Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Parent Company Alphabet Is Buying Chelsea Market For $2 Billion (qz.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the merge-and-conquer dept.

Alphabet is close to acquiring the iconic Chelsea Market in Midtown Manhattan for over $2 billion. The market totals 1.2 million square feet and sits across the street from the company's New York headquarters, a 2.9 million-square-foot building that it bought for $1.8 billion in 2010. Quartz reports: Google is already the Market's largest tenant, having steadily expanded its footprint to about 400,000 square feet. The tech giant hasn't revealed plans for the property, but according to The Real Deal, the company is expected to maintain the status quo. Alphabet's aggressive expansion in New York follows a growing trend of tech giants taking over cities. With their outsized share of the economy, tech companies are exerting increasing influence over urban infrastructure and development.

29 comments

  1. Whatever ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With their outsized share of the economy, tech companies are exerting increasing influence over urban infrastructure and development.

    Is this going to be like in the 80's where an apartment in Tokyo would buy all of Manhattan or something stupid like that?

    Cities need to start planning to say "no, fuck off, fuck you, you're not the only rate payer in town and we don't work for you".

    I think it's time to start killing off billionaires.

  2. Google can not take over NYC by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google's Market Captilization (value of all the stock shares) is between 400 and 500 billion US dollars.

    Value of Manhattan residential real estate (just the homes, not the industry or corporate stuff of just the main borrough, not the other companies, not the real estate in Staten Island, Bronx, Brooklyn, or Queens) is over 700 billion US dollars..

    Google is big, but not that big.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Google can not take over NYC by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

      No, New York City is way too massive, even for Google.

      They are just finishing expanding to a second full city block in lower Manhattan, because they outgrew the data center hub that occupied the first one. For comparison, Manhattan has the equivalent of ~1400 full city blocks. It is an irregular island, and has a big hole in the middle called Central Park, but that's roughly how many there are of the size the two they own. The Wall Street area, which is about 2 miles south of the Googleplex, is the equivalent of ~100 city blocks in area, and the buildings are much taller on average, so they take up a lot more floor space.

    2. Re:Google can not take over NYC by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      When you buy property do you only buy something less than your net worth? Of course not. Google has good credit, and the land itself would be collateral. So they could do it if they wanted to. (though why would they?)

    3. Re: Google can not take over NYC by kenh · · Score: 1

      The average US homebuyer has a net worth approaching $0 yet somehow managed to secure a line of credit well into the mix six-figures based on the belief they will continue to collect paychecks that slightly exceeds their standard of living.

      --
      Ken
    4. Re: Google can not take over NYC by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      So you're agreeing with me? Not sure what your response means.

    5. Re:Google can not take over NYC by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      I see the travel and tourism board has more work to do :-).

      Note: I grew up in NYC, but moved away when I finished college. The dirt didn't bother me, but the crowding did. Now I live on 3 wooded acres near Atlanta, and am much happier.

  3. Versus, e.g. IBM by darthsilun · · Score: 2

    Who "owned" Armonk and White Plains. Or Microsoft in Seattle and Redmond before Amazon arrived on the scene.

    1. Re:Versus, e.g. IBM by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's actually an amusing aside.

      I know IBM used to put R&D sites somewhat near big cities but not in big cities. They were very generous with things like home loans and the like because once you bought a house and put down roots in East Butfuque, AR you were less likely to want to quit and go elsewhere.

      So they were far enough away that you couldn't quit and commute to the big city where there were lots of jobs but they were close enough that you could actually go to the big city without it being a huge endeavor.

    2. Re:Versus, e.g. IBM by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

      This was also back when they really had a hold on their employees and actually wanted to keep them. I know several people who retired from a lifetime employed with IBM. And you're right...Rochester, MN, Burlington, VT, Boulder, CO, etc, were designed to be isolated enough so IBM controlled the labor pool but close enough so corporate types in cities could easily fly or drive there.

      It makes sense when you think about it, but only if your goal is to retain talent. I think Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and all the other big tech employers these days just want a revolving door. I even remember a time where companies paid to move you internally for promotions or new job assignments rather than lose you.

