With Uptown Station’s opening already pushed back to the second quarter of 2018 due to design changes, Uber is now looking to sublet up to half of the 300,000 square feet of future office space at the former Sears Building in Uptown Oakland which it purchased for $123.5 million in 2015.

At the same time, Uber has made an equity investment in the 580,000 square feet of office space that’s being developed as part of the Warriors’ Chase Center development along Third Street in San Francisco’s Mission Bay, across the street from Uber’s 410,000 square foot future worldwide headquarters campus which should be ready for occupancy by the end of next year.

And according to the Business Times, Uber is planning to occupy at least half of the Chase Center office space when it opens in mid-2019 and has an option for the other 50 percent as well.

143 thoughts on “Uber Slows its Roll in Oakland, Doubles Down in San Francisco”
  1. The Warriors are doing everything they can to further harm Oakland economically. These were 3,000 jobs which were heading to Oakland and have now been poached by the Warriors. The Warriors ownership is on par with Uber ownership for their lack of integrity.

    1. It’s called a free(ish) economy/market sir. I’m bummed about this too but Oakland can’t get it together with its sports franchises, meanwhile mission bay is growing like bonkers. Kinda makes sense that uber may want more presence there vs uptown, which, as much as I love, wont be on the same level as MB as it continues to build out. Especially as the giants parking lot gets going.

      1. True, but what’s even more sad is that the Uber site in Oakland is right on top of a major BART station, while the MB site will have to live with the 1-car Rice-A-Roni T-line

          1. who needs bart when you have Uber?

            Thinking like this is why the Bay Area continues to spiral down. As for taking the MB Ferry, I’m assuming you expect folks to Uber to the ferry terminal in Marin or the East Bay.

        1. There is no better transit friendly location than the Sear building in Oakland. Also, we know that the majority of Uber employees already live in the East Bay.

          1. I think you mean in 2015 ~20% of Uber employees lived in the eastbay. Ubercab was founded in 2009. In 2005 Travis Kaladick was a Swooshdude and Garret Camp was StumblingUpon.

      2. This is about Uber reneging on a promise made to Oakland. Uber made a commitment to bring up to 3,000 employees to downtown Oakland only to be sweet talked out of the deal by the equally despicable Warrior organization. The economy in DTO was heavily invested in having Uber in the area. To make matters worse we will have a San Francisco company, with SF real estate to market, as a landlord in Oakland controlling leasing activity for an entire city block. The poaching of Uber by the Warriors is just another devastating blow the Warriors have thrown at their loyal host city of 45 years.

      3. There are over 20 high rise towers in various stages of development in the Oakland pipeline. Most of these towers are under a 1/4 of a mile to the Uptown Station development that Uber is pushing aside in favor of the Warriors Mission Bay development.

          1. Uber realizes that Oakland is a dump. They decided to stay mostly on our side of the Bay. Suck it E!

      4. If by “can’t get it together” you mean “can’t stomach the idea of subsidizing an incredibly profitable sports team’s billion-dollar arena with taxpayer money,” then yes, and thank god Oakland can’t “get it together.” I wish more cities would fail to “get it together” because that breed of corporate welfare bullshit is particularly disgusting to those of us with better civic priorities.

        1. Very true. Las Vegas is allowing itself to be ripped off by Mark Davis and the NFL. Oakland is smart not to cave. I want to see Oakland invest in city making. I would love to see better maintained parks, more interesting plazas and public spaces, more bike infrastructure, walkable neighborhoods, new interesting architecture with plenty of street level activity, newly paved streets, etc.. Let Las Vegas blow 750 million and get zero back for it with the exception of a few drunks tailgating on Sundays 8 times per year.

    2. Yes, the owners of the Warriors are sitting around a table to plot the demise of Oakland. Really?

      They are taking equity in a project right across the street from their new Headquarters building. Makes perfect sense. The 200-300 employees that will work in Oakland will probably be from the East Bay. It makes me wonder though about all those projected new developments proposed in Oakland and their viability now that Uber is not moving 2k-3k employees.

