Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not arguing that San Francisco is more desirable at all. I'm simply saying that higher price does not equal better architecture.
555 California is just not better architecture than Three Logan Square... no matter how much you want to pretend it is, and no matter how much some Real Estate company overpaid for it. The demand and desirability for the office space inside of the building, has nothing to do with the architecture of the building.
Lol And I still hear no rebuttal from them about my earlier post. It seems a lot of what makes San Francisco so expensive is ridiculously artificial in nature, and not all of it tied into its desirability...
San Francisco is so expensive because it sits between a Bay and an ocean. Yes, it is desirable, but prices are inflated even more because land is scarce, the city is practically built out, and there is no where else to expand. This increases prices.
Center City Philadelphia is indeed getting expensive. Even University City is getting there now. The rest of the city or Metro? Not so much. The reason it is not so expensive though, is that it is an inland city. It does not sit in between bodies of water and mountains with little room to grow... the metro can expand outward with a ton of land to build. Is Philadelphia also a little less desirable? Yes, but there is enough demand and growth in Center City now-a-days.
Plus, when has expensive ever been a positive thing? These Bay Area folks talk about the cost of real estate like it's a plus that things are so expensive hahaha.
Not arguing that San Francisco is more desirable at all. I'm simply saying that higher price does not equal better architecture.
555 California is just not better architecture than Three Logan Square... no matter how much you want to pretend it is, and no matter how much some Real Estate company overpaid for it. The demand and desirability for the office space inside of the building, has nothing to do with the architecture of the building.
I don't believe that either Philadelphia or San Francisco is the 3rd best overall downtown in the country. Neither city is big enough to qualify for that role. I would argue a city like Los Angeles or Houston deserves to qualify for 3rd best downtown.
Right, and there are metrics that would put downtown DC ahead or even downtown LA ahead. I think you can try and make a Chicago vs SF for second best downtown, but you'd really have to tailor it towards weighting very specific things (take down skyline, parks, mass transit and cultural institutions, put a vast priority on upscale shopping where SF can tie and then throw in cost per square feet as the clincher).
Again, the argument that downtown Philadelphia and downtown SF are close works so well, because Philadelphia really concentrated a lot of its goods in downtown.
Thats where I totally disagree. I dont think Philly is close. I think SF is closer to Chicago than Philly is to SF.
Not arguing that San Francisco is more desirable at all. I'm simply saying that higher price does not equal better architecture.
555 California is just not better architecture than Three Logan Square... no matter how much you want to pretend it is, and no matter how much some Real Estate company overpaid for it. The demand and desirability for the office space inside of the building, has nothing to do with the architecture of the building.
Last edited by thedirtypirate; 04-15-2016 at 07:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.