When you look at an office building, what do you see? Maybe you see the architecture. Maybe it’s the neighborhood, the restaurants, and amenities. Perhaps, you see the views from within the building. This is what most people see. They’re all important. But it’s what you don’t see that matters most.
We see a lot of confusion in the market around when to begin negotiations. It’s not an insignificant consideration. In fact, when you begin can make a huge difference in the outcome. It’s understandable that tenants would not know when to start. Brokers are not always keen to start at the right time, since compensation is derived by transacting and the closer the tenant is to lease expiration, the faster it will need to transact (and the fewer options it will have). Good for the broker, bad for the tenant. This creates a misalignment of interests that discourages thoughtful consultation on the front end – the more time a broker spends on a project, the lower the compensation.
Throughout 2020, the prevailing sentiment among investors in the San Francisco office market was one of relative optimism. After all, despite the fact tenants were prohibited from occupying their buildings, they continued to collect full rent. The buildings were full, with vacancy hovering around 4%. Sure, companies weren’t happy about paying for space they couldn’t use, but business was good. In many cases the tech sector (which makes up most of San Francisco’s office occupancy) was booming due to an even greater reliance on and usage of tech caused by pandemic driven changes in how people were living. Throughout the course of 2020 there was no reason for San Francisco investors to panic, as few (if any) office occupiers were showing signs of developing long-term hybrid or remote-first strategies. Most were simply focused on solving for ongoing operations as a temporary reaction to the pandemic. Yet early indicators did point to a future in which companies would be shedding office space, as some expiring leases were not replaced. This, coupled with the addition of new supply, caused a big increase in vacancy to nearly 12% by year end. Despite this large uptick, the brunt of the sluggish demand dynamic was being felt in the sublease markets, where rental economics more accurately reflected the true state of the market. Despite a total closing of the office market in 2020, average asking rents ended the year off just 6% from the pre-pandemic high.
In the years leading up to the pandemic, most medium and small companies defined their office space need based on headcount (current and projected), space programming, and industry/sector norms. The exercise was mostly formulaic. The primary differences in the offices of a small, regional law firm compared to those of an AM Law 100 firm would be scale, the cost of finishes, and the quality of the building and views. It was planning for the same outcome, just at different levels on the cost spectrum. Companies having a larger portfolio of offices would typically create a “workplace strategy” that included guidelines around programming (e.g., space layout, office size, critical adjacencies, growth factor, finishes, FF&E, etc.). These guidelines could then be used to inform the real estate process across geography.
Negotiations are always about (or should always be about) this or that. There’s always something else, maybe that something else is nothing (as in sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all). Decisions made without proper consideration of all relevant alternative scenarios are decisions made poorly. As important, in the context of office lease negotiations, the best negotiated outcomes are directly correlated to the extent to which we understand the alternatives of the landlord counterparty. This is a bit counter intuitive, allow us to explain.
People sometimes (mistakenly) think office building values are based on location and architectural design (appearance). These are contributing factors, however, in most urban centers, investors use the income capitalization approach to valuation. Here, the building is valued on current and projected net operating income (“NOI”). To be sure, location and design will translate to differing levels of NOI. But other variables play a key role, as well. For example, the landlord’s cost basis which impacts its ability to lease space at market pricing. Where a landlord has paid too much for the asset, the underlying rental economics of the market may result in net negative leasing outcomes, causing the landlord to lose deals to other assets which have a lower cost basis and can productively transact at market.
Technology replaces that which it improves.
Not long ago, the streets of San Francisco were full of taxis. Simply by raising your arm, you could hail a taxi in minutes. Then, Uber and Lyft created their apps. Their intention was always to disrupt an industry that hadn’t changed in decades. Initially, many taxi drivers transitioned to become Uber and Lyft drivers, likely anticipating the technology would shift, not replace their work. But that’s not how this is turning out. Autonomous vehicles will replace human-driven, human transport solutions in major cities where taxi drivers once thrived.
Surveys indicate most workers favor a distributed workplace in which they can work from anywhere, any time. When it comes to work, individuals focus (mostly) on their own specific benefits, as opposed to thinking about how the ways in which their work gets done affects the broader organization. This makes sense, as one of the key benefits of our economic system is how it permits the individual to get ahead, to maximize its value. Employees realize value in a variety of ways, including compensation and other variables. Flexibility in where and when people work is high on the list of non-compensation related variables.
Urban planning can go horribly wrong. It often fails the test of time. 1950s America brought a surge in suburban development and car transportation. It also led to one of the single worst American urban design decisions (my opinion), the development of the Embarcadero Freeway, originally intended to connect the San Francisco Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate Bridge by extending along the northeastern edge of the city as it hugs the bay -- effectively blocking the views along one of the most scenic corridors in any US city.
AI has summarized capitalism for me as follows:
“…an economic system where private individuals and corporations own and control the means of production, such as property, businesses, and industries. In capitalism, the core principles are profit motive, private property, and market competition. The government's role is limited to taxation and standard regulatory laws, and individuals are given the freedom to operate their businesses and manage their income as they choose.”
We’ve noticed an interesting shift in how companies are thinking about their offices. For some time now, many companies have resolved to employ a hybrid approach to workplace, having employees work in office for a designated number of days each week. In many cases, this solution was chosen more for how it seemingly struck a compromise between employers who wanted employees in the office and employees who sought freedom to choose. To date, companies have been relatively lax in enforcing their workplace plan. What’s changed? Leadership is now becoming increasingly frustrated at spending on underutilized real estate. Companies track space usage, and they don’t like what they’re seeing. The occupancy reality is often way below what it would otherwise be if employees were following the hybrid work policy. The company leasing 10,000 sf to accommodate an average of 10 workers each day is (painfully) aware of the wasted spend.
