Personally, all else being equal, I think two small is better than one big. It is somewhat less efficient but more diversified and therefore less risky. Also, you will make mistakes twice as often for half the cost, which is a valuable education. Especially if you intend to grow. Going from 2 to 3 is a bolt on acquisition, whereas from one to two you have all the problems as zero to two so why not take the big plunge early.
How many spaces each? How difficult is it going to be to have management cover both sites?
Otherwise, I like the spread of risk and the fact you could focus on improving one at a time and applying lessons from one to another as @Brandon suggested.