      1. No, they are just cruel heartless businesses men who exploit Oakland for its arena and central location and then devastate the city economically on their way out the door.

        1. If a single company is responsible for the “devastation” of Oakland, then Oakland is pretty weak.

          Their purchase and redevelopment of Uptown Station will be one of the biggest boons to Downtown Oakland in decades.

          1. Now you are assuming that they will put all their energy in drawing tenants to the Uptown Station project in Oakland while at the same time partnering with the Warriors to fill their Mission Bay office space. The Warriors and Uber are despicable and irresponsible companies who are doing economic harm to Oakland.

          2. Who is going to be responsible for leasing the Oakland property? Is it Mission Bay Uber and the Warriors?

      1. Ah yes, what can compare to the grandest, most problem free boulevard in the entire world — Market St., San Francisco.

        1. Yes, Market St., which is plagued with looting and violence every time something is protested or celebrated… oh wait, no, that’s Telegraph/Broadway/any commercial street in Oakland.

      2. San Francisco’s downtown in inundated with crime. SF in general has the highest rate of crime per square mile of any big city in the United States. That would be 55,000 official crimes divided by 49sq. miles. Also, I had no idea that Oakland suffered from “terrible sprawl.” Just more Oakland bashing from the uninformed.

          1. San Francisco has more crime per square mile. Also “dangerous” is subjective and based on how violent crimes other than homicides are classified and reported by different police agencies. When you buy a home does the neighborhood crime map give you a per capita count of crimes near your house or does it show you the number of crimes near your house? San Francisco is a crime ridden place with far more crimes per square mile than Oakland. The “Oakland is dangerous” nonsense has ben used for decades by SF interests who want to marginalized Oakland for their own financial gain.

        1. and youre just a non stop cheerleader for oakland. your comments do nothing to add to the dialogue; im surprised people still respond to your comments, the content of which is always the same

        2. And crime is measured per capita – i.e. how big are your chances as an individual of getting mugged in Oakland vs any other city – mine would be zero because I never go to Oakland.

          1. When you buy a home and look at the crime map of your future neighborhood, does it show you the crimes in the area surrounding your house or does it give you the per capita crime rate for your street and neighborhood?

          2. I look at the FBI stats… Oakland still has the highest per capita crime rate in California.

          3. Per capita crime rates for entire cities mean nothing regarding specific areas or neighborhoods. That’s why per capita rates are not used when looking at neighborhood crime maps.

          4. I agree that there are large variances within each city, but crime is still measured relative to population. Otherwise SF would be highest in all types of statistics because of the high population density.

          5. Crimes per square mile is far more useful as way to measure crime. If you are in the middle of the desert and there are zero inhabitants per square mile then your chances of being a victim of crime in that square mile are zero. A square mile in San Francisco would have the most number of crimes of any other square mile of any other large city in the United States. This tells me that per square mile, SF had the most crime and that anyone in one of those square miles is surrounded by more crime than any other city in the U.S..

          6. Funny that the person from the most dangerous city in California wants to change the way that crime is measured…

          7. Most of the violent crime is in East Oakland mister, which is avoidable if you don’t need to go there. Do a little research before bashing an entire city. My Oakland neighborhood is safer than Hayes Valley/Castro in San Francisco. Stop it with your smug attitude.

          8. It’s interesting that most of Oakland is far safer than the neighborhood around Eddy & Turk in the very heart of downtown San Francisco a mere two blocks from posh Union Square. Amazing how certain people in SF attempt to fear monger Oakland in the face of this glaring fact.

          9. E Gonsalves is definitely in it to win it. Denial, that is. I fled from SF in summer 2014, bought a place in Fruitvale — the city below 580 and south of the lake is a pit of despair.

