to the DC area. Probably Northern Virginia. Not because they have the best bid or because it benefits Amazon's shareholders. Rather, because Jeff Bezos wants more political influence. The whole selection process has been a dog and pony show to get Northern Virginia to cough up some incentives.

This has been my growing belief as well as of late. With 3 bids in the DC area, though understandable since there are 3 different jurisdictions (MD, DC, VA) there, does somewhat make it seem like there is a disproportionate amount of focus on that region.

Hopefully Chicago gets some kind of consolation prize, like a beefed up Midwestern HQ or something around those lines...

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by orulz

It's going to the DC area. Probably Northern Virginia. Not because they have the best bid or because it benefits Amazon's shareholders. Rather, because Jeff Bezos wants more political influence. The whole selection process has been a dog and pony show to get Northern Virginia to cough up some incentives.

I don't understand this argument. How does physical proximity to DC give you more influence in politics? Is there a corporation that has high influence due to their location close to a state or national capital? If you want influence you just hire the lobbyists and buy a newspaper.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

I don't understand this argument. How does physical proximity to DC give you more influence in politics? Is there a corporation that has high influence due to their location close to a state or national capital? If you want influence you just hire the lobbyists and buy a newspaper.

I agree, but these are the same fuck-wagons who think you have to be near "Havahd" to get all that gooey talent and be successful.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Really interesting! Is there also info for people making around 60-85k? This would show the gentrifying areas. Since many good office jobs pay around that range, but not necessarily 100k+

I agree. They have 60k to 75k and 75k to 100k. Here are the numbers for 60k+

* under 45: +49,417 Households (+24.4%)
* 45-64 years old: +21,916 households (+14.6%)
* 65+: +19,756 households (+48.6%)

I plan to do something like this later by CA.

[Baronvonellis]

Yea, then why are there so many corporations in NY? Shouldn't they all be moving to DC by that logic, and Manhattan should be a ghost town? Clearly Wall Street has no influence being way up in NY. How will those poor Wall Street fat cats get their fair share?

[moorhosj]

Catalyte - Software Engineering Office

Reddit - Sales Office

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I agree, but these are the same fuck-wagons who think you have to be near "Havahd" to get all that gooey talent and be successful.

Mmm... gooey talent

[orulz]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Yea, then why are there so many corporations in NY? Shouldn't they all be moving to DC by that logic, and Manhattan should be a ghost town? Clearly Wall Street has no influence being way up in NY. How will those poor Wall Street fat cats get their fair share?

Not saying it makes sense, but the fact that Jeff Bezos owns a big mansion in DC and is taking time out of his doubtless extremely busy schedule to make himself a regular at social events there shows that it's important to him. As far as why it's so important to him - that's open to speculation. But the man is the richest person the world has ever known, so it probably makes sense that the next thing on his bucket list is to become one of the most influential people in the world. Of course he has lobbyists too, but a hands-on approach of meeting with powerful people face-to-face is probably the most effective way to achieve that end.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Yea, then why are there so many corporations in NY? Shouldn't they all be moving to DC by that logic, and Manhattan should be a ghost town? Clearly Wall Street has no influence being way up in NY. How will those poor Wall Street fat cats get their fair share?

If all those companies prioritized political capital, then sure I suppose it would be a logical move. I would imagine that hedge funds, trading firms, banks etc. all value proximity to Wall Street and one another as more more beneficial to the type of work they do, however.

If Bezos is after more political clout (more than he already has, at least) then proximity to DC is one way to get it. It's hard to argue that you can get as much clout with lawmakers on Capitol Hill by opening up shop in Dallas as opposed to Georgetown. Again, this is assuming thats what Bezos is after, which may or may not be the case, although personally I think its fairly likely.

Originally Posted by spyguy

McDonald's opening tomorrow featuring "the Mighty Angus Burger from Canada, the McSpicy Chicken Sandwich from Hong Kong, Cheese & Bacon Loaded Fries from Australia, two varieties of salads served in France and the McFlurry Prestigio dessert served in Brazil."

Should be a hit.

Awesome! That Hong Kong chicken sandwich has my name written all over it!

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by orulz

Not saying it makes sense, but the fact that Jeff Bezos owns a big mansion in DC and is taking time out of his doubtless extremely busy schedule to make himself a regular at social events there shows that it's important to him. As far as why it's so important to him - that's open to speculation. But the man is the richest person the world has ever known, so it probably makes sense that the next thing on his bucket list is to become one of the most influential people in the world. Of course he has lobbyists too, but a hands-on approach of meeting with powerful people face-to-face is probably the most effective way to achieve that end.

