Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

therbler t1_j0vg2h3 wrote

Reply to comment by Cunninghams_right in Pandora Moving North American Headquarters From Baltimore to NYC by mightyIllusion

> this is exactly what I'm talking about. people keep thinking of this as a 1-dimensional problem of more/less of our existing law enforcement

No dude, this is exactly and specifically what you're doing. The answer to "why is a Danish company moving its US HQ to Times Square?" is only "free Tile trackers!" if you got slapped on the back at the wrong moment during a TED talk in 2014 or so.

The NYC property's going to be 1/3 the size of their square footage in Baltimore. Given what the last 2-3 years have been like specifically in terms of commercial real estate, it's reasonable to think this would be playing out the same way even if we'd built out the entire Baltimore metro network and most people were commuting in via transit.

−6

Cunninghams_right t1_j0vlrno wrote

none of what you said makes any sense.

10

therbler t1_j0vpgby wrote

What part? The link's to the Commercial Observer about a pretty normal corporate relo. You've decided that this supports your (amply expressed) preexisting worldview, and I'm laughing at both the underlying leap in logic and the specific application here.

But please, correct me if I'm wrong: is there anything to suggest that this has anything to do with crime other than your/one's personal fixation on crime?

−1

Cunninghams_right t1_j0vvvwq wrote

>The answer to "why is a Danish company moving its US HQ to Times Square?" is only "free Tile trackers!"

first off, I said that relocations happen often, but that we have to think about making sure the city is a place where people want to live and work since we don't know the motivations of moving, which may include the perception of the city by prospective employees.

second, I gave multiple examples of things we should be considering, not one, and I did not imply that the examples I gave were an exhaustive list.

>if you got slapped on the back at the wrong moment during a TED talk in 2014 or so.

is lacking any explanation, and the the implied explanation wouldn't even make any sense. if you want to illustrate a point, explain the point and support it, don't just make flippant allusions and expect it to be taken as a serious and coherent argument. well, if you're arguing just to hear your own argument, then that is fine. if you want to have a discussion or to add any value, then form a coherent argument with your reply.

>The NYC property's going to be 1/3 the size of their square footage in Baltimore.

and you give no explanation as to why the size of the space should matter so much. are you saying that baltimore has no office space for rent that is 1/3rd of the size of their current offices? you don't explain, so it makes no sense.

>Given what the last 2-3 years have been like specifically in terms of commercial real estate, it's reasonable to think this would be playing out the same way even if we'd built out the entire Baltimore metro network and most people were commuting in via transit

I don't think you can make that assumption. if it was easier, safer, and more pleasant to work in the city, I think companies would be more inclined to have offices here. you just state that for "real estate reasons" the demand for baltimore office space would have nothing to do with transit and imply that it would have nothing to do with the city's reputation, public safety, or general livability/workability of the city. I don't think that makes sense because I think it should be obvious that those things do have an impact, and you did not explain why the real estate market would obviate those factors.

so, each of your points don't make sense. maybe you can make them make sense, but as-stated, they're not adding anything to the conversation.

9