            Don’t kid yourself with stupid attempts at cooking the crime stats, E.G., the vibe in much of Oakland remains fear and toxic resentment borne of 50+ years of divestment and “no f____s given” attitude.

            Oakland. Is. An uncivilized. DUMP.

            Don’t move here if you can possibly avoid it.

          10. Some guy, you should have moved to the Tenderloin instead. The 5 fastest appreciating neighborhoods in all of the Bay Area are all in Oakland and three of them are near the Fruitvale neighborhood. You want to see filth and despair, take a walk around 6th Street, Eddy, Turk, 16th & Mission, all in San Francisco.

          11. Some guy, some of the great neighborhoods east of Lake Merritt and below 580 include Hadon Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Ivy Hill, Gingletown, San Antonio, Maxwell Park, Millsmont, and many more. Please stop making things up.

  2. Woo, quick getting this story out, SocketSite. Still waiting on y’all to report on the Blue Shield relocation to Oakland.

    1. The headline is out-of-order, as the main story is about the new investment Uber is making in SF, not the old one they are regretting in Oakland.

      1. Jake, the beginning and end of this story is Uber flailing around as the company burns down around them.

        1. Perhaps, though whatever their eventual fate Uber does have enough cash to make embarrassing mistakes for a few more years. May as well make one of them burning enough investor cash to fix up a lovely old building in a prime Oakland location. With a little luck it will be ready for a suitable occupant in a year or two even if Uber never occupies any of it.

          Hundreds of buildings got fixed/seismic in SF/SoMa in the dotcom, many of them hardly used, like the Pets.com hq that shares a parking lot with REI. Those refurbed buildings made it that much easier/affordable for the waves of companies since. We build on the charred remains of the fallen, be they Pets.com, Uber, or Sears.

          1. It will be one of many rehabbed buildings other way or recently completed, including the Latham Square building, 1330 Broadway parking garage conversion, Leamington Building, Kapor Center, etc. etc. etc.

          2. I’m with you, Jake. I’m thankful that the venture capital gods rained cash on Uber, and they rained cash on the poor neglected Sears building. Assuming they complete the task, Oakland will profit whether they occupy or not.

        2. LOL. Google Naked Capitalism. Uber is a prime example of predatory (verging on criminal) Randian tech a-holes trying to sneak through a monopoly.

          Watch the rats continue to flee the festering garbage scow of a ship.

  3. Forget Oakland, this story is about Uber and how they can’t quite embrace the fact that they are ruined. It’s been obvious for months that Uber will never occupy the Oakland site, because there’s no future for an Uber with their current cost structure. The only way they come out of 2017 as a company is be retreating into their profitable markets (SF, essentially; Juno is killing them in New York) and firing almost everybody on the growth/money-igniting side of the company. They will need about 1/10th of their current office space.

      1. Oh yeah, an American taxi company that makes most of their money overseas even though they got screwed out of China and are getting stomped in India? In my Wall Street career when we heard that kind of reasoning from management we would run, not walk, out of the meeting and short their stock as soon as we got back to our desks.

        1. I read their two biggest markets are Mexico City and Sao Paolo. It’s not entirely crazy. As bad as municipal taxis can be in the US, it’s easy to imagine they are worse in cities like that. Also those cities are enormous.

          1. I was in Mexico City earlier this year and Uber (with one glaring exception) was a great aide.

          2. It’s possible that that those are their largest markets and they don’t make money there. In June the CEO told FT that Uber operates at a profit in North America, Australia, Europe, and Africa, but left out South America. It is also possible that Latin America loses money while US/Canada makes enough to bring the continent to breaking even. In Brazil and Argentina Uber has severe problems with both the law, and lawlessness. Courts there ruled that Uber drivers are employees, and there have been scores of murders that target drivers. Uber essentially makes and distributes an application that will summon a guy in a nice car to any location, which isn’t that great of an idea in many locales.

          3. They definitely have problems. But it’s easy to imagine Uber being superior to taxis in a variety of places, from Cairo to to Moscow.

