Is it suppose to be better because it "looks" better because with my minimal understanding there isn't a difference.
When the company owns the properties, that ceases to be the case, as there is no conflict of interest between property owner and occupier as they are one and the same.
He is (and was) still always legally obliged to act bona-fide in the interest of the company (i.e., act as much for the benefit of minority shareholders as his own).
It was just harder to scrutinise when he was both the majority shareholder of the company, and landlord for some of its properties. That is no longer the case.
Now, if WeWork goes belly up, Neumann doesn't get to keep the buildings.