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.
Most of what tenants need to see in order to make smart leasing decisions is not immediately visible. It must be uncovered through strategic discovery and analysis. That’s the mission of TenantSee: to provide the process and resources that bring hidden factors to light. We don’t make decisions for our clients—we make their decisions better.
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.
In San Francisco, there’s not much standing between a near-term future in which office vacancies spike to 40% or higher. By not much, we mean demand for office space. What’s interesting is the cause. Many focus on the battle between employer and employee in which employers want the employee back in the office and the employee wants to work remotely. But it’s not that simple. Post-pandemic, employees (especially younger generations) are more inclined to embrace the benefits of technology which enable work to be done from anywhere and make it less compelling, even illogical, to commute to the office. No, this isn’t just about whether you like or don’t like being in an office. It’s about the ways in which tech has advanced to change work and generational differences in the adoption of and comfort with such technologies. Technology changes things. It’s changing the construct of white-collar work, and in the midst of such change there will be winners and losers. The fate of office markets, indeed of the office building as a product, hinges not on resolution of the remote work debate; but, rather, on the pace at which we adopt existing technologies and innovate new ones
