Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They chose two move-in-ready sites (empty, existing buildings!), in the #2 and #3 regions for tech talent, which have almost *2X* the talent base of Chicago or Atlanta. (The #1 region is the Bay Area, which doesn't have any sites of that magnitude. Short-short listed Dallas is #5.) I'm not sure why everyone's crying about rigging, moved goalposts, incentive race to the bottom, etc.
As I said before on this thread, cost of living doesn't equal cost of doing business, and besides it was a very low priority in the RFP -- relegated to "also provide information on."
It's not clear how much they valued existing talent vs. the ability to recruit talent from elsewhere. I think it's more the latter.
It was both. There needed to be enough talent already existing to poach from and also the city itself needed to be able to attract top talent on it's own. It was noted that one of Chicago's opportunities was the fact that while the city was a magnet for the big 10 schools it didn't have enough of a draw from the ivy leagues which I assume is the same story for a lot of the cities that made it to the finals minus LA/SF. Folks on CD always overvalue COL when it clearly isn't a defining factor for a lot of the big companies and especially Tech companies at that. They tend to go for the "cool" or up and coming "cool" cities that usually come with a higher price tag. Its also worth nothing that both of the locations selected are within 15 minutes to an airport that have direct flights to the cities they noted on the RFP.
It was both. There needed to be enough talent already existing to poach from and also the city itself needed to be able to attract top talent on it's own.
And generate its own talent. A major selling point for both Queens and Arlington were pledges to expand both undergrad & graduate CS education at nearby campuses... and the fact that both metros graduate several thousand CS grads every year.
They're running out of people to hire who will move to Seattle. Setting up in the east, in big cities that are proven national draws, is a way to draw people who either live in these giant markets, or might relocate but not across the country. https://twitter.com/paytonchung/stat...96116052037632
If this was totally about bringing in relocatees, then why not set up a brand new city at the edges of cheapo Indianapolis? Or Toronto, with its much more open-door immigration laws (and much lower wages)? As for why the smaller cities were included: my bet was to broaden the number of state incentive offers, or to scout for the "Center for Excellence" that ended up in Nashville.
It was both. There needed to be enough talent already existing to poach from and also the city itself needed to be able to attract top talent on it's own. It was noted that one of Chicago's opportunities was the fact that while the city was a magnet for the big 10 schools it didn't have enough of a draw from the ivy leagues which I assume is the same story for a lot of the cities that made it to the finals minus LA/SF. Folks on CD always overvalue COL when it clearly isn't a defining factor for a lot of the big companies and especially Tech companies at that. They tend to go for the "cool" or up and coming "cool" cities that usually come with a higher price tag. Its also worth nothing that both of the locations selected are within 15 minutes to an airport that have direct flights to the cities they noted on the RFP.
Chicago has Northwestern University and the University of Chicago...not far off from Ivy League. Also, the U of IL is one of the very top schools in the US for computer science. I don't think your theory holds up.
Chicago has Northwestern University and the University of Chicago...not far off from Ivy League. Also, the U of IL is one of the very top schools in the US for computer science. I don't think your theory holds up.
Those schools are fantastic of course but I read this in a few articles.. I didnt just make it up. I'll post something when I come across it again.
I believe you, but these schools are the top, next to Ivy League...sometimes ranked higher, depending on the major.
Agreed. I love Chicago as a city and lived there previously. The city offers alot that few cities can match. No doubt those universities are well respected but if I recall Chicago attracts relatively few from ivy's across the country and its speculated this played a part in their decision as NYC and DC are the top two destinations for these graduates even today without HQ2 having moved in.
A lot of my classmates were there because they didn't get into Columbia or Penn (e.g., the big-city Ivies that aren't quite as competitive as Hahvahd), so I'll use them as comparisons.
61.6% of UChicago grads live outside metro Chicago. 10.2% live in NYC.
63.6% of Northwestern grads live outside metro Chicago. 7.9% live in NYC.
47.7% of Columbia grads live outside metro New York. <4% live in Chicago.
48.2% of Penn grads live outside NYC/Philly/DC.
Chicago has Northwestern University and the University of Chicago...not far off from Ivy League. Also, the U of IL is one of the very top schools in the US for computer science. I don't think your theory holds up.
Yes, particularly for NOVA. I mean, what college/university are we talking about there? Even in DC, Georgetown isn't particularly "techie", nor is American U or any of the other schools there that I know of.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.