Haven't we discussed on this forum how the very rich buy mansions and penthouses for fun and it should not be viewed with any other meaning?

As a shareholder I'd say his job should be running Amazon and not becoming the most influential person in the world, even if it is on his bucket list. And I'm not sure I'd go to DC to become influential.

That being said they could pick DC - I just don't see it as being in line with their stated objectives with HQ2.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

Haven't we discussed on this forum how the very rich buy mansions and penthouses for fun and it should not be viewed with any other meaning?

As a shareholder I'd say his job should be running Amazon and not becoming the most influential person in the world, even if it is on his bucket list. And I'm not sure I'd go to DC to become influential.

That being said they could pick DC - I just don't see it as being in line with their stated objectives with HQ2.

Yes, the argument of where someone bought a mansion is one of the stupidest fucking arguments I've heard in my life for this situation. This isn't a 200 person csuite office ...it's an office of 50k workers that will bring in tons of money. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than figuring out where in 2018 you can take your 3 executive calls from per day (answer: anywhere).

A lot of people have obviously never worked at large corporations, especially public ones, who think this is a factor. Bezos and his team are looking at the place that will help them grow whatever part of the business the best, at least with tradeoffs. Where he wants to spend his time is completely pointless when you are talking about an office of this scale. This is like saying Ken Griffin is going to move Citadel to the Miami area because he owns a few huge mansions there and he really likes spending time in Miami. These guys are some of the richest guys in the world, and they understand there's a difference between where you really like spending time and another place that is going to make you way richer.

If this was a csuite office, then this might be valid...but it's not. The stakes and situation are much different.

Also, this "rubbing elbows" with politicians thing IMO is a weak argument. Most influential businessmen in this way do not live in or near DC. But yet they manage just fine. They are all rich. If they need to at the drop of a dime be in DC, they can do it. This is also not accounting that a lot of politicians also travel a lot and aren't constantly IN DC. Not to say that DC isn't a strong contender, but this is a weak argument. You would see a lot more CEOs who are influential in government who already live in DC, but you don't because you don't need to be right there to be influential. If someone like Jeff Bezos needed to charter a jet to DC right at this instant, he could without giving one shit.

[Baronvonellis]

Yea, he got a mansion in DC because when your the richest man in the world you can buy a mansion in every city you want to and it's peanuts to him. I mean think of how much money $130 billion is! He could buy 200 $5 million dollar mansions with less than 1% of his wealth! Or 1000 really nice $1 million dollar townhouses in every city of note in the world! He can fly in a private jet anywhere he wants at anytime. These CEO's travel constantly, so it pays for him to have a place in DC where his newspaper is. It's not like he spends all of his time sitting at his desk at the HQ in one city. He's most likely always on the move anyway.

There's tons of CEO's that have homes in Florida, because they like to vacation there or want to retire and play golf one day. But you hardly ever see corporations moving to Florida just to be near the beach. Even though I'm sure most suburban workers in Atlanta, Houston, or Dallas would prefer to live there. In fact, that despite being the 3rd most populous state there are not a lot of corporations in FL, which is part of why I left FL. It's harder to find high paying office jobs there, compared to the North. Wages in FL are much lower than in the north, unless you are in healthcare.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Yes, the argument of where someone bought a mansion is one of the stupidest fucking arguments I've heard in my life for this situation. This isn't a 200 person csuite office ...it's an office of 50k workers that will bring in tons of money.

It's a hell of a lot more complicated than figuring out where in 2018 you can take your 3 executive calls from per day (answer: anywhere).

A lot of people have obviously never worked at large corporations, especially public ones, who think this is a factor. Bezos and his team are looking at the place that will help them grow whatever part of the business the best, at least with tradeoffs. Where he wants to spend his time is completely pointless when you are talking about an office of this scale. This is like saying Ken Griffin is going to move Citadel to the Miami area because he owns a few huge mansions there and he really likes spending time in Miami. These guys are some of the richest guys in the world, and they understand there's a difference between where you really like spending time and another place that is going to make you way richer.

If this was a csuite office, then this might be valid...but it's not. The stakes and situation are much different.

Aldcso, this "rubbing elbows" with politicians thing IMO is a weak argument. Most influential businessmen in this way do not live in or near DC. But yet they manage just fine. They are all rich. If they need to at the drop of a dime be in DC, they can do it. This is also not accounting that a lot of politicians also travel a lot and aren't constantly IN DC. Not to say that DC isn't a strong contender, but this is a weak argument. You would see a lot more CEOs who are influential in government who already live in DC, but you don't because you don't need to be right there to be influential. If someone like Jeff Bezos needed to charter a jet to DC right at this instant, he could without giving one shit.

