Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B

therealdeal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 257 posts

Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B

#181

Post by ghaff »

SFLemonade wrote: post #128
ionforce wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think working remote has proven itself fully. Otherwise everyone would be doing it. > 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. Exactly this.

Definitely. But there's also been very little investment into remote work, both from a research and infrastructure perspective. I just wonder, if they were to take some of this cash and invest it into proving out remote work, would it turn out to be a better long term investment? In most of the cases that I've observed, companies enter into remote work literally by just letting their employees start working remotely.…

Another point that I’m not sure gets much attention is that, as these companies build huge campuses and spread out to multiple locations across a region, how co-located are employees anyway? Sure you can move people around to be with primary teams but it’s certainly not like everyone can pop over to talk with someone or can depend on a lot of serendipitous hallway conversations.

Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B

#182

Post by epc »

vram22 wrote: post #142
ChuckMcM wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>In the 90's when it seemed liked it was doomed, it "saved itself" by selling off big chunks of that real estate. Wonder if that was during Lou Gerstner's time as CEO at IBM. I had read his book Who says Elephants can't Dance, about what he did to turn IBM around. It was an interesting read. Don't remember if selling off some of their real estate was part of what they did, though it could have been. A review of the b…

The real estate fire sale started in 1992 along with the spin–outs of various divisions (some of which completed, like IBM Federal Systems and Lexmark, others were halted by Gerstner like AdStar (storage systems) and Pennant (big printers).

Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B

#183

Post by lazerpants »

jsky_goog wrote: post #169
hueving wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd like to know what we're doing to destroy communities and how we can prevent that. Stop moving into small cities with workers paid significantly above the average of the existing residents. Restaurants open that they can't afford, the limited housing stock gets bid up quickly, good schools get overcrowded, etc. It's not a pleasant answer, but realistically that's ultimately what upsets a good chunk of the people…

I understand the concern but as someone who grew up in Boulder, and now works at Google Boulder I feel like people are giving off this incorrect impression of Boulder. It's a small town (~120k people w/ students) but it was never a particularly affordable place. Unfortunately there's not a whole lot that can be done to shield a desirable small town from becoming more expensive as more people become aware of it's exis…

Boulder may be the most quintessentially NIMBY community in the USA. And it's been that way for decades, so yes, this is a strange discussion to have about Boulder of all places. Importantly though, I suspect Boulder has an above average number of renters who will be disproportionately impacted by an increase in high paying job growth, as they will not see any return on equity.

Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B

#184

Post by lobster_johnson »

CodeSheikh wrote: post #4

Google NYC is literally right across the block from Chelsea Market. This transaction would mean that Google will occupy the real estate above the actual market. Chelsea Market is an amazing place with great offerings of food etc. As long as this transaction does not ruin the ecosystem of CM then New Yorkers are OK with this transaction. Lets face it who would not want to sell their real estate to The Google?

Speaking of, I passed the Google building recently, and most of the windows have two protuding panels mounted horizontally. Can be seen here [1]. Anyone know what it is? Just solar shades? Or solar panels? I don't think I've seen this before.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7407095,-74.0017999,3a,75y,3...

Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B

#185

Post by vonmoltke »

mljoe wrote: post #179
moftz wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is just one of the tenants along with Food Network and Major League Baseball. They also own the building across the street, 111 Eighth Ave. Some other companies rent space in there too. Google has the cash, doesn't want to pay rent, and knows they are going to be there for a long time. Might as well buy the place. Not really a tax avoidance, although it certainly could be, but it's more like a cost avoidance.…

There are some corporate structures that seem better suited for owning real estate, like a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). Maybe there is a proxy "Google REIT" that is 100% owned by Google. Or some other proxy entity accounting stuff going on, such that Google is not "technically" the owner of the building, but a subsidiary with a different tax structure. I think that's what the parent meant.

> Maybe there is a proxy "Google REIT" that is 100% owned by Google.