            My actual point was not about individual cities, but that Uber may be stronger overseas, so its popularity in specific US markets may not be a worthwhile gauge.

          4. definitely not sao paulo. ive been there 8 times in the last 2 years. Uber drivers have also been murdered by taxi drivers there. uber has increased in SP, but cant be the biggest market.

    1. How do you “forget Oakland” when Uber promised 3,000 jobs in Uptown and then colluded with the Warriors to go back on that promise? There are many projects in the pipeline in Uptown Oakland due to Uber’s commitment to bring up to 3,000 jobs to downtown Oakland.

      1. Uber didn’t commit to anything and anyone who builds based on (non-contractual) promises made by corporate executives is a moron. Anybody can look at Uber and conclude that a company that loses an absurd amount of money and has to raise huge amounts of cash every year might not survive.

        1. Then why are they investing in more San Francisco real estate. Uber/Warriors/Chase are birds of a feather. No integrity.

          1. Why would the employers protest being in the vibrant Oakland Uptown neighborhood right on top of the 19th Street station and much closer to their homes? This is just some Uber/Warrior collusion to bring more people from the East Bay, bypass Oakland, and head to less transportation friendly and more congested Mission Bay.

          2. there is nothing vibrant about oakland when comparing it to SF, excpet for maybe the sideshows

          3. I might’ve missed something– where did the information come from that says that “the majority of Uber employees already live in the East Bay.”

          4. Also, Oakland not vibrant? It’s culturally rich being the most ethnically diverse city in America, and has a much more vibrant art scene than San Francisco.

          5. “Why would the employers protest being in the vibrant Oakland Uptown neighborhood right on top of the 19th Street station and much closer to their homes? This is just some Uber/Warrior collusion to bring more people from the East Bay, bypass Oakland, and head to less transportation friendly and more congested Mission Bay.”

            Because Oakland will always be second best in the Bay, and not the *ideal* place to be.

            1 – It’s the San Francisco Bay Area, not Oakland Bay Area
            2 – SF has cache, it has swag, it has prestige and a history people care about.. OAK doesn’t.
            3 – Generally speaking, people move to OAK because they can’t afford SF.
            4 – Commercial property is cheaper than it was a few years ago. Uber kept making tons of money, and SF became a bit more discounted in price – so they jumped at the opportunity.

          6. That Dude, First of all, the area is named after a body of water, not the city of San Francisco. The area now known as SF, was called Yerba Buena long before it was named after the San Francisco Bay.

            Second, SF has no “swag.” Oakland has much more swag than corporate and stuffy SF. Oakland is now seen as the hipper cooler artsy city.

            Oakland also has a better central location to the entire Bay Area and to Northern CA tourist attractions. Oakland is closer to Tahoe, Napa, and Monterey. Oakland also has better weather, more BART stops, a better Zoo, better religious architecture with the Mormon Temple, Christ The Light Cathedral, Greek Orthodox Church, etc. Oakland also has the Bay Area’s most convenient airport, which unlike “San Francisco” Airport, is within city limits.

            Also, Oakland recently beat out San Francisco in the number of restaurants per capita as well as in various other categories. In short, Oakland is a cooler city with more culture, a great foodie scene, great topography with fantastic views, better weather in a more central location with great transportation. I forgot to mention that real estate in Oakland is appreciating much faster than real estate in San Francisco.

          7. yeah, very unfair to rank Oakland 2nd best in the Bay Area. Probably not even in the top 20, municipality-income-crime-etc-wise. BTW, the new-new stats show Oakland rents declining, not rising, but that may be a mere blimp on the long path to the parisification of the Jersey side of the bay.

          8. So based on your criteria San Francisco is not in the top 20. We are talking about big cities here in the Bay Area and are not comparing them to some fufu little homogeneous rich towns in the suburbs. I happen to think that Oakland is a far greater place than a small suburban towns like Danville, San Ramon or Dublin. I also think that San Francisco is a better place than Daly City or Atherton.