  4. Instant confusion by kkoo · · Score: 1

    I though it said Google were buying Chelsea Manning!

    1. Re:Instant confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I though it said Google were buying Chelsea Manning!

      Well, I read it correctly and was still wondering who "Chelsea Market" was.

      I still don't know what Chelsea Market is, but I assume it's something in New York that Google bought. So, not at all news for nerds and certainly nothing that matters.

    2. Re:Instant confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already bought Chelsea Clinton...

    3. Re:Instant confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, "Stuff that matters" doesn't just fit into your bubble of ignorance.

  5. Corporarocracy by aussie_a · · Score: 0

    Google is looking for special rules and more influence over both local and national politics. How long until Americans realise their country is slowly becoming a corporarocracy?

    1. Re:Corporarocracy by youngone · · Score: 1

      How long until Americans realise their country is slowly becoming a corporarocracy?

      I think that ship has sailed, these guys agree with me and did some research into the subject.

      Of course your question is a good one, and I don't know the answer because the one thing America does really well is propaganda.

    2. Re:Corporarocracy by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It isn't just the US. Corporations rule the world. These are international corporations, not US.

    3. Re:Corporarocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any historian observes ... shoot a dozen hi-muckymuk GOOGLE bosses and watch the ocracy melt . If simultaneous to TWITTER/FB/AT&T/AMAZON/WALMART all the sticks fall down. Local 5&dime and local ISPs rule again.

    4. Re: Corporarocracy by kenh · · Score: 1

      Isn't Google/Alphabet an international company?

      --
      Ken
    5. Re: Corporarocracy by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      when convenient. it really depends who they are seeking rents from.

  6. They're going to fly a self driving plane into it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Google Chrome Drone.

  7. One more place not to go to: Chelsea Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's getting harder and harder to avoid things Google, but trundle on, I will. Oh, wait! I think I already solved this problem by becoming an expat.

  8. How stupid by kenh · · Score: 1

    Alphabet's aggressive expansion in New York follows a growing trend of tech giants taking over cities.

    WTF? It one company buying one facility - was there a similar outpouring of rage when Wall Street 'took over' NYC? When Publishing 'took over' NYC? Or what about when Broadcast networks 'took over' NYC? Let's not forget about the Fashion industry 'taking one's NYC...

      "Aggressive expansion"? Puh-leze.

    --
    Ken
  9. Where is the FTC? by mike2006 · · Score: 1

    Google should be broken up into pieces yet another day another loss for competition. Do we even have an FTC anymore, what a joke.

  10. Stop that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Googoos pawent cuntpunny aphabet", NOBODY calls Google "Alphabet", people at GOOGLE don't call it "Alphabet", ANYONE calling it "Alphabet" gets told "Stop being a cunt, it's Google". Google is Google, not "awfabet". Stop keeling to their obvious rebranding in wake of controversy. This is no different from corrupt companies changing their name to distract people from their fuckups. Shit by any name still stinks.

  11. Who is "Chelsea Market" by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    And why is she so expensive?

  12. Silicon Alley 2.0! by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing that the main reason people are complaining is that they think Google is going to further drive up rents in NYC. Living near NYC, I can tell you that's not possible. San Francisco/SV is the only real estate market that is crazier in the US. Unless you want to live in a shoebox 400 ft^2 apartment, the average worker isn't going to be buying Midtown Manhattan real estate.

    Are they worried that there's going to be an influx of 50,000 Googlers who are going to be demanding $300K+ to work there? I can see that...but it's not going to change anything. NYC is the home of the investment banking industry, where kids fresh out of MBA school are making millions a year. There's celebrities, corporate executives, etc. and the place is just swimming in money. Google AND Amazon coming in might make a further dent, but I doubt it. All it'd do is make the already unobtainable real estate further out of reach.

    For those who don't remember Dotcom Bubble 1.0, there was a sizable chunk of craziness in NYC, and it was dubbed Silicon Alley. This was because Bubble 1.0 was all about getting the traditional publishers and media companies hooked in. What I wonder is whether Bubble 2.0 has enough air left for Google's move to make any dent.