Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor
Trouble with that logic is that it seems to me that the trend is that most companies now are fleeing the big cities and setting up shop in the suburbs, where they can have greater flexibility and pay less money in rent.
I see the same problem. I would say that the problem with a Fortune 500 company locating its headquarters in the Banks project from the company's view is that not only is rent and property cheaper in the suburbs cheaper, but there is also plenty of land to expand. For a large company to locate its HQ in the Banks, it has to bet on zero growth.
Personally, I think better targets for the Banks project are to encourage a larger number of small and medium-sized professional firms (accounting, advertising, marketing, IT consulting and law firms as examples). They tend to have all the features of businesses that will attract residents and money to a mixed commercial-residential-entertainment area. They've got plenty of young professionals who would have a greater desire to live closer to lively neighborhoods, they've got client-based businesses that rely on longer working hours and business dinners and entertainment, and if a tenant moves out, you aren't left with a big empty building.
Doog, you're the resident expert on real estate development. Is this desire for flexibility an honest response to interest from Fortune 500 companies? The concern I have is that the desire for flexibility in the development comes from a failure of the parties driving the Banks project to maintain the momentum of the project, resulting in the loss of potential tenants who have decided to move on with other options rather than wait for the project to get off the ground.