          9. You don’t know my criteria, but feel free to make it up, as usual. For the subject at issue: whither employers; you betcha Oakland is way way way down on the list of Bay Area municipalities. And I say this as someone actively looking for office space in Oakland and other bayarean locales. Ever hear of Palo Alto, Mt View, and the sunny vales of the Santa Clara Valley?

            While I don’t agree with all that thatdude wrote, the gist of it, that many of the those locating to Oakland settle for it when they are priced out of far more desirable Bay Area cities, is undeniable, has been true for generations, and likely will be true way past when any of us are around to remark upon it.

          10. Some may “settle for Oakland” not because Oakland is inferior to Santa Clara or Redwood City in weather, central location, restaurants, charm, transportation, etc.. Oakland is simply undervalued in certain minds do to misinformation, a completely distorted image, and prejudices against certain demographics.

          11. Oakland is simply overvalued in certain minds do to misinformation, a completely distorted image, … , e.g. E. Gonsalves.

          12. The market has spoken, and continue to speaks, E. Gonsalves. People *as a whole* value Oakland less than they value SF or the Silicon Valley. That’s why it’s much cheaper. It’s that simple. That doesn’t mean you can’t value it more. There are people happy as a clam in Alaska, but the majority of people don’t want to live in Alaska, which is why it’s cheaper. I have numerous friends who are renting in SF who want to stay, but will have to buy in Oakland because it’s the only place they can afford.

          13. Yes, the market is speaking as homes in Oakland appreciated nearly 10% in the last 12 months compared to 1% in SF, according to Zillow. Oakland homes are also snapped up faster than any city in the Bay Area with an average 15 days on the market. Oakland is viewed by some through a very inaccurate prizm of prejudice, slanted media coverage, etc. The great qualities of Oakland as a city and location are now being discovered hence the faster home value appreciation and the incredible appetite for snapping up Oakland properties in just 15 days. Oakland is gaining fast on stagnating San Francisco.

          14. as usual, Oakland is among the last to the party and will be among the first to leave when the economy softens. BTW, the latest stats show rents dropping in Oakland. And Oakland isn’t and never has been a “big” city.

          15. According to Zillow, the median home price is 670k in Oakland and 1.2M in SF. You can talk about growth rates all you want, but a home in SF has twice the value of one in Oakland. People as a whole value living in SF more, just like they value living in Oakland more than Vallejo.

        2. They didn’t commit? They sure did when they bought the building and said they were excited to move into it upon completion and be part of uptown Oakland and the community.

          1. They certainly committed before the traitorous Warrior organization got in their ear and poached 3,000 jobs away from Oakland. Oakland should refuse any Warrior request for any extension at Oracle.

          2. That was PR, not a “commit”. Anyone paying attention should know Uber isn’t bound by fidelity to the delicate social norms of your “safe” and “placid” Oakfantasyland. You guys should check that your sour grapes may have fermented.

          3. I think Oakland should lock the Warriors out of Oracle Arena for their poaching of 3,000 jobs and further harming Oakland’s economy. Would that be “sour grapes” or a proper response to an undermining of an Oakland neighborhood?

          4. yeah, violate a contract, undermine Oakland’s credibility, and end up paying the Warriors damages. I think your thoughtless thinking would undermine Oakland far more than anything the Warriors could ever do.

          5. The Warriors are a disgrace and should be called out for their irresponsible corporate behavior. This wealthy organization has gotten much wealthier on Oakland’s back and now poached 3,000 more jobs on the way out of town. They even refuse to pay the 60 million owed on the bonds used to renovate Oracle Arena. How does Lacob live with himself?