A trillionare does not have to live anywhere he does not want to. He can fly anywhere anytime at the drop of a hat anywhere in the entire world.

If he wants to be inside of the beltway than I would suspect he has eyes on the POTUS someday and its less likely in real life he would want that but than again I do not know him personally.




This is the best explanation of why a mansion in any said area is a non factor for the richest person in the entire world. He could have 20 different 20 million dollar mansions anywhere in the world if he wants, asap.


Marothisu has been posting some real great shit lately, and not on this one topic.


Great job, I appreciate your yeoman efforts for I am sure you have other things to accomplish on a day to day basis esp. during M-Friday working hours.


Again


Thank you for your sage dialog and incite.

[marothisu]

^ Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world for a very good reason, and he's not an idiot when it comes to business. He was already a decently well off guy when he started Amazon (not like those memes would make you believe), living in NYC. He was a Senior VP of a hedge fund on Wall Street by the time he was 30. In his mid 30s he decided to quit and leave behind, at least in that perspective, a decently lucrative job too (obviously not like today though).

Do you know why he moved to Seattle from NYC? Because Seattle not only had a bunch of talent, but it was close to the Ingram Book Group's warehouse which was in Oregon. I believe Seattle also had a bunch of other book group warehouses. No, he didn't stay in NYC even though he could have and he was already a millionaire of multi millionaire in his mid 30s. He moved to Seattle because he knew that was the best place for the business. The guy had a well thought out business plan and knew that Seattle was the best bet - and Portland is actually closer to Ingram, but Seattle had the talent at the time (still does, of course). I'm sure he enjoyed NYC - he bought a very expensive condo in NYC recently - but at the end of the day in his mind it wasn't the best place for what he needed to do. Seattle was. It had nothing to do with where he wanted to spend his time the most. It was mostly about the business.

The guy is rich as hell - he can have a home in every major city of the US, fly everyday on a private jet, eat a $1000 dinner every single day and not even blink an eye. He's not an idiot - he will pick the place that's best for his business and churning out as much money as possible for the company via those 50,000 employees. People seem to confuse a C-Suite office with an actual office where work gets done. There is a massive difference. The reason he chooses X city/metro area for HQ2 in the end will have very, very, very little to do with where he wants to spend his time (I'm sure it's a small factor but at the end of the day, my guess is that it's already been factored into most of the top 20 selections) - thinking this for this situation shows a complete ignorance for how big businesses actually choose huge centers of employment with every single level of professional employment in them.

Buying a mansion in DC, as people have said, is probably indicative of maybe that he wants to one day be in politics. He is very supportive of various causes and this wouldn't surprise me, but I doubt it has much to do with the company itself enough to be a sole reason to locate an office like that there (for the record, DC is a solid choice, but because of their business/economic ecosystem, talent, etc).



As a side note, LOL - I have the data collecting thing pretty well down so I can get the numbers pretty quickly after work. There's a reason why I wasn't posting CA numbers this afternoon Way too busy during the day to do that nowadays. I just had a small amount of downtime today for some reason.

[marothisu]

Back to data...

I was looking into changes of certain age groups from 2010 to 2016 (from the ACS). The greater downtown area (NNS, NSS, NWS, and Loop) had an increase of 23,468 people aged between 22 and 39 years old (+32.6%). The same area for the same time period had an increase of 5539 people aged 55+ (+14.8%). Now this is a good gain too, but the 22-39 age group outgained it by nearly 4.25X.

Add in Lakeview, Lincoln Park, West Town, Lincoln Square, and Logan Square and you have an increase of 32,754 people aged 22 to 39 versus an increase of 8407 people aged 55+. Again, nice gain for 55+ population, but still nearly 4X less than what the 22-39 population had.

There were a lot of CAs that gained 55+ population, though I didn't look to see if there were a bunch of people in their early 50s who just merely stayed in Chicago and jumped an age bracket or not. Regardless, the gains of the 22 to 39 aged population in the central+some surrounding areas greatly outweighed the growth of the population aged 55+.

