Structural vacancy revisited – are user demands changing? Hilde Remøy and Philip Koppels 13-4-2015 Delft University of Technology Challenge the future Overview • • • • Increased vacancy risk Quality and obsolescence Quantitative study of supply Qualitative study of demand Structural Vacancy Revisited 2 Research objective 7 million m2 vacant in the Dutch office market X 1000 m2 lettable floor area Total supply 7 500 6 500 5 500 4 500 3 500 2 500 Total absorption 1 500 500 Net absorption 2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999 1997 1995 1993 1991 -1 500 1989 - 500 Structural Vacancy Revisited 3 Research objective Vacancy risk becomes a threat to value • structural vacancy: vacancy of the same space for 3 years or more • Office user preferences important: push, pull and keep factors • Physical characteristics of vacant offices represent ‘veto criteria’ for office users • Are user preferences changing? Structural Vacancy Revisited 4 Data and method Characteristics of vacant offices / user preferences Leegstand in Amsterdam • Logistic regressions: 30% vacancy, studying 200 office buildings in Amsterdam in the period 2005-2010 • In depth interviews with 15 office organisations Structural Vacancy Revisited 5 Data and method Selection of characteristics • Literature study of characteristics that influence user preferences: Baum 1991, 1997, Bottom et. al. 1998, Korteweg 2002, Louw 1996 • Delphi study, interviewing office accommodation advisors: Remøy and Koppels 2007, showing the importance of functional and image characteristics of location and building • Extensive list of location and building characteristics • Uni-variate analyses • Testing of several models Structural Vacancy Revisited 6 Characteristics of vacancy Logistic regression model • • • • • • • • • Year of construction Facade material Facade quality Entrance spatiality Structural grid Facade grid Quality of public space Green within 50 metres Workers amenities within 500 metres Structural Vacancy Revisited 7 Structural vacancy in 2005 - Variables in the Equation 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Year of construction 1950-1964 1965-1979 1980-1994 Concrete composite Facade material reference: natural Metal stone Bricks Glass Facade quality Poor quality reference: high Sufficient quality quality High quality street furniture Entrance spatiality Entrance spatiality <8 reference: >15 Entrance spatiality 8-15 Y.o.c reference year: 1995- Grid reference: >7.2m Facade grid reference: >3.6 m Green within 50 m Amenities within 500 m Structural grid <5.6 m Structural grid 5.6-7.2 m Facade grid <1.2 m Facade grid 1.2-3.6 m Constant Exp(B) .542 -.538 .339 1.095 -.245 -.368 -.051 -.867 .329 -.454 -.833 1.720 .584 1.404 2.990 .783 .692 .950 .420 1.389 .635 .435 -.027 -.928 -2.798** Lower Upper .061 .250 .049 .334 .433 .139 .105 .135 .068 .333 .189 .092 .005 11.826 6.928 5.896 20.659 4.401 4.554 6.672 2.586 5.793 2.139 2.045 .974 .395 .869 .114 1.091 1.377 .696 1.980** 7.245 1.143 45.926 1.022 2.780 .555 13.915 .175 1.479 3.406** 30.135 -.677 .508 -1.513 .220 1.803 503.717 p<.1.* p<.05.** p<.01.