Over the past several years the concept of work has undergone more change than at any point in recent history. While there’s many narratives, one common discussion centers on changing where and when we work to make work less harmful to our health. This is exemplified by remote work.
Work can certainly be harmful. Yet few among us can avoid harm. Indeed, harm often comes to us in ways we cannot and do not anticipate. Sometimes what seems good turns out to be bad. The very world in which we live is full of harmful realities. I’m not convinced the absence of work brings less harm. Nor am I convinced the changes we’re seeing now around how and where we work are as good for us as we hope they will be. I think we’re generally failing to account for a variety of negative consequences that are slowly becoming more apparent.
Office lease negotiations are complex, involving numerous parties (the principals and their advisors), and covering a wide range of issues, from economic to legal. The most effective negotiators are those who possess both a deep understanding of the markets, and the ability to actively listen while negotiating.
I suspect most of us are caught off guard by change at scale. When thinking about the pace of change over the last 15 years, it’s clear we’ve entered a new era, one in which technology is enabling us to rethink EVERYTHING. Change in how we design and occupy physical space is inevitable. The skyscraper boom began in the late 1800s and the product playbook in urban core office markets has remained mostly unchanged for decades. Similarly, the ways in which the office product has been developed and owned, the investment thesis, has been largely unchanged in how it relies on capturing the best occupants in leases that reflect the highest possible pricing and the longest possible term to generate stable net operating income and bankable future value.
Have we hit bottom in the pricing of San Francisco office assets? Maybe.
The historical measures by which office buildings were valued, a function of capitalized net operating income, doesn’t apply to assets having large vacancy and limited weighted average lease term (“WALT”). These assets are trading at a simple cost/sf metric. Investors take a long-term view of the investment, betting the value for San Francisco office will, ultimately, recover. They may or may not use debt to finance the acquisition – where there is limited occupancy, they may not be able to secure debt.
One common mistake tenants and their advisors make when negotiating the office lease is failure to properly account for design and construction implications. These are important considerations. Space design plays a vital role in determining the efficacy of the space, how it translates in terms of value to the employees. Construction is expensive, representing a material component of the tenant’s total occupancy cost. Gaining understanding about design and construction at the right time in the transaction process provides useful data in the context of effective negotiations.
Leases vary by building, by market, and by market circumstances. In most major metros, when dealing with larger buildings, the lease document is sophisticated and complex, addressing a broad range of variables that will have a material impact on the occupier’s experience at the building, as well as its cost of occupancy. If you’ve done a good job negotiating the letter of intent, you should begin the lease negotiation phase from a position of relative strength. However, even when the letter of intent is fully maximized, there’s still a lot to negotiate in the lease.
You’ve identified the purpose behind your physical space needs, you’ve created a thorough project budget and schedule, and you’ve developed the right strategy. It’s now time to implement a market process.
What is “…a market process”? In the context of office leasing, market process is how you engage the market. It ties to your strategy, with sensitivity to the objectives you seek to accomplish. The market is where you implement your strategy, where you take it from theory to reality.
Once you’ve established the purpose of your physical workspace, and given careful thought to budget and schedule, it’s time to develop the right strategy. This is a vital step prior to market engagement. Good strategy is not always obvious. At a minimum, any effective real estate strategy will include simultaneous assessment of multiple deal scenarios. Why would this matter? For starters, negotiation outcomes are not known. At the beginning of the process, the favored outcome may be to stay in the existing space. However, as the process evolves over multiple rounds of negotiation, we often find that things change in ways that may cause the desired outcome to shift. For example, when the existing landlord offers terms that are materially less favorable than those achievable through relocation.
I participate in a lot of “conversations” on LinkedIn in which people argue that office buildings should be as flexible as hotels. I love to explore the possibilities, the idea the office can be something different, something better. But sometimes these conversations are so detached from reality it makes my head hurt.
Let us lend our TenantSee perspective to the coming year. Despite green shoots from 2 large AI sector leases (Open AI and Anthropic), demand for San Francisco office space remained low throughout 2023, yielding 4 more quarters of negative net absorption. We finished the year with vacancy at >35% - an historical record. The market is under significant stress, creating sizable opportunities for occupiers.
Recently, we completed a lease for a client in a small San Francisco building. The transaction was negotiated to provide our client with a tenant improvement allowance, and the right to manage their construction. Because the client is a design firm, this approach suited them well. They understand design and construction and can leverage relationships to mitigate cost. The ownership of this building is not an institution, its management team lacks the sophistication you would otherwise see with professionals working for larger institutional owners. The lease provided the landlord with the right to approve the plans prior to construction, but it notably lacked a specific mechanism for communicating such approval. Our client provided detailed plans. They received a few minor comments/questions to which they responded promptly. Otherwise, the landlord agreed to the project schedule and let them commence their construction – implicit approval. During the construction, the client invited the management team to attend weekly meetings, to walk the space and generally sought to keep them informed (under no obligation to do so). Despite a few bumps along the way (the building had non-compliance in a few areas and a small amount of hazmat was discovered), the project was successfully completed. However, after moving into the space, the landlord sent a letter stating numerous elements of the construction had been completed without its approval, and the space must be restored at the end of the lease term (an undertaking which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars). Naturally, our client was concerned. Thankfully, they sent us the letter and asked for our guidance.
