31–40 of 162 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which says more about why the real estate market in San Francisco is such a disaster.
Because people keep using valuable space for offices instead of affordable housing? This is exactly why SF sucks to live in. You have to live there to be close to work, but you're in competition with your damn office. Talk about screwing over your employees.
This is tangential, and I'm not a designer so this is just one dev's opinion, but I found Dropbox's latest rebrand (dropbox.design) to be a bizarre departure for them. It was so off the wall I just assumed it was some sort of parody site until I realized it was official. I'm in no place to determine if it's "good" or "bad", but it's certainly an...interesting direction, if nothing else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What competitor of dropbox has no linux client?
Google Drive
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which says more about why the real estate market in San Francisco is such a disaster.
Because people keep using valuable space for offices instead of affordable housing? This is exactly why SF sucks to live in. You have to live there to be close to work, but you're in competition with your damn office. Talk about screwing over your employees.
In a year though it downsizes to 125k square feet and they have to upgrade to pro to access all the offices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google Drive
https://github.com/vitalif/grive2
That's a far cry from
mount ~/gDrive/
Naive question, but why would large companies favor leasing instead of just outright purchasing the property? It seems that when the terms of the lease are up, the leasing company has almost unlimited leverage in the next negotiation (unless the tenant company doesn't mind relocating all of its employees).
Some companies own their own real estate, but that involves hiring a number of people dedicated to managing it. It might be more efficient to outsource that to a landlord. There are probably also tax implications to one or the other depending on the company's situation.
736,000 square feet is pretty sizeable when you consider that SF has a building cap of 875,000 gross square feet of office space per year: http://sf-planning.org/office-development-annual-limitation-...
http://zasfplan.sfplanning.org/ANLM/Office_Allocation_Stats....
Fun to see people playing the game... A lot of small allocation projects right in the high 49k sqft, as you would expect.
Also, the large project pipeline is currently at negative seven million sqft. Looks like projects have to get in line early to try to secure space. Some projects are big enough to take more than one year of allocations!
Naive question, but why would large companies favor leasing instead of just outright purchasing the property? It seems that when the terms of the lease are up, the leasing company has almost unlimited leverage in the next negotiation (unless the tenant company doesn't mind relocating all of its employees).
If they grow to be big enough, then they can move out at build their own campus. Equalises the leverage at that point.
Also, the lease term will be for more than a few years (IMO 5-10) and that’s good enough time to figure out growing plans.