*** Structural Vacancy Revisited 8 Structural vacancy in 2006 - Variables in the Equation B Year of construction 1950-1964 1965-1979 1980-1994 Concrete composite Facade material reference: natural Metal stone Bricks Glass Y.o.c reference year: 1995- Facade quality reference: high quality Entrance spatiality reference: >15 Poor quality Sufficient quality High quality street furniture Entrance spatiality <8 Entrance spatiality 8-15 Green within 50 m Amenities within 500 m Grid reference: Structural grid <5.6 m >7.2m Structural grid 5.6-7.2 m Facade grid Facade grid <1.2 m reference: >3.6 m Facade grid 1.2-3.6 m Constant -1.460 -.833 -.587 .063 .163 -.940 -.064 Exp(B) .232 .435 .556 1.065 1.177 .391 .938 .602 -.376 -.816 1.825 .687 .442 1.529** 1.029 20.698 .305 .465 .242 .106 .097 7.169 1.949 1.851 .031 -.411 1.158* -.025 .675 -.458 1.031 .663 3.185 .975 1.964 .632 .956 .250 .861 .346 .165 .257 1.112 1.754 11.782 2.746 23.356 1.559 -.847 .429 -1.188** 4.614 95% C.I.for EXP(B) Lower Upper .033 1.635 .084 2.258 .175 1.765 .180 6.285 .242 5.722 .068 2.260 .153 5.766 Structural Vacancy Revisited .961 9 Structural vacancy in 2007 - Variables in the Equation 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Facade material reference: natural stone Year of construction 1950-1964 1965-1979 1980-1994 Concrete composite Metal Bricks Facade quality reference: high quality Poor quality Sufficient quality Y.o.c reference year: 1995- Entrance spatiality reference: >15 Grid reference: >7.2m Facade grid reference: >3.6 m Glass High quality street furniture Entrance spatiality <8 Entrance spatiality 8-15 Green within 50 m Amenities within 500 m Structural grid <5.6 m Structural grid 5.6-7.2 m Facade grid <1.2 m Facade grid 1.2-3.6m Constant Exp(B) Lower Upper -.606 -.367 -.043 -.986 -.365 -1.588* .545 .693 .957 .373 .694 .204 .108 .152 .316 .066 .149 .036 2.757 3.149 2.899 2.111 3.231 1.169 -.416 .660 .113 3.862 2.278*** 2.097*** 9.759 8.143 1.944 1.939 49.003 34.199 -.594 -.452 .552 .637 .204 .184 1.498 2.198 -1.021* .360 .127 1.021 .072** 1.075 1.003 1.152 -.011 .934 .256 .161 -.816* .989 2.545 1.292 1.174 .442 .393 .704 .494 .093 .183 2.492 9.200 3.379 14.880 1.065 -1.470 .230 p<.1.* p<.05.** p<.01.*** Structural Vacancy Revisited 10 Structural vacancy in 2008 - Variables in the Equation B Y.o.c reference 1995Facade material reference: natural stone -1.443 Exp(B) .236 1965-1979 .511 1.668 .456 6.103 1980-1994 -.095 .910 .313 2.647 -2.086** .124 .024 .650 -.989 .372 .088 1.567 -2.825*** .059 .011 .320 -.735 .479 .101 2.273 2.586*** 1.999*** 13.274 7.380 2.863 1.963 61.531 27.739 .559 1.749 .660 4.639 .151 1.163 .371 3.647 -1.025** .359 .133 .970 -.022 .978 .910 1.051 Amenities within 500 m .144 1.155 .466 2.865 Structural grid <5.6 m -.205 .814 .218 3.042 Structural grid 5.6-7.2 m -.039 .962 .408 2.270 -.396 .673 .057 7.973 -.068 .934 .414 2.109 Year of construction 1950-1964 Concrete composite Metal Bricks Glass Facade quality reference: high quality Poor quality Sufficient quality High quality street furniture Entrance spatiality Entrance spatiality <8 reference: low Entrance spatiality 8-15 Green within 50 m Grid reference: >7.2m 95% C.I.for EXP(B) Lower Upper .042 1.326 Facade grid Facade grid <1.2 m reference: >3.6 m Facade grid 1.2-3.6m Constant -1.264 .282 p<.1.* p<.05.** p<.01.*** Structural Vacancy Revisited 11 Structural vacancy in 2009 - Variables in the Equation 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Exp(B) Lower Upper Y.o.c reference 1995Facade material reference: natural stone Facade quality reference: high quality Entrance spatiality reference: low Grid reference: >7.2m Year of construction 1950-1964 1965-1979 1980-1994 Concrete Metal Bricks Glass Poor quality Sufficient quality High quality street furniture Entrance spatiality <8 Entrance spatiality 8-15 Green within 50 m Amenities within 500 m Structural grid <5.6 m Structural grid 5.6-7.2 m Facade grid <1.2 m Facade grid reference: >3.6 m Facade grid 1.2-3.6 m Constant -1.092 .433 -.115 .336 1.542 .891 .065 .425 .311 1.729 5.593 2.556 -1.792** -1.666** -2.318** -2.412** 1.643** 1.262** .167 .189 .098 .090 5.170 3.532 .036 .044 .022 .016 1.293 1.017 .780 .807 .446 .511 20.664 12.263 .821 2.274 .847 6.101 -.073 .930 .297 2.915 -1.173** .309 .117 .816 -.052 .949 .882 1.022 -1.005** .366 .154 -.730 .482 .120 1.939 .117 1.124 .477 2.645 -.962 -.178 .382 .837 .027 .376 5.497 1.862 .281 1.325 .873 p<.1.