- edit

Great news! I thought for sure they would go to Houston. Thankfully, they realize the advantages of being in a true, global city.

It's nice to see a company choose Chicago without having to be lured by financial incentives.

Yeah. . . I'm quite surprised by this too. . . I thought Houston made the most logical choice. . . but apparently logic had little to do with the decision. . . at least there will be more BP employees to enjoy their namesake Gehry bridge across the street. . .

Yeah. . . I'm quite surprised by this too. . . I thought Houston made the most logical choice. . . but apparently logic had little to do with the decision. . . at least there will be more BP employees to enjoy their namesake Gehry bridge across the street. . .

I'm sure they had there reasons. Just because you don't happen to agree with them doesn't mean they weren't using logic. Then again, you may know more about business than a CEO.

Kevin J, I remember you and I talking about this a few months ago.

Looks like the Chi wins again!

I feel like celebrating :cheers:

^Yeah, and let's face it, the movie industry isn't done in skyscrapers.

^Yeah, and let's face it, the movie industry isn't done in skyscrapers.

LOL, Looper it's tempting, but no more LA bashing. Silverlake and his dog Vice City might come and annoy us again :)

Looks like I spoke too soon about the absence of financial incentives on this one. Although the Crain's article posted above does not mention it, the Saturday Tribune reported that the state put up $12 million in incentives to seal the deal.

^yes, the emphasis of the article, though, is that the "city" did not give any incentives, which is true.
Either way, it is still way less than what they gave Boeing

For the sake of comparison, here's a breakdown of the financial incentives for Boeing and the BP spinoff:

Boeing: $63 million for 500 jobs, or $126,00 per job

BP: $12 million for 125 jobs, or $96,000 per job.