"Boston Properties Inc., the country’s largest publicly traded office landlord, owns five times the square footage that WeWork manages and has a market capitalization of $19 billion." This seems to me to be a pretty big warning sign that the company is overvalued.
Comparing WeWork to traditional office landlord is like comparing Starbucks to Dunkin' Donut. Please don't go to Starbucks because its coffee is better or cheaper (it's neither), but as a lifestyle choice. Similarly, people don't go to WeWork because they need a desk.
At the end of the day, WeWork uses X sqft per desk, has an average occupancy rate, etc. So one way to look at their business is revenue/sqft.. which is very similar to a traditional landlord.
The only real difference is that WeWork can improve their revenue/sqft by adding desks without tearing down walls or remodeling the building; and they can increase prices at a faster rate than a traditional landlord who has a longer lease term. But on the downside, they have shorter lease terms, which makes their earnings less stable and more responsive to market conditions (ie: it's easier to stop paying WeWork during a market downturn that it is for a traditional landlord).
The question is, are WeWork properties similar to Boston's properties, and does WeWork generate 5x the revenue/sqft as Boston on similar properties.