There is no such thing under US law. A REIT must have at least 100 separate owners, and no group of 5 can own more than 50% in the second half of a given tax year.

Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B

#187

Post by skosch »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #184
CodeSheikh wrote: post #4

Google NYC is literally right across the block from Chelsea Market. This transaction would mean that Google will occupy the real estate above the actual market. Chelsea Market is an amazing place with great offerings of food etc. As long as this transaction does not ruin the ecosystem of CM then New Yorkers are OK with this transaction. Lets face it who would not want to sell their real estate to The Google?

Speaking of, I passed the Google building recently, and most of the windows have two protuding panels mounted horizontally. Can be seen here [1]. Anyone know what it is? Just solar shades? Or solar panels? I don't think I've seen this before. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7407095,-74.0017999,3a,75y,3...

Just solar shades, likely – they look exactly like what my high school installed on the classroom windows many years ago, and those were purely for keeping the rooms from heating up too much in the high summer noon sun. Solar panels wouldn't make much sense, they aren't angled toward the sun's average position at all and would just shade each other out for most of the day.

Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B

#188

Post by mancerayder »

stale2002 wrote: post #129
finkin1 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you trying to make OP's case, and I'm genuinely interested in changing my mind about this. What do you think should be done? Should growing companies be prevented from expanding because it might 'erode the character of the city'? I'm not in favor of the city subsidizing a company's growth, even if it does stimulate the economy in the long-run, but I just can't get behind any policy that would prevent a g…

What should be done is that cities should relax zoning laws, and allow more housing to be built in high demand areas. That way the city can fit everyone, cheaply.

I keep hearing this over and over in this forum, relax the code, change the zoning laws, that'll solve problems.

How many of these folks actually live in a densely populated city? Zoning laws in Manhattan have a different source and downstream effect than some suburb of SF or LA, or some other city with housing cost issues.

It's a huge topic of conversation, but I'll summarize it by offering a few items to ponder before we reduce the problem to "zoning restrictions" and people reply with "100X times this!".

--- Infrastructure is more than housing. And much more expensive. The subway system in NYC isn't scaling to capacity due to the speed of development. It may feel expensive to build a new rental building, but scaling public transportation, education, and more is deeply more expensive.

--- Manhattan isn't dense enough for you? You realize the parent article is about Google purchasing a huge swathe of Manhattan real estate. Are the skyscrapers not high enough? Better yet, maybe we should knock down those 19th century buildings in whatever pockets are left of low density housing in Manhattan and turn everything into a giant concrete reed jungle? Not all NIMBY is mean-spirited, and if you're the traveling type you can understand the need for preservation of architectural character.

--- I live in a part of NYC where zoning laws allow for more building. As it turns out, I even own a building where I could potentially build an additional 1500 square feet, and I could convert my building into six separate apartment buildings. This would add net 4 apartments to a city which has a housing crisis. And I'd love do. However, I'd have to comply with code, which like zoning exists to protect us from ourselves, if for different reasons. To comply with code, so my tenants don't get incinerated in a fire, I'd have to spend so much money that it's cost prohibitive.

Sorry, I'm just tired of reading the same "it's the zoning laws" reductionism by people who know only suburbs.

Re: Google is buying Chelsea Market building for over $2B

#189

Post by matt4077 »

aresant wrote: post #82

This is such a fascinating cycle. Large pensions & sovereign wealth funds are so desperate for yield vs. low treasuries that they have pushed income producing commercial real estate values to all time highs. As a result these fund managers are then forced to take on larger risks to cover their liabilities by making larger portfolio allocations into public techs like Google, and privates like AirBNB & Uber. And this d…

Google (ABC) doesn't actually derive much[0] value from investment in their shares: they have long been profitable and I'd be surprised if they issued new shares in the recent past. The investment just goes to some other investor who's selling stock to invest in real estate (or whatever).

[0]: Their stock options do become vastly more useful as currency to attract employees, though.

Post reply on HN