Top Community Areas for age 22-39 growth from 2010 to 2016:
1. Near North Side: +8960 people
2. Near West Side: +6723 people
3. Loop: _6245 people
4. West Town: +2922 people
5. Lincoln Park: +2121 people
6. Lincoln Square: +1947 people
7. West Ridge: +1571 people
8. Near South Side: +1540 people
9. Logan Square: +1426 people
10. Humboldt Park: +1178 people
11. Lake View: +870 people
12. North Lawndale: +820 people
13T. Douglas: +765 people
13T. East Garfield Park: +765 people
15. Chicago Lawn: +728 people
16. Bridgeport: +700 people
17. Hyde Park: +626 people
18. Washington Park: +603 people
19. South Shore: +546 people
20. Rogers Park: +542 people
21. West Elsdon: +518 people
22. Washington Heights: +496 people
23. McKinley Park: +437 people
24. Irving Park: +412 people
25. Riverdale: +404 people


Top Community Areas for total people aged 22-39 in 2016
1. Lake View: 57,267 people
2. West Town: 44,094 people
3. Near North Side: 40,804 people
4. Logan Square: 33,496 people
5. Lincoln Park: 32,179 people
6. Near West Side: 28,893 people
7. Austin: 23,386 people
8. South Lawndale: 22,918 people
9. Uptown: 22,648 people
10. Belmont Cragin: 22,027 people
11. West Ridge: 20,253 people
12. Rogers Park: 19,600 people
13. Edgewater: 19,502 people
14. Irving Park: 18,958 people
15. Lincoln Square: 17,568 people
16. Portage Park: 17,305 people
17. Albany Park: 17,036 people
18. Humboldt Park: 16,064 people
19. The Loop: 15,322 people
20. Chicago Lawn: 14,407 people
21. North Center: 13,989 people
22. Avondale: 13,927 people
23. Brighton Park: 12,356 people
24. Lower West Side: 11,993 people
25. South Shore: 11,919 people



Top Community Areas for age 22-39 decline from 2010 to 2016:
1. West Englewood: -1756 people
2. New City: -1537 people
3. South Chicago: -1506 people
4. South Lawndale: -1313 people
5. West Pullman: -1284 people
6. Uptown: -1169 people
7. Belmont Cragin: -1145 people
8. Chatham: -1074 people
9. North Center: -973 people
10. Edgewater: -898 people
11. Avondale: -830 people
12. Brighton Park: -830 people
13. Roseland: -812 people
14. Clearing: -798 people
15. Auburn Gresham: -708 people
16. Morgan Park: -596 people
17. Englewood: -564 people
18. Lower West Side: -542 people
19. Albany Park: -540 people
20. Ashburn: -504 people
21. Norwood Park: -437 people
22. Hegewisch: -427 people
23. South Deering: -409 people
24. Calumet Heights: -355 people
25. East Side: -347 people

----

Top Community Areas for age 55+ growth from 2010 to 2016:
1. South Lawndale: +3284 people
2. Uptown: +2595 people
3. Austin: +2458 people
4. Loop: +2450 people
5. Edgewater: +2281 people
6. Belmont Cragin: +2192 people
7. Portage Park: +2153 people
8. Albany Park: +2112 people
9. Chicago Lawn: +2102 people
10. New City: +1906 people
11. West Ridge: +1410 people
12. Bridgeport: +1396 people
13. Morgan Park: +1334 people
14. Near West Side: +1291 people
15. Brighton Park: +1289 people
16. North Lawndale: +1244 people
17. Lincoln Park: +1243 people
18. Lake View: +1229 people
19. Auburn Gresham: +1195 people
20. Ashburn: +1179 people
21. Garfield Ridge: +1172 people
22. South Shore: +1157 people
23. Rogers Park: +1118 people
24. Near South Side: +1079 people
25. Hermosa: +1043 people


Top Community Areas for total people aged 55+ in 2016
1. Austin: 24,230 people
2. Near North Side: 22,986 people
3. West Ridge: 18,220 people
4. Portage Park: 16,110 people
5. Edgewater: 14,726 people
6. Belmont Cragin: 14,515 people
7. Lake View: 14,391 people
8. Norwood Park: 14,200 people
9. Uptown: 13,921 people
10. Auburn Gresham: 13,736 people
11. Roseland: 12,803 people
12. Dunning: 12,715 people
13. South Shore: 12,434 people
14. Lincoln Park: 11,209 people
15. South Lawndale: 10,892 people
16. Irving Park: 10,644 people
17. West Town: 10,525 people
18. Rogers Park: 10,476 people
19. Logan Square: 10,102 people
20. Chicago Lawn: 9739 people
21. Garfield Ridge: 9683 people
22. Humboldt Park: 9613 people
23. Ashburn: 9527 people
24. Albany Park: 9384 people
25. Chatham: 9316 people