          6. Lacob is living much more comfortably since he bought the Warriors a oneway ticket outta Oakland, thanks for askin.

        3. Within Oakland’s 670,000 median home value are the still inexpensive homes in parts of East Oakland.

          The truth of the matter is, there are neighborhoods in Oakland such as Crocker Highlands 1.5 million, Upper Rockridge 1.4 million, Montclair 1.1 million Claremont hills, 1.6 million, Rockridge 1.3 million, Temescal 900,000, etc. where residents could afford San Francisco but choose Oakland.

          As a matter of fact, if you took home values in Oakland as everything west of Park Blvd along with everything above 580, Oakland’s median would be over a million dollars. So in conclusion people with enough money to pay San Francisco’s median home value, and above, are instead choosing to live in Oakland.

          Personally, if I were to spend a million dollars on a home, I would spend it in Oakland instead of San Francisco. That one million would give you a better investment, a better property, and a better quality of life for the money.

          1. SF has six times as many $ million plus homes as Oakland, per US Census ACS (Table B25075). SF has more homes worth $ million plus than Oakland has homes worth $250k plus. SF has 60% more homes worth more than $2 million than Oakland has worth more than $1 million. San Francisco is also much wealthier than Oakland; having a median household income about 50% higher than Oakland, and a much lower poverty rate (~12% SF to ~20% Oakland). Those are the truths of the matter of facts that supports and sustains the higher residential RE prices.

            Personally, if you were to spend a million dollars on a home, I would hope you would spend it in Oakland instead of San Francisco. That would give me a better investment, a better property, and a better quality of life for your money, given as I would still live in SF. Nice to know we agree on that.

          2. San Francisco’s poverty rate is actually higher than Oakland’s when you consider the cost of living in San Francisco. SF has more poor people than Oakland although Oak has more per capita. In reality anyone making under 50,000 per year in San Francisco is basically living in poverty regardless of the official national poverty rate.

          3. San Francisco does have more poor people than Oakland because it has so many more people, but it has a much lower percentage of population that is poor. Those are the facts. All the rest of what you just wrote is alt-fact BS unsupported by any actual facts or analysis. If you want to compare SF and Oakland living costs for low income households then you are going to have to account for the myriad of income and housing support programs in both cities and how they affect “poverty.” In reality, you’ve just made up more nonsense to avoid the debunking of your previous nonsense.

          4. San Francisco is more populated than Oakland. One of the reasons are the jobs downtown and the fact that it’s so difficult to get in and out of San Francisco. Many people have to live in San Francisco out of necessity rather than desirability or popularity. Also, the homeless stats are real facts.

          5. SF has always been more populated than Oakland, even when much of SF was destroyed by fire ~110 years ago. Jobs are more concentrated in SF CBD because it is a more productive place to work than the eastbay. Uber’s decision to invest further in SF despite having already purchased this building in a prime Oakland location is yet another of thousands of examples. It certainly isn’t because they think it is “necessary” for 20-25% of their employees to move from the eastbay to Mission Bay or Bayview.

            More people commute into SF to work than there are employed residents of Oakland. Far more people have chosen to move to Fremont than Oakland for at least the past 30 years. Oakland has lost the competition for CBD growth and job growth and population growth to other Bay Area cities for at least two generations. Nothing in your rather pathetic lists of the glories of Oakland challenge those facts.

            Your weird claims about understanding why people live where they live is just more evidence of your being way out of your depth. Mixing the occasional “real fact” in with your unreal non-facts and childish analysis doesn’t make your BS anymore realworld than a children’s fairytale that mentions wolves have sharp teeth.

        1. I wouldn’t open that 1-800-iask-JWB line just yet: you made your comment AFTER they’d already announced a major retrenchment…I’m always right about the sun rising in the morning, too (except last Monday, I guess).

  4. In other news the President of Uber quits – will be interesting to see if Uber is still around when the Chase Center is completed.

  5. I agree: the headline makes it sound like a “go for broke” gamblers move. Meanwhile Uber transitions from the money-losing transportation field to the riskless world of real-estate speculation…adult guidance, indeed.

