Re:The Unaffordable Urban Paradise
by kasey_junk on Monday June 26, 2017 @09:45AM
(#14636719)
> most mid-sized and large companies really do own their suburban office buildings / HQ buildings here
I'd love to see some statistics on that because it doesn't jive with my experience in large companies in the midwest. Ownership of land was considered a major negative when I was working in large companies but its definitely been a while and the sample size is small.
A lot of companies (or at least the owners of the company) do own the building they are in, through a holding company of sorts that the company then rents from.
Re:The Unaffordable Urban Paradise
by kasey_junk on Monday June 26, 2017 @12:47PM
(#14638168)
Thats clearly true of smaller companies. And there are larger companies that have significant real estate holdings as that is a major component of their business (McDonalds for instance).
But office/operations space being owned was generally viewed as inefficient for large companies that didn't have real estate ownership as a core function because its a pretty bad asset for a company both as a store of value and as an investment in innovation.
For small business, sure. But is that really true in SF for mid-size to major companies? I know this is a midwest-skewed perspective, but most mid-sized and large companies really do own their suburban office buildings / HQ buildings here.
The only office space I know of that they rent, is the expensive monopolized spaces downtown. Which would seem to reinforce parent posters point.