Top Community Areas for age 55+ decline from 2010 to 2016:
1. Englewood: -875 people
2. Forest Glen: -564 people
3. Greater Grand Crossing: -398 people
4. Burnside: -277 people
5. Calumet Heights: -213 people
6. Lower West Side: -156 people
7. South Chicago: -112 people
8. Pullman: -68 people
9. Washington Park: -60 people
10. O'Hare: -50 people
11. West Town: -46 people
12. West Englewood: -37 people
13. Montclare: -15 people

-----

Top Community Areas for ratio between 22-39 aged population and 55+ aged population, 2016
1. West Town: 4.19X (aka for every 10 people aged 55+ there's 42 people aged 22-39 in West Town)
2. Lake View: 3.98X
3. Logan Square: 3.32X
4. Near West Side: 3.22X
5. Lincoln Park: 2.87X
6. North Center: 2.72X
7. Near South Side: 2.46X
8. Lincoln Square: 2.27X
9. The Loop: 2.23X
10. Lower West Side: 2.18X
11. Gage Park: 2.14X
12. South Lawndale: 2.1X
13. Riverdale: 2.01X
14. Avondale: 1.99X
15. Rogers Park: 1.87X
16. Washington Park: 1.86X
17. Albany Park: 1.82X
18. Irving Park: 1.78X
19. Near North Side: 1.78X
20. Brighton Park: 1.75X
21. West Lawn: 1.7X
22. Humboldt Park: 1.67X
23. Uptown: 1.63X
24. Belmont Cragin: 1.52X
25. Chicago Lawn: 1.48X

Increase in 22-39 vs. 55+ ratio, 2016 vs. 2010
1. Washington Park: +0.39X
2. Near North Side: +0.35X
3. Near West Side: +0.33X
4. West Town: +0.29X
5. Riverdale: +0.2X
6. The Loop: +0.18X
7. Lincoln Square: +0.17X
8. Logan Square: +0.1X
9. Forest Glen: +0.09X
10. Englewood: +0.06X

[the urban politician]

Damn, Marothisu. This kind of analysis is quite valuable. I can see a lot of entities utilizing this kind of stuff, particularly housing developers

[the urban politician]

At this rate, downtown area hoods will eventually exceed the traditional post-collegiate hoods (Lincoln Park, Lakeview,West Town, Logan Square, etc) in population of that particular demographic. Those areas will always welcome younger people, but the shift of nightlife will probably migrate more and more downtown, while those neighborhoods may continue gentrifying into more wealthy family-oriented locations.

[Baronvonellis]

Yes, even though the downtown areas are the most expensive, it seems younger people are going to the most expensive areas. I hope they're not blowing all their money on rent to be in all those new river north and west loop buildings. I would have though areas like Pilsen, McKinley Park, Bridgeport would see more younger people. It's very close to downtown and much more affordable. I guess those areas are only a trickle compared to downtown. Interesting.

What is going on in uptown? It seems to be gentrify pretty well with all the Flats properties, but it's loosing young people and has the second highest growth of 55+. I wouldn't have thought that just from walking around the area. On the street it looks pretty similar to lakeview in regards to age.

[moorhosj]

Keep in mind this data is almost 2 years old by now and things move quickly in these rapidly gentrifying areas. The Logan towers didn't open until late 2016, so this wouldn't capture all of the growth seen recently on Milwaukee (or Lawrence in Uptown).

Logan Square and West town only became post-college hubs 5-10 years ago. I graduated college 12 years ago and knew nobody who lived in this area, almost all were in Lakeview and Lincoln Park. Now they are quickly becoming young family hubs. The real question is whether these families stay another 15 years or move out as soon as their kids reach school age. CPS improvement and lower crime will be the determining factors for many of these people.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Yes, even though the downtown areas are the most expensive, it seems younger people are going to the most expensive areas. I hope they're not blowing all their money on rent to be in all those new river north and west loop buildings. I would have though areas like Pilsen, McKinley Park, Bridgeport would see more younger people. It's very close to downtown and much more affordable. I guess those areas are only a trickle compared to downtown. Interesting.

What is going on in uptown? It seems to be gentrify pretty well with all the Flats properties, but it's loosing young people and has the second highest growth of 55+. I wouldn't have thought that just from walking around the area. On the street it looks pretty similar to lakeview in regards to age.

Pilsen won't register simply because if you replace younger people with wealthier younger people, there won't be a net change. So the data in Marothisu's most recent post is not necessarily a good proxy at all for gentrification, particularly where you are seeing displacement of lower income households.