  6. The balkanization in the Bay Area (Oakland vs SF, SV vs the rest of the BA) is ridiculous and self-defeating to the region. The Bay Area is losing out to other metros which have their act together. Washington DC is already planning how it would spend any potential stimulus money of a major expansion of its metro. The Bay Area? The Central Subway is one example of questionable allocation of limited transportation infrastructure resources within the region. .

    Uber may not be around in its present form and with its current workforce level for long – which could make this change irrelevant in the long run and not a gain for SF. More empty office space during a time when absorption is falling and vacancy rates rising. SV may lose tech concentration over time, the Port of Oakland is now number 4 on the West Coast. Behind Seattle-Tacoma and LA and Long Beach – in a common sense act of regional cooperation the Port of Seattle and of Tacoma merged not that long ago. A region that knows how?.

    The region has enough potential long term problems that make any debate about Uber/SF/Oakland silly.

    1. When anyone talks about “regional cooperation” it usually involves the San Francico taking over things and other major cities like Oakland losing power and identity. There is a recent article describing SF attempts at annexing Oakland back in 1912. Oakland and the East Bay said no way. The problem as seen by the Warriors/Uber agreement to stiff Oakland out of a promised 3,000 jobs, is San Francisco greed.

    2. You could literally read newspaper articles from 100 years ago describing how the Bay Area’s divided government presented problems in managing growth.

      This is nothing new.

      1. True – but its 100 years on and, as many other regions get their regional acts together, it will have long term negative consequences on this region. LA last year passed a huge bond issue for regional transportation. In a decade LA could well have a better, more efficient and certainly more seamless transportation system than the Bay Area. Seattle has an aggressive affordable housing program with the goal of avoiding the affordability crisis of the BA – to accommodate major population and job growth while retaining affordability.

        In this light, the Uber arguments that center around us vs them are unfortunate and they exemplify why this region has a hard time getting its act together.


        1. True that our transportation system is weak. BART’s governance is particularly bad. How much did they blow on that Oakland airport connector instead of engineering studies for another Transbay tube?

          1. $400M +/- . But BART’s problem isn’t capital spending – or lack thereof – it’s the absurd and unsustainable spending on compensation and benefits. The OAK shuttle is automated…hopefully an inspiration for the rest of the system.

          2. Anything that benefits growth in Oakland is bad while any infrastructure to get more people to San Francisco is deemed as good.

          3. What are you talking about?

            The Oakland Airport Connector is a waste of money and another Transbay Tube helps the whole region

          4. The Oakland Airport Connector is a great modern, clean transportation asset which links the airport to most of the region. Growth at Oakland International has skyrocketed since the connector came online. Oakland now has the third most international flights, behind only LAX and SFO in California. Oakland is the fourth largest airport in passenger volume in CA. The connector is awesome. Uber has harmed ridership.

          5. …..forgot to point out that it’s also more expensive and slower than the buses, which I took dozens of times between BART and the airport.

            Waste of money

          6. It is not slower than the buses. I’ve taken it before. It’s an easy walk on the platform from the Coliseum Station. No need to even come downstairs after exiting the regular BART train. The ride is very smooth and even scenic with a view of the Bay and Oakland hills and takes about 6 minutes.

          7. They didn’t blow anything. They never envisioned a ride-sharing company popping up a percentage of their anticipated ridership, just like Taxi Companies never saw it coming.

          8. Scenic??? We are talking about oakland. The only beautiful scenery is the skyline across the bay

          9. Spencer, yes Oakland is scenic. You should leave the concrete and stuck together houses every once in a while and explore green, scenic, Oakland.

  7. Such a bunch of haters. Pile in as you sit behind your desk, sneaking in a quick read of this blog while you work 9 to 5. How is that financial model and/or drawings going? That’s right. You still work for the man and take Uber when you go out Friday night.

