Best way to commute from Wriggleyville to Naperville

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by chet everett

The overall relationship between what kind of office / setting makes the most sense for different kinds of companies is complex and changes over time -- when Sears was located on the West Side the world and the market it served were very different than when it moved into the humongous office tower that once shared its name, Sears' move to Hoffman Estates was similarly an effort to better align the needs of the company with the kind of workforce needed to keep the company vital.

So is this really true? What kind of employee does Sears Corporate get when they are downtown, versus Hoffman Estates? Your paragraph above makes it seem like companies make generalities about the kind of employee they will get versus their location. So please expand on what those differences might be.

I'm much more cynical - I think companies locate where the land is cheap (to build a palace), and close to where the CEO lives (to minimize his commute). I don't imagine Sears sees much difference in their employees if they are in the Loop versus in the boonies.

[chet everett]

The theory of positives of having a big spread-out office campus like Sears in Hoffman Estates or McDonalds in Oak Brook or Discover in Riverwoods or Nalco/Ecolab in Naperville or Hewitt in Lincolnshire or Apple in Cupertino is that you tend to get LOTS of employees early in the morning, they stay on site all day often eating at company subsidized / free cafeterias, mingling with colleagues that they otherwise might not interact with, generating lots of different ideas for how to market products / improve processes / deliver greater value / higher productivity.

To certain degree I have seen that work IF the rest of the ingredients are in place.

That said there are also negatives. Way back when Sears moved into the Tower from the West Side there was a massive shift in the ranks of lower level clerical personal as many "mailroom" type functions were automated out of existence. Some of the more benevolent managers found ways to bring along long tenured employees even as their actual role went away as mail cart were replaced with "robot" mail trolleys. Later, when Sears moved to Hoffman Estates the folks that could not justify the expense of relocating to the NW burbs and had no viable transit options from the south or west sides made the general scene at Praire Stone seem a whole lot less diverse than things were at the Tower...

BTW Once upon a time Sears had a HUGELY profitable development arm that build dozens of suburban malls as well as offices and industrial parks -- Homart Development Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Lots of things made sense for lots of differnt reasons back in the heyday of such expansion...

[jman07]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

So is this really true? What kind of employee does Sears Corporate get when they are downtown, versus Hoffman Estates? Your paragraph above makes it seem like companies make generalities about the kind of employee they will get versus their location. So please expand on what those differences might be.

I'm much more cynical - I think companies locate where the land is cheap (to build a palace), and close to where the CEO lives (to minimize his commute). I don't imagine Sears sees much difference in their employees if they are in the Loop versus in the boonies.

We'll if that was true then there would be no companies in Chicago using your logic. Sears would move to Indianapolis or downstate being that office space and land is extremely expensive in Chicago. That's more true with factories, but even then, they take in a lot of other factors.

And most CEOs have the same or longer commute than anyone. If that was true, all the companies would be on the north shore and not downtown. Use some common sense and think a little.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Land costs vary widely, if a company like Allstate or McDonalds wanted to gobble a huge chunk of the former US Steel site in the extreme SE corner of Chicago and resell their lovely suburban campuses in Northbrook or Oak Brook they would likely be millions ahead, though they would have a very angry and dispirited work force that would likely leave the companies in droves...

I meant the center of an urban city versus further out. Of course somewhere at like 95th street is going to cost less than somewhere in the Loop.

The overall relationship between what kind of office / setting makes the most sense for different kinds of companies is complex and changes over time -- when Sears was located on the West Side the world and the market it served were very different than when it moved into the humongous office tower that once shared its name, Sears' move to Hoffman Estates was similarly an effort to better align the needs of the company with the kind of workforce needed to keep the company vital. The degree to which the move forestalled the firm addressing other issues is also up for debate as it continues to face enormous challenges.

Yes, it varies on the companies, but many tech companies are moving to urban centers if they haven't been there already to attract the type of millennial talent they want. Only looking at where many tech companies are HQ'd don't give a fully accurate picture of the type of geographies people are employed in.

[nearnorth]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

I don't, it's stupid. Either live and work in the city, or live and work in Naperville. I've known lot's of people who have tried these reverse commutes from the city, and they all hate it.

The ones I know all hate it significantly less than they hated living in the burbs. It's worth it for many people, for the right job. The OP just needs to pick a better neighborhood for it.

[ToriaT]

Thanks all. He plans to do kind of a combined thing where he stays in Wheaton for much of the work week going to Logan on weekends and on some nights when he has something going. By the way it takes about forty five minutes to get to Plainfield from Wheaton in rush hour traffic. It might be a few minutes shorter if traffic is good.

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by jman07

And most CEOs have the same or longer commute than anyone. If that was true, all the companies would be on the north shore and not downtown. Use some common sense and think a little.

Wow, so all the CEOs in Oakbrook, we should ignore them... Not everyone lives north.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by nearnorth

The ones I know all hate it significantly less than they hated living in the burbs. It's worth it for many people, for the right job. The OP just needs to pick a better neighborhood for it.

There is no neighborhood in Chicago with a convenient commute to Naperville. Maybe if the job were RIGHT NEXT to the Metra station downtown it wouldn't be terrible, but that's not where most of Naperville's jobs are.

[nearnorth]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

There is no neighborhood in Chicago with a convenient commute to Naperville.

True. It's relative. Like I said, I know people who do it from the West Loop. It's not convenient, but it's doable, and worth it for people with a strong preference for the city; as opposed to the commute from Wrigleyville which would be ridiculous.

[jman07]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

Wow, so all the CEOs in Oakbrook, we should ignore them... Not everyone lives north.

For simplicity sake, I didn't list every suburb that has a CEO in it.