* p<.05.** p<.01.*** Structural Vacancy Revisited 12 Structural vacancy in 2010 - Variables in the Equation 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Exp(B) Lower Upper Y.o.c reference 1995Facade material reference: natural stone Facade quality reference: high quality Year of construction 1950-1964 1965-1979 1980-1994 .298 1.773 .844 .055 .482 .288 1.611 6.524 2.475 -1.813** -1.924** -2.784*** -1.745** 2.127*** 1.973*** .163 .146 .062 .175 8.387 7.191 .032 .031 .012 .033 1.799 1.823 .830 .685 .322 .927 39.113 28.366 .790 2.204 .808 6.010 -.339 .713 .218 2.330 -1.097** .334 .127 .880 Green within 50 m Amenities within 500 m Structural grid <5.6 m -.075* -.685 -.596 .928 .504 .551 .858 .206 .135 1.003 1.231 2.244 Structural grid 5.6-7.2 m -.039 .962 .407 2.272 -.064 -.163 .938 .850 .083 .379 10.561 1.905 Concrete Metal Bricks Glass Poor quality Sufficient quality High quality street furniture Entrance spatiality Entrance spatiality <8 reference: low Entrance spatiality 8-15 Grid reference: >7.2m -1.210 .573 -.169 Facade grid <1.2 m Facade grid reference: >3.6 m Facade grid 1.2-3.6 m Constant -.110 .896 p<.1.* p<.05.** p<.01.*** Structural Vacancy Revisited 13 User preferences Qualitative study Interview results, most important push factors for office users 2011 • • • • • • • Organisation changes Environment/sustainability Low technical state of the building Extendibility Bad accessibility by public transportation Bad external appearance of the building Location not prestigious Structural Vacancy Revisited 14 User preferences Qualitative study Interview results, most important pull factors for office users 2011 • • • • • • External appearance Extendibility Accessibility by car Prestigious location Low rent Attractive housing area nearby Additional keep factors: • History of the organisation Structural Vacancy Revisited 15 Results • Logistic regression shows that attributes related to structural vacancy are changing: functional attributes less important, exterior appearance more important • This complies with results from the interviews: more focus on exterior appearance, prestige of location • Causes mentioned: high supply, possible to choose best alternative, functionality seen as ‘veto’ – less functional buildings not even considered • Office organisations less positive about the future. Extendibility less important, current accommodation ‘too large’ Structural Vacancy Revisited 16 Conclusions / next steps • Office user demand seem to change in a market of oversupply • Buyers market: Quality and appearance of location and building become more important, less attractive buildings and locations rapidly become structurally vacant and obsolete Next steps: • Study of ‘hidden vacancy’ or ‘rented vacancy’ • Study of vacancy cause: incentives for investors and developers • Study of governmental interference in the market Structural Vacancy Revisited 17 Structural vacancy revisited – are user demands changing? h.t.remoy@tudelft.nl 13-4-2015 Delft University of Technology Challenge the future