  8. I do think it will be fascinating what happens with Uber. Without details on their equity stake there isn’t a lot to talk about other than they are committed to another large lease obligation. Reminds of banks being too big too fail, so much money and large banks behind them to win the battle on transportation.

  9. I’m not overly concerned about Uber NOT moving to Oakland, with the proviso that I hope they finish the Sears Building reno on schedule. Right now there is a great deal of demand for Class A office space in Oakland, and this will be a great addition to the supply. Whoever occupies, it will be a million times better than Sears.

    1. Uber will control the leasing of Uptown Station. Can you imagine the conflict of interest in aggressively promoting that location when they have more expensive space to help lease in Mission Bay. This is horrible for Oakland. Uber should just sell that property and divest out of Oakland just like the Warriors are doing. They should take a cue from their equally unscrupulous business partner.

        1. Conflict of interest? How about funneling prospective tenants to their San Francisco space instead of their Oakland office space? How about possibly stopping development and taking Oakland office space they already own off the market in order to take away an option for possible tenants. I don’t trust Uber. These “few hundred employees” may be just a way to try to save face for now. Keep an eye on the progress at Uptown Station.

          1. Yes! They will funnel prospective tenants to SF and try to get those tenants to pay higher rent. If they can’t pay the higher rent, Uber will offer them Oakland. That’s what companies do when they sublet space. That’s not a conflict of interest.

          2. So you admit that Uber will harm the Oakland office market by taking tenants to their SF properties instead of Uptown Station? We agree on this.

          3. You write as if Uber or any other compnay has some kind of moral obligation to “do the right thing” even if it means taking a hit financially. Why is it any of Uber’s concern whether tenants are funneled to SF office space from Oakland or vice versa? Uber’s going to do what’s best for Uber. This is called “capitalism,” a concept which is nearly on par with outright racial slurs here in the crypto-communist Left coast. SAD! (trump reference is sarcastic people, relax, I voted for Her.)

          4. That’s not harming the Oakland market. That’s how every single landlord on earth operates.

          5. Yes, every land lord with majority San Francisco interest who also controls Oakland real estate.

          6. The landlord will try to make the best of their investment, no matter which city it is in. Vacancies does not help them get a return on capital – it has nothing to do with Oakland or San Francisco.

      1. Sounds like sour grapes upon your part.. SF has lost dozens of Corporate Companies over they years but we move on and don’t cry about it. Suggest you do the same.

  10. One wonders what kind of a break, if any, Uber got on the 290K feet it plans to occupy?

    Demand for SF office space has been falling with net office absorption the lowest since 2010 for the first 3 quarters of 2016 IIRC. Late last year there was something like 4.5 million feet of vacant space and over a million feet on the sub-lease space on the market. That will be added to by the large chunk of space that will be vacated by Blue Shield.

    Perhaps the developer is worried about being abe to lease all the space and is giving Uber a break as a fail safe? The Parc comes on-line about the time these offices will and there are other developments too. The Salesforce tower has about 500K feet available. So far there has been no big lease signed there beyond SF – though there are reports Accenture might sign a significant lease.

    Positioning going on by Uber, but maybe too by the Chase Center developers?

    1. As the article stated, Uber purchased an equity investment in the new development so in essence, they are part owners. No need to fret, as you usually do.

      1. Not fretting, just analyzing the move by both entities. Uber taking an equity interest reduces the developer’s risk for instance. A big part of that risk is the drop in office space demand in SF and the possibility (probability?) it continues for the next 3/4/5/6 years. Couple that with the existing 5.5 million feet of available space which will be added to significantly by the Parc and the “claw” (the claw alone will have 1.1 million feet of offices) there could be a large glut of office space coming. Looking at this move in that overarching context helps to make sense of things.

        1. The drop in the demand is related to the high cost involved. So, if there is a drop in cost by the developer to fill their space, demand will increase as it is cheaper to rent. This is the meaning of supply and demand. I did read that there is approximately 3 million sq feet of demand by companies looking in SF.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *