4 ms·
> Renting has been the standard model for suburban office parks too. Most companies do not own their own office buildings For small business, sure. But is that
by maxsilver 9y ago
> Renting has been the standard model for suburban office parks too. Most companies do not own their own office buildings
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.
- kasey_junk 9y ago> 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.
- bluedino 9y agoA 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.
- kasey_junk 9y agoThats 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.