I wonder if this will be used for Google NYC HQ, or is Google attempting to get into the co-working game?
Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B
71–80 of 257 posts
Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B
#72NYC Xoogler here. Speaking from experience, the main office (111 8th/76 9th) is amazing. I think Google's decision to buy that years ago has totally been vindicated. I'm surprised more high cash surplus companies don't do this, just to control their destiny in a way you simply can't as a tenant (eg if you're a large tenant, each floor you rent in the same building is going to get more expensive, being a tenant limits…
Has someone there considered to install a MULTI? That would be cool. https://multi.thyssenkrupp-elevator.com/en/
MULTI has yet to be installed in an actual building and from what I recall, they believed it would likely be used in new buildings that are designed with MULTI in mind rather than retrofitting older buildings.
It seems like a good use case in my mind, though I don't expect it would be implemented for at least several years while the new technology is adapted and tested in real-world scenarios
Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they’re paying above average, which was my point.
If the average is $1500, then a number of transactions have been above average, so this isn't that unusual. There are a lot of reasons you might pay 5-10% above average: location, building quality and condition, how much deferred maintenance there is, historical or architectural significance, etc, etc.
An average is just that, meaning prices below and above. Chelsea is a much more desired neighborhood than midtown, which is one of the least desired neighborhoods.
So a 5-10% premium for Chelsea is actually on the low side, and isn't really a premium for the area as that sounds to be right on target compared to the average price.
If they paid $2,000 a sq ft then they would be paying a premium. This looks like a good standard rate for also an iconic building in Chelsea.
Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they’re paying above average, which was my point.
That's a really silly response. They're paying 4% above average (and that's the 2016 average - prices may be higher in 2018). The average likely includes a range far greater than 4% depending on the properties involved. Google is clearly not paying anything remotely describable as "shockingly high".
It's roughly the same price they paid for 111 8th Ave.
Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B
#75Fun fact - some of the Chelsea Market buildings were originally the National Biscuit Corporation, which would later become Nabisco (combining the first syllables). You can still see the NBC logo (which is not the TV network) on parts of the building.
Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are other office occupants though, and it sounds like Google's going to squeeze them out. So the food offerings might stay, but it's going to begin to feel like a Google cafeteria.
Do the businesses in Chelsea Market rely heavily on traffic from the office-workers above? Store-fronts in NYC tend to be pretty disconnected from the office/residential spaces above, with a few notable exceptions.
I worked in the building as it transitioned from how it was to how it is. The ground floor used to be mostly shops and over time became food oriented, with more restaurants and fancy treat places, as they aimed themselves towards the tourist industry, which crowds that place like mad.
Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B
#77Between this $2B deal and the $5B Apple Park deal, I start to wonder how companies are justifying these purchases as remote and distributed work becomes more feasible.
They're probably focused on the fact that productivity is still higher in co-located settings and the best talent pools are in major metro areas. But what if, instead, they invested $500M in remote work research and $500M in building a remote work infrastructure for the company. Then they can go ahead and pocket that extra $1-4B in real estate costs, and perhaps another ~$10B long term as they avoid future real estate purchases and scale this across the company. Also, save several hundred million in hiring and retention, as they attract more talent from around the world and retain employees by offering remote work as a benefit.
Could this be a more forward-thinking approach? I'm merely posing the question.
Real estate is super expensive, and most people would consider being able to live anywhere a huge perk. In other words, the only reason talent is so concentrated in New York, is because it has to be right now. But what will happen as more companies offer distributed work? Will people choose to continue living in metro areas with astronomical costs of living (perhaps even away from family or in a climate they don't prefer)? Or will they leave and work from wherever they want? And then what will happen to the value of this real estate? And what will happen to the companies that invested in it?
I find it odd that innovative tech companies seem to not be questioning one of the more non-innovative and dogmatic practices of today - physical office space. Not only that, but they're investing billions into that idea. Why not challenge it?
Or what if you took a hybrid approach? Have a collaborative space in New York that everyone can use to come together, but everyone can also work from home. You may be able to cut down the required space by 3-4x.
Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B
#78Google has largely ruined Boulder, CO after building a huge new sprawling thing and effectively dictating to locals and politicians exactly how they want the neighborhood and city to be structured going forward. Everyone who isn't a googler hates them and wishes we hadn't allowed that, much less given them massive amounts of corporate welfare. Resist googlers if you can, they destroy communities.
The real answer is for cities to be built up so much that even a Google-sized company is a drop in the bucket. Google NYC right now is about one city block (111 8th), expanding to two. That's a tiny part of Manhattan, which isn't even all of NYC. My old church is located under the old Citigroup Center skyscraper at 601 Lexington, which is also an entire block; Citigroup used to have both that building and the block a…
Boulder has a population of ~100,000. I don't oppose the Google office, but their workforce will grow to represent 1-2% of the city's populace. That isn't a "drop in the bucket."
Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B
#79NYC Xoogler here. Speaking from experience, the main office (111 8th/76 9th) is amazing. I think Google's decision to buy that years ago has totally been vindicated. I'm surprised more high cash surplus companies don't do this, just to control their destiny in a way you simply can't as a tenant (eg if you're a large tenant, each floor you rent in the same building is going to get more expensive, being a tenant limits…
I totally agree. Fun historical note, IBM generated cash in its early days as Google and Apple do today, it bought a lot of real estate all around the world. In the 90's when it seemed liked it was doomed, it "saved itself" by selling off big chunks of that real estate. That gave the company operating capital without having to go to the equity markets or debt markets. Given the ups and downs of tech, it seems like a…
> it "saved itself" by selling off big chunks of that real estate
Sounds like the losing end of a game of Monopoly!
Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B
#80Google has largely ruined Boulder, CO after building a huge new sprawling thing and effectively dictating to locals and politicians exactly how they want the neighborhood and city to be structured going forward. Everyone who isn't a googler hates them and wishes we hadn't allowed that, much less given them massive amounts of corporate welfare. Resist googlers if you can, they destroy communities.
I've lived and worked in Colorado my whole life, joined Google Boulder about 8 months ago. Spent a ton of time in Boulder before that; my wife is from Boulder proper. Honestly? Google is barely a speck in the whirlwind of changes that Boulder is undergoing. Tech is a huge part of it, but you can't throw that entirely at Google's feet. There's been Silicon Valley expats and tons of other folks moving to Boulder for years.
Back on Google for a moment:
Lets talk neighborhood. The older Google buildings are renovated, small buildings. One of them was a Circuit City that closed. That should already give you a good idea of the area. It isn't trendy downtown, just primarily commercial space.
The new Google building is larger, about 3 blocks away, and located in what was a basically condemned. There's empty, undeveloped lots across from it on one side, and a huge sprawling Whole Foods with a massive parking lot on the other side. Google's new building is flanked by a large Target. Overall, the building is not actually that large. It's 4 floors and built as two halves joined in the center with a bridge.
It isn't the trendy part of town. It's developed a nice building in an otherwise lower-traffic area. I know there's follow-on effects from employing new folks in the area (housing, traffic, etc.), but I don't see how that's overall different from the general influx of folks into Boulder.
Perhaps it's myopic of me, but I don't see "us" (as if us vs. them is a productive use of time) being a negative force. Google Boulder employs lots of folks, and the vast majority of them have lived in Colorado for more than the last few years.
I'd like to know what we're doing to destroy communities and how we can prevent that.